Academic freedom concerns raised by AAUP report
Jesse Goldberg
Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: News
The American Association of University Professors released a report earlier this month in response to a 2006 Supreme Court case that could potentially have direct ramifications in higher education.
The report, "Protecting an Independent Faculty Voice: Academic Freedom after Garcetti v. Ceballos," discusses how the Supreme Court's ruling in that case, as well as subsequent rulings by lower courts, may "pose a serious threat to academic freedom and the ability of faculty in public institutions to participate freely in academic governance."
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court ruled that a Los Angeles district attorney could discipline a deputy district attorney for criticizing the actions of his superiors. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote at the time that the decision did not apply to academia, while former Justice David Souter disagreed. Three subsequent cases have resulted in rulings that apply the "restrictive" interpretation of freedom of speech found in Garcetti to higher education: Hong v. Grant (2007), Renken v. Gregory (2008) and Gorum v. Sessoms (2009).
"New York State has laws which help protect academic freedom, so it's not as significant of a concern to us here as elsewhere," said Fred Floss, the statewide vice president for academics of the Union of University Professors. "The greater issue of academic freedom is important to us, though. State laws can protect certain whistle blowers, but how is this going to affect shared governance? The answer is we don't know yet."
Protecting shared governance, the idea that college faculty should have an opportunity to participate in the administration of an institution of higher learning, is a primary goal of the AAUP.
"Shared governance is not an issue of controlling," said Dennis Showers, chair of Geneseo's College Senate. "It's an opportunity to participate in the decision making of the administration."
Another key issue raised by Garcetti is the potential ambiguity in determining when a person is acting within the scope of his or her official duty versus speaking as a private citizen.
The report, "Protecting an Independent Faculty Voice: Academic Freedom after Garcetti v. Ceballos," discusses how the Supreme Court's ruling in that case, as well as subsequent rulings by lower courts, may "pose a serious threat to academic freedom and the ability of faculty in public institutions to participate freely in academic governance."
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court ruled that a Los Angeles district attorney could discipline a deputy district attorney for criticizing the actions of his superiors. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote at the time that the decision did not apply to academia, while former Justice David Souter disagreed. Three subsequent cases have resulted in rulings that apply the "restrictive" interpretation of freedom of speech found in Garcetti to higher education: Hong v. Grant (2007), Renken v. Gregory (2008) and Gorum v. Sessoms (2009).
"New York State has laws which help protect academic freedom, so it's not as significant of a concern to us here as elsewhere," said Fred Floss, the statewide vice president for academics of the Union of University Professors. "The greater issue of academic freedom is important to us, though. State laws can protect certain whistle blowers, but how is this going to affect shared governance? The answer is we don't know yet."
Protecting shared governance, the idea that college faculty should have an opportunity to participate in the administration of an institution of higher learning, is a primary goal of the AAUP.
"Shared governance is not an issue of controlling," said Dennis Showers, chair of Geneseo's College Senate. "It's an opportunity to participate in the decision making of the administration."
Another key issue raised by Garcetti is the potential ambiguity in determining when a person is acting within the scope of his or her official duty versus speaking as a private citizen.
Be the first to comment on this story