|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Too Much Drama in UNESCO Article
Justin Thorens
To the Editor:
It is always bad form to reign in with details of precision a lively account like the one Donald C. Savage and Patricia A. Finn gave us in "UNESCO and the Universities" in the July-August issue. Whether UNESCO's invitation to the International Association of Universities (IAU) to examine the feasibility of developing a statement on academic freedom and university autonomy may be construed as a counterattack to UNESCO's work on the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel is, of course, a matter of interpretation. Still, such an interpretation does seem a trifle dramatic. What logic is there in UNESCO's attacking a recommendation it sponsored by another, which it also initiated? There are limits even to the joys of self-flagellation! UNESCO's second initiative, which the IAU carried out at its request, may just as well be seen as a complementary thrust. To claim that there should be only one sun in heaven is imprudent indeed.
In drawing up this statement, the IAU did not focus on human rights of free assembly or free opinion. We were concerned instead with identifying those rights that apply specifically to the academic community and which stand as conditions necessary for the development and handing on of knowledge. In short, we presume the prior existence of human rights as a condition necessary for academic freedom. That said, there are a few matters that I would bring to the attention of your readers.
First, the IAU is most definitely not an association of university presidents. It is, as its name makes clear, an association of universities qua institutions. Second, UNESCO broached the idea of the IAU's undertaking a study into the feasibility of an international declaration on academic freedom and university autonomy as early as 1995. That is, in effect, two years before the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel was agreed upon by governments. The timing alone of this initiative would accord better with the idea of "complementary action" than with the conspiracy theory of adding water to the recommendation's wine.
Third, in drawing up its report to UNESCO, the IAU set up--and indeed was required to do so by the terms of its contract--working groups made up of major professional and regional organizations that brought together academic staff as well as students. Among the professional bodies included were Education International, the Fédération Internationale Syndicale des Enseignants, the International Association of University Lecturers and Presidents, the Association of Universities of Asia and the Pacific, the European Association of Universities, the African Association of Universities, the Association of Arab Universities, and the World University Service. Indeed, the IAU's report to UNESCO was drawn up to reflect the expressed views of these bodies. Only with the greatest stretch of the imagination could these organizations be equated with a presidential--or, for that matter, a managerial--"lobby."
Finally, it is always useful to compare like with like. A discussion document is very far from being a recommendation. The former starts the debate. The latter is the final product of much drafting and negotiation. As for the IAU's document only "barely" recognizing the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel, that depends on which document the authors of your article read. There is a very extensive analysis of the issue of academic freedom and university autonomy, which does precisely that. Last, but not least, it cannot be claimed that the IAU statement ignored the recommendation on teaching personnel. On the contrary, that document is cited as one of the major bases in the IAU statement.
One has perforce to recognize that interpretation is often a function of which sources are perused.
Justin Thorens, chair
IAU Task Force on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy
UNESCO Accurate
The authors respond:
Justin Thorens suggests a distinction without any real difference. The International Association of Universities (IAU) essentially represents the interests of university administrations, of which presidents are a leading part, just as Education International represents those of teachers' organizations and unions. There is nothing wrong with that in either case. Both organizations have done admirable work. Both can consult anyone they want. It is just advisable that everyone knows from which direction suggestions come.
It is true that the IAU began its work on academic freedom two years before the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel was adopted. However, the whole process at UNESCO took approximately four years from the date of the first UNESCO draft, and the IAU was one of the organizations that was asked to comment on that earlier draft. So the recommendation was well known to it when it began to draft its own document.
Thorens neglects to mention that faculty associations from around the world spoke against the "complementary thrust" of the IAU at the UNESCO conference in Paris in October 1998, or that the reference to the UNESCO recommendation in the substantive part of the IAU's document required an amendment from the floor. Nor does he deny the omission of references to academic freedom in the IAU draft that we catalogued. For example, the draft failed to note the right of faculty to freely express their opinions about their institutions or the higher education system, or the right to participate in collegial self-governance. Both rights are explicitly recognized in the UNESCO recommendation as essential ingredients of academic freedom, as is tenure.
We hope that the IAU will now incorporate in its document all the categories found in the definition of academic freedom in the recommendation-but we have our doubts.
Donald C. Savage
Donald C. Savage Consulting Co., Ltd.
Patricia A. Finn, Executive Director
Carleton University Academic Staff Association
|