AAUP Leaders Testify in Public Hearings
By Gwendolyn Bradley
In November, AAUP leaders testified in public hearings of the Pennsylvania House Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom on the University of Pittsburgh campus. The committee was charged by the state legislature with examining the academic atmosphere in Pennsylvania and the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to instruct and students have the opportunity to learn in an environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
Joan Wallach Scott, Harold F. Linder Professor of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study and former chair of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and Robert Moore, professor of sociology at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and president elect of the Pennsylvania conference of the AAUP, testified at the hearings. They outlined basic academic freedom concerns as well as clarifying that existing AAUP and institutional policies already protect student rights in the classroom. Scott pointed out to the committee that “it is one thing to insist (as we do) that there be respect for differences of opinion; another to argue that all opinions have the same weight.” She also reminded the committee of the difference between freedom of expression and academic freedom. “Academic freedom pertains to scholars as professionals, not individuals. . . . It carries responsibilities enforced by one’s peers. Students do not have this kind of academic freedom and they ought not to be led to believe that they do.”
The committee also heard from Stephen Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars; James Maher, provost of the University of Pittsburgh; Burrell Brown, professor of labor and human resources at California University of Pennsylvania; and Grant Hackley, a second-year law student and editor of the law review at the University of Pittsburgh.
With the exception of Balch, who contended that a widespread ideological imbalance among faculty has substituted advocacy and activism for education, the witnesses all opposed any attempt by the committee to develop further guidelines for academic institutions. In varying ways, all stressed the principles of academic freedom, faculty governance, and the autonomy of the academy based on the professional standards of the disciplines. They also emphasized that existing policies and practices at institutions across the commonwealth already protect students’ legitimate concerns.
The committee plans to hold additional hearings in January and March and to issue a report by November 2006.
|