Every week seems to bring a new controversy regarding suspected or confirmed violations of academic freedom. Why are these conflicts so common? We think the answer is at least partly that university leaders and U.S. courts have provided little consistent guidance about what academic freedom does and does not protect. Add to that a growing rejection of free-speech norms, especially among students, and you have a recipe for disaster. We discuss these issues, with links to pivotal court cases and survey research, in the white paper “Academic Freedom” in the AEFP Live Handbook of Education Policy Research.
At first glance, the principle seems simple. Professors should be free to study what they choose and express their views on contentious issues without fear of institutional censorship or retaliation. In practice, however, the boundaries are not always clear, with disciplinary actions levied by university administrators for things faculty have said or done, followed by legal challenges from professors in response.
When courts evaluate free-speech claims, they generally apply a mix of both traditional First Amendment law and professional norms developed over time by organizations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). These court decisions often hinge on factors such as whether the speech relates to teaching or scholarship and the degree of disruption to the classroom or university environment.
Our examination of the legal and research record on academic freedom produced four key findings.
1. Academic freedom has long been a core value of higher education, grounded in the idea that viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas are central to the academy’s truth-seeking mission.
2. Legal disputes about academic freedom often turn on the dividing line between employee conduct, which receives limited protection, and speech, which benefits from extensive protection. Yet these cases have not produced clear answers about the importance or scope of academic freedom.
