Freedom of speech has been under siege at many American colleges and universities. Sometimes the attack comes from aggressive students who can’t stand having others say things they disagree with, … Continue reading “UnFree My Campus”
For almost thirty years, I have taught climate science at three different universities. What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate … Continue reading “Students Learn Climate Change Advocacy, Not Climate Science”
It is heartwarming to see state officials do the jobs they were elected to do. Too often they have shied away from their obligations to ensure that the university system adheres to appropriate standards of scholarship.
When we speak about “academic freedom” what, exactly, do we mean? How far should academic freedom extend? How do we know when someone claiming it has actually abused it?
What are the limits of the partnerships that a public institution of higher education may form? A growing number of critics, including university officials and faculty, argue that accepting funding and academic influence from the communist Chinese government crosses a line.
You would think so, given the way a Brooklyn College dean avoided a multimillion-dollar grant opportunity.
Today’s university is rife with competing claims about academic freedom. Although it is similar to the freedom of speech that all Americans enjoy, academic freedom has developed into a more specific guarantee for scholars and teachers. This new paper by Donald Downs, professor of political science, law, and journalism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, explains what is meant by the term and to whom it applies.
UNC-Chapel Hill leftists list articles by George Leef and our Course of the Month honorees as proof that UNC-CH should not accept a grant from the Pope Foundation to fund the study of Western Civilization at the flagship institution (which they termed “Accept[ing] $12 Million from Racist, Sexist, Classist, Homophobic Donors”).
An e-mail sent to faculty at North Carolina State warned against the Pope Center’s upcoming conference on academic freedom, because speaker David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights” contains “carefully chosen language” that “does not fully expose the agenda behind it.” Fortunately for N.C. State, the professor behind the e-mail did know “the real agenda — imposing political litmus tests on course content.” Ye cats!
Free speech had already carried the day when a UNC-Chapel Hill instructor attacked a student by name in a classwide email. So why get the feds involved?