Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Tuesday, 24 December 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)4. The Kansas Regents’ (Unintentional) Honesty about Academic Freedom By William K. Black
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/12/kansas-regents-unintentional-honesty-academic-freedom.html#more-7168
I published a column this morning about the Kansas Regents effective elimination of academic freedom of tenure.
In thinking about the rule I realized that I had failed to make in blunt terms five points about how radical a rule it was. I circulated these five points about an hour ago to a number of my contacts.
But upon further review as they now say in the NFL, I realized that I failed to point out the most fundamental aspect of the Regents rule changes. In an odd way, this aspect suggests a certain degree of (unintentional) honesty by the Regents. There is nothing in the Regents rule changes that evidences any understanding that universities are not businesses run for the purposes of whatever the CEO defines as efficiency. There is no fig leaf provided by any clause in the rule changes that suggests that the Regents believe there is any value to academic freedom. The Regents have not crafted a word in the rule changes purporting to value vigorous debate and inquiry, the expression of diverse and unpopular views, or academic integrity in speaking truth to power. Instead, they had their lawyers craft the most draconian restriction on online academic free speech that they believed could pass constitutional review. They never inquired whether that was a good way to run what was, until yesterday, a top university system. The Regents have made clear that they want to crush academic freedom because they do not value it.
I published a column this morning about the Kansas Regents effective elimination of academic freedom of tenure.
In thinking about the rule I realized that I had failed to make in blunt terms five points about how radical a rule it was. I circulated these five points about an hour ago to a number of my contacts.
- The Regents rule allows the CEO to terminate tenured faculty upon their arrest for a felony. There is no requirement for a conviction and no provision for reinstatement if not convicted.
- Truth is no defense. The comment that tenured faculty makes can be accurate and the faculty member can still be fired by the universitys CEO.
- Lack of ill intent is no defense. The faculty member can make an accurate statement of fact or well-founded statement of opinion for exemplary purposes and can still be fired.
- There are no meaningful standards so the statement by the faculty member could unknowingly subject him/her to dismissal because the faculty member did not know that the CEO was a global climate change denier (or partisan) and believes that those with the opposite view pose a grave threat. The concepts are so vague and subjective (harmony and efficiency) that a faculty members only sure means of safety is to say nothing.
- The rule creates different levels of (not very) protected speech. The same statement by a professor in a traditional physically published journal if not posted online (recall that most print publishers also make ones article available on line) enjoys greater protection that any comment published online.
But upon further review as they now say in the NFL, I realized that I failed to point out the most fundamental aspect of the Regents rule changes. In an odd way, this aspect suggests a certain degree of (unintentional) honesty by the Regents. There is nothing in the Regents rule changes that evidences any understanding that universities are not businesses run for the purposes of whatever the CEO defines as efficiency. There is no fig leaf provided by any clause in the rule changes that suggests that the Regents believe there is any value to academic freedom. The Regents have not crafted a word in the rule changes purporting to value vigorous debate and inquiry, the expression of diverse and unpopular views, or academic integrity in speaking truth to power. Instead, they had their lawyers craft the most draconian restriction on online academic free speech that they believed could pass constitutional review. They never inquired whether that was a good way to run what was, until yesterday, a top university system. The Regents have made clear that they want to crush academic freedom because they do not value it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
27 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
BitTorrent unveils secure messaging service to counter 'NSA dragnet surveillance'
Demeter
Dec 2013
#3
The Kansas Regents’ (Unintentional) Honesty about Academic Freedom By William K. Black
Demeter
Dec 2013
#4
One Hundred Years Is Enough: Time to Make the Fed a Public Utility By Ellen Brown
Demeter
Dec 2013
#12