Colleagues,
Earlier today we received memos from Mr. Sorrell, counsel for the College, and Dr. Pollard on the issue of political activity taken by college employees. The AAUP is very concerned about some of the points raised and their implications to our academic freedom. We have been discussing this with our legal counsel, and are planning a meeting with College representatives to discuss our concerns in more detail. We will report back to you after that discussion takes place.
To be sure, some aspects of the policy contain common sense rules that we all can support. For example, I doubt any of us believes that we should be coercing our colleagues into supporting our choice of candidates or issues. It is not as clear, however, how some of the other sections should be interpreted in regards to faculty and our educational mission.
Below is a copy of Policy 58003 from the P&P, the Board’s affirmation of the importance of academic freedom. It is well worth every faculty member’s time to become familiar with it.
Thank you,
Rick Penn
Policy 58003
A sound educational environment requires a secure framework of academic freedom. Academic freedom establishes the right and implies the obligation of a scholar to examine all data and to question every assumption. Academic freedom has to do with methods of inquiry rather than with the personal views of the inquirer. It debars one from preconceived conclusions. It obligates a teacher to present all information fairly, because it asserts the student’s right to know all aspects of the facts. Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of either an individual or an institution but it does require candidly declared efforts to advance a particular point of view, as well as complete access to the facts underlying an argument and plain distinction of personal or institutional opinion from objective inquiry. To restrict the availability or limit the presentation of data or opinions, even though they may be considered erroneous, is to impinge upon academic freedom. Regardless of whether faculty members hold probationary initial appointments or are on extended contract or permanent tenure, the same principles of academic freedom must apply to all.
Board Approval: June 26, 1978.
About rpenn
In Dr. Pollard’s message, she refers to Mr. Sorrell’s memo as being “consistent with similar communications to the College community in past election seasons.” I personally have no recollection of receiving such a communication in the past. Does anyone else remember such a communication – or, better still, possess a copy of such a memo? If so, I would appreciate it if you could forward me a copy. Thanks – Rick
Rick,
I don’t recall having ever received such a communication.
I understand the broad parameters set out in the memo concerning events on campus that involve political candidates – it seems fairly straightforward that if we invite a democratic candidate currently running for any office (local, state or national), then we should also invite a republican, independent, or any other relevant political party if not to that same event, then quite soon thereafter and vice versa. I have to say, though, I do not remember ever being directed to do so at MC whether or not it was an election year and when Bill Clinton spoke at Montgomery College in 1992 I do not think George Bush was invited. Indeed if you look at the college’s flickr website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/montgomerycollege/page11/ there are a number of photos of politicians visiting the college over the past two years but none of the photos indicate that their “opposite’ number was invited to come too.
Be that as it may, it seems there are two directives in this memo that become conflated, but are actually two distinct type of activities faculty/staff may engage in – inviting a candidate or elected official to speak and hosting an event that deals with specific political issues. This is where I think we run into the most problems concerning not only academic freedom but also common sense. There are many issues that are relevant not only in an election year but also in every other year – such as immigration rights or gay marriage – it seems as if we are being told to bring in speakers (as opposed to political candidates running for a specific office – an entirely different group of individuals who seem to be treated synonymously in the memo) on all sides of the issue including/especially those who speak vehemently against such issues as immigrants’ rights or gay marriage. If we bring in a speaker on an international political issue such as rape as a weapon of war (as we once did during women’s history month), are we supposed to bring in a speaker supporting rape as a weapon of war? Or if we bring on campus a speaker against female mutilation, should we bring in a speaker for it too? If the history department brings a historian in to talk about the history of slavery and its implications for the history of civil rights and social justice, are we supposed to bring in someone who supports slavery? In other words, once we use the word “issues” the memo and directive become much more elastic and also quite troublesome in their implications.
The logical conclusion of all this, I fear, is that the memo could become quite paralysing and faculty will not bring any speakers about political issues, domestic or international, to campus.
Like Tom, I can’t remember another message like this ever being sent–at least not in my 25 years here, but this is the worst administration I’ve seen in that time in terms of dealing with faculty. I’m glad AAUP is pursuing the issue..
Dear colleagues–
I wonder whether I am the only faculty member who simply overlooked the importance of this memo? I glanced at it very quickly, thought its content was “benign,” as Mary said, but did not give it another thought before deleting it. Now I am looking for a copy– can you share a link?
I, too, want to say that in my 11 years here, I have not seen a memo to this effect. I don’t understand why we need it in the first place, since we are all professionals with lots of common sense. AND we are not the media, bound by reporting ethics– are we? When we teach do we feel compelled to give equal time to those who would oppose our intellectual authority in the classroom? Teaching would be impossible. Besides which, this has not been the tradition at the college, and we have never run afoul as far I know. What’s the purpose in instituting a regulation like this at this time? If a specific issue has come up, we are all grownups: let it come out of secrecy and we can address it as a community. I have great faith in our collective wisdom.
I want to simply say how grateful I am for this forum for sharing ideas on issues that can make such a huge difference in our work lives. Thanks, Rick and the AAUP team.
Rita