Academic Freedom

The modern concept of curriculum predates by about two centuries the principle of intellectual freedom to teach, or lehrfreiheit, derived from Humboldt's model (ca. 1810) for the new German universities, but this principle was not defined and defended within the U.S. university system until the early 20th century. Today, academic freedom seems more contentious than ever with conference titles such as Free Inquiry at Risk: Universities in Dangerous Times. The following questions are now common: Is academic freedom a constitutional and legal right? Who has academic freedom? Is the classroom a closed or open forum? To what degree is curriculum severed from instruction in academic freedom protections? These derive from one question: Who or what has authority over curriculum? Following a brief historical analysis of definitions, this entry focuses on the K12 level and this overarching question.

Definitions of academic freedom reflect the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, which identified three key elements: freedom of inquiry and research, freedom of teaching within the institution, and freedom of extramural utterance and action. Following the AAUP's lead in the United States, the National Education Association (NEA) passed a “Freedom of the Teacher” resolution in 1928 to protect the public schools from corporate and private interests. The NEA expanded this in 1935 to include the principle that administrators and teachers should have an opportunity to present various points of view on controversial issues to help students understand changing social conditions. Authority over the curriculum was particularly troubling through the 1920s and 1930s, and questions of academic freedom were part and parcel with reform of the schools. John Dewey reasoned in 1936 that academic freedom was a key aspect of political freedom and a necessary condition for democratic citizenry.

Thirty years later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan underscored the importance of safeguarding academic freedom as a special concern of the First Amendment in the 1967 Keyishian v. Board of Regents decision. Yet at this time, only 55 of 2,225 public school district contracts protected academic freedom with provisions stating that educational and democratic values were best upheld in an atmosphere free from censorship and artificial restraints on free inquiry and learning. Current definitions reiterate this freedom of expression for teachers and students, but the courts have been imprecise in legal definitions of academic freedom. Keyishian aside, the Supreme Court's support of academic freedom is predominantly found in dissenting opinions, and it remains unclear whether academic freedom is a constitutional right. Signaling a clear message to K-12 teachers, the Supreme Court has refused to hear their academic freedom cases since January 1988. Twenty years after Keyishian, Justice Brennan wrote in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision that public education curricula are prescribed by [Page 2]state boards of education and, thus, academic freedom as commonly conceived is not a relevant concept in the public school setting. Nevertheless, since 1988 the precedent case for K12 teachers and students has been Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In April 1983, Hazelwood East High School (St. Louis, Missouri) Principal Robert E. Reynolds censored the journalism class's student newspaper by pulling two articles on teen pregnancy and divorce. Three students (Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leann Tippett) contacted the American Civil Liberties Union and filed suit. On January 13, 1988, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision with a 53 majority opinion that established a precedent for K12 teachers' cases: School officials were given permission to impose reasonable restrictions related to legitimate pedagogical concernson the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school. In dissent, Justice Brennan wrote that the case illustrates how schools camouflage viewpoint discrimination under a pretense of protecting students from controversial issues.

...