Academic Freedom and Professional Standards: A Case Study

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Academic freedom is supposed to allow for new ideas and approaches to germinate, but it is conditioned on compliance with accepted disciplinary and professional standards. This limiting condition has been explained and defended by Robert Post, which explanation and defense has been criticized by Judith Butler. Butler’s critique conceives of the condition as antithetical to disciplinary growth: the application of conventional professional norms by academic bodies not of the discipline or by disciplinary bodies unsympathetic to arresting or paradigm shifting approaches does or could abet a stultifying conservatism. To that extent, the profession’s theory of academic freedom is at odds with itself.

This essay unpacks Butler’s critique. To make analysis more concrete, the essay works that critique through a publicly prominent case: the dismissal of Professor Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado. Churchill claimed that academic freedom accorded him the right to publish works of scholarship pseudonymously, so long as the consent of the putative authors had been given: that such was, or should be held to be an allowable practice in the discipline of American Indian Studies, any standard in the academic profession at large or in other disciplines to the contrary notwithstanding. This paper addresses those arguments. It defends the profession’s conception of academic freedom by application of which Churchill’s conduct was held by a properly constituted faculty body to be professional misconduct.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAcademic freedom in conflict
Subtitle of host publicationthe struggle over free speech rights in the university
EditorsJames Turk
Place of PublicationToronto
PublisherJames Lorimer & Company Ltd.
ISBN (Print)1459406303, 9781459406292, 9781459406308, 145940629X
StatePublished - 2014

Publication series

NameCAUT series

Fingerprint

profession
right to work
dismissal
American Indian
conservatism
university teacher
paradigm

Keywords

  • Teaching, Freedom of
  • College teachers
  • Academic freedom
  • Freedom of speech

Cite this

Finkin, M. W. (2014). Academic Freedom and Professional Standards: A Case Study. In J. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: the struggle over free speech rights in the university (CAUT series). Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd..

Academic Freedom and Professional Standards : A Case Study. / Finkin, Matthew W.

Academic freedom in conflict: the struggle over free speech rights in the university. ed. / James Turk. Toronto : James Lorimer & Company Ltd., 2014. (CAUT series).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Finkin, MW 2014, Academic Freedom and Professional Standards: A Case Study. in J Turk (ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: the struggle over free speech rights in the university. CAUT series, James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Toronto.
Finkin MW. Academic Freedom and Professional Standards: A Case Study. In Turk J, editor, Academic freedom in conflict: the struggle over free speech rights in the university. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd. 2014. (CAUT series).
Finkin, Matthew W. / Academic Freedom and Professional Standards : A Case Study. Academic freedom in conflict: the struggle over free speech rights in the university. editor / James Turk. Toronto : James Lorimer & Company Ltd., 2014. (CAUT series).
@inbook{9e5376a052464b1ba711e052292a3a6b,
title = "Academic Freedom and Professional Standards: A Case Study",
abstract = "Academic freedom is supposed to allow for new ideas and approaches to germinate, but it is conditioned on compliance with accepted disciplinary and professional standards. This limiting condition has been explained and defended by Robert Post, which explanation and defense has been criticized by Judith Butler. Butler’s critique conceives of the condition as antithetical to disciplinary growth: the application of conventional professional norms by academic bodies not of the discipline or by disciplinary bodies unsympathetic to arresting or paradigm shifting approaches does or could abet a stultifying conservatism. To that extent, the profession’s theory of academic freedom is at odds with itself.This essay unpacks Butler’s critique. To make analysis more concrete, the essay works that critique through a publicly prominent case: the dismissal of Professor Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado. Churchill claimed that academic freedom accorded him the right to publish works of scholarship pseudonymously, so long as the consent of the putative authors had been given: that such was, or should be held to be an allowable practice in the discipline of American Indian Studies, any standard in the academic profession at large or in other disciplines to the contrary notwithstanding. This paper addresses those arguments. It defends the profession’s conception of academic freedom by application of which Churchill’s conduct was held by a properly constituted faculty body to be professional misconduct.",
keywords = "Teaching, Freedom of, College teachers, Academic freedom, Freedom of speech",
author = "Finkin, {Matthew W}",
note = "Includes bibliographical references and index",
year = "2014",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "1459406303",
series = "CAUT series",
publisher = "James Lorimer & Company Ltd.",
editor = "James Turk",
booktitle = "Academic freedom in conflict",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Academic Freedom and Professional Standards

T2 - A Case Study

AU - Finkin, Matthew W

N1 - Includes bibliographical references and index

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Academic freedom is supposed to allow for new ideas and approaches to germinate, but it is conditioned on compliance with accepted disciplinary and professional standards. This limiting condition has been explained and defended by Robert Post, which explanation and defense has been criticized by Judith Butler. Butler’s critique conceives of the condition as antithetical to disciplinary growth: the application of conventional professional norms by academic bodies not of the discipline or by disciplinary bodies unsympathetic to arresting or paradigm shifting approaches does or could abet a stultifying conservatism. To that extent, the profession’s theory of academic freedom is at odds with itself.This essay unpacks Butler’s critique. To make analysis more concrete, the essay works that critique through a publicly prominent case: the dismissal of Professor Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado. Churchill claimed that academic freedom accorded him the right to publish works of scholarship pseudonymously, so long as the consent of the putative authors had been given: that such was, or should be held to be an allowable practice in the discipline of American Indian Studies, any standard in the academic profession at large or in other disciplines to the contrary notwithstanding. This paper addresses those arguments. It defends the profession’s conception of academic freedom by application of which Churchill’s conduct was held by a properly constituted faculty body to be professional misconduct.

AB - Academic freedom is supposed to allow for new ideas and approaches to germinate, but it is conditioned on compliance with accepted disciplinary and professional standards. This limiting condition has been explained and defended by Robert Post, which explanation and defense has been criticized by Judith Butler. Butler’s critique conceives of the condition as antithetical to disciplinary growth: the application of conventional professional norms by academic bodies not of the discipline or by disciplinary bodies unsympathetic to arresting or paradigm shifting approaches does or could abet a stultifying conservatism. To that extent, the profession’s theory of academic freedom is at odds with itself.This essay unpacks Butler’s critique. To make analysis more concrete, the essay works that critique through a publicly prominent case: the dismissal of Professor Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado. Churchill claimed that academic freedom accorded him the right to publish works of scholarship pseudonymously, so long as the consent of the putative authors had been given: that such was, or should be held to be an allowable practice in the discipline of American Indian Studies, any standard in the academic profession at large or in other disciplines to the contrary notwithstanding. This paper addresses those arguments. It defends the profession’s conception of academic freedom by application of which Churchill’s conduct was held by a properly constituted faculty body to be professional misconduct.

KW - Teaching, Freedom of

KW - College teachers

KW - Academic freedom

KW - Freedom of speech

UR - http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/866048034

M3 - Chapter

SN - 1459406303

SN - 9781459406292

SN - 9781459406308

SN - 145940629X

T3 - CAUT series

BT - Academic freedom in conflict

A2 - Turk, James

PB - James Lorimer & Company Ltd.

CY - Toronto

ER -