Academic freedom and the limits of classroom instruction

Academic Freedom

Professors have been accused in recent years of indoctrinating rather than educating, of failing to provide balanced perspectives on controversial issues, of creating a hostile learning environment for conservative or religious students, and of injecting irrelevant political asides into class discussion and as such the statement is ostensibly meant to address the very real issues surrounding faculty classroom conduct that have arisen of late (O'Connor). As a result of these objections, many are calling for the limitation of educators and their freedom in teaching what they feel is relevant or effective. Many believe that professors jobs should be standardized so that there is a universal curriculum is offered and all students are taught the same material across the board. This would prohibit instructors from offering opinioned material or indoctrinating students into one opinion or another.

Despite the objections to academic freedom which might be justified in rare cases, there is no way to teach critical thinking without some leeway to teach what students are interested in and to research ideas independently. If students are only provided summaries of debates in academia, then there is not much opportunity to develop reasoning skills that would be gained from taking a position on some debatable issue and working through the evidence. One of the central purposes of higher education is to challenge students to think hard about their own perspectives and their own reasoning through logic and evidence. Thus it is difficult to teach such an investigation through a standardized curriculum.

Body

We would be blinking at reality if we failed to acknowledge that recent challenges to "freedom in the classroom" are being advanced to further a particular political agenda; this is not the first time that universities have been suspected of harboring faculties who undermine established institutions and prevailing social values (Finkin, Post and Nelson). The recent calls to limit academic freedom are just that, the academic world is being subject to many of the mainstream ideologies that are present in the public. Even if there is a scientific consensus surrounding any academic topic, such as climate change or evolution, if the position of the consensus does not agree with certain ideologies then there will be calls for reform to "teach the controversy" (Meyer).

Conclusion

Although the appeals to limit academic freedom may seem reasonable to some, they are nothing more than an attempt to squash science, the scientific method, and critical thinking. They require that many contentious subjects be taught from many angles such as from religious perspectives. However, such controversies are not necessarily found in science. For example, the theory of evolution has become so mainstream a view in science that it serves as the foundation of the entire discipline of biology. Yet the religious perspective would advocate that intelligent design is responsible for the various species in our biological diverse planet. Although intelligent design might seem plausible to members of the public, it stands no weight with the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Nearly every scientific discovery that stands in some opposition to any ideological vantage point must overcome some opposition. It took many years before the majority of the population began to believe that the world was round that the Earth revolved around the sun and other controversial issues such as evolution and climate change are no different. The ideological opposition is just repackaged into seemingly more reasonable objections however they are based upon irrational objections rather than science and reason. Therefore, people should retain a significant amount of skepticism toward any individuals or groups that wish to restrict freedom in academia. It is such freedoms, the freedom to challenge and investigate alternatives to mainstream ideas, which have been responsible for nearly every significant human achievement.