Andrew N.

Francis II
Prof. Jim VanderMey
English Comp. 111
11 Nov 2016

The Academic Freedoms of Teachers

In the United States, the citizens have the bill of rights to give them the
freedoms their founding fathers had fought for. In many ways, people have either
taken advantage of these rights, or do not practice them. However, there are individuals
that try to use these freedoms to make the better of inexperienced people to help them
better their lives. These people are teachers, mostly high school teachers. For decades
the battle for academic freedoms has been conjuring many cases of teachers bringing
controversial ideas or teachings to the classroom. Such cases as Boring v. Buncombe
County Board of Education, a teacher selected a play that adresses the issues of
lessbianism and illegitimacy for her english class (Stader, pg 116). From this action, she
was transferred from the senior high to a junior high school. The reason, is because the
first amendment does not protect teachers from the punishments of showing movies,
plays, or music performed by the students (Stader, pg 116). There are many cases of
teachers trying to use their academic freedom for excuses on how they bring these
controversial subjects to school, what they do not realize is what the academic
freedoms cover, teachers need to know their boundaries before crossing over to
hazardous territory and getting themselves trapped into the justice systems tricky traps.
Some people take the fight for academic freedom too far, such as signing a petition to
have the freedom to defend where teachers and students should have the freedom to
say whatever they want due to a person's race, religion, ideas, and ect. This is
something that we could go back and forth on, but what we need to say to ourselves is:

would this be beneficial to the educational goals of myself? Would having a teacher talk
about how he thinks asians are terrible because he had one cheat him of his money or
how all african americans are all criminals and drug dealers. Or would we like a teacher
who talks about these ideas and their origins in a more observative matter rather than
opinionated? These are the types of questions we ask in order to determine the
boundaries of academic education. To most policies, it is determined if the lesson,
idea, or topic is made for educational purposes and not personal. Which makes sense,
students are there to learn, not to be lectured by opinions or personal stories. In some
way they can enhance the experience of the class, but the boundaries that are crossed
need to be uncrossed or not crossed at all. But what are the boundaries? Where is the
line that teachers, students, and school boards cross that violate the academic
freedoms concepts?

To know this, we need to know what academic freedom is. In David L. Staders
piece Knocking Down the Schoolhouse Gates, he defines academic freedom as ...the
right to speak freely about subject matter, experiment with new ideas, and select
curricular materials and instructional methods (Stader, pg 116). Things such as using a
documentary on the KKK or bringing of the idea of gay marriage in a practical law class.
The teachers have their freedom to show the student the educational perspective of a
topic of discussion. However, things as Plays, Music, or R rated films are not protected
under the academic right policies as stated in Staders piece. How we decide if
something that was not intended to be for a high school classroom is used for
educational purposes, is protected by the academic rights. Let us look back at the
meaning of academic freedom, ...the right to speak freely about subject matter,
experiment with new ideas, and select curricular materials and instructional
methods (Stader, pg 116).

Now that we know what academic freedom is, we need to step forward to know
what the boundaries of academic freedom are. In Starks piece, he mentions what
teachers or professors are limited to, by stating the responsibilities of the university and
the professors.
With this freedom, however, come a number of responsibilities. The university, as
a corporate institution, is not free to conduct experiments in governance which violate
the terms of the appropriate university act or charter; the professor is not free to offer a
course of instruction within the university which has not been approved by the
appropriate academic bodies; students are not free to pursue studies in programs to
which they have not been admitted (Starks, pg1).

Stark later says:

The individual faculty member's academic freedom will... be conditioned by the
immediate context of the academic unit in which he or she holds appointment" (Malloch,
1987, p. 10). So, for instance, our freedom is conditioned by the nature of our teaching
assignments: the subject matter of our courses; the size of the enrollment; regulations
concerning evaluation; duration of the semester; timetable and so on (Stark, pg 1).

The teacher needs a legitimate reason for showing the movie to the class. The
teacher needs to be able to have the students pull out something that pertains to the
subject matter. Hard as it could be, it makes sense. John L Strope had a few examples
of this, one instance was an english teacher who had a discussion on social norms
which lead into a discussion on curse words. For this case, the intention was related to
the lesson, however, the teacher had wrote the F**k word on his chalkboard. This is
what gave the teacher trouble, writing out the word for the students to read. According
to Starks definition, as long as the topic of discussion is related to the practice or lesson
of the class, it is under the protection of academic freedom.

There are other ways a teacher could step over the limit. In Staders piece, he
points out a case in which a teacher of an acting class had chosen a play that had idea
of lesbianism and illegitimately. Now many would see this as a big red flag, lesbainism
and illegitamacey in a highschool play. Having a play in a high school have controversial
things such as those have no educational value in the aspect of graduating or
advancing in your educational career. There will be no test score or requirement to
know controversial ideas, maybe if your getting involved in politics or being a lawyer, but
it would not be a gain educationally, but more personally. In a play it is mostly acting
and interpreting, but the reason it was red flagged is because it had no educational
purpose to the students. Yes, it teaches about the subjects and how people live with it,
but not the meaning, the origins, the ideals of the controversial topics. The play was
performed for an English class, so it was meant to be educational. But what made it so,
that the teachers freedoms were in the wrong? Stader states she was transferred to a
junior high school, so what made the school board decide that she was in the wrong? It
was most likely because she did not have permission from the school, if she did the
school would not have brought up the transfer of the teacher. Having the schools
permission to use such things is important, if the school has no way of knowing what
goes on in the classes, the teacher could almost get away with saying anything to the
students that do or do not pertain to the classes subject.

Flipping the table in the teachers defense is John L. Strope and his piece called
Academic freedom: In our minds, the legal myth dies slowly!, he brings cases of
teachers winning court cases about their controversial topics and methods of instructing
their students. The most appalling case out of the three, is the case involving an
English teacher by the name of Cecilia Lacks that was terminated because she had her
students that were disinterested in education, write plays and act them out. Vulgar
language and profanity was found in the video recordings of the plays. Lacks was

terminated from her position and her case was brought to court and eventually the
supreme court. The school was so wrong by terminating her, because, she did not
encourage the students to use vulgar language. She encouraged the students creative
freedom by letting them use vulgar language. Now as stated before, this is an academic
freedom, to allow teachers to use different methods of instructing in the classroom.
Creative thinking is a quality all schools strive for, yet when they bring down the hammer
to punish a creative thinker for creatively thinking, they are being self destructive.
Teachers are expected to teach something, yet when they try to teach the best way
possible to the student, they are declined. It is time to stop this destructive behavior.

It seems that Stark and Stader can relate on how teachers should be allowed to
show their students whatever they want as long as it is educational. To have a rated R
movie shown in a social studies class, should not be questioned if a teacher should be
allowed to show it in class. Stark has stated that as long as the teachers intentions are
for the class subject then it is completely the teacher's right to show it in class. Stader
however, thinks the university has the responsibility to be notified and allow these things
to be shown in the their classrooms. Because it is technically the school boards class,
they should know what goes on in the class meets the legal requirements to have young
adults graduate. Both of these authors have the same idea, but with minor tweaks into
their reasoning.

I would like to join in their conversation by saying, what happens when a topic of
discussion gets personal rather than educational? If you give a homeless person a
dollar, they will save it to buy food. Give the homeless person $100s, and he/she will go
buy a packet cigarettes, some alcohol, and maybe a debbie for the road. To say this
more bluntly, if we give teachers too much freedom, they will veer off the goal of the
course and go towards a more personal perspective. Some teachers might not want

their students to learn the things the state requires, and much rather make it more
comfortable and skip a few lessons here, scrap a project there. In stropes piece he talks
about the court case of the students cursing in their play projects, and making poems
about oral sex. Yes the teacher does it to get them thinking more clearly. But what
happens to the students who do not want swearing, what happens to the parents when
their child comes home and talks about what the word F**k means. It becomes more of
a personal problem to the parents rather than the teachers. However, this could also be
the teacher's problem too. Too much of this and students will either move schools or
switch teachers. More than likely getting fired. Having a limit to their academic freed will
protect their jobs, make it more secure. Cause if you are given the power to teach
others people's children whatever topic you wish to talk about, allot of people are going
to be expect their children to recite the pythagorean theorem, not about lesibanism and
the origins of the word F**k.

To bring everything into a sandwich of educational freedoms and limits, teachers

need their protection of their academic freedom practiced more. Perhaps a meeting or
required program to let the teachers know their limit so they can push to it. If the
teachers do push it to teach their students, the school cannot deny that they did their
job. Teachers should not be afraid to use their academic freedoms, use them to the
fullest, and make a difference in your student's life, whilst at the same time know your
limits and only go beyond if it is for the benefit of their students education, not you
personal gains.

Works Cited

Stader, David L., and Dannie B. Francis. "Knocking at the Schoolhouse Gate." The
Clearing House 76.3 (2003): 116-9. ProQuest. 3 Nov. 2016 .

Stark, Cannie. "Academic Freedom, Political Correctness, and Ethics." Canadian

Psychology 38.4 (1997): 232. ProQuest. 3 Nov. 2016

Strope,John L.,,Jr. "Academic Freedom: In our Minds, the Legal Myth Dies Slowly!"
National Association of Secondary School Principals.NASSP Bulletin 83.610
(1999): 14-21. ProQuest. Web. 6 Nov. 2016