Academic Freedom Guidance Papers
Request for Assistance Findings
When a Request for Assistance (RFA) is submitted to the Academic Freedom Assistance Committee, that team undertakes a thorough investigation into the facts surrounding the case. The team also delves deeply into published academic freedom literature. These are then brought to bear on the question raised in the RFA. The result is a "Final Recommendation" which is then shared with the requestor, the full Committee on Academic Freedom, and other related parties. The committee recognizes the usefulness of these recommendations to others across the district who may have questions about academic freedom, so we have anonymized these Final Recommendations and published them here.
Case 1 Findings: Mandatory Training
Question: Can a college mandate professional development as a requirement for teaching online courses?
Case 2 Findings: Access to Canvas Course
Question: Can a Program Director require faculty to provide him/her access to their Canvas class?
Case 3 Findings: Shared vs Individual Academic Freedom
Question: Under what conditions does shared academic freedom, when properly applied, supersede the
academic freedom rights of the individual faculty member?
Case 4 Findings: Syllabus Management Tools
Question: Can a college adopt a syllabus management tool for their online classes?
Case 5 Findings: Required Testing Format and Proctoring
Question: Can a program director require faculty to employ specific testing formats or proctoring software?
Case 6 Findings: Grade Change by a Chair
Question: Is it a violation of instructors' academic freedom if a department/division chair changes the grade of a student enrolled in a class?
Case 7 Findings: Academic Freedom for Staff
Question: Does a staff member who plans (sometimes controversial) events for students and the community have academic freedom?
Case 8 Findings: Online Survey to Ensure Teaching Quality
Question: A college's online learning committee has developed a survey that evaluates teaching quality. Does the survey implicate academic freedom?
Case 9 Findings: Regular, Substantive Interactions
Question: How can MCCCD ensure that instructors comply with "Regular, Substantive Interactions" requirements without violating the academic freedom of the instructors?
Case 10 Findings: College Links to Personal Academic Webpages
Question: Does refusing to link a professor’s personal website to the college website constitute a violation of academic freedom?
Case 11 Findings: Adding Course Competencies
Question: If a college department/division, through an appropriate process as described in the CAFET Guidance Paper Individual vs. Shared Academic Freedom, creates topics in addition to District competencies, can an individual faculty member opt out of teaching the additional topic pursuant to their individual academic freedom?
Case 12 Findings: Social Media Policies
Question: Does the social media section of a discipline-specific policy manual impinge upon the academic freedom of the affected faculty?
Guidance Papers
As the Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) responds to "Requests for Assistance," we identify areas where our colleagues could benefit from additional guidance on academic freedom principles. These guidance papers are developed by members of the Education and Training subcommittee. Drafts are reviewed by the full CAF and revised based on feedback. Final documents are then voted on. These documents have received unanimous support from members of the CAF.
Disability Resources & Services
Federal law requires that we do not discriminate against students with disabilities, and as such, students with documented disabilities must be provided reasonable accommodations that ensure effective participation and equal educational opportunity. Academic Freedom does not provide faculty members the right to deny reasonable accommodations without participating in the interactive process. However, no accommodation may "fundamentally alter" a course. Maricopa's interactive process ensures that faculty (the subject matter experts) participate in the development of appropriate accommodations.
Grade Assignment Disputes
Assigning grades is fundamentally the right of the instructor of record; this is a principle of academic freedom. There are a few rare exceptions to this otherwise-absolute cornerstone of higher education. This guidance paper explores the reasoning behind the principle, the general stance provided by the AAUP, and the specific application of the current Maricopa policy.
Individual vs. Shared Academic Freedom
Many in higher education think of academic freedom as an individual right, but this is a misunderstanding of academic freedom principles. This guidance paper describes the role of shared academic freedom in the development of common textbooks, syllabi, assessments, and course materials. It also explores Maricopa policy and explicitly discusses the involvement of contingent faculty members.
Master Courses/Rubrics for Review of Courses
The use of master courses and common rubrics raises questions about intellectual property rights, the relationship between disciplinarity and pedagogical best practices, and the appropriateness of mandating the use of course materials; all of these intersect with academic freedom in significant ways. This guidance paper discusses the appropriate and inappropriate approaches to these practices from an academic freedom perspective.
Professional Development and Faculty Training
As a condition of hire and ongoing employment, faculty are expected to invest in their continued professional development. As subject matter experts, they are best positioned to identify the best direction for their own growth. With very few exceptions, training and professional development should not be mandated.
Syllabus Guidelines and Requirements
A course syllabus is “an agreement between the instructor and student” that details “course content and instructor expectations.” Syllabi are based upon and ultimately reflect the curriculum for a course and are protected under academic freedom. Some required syllabus elements cannot be shaped or changed by faculty members. Furthermore, it does not violate academic freedom to use a common course syllabus for multiple classes, provided that certain standards are met.