The Association of American University Professors (AAUP) recently restated the components of the individual don's freedom to teach -- whether an entire course or only a section. This freedom, which is a good thing, is taken as a given by all self-respecting academics and their peers who, 'for a time', may happen to hold administrative positions at the departmental or higher levels. It spans the five core functions: design of the course outline (guided by a coherent, properly sequenced and formally approved curriculum), choice of learning materials, lecturing, setting of assignments and 'final' examinations, and grading.
And yet professionalism, peer review (or critical questioning) and mentoring -- untainted by administrative high-handedness or political 'policing' -- must be, and indeed are, at the core of all hopeful striving toward true, comparative excellence by individuals and their institutions.
Like all freedoms, however, the freedom to teach cannot be absolute. Why? For one, there's often mischief where and when academia is 'infiltrated' by individuals, often protected and even fast-tracked, who have no clearly discernible respect or time for high standards. Peers are supposed to raise the red flag when enough becomes enough -- and yet many are a timid and compromising lot in the fight for principles. The freedom to teach can engender only so much mediocrity before the world gives up on an institution so buried in its own sand/brand of 'sovereignty'.
Here are some details of the conversation so far:
1. The AAUP statement
2. Colleen Flaherty's account.
