Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 18:31:58 EST The following petition (from Trent U.) was also on the net perhaps in relation to the whole thing... Perhaps a similar petition could be signed/circulated on U.S. campuses (starting here?) ----------- Article: 23388 of alt.censorship Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Trent U. (Canada) Faculty Petition on Academic Freedom *********** Trent University December 1993 - January 1994 ON FREE INQUIRY AND EXPRESSION WE, WHOSE NAMES ARE ATTACHED BELOW, HAVE SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC STATEMENT IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION AND POLICY FORMULATION CURRENTLY UNDER WAY AT TRENT WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Taking positive note that, according to the University's "Mission Statement," Trent's first goal is "to create a teaching, learning, research and living environment fundamentally committed to the promotion of free inquiry and expression"; Taking positive note, as well, of the affirmation of academic freedom in the Collective Agreement, as follows: "The common good of society depends upon the search for knowledge and its free exposition. Academic freedom in universities is essential to both these purposes in the teaching function of the university as well as in its scholarship and research. Academic staff shall not be hindered or impeded in any way by the University or the Association from exercising their legal rights as citizens, nor shall they suffer any penalties because of their exercise of such legal rights. The parties agree that they will not infringe or abridge the academic freedom of any member of the academic community. Members of the academic community are entitled, regardless of prescribed doctrine, to freedom in carrying out research and in publishing the results thereof, freedom of teaching and of discussion, freedom to criticize the University and the Association, and freedom from institutional censorship. Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual. Rather, academic freedom makes commitment possible. Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for knowledge. The claim of academic freedom shall not excuse members from meeting the duties and responsibilities set forth [in the Terms and Conditions of Employment] provided that the allocation of such duties and responsibilities shall not conflict with principles of academic freedom." Taking positive note, moreover, of an accelerating social project to identify and remove discriminatory barriers; We hereby reaffirm our commitment to unrestricted academic freedom and freedom of expression and inquiry in the university community as the indispensable framework for the fulfilment of the University's mission and also as the best and most hopeful support for non-discriminatory multiculturalism and gender equality within the university milieu. Uninfringed and uncurtailed academic freedom in research, teaching, discussion, criticism, reading, writing, and publishing is the best underpinning for the work of the university and for its contribution to the social welfare of its members and to the broader good of society. It offers the most humane and effective pathway toward inclusiveness, because it includes the freedom to differ, the freedom to disagree, and the freedom to get things wrong now and then. More and better than any of the available alternatives, it protects diversity and equality in a complex social ecology. By contrast, censorship, and other prohibitions on the freedom of expression, even if intended to promote harmony, are still forms of constraint that improperly limit the circulation of information and expression which are the lifeblood of higher education. Without limiting the preceding, we wish to affirm in particular the following: 1. We urge the University to lead, not in the restriction of free speech and academic freedom, but in its defense. Self-reforming and self-critical institutional discussion about social barriers to participation in the university's intellectual and cultural life, equitable employment, and access to social justice are recognized features of university life, and themselves depend on discursive freedom, which therefore should not be abridged in the process of discussion or as a result of it. The University should defend democratic freedoms, for itself and for others, especially those freedoms that are most vitally necessary to its own educational mission. The restriction of expression on account of its messages, ideas, subject matter, contents, or viewpoints, including restrictions on the free availability of reading materials, must be defined as unreasonable in a democratic university. The fundamental right to express any thought, belief, or opinion, free from censorship, is an indispensable precondition for building democratic politics, cultures, and intellectual formations, for promoting equality and multiculturalism in a complex milieu, and for articulating the self-fulfilment of associated individuals. In particular, content controls--including prescribed constraints on teaching, learning, and research, with respect to course and curricular contents and with respect to the freedom of students to develop intellectual autonomy--would fatally undercut the profound social commitment to a public system of higher education that is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. 2. We defend, therefore, the right to certain types of speech and academic expression which, in fact, we do not condone, and in some cases deplore. This includes the right to offend one another. It includes the right to express--and the right of access to intellectual materials which express--racially, ethnically, or sexually discriminatory ideas, opinions, or feelings, just as it includes the right to expressions that favour inequality of incomes or benefits. It also includes the right to make others uncomfortable, to injure, by expression, anyone's self-esteem, and to create, by expression, atmospheres in which some may not feel welcome or accepted. A general right not to be subjected to such expression would undermine the right to question cherished assumptions that may be important for someone's comfort, complacency, affiliations, or identifications, and would cripple intellectual inquiry. It includes, moreover, the right to use language in any traditional, quaint, or dated manner, because the regulation of such expression would both contravene the principle of free expression and also stifle legitimate debate on the proper relationship of language to social progress. 3. We accept, simultaneously, that the protection of these rights does not preclude the circulation of any information, whether stimulated by a particular occasion or systematically authorized and directed as part of an informational or educational program, which aims to challenge, criticize, or condemn any of the sorts of expression covered above. Nor do we wish to preclude either discussion on the desirability, effectiveness, or appropriateness, of any sort of expression, or the option of individuals to confront, complain about, or demonstrate against someone's expressions without fear of academic or administrative reprisals. * NOTE: The Cultural Studies Program adopted this statement as a Program policy statement on December 2, 1993. We would like to invite other programs and departments to adopt the statement as well. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Vernon Imrich |*. . .. . . . ** . .* ' . . '. . . | | MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | You've just crossed over into; . * . ..| | Cambridge, MA 02139 | . .* . THE . .. . . .* . . * | | | . . .. . T W L I G H T . .. . . . * | | 617-253-3910 |: . * ' .. .* . . Z O N E . . .* . | --------------------------------------------------------------------