Individual academic freedom

While institutional academic freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, individual academic freedom is not. Individual teachers have academic freedom only to the extent that it is given to them by their institutions.

This is clear even from the guidelines of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Says AAUP: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” Teachers have academic freedom only within their own disciplines.

Adds AAUP: “College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations.” In other words, since they are looked up to, teachers should not make statements that they cannot back up with evidence, as the word “evidence” is defined in their particular disciplines.

Still from AAUP: “As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

Nearer home, our own Court of Appeals has restricted individual academic freedom even more. Teachers can claim academic freedom only if they follow the regulations of a school. In Far Eastern University vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Feliza Samaniego (CA-G.R. SP No. 83614), the Court of Appeals said, “Teachers are given leeway, under the principle of academic freedom, to conduct their classes according to the manner and form they see fit, provided they conform to school regulation.”

Illustrative of the many descriptions of academic freedom is the one attributed to former UP president Vicente G. Sinco, also a delegate to the 1973 Constitutional Convention. Sinco said that the Constitution “definitely grants the right of academic freedom to the University as an institution as distinguished from the academic freedom of a university professor.” In short, universities can claim absolute academic freedom; individual teachers within a university can claim academic freedom only if they obey the institution.

Certain institutions, such as UP itself, grant practically absolute academic freedom to its teachers. Other institutions, however, particularly private ones, limit the academic freedom of their teachers. Teachers in these institutions cannot choose their textbooks, design their own syllabi different from departmental syllabi, not wear uniforms, not observe teaching or consultation hours, and whatever else the administrators tell them not to do.

From a management point of view, this view of academic freedom makes perfect sense. After all, if a particular teacher does not like to follow the regulations of a school, he or she can always go to another school. This is the same reasoning that is behind the opinion of the Supreme Court about institutional academic freedom. If a student does not like the way a school is run, he or she can always enroll in another school.

The right to education is not denied any student, nor is freedom of speech denied any teacher by this limited view of academic freedom. After all, nobody, student or teacher, has the right to be in any particular institution. There is always some school somewhere (such as UP) which will allow students or teachers more academic freedom than is allowed in other schools. If someone will argue that he or she is not intelligent enough to be either a student or a teacher in UP, then the answer is, tough. In fact, academic freedom is granted only to very few, highly intelligent individuals. We will see why in future columns. (To be continued)

“WORDS OF THE DAY” (English/Filipino) for next week’s elementary school classes: Mar. 3 Monday: 1. pea/lubi, 2. bark/lubos, 3. cotton/lugi, 4. jasmine/lislis, 5. tricycle/libo, 6. bizarre/lidlid; Mar. 4 Tuesday: 1. oat/leeg, 2. melon/liksi, 3. water/lemur 4. lantana/libato, 5. jeepney/ligo, 6. boisterous/ligalig; Mar. 5 Wednesday: 1. oak/libot, 2. plant/libas, 3. ipil/libat, 4. sticky/libis, 5. secret/libgos, 6. boycott/lihim; Mar. 6 Thursday: 1. palm/musmos, 2. santol/muta, 3. barangay/mutit, 4. juniper/muwebles, 5. apparatus/museo, 6. chronology/munisipyo; Mar. 7 Friday: 1. beet/musika, 2. lemon/moton, 3. santan/murinay, 4. fruit/mural, 5. verbena/multa, 6. commemorate/mulat. The numbers after the dates indicate grade level. The dates refer to the official calendar for public elementary schools. For definitions of the words in Filipino, consult UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino.