I write as a concerned Marshall faculty member to address recent statements about academic freedom that fundamentally mischaracterize both its history and purpose. While I recognize the sensitive nature of critiquing administrative positions, I believe it’s essential to get basic facts about academic freedom on record.
Academic freedom often serves as a convenient target for those who view universities with suspicion, but understanding its origins reveals why it remains vital to democratic society. On September 27, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote: “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education” (The American Presidency Project, “Message for American Education Week”). Roosevelt understood that democracy depends on citizens capable of critical thinking and informed judgment, which are precisely what academic freedom is designed to protect.
Academic freedom emerged from a crisis point not unlike our current moment. In 1896, Stanford University economics professor Edward Ross began criticizing the railroad industry (the source of the Stanford family’s wealth). Despite initial administrative resistance, Ross was eventually forced to resign in 1900, not for professional incompetence, but because the administration feared his political views might “sully the reputation of the institution” (Stanford Report, “Academic freedom’s origin story”). Seven other faculty members resigned in protest, and one co-founded the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915.
The AAUP’s foundation was grounded in the notion that faculty dismissals based on institutional interests rather than professional standards threaten the mission of higher education. Academic freedom as initially imagined by the AAUP (and affirmed through the intervening decades) grants faculty four essential rights. In teaching, professors can determine their course content, select materials, and discuss controversial topics relevant to their subject. In research, they have total freedom to investigate any avenue of inquiry and publish their findings within the rigorous system of peer review. Within their institutions, faculty can speak freely about governance and criticize administrative policies. As citizens, they can express personal views on public matters without institutional punishment (The American Association of University Professors’ FAQs on Academic Freedom).
We need not look to 1900 for examples of administrative overreach. Earlier this month, Texas A&M fired a professor for discussing LGBTQ themes in a book taught in a children’s literature course, ultimately leading to the university president’s resignation amid political pressure. Like the Edward Ross case at Stanford, Texas A&M administrators violated academic freedom by terminating employment based on perceived conflicts between course materials and political ideologies rather than professional standards.
This brings us to recent statements by Marshall’s interim provost about academic freedom, which I read as suggesting administrators can and should determine what constitutes “reasonable” classroom content. His slavery-in-calculus-class example appears straightforward, but reveals a dangerous precedent: administrative determination of pedagogical relevance. While designed to seem obviously reasonable, the real issue lies in circumventing faculty governance procedures whenever administrators deem content “unreasonable.”
Consider how quickly such “reasonableness” standards could expand. What happens when an engineering professor discusses new technology’s social impacts? When a chemistry professor addresses environmental policy implications? When a literature professor analyzes contemporary politics through dystopian novels? The AAUP emphasizes that faculty can engage controversial material “as long as the material stimulates debate and learning that is germane to the subject matter.” But “germane” requires disciplinary expertise to evaluate properly, and this is expertise that administrators typically lack. Academic freedom, however, establishes a clear hierarchy for content determinations: individual faculty assessment of course relevance, departmental oversight by disciplinary colleagues, college-level review across related fields, and ultimately Faculty Senate authority.
I want to make it clear that academic freedom isn’t about avoiding accountability. Rather, it’s about ensuring accountability operates through appropriate professional channels rather than administrative convenience. Faculty must follow ethical guidelines, meet teaching obligations, and submit to peer review. They cannot harass students, abandon their responsibilities, or claim expertise outside their fields. But these determinations belong to faculty governance structures, not institutional risk management. Academic freedom protections and responsibilities create the conditions necessary for the free exchange of ideas essential for the advancement of knowledge and democratic discourse both within the university and beyond, as Roosevelt recognized.
Last week, five finalists for the position of provost at Marshall visited our campus, speaking with students, faculty, staff, and other administrators. More than one of these finalists commented on Marshall’s robust shared governance structure, which ensures a collaborative and transparent approach to university governance rather than a top-down, hierarchical organization. One finalist noted that Marshall’s system is so advanced that it should serve as a national model.
I see these comments as a hopeful sign. Marshall has the opportunity to select a provost who will support academic freedom and resist the political pressures that have compromised academic freedom elsewhere. Roosevelt understood that democracy’s survival depends on voters who can “choose wisely,” and believed that education was key in creating citizens capable of critical thinking, informed debate, and reasoned judgment. This educational mission cannot flourish when faculty live in fear of administrative second-guessing or political retaliation for engaging with complex, controversial, or challenging ideas. Academic freedom and its accompanying responsibilities create the conditions for the free exchange of ideas serving both academic advancement and democratic discourse. The health of this discourse and the vitality of our students’ education depend on understanding and supporting the principles of academic freedom.
Jana Tigchelaar can be contacted at [email protected].
