It has been my experience that tenured professors can say or do quite a bit under the protection of “academic freedom” (those without tenure, not so much!). In particular I’ve heard of professors advancing political views that have little or nothing to do with course material. I’ve known them to advance anti-religious views or attack religious perspectives, not in a spirit of open inquiry but simply as an expression of their opinions.

Stanley Fish would have none of this. In Save the World On Your Own Time, Fish argues for a definition of academic freedom as the freedom within the agreed upon course description and requirements to choose written materials and courses of inquiry to accomplish the goal of teaching students the content of the course. This also includes the freedom to pursue research in one’s discipline along the lines of one’s own intellectual interests without the intrusions of boards of trustees or other interests.

He would also argue that academic freedom has nothing to do with advancing multiculturalism, any political perspective or any particular moral value (other than academic honesty). Insofar as any of these are legitimate areas of inquiry in a particular course, academic analysis is appropriate–but not advancing them as ideas students must embrace.

Fish is not opposed to individuals advancing such views in other fora. That is freedom of speech. And he would argue that academics are in fact free do advance whatever views they want on their own time and undertake whatever crusades they wish outside the classroom. But he contends that their job in the classroom is instruction and inquiry related to the objectives in the course. He says some surprising things. He doesn’t think it legitimate for biologists to crusade against Intelligent Design in the classroom. He does think it legitimate to rigorously inquire whether it meets the criteria of good scientific theory.

I find this strangely refreshing. I’ve known students who have been in classes with professors who use their position to propagandize and proselytize and they fear disagreeing in discussions or papers because of the dogmatic fashion in which these positions have been asserted. The classroom in these cases has ceased to be a place where good argument and good data and the pursuit of truth are uppermost. In most cases, this abuse of power works against itself–students may comply with course rubrics for the sake of a grade, but the only thing they learn is a lesson in the use of power.

Fish takes a very limited but consistent view of academic freedom. Fish has argued vigorously in books and NY Times  op-eds to this effect against far more expansive versions he sees rampant in academic circles. He thinks all these go beyond the modest but crucial mission of educating students.  I would be interested in how others who have an interest in the life of higher education take his arguments, and how they would define academic freedom.