公众关注的问题:公立大学教师学术自由权利的案例

Mi-Kyu Park
{"title":"公众关注的问题:公立大学教师学术自由权利的案例","authors":"Mi-Kyu Park","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the Supreme Court of the United States has described academic freedom as a “special concern,” the Court has never recognized a First Amendment right of academic freedom reserved for the professoriate. Legal disputes involving scholarship and classroom speech have overwhelmingly favored institutions over individual academics. However, the lack of uniformity and inconsistent application of the current public speech framework to academia speaks to the uneasiness of applying general public employee speech principles to academic speech. This article addresses how Supreme Court jurisprudence has shaped the arc of academic freedom toward an institutional right, and how the current public employee speech framework has displaced academic speech protection tied to scholarship and teaching. Finally, the article offers both descriptive and normative arguments, including a functional theory of academic freedom and the Madisonian-Meiklejohnian conception of the First Amendment, to make the case for constitutional consideration of speech pursuant to scholarship and teaching.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"32 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Matter of Public Concern: The Case for Academic Freedom Rights of Public University Faculty\",\"authors\":\"Mi-Kyu Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although the Supreme Court of the United States has described academic freedom as a “special concern,” the Court has never recognized a First Amendment right of academic freedom reserved for the professoriate. Legal disputes involving scholarship and classroom speech have overwhelmingly favored institutions over individual academics. However, the lack of uniformity and inconsistent application of the current public speech framework to academia speaks to the uneasiness of applying general public employee speech principles to academic speech. This article addresses how Supreme Court jurisprudence has shaped the arc of academic freedom toward an institutional right, and how the current public employee speech framework has displaced academic speech protection tied to scholarship and teaching. Finally, the article offers both descriptive and normative arguments, including a functional theory of academic freedom and the Madisonian-Meiklejohnian conception of the First Amendment, to make the case for constitutional consideration of speech pursuant to scholarship and teaching.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"32 - 52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

尽管美国最高法院将学术自由描述为“特别关注”,但法院从未承认第一修正案为教授保留的学术自由权利。在涉及学术和课堂演讲的法律纠纷中,绝大多数机构比个别学者更受青睐。然而,目前的公共演讲框架在学术界的应用缺乏统一性和不一致性,说明了将一般的公共雇员演讲原则应用于学术演讲的不安。本文阐述了最高法院的判例如何将学术自由的弧线塑造成一种制度性权利,以及当前的公共雇员言论框架如何取代了与学术和教学相关的学术言论保护。最后,文章提供了描述性和规范性的论证,包括学术自由的功能理论和麦迪逊-米克尔约翰主义的第一修正案概念,以证明根据学术和教学对言论的宪法考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Matter of Public Concern: The Case for Academic Freedom Rights of Public University Faculty
Although the Supreme Court of the United States has described academic freedom as a “special concern,” the Court has never recognized a First Amendment right of academic freedom reserved for the professoriate. Legal disputes involving scholarship and classroom speech have overwhelmingly favored institutions over individual academics. However, the lack of uniformity and inconsistent application of the current public speech framework to academia speaks to the uneasiness of applying general public employee speech principles to academic speech. This article addresses how Supreme Court jurisprudence has shaped the arc of academic freedom toward an institutional right, and how the current public employee speech framework has displaced academic speech protection tied to scholarship and teaching. Finally, the article offers both descriptive and normative arguments, including a functional theory of academic freedom and the Madisonian-Meiklejohnian conception of the First Amendment, to make the case for constitutional consideration of speech pursuant to scholarship and teaching.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The societal, cultural, economic and political dimensions of communication, including the freedoms of speech and press, are undergoing dramatic global changes. The convergence of the mass media, telecommunications, and computers has raised important questions reflected in analyses of modern communication law, policy, and regulation. Serving as a forum for discussions of these continuing and emerging questions, Communication Law and Policy considers traditional and contemporary problems of freedom of expression and dissemination, including theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues inherent in the special conditions presented by new media and information technologies.
期刊最新文献
Digital Rights in Europe After the Entry Into Force of Regulations for the Protection of Personal Data: Before and After the Right to Be Forgotten Regulatory Capture in a Transitional Democracy: Media Laws in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq Paranoid Androids: Free Speech Versus Privacy in America’s Resistance Against Intrusive Robocalls An Unreasonable Standard?: The Dilemma of Applying Actual Malice to Irrational Speakers “The Gloss of History”: A Historical Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Framing of First Amendment Press Rights to Cover and Access Court Proceedings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1