(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)
Since the AAUP last issued a report on Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications in 2004, the higher education landscape has been significantly transformed by a number of factors, including: (1) the emergence of social media as vehicles for electronic communication; (2) increased outsourcing of information technology resources; (3) cloud computing; (3) expanded security concerns, and (4) new communications devices. Moreover, the conception of the classroom has been transformed by technology and de-centered by administrative efforts to move education from a faculty driven effort to a markets driven effort to satisfy the demands of wage labor markets.
These changes have emboldened universities to begin to assert more complete control over the efforts of individuals who are employed as faculty. I say it in that way because it appears to be a strategic calculation by universities to suggest that the mere entry into an employment relationship with faculty entitle them to "own" everything that comes from the individual. While some might suggest that this transformation begins to touch on the incidents of slavery (there is no space that the individual may call her own, because it is all owned by the university), the courts have not yet confronted that issue. Yet the trend is felt strongly as universities have sought to exploit all creative activities of faculty however tenuously tied to the scope of employment (on the theory that the scope of employment includes everything that an individual does, at least to the extent that the university wishes to claim it for itself).
This post includes the press release announcing the revised version and the executive summary of the revised version. The revised version may be accessed here: Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications; Download:
Dear Colleague:
Since the AAUP last issued a report on Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications in 2004, the higher education landscape has been significantly transformed by:
--the emergence of social media as vehicles for electronic communication,
--increased outsourcing of information technology resources,
--cloud computing,
--expanded security concerns, and
--new communications devices.
Today we are releasing a revised version of Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications, which brings up to date and significantly expands upon the Association’s 2004 report on the same topic, while affirming the earlier report’s basic principles. The report is issued for comment, and may be modified in response to comments received.
The boundaries of the classroom have expanded. Now a classroom is not simply a physical space, but any location, real or virtual, in which instruction occurs. The revised report concludes that in classrooms of all types the protections of academic freedom and of the faculty’s rights to intellectual property in lectures, syllabi, exams, and similar materials are as applicable as they have been in the physical classroom.
The revised report reaffirms the 2004 report’s conclusion that “full freedom in research and in the publication of the results applies with no less force to the use of electronic media for the conduct of research and the dissemination of findings and results than it applies to the use of more traditional media.” The report includes an expanded discussion of access to research materials, including a discussion of the open-access movement and of the role of college and university libraries and librarians.
The report also discusses access to electronic communications technologies, outsourcing of noninstructional information technology resources, the implications for academic freedom of social media and their use, Freedom of Information Act requests for electronic records, and threats to academic freedom associated with defamation claims against statements made through electronic media such as blogs. A section of the report is devoted to privacy concerns, affirming that "[p]rivacy in electronic communications is an important instrument for ensuring professional autonomy and breathing space for freedom in the classroom and for freedom of inquiry.”
In conclusion, the report declares that electronic communications are too important for the maintenance of academic freedom to be left entirely to institutional technology offices: “Faculty must participate, preferably through representative institutions of shared governance, in the formulation and implementation of policies governing electronic communications technologies.” The report offers six specific recommendations for facilitating such participation. It is available on the AAUP’s website at http://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-electronic-communications-2013.
We welcome your comments on the new draft report; please send them to Jennifer Nichols (jnichols@aaup.org) by January 10.
___________________________
Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications
Download:Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications.pdf
This draft report, prepared by a subcommittee of the Association’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, was approved by Committee A and the AAUP’s national Council in November 2013 for publication for comment. We welcome your comments on the draft report; please send them to Jennifer Nichols (jnichols@aaup.org) by January 10.
Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications
Executive Summary
This report brings up to date and expands upon the Association's 2004 report, Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications. It reaffirms that report's "overriding principle": "Academic freedom, free inquiry, and freedom of expression within the academic community may be limited to no greater extent in electronic format than they are in print, save for the most unusual situation where the very nature of the medium itself might warrant unusual restrictions."
The newly revised report seeks to apply this principle to an environment in which new social media have emerged as important vehicles for electronic communication in the academy, and in which outsourcing, cloud computing, expanded security concerns, and a variety of new electronic devices and social media have significantly altered the communications landscape.
With respect to research, this report reaffirms the earlier report's conclusion that "full freedom in research and in the publication of the results applies with no less force to the use of electronic media for the conduct of research and the dissemination of findings and results than it applies to the use of more traditional media." It develops this principle more fully in an expanded discussion of access to research materials, including a discussion of the open-access movement and of the role of college and university libraries and librarians. The report affirms that "[t]he commitment of libraries and librarians to maximizing access to information and protecting user privacy and confidentiality should not change in the face of new technologies." The report also considers the potentially adverse impact that efforts to protect network security may have on the freedom of research and examines the role of social media in communications about still-unpublished research.
The 2004 statement noted that "the concept of 'classroom' must be broadened" to reflect how instruction increasingly occurs via a "medium that clearly has no physical boundaries" and that "[t]he 'classroom' must indeed encompass all sites where learning occurs." This report observes that "the boundaries of the 'classroom' have only expanded” in the past decade and concludes that "a classroom is not simply a physical space, but any location, real or virtual, in which instruction occurs, and that in classrooms of all types the protections of academic freedom and of the faculty's rights to intellectual property in lectures, syllabi, exams, and similar materials are as applicable as they have been in the physical classroom."
The report includes an extensive discussion of access to electronic communications technologies, arguing that "in general no conditions or restrictions should be imposed upon access to and use of electronic communications technologies more stringent than limits that have been deemed acceptable for the use of traditional campus channels of communication." While recognizing that in some rare cases a university, perhaps for reasons of security, may need to deny a faculty member access to such technologies, "any restrictions that an institution may seek to impose on a faculty member’s access and usage must be narrowly defined, and clearly and precisely stated in writing."
The report also includes an extensive discussion of outsourcing of non-instructional information technology resources, which "can provide advantages to institutions, such as lower cost and potentially better security, and help an institution focus on its core mission of education instead of on the provision of services." However, the report emphasizes that "[o]utsourcing presents several identifiable risks," and it offers eight specific recommendations for strengthening an institution’s posture on academic freedom even in outsourced situations.
The 2004 report essentially assumed that electronic communications were either personal, as with e-mail, or public, as with websites, blogs, or faculty home pages. The growth of social media has called such a distinction into question, because social-media sites blur the distinction between private and public communications in new ways. The report therefore includes an extensive discussion, with reference to several specific recent cases, of the implications of social media for academic freedom. It "recommends that each institution work with its faculty to develop policies governing the use of social media. Any such policy must recognize that social media can be used to engage in extramural utterances, which are protected under principles of academic freedom." The report also argues that in electronic communications "faculty members cannot be held responsible for always indicating that they are speaking as individuals and not in the name of their institution, especially if doing so will place an undue burden on the faculty member's ability to express views in electronic media."
The report also includes a discussion of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for electronic records and threats to academic freedom associated with claims of defamation lodged against faculty members for statements made via electronic media, such as in blogs. A section of the report is devoted to a discussion of privacy concerns, affirming that "[p]rivacy in electronic communications is important for ensuring professional autonomy and breathing space for freedom in the classroom and for freedom of inquiry." The report provides five specific criteria for developing electronic communications policies that are responsive to privacy concerns.
The report concludes with a declaration that "electronic communications are too important for the maintenance and protection of academic freedom to be left entirely to" institutional technology offices. "Faculty must participate, preferably through representative institutions of shared governance, in the formulation and implementation of policies governing electronic communications technologies." The report in conclusion offers six specific recommendations for facilitating such participation.
No comments:
Post a Comment