Academic Freedom and Common Course Instruction: Interpretation
The following excerpts form the Academic Staff Handbook lead
me (DL Jones) to conclude that although an instructor must teach
to the syllabus, a department cannot insist that faculty
team-teach any course or utilize common exams.
Following are the potentially relevant excerpts that I found,
my interpretations, and my summary conclusions.
"Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university. It
applies to its teaching, research, and public service and involves both
faculty and students. Faculty members are responsible for providing
students with the same kind of freedom that they claim for themselves,
namely, the freedom to consider conflicting views and to make their own
evaluation of data, evidence, and doctrines. Furthermore, faculty members
have a responsibility to maintain an atmosphere conducive to intellectual
inquiry and rational discussion.
Faculty members are expected to instruct their assigned courses in a
manner consistent with the scheduled time, course content, and course
credit as approved by the faculty. Within these constraints, they are
entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing
according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are
assigned. Faculty members who are unable to meet their classes have the
obligation to offer alternate instruction to meet the course requirements.
If they are unable or unwilling to do so, their department or college must
assume this responsibility. Since University policy calls for the
comparison of a student's performance with that of other students in the
University for the several purposes that grades serve, faculty members
have the responsibility to provide the University with an evaluation of
the work of each student in their classes."
Jones interpretation
I understand this to say that faculty have both the right and the
obligation to teach their assigned class, covering the course content
as approved by the [College, in our case] faculty, as they believe
best within the scope of their professional competence. I also read
it as saying that the [individual] faculty member has a responsibility
to evaluate the work of each student in their [own] class.
Excerpts regarding appeals process for violations of academic freedom
"Each faculty member has the right to criticize and seek alteration of
regulations and policies by appropriate means. Among means deemed
inappropriate are committing or inciting acts of physical violence against
or coercion of individuals; acts that interfere with academic freedom,
freedom of speech, or freedom of movement; and acts of destruction of
property."
"Alleged abuse of the proper role of the faculty with regard to academic
freedom and faculty responsibility should be identified and adjudicated by
appropriate faculty bodies already in existence in the University
community in accordance with established principles and procedures of due
process. The University Statutes
(http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/statutes.cfm) indicate that these
evaluations are initially made by departmental administrators with the
counsel of faculty bodies; subsequent evaluation is made by academic
deans, campus- and University-level administrators, and the Board of
Trustees with adequate counsel of faculty bodies. At the campus level, the
Faculty Advisory Committee and the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom
and Tenure are charged with a responsibility in both the judicial and
review processes."
"Other Grievance Procedures
Besides the procedures outlined above, numerous others have also been
established, some by statutory provision, to deal with special kinds of
grievances. For instance, when a grievance relates to academic freedom and
tenure, the academic staff member may request a hearing before the Senate
Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure."
Jones interpretation
I read this as saying that each faculty member has a right to seek change
to or appeal regulations and policies, including internal department
customs and procedures.
I interpret this as saying that any faculty member has the right
to appeal a restriction on instructional academic freedom,
and that any appeal should begin with the
department administrators (Cangellaris or Bishop), who are expected to consult
with relevant faculty bodies (presumably the Curriculum Committee on
matters of courses and curriculum, or the Advisory Committee on issues of
more general departmental policy and procedure); subsequent appeal
to the Dean; at the campus level, the relevant Senate committees serve
the faculty counsel role.
It also Seems that in matters obtaining to how one teaches one's course,
assesses one's students, and what one teaches,
in addition to all of the other procedures,
we faculty may always request a hearing before the Senate Committee on
Academic Freedom and Tenure.
Jones summary interpretation
Although it may be customary for multiple sections of our
required courses to be taught with a common text, schedule,
homeworks and exams,
I read the University Statutes regarding Academic Freedom
as saying that faculty always have the right to teach and evaluate their section
independently if they so choose.
I suspect that in the usually less intellectually controversial area of
engineering, these issues of academic freedom rarely arise,
so many of us may not be aware of that right.
I believe that we faculty have the OPTION to teach in a common format,
if in our
best professional judgment we believe that team teaching and combined exams
better or equally well serve our students in a given course, but we ALWAYS
have the right not to do so, and I read the Handbook to say that we have
the responsibility NOT to if we believe that doing so fails to "maintain
an atmosphere conducive to intellectual inquiry and rational discussion"
or if we don't feel that it's consistent with our "responsibility to
provide the University with an evaluation of the work of each student in
their classes."