COMMUNISM and the COLLEGES

What is academic freedom? How far does it go? Is it violated if a Communist is allowed to teach--or is it -violated if a Communist is not allowed to teach? This week, the Association of American Universities gave its answers to these questions in a memorably clearheaded statement on the "Rights and Responsibilities of Universities and Their Faculties."* Excerpts:

A UNIVERSITY is the institutional embodiment of an urge for knowledge that is basic in human nature and as old as the human race . . . The search that it inspires is an individual affair . . . Like its medieval prototype, the modern American university is an association of individual scholars . . . They are united in their loyalty to the ideal of learning, to the moral code, to the country, and to its form of government. They represent diversified fields of knowledge, they express many points of view . . . Free enterprise is as essential to intellectual as to economic progress.

A university must therefore be hospitable to an infinite variety of skills and viewpoints . . . Its whole spirit requires investigation, criticism, and presentation of ideas in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual confidence. This is the real meaning of "academic" freedom. It is essential . . . that the faculty of a university be guaranteed this freedom by its governing board, and that the reasons for the guarantee be understood by the public . . .

Conscience & Competence

To fulfill their function the members of university faculties must continue to analyze, test, criticize and reassess existing institutions and beliefs . . . such investigations cannot be confined to the physical world. The acknowledged fact that moral, social and political progress have not kept pace with mastery of the physical world shows the need for more intensified research, fresh insights . . . The scholar's mission requires the study and examination of unpopular ideas, of ideas considered abhorrent and even dangerous . . . Timidity must not lead the scholar to stand silent when he ought to speak . . . In matters of conscience and when he has truth to proclaim the scholar has no obligation to be silent in the face of popular disapproval . . .

What applies to research applies equally to teaching. So long as an instructor's observations are scholarly and germane to his subject, his freedom of expression in his classroom should not be curbed. The university student should be exposed to competing opinions and beliefs in every field, so that he may learn to weigh them and gain maturity of judgment . . . In teaching, as in research, [the instructor] is limited by the requirements of citizenship, of professional competence and good taste. Having met those standards, he is entitled to all the protection the full resources of the university can provide . . .

Privilege & Penalty

There is a line at which "freedom" or "privilege" begins to be qualified by legal "duty" and "obligation." The determination of the line is the function of the legislature and the courts. The ultimate interpretation and application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments* are the function of the U.S. Supreme Court . . . These are not to be determined arbitrarily or by public outcry. The line thus drawn can be changed by legislative and judicial action; it has varied in the past because of prevailing anxieties as well as by reason of "clear and present" danger. Its location is subject to, and should receive, criticism . . . However much the location of the line may be criticized, it cannot be disregarded with impunity. Any member of a university who crosses the duly established line is not excused by the fact that he believes the line ill-drawn . . . He is subject to the same penalties as other people . . .

Historically the word "university" is a guarantee of standards. It implies endorsement not of its members' views but of their capability and integrity. Every scholar has an obligation to maintain this reputation . . . His effectiveness, both as scholar and teacher, is not reduced but enhanced if he has the humility and the wisdom to recognize the fallibility of his own judgment . . . Others, both within and without the university, are as free to criticize his opinions as he is free to express them; "academic freedom" does not include freedom from criticism.

As in all acts of association, the professor accepts conventions which become morally binding. Above all, he owes his colleagues . . . complete candor and perfect integrity, precluding any kind of clandestine or conspiratorial activities. He owes equal candor to the public. If he is called upon to answer for his convictions, it is his duty as a citizen to speak out. It is even more definitely his duty as a professor. Refusal to do so, on whatever legal grounds, cannot fail to reflect upon a profession that claims for itself the fullest freedom to speak and the maximum protection of that freedom available in our society . . .

We condemn Russian Communism as we condemn every form of totalitarianism. We share the profound concern of the American people at the existence of an international conspiracy whose goal is the destruction of our cherished institutions . . . Three of its principles in particular are abhorrent to us: the fomenting of worldwide revolution as a step to seizing power; the use of falsehood and deceit as normal means of persuasion; thought control--the dictation of doctrines which must be accepted and taught by all party members. Under these principles, no scholar could adequately disseminate knowledge or pursue investigations in the effort to make further progress toward truth . . . No person who accepts or advocates such principles and methods has any place in a university.

Discipline & Discharge

Since present membership in the Communist Party requires the acceptance of these principles and methods, such membership extinguishes the right to a university position. [The same holds] if an instructor [becomes] a propagandist for one opinion, adopting a "party line" . . . impairing freedom of thought and expression in his classroom . . .

"Academic freedom" is not a shield for those who break the law . . . Unless a faculty member violates a law, however, his discipline or discharge is a university responsibility and should not be assumed by political authority. Discipline on the basis of irresponsible accusations or suspicion can never be condoned . . . The university is competent to establish a tribunal to determine the facts and fairly judge the nature and degree of any trespass upon academic integrity, as well as the penalty such trespass merits . . .

*Based on the work of a committee headed by Yale's President A. Whitney Griswold. The other members: Chancellors Arthur Holly Compton of Washington University, Franklin Murphy of the University of Kansas, Presidents J. E. Wallace Sterling of Stanford, Henry Wriston of Brown.

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press . . ." ". . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.