The resolution by the Faculty Senate that is being contemplated would have a chilling effect, and undermine the ability of units to make their own decisions, imposing an institutional orthodoxy.There is no central litmus test for social and political views and actions of affiliates.There is a longstanding practice that individual units can exercise their academic freedom when making appointments to these advisory boards.There are dozens of advisory boards across campus supporting schools, initiatives, and institutes, which engage hundreds of external advisors.It would represent imposition of an institutional orthodoxy by the senate on the autonomy of one of the university’s units. The resolution that is being contemplated would be in direct conflict with that commitment. The senate recently reaffirmed its bedrock commitment to that principle, even creating a committee to ensure the university administration does not run afoul of it. ![]() That position is enshrined in the Faculty Senate’s foundational statement on Academic Freedom, which holds that “expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion”. Free expression of ideas is the lifeblood of the university and is essential to our research and teaching missions. I have strongly argued that the university must be a place that supports a diversity of views. ![]() I’d like to build on my comments earlier today and speak out against this resolution, which, in effect calls for the senate to act as an institutional body to censor two overseers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |