The interesting part of this article is the analogy: "workers in many fields are granted special access or consideration to otherwise publicly restricted tools, working conditions or rights.Take occupations like sport, law enforcement, farming, journalism and more. In sport, hockey players are permitted to hit each other, and even fight within the game without fear of being arrested. Similarly, boxers may punch each other." Now on this account, what seems to distinguish academic freedom from (say) freedom of speech is (a) who determines whether the speech is allowed (for academics, it's "professional competency as determined by disciplinary communities"), and (b) what the consequences for infractions are. But the analogy misses an important point: if farmers, hockey players, jorunalists, etc., abuse their privilege, the law will step in. Academic freedom may be a prima facie sort of immunity from wider constraints, but there are limits, especially in an era of weaponized speech.
Today: 1 Total: 14 [Direct link] [Share]
