Academic Freedom Explained

Academic freedom, found under Article 13 of the collective agreement, is a broad and complex right that post-secondary faculty enjoy. There are five areas in which our new Article 13 language can have an immediate, positive effect.

In practice, academic freedom can be exercised through:

1. Protected Speech

  • Academic freedom means that faculty can speak out about academic issues without fear of reprisal. This is known as “protected speech”, and it is supported by some of the strongest case law related to academic freedom.
  • Protected speech can include making statements critical about your employer.
  • This speech can be internal to the college, such as sending critical letters to management (even including the college president).
  • This speech can also be external to the college, such as publishing a letter in the local newspaper, or in another public forum.
  • Academic freedom protects speech, as long as the speech is:
    1. Factual (i.e. based on truth, research and evidence)
    2. Not hate speech (i.e. does not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code)
    3. Academic (i.e. is professional, reasonable, etc.)
  • Protected speech can be used to point out the academic impact of poor management decisions concerning staffing, program management, academic policies, workloads, etc.
  • Protected speech is made more powerful if faculty in a given area come together to make collective statements about issues of common concern.

2. Evaluation Methods

Academic freedom includes the freedom to teach. This involves choosing which evaluation methods are used. There is already a process in the collective agreement under Workload, Article 11 (specifically, Articles 11.01 E2 and 11.01 E3) for faculty input into evaluation methods.  Academic freedom bolsters a faculty member’s judgment under 11.01 E3. Conflicts over evaluation can thus take place via the College Workload Monitoring Group (CWMG) process, with academic freedom as a support, or as an Article 32 grievance, grieving Article 13.

3. Course Materials

There is strong case law to support a professor’s right to choose their own course materials. In a conflict between faculty and management over which textbook or other course materials are to be used, an Article 13 grievance can be filed with a high likelihood of success. The rationale being used by a faculty member to use or not use a given resource must be academic in nature. As always, strong arguments have a better chance of winning.

4. Grade Changes

An increasing concern is managers changing faculty grades for no academic reason, and against the professional judgment of faculty. Academic freedom supports the right of faculty to assign grades, and for having the academic judgment of professors stand. This means that managers cannot change faculty grades in an arbitrary manner. Grade changes would occur only through an academically justifiable procedure, such as a formal grade appeal process.

5. Method of Delivery

  • The case law is mixed concerning method of delivery. Managers have the right to specify new methods of delivery (i.e. online or blended courses). However, an academic freedom argument would be stronger if a professor teaching with one delivery format was forced by a manager to change the format (e.g. from in-class to blended, or from blended to online). The professor could then make a strong argument that changing the delivery method is academically unsound, then an Article 13 grievance may be successful.
  • A method of delivery grievance might be possible if management forces a course to be blended or fully online, where the course depends heavily on interpersonal interaction, or where the new delivery method would otherwise impair the academic effectiveness of the course. An example would be a forcibly blended lab, in which the reduction in face to face time has a significant negative impact on the course’s academic integrity.
  • Method of delivery grievances can include concern for student success, the need to meet vocational learning outcomes and essential employability skills, the need to meet specific professional competencies.

As with other academic freedom grievances, it can be argued that a manager’s decision violates Article 13 if the decision overrides a faculty member’s academic judgment in a manner that is arbitrary, or in bad faith.  As we move forward with our newly won Article 13, it helps to keep the following points in mind:

  • Academic freedom is not just for university-educated professors teaching in university-style courses and programs. It applies equally to faculty in the trades and in other applied and occupational programs. The core principle is the same: the faculty member teaching – whether early childhood education, nursing, automotive repair, or massage therapy – is the expert in their respective field. Their expertise is the bedrock of quality in post-secondary education, and needs to be respected.
  • Article 13 is only as strong as the extent to which we are willing to use it. Faculty should be actively and creatively trying to look for ways to utilize and expand our academic freedom. This list is no means an exhaustive catalog of how academic freedom applies to our members. For example, academic freedom can be utilized by counselors and librarians in their operational duties and professional judgement.

Academic freedom involves changing the culture of college education – away from a manager-centered model focused on corporate priorities, and toward a faculty and student-centered model focused on the quality and integrity of education.

Revised and reproduced with the permission of OPSEU Local 240 (Mohawk), and OPSEU Local 562 (Humber).