Search

In this essay, we explore the consequences of the University of California's policies to address racial disparities and its support for social justice activism as influences on its commitment to academic freedom and other intellectual values. This is a story of the interaction between two essential public university missions -- one civic, the other intellectual -- and the slow effacement of one by the other. The University's expressed commitments to academic freedom and the culture of rationalism have not been abandoned, but they are too often considered secondary or when confronted by new administrative initiatives and social movement activism related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The experimental use of mandatory DEI statements on a number of the ten UC campuses, within willing academic departments, as initial screening mechanisms in faculty hiring is the most dramatic of the new administrative policies that have been put into place to advance faculty diversity. This policy can be considered the most problematic of a series of efforts that the UC campuses and the UC Office of the President have taken for more than a decade to prioritize representation in academic appointments. Our intent is to encourage a discussion of these policies within UC in light of the University's fundamental commitments to open intellectual inquiry, the discovery and dissemination of a wide range of new knowledge, and a culture of rationalism.

The United States retains many aspects of a healthy open society, but there are indicators of trouble and deep divisions around the meaning and importance of democratic values. This debate has significant repercussions for universities and their academic communities. In the most-simple terms, there is a red and blue state divide over the role and importance of public institutions, including universities -- red representing largely rural states in which most voters vote Republican and blue being majority Democratic voters, often with one of the two parties having majorities in their respective state legislatures. Then there are so-called purple states in which both parties are vying for dominance, but they are fewer in number. This brief discusses this contemporary dynamic and its implication for higher education and science policy.

This brief discusses cases of neo-nationalist violations of academic freedom in Hungary and Poland. The most prominent case of neo-nationalist violation of academic freedom in Hungary is the fate of the Central European University (CEU). The circumstances of CEU's forced move out of Hungary came before the European Court of Justice regarding it a possible violation of EU law. The Court cited the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) under one of the three pillars of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) 1994 agreement, free trade, and the determination that CEU was a form of international educational services that should not be denied to the people of Hungary. Poland has a similar hostile environment to academics and academic freedom, although with a glimmer of hope following recent elections. The brief also discusses how such open breaches of academic freedom as in Hungary or Poland, in which politicians directly try to exert influence on research institutions and professors, are fortunately rather rare in Germany. However, a confluence of factors perhaps obscures the differences between "academic freedom" and the "freedom of opinion." In Germany, academic freedom includes the search for topics, rigorous methodical investigation, and professional norms to express findings and competent opinions, whereas the free speech is outside of these professional norms. The brief concludes with a discussion of the role of universities and the future of democracy in the context of ensuring a space for free and open debate.

Hong Kong and Singapore are island city-states that exude the complicated tensions of postcolonial nationalism. Both are influenced directly or indirectly by the long shadow of China's rising nationalism and geopolitical power and, in the case of Hong Kong, subject to Beijing's edicts under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Both have productive economies dependent on global trade, and each has similar rates of population density--Hong Kong's population is 7.4 million and Singapore is home to 5.8 million people. It remains to be seen whether Hong Kong's peripheral nationalist identity will be retained, or whether the increasingly assertive influence and control by mainland China will prevail and fully assimilate Hong Kong. But it is apparent that Hong Kong is at a turning point. Throughout 2019, protesters filled the streets of the city, worried about declining civil liberties, specifically Beijing's refusal to provide universal suffrage as promised previously in law and the disqualification of prodemocracy candidates, along with the growing control of Hong Kong's government and universities by Chinese central government designates and fears of an ever-expanding crackdown on dissent. Singapore provides a less dramatic but relevant example of the tension caused by the influx of foreign national students and academics who often displace native citizens, combined with government-enforced efforts to control dissent in universities. And like Hong Kong, the long shadow of China influences the role universities are allowed to play in civil society. The following is an excerpt from the book "Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats and the Future of Higher Education" (Johns Hopkins University Press) that explores the implications of nationalist movements on universities in Hong Kong and Singapore. In both, university leaders, and their academic communities, value academic freedom and the idea of independent scholarship. Yet the political environment is severe enough, and the opportunity costs great enough, that they, thus far, remain generally neutral institutions in a debate over civil liberties and the future of their island states. The exception is the key role students have played in the protest movement in Hong Kong, but for how long?

The argument of this paper is set against the backdrop of a climate of intimidation, silencing, and fear that surrounds the discussion of several hot-button issues in academe, nowadays mainly having to do with race. An important and painful feature of this situation is that people on both sides of the issue feel vulnerable. The contribution of this paper is to help all involved to understand what academic freedom means and how it supports or fails to support the expression of controversial views. I show that a climate hostile to academic freedom is not an academic freedom issue "per se." It becomes an academic freedom issue when there is harassment, silencing, or dismissal of those who take a position within the sphere of their professional competence. At bottom, academic freedom is an institutionally-protected privilege relevant, above all, to employment law. Neither First Amendment rights nor anything resembling academic freedom exist in the employee-employer relationship in the private sector. The paper discusses the origins of academic freedom in the United States and the major changes in the understanding of academic freedom over time, particularly those relevant to extramural speech and the rights of students. The paper concludes with a discussion of five contemporary threats to academic freedom, stemming from (1) social stratification within academe, (2) university branding concerns, (3) the actions of conservative state legislatures, (4) the constraints applied by institutional review boards, and (5) the demands of social movement activists.

This Policy Paper aims at analysing the most important aspects of Public Responsibility, Financing and Governance of Higher Educations while seeking to formulate a students perspective on the state of play within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In doing so it touches upon the very foundation of how and in which socio-political environment educational systems and higher education institutions work nowadays. The European Students' Union (ESU) believes that open access to all levels of education is the cornerstone of a socially, culturally and democratically inclusive society, and a prerequisite for individual and societal development and well-being. ESU sees higher education as a human right, which is guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. How education is seen in society, how it is funded and how it is governed are tightly interlinked areas. This policy paper focuses on: (1) Public responsibility of higher education (fundamental values; institutional autonomy and academic freedom; academic integrity; intellectual property; education for sustainable development; human rights and democratic citizenship education; digitalization, artificial intelligence, learning analytics and privacy; commodification; partnerships between higher education institutions and industry; internships; and internationalisation and international trade); (2) Financing of higher education (financing of higher education; the funding gap; optimisation of funding of higher education institutions; performance based funding; and education free of tuition fees); and (3) Governance of higher education (students participation; working conditions of academic staff; committees and ombudsmans and leadership, intersectionality and training). [For the 2016 version, see ED587168.]

Academic freedom is a fundamental concept that exists to ensure that institutions of higher education function for the public good and that colleges are constructed on the foundations of genuine trust. For over a century, members of The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have been agile guardians, careful stewards, and erudite experts regarding the principle of academic freedom and its application in the faculty profession. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges began a deep and sustained conversation on academic freedom. California community colleges are in a period of significant and systemic change. Faculty are engaging with and challenging each other to act in adopting culturally responsive teaching, in eliminating racism in all its forms--interpersonal, institutional, systemic--and in serving the whole student in ways that provide care and support as well as ensure a clear and direct path toward reaching an educational goal. The purpose of this paper is not to be the definitive word on academic freedom in the community college system; rather, it is to begin an exploration of what academic freedom means and how it should be protected and implemented in California's community colleges. This paper strives to lay a foundation to ensure that the principles of academic freedom remain strong and flexible to adapt to the changing dynamics in the California community colleges and in academia.

The European Union is likely the most far-developed cross-border public space for higher education. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA) both span an even larger number of countries including associate and partner countries of the EU. Based on shared European values, such as academic freedom, cross-border cooperation, and mobility, these policy frameworks have been developed in Europe over the last decades and with much success. HE systems in this area are thus well-positioned to benefit from cross-border mobility and collaboration but may at the same time face a certain loss of control over HE, for instance with respect to access due to the cross-border flows of students. This seems to make them vulnerable to populist tendencies and neo-nationalist politics seeking to inhibit the free movement of students, scholars, and data. Such tendencies have never been completely absent on the "old continent" but resurged over the uneven outcomes of globalization, the effects of the global financial and consequent Euro crisis, and the refugee crisis. Meanwhile, the impact of the coronavirus crisis is still by and large unknown. Populist tendencies seem now to be turning against the EU, with its freedom of movement for persons (i.e. open borders) as one of its cornerstones and are therefore of concern for the HE sector. Countries such as the UK, Switzerland, Denmark, and the Netherlands have a different position in the European landscape but are all struggling with the complexity of combining the virtues of an open system with constrained national sovereignty. Sovereignty is required in terms of steering capacity in order to balance access, cost, and quality, i.e. the well-known "higher education trilemma." In open systems this is challenged by the "globalization trilemma", which states that countries cannot have national sovereignty, (hyper)globalization and democracy at the same time. How are the EU, its Member States, and the HE sector responding? Will the Union stay united (i.e. Brexit)? Are the legal competencies of the EU in HE strong enough? What about the many European university associations, leagues, and networks? And what do the millions of (former) Erasmus students have to say?

In 2006, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed an elective classification for community engagement for institutions of higher education. To receive the classification, campuses must complete an application and respond to questions by providing evidence that demonstrates a commitment to sustaining and increasing their community engagement efforts (Welch & Saltmarsh, 2013). Many of the application questions relate to policies and practices that affect faculty careers. For example, the 2015 Community Engagement Classification application asked institutions to describe relevant professional development opportunities and ways in which faculty community engagement is incentivized, recognized, and rewarded. These questions are important, as research has shown that faculty members are central to campus community engagement efforts (O'Meara, Sandmann, Saltmarsh, & Giles, 2011). Yet, the 2015 Community Engagement Classification application failed to capture the contributions of and supports for non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF), an ever-growing segment of the faculty population (Burgan, 2006; Hoeller, 2014). This is not surprising, as few institutions collect data about their NTTF or have adequate structures to support their careers (Kezar, 2012; New Faculty Majority [NFM], 2014). However, until the classification application requests this information, it is impossible to know what role NTTF play in the larger institutional commitment to community engagement. If the institutionalization of community engagement is heavily dependent upon faculty, then future advancement of community engagement will be increasingly dependent on NTTF as well. This paper seeks to answer two key questions. First, unless campuses facilitate and encourage the full participation of NTTF, can institutions truly maximize their community engagement potential? Second, if fair treatment of faculty is a form of community engagement in and of itself, do institutions that subject their NTTF to unfair wages and working conditions deserve the community engagement classification?

Scholars and practitioners of learning outcomes assessment widely recognize the importance of faculty engagement with the planning and implementation of assessment activities. Yet garnering participation by the majority of faculty has remained a significant challenge due in part to faculty concerns over the purposes of assessment, the value that it holds, and the costs of its implementation. In this paper I consider another claim that contributes to faculty resistance: that learning outcomes assessment is a fundamental abridgment of academic freedom. Granted, assessment activities can be imposed in ways that violate faculty rights, but such a consequence is not inevitable. Faculty control of the curriculum and effective shared governance set the stage for assessment that supports and builds on the faculty's ongoing efforts while protecting their historic and essential right to academic freedom.

Higher education has become the focus of increased public debate. Stewardship of public resources, student achievement or the lack thereof, relationships and "partnerships" with business and industry in the area of research, substantial increases in tuition and fees, public perception of wrong-doing in the quality of programs, and allegations of wrongdoing in financial and programmatic areas have all led to calls for greater transparency, accountability, and impartiality. At root, these issues all concern trust. This paper discusses accountability in higher education as well as the need to promote increased public trust, and focuses on the need for a balance between autonomy and accountability. It identifies the drivers for accountability at the international, national, and state levels, and offers new ways of thinking about the relationship between accountability and accreditation processes. Policymakers and educational leaders must address the accountability process in addition to nurturing the public's trust while balancing the interactions among the responsibility of various educational actors, goals, resources, standards, and rewards/sanctions. In providing this emerging view of the issues of accountability and public trust in higher education, the paper is intended to serve as a catalyst for discussion as a means to advance the overall delivery of high quality higher education. (Contains 17 footnotes.)

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has focused on a small but vital set of accreditation issues for the past ten years. Most were selected because they are at the heart of accreditation (student achievement, relationship with government). Others were selected because they represent major expansions of accreditation activity (distance learning, international reviews). All have the potential to fundamentally transform the enterprise as we have historically known it: a system for quality assurance and quality improvement led by the academic community and built on the core values of the primacy of institutional leadership and thus autonomy in the academic arena, a mission-based and thus diverse higher education enterprise and the centrality of freedom of inquiry as captured by the commitment to academic freedom. The issues are:(1) Public Accountability; (2) Student Achievement; (3) Information to the Public; (4) Relationship with Federal and State Government; (5) Distance Education; (6) International Accreditation; (7) Degree Mills and Accreditation Mills; (8) Transfer of Credit; and (9) Financing Accreditation and Conflict of Interest. Presented is a compilation of key recommendations that CHEA has offered related to these issues during the past ten years. Many of these recommendations are the result of extensive outreach, consultation, and communication with many constituents, especially CHEA institutional members, higher education associations, and recognized accrediting organizations. A brief summary of CHEA's core recommendations on each issue is provided, followed by a selection of excerpts from various CHEA publications, advisory statements, letters, and testimony. These excerpts provide additional detail and perspective as well as identify other material in which the reader may be interested. Appended are: (1) The CHEA Initiative. The First Three Years (2008-2011); and (2) Section 3. Additional Reporting to the Public: Examples for Accreditors, Institutions and Programs. [This report was produced by CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance.]

This position paper discusses the changes to the UC Academic Senate's regulations on academic freedom and on policies for teaching potentially contentious or political issues, arguing that the new regulation has not been adequately considered in light of its detrimental effect on academic standards. Whereas previously the university's policy had stated that faculty were not to use their teaching to "convert" students, the new regulation relies on individual instructors' "competence" and allows for their politically committed viewpoints instead of establishing any guidelines for unbiased teaching practices.

This paper examines the e-learning strategies adopted by universities, from the perspective of three common objectives: widening access to educational opportunity; enhancing the quality of learning; and reducing the cost of higher education. The discussion is illustrated by drawing on case studies of universities in Europe and the United States. It is concluded that the most striking characteristic of the e-learning strategies adopted by universities is their diversity, and inherent characteristic of adaptability in use and flexibility in application. The implicit compatibility with institutional aims suggests that the e-learning strategies universities adopt reflect, rather than influence, institutional ethos and that by virtue of the capacity to adapt to different contexts, e-learning may be more adaptable--and ultimately less threatening--to academic mores than some observers fear. (Contains 77 notes.)

This paper describes the development of a course in Chicano/Latino psychology by a professor of a mixed Chicano and Anglo ethnic background at Washington State University. The course objectives include: examination of the current psychosocial literature related to Chicano/Latino populations; issues of acculturation and ethnic identity; the relationship of these variables to underutilization of psychological services; culturally appropriate counseling models and strategies for intervention; and the current sociopolitical environment including issues of racism, ethnocentrism, and political power. The professor's personal narrative portrays the academic politics, resistance, and barriers encountered in the effort to gain approval as a permanent course. These were the result of ethnocentric/racist assumptions that there was not enough literature to warrant a course in Chicano/Latino Psychology, and reflected the overall neglect and negative attitudes towards the Chicano/Latino community. Recommendations are offered for overcoming the maze of academic politics. An appendix presents course objectives, course requirements, grading/evaluation, texts, readings, and topics/assignments. (Contains 27 references.) (TD)

Immediately after the events of September 11, the US was stunned by horror and disbelief, angry at the perpetrators of such awful violence, puzzled by the country's inability to recognize itself in the eyes of the world, and eager to learn more about other cultures from which it felt so alien. Our college campuses reflected this range of responses. At their first meetings of the academic year, members of NERCHE's Think Tanks, who represent faculty and administrators in New England, and SAGES (Senior Academics Guiding Educational Strategies), retired presidents and provosts, described their reactions and the range of responses campus.

Colleges and universities of all kinds rely on part-time faculty to teach students from the freshman year through graduate studies, although they are more likely to teach lower division students. Overall, 43% of postsecondary instructional faculty work part-time, while full-time tenure track positions are held by about 18% of faculty members. Part-time faculty are most likely to teach at community colleges (66%) and least likely to teach at public four-year colleges (27%). Some faculty teach part-time by choice, but others who want to work full-time may take jobs at several institutions to survive, leaving themselves less available to students and less engaged in institution affairs. Part-time faculty are deprived of the protection provided by tenure, as are nontenured full-time faculty. The increasing use of nontenure-track and part-time faculty, described as "contingent" faculty by Jane Buck, poses several problems. They may avoid writing assignments to save grading time, or self-censor in the absence of protection for academic freedom. They may inflate student grades or pander to students in an effort to assure a continuing contract. These issues must be addressed to ensure excellence in higher education. (Contains 10 references.) (SLD)

Intended to generate discussion and motivate proactive intervention in matters of information security, this paper defines and discusses some of the key issues relating to information security on college and university campuses based on in-depth interviews conducted at eight selected higher education institutions of varying size and composition in the spring of 1989. Findings, observations, and suggestions for further research are presented in eight areas: (1) Awareness of Information Security; (2) Information Security Concerns, including confidentiality, telecommunications, microcomputers, business continuity/disaster recovery planning, and physical security); (3) Risk Assessment; (4) Information Security Policies, including microcomputer policies; (5) Security and Control; (6) Information Security Administration; (7) Design, Review, and Testing of Information Security: The Role of Auditors and Consultants; and (8) Information Security Issues for the 1990s, including networks, end-user computing, and pace of technological advances. It is concluded that one of the most difficult challenges information technology managers at colleges and universities face today is finding the correct balance between academic freedom and essential security measures. A copy of the interview guide is appended as well as a profile of Coopers & Lybrand, the corporate sponsor of the study, and an annotated listing of six reports in the Professional Paper Series. (24 additional readings) (BBM)

This review of the literature offers a description of college faculty in the United States: their training, responsibilities, duties, career ladders, demographics, salaries, pressures, and current political issues. The section on training describes the doctoral degree generally, assistantship programs, post-doctoral positions, and the supply of doctoral degrees to the labor force. The section on duties looks at faculty roles in the three areas of teaching, research and service. The section on worklife examines scope, discretion and autonomy, professionalism, and academic freedom and tenure. The description of career paths looks at the early evaluation stages, promotion and tenure, characteristics of evaluation, changes over the course of a career in duties and skills, research productivity, and quantity of research produced. A section on demographics and attitudes among faculty reports national data on faculty age, composition, gender, ethnicity, degree, rank and attitudes to their jobs and institutions. The section on salary offers three tables of data and describes several broad patterns. A section on salary and other differences among faculty touches on gender, minority status, part-time status, and generational differences. A section on pressures describes typical stressors and offers information on faculty attitudes about job pressures. A section on current criticisms describes recent intense criticism of college faculty and offers a compilation of the charges against them. (Contains 35 references.) (JB)

In 2017, the North Carolina legislature passed House Bill 527 (now State Law 2017-196) in order to foster free, open inquiry in the state's colleges and universities. One of the provisions ordered the University of North Carolina (UNC) system Board of Governors to produce an annual report on two major categories of intellectual freedom: free speech and institutional neutrality. This report is the Martin Center's own analysis of free speech and institutional neutrality on the UNC system's 16 campuses. The report examines universities' choices for summer reading assignments and commencement speakers, whether they make public statements on controversial topics like climate change and diversity, the content of freshman orientation sessions, and universities' mission statements. It also records any barriers to student and faculty speech as well as any known disruptions or incidents that curtailed free speech in the past year. To complete this report, the Martin Center consulted schools' websites and newspaper articles. They also contacted student groups to determine whether they experienced any difficulties exercising their rights to free expression. The results of the Martin Center's analysis of free speech and institutional neutrality are presented in this report, organized by campus.

Accreditation is a critical tool for quality assurance and accountability for higher education, signaling an institution's commitment to academic quality and fiscal integrity. The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) published this statement to help board members better understand the importance of accreditation and the board's role in the process. AGB and CHEA published an initial statement in 2009. Since then, however, the higher education landscape has significantly changed, and the need to reemphasize board involvement has become evident. The updated statement offers leading practices to foster effective governance strategies as board members, chief executives, and other staff work collaboratively with accrediting organizations. It highlights many suggestions for boards and their members, such as: (1) Establish an ongoing orientation or accreditation education program for board members, with particular attention to the way in which accreditation relates to such core values as mission, institutional independence, educational quality, and academic freedom; (2) Develop, in collaboration with the chief executive officer, a plan for ongoing governing board involvement in accreditation reviews; and (3) Create clear expectations of board leaders to work with the president on the accreditation process, including opportunities to meet with the visiting team, and an expectation that the visiting team's final report will be available to the full board.

This paper, one in a series about the priorities of the professoriate, seeks to clarify the relationship between academic freedom and tenure by examining the standards and procedures used by the university to protect academic freedom without a tenure system. The paper considers first the minimum elements necessary to protect academic freedom absent a tenure system; next, it examines whether grievance procedures adequately protect the values of academic freedom, suggesting that additional measures might be necessary to safeguard academic freedom. Sections of the paper discuss the rules and procedures used to protect academic freedom, noting that it is the institution's responsibility to define what it believes constitutes academic freedom and that members of the university community have a vital vested interest in protecting their academic freedom. The paper notes the various structural devices (contracts, evaluations, peer review) which protect academic freedom and examines how well they protect academic freedom absent a tenure system. The paper concludes that colleges and universities that do not maintain tenure systems can adopt procedures that provide legal and practical academic freedom for their faculty, but is concerned that the loss of peer review in faculty evaluation may alter some of the subtle aspects of academic freedom. (Contains 13 references.) (CH)

This paper, one in a series about the priorities of the professoriate, is premised on the belief that academic tenure in higher education, if not doomed, is likely to play a diminishing role in the employment of college and university professors in coming generations. The paper argues against the belief that institutions of higher education have a privileged position in U.S. society that implies higher education should be treated as a unique entity. Instead, it suggests that institutions have become more entrepreneurial, with market forces operating on them in powerful ways. Financial trends have created a widening gap in available resources, with richer institutions getting richer and those less well off falling behind. And, in the field of medicine, forces outside the university have reshaped the economic relationships that governed compensation for doctors and hospitals. Given these factors, would-be academics might favor a diversity of employment arrangements rather than an employment-reducing system of universal tenure. An alternative to tenure that is more in line with those in other professions is presented, with the caveat that tenure may be necessary where faculty members devote themselves to specialized careers. Wage differentials for tenure-track and nontenured positions are suggested; and some of the problems to be overcome are outlined. (CH)

This paper, one in a series about the priorities of the professoriate, explores several alternatives to tenure for faculty and institutions. Data for the study was drawn from a series of site visits to seven institutions during winter/spring 1995-96. Seventy-one interviews were conducted with administrators, senior faculty, and full-time nontenured faculty. The first part of the paper discusses six models for full-time nontenurable appointments currently being used by colleges and universities, recording both faculty and administrator perceptions of how well the models work at the respective institutions. The models are: teaching appointments, professors of practice, research professors, distinguished senior lecturers, limited tenure situations, and integrated tenurable and nontenurable tracks in medical schools. The second part of the paper deals with the key themes underlying new employment options, including campus climate, culture, history, traditions, and tenured faculty attitudes. Also noted are questions relating to the status and integration of nontenurable faculty, job security, academic freedom, and career development and career paths. The paper concludes that while tenure will continue to exist, it will be only one among a series of career paths available to faculty as full-time nontenurable alternatives become more attractive to institutions and individuals. (Contains 14 references.) (CH)

This study assesses how much control governments of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth) are exercising over their universities. The study encompassed a review of the relevant literature, an examination of the acts and statutes which control universities, and a questionnaire sent to 70 university vice chancellors, which generated 53 responses. The review of the literature and the legal documents revealed considerable variation in the extent of government involvement in the affairs of universities, on a continuum which ranged from a controlling role for the state at one end to a more liberal supervising role at the other. The questionnaire responses were used to plot the relative positions of seven regions United Kingdom, Mediterranean, Australasia, Asia, Africa, North American (Canada), and the Caribbean on the same continuum. Sections of the report address sources of information and methodology, results by region, an overall picture, questions of state supervision or state control, and institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Appended are the questionnaire, a list of universities that completed the questionnaire, regional analysis of questionnaire results. A graphical presentation of the regional results, a list of the universities supplying legal documents, and a classification of questionnaire answers. (Contains 54 references.) (BF)