Search

This paper provides a test of the usefulness of a formal organizational model in studying the structure of universities. Nondenominational universities in the United States were researched by sending mail questionnaires to administrators and faculty members. The findings reported here concern goals, their relation to the power structure, and to other characteristics of universities. There is consensus on the pan of administration and faculty on what the goals are and on what they should be. According to both faculty and administration, the highest goal is and should be protecting the faculty's right to academic freedom. Most of the top goals are support goals rather than output goals, and only one of them involves students. In contrast, three of the four bottom goals refer to students. Protecting academic freedom is more emphasized as a goal in private than in state universities. In the former, the goals revolve around student-expressive matters, but the latter are snore likely to emphasize preparing students for useful careers, assisting citizens through extension, and doing applied research. Student expressive goats are also related positively to the prestige of the institution, whereas emphasis on student instrumental goals and under-graduate instruction are related negatively to prestige. The biggest difference in goal structures arises where legislatures and state governments are perceived as having greater power, relative to administrators and faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to show how selective perception operates in organizational settings to make members perceive the behavior of other members differently. The data come from a study directed by researchers P.F. Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens of how college teachers in the United States reacted to threats posed to academic freedom during the McCarthy investigations in the early 1950's. More than 2,400 social science teachers from 165 colleges were interviewed. They were asked questions dealing with attitudes toward academic freedom for teachers and students, awareness of specific incidents involving threats to academic freedom, apprehension and fear resulting from such incidents, beliefs about reactions of other teachers to the same events. There exists a considerable literature on experiments designed to test the validity of ideas in the functional approach to perception. Some attempts have been made to state systematic theoretical formulations which try to account for the empirical findings. Expectations, needs and emotional states sometimes make perception selective. People who live in the same milieu or are otherwise exposed to identical stimuli, but who differ with respect to their expectations, needs and emotions will perceive attributes of people or other objects present in the milieu differently. One way in which these factors make perception selective is by increasing people's sensitivity to cues indicating the presence of objects or behaviors relevant to the state of motivation or the attitude.

This study indicates that public opinion formation tends in large part to be a product of the activation of previous experiences and attitudes. The controversy at the University of California, in Berkeley, California, over the requirement that all faculty members sign an oath affirming that they were not members of the communist party created an opportunity to study the opinion forming process in a comparatively closed environment. University students reacted to a crisis situation largely according to their group affiliations and other background characteristics. Students operating within the intellectual atmosphere of the university may react in more rational ways than the general population. Student members of underprivileged groups may be more inclined to make rational identifications between their own group and other groups under attack, an identification, which underprivileged groups outside the campus may not make. Attitudes toward academic freedom are related to the same variables, which influence attitude formation in other areas of life.

This paper examines the reactions of academic social scientists towards being interviewed about issues clustering around their academic freedom and their fears for its invasion, issues which concern many of them directly. Sociologists have, in fact, increasingly come close to home as, gaining status and self-confidence, they have no longer confined their researches to marginal or captive groups about whom some elite wanted information--such groups as workers, soldiers, prisoners, immigrants, patients, and students. They have begun to interview big businessmen, legislators, high military officers, doctors and lawyers, and at long last, even each other. At leading institutions where respondents had been irritated, they often assumed in an almost ethnocentric way that other professors elsewhere would be equally irritated. But it did not take long to discover that not all professors teaching in the social sciences at American colleges consider themselves members of an elite or anything like it.

The article reports on the emergence of censorship on the campus in the U.S. Raymond E. Calahan, on academic freedom is, the freedom of teachers and students to seek after knowledge for establishing truth as stated in the book "An Introduction to Education in American Society." The freedom has been restricted for various reasons and usually well-intentioned. Censorship is a weapon of the totalitarian state, such as the fascist, communist or police state has no part in a free society and in a democracy. The students and teachers are likewise encouraged to ask into and challenge all the manners and means of life, so with the basic tenets of democracy, liberty and freedom and the teachers must be free to teach the truth as they see the truth.

The American citizen with a firm commitment to traditional concepts of freedom finds himself currently in a difficult position. If he has any degree of awareness of the meaning of the U.S. tradition he will see frequent violations on every hand. This article deals with the effect of current trends on creativeness and cultural freedom. Freedom lives only as it is dynamic. The faculty member or citizen who expresses himself forthrightly today is more likely to do so tomorrow than if he had today remained silent. An important step then in academic intellectual circles is to overcome fears and to lead.

This article presents information on the views of the general public with respect to the specific issue of academic freedom and the related issue of civil liberties in the U.S. It considers whatever evidence is available on the general public's views and on any changes which may have occurred in those views in the recent past.

This article presents information on the survey undertaken by the Columbia University Council, which seeks to determine the attitude of students toward U.S. Congressional investigation of college faculties and related issues. One limitation of the Columbia study was the omission of background material from the questionnaire. The results of the student poll, as a whole, indicate strong support for academic freedom on the Columbia campus and an emphatic rejection of Congressional investigations into the nation's colleges.

Deals with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Bill or Rights and its association to academic freedom. Provisions of the Fifth Amendment; Significance of the Fifth Amendment to the teacher of speech; Recommendations.

The article focuses on the academic freedom in the U.S. Academic freedom is an acquisition of relatively recent date. Medieval academicians thought of themselves as members of a great fellowship whose lives were dedicated to the search for truth. As the great European universities became more endowed and committed to permanent libraries, instead of just being collections of mobile scholars, they became timid and immobile. After the Reformation a concept developed which held that academic freedom and relative freedom are based upon the freedom of conscience. The American Colonial Colleges were influenced in their formation by the universities of England, especially by Cambridge University. In the early national period, the founding and managing of these colleges remained in the hands of the churches. The sectarian nature of the American colleges ushered in the concept of lay government in the respective institutions. The American colleges were dependent on the lay community for funds. The quest for funds forced many colleges to become non-sectarian.