Student Bill of Rights and the Judicial Branch
The Chief Justice of Student Government, Jason Blinder, approached me today and asked if I could find out what students would like to see in a student bill of rights. So I am posting this blog item to find out from my readers what if anything they would like to see in such a document.
Blinder also asked what students might think about having a separate student court for each campus and a university wide "supreme court." The supreme court, he says, would have limited abilities and strict guidelines when dealing with appeals. The individual student courts might be set up as having one judge and a student jury to hear court cases.
Hopefully, this discussion will stay constructive, but it probably won't.
Blinder also asked what students might think about having a separate student court for each campus and a university wide "supreme court." The supreme court, he says, would have limited abilities and strict guidelines when dealing with appeals. The individual student courts might be set up as having one judge and a student jury to hear court cases.
Hopefully, this discussion will stay constructive, but it probably won't.
posted by J.P. at
5:10 PM
7 Comments:
A.) Student Bill of Rights
I propose a bill of rights similar to that proposed by Students for Academic Freedom ( http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/ ) :
The Student Bill of Rights
I. The Mission of the University.
The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls. These purposes reflect the values -- pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness and fairness -- that are the cornerstones of American society.
II. Academic Freedom
1. The Concept. Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university. From its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth, that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge, and that no party or intellectual faction has a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. In the words of the General Report, it is vital to protect "as the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results."
Because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well. In a historic 1967 decision (Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: "Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned." In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) the Court observed that the "essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident."
2. The Practice. Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself. This means that no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors, researchers and students through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through the grading system or through the control of the classroom or any other administrative means. Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget.
From its very first statement on academic freedom, the university community has recognized the vulnerability of students in particular to political and ideological abuses of the university as an institution. The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own."
In The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declared: "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." In a 1970 clarification and re-endorsement of this principle, the AAUP said: "The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is 'controversial.' Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry, which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject." ("1970 Interpretative Comments," endorsed by the 56th annual association meeting as association policy.)
In 1967, the AAUP's Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students affirmed the inseparability of "the freedom to teach and freedom to learn." In the words of the report, "Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion."
Professors are hired to teach all students, not just students who share their political, religious and philosophical beliefs. It is essential therefore, that professors and lecturers not force their opinions about philosophy, politics and other contestable issues on students in the classroom and in all academic environments. This is a cardinal principle of academic freedom laid down by the American Association of University Professors.
In an academic environment professors are in a unique position of authority vis-à-vis their students. The use of academic incentives and disincentives to advance a partisan or sectarian view creates an environment of indoctrination which is unprofessional and contrary to the educational mission. It is a violation of students' academic freedom. The creation of closed, political fiefdoms in colleges, programs or departments, is the opposite of academic freedom, and does not deserve public subsidy or private educational support.
Therefore, to ensure the integrity of the educational process and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity, the following principles and procedures shall be observed. These principles fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom. Private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.
1. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
2. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.
3. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
4. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
5. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
6. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.
B) Student Courts
As to the establishment of student courts requiring jury duty I can't see how we could force students to participate.
"Hopefully, this discussion will stay constructive, but it probably won't."
after big paste= constructive!
mike, your student bill of rights looks like given ones under various harassment lawsuits. (i skimmed through) "As to the establishment of student courts requiring jury duty I can't see how we could force students to participate." i was about to post that.
Blinder, personally i do not see a point to the judicial branch in sga. Only reason its there is to finish the "check and balance".(why are we modeling off the U.S.A gov't again?) From previous court record, we have UP press editor case which was the only worthwell one. We had the election fiasco, and speaker's tuition waiver which didn't see a judge.
M, we must have a judicial branch according to Florida State Statutes.
Also, during the constitutional conventions we discussed in pain staking detail. The convention decided to have one University judicial system. We also decided not to have jurors. Why? Because it is impossible to get students to go to events. Do you really think you could get jurors?
As far as what Mike posted, I like that. However I'd like to see students' rights in accordance with SG and the administration as well.
the judicial budget pays students as jurors; end of story.
as for mike hallenstein, move the fuck on. nobody cares what you think.
I enjoy hearing the other side of arguments. Hallenstein has been in sga too long ,but has more experience in these matters. I wish he started his blog sooner not a month before he leaves. I would love to read a blog from mack.
Corruption in Student Government has caused the Deans of Student Affairs to threaten to take away the freedoms that SGA enjoyed here for years. This is sad. But the better question to ask is why is it happening. Why are students not the "final check" anymore.
Answer: Because of the past actions of a small number of egomaniacs, and I am not just talking about Kirk Murray. He was a figurehead and couldn't have done the book-voucher scam on his own. These posionous people are still in SGA and they can't stand loosing their power. They are fighting to keep their power and veiling it under the guise of student's rights.
Hallenstein is right, our bill of rights should mirror this document. But until the ugliness is totally purged from SG our Bill of Rights can never be written precisely this way. Unfortunately, what is at prima-facia supposed to be a logical choice to the question of what's best for the students turns into its opposite. I hope that these poisonous people have a heart and recognize this before its too late. Do something for the students that won't benefit you for once.
*Jury Duty is a really unrealistic idea. Idealistic not realistic.
An active and INDEPENDENT student court would have prevented most of the crap that went on.
The problem was they dont pay the associate justices. When you consider that sga has a budget of 6 million bucks, spending $10-15000 a year for a fully active and properly run student court is a BARGAIN.
If you have one justice sit as the court on each campus that person should be paid and regularly review campus legislation for legal problems/improprieties. Then the court meets as a whole to review Senate/SG president actions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home