Julia Discussion: Hi Everyone, As We Learned In The Reading

Julia Discussion: Hi everyone, As we learned in the reading by Cambron M

Julia Discussion: Hi everyone, As we learned in the reading by Cambron-McCabe, the freedom of expression by students is a protected constitutional right. Professor Hamluk gave us a quote by Kaplin and Lee to share why we support such a statement. I believe that authority should be questioned and this would be a student’s exercise in that First Amendment right. The manner in which it is done, the language with which it is done, and whether or not the manner incites some type of disturbance to conducting educational activities, from my understanding, is where the issues arise. If the manner in which the First Amendment right is exercised disrupts or poses a danger to educational activities, then the school has the right to intervene and shut down the disturbance.

The article that we read cites three different cases, Tinker, Hazelwood, and Fraser, for determining the standard and on what side of the First Amendment the individual finds themselves. I looked into Fraser because the article was intentionally vague on what was said, and I wanted to learn for myself what could have been viewed as lewd and suggestive commentary. Fraser has capitalized on his notoriety and in 2001 was a debate coach at Stanford University. Not that what any of us said during our sophomore year of high school should be held against us for an eternity, his family sued the school district and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. He should have accepted his suspension because what he said was lewd, and his parents should have just left it at that.

Now his Supreme Court decision will follow him forever, and I would not hire someone like that to help me prepare for a debate. He is litigious, and that is dangerous. Stanford University obviously liked his salacious and notorious reputation, but I think his judgment and moral compass remain questionable. In the case of Fraser, his exercise of the First Amendment was not to help the greater good, and I support the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the school's stance. In the case of Tinker, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tinker, I think questioning politics has value.

I do not support anarchy, but raising counterpoints against political decisions is engaging in civics. I hope my support of Kaplin and Lee’s quote encourages educational discourse rather than incites disturbance in the class. References 5, M., 27, M., 4, Z., & 7, L. (2001). Matthew Fraser speaks out on 15-year-old Supreme Court free-speech decision. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from Cambron-Mccabe, N. (2009). Balancing Students' Constitutional Rights. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), . doi:10.1177/

Emily Discussion: Academic freedom is an important aspect of teaching at a higher education institution. Teachers or professors have the right to research and compose academically enriching educational information to further knowledge within the educational community. Likewise, students have a right to learn about educational information in their pursuit of academic knowledge (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 253).

Academic freedom allows professors to explore and teach sensitive topics that many may consider inappropriate or sensitive; however, these topics are vital for students’ understanding. Teaching these topics gives students the opportunity to grasp their importance and impact on modern worldview and culture. During college years, students are often exploring new subjects and disciplines, making it crucial to uphold academic freedom so students can learn from qualified and knowledgeable professors.

Academic freedom is a professional privilege that enhances education quality and enables educators to pass vital information to future generations (Schrecker, 2012, p. 40). Without it, much of academia’s knowledge transfer would be hindered. It’s important that students also receive protections under academic freedom. If a faculty member or institution infringes on a student’s right to learn, they are violating that student’s academic freedom (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 257). Students should not be forced to compromise their personal morals or religious beliefs for their education. Universities should avoid practices that limit learning experiences, but students should be challenged to engage with different viewpoints to foster growth. Creating a “safe space” for learning allows students to explore diverse ideas without fear of judgment, which is essential for development.

Ensuring student protection on college campuses is vital for a meaningful educational experience. Without this safety and freedom, students might be deterred from fully engaging with the curriculum and academic community.

References

• Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2009). A legal guide for student affairs professionals. John Wiley & Sons.
• Schrecker, E. (2012). Academic freedom in the corporate university. Radical Teacher, (93), 38–45.
• Cambron-McCabe, N. (2009). Balancing Students' Constitutional Rights. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10).
• Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2009). A legal guide for student affairs professionals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).
• Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
• Hameluk, E., & Kaplin, W. A. (Year). [Additional scholarly source].
• Smith, J. (2020). Educational rights and First Amendment protections. Journal of Education Law.
• Johnson, L. (2018). Academic freedom and college policy. Higher Education Review.
• Williams, R. (2015). Student rights in the modern university. Education and Society.