Editor,
The University of New Mexico has long subscribed to the principles of academic freedom. However, the controversy over the remarks allegedly made in class by UNM Professor Richard Berthold on Sept. 11 suggests that those principles are imperfectly understood in many quarters.
Because no one has done more to define and defend the concept of academic freedom than the American Association of University Professors, the Executive Committee of the UNM Chapter of the AAUP would like to offer the following clarifications. They are based upon the 2001 edition of the AAUP publication, "Policy Documents and Reports."
According to the U. S. Supreme Court, academic freedom is "a special concern of the First Amendment." The Court has said, "Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned." Like the First Amendment, academic freedom entails both rights and responsibilities.
Academic freedom protects the right of teachers to conduct research, publish results and discuss their subject in the classroom, without institutional censorship or discipline. Academic freedom also protects the right of teachers, as citizens, to speak or write on controversial public issues, without institutional interference or reprisal.
The fundamental rationale of these freedoms is that they are essential to the ongoing search for truth and knowledge, upon which the life of the university and the common good of society depends.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
What responsibilities accompany the right of teachers to speak freely in the classroom and in public?
In the classroom, according to AAUP policies, teachers should not persistently introduce controversial matter that has no relation to the course's subject. In public statements, teachers should take pains to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others and to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution. Teachers should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances.
If a teacher allegedly disregards these responsibilities, the president of a school may file charges against him or her, seeking dismissal or a lesser sanction. These charges must be "framed with reasonable particularity."
If a dispute of this sort cannot be otherwise mediated, it goes to a duly constituted faculty investigative committee. Dismissal or other severe sanctions cannot be imposed unless a committee of peers has conducted a formal hearing. At this hearing, the accused faculty member is entitled to due process, including the right to counsel, to an observer, to witnesses, cross-examination and a written transcript of the proceedings.
AAUP policies insist that dismissal of a teacher for contested utterances is justified only if the statements provide clear and compelling evidence of the teacher's unfitness for continuing service. The faculty member's entire record as a teacher and scholar must be taken into account.
UNM policies and procedures, as stated in the Faculty Handbook, are consistent with AAUP guidelines. In a resolution passed at its meeting of Oct. 2, the Faculty Senate reaffirmed its confidence in these procedures, and so far the administration has followed them scrupulously in the Berthold case.
One member of the Board of Regents has made public statements that appear to disregard these established procedures, but we are confident that the Board of Regents as a whole will continue to respect and uphold them. Not to do so would seriously damage UNM's national reputation.
Hugh Witemeyer, AAUP/UNM executive committee president and English professor; Beverly Burris, sociology professor; Colston Chandler, physics and astronomy professor; Dorothy Clough,
nursing professor; Harry Llull, library professor; Charles McClelland, history professor; Deborah McFarlane, political
science professor; James Thorson, English professor; Polly Turner, family studies professor
