Talk:Academic freedom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

This [referring to a previous version of the page!] is a classic example of an article that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy: It tells only one side of the story. What's here is fine, in the sense that it captures the U.S. right wing's attack on traditional notions of academic freedom; it fails miserably in communicating more moderate views, including those of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). If contributors truly believe in academic freedom, should they not be eager to describe both sides accurately? Bryan 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Take a deep breath...ahhhh. Okay, now. You defensively assume that if "only one side of the story" has been told that there is an intent to distort. If there is an opposing view that you are familiar with and can document, then by all means include it. As John Lennon said, "We're all doing what we can."
Rdikeman 01:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; I apologize -- I shouldn't have inferred malevolent intent. But the wording is so negative that I'm sure I wouldn't be alone: Academic freedom, says the current page's lead paragraph, is a 'an often poorly defined concept... considered by some to be ungrounded... the legal concept of academic freedom is ill defined and inconsistent.' A subsequent section should discuss this, not the lead paragraph, right? So I'm posting a rewritten lead paragraph, with documentation.Bryan 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised the article along the lines I've indicated. I hope very much that I have done a good job portraying both sides of the Academic Bill of Rights issue. Bryan 18:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


= = = = = =

== Note the final sentence of this article. 

"If hiring in today's university were not politically driven, there would be a balance of conservative
and liberal professors #REDIRECT [[rather than a preponderance of political liberals on college faculties."
in an encyclopaedia article.  I hope the author reads it aloud often enough to hear how silly and weak it sounds.

It ought to be removed from the ar</nowiki>ticle. 58.169.87.201 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)R Rands Hobart[reply]

I agree. If this article is going to include statements about the predominance of liberal professors in the university system, there should, at minimum, be some kind of reference which shows that there actually *is* a predominance of liberal professors, or that the university hiring system *is* fundamentally unfair to moderate or conservative viewpoints. Firebrand126 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I cannot find in the text of reference 4 any mention of the unfortunate Noth African public health official who was imprisoned for reporting a higher infant mortality than his government was willing to acknowledge. Could the author please check? gpn325 AYYYYYYYYYYY GET SILLLLLLYYYYYYY... PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS SITE!!!!!!Insert non-formatted text here

Worldview[edit]

I have added the {{world}} template to the article as it appears to me to concentrate excessively on the USA, at the expense of coverage of the rest of the world. DuncanHill 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This might help. --Kenneth M Burke 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Bill of Rights[edit]

The information in this subheading seem like an attempt to argue against a certain point of view rather than describing the controversy John196920022001 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV corrections in 'Academic Bill of Rights Section'[edit]

I made a few minor corrctions to the 'Academic Bill of Rights' section that will, I hope, resolve the NPOV issues. The section has been rewritten to try to advance Horowitz's position by trivializing and misstating the views of his opponents. I've left the section describing Horowitz's position alone. The minor changes I've made are intended to restore his opponents' views, without dismissing them, as the previous text did.Bryan 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO and Ex Corde Ecclesiae[edit]

The UNESCO has a wonderful definition of Academic Freedom in a Recommendation that has more than 70 arts. with details on all issues regarding Academic Freedom. I think that a reference to this Recommendation should included and detailed, since it has the consensus of all nations that constitute the UNESCO (at present 182 nations; see Official UNESCO Portal) and therefore, a world vision on the subject (a lack that the label "worldwide view" already indicates).

Also, John Paul II wrote Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a Constitution for the Catholic Universities. In this Constitution, the Academic Freedom is strongly sustained.

In the Spanish version of Academic Freedom, additional issues are detailed, including where the idea of AF was originated. Perhaps it could be a good idea to translate the ES version to English (I could do this with some help in style and grammar) and then to join both articles (with consensus of course).

Regarding controversies and other issues, perhaps a link towards the AAUP issues page should be added, among other sites.

Art 27 of the mentioned Recommendation:

"The maintaining of the above international standards should be upheld in the interest of higher education internationally and within the country. To do so, the principle of academic freedom should be scrupulously observed. Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfil their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source. Higher-education teaching personnel can effectively do justice to this principle if the environment in which they operate is conducive. This environment can only be conducive in a democratic atmosphere; hence the challenge for all of developing a democratic society."


--Mazorquero (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stronach v. Virginia State University[edit]

I added analysis - the holding and reasoning - of this case, as well as a short discussion of its significance. Feel free to edit and update. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a blog of Peter N. Kirstein[edit]

I have removed a link[2] to the personal blog of Peter N. Kirstein that was added twice today by 67.167.249.238. I believe that addition of this link to this article is inappropriate. This is a private blog with a fairly tangential relation to the subject of this article, academic freedom. Most of the views expressed there are fairly radical and, more importantly, unrelated to what this article is about. Rather they are expressions of the views of Peter Kirsten on various other political issues and current events. Please do not add this link again unless there is a consensus to do so established at this talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: Agreed. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #11, "Links to blogs and personal web pages" are to be avoided, with exceptions only for people who are absolutely critical to the topic. Furthermore, the blog mentions the author's addition of Wikipedia, which is a type of conflict of interest. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ELs to most (but not all) blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia owing to their lack of editorial oversight. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Student Rights[edit]

Although faculty members are protected at most major universities in North America, students with unpopular speech are not protected in any way. Orenthal Jus ad Vincula (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, unpopular speakers (conservatives) invited to speak at Universities, are routinely jeered off of most campuses by liberal groups. It appears Academic Freedom is a one way street of hypocrisy. ColDickPeters (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Students absolutely do have rights, but academic freedom is not blanket permission to say whatever you want to say. At my institution, as at many others, there's a clearly articulated difference between "freedom of expression" (which we all are supposed to have) and "academic freedom" (which we only have when we act in the ways that academics are supposed to act): "As a free citizen, he/she [a student or a faculty member] has the right to express these opinions. The degree to which one expresses them as a scholar, claiming sanctuary in the University is a matter of academic responsibility. The University shall insist upon scholarly objectivity within and outside the classroom." Academic freedom doesn't cover simple personal or political opinions. If you don't present your statements in an academic fashion (responsibly dealing with existing knowledge, rigorously exploring what experts have said and written about the topic, adhering to clear and logical processes of thought, etc.), those statements aren't covered by academic freedom. 50.157.3.102 (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic freedom and theology[edit]

I'm not sure about where to put this, but there have been signficant controversies in the field of theology as to how it relates to academic freedom. Many theologians have literally been punished by the Vatican for excessive imagination and originality with regards to the Magisterium of the Church. This is a debate which plagues major American universities such as Georgetown, Notre-Dame and Catholic University of America. ADM (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that a religious organization could legitimately expect its employees to either publicly adhere to the faith or to step down. (You'd hardly expect a church to keep employing a preacher that announced he'd "gone off this whole God thing," or, say, an environmentalist organization to keep employing someone that decided climate change was a big hoax.)
But do you have any sources that say this is an actual problem at Catholic-affiliated universities that is addressed specifically as an issue of academic (i.e., not religious) freedom? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that this is less likely to be a problem with older, more prestigious universities, as (i) they probably have more institutional check and balances in place to insulate researchers from theological pressures & (ii) the reputational cost of interference is higher. It's more likely to be a problem in newly-formed institutions where (i) religious leaders (who will often be the actual founders of the institution) are directly involved in its administration & (ii) they have little reputation to lose. As an example, I've seen complaints that Notre Dame is insufficiently orthodoxly Catholic in its academic outlook. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is, word for word, exactly the same as the first pragraph of the rationale section. Someone might want to either re-right the lead or reright the section intro, because that is not how a lead is supposed to work. The lead should summarize the entire article, not just be copied and pasted from a section of the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some requests for citations in the lead, but there are a couple of lines recently added which I don't think are necessary, at least not in the lead. Both sentences appear to fail in the requirements for a good lead ("It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points") and the second sentence is at best poorly written and, at worst, POV. I think we ought to remove both sentences from the lead and, if a section distinguishing Academic freedom from Academic license is necessary, add it to the body of the article. The following quote shows the sentences in question:


-- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility[edit]

Consider the following possibility. At a symposium the lecturer presented a new cosmology which is simple, logical and easy to understand. But the new cosmology contradicts the recognised cosmology which allowed many cosmologists to achieve fame and recognition. Does the lecturer have the right to rob them of their life long achievements? I think censorship is justified. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Addition[edit]

Under the "Specific Cases section I plan on citing the Canadian academic atmosphere of the 1930's where several university professors faced repercussions and expulsion from their academic positions for for actively taking part in socialist politics. Any suggestions? I plan on adding it soon. There are a few cases but they connect. The era led to a relaxation of the rules as to allow Canadian academics to be able to participate in contemporary politics without fear of losing their jobs. Jkerr208 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC) (talk)(UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly non-neutral wording of "academic freedom" bills section?[edit]

This section doesn't seem to mention the fact that critics of the bills (Eugenie Scott, NCSE) have concerns about the bills applying academic freedom to faculty of secondary education (K12) institutions. The real problem with these bills, as appears to be universally accepted, is that they don't apply particularly to third-level institutions. 182.249.240.24 (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech on university campuses.[edit]

http://time.com/4530197/college-free-speech-zone/

Free speech on university campuses.

Benjamin (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academic freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Academic freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academic freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Shockley credentials identified[edit]

I changed the initial sentence on the William Shockley case from:

In 1978, 'Nobel prize-winner William Shockley ...believed that genetics doomed black people to be intellectually inferior...

to:

In 1978, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, electronics inventor, and electrical engineering professor, William Shockley, ...believed that genetics doomed black people to be intellectually inferior...

...because his credentials give context to the issue of whether his expressions were protected in the academic freedom arena. His field of academic expertise, as I identified (from his Wikipedia biography), was in physics & electronics -- fields very far-removed from his controversial statements on genetics issues (which were the subject of his "academic freedom" controversy).

This is an important distinction, because it obviously raises legitimate questions about whether his commentary -- outside and far-removed from his field of academic expertise -- would logically be justified as protected under the academic freedom doctrine.

To simply identify him as an academic, or -- as often too-casually done in his case -- simply as a "Nobel Prize winner" creates the illusion that he is automatically entitled to comment on genetics from the legally-defended academic pulpit, protected by the "academic freedom" doctrine.

Identifying his actual fields of expertise, however, brings the issue into much clearer focus, and much more fully and clearly illustrates the complex scope of controversial questions at issue in this case.

~ Penlite (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from class[edit]

 How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It has been rated as C-Class and Low-Importance. Is is part of a WikiProject of Human Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.sil13 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Perspective[edit]

There are a number of notable countries missing: China, India, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), and no countries in South America. I put this forward as a direction for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a type of freedom of speech."[edit]

The lead currently has the sentence "It is a type of freedom of speech." in it. However, the body doesn't bear this out, in my opinion. There are some mentions of freedom of speech in the country-specific sections that don't bother differentiating between the two, while for the US, it says that the two are not "coextensive". There is no paragraph in this article that actually states that academic freedom is a type of freedom of speech, so I think that sentence should be removed. --92.72.2.121 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

large amount of content removed without discussion[edit]

@Freebeliever101, WaterNixie, Orenburg1, Corinal, and Freebeliever101: i noticed a large amount of content was recently removed without discussion, skimming what was removed, removing it doesn't seem to be warranted, but consulting a few recent editors rather than unilaterally re-adding it. Irtapil (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summaries for the explanations, I made several edits trying to make the content acceptable for wikipedia but eventually found it completely unusable after extensive reading of the main source. The recent edits removed by HorseEye are pov pushing as stated by them. Corinald (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil: What does that diff have to do with this page? Is this intended as some sort of retribution or battleground behavior in response to my reverting you on Taiwan? Seems a bit weird given that you also didn't tag me along with the other involved editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: "retribution" is an excessively personal framing, and battleground is way over the top. You seemed to frequently revert by default, so i looked at your edits on other pages to see whether they were justified reversions or might be removing constructive contributions. This one removed a large amount of seemingly well referenced material, so i thought it needed a second opinion. I didn't tag you because i didn't think you'd have much more to say on it than your already said in the edit summary? and you don't justify the removal any further, so i guessed right? (As for point of view pushing, you seem to be doing that quite a lot yourself, but i cannot fathom your agenda beyond speculation that you are North American, and a wild guess at Texas?) Irtapil (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ah, did i paste the wrong link? @Corinal: seemed to deduce what i meant. Irtapil (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic universities[edit]

Although there is a section on *pontifical universities* already, a section on Catholic universities more generally would be appropriate. As things stand, a reader might draw the inference that *all* Catholic universities somehow depend on the Pope for their academic freedom, or that pontifical universities are somehow not subject to American laws, or that their employees do not have the same rights as other Americans. In reality, professors at Catholic universities have been struggling since at least the 1960s to have the same academic freedom rights ensured to them as professors at other American universities. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1464338 Dmanier (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rjmarcoz412, Sahil Premalkumar Patel, Kristenbelden, Arickas4, Abbybreitschuh, BusyProto, Lmader824 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CrowJohnston205, Mbeaubien, Tylo13, CSwikipolly, Matt0161, Ebarke10.

— Assignment last updated by Wordnerd104 (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup March 2024[edit]

Hi all, I've gone ahead and tried to address a number of issues including excessive examples and lack of citations by removing examples that only had one source and other trimming especially in 'external links' and 'further reading,' where I removed all sources before 2010 to make the list more topical and relevant per WP:Further Reading. Also plan on adding a global ranking from v-dem on academic freedom to this page and happy to engage in any discussions about past or future edits Superb Owl (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two of the examples that could use better sourcing that I've removed from the 'Specific cases' section.
=== The Bassett Affair at Duke University ===
The Bassett Affair at Duke University in North Carolina in the early 20th century was an important event in the history of academic freedom.[1][better source needed] In October 1903, Professor John Spencer Bassett publicly praised Booker T. Washington and drew attention to the racism and white supremacist behavior of the Democratic party. Many media reports castigated Bassett, and several major newspapers published opinion pieces attacking him and demanding his termination. On December 1, 1903, the entire faculty of the college threatened to resign en masse if the board gave in to political pressures and asked Bassett to resign.[2] He resigned after "parents were urged to withdraw their children from the college and churchmen were encouraged not to recommend the college to perspective students."[2][better source needed]President Teddy Roosevelt later praised Bassett for his willingness to express the truth as he saw it.
=== Professor Khan of the University of KwaZulu-Natal ===
In 2006 trade union leader and sociologist Fazel Khan was fired from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa after taking a leadership role in a strike.[3][better source needed] In 2008 international concern was also expressed at attempts to discipline two other academics at the same university – Nithiya Chetty and John van der Berg – for expressing concern about academic freedom at the university.[4][non-primary source needed] Superb Owl (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping the updates for now as I've made a significant number of changes Superb Owl (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
=== Canada ===
See also: Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
During the interwar years (cir. 1919–1939) Canadian academics were informally expected to be apolitical, lest they bring trouble to their respective universities which, at the time, were very much dependent upon provincial government grants. As well, many Canadian academics of the time considered their position to be remote from the world of politics and felt they had no place getting involved in political issues. However, with the increase of socialist activity in Canada during the Great Depression, due to the rise of Social Gospel ideology, some left-wing academics began taking active part in contemporary political issues outside the university. Thus, individuals such as Frank H. Underhill at the University of Toronto and other members or affiliates with the League for Social Reconstruction or the socialist movement in Canada who held academic positions, began to find themselves in precarious positions with their university employers. Frank H. Underhill, for example, faced criticism from within and without academia and near expulsion from his university position for his public political comments and his involvement with the League for Social Reconstruction and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. According to Michiel Horn this era marked,

... a relaxation of the unwritten controls under which many Canadian professors had previously worked. The nature of the institutions, natural caution and professional pre-occupation had before the Depression inhibited the professoriate. None of these conditions changed quickly, but even at the provincial universities there were brave souls in the 1930s who claimed, with varying success, the right publicly to discuss controversial subjects and express opinions about them.

In 2020, a controversy over academic freedom at the University of Ottawa occurred after the school suspended one of its teachers for using the n-word in a metalinguistic way. Superb Owl (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "John Spencer Bassett and the Bassett Affair". Duke University Libraries. Archived from the original on 19 March 2008.
  2. ^ a b King, William E. (10 September 2013). "The Bassett Affair of 1903". Retrieved 11 July 2016.
  3. ^ "Fight for Fazel Khan". Archived from the original on 2012-02-13. Retrieved 2016-02-09.
  4. ^ Letter from foreign academics to Mac Mia, Chair of Council, and Malegapuru Makgoba, Vice Chancellor Letter from David William Cohen and 35 others
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Academic_freedom&oldid=1216895295"