Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom at a Private Religious University

Scholars Crossing Scholars Crossing

Faculty Publications and Presentations School of Education

2011

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom at a Private Religious Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom at a Private Religious

University University

James A. Swezey

Liberty University

, jaswezey@liberty.edu

T. Christopher Ross

Regent University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/educ_fac_pubs

Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Higher Education

and Teaching Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Swezey, James A. "Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom at a Private Religious University" (2011).

Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 224. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/educ_fac_pubs/

224. Reprinted from ICCTE Journal 6(1): http://icctejournal.org/issues/v6i1/v6i1-swezey-ross/.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education at Scholars Crossing. It has been

accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars

Crossing. For more information, please contact scholarlycommunications@liberty.edu.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom at a Private Religious University

James A. Swezey, Regent University

T. Christopher Ross, Regent University

Swezey, J. A., & Ross, T. C. (2011). Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a private

religious university. ICCTE Journal, 6(1). Retrieved from

http://icctejournal.org/issues/v6i1/v6i1-swezey-ross/

Abstract

Academic freedom is viewed by many in higher education as an indispensable foundational

principle offering protection to university faculty. University faculty working within schools of

education rely on the protection of academic freedom to pursue and develop new knowledge,

frameworks, and pedagogies with which they can train and equip the next generation of

classroom teachers and school administrators. Private religious universities have been a part of

the American education landscape since the founding of Harvard University, yet the perception

exists that faculty at religious universities are de facto inhibited by the religious commitment of

many of these institutions. This study examines the concept of academic freedom as viewed by

18 senior faculty at Regent University, a private religious institution. Findings demonstrate

faculty generally support an institutional perspective of academic freedom and express a high

level of comfort with limited restrictions on academic freedom in light of the university’s

religious mission. Implications exist for all faculty, especially those at religious institutions.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom at a Private Religious University

America maintains a rich tradition of universities founded upon religious tenets,

beginning with the venerable Harvard in 1636. While institutions like Harvard, the College of

William and Mary, and Yale long ago abandoned their religious missions (Edington, 2006;

Marsden, 1994), new universities arose to take their places. These new institutions purposely

established missions designed to perpetuate the religious traditions of their founders. Regent

University now carries this explicitly religious tradition forward as indicated by its motto:

Christian leadership to change the world. The university mission is “to serve as a leading center

of Christian thought and action providing an excellent education from a biblical perspective and

global context in pivotal professions to equip Christian leaders to change the world” (Regent

University, 2010b). In order to fulfill its mission, Regent seeks to establish an environment

conducive to the expansion of knowledge and truth, which necessitates a high degree of

academic freedom. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into the perceptions of academic

freedom among senior faculty at a religious university.

Theoretical Framework

The concept of academic freedom in the American academy was definitively influenced

by German scholarship. Hofstadter and Metzger (1955) relate that two paradigmatic concepts

entered U.S. academia after the Civil War and have continued to the present. First is lernfreiheit,

which granted faculty complete latitude and discretion in the teaching of their students, sans

administrative intrusion, and a student’s freedom to study what and where he chose. The second

is lehrfreiheit, the freedom of the researcher to take any direction the research seemed to

indicate, without external authoritative restraints.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

At first blush, it may seem that Christian scholars at religious institutions do not

definitionally have this kind of freedom. Diekema (2000) distinguishes between individual

academic freedom and institutional academic freedom while recognizing that both are necessary

for professors to gather and transmit knowledge. Christian scholarship is generally conceived as

academic freedom within the bounds of a broad Christian responsibility. For example, Jacobsen

and Jacobsen (2004) posit academic research as an attempt to “seek truth in order to more

intelligently love the world and every person in it” (p. 159). And Cavanaugh (2004) echoes the

communal aspect of academic freedom when he positions commitment to one another in Christ

as part of the Christian scholar’s understanding of academic freedom.

Indeed, Notre Dame historian, George Marsden (1994), relates that historically

universities conjoined an individual sense of academic freedom with the institutional or

community sense of academic freedom, which some religious universities have attempted to

maintain. Marsden traces the individual and community senses of academic freedom all the way

back to the birth of the university movement in medieval times. Russell (1993) agreed with this

assessment when he noted that academic freedom in Christian universities maintains historical

roots “in an intellectual tradition created to defend the autonomy of the medieval Church” (p. 1)

from interference from the State regarding matters of spiritual principles. While the German

understanding of academic freedom has been dominant in U.S. academe, possibly as an

outgrowth of the Enlightenment, the Christian community sense of academic freedom is bound

into the fabric of the university itself. Thus Habecker (1991) can assert that “academic freedom

must be subordinate to the over-arching mission of the organization” (p. 177).

Ream and Glanzer (2007) submit that “differences in definition concerning academic

freedom are at times more about human nature than about academic freedom” (p. 86). They

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

explain that Reinhold Neibuhr’s three views of humanity—(a) classical Greco-Roman

(continuous self-conflict); (b) Christian, in which one’s identity and freedom are dependent upon

God; and (c) modern, which emphasizes humanity versus world and inevitable progress—have

shaped the discussion on academic freedom, with the latter two beliefs becoming paradigmatic

for today’s discussion. Thus, Christian scholars operate within the understanding that they

belong to their brothers and sisters in Christ, and that God grounds humanity and grants

completeness.

Literature Review

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is a complex term that eludes concise definition. Poch (1993)

describes its use in American universities as “the intellectual liberties required to explore,

expound, and further knowledge” (p. 3). O’Neil (1997) expands on this conceptualization when

he writes, “Academic freedom treats classroom speech as the core of protected expression for

reasons that reflect the academy’s unique pursuit of truth and understanding” (p. ix). In fact he

explains these freedoms may extend beyond the classroom to include “what a professor says

outside the classroom and to the speech of other members of the academic community…” (p. ix).

Post (2006) presents a more constrained view of the subject primarily within a social institutional

context when he writes,

Rights of academic freedom are … designed to facilitate the professional self-regulation

of the professoriate, so that academic freedom safeguards interests that are constituted by

the perspective and horizon of the corporate body of the faculty. The function of

academic freedom is not to liberate individual professors from all forms of institutional

regulation, but to ensure that faculty within the university are free to engage in the

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching that are necessary for the

realization of the social purposes of the university. (p. 64)

In his description of the Academic Freedom amendment to the British Education Reform Bill of

1988, Russell (1993) describes a more traditional view of academic freedom as

…the freedom for academics within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to

put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing

themselves in jeopardy. It is the freedom to follow a line of research where it leads,

regardless of the consequences, and the corresponding freedom to teach the truth as we

see it…. (p. 18)

Academic Freedom and Religious Institutions

Academic freedom has always been held in tension within religious institutions. It is a

topic of frequent coverage among journalists who write about higher education. Recent examples

include controversies at Catholic universities over the hiring (or not) of openly homosexual

administrators (Jaschik, 2010a) and the Canadian Association of University Teacher’s effort to

create a list of institutions that require statements of faith based on the association’s belief that

such organizations do not deserve to be called universities (Jaschik, 2010b). Poch (1993) notes,

“Medieval professors had opportunities to explore and contribute to new realms of knowledge as

long as they did not trespass on the doctrinal authority of the church” (p. 3). To this end,

academic freedom at religious universities is often predicated upon theological language.

Regent’s statement of academic freedom is no exception:

We regard academic freedom as a sacred trust and God-given responsibility that

encourages the scholarly pursuit of truth in each academic discipline to which God has

called us. The foundation of academic freedom is the belief that God is the author of all

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

truth. All faculty are encouraged to seek wisdom and understanding, acquire knowledge

and teach others. Therefore, faculty need not fear where their pursuit of knowledge and

wisdom may lead, but rather be guided by the fear of the Lord. (Regent University,

2010a)

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), established in 1915,

operates in order to “advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental

professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's

contribution to the common good” (AAUP, 2009). The AAUP was instrumental in bringing

about the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Item two of the

statement clearly recognizes the liberty of religious universities to establish qualifications on

academic freedom: “Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the

institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment” (AAUP, 1940, ¶ 7)

The Statement was reinterpreted as follows in 1970: “Most church-related institutions no longer

need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940

Statement, and we do not now endorse such a departure” (AAUP, 1970, Item 3).

However, Ream and Glanzer (2007) posit that academic freedom cannot be separated

from metaphysical beliefs (religious or otherwise), especially those related to the nature of

humanity. According to them, liberal education is based on the view that a religious institution’s

metaphysics should not intrude on academic research. But Wagner (2006) writes that evangelical

universities that require faculty to sign statements of faith as a condition of employment gravely

limit academic freedom in the academy. He goes so far as to impeach the very purpose of these

institutions when he writes that “rigid orthodoxy does not go well with the quest for knowledge”

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

(p. 21). Yet Wagner fails to perceive that public institutions operate within their own

metaphysical worldview and constrain academic freedom when faculty deviate from the cultural

norms of the institution, whether conservative or liberal. This apparent hypocrisy is a common

complaint among Christian scholars who work at public institutions.

The point remains that for religious universities, statements of faith are a critical way to

distinguish the unique missions of private religious universities from their secular counterparts at

public universities. Ream and Glanzer (2007) note that secularization is “institutionalized in

colleges and universities through a host of concrete institutional practices, not merely through

intellectual means” (p. 65). While noting that faith statements are often criticized, they

nonetheless make the case that “maintaining the particular theological heritage and traditions of a

religious college often starts with requiring a faculty member to affirm the particular mission and

identity of the institution” (p. 75). This affirmation often takes the form of agreement or

alignment with the institution’s statement of faith.

Wagner (2006) makes a vacuous argument against faith statements when he concludes

that popular faculty with high evaluation marks are sometimes wrongly dismissed for violating

the faith statements to which they agreed to adhere. Yet, he fails to note that examples abound of

tenured faculty members at public universities disciplined and even fired despite their claims of

academic freedom. The most recent case to be popularized in the media is that of Ward Churchill

who recently had a jury award vacated by a judge. Faculty can run into trouble even at private

religious universities where there is no requirement to sign faith statements. Norman Finkelstein

was denied tenure and fired from DePaul University for expressing what his detractors

considered anti-Israel views. In the case of the professors fired at Cedarville University, the

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

underlying issue was not theological, but rather collegiality. The fault in many situations doesn’t

lie in the faith statement, but rather the faculty member’s unwillingness to adhere to the

statement. Wagner also weakly argues that recent doctoral graduates are compelled by market

forces to accept teaching positions at institutions whose religious views do not approximate their

own. In order to make this argument, Wagner must embrace an exclusively individualistic

definition of academic freedom, thus denying religious institutions the right to determine their

identity and mission.

Academic Freedom and the Courts

Kors and Silvergate (1998), citing Alstyne’s article “Academic Freedom and the First

Amendment in the Supreme Court of the United States”, identify Adler v. Board of Education

(1952) as the first time the phrase academic freedom was used by the courts. It occurred in a

dissenting opinion regarding the New York Board of Regent’s regulation excluding from public

school employment those persons who belonged to groups that supported the use of force or

violence in the overthrow of the federal government. Strum (2006) points to the U.S. Supreme

Court’s 1957 ruling in Sweezy v. New Hampshire as “the first time that there might be a

constitutionally protected right to academic freedom” (p. 147). Strum quotes Chief Justice Earl

Warren’s opinion for the Court: “We believe that there unquestionably was an invasion of the

petitioner’s liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression” (p. 147). In a

concurring opinion Justice Frankfurter delinked the protection from the individual and placed it

within the context of its benefit for society implying it may be an institutional right (Strum).

Based on this and other decisions, one of the most important clarifications needed in the

debate over academic freedom is the complex relationship between academic freedom and the

First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause (O’Neil, 1997; Poch, 1993). This is a critical

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

distinction because the Supreme Court has yet to extend full constitutional protection for

academic freedom. In fact, American courts have provided faculty a confusing series of

decisions as to what speech is protected. Most recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit ruled that complaints against university administration made by a professor regarding the

handling of an awarded grant were not protected free speech. The court ruled that he would only

merit protection if his speech had been made as a private citizen, not in the context of his role as

a public employee (Schmidt, 2009). In light of this and other recent cases, Schmidt reports, “The

American Association of University Professors has begun aggressively monitoring — and

looking to wade into — legal battles over faculty speech” (p. A1). The AAUP is concerned that

such rulings will prevent faculty members from speaking out on any issues related to the

university workplace. Compounding AAUP concerns about the Court’s actions (or in this case

inaction) is the chilling effect of 9/11 (Doumani, 2006) as new federal laws and regulations place

even greater restrictions. Schmidt concurs, writing,

The Supreme Court has held for more than half a century that the First Amendment's

restrictions of government infringement on speech protect academic freedom at public

education institutions. But it has left unanswered a host of key questions like what types

of activities “academic freedom” covers, or whether it affords individual faculty members

speech rights beyond those of other citizens. (¶ 18)

Another recent blow to academic freedom came in 2000 when the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Urofsky v. Gilmore that academic freedom applies to higher

education institutions and not to individual faculty members. Schmidt (2009) explains that

faculty at public institutions of higher education possess no speech rights beyond those of other

public employees.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

After reading more than 240 cases related to issues involving academic freedom, Standler

(2000) found that “the university nearly always wins” (¶ 2). Poch (1993) agrees: “Where as the

AAUP tends to emphasize the academic freedom of individuals, the courts – and particularly the

Supreme Court – tend to recognize institutional academic freedom” (p. 60). Standler also

identifies three primary legal barriers erected by the courts. The first is academic abstention

which he describes as judges’ refusals “to decide purely academic disputes” (¶ 2) in favor of

cases which raise issues related to constitutional rights. The second barrier is that untenured

faculty members are typically at-will employees and therefore not subject to protective

employment laws. The third is that most professors work at government-run universities and are

viewed as public employees. Since 1977 the Supreme Court has consistently restricted their right

to free speech. As recently as 2006, in one of its most important rulings, the Supreme Court

decided in Garcetti v. Ceballos that public agencies can discipline their employees for any

speech made in connection with their jobs.

Research Question

What are the perceptions of academic freedom expressed by senior faculty at Regent

University?

Subsidiary Questions

1. How do faculty define or describe academic freedom?

2. How do faculty perceive academic freedom differs between private religious and public

universities?

3. How do faculty perceive religious restrictions on their academic freedom?

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

Methods

Case study methodology served as basis of this research study. “Case study methods

involve systematically gathering enough information about a particular person, social setting,

event, or group to permit the researcher to effectively understand how the subject operates or

functions” (Berg, 2004, p. 251). McDowell (2002) states the quality of research “depends to a

significant extent on the availability, careful use, and proper documentation of source material”

(p. 54). Conducting research using participant interviews is complicated. Careful use of source

material is imperative. The semi-standardized interview structure described by Berg was used

during each interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data coded and analyzed using

the constant comparative procedure of open coding. Data was triangulated among participant

responses as categories emerged.

Setting

The examination of religious beliefs must take into consideration the impact of the

context or setting in which the phenomena occurred. Creswell (2005) describes setting as

“multilayered and interrelated, consisting of such factors as history, religion, politics, economy,

and the environment” (p. 447). The setting for this study was Regent University. Regent opened

its doors in rented classrooms offering graduate courses in communication in September 1978.

As enrollment increased the university added additional school divisions: School of Education

(1980); School of Business (1982); School of Divinity (1982); Robertson School of Government

(1983); School of Law (1986); School of Psychology and Counseling (1988); and Regent School

of Undergraduate Studies (2000). Regent’s Virginia Beach campus includes six major buildings

on 70 acres. The fully accredited university offers more than 70 degrees to its 5,300 residential

and distance education students. The faculty includes 166 full-time and 377 part-time or adjunct

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

professors with earned degrees from a variety of public and private universities (Regent

University, 2010c).

Regent University most often describes itself using the term “Christian” in promotional

materials. Occasionally, it will use the term “evangelical” to describe its approach to the

Christian faith from a more narrow perspective. Participants described Regent as diverse, even if

it is within a narrow band of Christian religious perspectives. They often noted that while faculty

are required to profess to be Christian and sign a statement of faith, they still view themselves as

a diverse group. They cite their racial, ethnic, cultural, and denominational differences as

evidence of their diversity.

Participants

Primary sources of evidence came through extensive interviews conducted with current

and former senior Regent faculty and administrators (n=18). Participant gender (male=16;

female=2) and race (Caucasian=18) reflected the white, male dominance of the professoriate

during Regent’s early history. Participants were identified from each of the seven graduate

schools: communication, education, business, divinity, government, law, and psychology and

counseling. Participants possessed terminal degrees (n=17) or master’s degrees (n=1) in their

fields of study.

All faculty served in a variety of capacities at the university including deanships, senior

administration, and one as a former Regent president. Interview participants identified

themselves as representing a variety of Christian faith traditions to include: Episcopal, Roman

Catholic, “Evangelical Catholic,” Methodist, Lutheran, Mennonite, Baptist, “Messianic Jewish,”

Greek Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Four Square, Church of God, and United Methodist.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

All participants were present at the founding of Regent or among the first employees in

their respective schools. Two participants interviewed were also alumni. Interviews were

conducted in person or via telephone, on the university campus, and one at a private residence.

Interviews varied in length from 30-77 minutes (mean=52) and totaled 15 hours 40 minutes. All

interviews will be recorded, transcribed, and maintained on file. Participants signed an informed

consent document stating that all interviews were being recorded, transcribed, and that

participants retained the right to terminate the interview at any time, have the opportunity to

review completed transcripts, and offered complete confidentiality for any statement recorded.

Findings

Academic Freedom Found in Scripture

In response to the primary research question, “What are the perceptions of academic

freedom expressed by senior faculty at Regent University?” the author of this study found a

diversity of views. Data analysis revealed three major categories of views related to academic

freedom. The first category is that true academic freedom exists only when a person is aligned

with the teaching of Scripture. A second category is that all institutions operate within a

gravitational tension between complete academic freedom on one end of the spectrum and

limitations, whether they are religious or political in nature, on the other. A final, unexpected,

perception of academic freedom linked the topic to the role of student as consumer and their

ability to make trouble for professors who students perceived to stray from perceived or real

institutional orthodoxy.

Academic Freedom Defined

The first subsidiary question was “How do faculty define or describe academic

freedom?” Just as there is no consensus in the literature regarding the definition and nature of

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

academic freedom, faculty expressed a variety of perceptions. One person explained his

understanding of academic freedom in terms that closely mirrored the university’s own

theological language.

You start from the premise that the Bible is the truth, unadulterated truth, the absolute

truth of God. Academic freedom – to be most free, not in bondage – would be rooted in

the Bible. Academic freedom is rooted in the biblical text. I would say that Christian

institutions have the highest opportunity for academic freedom because we are rooted in

the truth of the Word and the source of that truth. But if you perceive it as whatever one

wants to do in the classroom, or to write and publish about whatever you want – that is

analogous to saying you should have the right to do whatever you want – well that isn’t

freedom – that is bondage. We have the highest potential as long as we keep God, the

bible, etc. as preeminent in all that we do. We have the highest potential. It’s not

dichotomous at all!

Others revealed a variety views regarding their personal perceptions regarding academic

freedom. One person explained,

Well, to me, academic freedom is pretty much you can do and say what you want in your

own field of study as it relates to the issues. It’s clear and some professors think that the

definition gives them carte blanche to talk about anything. It doesn’t. If they went into

court they would lose.

Another person described academic freedom within the context of “the dominant political forces

of that campus: secular or not.” He continued, “So there is no objective [definition] of academic

freedom standard out there in my mind.” He staked out a self-described philosophical position

that academic freedom was subjectively defined by “what’s politically correct.”

Academic Freedom in Public and Private Religious Settings

In response to the second subsidiary question, “How do faculty perceive academic

freedom differs between private religious and public universities?” one participant claimed,

“Institutionally speaking, I think right now we have had more academic freedom than many

other universities. Of course whatever I teach should come from a context of being a Christian

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

faculty member.” Some even went so far as to claim Regent offered greater academic freedom

than public universities. One person in particular expressed indignation and went on at length:

I also hear this argument about academic freedom and all of the institutions that you

would believe are academically free; they are no more free than flying to the moon. [I

hear] about all the professors who were getting fired across the country. I watched the

politics that go on in most universities, and I hear story after story, about the crossfire of

academic politics. We have far more academic freedom than any professor at Harvard.

To be able to talk about – to open your Bible and read a verse to your students in class

and not have to say that I was just being poetic. This is the word of God and that you

actually believe and challenge them to think as a student; having a robust discussion

without penalty.

Another explained that many of the original faculty members hired at Regent applied to

teach there out of a desire to express their Christian faith within their discipline. He felt that

many found it difficult to do in public universities where openly expressing their faith was

viewed with cynicism or even hostility.

It takes a willingness to be a pioneer. We were all looking for a place to have the freedom

to have the real academic freedom to integrate their faith into their discipline. You can’t

do that at many schools. If you’re a Christian and they find out you’d be in trouble,

especially trying to bring it into the classroom. It never occurred to [my friend] and me

that we would fail. I look back now and it was pretty risky.

Perceptions of Religious Restrictions on Academic Freedom

In response to subsidiary question #3: “How do faculty perceive religious restrictions on

academic freedom?” participants generally expressed the view that Regent granted them

complete academic freedom. One person explained that in his 30 years at the university, he had

never seen an example of the suppression of academic freedom. As an example he cited the work

of a particular faculty member who wrote extensively on the subject of human sexuality and

sexual identity. He noted that many consider the topic controversial, but that he is free to write.

He explained how he thought that Christians above all others should be able to speak the truth

regarding sexual matters. He stated,

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

Christians need to be putting good research into controversial topics – gender identity,

addictions; those kinds of things. We don’t want to give it over to those people without a

faith base. I have never known of any lack of academic freedom since I have been here.

Another agreed when he claimed that academic freedom was “no problem.” He chuckled as he

claimed that he “always operated in it” and that he would write whatever he felt led to write

despite any perceived restrictions: “I would do it anyway. I say what I want to say and do it. I

have never had any repercussions for being transparent or integrous.”

Some went as far as to claim that personal integrity should dictate that those who

couldn’t abide by these limitations should resign their positions. One person elaborated,

If you cannot bring those back together [academic freedom and religious limitations]

anymore, then maybe it’s time for you to go. If you are a believing Christian, which you

should be, kind of have to be, then I don’t see any infringement on your academic

freedom.

Another explained,

I think it’s as good as any university. It’s not as free as some – that allow anything and

everything within tenure and academic freedom. You have to be in line with our spiritual

roots or else, legitimately you really don’t belong here. I think I have had all the

academic freedom I have ever wanted. Sometimes in our history I thought were a little

critical, but as a historian you have to tell the whole thing, good and the bad, but do it in

a good spirit. I don’t know of any cases of people being fired [over] academic freedom.

A second group fell short of asserting that they operated under complete academic

freedom because of the university’s religious identity and articulated a link between perceived

limits on academic freedom and Christian tenets, the religious mission of the school, and the

statement of faith. They moderated their views with statements such as “We have a lot here.”

This same person explained, “We have a good sense of where we are going in film. I will

guarantee you that there isn’t another Christian university that could show/produce some the

films and live performances we do here. It can be the little things.” He admitted that while they

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

operate with a sense of freedom, they do self-regulate certain material and content on moral

grounds.

An unexpected view on the topic emerged that linked perceived religious restrictions on

academic freedom primarily to students. Regent apparently attracts certain students who hold

strong views regarding issues such as the inerrancy of Scripture. One person explained that some

students were “gung-ho on the doctrine of inerrancy and found out that we weren’t that.”

Another person explained it this way:

I think we all feel somewhat restricted. I have taken heat over the years with students who

have ended up in the dean’s office. I teach principles of Bible study and dare to raise

questions, literary criticisms. It has made us a bit more skittish about it. I, for instance,

have been writing and thinking a lot in terms of open theism and I have to tone down

what I want to say. Some students complain to the dean if they felt that faculty said

certain things in the classroom.

Discussion and Conclusions

Although academic freedom is often a complex concept (Poch, 1993; Russell, 1993) and

difficult to define (Kaplin, 1985; Ream & Glanzer, 2007), it still serves as a cornerstone in the

world of higher education. Post (2006) reminds us that at less than 100 years ago academic

freedom was considered “subversive because it challenged the authority of university

administrators to unilaterally control the research and publication of faculty” (p. 61) and yet over

time it redefined “the employment relationship between professors and universities” (p. 62). The

complexity of the subject is further exasperated within the context of religious institutions. The

findings of the study affirm the theoretical framework offered at the beginning of this paper.

In response to the research question, interview participants provided detailed views of

their perceptions of academic freedom. They espoused a variety of positions related to academic

freedom that reflect both the German concept of lernfreiheit (giving faculty complete latitude

and discretion in the teaching of their students) and lehrfreiheit (freedom of the researcher to

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

take any direction the research seems to indicate, without external authoritative restraints). But

despite their generally positive perceptions of academic freedom, some participants expressed a

strong undercurrent of fear of reprisal for their comments. When discussing the issue of

confidentiality within the context of questions about certain university leaders, a few expressed

concern that their comments could cost them their jobs. In fact, one person emphatically stated

that the guarantee of confidentiality would dictate what types of responses were provided during

the interview.

In response to the first subsidiary question, participant definitions and descriptions reflect

both conventional individual and institutional perceptions of academic freedom. But the most

common theme was that of self-restraint and self-censorship stemming from personal religious

proclivities. At the heart of these internal discussions are various interpretations of Scripture and

the role of faith and learning integration.

The additional factor of institutional religious identity surely complicates implementation

and adjudication of academic freedom. In response to the second subsidiary question, some

participants clearly perceive noteworthy differences between private religious and public

universities regarding academic freedom. Interestingly, instead of focusing on perceived

limitations within Regent, they expressed their perception that public universities imposed even

greater limits on academic freedom. They cited examples of the suppression of religious speech

and political correctness. They were grateful that they could explore their academic disciplines

within the context of their religious faith. While these findings affirm the view that private

religious institutions possess the added burden of articulating and implementing a policy on

academic freedom within the confines of religious mission and statements of faith beyond those

of their public counterparts, the participants in this study repeatedly noted their perception that

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

their religious worldview would face opposition in a public university, thus subjecting them to

even greater restrictions on their academic freedom. So it’s actually quite ironic that religious

universities are prone to running afoul of organizations like the AAUP, which are designed to

protect the rights of the professoriate. Poch (1993) explains that the AAUP 1970 Interpretive

Comments regarding academic freedom “should override institutional academic freedom in

deciding which values and beliefs the college, university, or seminary elects to uphold to through

its affiliation with a church” (p. 59). He goes so far as to admit that adopting the AAUP

definition of academic freedom could in fact “remove the distinct identity of a church-related

institution as it welcomes calling into question the fundamental tenets of the church” (p. 60).

Regarding the final question, “How do faculty perceive religious restrictions on academic

freedom?” most participants embraced the university’s religious identity and viewed it as an

acceptable and even preferable trade-off to relinquish some level of academic freedom to a

university mission that aligned with their personal sense of identity. This situation makes it

imperative that universities both clearly articulate its policies related to academic freedom to

prospective faculty and ensure that faculty that are hired share or are at least sympathetic to its

religious mission. In the case of evangelical institutions, many require that faculty sign contracts

containing statements of faith in order to address this concern.

To more clearly speak to these concerns, Poch (1993) identifies three reasonable

principles (pp. 67-68) that should guide religious institutions. First, they should clearly articulate

the policy on academic freedom and specifically what limitations are placed on academic

freedom in all contractual documents. Second, institutions that endorse the AAUP’s 1940

Statement should explain their position as it relates to the religious limitation clause. Finally, all

teaching contracts should include clear references to all policies related to academic freedom.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

Of specific interest to educators at Evangelical, Protestant, and some Catholic universities

is the role statements of faith play in the hiring process. Universities founded with a religious

identity or mission or established to perpetuate the Christian faith sometimes establish doctrinal

statements or statements of faith that impact the pool of potential candidates and the hiring

process. For example the 109 member institutions of the Council for Christian Colleges and

Universities (CCCU) are required to “have a public, board-approved institutional mission or

purpose statement that is Christ-centered and rooted in the historic Christian faith” and “hire as

full-time faculty members and administrators only persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ”

(CCCU, 2010). So, on a spectrum of relative strength of religious identity and mission there are

universities that maintain extensive, explicit statements of faith with which faculty are expected

to express and affirm complete agreement (often CCCU institutions, e.g. Corban College,

Cedarville University) and those universities (often historically religious, e.g. Notre Dame, Duke

University, Vanderbilt) that do not require faculty to sign a statement of faith or even profess any

faith and at the other end. And then there are others somewhere along the spectrum with broader

policies such as Baylor University (Baptist) that, according to university chancellor Robert

Sloan, “gives hiring preference to Baptists first, followed by other Protestant evangelicals, then

other Protestants, other Christians, and lastly Jews” (Goldin, 2006, ¶ 18). It is important to note

that all universities, whether public or private, impose their own criteria as to which candidates

would be a good “fit” for their departments. So the lesson for all educators is to discover what, if

any, requirements are established for universities at which they would consider seeking

employment as statements of faith and other forms of criteria inevitably affect academic

freedom.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

This study adds to the literature examining academic freedom within the context of

religious higher education and clearly demonstrates that most faculty can work comfortably

within the constraints of these institutions. Further analysis could be conducted to analyze

whether or not various disciplines within the university view academic freedom differently. For

instance, do those in the theater arts feel constrained by religious issues of morality, while those

in law and government feel constrained by conservative political views? Do professors in the

divinity school feel free to question or explore certain doctrines? Do faculty in the sciences

perceive forays into the topic of evolution as hazardous to their careers? These questions and

others will surely need answers if religious universities are to maintain a spirit of inquiry and

advance the quest for knowledge without compartmentalizing expressions of faith.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

References

American Association of University Professors. (1940). Statement of principles on academic

freedom and tenure. Retrieved from

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

American Association of University Professors. (1970). 1970 interpretive comments. Retrieved

from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

American Association of University Professors. (2009). About the AAUP. Retrieved from

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/

Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5

ed.). Boston: Pearson

Education.

Cavanaugh, W T. (2004). Sailing under true colors: Academic freedom and the ecclesially based

university. In M. Budde and J. Wright (Eds.), Conflicting allegiances: The church-based

university in a liberal democratic society (pp. 31-52). Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (2

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

CCCU. (2010). Member Application and Criteria. Council for Christian Colleges and

Universities. Retrieved from

http://www.cccu.org/members_and_affiliates/member__affiliate_application__criteria

Diekema, A. J. (2000). Academic freedom and Christian scholarship. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans.

Doumani, B. (Ed.). (2006). Academic freedom after September 11. New York: Zone Books.

Edington, M. (2006). God: Amen, discussion. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(15). Retrieved

from ERIC database.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

Goldin, D. (2006). A Test of faith: A professor’s firing after his conversion highlights a new

orthodoxy at religious universities. The Wall Street Journal, January 7-8, 2006.

Habecker, E. B. (1991). Academic freedom in the context of mission. Christian Scholars Review,

21(2), 175-181.

Hofstadter, R., & Metzger, W. P. (1955). The development of academic freedom in the United

States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Jacobsen, D. G., & Jacobsen, R. H. (Eds.). (2004). Scholarship and Christian faith: Enlarging

the conversation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jaschik, S. (2010a, May 11). Stained glass ceiling. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/11/catholic

Jaschik, S. (2010b, June 9). Faith and freedom. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/09/canada

Kaplin, W. A. (1985). The law of higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kors, A. C., & Silvergate, H. A. (1998). The shadow university. New York: The Free Press.

Marsden, G. (1994). The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to

established nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press.

McDowell, W. (2002). Historical research: A guide. London: Pearson Education Unlimited.

O’Neil, R. M. (1997). Free speech in the college community. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Poch, R. K. (1993). Academic freedom in higher education: Rights, responsibilities and

limitations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(2), 1-85.

Post, R. (2006). The structure of academic freedom. In B. Doumani (Ed.), Academic freedom

after September 11 (pp. 61-106). New York: Zone Books.

Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

Ream, T. C., & Glanzer, P. L. (2007). Christian faith and scholarship: An exploration of

contemporary developments. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(2), 1-139.

Regent University. (2010a). Faculty and academic policy handbook: Faculty employment:

Academic freedom. Retrieved from

http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/faculty_handbook.cfm#employment

Regent University. (2010b). Mission statement. Retrieved from

http://www.regent.edu/about_us/overview/mission_statement.cfm

Regent University. (2010c). Regent University facts. Retrieved from

http://www.regent.edu/about_us/quick_facts.cfm

Russell, C. (1993). Academic freedom. New York: Routledge.

Schmidt, P. (2009). Professors’ freedoms under assault in the courts. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 55(25), A1. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i25/25a00103.htm

Standler. R. (2000). Academic freedom in the USA: Legal barriers. Retrieved from

http://www.rbs2.com/afree.htm#anchor555555

Strum, P. (2006). Why academic freedom? The theoretical and Constitutional context. In B.

Doumani (Ed.), Academic freedom after September 11 (pp. 143-173). New York: Zone

Books.

Wagner, K. (2006, Jan/Feb). Faith statements do restrict academic freedom. Academe 92(1), 21-

22.