Introduction
Education had brought with it a world of possibilities, among them is academic freedom. However, when mishandled, academic freedom is a double edge sword that can start unwarranted tension. The question as to whether professors should be allowed to advocate their views on political and social issues is rather obvious; they should not. This is mainly because by so doing, they will be infringing on the academic freedom of their students by imposing their ideologies on their receptive students. While most professors adhere to the logical concept of keeping personal opinions personal, some have converted the classroom into a pulpit for the masquerading of personal political and social opinions. In the recent past, professors have been accused of several faults, and it was because of these faults that it was deemed necessary to put a cap on the extent to which professors can excise freedom in the classroom.
Discussion
In a 2007 report dubbed ‘Freedom in the classroom’, professors were allowed the jurisdiction to exercise freedom in the classroom while discussing their subjects. However, several pointers were made. First, professors were required to educate, not indoctrinate, their students. Indoctrination is said to be the propagation of ideas that have not been professionally tested and validated as being true. This robs student of the opportunity to challenge the truth in these said truths or to offer possible comprehension of the matter. In indoctrination, students are unable to develop themselves as learners because they are limited in the extent to which they can participate in the debate or acquisition of independence of thought (AAUP, 2007).
Professors are also discouraged from propagating their political and social thoughts in classrooms as they rob the learners of the aspect of balance in education, which can be brought about through an exposure to different points of views. Further, if professors are allowed to express themselves in class, they are likely to create hostile learning environment that may be discriminatory to students who practice certain religions. It was noted that when professors were allowed to express their opinions in class, they are likely to diverge their teaching form relevant and appropriate matter to completely inappropriate material (AAUP, 2007).
It is without a doubt that universities can be very volatile and charge environments and it is important the professors refrain from propagating political ideas. Mr. Barrett, a lecturer, has been under a hail of criticism for his allegation that the 9/11 attacks were not an Al-Kaeda steered attack but an American government doing. This has rubbed many the wrong ways, and Mr. Barrett has been accused of failing to differentiate between fact and fiction (New York Times, 2006).
However, both O’Connor Erin (2007) and Michael Berube (2007) raise some questions about the validity of the ‘Freedom in the classroom” document. O’ Connor (2007) suggest that there may have been some confusion in the explanation of some situations. She states that AAUP’s description of indoctrination “falsely suggests that charges of classroom indoctrination are chimerical.” Berube (2007) contests the definition of controversial material, stating “controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry…”
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is imperative for professors to refrain form making religious, political and social opinions known to their students. This is with the aim of maintaining tranquility, relevance, equity and neutrality in the institutions of learning. There should be a clear understanding of the extent beyond which education is longer serving its intended purpose but has degenerated to sheer indoctrination.
Bibliography
AAUP (2007). Freedom in the Classroom. 2008. Web.
Berube Michael (2007). Academic Freedom. Web.
New York Times (2006). Conspiracy Theories 101.
O’ Connor Erin (2007). AAUP To Critics: What, Us Biased? Web.