Academic freedom: rights, limitations and practical value

Abstract

The concept of academic freedom means different things to many and different people. Many people outside the University view academic freedom with askance. Even among those familiar with the University system, academic freedom is very little understood. Studies suggest that in the late 1970 and 1980's, academic freedom became synonymous with what has been referred to as "academic pomposity." These were periods of massive social and political changes especially in countries like Ghana, when both ordinary people and opinion leaders questioned the where tofore of" ivory towereism" and "cosmopolitan professionalism." The latter expression seems to regard the university don as generally having only a marginal loyalty to his \ her organisation and nation as a whole. According to Warner and Palfrey man (1996, p. 92) members of cosmopolitan professionalism tend to align themselves with their peers within their discipline for 'the purpose of recognition and evaluation. As employees they demand high levels of autonomy and participation in their work and resent close supervision. In the strict sense of the word, collegiality may be likened to cosmopolitan professionalism. The expressions ivory towerism and cosmopolitan professionalism tend to connote elements of exclusiveness, and seclusiveness from national and social interest. But it is important to ask whether academic freedom should continue to be seen in these lights and whether such conception is defensible. This paper seeks to explore the frontiers of academic freedom, its rights, limitations and practical value regarding it as both a concept and a phenomenon: concepts to the outsider and a phenomenon to the "practitioner" of academic freedom.