¹ū¶³“«Ć½app¹Ł·½

Table of Contents

ā€˜Guidelines for Classroom Discussionā€™ Still Stifle Free Speech at the University of South Carolina

Five years ago FIREcriticized the University of South Carolina for the presence of a document titled ā€œGuidelines for Classroom Discussionā€ in the syllabus of ā€œWomenā€™s Studies 797: Seminar in Womenā€™s Studies,ā€ a required class for a certificate of graduate study in Womenā€™s Studies. The ā€œGuidelinesā€ require that students:
1. Acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist.
2. Acknowledge that one mechanism of institutionalized racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., is that we are all systematically taught misinformation about our own group and about members of other groups. This is true for members of privileged and oppressed groups.
3 Agree not to blame ourselves or others for the misinformation we have learned, but to accept responsibility for not repeating misinformation after we have learned otherwise.
4. Assume that people-both the people we study and the members of the class-always do the best they can.
°Śā€¦]
7 Agree to combat actively the myths and stereotypes about our own groups and other groups so that we can break down the walls which prohibit group cooperation and group gain.
°Śā€¦]
We wrote in our letter:
These ā€œGuidelinesā€ compel students to express viewpoints they might not believe and to make fundamental assumptions with which they might not agree, under the stated, explicit, and coercive threat of being graded poorly for honest intellectual dissent. Such an ideological ā€œloyalty oathā€ should be anathema to any institution devoted to learning, because it replaces the process of intellectual discovery with the imposition of dogmatic political orthodoxy. Because this class is explicitly a ā€œrequired seminar,ā€ its ideological requirements violate not only the guidelines on academic freedom of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and USCā€™s own regulations, but also, indeed, the Constitution of the United States.
It is fine for a professor to hold the above views and even to argue for them in the classroom through teaching and assigned reading. But, as we wrote in our letter, ā€œ[I]t is categorically different to require students to hold certain arguments as unquestionable truths in order to participate in a class without penalty (let alone in a required class).ā€ The University of South Carolina understands and expresses this idea in its statement of ā€œFIRERights and Freedoms Within the Academic Communityā€ which states:
As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth.
[...]
The freedom to learn depends upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus and in the larger community.
Itā€™s safe to say that the ā€œGuidelines for Classroom Discussionā€ in Womenā€™s Studies 797 do not cultivate ā€œappropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroomā€ for the ā€œfreedom to learnā€ and certainly do not aid in any way the development of ā€œthe capacity for critical judgmentā€ or encourage ā€œa sustained and independent search for truth.ā€
 

Five years later, the Guidelines are . This highlights the old adage that ā€œthe price of liberty is eternal vigilance.ā€ FIREcontinues to encourage the University of South Carolina to change its classroom policy for Womenā€™s Studies 797. Please, give your students the freedoms required by the Constitution and enshrined in your own policies.

Recent Articles

FIREā€™s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share