Demystify: 

An interesting article on what academic freedom does and does not do.� Two in the "does not do" list are of interest.

This reminds me of what our university council told me years ago - you cannot break the law under the cloak of academic freedom.� At that time, I was being confronted by faculty members who did not think that they were bound by state employee regulations (they thought only staff had to adhere to those). The lawyer had to come to a faculty meeting to tell the department that, "Yes, you are a state employee".

5. Academic freedom does not protect faculty members from non-university penalties if they break the law.

12. Academic freedom does not protect a faculty member from investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct or violations of sound university policies, nor from appropriate penalties should such charges be sustained in a hearing of record before an elected faculty body.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-academic-freedom

On the Clemson Lab-

In the article, Thrasher goes on to say that TFE is "benign" - not sure about that.� According to GHS, does not look to meet that qualifier in all categories.

Thrasher said Clemson was also unique in exposing students to TFE, which made them better prepared for jobs at places like Chemours, where Parrish landed his position.

I find it interesting that he points to the fact that having worked with TFE made students better prepared to work at Chemours.� Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Chemours does not have a great record for their environmental efforts - would students trained in a lab ill-equipped safety-wise be what they wanted?

My 2cents,
S-

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post