The primary purpose of this study was to compare the opinions of community college administrators, art faculty members, and art students concerning institutional options and policy alternatives for the exhibition of controversial student art work in the community colleges of Maryland. The research questions addressed the concept of academic freedom, the principle of institutional neutrality, and the context of the presentation. Three community colleges were selected for the study. Data were collected in two stages. Information gathered in the first stage of this project was used to collect data during the second stage. In phase one the researcher went to the three schools and conducted individual interviews to determine the perceived facts surrounding a controversial art incident. The researcher recorded what the participants thought were the issues that contributed to the controversy, what principles they thought were employed in the solution, and reactions to how it was handled. The researcher prepared a brief and objective case study of each incident. Phase two of this project involved the researcher taking the case studies back to the three sites for group interviews. There were three group interviews conducted at each of the three community colleges. One group was made up of two administrators, another group included two or three arts faculty members, and the third group involved four or more art students. Each group was asked to respond to questions stemming from the research areas of academic freedom, institutional neutrality, and context of the presentation. Each group was asked to comment regarding the issues, the administrative response, and concerns in the three case studies. Each group was asked to chose a policy from a list of three options for covering controversial student art exhibits. The results show different opinions exist between administrators, art faculty, and art students concerning academic freedom, institutional neutrality, and the exhibition of controversial student art. It is important to note however, the opinions do not divide precisely along administrator, faculty, and student classification lines. Most of the participants selected the policy which provided for group discussion during any controversy over student art. There is a need for educational institutions to become proactive in this area. / Ed. D.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 167-173). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 167-173). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Washington, 1996. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [137]-143).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 244-259).

Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of South Africa, 1998.

‘Academic freedom’ in the Twenty-First Century is a contested concept and there exist many interpretations, or versions, of academic freedom, a number of which have been identified through a review of the literature. Some scholars now claim that academic freedom no longer exists in academia, or that it has become a second order value that competes with other priorities more appropriate to the now competitive business of higher education. In this context, the philosophical and legal responsibilities that Vice-Chancellors have in protecting academic freedom can no longer be taken as unproblematic, and their views may not be clear to themselves or to the staff and students in their institutions. This thesis explores the views Vice-Chancellors have on the concept of academic freedom, how they manage academic freedom and the extent to which they believe academic freedom is practised in their university. The Vice-Chancellors interviewed, of a regional and representative sample of English universities, included those from leading pre-1992 universities and new post-1992 universities as well as one private university. Vice-Chancellors were found to have paid little, or no, attention to academic freedom. They implied that academic freedom was a matter for individual subject departments, but they were resolute that they were the arbiters whenever academic freedom became an issue. Some thought that the concept of academic freedom had been misused by individual academics who raised issues motivated by political and ideological beliefs, and those who conflated it with the civil liberty of free speech. In summarising the Vice-Chancellors’ ‘version’ of academic freedom, a key finding was that they had neglected academic freedom. Consequently, one important proposal was that Vice-Chancellors in English universities should review the nature of academic freedom and consider the implications at governance and managerial levels, at departmental level and in practice. As one Vice-Chancellor admitted: “…we’ve never said to, or proven to, the outside world that academic freedom is important”.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [151]-168). Also available on the Internet.