美国大学教师公共言论的学术自由——基于沃德·邱吉尔案的分析

American Faculty Members' Academic Freedom of Public Speech: Case Analysis On the Ward Churchill Case

在美国,大学教师的公共言论自由是学术自由的一部分,是受联邦宪法保护的权利。但公共言论的自由相比教学自由、研究自由更为复杂。"911事件"后发生的沃德·邱吉尔案不同于以往的学术自由案例:科罗拉多大学并未否定邱吉尔公共言论的正当权利,也未从皮克林准则入手,而是将矛头对准其学术不端行为。科罗拉多大学以学术不端为由,最终将邱吉尔解聘,从而变相剥夺了大学教师公共言论的权利,损害到学术自由的实质正义。美国各级法院在公共言论的司法保护问题上也倾向于采取保守主义的立场。学术自由是美国高等教育的重要理念与基本原则,但却知易行难。"邱吉尔案"反映了美国在国内外政治环境变化的条件下,学术自由的边界被收紧的趋势。

In the United States, public speech of university faculty members is a part of academic freedom and is protected by the Federal Constitution. But the freedom of public speech is more complicated than the freedom of teaching and research. The Ward Churchill case is different from the other previous cases of academic freedom about public speech after 9/11 incident. The University of Colorado did not deny Churchill’s right of public speech, nor did it accuse with the Pickering Principle, but focused on his academic misconduct. The university dismissed Churchill for academic misconduct, depriving university teachers of their right to public speech in a disguised way and undermining the substantive justice of academic freedom. American courts at all levels also take conservative position on the judicial protection of public speech. Academic freedom is an important idea and basic principle of American higher education, but it is easier said than done in practice. The Churchill case reflects the trend that boundaries of academic freedom are being tightened under the changing political environment in US as well as in other countries.