Technology Revolutionizing Ethical Aspects of Academic Freedom

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Leading Organizational Change
Literature review
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Abstract

Ethics is crucial in higher education since it contributes to the system’s seamless functioning. Ethics offers standards for what is and is not permitted, therefore protecting academics’ interests. However, this essay suggests that an unwavering commitment to ethics might stifle creativity. Academic freedom is predicated on the assumption that a free flow of ideas inside an institution is vital for providing high-quality education. In this article, academic freedom is defined as the faculty member’s ability to make individual and collective autonomous decisions. This paper aims to demonstrate and discuss the notion that technology is already altering the landscape of academic freedom. The literature review addresses intellectual freedom from the perceptive of the plan for sustainable development, the ongoing force for change, Florida State Legislature, Idaho State Legislature, and Iowa State Legislature. This article notes that transformative leadership theory has its roots in previous leadership theories in that it is most ethical and critical, rooted in the principles of fairness, inclusiveness, excellence, and egalitarianism. In this article, the approach to leadership opposes inequitable attitudes, injustice, and marginalization wherever they occur and holds forth the prospect of increased individual intellectual actualization within the setting of higher education. The role of leadership institutions is particularly unique, especially considering the broad scope that such facilities address within society. This article, therefore, anchors its argument of changes within higher education institutions based on two fundamental changes that can guarantee revolutionary leadership in higher education. Such changes include establishing a sense of belonging in research institutions and democracy in exercising the freedom of thought and communication as a scholar. As part of the solution, the trends in technology are proposed as a potential solution that can provide the necessary support to improve the freedom of expression as one of the ethical issues that affect higher education institutions today. This article proposes proper transformation leadership that is based on democracy where stakeholder contribution is respected.

Introduction

Ethics establishes guidelines for what is and is not permissible, so it safeguards the interests of scholars. There is an apparent need to insist that ethics without limits can infringe on the freedom of imagination. Academic freedom is founded on the belief that a flow of ideas on the institution is necessary for quality education. Academic freedom defines the liberty of faculty members to choose independently, both individually and collectively—this article attempts to showcase and debate the idea that technology is already changing the academic freedom landscape. The primary objective is to explore how ethical issues affecting academic freedom can be addressed using technology in higher institutions and further to address the traditional barriers that have limited access to information within academia and Modern librarianship.

Modern librarianship is founded on a set of fundamental ideals that define, enlighten, and guide our professional work. These ideals represent the profession’s history and continuing evolution and have been promoted, enlarged, and polished via several American Library Association policy statements. Access, nondisclosure, democratization, diversification, training and lifelong learning, intellectual freedom, conservation, the public good, expertise, service, social responsibility, and sustainability are just a few of these. Members of the school community who contribute to the collections creation process use educational criteria to choose materials that are not constrained by their personal, political, social, or religious beliefs. Students and educators serviced by the school library have unrestricted access to materials and services due to personal, political, or ideological opposition.

School librarians stand out as important in fighting attempts by individuals or organizations to dictate what constitutes proper reading, viewing, hearing, or access for all students or instructors, regardless of technologies, format, and mode of delivery. Within the higher education setting, it is, therefore, fundamental that the academic stakeholders are given the space to explore ideas and publish. The nature of leadership emerges as an important subject that has to be addressed to establish a structured space for academic exploration.

Leading Organizational Change

Establishing the Sense of Belonging

The impact of establishing a sense of belonging in research institutions is that when students feel welcomed, respected, and included, their ability to concentrate on learning improves, and hence their distal academic achievements increase. In such a setting, a transformative leader would not overlook scholars’ different thoughts and talents inside their research zone. Rather than that, transformational leaders would welcome these novel notions to share their unique perspectives with educators. Such leadership would understand that any organization comprised of a varied set of persons needs room for bold new ideas. For example, some academics may adhere to unusual religious or cultural practices. Others may attempt to explore distinctive skill sets and career experiences. This essay claims that a business that celebrates diversity and empowers employees to use their uniqueness for the greater good is more likely to succeed.

Shared Governance

The second aspect of leadership that needs transformation is democracy in leadership within institutions of higher learning. This article proposed shared governance based on the premise that by balancing public and good private emphasis and teaching academics about civic engagement, a democratic society is fostered (Borgman, 2018). Transformational leadership is presented as neither prescriptive nor instrumental in addressing these proposed changes since it does not provide a checklist of activities but rather ensures responsiveness to the unique organizational and cultural situations. In the institution of higher learning, implementation of shared governance means that collaboration has to be established between the management and the scholars that facilitate the running of the institutions.

In such a setting, collaboration is best implemented as a collection of processes in which college academics and certain staff members engage in major institutional decisions that directly affect the institution. While shared governance techniques vary per institution, democracy is often carried out by the elected academic committee in collaboration with the leadership (Simpson, 2020). Within institutions of higher learning, the bargaining agreement should often provide distributed leadership rights, and the unions may help implement shared governance Saragih et al., 2018). It is possible that shared governance can be implemented as perfectly democratic in the higher education setting, ensuring that academic choices are made only for academic purposes and not for political, financial, or bureaucratic considerations that limit the freedom of intellectual expression.

Shared Governance in Addressing Distress in Higher Education

Faculty members at public institutions are under increased scrutiny in a number of states and governments worldwide. Such faculty often confront a grave and rising danger to academic freedom that allows them to pick their research subjects and control what transpires in their classrooms without fear of political repercussions. Across the globe, state legislatures are proposing legislation to restrict the teaching of particular ideas in college, curtail the tenure system, and further blur the already perilous divide between higher education and state politics (Borgman, 2018). The researchers think that if nations continue along this route, they risk undermining the brilliance of their higher education institutions, some of which are now ranked among the world’s finest. Restriction of speech might push these institutions into a downward cycle as the gap between intellectual freedom enjoyed at private universities and what is available at public universities widens.

Technology and Freedom of Expression

The proposed leadership must address the needs for proper technology implementation that provide proper self-expression space. The world’s digital environment has seen a tremendous transformation during the last several decades. In an era when technology has permeated practically every nook and cranny of human existence, there seems to be nothing left unaffected (Skrtic & Knackstedt, 2018). Indeed, technology innovation has become a crucial role in how individuals self-identify and communicate even within academia. The space acts as a refuge for introverts and radicals who have ideas and can meet with people with similar interests and can find a sense of community. In such a setting, technology has had a profound effect on how people express themselves online.

Access to mass media has also facilitated intellectual discussion and dialogue within the higher education space. Most researchers acknowledge that there is increased access to information and opinion by establishing a mechanism for the general people to express their views on political, social, and other pertinent problems. Historically, art and music have been seen as complex means of self-expression (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020). Technology has helped in advancing the internet, opening up a world of creativity for artists and academics (Peker et al., 2018). Whether via a custom website or the more typical path of YouTube channels, technology has given artists a ground-breaking platform for showcasing their creative work (Skrtic & Knackstedt, 2018). Such platforms provide an avenue for communication that would have been limited.

Intellectual Freedom and Leadership in Higher Institutions

Scholars can communicate and preserve their work more efficiently with the help of technology. When learners cooperated, they could have prepared posters or notes describing their effort in the past. On the other hand, learners may construct digital collections of research and ideas via the use of technology. They may collaborate on papers and projects by drawing and writing in the same software necessary for sharing ideas. Similarly, through the use of technology, some kids can now participate in the classroom in ways they have never been able to before (Tobin, 2018). Numerous special education scholars may benefit from technology that enables them to write, spell, read, and do mathematical computations. Students might be alerted about spelling errors via word processors. As technology becomes increasingly integrated into institutions, students who get special education and rely on a laptop for assistance will blend in rather than stick out. Such opportunities also offer the necessary space for differential integral in the diversification of ideas.

Differentiation

With proper leadership that allows for full-scale technology implementation in higher education, researchers can have instant access to a range of programs and information sources via the internet. Instructors may locate leveled readers or help learners to choose study subjects that align with their interests much more readily than they can at a bookstore with limited options (Király & Géring, 2019). Additionally, professors might assign programs to assist students in remediating or expanding their knowledge so learners to process or further examine issues (Giroux, 2019). This activity may be completed during centers or group work, which allows the instructor to focus on individual pupils or small groups—this method of using technology guarantees that stakeholders in higher institutions get what they require.

Debates of the First Amendment

There has also been increasing interest in fully actualizing the ideas in the First Amendment. Recent incidents in higher learning institutions and in society at large have repeatedly pitted diversity and equality principles against those of freedom of speech and expression in academia (Taberner, 2018). The researchers note that the statistics demonstrate that although college students believe in the First Amendment, many are ready to accept limits on free speech and other liberties when they think they are at odds with different ideals and ethics (Scheiring, 2021). This disparity generates complex issues for college and university administrators, including many who want to foster strong critical thinking and the free expression of ideas while avoiding detrimental effects on higher education and the learning environment. Technology seems to offer communications and legal channels with observations and insights that seem to be grounded in the First Amendment.

Frameworks of Academic Freedom

In the debates, the frameworks of intellectual freedom emerge as a broad concept that incorporates a variety of topics, including academic freedom, internet filtering, and censorship. This article notes that intellectual freedom proponents appreciate an individual’s ability to freely pick informational ideas and media to create thinking and opinion; constraints on access and obstacles to information privacy are considered intellectual freedom concerns (Walsh, 2020). The issues concerning access limitations include prohibited publications, challenges to censorship of literature, and efforts at suppression, including book censorship. Supporters of intellectual freedom advocate for the prohibition of censorship, and appeals for censorship are seen as protected expression. Would-be regulators exercise the same rights that librarians want to preserve when confronted with censorship by voicing their concerns and ideas. Individuals who express their objections to specific ideas exercise the same rights as those who generate and distribute the content they disapprove of. The first amendment freedom to express thoughts and convince others should be safeguarded, both for and against the exclusion and inclusion of information and concepts.

Literature review

Intellectual leadership denotes academics’ informal leadership based on knowledge generation and distribution, institutional services, and public involvement. Academic freedom is viewed as the overriding requirement for individual scholars to achieve intellectual leadership (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al., 2018). Against the background of the internationalization process and internationalization of higher education, researchers confront great expectations to generate quantifiable research outputs, offer high-quality teaching and fulfill all types of institutional requirements. In contemporary universities, women researchers, like the non-traditional contributors in academia, must cope with many hurdles and prejudice caused by gender intermingled with academic specialty features, institutions of higher learning, and societal characteristics.

Agenda for Sustainable Development

The debates on freedom of expression, both in journalism and academia, have influenced the need for higher education to be open to the dynamics associated with open-minded leadership. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes the critical role of journalists and academics in preserving basic freedoms such as speech and access to information (Wang, 2018). SDG 16 specifically demands rigorous monitoring of journalistic crimes as a proxy for progress toward creating peaceful and inclusive communities. Despite this, threats against journalists and media are increasing, and there is still a lack of a reliable and complete measuring system (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020). The higher education community is asked to promote peaceful and inclusive communities in order to promote sustainability, to ensure that everyone has equality of rights, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Force for Change

There have also been similar efforts that have helped alleviate the hardship in higher education. According to studies, both public and private scientists and professors at institutions throughout the nation have already recognized that there is no need to continue avoiding contentious issues (Abylkassymova et al., 2028). Certain groups are hopeful, arguing that the offending scholar’s on-campus constituency and university administration will soon be pushed to have him removed from campus (Hill & Lawton, 2018). The radicals who advocate for free speech believe that administrators must accede to such lobbying attempts and tread cautiously. Some states have taken the mantle to fight for intellectual freedom to the legislative bodies, including Florida, Idaho and Iowa.

Florida State on Freedom in Expression in Academia

In Florida, the forces for change have also been seen in justification that appreciates the need for intellectual freedom in higher education. For instance, Florida legislators are now considering two versions of a measure that will conduct yearly evaluations on intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity (Király & Géring, 2019). Each institution would gather statistics on contradictory ideas and views offered and publish their results under the proposed rule each year. According to Ray Rodrigues, the Republican state senator who introduced the measure, colleges that lack perspective diversity would face further sanctions (Walsh, 2020). The proposals are ambiguous about what this entails, describing intellectual freedom and perspective diversification as exposing students, professors, and staff to, and support of, a range of ideology opinions (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020). The data would be evaluated officially by the State Board of Education and the State University System Governing board, both of which are selected mainly by the governor of the state.

Idaho State Legislature

Idaho has made similar efforts in pushing for intellectual freedom within its jurisdiction. The Idaho State Legislature recently enacted House Bill 377, which Governor Brad Little signed into law at the end of April (Walsh, 2020). The law explicitly targets Critical Race Theory, forbidding its teaching or any of its ideas in school systems, especially institutions of higher learning (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020). While Little asserts that the legislation covers against ubiquitous, systemic religious brainwashing, Matt Freeman, executive director of the Idaho State Board of Education, asserts that the board has obtained no documented proof of systemic indoctrination currently happening in Idaho’s public schools or community academic institutions. Additionally, the Idaho State Legislature eliminated $409,000 from Boise State Institution, which is about the amount spent on social justice initiatives at the university. Additional information about this new law may be found in a piece published by the Chronicle of Higher Learning (Walsh, 2020). Such efforts have been associated with the increased debate that is currently gaining momentum.

Iowa State Legislature

The Iowa State legislature’s Free Speech Committee has submitted a number of recommendations to the Iowa Board of Regents on free speech in colleges and universities. The Board of Regents agreed on the guidelines and now requires the addition of the following wording to all course syllabuses at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa (Skrtic & Knackstedt, 2018). Iowa State University respects and maintains the First Amendment right to free speech and the value of academic freedom to establish an atmosphere conducive to open inquiry and robust discussion of diverse views (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020). As proposed, students will not be punished for their speech’s substance or perspectives as long as their expression in a class environment is relevant to the subject and delivered appropriately.

Additionally, this policy shift occurs at a time when state lawmakers are pushing to abolish tenure. Additionally, in March, the Iowa State Senate enacted Senate File 478, prohibiting public institutions from facilitating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training that promotes controversial themes (Walsh, 2020). In the discussion, dividend notions include that Iowa is essentially racist or sexist and that a person is inherently racist tendencies, sexist, oppressive, knowingly or unintentionally, based on the gender of religious inclinations.

Discussion

An overview of the literature seems to recognize that the embrace of technology in the college curriculum, course material development, teaching, assessments, and intellectual investigation all contribute to one’s feeling of freedom. It is apparent that academic freedom should ensure that colleges and universities are sacred spaces for inquiry, places where students and researchers may dispute accepted knowledge in any field, including art, science, and politics. The literature review concurs with the earlier observation on organization change, noting that defending free expression and the open debate on college campuses is a critical aspect of the educational process. The open is often represented in the union’s mobilization and group goals efforts and other philosophical engagement in professional and social campaigns.

Technology is democratizing access to information and freedom in communication seems to have worked for the good in advancing the sovereign self-debate as an academic. The role of higher institutions also emerges as crucial, especially with its connection with leadership in fostering academic freedom and liberties that are always under threat. The researchers seem to concur that the majority of today’s academics, even those working in temporary contingent positions, are at risk of exploitation. At such a juncture, leadership emerges as an essential theme that can address the concern of the rights of staff in academia, providing space for critical safeguards and the intellectual freedom necessary in developing a comprehensive teaching curriculum.

Conclusion

Several of the suggested solutions seem to include legislative proposals as well as an embrace of technology that would safeguard every scholar’s right to free speech. It is recommended that leaders in higher education may choose to use more conventional approaches to encourage staff members in higher education to share their thoughts and contribute to the progress of educational institutions. However, these conventional procedures may not be effective in practice but can significantly improve the need for academic freedom in higher institutions. Whether anonymous remarks in a suggestion box or direct polling of educators about their concerns, managers at postsecondary institutions should react with an open mind. Such transformative leaders in higher education administration would appreciate the value of sincerity and follow through on their words. Encouragement, listening to, and reacting to comments demonstrates that the institution cares about the academic community’s issues. Additionally, it conveys the notion that higher institutions of study uphold strong moral standards, such as trustworthiness and respect.

In the same context, while transformational leadership is more dynamic than direct leadership, both should be equally acceptable for educators, researchers and learners in higher education. Dedicated and skilled educators may choose any way as long as they recognize that a transformational leader does not imply that everything goes. The approach to leadership does not imply an authoritarian posture that stifles student enthusiasm. Indeed, transformational leadership may encourage more professionalism and a climate of action in education. Such leadership has the potential to incite conflict in research, with researchers resisting rigid norms and formulaic directives that can drive the mind-changing debate. Additionally, it might motivate stakeholders to express their views on the role of the educational process. In such a setting, educators may promote higher success and a more pleasant academic climate by fostering transformational leadership and accepting diversity. Despite the absence of a direct leadership style, scholars may retain a high level of professionalism by exhibiting trust and respect for new patterns of thought.

References

Abylkassymova, A. E., Kalney, V. V., & Shishov, S. E. (2018). Formation of Public Consciousness, Spiritual and Moral Culture of Students in the System of Continuous Pedagogical Education. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(1), 26-33.

Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Gonçalves, R., Martins, J., & Branco, F. (2018). The social impact of technology on millennials and consequences for higher education and leadership. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 954-963.

Borgman, C. L. (2018). Open data, grey data, and stewardship: Universities at the privacy frontier. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 33, 365.

Giroux, H. (2019). Authoritarianism and the challenge of higher education in the age of Trump. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 18(1), 6-25.

Hill, C., & Lawton, W. (2018). Universities, the digital divide and global inequality. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(6), 598-610.

Király, G., & Géring, Z. (2019). Introduction to ‘Futures of Higher Education’special issue. Futures, 111, 123-129.

Kuziemski, M., & Misuraca, G. (2020). AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications policy, 44(6), 101976.

Peker, S., Inandi, Y., & Gilic, F. (2018). The Relationship between Leadership Styles (Autocratic and Democratic) of School Administrators and the Mobbing Teachers Suffer. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(1), 150-164.

Simpson, R. M. (2020). The relation between academic freedom and free speech. Ethics, 130(3), 287-319.

Saragih, R., Fakhri, M., Pradana, M., Gilang, A., & Vidjashesa, G. A. (2018). Ethical leadership’s effect on employee discipline: Case of an Indonesian telecommunication company. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 1630-1638).

Simpson, R. M., & Srinivasan, A. (2018). No platforming. Academic freedom, 186.

Scheiring, G. (2021). Dependent development and authoritarian state capitalism: Democratic backsliding and the rise of the accumulative state in Hungary. Geoforum, 124, 267-278.

Skrtic, T. M., & Knackstedt, K. M. (2018). Disability, difference, and justice: Strong democratic leadership for undemocratic times. In Handbook of Leadership And Administration For Special Education. Routledge. (pp. 148-174).

Tobin, L. (2018). Xi’s Vision for Transforming Global Governance: A Strategic Challenge for Washington and Its Allies (November 2018). Texas National Security Review. (pp. 18-174).

Taberner, A. M. (2018). The marketization of the English higher education sector and its impact on academic staff and the nature of their work. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 18(2), 6-25

Wang, F. (2018). Social justice leadership—Theory and practice: A case of Ontario. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(3), 470-498.

Walsh, J. P. (2020). Social media and moral panics: Assessing the effects of technological change on societal reaction. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(6), 840-859.

Click Here To Order Now!