FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W338077482> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W338077482 startingPage "319" @default.
• W338077482 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION: THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE In 1989, the Reverend Charles Curran launched a suit against Catholic University after the Board of Trustees withdrew the professor's ecclesiastical license. Although the University could terminate Curran because he held tenure, holding an ecclesiastical license was a prerequisite for teaching theology. Curran was a vocal proponent of granting academic freedom to theology professors and professors in religious universities generally.1 Father Curran argued that Catholic University violated both his contractual and constitutional rights to academic freedom by prohibiting him from teaching on the basis of his religious views.2 Specifically, Curran advocated pro-choice politics and did condemn abortion. The university supported the Holy See's position that Curran' s public dissent from Catholic doctrine rendered him not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology.3 Furthermore, university faculty members were required to uphold the canonical as a term of employment.4 Although a claim of this sort would invite severe sanctions for a public university, the Curran case is a paradigmatic instance of litigation between professors who seek greater academic freedom in combination with more secularized curricula, and religious universities that insist upon doctrinal compliance. This Note explores the fragile balance that a university possessing both a religious and an educational function must define for itself. Religious universities should be required to expressly define two things: first, the level of adherence to religious doctrine that is required in the curriculum and of the faculty; second, the level of free inquiry and research that it is allowed so a university may uphold its commitment to academic discourse and a scholarly environment. The challenge for modern religious universities is how they will preserve one element without stripping the other of its purpose. Legal scholars argue that the distinct character of the religious university cannot survive if academic freedom severs the religious from the education itself.5 Conversely, suppressing academic freedom to the point where professors are merely parroting the views of the institution or disengaging from novel inquiry compromises the university's educational integrity. One scholar describes this tenuous balance as the straddling of the wall between church and state, as precarious as it is fragile.6 Before examining how, and to what degree of success, religious institutions have attempted self-regulation, it is necessary to first understand why, legally, religious institutions lie beyond the reach of the courts. Part I frames the current debate and describes how constitutional scholars depart from the American Association for University Professors' approach. Part II addresses why religious institutions are largely exempt from academic freedom requirements, the evolution of this jurisprudence, and the costs associated with religious deference. Part III examines an alternative approach to adjudication which would allow courts to honor both competing First Amendment interests. Part IV first proposes the adoption of a mission as a method for holding religious institutions accountable while still preserving religious freedom. Part JV then examines the statements of two religious universities and analyzes their strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, I suggest what an adequate statement should look like in form and function, and how it may satisfy all interested parties by providing transparency and accountability. A. The Position of the American Association for University Professors The modern religious university attempts, often paradoxically, to strike a balance between academic freedom - what a secular university considers the key to scientific and intellectual progress - and faith - the religious university's core doctrine. …" @default.
• W338077482 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W338077482 creator A5009761145 @default.
• W338077482 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W338077482 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W338077482 title "Straddling the Wall: Academic Freedom in Religious Universities and How Institutions May Engage in Judicious Self-Regulation" @default.
• W338077482 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W338077482 type Work @default.
• W338077482 sameAs 338077482 @default.
• W338077482 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W338077482 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W338077482 hasAuthorship W338077482A5009761145 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C2777729037 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C2778323131 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C2779304910 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C2994536602 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C523173360 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W338077482 hasConcept C95201565 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C120912362 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C144024400 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C17744445 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C199539241 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C2776211767 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C2777729037 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C2778272461 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C2778323131 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C2779304910 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C2994536602 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C523173360 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C59822182 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C86803240 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C94625758 @default.
• W338077482 hasConceptScore W338077482C95201565 @default.
• W338077482 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W338077482 hasLocation W3380774821 @default.
• W338077482 hasOpenAccess W338077482 @default.
• W338077482 hasPrimaryLocation W3380774821 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W1472959079 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W1900876855 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W1985465327 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W1987691444 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W1994675310 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2022001665 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2068751574 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2087475913 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2199112307 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2247604473 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2273947019 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W278646472 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W2953924555 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W3023453884 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W3121351987 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W3123073559 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W312864885 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W3144109253 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W316520933 @default.
• W338077482 hasRelatedWork W589780691 @default.
• W338077482 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W338077482 isParatext "false" @default.
• W338077482 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W338077482 magId "338077482" @default.
• W338077482 workType "article" @default.