I write today to express disappointment in the Office of Student Development for refusing to admit Students for Academic Freedom as an officially recognized student organization. I was disappointed in the decision not because I have a special interest in the group or because I was planning on becoming affiliated with the group.,”

I write today to express disappointment in the Office of Student Development for refusing to admit Students for Academic Freedom as an officially recognized student organization. I was disappointed in the decision not because I have a special interest in the group or because I was planning on becoming affiliated with the group. Rather, I was disappointed because I think the decision reflects poorly on the judgment of the administration and faculty at Marquette.

OSD hid behind an amorphous standard for denying the group. Marquette has articulated only a single requirement for acceptance of an official student organization: the purposes of student groups must be "in accord with the stated purposes and policies of the university." Then, under cover of this ill-defined standard, OSD pointed to academic freedom to deny recognition of the group.

Academic freedom as defined in the faculty handbook appears to encompass freedom of research and publication, freedom of discussion in the classroom and a somewhat limited freedom to speak as a Marquette professor outside of the university.

In none of these stated safeguards will you find "freedom from student criticism as manifested in an official student organization." Student criticism would not impinge on professors' freedom in the classroom. Such criticism would be in no way binding on professors – criticized professors would be free to continue the teaching style that certain students find objectionable. Similarly, a person's freedom of speech (a close relative of academic freedom) is in no way limited by open criticism of that person's statements. Criticism does not prevent that person from speaking freely.

Student criticism of professors, aside from its ostensible effects on academic freedom, may actually improve the quality of education at Marquette. According to the faculty handbook, "academic freedom is grounded on competence and integrity." To be competent, I would imagine a professor must be intellectually honest; this requires at least a recognition that both sides of a debate often have arguments that merit discussion or recognition. Further, teaching that borders on attempted indoctrination falls short of competence. (I do not suggest that any professors at Marquette are guilty of this – I did, however, encounter such a professor at my undergraduate institution.) Student criticism may serve to bring these issues of competency to the attention of the administration.

Both The Marquette Tribune and the administration have asserted that current procedures for student complaints are adequate. However, this assertion is without merit. First, novelty is not a requirement for admission of student organizations. Second, this alleged redundancy may serve as a check against the existing procedures. Third, this organization may serve to give a voice to students afraid to seek redress through the existing procedures, students who may worry about damaging their academic standing. After all, if the existing procedures were adequate, why would any students find this organization worthy of their time?

Eldridge is a second-year law student.

“