What a load of rubbish. If we follow that line, academics would be
free not to publish their research, not to participate in
evaluations, not to set and mark examination papers, not to deliver
lectures, etc.
This is a total misconstruction of academic freedom. What 'academic
freedom' means is that academics can say (and write) things that are
unpalatable to their employers and more importantly, their funders
including governments, without fear of losing their jobs. I have and
do exploit this sort of academic freedom all the time.
I strongly support academics being required to contribute to their
discipline and access to knowledge (and opinion). Otherwise why are
they employed?
Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel
Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 11:02 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM]
[AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Repositories: Institutional or
Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Liège]
Arthur Sale writes
> I totally disagree that researchers should be free to deposit where
they
> will.
This one of the basic tennants of academic fredom. Instititutional
mandates reduce that freedom. That's why I, and many other
academics, oppose mandates.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel
http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
skype: thomaskrichel
Received on Fri Feb 06 2009 - 02:19:02 GMT