| @Sawaswat - I think the question here is whether or not academic freedom actually requires that a wide range of ideologies be represented. Once the government requires that the clinic (or any other academic offering, for that matter) represents a balance of ideologies, then it begins to dictate what the professor may or may not teach. If an environmental clinic is involved in a bunch of cases against polluters, is it then required to represent polluters in subsequent litigation? I really don't think we want the government to involve itself in dictating what can and cannot be taught in universities, or what cases a clinic may or may not litigate.
The most recent issue of the Columbia Magazine featured a great interview with provost emeritus Jonathan R. Cole about academic freedom that is very relevant to our conversation (you can read it here). One comment that struck me was:
"Academic freedom allows faculty members to determine what will be studied in the classroom, to organize the classroom as they see fit, to engage in conversations about ideas or experiments that might be radical, with the expectation that there will be a set of rigorous, conservative methods used to test the truth and value of those ideas."
One additional point: it makes sense to me that clinics will mainly be representing the small guys and not the Perdues of the world, since they can afford to pay lots of money to litigate cases instead of relying on pro bono work from clinics.
-- NathanStopper - 10 Apr 2010 |