Students’ life, liberty and pursuit of knowledge                                                                       

A forum on academic freedom was held in the Memorial Union Building on Feb. 28, sponsored by the Academic Affairs Council of the Student Senate. The event focused on the boundaries of academic freedom and the privileges and responsibilities afforded to professors in the classroom.

On hand for the event were Provost Bruce Mallory, Professor Todd DeMitchell of the Education and Justice Studies Department, Professor Mark Silverstein of the Political Science Department at Boston University, junior Katherine Steere of the Academic Affairs Council of the Student Senate, and acting director of the Democracy Imperative, Nancy Thomas. The conference followed a controversial story by TNH staff writer Helen Hocknell, published in the fall of 2006, which discussed the viewpoints of psychology professor William Woodward and his personal views that the federal government may have been involved with the terrorism events of Sept. 11, 2001.

On hand for the forum, Woodward commented afterward that “It was an excellent panel because it divided academic freedom into the freedom of the university, which in turn vouches for the freedom of the professor.”

The speakers each presented a unique viewpoint of what makes up free speech in the classroom. Nancy Thomas made the observation that teachers do have the right of free speech and may speak out at times as private citizens in their classrooms, not necessarily attaching the university’s opinions to what they are saying.

Thomas was quick to mention, however, that with freedom of speech comes responsibility to act appropriately.

“Where it gets tricky is in the classroom, as common sense comes into play. Faculty members cannot indoctrinate students, and must be competent in their teachings, and must stay on point. The farther a faculty member strays from the course product, the less production they will have,” she said.

The 1940 American Association of University Professors’ statement on academic freedom states in its second point that “teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”

Professor Mark Silverstein spoke about the distinction between individual and institutional rights and the legality surrounding them. Silverstein commented that the biggest problem with defining free speech in the classroom is the general sense of ambiguity on issues. “The problem is now using the First Amendment to defend academic freedom. The courts need a principled rule to distinguish First Amendment and academic freedom,” he said.

He noted that universities are protected under academic freedom to handle issues as they see fit. He also added that it is up to universities to take a stand on the issue and whether they wish to allow free speech in the classroom or to put parameters on it.

“The university can’t have it both ways. If they are protected by the First Amendment under academic freedom, they can’t in turn say they are going to determine free speech. They cannot constrict the First Amendment and then expand it when they want to,” Silverstein said. “Institutional academic freedom requires we develop thick skin.”

UNH Student Senate Chair of the Academic Affairs Council Katherine Steere agreed, remarking that “Academic freedom is as much the professors’ as it is the students’.”

Sophomore Bill Hunt, creator of the Facebook Group “Students for Academic Integrity,” which publicly states his desire to petition that Professor Woodward be removed from the payroll, commented, “I think the second point in the AAUP statement goes along with how I feel about the situation. If Professor Woodward were teaching a class that involved the 9/11 conspiracies, that would be one thing that you could say what he said is related to the class, but that’s not what’s happening here, he’s teaching psychology and it does not apply.”
—Alex Cornetta

dining services to cut trans fats
University Hospitality Services is taking steps to eliminate all artificial trans fat from the dining halls.

“We are trying to get rid of all trans fat in the foods we offer,” said Rochelle L’Italien, UHS Marketing Services’ registered dietitian. “We’re always looking for what can be changed.”

According to the dining services Web site, on a recent weekend, Holloway Commons served 33 prepared items containing some artificial trans fat. Some of the items included the seafood chowder, vegan grilled cheese sandwiches, scrambled eggs, tomato and basil rice and cheesecake. There are many other items not listed on the dining services Web site that may contain artificial trans fat.

“That database is not completely up to date yet,” said L’Italien, and suggested that anyone with specific questions contact her through dining services.

Many items on the dining services Web site, and some food labels, are listed as having zero trans-fat, when in fact they do contain some. This is because, when labeling foods, if a serving contains less than 2 percent of daily recommended value, it can be listed as zero.

Currently, some scientists believe that no amount of artificial trans fats is good for you. The scientific community does not yet have the long-term research it needs to determine exactly what levels of artificial trans fat cause problems, according to UNH Professor Samuel C. Smith, PhD., a Lipid Metabolism specialist. Many researchers are assuming that any level of artificial trans fat could create a problem.

Artificial trans fat is a byproduct of some processed foods and is widely regarded as being unhealthy.

“Artificial trans fats tend to have a significant effect in raising blood cholesterol levels,” more so than typical saturated fats, said Smith.

Artificial trans fats are created through a process known as hydrogenation, which is used to turn liquid fats, like vegetable oil, into a solid fat with a texture like butter. This is done primarily because the solid fats created can be used as an inexpensive butter substitute.

Many processed foods contain such butter substitutes, and although their nutrition labels say they contain no trans-fat, if the list of ingredients contains either partially or fully hydrogenated oils of any kind, the food will contain some amount of artificial trans fat. The FDA estimates that the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fat each year.
—Robert Cann