This paper (1) summarizes the main points of the papers in the volume which demonstrate some of the ways that academic freedom is at odds with recent conservative attacks on the professoriate; (2) argues that some of the conservative attacks from students on faculty are at base a failure to acknowledge their equal personhood, but treat them as inferior beings and thus elicit harmful psychological reactions similar to those found in victims of racist slurs; and (3) examines possible solutions, including distancing on the part of faculty, and distributing the burden of critical thinking among all faculty and college courses, thereby making academic freedom a reality for all.

The main purpose of this paper is to offer an account of academic freedom. By way of context, it begins with a brief history of challenges to academic freedom at the University of Colorado. It then turns to the following questions. Who enjoys academic freedom and which of their activities does it protect? What is the relationship of academic freedom to constitutionally and internationally protected civil liberties? From whom or what does academic freedom provide protection? Is academic freedom compatible with public accountability? What are the rationales for academic freedom?

This paper is about teaching progressive ideas where fundamentalist and conservative views are prominent among the students. I take up two questions: What should we take our task as feminist teachers to be? How should it be carried out? I explore three teaching strategies that a progressive teacher might use in a hostile conservative climate: the whole truth strategy, the dismissal strategy, and the bridge strategy. I reject the first two of these and argue that the third is most likely to be effective and also best exemplifies the value of academic freedom.

This essay explores challenges that arise for professors who teach critical theory in our current climate of conservatism. Specifically, it is argued that the conservative commitments to non-revolutionary change and reverence for tradition are corrupted in our current political and intellectual climate. This corruption, called “ideological imperviousness,” undermines the institutional structures put in place to produce a functional educational environment that protects the interests of both professors and students. The result is an environment that imposes an unjust vulnerability on professors and risks depriving students of the opportunity to acquire the critical skills necessary to combat their own vulnerabilities.

In spite of the fact that most university campuses are considered bastions of liberalism (in contrast to the conservative “mainstream”), it remains difficult for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered faculty members and students to come out, and instances of poor treatment still occur. In addition, curricular issues related to LGBT identities and concerns continue to be met with resistance or outright hostility. In this paper, I argue that all faculty—not just LGBT faculty—have an obligation to play a more active role in creating an LGBT-friendly environment on their respective campuses. I end with suggestions for achieving this goal.

I propose to consider chapter 1 of the famous, classic, and foundational Daoist text Dao De Jing, attributed to Laozi, in order to enable a non-expert to negotiate the subject of Daoism in a global philosophy context, and to further enhance the teaching of philosophy by introducing and emphasizing at least some of the controversies that inevitably surround interpretation of a classical set of texts and ideas. This forces students to see through simplistic dichotomies and form subtler conclusions, on their own, and I suggest that this is what the teaching of philosophy should always involve, to be considered philosophy.

I suggest that in teaching about God we remind students of the following four essential points: (1) belief in the existence of God is not a necessary condition for religious commitment; (2) belief in the existence of God is not a sufficient condition for religious commitment; (3) the existence of God is not the only supernatural hypothesis that merits serious discussion; and (4) a successful defense of traditional theism requires not only that it be more plausible than atheism or agnosticism but also that it be more plausible than all other supernatural alternatives.

The achievement of intentional learning is a powerful paradigm for the objectives and methods of the teaching of philosophy. This paradigm sees the objectives and methods of such teaching as based not simply on the mastery of content, but as rooted in attempts to shape the various affective and cognitive factors that influence students’ learning efforts. The goals of such pedagogy is to foster an intentional learning orientation, one characterized by self-awareness, active monitoring of the learning process, and a desire for publicly certified expertise. I provide a number of examples of philosophy-specific teaching strategies that follow this paradigm.

Classroom dialogue can be democratic and evidence critical and creative thinking, yet lose momentum and direction without a plan for systematic inquiry. This article presents a six-stage framework for facilitating philosophical dialogue in pre-college and college classrooms, drawn from John Dewey and Matthew Lipman. Each stage involves particular kinds of thinking and aims at a specific product or task. The role of the facilitator—illustrated with suggestive scripts—is to help the participants move their dialogue through the stages of the framework and to model and prompt good social and cognitive dialogue moves within each stage, until the participantslearn to become self-managed.

A method of assigning, assessing, and utilizing individual-centered collaborative research groups enhances student learning, addresses problems of academic integrity such as plagiarism and free-riding in groups, and incorporates the insights of recent literature on the value of collaboration between and among philosophers and scientists. The method stresses the value of collaborative research while maintaining appropriate focus on individual contributions to avoid problems normally encountered in “group work.”