Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957)

Introduction

Why is Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) relevant in postsecondary education?

Verdict made during the arbitration of Sweezy EEv. New Hampshire case supports the autonomy of postsecondary institutions in their quest to come up with quality decisions and policies concerning appropriate curriculum made for their respective students (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). This is especially in law and other related institutions whereby proliferation of scholarship may be under threat due to external constraints from either the government or other influential people intending to cause interference to attain their selfish interests.

This autonomy coupled with Academic Freedom as stated in the constitution provides ample ambiance for enhancement of scholarship for both teachers and students (Kern & Alexander, 2012). Since, they are capable of expressing themselves freely, make inquiries and evaluations concerning varied premises that may pose certain controversies in their respective fields. This also extends to institutions’ leaders embracing the mandate of resolving internal conflicts appropriately, which are in their jurisdictions as long as they do not involve constitutional values (Kern & Alexander, 2012). Provide a current example where the case might apply today.

Currently, verdicts made following Sweezy v. New Hampshire case are suitable in addressing free speech in public universities and colleges, which numerous leaders have meddled with to the extent of punishing vocal whistleblowers while revealing corrupt and misappropriation deeds (Sullivan, 2013). This is evident in Renken’s case where after suing university of Wisconsin for misappropriating NSF grant the defendant retaliated by declining to offer him any grant besides reducing his salary (Schmidt, 2009). In higher education institutions, professors and students use metaphorical approach in presenting their research findings that have great impact on the entire society through scrutiny. Therefore, by denying them a well-protected platform leads to the retarding scholarly work, which is essential for any state’s development not intellectually but also other varied areas.

How does your example affect the ethical decision-making of educational leaders? The consequence of this example will significantly influence the way education leaders make decisions towards resolving internal conflicts as well as creating a good environment meant for scholarship enhancement. Since the latter is very imperative both to the students and professors in contributing to the already existing body of knowledge. References

Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (2014). The Law of Higher Education: Student Version. Jossey-Bass       Inc Publisher.

Kern, A. & Alexander, M. D. (2012). American public school law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth             Cengage Learning.

Schmidt, P. (2009). Professors' Freedoms Under Assault in the Courts. (Cover story). Chronicle        Of Higher Education, 55(25), A1-A11.

Sullivan, T. (2013). For Faculty Free Speech, the Tide Is Turning. Chronicle Of Higher           Education, 60(5), A31-A32.