Cómo usar Humalog KwikPen 200 unidades/ml

Participants argued that providing clear legal protection for student academic freedom was one of the necessary steps to protect and secure such freedom. They believed that the absence of a legal protection for student academic freedom made it vulnerable to the different beliefs and practices of faculty members. This was previously described by participants as varying levels of student academic freedom that differed according to the professor. In this context, legal

protection would set standard levels for student academic freedom regardless of the personal beliefs of faculty members. This would enforce student academic freedom, minimize

discretionary powers given to faculty members and undermine infringements on academic freedom by the different levels of authority. Mona argued that there should be a solution to student academic freedom that would go beyond the level of FEPS to higher education policies including enshrining student academic freedom in constitutional or legal frameworks.

She explained:

There should be constitutional or legal protection for student academic freedom with detailed enforcement mechanisms. This is the way to deal with professors that do not allow for freedom of expression inside classroom as well as those who do not allow students to freely conduct their researches.

In addition, participants argued that legal protection was only a starting point as enforcement of such legal frameworks on the level of on-ground practices would be the determining factor. Omar explained:

If there are laws or regulations preserving academic freedoms and rights, they will constitute a good step. However, the main factor depends on the idea of practice in reality. In other words, there should be a kind of oversight to ensure that such laws would be enforced properly and that nobody would circumvent them.

101

Likewise, Dr. Salwa argued that laws required enforcement in reality and prompt responses to attempts of circumventing and breaking such laws.

She noted:

There should be a statement in the Law of organizing universities protecting academic freedom. At the same time there should be a defense for such freedom in reality so that any source of infringement on it will be faced with a counter-movement. There is a possibility that a statement protecting academic freedom exists but in reality there is a silence regarding infringements. In such case, there will never be academic freedom whether for students or faculty members.

While faculty members and students agreed on the necessity of a legal enshrinement of academic freedom, contradictory opinions appeared while discussing the content and enforcement

mechanisms of such laws. The main point of disagreement was related to the procedures that should be undertaken whenever a faculty member violated and repressed student academic freedom. Students believed that there should be an entity or office responsible for student grievances concerning academic freedom violations and that disciplinary action should be taken against faculty members who infringed on student academic freedom. They argued that without punitive procedures to deter faculty members from repressing student academic freedoms,

infringements on such freedoms would continue. In this context, Amany argued that there should be a mechanism for dealing with student grievances regarding unfair grading. She reported that the allowed grievance regarding exam grades was only to make sure that grades were summed correctly without giving the student the right to have a look on his/her paper. She suggested that grievances should deal with cases where the professor unfairly graded the student because of different views.

102

Amany explained:

There should be an entity to which I can file a complaint if a professor gave me a poor grade and investigation has to be conducted. There should be an effective mechanism for student grievance. Now, the applied grievance is sham as what is allowed is to make sure that grades were summed correctly; may be my answers were correct but the professor disliked my opinions so he deducted from my grades.

Similarly, Khaled argued that punishments had to be applied on faculty members who impeded student faculty members.

He explained:

The law should stipulate punishment on whoever impedes student academic freedom. It’s nice to write on paper that student academic freedom should be respected but the main issue is when a professor prevents me from expressing my opinion what will be the procedure that shall be taken?

Some faculty members agreed with what was proposed by students regarding establishing an entity or office to deal with student grievances regarding academic freedom violations.

Dr. Laila noted:

There should be a legal statement that ensures student academic freedom…Also there

should be a mechanism such as an entity or office on the level of faculties or university to deal with grievances related to cases such as if a student feels that a certain professor discriminates against him because of his opinions.

However, many faculty members expressed their fear of the counter-effects of institutional mechanisms to deal with violations of student academic freedoms and imposing penalties on faculty members. Dr. Manal argued that in a polarized context like the Egyptian one especially after the revolution, such institutional mechanisms could be politicized and unfairly used against faculty members.

103

She explained:

The idea of establishing an entity to which a student can file his grievance if he felt his grading was influenced by political factors is very difficult to implement. Here we must refer to our context; such issues could be politicized in our context. Sometimes the

student dislikes the professor because such professor has a certain opinion so the student makes a preconceived judgment about the professor even before he enters classroom.

She then expressed her rejection of student grievances regarding unfair grading by saying:

In such a polarized context where everything is being politicized and a certain group is being persecuted, you cannot confirm a student’s allegation that a professor gave him a poor grade because of a political orientation. Moreover, who can read the students’ answers and decide that evaluation is unfair? ; There is no model answer to compare with.

Likewise, Dr. Amira argued that in the context of lack of trust in the intentions behind any suggested policy, institutional mechanisms to penalize faculty members who violated student academic freedoms might be understood as a tool that would be used by the state to discriminate against dissident faculty members.

She explained:

There is another problem related to lack of public trust prevalent in the country…If a new law states that a professor may be fired or deprived of promotion based on subsequent student complaints, the first thing come to my mind that there are certain professors who are politically against the ruling authority and the authority shall use the law to get rid of them through student complaints.

In other words, Dr. Dina argued that institutionalization of student academic freedom would replace what she called “professor’s tyranny” with “institutional tyranny”.

104