本文選題：學術(shù)自由 + 大學自治��； 參考：《山東大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 學術(shù)職業(yè)具有一種普通職業(yè)所未有的神圣,其高貴之處表現(xiàn)在學術(shù)的自主上。學術(shù)是心靈自由的產(chǎn)物,學術(shù)的發(fā)展是一個爭取自由的過程,學術(shù)發(fā)展的動力來自于學術(shù)自由,因此學術(shù)自由成為一種憲法權(quán)利變成為一種必然。學術(shù)自由不同于言論自由,其內(nèi)容包括學術(shù)思想自由、學術(shù)研究自由和學術(shù)研究成果的傳授、交流與發(fā)表自由,研究自由和成果發(fā)表自由屬于每一個人,而教學自由則屬于教師,大學和教師作為主要的學術(shù)研究機構(gòu)和研究人員依然是學術(shù)自由權(quán)的主要主體。當然學術(shù)自由權(quán)并不是絕對的,與公民的其他基本權(quán)利比如人身自由相比,學術(shù)自由權(quán)并不具有當然的優(yōu)先性,學者不能濫用學術(shù)自由權(quán),同時,學術(shù)自由也要受到學術(shù)規(guī)范的制約。 學術(shù)自由和大學自治具有內(nèi)在的本質(zhì)關(guān)系,學術(shù)自由是大學自治的合法性基礎(chǔ),大學獨特的運行邏輯就在于實現(xiàn)學術(shù)自由,大學自治是對學術(shù)自由的制度性保障,由于大學中學術(shù)事務本身的自主規(guī)律性,使得大學自治成為實現(xiàn)學術(shù)自由的必需,大學自治制度獲得了法理支撐,并取得了憲法上的地位,同時,大學自治以實現(xiàn)學術(shù)自由為旨歸,與學術(shù)自由權(quán)的實現(xiàn)之間是一種手段與目的的關(guān)系。從而使得學術(shù)自由具有了個人權(quán)利與制度的雙重性格,制度性保障不僅可以防御來自國家的侵害,而且還可以要求國家應創(chuàng)設(shè)制度,推動學術(shù)自由的發(fā)展。 大學自治權(quán)目的在于保護學術(shù)自由,這一目的決定了大學自治的內(nèi)容和界限,大學自治不能偏離學術(shù)自由的保護,而大學自治的事務雖然以學術(shù)自由為基礎(chǔ)和核心,卻并不限于學術(shù)自由的固有內(nèi)容,還包括為了實現(xiàn)學術(shù)自由、大學理念所必需的事務和權(quán)力內(nèi)容,與學術(shù)自由的實現(xiàn)直接相關(guān)的事項,一般包括財政自治、人事自治、學術(shù)自治和管理自治。大學自治具有明顯的單方性、強制性,具有確定力、約束力、執(zhí)行力特征,是典型的行政行為,其涉及的相對人主要有兩類：一類是學生,另一類則是教師。 大學自治既為學術(shù)自由的手段,則為了目的實現(xiàn)不能不接受國家的監(jiān)督。監(jiān)督主要是合法性監(jiān)督,國家要尊重大學對專業(yè)事務的獨立判斷。監(jiān)督既可以是行政監(jiān)督也可以進行司法監(jiān)督,不過司法監(jiān)督也不是無限的,能否提起行政訴訟則要遵循重要性原則。 我國雖然在憲法中明確規(guī)定了學術(shù)自由權(quán),但在建構(gòu)具體的權(quán)利保護制度方面卻存在很多不足,特別是對大學學術(shù)自由的保護方面,沒有建立一種制度性保障措施來實現(xiàn)學術(shù)自由,甚至沒有提到大學自治,而是采用了辦學自主權(quán)的概念,而且辦學自主權(quán)從一開始就不屬于學術(shù)自由的范疇,將大學簡單的視為法律法規(guī)授權(quán)組織,從而對大學實施嚴格的管理和監(jiān)督。因此,我國大學的辦學自主權(quán)與學術(shù)自由之間缺乏一種內(nèi)在的、手段和目的的直接關(guān)系,使得辦學自主權(quán)不過是國家出于行政效率考慮而實施的行政放權(quán)手段而已,而非對學術(shù)自由的尊重。 完善我國的辦學自主權(quán)的措施可以從學生、教師和大學三個主體的學術(shù)自由權(quán)保護的角度出發(fā)。對學生權(quán)利的保護,首先是完善申訴制度,通過與行政復議、行政訴訟的銜接建立一個配套完整的、從行政救濟到司法救濟的暢通渠道。其次是擴大司法救濟范圍,將學校除分、招生錄取和學校評價行為皆納入行政訴訟范圍。在此在審查標準上,要區(qū)分學術(shù)性爭議和行政性爭議,采用不同密度的審查標準,主要進行合法性而不是合目的性審查。 對于教師權(quán)利的保護,則要解決教師的法律定位問題,教師的聘任制必須以雙向選擇為前提、以合同為基礎(chǔ)、以法定的職業(yè)保障和專業(yè)保障為核心,確立教師的專業(yè)工作者地位,將教師逐漸納入勞動法保障的大框架內(nèi)。就教師與教育行政部門的關(guān)系而言,非公務員身份決定了教師并不從屬于后者,二者構(gòu)成了外部行政關(guān)系,對來自后者的侵害,應該允許教師通過行政訴訟尋求權(quán)利保護。就教師與學校的關(guān)系而言,二者構(gòu)成勞動契約關(guān)系,對來自學校的侵害,教師可以利用已有的勞動爭議解決渠道尋求救濟,通過仲裁和訴訟來保護自己的合法權(quán)利。另外,為了保護教師權(quán)利還有強化教師在大學自治中的主體地位,并構(gòu)建符合我國國情的學術(shù)評價機制以促進教師的學術(shù)自由。 對大學權(quán)利保護的核心是確立大學的公法人地位,我國目前大學的法律地位一般被認定為事業(yè)單位,這種地位使得大學成為政府的附庸。高等教育法中雖然確立了大學的法人地位,但這種法人只具有私法上的意義,而沒有公法意義。我們應該借鑒大陸法系大學公法人化經(jīng)驗,確立大學的公務法人地位,可以在保證學術(shù)自由的條件下,獲得較大的活動空間,還可以依據(jù)其公法組織的性質(zhì),將其納入“依法行政”的范疇,同時,當辦學自主權(quán)受到教育權(quán)的侵害時,可以提起行政訴訟來尋求司法救濟。
[Abstract]:Academic profession is not sacred in an ordinary profession. Its nobility is manifested in academic autonomy. Academic is the product of freedom of mind. Academic development is a process for freedom, the motive force of academic development comes from academic freedom, so academic freedom becomes a kind of constitutional right. Academic freedom does not. Freedom of speech, the freedom of academic research, the imparting of academic research and academic research, communication and publication, freedom of study and publication of freedom and publication of freedom belong to everyone, and the freedom of teaching belongs to the teacher, and the universities and teachers are still the right to academic freedom as the main academic research institutions and researchers. Of course, the right of academic freedom is not absolute. Compared with other basic rights of citizens, such as personal freedom, academic freedom is not of course priority. Scholars can not abuse the right of academic freedom. At the same time, academic freedom should also be restricted by academic norms.
Academic freedom and university autonomy have intrinsic essential relations. Academic freedom is the basis of the legitimacy of university autonomy. The unique operational logic of university lies in the realization of academic freedom. University autonomy is the institutional guarantee for academic freedom. As a result of the autonomy of the University's high school affairs, university autonomy becomes academic freedom. The system of university autonomy has been supported by jurisprudence and obtained the status in the constitution. At the same time, the university autonomy is aimed at the realization of academic freedom, and the realization of the right to academic freedom is a relationship between means and purpose. Thus, academic freedom has the dual character of individual rights and system, and institutional guarantee can not only be prevented. From the invasion of the country, it can also request the state to create a system to promote the development of academic freedom.
The purpose of university autonomy is to protect academic freedom, which determines the content and limits of university autonomy. University autonomy can not deviate from the protection of academic freedom. While university autonomy is based on academic freedom and core, it is not limited to the inherent capacity of academic freedom. It also includes the idea of academic freedom and the idea of University. The necessary affairs and power content, which are directly related to the realization of academic freedom, generally include financial autonomy, personnel autonomy, academic autonomy and management autonomy. University autonomy has obvious unilateral, mandatory, determinative, binding and executive characteristics. It is a typical administrative act, and the relative persons involved are mainly two categories. One is a student, the other is a teacher.
The university autonomy is the means of academic freedom, but for the purpose of realizing it can not accept the supervision of the state. Supervision is mainly legal supervision. The state should respect the independent judgment of the University for professional affairs. Supervision can be either administrative supervision or judicial supervision, but the judicial supervision is not unlimited. Follow the principle of importance.
Although our country clearly stipulates the right of academic freedom in the constitution, there are many shortcomings in the construction of specific rights protection system, especially in the protection of academic freedom of the University, and there is no institutional guarantee to realize academic freedom, even without reference to university autonomy, but the concept of autonomy in running a school. From the very beginning, the right to run a school does not belong to the category of academic freedom, and the university is simply regarded as the authorized organization of laws and regulations, so as to carry out strict management and supervision to the University. Therefore, there is a lack of a direct relationship between the autonomy and the academic freedom of the University's autonomy and academic freedom, which makes the autonomy of running a school no longer. It is the administrative decentralization means that the State takes into account the administrative efficiency, rather than the respect for academic freedom.
The measures to improve the autonomy of school running in our country can start from the angle of the protection of the three subjects of students, teachers and universities. To protect the rights of students, the first is to improve the appeal system, and to establish a complete and complete channel from administrative remedies to judicial relief through the connection with administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation. It is to expand the scope of judicial relief, the division of schools, enrollment and school evaluation are all included in the scope of administrative litigation. On the standard of examination, it is necessary to distinguish academic disputes and administrative disputes, adopt different density examination standards, and mainly conduct legitimacy rather than eye examination.
For the protection of teachers' rights, it is necessary to solve the problem of teachers' legal position. The appointment system of teachers must be based on two-way choice, based on contract, with legal occupational security and professional guarantee as the core, to establish the professional status of teachers, and to put teachers into the large framework of labor law guarantee. As far as the relationship of the Department is concerned, the non civil servant status determines that the teacher does not belong to the latter, and the two constitute the external administrative relationship. The violation of the latter should allow the teachers to seek rights protection through administrative litigation. As for the relationship between teachers and schools, the two constitutes a labor contract relationship, and the teachers can make use of the infringement from the school. In order to protect the rights of teachers and strengthen the main position of teachers in university autonomy, and to promote the academic freedom of teachers in order to protect the rights of teachers and to protect the rights of teachers in order to protect their own legal rights through arbitration and litigation.
The core of the protection of University rights is to establish the status of the public legal person of the University. At present, the legal status of our university is generally recognized as a institution. This position makes the university become the appendage of the government. Although the legal status of the university has been established in the higher education law, the legal person has the significance of private law but not the public law. We should learn from the common experience of the public law of the Civil Law University and establish the status of the official legal person of the University. We can obtain greater activity space under the conditions of guaranteeing academic freedom, and bring it into the category of "administration according to law" according to the nature of its public law organization. At the same time, when the autonomy of running school is infringed on the right to education, it can be brought up. Administrative litigation to seek judicial remedies.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：G644

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 愛德華·希爾斯,林杰;論學術(shù)自由[J];北京大學教育評論;2005年01期

2 熊慶年;對落實高等學校辦學自主權(quán)的再認識[J];復旦教育論壇;2004年01期

3 殷嘯虎,吳亮,段于民;“高校處分權(quán)”及其法律監(jiān)督——對大學生懷孕被退學案的個案研究[J];華東政法學院學報;2003年03期

4 冒榮;趙群;;學術(shù)自由的內(nèi)涵與邊界[J];高等教育研究;2007年07期

5 劉北成;以職業(yè)安全保障學術(shù)自由——美國終身教職的由來及爭論[J];美國研究;2003年04期

6 謝泳;1949年前中國國立大學校長與政府的關(guān)系[J];社會科學論壇;2004年10期

7 謝海定;學術(shù)自由:侵權(quán)與救濟[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2005年06期

8 陳學飛;談學術(shù)規(guī)范及其必要性[J];中國高等教育;2003年11期

9 秦惠民;學術(shù)管理中的權(quán)力存在及其相互關(guān)系探討[J];中國高教研究;2002年01期

，

本文編號：1942922