Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement As a nurse, how often have you thought to yourself, If I had anything to do about it, th -

Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement
As a nurse, how often have you thought to yourself, If I had anything to do about it, things would work a little differently? Increasingly, nurses are beginning to realize that they do, in fact, have a role and a voice.
Many nurses encounter daily experiences that motivate them to take on an advocacy role in hopes of impacting policies, laws, or regulations that impact healthcare issues of interest. Of course, doing so means entering the less familiar world of policy and politics. While many nurses do not initially feel prepared to operate in this space effectively, the reward is the opportunity to shape and influence future health policy.
To Prepare:
Select a specific bill that has been proposed (not one that has been enacted) using the congressional websites provided in the Learning Resources.
https://www.congress.gov/
https://www.house.gov/
https://www.senate.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/senators/leadership.htm
The Assignment: (1- to 2-page Comparison Grid; 1-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement)
Part 1: Legislation Comparison Grid
Based on the health-related bill (proposed, not enacted) you selected, complete the Legislation Comparison Grid Template. Be sure to address the following:
-Determine the legislative intent of the bill you have reviewed.
-Identify the proponents/opponents of the bill.
-Identify the target populations addressed by the bill.
-Where in the process is the bill currently? Is it in hearings or committees?
Part 2: Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement
Based on the health-related bill you selected, develop a 1-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement that addresses the following:
-Advocate a position for the bill you selected and write testimony in support of your position.
-Describe how you would address the opponent to your position. Be specific and provide examples.
Use in text citations. References last 5 years and scholarly. APA format

Legislation Comparison Grid Template

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Assignment on

Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement As a nurse, how often have you thought to yourself, If I had anything to do about it, th

From as Little as $13/Page

Use this document to complete Part 1 of the Module 2 Assessment
Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Health-related Bill Name

Bill Number

Description

Federal or State?

Legislative Intent

Proponents/ Opponents

Proponents:

Opponents:

Target Population

Status of the bill (Is it in hearings or committees?)

General Notes/Comments

Legislation Comparison Grid Template

2018 Laureate Education Inc.

2 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
N u r s O u t l o o k 6 5 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 4 6 e 3 5 0
www.nursingoutlook.org
Corrigendum to position statement: Political interference
in sexual and reproductive health research and health
professional education [Nursing Outlook 65/2 (2017)

242e245]
Diana Taylor, PhD, RNP, FAAN*, Ellen F. Olshansky, PhD, RN, WHNP-BC, FAAN*,

Nancy Fugate Woods, PhD, RN, FAAN*,
Versie Johnson-Mallard, PhD, ARNP, BC, FAANP, FAAN*,

Barbara J. Safriet, LLM, JD, FAAN*, Teresa Hagan, PhD, RN*
* Womens Health Expert Panel
The authors regret that the printed version of the above
article contained a number of errors. The correct and
final version follows. The authors would like to apolo-
gise for any inconvenience caused.

Political interference in sexual and reproductive
health research and health professional education
threatens the health of women and men. The Amer-
ican Academy of Nursing strongly supports actions to
prevent political interference by supporting academic
freedom principles and policies in institutions of
higher education generally, and in those offering in-
struction in nursing particularly.
Background
The American Academy of Nursing (Academy) has raised
the voice of nursing in support of policies that ensure
peoples access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH)
services. Specific policies focus on the expansion of SRH
clinical knowledge and evidence-based womens pre-
ventive health services (Berg, Taylor, Woods, 2013)
related to preventing unintended pregnancies (Berg,
Olshansky et al, 2012) in order to assure that all
womens health care, including abortion care, is groun-
ded in scientific knowledge and evidence-based policies
and standards of care (Berg, Shaver et al, 2013).

Unfortunately, politicians across the country are
pushing for laws and regulations that restrict ethical
standards of care and impose politics and ideology on
evidence-based clinical care as outlined by the recent
0029-6554/$ – see front matter 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003
policy report (National Partnership for Women &
Families, 2015) lead by a coalition of 24 nursing, med-
ical, health and advocacy organizations (Coalition to
Protect). The Academy has responded to these threats
of political interference with the patient-provider
relationship, ethical and evidence-based standards of
care, and womens access to safe, quality sexual and
reproductive health care, by:

Participating in an Amicus Brief to the US Supreme
Court opposing a deceptive Texas law requiring
medically unnecessary restrictions on clinical prac-
tice: Read the Amicus Brief of the American Nurses
Association (ANA)/Academy and the Academys
press release from June 2016 applauding the SCOTUS
decision to reject Texas HB2 (National Physicians
Alliance, American Academy of Nursing et al, 2016;
American Academy of Nursing, 2016).

Speaking out about how political interference with SRH
care harms women: See article from the Academys
President Berkowitz, Examining Whats at Stake: The
Supreme Court, Nurses and Abortion Care Provision pub-
lished in Huffington Post Health (Berkowitz, 2016) and
quotes from health professionals on political interfer-
ence in clinical practice.

Opposing political interference in the Title X Family
Planning Program and fully supported (with testi-
mony) proposed DHHS rules strengthening regula-
tions that align Title X requirements with established
Medicaid/Medicare criteria for qualified providers
based on professional and facility scope of practice
and licensing (Federal Register, 2016).

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

http://www.nursingoutlook.org

i A Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) formu-
lated a statement of principles on academic freedom and academic
tenure known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles, was officially
endorsed by the Association at its Second Annual Meeting held in
Washington, D.C., December 31, 1915, and January 1, 1916. In 1925,
the American Council on Education called a conference of repre-
sentatives of a number of its constituent members, among them the
American Association of University Professors, for formulating a
shorter statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure.
The Association of American Colleges (now the Association of
American Colleges and Universities) endorsed the statement
formulated at this conference, known as the 1925 Conference
Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, in 1925 and by the
American Association of University Professors in 1926. Further in-
terpretations, adopted as footnotes to this statement by the Council of the
American Association of University Professors in April 1970, asserted,
Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to
both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to
the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect
is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in
teaching and of the student to freedom in learning.

N u r s O u t l o o k 6 5 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 4 6 e 3 5 0 347
Now the Academy is focused on another threatdpolitical
interference with academic freedom, particularly SRH
research and health professional education

A case in Missouri highlights the most egregious political
interference in academic freedom that threatens science,
clinical training, and research. In September 2015, under
pressure from Missouri politicians, the University of Mis-
souri (Wilson, 2015) canceled ten contracts with Planned
Parenthood eliminating clinical training for nursing and
medical students in comprehensive SRH services inclu-
ding long-acting contraception methods and early abor-
tion care. The University of Missouri thereafter ended
admitting privileges for an OB-Gyn faculty member and a
Planned Parenthood physician and attempted to stop a
University of Missouri graduate student from continuing
her dissertation research on the impact of a 72-hour
waiting period on women considering abortions (Wilson,
2015; Kingkade, 2015). In response to this abuse of power
and threat to academic freedom, individuals from the
Academys Womens Health Expert Panel published a
response in the Huffington Post on November 13,
2015.Since this posting, growing national attention has
brought issues regarding political interference in aca-
demic freedom to the forefront of the national conversa-
tion on SRH health care research, practice and the
education of the next generation of health care providers.

In response to these threats, the Academy Board of
Directors approved the development and affirmation of a
position statement on Political Interference in SRH
Research and Health Professional Education that follows.

Position Statement: Political Interference in Sexual
and Reproductive Health (SRH) Research and Health
Professional Education

Prevention of Political Interference Specific to SRH
Research and Education
The American Academy of Nursing opposes attempts
by politicians and/or academic administrators to
regulate instruction and research related to sexual and
reproductive health based on ideology rather than
principles of academic freedom and practice or edu-
cation standards related to sexual and reproductive
health. Specifically, the American Academy of Nursing:

Opposes political interference in evidence-based sexual
and reproductive health care, education and research;

Opposes the harassment and censorship of students
and their faculty advisors who seek to understand
and study the impact of legislation and policies on
individual and community health outcomes related
to restriction of reproductive choice or SRH services;

Supports university faculty and students freedom to
1) discuss issues of sexual and reproductive health
and abortion in the classroom, and 2) provide in-
struction in clinical sites that provide a full range of
sexual and reproductive health services;

Supports faculty and students freedom to engage in
scholarship and research activities related to sexual
and reproductive health, including abortion; and
Supports faculty and students freedom from re-
striction in pursuit of education and clinical training
related to all evidence-based unintended pregnancy
prevention and sexual and reproductive healthcare.

The American Academy of Nursing supports the
principles and practices of academic freedom in gen-
eral, and specifically, as they apply to sexual and
reproductive health research and health professional
education including:

Supporting the definition of academic freedom as a
universitys fundamental commitment that all members
of an academic community have the broadest possible
latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.

Affirming that the intent of academic freedom to
afford members of the academic community the
broadest possible scope of unencumbered expres-
sion, investigation, analysis and discourse. Most ac-
ademic institutions and faculty organizations have
put into practice the individual and institutional re-
sponsibilities and rights to academic freedom to
ensure that faculty and students will not experience
political interference in research and education.

Recognizing that academic freedom applies to the
individuals and institutions through professional
and legal principles, policies, opinions and laws
developed by the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) and the American Association of
Colleges and Universitiesi and endorsed by over 200
scholarly and professional organizations. In addition
to the professional standard of academic freedom,
there is a substantial body of law that shapes faculty
and institutional claims to academic freedom.

Supporting principles and policies arising from the 1940
AAUP Statement and case law focused on faculty
freedom from external (political) intrusion and institu-
tional intrusion. The following fundamental academic
freedom principles and policies are incorporated into
hundreds of college and university faculty handbooks

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

N u r s O u t l o o k 6 5 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 4 6 e 3 5 0348
(exemplars from public universitiesdUniversity of
Washingtonii, University of Californiaiii, University of
Michiganiv; and a private universityvdUniversity of
ii University of Washington Faculty Code, Section 24-33, A State-
ment of Principle: Academic Freedom and Responsibility Approved
by: Senate Executive Committee October 7, 2013; Faculty Senate
October 24, 2013; Senate Executive Committee November 18, 2013;
Faculty Senate December 5, 2013; Certified by Jack Lee, Chair, Faculty
Senate 1/9/2014; President Michael Young January 8, 2014. The
University of Washington Faculty Code (UW Code) is an exemplar
for enacting academic freedom principles. The UW Code empha-
sizes that the academic community e students, faculty members,
administrators, and trusteesdis obligated to respect the dignity of
others, to acknowledge their right to express differing opinions, and
to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and
instruction, and free expression on and off the campus. Expression
of dissent and attempts to produce change may not be enacted in
ways that injure individuals and damage institutional facilities or
disrupt the classes of ones instructors or colleagues. Further,
campus speakers must be protected from violence and given an
opportunity to speak. Those seeking to call attention to grievances
may not significantly impede the universitys functions. The UW
Code stipulates that facultys exercise of constitutionally protected
freedom of association, assembly, and expression, including
participation in political activities, does not constitute a violation of
duties to the University, to their profession, or to students and may
not result in disciplinary action or adverse merit evaluation. In
addition to defining the right to academic freedom, the University of
Washington stipulates faculty responsibilities, including re-
sponsibility to present the subject matter of their courses as
approved by the faculty in their collective responsibility for the
curriculum. Within the approved curriculum, faculty members are
free to express ideas and teach as they see fit based on their mastery
of their subjects and their own scholarship. In addition, the UW
Code stipulates institutional responsibilities to academic freedom;
that both faculty and students be entitled to an atmosphere
conducive to learning and to evenhanded treatment in all aspects of
the instructor-student relationship. Faculty members have obliga-
tions to respect the freedoms of students, meaning that faculty may
not refuse to enroll or teach students because of the students beliefs
or the possible applications that students may make of knowledge
gained in a course. In addition, the code asserts that students will
not be forced by the authority of the faculty to make particular po-
litical choices or their roles in society. Further, evaluation of stu-
dents and the award of credit must be based on their academic
performance judged professionally and not on matters such as
personality, sexual orientation, or sexual, romantic, familial, or
other personal relationships.
iii University of California, Academic Personnel Manual 010.

General University Policy Regarding Academic Appointees: Aca-
demic Freedom. APM e 010. Accessed 08/21/16.
iv University of Michigan Faculty Handbook 1.C. Senate Assem-

bly Statement on Academic Freedom (www.provost.umich.edu/
faculty/handbook 1/1.C.html accessed 8.21.2016.

v Although most universities today accept the principles of aca-
demic freedom, tensions exist between individual and institutional
academic freedom under the First Amendment that challenge the
professions, the AAUP, colleges and universities and courts. Clearly,
the scope of institutional academic freedom between private
(especially religiously affiliated) and public sector institutions has
tested individual faculty and student freedoms and the four
essential freedoms of a universityeto determine for itself on aca-
demic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be
taught, and who may be admitted to study. [see University of
Chicago reference to Freedom of Expression policy, 2015].
Chicagovi) and form the basis for preventing political
interference in SRH research and education.
B Debate and deliberation may not be suppressed
because the ideas put forth are thought by some, or
even most, members of the academic community
to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-
headed.

B Individual members of the university community,
not the university as an institution, will make
judgments and act on those judgments not by
seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and
vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.

B Fostering the ability of members of the university
community to engage in debate and deliberation in
an effective and responsible manner is an essential
part of a universitys educational mission.

B Freedom to debate and discuss the merits of
competing ideas does not mean that individuals
may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. A
university may restrict expression that violates the
law, falsely defames a specific individual, consti-
tutes a genuine threat or harassment, unjustifiably
invades substantial privacy or confidentiality in-
terests or is otherwise directly incompatible with
the functioning of the university.

B The University may reasonably regulate the time,
place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does
not disrupt the ordinary activities of the university.
These legitimate, but narrow, exceptions to the well-
established general principle of freedom of expres-
sion must never be used as a pretense for eroding or
obstructing free and open discussion of ideas.

The American Academy of Nursing calls for:

1) Professional organizations in nursing and other
health care professions as well as organizations of
academic communitiesvii to join in affirming the
Statement on Political Interference in Sexual and
Reproductive Health (SRH) Research and Health
Professional Education,

2) The extension of the Academys position statement
to bring attention to political interference in
evidence-based SRH research and health profes-
sional education,

3) The publication of academic freedom principles
and practice guidelines specific to SRH research
and education using exemplary academic freedom
codes from public and private colleges and
universities.
vi University of Chicago Freedom of Expression Committee,
2015. Accessed 091516 at http://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/
default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf.
vii Partial list of the relevant organizations for the Academy to
work with on endorsing this statement: National League for
Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American
Association of University Professors, American Association of
University Women, Association of Reproductive Health Pro-
fessionals, National Partnership for Women and Families, Na-
tional Womens Law Center.

http://www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/handbook%201/1.C.html

http://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

N u r s O u t l o o k 6 5 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 4 6 e 3 5 0 349
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by
members of the Womens Health Expert Panel (espe-
cially Marcia Killien and Judith Berg), Kim Czubaruk,
Esq., Policy Manager and Academy Staff Liaison to the
Womens Health Expert Panel and Sarah Lipton-Lubet,
JD of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

r e f e r e n c e s

1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,
American Association of University Professors and of the
Association of American Colleges.

American Academy of Nursing. (2015). Press release: American
Academy of Nursing applauds U.S. Supreme Court decision on Texas
abortion access law. 6/27/2016. Retrieved from https://
higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AANNET/c8a8da9e-
918c-4dae-b0c6-6d630c46007f/UploadedImages/docs/Press%
20Releases/2016/2016-06-27_Supreme%20Court%20Decision%
20TX%20Abortion%20Access%20Law.pdf

American Association of University Professors, Academic
Freedom Principles and Regulations. Retrieved from https://
www.aaup.org/report/recommended-institutional-
regulations-academic-freedom-and-tenure

Barry, D., Friedman, A. D., & Lipton-Lubet, S. (2015). Changing the
conversation on abortion restrictions: A proactive response to
political interference in healthcare. Washington DC: National
Partnership for Women and Families. Retrieved from http://
www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/changing-the-
conversation-a-proactive-response-to-political-interference-
in-health-care.pdf

Berg, J. A., Olshansky, E., Shaver, J., Taylor, D., & Woods, N. F.
(2012). Womens health in jeopardy: Failure to curb
unintended pregnancies: A statement of the womens health
expert panel. Nursing Outlook, 60, 163e164.

Berg, J. A., Taylor, D., & Woods, N. F. (2013). Where we are
today: Prioritizing womens health services and health
policy. A report by the Womens Health Expert Panel of
the American Academy of Nursing. Nursing Outlook, 61(1),
5e15.

Berg, J. A., Shaver, J., Olshansky, E., Woods, N. F., & Taylor, D.
(2013). A call to action: Expanded research agenda for
womens health. Nursing Outlook, 61(4), 252.

Berkowitz, B. (2016). Examining whats at stake: The supreme court,
nurses and abortion care provision. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobbie-
berkowitz/examining-whats-at-stake_b_9293684.html

Coalition to Protect the Provider-Patient Relationship. Retrieved
from http://www.coalitiontoprotect.org/?referrerhttp://
www.coalitiontoprotect.org/

Federal Register (2016). Compliance with Title X requirements by
project recipients in selecting subrecipients, DHHS Rules, 1/19/
2016. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2016/12/19/2016-30276/compliance-with-title-x-
requirements-by-project-recipients-in-selecting-subrecipients

National Physicians Alliance, American Academy of Nursing,
Center for American Progress DBA Doctors for America,
American Nurses Association, Society for Adolescent Health &
Medicine (2016). Brief of Amici Curiae in support of petitioners
(Whole Womens Healthcare) in the U.S. Supreme Court case
No. 15e274. Retrieved from https://www.reproductiverights.
org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/National%
20Physicians%20Alliance%20Skadden.pdf
Euben DR (2002). Academic freedom of professors and American
Association of University Professors. Retrieved from https://
www.aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom/professors-and-
institutions

Johns Hopkins University, Academic freedom at Johns Hopkins.
Web.jhu.edu-academic freedom at Johns Hopkins Statement
of Principles on Academic Freedom.

Kingkade, T. (2015). Missouri lawmaker seeks to block students from
studying restrictive abortion law. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abortion-study-
university-of-missouri_us_563fab2be4b0411d307168a3

National Partnership for Women and Families. (2015). Politics in
the exam room: a growing threat. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-
library/repro/politics-in-the-exam-room-a-growing-threat.pdf

Taylor, D, McLemore MR, Burton, CW, Olshansky, E, Berg, J, Levi,
AJ, Woods, NF & Shattell, M. Missouri shreds academic
freedom. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/mona-shattell/missouri-shreds-
academic-_b_8555628.html

University of California. General University Policy Regarding
Academic Appointees: The Faculty Code of Conduct. Part
I e Professional Rights of Faculty. APM e 015. Accessed 08/21/
16. The University of California (UC) statement on Academic
Freedomvii emphasizes the role of academic freedom in
protecting freedom of inquiry and research, freedom of
teaching, and freedom of expression and publication as a
basis for the universitys ability to advance knowledge and
transmit it effectively to students and to the public. In the UC
System, academic freedom is defined as fostering a mature
independence of mind in students.

University of Chicago Freedom of Expression Committee, 2015.
Retrieved from http://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/
documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf. Recognizing
nationwide events that have tested institutional
commitments to free and open discourse, the University of
Chicago formed The Committee on Freedom of Expression to
draft principles that articulate the Universitys overarching
commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and
deliberation among all members of the Universitys
community.vii In 2015, the University of Chicago clarified its
commitment to promote and protect free expression:
members of the university community must act in
conformity with the principle of free expression;
members of the university community may contest
views expressed on campus (or by invited campus guests);
members of the university may not obstruct or otherwise
interfere with the freedom of others to express views they
reject or loathe.

University of Michigan Faculty Handbook, 1.C. Senate Assembly
Statement on Academic Freedom. Retrieved from https://
www.provost.umich.edu/facultyhandbook/1/1.C.html.
The University of Michigan Faculty Handbook emphasizes
the influence of the normative structure of disciplines and
professions as a basis for faculty practicing their scholarly
profession. Michigan further asserts that academic freedom
exists independent of any external protection . as a
basic prerequisite for universities to fulfill their mission,
a professional prerequisite of faculty members
as a group. Michigan views academic freedom as including
freedom of research and publication; freedom of teaching;
freedom of internal criticism; and freedom of participation in
public debate.

University of Washington Faculty Code, Section 24e33, A
Statement of Principle: Academic Freedom and
Responsibility Approved by: Senate Executive
Committee October 7, 2013; Faculty Senate October 24,
2013; Senate Executive Committee November 18, 2013;

https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AANNET/c8a8da9e-918c-4dae-b0c6-6d630c46007f/UploadedImages/docs/Press%20Releases/2016/2016-06-27_Supreme%20Court%20Decision%20TX%20Abortion%20Access%20Law.pdf

https://www.aaup.org/report/recommended-institutional-regulations-academic-freedom-and-tenure

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/changing-the-conversation-a-proactive-response-to-political-interference-in-health-care.pdf

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0029-6554(17)30262-2/sref5

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0029-6554(17)30262-2/sref6

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0029-6554(17)30262-2/sref7

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobbie-berkowitz/examining-whats-at-stake_b_9293684.html

http://www.coalitiontoprotect.org/?referrer=http://www.coalitiontoprotect.org/

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30276/compliance-with-title-x-requirements-by-project-recipients-in-selecting-subrecipients

https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/National%20Physicians%20Alliance%20Skadden.pdf

https://www.aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom/professors-and-institutions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abortion-study-university-of-missouri_us_563fab2be4b0411d307168a3

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/repro/politics-in-the-exam-room-a-growing-threat.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mona-shattell/missouri-shreds-academic-_b_8555628.html

http://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf

https://www.provost.umich.edu/facultyhandbook/1/1.C.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.003

N u r s O u t l o o k 6 5 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 4 6 e 3 5 0350
Faculty Senate December 5, 2013; Certified by
Jack Lee, Chair, Faculty Senate 1/9/2014; President Michael
Young January 8, 2014. The University of Washington Faculty
Code is extensive and specific in stipulating the
responsibilities and rights of students, faculty members,
administrators, and trustees related to academic freedom
and the right to speak or write without institutional discipline
or restraint on m

Related Questions:

Related questions

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply