Let’s throw some chum (the syllabus as intellectual property) into the deep sea and watch the carnage. Okay, perhaps that’s a bit of an exaggerated description for civil debate over who owns the syllabus, but what remains unquestionable is the ongoing debate over syllabus IP vs. accessibility.

The Syllabus Institute does not take a position on the debate, but rather provides you the information you need to shape your opinion on the matter.

Chris Cagle, assistant professor, Film and Media Arts Temple University, aptly outlines six reasons a professor’s hard work should be accessible. These reasons range from “intellectual labor relies on others” to “sharing opens collective wisdom.”

Jean Coppola, associate professor of IT at Pace University in New York, represents a voice on the other side of the debate, in the eCampus News article, “Should professors be forced to post syllabi online?” Coppola asked, “What about professors who have award-winning courses, and their syllabus was unique?” However, the faculty members are not alone, institutions often claim their faculty syllabi as university property by contract, and they too want competing colleges to copy their distinct courses. By claiming ownership of the syllabus as intellectual property universities and faculty members reap the benefit of having an academic commodity, i.e., syllabus for sale.

Howard University has taken steps to ensure faculty members’ syllabi are protected from printing, copying, downloading, editing, and even screen capturing. They have an entire page of Q & A dedicated to syllabus creation, management, and sharing through the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Perhaps a third group that sometimes flanks the battle over syllabus IP and access is the debate about academic freedom.

Those in favor of syllabus and course content consistency tend to be on the administrative side with an argument that students should have a similar experience across sections as well as set a standard bar for evaluating student performance.

On the other hand, those that oppose standardization believe that this is a direct infringement of their academic freedom. Simply put, experienced, talented and or tenured faculty understand the scaffolding that shapes a great course and great learning; they should not be restricted to a master syllabus. With over 17 comments on the ProfHacker blog post, “Academic Freedom vs. Mandated Course Content,” Billie Hara covers this debate.