I want to add a few things to Steve Blair's excellent analysis:

Academic freedom rights come in two flavors. The first flavor is the classroom. As a tenured university professor I have the intellectual and ideological freedom to express my own opinions about a topic as long as they are not against the university rules and are part of what the class is about. Yes I have to abide by rules so dropping the "F" bomb as punctuation would likely get me talked to. There is no credible reason in my classes to engage in that freedom. However, a colleague who teaches communication often plays the entire George Carlin "7" words you can't say on television for her class. The context is absolutely there.

I also have freedom to research. My research into cyber warfare as low intensity conflict is decidedly within the scope of information technology and information assurance and security. My research is detested and reviled by several colleagues who hate what I research. They loathe that I even have one friend or colleague within the department of defense. I truly believe everyone of them would stand up for my right to engage in my research agenda and support me. So much do they support me, I don't have to justify it, just do it with respect for their views.

You can tell that most of the people have been commenting in the open on other websites really don't know what academic freedom is and have not researched it. I find even in academia most people have no real idea what academic freedom is and where the principles of it come from.

For about 80 years the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has worked to instantiate academic freedom as a corollary requirement to education accreditation. No academic freedom no accreditation of the University. Though a relatively low percentage of professors belong to AAUP from what I've seen AAUP has worked tirelessly to insure academic freedom exists.

The statement of academic freedom from AAUP

Academic Freedom

  1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
  2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
  3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
Like a lot of situations writers, pundits, and politicians have a tendency to only tell you the part of the case that helps them out. Here is where I say shame on Mr. Ricks. Everything claimed about Dr. Metz violating academic freedom is covered by the responsibility clause of academic freedom. If anything Dr. Metz should be applauded for restraint. For all those people making comments on blogs about academic freedom and their fully informed opinions as professionals I say shame. Their fully informed opinions are bankrupt.

Mr. Ricks and the taught strung less than informed professors hoisting Dr. Metz up likely have not reflected on the fact they are engaging in pillory of Dr. Metz for his respect to the full intent of academic freedom. He did not just selectively implement the rights without considering the responsibilities. Said another way, their choice, was not his choice, so they censure him. Ironic on many levels.

I have not seen the "blackball" email but from what Mr. Ricks, and Dr. Metz have said the letter basically was cautioning his fellow faculty, who Dr. Metz might have some responsibility towards, to be careful. From what I've seen the criticism of Dr. Metz has been an attack against the responsibility required by academic freedom. I however do not claim to be fully informed on what I don't know.

Like all truly important topics this is not an easy or simple topic. A lack of academic freedom got Socrates the hemlock tea. Academic freedom has been discussed extensively by academics, and legislatures. The vilification of the Army War College is an example of the stakes people will engage in to put their stamp on the issue. There is a substantial body of literature covering this topic if anybody is truly interested. I would start with AAUP and work towards the deeper literature.

If you want an in depth look at the idea of academic freedom and the military education system I strongly suggest you read this article, "Can Academic Freedom Work in Military Academies?" Like always the truth is a lot messier than a simplistic sensationalist headline by a pundit. Of course, research, thinking, consideration, and examination of the basic literature is a hallmark of the academe not the press.