最近，司法院大法官做成釋字第 563號解釋，在解釋理由書出現了「學習權」與「受教育權」。一個「學術自由」的大學法制問題，仍習慣被誤會成「受教育權」來處理，這可能由於立法機關的定義不明，因教育基本法第1條將「學習權」及「受教育權」規定在一起，而「學習權」在字義上又易與「學習自由」混淆。以下，本文擬先釐清「學習自由」、「學習權」及「受教育權」的概念，進一步瞭解釋字第563號解釋的事實與要旨，並從探討學術自由的憲法保障出發，建構學術自由的保護法益，藉此確立學術自由的構成要件，而將相關事實涵攝到可能的構成要件，且從形式規範面與實質手段面，分別作合憲性的探討，藉此建立大學相關爭訟的合憲檢驗類型化基準。最後，建議司法機關遇到大學相關爭訟案件，應從保障學術自由核心的大學法制出發，釐清個案所涉及的學術自由保護法益，以學術自由作為大學自治與法律保留的界限，涉及學術者應以大學自治為重，無涉學術者則應歸法律保留的領域，兩者皆須探討其手段的合憲性，尤其是比例原則的檢驗。

Abstract These days, the Grand Justice of the Judicial Yuan has issued the No. 563 Explanatory Ruling, and in the ruling opinion the terms "the right to learn" and "the right to education" have been used. Thus, an academic freedom issue has been repeatedly and mistakenly treated as a problem about the right to education. That is partly because the Legislature has juxtaposed "the right to learn" and "the right to education" in Article 1 of the Education Essential Law, and partly because the meaning of these two terms is confusing. In the following, this essay will clarify the concepts of "the freedom of learning", "the right to learn" and "the right to education", and then introduce the facts and decision of the No. 563 Explanatory Ruling. The discussion will start from the constitutional protection of academic freedom, and then analyze the protected legal interests of academic freedom. The aim is to set a standard for handling legal disputes concerning universities through discussing constitutional control from formal and substantive aspects. In the end, this essay suggests that judicial institutions when handling cases concerning universities should begin as a protector of academic freedom, and should recognize the academic freedom interests in each case. They should also distinguish the principles of "university autonomy" and "reservation to law", with academic freedom belonging to the university autonomy field. The other matters that do not concern academic freedom should be decided according to law. And, in both fields, themeasures and methods used should be constitutional.