Cultural contestation 101.... "Academic freedom" is one of those terms whose meaning and implications are, as we used to say, not too long ago, contested. No one wants to be against academic freedom, so there's a considerable rhetorical advantage to be gained by making one's own definition of it stick. Kinda like the word "Christian" in this respect. Define it one way and (say) Mormons are Christians, and benefit from the privileges conferred by that word. Define "Christian" some other way and Mormons aren't Christians and can't claim that privilege.

You don't have to get all postmodern to see that definitions in general do not mirror some essence of the thing defined; rather they are the product of usage, tradition, linguistic evolution and drift, and sometimes, as with "academic freedom" and "Christian," conscious contestation.

Only if you think of definitions as naturally yoked to essences can you believe that "My definition of X should prevail because it's the definition of X." Only if you think of definitions as the immutable products of legitimate authority can you argue that "My definition of X should prevail because it's the definition offered by authority Y" (say, some dictionary, or the 1915 Declaration of Principles).

Personally, I'd like to see this debate proceed directly on the merits of the various positions, rather than indirectly as a tussle over a definition. Like Erin, I'd prefer that academic freedom be invoked only when academic freedom in the narrow sense is truly at issue. I'd also prefer that to see people stop arguing about gay marriage as if the invocation of the words "traditional definition of marriage" was the least bit relevant, as if definitions were somehow immutable and dispositive. But cultural politics has its own weird dynamic.