Defense Of Academic Freedom Research Articles

Student protests at Boğaziçi University against Turkey’s authoritarian regime

Amidst the proliferation of authoritarian regimes globally, youth has been on the front lines against top-down politics, antidemocratic norms and values, exclusion from decision-making processes, the privatisation of higher education, the erosion of academic freedom, the stigmatisation of different lifestyles, precarity and environmental degradations. As part of the global authoritarian wave, Turkey has witnessed a comprehensive economic, social and political transformation under Justice and Development Party (AKP) governments. The governing party has deepened neoliberal transformation, plundered environmental commons, imposed a conservative lifestyle, eroded democratic values, attacked academic freedom and intensified polarisation, precarity and corruption in the country. One of the biggest challenges to the AKP government has come from student resistance against the appointed rector at Boğaziçi University (BU). In this research, I focus on how BU has become a space of contestation by students against authoritarianism in Turkey. Against the top-down appointment of the rector, Boğaziçi resistance started in demand of the democratic election of the rector, institutional autonomy and the defence of academic freedom. However, through naming the appointed rector as ‘trustee’, students at BU have unequivocally made a resounding declaration for democracy, not only echoing within the confines of their campus but reverberating throughout the country.

“My Pulse Beats with the City”: Remembering Albert Aghazarian (1950–2020)

A memorial tribute to Albert Aghazarian (1950–2020) recalling, often in his own words, how he grew up in the Old City of Jerusalem, his life-long passion for the city as a historian and activist, and his unique contribution to the defense of academic freedom at Birzeit University, including the rights of students and staff during his tenure as director of the Public Relations Office.

Democratic Backsliding and Academic Freedom in Hungary

The Hungarian government’s discriminatory actions against the Central European University constitute one of the most prominent conflicts between an academic institution and a government today. My contribution gives a detailed account of how the conflict has unfolded so far. Various frameworks of interpretation, including democratic backsliding, cultural war, and international politics are discussed. I place the story of the university in the context of the polarized cultural climate of Eastern Europe and draw attention to the power of universities in collaborating across borders in defense of academic freedom—and freedom in general.

The Front Rank: On Tenure and the Role of the Faculty in the Defense of Academic Freedom

The Front Rank: On Tenure and the Role of the Faculty in the Defense of Academic Freedom

The Proliferation of Rights-Based Capitalist Violence and Pedagogies of Collective Action

The Proliferation of Rights-Based Capitalist Violence and Pedagogies of Collective Action Jodi Melamed (bio) In her 2017 presidential address, Kandice Chuh addresses the suppression of dissenting scholars and the accelerated undermining of education in the Trump era with an intellectual boldness and along lines that I have come to associate with the scholarship of many ASA-affiliated thinkers. She does not defend academic freedom; rather, she analyzes how the defense of academic freedom often strengthens a culture of "protest nationalism," in which expressions of dissent reinforce and align with the rationalities of the nation-state. She launches a full-throttle critique of "the structured embrace of academic freedom in a liberal key." For Chuh, the true problem of academic freedom is not what scholars may or may not say but "the interested material power behind the very conception of the autonomous rights-bearing citizen iterated by academic freedom and that marks its liberal-nationalist grounds." Her second act challenges ASA members to deliberate a role for ourselves as an "us," associating in the association, in the historical present. Casting the pedagogical as where we do dissent, and dissent itself as a "point of departure," Chuh asks us to think carefully about "the work of associating" and pointedly asks, "What will we have wanted the ASA to have been and done some decades hence?" Implying a contrast with the AAUP ("through associating, the AAUP professionalized the activities of teaching and research"), Chuh lets us know that she expects our together work to be informed by the approaches to vitalizing collective existence ASA constituencies have learned from social movements and interdisciplinary frameworks attuned to the disavowed violences of freedom in racial and colonial capitalist modernity. In my response, inspired by Chuh's critique of academic freedom, I examine the proliferation and intensification of rights-based capitalist violence under the Trump administration and its connection to the assault on universities, public education, and critical thinking more generally. In a nutshell, I argue that we are experiencing a partial remaking of rights under the combined pressure of the ultracapitalist radical Right, a block that leads today for extractive, financial, [End Page 179] and corporate global capitalism, and the political resurgence of a libertarian-leaning ethno-nationalism, which we can think of as a highly individualistic (neoliberalized), lightly veiled version of white supremacy. These forces come together around relatively new articulations of "rights," which grow out of relatively old twentieth-century libertarian notions of economic liberty, and are routed through the First Amendment, antidiscrimination claims, and civil rights redone as libertarian counterrights. They amount to this: the "right" to be unencumbered by concern for the well being of others and the planet. They come into play as tactics for coded attacks on democratic government itself, which for plutocratic libertarians represents majoritarian coercion of minority elites through taxation and other constraints on economic liberty. More antisocial even than everyday neoliberal rationality (for which markets and exchange remain minimally social), radical right and libertarian appropriations of liberal rights abstractions are radically individualistic and property supremacist; they argue for the unbridled "right" of entrepreneurs to accumulate capital in any manner, without limits, regardless of the consequences to anyone else. They include the "free speech" rights of Citizens United, which secured impunity for money to influence the state apparatus as a core exercise of First Amendment rights, and the "free speech" rights of radical right propagandists to speak on college campuses and to be protected from protest and criticism. They include state-level "antidiscrimination" measures, such as the many antiboycott bills that forbid states from contracting with businesses and individuals who support a boycott of Israel (using discrimination against Israel to abrogate boycotters' First Amendment rights and to block organized labor from taking up the issue).1 Individual rights arguments are also forwarded to protect "the taxpayer" from being forced to pay for the government to provide services to other people, including, increasingly, public education. Finally, there is the "right not to have rights laws," including "right to work" laws and state laws forbidding municipalities from passing living wage, antidiscrimination, and voter protection ordinances.2 For these appropriations of liberal rights abstractions to do their work as well...

Consensus, Civility, and Community: The Origins of Minerva and the Vision of Edward Shils

For over 50 years, Minerva has been one of the leading independent journals in the study of ‘science, learning and policy’. Its pages have much to say about the origins and conduct of the ‘intellectual Cold War’, the defence of academic freedom, the emergence of modernization theory, and pioneering strategies in the social studies of science. This paper revisits Minerva through the life and times of its founding Editor, Edward Shils, and traces his influence on its early years – from its association with the Congress for Cultural Freedom in the 1950s, to the higher reaches of research policy in the 1990s. At the close of his life, Minerva continued to espouse Shils’ commitment to what he saw as the fundamental Enlightenment traditions of consensus, civility, and community. In the 21st century, with the achievements of science producing rapid change in every walk of life, his legacy so far retains an established place in the history of scholarship. Whether that legacy will endure – and if so, what role Minerva will play in its defence – remain key questions for the coming generation.

In Defense of Academic Freedom and Faculty Governance: John Dewey, the 100th Anniversary of the AAUP, and the Threat of Corporatization

In Defense of Academic Freedom and Faculty Governance: John Dewey, the 100th Anniversary of the AAUP, and the Threat of Corporatization

In Defense of Academic Freedom and Faculty Governance: John Dewey, the 100th Anniversary of the AAUP, and the Threat of Corporatization

This essay situates John Dewey in the context of the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915. We argue that the 1915 Declaration of Principles, together with World War I, provides contemporary academics important historical justification for rethinking academic freedom and faculty governance in light of neoliberalism and what we argue is an increased corporatization of higher education in the United States. By revisiting the founding of the AAUP and John Dewey’s role in the various debates surrounding the establishment of the organization—including his broader role as a public intellectual confronted by war, questions of duty and freedom, and the shifting boundaries of the professoriate—we argue that professors today should demonstrate academic freedom and reclaim faculty governance for the public good over private interests.

Boomerangs of Academic Freedom

The Ted Steele case is an important episode in the defense of academic freedom in Australia. In addition, it offers a wealth of evidence on how a dismissal, perceived as an attack on academic freedom and free speech, can boomerang on the administration. Yet the matter is more complex than a simple boomerang: the actions of dissidents and unions can also boomerang. In this paper, I examine academic boomerang dynamics through a close analysis of the Steele case.

Free to manage? A neo-liberal defence of academic freedom in British higher education

Much of the rhetoric opposing managerialism in higher education can be ascribed to philosophical and political objections to the neo-liberal ideology which is alleged to underlie the phenomenon. This paper approaches managerialism from a different direction, addressing it within a neo-liberal framework. The paper argues that there is no intrinsic reason why support for a neo-liberal philosophy should equate with a belief in the need for managerialism in higher education. In particular, the author argues that neo-liberalism values freedom above other principles and that managerialism curtails academic freedom through control, instrumentalism and ideology and that, in all of these respects, it is counter-liberal. The paper concludes by suggesting an alternative approach to higher education which would enhance the importance of academic freedom within a neo-liberal policy framework.

In defence of academic freedom: bioethics journals under siege

This article analyses, from a bioethics journal editor's perspective, the threats to academic freedom and freedom of expression that academic bioethicists and academic bioethics journals are subjected to by political...

FIGHTING BACK FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM

AS VIRGINIA’S attorney general pushes forward on a fraud investigation of a climate-change researcher, the University of Virginia is ramping up its defense of academic freedom. A legal demand from Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II (R) for reams of documents related to the climate scientist, a former UVA faculty member, “constitutes an unprecedented and improper governmental intrusion into ongoing scientific research,” the university argues. Cuccinelli wants the data to determine whether the researcher committed fraud when obtaining a state research grant. But in court papers filed on Oct. 20, UVA says legal action “targets a university professor for investigation because the attorney general disagrees with his academic research regarding climate change.” Groups including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warn that Cuccinelli’s probe has broad ramifications. It could spook researchers and scholars at public universities and...

Political Activism, Academic Freedom and the Cold War: An American Experience

Professor Lyman Bradley was chairman of the German Department at New York University and an executive member of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, listed by the Attorney General as a subversive organization. In 1951 he was fired and his long academic career ended. His dismissal, the first by the New York University on political grounds, raises broader concerns about the character of university governance and the fragility of academic freedom in the modern age. In most accounts of academic McCarthyism there have been two historiographical tendencies. One emphasises the overwhelming power of institutions that were allied with McCarthyism; such political power rendered impotent any academic resistance. The other argues that academic McCarthyism was only effective because professors were too timid or frightened to act publicly or collectively in defence of academic freedom. This study will demonstrate that neither can solely explain Bradley’s political persecution. The denial of civil liberties and the violation of academic freedom required three interlocking factors: a powerful Congressional Committee, a determined University administration and a complicit academic staff.

Academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and responsible action: A response to Martin Hall

Martin Hall's essay does offer us a way to make better sense of some of the conceptual and pragmatic links between academic freedom and institutional autonomy in relation to higher education. His analysis of the classic and contextual views of the two concepts also gives us some pathways according to which we could begin to re-imagine conceptions of academic freedom and institutional autonomy constitutive of our own institutions. What I find surprising is his seemingly uncritical treatment of prominent theoretical positions on which he bases his main claims, which leaves his arguments somewhat truncated. In this response I raise some of the issues which I find troubling and also extend existing arguments in defence of academic freedom and institutional autonomy by making a case for responsible action.

Ethics, Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure

Universities can and have existed without academic freedom and academic tenure. But academic freedom is necessary for a university dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge in a democratic society. Both academic freedom and academic tenure are not only rights but also carry with them moral obligations. Furthermore academic tenure is the best defense of academic freedom that American universities have found. Academic tenure can be successfully defended from the many contemporary attacks to which it is being subjected only insofar as it is necessary to defend academic freedom, and only if all involved in the system of tenure observe the ethical requirements that the system demands.

Rejoinder to Stein Tønnesson

PRIO’s director Stein Tonnesson supports my conclusions but disapproves of the basic arguments that question his campaign for globalisation studies as well as of my polemic style of writing. Such disagreements are only to be expected between those who manage the system and those who are employed to do critical analyses of the same. We could simply set aside the differences and focus on the changes we agree on. But dispute over clear-cut arguments is basic to research-based learning (Bjorklund, 1991). So it is also important to brave the Scandinavian storm of conflicts and see where we can benefit from disagreements. First, readers should note that what Tonnesson suggests that they should ignore as ‘a long-winded argument in the style of a political pamphlet’ is in fact based on a fairly conventional academic analysis of ideas to identify and review the basic positions, their consistency and the hidden agendas and power relations. A major conclusion is that the latter are largely related to political and administrative fashions and to the ‘guiding’ of research – a result that has not been questioned so far. Hence, it is also part of my job to contribute to the defence of academic freedom in general and, in particular, to the integrity of the sub-discipline of which I am a professor (just as a judge has to be both impartial and protective of an independent judiciary). This adds some flavour of concern to the presentation, but the level of polemic is surely mild as compared to the prior unsubstantiated, indiscriminate and derogatory critique of development researchers in general. Second, Tonnesson maintains that I have distorted his own and Helland’s writings: ‘Neither Helland nor I wanted to replace research on development with research on globalisation.’ However, I never said that of Helland, who wants to broaden development studies to general research of the South and to subordinate it to the conventional academic disciplines. Let us focus here on Tonnesson and his globalisation campaign. He claims that I have constructed a false dichotomy between stud-

In defense of academic freedom

In defense of academic freedom

Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research

The frequently-encountered wholesale dismissal of either interdisciplinary knowledge or research reflects a profound misunderstanding of their vital contributions to scholarship, society, and individuals. This article presents the only self-contained, comprehensive defense of interdisciplinary knowledge and research, arguing that they are important because: 1. Creativity often requires interdisciplinary knowledge. 2. Immigrants often make important contributions to their new field. 3. Disciplinarians often commit errors which can be best detected by people familiar with two or more disciplines. 4. Some worthwhile topics of research fall in the interstices among the traditional disciplines. 5. Many intellectual, social, and practical problems require interdisciplinary approaches. 6. Interdisciplinary knowledge and research serve to remind us of the unity-of-knowledge ideal. 7. Interdisciplinarians enjoy greater flexibility in their research. 8. More so than narrow disciplinarians, interdisciplinarians often treat themselves to the intellectual equivalent of traveling in new lands. 9. Interdisciplinarians may help breach communication gaps in the modern academy, thereby helping to mobilize its enormous intellectual resources in the cause of greater social rationality and justice. 10. By bridging fragmented disciplines, interdisciplinarians might play a role in the defense of academic freedom. The case against interdisciplinary knowledge and research is made up of many intrinsic drawbacks and practical barriers. Taken together, these rewards, drawbacks, and barriers suggest a mild shift in the contemporary world of learning towards interdisciplinary knowledge and research.

Richard Hume Adrian, D. L. 2nd Baron Adrian of Cambridge. 16 October 1927—4 April 1995

Richard Adrian was a distinguished electrophysiologist who cleared up many of the puzzles about the electrical behaviour of striated muscle. The situation in this tissue is exceptionally complex, both because the surface membrane is invaginated to form the transverse tubules, whose surface area is several times that of the fibre surface, and because substantial amounts of charge are carried across these membranes by processes connected with the turning on of contraction itself. Apart from his scientific work, he played an important part in the life of Cambridge University, as Master of Pembroke College for 11 years and as Vice-Chancellor for two. In the House of Lords, he contributed in an important way to the debates leading up to the new Act of 1986 governing experiments on living animals, and took a major part in the defence of academic freedom in the universities when it was threatened in the Education Reform Bill of 1988.

FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE: AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES

Written originally as a lecture for American students of tertiary educational administration, this essay traces the historical development of lay boards governing American universities and compares this with the current practice at an Australian university. The increasing influence of governmental bureaucracies in both countries is highlighted. The author, an American professor teaching as a visitor in Australia, takes a second look at the American policy of excluding faculty from governing boards. The presence of faculty members on the board could be a bulwark in the defense of academic freedom and institutional excellence.