Issue Of Academic Freedom Research Articles

Science and Academic Education as Commodities. The Capitalist Dilemma of Modern Universities

Modern universities, both at the level of science and at the level of student education, make a conscious choice of directions. Thus, their scientific and educational activities are being commodified in accordance with the expectations of the free market. It becomes interesting to analyze the issue of academic freedom, when the activities of universities and scientists are controlled by the forces of the free market. The text presented here analyzes the phenomenon of commodification of science and academic education from a meta-scientific, legal and geographical perspective. The whole is complemented by final conclusions.

Teaching Religion and Upholding Academic Freedom

ABSTRACTThe editors of the JRE collected short essays from scholars of religion in response to a recent incident at Hamline University that made national headlines. Last fall, Hamline University administrators refused to extend a contract to an adjunct professor of art history after a Muslim student accused her of Islamophobia for showing a 14th‐century image of Mohammad in an online class. The event provoked intense conversations about issues of academic freedom, religious diversity, the status of contingent faculty, and race. These essays bring together scholarly and personal reflections about the incident at Hamline and what it means for the pedagogy of religious studies.

Academics in Exile: Networks, Knowledge Exchange, and New Forms of Internationalization. By Vera Axyonova, Florian Kohstall, and Carola Richter

It is widely acknowledged today that the academic labour force contributes considerably to the promotion of knowledge-based economies and developing research and innovation (Jöns 2007). To compete in global knowledge economies, internationalizing higher education has therefore become a policy priority, and the mobility of academics has become integral to public discourse, for its wider implications for higher education systems and institutions’ reputations. However, there is scant research on the complex experiences of scholars involved in ‘involuntary academic mobility’, which, as this book suggests, sits in tension with assumptions about academic mobility being universally advantageous. A primary objective of this book is to unpack the paradoxes of exile and contrast the often-romanticized pictures of émigré life with the lived experiences of displaced academics. It offers useful insights on lived experiences in exile, varying mobility trajectories, and exilic professional networks and third-party funding organizations by taking into consideration the reflections and viewpoints of displaced and at-risk scholars and host country higher education institutions. The volume makes a pronounced argument that the involuntary academic mobility of displaced and at-risk scholars as part of forced internationalization can significantly impact and shape transnational knowledge production, transfer, and exchange. This encourages us to reflect more critically upon issues of academic freedom, scholars’ precarity and subjectivities, resistance, and shifting positionalities and positions.

Comment on Yunus Ballim's "The place of teaching, learning and student development in a framework of academic freedom: Attending to the negative freedoms of our students"

In this commentary, we engage with Yunus Ballim's article in this issue that explores how academic freedom can enhance teaching, learning, and institutional culture in South African universities. Ballim uses the concept of negative freedom to show how the institutional culture and everyday practices of universities can play a vital role in shaping students' learning and development. Negative freedom is the degree to which an external power interferes or constrains the choices that people have, limiting the area of action in which they are free to be or do what they want. This creative approach to the issue of academic freedom takes the debate beyond the freedom to choose what is taught or researched at universities and the relationship between universities and the state. We call for further exploration into how student agency is conceptualised from this perspective, questioning how university-society relations intersect with forms of academic freedom.

УНІВЕРСИТЕТСЬКА АВТОНОМІЯ – МІЖ ІДЕЄЮ ТА ПРАКТИКОЮ

The article considers the interpretation of the essence of university autonomy and academic freedom. Approaches to the definition of the concepts of "university autonomy" and "academic freedom" by both domestic and foreign researchers, as well as the interpretation of these concepts in legal documents are analyzed. The author highlights the aspects of legislative support for university autonomy and provides examples of their application in practice. The linguistic interpretation of the term "autonomy" is given. It is determined that the relevance of the study of university autonomy is characterized by the complexity of the very concept of autonomy. It is noted that the implementation of university autonomy enhances the responsibility of higher education institutions for the quality of educational and scientific services and contributes to the training of highly qualified specialists and professionals in future employment. It is determined that the introduction of autonomy of Ukrainian universities implies the establishment of competition among universities, which will ensure their competitiveness in the market of educational services. However, this requires the simultaneous introduction of all types of university autonomy for the effective development of a new, professional and, most importantly, high-quality higher education space in Ukraine. In the course of the research, it was found that the autonomy of higher education institutions is one of the fundamental principles of the Bologna Process, and that the issues of academic freedom and university autonomy have been repeatedly raised during international conferences under the auspices of the Supervisory Board of the Magna Charta of Universities. The conditions for exercising university autonomy in accordance with the principles of legality and responsibility to society are analyzed. The main provisions of university autonomy and academic freedom in the modern system of university education are identified.

Academic Freedom, COVID-19 and Other Challenges to Academic Debate

COVID-19 has raised issues of academic freedom, principally where there are divergences of opinion over the legitimacy of COVID-related vaccination. This, in turn, has cast the spotlight onto the nature of academic freedom in other contentious areas within society and therefore within the academy. While the notion of academic freedom has wide acceptance in theory, it regularly encounters obstacles when it appears to give academics a platform to oppose government policy or even university policy. Two areas are highlighted. The first considers COVID vaccines in academic debate, where the challenge is to balance the freedom not only for academics to speak out in support of vaccination, but also against it. The demands posed by vaccine mandates have brought this tension into prominence. Additional issues include the protection of academics acting as quasi spokespeople for governments, plus the temptation to critique other academics promulgating minority viewpoints based on dubious scientific credentials. This raises the need to protect academics with unpalatable viewpoints. The second dimension explored is that of the status of indigenous concepts of science. While this discussion has no relationship to COVID-19, it brings to the surface a similar range of tensions related to academic freedom. Although the details will vary between indigenous groups in different cultures, they raise a fundamental consideration: ‘what is science?’ For some there are elements of science that are culture dependent; others vigorously disagree. The question is how a university copes with such fundamental disagreements, and what may and may not be acceptable within academia. Does academic freedom allow approaches that appear to be at fundamental odds with one another? The way in which this question is answered has a bearing on approaches adopted to COVID-19 debates.

The National Defense Education Act, the American Association of University Professors and the dilemma of academic freedom in the mid-twentieth century

PurposeThis study asks how American institutions of higher education defended the principles of academic freedom (or intellectual autonomy) during the 1950s, even as they became increasingly dependent on the federal government's financial support, their eligibility for which required an oath of political loyalty under the terms of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Universities whose students or professors resisted the oath faced a dilemma of institutional governance as well as intellectual integrity during the early years of the Cold War.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on documentary and archival sources, including the Congressional Record, the AAUP Bulletin, student pamphlets, newspapers and other publications of the US federal government, and on secondary sources.FindingsThe author finds that the US federal government began to invest heavily in higher education during the 1950s, but financial support was often accompanied by political oversight. Higher education institutions and their professors struggled to reconcile a sense of responsibility for national service with a desire for academic freedom. The findings show how the federal government treated institutions of higher education and dealt with the issue of academic freedom during the Cold War.Originality/valueThis study draws on a large pool of primary sources and previous research to offer new insights into an enduring ideological tension between academic freedom, public service and financial patronage.

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Gail Heriot

On February 19, 2020, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report entitled Free to Learn: Speech and Sexual Harassment on Campus. This individual Commissioner Statement was a part of that report. The Commission originally undertook this project in 2013 in order to examine the Department of Education’s enforcement efforts under Title IX, which at least according to many experts, required colleges and universities to regulate speech on campus in a way that violated the First Amendment. The report faced many delays. One of those delays occurred when President Obama in December of 2016 appointed the then-outgoing Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights to chair the Commission. Since the report was originally intended to examine Title IX enforcement during her tenure as the Department of Education’s chief Title IX enforcement officer, that did not bode well for the report. Not surprisingly, the final version of the report is more laudatory than critical. This short Statement dissents from the report and takes the position that the First Amendment and academic freedom issues raised by the witnesses at the Commission briefing are very real and need to be addressed in a serious manner.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITIES: PAST AND PRESENT

Academic freedom and autonomy have since mediaeval times been considered the hubs around which critical and independent thinking revolved. Men like Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo and Bertrand Russell suffered many indignities in defence of these ideals. Hiring and firing Vice-Chancellors always raise the issue of academic freedom in universities to choose their teachers and operate within their ivory towers without any interference. Besides observations, the work relied on literature review. The paper defines academic freedom and autonomy, carefully details how university councils, academic boards and other committees have resisted outside intrusions into these cherished ideals. Unsuccessful onslaughts at the freedom and autonomy of universities have only called for more consultations and collaboration between governments and university leaderships. This ideal relationship is to harmonise scholastic pursuits with national goals and aspirations. While one cannot expect the government, as financiers of public universities, to look on unconcerned about what happens inside its universities. An appreciation of each other’s expectations and roles can harness national development without any players feeling traumatized and befuddled. Increased participation of academics in partisan politics and scrupulous regard for merit and committee work in universities will not only improve government understanding of universities, but also create peaceful industrial atmospheres in universities to render both interference and censure unnecessary.

Core Values of Academic Freedom in EU and Their Compliance with Legal Documents Adopted by the Common European Space and UN

The present research aims at analyzing core values of Academic freedom in EU based on comparing legal documents of each member state with those adopted by the UN and Common European Space. The paper discusses the meaning and values of academic freedom, analyses ways of its protection, reviews the legal documents which include the issue of academic freedom. Based on the purpose of the work empirical, comparative, doctrinal, “Law in Action” vs “Law in Books” research methods are used. The research methodology aims at analyzing the legislative basis of the EU member states which are participants of the Bologna Process and study their experience to draw up relevant conclusions. The present work can be an aiding factor towards further studies.

Are We Facing a Fundamental Challenge to Higher Education Internationalization?

The global landscape for higher education internationalization is changing dramatically. What one might call “the era of higher education internationalization” might either be finished or, at least, be on life support. In addition to nationalist-populist factors, issues of academic freedom, ethics, the role of English, shifting patterns in student mobility, and concerns about transnational education, are challenging the future of internationalization. The current criticism about the unlimited growth of teaching in English, recruitment of international students and development of branch campuses, is coming from two completely opposite sources. On the one hand, there is the nationalist–populist argument of anti-international and anti-immigration. More relevant is the concern about quality, academic freedom, and ethics in the higher education community itself.

Are We Facing a Fundamental Challenge to Higher Education Internationalization?

The global landscape for higher education internationalization is changing dramatically. What one might call “the era of higher education internationalization” might either be finished or, at least, be on life support. In addition to nationalist-populist factors, issues of academic freedom, ethics, the role of English, shifting patterns in student mobility, and concerns about transnational education, are challenging the future of internationalization. The current criticism about the unlimited growth of teaching in English, recruitment of international students and development of branch campuses, is coming from two completely opposite sources. On the one hand, there is the nationalist–populist argument of anti-international and anti-immigration. More relevant is the concern about quality, academic freedom, and ethics in the higher education community itself.

Policy conflicts on the move: a ‘mobilities’ case study of neoliberal postsecondary policy

In light of multiple, dispersed forms of online civic participation, we must reconceptualize how public intervention into policy production and enactment takes place. This study examines a case of academic and operational restructuring termed ‘TransformUS’ that took place at a Canadian university in Saskatchewan from 2013 to 2014. Our analysis centers on a sequence of high profile events in May 2014 at the University of Saskatchewan, sparked by the firing of a tenured dean who publicly criticized TransformUs. We examine the mobilization of this policy conflict, and specifically, how discourses and actors were implicated in its movement, alongside articulations of neoliberalism/anti-neoliberalism and academic freedom. We analyze data posted by Twitter users (tweets), in combination with hyperlinked articles, to examine content and methods of communication. We argue that broader mobilization of TransformUs was enabled through the decontexualization of a localized conflict situation and its recontextualization as an issue of academic freedom.

The Slow Erosion of Academic Freedom: United States Government Barriers to Academic Research and the Sharing of Information

The question presented in this paper is simple: Does the United States government have the right to restrict ideas, knowledge, or information? While this has been a hotly debated question over the years this paper provides evidence that, in many cases, the restrictions imposed by government officials (or their designated agents, such as a university’s Institutional Review Board) are based on arbitrary interpretations of the law. In addition, the officials making these decisions are rarely, if ever, held accountable for their decisions. After analyzing the results of an online survey completed by over 5,000 participants regarding the issue of academic freedom, and conducted a review of the literature on this issue, it is the position of this paper that a neutral and independent decision-making body should be established to ensure that academic freedom of expression is not arbitrarily suppressed.

Open Access Policies and Academic Freedom: Understanding and Addressing Conflicts

The adoption of open access (OA) policies that require participation rather than request it is often accompanied by concerns about whether such mandates violate researchers’ academic freedoms. This issue has not been well explored, particularly in the Canadian context. However the recent adoption of an OA policy from Canada’s major funding agencies and the development of the Fair access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) in the United States has made addressing the issue of academic freedom and OA policies an important issue in academic institutions. This paper will investigate the relationship between OA mandates and academic freedom with the context of the recent OA policy at the University of Windsor as a point of reference. While this investigation concludes that adopting OA policies that require faculty participation at the institutional level should not be an issue of academic freedom, it is important to understand the varied factors that contribute to this tension. This includes misunderstandings about journal based (gold) and repository based (green) OA, growing discontent about increased managerialism in universities and commercialization of research, as well as potential vagueness within collective agreements’ language regarding academic freedom and publication. Despite these potential roadblocks, a case can be made that OA policies are not in conflict with academic freedom given they do not produce the harms that academic freedom is intended to protect.

The state of social media policies in higher education.

This paper presents an analysis of the current state of development of social media policies at institution of higher education. Content analysis of social media policies for all institutions listed in the Carnegie Classification Data File revealed that less than one-quarter of institutions had an accessible social media policy. Analysis was done by institution and campus unit, finding that social media policies were most likely to appear at doctorate-granting institutions and health, athletics, and library units. Policies required that those affiliated with the institution post appropriate content, represent the unit appropriately, and moderate conversations with coworkers and external agencies. This analysis may inform the development and revision of social media policies across the field of higher education, taking into consideration the rapidly changing landscape of social media, issues of academic freedom, and notions of interoperability with policies at the unit and campus levels.

Honest Iago? A media and academic freedom case study

This case study involves issues of academic freedom and media freedom at the regional University of the South Pacific (USP) in a dispute between the senior administration of the university and two journalism lecturers over the impact of media releases and media comments made between May and July 2014, about the military-backed government and the right to freedom of expression. In May 2014, just four months before Fiji’s post-coup general election, a student at USP, suddenly and unexpectedly, had his scholarship cancelled. As a result, USP student journalists wrote a radio news story, which was broadcast on the USP radio station Radio Pasifik. A few days later, the scholarship was reinstated. Shortly afterwards, the USP journalism lecturers issued a joint media release criticising the military government on two issues: (1) their support of torture; and (2) the refusal of accreditation for two senior Fiji journalists to attend an international conference being held in Nadi. This action brought the two lecturers into an acrimonious dialogue with the USP administration. The article reviews the media coverage and examines the issue from the perspective of the head of the journalism programme.

Phillip Deery. Red Apple: Communism and McCarthyism in Cold War New York.

Phillip Deery's Red Apple: Communism and McCarthyism in Cold War New York reminds us of the devastating impact that domestic anticommunism had on its victims at the height of the Cold War. His narrative recaps the events of the Cold War era when Americans witnessed the greatest attacks on their civil liberties. “McCarthyism,” according to the author, “for at least a decade, disfigured the American political landscape” (p. 1). Red Apple makes an important contribution to the literature on domestic anticommunism by turning our attention to New York City. As Deery notes, New York City was the “epicenter” of American Communism (p. 3). By the 1950s the city became a major battleground between Communist and anticommunist forces. It was home to the largest number of Communist party members in the nation and many organizations affiliated with the party were headquartered in the city. In addition, some of the most noted anticommunist intellectuals from leftist anti-Stalinists to those on the Right made New York City their home. Several anticommunist organizations in a variety of fields including labor, academia, religion, civil rights, and business were located in the Big Apple. By the early 1950s thousands of Communists and anticommunists participated in Cold War struggles raising issues of academic freedom, freedom of opinion, and national security. These battles in the city reflected what was taking place throughout the entire country.

Intellectual-Human Rights Defenders and Claims for Academic Freedom under Human Rights Law

Human rights claims arising out of attacks on intellectual-human rights defenders (hrds), if brought, typically do not include claims for violations of academic freedom. As a result the standards are underdeveloped relative to other human rights claims and the scope of academic freedom violations globally. This may be in part due to a negatively reinforcing lack of familiarity with issues of academic freedom and the available standards for protection among human rights advocates, and in part to the fact that attacks on academic freedom often manifest as violations of other rights under which claims are brought (e.g. wrongful detention or torture). This article argues that existing human rights law would sustain claims for violations of academic freedom as independently and interdependently derived from the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to education. The article argues that including academic freedom claims in such cases has the benefit of providing an additional basis for relief while strengthening the claim for relief on a manifested violation by providing evidence of motive and intent. Including academic freedom claims also has the independent value of addressing the wider harms to the claimant-victim and society that result from attacks on intellectual expression and are not reached by relief on the manifested violation alone, including harms to a claimant-victim’s creative, intellectual or expressive work, and widespread chilling effects on creativity, teaching, publication and the free exchange of ideas in society.

Intellectual-HRDs and claims for academic freedom under human rights law

Many human rights defenders operate from within higher education institutions, research institutes, academies, societies and ‘think-tanks'. Many of these academics, researchers and lecturers would recognise themselves as human rights defenders because their academic work is consciously paired with rights-promoting education and advocacy. Others may not set out to be human rights defenders, but are cast in the role after being targeted for attack. Human rights claims arising out of such attacks on intellectual-HRDs, if brought, typically do not include claims for violations of academic freedom. As a result the standards are underdeveloped relative to other human rights claims and the scope of academic freedom violations globally. This may be in part due to a negatively reinforcing lack of familiarity with issues of academic freedom and the available standards for protection among human rights advocates, and in part to the fact that attacks on academic freedom often manifest as violations of other rights under which claims are brought (e.g. wrongful detention or torture). This article argues that existing human rights law would sustain claims for violations of academic freedom as independently and interdependently derived from the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to education. This article argues that including academic freedom claims in such cases has the benefit of providing an additional basis for relief while strengthening the claim for relief on a manifested violation by providing evidence of motive and intent. Including academic freedom claims also has the independent value of addressing the wider harms to the claimant-victim and society that result from attacks on intellectual expression and are not reached by relief on the manifested violation alone, including harms to a claimant-victim's creative, intellectual or expressive work, and widespread chilling effects on creativity, teaching, publication and the free exchange of ideas in society.