Universal apprehension rising concerning the diminution of academic freedom

Shifts in the political and social landscape in the U.S. and other Western democracies in the 21st century have sparked increasing trepidations about the potential decline of academic freedom.

Historically, colleges and universities retained substantial authority over admissions, hiring practices, curricular content, and favored research funding. However, these prerogatives are progressively coming under scrutiny.

In a recent academic paper, Pippa Norris, the Paul F. McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Harvard Kennedy School, examined the state of academic freedom and revealed it is subjected to two distinct yet perilous threats. In this edited dialogue, Norris elaborates on the enduring implications these dangers can pose for institutions and academics.

---

What is the definition of academic freedom in this context, and how is it being compromised?

Conventional definitions of academic freedom suggest that as a discipline requiring specialized competencies akin to that of legal or medical professionals, universities and colleges should function as self-regulating entities.

Consequently, upon the foundation of their expertise within specific disciplines, scholars ought to decide upon colleague recruitment and promotion, curriculum content, student selection and evaluation, as well as which research endeavors should receive funding and publication. 

Any constraints on this procedure from external entities, no matter how well-intentioned, can be viewed as detrimental to the quest for knowledge.

Intrusions into academic freedom can stem from various factors. For instance, criteria for state funding of public higher education institutions often prioritize select research initiatives over others. Personnel regulations, defined by legislation, impose restrictions on hiring and termination practices within any organization. Donors may also favor specific initiatives. Certain academic fields might advocate particular methodological approaches and analysis techniques. And the list continues.

Thus, even within the most progressive societies, academic institutions and individual scholars are never entirely independent, particularly if colleges receive public financing.

However, the traditional viewpoint maintains that a significant portion of university and college decision-making processes, along with their operational mechanics, should ideally be governed internally, through scholarly peer review rather than being overseen externally by governmental educational authorities.

You assert that academic freedom is imperiled on two fronts, both external and internal. Could you elaborate?

A considerable segment of the human rights community has predominantly concentrated on external threats to academic freedom. Consequently, international organizations such as UNESCO, Amnesty International, and Scholars at Risk, alongside domestic groups like the American Association of University Professors, consistently criticize governmental restrictions impacting higher education, such as curbs on free speech and the persecution of academic dissidents, especially in the most oppressive authoritarian regimes.

In the United States, recent apprehensions have been notably directed towards states like Florida and Texas, particularly regarding the manner in which legislators have intervened in board governance appointments or altered curriculum through legislative measures.

However, it is important to recognize that government involvement has always been present, even in private institutions. Consider cases of gender discrimination, reflect on Title IX, and analyze various ways legislation has sought to enhance diversity efforts, for instance. This was not arbitrary; it was a progressive initiative aimed at rendering universities more inclusive and enabling a broader spectrum of individuals to attain social mobility.

Hence, one cannot assume that these changes have solely emerged due to the Trump administration. They have roots in a broader process that transcends American borders. Across all democracies, governmental entities at federal or state levels, irrespective of the ruling party, typically oversee employment conditions, university accreditation, curriculum criteria, student grants, and loans, and so forth, meaning they will invariably influence colleges and universities in the U.S. as well.

Furthermore, academic freedom is jeopardized due to internal dynamics within higher education, particularly the informal values and norms ingrained in academic culture. These can manifest in any institution.

In the realm of academia, surveys conducted since the 1950s have consistently revealed a general liberal inclination (broadly interpreted) among the majority of scholars, while conservatives tend to constitute a heterodox minority.

This liberal predisposition arises from multiple sources: it includes self-selection, as it reflects the choices individuals make in pursuing an academic career over private sector roles. Yet it is also perpetuated internally — in terms of who is selected, appointed, promoted, and who secures research funding and publications. Individuals face numerous avenues to conform to the prevailing social norms within their workplace and discipline.

These cultural norms tend to be implicit. The challenge is that failure to adhere to these norms might result in financial repercussions — such as missed promotions or denied advancements in grants and awards.

Moreover, there can be informal pressures stemming from collegiality, friendships, and social circles. Individuals may not want to offend and thus strive to integrate into their colleagues’, departments’, or institutions’ cultures. As a consequence, those holding heterodox views may choose to “self-censor,” refraining from voicing dissent in contrast to the dominant community.

The end result is an amplification of the liberal bias, given that criticisms of prevailing beliefs are seldom expressed or engaged in discussions. Therefore, many who endorse orthodox views, shared by the majority in departmental discussions, hiring committees, or classroom forums, may mistakenly presume that all viewpoints enjoy consideration, while silence should not be interpreted as implicit agreement.
“““html

if marginalized dissenters quietly feel incapable of voicing their thoughts.

The simple impression that academic liberty is diminishing heightens individuals’ inclination to self-censor, as indicated in the study. What accounts for this?

Progressives frequently believe that self-censorship is nonexistent, and that there’s no issue within academia, that everyone feels free to express their views, and that they embrace diversity both in educational settings and within their departments, among other aspects.

The challenge arises when you belong to a minority group, particularly the conservative minority, as you may sense that you cannot openly express your opinions on various subjects that could provoke your peers or result in significant repercussions for your career.

If you are a student with an unconventional perspective, you may worry that you won’t be favored, might miss out on social gatherings, and miss crucial networks that are vital for the college experience. Thus, there exists this unspoken consequence.

Progressives are often unaware of this reality because they perceive a variety of perspectives in discussions, though some may be fundamentally conflicting. They often overlook critiques of their views since those in the minority may refrain from voicing their opinions.

The minority can be defined in numerous ways. It’s not merely one ideology. There exists a spectrum of perspectives within any academic discipline. However, there is a specific lens through which these matters are viewed in a discipline that influences the agenda, impacts textbooks, and shapes classroom dynamics, ultimately affecting the broader informal culture.

You discovered that support for robust pro-academic freedom principles forecasts the readiness of academics to express dissent, even when it contradicts prevailing views. Can you elaborate on that?

Consider individuals who currently advocate for Harvard or any institution or any other unpopular stance. A staunch liberal embodies the argument presented by John Stuart Mill, which asserts that understanding your position requires comprehension of opposing viewpoints, akin to acting as a prosecutor who articulates both sides of an argument. I strive to incorporate this approach in my teaching methodology.

Individuals who champion academic freedom are predominantly found in the more liberal democracies, specifically Western nations. In numerous regions, such privileges do not exist.

In China, you won’t be publicly challenging the Communist Party. It’s about what can be articulated and when — being mindful of the silences and what causes them. Moreover, how do you pose a question without diminishing someone else, ensuring that you engage with them seriously even when you disagree?

The most significant result from my research is that if you are functioning and residing in a nation with greater institutional limitations and reduced legal freedoms, you are more inclined to stifle your own opinions.

You might envision this as an embedded model akin to a Russian nesting doll. The internal group constrains your willingness to voice dissent; the external factors pertain to the penalties you might encounter for speaking out. The two clearly interact, but the informal norms are the most subtle elements that will maintain your silence.

“`