Is Academic Freedom a Privilege for the Few or Vital for a Democratic Society?
by Altay Coskun, Professor of Classical Studies, University of Waterloo
“My next guest blogger is Altay Coskun, whom I met during my wife’s provincial campaign in 2022. Altay’s ideas on guaranteeing thoughtful, constructive political and academic discourse were very refreshing to me. There is so much negativity and lack of cooperation in federal politics lately that we need more advocates for collaborative dialogue and disagreement. So, with pleasure, I now give Altay the floor to share his thoughts on academic freedom.” - Nick
Academic freedom should not be regarded just as luxury to be enjoyed by an elite, but rather as a necessity for a democratic and prosperous society. The recent increase of infringements on this freedom should concern us all. The effect on our universities may still be regarded as low in comparison with dictatorial regimes, where voicing opposition results in jailtime or worse, and also compared to our big neighbour, where radicalization of political and academic discourse has reached a high level of dysfunction – just think of Florida’s radical anti-Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) measures on the one hand and of the violent agitation against Israel and Jews in our midst at Harvard or Coumbia University. On the surface, we are doing so much better here in Canada, but we are in fact at a tipping point. The most dangerous assault on academic freedom is not the blunt attack by a bold politician or the noisy turmoil caused by righteous activists; it is rather silent and invisible and thus all the more perfidious: self-censorship.
Self-censorship is not to be confused with self-restraint. The latter is a virtue. It may show itself in the shapes of caution, politeness, and humility. Not every shortcoming in others needs to be addressed, most are better generously ignored, so that we can concentrate our attention on things that matter. The former is different: it means you feel that something is going substantially wrong, but you hold back with your own view not so much out of kindness but due to fear of retribution. Unfortunately, I see ever more of this on campus. Conceding that most students and colleagues still avoid speaking against their convictions, a growing number of them are publicly silent in most matters political and ideological, while expressing privately their frustration about not being heard or not having a fair option of articulating their views in the process. This way, we are potentially losing the best ideas, and while we may be celebrating the inclusion of people who had been marginalized in the academic system previously, we should lament a decrease of diversity of thought. The frame of acceptable views on campus has shrunk, and this will come at a high cost for society.
What does this have to do with academic freedom? When I was in my 20s, I did not care much about academic freedom – I took it for granted. Studying and gradually also working at a university (in Germany), I believed that a high level of freedom of speech was a fundamental human right. Withholding this right appeared as a sign of an oppressive state, society, or institution, so that I self-consciously exercised this freedom of thought and expression – to be a citizen of a democratic society and not a subject, and to serve my fellow citizens by fostering critical discussion of problems and possible solutions. I often did not have the solution myself, but in pursuing curious discussion I made my modest yet important contributions on the way to progress. I mostly felt safe to test this freedom both inside and outside the walls of the university’s Ivory Tower, trying to respect the limits of decency, but not shunning youthful fervor, and being ready to take applause or pushback. At any rate, it seemed wrong to me to claim academic freedom as a privilege for the lucky few, when it should be used and enjoyed by every citizen.
Now in my 50s, I realize more complexity, while the world around me is becoming more polarized. Over the years, I have gradually developed a higher appreciation of academic freedom as well. I more clearly perceive the many factors that limit freedom of speech in every-day social interactions or educational settings, ranging from politeness over the concern for some particular vulnerabilities to the desire to avoid conflict. I further notice the wish to fit in with the mainstream and the discomfort of speaking about something without being an expert in that area. There are so many mechanisms in place that silence thoughts without allowing for a free and honest exploration. We thus limit the opportunities to find confirmation, to seek modification, or to allow for rejection of our hypothesis based on the merits of evidence and arguments. Instead, we are tempted to give in to the pressures of interested groups who try to dominate the discourse.
When articulating critical questions or out-of-the-box ideas, academics tend to have an edge. The advantage I am speaking about is not their scholarly expertise – although it may help to have a PhD in Medicine when you talk about the Covid19 vaccine. But people without university degrees also have their fields of experience that may give substance to some of their opinions. For most of the views we voice, however, we are no experts. In such cases, academics tend to have the advantage of their better training through reading, writing, teaching, and discussing, and for the most part they have been pursuing this in an environment that honours the free exploration of thought. A sign of good scholarship is not insisting on being right all the time, but the ability to cede to better arguments and rethink one’s conclusions. It is academic freedom that opens this productive space. In contrast, it is bad scholarship if you try to shut down discussion trying to escape accounting for counterarguments.
The ability to examine problems with curiosity and the willingness to engage critically yet respectfully with other views should be the most valuable deliverable for university students (and why not also for high school and college students?). Obviously, disciplinary depth is the main reason for many students to enroll, but they will have the fullest harvest of their studies only if they have not just been equipped with a bag of firm knowledge, but also with the skills to approach uncertainty or the yet unknown. Students trained under the special protection of academic freedom for their profs and for themselves will dwell on their education later on as teachers, team leaders, developers, journalists, public servants, and else, and in all such roles they will contribute to the prosperity of their society and to a thriving democracy. In contrast, students trained to repeat one ‘truth’ or being silent otherwise will be less creative to solve problems, less courageous to stand up against injustice, and more inclined to fuel the polarization of our society.
Pluralism does not come for free. It involves tensions and it may cause discomfort, but we must not give in to the lure of fake harmony through imposed agreement. We must withstand the temptation of excluding some difficult topics from this freedom without very strong reason and fair procedure. Citizens in a democracy should have the right to explore and assess everything that is potentially of public interest, the decency to speak with respect and in appropriate situations. But the freedom that I am advocating here ultimately implies that others may disagree on what public interest or adequate wording or timing is. Occasional tensions and discomfort are thus the price tag of a principle that keeps our democracy functional and resilient.
Already in 1967, the authors of the Kalven Report, which informed the Chicago Principles of institutional neutrality, described the inevitable side effects of academic freedom and its best safeguard: an active form of institutional neutrality:
The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge. Its domain of inquiry and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. ... The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is … a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.
Quebec is the only Canadian province to give full legal protection to academic freedom (Loi sur la liberté académique dans le milieu universitaire, 7 June 2022), rather than keeping it as an aspirational declaration of individual universities. It is to be wished that this becomes a model for a federal law. This would not just be an important sign for those uncertain whether to speak out on their own campus, it would also be a welcome opportunity to revive the conversation on constitutional rights we have and on the free, curious, respectful, courageous, reality-facing, and resourceful democracy we could be.
Further readings:
My plea for institutional neutrality – a blog post for the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo.
‘Are Our Schools and Universities the Strongholds of Freedom?‘ (Controversies #4 at think-centrist.com).
The Kalven Report (Chicago 1967).
‘The Legal Foundations of Academic Freedom in Canada | CAUT’
