Each time something occurs at a college campus – from speeches some dislike, to teaching things that much of the world views as nuts, to shutting down campus functions, protests and riots -those involved point to “academic freedom” to justify actions that the rest of us would get in trouble for.
Academic freedom can result in a disparity in who gets to say what – some academics have protections to promote issues – while those opposed (the general public) may have no such protections. This creates an asymmetry in public dialogue.
Rather than freedom for everyone, we have freedoms specified for a specific group: academics.
FAQs on Academic Freedom | AAUP
The academic freedom of faculty members consists of four interrelated elements:
- Teaching: freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom;
- Research: freedom to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression and to publish the results of such work;
- Intramural speech: freedom from institutional censorship or discipline when addressing matters of institutional policy or action; and
- Extramural speech: freedom from institutional censorship or discipline when speaking or writing as citizens.
The effect is many academics have freedoms the rest of us do not have. They have the freedom to say hurtful things and to promote issues that may be harmful to us – but if any of us did this – or even attempt to reply to their speech, we could lose our jobs because the private sector has no speech protections.
The concept of academic freedom applies only to faculty members – the AAUP acknowledges this disparity. Others, even those who work at academic institutions do not have the same protections:
How does academic freedom apply to extramural speech?
This is arguably the most controversial and most challenged aspect of academic freedom, as it does not necessarily relate to disciplinary expertise. AAUP policy calls for faculty members to be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens, but faculty members’ special position imposes special obligations. When speaking on public matters, faculty members should strive to be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show appropriate respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
Who has academic freedom? Is it an unlimited right?
Academic freedom in the AAUP’s definition applies to faculty members; it is a professional right extended to members of the profession and is subject to certain limitations. Academic freedom means that faculty are free to engage in the professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching that are necessary for the purposes of the university. It does not mean that individual faculty members are free to teach or publish whatever they want without repercussions.
An effect of this is that academics can say things that members of the public may not be able to respond to, because they do not have the same perceived “freedoms” – and might lose their jobs, unlike the academics.
This results potentially in biased public discourse – academics, who may have tenure job guarantees (only teachers and Federal judges have access to tenure) have the freedom to promote issues that may not be in the interests of the general public. But the general public does not have the same freedom to respond to those promotional efforts.
Related: In my state, public employees are granted free speech rights that do not apply to the private sector. Specifically, no public sector worker can receive work related feedback regarding the employee’s political activities. Private sector workers have no such protection. A possible result is that public sector workers can promote issues for which private sector workers might not be able to form a response (without getting in trouble).
The AAUP justifies this with an appeal to authority – academics are smarter and more important than you:
Those teaching and researching in higher education need academic freedom because the knowledge produced and disseminated in colleges and universities is critical for the development of society and for the health of a democracy, an idea often expressed by the phrase “for the common good” or “for the public good.” The common good depends upon the free search for truth and should not be guided by the desires of wealthy donors, by partisan political aims, by religious institutions, or by the desire not to offend.
A corollary is that those not in academics, and not producing knowledge “critical for the development of society and for the health of a democracy” should not and do not have the same protections, creating a bias in public discourse.
I and likely many of us get why the concept of academic freedom is important – but how do we reconcile that academic freedom appears to give academics more freedoms to express viewpoints than the freedom allotted to the general public?
We end up with Animal Farm’s “All are equal but some are more equal than others”.
Is their a solution to this?
Academic freedom comes up from time to time – in the past year, especially, in response to protests over Gaza and Israel – but was used to justify activities that were direct threats to Jews on U.S. campuses. If similar threats were made to members of other “minority” groups (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc) those threats would not have been tolerated.
See also UChicago PozenReports_01_AcademicFreedom.pdf
The First Amendment is meant to prevent the government from limiting what any citizen can say. Academic freedom, by contrast, is meant to protect the government (or anyone else) from meddling with how citizens in one specific category—academics—about the collective enterprise of seeking the truth. In a free speech framework, all views are inherently equal.
The very definition – right there – is that academics are a special category for protected speech.
The paper goes on to assert a “human right” for academics to pursue topics that would get them in trouble (noting the example of international academics in the U.S. promoting anti-US agenda items). Academics could do this, but other people who are not academics would not have the same freedom. In effect, this is an “appeal to authority” argument in favor of academics.
(I am in favor of academic freedom – but for all. That’s the issue. Without matching freedoms, public discourse will always be biased in favor those who work as academics.)
