Opinion
Academic freedom is a tattered, blurred remnant of what it once was. We need urgent clarity on freedom of expression for all staff – for the good of the sector and all those who serve within it.
Two articles have fanned flames of dissention around the use, nature and impact of academic freedom this month – but merely highlight an unresolved issue that has been eating away at institutional harmony of late.
Academic Freedom. Is it dead? Should it be dead? And how does the concept stand next to the incarcerated tongues of Professional Staff? At times like these, is it possible to argue that narrowly defined academic staff should have rights above those of professional and third space colleagues, as if there is a higher wisdom quotient across all topics conveyed by job description?
In the old days, before social media and everyone being an expert in their own blogisphere, academic freedom was relatively easy to define – at least in Australia. Academic staff got to speak in public on areas of their disciplinary expertise, and attach their academic titles and institution to their comments, lending gravitas in the public domain. When talking about areas outside their expertise, they had the same rights as everyone else. Do it on your own time, don’t try to claim special credibility from being an expert in an unrelated field. List your home suburb and plain name so you aren’t attempting to elevate your voice above others by virtue of your academic status. And the professional staff? They don’t speak in public as a university person, unless they are delegated to do so on behalf of the university.
In 2026 we have traditional media, social media, staff portals, blogs, podcasts and all manner of opportunities to communicate with audiences. But we also have crises of governance, social licence, resourcing, and political ill-will.
How are we going on antisemitism, anti-islamic sentiment, racism? Maybe no worse than the community at large – but most would hasten to say we should be far better. If staff become disillusioned by their leaders or their system, will speaking out result in leaders better being held to account?
So here we come to the two articles of the month.
Chris Marquis, a University of Cambridge professor, wrote an article in the New York Times saying that ‘I teach at a Business School. It’s Time to Shut Them Down.’ Professor Marquis carries an impressive CV – having taught at business schools including Harvard, Cornell and Cambridge for 20 years – says that business schools can change the altruistic intentions of some students and turn them into venal capitalists.
“Recent research by the Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues shows what tends to happen when you put an M.B.A. in charge. In both the United States and Denmark, firms that appointed managers with business degrees cut wages and reduced labor’s share of income. Yet these companies didn’t become more productive, nor did they grow sales, investment or employment any faster. What registers as managerial acumen turns out to be wealth transfer — value moved away from workers and toward profits, shareholders and executives.” Professor Marquis writes.
While the headline, which may not have been written by the author, is provocative, Professor Marquis makes an argument that existing business schools focused on perfecting the art of personal profit need to be replaced with a more ethical, rigorous business courses.
It has attracted a strong reaction, with business school leaders rushing to justify how their offerings are up to date, rigorous and relevant.
The piece has echoes of Kylie Moore-Gilbert’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald in May I’m an academic, but I’ve told my stepdaughter to think twice about going to university. It is a special privilege, or alternatively a special responsibility (depending on your point of view) of senior academics with other options in life to slag off their current employer/system, without concern that the impact may ruin their future income (and apparently without concern of the impact on the future incomes of their colleagues).
Friendly fire seems to carry a particularly potent impact in the sector – or perhaps it just feels worse, because the attack is coming from one of our own.
Which leads us to the second story of the month. Lancaster University marketing academic Dr Mike Ryder is being investigated by his university after writing a blog post criticising the marketing efforts of his university.
He spent half an hour on YouTube talking about why marketing in universities was ‘crap’ and pulled no punches – for example, “If I was in charge of some places I think I would kick everyone out and just start again.”
This is a super interesting case. As an academic, he is talking about his area of expertise, but in citing specific failings of his own university’s campaign to recruit postgraduate students as a case study, is it fair – or correct?
The university’s marketing department had placed postcards and posters for a PG Open Day all around Dr Ryder’s building in the first week that undergraduate students come to campus. On first blush, this sounds illogical, but he describes it as ‘completely pointless’ which is a pretty extreme description unless he has insight into the reasoning for the campaign. For example, what if market research had shown a spike in consideration time for PG study, or the influence of UG students having a good experience and referring the uni onto older siblings or parents involved in PG study? What about staff interested in PG study?
Given the very low cost of campaign execution (about 15c each for a postcard, Posters more dependent on size) probably a single enrolment would more than recoup campaign costs in which case ‘completely pointless’ wouldn’t be accurate at all.
Of course, much is not known and perhaps it is an ill-considered campaign. But whether public shaming is the best use of a communication power imbalance held by an academic staff member against professional colleagues is a pertinent question – just as whether the university should be publicly saying it is investigating a staff member over speaking in an area of academic expertise.
A quick coffee between colleagues, some mediation and shared insights without point scoring or disciplining in the public arena might have been a better result all round ultimately, but it is impossible to tell at a distance.
In the Australian context it just serves as another reminder of the importance of getting a clearer understanding of the limits of freedom of expression for all staff and to take a look at effective modes of engagement for the future.