With damning reports on antisemitism and racism recently lobbed into the in tray, there is bound to be a lot of soul searching, but in the end we need to get to a practical progression.
What does academic freedom of speech look like and what should/shouldn’t be said?
Federation University’s Elisa Zentveld and Mark Myers have taken the bull by the horns with a new book chapter surveying the state of academic freedom of speech policies titled “Academic Freedom: You can discuss any flavour you like, as long as it is vanilla.”
The authors point out that Robert French’s 2019 report into freedom of speech included a model code which universities could adopt if they wished, amongst a number of other recommendations. While many institutions attempted to create their own individual freedom policies, debate was such that, “Many universities subsequently, perhaps through exhaustion and a sense of futility, accepted the “Vanilla” option to “tick the box” and adopt the Model Code verbatim,” the authors write.
The chapter is a review of the history of academic freedom in the university, and notes the debate between those who say academic freedom extends only within the boundaries of disciplinary expertise, and others who say academic freedom should have broader horizons.
The chapter traces not only the national debate, and the changing role of the professoriate, but also the debate within the author’s own institution, where there were intense debates about whether professional staff and/or students should be bound by rules on academic freedom. Noting that “discussions at times became a type of blood sport,” the authors highlight the challenges of reaching consensus even within one institution.
“With academic freedom, statements providing for staff having academic freedom seem safe and benign. However, what " lies under the water" is what truly tests academic freedom,” the authors write.
“The words are statements and seemingly have status as they are embedded in policies and statutes. However, higher education can be an environment in which politics and personalities create cultures; policies don't create cultures.”
“Depending on those politics and personalities, universities can become an environment in which a culture of fear exists.
“Many of the increased compliance matters combined with fewer resources, heavier management structures, and financial pressures have combined to create an environment in which staff may feel powerless or unsafe to speak out.
“Interestingly, professors, while often held with high regard by students and by those outside of universities, tend to hold very little power internally.”
“To challenge theory relies on an ability to challenge ideas … if academics feel they cannot challenge ideas across the university, then the concept of philosophical discussion and advancement becomes watered down.
“This reduction is resulting in altered places for teaching and learning that are no longer the enriching experiences that previous scholars and students once benefited from.”