Product Code Database
Academic freedom is the right of a teacher to instruct and the right of a student to learn in an academic setting unhampered by outside interference. It may also include the right of academics to engage in social and political criticism.
Academic freedom is often premised on the conviction that freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without the fear of being repressed, losing their job or being imprisoned. While the core of academic freedom covers scholars acting in an academic capacity (as teachers or researchers expressing strictly scholarly viewpoints), an expansive interpretation extends these occupational safeguards to scholars' speech on matters outside their professional expertise.Van Alstyne, William (1975). The Specific Theory of Academic Freedom and the General Issue of Civil Liberty. In The Concept of Academic Freedom, ed. Edmund Pincoffs. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975.
Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic community itself..
Historically, academic freedom emerged tentatively, as academics in medieval and early modern Europe could face repression for acting in ways considered objectionable by religious authorities or by governments. Scholars tend to link the institutionalization of academic freedom to the rise of the modern research university and the Humboldtian model of higher education from the 19th century. By one estimate, academic freedom has substantially increased worldwide since the 1960s. Academic freedom is more likely in liberal democratic states, while it is more heavily constrained in authoritarian states, illiberal states, and states embroiled in military conflict. Since 2013, while some countries have seen improvements to academic freedom, the overall trend is towards reductions in freedom.
A broader definition of academic freedom incorporates individual, extramural and institutional components. Under this broader definition, an academic has freedom of expression without government interference, but this freedom is circumscribed by academic expertise and position. Academic freedom of speech is therefore narrower than a general freedom of speech. For example, a non-academic has the freedom of speech to criticize the efficacy of vaccines, but only has academic freedom to do so if they possess the prerequisite academic qualifications to do so. Unlike public speech, academic speech is also subject to quality controls by academic peers, for example through peer review.
Universities UK has defined academic freedom as "protecting the intellectual independence of academics to question and test received views and wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in danger of losing their jobs or privileges", Universities UK website, Higher education sector statement on promoting academic freedom and free speech, article dated 20 Dec 2022 while the American Federation of Teachers has seen it as "based on the idea that the free exchange of ideas on campus is essential to good education". American Federation of Teachers website, Academic Freedom Norwegian education sees it as a guarantee that research and teaching is "intellectually and morally independent of all political and economic interests", leading to openness, free enquiry and debate. Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills website, Academic freedom, article dated November 28, 2023
In medieval Europe, academics who criticized church doctrine or acted in ways considered objectionable by the church could face repression. At the same time, civil disturbances, such as the St Scholastica Day riot at the University of Oxford often led to great autonomy for universities. And even those scholars who committed theological heresy, such as John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, has support due to their roles as faculty at a university.
During the era when nation-states were emerging, academic could face sanction for acting contrary to the government.
Michael Polanyi argued that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science.Michael Polanyi9780226672885, Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 9780226672885 In 1936, as a consequence of an invitation to give lectures for the Ministry of Heavy Industry in the USSR, Polanyi met Bukharin, who told him that in socialist societies all scientific research is directed to accord with the needs of the latest five-year plan. Demands in Britain for centrally planned scientific research led Polanyi, together with John Baker, to found the Society for Freedom in Science. The society promoted a liberal conception of science as free enquiry against the instrumental view that science should exist primarily to serve the needs of society. In a series of articles, re-published in The Contempt of Freedom (1940) and The Logic of Liberty (1951), Polanyi claimed that co-operation among scientists is analogous to the way in which agents co-ordinate themselves within a free market. Just as consumers in a free market determine the value of products, science is a spontaneous order that arises as a consequence of open debate among specialists. Science can therefore only flourish when scientists have the liberty to pursue truth as an end in itself:
The fate of biology in the Soviet Union is cited by Jasper Becker as a reason why society has an interest in protecting academic freedom. Also it is important to make the distinction between science and pseudoscience, on the border of this lies the case of a Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Western science – then focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly ( Drosophila melanogaster) – and proposed an approach to farming that was based on the collectivization principles of dialectical materialism. Lysenko called this "Michurinism", but it is more commonly known today as Lysenkoism, and named after him. Lysenko's ideas appealed to the Soviet leadership, in part because of their value as propaganda, and he was ultimately made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Subsequently, Lysenko directed a purge of scientists who professed "harmful ideas", resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko's ideas were then implemented on collectivized farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted partly from Lysenko's influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone during the Great Leap Forward.Jasper Becker (1996). . New York: Free Press. Chapter 5: False science, false promises. "All over China in 1958...real scientists were imprisoned or sent to do manual labor. In their place, thousands of untrained peasants carried out 'scientific research.'" (p. 63). "For twenty-five years, Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko ruled over Soviet agricultural scientists list a dictator. Those who opposed him were shot or perished in labor camps..." (p. 64)
Sociologist Ruth Pearce argued that the concept of academic freedom exists to protect scholarship from censure by state or religious authorities, and not to defend intolerance.
A large-scale empirical study, covering more than 157 countries over the 1900-2015 period, links academic freedom to the quality and quantity of patents filed in a given country. David Audretsch and colleagues estimate that academic freedom has declined over the last decade for the first time over their century-long observation period, resulting in at least 4% fewer patents filed. The study claims to be the first to link academic freedom to economic growth through an innovation channel.
Academic freedom has also been identified as a leading indicator for whether a government will become more or less democratic.
As of 2025, Academic freedom overall around the world has been in retreat since 2013. Causes cited have included authoritarianism as well as political polarization and populism.
In December 2020, the Associated Press reported that China was controlling scientific research into the origins of COVID-19 under direct orders from CCP general secretary Xi Jinping. According to the report, an order by China's State Council required all research to be approved by a task force under their management, saying scientific publication should be orchestrated like "a game of chess", warning that those who publish without permission will be held accountable.
According to NPR, from 2013 to 2017, at least 109 universities in China issued their first charters affirming the CCP leadership. In 2020, Shanghai's Fudan University removed freedom of thought from its charter following the December 2019 revision of the school charter to emphasize loyalty to the CCP.
Hong Kong academia expressed concerns about the impact of the 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law on academic freedom in Hong Kong. As of 2025, it ranked in the bottom 20% worldwide for academic freedom according to the Academic Freedom Index.
In an August 2021 study, Jue Jiang from the University of London argued that academic freedom in China is impaired by the CCP's system of student informants, who are recruited and encouraged to watch and inform on their professors on university campuses.
At the disposal of "The Council" is an executive body called the "Committee for Planning and Budgeting", which mainly deals with the matter of universities budgeting and establishing relevant procedures and guidelines for budget and salary matters. Another body that is supposed to guard academic freedom is the "Committee of the Heads of the Universities", which is a voluntary body, but has an influence on the work of the Legislature and "The Council ". Through their employee committees, and through the personal activity of each of them, these bodies can try and influence the preservation of academic freedom.
In general, it can be said that the essential academic freedom, the one aimed at the freedom of teaching and research, was preserved, and the government neither interfered nor tried to interfere in these contents. Its way of influencing this matter is by providing for teaching in this or that way, or for research in certain fields, and this is through grants. The fact that the government finances a significant percentage of the current budget of the universities (around 70% or more), also allows the government to decide what will be the tuition fee for a student at the budgeted universities in Israel.Gori Zilka, Tuition policy in higher education institutions in Israel, Shmuel Na'aman Institute, Technion, 2006 (in Henrew) But, In 2021, an academic committee of the prestigious Israel Prize decided to award the Israel Prize in the field of mathematics and computer science to Professor Oded Goldreich from the Weizmann Institute of Science. The Minister of Education did not accept the committee's recommendation on the grounds that Goldreich signed a petition calling for an academic boycott of Ariel University, which is located in the territories of Judea and Samaria, which are occupied territory, as well as for appealing to the German government to revoke its decision that the BDS movement is an Antisemitism movement. The award committee appealed to the Supreme Court for a violation of its academic freedom, and the court overturned the decision, and ordered the Minister of Education to award Goldreich the award. Godreich received the award a year later.
In recent years, a fierce debate has erupted on the issue of academic freedom, following extreme political statements by a number of university faculty members. The vast majority of the controversial statements were those that called for an academic boycott of Israel, or support for organizations that support an economic and academic boycott of Israel. The question that was at the center of the storm was whether an academic faculty member (hereafter referred to as a professor) is protected by the principle of freedom of speech, or is it forbidden, when he wears the guise of a professor, to express a political position that might identify the position with the institution he allegedly represents. All the more, is it permissible for the professor to express a political position during his teaching, and even to invite representatives of political bodies to lecture in his classes, and without maintaining a balance between those invited.As for summoning political figures to classes, it was usually professors and classes in the field of "political science, politics and government", which apparently or not, summoning these figures and the discourse accompanying their words, is part of the professor's teaching method. Referring to that background, the Minister of Education at the time Naftali Bennett (in 2017) asked Prof. Asa Kasher to compile an academic Code of Ethics for universities,David Tversky. Limiting Freedom of Expression or Setting Norms? Storm over the code of ethics for academia. "Davar", June 2017 (in Hebrew). a code that was approved by "The Council" in March 2018. All the research universities (7 universities), with the exception of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, which already had for an academic code of ethics that also included the issue of freedom of expression, refused to adopt this code on the grounds of infringing academic freedom.Adir Yanko. Academia Without Political Opinions: on the way to the approval of the ethical code., Ynet, March 2018 (in Hebrew).
All research universities in Israel have a Chief internal auditor, relatively independent. This issue of the interrelationship between the internal audit in universities and the principle of academic freedom is discussed in detail in an article that appeared in a book issued on behalf of the Ben-Gurion university of the Negev – the only one as mentioned that has a binding academic code of ethics.Ron Avni. The Internal Audit at the University and Academic Freedom – Between Conflict and Harmony. In: J. Grados and Y. Nevo (editors), Science and Spirit in the Negev: pp. 581 – 589, BGU, 2014 (in Hebrew).
There have been an abundance of scandals over the restricted academic freedom at a number of universities in South Africa. The University of KwaZulu-Natal received fame over its restricted academic freedom and the scandal that occurred in 2007. In this scandal a sociology lecturer, Fazel Khan was fired in April 2007 for "bringing the university into disrepute" after he released information to the news media. According to Khan he had been airbrushed from a photograph in a campus publication because of his participation in a staff strike last February. In light of this scandal the South African Council on Higher Education released a report stating that the state is influencing academic freedom. In particular, public universities are more susceptible to political pressure because they receive funds from the public.
When Margaret Thatcher's government sought to remove many of the statutory protections of academic freedom which Robbins had regarded as so important, she was partly frustrated by a hostile amendment to her bill in the House of Lords. This incorporated into what became the 1988 Education Reform Act, the legal right of academics in the UK 'to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have'. These principles of academic freedom are thus articulated in the statutes of most UK universities. Professor Kathleen Stock formerly of University of Sussex resigned from her role due to controversy from students and the media regarding her transphobic views. In response to such concerns, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance. The Guidance provides detailed procedures for universities to consider in determining whether or not specific events can go ahead. It also provides ways to reduce any potential barriers for freedom of speech in regards to specific events. The guidance also makes clear the statutory requirement of universities to ensure they protect freedom of speech on campus however as well as compliance with the Prevent Strategy and the Equality Act 2010. In 2016 the Warden of Wadham College Oxford, a lawyer previously Director of Public Prosecutions, pointed out that the Conservative government's anti-terrorism "Prevent" strategy legislation has placed on universities 'a specific enforceable duty ... to prevent the expression of views that are otherwise entirely compatible with the criminal law'.
Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, a professor by the name of Edward Ross published the free silver movement supporting document known as Honest Dollars. The document placed the professor in political disagreement with the founders of Stanford University. The Stanford family made their money from the railroad industry that the professor had publicly ridiculed. In 1900, the professor expressed politically charged statements that called for the expulsion of Japanese immigrants from the country which would lead to his termination from the university. This decision was followed by seven other professors resigning from the university and elevated the matter to national scrutiny. This event would set in motion the creation of the AAUP to provide monetary and legal security, filling the gaps in many of their contracts.
In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities.1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP , accessed March 23, 2007 These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject." The statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment". The principle also refers to the ability of teachers, students, and educational institutions to pursue knowledge without unreasonable political or government interference. The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law. In short the statement argues that professors have the privilege to search for truth and knowledge and the right to impart those truths and knowledge to others, including students, the academy, and the general public, unfettered by political or ideological pressure.
Since being drafted, this definition has undergone two revisions in 1970 and 1999 respectively. The 1970 revision declares that the protections of academic freedom "apply not only to the full-time probationary and the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such as part-time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching responsibilities". The 1999 revision places emphasis on the idea that post-tenure review should be conducted in a manner that respects academic freedom and due process.
In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court began to take up the matter starting with the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), the Supreme Court made connections between the First Amendment and academic freedom as an especially important protection on the grounds that it was crucial to everyone. Such First Amendment protections only applied to public institutions, and academic freedom contains protections outside of the First Amendment as the Court never outright declared that it contained academic freedom.
Some accreditors work with American colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to support academic freedom in various forms, although this varies by accreditor. Additionally, the AAUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with these same institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom and tenure.For example, the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities reviewed Brigham Young University's academic freedom statement and found it in compliance with the 1940 statement, while AAUP has found Brigham Young University to be in violation The AAUP censures those colleges and universities which it has found, after its own investigations, to violate these principles. By 2022, 88 percent of four-year colleges and universities will limit student free speech, reversing a 15-year trend, according to the College Speech Codes annual report. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reported that 426 out of 486 institutions have at least one policy restricting student speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States said that academic freedom means a university can "determine for itself on academic grounds:
In a 2008 case, a federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic freedom; all academic freedom resides with the university or college. In that case, Stronach v. Virginia State University, a district court judge held "that no constitutional right to academic freedom exists that would prohibit senior (university) officials from changing a grade given by (a professor) to one of his students." The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire and a case from the fourth circuit court of appeals.See Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 414, 415 (4th Cir. 2000). (Noting that "cases that have referred to a First Amendment right of academic freedom have done so generally in terms of the institution, not the individual ...." and "Significantly, the court has never recognized that professors possess a First Amendment right of academic freedom to determine for themselves the content of their courses and scholarship, despite opportunities to do so". The Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first, Lovelace v. S.E. Mass. University, 793 F.2d 419, 425 (1st Cir. 1986) ("To accept plaintiff's contention that an untenured teacher's grading policy is constitutionally protected ... would be to constrict the university in defining and performing its educational mission".) third, Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) ("In Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa., The court held that the First Amendment does not allow a university professor to decide what is taught in the classroom but rather protects the university's right to select the curriculum," as cited in Stronach.) Brown v. Amenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75 (3d Cir. 2001). (Holding "a public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures".) and seventh Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2001). (Holding that "No person has a fundamental right to teach undergraduate engineering classes without following the university's grading rules ...." and that "it is the university's name, not the's, that appears on the diploma; the university, not the, certifies to employers and graduate schools a student's successful completion of a course of study. Universities are entitled to assure themselves that their evaluation systems have been followed; otherwise their credentials are meaningless".) circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, from when university officials may, in their discretionary authority, change the grade upon appeal by a student.See Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821, 827–28 (6th Cir. 1989). (Holding that "a university professor may claim that his assignment of an examination grade or a final grade is communication protected by the First Amendment ... thus, the individual professor may not be compelled, by university officials, to change a grade that the professor previously assigned to her student". The Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.White, Lawrence, "CASE IN POINT: STRONACH V. VIRGINIA STATE U. (2008): Does Academic Freedom Give a Professor the Final Say on Grades?", Chronicle of Higher Education, found at Chronicle web site and Chronicle Review commentary and blog. Accessed May 20, 2008.
In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." By extension, the First Amendment applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at public institutions.Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985). However, the United States' First Amendment has generally been held to not apply to private institutions, including religious institutions. These private institutions may honor freedom of speech and academic freedom at their discretion.
Critics of the movement claim intelligent design is religiously motivated pseudoscience and cannot be allowed into the curriculum of US public schools due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, often citing Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as legal precedent. Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover. National Center for Science Education. October 17th, 2008 They also reject the allegations of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design, of which investigation showed no evidence. Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement , The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K-12 Committee, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008
A number of "academic freedom bills" have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute, "Academic Freedom" Bill in South Carolina Now Ed Brayton, Dispatches From the Culture Wars, May 18, 2008. the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and derive from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment in the United States Senate. According to The Wall Street Journal, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or biblical creationism. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools, Stephanie Simon, The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2008 The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its opposition to these bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of evolution as scientifically controversial. Academic Freedom and Teaching Evolution Resolutions of the 94th Annual Meeting, American Association of University Professors. 2008 The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott. Scientific American, December 2008. , only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.
In 1929, Experimental Psychology professor Max Friedrich Meyer and sociology assistant professor Harmon O. DeGraff were dismissed from their positions at the University of Missouri for advising student Orval Hobart Mowrer regarding distribution of a questionnaire which inquired about attitudes towards partners' sexual tendencies, modern views of marriage, divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and cohabitation. The university was subsequently censured by the American Association of University Professors in an early case regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor.
In 2006, Lawrence Summers, while president of Harvard University, led a discussion that was intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to study science and mathematics at advanced levels. He suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should be explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash. His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom. Due to the adverse reception to his comments, he resigned after a five-year tenure. Another significant factor of his resignation was several votes of no-confidence placed by the deans of schools, notably multiple professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
In 2009 Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at New York University School of Law after controversy erupted about some anti-gay remarks she had made, prompting a discussion of academic freedom within the law school. Subsequently, Li-ann was asked to step down from her position in the NYU Law School.
In 2009 the University of California at Santa Barbara accused William I. Robinson of antisemitism after he circulated an email to his class containing photographs and paragraphs of the Holocaust juxtaposed to those of the Gaza Strip. Robinson was fired from the university, but later the accusations were dropped after a worldwide campaign against the management of the university. SPME Statement on the Disposition of the Case of William Robinson at UCSB, SPME Board of Directors, June 29, 2009
|
|
