What does “academic freedom” mean? Technically it means that our teachers are allowed to teach us what they want in an academic setting, without fear of reprisal or censorship. But outside the classroom, it also covers their autonomy to pursue their research without economic, political, or other pressures.
If the concept is praised by all, it always prompts disagreements on its methods of application. The only authoritative definition of academic freedom comes from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), but even they have always remained quite vague in their interpretation of the concept. In the United States, during the 18th to 19th centuries, teachers in colleges were to teach only the traditions and ways of the West and spread the word of the Christian religion. Anyone expressing a controversial view might have been expelled. But how different is that from today? What does the law have to say?
According to the Supreme Court, “[Academic] freedom is, therefore, a special concern of the First Amendment.” However, it seems that academic freedom and freedom of speech, if related, are not one and the same. Academic freedom incorporates institutional components, which means that your teachers have freedom of expression without government interference within their field of expertise and position. Academic freedom of speech is therefore narrower than general freedom of speech.
For example, let’s say that you are at a family dinner, and your uncle criticizes the efficacy of vaccines, adding that vaccines are the cause of autism. You know that studies have proven time and again that this is wrong. You might want to start a fight at the family table, but however heated the debate ends up being, your uncle isn’t going to go to jail for his opinion. That is freedom of speech — his false statement is protected by the First Amendment. However, a professor only has academic freedom if they possess the prerequisite academic qualifications to do so. Your chemistry teacher may thus express concerns about a vaccine, but your glass-blowing teacher probably shouldn’t. Academic freedom is a protection of faculty rights based on disciplinary competence, and freedom of speech is the right to express one’s ideas, however true or false they may be.
In the past, teachers have faced legal penalties for their opinions. Carl Haessler, a philosophy professor at the University of Illinois, was imprisoned in 1917 for his opposition to World War I. Academia, including the newly (at the time) formed AAUP, refused to support academic freedom during a time of war, and embraced the most repressive measures to support WWI.
So I went and asked teachers around our campus how they felt about academic freedom. The questions were the following: how much freedom do you have when you prepare your syllabus? Do you choose to remain silent on certain issues until after the tenure process? Are there views you don’t express in class given your students’ possible disagreement? Or, on the other hand, are there students’ comments that you need to censor?
Here is how the conversations went, often veering from the initial subject into passionate monologues. Here are their responses, starting with Professor Kautzman, a professor of Spanish, who expressed how much she values the freedom professors get when creating their syllabi. New courses on campus can be created freely as long as they align with national and international standards on the discipline. In some classes, such as Kautzman’s Spanish classes, the students even have the freedom to design intellectually challenging and specific independent studies with her, depending on what they’re interested in!
But what about the more difficult conversations? The delicate, problematic, not-shared-by-all views? For Emrys Westacott, professor of philosophy, the university is a public forum, it’s exactly the place where those conversations should happen. For Sandra Singer too, professor of German and history, colleges are the places where we should be able to talk about difficult topics without being offended right away, the place where we can listen, try to understand, and have meaningful conversations without resorting to violence. Colleges are environments to pursue knowledge of all kinds, think critically, exchange ideas, debate, expand our views, learn about what we thought was right but is actually wrong, and change our opinion again and again. And that can only happen if multiple views are permitted and heard by all. What’s more, no one is forced to participate. If I were to ask a maybe short-sighted question in class, or worse, express a problematic point of view in front of all of my classmates, I shouldn’t be reprimanded for it without an explanation of why my position might be wrong or without a chance to change my opinion. If I didn’t receive some sort of explanation or a chance to consider different opinions, I just would not feel free to talk in class anymore. That would limit my growth into a better human being.
So should everyone be allowed to express any view on campus? How far can you go, what can you say or do in a provocative way to make your students or peers think and question things, for academic purposes? For Prof. Singer, the answer is potentially when the good of the outcome outweighs the bad that might be done when talking about those subjects. She stated that sometimes, we have to take it upon ourselves to tolerate speeches that go against what we believe in, in order to preserve freedom for ourselves.
Everyone wants to protect freedom of speech, but can you defend someone being outwardly racist? For example, in 1977, the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) commitment to the First Amendment was tested when Nazis were stopped from demonstrating in the streets. This court ended up ruling in favor of the Nazis, but societally this kind of case remains unresolved. We, as a society, must negotiate what we are willing to put up with to defend our freedom of speech. The alternative would be to be allowed to express only certain things in one way, or we might lose our job or could be imprisoned.
If some subjects used to be dicey, society sometimes comes to a common understanding together. Dr. Westacott gave the example of slavery. Today, saying “It’s good that slavery was abolished” is not a risky judgment anymore. But it used to be. So, it all depends on how controversial an opinion is at a given moment in time. Today, the more touchy subjects might be abortion, gun control, vaccines…. Or Palestine and Israel.
Professor Kautzman confessed to feeling a lot of pressure about this issue. “Because I am anxious to not make a mistake (either inadvertently misinforming or overlooking a student’s fear, pain, or anger) if a student asks about this. I would feel terrible if I mishandled a more formal conversation in class or a less formal conversation on campus. This kind of potential failure is a constant anxiety”. As for Professor Szymanski professor of history, she declared having received instructions from NY Governor Kathy Hochul, directing all NYS instructors to consider the use of the term “genocide” to describe what is happening as Gaza as anti-Semitic speech, and to shut it down.
So what about tenure? Isn’t it supposed to guarantee teachers protection from being fired or dismissed without sufficient cause? For Professor Westacott, “people who are seen, and see themselves, as representing the university, are likely to be very careful about any public statements they make. This is obviously true of, say, the university president. But it can also be true of other administrators, even though, if they are also tenured faculty, they can’t lose their faculty position because of what they say. [However] They could be fired from their position as dean, or provost, and have to go back into the ranks.”
Professor Kautzman also expressed still feeling a fear of repercussions despite tenure. Instead, she favors self-censorship but admits that professors are still more fortunate than some other professionals without the protection that tenure provides.
Danielle Gagne, professor of psychology, explains that yes, tenure should ensure academic freedom. It is a “safety net to pursue unconventional or “edgier” lines of teaching and research” for those who “meet and exceed particular professional benchmarks.” She, too, is worried about the trend of eliminating tenure. “Many states (e.g., Nebraska, Georgia, SC) have proposed legislative bills to do away with tenure in favor of “long-term contracts.” This is terrifying; if an academic begins a “controversial” line of research (e.g., mental health effects of abortion), it is usually 12–18 months before that hits publication. If it garners too much negative press, an institution could simply “not renew a contract.” This allows the institution to essentially dictate what does and does not get researched. Individuals living in fear of not getting their contract renewed may then stick to “safer,” more conventional topics.” Therefore, certain lines of research and topics might be restricted out of fear of consequences. William Woodward, a teacher at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in 2006, was investigated for his controversial statements on the events of 9/11 and his belonging to a 9/11 “truth” movement. Although the legislators wanted him dismissed, Woodward was defended by UNH. A few years later, in 2009, Ward Churchill, teaching at the University of Colorado in 2009, didn’t fare so well and was fired for his (different but) just as contentious opinion on the same event. Legislators in such cases “are dictating what is “acceptable” teaching material,” adds Dr. Gagne before continuing: “For example, Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, and his administration have “essentially barred a high school Advanced Placement psychology course in the state because it includes lessons on sexual orientation and identity that violate state law.” Earlier in 2023, DeSantis’ administration “previously clashed over an African American history AP course that state officials rebuked for being “filled with Critical Race Theory and other obvious violations of Florida law.” In essence, one person’s ideas of what is “right” and “wrong” to teach or research can have far-reaching effects on future generations and their ability to think about and discuss certain topics.
So what are our solutions? What can we say in a university setting without taking the risk of upsetting others? Is it okay to risk upsetting others? For Prof. Westacott, more or less everything can be said in a classroom, as long as one makes it clear that it’s one’s own opinion, not an absolute truth. He also emphasizes the importance of letting people protest even when it goes against our own views or politics because counter-protesting would be giving and advertising attention around it. Finally, for Prof. Gagne, professors, educators, and students should have the ability to engage in discourse and research regarding controversial topics, and the pursuit of knowledge without fear of reprisal. As long as our administration supports the respectful investigation and discussion of ideas and actively encourages dialogue without dictating what scientific inquiries must be pursued, academic freedom is respected.