Debates on models of academic freedom. Part 1
Dmitry Dubrovsky
Photo: Where do competing models of academic freedom come from? Photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash
The debate on academic freedom reflects the close affinity between academic freedom and human rights. Both issues are actively discussed, and from different perspectives.
Above all else, the question being discussed is how varied different approaches to human rights and freedoms in general may be.
Discussions on Human Rights
Human rights are understood in very diverse ways.
For example, in her analysis of various schools of thought surrounding human rights, Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, professor of law and anthropology at Ghent University, notes how differently human rights scholars respond to questions about the origins of human rights.
- Some believe these rights are inherent in humans
- Some believe they are the result of struggles against injustice
- Some believe they are the result of legal agreements
It is important that the documents that encapsulate these agreements, first and foremost the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unite everyone, regardless of their opinions on where these rights originated.
Rights and Freedom for All?
Human rights. Discussions on the universality of human rights began even before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. Back in 1947, the American Anthropological Association announced in a special statement that the adoption of such a declaration would ignore the multifaceted experience and knowledge of different cultures and peoples.
This moment marked the beginning of the discussion as to whether any concept of human rights can be universal. According to critics, the diversity of human experience excludes the possibility of a unified perception of human rights. On this view, all human rights are determined by cultural or religious alignments, since every culture develops its own norms and conventions.
Academic freedom. Academic rights and freedoms are starting to be discussed in a similar way—from a universal perspective.
The premise is that academic freedom is universal and common to all who participate in the production and distribution of knowledge. Some trace academic freedom back to scholasticism in medieval universities, others to ancient Greece, where the idea of intellectual autonomy for philosophers emerged.
In any case, the tradition of independent research in the Middle Ages was protected by the special institution of the university. It is no coincidence that one of the authors of an article on “Scholarly Privileges” considers the 1158 edict of Frederick Barbarossa to be the first document to mention academic freedom. In this document, the Holy Roman Emperor granted protection and patronage to scientists.
Freedom for Institutions?
On the one hand, in defining academic freedom, it is customary to distinguish the personal freedom of the instructor and researcher—the freedom to instruct and research.
On the other hand, this freedom developed first and foremost within a certain institution—academia—making this freedom possible only within a certain community.
Thus, academic freedom also acquires a collective dimension: for a long time, academic freedom existed exclusively for and within the institution of academia.
The shared logic of “academic freedom within the university and exclusively applied to scientific and research activities” was preserved into the nineteenth century. At that time, it developed in Europe and the USA, following the model proposed by W. Humboldt:
«Lehrfreiheit” (freedom to teach) and “Lehrenfreiheit” (freedom to learn).
Freedom in the Twentieth Century
The situation changed in the twentieth century. The belief arose that higher education should serve not only pure knowledge and academia, but also society as a whole.
The practice of including universities in public discussion emerged. The idea rapidly began to develop that academia as a whole was not just for knowledge, but for the public good.
The idea emerged and began to spread that universities were public institutions, whose task was not so much the production and dissemination of knowledge as critical evaluation and improvement of the state, support for innovation, and even the promotion of social equality by raising the education level of previously excluded groups.
Models of Academic Freedom
This clash between the logic of the autonomy of scientific knowledge—primarily concerned with independence from the social agenda—and the active discussion of how the university should orient itself vis-à-vis external circumstances led to the emergence of competing models of academic freedom.
The classical liberal model. This model is based on the priority of individual autonomy in the search for knowledge and freedom from outside interference, but not limited by the boundaries of academia.
This model is discussed and developed on the basis of Isaiah Berlin’s dichotomous conception of freedom as negative or positive. Within the liberal model, the basis of intellectual freedom is non-interference in the affairs of academia. At the same time, scientists can and should speak publicly on issues of public interest.
Among the authors who have recently published monographs on academic freedom, the works of Henry Reichman and Joan Scott stand out. These authors reiterate the principles common to this tradition—defending academic freedom and academic autonomy—but social issues are also important to them. They discuss the “underrepresentation” of minority voices in academia, as well as issues of gender, social justice, and inequality.
Public Good Model. While the classical liberal model may draw attention to the importance of the social mission of the university, the public good model places this social mission in a primary role.
Proponents of this model believe that autonomy and academic freedom exist not to support the search for truth, as the classical model asserts, but rather for the betterment of society and to increase its knowledge. Academic freedom is essential to the fulfillment of the university’s core mission of serving society by producing knowledge and fostering independence of opinion. This position has been championed by Robert Post and Matthew Finkin, among others.
The professional model. Based on the logic that academic freedom is the freedom of academic researchers and instructors, American professor Stanley Fish suggested that teachers “do their job” and “not engage in the politicization of academic life.” He considers it dangerous for scientists to go beyond the boundaries of strictly professional activities.
He formulates this in three brief principles:
“Do your job,
don’t try to do someone else’s job,
and don’t let anyone else do your job.”
(Fish 2014:16)
According to the author, scientists should not step beyond the boundaries of their professional activities. Academic freedom should not extend past professional expertise and should not exist outside academia.
This model of academic freedom in a sense upholds the logic of the “ivory tower.” Academia is protected from outside interference but limited to its own boundaries in the sense that it does not interfere with anything happening around it.
For Stanley Fish, interfering would entail the politicization of professional work. He is particularly opposed to scientists engaging in political activism. Academia should remain neutral: professors should focus on their professional work. Fish suggests that scientists should give up their civil freedom of speech, arguing that by speaking out publicly, scientists give up their professional position and thus lose their neutrality.
View from Russia
For a long time, any discussion of models of academic freedom seemed to bypass the Russian sciences.
Indeed, the first publications on academic freedom in Russia proceeded from the assumption that there was only one “correct” model of academic freedom, based on professional autonomy from the state. From the outside, this is threatened mainly by the market and neo-managerialism.
In a 2007 paper on academic freedom, Yaroslav Kuzminov and Maria Yudkevich treat academic freedom as “freedom in the search for truth,” focusing on the freedom to “choose teaching methods, research areas, and free discussion of ideas.”
Their model assumes that academic freedom is part of academic convention—that is, it is meaningfully embedded in the logic of the relationship between researchers and supervisors and is more of a “professional model” than a “classical” one.
* * *
Our research also shows that the most popular model in Russian academia continues to be one based on the priority of autonomy over social mission—in particular, the publicity and social activity of teachers is not believed to be part of the convention.
In the next article, we will show how the spread of academic freedom, especially associated with the globalization of higher education and science, has led to a discussion of to what degree the concept is Eurocentric and in what sense it might be considered universal.
0 Comments