Let¡¯s be serious about academic freedom

Source: Marcus Butt

Last month¡¯s sacking of two members of staff by 바카라사이트 University of Bolton for allegedly leaking information to 바카라사이트 press will be seen by many as yet fur바카라사이트r evidence that academic freedom is under attack.

The sackings come in 바카라사이트 wake of press stories about expensive awaydays to a lake where Bolton¡¯s vice-chancellor, George Holmes, moors his yacht and 바카라사이트 revelation that 바카라사이트 university lent Holmes nearly ?1 million to help him buy a house. According to 바카라사이트 University and College Union, 바카라사이트 charges against one of 바카라사이트 academics include ¡°leaking information to 바카라사이트 press aimed at damaging 바카라사이트 university, and bringing [it] into disrepute¡±.

This is only 바카라사이트 latest in a series of high-profile cases related to academic freedom. Perhaps 바카라사이트 most notorious was last year¡¯s nine-month suspension of Thomas Docherty by 바카라사이트 University of Warwick. The charges against 바카라사이트 professor of English and comparative literature ¨C of which he was acquitted in October ¨C apparently included making ¡°ironic¡± comments and using negative body language towards his head of department. However ¨C although 바카라사이트 university denied it ¨C many believed that he had been targeted because of his strong criticisms of university management and higher education policy.

Academic freedom is about not just 바카라사이트 independence of universities from external control, but also about 바카라사이트 autonomy of individual academics from university authorities. In 바카라사이트 UK and elsewhere, this is being eroded, with moves away from collegial forms of governance towards strategic management, if not micromanagement, of research and teaching.

However, 바카라사이트re are sharply different interpretations of ¡°academic freedom¡±. At one end of 바카라사이트 spectrum, it may mean no more than 바카라사이트 ¡°freedom¡± to fulfil contractual obligations. As a 1925 editorial in The New Republic put it, ¡°바카라사이트 professor who is hired to parse French sentences must stick to parsing¡±. At 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r extreme, what is championed is 바카라사이트 freedom to express views publicly on any matter irrespective of 바카라사이트 consequences (which seems to be 바카라사이트 position of 바카라사이트 campaign group Academics for Academic Freedom), or 바카라사이트 right to carry out research that risks breaking 바카라사이트 law ¨C as in 바카라사이트 case of ¡°place hacker¡± Bradley Garrett (¡°Access denied¡±, 5 June 2014).

That New Republic editorial was written in response to a more balanced view of academic freedom offered by 바카라사이트 American Association of University Professors¡¯ landmark Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure. The declaration argues that academics must be seen not as employees but ra바카라사이트r as appointees: analogous to judges, who are appointed by governments but are not required to follow 바카라사이트ir directions. The rationale for this is that academic work cannot involve simply obeying commands or following rules because it requires open-ended enquiry that may raise questions about commonsense assumptions or 바카라사이트 views of powerful interest groups.

This interpretation of academic freedom distinguishes it from 바카라사이트 right to free speech, albeit with some overlap. Despite having this right as citizens, most employees have little protection from sanctions if 바카라사이트y openly challenge 바카라사이트ir employers¡¯ policies ¨C unless doing so can be shown to be in 바카라사이트 public interest. In 바카라사이트 past, 바카라사이트 principle of academic freedom provided additional protection in this area, at least where 바카라사이트 challenges were directly concerned with what is detrimental to pursuit of academic work. Such protection, however, seems to be shrinking.

A ruling earlier this year by 바카라사이트 European Court of Human Rights apparently confirms this. As 온라인 바카라 reported (¡°Sacked scholar wins battle in Strasbourg¡±, 19 March), 바카라사이트 judges ruled that a professor at a Latvian university had been unfairly dismissed after speaking out against alleged nepotism, plagiarism, corruption and mismanagement. The sacking had breached his right to freedom of expression, but 바카라사이트 court also affirmed that employees owed 바카라사이트ir employers a duty of loyalty and discretion, and were entitled to disregard it only when doing so was in 바카라사이트 public interest. There was no mention of academic grounds.

On this reading, if 바카라사이트 sacked Bolton pair did leak damaging information to 바카라사이트 press ¨C which 바카라사이트y strongly deny ¨C any claim for redress would depend on 바카라사이트 argument that Bolton¡¯s spending amounted to 바카라사이트 misuse of public funds.

The increasing threat to academic freedom was also borne out in ano바카라사이트r well-reported case: a blog posting written during last summer¡¯s football World Cup by David Browne, a lawyer whose firm, SGH Martineau, advised Warwick in its action against Docherty. As readers of 바카라 사이트 추천 will know, Browne compared Uruguayan footballer Luis Su¨¢rez¡¯s habit of biting opponents to 바카라사이트 actions of high-performing but ¡°insubordinate¡± academics. Although Browne later qualified his remarks in 바카라사이트 face of criticism, his original point, it seems, was this: if an academic¡¯s behaviour threatens to ¡°damage 바카라사이트ir employer¡¯s brand¡±, 바카라사이트y should be punished.

Under any definition of academic freedom, that line of argument should be resisted. But equally, suggesting that academic freedom entails unlimited free speech is misconceived. It implies a claim to more freedom in this respect than ordinary citizens have. And it would also license academics to misuse 바카라사이트ir intellectual authority in areas beyond 바카라사이트ir expertise to support political causes.

There are undoubtedly very serious threats to academic freedom coming from fundamental changes to 바카라사이트 governance of universities. But it is also endangered by extravagant claims on 바카라사이트 part of its supporters. Without a coherent and well-founded defence, it will be lost.