Hate campaigns and political pressure: KNAW wants legal protection for academic freedom

Academic freedom deserves better legal protection, says the KNAW, the Dutch academy of sciences. “The political landscape in Europe and the United States is a warning sign.”

Should academics be able to follow their own curiosity and share their insights freely with students? Should they be able to work with colleagues from around the world, or are there limits on that?

The previous government asked the KNAW for advice on academic freedom – the freedom to teach and research what you choose. How much freedom is there? What are the threats?

The government had another question, too. What about freedom of speech in academia? Do students and lecturers still dare to speak their minds?

Two questions, two reports, two conclusions. The KNAW believes politicians should protect academic freedom in law. As for freedom of speech, politicians should stay out of it.

The lead author of the report on academic freedom is André Nollkaemper, professor of law. He believes this freedom is not adequately protected in practice, partly because of legislation.

The law merely says that academic freedom at universities and universities of applied sciences ‘must be respected’, without making clear what that means. And the Constitution says nothing about it. That is a major difference from freedom of speech, he explains, which is protected by the Constitution and European treaties. Freedom of speech is therefore better protected.

Why does academic freedom suddenly need legal protection when it didn’t before?

Nollkaemper: “Comparisons across Europe show that the situation in the Netherlands has become quite worrying. The scope for free research is limited. We also see some researchers facing hate campaigns. What is more, the political landscape in Europe and the United States is a warning sign. We now have a better understanding of how important academic freedom is, and of what can happen when political majorities shift. That’s why we need to consider whether it is adequately protected. We don’t think it is.”

Do you also foresee problems for academic freedom in Dutch politics?

“There was legislation on research security on the table that would have significantly restricted freedom. The government wanted to screen students and researchers before they were allowed to come here. Legislation on internationalisation and the language of instruction also restricted the freedom of educational institutions. But those bills have been shelved for now.”

What do you expect legal protection for academic freedom to achieve? Will there be court cases as a result?

“There is indeed a risk that more people will invoke their academic freedom, but that is the price you pay for legal protection. I don’t have a crystal ball, but perhaps there will be a court case if a researcher is prevented by their university’s Executive Board from working with the fossil fuel industry or a Chinese university. Or perhaps someone will want to teach about a controversial theory, for example on climate or migration. A researcher in Ghent recently came under fire for writing about racial differences in intelligence: issues like that could lead to a court case over academic freedom.”

Should the limits of this freedom be left to the courts?

“It doesn’t always have to end up in court. We can talk to one another about it at an early stage: what falls under academic freedom, and what are its limits? For example, you can’t just teach anything you like, because students are taking a particular course and it is structured in a particular way.”

Our academic freedom can conflict with that of others. For example, if you work with Israel or China, what about the academic freedom of Palestinians or Uyghurs?

“Ultimately, it depends on the circumstances. You may be doing research that has nothing to do with oppression in itself, but the closer it gets to that, the more reason there may be to avoid collaborating. That is for the academic community to decide.”

You also say that growing dependence on private funders is a threat to academic freedom. That is unlikely to change with new legislation.

“If funding for research falls, pressure to find external funding increases, and that is a risk: it can become harder to choose your own subject. Researchers then need to keep an eye on scientific integrity. How do you make your findings public? You are not a helpless victim; you are an active participant. But things become more difficult as research is given less room.”

The Ministry of Defence is now putting money into research and innovation, and universities are taking up the offer. Does that mean they are giving up their academic freedom?

“Extra funding is not in itself a threat to academic freedom. It depends on how the collaboration is set up. In all cases, the freedom of researchers must be protected. They can certainly work with the Ministry of Defence to come up with a research question, but how will they carry out their research? That should be up to the researchers. And how transparent can they be? They must also be free to say no.”

Perhaps the government thinks: whoever pays gets to decide.

“Then I hope these reports give them pause for thought. Scientific research must be free, so the person paying must not determine its content. The reports do come at a critical time, including for academia itself. Academic freedom comes with a certain responsibility to look after it properly.”

You might think: be careful what you wish for. Could legally defined academic freedom become a stick to beat researchers with when they speak about something outside their field on a talk show?

“You shouldn’t interpret it too narrowly. What counts as someone’s expertise? Research often means you don’t yet know all the answers. What is more, academics are trained to look at problems through a scientific lens. They can certainly use that perspective to say something about fields other than their own.”

Freedom of speech

The KNAW report on freedom of speech in higher education and academia is being published alongside the report on academic freedom. The government should have as little involvement as possible, says its lead author, Ineke Sluiter, former KNAW president and professor of Greek language and literature.

Freedom of speech is part of a free society. Isn’t that self-evident?

Sluiter: “We could indeed have been brief, but freedom of speech always raises questions. This is not the first report on the subject, and it won’t be the last.”

Why should politicians stay out of it?

“Freedom of speech is very well protected by the Constitution, other legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights. Academics also have a code of conduct requiring them to be as transparent as possible about their role in public debates. That is enough. If you start adding new rules to define freedom of speech more precisely, you are effectively restricting it.”

So what can politicians do?

“That’s the problem: politicians want to do something. They often react to incidents and want to appear decisive. But restraint also takes a certain amount of courage. When incidents at universities arise, they should say a little more often: this is not for us to decide.”

Controversy within and outside universities often centres on sensitive issues, such as collaboration with countries like China and Israel. This report is hardly going to make that go away.

“No, but freedom of speech should make it possible to have a genuine debate about such issues with the academic community and the university’s representative bodies. University leaders, like politicians, should be restrained in their response and communicate transparently, at the very least. You will never get unanimity, but after a debate you will know what has support.”

In the report, you explain to students that the lecture theatre is a ‘brave space’. What does that mean?

“In the lecture theatre, you may sometimes hear theories you find unwelcome, and that is part of it: students are learning, and they encounter subjects and views they are not yet familiar with. If that cannot happen in education, where can it happen? Students must respect one another’s space and views. Most people can manage that perfectly well. The same is true of all the points we raise: by far the most goes well. Almost all debates and classes pass without a problem.”

Emotions can nevertheless run high, for example when discussing slavery or climate change. Is that a problem?

“No, you study those subjects precisely because they are sensitive. There is almost always a degree of commitment in research. People often think that applies only to the social sciences, but if you study biodiversity, for example, it is also because you recognise its value. In teaching and research, of course, you need to make sure your analysis is not driven by emotion.”