To protect academic freedom, universities should become more democratic. This emerged as the central theme at a national conference on the subject, in which all universities took part.
(Photo: Ilsoo van Dijk, Nationale Dialoog Academische Vrijheid)
Some eighty policymakers, administrators, rectors and other academics gather on a Friday morning in a dark theatre hall at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. They’re there to talk about academic freedom.
A year ago, the university rectors warned in a letter that academic freedom was under pressure. They wanted to spark a ‘national dialogue’ on the issue. Since then, meetings on academic freedom have been held at all universities.
This is the first national gathering. Here in the theatre hall, delegations from across the country present the findings from their own universities on posters. What do they see as threats to academic freedom? How can it be strengthened?
Intimidation
In short, academic freedom is the freedom to research and teach what you want. People should be able to disagree and remain open to arguments. In practice, that freedom is always limited, for example by funding. But there are other threats as well, such as intimidation, censorship and populism.
The student protests and occupations of recent times have also left their mark. Many posters, for instance, emphasise the importance of learning how to deal with differences of opinion. We should be able to disagree, but it must be done “respectfully” (writes Eindhoven University of Technology) or “safely” (University of Groningen).
Who decides that the curiosity of scientists is more valuable than the curiosity of citizens
Israel isn’t mentioned by name, but Tilburg University, for example, does state: “Researchers should be able to decide for themselves (with the right support) which international partners they collaborate with.” “We need to learn how to have difficult conversations about academic freedom”, says the poster from Delft University of Technology.
Curiosity
Funding naturally comes up as well. The Wageningen delegation wants more money for curiosity-driven research, according to its poster. The rectors wrote something similar in their letter and opposed the idea of delivering ‘answers on demand’: “Knowledge serves society best when it stems from a genuine drive to understand.”
But that, too, gives rise to debate. In a short speech, Sicco de Knecht of the National Expert Centre for Science and Society criticises that one “characteristic” sentence from the rectors. Isn’t it paternalistic to tell citizens: don’t interfere, this is in your best interest. Who decides that the curiosity of scientists is more valuable than the curiosity of citizens, De Knecht asks.
Not democratic enough
All these discussions (whom do you work with, what do you want to research, what do you teach?) keep returning to the question: who actually decides? And on that point, many participants believe universities need to look at themselves critically.
‘We’re not all that democratic’
Participants spread out across several tables to engage in discussion. Big words are used about how academic freedom strengthens democracy (because science provides independent and reliable information), but there are also warnings against complacency (academic freedom is paid for with taxpayers’ money, so society is entitled to have some say in it).
Yet time and again, the discussion returns to democracy within universities. Several participants believe it’s under pressure. Administrators do as they please. In Utrecht, for example, the board discontinued an English-taught track without consulting or even informing the Bachelor’s programme itself. “We’re not all that democratic”, says one participant.
An administrator who, like others, prefers to remain anonymous in order to speak freely, explains that she doesn’t actually have that much power. “We have to discuss every decision with everyone”, she says.
It makes little impression on the others. Several participants believe administrators no longer know what’s happening on the work floor. They’ve lost touch with students. Then again, those students themselves could also do with a lesson in democracy. “Shouldn’t we start teaching citizenship education at university?”, someone from Utrecht wonders.
‘Group therapy’
Pieter Slaman, a university historian from Leiden, understands why a dialogue on academic freedom keeps turning into a discussion about internal democracy. He’s here not only as a scientist, but also as Leiden University’s ‘theme lead for academic freedom’. Democracy and academic freedom belong together, he explains afterwards.
‘If there’s one place where no single truth prevails, it’s a university’
“Academic freedom is also about the ability to shape your own community and the right to criticise your own institution”, says Slaman. “But since the 1990s universities have increasingly come to resemble companies, and as a result those who want change keep hitting a wall. At the same time, if you want to be a democracy, you also have to learn to live with conflicting viewpoints. If there’s one place where no single truth prevails, it’s a university.”
The dialogue doesn’t lead to a clear conclusion today, but that’s not the only goal, Slaman believes. To some extent, it’s “navel-gazing”, he says, “but tensions within universities have risen so high in recent times that we first need some group therapy.”
HOP, Olmo Linthorst/Translation: Taalcentrum-VU
Do you have a question or comment about this article?
redactie@hogeronderwijspersbureau.nl
Comments are closed.