Between opinion and expertise

We often hear that universities are the ideal places for debates and the free exchange of ideas. Some would say it’s the raison d’être for universities. I want to narrow this statement: While universities are indeed premier places for academic debate, the space for political debate there should be limited. But what is the difference between the two? Both debate forms are based on argumentation and the drive to convince others. The difference is in the type of argumentation, the intended outcome, and the participants.

Political debates rest on values, opinions, ideologies and particular world views. In contrast, academic debates rest on data, experiments, and logical reasoning based on the scientific method. Political debates are about weighing different interests instead of about interpreting research findings.

Political debates do not result in an objective ‘truth’ and several views can exist simultaneously. The outcome may be a political decision. The objective of academic debates is to increase, deepen and broaden the knowledge and understanding of how the world works. Discussions about methodologies and interpretations of the outcomes are at its heart, but the outcomes themselves, when based on robust methodology, are not up for discussion. Academic debates can lead to temporary consensus, as long as new evidence does not lead to revision.

The legitimacy of the speaker comes from his/her academic knowledge and ability

Political debates are generally carried out in the political arena by politicians, although they often do arise, with the associated emotions, at dinner tables. The legitimacy of the speaker lies in the political constituency. In contrast, academic debates are carried out by experts in their field and are carried out during group meetings, through article reviews, at PhD defences, at academic conferences, or at programmed events at universities. The legitimacy of the speaker comes from his/her academic knowledge and ability.

Both types of debates are relevant to our society, and it would be good if they were clearly separated. Unfortunately, the world is not that black-and-white. Many academic disciplines unavoidably contain political aspects and implications. These regularly arise at broad universities where subjects such as history, political studies, economics, and law are part of the academic portfolio. In the social sciences and humanities (in Dutch), where subjects feel familiar, a lot of people feel that they are experts. But even at technical universities like ours political aspects regularly pop up. Just think about climate science. How can we then retain the academic character of exchange at universities? The most important criterion should be the legitimacy or authority of the speaker based on his/her academic knowledge and expertise regarding the subject for discussion. A range of diverse voices is of course crucial, but they should be diverse academic voices. The intention is not to exclude perspectives, but to distinguish between academic discussions and public opinions. The speaker is not a random commentator at a talk show table, but active in the academic field. Does he/she have a doctorate? If so, the following applies: ‘… society can rely on your judgement, that you act transparently and independently communicate your results and the societal relevance of your work[1]’ (in Dutch).

Limiting political voices in debates at universities does not limit academic freedom, but is a precondition for it. Precisely by adhering to this, universities can fulfil their societal role.

[1] TU Delft’s doctorate rule