Academic freedom: Global variations in norm conceptualization, diffusion and contestation – an introduction

Kovács, Kriszta; Spannagel, Janika Article — Published Version Academic freedom: Global variations in norm conceptualization, diffusion and contestation – an introduction Global Constitutionalism Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Kovács, Kriszta; Spannagel, Janika (2025) : Academic freedom: Global variations in norm conceptualization, diffusion and contestation – an introduction, Global Constitutionalism, ISSN 2045-3825, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 13-25, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381724000133 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/311927.2 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 SPECIAL ISSUE INTRODUCTION ACADEMIC FREEDOM: CONCEPTUALISATIONS, CONTESTATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES Academic freedom: Global variations in norm conceptualization, diffusion and contestation –an introduction Kriszta Kovács 1,2 and Janika Spannagel 3 1 WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany; 2 ELTE University Faculty of Social Sciences, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/A, 1117 Budapest, Hungary and 3 Freie Universität Berlin, Kaiserswerther Str. 16-18, 14195 Berlin, Germany Corresponding author: Kriszta Kovács; Email: [email protected] Abstract This Introduction provides an overview of the topics covered in this special issue on ‘Academic freedom: Global variations in norm conceptualization, diffusion and contestation’, which explores what academic freedom means, how this may vary on a global level, how the norm spread around the world and what current contestations look like. The Introduction defines some terms essential to this debate, such as the freedom of science, academic freedom, freedom of scientific research and the right to science, and offers an analytical framework for the various contributions of the special issue. This includes, in particular, a distinction between illiberal and liberal science scripts and their relationship with academic freedom, as well as between different forms of contestations and limitations of academic freedom. Authors from varying disciplinary and regional backgrounds address different aspects of this theme in their respective contributions, of which the introduction gives a brief summary. Keywords: academic freedom; contestations; freedom of science; limitations; science script Academic freedom and freedom of science Academic freedom is a fundamental value that promotes freedom of science and the free exchange and expansion of human knowledge. Yet it is globally in decline, according to the latest data of the Academic Freedom Index. 1 While this trend does not affect all societies, some of the most populous countries in the world –including China, India and © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. 1 The Academic Freedom Index assesses de facto academic freedom levels in 180 countries around the world. It is published by the FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, and the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Latest data available at <https://academic-freedom-index.net>. Global Constitutionalism (2025), 14: 1, 13–25 doi:10.1017/S2045381724000133 the United States –are among those where academic freedom levels have been deteriorating over the past decade. This leads to a situation where more than half of the world’s population is currently seeing academic freedom in their country weakening –in addition to many other countries, where it is stagnating at an already low level. 2 These worrisome trends are challenging us as academics 3 to examine them in more depth, not only because they pose important intellectual problems, but also because the repercussions of a global academic freedom recession are affecting the global community of science as a whole. Moreover, since the conception of this special issue, the violent attack by Hamas against Israel inOctober 2023 and the subsequent war and humanitariancrisisin Gaza have further created a tense backdrop to renewed encroachments on the university space in many countries. Student protests have spread widely, and university grounds in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many other places have become the site of Gaza solidarity encampments. The main focus of the public debates surrounding these protests is on limitsof free speech on campus and its tensions with students’rights to a discriminationfree access to education. 4 However, there are also specific implications for academic freedom as professors, accused of sympathizing with Hamas or of protesting illegally, have been arrested, threatened with dismissal, suspended or been the target of defamation and harassment. 5 This is not to say that disciplinary action is unjustified in all cases or that academic freedom protects hate speech or illegal activities. However, it is clear that the heated atmosphere has emboldened critics of academic freedom and opened the doors to increased political scrutiny and interference in academic affairs. 6 While the contributions in this special issue do not directly address these recent developments, they speak to relevant broader questions of academic freedom and its limits, variations and contestations. Specifically, the special issue engages with these questions in two ways. First, we aim to address the underlying question of what academic freedom means and how this may vary on a global level. We will look at the role of science and academic freedom from the vantage point of a liberal conceptualization to map what kinds of variations may exist and to explore where academic freedom ends. Second, and in light of these variations in academic freedom conceptions and practices, we want to better comprehend the contestations of academic freedom that often pre-date or accompany the curtailment of academic freedom that can be observed at different levels around the world. 2 K Kinzelbach et al,Academic Freedom Index –Update 2023 (Berlin: FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg and V-Dem Institute, 2023). 3 The terms ‘academic’and ‘scholar’are used in this special issue as shorthand terms for all members of academic staff (professors, researchers, lecturers, etc.) in higher education, though we acknowledge that the term ‘scholar’may refer to anyone who conducts research in line with scientific standards and irrespective of a professional position at a university or research institute. 4 LH Tribe & G Lukianoff, reply by D Cole, ‘Free Speech on Campus: An Exchange’,The New York Review of Books, 7 March 2024. 5 See, for example, the cases of Kate Sang in the United Kingdom (S Francis, ‘Michelle Donelan Told to Pay Damages to Academic Over Hamas Claim’, BBC, 6 March 2024), of John Keane in Germany (C Burdeau, ‘In Germany, Debate Rages Over a State Policy to Support Israel, No Matter What’,Courthouse News Service, 5 December 2023) or of students and faculty arrested at various protests, such as that at the University of Pennsylvania in May 2024 (‘Statement of the AAUP-Penn Executive Committee on the Penn Administration’s Decision to Arrest Students and Faculty and the University’s Imposition of Mandatory Leaves of Absence on Six Students’,Academe Blog, 10 May 2024). 6 For example, the hearings and investigations by the US House Education and Workforce Committee (I Mulvey, ‘The Time is Now to Resist Political Interference’,AAUP Updates, 8 February 2024) or suggestions that German professors who came out in support of student protestors should be surveilled by the domestic intelligence service (F Kain et al, ‘Verfassungsschutz soll Uni-Profs überwachen’,BILD, 10 May 2024). 14 Kriszta Kovács and Janika Spannagel When approaching questions of academic freedom, it is useful to clarify some terms commonly used in this debate and how they relate to each other, namely the freedom of science, the right to science, academic freedom, the autonomy of higher education institutions and the freedom of scientific research. Figure 1 provides an overview of how we understand and use these concepts in this special issue. Accordingly, the freedom of science is an umbrella term that encompasses the right to science, academic freedom, the autonomy of higher education institutions and the freedom of scientific research. The right to science is a human right that applies to every human being, regardless of their status or training, and it comprises both the right to share in the benefits of scientific discoveries and the right to freely engage in scientific research, defined as anything that, based on its content and methods, can be seen as a serious, systematic endeavour to discover what is true. 7 Academic freedom, on the other hand, is a professional freedom of those who engage in scientific activity or higher education teaching and who are affiliated with a university or other higher education or research institution. It includes the freedom of scientific research (an overlap with the right to science, but from a professional perspective), the freedom of higher education teaching and the freedom of higher education learning. 8 The autonomy of higher education and research institutions, which encompasses both Figure 1. The freedom of science and its elements. Source: Authors. 7 See, for example, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. For more on the right to science, see Kinzelbach’s article in this special issue. 8 More on the definition and justification of academic freedom, see, M Kumm, Academic Freedom in Liberal Constitutional Democracies: Justifications, Limits, Tensions, and Contestations (Berlin: Cluster of Excellence 2055, 2024), <https://www.scripts-berlin.eu/publications/working-paper-series/Working-Paper42-2024/index.html>. Global Constitutionalism 15 the independence and the self-governance of these institutions and certain professional privileges such as tenure, is thus conceptually not a direct part of academic freedom but rather a functional condition of its protection. The freedom of scientific research, in our understanding, describes the area where academic freedom and the right to science overlap. While restricted to research, it also includes the right to communicate scientific results to other researchers and to the public. In this context, it is important to clearly delineate this freedom of scientific exchange and dissemination from the freedom of speech: while the latter covers anyone’s equal right to utter almost anything, including irrational ideas, unreflected opinions and falsehoods, the former is bound by the disciplinary standards of methodical research and scientific verifiability. 9 Academic freedom and scripts of science When trying to understand the extent of the freedom granted to academics, we need to ask what purpose and role they are thought to fulfil and how these are meant to be achieved. As the various contributions in this special issue highlight, variations in the conception of the role and organization of science in society may explain important nuances in the understanding and practice of academic freedom and its legitimate limitations. In this special issue, we refer to ‘scripts of science’to describe such variations. Scripts are, more generally, shared understandings about the organization of society expressed in prescriptive and descriptive statements on how a society ought to be and is. A certain grammar links these statements and integrates them into a coherent set. 10 The liberal script specifically is built around equal individual freedom –understood as personal autonomy and self-determination –as well as collective self-determination. 11 The liberal script of science espouses a vision of science and higher education that uses critical thinking, serious and systematic inquiry, and knowledge transmission to progressively further our understanding of the natural world and human affairs for the benefit of society’s collective self-determination. For this script to be liberal, however, academic freedom is of vital importance: while society can have legitimate demands on academia and science in terms of their role in democracy and as cultivators of critical minds, as solvers of societal problems, and as gearwheels in the national economy and the labour market, 12 it is of quintessential importance that academia is largely in control of defining such goals, and the means by which they are pursued. As a consequence, there is a certain tension in the liberal script of science between the (individual and collective) selfdetermination of academia and the collective self-determination of society. The relationship between the two in the context of liberal societies, and how they pull the liberal science script in different directions, is schematically depicted in Figure 2. 9 For more on the relationship between academic freedom and free speech, see Kovács’article in this special issue. 10 TA Börzel and M Zürn, Contestations of the Liberal Script: A Research Program (Berlin: Cluster of Excellence, 2020), <https://www.scripts-berlin.eu/publications/working-paper-series/Working-Paper-No-12020/index.html>. 11 TA Börzel and T Risse, The Liberal Script Between Individual and Collective Self-Determination (Berlin: Cluster of Excellence, 2023), <https://www.scripts-berlin.eu/publications/working-paper-series/WorkingPaper-26-2023/index.html>. 12 K Roberts Lyer, I Saliba and J Spannagel, University Autonomy Decline: Causes, Responses, and Implications for Academic Freedom (London: Routledge, 2022) 14. 16 Kriszta Kovács and Janika Spannagel The visualization highlights that the liberal script of science –and with it a liberal notion of academic freedom –is placed on a spectrum between two illiberal extremes. On the right-hand side, it is demarcated by an illiberal script of science that emphasizes the collective interest of society to the detriment of the self-determination of academia. It sees science as fully subordinate to political and economic demands. The liberal science script defies this external control by placing academia in charge of the definition and pursuit of such societal objectives. In other words, the scope of academic freedom cannot be defined with reference to political judgements about whether and to what degree specific research or academic orientations will in fact further such political or economic purposes. On the left-hand side, the liberal script of science is demarcated by a version that places no constraints on academic freedom –which is also illiberal, as it emphasizes academic selfdetermination at the detriment of other individual freedoms and/or clearly defined compelling public interests. The same is true for unlimited university autonomy, which may even infringe upon individual scholars’academic freedom. 13 In the liberal science script, academic institutional considerations can, of course, limit the freedom of the individual researcher. 14 Academic institutions are free to engage ‘in the professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching that are necessary for the realization of the social purposes of the university’. 15 They have their own interests Figure 2. The liberal science script and its boundaries. Source: Authors. 13 For more on this, see Bernasconi’s article in this special issue. 14 J Vrielink, P Lemmens, S Parmentier and the LERU Working Group on Human Rights, ‘Academic Freedom as a Fundamental Right’(2011) 13 Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 117. 15 R Post, ‘The Structure of Academic Freedom’in B Donumani (ed) Academic Freedom After September 11 (New York: Zone Books, 2006) 64. Global Constitutionalism 17 constituted by their perspective and horizons, and they have the right to choose scientific topics and methods. However, it is crucial to emphasize that ‘a researcher may not be forced, against his or her will or conscience, to research a particular topic’. 16 The institution has an obligation to respect the essence of research autonomy. Yet this does not mean that the researcher is free to research any kind of topic they choose independently of these institutional concerns. Academic freedom can legitimately be limited by fundamental rights and freedoms of others, by ethical considerations and by clearly defined countervailing interests of the academic institution as well as clearly defined countervailing public interests, like public health, provided the limitations are necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve such a compelling public interest. The specific restrictions that are placed on academic freedom, as well as the processes through which such limitations are determined, vary between societies –as do the extent to and the particular means of academia’s self-determination. These are the essential areas where we see variations in the liberal science script and, accordingly, in the practices and limitations of the liberal notion of academic freedom. Societal demands for democratic legitimacy, greater inclusivity and economic viability create tensions with the liberal notion of academic freedom on both ends of the spectrum. These tensions are not only resolved differently across societies, but they also often lead to contestations that, to a certain extent, are internal to the liberal script and that can induce renegotiations of the legitimate boundaries of academic freedom and make them evolve with time. However, contestations can also be more far-reaching and cut to the core of what we consider academic freedom to be. Contestations and limitations of academic freedom The way we use the term ‘contestation’in this special issue relates to contestations as social practices that express objections to a norm, its interpretation or application. For instance, universities in several Western countries face societal pressure to abolish studies focused on ‘critical race theory’,‘postcolonialism’or ‘gender studies’, with some actors claiming that these disciplines undermine the values of liberal democracy. 17 To take another example, some ethical rules for research or speech codes on campuses have posed a challenge to academic freedom. 18 Market pressures are also present in liberal democracies: universities have long been exposed to market logic, and the commercialization of research 19 has to some degree threatened the freedom to pursue academic inquiry. Moreover, constraints imposed by various national and supranational research funding schemes have caused concerns for academic institutions. 20 16 Vrielink et al. (n14) para 40. 17 Kumm (n8). 18 JC Hermanowicz, ‘Introduction. Problems and Perspectives’in JC Hermanowicz (ed) Challenges to Academic Freedom (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2021) 1, 6. G Ragone, ‘Ethical Codes and Speech Restrictions: New Scenarios and Constitutional Challenges to Freedom of Teaching at University – the Italian Perspective’in M Seckelmann etal., Academic Freedom Under Pressure? (Berlin: Springer, 2021),217. 19 American universities have been more exposed to market logics and competitive pressures than continental European countries, for instance. FO Ramirez, ‘American Leadership in American Higher Education’manuscript on file with the authors. See also the statement of the British University and College Union on academic freedom, January 2009, <https://www.ucu.org.uk/academicfreedom>. 20 Kovács explores this issue in her contribution to this special issue with regard to gender-inclusivity in European research funding. 18 Kriszta Kovács and Janika Spannagel Contestations are also present at the individual level: scholars have been silenced by university communities 21 or blocked from speaking in academia (de-platformed) 22 because of their allegedly morally offensive minority moral or political views (what some have described as ‘cancel culture’). 23 Some students have advocated for ‘safe spaces’in universities by limiting academic freedom in order to be protected from ‘disturbing ideas’. 24 We understand these contestations –up to a certain degree –as ‘liberal contestations’since they invoke other core components of the liberal script (free speech, non-discrimination, etc.) to justify criticisms of the ways in which the academic freedom norm is interpreted and applied. 25 The distinction between ‘liberal contestations’and ‘illiberal contestations’is made on the basis of both their justification and their intended effects: Contestations are liberal or internal to the liberal script if they contest specific practices and boundaries of academic freedom by raising other principles of the liberal script (such as free speech or equality). They are illiberal, or external to the liberal script, if they contest the core or the very existence of academic freedom –or if they demand limitless academic freedom by rejecting the very idea of other elements central to the liberal script. Within liberal societies, an example of illiberal contestations that aim to limit the self-determination of academia to a degree that is incompatible with academic freedom is calls on lawmakers for the de-funding of gender studies. 26 An example of illiberal contestations that demand unlimited academic freedom to the detriment of collective self-determination is individual anthropologists who refuse to return human remains to Native American tribes, arguing that ‘repatriation of human remains is a threat to amassing scientific knowledge’. 27 These examples may also serve to highlight that, in liberal societies, the boundaries between liberal and illiberal contestations are often particularly fluid and contingent over time. At the same time, illiberal contestations of academic freedom are becoming an integral part of the system in contemporary regimes facing democratic regression. These include Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Iran, Mexico, Poland between 2015 and 2023, Russia, 21 J Saul, ‘Beyond Just Silencing and Censorship: A Call for Complexity in Discussions of Academic Free Speech’in J Lackey (ed), Academic Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) 119, 120. An example where silencing academics is at stake is the policing of the so-called ‘Islamo-leftist’research. T Perroud, ‘Academic Freedom, the Republic and “Islamo-Leftism”’ Verfassungsblog, 6 November 2020, <https:// verfassungsblog.de/academic-freedom-the-republic-and-islamo-leftism>. 22 RM Simpson and A Srinivasan, ‘No Platforming’, in J Lackey (ed), Academic Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) 186. 23 P Norris, ‘Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality?’(2023) 71(1) Political Studies 145. As David Cole aptly puts it, cancel culture is ‘a“culture”of largely private intolerance, not a system of official repression’. D Cole ‘Who’s Cancelling Whom?’,The New York Review of Books, 8 February 2024. 24 M Moody-Adams, ‘Is There a “Safe Space”for Academic Freedom?’in J Lackey (ed), Academic Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) 36, 37. 25 It should be noted that the concept of academic freedom can also be misused in liberal societies. The spreading of proven falsehoods has been defended by scholars in the name of academic freedom, even if the circulated information lacks academic merit. Probably the most (in)famous example in this respect is the defence of Holocaust deniers’right to express their views in the academic sphere. C Werner, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (Ware: Wordsworth, 1995). 26 See the call by the National Association of Scholars in the United States in D Randall, ‘Defund Gender Studies’,Minding the Campus, 6 September 2022, <https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/09/06/ defund-gender-studies>. 27 See G Angeleti, ‘Anthropologist Opposed to Indigenous Repatriation Sues University for Alleged Threats to Her Free Speech’,The Art Newspaper, 27 October 2022, <https://www.theartnewspaper. com/2022/10/27/elizabeth-weiss-anthropologist-san-jose-state-university-lawsuit-freedom-speech>. Global Constitutionalism 19 Turkey and Venezuela –states that rank low or have recently declined on the Academic Freedom Index. The autocratic leaders of these regimes tend to present rival understandings of science scripts by emphasizing the role of universities in nation-building 28 and downplaying the other politically involved purpose of the university: to encourage critical thinking that would correct the misuse of power and contest scientifically invalid truth claims. 29 A good example is the position of the Law and Justice (PiS) Party, which ruled Poland between 2015 and 2023, on the role of historiography: its purpose is to unite the nation rather than follow an academic, evidence-based discourse. 30 Illiberal actors often label the conflict over academic freedom between them and vocal supporters of liberal democracy as a ‘culture war’(Kulturkampf), in which they signal opposition to the moral-cultural transformation of liberal democracies. 31 Calling it a ‘culture war’alludes to the abovementioned, largely liberal contestations over political correctness and campus speech codes. However, a more appropriate way of understanding this phenomenon is to regard these contestations against academic freedom as symptoms or consequences of broader contestations of the liberal script. What autocratic politicians present as ‘culture war’often just draws attention away from creeping autocracy. 32 There is a further important distinction to be made between contestations and limitations of academic freedom. Contestations are primarily discursive social and political acts, which may or may not result in de facto limitations of the academic freedom norm. Limitations of academic freedom can be justified or unjustified and both justified and unjustified limitations can occur in liberal and illiberal regimes. Recently, scholars have been subject to targeted harassment in liberal democracies: there are reports of severe smear campaigns and often violent threats against academics for exercising their academic freedom 33 in fields such as gender, 34 climate, 35 extremism 36 and human rights 28 Often, they do this by developing a centralized parallel academic system. J-A Dillabough and A Peto, ‘New Deceptions: How Illiberalism is Hijacking the University’,University World News, 4 May 2024, <https:// www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240501143215958>. 29 M Ignatieff and S Roch, Academic Freedom: The Global Challenge (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2018). This phenomenon is more evident in post-colonial and post-authoritarian settings, where new nations emerge to claim identities suppressed by the former rulers. EW Said, ‘Identity, Authority and Freedom: The Potentate and the Traveler’, in L Menard (ed), The Future of Academic Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). 30 A Leszczynski, ‘The Past as a Source of Evil: The Controversy Over History and Historical Policy in Poland’,The Cultures of History Forum, May 2016, <https://www.cultures-of-history.uni-jena.de/politics/ the-controversy-over-history-and-historical-policy-in-poland>. 31 Zs Enyedi, ‘Democratic Backsliding and Academic Freedom in Hungary’(2018) 14(4) Perspective on Politics 1067. 32 KL Scheppele, ‘What Culture Wars Hide’,Verfassungsblog, 19 May 2022, <https://verfassungsblog.de/ what-culture-wars-hide/, DOI: 10.17176/20220520-062111-0>. 33 See E Väliverronen and S Saikkonen, ‘Freedom of Expression Challenged: Scientists’Perspectives on Hidden Forms of Suppression and Self-censorship’(2020) 46 Science, Technology, & Human Values 6. 34 J Evans, ‘The New War on Gender Studies’,The Conversation, 6 January 2019, <https://theconversa tion.com/the-new-war-on-gender-studies-109109>. 35 L Hickman, ‘US Climate Scientists Receive Hate Mail Barrage in Wake of UEA, The Guardian, 5 July 2010, <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate>. 36 V Funk, ‘Natascha Strobl und “Don Alphonso”: Kolumnistin erwägt, rechtliche Schritte einzuleiten’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 12 August 2020, <https://www.fr.de/politik/als-wuerde-ich-permanent-in-denabgrund-schauen-90016007.html>. 20 Kriszta Kovács and Janika Spannagel