'Without respect for academic freedom, we are not worthy of being called a university'

On September 24, 2024, I was invited to comment on Professor Neve Gordon’s lecture Academia in the Face of Genocide, which should have taken place at Utrecht University (UU), but was instead hosted by BAK. Strictly speaking, it is true that the lecture was not “cancelled” by the university leadership. The organisers, who are academics at UU, considered the new restrictions on events on “Gaza/Israel”, which were communicated to them only after they had booked a classroom for the lecture, to constitute a form of censorship. As an invited speaker, for the reasons I outline in this op-ed, I agree with the organisers. Sadly, I consider my own and my colleagues’ academic freedom, primarily Professor Gordon’s, to have been violated by my employer. This is a matter that should concern anyone who studies and works at this institution. It is worth noting that the British Society of Middle Eastern Studies has expressed similar concerns about academic freedom in a letter they sent to UU's Executive Board in which they asked for an apology to be issued to the lecture’s organisers and Professor Gordon.

What is academic freedom?
In short, academic freedom entails the right of academic personnel to teach and research freely – subject to accepted professional principles of intellectual rigour – without any interference, fear of censorship or retribution. 

For personnel of higher education institutions to be able to exercise their academic freedom, academic institutions must create an enabling and supportive environment. When academic freedom is subjected to interferences – whether by the state, the university leadership, or any external parties – this is not only a problem for the academics in question, or even for the academic community to which they belong, but also for society at large. This is because academic expression, particularly on sensitive and controversial issues, is crucial to advance the protection of human rights and democratic debate. For this reason, academic freedom is not confined to the classroom. Rather, exchanges among academics and with the general public are also included under the banner of academic freedom.

Precisely due to the societal function that academic freedom pursues, it is not always easy, possible, or even desirable to distinguish between purely “academic” issues, which are covered by academic freedom, and other issues, including political ones. Indeed, this distinction can easily be exploited by those who want to silence academics. In reality, academic matters – especially the ones that are the most pressing for society – are multifaceted. As explained by the Executive Director of Scholars at Risk, the standards of each academic discipline should determine what expression is protected by academic freedom, and, although academic freedom is not unlimited, “coercive restrictions on nonviolent conduct or expression alone are presumed invalid”. Additionally, the European Court of Human Rights held that the opinions of academics “related to topics which continue to be the subject of heated debate, […] also in the international arena, […] expressed […] by one side may sometime offend the other side but […] a democratic society requires tolerance and broadmindedness in the face of controversial expressions.”

Academic freedom and the new rules on events concerning "Gaza/Israel"
New rules supposedly apply to events concerning “Gaza and Israel” to be held at UU. A university spokesperson claims that these rules were adopted in August and shared with the deans. However, to this day, the rules are not available on the university’s website or intranet, nor have the deans communicated them to the members of their respective faculties. This makes a reasonable suspicion arise that the restrictions may have been adopted in response to the organisation of Neve Gordon’s lecture. 

The continued unavailability of these rules in written form makes it impossible to understand what their content is and when exactly they apply. Given that they do severely impinge on academic freedom, as I explain below, these rules should be able to be subjected to the careful scrutiny of the academic community to which they apply and be known to them before being applied. 

While we wait for the rules to be officially communicated through the university’s website, I rely on a recent report by DUB, according to which these guidelines “specifically concern political gatherings in the city centre, such as those about Gaza and Israel. They must now be registered in advance with the Campus & Facilities department or with Security and may only happen in places approved by Security. There is a limit of 40 to 50 participants, with mandatory pre-registration and access control on-site. Finally, a distinction is made between education-related events and political activities.” 

From the above description, it is not clear whether these limitations apply to events that concern only Gaza and Israel (and whether separately or in combination), or to events that concern Palestine more generally. It is not clear whether the rules apply to “political” events or also to academic events, or whether all events about “Gaza” are now considered political. It is not clear who, within the university, has the power to decide whether an event is academic or political, provided that this is even possible. I have a hard time reconciling the principles of academic freedom illustrated above with the power of anyone from the university administration, to make such a call without this amounting to an arbitrary decision and an undue interference with academic freedom. If we leave this choice to the university administration, tomorrow they may decide – perhaps under pressure from certain political or religious groups – that lectures on topics such as gender identity and reproductive rights are “political”, and thus warrant restrictions. 

The application of the new rules to Neve Gordon’s lecture seems to imply that this was a “political” event, rather than an academic one. However, the topic of the lecture constitutes the object of Professor Gordon’s ongoing academic research. This is demonstrated, among other things, by the fact that some of the issues covered in the lecture are reflected in a peer-reviewed article he recently published. He is also writing a book on the lecture’s topic with a fellow academic. Therefore, while the subject matter of his lecture has political connotations, and although his opinions might be unpopular or even disturbing to some, this does not detract from the academic character of his presentation. Notably, the restrictions now also seem to apply to the Concerning War and Conflict Lecture Series, where UU scholars share their academic expertise and current research on different aspects of the horrific situation in Gaza. These too, apparently, are political gatherings. 

The restriction of attendance
The restriction of attendance to a maximum of 40-50 participants is equally problematic. This appears to be an arbitrary limit that is not grounded in any facts or logic. As such, this, too, unduly infringes on academic freedom. University leadership must commit to creating an environment that enables rather than restricts academic freedom. It is not up to them to decide that a certain topic can only be communicated to a restricted number of people, instead of to as many people as fit in a room with a predetermined capacity. Professor Gordon’s lecture at BAK was attended by around 200 people, and more followed it online. As far as I could tell, most of the attendees were UU students and staff, but several other interested citizens were present as well. Clearly, the topic of the lecture was of interest both to the academic community and the general public.

The requirement of mandatory pre-registration is similarly questionable. Perhaps this requirement is meant to exclude people who neither work nor study at UU from attending events held on campus. If that is the case, this is hardly aligned with the principles of open science and with the role that universities should play in society, as explained – ironically – in a new book co-authored by the Rector Henk Kummeling. As a lawyer, I would also like to know more about how the registration data is treated, stored, and used by Security, and whether this is in line with the data protection regulations in force. 

The rationale for these new rules, again as reported by DUB, seems to be that “The university [leadership] believes the guidelines are necessary to prevent further occupations and ensure that students and staff feel safe.” The link and conflation between academic events and protests that concern similar topics is baseless: as far as I recall, none of the protests last spring were carried out in connection with an academic lecture. Additionally, protests and occupations at UU took place also in the context of the university’s collaboration with the fossil fuel industry. Yet, academic events concerning the latter topic do not seem to be covered by the same rules as events on “Gaza/Israel”, which is discriminatory. 

Given the lack of transparency from the administration, however, it is entirely possible that similar rules do apply to lectures on the fossil fuel industry but are being kept under wraps. Finally, the fact that some people may experience discomfort when certain topics are discussed does not justify assuming that academic debates on these subjects jeopardize anyone’s safety. Claiming otherwise is frankly insulting to the academics involved in these discussions, in addition to having a chilling effect on both academic freedom and the public debate: notably, elsewhere, teaching about racism is now prohibited because it is “divisive” or “hurtful” to some. At the same time, the feelings of unsafety caused to students and staff by the unnecessary presence of security guards outside lecture halls are conveniently ignored. 

Violations of academic freedom 
Professor Neve Gordon’s lecture at BAK was well-received. His presentation was interesting and educational. He spoke at length about the weaponization of the concepts of safety and academic freedom to silence pro-Palestine speech in Western academia, a rulebook unfortunately followed at UU to suppress both protests and lectures. University administrators might have learned something valuable, had they attended the lecture. The Q&A was informative and polite, and no one’s safety was at risk. Tragically, this discussion could not take place on campus in the same format and size as it did at BAK. 

The entire UU community should be concerned by the university leadership’s interference with academic freedom. When the academic freedom of some is violated, everyone’s academic freedom is threatened. Without respect for academic freedom, we simply do not work and study at an institution worthy of being called a university. UU students and staff should make it clear that threats to academic freedom will not be tolerated and that administrators might be unelected, but this does not make them unaccountable to us, the university.