Universities should become more democratic to protect academic freedom

Around eighty policymakers, administrators, vice-chancellors and other academics gathered on a Friday morning in a dimly lit theatre at VU University Amsterdam to discuss academic freedom.

A year ago, university rectors warned in a letter (available in Dutch only, Ed.) that academic freedom was under pressure. They proposed to initiate a "national dialogue" on the subject. Following the letter, the universities have decided to hold meetings on academic freedom.

This was the first meeting. Delegations from all corners of the country presented posters with their own universities' findings. What do they see as threats to academic freedom? How can it be strengthened?

Intimidation
Academic freedom is, in short, the freedom to research and teach whatever you wish. People must be able to differ in their views and remain open to arguments. In practice, that freedom is limited by several factors, such as funding. But there are other threats, such as intimidation, censorship, and populism.

The recent student protests and occupations have also left their mark. For instance, many posters emphasised the importance of learning to deal with differences of opinion. We must be able to disagree, but this must be done "respectfully", as the Eindhoven University of Technology wrote and "safely", in the words of the University of Groningen.

Israel was not mentioned by name, but Tilburg University said that “researchers must receive appropriate support to be able to decide for themselves which international partners they collaborate with.” TU Delft's poster said: “We must learn to have difficult conversations about academic freedom."

Curiosity
As expected, funding was also addressed. Wageningen stated in its poster that it wants more money for curiosity-driven research. The rectors also wrote something similar in their letter, opposing the idea of "you ask, we deliver". They wrote: “Knowledge development serves society best when it stems from an independent drive for insight.”

But that too provokes debate. Sicco de Knecht, from the National Expertise Centre for Science and Society, criticises this “characteristic” sentence, wondering whether it isn't paternalistic to tell citizens not to get involved, since universities have their own best interests in mind. "Who decides that the curiosity of scientists is more valuable than that of citizens?" asks De Knecht.

Not democratic enough
Discussions like these (who to collaborate with, what to research, what to teach) always surround the same question: who gets to decide these things? Many of those present felt that universities need to take a good look at themselves, echoing a debate on radicalisation that happened at UU earlier this year. On that occasion, several speakers felt that becoming as democratic as possible would be the best way for universities to protect themselves.

In Amsterdam, participants engaged in various round tables and made grand statements about how academic freedom strengthens democracy. One of the main arguments presented was that academia provides independent and reliable information. However, some participants also warned against complacency. After all, academic freedom is funded by taxpayers’ money, so society is perfectly entitled to have a say in it.

Time and again, the conversation turned to democracy within universities themselves. Several attendees believed that internal democracy is under pressure, as administrators do as they please. At UU, for example, the Executive Board scrapped an English-taught bachelor's degree without consulting those working in the programme or even informing them. The decision was reversed after the cabinet change, but confidence in the Executive Board has nevertheless been severely damaged. “We’re not that democratic,” says one of the attendees.

A university administrator who prefers to remain anonymous says that she actually doesn’t have much say at all. “We must discuss every decision with everyone."

This does not impress the others much. Several attendees believe that board members no longer know what is going on on the ground and have lost touch with students. Speaking of students, they could use a lesson in democracy every now and then. “Shouldn’t we be teaching citizenship at the university?” wonders someone from Utrecht University.

"Group therapy"
Pieter Slaman, a historian at Leiden University, understands why a dialogue on academic freedom invariably turns to internal democracy. He attended the event not only as an academic, but also as Leiden University’s "academic freedom ambassador". He explains that democracy and academic freedom go hand in hand.

“Academic freedom is also about the ability to shape your own community and the right to criticise your institution,” says Slaman. “Since the 1990s, universities have come to resemble businesses more and more, and as a result, those who want change are hitting a brick wall. At the same time, if you want to be a democracy, you also have to learn to live with conflicting viewpoints. Universities are by nature a place where there is never just one truth.”

The dialogue at BU Amsterdam did not lead to a clear conclusion, but that was not its sole aim, Slaman believes. “It is navel-gazing, to a certain extent," he says, “but tensions within universities have risen so high recently that we need to go into group therapy first.”