Opinion From America to India: Academic freedom is misunderstood

In fact, academic freedom is a very “un-academic” idea in the sense that it is practical and down-to-earth. On the other hand, academic freedom is entirely academic in the sense that it is specific to the academic world. In this latter sense, academic freedom is very different from the freedom of expression. The freedom to publicly express an opinion is a universal human right available to all citizens regardless of their academic qualifications, limited only by the laws of the states they are citizens of. By contrast, academic freedom is the autonomy granted not to a person but to a type of activity, namely the practice of academics, or the institutionalised pursuit of ideas and knowledge. Because academics engage in such practices, it creates the illusion that academic freedom is a privilege being granted to them as persons.

Another illusion is the impression that academic freedom means the absence of all constraints. In fact, academic activity is subject to the stringent norms of the academic world which require all claims to be backed by transparent procedures and appropriate evidence. All academic work is “open” in the sense that it is subject to the scrutiny and criticism of peers within the academic community, including both supporters and opponents. It is important to note that this scrutiny examines method and evidence — it does not have the power to dictate the questions that are asked. This, in essence, is the coin of academic freedom — autonomy from extra-academic diktats on one side, and the obligatory subjection to intra-academic norms on the other side.

Why is academic freedom necessary and important? Because, broadly speaking, “academia”, which includes universities, research centres and other types of knowledge-producing institutions, is entrusted with the task of thinking on behalf of society. Its job is to ensure that the concepts and ideas we use are the best ones available. The only way to do this is to subject all ideas to rigorous testing, especially those that are dominant or popular. This means that universities must always encourage — or at least accommodate — questions about any and everything. Only after such questioning can we know which ideas are robust and worth keeping and which ones must be discarded. But because times change, no idea is good forever and new ones must be found or developed in order to meet new challenges. In any case, the world of ideas is never so neatly organised that a singular sense of good and bad can prevail — plurality here is a necessity rather than a virtue.

It is not difficult to imagine what would happen — in fact, it is already happening — if universities or research institutes are subjected to government control through devices like the Central Civil Service (CCS) rules. These rules currently govern the conduct of government officials who are vested with its executive powers. They enable the government to proscribe and punish any activities that the government does not approve of.

Why shouldn’t these rules be applicable to academics in public universities since they are also paid by the government? The narrow legalistic reason why they should not is because academics are not vested with executive powers, but the larger, more important reason is that they are part of the academic world whose job is to think critically on behalf of society and our collective future.

If universities are brought under the CCS rules, then, at best, academics will avoid asking the questions or publishing the research which might displease the government of the day. At worst, the party in power will start dictating which academic questions can be asked or not asked, and what answers are permissible. However, a bizarre directive recently issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) showed that another world is possible. It asked that universities install “selfie points” on their campuses where students and teachers may photograph themselves with a picture of our beloved Prime Minister. (To be fair, the UGC has since withdrawn the designs it had proposed, giving universities the freedom to create their own designs.)

Three final points. First, academic freedom is not a matter of public universities alone: Recent events show that private universities, which were supposed to be able to resist governmental pressures, have also failed to protect academic freedom. Second, contrary to appearances, academic freedom is not about the humanities and social sciences alone, although prominent controversies tend to emerge here: Obviously, governments also have policies relating to questions of natural science and the absence of academic freedom would be as damaging in those contexts. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, academic freedom is not about the clash of ideologies, for it is the duty of academics to speak truth to every form of state power regardless of its ideological colours.

The author is a visiting professor at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal