The Slippery Slope of Attacks on Academic Freedom

The attacks on academic freedom in Florida and elsewhere have pernicious effects on higher education for faculty and students alike.

When I taught courses on religion and public policy, controversial issues arose frequently. Since I was teaching at a Jesuit college, abortion and social justice concerns became the focus of many discussions online and in class.

The central question in addressing these topics was how public policy options could be decided in the context of a religiously pluralistic society. After all, many religious groups regard the teachings of their tradition to be absolute and binding on all human beings. In other words, the question became “How can a society resolve conflicting positions that are held to be absolute and unyielding?”

In these courses, I made sure to include resources and discussion about official Catholic teachings (the tradition is rather complex and historically varied) along with material about other religious and secular positions. Bear in mind that I conducted these courses in the context of the academic study of religion (similar to the study of history, literature, or the social sciences), not theological indoctrination.

In today’s educational climate, I would likely be prohibited from including such materials and discussion in my courses in Florida, Texas, and several other states.

Attacks by public officials in several states on the freedom of college professors to conduct research and teaching according to standard practice in their discipline have been widely reported. The effects of these attacks appear in institutional censorship and self-censorship.[1]

Institutional Censorship

Administrators at public universities find themselves in a tough spot. Full-throated defenses of academic freedom from them are rare, and for good reason. If they challenge the authority of public officials or publicly appointed governing boards to restrict what faculty can publish or teach, their institutions are likely to encounter significant cuts in funding.

Further, any individuals involved in resisting restrictive oversight might be subject to prosecution or litigation. Resisters might lose their jobs, as happened in Florida when the president of New College, Patricia Okker, was replaced by a political appointee who began to turn the college into “the Hillsdale College of the South.”

Concerns for self-interest aside, administrators who remain silent or lukewarm in defense of their faculty might reason that, were they replaced by someone who opposed academic freedom (as happened at New College), the situation would become worse. It’s better, they think, to stick around and try to limit the damage.[2]

I acknowledge that I’m not in a position to be fired over this issue. Still, it seems to me that failing to speak out in defense of the freedom of faculty and students to conduct research and discuss controversial matters allows infringement of such freedom to become normalized. After all, members of the public, including many who have received a college education, might not understand or appreciate what is actually at stake.

A further problem is that many of the proposed or enacted laws that restrict or prohibit research and teaching about some controversial topics are extremely broad and vague. It is difficult for administrators or faculty to know when they have crossed the line in violation of state law or regulation. Accordingly, many administrators advise faculty to proceed with extreme caution and at their own risk.[3] And this development raises the possibility of self-censorship.

Self-Censorship

The truly sinister effect of politically motivated attacks on academic freedom lies in generated fear among faculty that leads them to self-censor their scholarly activity. When professors cannot invite students to reflect on the obvious evil of chattel slavery in American history for fear of offending some advocates of the Lost Cause, we witness a complete bowdlerization of history.

At Iowa State University, for example, the provost’s office published guidelines[4] designed to “mitigate risk” of scrutiny by public officials. Regarding course content, required courses or course sessions that include “specific concepts” might draw scrutiny. An elective course should include “defined subjects” only if “germane” to the subject matter of the course.

When Iowa State faculty asked the provost, Jonathan Wickert, about the vagueness of the law and what it means for their professional activity, he replied, “Laws are tested in court, and as they are tested, we learn more about what they mean. . . . There is no bright line separating what is OK from what is not.”[5]

Officials at Iowa State and elsewhere have warned faculty to be wary not just of violating restrictive laws but also of creating a situation in which part of a lecture or discussion is recorded, taken out of context or edited, and then widely distributed to provoke public anger. Obviously, such concerns lead faculty to be highly cautious, even paranoid.

Taking matters a step further, I cannot imagine what restricting considerations of systemic racism and the consequences of slavery might mean for the very existence of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Social Consequences

The social consequences of breaches of academic freedom and the resulting censorship are broad and significant. A few examples:

• Research into “climate change” or “global warming” will be curtailed since even the relevant terms are prohibited by proposed or enacted state laws. Such restrictions will potentially lead to catastrophic developments for the planet and human existence.
• Moral judgments about acts of genocide, including the Holocaust and other instances, will be severely restricted, if discussed at all.
• Avoidance of “disruptive concepts” (whatever those might be) or “controversial topics” will deprive students of the ability to come to terms with significant social problems and probing for ways to overcome them.
• Lack of consideration and discussion of controversial matters will deprive students of practice in interacting constructively with those who hold diverse opinions. Polarization and detest of “the other” will increase.
• Attacks on scientists by those who do not understand scientific methods or how scientists actually conduct research will place improvements in healthcare, product safety, and the environment in jeopardy.

Several organizations — the AAUP and Pen America for example — are speaking out strongly in defense of academic freedom. But in terms of the general public’s appreciation of what is at stake, there is a long way to go.

[1] Nell Gluckman, “This is How Censorship Happens,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/2/2023, https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-this-how-censorship-happens?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_6804173_nl_Academe-Today_date_20230511&cid=at&source=&sourceid=. Accessed 4/25/2023.

[2] Brian Rosenberg, “The Deafening Silence of Florida’s College Presidents,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4/6/2023, https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-deafening-silence-of-floridas-college-presidents. Accessed 4/25/2023.

[3] Gluckman, “Censorship.”

[4] Iowa House File 802 — Requirements Related to Racism and Sexism Trainings at Public Postsecondary Institutions, Iowa State University, Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost, 8/5/2021, https://www.provost.iastate.edu/policies/iowa-house-file-802---requirements-related-to-racism-and-sexism-trainings. Accessed 4/26/2023.

[5] Gluckman, “Censorship.”

For more on this topic and other articles on higher education, subscribe to my Higher Ed Success newsletter.