.png)
KNAW advice: enshrine academic freedom in the Dutch Constitution
In order to better protect academic freedom, it must be enshrined in the Dutch Constitution. This is the conclusion reached by a KNAW committee led by UvA legal scholar André Nollkaemper, as set out in a report presented today to Minister Rianne Letschert of Education, Culture and Science.
.png)
Academic freedom, the freedom researchers need to conduct critical, independent research and engage in debate, must be enshrined in the Dutch Constitution. This is the conclusion of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), published today in its report Freedom enshrined: towards stronger legal protection for academic freedom.
The report follows an earlier KNAW report, published in spring 2025, which concluded that academic freedom in the Netherlands is under pressure. The Netherlands is also slipping further down European rankings. To prevent situations like those in the United States, among other things, where academic freedom is being dismantled by the government at a rapid pace, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) asked the KNAW to investigate whether academic freedom currently enjoys sufficient legal protection. Folia spoke to legal scholar André Nollkaemper, University Professor at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and chair of the KNAW committee that conducted the study.
What exactly is academic freedom?
“The individual freedom of researchers to choose their own subjects, conduct independent research, shape their teaching and publish their findings without external pressure, for example from governments, university administrators or funders. But when discussing academic freedom, it is very important to stress that this freedom is not unlimited. Academics work within a university, a research group and education. Their freedom to decide entirely for themselves what they do may be limited by the framework within which their research takes place.”
What is putting academic freedom under pressure in the Netherlands?
“We identify a range of causes in the report. One is political pressure: in recent years, there have regularly been bills in the House of Representatives seeking to restrict cooperation with other countries and the use of languages at universities. Polarisation surrounding Gaza and climate change also plays a role at universities: not everyone still feels free to say what they think. These are, in principle, subjects that fall within the scope of academic freedom. That freedom is not unlimited, but what was missing was a clear framework setting out what the government and institutions must do to protect academic freedom, and when they may impose restrictions.”
Alongside its report on the legal protection of academic freedom, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) also presented a report on freedom of expression in academia.
Among other things, the KNAW committee advises institutions to exercise restraint when terminating collaborations, “in order to maintain the exchange of knowledge with external parties as much as possible and to protect academic freedom to the fullest extent”. However, suspending collaborations remains an option if they conflict with an institution’s core values, as was the case at the UvA in relation to its ties with the fossil fuel industry and Israeli universities. In such cases, the decision must be communicated “explicitly, consistently and transparently”.
The committee also addresses academics who publicly identify themselves as scientists during demonstrations, for example by wearing a lab coat or academic gown. In principle, the KNAW says, this is permitted, provided researchers can justify their participation in the protest on the basis of their own scientific expertise. According to the academy, those who cannot do so are wrongly claiming the authority of science and thereby violating the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (NGWI).
Students are advised to be open to “confrontation with unwelcome or controversial ideas”. In this respect, the university should be both a “safe space” and a “brave space”. University boards should, in principle, seek to ensure that teach-ins, demonstrations on polarising issues and discussions with controversial speakers are also allowed to proceed “in a responsible manner”. (Daniël Hemmer)
Is that not clear already?
“No. The Higher Education and Research Act (WHW) does provide some legal protection for academic freedom. It states that 'academic freedom shall be respected'. But it is unclear who is responsible for ensuring this and what it actually means.”
And who should be responsible for that?
“There are three levels of responsibility. The government must refrain from interference and create the conditions for academic freedom, including by providing financial resources. Higher education institutions are also responsible for ensuring sufficient freedom in research: research must not be entirely constrained by overly narrowly defined research programmes. Staff and students must also feel free to express themselves. Thirdly, academics themselves have a responsibility. You must conduct your research in a way that stands up to scientific scrutiny, and you must stand your ground when for example governments or companies interfere with your independent research methods.”
Enshrining academic freedom in the Constitution seems like a no-brainer.
“We had to discuss that at length. You cannot include every idea in a constitution. The Constitution sets out the most fundamental norms of our society, so does academic freedom belong among them? We ultimately concluded that it does. Like freedom of expression and freedom of the press, it is a fundamental value that matters to our democracy. The ability of academics to criticise the government is also important for the freedom of society as a whole.
“We therefore consider it important enough; that is one criterion. The second is whether the time is right and the definition is sufficiently clear. And thirdly, is it necessary? Given the vulnerabilities and threats facing academic freedom, as well as developments abroad, including in the US, we believe it is. Enshrining academic freedom in the Constitution would provide an important safeguard against a political majority seeking to amend the law.”
If academic freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, will that prevent situations like those in the US?
“No. First, changing the law alone is not enough. Genuine protection must also come from within academic institutions themselves. History also shows that some countries have enshrined the right in their constitutions – Hungary, for example – without this making any difference. Nevertheless, it has important symbolic value and represents a first step.”
How likely is it that the Constitution will be amended?
“I would be genuinely surprised if the recommendation concerning the WHW were not implemented. The law is of very poor quality and provides too little guidance. The question is whether an academic can invoke academic freedom in court. The WHW does not make that clear.
“Whether the government and parliament will amend the Constitution in the current political climate, I do not know. In any case, the process must take place in two rounds: first with the current government and then with the next government, following an election. That is harder to predict, but it does not stop the KNAW from making the recommendation. The ball is now in the politicians' court.”
Starting on Friday 6 November, the KNAW will host a series of events on protecting academic freedom. You can register here.
