Opinion | Developments within science also hinder academic freedom

This question was also raised by ASW lecturer Laurens Buijs in Folia because he believed that academic freedom is in danger at the UvA - especially because of its diversity policy. At the time, I responded by arguing that diversity and inclusion are compromised by irresponsible or disrespectful use of that academic freedom. Now there is an entire research report on the issue, entitled “Powerful and Vulnerable. Academic freedom in practice.” The reason for this is the whistleblower report that Buijs made upon which the CvB appointed the Stolker committee for this investigation.

The committee calls the ideal of academic freedom “Powerful and Vulnerable” and compares it to the ideal of diversity and inclusion, which is also considered powerful and vulnerable. These two ideals also need each other in academia and at the university, the committee argues, even if it is often suggested otherwise. But has the committee taken enough notice of the controversies within science that are sometimes used to silence not only academic debate but also social debate?

Diversity of perspectives

Before getting to that question, I will briefly address the interdependence of the two ideals mentioned. Fortunately, the committee makes short work of the previously mentioned negative view of the relationship between diversity and academic freedom. Instead of threatening each other, it argues that the two need each other, and that seems obvious. After all, if we did not have a diversity of perspectives, experiences, and values at the university, academic freedom would hardly play a significant role anymore because there would be no need for critical debate. A group that suffers from tunnel vision is not as likely to engage in mutual debate and thus not able to correct itself.

Precisely when there is diversity and the different positions are made known there is friction when they cross verbal swords. The academic freedom allowing such skirmishes imposes more rules and structure than the freedom of expression that applies to all citizens. This is because the freedom that applies to academic teaching, research, and debate is subject to the academic test of sound argumentation and scientific substantiation of those arguments.

Hence, the academic freedom a person enjoys is more or less tied to his or her scientific expertise. But that scientific expertise itself is under attack and the question is what consequences that has for our handling of that academic freedom.

External “impulse”

The committee explicitly recognizes that academic freedom is under pressure, but seems to have external “impulses” in mind. It mentions six current developments in section 3.3: increasing pressure on free speech in general; the rise of global and international perspectives such as decolonization, increasing geopolitical tensions, emancipation movements and their criticism of science; the discussion about free speech on campus due in part to controversial guest speakers; the increasing social polarization that also affects the university; and finally, temporary employment contracts that make critical academics fear even more for their jobs.

In general, these are social developments that also affect the university community from the outside, as it were, and thus impede academic debate. In "Powerful and Vulnerable," several sensible recommendations are made to strengthen our resilience to these external pressures. One important recommendation is to learn to actively manage and use academic freedom in a variety of ways at the UvA.

But there also seem to be developments within science itself that cause scientists to not so easily take a position in a social or scientific debate, for example, about diversity and inclusion. For instance, John Dewey observed more than a century ago that scientists are so specialized and have such limited expertise that they can hardly participate in debates anymore.

Criticism of science

The influential sociologists of science Harry Collins and Bruno Latour both noted more recently that their analyses of the socially-constructed nature of scientific facts have led to scientists also sometimes barely distinguishing between fact and opinion, thereby contributing to climate skepticism. Related to this is the criticism that science is anything but neutral and that in many cases social positions and norms determine the scientific agenda and content.

In addition, we should note that the diversity of academia – including the UvA – is still deficient in many respects: to what extent does the absence of a multiplicity of perspectives lead to an impoverishment of debate and thus limited academic freedom?

There are more such philosophical and practical developments of science that seem to threaten the very nature of academic debate or that are sometimes used to silence scientists: why do we think we know better? This increases the vulnerability of academic freedom while correspondingly diminishing the power to defend it.

So it is unfortunate that the committee does not directly address these developments and their implications for academic freedom, even as it argues that that freedom and diversity need each other. For we need that diversity and inclusion not only because of social issues but precisely because they lead to greater robustness of our academic research and teaching itself and thus also serve academic freedom.

The Central Diversity Office, together with Spui 25, is organizing a discussion evening on “Academic Freedom and Diversity” on Diversity Day, October 3rd at Spui25.

Machiel Keestra is Central Diversity Officer at the UvA and philosopher of science at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies.