Why defenders of Harvard’s president are targeting academic freedom
The petition, which emerged Sunday as Harvard University President Claudine Gay faced escalating pressure to resign, took just two sentences to make its case to the institution’s leaders.
The statement in support of Dr. Gay urged the university to “resist political pressures that conflict with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.” It added: “The vital work of defending a culture of free inquiry in our diverse community cannot continue if we let outside forces dictate its shape.”
By Monday afternoon, nearly 700 Harvard faculty members—nearly a third—had signed their names, voicing their support for Dr. Gay, who came under fire last week for her answers during a Congressional hearing on anti-Semitism.
The principle of academic freedom has been a contentious cornerstone of the American academy for more than a century. Advocates believe that helping to protect teachers from interference can make faculty members more likely to promote debate, tackle thorny topics and champion ideas that can ultimately advance science.
With a wide range of views at Harvard on the Israel-Hamas conflict, the faculty members who wrote the petition in support of Dr. Gay organized that a call focused on academic freedom would resonate most deeply, said Melani Cammett, leader of the effort and professor. of international affairs.
The concept of academic freedom can be traced back to European universities. But in 1915, as American academia was reeling from events such as the dismissal of a Stanford professor whose views conflicted with the widow of the university’s founder, the newly formed American Association of University Professors emerged. developed three principles of the concept. They were “freedom of inquiry and inquiry; freedom of education within the university or college; and freedom of extramural expression and action.”
Twenty-five years later, in 1940, the group and what is now known as the American Association of Colleges and Universities moved forward. another treatise on this principle, arguing: “The common good depends on the free search for truth and its free exposition.”
The statement argued that professors “were entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject matter, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial issues unrelated to their subject matter.” And there was a push for protection of professors so that they could teach and conduct research without fear of being fired.
The constitutional protection of freedom of speech is related to academic freedom, but is considered different by experts, in part because freedom of speech protects individuals from the government, while academic freedom concerns a professor’s employer. (Although there may be overlap in the case of state universities.)
Yet academic freedom is not exactly a blank check. Even the 1940 declaration, which remains sacrosanct to many professors, recognized that there were “special obligations” on teachers “when speaking or writing as citizens.” These included accuracy, showing respect for the opinions of others and ‘making every effort to indicate so’. they do not speak for the institution.”
Many conservatives have long been skeptical of the concept’s apparent broadness. Some have accused teachers and professors of basically covering up to avoid repercussions for marginalizing conservative thinkers, and Republican policymakers have focused on tenure policies that could protect professors. Restrictions on teaching materials and lesson plans have also fueled concerns about censorship.
Debates over the nature of academic freedom have also played out on campuses, with dozens of disputes over the years over whether administrators found the right balance between discipline and academic independence. The University of Pennsylvania recently grappled with the fate of Amy Wax, a law professor who has written, for example, that “blacks have, on average, lower cognitive ability than whites.”
Harvard has not been immune to concerns about academic freedom, even though hundreds of faculty members have now lined up behind Dr. Gay grouped. In May, the month after dozens of professors announced what they were calling the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, the campus newspaper published an article headlined: “Does Harvard have a problem with academic freedom?”
According to a recent study Writing in The Harvard Crimson newspaper, more than a third of Harvard faculty said they thought the university should place “more emphasis” on academic freedom.
But when Dr. Gay went to Capitol Hill last week, she told lawmakers a written submission that she believed Harvard valued “open academic research.”
“We believe the best way to discover the truth is through open inquiry and vigorous debate,” wrote Dr. Gay. “Harvard understands that hate is a symptom of ignorance. The cure for ignorance is knowledge. But the pursuit of the truth is only possible if freedom of expression is protected and exercised. At Harvard we will not allow discomfort or disagreement with honestly expressed opinions to hinder this endeavor.”
Dana Goldstein reporting contributed.