![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Academic-Freedom.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The ability to teach and conduct research free from political interference is the cornerstone of higher education and its\u00a0contribution to the public good<\/a>. Academic freedom, however, has become increasingly threatened.<\/p>\n V-Dem Institute<\/a>, a global research organization that monitors indicators of democracy around the world, determined that academic freedom has \u201csubstantially worsened<\/a>\u201d in the United States in recent years. This is largely due to political and social polarization.<\/p>\n In recent months, professors across the country have\u00a0sounded the alarm about infringements on academic freedom<\/a>\u00a0following crackdowns on pro-Palestine protesters on campus. The current conflict, however, is only the latest iteration of an intensifying decline in academic freedom.<\/p>\n As a researcher who examines the\u00a0politics of higher education<\/a>, I believe there are five distinct but mutually reinforcing ways that academic freedom has been threatened in the U.S. in recent years.<\/p>\n States across the country have passed educational gag orders that ban the teaching of\u00a0critical race theory<\/a>\u00a0and other concepts. These are sometimes referred to as \u201cdivisive concepts<\/a>\u201d in the laws.<\/p>\n While most of these bills limit what can be said in K-12 classrooms,\u00a0a report I authored<\/a>\u00a0found that 99 bills were introduced \u2013 and 10 passed \u2013 between 2021 and 2023 that affect higher education. For example, a\u00a0North Dakota bill<\/a>\u00a0bans state universities from hosting discussions of ideas such as \u201cmeritocracy is inherently racist.\u201d A\u00a0similar bill in Tennessee<\/a>\u00a0outlaws teaching the idea that someone could be \u201cinherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive.\u201d<\/p>\n These bills misrepresent what discussions about race and gender identity actually look like in the college classroom. Rather than framing them as discussions about history and theory, bills like Florida\u2019s so-called \u201cStop Woke Act<\/a>\u201d insinuate that teaching students about race and racism is aimed at making them feel guilty. PEN America has described these bills as \u201cdesigned to chill academic and educational discussions<\/a>\u00a0and impose government dictates on teaching and learning.\u201d<\/p>\n Issues of academic freedom also arise when those without scholarly expertise become involved in academic and curricular decisions. This usually happens through\u00a0governing boards and trustees who overreach<\/a>.<\/p>\n Colleges and universities should follow the principles of\u00a0shared governance<\/a>, according to the American Association of University Professors. Boards oversee the business of running the institution, and faculty oversee the content taught in classrooms. At some institutions, however, the boards have subverted this. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, boards at several schools made unilateral decisions such as\u00a0revoking tenure without due process<\/a>. They have also\u00a0created academic centers<\/a>\u00a0without faculty oversight \u2013 a core tenet of shared governance.<\/p>\n These decisions have serious consequences. The American Association of University Professors, for example, found that politically appointed board members at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill regularly \u201cexercise their considerable power<\/a>\u201d to circumvent faculty autonomy. This includes the board of trustees\u2019 refusal to offer a\u00a0tenured position<\/a>\u00a0to Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the\u00a01619 Project<\/a>, a series of essays and articles in The New York Times Magazine about the impact of slavery on American history. The board also came under fire for establishing the\u00a0School of Civic Life and Leadership<\/a>\u00a0on campus. The school appears designed to teach conservative content that the board prefers rather than to fulfill a curricular need identified by the faculty.<\/p>\n Donor influence is also a\u00a0growing threat to academic freedom<\/a>. Ideally, donors would view their gifts simply as donations to an institution they trust. In some cases, however,\u00a0donors play an active role<\/a>\u00a0in determining how their money is used. This could mean dictating which speakers are brought to campus, what books are taught in the classroom and what courses are offered.<\/p>\n One of the most dramatic recent examples is the\u00a0ousting of Harvard President Claudine Gay<\/a>. Hedge fund billionaire and Harvard donor Bill Ackman\u00a0played an active role in her forced resignation<\/a>, threatening a \u201cdonor exodus<\/a>\u00a0if she stayed.\u201d I believe that if it can happen at Harvard, it could happen at other universities, too.<\/p>\n The system of tenure was originally created to\u00a0protect professors from external political interference<\/a>. In recent decades, however, fewer and fewer professors have been awarded this privilege. Today, 68% of\u00a0faculty are working off the tenure track<\/a>, often in year-to-year contracts, compared with 47% in 1987. The economic precarity of contract positions creates incentives for faculty to censor the content they teach for\u00a0fear of losing their jobs<\/a>.<\/p>\n In some states, such as\u00a0Florida<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Texas<\/a>, state legislators have passed bills weakening tenure protections through the creation of post-tenure review procedures. This gives administrators greater authority to fire tenured faculty. These bills make faculty increasingly vulnerable to external political influence.<\/p>\n As I\u2019ve\u00a0demonstrated in my research<\/a>, right-wing activists have built a political infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets that specialize in portraying higher education in a negative light. This includes bringing intentionally provocative speakers such as\u00a0Milo Yiannopoulos<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Charlie Kirk<\/a>\u00a0to campus and funding media outlets that specialize in ranting about \u201cliberal bias<\/a>\u201d on college campuses.<\/p>\n Partisan political operatives, such as the Manhattan Institute\u2019s Christopher Rufo, have mainstreamed the claims that faculty regularly engage in\u00a0political indoctrination<\/a>\u00a0and that professors teach content that is\u00a0divisive and anti-American<\/a>. For example, days after Hamas\u2019 invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Rufo posted on X that conservatives should \u201ccreate a strong association<\/a>\u201d between Hamas, Black Lives Matter, the Democratic Socialists of America and \u201cacademic \u2018decolonization.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n These narratives are designed to justify and legitimize the ongoing attacks on academic freedom. The implication is that faculty are the enemy and that legislatures, governors and governing boards can save higher education.<\/p>\n Fierce debates about what should be taught at colleges and universities is part of what academic freedom is all about. But attacks on academic freedom seek to displace the voice of faculty experts with those of partisan legislatures, trustees and donors. I believe this should be disconcerting for anyone who values free and critical thinking.<\/p>\n1. Legislation and academic gag orders<\/strong><\/h4>\n
2. Activist governing boards<\/strong><\/h4>\n
3. Donor influence<\/strong><\/h4>\n
4. Erosion of tenure<\/strong><\/h4>\n
5. Delegitimization of higher education<\/strong><\/h4>\n