Speeches & Writings
About - Dean - Speeches & Writing - On Academic Freedom
On Academic Freedom
As a business school dean, I frequently cross paths with business leaders who are perplexed by the oddities of higher education. They ask, “Can you not, as the boss, tell your faculty, as employees, what to teach and research?” Inwardly, I chuckle, thinking of the reception that I would receive from my faculty. For those from more traditional hierarchical organizations, the lack of outright control can be frustrating and bewildering.
I often suggest that a better model for thinking of higher education is the U.S. federal government, with its balance of power between the executive branch — university presidents and deans — and the legislative branch — faculty — and between the federal level — central administration — and the states — the schools. We call it the faculty “senate” for a reason. Nowhere is this balance of power more evident than in the twin notions of academic freedom and faculty governance.
Academic freedom refers to the freedom of faculty “to teach; to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression and to disseminate the results; and to speak or write on any matter of public concern and on any matter related to professional duties and the functioning of governance of the University.”1 Including, to the dismay of many an academic administrator, outright criticism of the university and its actions. Insubordination that would not be tolerated in many organizations is simply a fact of life in higher education.
Academic freedom is paramount for the flourishing of our universities. Throughout our history, governments have tried to dictate what can and cannot be taught and studied. Academic freedom serves as a bulwark against authoritarianism. Equally important, unhindered exploration enables novel insights, discoveries and innovation. We know that advances often come from offbeat queries and unexpected paths. As Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated in a letter to William Roscoe in 1820, the founding of the University of Virginia was based on the “illimitable freedom of the human mind,” with the mission to “follow truth wherever it may lead.” Allowing for unfettered inquiry is the best path to enlightenment.
Closely related to academic freedom is the notion of freedom of speech on university campuses. Freedom of speech is a hallmark of our democracy, guaranteed to our citizenry and enshrined in the Bill of Rights. University freedom of speech is motivated by a related but distinct ideal. Many private organizations can and do restrict speech. Universities, however, strive to create environments where critical inquiry flourishes, in line with our educational mission. As UVA’s Statement on Free Speech articulates: “Free and open inquiry is the basis for the scientific method and all other modes of investigation that produce, expand, and refine knowledge. … Likewise, the educational endeavor for students requires freedom to speak, write, inquire, listen, challenge, and learn, including through exposure to a range of ideas and cultivation of the tools of critical thinking and engagement. These tools are vital not only to students’ personal intellectual development but also to their futures as citizen leaders equipped to assess contending arguments and to contribute to societal progress. For all of these reasons, expression of ideas should be given the widest possible latitude.”2
This last sentiment is often the hardest for many in universities to endure. Included in UVA’s statement is the phrase “All views, beliefs, and perspectives deserve to be articulated and heard free from interference.” But what of views, beliefs and perspectives that are offensive? That seek to divide or marginalize certain voices? That undermine the Community of Trust that we aspire to at UVA? It is for these reasons that students, and sometimes faculty and administrators, have sought to restrict certain speech, to enforce certain norms of decency and mutual respect.
I have long said that the critical question facing higher education is how tolerant of the intolerant should we be? My answer is simple: we should be extremely tolerant of the intolerant. The challenge is who gets to define intolerance? Those who wish to restrict speech often assume they are the arbiters of intolerance. But what if your ideological foes get to define intolerance? Illiberalism is illiberalism whether it is imposed by those with whom you disagree or from your own perspective. Freedom of speech means freedom to all, not some, regardless of how offended you are by the viewpoints of others.
Which brings us to the second critical element of the balance of power in universities: faculty governance. For reasons of academic freedom and free speech, faculty are empowered to oversee certain critical functions of the university: the hiring and promotion of faculty, the establishment of degrees and curricula, and the delivery of classes. While there are institutional checks on many of these functions — for example, the provost’s office sign-off on tenure cases — faculty are given great deference in their assessments and recommendations. By empowering faculty, universities ensure the practice of academic freedom.
With this empowerment comes a set of responsibilities. While we often reference student self-governance at UVA, faculty self-governance is also critical. What are our responsibilities as faculty when it comes to our work, especially within the classroom? I think the vast majority of faculty believe their role is to foster critical inquiry. To ask questions, to spur debate, to push students in the logic of their arguments. I teach an undergraduate seminar at UVA, called the Lawn Seminar, with a 50-year-old tradition of exploring challenging topics in small-group discussion. I take great pride in the fact that my students often don’t know exactly where I personally stand on an issue. My role is to push them to think, not to indoctrinate them with my point of view. As cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead famously quipped, students “must be taught how to think, not what to think.”
Similarly, when faculty share their views with the broader public, they assume certain responsibilities. As outlined in the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom, when faculty “speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”3
Which brings us to the current moment, when higher education is being questioned across the political spectrum. If we have fallen short, it is because we have not stood steadfast in our ideals of academic freedom, free speech and faculty governance. I, for one, remain optimistic. Universities have stood the test of time. The oldest among us far outdate the longest-lasting governments and corporations. Universities endure because we adhere to an ideal of free inquiry, enforced by powerful norms around free speech and faculty governance, that allow for the flourishing of our students and broader society.