Farhin 1

Mairuna Farhin

Reflection Paper 1 on Academic Freedom

The subject matter of academic freedom has been much debated throughout history. Between

the two types of academic freedom that has evolved over the years, the one which resonates

the most with me is the socially-engaged, or the contemporary version of academic freedom.

This is because in my opinion, the traditional version of academic freedom is very narrow

and greatly limits the scope of teachers and students. It only allows academic freedom to

extend just within the time and space of the classroom; anything beyond will not be protected

by it. Even if the same discussion were to take place outside the classroom, it will not be

protected by academic freedom. From what we learned in MOOC, the traditional view

distinguishes what is considered an academic expression from what is considered a non-

academic expression mainly based on four factors – the context, the format, the audience, and

the location. Thus, only what is published in an academic journal, analysis that is data-heavy,

targeted towards those involved in higher education sector and strictly on campus will be

protected by academic freedom. Academic content that is published outside of academic

journals, for example in newspapers, content that is a written commentary, targeted towards

the general public and any expression discussed outside the campus will not be protected by

academic freedom. Moreover, the traditional view does not take social responsibility

seriously, which in my opinion, is a very important aspect of academic freedom itself,

because without social responsibility academic freedom cannot be fully applied. The

academics will not be able to successfully reap the benefits of academic freedom without any

social responsibility.

When I reflect on this, it does not settle well with me because what is the point of education,

what is the point of enlightening one’s mind and allowing oneself to broaden one’s horizons
 Farhin 2

if it cannot survive beyond the university campus? If these ideas, observations and findings

cannot be shared with our peers, if a safe space is not provided in which they can be shared

without fearing any kind of repercussions, then what is the point, what is the eventual

outcome and benefit of whatever it is that we learn and discuss within the walls of an

ordinary room? Though yes, I admit, that it would not make much sense for academic

freedom to cover every platform where an academic chooses to state his or her opinion,

however, I do believe that limiting it solely to an academic journal narrows the scope and

purpose of the publication to a great extent. Academic freedom should at least extend to

academic publishing in newspapers so that the work and opinions of academics can reach a

broader audience. Therefore, I am more inclined towards the socially-engaged view of

academic freedom because as its name suggests, it is more socially engaged and provides a

wider range for students and teachers to be able to work and be protected by academic

freedom.

A point of concern, which Macfarlane mentions in his article, Re-framing Student Academic

Freedom: A Capability, that I strongly agree with, is the undermining of academic freedom

when it comes to students. Despite the existence of academic freedom, it is often nothing

more than an abstract concept and some words written on a forgotten document in so many

countries throughout the world, where there is no application of academic freedom. Yet, even

in such countries sometimes, when well-known academics’ rights to academic freedom are

violated by the state, or by others, there is a national and often international outcry for their

plights. Awareness regarding their cases are raised, there is media coverage and collective

condemnation against the violation. However, when the same crisis is faced by students, there

is very minimal reaction to it. The question of freedom of expression may be brought up, but

the question of academic freedom so rarely is. Even within many institutions, students do not
 Farhin 3

have the sufficient freedom to speak against the policies of their own higher educational

institutions as they are threatened to be expelled otherwise.

From a local and personal context, in the private universities of Dhaka, Bangladesh, I think

one of the most important aspects of academic freedom is the right to write, express and

disseminate opinions regarding any academic topic, within the academic sphere. I have

experienced instances when if an opinion stated by the student did not conform to that of the

faculty, instead of engaging in a healthy discussion regarding the differences, or inquiring

about the reasons for the student to hold such an opinion, the faculty completely dismisses it

solely because they do not agree with it. This often leads to biased marking which affects the

student’s grades, thus hampering the willpower as well as the motivation of the student to

freely express their opinions. I believe such an attitude held by a faculty can very closely

border on indoctrination, as this goes against the very spirit of academia. So long as reasons,

logic and data are provided, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. And this is the beauty

of academic discussions that take place inside and outside of the classroom – to be able to

voice our own opinions, and at the same time, to be able to expose ourselves to a dozen

different kinds of opinions which are all valid in their own rights. However, when there is a

teacher who is rigid in their views and thinks that no other view has the possibility of being

correct, let alone be open for discussions, then such a person and such an attitude destroys the

spirit and the mood of the classroom. And if the teacher persists, it can even lead to

indoctrination, if the students do not know any better, or if all of their opinions are constantly

invalidated on no proper grounds.

This brings me to my next point of concern regarding academic freedom, which is, how far

does it stretch even within the classroom? Is everything a teacher or student expresses within

a classroom protected by academic freedom? If so, then by those standards, does it allow the

teachers or the students to be able to make blatantly racist, sexist, derogatory, discriminatory
 Farhin 4

or disrespectful comments regarding a particular race, nationality, religion or a group of

people? Can they get away with expressing such opinions under the guise of academic

freedom? Initially, this was something that greatly bothered me. However, as I looked further

into the finer details of what academic freedom really means, I found that this issue may be

addressed through two aspects. First, in the light of the five schools of academic freedom that

Fish addresses in his book Versions of Academic Freedom, and second, through identifying

what kind of statements are protected by academic freedom. If we look at the five schools,

then from what I understand, the first school, the “it’s just a job” school, would not allow

teachers nor students to get away with such personal political comments under the excuse of

academic freedom. This school considers students and teachers in an institution to be strictly

professionals, protected by academic freedom only to the extent of whatever is required to

fulfil their professional duty. As Fish states, “academics are not free in any special sense to

do anything but their jobs” (10). Speaking of personal political opinions, or disrespecting a

particular group of people or religion would not be a purely academic take on a particular

subject, but rather a very subjective take on that particular issue, which most definitely will

not be supported by this school. For this reason, out of all the five schools, I find myself to be

inclined towards this school the most, even though I do think that academics have an

opportunity as well as a responsibility to impart knowledge and all kinds of perspectives and

findings through researches to the public, so that the people can decide for themselves their

own truth. And I also believe that academics have a scope and the power to oppose tyrannical

views and policies, advice the government on their incorrect stances and also expose the

wrongdoings of the authorities, from an academic perspective. Thus, it is imperative for the

right of dissent of the academics to be protected by academic freedom. Yet, the reason why I

am inclined towards the first school the most, which appears to be the most apolitical school

out of all of them, is primarily because of my personal experience of classroom environment.

 Farhin 5

I have sat through literature classes, and national history classes, where the faculties kept on

disrespecting my religion, which I found to be quite offensive, and made me want to get up

and leave the room, but I could not because I considered that to be an act of disrespect

towards my teachers. Needless to mention, the topic of religion was absolutely irrelevant to

the particular courses I was doing, and the disrespectful manner in which the teachers were

mocking an entire belief system and group of people was completely uncalled for, and very

unprofessional. I also found it to be a huge waste of time, and quite demotivating to continue

attending lectures, as this was not the content I paid and signed up for when I decided to take

these courses. Therefore, the first school of academic freedom makes the most sense to me

when considering practical implications of academic freedom, because unfortunately I have

witnessed faculties abusing their superior position in order to express their very personal

opinions as facts, leaving no room for any other views to be presented or to have any kind of

academic discussion on it, especially when their own views were more of a personal belief

instead of the product of an academic research. I also believe that the first school of academic

freedom prevents the possibility of indoctrination the best, because in my opinion,

indoctrination mostly occurs when faculties are being partial when addressing a particular

topic; when they do not present the entire picture, intentionally neglect mentioning other

valid perspectives and present the view they prefer as the only truth and the most valid

perspective. All of this is highly unprofessional and would not be supported by the first

school, and so, I think this is the school which ensures a healthy classroom environment the

most.

The second aspect of resolving this issue is through looking at what statements are protected

by academic freedom. As we learned in MOOC, according to the contemporary view of

academic freedom, for an expression to be considered as academic, it must be “according to

the ethical and professional standards of the subject discipline.” This greatly limits what can
 Farhin 6

be said or what cannot be said if the academics want to be protected by academic freedom.

Moreover, the socially-engaged view does not allow academic freedom to protect any closed

form of expression which are ideological, dogmatic or partisan. Since personal views and

blatant expressions of racism, etc do not meet ethical or professional standards of the subject

discipline, and may even be ideological or partisan, such statements cannot be protected by

academic freedom and the students or the colleagues of such individuals would have the right

to file grievances against them to the institutional authorities. And I think this is important in

order to maintain a healthy academic environment within the classroom and the university

itself.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate my view on why I find the socially-engaged version of

academic freedom more preferable than its traditional counterpart. The first reason behind

this being my belief that academic freedom should extend beyond the classroom and

academic journal. Otherwise, it will not be of much benefit. Knowledge should be made

available for the public, and if the works of the academics are not accessible to the majority

of the people then would it really bring about any tangible social benefit? Therefore, in my

opinion, it is imperative that academic freedom be extended to academics and their works

beyond the classroom and academic journals. The second reason behind my inclination

towards the contemporary view is because I feel it would promote academics meeting

professional standards when stating opinions or publishing any of their works. Often times

such criteria are not met, and in many cases, academics are able to get away with a half-done

job of research, or merely stating whimsical opinions with flimsy arguments and not enough

facts. In such cases, they should be called out, and the repercussions of their poor efforts

would be solely on them. Thus, taking the contemporary approach would not only broaden

the scope for academics, but also ensure that they are doing their work in the right manner.
 Farhin 7

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. Versions of academic freedom: From professionalism to revolution. University

of Chicago Press, 2014.

Macfarlane, Bruce. "Re-framing student academic freedom: a capability perspective." Higher

Education 63.6 (2012): 719-732.