The Regent House – the governing body of the University of Cambridge – has rejected guidelines requiring opinions to be ‘respectful’. It argued instead that there should be ‘tolerance’ of dissenting views.
This vote might seem superfluous to anyone who does not attend the University of Cambridge. Nonetheless, it highlights how fragile academic freedom can be. Though well-meaning, ‘respect’ can often be used to fuel ‘cancel culture’ and to ostracise dissenting voices, particularly controversial opinions.
Once again, this freedom is often overlooked by those who are not involved in academic circles.
However, academic freedom is one of the elements which permits and ensures the right to express “controversial or unpopular opinion within the law, without fear of intolerance or discrimination.”
Academic freedom is sacrosanct. Firstly, it allows individuals to tackle uncomfortable and controversial subjects, regardless of whether these are deemed to offend prevailing ‘wisdom’.
Secondly, it protects researchers from arbitrary claims or concerns which seek to silence him/her based on what they write rather than on merit. Thirdly, it hampers the right – and the duty – to question even the most deeply held conventions of the time.
In Cambridge, the widespread view was that, although well-intentioned, calls for tolerance are more important than respect. As Ross Anderson aptly put it, “it is our duty to tolerate colleagues even when they say things that we consider foolish. When we find their views offensive, we should point that out politely.”
There are, of course, other reasons why we should strive to protect academic freedom.
The university remains one of the last surviving medieval institutions which shaped much of the intellectual heritage of Europe. A cursory look at some of the great thinkers of the age reveals that the university was not only a fundamental institution which nurtured a great intellectual tradition but it was also vital in harnessing links across the European continent and beyond. These links bear fruit till this very day.
For example, John of Salisbury was born in England. He went on to study in Paris, work in Canterbury and serving as Bishop of Chartres. Thomas Aquinas was born in the Lazio region before studying in Naples and Paris and teaching in both these universities. Nicholas of Cusa was born in Germany and later went on to study in Padua before teaching in Cologne.
This tradition of trans-national contact continues to this very day. It enriches the same institutions which should seek to challenge the minds of our communities. However, this role depends primarily on the affirmation of academic freedom.
Academic freedom is sacrosanct
In one of his many well-thought-out lectures, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reflects on the link between freedom and the academy. He argues that academic freedom allows the possibility to “think everything, ask everything and say everything that appears worthy of being thought, asked and said in the effort to find the truth”.
What is remarkable about his thoughts is that he doesn’t merely accept this freedom at face value – he seeks to understand its basis and what justifies such freedom which “under certain circumstances can be so dangerous”. He concludes that “the truth for its own sake” warrants such risks.
Another great thinker of our time, the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, argues that democracy itself is not a strong enough guarantor of freedom of thought or speech. Rather, it is within the academy that such liberty is guaranteed since it is “the guardian of open debate, courteous argument, civil speaking and respectful listening”.
It must “provide space for dissenting minds and for voices that challenge our comfortable assumptions. It must teach us to distinguish truth from falsehood, cogent argument from sophistry, the presentation of evidence from mere passion and persuasion.” Thus, this often overlooked and forgotten freedom underpins many other freedoms which we usually take for granted.
Sacks rightly sums up that “the silencing of unpopular views on university campuses today, in the form of ‘safe space’, ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘micro-aggressions’, is dangerous. When academic freedom dies, the death of other freedoms follows.”
These developments taking place globally often mask a more disturbing trend. They indicate that we are slowly shaping societies which are uncomfortable with difficult questions, with dissenting voices and with challenging viewpoints. There is also a trend whereby some academies are beholden to commercial, political and financial interests, thus, hampering this freedom.
The vote at the University of Cambridge is a great and encouraging sign that there is an attempt to reverse this trend and uphold this freedom. Without this freedom to question and critically challenge, we may fall into the trap of merely accepting many dangerous situations. This is far more alarming than the possibility that someone might take offence about something said or written.
André DeBattista is a researcher in politics.