“When we commit ourselves to education as the practice of freedom, we participate in the making of an academic community where we can be and become intellectuals in the fullest and deepest sense of the word.”
– bell hooks (1989)
Traditionally understood, academic freedom refers to the freedom for academic communities to teach, learn, engage in research and advance scholarly inquiry, without interference. It encompasses the freedom to comment on internal university matters and also on issues of public interest without facing institutional censorship. These freedoms are vital for universities to function as places of learning and scholarship that promote critical dialogue and inquiry. They also allow university communities to hold power to account, whether inside or outside the university, and thus play a vital role in democratising society.
At a seminar on academic freedom, held at the University of Jaffna recently, the discussion opened with a question from a university teacher: “Does academic freedom mean we have the freedom to stay away from work?” While there was consensus among those present that academics at the pinnacle of the university hierarchy do enjoy considerable academic freedom in teaching, research and expressing opinions, others, especially those at lower ranks, shared concerns about what they believed was an abuse of academic freedom by teachers who do not turn up regularly to work, fail to fulfil the required number of teaching hours, place the teaching load on juniors, etc. In this article, we look at how academic freedom is framed within the state university system and the limits of our understanding and its implications.
State universities and academic freedom
The University Grants Commission (UGC) and university administrations only make fleeting references to academic freedom in their policies and guidelines where it is framed as an antithesis to academic accountability, which is now being policed by the UGC, COPE and others. A UGC policy document on academic ethics and accountability (2015) recognises that “[u]niversity teachers should have ‘Academic Freedom’ to: teach and carry out research without any interference; be open and flexible in their academic activities; and undertake activities outside their employment that enhance their intellect and professional skills…” but proposes the implementation of a ‘Workload and Work Norms Model’ to hold academics accountable. This model aims to quantify work based on a set of pre-defined standards; it recommends academics be allowed a maximum of seven hours from their minimum weekly workload for “pursuit[s] of their choice,” including those that involve remuneration.
Such directives have filtered down to the universities, which now have policies on academic accountability (not freedom). For instance, the ‘Policy on Academic Accountability’ of the University of Jaffna (2021) states: “While academic freedom is crucial for the academic achievement of the individual and as well as the University, it is necessary for a university academic to recognise and accept duties and responsibilities to fulfil.” This is followed by a lengthy list of principles in the areas of academic ethics, scholarly competence and engagement, respect for students and colleagues and, puzzlingly, “scholarly respect for the university”, which includes supporting “the mission, goals, policies, procedures, and expectations of the university.” Also based on UGC directives, universities have adopted social media guidelines that place limits on sharing views that may bring universities to disrepute; the social media guidelines for students and staff at the University of Colombo include “Non-violation of the dignity of the University as an institution,” as a core principle. While such policies and guidelines could be weaponised against teachers and students, faculty boards and senates blithely adopt them with little or no critical analysis or discussion of their implications.
At times, the attacks on academic freedom are less overt. For instance, the UGC’s Quality Assurance Framework, while compelling universities, faculties, and departments, to engage in a top-down checkbox activity that is expected to enhance quality (but often doesn’t because of its cookie-cutter approach that usually involves little consultation with academics or students), also normalises a restrictive outcome-based framework to curriculum development that compels alignment of graduate outcomes with industry requirements. The favouring of STEM research in national and university research grants and the emphasis on commercialisation, deprioritises social justice-oriented inquiry and scholarship in the social sciences and humanities. Our universities also restrict our freedom to “be” or express our identities, for instance, by policing attire, sexual activity, and erasing certain ways of being (e.g., LGBTIQ+, minority ethnicities).
Academic freedom should extend to all members of university communities, including those at the bottom of the university hierarchy. Yet, such freedom is seriously restricted for probationary lecturers, fixed-term staff and undergraduates. The hierarchical structure of the university breeds conditions for academic exploitation, sexual servitude, and other misconduct. In certain departments, junior staff take on the lion’s share of teaching, leaving them little time for research and career development. While they have little or no recourse to safe and independent grievance procedures, various other institutional barriers prevent probationary and fixed-term staff from engaging in academic life. For instance, restrictions on sitting on committees, not being encouraged to speak and participate actively at meetings, not being granted opportunities to represent the university at academic forums, and so on. Neither these staff nor students are permitted to organise meetings or events without obtaining approval at multiple levels. At the University of Peradeniya, students need to obtain eight signatures before they are granted approval to hold an event; very recently an event critical of the IMF was arbitrarily cancelled.
Although students could be a progressive force in demanding academic freedom, in Sri Lanka, not only the university administrations, but also the students threaten academic freedom. Ragging and the need to conform and follow rules set by seniors, including dress codes, is a clear example. Student unions control the kinds of events students organise and also impinge on the academic freedom of others. Quite recently, an event was cancelled at the University of Jaffna under pressure from the Student Union, who opposed the dissenting political views held by the speaker. Arguably, however, the greatest threats to academic freedom lie outside the university embedded in the political economy.
External threats to academic freedom
The security granted by tenure and collegial governance, so crucial to academic freedom, is under threat. Governments are defunding universities and rebranding them as businesses, crippling their ability to function as centres of critical thinking and inquiry. Left to generate their own funds, universities are becoming more and more reliant on course fees, and must now compete to attract students. Deep cuts to university budgets have been accompanied by a rise in the proportion of non-tenured teaching faculty. In parallel, power has steadily shifted from academic bodies like faculty boards and senates to administrators and funders—the latter including corporations. Collaboration with industry heavily shapes research agendas, rendering certain kinds of research questions off limits. The shift to outcome-based education, which prioritises skilling students for the labour market, has led to content that requires critical or analytical thinking being removed from curricula.
Rather than the pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself, the prime aim of higher education appears to be to create compliant workers for the industry.
In Sri Lanka too, this managerial model of university governance has taken hold, not least through quality assurance processes, which seem to force academic bodies into acquiescence. The freeze on hires under the economic crisis has led to a greater reliance on temporary and contract staff. The consequences of these changes to university education and, in particular, academic freedom, are felt most acutely at the lower rungs of the university hierarchy. Although state university enrolment is at an all-time high, students struggle to make end meet, as higher education is becoming increasingly unaffordable with insufficient residential facilities, rising food prices, and an overall weakening of the Free Education policy—a clear erosion of the freedom to learn.
To conclude
The emphasis on academic accountability in discussions on academic freedom may be misplaced. As state universities are being weakened by funding cuts and rampant privatisation, the UGC and university administrations are instituting policies and mechanisms to contain academic freedom. Rather than quantifying workload or introducing appraisal forms to police academic activity, the solution to deficits in accountability may be found in academic freedom itself. We should aim to create egalitarian university spaces in which power is re-distributed so that staff at all levels and students feel valued and encouraged to participate in university governance. When academic freedom is strengthened and practiced, the demands for accountability would come from within, from those very ranks whose academic freedom are trampled upon today.
Ramya Kumar, Shamala Kumar
and Sivamohan Sumathy
