by Alagi Yorro Jallow.
Fatoumatta: The abuse of academic freedom and freedom of speech on university campuses, which extends to social media, erodes the foundational principles of higher education—a cornerstone of democracy. This erosion is a direct threat to democracy. John Holmwood, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Nottingham, noted, “A significant issue is the discrepancy between the public’s perception of the university and the reality experienced by most students.”
Holmwood progressed the dialogue by distinguishing between free expression and academic freedom. Academic freedom is characterized as a collection of standards linked to professional identity and the quest for truth within classroom instruction. In contrast, free speech implies that students on campus are not merely learners in a particular discipline but also engaged citizens in society, participating in diverse community initiatives. John Holmwood summarized the essence of the discussion, asserting, “It’s not about ‘how do we manage the university for democracy?’ but about viewing the university as a quintessential illustration of what modern democracy embodies.”
The concept of “Free Speech,” which once flourished on campuses, is now being eclipsed by the concerning co-opting of phrases such as “free speech,” “academic freedom,” and “expressive freedom” by right-wing groups. Historically, these terms signified the freedom to express oneself without institutional or political restrictions and without the threat of political censorship. Yet, the recent rhetorical shift by right-wing factions has twisted these terms, implying that one has the right to speak freely, irrespective of the offensiveness, hatefulness, or potential harm of the speech, without facing consequences.
In today’s context, when I come across “free speech and academic freedom” as core principles of any event or initiative, I find myself scrutinizing the intentions behind it. Is the advocacy for “free speech and academic freedom” rooted in its original, affirmative connotation, or is it a nod to the right-wing agenda that challenges political correctness in the name of “free speech”? This dilemma stems from the co-optation of “freedom of expression,” a term once revered and empowering. It has been commandeered and politicized by the right wing, morphing into a divisive notion of “freedom of expression in politics,” now repugnant to right-wing politicians, academics, and activists. Thus, when “freedom of expression” or academic freedom is invoked outside academic circles, it becomes difficult to determine if it’s being used in a neutral, descriptive manner or with the negative connotations associated with the right-wing perspective.
Fatoumatta: The recent termination of two lecturers from our university has ignited a fervent discussion regarding the limits of academic freedom and freedom of speech. The claims of nepotism, favoritism, and a lack of motivation leveled against the university’s leadership by these lecturers have been declared baseless by Vice Chancellor Herbert Robinson. The administration has asserted that these allegations have damaged the institution’s reputation and violated the terms of service.
The lecturers have refuted any accusations of misconduct, asserting that they acted in complete good faith and exercised their constitutional rights to freedom of opinion, thought, and conscience, with the belief that their statements were factual. Nevertheless, they exited a disciplinary hearing, alleging a conflict of interest. When facing allegations of misconduct, it is typically recommended that the accused attend the disciplinary hearing to defend themselves and present any evidence or arguments that may exonerate them. Attending the hearing is crucial for several reasons. It ensures adherence to due process, allowing the accused to have their perspective heard and weighed. The hearing provides a platform to introduce evidence, call witnesses, and make a case for their defense. Participation in the hearing signals a dedication to transparency and accountability, indicating a readiness to confront the allegations in an open and responsible manner.
Walking out of a hearing could be interpreted as an admission of guilt or a refusal to participate in a fair process. By attending the hearing, there is an opportunity to dispute the allegations and possibly exonerate oneself. Concerns regarding conflicts of interest should be formally presented and resolved during the hearing. If these concerns are valid, the introduction of alternative measures or impartial parties can help guarantee a fair process. Participation in the hearing is also crucial for any future legal or professional proceedings, as it demonstrates a commitment to engage, which could be advantageous if the issue is taken to a higher level of authority or to court.
In conclusion, it is usually in the individuals’ best interest to participate in the disciplinary hearing and offer their defense instead of leaving and potentially compromising their opportunity for a fair outcome. Should they suspect a conflict of interest, it is advisable to formally address this concern during the hearing proceedings.
While academic freedom and freedom of expression are essential rights that should be defended, they also entail responsibilities. It is imperative for faculty members to base their actions and statements on verifiable facts and to avoid damaging the reputation of their institution or individuals without solid evidence. The misuse of these freedoms to level unfounded accusations can erode the very foundations of these rights.
Fatoumatta: The university’s dismissal of the lecturers, adhering to due process, underscores the imperative to strike a balance between safeguarding academic freedom and enforcing accountability. It is vital for faculty members to wield their rights with responsibility, nurturing a culture of trust, respect, and integrity in the academic community. Moving forward, it is important to recall that substantial freedom is accompanied by significant responsibility. The preservation of academic freedom and freedom of expression hinges on a dedication to truth, equity, and the prosperity of our educational institutions.
Academic freedom is fundamental to higher education, granting faculty members the right to teach, research, and publish without excessive interference or constraints. This freedom encompasses the ability to:
Instructors are free to design and conduct their courses, select teaching methods, and introduce materials they deem pertinent to the subject matter. Researchers are empowered to explore research topics that interest them, disseminate their results, and enhance the body of knowledge in their field without concern for censorship.
Academics are permitted to voice their opinions on matters within their expertise and on wider societal issues.
In the context of a university, the freedom of opinion enables faculty members to express their views, explore various perspectives, and participate in open debates. This liberty is essential for nurturing an academic environment that promotes critical thinking and intellectual advancement. However, freedom of expression and academic freedom must be balanced with responsibilities. While these freedoms are fundamental, they carry obligations. Faculty members are responsible for ensuring their teaching and research are rooted in factual information and uphold academic integrity. Opinions should be expressed respectfully, steering clear of defamatory or libelous remarks. It is also crucial to comply with the university’s policies and terms of service while exercising these freedoms.
The belief that terminating a university professor or lecturer for misconduct or violations of institutional policies constitutes a breach of academic freedom is a widespread misunderstanding. Academic freedom does not shield individuals from repercussions if they transgress professional norms, ethical standards, or institutional regulations. Universities are entitled to enforce disciplinary measures when required, as long as they adhere to due process and are justified by legitimate grounds. Understanding these principles helps us recognize the importance of balancing academic freedom with the need for a respectful, professional, and accountable academic community. University lecturers and professors, who hold positions of significant responsibility, must not spread falsehoods they cannot substantiate. Doing so would breach their duty to maintain truth, integrity, and professionalism. Unfounded allegations can damage the credibility of the academic institution and harm reputations unjustly. Academic freedom and freedom of opinion do not extend to the spread of misinformation or defamation. Therefore, academics are obligated to ensure their statements are evidence-based and made in good faith.
Fatoumatta: Publishing dismissal letters on social media to garner sympathy can undermine the gravity of the situation and skew public perception. Should a faculty member feel their dismissal is unjust, pursuing legal recourse is the recommended action. Posting these letters online might be perceived as seeking victim status and fails to address the underlying issues professionally or constructively.
Ensuring a balance between academic freedom and responsibility is crucial for universities to continue as bastions of credible, respectful, and fruitful discourse. Addressing grievances through the appropriate channels is vital to uphold the academic community’s integrity.
