The university is involved in research, education and collaboration in a wide range of areas. In some, we are recognised as world leaders. In others, we receive less attention. Some areas are clearly aligned with the express needs of society. Others are more difficult to identify the immediate benefit of.
The fact that the benefit is not obvious does not mean that there is none. Some things may take a hundred years to prove beneficial, and in other cases, nothing much ever comes of it.
Certain insights confirm what we already know, others call our understanding into question or upends it entirely. Out of context, much of what we do may come across as meaningless. In context, however, some of it could eventually turn out to be indispensable.
As a researcher, I have no problem challenging and questioning colleagues in my own areas of expertise, but as a vice-chancellor, I never offer an opinion on any staff member’s choice of field, approach, method, analysis or conclusions. I would never poke around in a course syllabus or reading list without an invitation.
The freedom to autonomously define and share knowledge is a fundamental prerequisite in our sector. In our defence of it, we often refer to its significance for our democracy. That is in no way wrong or hyperbolic, but it would probably suffice to refer to the very mechanisms of learning. Learning is based on allowing different perspectives to meet and challenge each other.
University managements therefore have the important task of defending academic freedom. Ensuring that universities are free of censorship and political influence and that researchers are protected from harassment, threats and undue influence. Standing up for our right—and obligation—to also explore areas that can be perceived as ineffective, unnecessary or uncomfortable.
We do have to operate within the confines of the law. That is as it should be. Norms help define what is expected of us as staff members. That, too, is as it should be. We are affected by financial realities. There is no escaping that. This should not be mistaken for a threat against academic freedom.
Lately, however, I feel that our academic freedom is being challenged more often. Sometimes the attempts are overt. For instance, I and other members of senior management are contacted on an irregular basis by individuals outside the university, asking us to stop offering certain courses and to fire certain staff members that they feel are bothersome or not useful. Sometimes politicians offer more or less detailed opinions on what universities should and should not be doing. Additionally, social media has brought about a shift in how people communicate with and about each other and how debate is conducted.
In my response to this type of opinion-based criticism, I want to specifically mention the mechanisms of learning. If different perspectives are not allowed to meet and challenge each other, there can be no learning. Learning comes about when the best argument eventually wins. The best argument is sometimes one that most people consider incorrect, unreasonable, unnecessary or uncomfortable.
It is frustrating how this aspect of learning is so rarely taken seriously in discussions about what universities, researchers and teachers should or should not do. Instead, opinion-based criticism often rests on the mistaken assumption that teachers engage in absolute instruction of non-reflecting receivers, and that researchers produce facts that are not challenged. In other words, the work that is criticised is viewed and appraised as an isolated entity rather than as one cog in a machine that is characterised by the interplay between prevailing knowledge and the constant testing of it. I would claim that barely any scientific knowledge, however well established, is ever left unchallenged.
It is of the utmost importance to us in senior management that no staff member feels impeded, limited or belittled. Our university should be a place for unrestricted academic discussion. It should be a place where we can challenge and question existing knowledge without impeding, limiting or belittling each other. But we have to be aware that our own arguments are not always the strongest, and that in our academic roles, we are assessed based on knowledge rather than opinions.
