Academic freedom, new realities facing the Academy

By Kamiel Gabriel

The higher education sector is undergoing seismic changes. In recent years we've seen a significant shift to online course offerings, widespread use of social media and other digital means to teach, learn and communicate. These institutional efforts aim to reduce costs in face of declining government support and increasing student and parental pressures on governments to deal with escalating tuition fees, including a recent call to abolish tuition fees altogether.

Add to that — and despite measured efforts to overcome it — there's a persistent gap between the current student body who could be labelled "digital natives", and an aging faculty population from the baby boomer generation who are "digital expats".

In response to such rapid changes, faculty and staff often find themselves drawn into intense debates aimed at developing strategies to deal with the internal and external forces shaping the Academy. The response often tends to cling to the current methods and hold tight to the status-quo. When such response is challenged, opponents quickly revert to their rights casted in the holy grail of academic freedom.

Peter McKinnon, president emeritus of the University of Saskatchewan and former chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada, has eloquently addressed the matter of academic freedom in his new book University Leadership and Public Policy in the 21st century. It's a must read for anyone who aspires to succeed in a senior administration role in higher education.

McKinnon defines academic freedom as "the freedom to teach and conduct research constrained only by (1) the professional standards of the relevant discipline and, (2) legitimate and non-discriminatory institutional requirements for organizing the academic mission." He further distinguishes between academic freedom and freedom of speech by drawing on examples such as the Flat Earth Society. Its members can speak freely on the street (freedom of speech), but are not entitled to claim academic freedom in defence in their classroom lectures and publications. The reason, he argues, is that "claims fall below the professional standards of history and astronomy".

The other constraint on academic freedom — legitimate and non-discriminatory institutional requirements — "recognizes simply that the academic mission, like any other work, has to be recognized, and it does not violate academic freedom to insist upon reasonable compliance with organizational needs". McKinnon argues that accountability issues with academic freedom arise in two ways — critics are perplexed by the freedom of academics to determine so many of their professional activities … and overstated or loose claims of academic freedom."

With the latter, it is very worrisome that academics may have such unrestricted convenience to end many intellectual and rational discussions on issues that matter to the institution by claiming they have the right to voice their self-serving opinions in the name of academic freedom.

Confronting old concepts

These observations became clearer to me while on secondment to Ontario's Ministry of Research & Innovation between 2009 and 2010 where I served as the ADM research and the science advisor. Having seen the bigger picture, and having been on the inside of debates concerning how institutions should conduct their businesses in face of the new realities, I found some of the attitudes within the Academy to be challenging.

George Fallis (cited by McKinnon for his writings on multi-universities) describes the distinctive adaptation of the university to the latter 20th century by highlighting two liabilities — a weakened social contract and mission drift, and seismic changes in the historic role of universities in undergraduate, professional and graduate education and research.

Traditionally, universities and other publicly funded higher education institutions have been engaged in the "old" roles: teaching and learning, generators and codifiers of knowledge, repositories and preservers of knowledge, transmitters of societal values and builders of citizenry. In recent years, with the emergence of the notion that higher-education institutions ought to focus on real societal needs and students learning outcomes, they find themselves trying to cope with different expectations and new roles to fulfill.

These new roles expect universities and colleges to become places that generate new technologies, be primary sources of new ideas and a catalyst for founding new companies and enterprises for job and wealth creation. They are expected to become full-fledged partners in economic development and regional revitalization.

In an earlier article (R$, November 29/10), I emphasized the need for a new academic-social contract. Under the Academic New Deal, higher education institutions are required to keep abreast of changes in teaching delivery mechanisms by developing new learning techniques to better reach out to the young learners in the digital age. Faculty and staff need to acknowledge and adapt to new and varied teaching methods aimed specifically at the current "digital natives" — those students who grew up in the digital age.

In the context of research funding, faculty should be given the freedom to pursue their research interests with no interference except for ensuring that they do their work in accordance with the guidelines of the funding agencies and follow ethical guidelines.

At the same time, changes to IP policies and regulations should be introduced to ensure that discoveries resulting from research activities within the Academy can move to the next step with proper funding and adequate support. This ensures that discoveries could be realized in the marketplace in terms of new products and services, spurring regional economic growth and adding wealth.

Clearly, higher education is facing a tsunami with its rippling effects seen, heard and felt in the public arena. The rising cost of higher education continues. Students and parents are demanding better services in return for substantial investments in the education of their children. We, who belong to the Academy, should be adaptable to embrace the new realities and find new and more creative ways to serve our constituencies.

The Academic New Deal should specify roles for all stakeholders. Successful innovation requires that these entities, arguably with fiercely independent cultures and largely non-overlapping goals, engage in meaningful dialogues with each other.

Kamiel Gabriel is the founding associate provost of Research & Graduate Studies at the Univ of Ontario Institute of Technology.