The (In)Dependence of Knowledge? Academic Freedom Today

Marike Janzen's reflections on everyday life at a publicly funded American university demonstrated that academic freedom extends far beyond the traditional question of whether scholars are free to teach controversial ideas.

Rather, it encompasses university governance, public funding, state legislation, institutional autonomy, campus protests, and the relationship between universities and government. Janzen explained that she currently feels fortunate to be able to pursue her own research agenda without direct interference. Nevertheless, she warned that "national money has been compromised."

She pointed to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), long one of the most important sources of public funding for humanities research in the United States. In April 2025, the NEH introduced the Celebrate America! grant program in preparation for the country's 250th anniversary. The initiative supports projects that commemorate the founding of the United States, prominent historical figures, and milestones intended to highlight the “nation's history of exceptionalism”.

For Janzen, the program illustrates how changing political priorities increasingly shape public research funding. Even when scholars retain formal academic freedom, the range of research that receives financial support may become considerably narrower.

Turning to the broader institutional and political framework, Ulf Brunnbauer emphasized that academic freedom must be understood as more than an abstract principle. It depends on concrete conditions that make free inquiry possible in practice.

He warned against the assumption that academic freedom is automatically guaranteed by constitutions or formal declarations. Instead, it requires robust institutional and legal safeguards. Drawing on examples from countries such as Hungary, he argued that democratic systems cannot rely on an implicit consensus of policy- and decision-makers that academic freedom will always be respected.

Academic freedom, Brunnbauer stressed, includes the freedom of research, teaching, and expression. If these core principles are systematically undermined, academic freedom ceases to exist. For this reason, he highlighted the importance of stable institutional autonomy, adequate funding, job security, and epistemological diversity as essential preconditions.

He also pointed to developments at the European level, noting that awareness of the fragility of academic freedom is increasing. Initiatives such as monitoring reports by the European Parliament reflect a growing recognition that academic freedom requires active protection rather than passive assumption.

At the same time, he cautioned that the relationship between politics and higher education is highly context-dependent and can shift rapidly. Institutional safeguards, he suggested, must therefore be continuously defended and adapted.

The audience discussion introduced broader concerns about rising anti-intellectualism and political hostility toward academic institutions. One participant expressed concern that researchers are increasingly seen as adversaries by parts of society and that university leadership does not always respond robustly to such pressures.

Brunnbauer responded by cautioning against extrapolating a global trend from the situation in the US. While some political environments may exhibit anti-knowledge tendencies, he noted that other countries, for example China, continue to invest heavily in science and research. 

Another participant emphasized that resistance to anti-intellectualism must begin early, before institutional norms are eroded. Critical thinking, she argued, is essential to maintaining democratic resilience.

Lívia de Souza Lima drew attention to similar dynamics in other contexts, including Brazil, where academic work is sometimes devalued as insufficiently “productive.” She also pointed to instances of gender-related censorship, illustrating that challenges to academic freedom are not limited to North America or Europe.

Marie Beyrich added that censorship is often an early indicator of democratic backsliding. When governments begin to suppress or selectively dismiss forms of knowledge, she argued, it signals a shift toward authoritarian tendencies. Strengthening public trust in universities and ensuring stable funding structures, she suggested, are essential components of safeguarding academic freedom.

The discussion also returned to the question of who defines knowledge. One audience member noted that knowledge is always linked to power, and that democracy remains an ongoing process of negotiation.

Chappell responded by emphasizing that debates over the “common good” are inherently contested. He rejected the idea that academic ideas such as gender studies were imposed arbitrarily, stressing instead that such fields emerged from sustained scholarly and social engagement. Marta Vicente similarly pointed out that gender studies grew out of feminist activism in the 1970s and continues to be shaped by engagement with communities.

A final question from the audience asked whether Europe might become a safe haven for American researchers. Brunnbauer responded cautiously, suggesting that such narratives often overstate global polarization. While Europe is actively debating the future of research funding, particularly in relation to the forthcoming EU framework programme (FP10), he questioned whether large-scale academic migration is likely.

Instead, he emphasized the importance of ongoing policy debates in shaping the future of European research, including questions of competitiveness, innovation, and funding structures.

In closing, Chappell reflected on shifting expectations for research in different contexts. Whereas research was once expected to primarily serve economic goals, he observed that it is now increasingly subject to ideological pressures in some environments. For this reason, he argued, international academic exchange remains essential. “It cannot be a national conversation”.

Engaging across borders, he concluded, requires rejecting the idea that research should be confined to national or ideological agendas. Academic dialogue, he suggested, is most valuable when it remains open, collaborative, and internationally oriented.