Old challenges, new risks
Recent events on many US campuses draw on long-standing debates in US higher education and society,
and are complicated by a number of social and cultural factors which together have led over several
years to incidents involving violence, threats, intimidation and harassment of faculty and students;
targeting on grounds of belief, race, gender, identity, or political or social group; and executive,
legislative, and in some cases institutional interventions that undermine academic freedom and
university autonomy. From SAR’s perspective, the recent events are an extension of these incidents and
interventions, and we will continue to report on them as such in our Academic Freedom Media Review
and annual Free to Thinkreports.
In the past, however, the US often modeled practices that respected academic freedom. Today we are
concerned that the US is becoming an exporter of bad models that, if not corrected, will contribute to a
decrease in intellectual and creative freedom worldwide. We are concerned that just as those in the US
witnessing recent events will draw incorrect lessons that will further decrease academic freedom on US
campuses, international audiences, especially public officials and university leaders, observing the
messaging and methods deployed on some US campuses, will use such actions as validation for
restrictive and repressive measures against faculty and students in their countries.
Observations on recent events
To prevent these harms the higher education community must draw more accurate and constructive
lessons. Toward that end, while we lack enough information to comment on any specific incident or
campus, we offer observations on recent events in the US, as seen through the lens of SAR’s work
defending academic freedom in all world regions:
1. Academic freedom, freedom of expression (free speech), and protest are important but distinct
concepts. Each serves a particular function in a healthy democratic society, and each is protected to
varying degrees by international human rights standards and US domestic law.
○ We observe in recent events a tendency to conflate these distinct concepts, whether
disingenuously or by imprecision in language or thinking. This causes substantial confusion that
undermines academic freedom, in particular, as well as university autonomy and public support
for higher education.
○ We observe that higher education leadership and faculty would benefit from doing more to
clarify for their communities the distinctions between academic freedom, free expression, and
protest, and whenever possible encourage academic freedom-focused approaches to disputes
and controversies that may arise on campus.
2. Academic freedom is foremost about processes, not ideas, specifically processes that promote
truth-seeking and transmission of knowledge, as determined by peers of similar training and
expertise, and according to accepted standards of professional responsibility and ethics. These
processes shape the university community, and in turn depend on that community to understand,
transmit, and uphold them. The university especially has an affirmative obligation to promote the
widest expression of academic freedom, insofar as this leads to the greatest quantum of knowledge
and truth-seeking. This includes an obligation to defend the processes of academic inquiry and
discourse (as distinguished from any given idea or opinion), including an obligation to speak publicly
in their defense.
○ We observe in recent events a failure by some higher education leaders, including senior
administrators and trustees, to effectively and vigorously defend the processes of academic
inquiry and discourse, in some cases even joining persons outside the academy in threatening the
university, or in publicly targeting specific academics and students.
○ We observe that higher education institutions, faculty, students, and the public would greatly
benefit from those in higher education leadership embracing the role of frontline defenders of
academic freedom and the university, especially against actors outside the university, especially
in times of tension or controversy.
○ We also observe a failure by some faculty and students to bring their academic training,
experience, and expertise to bear when engaging with the complex, sensitive, and challenging
questions raised by recent events. We remind faculty and students of their own responsibilities
as defenders of academic freedom, even while engaging in free expression or protest.
3. Free expression is primarily about ideas and opinions and does not include any of the evidentiary or
other professional obligations of academic freedom. Free expression includes only a baseline
responsibility to refrain from direct or threatened harm to others. The university has a negative
obligation not to interfere unreasonably with free expression (including not to sanction members of
the community for their non-threatening expression), but generally has no affirmative obligation to
endorse or oppose free expression that does not cross the line of harm or threat (and in most cases,
but not all, the university would be wise to refrain from doing so).
○ We observe in recent events some institutional leaders commenting negatively on expression on
campus in ways that seem intended to placate actors outside the university. We caution that
history strongly suggests, and SAR’s experience with many hundreds of at-risk scholars affirms,
that bending to outside pressures will not protect the university in the near-term and will reduce
the space for free inquiry and expression in the long term.
○ We also observe a related and dangerous movement toward demands for overbroad university
“neutrality,” which asserts that the university should never speak on matters deemed ‘political’ or
‘sensitive’. In the worst cases, these demands are attempts to silence the university and limit its
role in sharing knowledge with the public. In the best cases, they are intended to protect the
university from controversy that might erode public support, but go too far when they transform
an otherwise generally admirable restraint from endorsing one idea over another into a blanket
rule of silence. Broad demands for neutrality abdicate the university's affirmative obligation to
promote and defend the processes of academic inquiry and discourse. That is, while properly
asserting that the university should not be a scorekeeper, awarding points in the contest of ideas
to one voice over another, broad neutrality demands abdicate the university’s responsibility to
mediate and referee the processes of truth-seeking, leaving the campus and ultimately society
with no guarantor, intellectually speaking, of fair play.
○ Rather than a rule of blanket public neutrality, we observe that the university has an affirmative
responsibility to speak and to act in support of the background conditions and values from which
the university and its truth-seeking processes derive, and to refrain from expression or action
which undermines those conditions and values. This responsibility may include speaking or
acting against violence, hatreds, exclusions, or injustices which interfere with truth-seeking and
the dissemination of knowledge. This responsibility may also include disassociating the
university from acts or actors deemed contrary to its values. This responsibility is not removed
by the difficulty of crafting reasonable, fair, and transparent processes for determining whether
or when the university should or should not speak or disassociate. The fact that it may be hard to
do it right is not an argument against trying to meet this responsibility, but rather a reminder to
do so thoughtfully.
4. Protest is the subset of expression intended to command attention to an idea or opinion, often
physically, as with marches, posters, rallies, and other visible or audible acts which are intellectually,
psychologically, emotionally, or ethically challenging. Protest may be particularly important when a
power imbalance blocks or otherwise frustrates the transmission of ideas or opinions that challenge
a status quo. Protest does not necessarily involve breaking any policies, regulations, or laws, but
there is a long tradition of nonviolent protest (civil disobedience) aimed at challenging unjust
proscriptions. Acts of harm, violence, threat, or destruction within or adjacent to protest are outside
of this tradition. That said, fairness and fidelity to truth-seeking suggest that the violent or
destructive acts of some protesters should not be imputed to all. As with free expression, the
university has a negative obligation not to interfere unreasonably with protest that is not overly
disruptive and that does not cross the line of harm or threat. But given the attention-demanding
nature of protest, the space for protest in the university may be more circumscribed than that of free
expression, provided that the university does not disfavor particular expression or protest.
○ We observe that some methods of protest used in recent events are consistent with academic
freedom principles, including teach-ins, position papers, and public lectures and debates, both in
person and online. We observe that these methods generally did not attract significant attention
or controversy, such that they were less visible to outside observers. This contributed to a
dangerous, false impression that evidence-based discourse on campus has all but ceased, when in
fact it continues on most campuses, for most issues, most of the time.
○ We also observe that some methods of protest used in recent events may be consistent with free
expression, including marches, songs, and slogans and posters, but these at times approached or
crossed the line into direct or threatened harm to others, while others crossed the line from
attention-grabbing to materially disrupting the operations of the university and truth-seeking of
other students, faculty, or community members.
5. The location of conduct or expression does not by itself determine academic freedom protection.
While more traditional ‘academic’ locations (e.g., on campus vs. off campus, in classrooms and labs vs.
quads and dining halls, in academic journals vs. social media feeds) may give rise to a reasonable
presumption, academic freedom protection arises not from the locus but from the application of
training, experience, and expertise, according to accepted standards of professional responsibility
and ethics; in other words, it comes from wearing the “academic hat.”
○ We observe that on many campuses faculty and students organized lectures, panels, and reading
sessions in in-person and online classrooms, while in other cases tent “encampments” or other
physical protest locations were the sites of reasoned, evidence-based, non-threatening inquiry
and discourse. Both scenarios would generally warrant academic freedom protection.
6. Antisemitism and anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hatred are real and contrary to academic freedom. They
are all linked to forms of discrimination and inequality and must be condemned not only on moral
grounds, but from an academic freedom perspective as impediments to truth-seeking. Violence or
threats based on ideologies or hatreds have the effect of excluding, silencing, denying, or destroying
unique knowledge and sources of knowledge, including people and communities, thereby
impoverishing the academic mission.
○ We observe that some incidents and protests have included expression that should, by any
objective standard, be considered antisemitic, anti-Arab, or anti-Muslim. This includes primarily
expression directing violent or dehumanizing language at individuals or groups because of these
identities. These incidents should be addressed in the first instance by the nearest appropriate
actors, including fellow protesters, student or faculty leaders, or administrative leadership, as
has occurred in many cases. Where these incidents are addressed administratively, it must be
according to consistent, fair, and transparent policies, and any sanctions or consequences must
be tailored to the individual and the conduct, and not disproportionate or excessive.
○ We observe that any sanctions or consequences should also reflect understanding that the
university has a special obligation to provide information, guidance, and opportunities for young
people and others in the community to take in and assess new information, to adapt their
thinking and conduct, should they so choose, and to correct or make amends for any
transgressions. Failure to offer such opportunities, as in the imposition of permanent
condemnation or sanctions for less than egregious conduct, constitutes a failure of the
pedagogical mission of the university.
○ Beyond explicit and objectively discriminatory or hateful expression, we observe a range of
statements whose meaning may not be clear or universally agreed upon, even within aligned
groups, even while they may be contested, deeply distrusted, and considering threatening by
others. While such situations pose a significant challenge, the university should be well-suited to
meet it, certainly more so than media or politics. This is because a primary function of the
university is to practice, teach, and model the processes by which contested experiences and
meanings are transformed into mutual understanding (though not necessarily agreement).
○ When attempting to build understanding around contested and purportedly offensive or hurtful
expression, the university must address both the objective and subjective experiences of the
community. This includes taking reasonable measures to safeguard the safety of persons on
campus against an objective assessment of physical risks. This also includes taking reasonable
measures to accommodate subjective expressions of insecurity from members of the community,
while not infringing on objectively non-threatening inquiry and discourse of others. Such
measures might include adjustments in schedules, locations, or policies that create opportunities
for those affected by expression or protest to avoid exposure or conflict. Whenever possible, the
university, including faculty and students, should encourage resort to the processes of academic
inquiry and discourse to address contested and purportedly offensive or hurtful expression.
These processes are designed to incorporate the subjective experience of the learner as part of
the pedagogical experience, while providing an objective basis for collectively engaging with
contested material through structured, mediated, and evidence-based examination.
7. The risk of injury or harm during protest, intended or not, is real and should not be
underestimated. But neither should it be exaggerated or disingenuously manipulated by actors
inside or outside the university seeking to limit academic freedom, free expression, or protest, or to
advance their professional, political, or personal agendas. Aggressive or militarized “security”
strategies and “safety” protocols should be avoided because of their destructive impact on campus
communities and the general environment for truth-seeking, and because of their tendency to
escalate tensions. SAR’s Free to Thinkreporting on incidents worldwide shows that the risk of
on-campus protesters causing harm to persons or property is substantially lower than the risks from
overly aggressive or disproportionate force by campus security, police, state security, or military
interventions. When they must occur, security interventions should be closely monitored by campus
leadership, should emphasize de-escalation, and should be used only as a last resort and only to
maintain or restore safe conditions, not for the purpose of ending a protest or detaining or otherwise
punishing nonviolent protesters.
○ We observe that in some cases, campus administrations appear to have exercised patience and
discretion in engaging with faculty, students, and student-protesters to examine harmful or
challenging conduct or expression, sometimes with positive results. In some cases, faculty played
mediating roles in such engagements. In many of these cases, student and student leaders
similarly demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable dialogue and negotiation. These
efforts at direct, nonpunitive communication among leadership, administrators, faculty, students,
and protest leaders should be encouraged as a means of minimizing risks of injury or harm.
○ We observe in some other examples, campus administrations appear to have unilaterally altered,
misapplied, or selectively applied policies against faculty, students, or student-protesters, in
some cases apparently based on identity or viewpoint. In some cases, they rejected constructive
engagement with faculty, students, or student-protesters, turning more quickly to punitive or
coercive measures. These were often accompanied by public posturing seemingly more directed
to audiences outside of campus than within. In some cases, faculty and students or student
leaders similarly failed to contribute to constructive dialogue or negotiation. Together, these
failures of communication and lack of good faith negotiation increase the risks of injury or harm.
8. Academic freedom cannot be guaranteed without respect for university autonomy. State officials
must ensure the security and integrity of the university, while refraining from militarization,
surveillance, financial penalties, interference with hiring and admissions, interference in the
methods or content of teaching or research, and other coercive measures which undermine the
truth-seeking function. Laws, policies, and practices concerning the appointment, tenure and
removal of institutional leaders, oversight boards, and governing councils must respect the principle
of self-governance, which is an essential component of autonomy. At the same time, autonomy
should not be used by higher education leaders as a pretext to limit the exercise of academic
freedom inside the university, including by punishing staff or students for the content of their
research, teaching, or discourse, or restricting the right of faculty, staff, or students to express freely
their opinions.
○ We observe an erosion of autonomy, exacerbating a decades-long trend, including prominent
examples of federal and state executive and legislative officials threatening to cut funding, fire
faculty or staff, expel students, and shut down programs to silence research, teaching, or
discourse that does not meet their approval. This may be the most harmful and longest-lasting
damage arising out of the recent events.
○ We observe that other actors outside of the university have contributed to this erosion of
autonomy and academic freedom by bringing undue pressure on university leadership, faculty,
and students. These include many in the media who have exaggerated, distorted, or
misrepresented incidents on campuses to cultivate outrage and attract audiences. These also
include many private interests, including some alumni and donors, and some political actors, who
have manipulated public impressions of recent events for their own agendas, without regard for
the impact on academic freedom, the university, faculty, and especially students and the public.
○ As noted earlier, this has contributed to a dangerous misimpression that evidence-based
discourse on campus has all but ceased, and that major disturbances have been experienced at
most US campuses involving the majority of students as direct participants. This misimpression is
used to support the narratives of crisis and insecurity, that in turn are used to justify restrictions
on autonomy, academic freedom, and free expression.
○ On the contrary, we observe that evidence-based research, teaching, and discourse continue on
campus, and that while there have been many protests, in fact the majority of campuses and
individuals are not involved, and the majority of those that have participated have done so
peacefully and without notable incidents. Recognizing this, calls for hearings, investigations,
reforms, or similar actions that threaten to reduce university autonomy should be presumed to
be offered in bad faith, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Next steps
We hope that these observations might help higher education leaders, faculty, and students to navigate
this moment and develop policies and practices that respect academic freedom and free expression on
campus. We hope they might help media, alumni, donors, policymakers, and others outside the university
to understand academic freedom more, and to better defend it.
Looking ahead, we invite feedback using this brief online survey, especially suggestions for how SAR
might help campuses respond now and in the future, including, for example, by offering workshops or
webinars; model templates, policies or practice guides; campus consulting; and discussion groups. We
welcome other ideas and appreciate any feedback.
Resources for responding to recent events on US campuses (May 2024)
Recent incidents on US campuses are not unique to the US or to the current moment. They are
manifestations of dynamics that SAR has seen throughout our work, that arise from the tension between
power and ideas. This familiarity creates opportunities for positive interventions, including workshops,
courses, training, class visits, lectures, webinars, research projects, and advocacy efforts, all aimed at
building understanding about what academic freedom is and why it matters.
Toward that end, we remind network members and the public of the following resources which might be
helpful in capturing this moment and in building positive cultures and practices that strengthen their
institution for the long term:
● SAR’s Promoting Higher Education Valuesdiscussion guide provides content and exercises for
campuses looking to avoid the twin traps of neglect (the tendency to put off wrestling with
complicated academic freedom claims until after a crisis has erupted) and oversimplification (the
tendency to seek quick, clean responses that are intended to end a crisis quickly, but almost never
do). In place of these, this guide urges proactive examination of values issues and the development of
policies and “ritualizing” practices that can build trust and understanding. A PDF version of the guide
is available for free on the SAR website (https://scholarsatrisk.org).
● SAR’s free, online course Dangerous Questions: Why Academic Freedom Matters?, developed in
collaboration with the University of Oslo and the Academic Refuge Project, is a self-paced course
including videos, animations, text, and graphics explaining academic freedom, how it differs from
free expression, strategies for promoting academic freedom on your home campus and in
partnerships, and strategies for responding to academic freedom crises when they occur.
● Drafted by an international working group and since recognized by multiple UN actors, the Principles
for Implementing the Right to Academic Freedomarticulate nine essential aspects of the right to
academic freedom. These are grounded in established UN legal standards, recommendations,
reports, and statements, as well as regional human rights instruments, and informed by available
data, reporting on violations or threats to academic freedom, and expert commentary.
● SAR’s Academic Freedom Monitoring Projectdata and annual Free to Thinkreports, including
especially chapters on threats to academic freedom in the US, provide summaries of major incidents
and worrisome trends in threats to higher education communities, and afford the opportunity to
compare threats in the US to situations in other countries.
● SAR’s Academic Freedom Media Reviewis a weekly email summary of recent reported threats to
academic freedom and higher education communities worldwide collected from media, blogs,
opinion pieces, and other announcements.
● SAR’s Free to Think podcastoffers first-person conversations with interesting, thoughtful, and
inspiring individuals who have personally experienced threats because of their work, including
scholars, practitioners, or students, or who have worked to protect at-risk individuals and to
promote academic freedom. You can listen in your web browser or on major podcast platforms.
● The SAR/Prins Speaker Seriesprovides an opportunity for network member institutions to bring to
campus one or more diverse, interesting, courageous scholars or practitioners, each with a powerful
and unique story to share. Through these events, campus communities and the public learn about
threats to academic freedom and attacks on scholars, as well as the visitors’ own academic or
professional work and experiences.
● The SAR Global Congress(June 25-27, 2024 at the European Humanities University in Vilnius,
Lithuania) will provide an opportunity to share experiences and explore responses with SAR
members, scholars, practitioners, and partners from around the world. Program and registration
information are available on the SAR website.
● The annual General Assembly of the SAR United States Section(October 15-17, 2024 at Carnegie
Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh and
City of Asylum) will provide an opportunity for SAR US Section members, prospective members, and
partners to share experiences and explore responses to the recent events on US campuses, to
deepen activities in support of at-risk scholars and practitioners, and to understand and promote
academic freedom. Program and registration information will be shared in the SAR newsletterand
on the website.