Academic freedom is defined as the right to teach, study and pursue knowledge without unreasonable interference or restriction. It has led to many positive developments in education and research around the world. However, because education is often subjugated to politics in the United States, academic freedom in national public schools often becomes divisive and contentious.
Florida, a state that remains infamous for regular political controversy, has recently posed notable restrictions against academic freedoms in their public schools. High school courses such as AP Psychology, AP African American Studies, and Shakespearean Literature, have been banned due to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ and race-related education. Critics of these policies are often keen to point out the importance of academic freedom when interpreting texts and systemic problems.
“If you restrict discussion on certain topics, classrooms would never be able to fully understand certain texts,” said Tommy Creekmore, a junior English major. “Even beyond LGBTQ+ inclusion, discussions of race and gender identity can be critical to developing significant evaluations of texts.”
However, complications arise when interpreting academic freedom across partisan politics. While Florida administers fundamentalist-based education in its public schools, some progressive-identifying school systems approach blurry consensus in academic freedom.
Harvard University exemplifies the struggle to find this consensus. It was recently under controversy, as several Jewish students filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against Harvard, claiming that the university has failed to protect them from rising antisemitic rhetoric surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict.
“Do we think about academic freedom as something that protects everyone, regardless of content and ideology and politics?” said Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at Harvard Law School and a leader of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard.
In its intrinsic state, some argue yes, that academic freedom does indeed protect everyone, even under political ideologies, that ideally, the freedom to pursue academics remains separated from the interpretation of academics.
“Obviously, regarding inappropriate writing, if students were to write something actively racist, for instance, that could be a problem,” Creekmore said. “But if you don’t at least discuss problems such as racism, students may encounter these issues later in life without the proper education and knowledge.”
Following this belief, students affected by limitations on their academic freedoms could be impeded in the future and not only through understanding certain topics. Holistically, by having a narrow range of solutions for complex problems, students may be pressed to think less critically about issues.
This can make it more important for academic freedom to be preserved. Alongside many of the world’s impending feats of disaster, such as an ever-changing global climate, it is arguable that critical thinking skills are more necessary than ever for sustaining a healthy society.
“Free, open, critical discussion of even the most controversial of social issues can only enhance students’ critical thinking skills as long as students are given the opportunity to fully engage with and interrogate, in a civil fashion, those who hold even what most of us would consider to be odious views,” said Dr. Steven Elliot-Gower, a political science professor at GC. “Exposing students to multiple perspectives means that they have more grist for the intellectual mill. They have more cud to chew on, more to stimulate the gray matter, more to think about and analyze.”
The future of academic freedom is a toss-up, nonetheless, as the intertwinement of partisan politics fosters a difficult environment for critical academic engagement. What is known, however, is that the battle for academic freedom is often fought in universities across the U.S., making GC and other colleges a battleground for the heart and soul of critical education.
