Confusing academic freedom with the right to free speech of an individual and expecting unconditional institutional support is not realistic.
Academic freedom provides an opportunity for an academic to pursue their passion and contribute to the society through the outcome of their research and/or thought process, points out N Ravichandran.
There has been much discussion recently on academic freedom in social and mainstream media.
Academic freedom requires a delicate balance between three interrelated actors: The individual, the academician, and the institution to which the academician is affiliated.
The purpose of this note is 1. To elaborate some basic ideas related to academic freedom and 2. To provide a perspective on how academic freedom is to be perceived, practiced and protected.
Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right institutionaliSed by every democracy across the globe.
Academic freedom draws its existence from the freedom of expression of an individual as enshrined by the constitution in a democracy.
There is no need to emphasise that freedom of speech is one of the critical enablers of vibrant democracy.
Freedom of (academic or otherwise) speech is often equivalent to agreement or otherwise on policy discourse in public space.
The limitation of freedom of speech is defined by the need to ensure that the opinion expressed does not harm any individual, a specific community, or society at large.
A friend of mine, a senior bureaucrat, used to say that his approach to freedom of speech is to express his views on matters of societal concern and leave the matter to the final judgment of those in charge of administration or governance.
I find this approach professional and pragmatic. After all, elected representatives are nothing but the collective expression of society.
Often in the context of discussing a public policy, disagreeing or presenting another policy option is a welcome addition in a democracy.
However, persistence of a point of view and constantly and consciously underestimating another policy may be harmful to the society creating a toxic environment.
Many times, the discussion around public policies degenerates to a personal commentary on the individuals advancing or advocating a policy, creating a unproductive environment.
The context of academic freedom involves three interconnected entities.
The first and foremost is the individual self; the second is the individual's academic duties and responsibilities; and the third element is the affiliated institution.
If academic freedom is effectively harnessed, it can be a fountainhead for(new) ideas which can potentially transform society constructively.
This is often done by creating a not-for-profit organization, sustaining and growing it.
Often academic freedom is marginalised, by a fixated opinion which is usually pitched against the establishment and its articulated policy/ policies.
The position taken is shallow and is not supported by ground realities.
Rarely are meaningful actions possible. Such positions are often practiced in political space, and have no relevance as a manifestation of academic freedom.
In this situation, the individual becomes more important than the policy.
In theory, an academician or an individual can operate some what freely, subject to the legal provisions of the context.
Academic institutions constantly interface with society at large and therefore need to foster a symbiotic relationship with the relevant communities in which they operate.
Like any other organisation, academic institutions are also regulated by relevant provisions of law.
These regulatory requirements may not be explicit. But no academic institution operates in an absolute free environment.
One may negotiate a space in this context for expressing an opinion, but one needs to confine to the broad norms of the regulatory environment in which the institution operates.
Academic freedom is about what subject matter/discipline/topic that an individual should practice (irrespective of whether the outcome of the pursuit is helpful in the society or not).
It is well known that the choice of topics or the projects undertaken by an academic are significantly influenced by the commercial and social priorities of the funding agencies.
The euhemerism for this is an output-based funding incentive system.
In pure science (including medical sciences) and engineering-related subjects, academic freedom is passive. The academic pursuit is visible only when its outcome impacts the society positively and significantly.
When the outcome of pure academic research is marginally useful, the society may not enthusiastically embrace it.
This is the natural course of the academic freedom exercised by any individual, in science and engineering disciplines.
In the context of social sciences, the academic freedom manifests into (and is not restricted to) policy disagreements -- perceived or fundamental, enhancements, endorsements, proposal of a (new)radical option, the effectiveness of the proposed resolution, and measurement (impact)challenges associated with the policy option.
If an individual is committed to an alternative point of view, which does not find favor with the people who matter in the system, the concerned individual has the freedom to choose to act on their idea and create an organisation and structure for the betterment of society at large.
There are several such examples in the Indian context.
As long as the new organisation created does not rupture the fabric of the society, such activities are legitimate and should be encouraged to realize their full potential or left to take their course of action.
Academic institutions may even promote and support a social immersion initiative/hub where ideas in the social space are encouraged to be prototyped, tested and scaled up for the welfare of the society.
This is a route by which an individual or a group of individuals can potentially influence society with an idea which is fundamentally different and an alternate to what is being proposed.
Academic freedom is not equal to perpetuating an antisocial attitude and fermenting it for individual benefit, promoting short-term popularity of an individual, or promoting the individual in the public gaze.
This is exploiting academic freedom for an individual's brand enhancement.
Often, such individuals do not actively participate and contribute to important policy deliberations in their institutions.
Further, they are seen as either indifferent to the discussion or supporting their view of the power centre in the institution.
Institutions are duty-bound not to support such ventures.
As a matter of fact, when academic freedom is expressed by an individual not in his capacity as a member of the institution, all limitations of freedom of speech applicable in the context of society come into force.
Therefore, it is up to the individuals to worry about what to say, what not to say and with what intensity an idea should be articulated.
This has nothing to do with academic freedom. Expecting the institutions to support such individual views, however positive or negative, is not practical either.
Institutions are not at all obliged to support such ideas.
Academic freedom happens often in the classroom in terms of articulation of ideas and thought processes.
As academicians are involved in engaging with younger minds in their formative years, it is the responsibility of academicians to ensure that they do not necessarily seed participant's mind with contempt, hatred and ideologically perverse thoughts under the garb of academic freedom.
It is the responsibility of academicians to fertilise the young and inquisitive minds with positive thoughts and surely not to pollute inquisitive minds.
As we discussed, funding agencies have the option and freedom to influence the choice of research activity (they routinely and systematically exercise this privilege).
This does tend to undermine the academic freedom.
Institutions have the moral right and obligation to ensure a fine balance between academic freedom and the consequences of the thoughts expressed (in interacting with students, either in formal or informal settings) in the context of the society in terms of its impact.
If one were to choose between the welfare of the institution and welfare of an individual academician, the choice is biased towards the welfare of the institution.
After all, institutions outsmart in longevity, impact and relevance of an individual, and therefore they need to be nurtured.
Also, an academician without institutional support may not be productive and impactful in idea generation, propagating and permeating them in society.
Therefore, if there is a conflict or a tradeoff that is to be made between individual academic and the institution, the priorities of the latter would prevail.
Of course, a committed academician can move out of the affiliated academic institution and pursue his ideas in his individual capacity, subject to the provisions of the existing rules and regulations and democratic norms in the country.
Individuals should balance out between their personal view, academic freedom and institutional endorsements.
Expecting institutions to completely endorse individual views is not realistic.
Often, senior bureaucrats and top executives of reputed companies express their viewpoint on matters of public importance, but in their version, they add a caveat saying that the views expressed are by the individuals concerned and may/maynot be endorsed by the organizations they belong to.
This is a good practice. Academicians should be encouraged to adhere to this practice when they place their personal views in the public domain.
Finally, academic freedom is a nuanced version of freedom of speech in an academic context.
Just as the freedom of expression requires certain responsibility, academic freedom is also subject to the limitations set by the funding agencies, the institutional conduct rules, and the societal/ government norms.
Breaching the norms would rupture the basic fabric of society and would bring disrepute to the institution and may adversely impact the standing of the individual concerned.
Confusing academic freedom with the right to free speech of an individual and expecting unconditional institutional support is not realistic.
Academic freedom provides an opportunity for an academic to pursue their passion and contribute to the society through the outcome of their research and/or thought process.
Diluting this to the persistent anti-state sentiments and actions, (however, vocally, they are justified) can only harm the individual, the associated institution and the society at large, in the immediate, medium and long term respectively.
To summarise:
Dr N Ravichandran is a retired professor at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and was the fourth director of IIM Indore.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff