In Defense of Academic Freedom
Why defend academic freedom even when the ideas in question are wrongheaded or harmful? 'It is precisely because any kind of purge opens the gate to all kinds of purge, that freedom of thought necessarily means the freedom to think bad thoughts as well as good.'
Those words, written in 1953 by Joseph Alsop, an alumnus of Harvard who later served on its Board of Overseers, are relevant today, as the Trump administration cancels the visas of foreign students for viewpoints that it deems 'bad.' And they were relevant in recent years as institutions of higher education investigated and disciplined members of their communities for expressing views that ran afoul of various progressive social-justice orthodoxies. But Alsop wrote them in response to the McCarthy era's efforts to identify and punish Communists who were working in academia. Hundreds of professors were summoned by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, forced to appear as witnesses, and pressured to name names––that is, to identify fellow academics with ties to the Communist Party. Many were then censured or fired and blacklisted by their employers.
'I have been profoundly and actively anti-Communist all my life,' Alsop declared in a letter to the president and fellows of Harvard, published in The Atlantic. 'Unfortunately, however, the question that confronts us is not how we feel about Communists and ex-Communists. The question is, rather, how we feel about the three great principles which have run, like threads of gold, through the long, proud Harvard story.'
The first principle he listed was the freedom to make personal choices within the limits of the law. The second principle was 'unrestricted freedom of thought.' And the third principle was one's right to due process when accused of breaking the law. 'A member of our faculty is not to be penalized for any legal choice he may make, however eccentric or controversial,' Alsop wrote. 'He may become a nudist or a Zoroastrian, imitate Origen or adopt the Pythagorean rules of diet. If called before a Congressional investigating committee, he may seek the protection of the Fifth Amendment, and refuse to testify on grounds of possible self-incrimination. However much we disapprove, we may not interfere.'
By standing for 'unrestricted free trade in ideas,' Alsop sought to conserve the university's ability to extend the frontiers of human thought and knowledge at a moment that has long been regarded as one of the darkest in the history of American academia. But as Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), documented in a 2023 Atlantic article, the threat to academic freedom today arguably surpasses the threat that existed in the 1950s. 'According to the largest study at the time, about 100 professors were fired over a 10-year period during the second Red Scare for their political beliefs or communist ties,' he wrote. 'We found that, in the past nine years, the number of professors fired for their beliefs was closer to 200.' More recently, FIRE has objected to the Trump administration's infringements on academic freedom, including the unprecedented demands that it sent to Harvard last month.
Supporters of academic freedom have every reason to fear that more colleges will be similarly targeted in coming months. One defense should involve consulting similar situations from bygone eras. Doing so can help identify principles and arguments that have stood the test of time—and it can be a source of hope. After all, the authoritarian excesses of McCarthyism, which intimidated so many, did not long endure. 'From the perspective of the sixties, the whole period has an air of unreality' for many students, a 1965 Harvard Crimson article —written in an era of 'sit-ins, summer projects, and full page ads criticizing U.S. foreign policy placed in the Times by hundreds of academics'—declared. But just several years prior, it pointed out, 'tenured professors thought long and hard before risking a statement on public issues; teaching fellows, fearful of antagonizing Governing Boards, were politically inert; and students retreated into silence and inactivity.'
I hope that, circa 2030, incoming college students will have trouble understanding the mounting attacks on academic freedom that began about a decade ago. Perhaps this period, echoing the Red Scare's aftermath, may yet be followed by a new flourishing of academic freedom. A renaissance of that sort will require defending people's rights—no matter how abhorrent one may find a given opinion. As Alsop put it, 'In these cases the individuals are nothing and the principles are everything.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
The left is trying to use international ‘lawfare' to shut down Musk and X
Elon Musk had three recent posts on X that are worth noting if you are opposed to censorship and cancellation. The first was two cartoon panels with the question, 'How do you tell who's telling the Truth?' The next panel offered the answer: 'The ones trying to silence other people are the ones lying.' Just prior to that, Musk had reposted a post that reads, 'President Trump's State Department has announced it is coming to the defense of Elon Musk's X after France labeled it an organized crime group and opened a criminal investigation. The State Department's DLR [the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor] stated, 'As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X's proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an 'organized crime group.' Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.'' And just prior to that, Musk reposted a post from the conservative activist Mark Kern: 'There is a full on attack on the Internet by the UK and EU, disguised as 'for the children.' The ID requirement is affecting even Discord users and X users. It is full on dystopian as they ramp up police to arrest people for speech.' Below that is a link to a Telegraph article with the headline 'Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media.' Multiple people I have spoken with in the U.S., the U.K. and the EU believe that Musk and his X platform represent the greatest single threat to the far left and its goal of pushing its narratives unchallenged across the globe. One way the left now seems intent on stopping Musk and X is by mimicking the various 'lawfare' schemes rolled out against then-candidate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election, which many Trump supporters saw as an unethical attempt to force him out of the race. While that 'lawfare' tactic failed — thanks in large part to Trump taking it head-on, day after day, while exposing it for what it was — activists in Europe and elsewhere believe the strategy can be refined and hardened for use against Musk and X in an attempt to intimidate, censor or silence them. Lest we forget, back in 2023, the European Union opened a probe into X for alleged 'failure to counter illegal content and disinformation.' Ah. The catch-all accusation frequently used by the intelligentsia on the left: 'disinformation.' Recall the draconian COVID-19 dictates from the left enacted to combat 'disinformation'? Here is a January headline from ABC News: 'EU politicians warn against Elon Musk's incursions into European politics.' Of course, Musk might rightfully retort that his 'disinformation' and 'incursions' were not only protected free speech, but simply ways to point out severe double-standards and harmful policies that were having an adverse effect upon the majority of the citizens of those nations. I wrote a piece for this site a year ago titled ' Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?' I highlighted calls for Musk to be arrested for stating his opinions while anticipating that the personal animus directed against him, X and the internet by certain individuals and groups in Europe advocating for censorship and cancellation could grow. It now seems that I was correct. All of which raises an obvious question:Why do so many on the left want to prevent people around the world from gathering as much information as possible on their own, then coming to their own conclusions based on their own research? Do they fear people thinking for themselves? Do they fear their own constituents, customers and neighbors? Open minds open doors. I have always believed it imperative to listen to those I may disagree with. What if I am wrong and they are correct? What if they show me a truth I refused to believe out of ignorance, intolerance or indoctrination? Aren't I the one getting a gift — one I could not receive if their voices were censored or canceled? Alarmingly, many on the left in Europe — as well as in the U.S. — don't seem to share my belief that we need to listen to those we disagree with. Note this April headline from The New York Times: 'E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk's X.' The opening paragraph of the article spells it out: 'European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against Elon Musk's social media platform, X, for breaking a landmark law to combat illicit content and disinformation, said four people with knowledge of the plans.' Once again, the left rolls out 'illicit content and disinformation' against Musk, X and the internet. Of course, millions around the world who are against censorship and cancellation and strongly in favor of free speech might say this is a transparent attempt by some on the left to intimidate and censor a site and voices that expose their continual failures to billions of people around the world. One person's 'disinformation' is another's 'irrefutable truth.' Don't hide behind censorship. Let the people think for themselves.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Israel Under Pressure
This week, Donald Trump broke with Benjamin Netanyahu over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Meanwhile, Trump fired the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the release of the latest jobs report. Panelists on Washington Week With The Atlantic joined to discuss this and more. 'Trump believes that he has the ability and leverage over Netanyahu,' Alexander Ward, a national-security reporter at The Wall Street Journal, said last night. But the reason that 'there isn't as much leverage as the Trump team believes is because Netanyahu has his own politics, too.' Joining Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer to discuss: Leigh Ann Caldwell, the chief Washington correspondent at Puck; Andrea Mitchell, the chief Washington and foreign-affairs correspondent at NBC News; Alexander Ward, a national-security reporter at The Wall Street Journal; and Nancy A. Youssef, a staff writer at The Atlantic. Watch the full episode here.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Myanmar military courts sentence 12 to life for human trafficking, including Chinese nationals
BANGKOK (AP) — Myanmar military courts have sentenced a dozen individuals — including five Chinese nationals — to life imprisonment for their involvement in multiple human trafficking cases, state-run media reported Saturday. According to the Myanma Alinn newspaper, the convictions stem from a range of offenses including the online distribution of sex videos and the trafficking of Myanmar women into forced marriages in China. In one case, five people — including two Chinese nationals identified as Lin Te and Wang Xiaofeng — were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court in Yangon, the country's largest city, on July 29. They were found guilty under Myanmar's Anti-Trafficking in Persons law for producing sex videos involving three Myanmar couples and distributing the footage online for profit. In a separate case, the same court sentenced a woman and three Chinese nationals — Yibo, Cao Qiu Quan and Chen Huan. The group was convicted of planning to transport two Myanmar women, recently married to two of the convicted Chinese men, into China, the report said. Additionally, three other people received life sentences from a separate military court for selling a woman as a bride to China, and for attempting to do the same with another woman. In another case, a woman from Myanmar's central Magway region was given a 10-year sentence on July 30 for planning to transport two Myanmar women to be sold as brides to Chinese men, the report said. Human trafficking, particularly of women and girls lured or forced into marriages in China, remains a widespread problem in Myanmar, a country still reeling from civil war after the military seized power from the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021. The persisting conflict in most areas of Myanmar has left millions of women and children vulnerable to exploitation. A 2018 report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Kachin Women's Association Thailand (KWAT) — which works to prevent and respond to trafficking in northern Kachin and Shan states bordering China — estimated that about 21,000 women and girls from northern Myanmar were forced into marriage in China between 2013 and 2017. In its latest report published in December, KWAT noted a sharp decline in the number of trafficking survivors accessing its services from 2020 to 2023. It attributed the decline to the COVID-19 pandemic and border closures caused by ongoing conflict following the army takeover. However, it reported a resurgence in 2024 as people from across Myanmar began migrating to China in search of work. Maj-Gen Aung Kyaw Kyaw, a deputy minister for Home Affairs, said during a June meeting that the authorities had handled 53 cases of human trafficking, forced marriage and prostitution in 2024, 34 of which involved China, according to a report published by Myanmar's Information Ministry. The report also said that a total of 80 human trafficking cases, including 14 involving marriage deception by foreign nationals, were recorded between January and June this year.
