The autonomy illusion: Academic freedom or convenient myth? — Khoo Ying Hooi

Malay Mail

16-05-2025

MAY 16 — In the world of higher education, few words are as universally revered yet as politically fraught as 'autonomy'.
University autonomy is often held up as a sacred pillar of academic freedom, necessary for the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and critical inquiry.
Yet, scratch beneath the surface, and the picture becomes far more complicated. Autonomy is not a monolithic or uncontested ideal; rather, it is a site of negotiation, conflict, and paradox.
The rhetoric of autonomy can empower universities to resist state overreach, but it can also serve as a shield for internal hierarchies, exclusion, and neoliberal governance.
The more uncomfortable but necessary question is no longer just autonomy from whom? but also autonomy for what, and for whom?
Too often, the narrative of autonomy is romanticised as an unquestioned good. Yet, history and contemporary realities suggest otherwise.
Autonomy can empower universities to resist state overreach, but it can also serve as a shield for internal hierarchies, exclusion, and the unchecked advance of neoliberal governance.
It can protect, but it can also entrench privilege. It can liberate, yet it can also be manipulated as a tool of managerialism or as a gatekeeper of elite knowledge.
The historical ideal of autonomy: Enlightenment or elitism?
Historically, university autonomy is rooted in enlightenment ideals of knowledge production free from the dictates of kings, churches, or states.
This ideal is often framed in binary terms: universities versus the state, knowledge versus politics, truth versus power. In this framing, autonomy serves as a bulwark against censorship, ideological imposition, and political interference.
Yet, this narrative omits the fact that many universities were themselves born as elite institutions serving narrow societal interests, whether those of the church, state, or economic elites.
Autonomy, in this historical sense, was not always about democratising knowledge but about protecting a self-regulated academic elite.
In this regard, autonomy becomes a double-edged sword: a defence against external power, but also a means of entrenching internal privilege.
Autonomy in the Age of Neoliberalism: Freedom or managerialism?
In the contemporary context, the meaning of university autonomy has been further complicated by the forces of neoliberal governance.
In many parts of the world, the state no longer dictates the curriculum or directly appoints university leaders, but instead governs through indirect means: funding formulas, performance indicators, rankings, and market mechanisms.
Universities are told they are 'autonomous' but are expected to compete for shrinking public funds, align themselves with industry demands, and deliver 'value for money'.
In this climate, autonomy is often reduced to financial self-sufficiency and managerial discretion.
Universities are encouraged to think of themselves as corporations, with vice-chancellors resembling CEOs, faculty as knowledge workers, and students as consumers.
In many parts of the world, the state no longer dictates the curriculum or directly appoints university leaders, but instead governs through indirect means: funding formulas, performance indicators, rankings, and market mechanisms. — Picture by Ahmad Zamzahuri
Ironically, this form of autonomy does not liberate universities from politics; it simply replaces state politics with market logics and managerialism.
The result is what sociologist Sheila Slaughter (1997) terms 'academic capitalism', where the university's autonomy is leveraged to pursue profit, often at the expense of academic freedom, labour rights, and the public good.
Internal autonomy: Whose voices are heard within?
Often lost in public debates on autonomy is the question of internal governance. Who within the university has the authority to exercise autonomy?
Too often, autonomy is conflated with the autonomy of university leadership, with decisions concentrated in the hands of senior management, governing boards, and select faculties.
This raises uncomfortable questions about the marginalisation of students, junior academics, adjunct lecturers, and non-academic staff in decision-making processes.
The rhetoric of autonomy, when unchecked, can mask undemocratic and hierarchical practices within the university itself. In this regard, autonomy needs to be democratised, ensuring that all stakeholders, especially those historically marginalised, have a voice in shaping the university's direction.
The public mission of universities: Autonomy or accountability?
Finally, the autonomy debate cannot ignore the broader societal context. Universities do not exist in a vacuum; they are public institutions, funded (at least partially) by taxpayers, and expected to contribute to the social, cultural, and economic well-being of society.
Autonomy, therefore, should not be equated with a carte blanche to act without accountability. Universities must answer not only to the state but to society at large, especially in societies where inequalities in access, representation, and outcomes remain glaring.
Autonomy should enable universities to speak truth to power, but it must also empower them to listen to the communities they serve.
This calls for a more complex, relational understanding of autonomy, not as insulation from society, but as a form of responsible independence, where universities uphold their critical mission while engaging with diverse societal actors in transparent and accountable ways.
Toward a more honest debate on autonomy
The debate on university autonomy needs to move beyond simplistic binaries of state interference versus freedom.
Autonomy is not an abstract principle but a lived, contested, and negotiated space. It can empower but also exclude. It can protect academic freedom, but also entrench managerialism. It can defend against authoritarianism, but also uphold colonial and elitist knowledge systems.
What is needed is a more honest, reflexive, and politicised conversation on autonomy, one that recognises its contradictions and grapples with the difficult questions of power, inequality, and justice within and beyond the university.
Rather than treating autonomy as a fixed ideal, we should approach it as an ongoing struggle: a struggle to expand spaces for critical inquiry, democratise internal governance, and affirm the university's public mission in times of crisis.
Only by doing so can we reclaim university autonomy not as a hollow slogan, but as a living, breathing, and contested practice of academic freedom, social justice, and institutional integrity.
* Khoo Ying Hooi, PhD is an associate professor at Universiti Malaya.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.