Akademisk frihed er ikke truet af de studerende, men af folk i magtpositioner

Play The Chicago Principles again Sam. For the sake of clarity, I unfold my critique a bit in Berlingske – though space is naturally limited.

I argue that the principles (the way they are framed and implemented) function like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They seem to argue for freedom of expression, dialogue and opinions. On the surface this makes good sense, so what’s not to like? My concern is with the the fine print, so to speak – and how they are actually implemented. For example, in the short (1 1/2 page) document, the right to express “offensive or disagreeable,” as well as “offensive,unwise,immoral, or wrong-headed” views is repeated several times - https://lnkd.in/eCzSjtDU.

I have to wonder why “offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed” views require their own special set of rules in university contexts? I would hope universities were much more interested in developing and supporting knowledge and science, rather than protecting offensive and wrongheaded views?

I ask who actually benefits from these principles? From the way they are written, they seem primarily to function to strengthen already powerful institutions (and the opinions expressed by employees and staff), and weaken students’ already limited power to express resistance or protest. I link to articles that discuss how they can be used to silence protests against (and weaken protection in regard to) racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. A weapon against progressive, democratic principles, civility and decency – things we actually need, if we want students to develop critical thinking and good academic skills…

Also – Denmark already very liberal laws and regulations for freedom of speech and expression – and universities are public – which makes such principals either redundant – or a far more insidious tool than they may seem to be.