Vol. 15: 39–47, 2015 ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS Published online May 27 doi: 10.3354/esep00157 Ethics Sci Environ Polit

Contribution to the Theme Section ‘Academic freedom and tenure’ OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS AS I SEE IT

The erosion of academic freedom in UK higher education

Anna Traianou*

Department of Educational Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, UK

ABSTRACT: In this article, I treat ‘academic freedom’ as referring to the autonomy that academics need if they are to do their work well, on analogy with what is required in other professional occupations. In these terms, I argue that there are 2 aspects of academic freedom: the degree of autonomy that universities have from governments, and the autonomy that academics have within universities. Using this framework, I explore how, from the 1980s onwards, UK governments have increasingly intervened in higher education, on the basis of the assumption that universities must serve the economy, seeking to maximize and measure the ‘returns’ on public investment. I argue that these external developments have promoted internal changes within universities away from collegial modes of organization and towards more managerial ones, and as a result have signifi- cantly reduced academic freedom. I conclude by briefly examining developments in the UK in terms of a rather different conception of academic freedom, one that is currently quite influential, which virtually identifies it with ‘free speech’ for academics and students.

KEY WORDS: Academic freedom · Neoliberalism · New public management · UK higher education · Professionalism · Free speech

INTRODUCTION which have not opposed the siege of Gaza (see But- ler 2006, Goldberg 2013, Robin 2014). The concept Academic freedom in the UK is a contentious mat- is also central to debates about the extent to which ter, as it is elsewhere, and it has long been so. In the various kinds of Muslim radicalism or anti-migrant 1960s and 1970s, it was a slogan that was loudly English nationalism should be tolerated on cam- deployed by both Left and Right. Leftist student puses, with ‘No platform’ arguments on one side radicals of the late 1960s were charged by Right- and arguments for unconstrained academic freedom wing commentators with breaching academic free- on the other (Hayes 2009). dom by preventing or disrupting meetings that Academic freedom continues to be a principle to hosted speakers to whom they objected. At the which there is wide appeal. However, it has been same time, the Left also complained of offences interpreted in a variety of ways (Arthur 2006), and against academic freedom, for example when they indeed it amounts to an essentially contested concept believed that Left-wing applicants for academic jobs (Collier et al. 2006). Thus, in his introduction to an had been rejected because of their political beliefs influential collection of essays on academic freedom, (see Arblaster 1973). Appeal to the principle of aca- Menand (1996) argued that it has always been prob- demic freedom continues to be made today across lematic, and perhaps is inherently problematic. the political spectrum, for example on both sides of In fact, there are 2 very different conceptions of the debate about whether US and UK academics academic freedom to be found in the literature. Some should boycott Israeli universities, at least those commentators effectively treat academic freedom as

© The author 2015. Open Access under Creative Commons by *Corresponding author: [email protected] Attribution Licence. Use, distribution and reproduction are un - restricted. Authors and original publication must be credited. Publisher: Inter-Research · www.int-res.com 40 Ethics Sci Environ Polit 15: 39–47, 2015

equivalent to free speech: the freedom of academics As a result of increasing criticism of the concept of and students to speak out on public issues, without professionalism, and of changing economic and polit- attempts to prevent this and without their being ical circumstances, in the UK and other Western soci- penalized for doing so. This relates to public state- eties many occupations claiming professional status ments as well as to the presentation of personal views have been subject to encroachment on their auton- in the course of teaching sessions, or in research pub- omy, especially where they formed part of the public lications. For example, in the UK, an influential defi- sector. New forms of public management have been nition of the term was provided in an amendment to imposed, managerialist in character, designed to the Education Bill of 1988, as part of an attempt to establish ‘transparent’ accountability regimes which ward off the damaging effects on universities of this require members continually to demonstrate that piece of proposed government legislation (which was what they do is effective and efficient (Pollitt 1990, eventually passed in modified form). This definition Power 1999, Ward 2012). claimed for academics: These changes have affected universities, with sig- nificant consequences for academic freedom. There …the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and have been 2 relevant areas of change that are closely controversial or unpopular opinions without placing interrelated: the relationship between universities themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges and governments or other sources of funding; and they may have at their institutions (Russell 1993, p. 1−2). the relative autonomy of faculties, departments, research groups and, above all, individual academics By contrast, other writers interpret academic free- within universities. I will look at each of these aspects dom to refer to a form of professional autonomy, relat- in turn. ing to university academics as an occupational group. Thus, Haskell (1996, p. 54) declared that ‘…the heart and soul of academic freedom lie not in free speech THE AUTONOMY OF UNIVERSITIES but in professional autonomy and collegial self-gover- nance’. Here, the main emphasis tends to be on the In the UK, as well as elsewhere, the history of the need for considerable autonomy in the spheres of relationship between universities and the state is research and teaching (Post 2006, Fish 2014). complex and changing (see Russell 1993, Collini For the most part, here I will adopt the second of 2012). However, in general in the past, universities these 2 conceptions of academic freedom, since it is operated under arrangements where, despite broad in these terms that the most significant changes have constraints and periods when there were major inter- taken place in the UK. From this point of view, the ventions, they were able to exercise considerable term refers primarily to the discretion that academics autonomy from religious, commercial and govern- must be able to exercise in order to do their work mental pressures. Even where they were religious well, in relation to both teaching and research. It par- foundations, much of the time there was considerable allels the discretion that other professions also need, scope for unorthodox views. Where they were private and are able to exercise to one degree or another (see foundations, they were not usually run ‘for profit’. Shils 1997). Of course, ‘profession’ has also become a And, even though they often served a vocational contested concept, one that has increasingly been function, this was usually framed as a matter of pro- rejected or redefined. Interestingly, in the second viding a liberal education. This was characteristic of half of the 20th century, criticism of the notion of pro- ancient foundations like Oxford, Cambridge, and fessionalism came from both Right and Left, and from Aberdeen, but it was also true of the universities both economists and sociologists: it was portrayed as founded in the 19th and early 20th centuries. More- little more than an ideology designed to exert illegit- over, this idea of university autonomy continued to imate control over clients, thereby restricting market be influential even after university funds started to competition and blocking democratic accountability come primarily from central government (Russell (Larson 1977, Freidson 1983, Broadbent et al. 1997). 1993). Furthermore, there are respects in which the position Nevertheless, we can trace a trend even from the of academics does not match the traditional model of 1950s away from this model of what might be called a profession, which in its original form involved com- patronage funding towards an investment model, mercial independence of individual practitioners, or although it gathered pace considerably in the 1980s. at least of the practices in which they engage, in sup- This change had 2 aspects, with government seeking plying a service to a specific clientele. to play a more interventionist role in relation to the Traianou: Erosion of academic freedom in the UK 41

organization and practice of universities, and at the (1979−1990) into a remorseless pursuit of ‘efficiency’, same time encouraging universities to operate more aimed at a steady reduction in the costs per student. in the manner of commercial enterprises, responding At the same time, there was also a change in polit- to new demands and opportunities, and securing ical attitude towards government funding of the pub- external funds so as to reduce the proportion of their lic sector, including the universities. This can be finance coming from taxation. These changes partly characterized as a move towards treating education stemmed from the growing size of the university sec- as an investment in human capital, requiring it to tor and the considerable demands that it placed upon display economic returns. Thus, the 1988 Education public finances, but it also resulted from periods of Act introduced a ‘vast new machinery designed to economic austerity, and from important ideological make universities more “accountable” for the public and political changes in the UK (Jones 2015). money they received’ (Russell 1993, p. 7). The Act A significant early political development was the also abolished academic tenure, with the idea that Report of the Robbins Committee on Higher Educa- this would open up the way for rationalization within tion of 1963, which recommended the expansion of universities, including the closure of some depart- higher education. As a result, in the 1960s and 1970s, ments, to increase efficiency. This led to considerable higher education expanded rapidly, being trans- opposition. For example, in 1981, vice chancellors formed from an ‘elite’ into a ‘mass’ system that was joined demonstrations against cuts to university highly diversified. At one end of the spectrum were a funding, and in 1985, the Congregation of Oxford small number of universities, including Oxford and University refused to grant the then Prime Minister, Cambridge with their longstanding connections to Margaret Thatcher, an honorary degree (see http:// the system of private schooling (Scott 1995). At the news.bbc. co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/ other end, after the abolition of the distinction 29/ newsid_2506000/2506019.stm). between universities and polytechnics through the Thus, UK Government increasingly began to view Further and Higher Education Act of 1992, there the purpose of higher education in economic terms, emerged a considerable body of lower-status univer- i.e. that it should be directed towards meeting the sities that struggled to improve their reputations and needs of the economy. As a result, since the early funding in relation to the ‘redbrick’ universities 1980s the state has increasingly been involved in established earlier in the 20th century, and the newer shaping the character of universities, with this aim in ones of the 1960s whose establishment had been mind. Furthermore, these trends were strengthened stimulated directly by Robbins (1966). Undergradu- during the subsequent years of New Labour govern- ate student numbers within most universities also ment (1994−2010). Policies were framed in terms of grew considerably over the course of the second half the demands of globalization and the shift to a of the 20th century, from 111 111 in the 1960s to ‘knowledge economy’, which required an upgrading 1 803 840 in 2012/13 (Higher Education Statistics of the knowledge and skills of a large proportion of Agency: www.hesa. ac. uk/ stats). the population. This led to further increases in the From the 1970s onwards, there was also a signifi- number of students going to university, with the cant shift in the approach of Government towards target being set at a 50% participation rate. universities. Even though he was an economist, Rob- Like the Conservatives, New Labour argued that bins had seen the role of university education in the state could not bear the entire costs of the social and cultural, as well as economic, terms. Uni- expanded system. As a result, there was pressure for versities should teach skills, but also produce ‘culti- university researchers to build close relationships vated men and women’, promote the ‘advancement with industry and thereby secure greater private of learning’ and foster ‘common standards of citizen- funding. In addition, fees for students from outside ship’ (Robbins 1966, p. 6−7). However, emphasis in - the European Union were greatly increased. Later, creasingly came to be placed upon the economic even more consequentially, it was decided that UK function of universities. The oil crises of 1973 and students should now be charged tuition fees, with a 1979 prompted significant cuts in university funding, student loans scheme set up to facilitate this. From as in other parts of the public sector. The result was this point onwards, students were increasingly posi- that in the 1970s, the value of grants to students fell tioned as ‘customers’, whose satisfaction must be by 10%, as did the purchasing power of academics’ maximized. Competition amongst universities was salaries (Radice 2013, see also Shattock & Berdahl encouraged. The establishment of the National Stu- 1984, Sizer 1987). The economic austerity propelled dent Survey in 2005 designed to measure ‘student the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher satisfaction’ (see www.thestudentsurvey.com/), the 42 Ethics Sci Environ Polit 15: 39–47, 2015

annual publication of league tables, across both Thus, over the past 30 yr, public sector expenditure teaching and research, was indicative of the compet- has increasingly been conceptualised in economic itive climate that developed. At the same time, there terms. Education has come to be viewed as an was also increased governmental control, for exam- ‘investment’ in which a ‘return’ should be expected ple through the development of Quality Assurance and should be demonstrable. This has had dramatic procedures (see www.qaa.ac.uk/en). consequences for universities. There has been When tuition fees for home students were intro- increased government intervention, reducing their duced in 1998, institutions were allowed to charge up autonomy. Holmwood (2010, p. 640−641) explained to £1000. In 2004 this maximum was increased to that the changes introduced into the UK higher edu- £3000. Then in 2010, in the aftermath of the 2008 cation system are associated with neo-liberal forms of economic crisis, the Coalition Government increased governance which ‘seek to manage public activities the cap on fees to £9000. Alongside this, government by finding proxies for market mechanisms’. It is funding for the teaching of arts, humanities and assumed that market forces guarantee ‘efficiency’ social sciences undergraduate degrees was with- and that setting up systems that mimic these is essen- drawn. In addition, the way was opened up legally tial to maximize the return on public investment. On for the entry into the system of private-for-profit col- the teaching side, the principle of free higher educa- leges, and these have proliferated in the past 5 yr, tion has been abolished. This has led to the increased increasing commercial pressures on conventional commercialization of universities: they have come to universities (McGettigan 2013, 2014). be driven by competition with one another for stu- Unlike in the 1980s, when Vice-Chancellors op- dents, and are seen primarily as representing a com- posed government intervention over the funding of petitive hierarchy in terms of how successful they are the higher education system, those in post during in producing graduates for high-level occupational these more recent changes adopted a ‘pragmatic’ positions. As regards research, there has been a sig- stance and, in effect, provided very little resistance to nificant shift towards non-governmental funding, the new funding system. Most have argued that and the funding available from government has accepting these changes is necessary or even benefi- increasingly been targeted in areas that are believed cial. For example, the view of Sir Steve Smith, Presi- to be national priorities. dent of Universities UK, was that: This restructuring of the relationship between gov- This is a radical shift that is driven by a clear political ernment and universities was transformative: it com- aim: to introduce more market incentives into the sys- bined increased regulation with marketization. The tem. Those market drivers mean that universities have effect has been a reduction in the autonomy of uni- to be clear about what we offer: that is, a high-quality product, provision of skills and experiences that will versities from governments and other sources of directly benefit the student, and adding real value to funding, and increased commercial pressures. This them as individuals as they go through life (Smith 2011, has had a significant effect on the internal organiza- p. 135). tion of universities, and thereby on the autonomy of Equally important have been changes in the poli- academics. cies of external funding bodies, notably the Eco- nomic and Social Research Council (ESRC), one of the 7 UK research councils which dispenses public THE AUTONOMY OF ACADEMICS WITHIN funds for research. There has been a shift towards a UNIVERSITIES much more interventionist approach, both in priori- tizing research topics and in relation to the organiza- There is no automatic correspondence between the tion of postgraduate research training. As a result, a autonomy of universities and the autonomy of aca- growing proportion of funding is now provided demics: conceivably, universities could operate as through invitations requiring researchers to compete autonomous organizations yet allow academics little for funds to investigate specified topics, as opposed discretion in doing their work. Indeed, where univer- to the earlier emphasis on a responsive funding sity autonomy takes a commercial form, this is very model where researchers decide which topics are likely to be at odds with the autonomy of individual worth investigating and are viable. Moreover, there academics. Yet, historically, there has been a close is increasing pressure from ESRC for research to be connection between these 2 aspects of academic directed towards practical application by external freedom, and they have often been seen as mutually users. This is part of a broader demand that re- beneficial. Erosion of the traditional form of uni - searchers maximize the ‘impact’ of their work. versity autonomy, outlined above, has significantly Traianou: Erosion of academic freedom in the UK 43

affected the conditions in which individual academ- are usually key members of Senior Management ics work. Teams. Thus, at the highest level of the organization, Broadly speaking, the result has been a shift from the service functions of Planning, Estates, Finance internal organization of universities on a broadly col- and Human Resources are likely to be represented as legial model towards a managerial mode of opera- well as the academic functions. There have also been tion. In 1992, reporting on the changes occurring internal re-organizations in many universities result- then, Tapper & Salter (1992, p. 11) noted how previ- ing in larger academic units, often with a view to ously university autonomy and academic freedom achieving ‘economies of scale’ in infrastructure costs. had been seen as ‘an essential pre-condition for the Within the new internal accounting systems, these disinterested search for knowledge and for the units are subject to performance targets, outcome preservation of those values on which a civilized measures and audit mechanisms, providing a sup- society depends’. More recently, what they are seen posedly transparent form of governance parallel to to protect is the production and dissemination of a those in other publicly funded institutions and in distinctive kind of knowledge, with this contributing commercial companies (see Power 1999, Strathern to the quality of discussion in the public sphere (Post 2000). 2006). Middlehurst (2004, p. 260) outlined the pre - In these ways, the older collegial system of profes- viously prevailing form of collegial organization, as sorial organization has been replaced by a manage- follows: rial hierarchy based upon functional control. This has the model of internal governance […] was one in which led to increased centralization and a reduction in the academic authority was supreme, expressed opera- autonomy of faculties, departments and individual tionally in terms of management and decision-making academics. It has been noted that, in making these through committees, with senior academics chairing the changes, ‘universities are not adapting to the re - committees. The purpose of the committees was to achieve consensus about the direction and functioning quirements of effective knowledge production as of the institution across the range of different academic judged by some “intrinsic” standard… but to the interests, and to maintain this over time. Thus commit- policies and practices of the particular form of fund- tees needed to represent the range of disciplines and ing of higher education. In the name of becoming academic functions, to have overlapping membership so as to co-ordinate across functions and to have a turn- more efficient and flexible organisations, universities over of office-holders. The aim was for procedures to be have become more centralized — evident in the orderly, judgements to be carefully weighted and broad replacement of Senate by Executive Boards — and consultation to be undertaken. bureaucratic, in order to direct the university’s activ- From the mid-1980s onwards, there were increas- ities to meeting a few, simplified proxy targets’ ing efforts by government to bring business manage- (Holmwood 2010, p. 641). ment structures and decision-making processes into These changes parallel similar developments relat- higher education, with a move towards stronger cen- ing to other professions, and the organizations in tral executive management (see Middlehurst & Ken- which they work. In particular, the National Health nie 1995). As already noted, the new model was close Service in the UK has changed from being run by to what has been referred to as ‘the new public man- doctors, effectively, to being under the control of agement’, or managerialism (McNay 1995, Pollitt managers working more or less directly under poli- 2003, Ward 2012). cies laid down by the Department of Health. As a A key change in universities has been a strength- result, the work of doctors has become much more ening of the role of Vice Chancellor, which is now constrained than it was in the past. Much the same is being seen as equivalent to the Chief Executive of a true of other professions operating within the public multi-million pound business, whose task is to lead sector. strategic change. This has resulted in significant The internal organizational changes within univer- modifications to recruitment processes, including sities have affected both teaching and research, sometimes recruitment from outside the academic imposing de facto significant constraints on academic sector. The roles of Deputy and Pro-Vice Chancellors freedom. In the past, what courses were to be taught have also become more significant, becoming full- was decided by departments, and largely in terms of time appointments, with incumbents leading mana- what was thought to be important in disciplinary gerial teams responsible not just for teaching and terms and in light of the specialist research areas of research but also for external relations and commu- members of the department. Today, however, deci- nity engagement, ‘knowledge transfer’, etc. Further- sions about the curriculum are more centralized, at more, directors of finance and of human resources the Faculty level and sometimes even higher up the 44 Ethics Sci Environ Polit 15: 39–47, 2015

managerial hierarchy, and are strongly determined which takes place every 6 yr in order to determine the by concerns about financial return, particularly the allocation of research funds among universities in the numbers of students likely to be attracted and their UK, purportedly assessing the ‘quality’ of the retention. A striking example of the effects of this research produced, see www.ref.ac.uk/). One result was the decision taken by Middlesex University in of this is that research is increasingly being geared 2010 to close its Philosophy department, in order ‘to entirely towards obtaining external funds and pro- concentrate its resources in areas where a better ducing sufficient ‘outputs’ of the right kind for REF. return is available’ (Wolff 2010; see also McGettigan As a consequence, many academics are pushed to- 2013). As noted earlier, the marketization of under- wards relatively mediocre activity that will allow graduate courses has been accompanied by a view of them to obtain funds and produce the necessary pub- students as ‘customers’, concerned primarily with lications within the assessment period, rather than their future employment and choosing courses which engaging in longer-term projects whose products will secure this. Partly as a result of this change, with might be of more value: ‘REF scores increasingly many parents playing an increased role in funding drives what is researched, how it is funded and where their children’s education, students are also seen as it is published’ (Sayer 2014a; see also Sayer 2014b). vulnerable, as in need of protection by the govern- Another aspect of strategic management of re search ment. Hayes (2009, p. 142) described this as the has been the growth of ethical regulation within uni- ‘infantilization of young people’: versities (see Hammersley & Traianou 2011, 2012). In the UK, this is largely a result of ESRC’s Research They are treated as if they were still in the primary school. They are welcomed with their parents, they are Ethics Framework (2005) and Framework for Research recommended counseling courses to help them in the Ethics (2010), which de mand that most, if not all, re- transition from school, courses in coping with stress and search proposals be subject to vetting procedures be- examinations. They face not challenging ideas but an fore they can be funded. Ethical regulation of this kind army of ‘support services’ all re-enforcing institutional − extending beyond the codes of professional associa- and subjective perceptions of vulnerability. tions to the exercise of control by institutional ethics In this distorted version of university education it is committees over what research can be carried out − seen as incumbent on academic staff to develop a began in the field of health but has spread into other curriculum suited to the ‘needs’ of students for secur- areas of inquiry. This is a development that has partic- ing the jobs which they aspire to, as well as satisfying ularly sharp consequences for social research, espe- them, their parents and the government that value cially qualitative inquiry, because the medical model for money is being supplied (see Scott 1987, Holm- on which regulatory guidelines and arrangements are wood 2011). based is often at odds with its character. In effect, The changes in the internal organization of univer- ethics committees not only judge whether a proposed sities have also effectively devolved financial risks to research project is ethical, but also whether it is worth- the level of academic departments and individuals. while, and whether the methods adopted are likely to This has created a climate in which both insecurity of produce valid conclusions. This frequently involves an employment and intensification of work increased: exaggerated assessment of the ethical risks involved by 2009, 34% of British academics worked on tempo- in most social research, and it seriously infringes the rary contracts of one kind or another (Jones 2015). professional autonomy of researchers, to the detriment Their work and that of those on more permanent con- of the pursuit of research. In practical terms, it threat- tracts is monitored, assessed and controlled. One ens to prevent particular sorts of investigation, and example of this is the costing methodology known as tends to distort others, thereby shrinking academic Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC), which freedom and reducing the quality of the knowledge purports to show the distribution of academics’ activ- that social science can provide (Hammersley 2009). ity across teaching, research and other tasks, and therefore how much each costs. McGettigan (2013, p. 186) suggested that this means that academics are CONCLUSION now treated as ‘frontline delivery staff, an overhead to be reduced’. I began by noting that academic freedom is a con- Paralleling this, there are increasing attempts tested concept, and that there are at least 2 rather dif- strategically to manage research, to boost the attrac- ferent senses that can be given to the term. I have tion of external funds and performance in the Re- treated it as referring primarily to the autonomy that search Excellence Framework (REF, an exercise academics need if they are to do their work well, an Traianou: Erosion of academic freedom in the UK 45

analogy to what is required in similar professional or if they are in line with the purposes of some in- occupations. In these terms, there are 2 key aspects terest group whose work falls under a relevant pol- of academic freedom: the degree of autonomy that icy umbrella, so that assisting them can be labeled universities have from governments and other ‘community engagement’. sources of funding; and the degree of independence However, in other ways there has been a reduction that academics have within universities. Using this in this kind of academic freedom too, notably where framework, I have explored trends in the UK that an academic expresses views publicly that are criti- have reduced academic freedom. We saw how from cal of her or his own institution or of some other pow- the 1980s onwards government has sought increas- erful institution or group. University authorities are ingly to intervene in higher education, on the basis of frequently less tolerant of these sorts of criticism than an investment model of the function of universities as previously, and much more sensitive to external serving the economy, seeking to measure and maxi- reactions that may affect a university’s public reputa- mize the returns on public investment. Equally tion, and thereby its capacity to attract research important, in an attempt both to reduce the relative funds and students. cost of universities to public finances and to increase Another threat to academic freedom of this kind their efficiency, measures have been introduced to stems from rising concern with the ‘war on terror’ marketize the higher education sector. Among the since 9/11 (Doumani 2006, Gerstmann & Streb 2008, most important aspects of this process of marketiza- O’Neil 2008, Scott 2014). In the UK, especially, seri- tion is the introduction of student fees, with the effect ous threats to the principle of free speech have arisen of turning students and their families into customers from the efforts of successive governments to stem whom universities must satisfy. the radicalization of Muslim youth. In particular, These external changes have stimulated internal since 2001, universities are increasingly seen not as changes within universities, encouraged by govern- places in which the vigorous debate should be ment, which have shifted universities increasingly encouraged but as places where there is a threat of away from collegial modes of organization towards extremists gaining a platform and brainwashing sus- more managerial ones, involving more central con- ceptible students into joining radical groups. This has trol, more setting of targets and monitoring of aca- led to demands that speakers at events held on uni- demics’ work. While unlikely to be successful even in versity premises be carefully vetted. It has also led to their own terms, these changes have nonetheless sig- requirements that universities check on the employ- nificantly reduced academic freedom, in terms of the ability status of external examiners, and closely mon- degree of control that academics have over what itor the whereabouts and activities of international work they do and how they do it, both individually students. In 2014, these demands were intensified. and as members of departments. All this has been Under a new terrorist bill, developed by the Coalition done, of course, in the name of ensuring that univer- government, there was to be a legal duty for univer- sities serve the public and their students; but it is at sities to ban radical speakers and to follow the ‘guid- odds with traditional views of how research can best ance’ issued by the Home Office for identifying such be pursued and what a good university education speakers on campuses. If they failed to follow it, the involves, and thereby with previous ideas about the government would issue universities with ‘direc- public contribution that universities can make. tions’. Commenting on the proposed new bill, Scott I want to conclude by reflecting on what has hap- (2014) wrote ‘There is no confidence that, in the pened in the UK from the point of view of the other battle of ideas, values of openness, tolerance and lib- conception of academic freedom I mentioned at the erty — those much lauded “British” values — will tri- start, which focuses on the freedom that academics umph, so we must be closed, intolerant and authori- and students have to express their views. There is a tarian (rather like the extremists we seek to oppose?)’ mixed picture here. The developments outlined in (www.theguardian. com/education/ 2014/ dec/ 02/ anti- this paper have led to more scope for students to terror-measures-make-us-extremists, ac cessed 11/ 12/ express opinions about their courses and their teach- 2014). In February 2015, and as a result of a success- ers, both through formal procedures and feedback ful campaign organized by a large number of UK devices, and informally for example on internet sites. academics, the Government was forced to exempt There is also scope for academics to express their universities from this legal obligation. views in public and to campaign on policy issues, These developments can also affect what academ- especially if these conform to, or can be made to ics do in their research and teaching, for example by correspond with, government or university policies, increasing the risks associated with particular topics. 46 Ethics Sci Environ Polit 15: 39–47, 2015

One example is the University of Nottingham calling future of academic freedom. University of Chicago Press, in the police because a member of staff had down- Chicago, IL, p 43–91 Hayes D (2009) Academic freedom and the diminished loaded the al-Qaeda Training Manual, something subject. Br J Educ Stud 57:127−145 freely available on the Internet and on US govern- Holmwood J (2010) Sociology’s misfortune: disciplines, ment web sites (Nilsen et al. 2008). Such incidents interdisciplinarity and the impact of audit culture. Br J are sure to increase, and the effect may be to dis- Sociol 61: 639−658 Holmwood J (ed) (2011) A manifesto for the public univer- suade academics from dealing with sensitive topics, sity. Bloomsbury, London to the detriment of their work. Jones K (2015) Education in Britain, 2nd edn. Polity Press, I have shown in this paper that in the UK academic London freedom has become much more constrained. Unfor- Larson MS (1977) The rise of professionalism: a sociolo - tunately, it seems likely that many of the trends dis- gical analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA cussed are set to continue, threatening the quality of McGettigan A (2013) The great university gamble. Pluto- the work that is done in universities and the contribu- Press, London tion of university education to a free society. McGettigan A (2014) Uncontrolled expansion: how pri- vate colleges grew. www.timeshighereducation. co. uk/ features/uncontrolled-expansion-how-private-colleges- Acknowledgements. I thank the 3 thoughtful referees for grew/2016579.article their comments and suggestions. McNay I (1995) From collegial academy to corporate enter- prise: the changing cultures of universities. In: Schuller T (ed) The changing university? SRHE/Open University LITERATURE CITED Press, Buckingham, p 22–40 Menand L (1996) The limits to academic freedom. In: Arblaster A (1973) Academic freedom. Penguin, Har- Menand L (ed) The future of academic freedom. Chicago mondsworth University Press, Chicago, IL, and London, p 3–20 Arthur J (2006) Faith and secularisation in religious colleges Middlehurst R (2004) Changing internal governance: a dis- and universities. Routledge, London cussion of leadership roles and management structures Broadbent J, Dietrich M, Roberts J (eds) (1997) The end of in UK universities. High Educ Q 58: 258−279 the professions? The restructuring of professional work. Middlehurst R, Kennie T (1995) Leadership and profession- Routledge, London als: comparative frameworks. Tertiary Educ Manag 1: Butler J (2006) Israel/Palestine and the paradoxes of aca- 120−130 demic freedom. Radic Philos 135:8−17. www. egs. edu/ Nilsen AG, Pupavac V, Renz B (2008) The Nottingham Two faculty/judith-butler/articles/israel-palestine-paradoxes- and the War on Terror: Which of us will be next? Times of-academic-freedom/ Higher Education Supplement, 5 June. www.timeshigher Collier D, Hidalgo F, Maciuceanu A (2006) Essentially con- education.co.uk/402258.article tested concepts: debates and applications. J Polit Ideolo- O’Neil RM (2008) Academic freedom in the wired world: gies 11: 211−246 political extremism, corporate power, and the university. Collini S (2012) What are universities for? Penguin, London Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Doumani B (2006) Academic freedom after September 11. Pollitt C (1993) Managerialism and the public services: the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Anglo-American experience. Blackwell, Oxford Fish S (2014) Versions of academic freedom. University of Pollitt C (2003) The essential public manager. Open Univer- Chicago Press, Chicago, IL sity Press, Maidenhead Freidson E (1983). The theory of the professions: the state of Post R (2006) The structure of academic freedom. In: the art. In: Dingwall R, Lewis P (eds) The sociology of the Doumani B (ed) Academic freedom after September 11. professions. Macmillan, London, p 19–37 Zone Books, Brooklyn, NY Gerstmann E, Streb MJ (2008) Academic freedom at the Power M (1999) The audit society: rituals of verification. dawn of a new century: how terrorism, governments and Oxford University Press, Oxford culture wars impact free speech. Stanford University Radice H (2013) How we got here: UK higher education Press, Stanford, CA under neoliberalism. ACME Int E-J Crit 12: 407−418 Goldberg M (2013) What does the American Studies Associ- Robbins Lord (1966) Of academic freedom. Thank-offering ation’s Israel boycott mean for academic freedom? The to Britain fund lectures. Proc Br Acad 52: 45–60 Nation, December 6. www.thenation. com/ blog/ 177499/ Robin C (2014) But for the boycott there will be academic what-does-american-studies-associations-israel-boycott- freedom. http:// coreyrobin. com/2014/ 02/ 06/ but-for-the- mean-academic-freedom# boycott-there-would-be-academic-freedom/ Hammersley M (2009) Against the ethicists: on the evils of Russell C (1993) Academic freedom. Routledge, London ethical regulation. Int J Soc Res Methodol 12:211−225 Sayer D (2014a) Protest for a REFormation. Times Higher Hammersley M, Traianou A (2011) Moralism and research Education Supplement, December 11, p. 38, http:// www. ethics: a Machiavellian perspective. Int J Soc Res timeshighereducation. co. uk/ 11-december-2014/ 2017480. Methodol 14:379−390 article Hammersley M, Traianou A (2012) Qualitative research Sayer D (2014b) Rank hypocrisies: the insult of the REF. ethics: controversies and contexts. Sage, London Sage, London Haskell LT (1996) Judging the rights of academic freedom in Scott P (1995) The meanings of mass higher education. the era of power/knowledge. In: Menand L (ed) The SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham Traianou: Erosion of academic freedom in the UK 47

➤ Scott P (1997) The changing role of the university in the pro- tion in England. In: Holmwood J (ed) A manifesto for the duction of new knowledge. Tertiary Educ Manag 3: 5−14 public university. Bloomsbury, London, p 127–142 Scott P (2014) Anti-terror measures will make us the ex - Strathern M (2000) Accountability and… ethnography. In: tremists we fear. www. theguardian.com/ profile/ peter- Strathern M (ed) Audit cultures: anthropological studies scott in accountability, ethics and the academy. Routledge, ➤ Shattock M, Berdahl R (1984) The University Grants Com- London, p 278–304 mittee 1919−83: changing relationships with govern- Tapper T, Salter B (1992) Oxford, Cambridge and the chang- ment and the universities. High Educ 13:471−499 ing idea of the university: the challenge to donnish Shils E (1997) The calling of education. University of dominion. SRHE/Open University Press, Buckingham Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Ward CS (2012) Neoliberalism and the global restructuring Sizer J (1987) Institutional responses to financial reductions of knowledge and education. Routledge, London in the university sector. Final Report to the DES. DES, Wolff J (2010) Why is the Middlesex University philosophy London department closing? www. theguardian.com/ education/ Smith S (2011) Afterword: a positive future for higher educa- 2010/may/17/philosophy-closure-middle sex-university

Editorial responsibility: Konstantinos Stergiou, Submitted: December 17, 2014; Accepted: March 3, 2015 Thessaloniki, Greece Proofs received from author(s): May 8, 2015