Leader: The International Association of Universities (IAU)

Drafted by: Guy Neave

Director of Research, IAU

. Education International (EI)

. Fédération Internationale Syndicale des Enseignants (FISE)

. International Association of University Professors and Lecturers (IAUPL)

. International Union of Students (IUS)

. World University Service (WUS)

Academic Freedom and University Autonomy are seen as prior conditions for the optimal fulfilment of these and other responsibilities which society confers upon the university. Such prior conditions may apply to the academic community alone. They may also be seen as part of a broader perspective grounded in Human Rights.  

A third perspective, which is more functional and utilitarian argues the case for university autonomy on the grounds that here too it is a condition necessary if higher education is to be part of a ‘risk taking society’. Universities need the freedom to take risk just as they incur the consequences. 

The discussion focuses on the challenges posed for academic freedom and university autonomy within four key issues: 

University Autonomy and Accountability.

University Autonomy and Stakeholders.

Academic Freedom; Ethical Implications and Civic Responsibilities.

Academic Freedom and Entrepreneurial Activities.

The contemporary university, like the communities in which it is embedded, is in the midst of massive change. Such change is propelled forward by two central trends. These are acceleration in the pace of change itself and the globalisation of the economy and of technology.

The general acceleration of change is not merely a determinant of both individual and social progress. It also confers upon the production and dissemination of knowledge a key function in shaping the place of Nations in the international order, just as it largely determines the place and status of the individual in society. These developments, viewed from the perspective of the university community, place upon it an increasingly heavy responsibility both to provide training and research, investigation and advice as well as such services as consultancies, technology transfer and continuing education.

Over the past quarter century, the forces of modernisation have drawn heavily upon higher education. They have also contributed in no small way to profound and often radical transformations in that community itself. The drive to mass higher education in the advanced economies and the very substantial growth in the numbers of institutions and of students in the less advanced economies of the world, both testify to this process. Nor is this dynamic likely to be any the less vigorous over the coming decade and beyond. The emergence of what has often been called "the Learning Society" amongst advanced technology economies, effectively the establishment of life long learning with its concomitant of knowledge updating and renewal for individuals, promises to be no less challenging in creating new expectations and demands amongst those who are likely to need - and make use of - such services and provision.

Growth of demand for higher education over the past quarter century and the distinct likelihood of its continuation well beyond the foreseeable future have, however, to be placed against a number of limitations, not least in the public sector, that of finance. Resource constraint limits the ability of higher education to meet current expectations with the quality often held to be necessary. Thus, in many countries, the credibility and standing of universities are increasingly subject to question.

One of the most pressing challenges facing universities today is that of resources - how to increase them; to diversify their provenance, to improve both their internal allocation and management and finally, how to meet the responsibilities society places upon universities whilst maintaining the recognised tradition of autonomy and disinterested service.

Nevertheless, the accelerating pace of change contains enormous potential for development just as it presents formidable challenges. It requires universities to embark upon considerable investment in adaptation, innovation, in developing sensitive and sophisticated systems and methods of management, in the definition and execution of the various alternatives which lie before them. It remains a fact however, that individual universities are far from being equal in the resources they command, in the ability of the student body they can attract or the esteem they enjoy in their communities. And whilst the speeding up of change and the demand by society that it be speedily accommodated are the watchwords of the hour, it does not follow that individual universities uniformly possess the same capacity to meet these exhortations. The possibility cannot be ruled out then that though the strong and those at the 'cutting edge' remain so, the weak may well be undermined yet further.

The second factor which is in process of reshaping the landscape of higher education across the world, is the globalisation of economic and financial exchange and the international nature of technology. One may confidently predict that this factor will continue to operate and with increasing weight in the affairs and priorities of higher learning. For all systems of higher education, globalisation opens up the prospect of a higher level of interdependence across national frontiers than has been usual in the recent past.

There are many reasons why this should be so and equally there are many which call for universities to make the effort to be part of this new dimension. Increasingly, the conduct of research in domains directly linked to technology, biotechnology and medicine is characterised by sustained international cooperation. And judging the quality of research projects has long been subject to international peer review. The growth of the international dimension has been especially noteworthy at higher levels of training, particularly at graduate level. One thinks here of the tentacular expansion of MBA programmes as a specific instance within this broader phenomenon. Universities that lack entrepreneurial impulse and most especially in the area of economics and technology development, are not destined to flourish.

The globalisation of the economy and the international flow of technology are not the only driving forces which bear down on the development of higher education. Equally potent are cultural, social and political differences which identify nations, peoples and communities and thus universities themselves. The coexistence of finance, economy

and technology which drive towards integration alongside the enduring presence of cultural differences, political and historic specificities and variety in systems of belief which seek to uphold their particular nature, makes for powerful tensions, and most certainly so when upholding such particular features often tends to involve denying the freedom of others to exercise similar rights or by threatening them with subjugation.

Universities lie athwart these two worlds. They are subject to the tensions which each separately generates. They are also subject to the tensions that arise when the international appears to be in conflict with other, more rooted, notions of identity and belief. If the path to innovation and a healthy dynamism lies in an arena, increasingly international, in which disciplines and institutions compete for repute, recognition and excellence, it has also to be recognised that the university is founded within particular cultures and embedded in a specific society.

The university serves as handmaiden to the burgeoning internationalisation of scholarly communication, of knowledge in general and of knowledge that applies to commerce between the Nations. But it is also the child of the cultures in which it is set. Its responsibilities also lie in protecting and advancing local cultural, intellectual and scholarly traditions.

Viewed from a world perspective, the major and constant challenge which the university faces from now on, is to uphold a judicious balance between the pressure for change which comes from the process of technical development qua globalisation and the tensions created within civic society as a result of the impact of economic and technological change upon the social fabric. It is a delicate task and one ever renewed. It stands as an additional responsibility incumbent upon the university precisely because the university is both the agent and the recipient of economic and technological change. But, such a task is no less delicate for the fact that it comes over and above such well-recognised obligations as acting as a vehicle of understanding between different cultures and communities and for rectifying, where possible, the social imbalances which result from poverty, exclusion and conflict. 

So that the University may fully assume - and carry out - the responsibilities which Society lays upon it, the University as an institution of scholarship and its academic staff individually need to be granted certain conditions of work held to be necessary for such responsibilities to be optimally fulfilled. These terms are contained in the two concepts of University Autonomy and Academic Freedom. The former relates to institutional self government. The latter relates to the individual members of academic staff. And, in respect of the freedom to choose what they will study, extends also to students. These conditions vary in their operational detail, in the degree to which they are applied in different countries and within countries, to different types of institution within the national system of higher education.

Nevertheless, the generic feature which distinguishes the University from training, from compulsory schooling and post compulsory institutes of education is the freedom to learn for students (Lernfreiheit) and the freedom to teach for academic staff (Lehrfreiheit). By extension, the freedom to teach is held to encompass the obligation upon academic staff to contribute through enquiry and research to the advance of fundamental knowledge which shapes the particular area of study to which they are individually committed. (Wissenschaftsfreiheit) Since the time of the Humboldtian reforms of the university and its derivatives, this basic mission has been part of the university's corporate responsibility, often described as the "search after Truth".

There are many ways of viewing academic freedom: as a functional condition which allows the University to fulfil its responsibilities to society; as a philosophic proposition and as a moral imperative. Is a professional ethic different from academic freedom? Not all those engaged in the academic community enjoy the same degree of academic freedom. Nor does it follow necessarily that academic freedom can - or should - be extended beyond academia. There is a view which argues it should be confined to those places and circumstances where it may be practised. This distinction is an exclusive one. It denies the notion that academic freedom leads on to the general right of Freedom of expression and to the general 'right to know'.

Thus, the usual view of academic freedom is that, by definition, it applies to the academic community. Such a view does not go unchallenged by those who view academic freedom as a sub-set of a broader and universal Human Right - that of the freedom of information and expression. This interpretation starts from the premise that academic freedom is a necessary condition for Human Progress. It links academic freedom to the broader issues of social advance in general thereby tying in academic freedom as an element in ensuring one dimension in Human Rights. Knowledge, so this line of argument runs, is NOT finite. On the contrary, progress is shaped by the ability to question, criticise and to enquire. Ensuring progress is one of the responsibilities of academia. It is not, however, exclusive. Since the accumulation of knowledge through enquiry is a condition of Human progress and advance, academic freedom is a condition of that progress. To the extent that progress itself is a Human Right, to that extent academic freedom IS indeed linked with a more general right.  

It has, however, to be recognised that in practice, there are areas of research and enquiry to which this general principle is not extended. Research connected to national defence and sometimes to industrial R&D are cases in point. Thus, the issue of academic freedom should be debated within terms broader than the usual perspective of higher education. In effect, the core freedom which lies beneath academic freedom is the freedom of enquiry and this, also by definition is universal. The latter definition will be discussed as a forward looking perspective to an issue which, in general, has tended to be debated in terms of historical antecedent.

Other arguments justify the exercise of university autonomy less on the grounds of its being an historic 'droit acquis' than on grounds of efficacity and utilitarianism. They draw upon contemporary developments beyond academia and in particular those found in other organisations, one of which is the modern enterprise. One line of argument in particular justifies university autonomy on the grounds that it is a necessary condition if institutions of higher learning are to adapt to "Risk taking".  

A society based on risk-taking requires greater latitude to be accorded to institutions so that the individuals bearing responsibility for their good husbandry, may exercise initiative in meeting the often changing demands society places on higher education. From this point of view, university autonomy, has to contend and find a balance, with other principles which determine its relationship with society, namely, accountability, social responsibility and transparency. Equally important in this regard are the two principles which accompany the notion of the university as a ‘market-driven’ institution: namely, competition and competitiveness. It may be argued that university autonomy - that is the capacity of self-government - is no less a prior condition for universities to determine in what way they may and will respond to competition, whether for students, for resources or for repute. To be in a position to do so, however, it is incumbent on the university to develop techniques of management, administration and self -verification which balance university autonomy with the obligation to be accountable to society, to demonstrate efficiency in fulfilling its mission and transparency in its manner of achieving it. We have therefore to be aware of the elements of change which a closer association with the productive process implies for a less narrowly defined concept of university autonomy than the historic and perhaps traditional interpretation of the university's governing principle.  

Rights confer obligations. Academic freedom and university autonomy naturally imply the obligations to excellence, to innovation and to the advancement of knowledge, the former by individual academics and the latter by the institution. Academic Freedom and University Autonomy have tended to be regarded as a protection vis a vis arbitrary interference and are underwritten by formal legislative enactment or by the State’s recognising the customary practices of the academic community. Though the responsibility of the State is not less central today, current developments whether expressed in terms of economic or administrative rationality - de-regulation’, ‘privatisation’, ‘decentralisation of decision-making" to the individual university or the greater importance attached to regional authorities - imply a more complex relationship with civil society. Today, Academic Freedom and University Autonomy are increasingly tempered by notions of Accountability and ‘responsiveness to external interests’. As this new social contract between university and society takes shape, so the notion of University Autonomy - but not necessarily Academic Freedom - is subject to an increasing conditionality. 

The perspective on which the Round Table will focus are the operational domains, - the real life activities - to which universities must attend and in which society expects demonstrable change and adjustment. There is every need to be vigilant to the short term. It is no less appropriate to examine some of the implications that may arise in the longer term as well.

The assumption underpinning the first of these topics Academic Freedom and University Autonomy - has two elements: first, that for the foreseeable future it is highly unlikely that universities will return to a period of stability. Rather they will continually be faced with an evolving series of demands from different sectors of society and from the economy the more higher education becomes a central element in the latter. The second and in consequence, that for universities simply to "meet" whatever demands society places upon them is neither acceptable nor likely to be judged appropriate. The assumption is then that universities ought to be "pro active" or, put in other terms, that they are prepared to take the risk of seeing ways of anticipating and taking the initiative in meeting society’s demands.

The second topic, the Globalisation of Economic Financial and Technological Exchange - may equally be seen as an "anticipated constant" in the life of higher learning in the 21st century. Today Universities stand on the threshold of society’s realising that idea to which higher education has long subscribed - that is, the global transmission of knowledge. Globalsiation poses many issues, not least of which is he ending of that historic monopoly over the transmission and production of higher education universities enjoyed almost since their foundation.

But the type of knowledge transmitted, the way it is transmitted and to whom, are not neutral processes. They carry with them values and priorities and thus assumptions about who is to receive what type of knowledge and for what purpose. Even assuming that globalisation does not lessen cultural diversity or undermine both specific knowledge traditions and the communities which have developed them, questions that have been basic within the confines of the Nation-State are becoming yet more pressing when placed in a global setting. We assume that greater access to knowledge beyond the nation’s frontiers will both a accelerate social change and eradicate those inequalities the Nation has not proven able to do. There is, however, the pessimistic thesis which suggests that globalisation merely deepens the gulf between "haves" and "have nots" and that the competitive ethic lends a convenient justification for leaving them aside.

The third area of discussion focuses on four key and specific dimensions in the relationship between higher education and society. Rather than examining the fundamental condition of higher learning from within the university setting as a species of droit acquis, the debate should seek to identify those essential conditions for universities to be able to meet the expectations places upon them. the theme will asses the consequences for academic freedom and university autonomy of the challenges posed by the tensions and expectations society is now beginning to voice. Many of the specific issues raised are not conjunctural. They are structural and strategic. they will remain a constant preoccupation until well on into the 21st century.

As public bodies or as private corporations, universities have long been involved in rendering accounts either to government or to Boards of Trustees representing either the public or the 'owners'. Thus, the right to institutional self government engages the responsibility of university to demonstrate full and formal compliance with the appropriate conditions, laws and procedures. The demand for greater transparency and the press for universities to show their achievements with greater precision have brought the issue of accountability and quality assessment to the centre of higher education policy. Though the tying of institutional budgets to quality targets is far from being universal, it is clear that the extent a university may effectively exercise self government is increasingly dependent on demonstrated efficiency and effectiveness. Autonomy, appears to be explicitly tied to meeting externally set standards.

University autonomy shapes the relationship between government, society and the university. It upholds freedom from arbitrary intervention. Yet the more higher education is driven by a market economy, the greater the number and variety of external interests with which the university will have to deal, seek support and, ultimately, rely upon. The intensification of exchange ange between university and society is a direct consequences of policies of "de-regulation". But it also implies a new commitment, some would say a new moral responsibility towards ccivil society which extends well beyond the issue of financial support. And the greater the weight placed upon the university’s commitment to "community service". New partnerships at local and sub-national regional level certainly follow from the need to diversity support and funding. But the ‘return’ of the university to civil society poses a number of questions about an enhanced and more active role it may play not only in the usual area of ‘services to the community’ and in greater attentiveness to "stakeholders". Such activities are also an act of social solidarity and responsibility by assisting that community to draw up the main priorities for its own development.

3. Academic Freedom: Ethical Implications and Civic Responsibilities.

The search after truth is a fundamental responsibility of science, scholarship and inquiry. There is then a moral obligation of the university to speak truth to power. The truth that power would have the university sustain poses delicate issues, however. If the former engages the collective responsibility of academia as a whole, the latter often raises issues contrary to the personal ethic of individual academics. Technological; biological and medical advance, the development of cross disciplinary fields within them are, potentially fertile ground for tensions between the collective and individual aspects of ethical responsibility. They can pose similar dilemmas for individuals in their capacity as members of the scientific community and their personal ethical convictions as citizens. Such ethical conflicts do not remain within the university. Very often they are the stuff of social and political debate

Freedom to carry out research and the obligation to publish lie at the heart of academic freedom. They constitute at all levels - individual, departmental and institutional - the bedrock on which public recognition of excellence and scholarly achievement, rests. As universities seek to increase external revenue sources, to develop closer links between industry and the university research base and to demonstrate entrepreneurship through setting up science parks, spin-off firms and business ventures, contractual agreements can limit this commitment.

Within the scope of this Round Table discussion, these themes are no less present. The responsibilities society expects the university to assume reflect the changes society itself faces and, in turn, the capacity of the universe to identify, distinguish and prioritise between them in a manner acceptable and beneficial to society. Seen from this angle, "Pertinence" may be defined as the degree of convergence between what society expects and what he university is able to do. This does not mean however, that the university should be reduced to a "service agency", accepting without question and without independent judgement, short term "service-oriented" pressures exerted by ‘the market’. By the same token, "quality" demonstrates to society the extent to which individual institutions are meeting the high standards expected of them. "Management and Financing" constitute the means and procedures by which the individual institution prioritises the expectations society has expressed in the light of the means society provides for their execution. "International Cooperation" stands as the practical arena for competitive excellence to show solidarity with institutions less privileged but equally important in the development of a common global civilisation.

In devising the follow up strategy to the Thematic Debate on Autonomy, Social Responsibility and Academic Freedom, the International Association of Universities sees a main target in engaging in sustained exchange the following groups:

• Institutional Leadership.
• Academic Staff.
• Senior Administration.
• Students.

• National government representatives.
• Regional and municipal authorities.

• Local Community representatives.
• Industry

The need to engage such constituencies and interests in sustained dialogue and interaction beyond the occasion of the World Conference on Higher Education appears as a general requirement for the success of the Conference. It is especially highlighted by the purpose behind the Thematic Debate on "Autonomy, Social Responsibility and Academic Freedom". In our mind, the strategic purpose is to set out a framework of a new Social Contract which reaffirms and re-defines the mutual responsibilities, rights and obligations between the constituent parts of University and Society so that both may meet the challenges of the new Millennium.

Such a strategy will involve operating a major change to the traditional concepts of academic freedom and university autonomy. Rather than as historic privileges, they need to be understood and implemented as basic conditions that enable academia as individuals and universities as institutions to carry out the responsibilities society delegates to both. Thus, follow-up actions should be designed in a manner so as to work towards, and deepen, a common understanding of the mutual obligations involved. An understanding that the University is held to be accountable to Society and to the collective obligation to quality, fairness, tolerance and for the upkeep of standards, academic, administrative and ethical, and that academic freedom and university autonomy are the prior conditions enabling higher education to discharge certain of its responsibilities to Society.

This understanding includes, on the other side, that Society and the various stakeholders, public or private, are under the obligation to refrain from, and prevent arbitrary interference in the way universities discharge their various missions. And that, what Society may reasonably expect higher education to fulfil is closely tied to committing sufficient resources for such expectations to be met. It further involves also a clearer understanding of the different functions that higher education is expected to perform and the necessary division of labour which needs to be operated within the higher education system to enable it to respond in adequate manners to these diverse expectations.

An overall challenge for the follow-up to the World Conference will thus be to set in place the means and conditions that will allow to accommodate, across the different constituencies, a historical, and culturally diverse understanding of the role and missions of higher education in society to the rapidly changing circumstances with which society and higher education are faced. In this, specific sensitivity needs to be developed to the marked changes in the ‘outreach’ of higher education beyond physical frontiers. As, more particularly, Universities are concerned, the overall conditions for them to serve a world Society need to be clarified and agreed upon so as to form a New Social Contract, a common basis for upholding values common to Humanity and meeting the needs and expectations of a world where frontiers are becoming increasingly permeable.

This strategy, self evidently as regards both substantive scope and time scale goes well beyond the World Conference. However, the latter provides a vital occasion for opening a dialogue and developing closer contact amongst those actors, interests and their representatives mentioned above, with a view to moving towards a common understanding on the essential role of higher education within a shared vision of the Society of the future. Necessary efforts will then have to be deployed to sustain this dialogue and to set into movement a process that can eventually lead to an agreed upon formulation of that new Social Contract about role and mission of the University in Society. One instrument to guarantee such a contract could then be the elaboration of an International Charter on Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Social Responsibility, under the auspices of Unesco, as a means of strengthening the principles of excellence, tolerance, pluralism and academic solidarity between institutions of higher learning as too between individual scholars and students.

Already in an earlier document presented to UNESCO and entitled "The Feasibility and Desirability of an International Instrument on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy", the IAU, after extensive consultations amongst its members and other professional and regional associations representing higher education, expressed the argued opinion that such an international agreement appeared both feasible and desirable. More especially, it was held to be particularly appropriate an area of initiative to which UNESCO might provide accrued legitimacy by playing a decisive, federating role, both in the process of negotiations to be opened on this subject among the different partners as too in setting in place an appropriate monitoring mechanism to follow the progress and observation of such an International Charter.