Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by the Observatory of University Ethics on August 1, 2024. It was translated into English by the Observatory before being edited to align with Minding the Campus’s style guidelines. It is crossposted here with permission.
There is a lot of talk these days about “academic freedom,” but it is mostly to say stupid things, which a little common sense and knowledge of the issue should be enough to dispel.
Thus, on May 23, CNRS agents received a union leaflet from the SNTRS-CGT entitled “The CNRS must be the guarantor of scientists’ freedom of public expression.” It states that, “We are increasingly called upon to defend colleagues who are hindered in their research work, because they sign political texts” (in any case, union members are clearly not hindered in their use of inclusive writing.)
[RELATED: Children, New Victims of Woke Delusions]
Hence a first question to the valiant trade unionists of the ESR: in what way, in their eyes, does signing political texts constitute research work? Have they ever made the difference, on the one hand, between scientific research and political commitment and, on the other hand, between the academic context and the context of the public space? And if this difference has never reached their understanding, do they think they really have their place in a research organization?
It also reads: “In a context of unprecedented criminalization of certain political or scientific positions which leads journalists to speak of “French McCarthyism,” we believe that it is essential to care about and collectively defend our freedom of expression and our freedom of commitment, as scientists.”
Hence a second question: have they ever made the distinction between “freedom of expression,” which is granted in principle to every citizen within the limits of the law (“freedom of engagement” is only a matter of the innermost self, and therefore does not need to be subject to any regulation), and “academic freedom,” which only concerns personnel selected to produce and transmit knowledge, to the exclusion of other agents who may be involved in higher education (students, administrative agents) but who do not assume scientific responsibilities there? Are they aware that academic freedom only makes sense for the production and transmission of knowledge, therefore in compliance with the very strict constraints imposed by the rules of scientific rigor and the judgment of peers—and that, consequently, this academic freedom is the very opposite of the freedom to say whatever comes to mind, unlike freedom of expression? Do the authors of this tract have enough common sense to understand that the fact that one is a “scientist” does not imply that our public positions in the press or in the street are in the least bit protected by academic freedom, contrary to what those who would so much like to combine the butter of political commitment with the butter money of functional protection believe?
[RELATED: The ‘Glass Ceiling’ in Research: The Mystery Solved?]
Hence a subsidiary question: do these journalists who cry “McCarthyism” know anything about the definition of academic freedom? How much trust can we have in them? And have they ever thought about the difference between the stranglehold of political power over the scientific world and peer control of the quality of productions from the academic world? Are they capable of telling the difference between a minister and a teacher-researcher? We doubt it—and when in doubt, we should refrain from blindly repeating their nonsense.
This leaflet also refers to a previous leaflet (No. 635) dated March 25, 2024, entitled “Threats to Scientific Freedom and Freedom of Expression in Higher Education and Research,” which contains the same nonsense. It concludes with these words: “The SNTRS-CGT will not be intimidated and will continue to promote freedom of expression and the humanist, emancipatory and anti-colonialist values that the CGT upholds.” Well, let this union defend these magnificent values, which many of us share, but let it defend them in the spheres that concern it—the streets of our cities and the newspapers are there for that—but let it refrain from claiming to govern academic life, the principles and values of which—first and foremost the value of science—remain clearly foreign to it.
Image by Iftikhar alam — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 811249389
“End the Nonsense About Academic Freedom”
The National Association of Scholars is obviously trying to make itself popular in the academic world.
Scholars should try this slogan when interviewing for tenure-track positions.
” Ich bin ein Berliner” — you probably believe that President Kennedy was telling the citizens of West Berlin* that he was a jelly donut, as that is the literal translation of what he said.
Two things are happening in France right now — first, Macron is refusing to continue to increase the largess of higher education, and may actually be cutting the allocation in actual Euros. While I don’t know the credibility of the source, a concise explanation can be found athttps://theeuropetoday.com/2024/03/03/france-cuts-to-research-and-higher-education-budgets-elicit-concerns-from-french-scientists/
Macron and his new (post-election) government is reportedly doing this to address France’s budget deficit amidst a backdrop of diminishing economic growth — and the Left would prefer he instead increase taxes. That’s a political question, not a matter of academic freedom unless one is an economist — and even then it is only a freedom to profess what one believes to be true, not to engage in the political process process implementing it.
Second, Europe (and particularly France) is dealing with a populist revolt against this cultist green insanity. Farmers are a large part of this, but the “yellow vest” protests started with motorists objecting to higher fuel prices and a national 50 MPH speed limit (anyone remember our 55 MPH disaster?).
Again, academic freedom defends the right of the cultists to profess whatever they believe about Goddess Carbon — and my right to profess that they are WRONG — people tend to overlook the latter.
But academic freedom does not offer them any special rights when they engage in the political process — they have the same rights that everyone else does, no less and no more. Academic freedom does NOT include the right to decree public policy and they are now confronted with an angry populace screaming “no mas!”
So let’s look at what was actually written, which I will rephrase into the American dialect.
“…in what way, in their eyes, does signing political texts constitute research work?”
Why do they think that political activism constitutes academic research?
“Have they ever made the difference, on the one hand, between scientific research and political commitment and, on the other hand, between the academic context and the context of the public space?”
Do they understand the difference between legitimate scientific research, which may reach unpopular conclusions — and blockading Interstate Highways?
“And if this difference has never reached their understanding, do they think they really have their place in a research organization?”
Enough said?
This is all coming to America as of next week. I have it on good authority that 47 is going to listen to what I and others have been saying about whales for some time now, and ban offshore windmills to protect them. Natural gas is going to replace pixie dust and unicorn flatulance as an energy source and pipelines WILL BE built through states that don’t want them so as to reach the states that do. (It’s called “Interstate Commerce” for a reason…)
The Federal largess that higher ed has enjoyed for the past 50 years is going to dramatically decline. We don’t have the number of 18-year-olds we once did (France doesn’t either) and we don’t need all the purported “research” being produced.
And as to interviewing for tenure-track positions, tell them you are planning to organize general strikes and tell me how that goes…
—
* The final words of JFK’s speech were:
““Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was ‘Civis Romanus sum [I am a Roman citizen].’ Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is ‘Ich bin ein Berliner.’
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner.”
For those too young to remember it, the “Four Powers” that won WWII (US, UK, France, & USSR) were each given an “occupation zone” portion of Berlin at the end of WWII. Berlin itself was 90 miles inside the Soviet occupation zone of Germany. The US, UK, & France had united their sectors to form the country of West Germany and then the City of West Berlin. The Soviets then built the Berlin Wall which came down one glorious night in 1991, but as that was 35 years ago, it needs explaining.
Kennedy was saying “I am with you”, not that “I am a jelly donut” and everyone there, living under the Soviet menace, knew exactly what he meant. Look up “Berlin Airlift” if you don’t understand the nature of the Soviet menance….
Well, whatever Trump and his bunch will turn out to be, let’s hope that they don’t decide to follow France and the other European powers into decline.
Actually Jonathan, following Europe “into the decline” is the only thing that will save higher education.
Considering the current slogan for all faculty hires in their gun-to-the-head, forced diversity statements is “All Jews must DEI!” we can only go up from here.
I again ask: Exactly what part of “Kill the Jews” do American Jews not understand?
Academic freedom has been used by leftists to justify faculty for saying hideous things and getting away with it—even if the comments are outside one’s academic field of study. It is the bludgeon used to justify anything said. For that reason, it is nonsense.
If you want to restore it to the level it once held, simply demand that it applies only in one’s field of study. If you’re a mathematician, you should not be allowed to write an article advocating say late-term abortion and then claim “academic freedom” allows you to do so. First amendment, yes. Academic freedom, no.
The left taints everything it touches by redefining terms.
Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit — the latter being the freedom of the learner.
Higher ed has forgotten that.
“CNRS agents received a union leaflet from the SNTRS-CGT entitled “The CNRS must be the guarantor of scientists’ freedom of public expression.”
CNRS is the French National Centre for Scientific Research — a French government research organization and is the largest fundamental science agency in Europe.
SNTRS is the Union of Scientific Research Workers, a trade union.
This is where context becomes important, including the fact that this article was written shortly after France’s National Elections, the outcome of which I’m not going to try to explain beyondsaying that CNN says that the Right has more influence than it did.
Hence this SNTRS-CGT (union?) posting, clearly poorly translated into English, becomes quite interesting.
I’m not going to pretend I understand what it means beyond the clearly-stated job concerns, and wonder why such concerns exist?
“THE WEEK FROM 13-19 JANUARY 2025 Wishes 2025 of the SNTRS-CGT
Dear comrade, dear comrade,
The SNTRS-CGT wishes you all the best for the new year. Let it provide public research with decent and equivalent remuneration to the rest of the civil service, statutory jobs for our precarious colleagues and the means that enable research units and their teams to work calmly to the progress of all fields of knowledge.
The fulfilment of those wishes implies a change of political course that we must all impose by our collective organization. Indeed, it is the political choices of E. Macron, which generates the current shortage, in particular, prompting the CNRS to pool 10% of the amount of unlicended own resources previously allocated to laboratories at each institute. One imagines the fair of pocket between the directorates of unity and those of the institutes to benefit from this shared fund …
Would it be to help the Institutes redistribute these resources, what Antoine Petit, CEO of the CNRS, announced the creation of the label “CNRS Key labs” which would be awarded only 1/4 of the 860 units under CNRS, with, as a result, enhanced support with more resources? For UMRs excluded (about 75% of the units), this would therefore be the “Quai Labs” label, since they are obliged to remain at the dock, for lack of sufficient means and recruitment. More than just a question of resources, after the two-speed university, here’s the two-speed research.
The pretext for creating this new label, “maping a particular effort on a smaller number of units, those who can legitimately claim to be qualified as “world-class””, does not even mask the main cause: to concentrate the means, because of the lack of human and budgetary resources.
The impact on UMRs will have a strong impact on all CNRS partner research and higher education organisations.
The SNTRS-CGT will shortly send you a more comprehensive communication on this subject and propose actions to counter this harmful project for French public research and to demand a policy capable of giving new impetus to research and higher education.
For more details, read:
The statement to the Board of the CNRS of our elected representative Dina Bacalexi on COMPs
The CNRS CAC Inter-Trade Union Statement on Key Labs
An analysis proposed by our comrades Lise Caron and Gilles Mercier on the Key Labs
CS Scientific Council Rendering Account
That this year 2025 therefore begins with a mobilization of all, to defend French public research, its excellence, the recognition of our values, our professions and our know-how. “