Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by the Observatory of University Ethicson 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
“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. “