UK: Terrorism ignites debate

The terrorist threat to Britain has rekindled the debate over academic freedom. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked his education ministers to lead discussions with universities on how to maintain academic freedom and ensure that extremists never stifle debate or impose their beliefs. At the same time, the leading academics' union has published a consultation paper, asking members to join the debate.

"Universities must be open to the light of free debate and free enquiry because if they are not, they will become places of darkness, obscurantism and fear," said Education Minister Bill Rammell, kicking off the debate at a Fabian Society meeting last November.

"The central challenge is to strengthen the resilience of communities to resist extremist influence and root out terrorism at the same time as preserving the freedom we value so much and which defines our traditions," he said.

"In academic freedom lies one of the most powerful means at our disposal to refute violent extremist views on campus. I believe that unless it is used actively to challenge those views, then academic freedom will find itself undermined by violent extremism. It is the responsibility of all of us – university staff, students, administrators, as well as the government – to find a way to square the circle of upholding academic freedom while protecting our society."

Rammell added that he did not support boycotts and no-platform policies.

The University and College Union's consultation paper is based on two motions passed at its congress. The first one, from Leeds University, said that all academic and related staff should be free to criticise and publish without fear for their jobs. "Nevertheless, with this freedom comes the responsibility to respect the democratic rights and freedoms of others," it said.

This motion was set in the context of the Frank Ellis case. Dr Ellis was suspended by Leeds University in March 2006 after a furore over an article in a student newspaper, in which he made racist and sexist remarks. He later took early retirement.

The second motion, from Queen's University, Belfast, focuses on freedom for academics to conduct their own research in the face of commercialisation and pressures from the research assessment exercise.

The relationship between industrial sponsors and researchers was highlighted recently when Dr Aubrey Blumsohn from Sheffield University raised the alarm about the probity of his research unit's conduct of a study, carried out with the pharmaceutical company Procter and Gamble.

Rob Copeland, UCU policy officer, said: "The two motions highlight the complex, multi-layered nature of academic freedom and freedom of expression."

The consultation paper also points to the pressures arising from anti-terrorism legislation, which are "leading to an erosion of civil liberties on campus and in wider society".

The UCU has already called on members to resist attempts by government to engage them in increased surveillance of Muslim or other minority students and to refuse to cooperate with any attempts to transform education into an extension of the security services or immigration control.

The only formal protection of academic freedom in English law is under a section of the 1988 Education Reform Act, which says that higher education institutions have a duty "to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions".

The union is asking members if there is a need for greater legislative protection of academic freedom; what are the appropriate boundaries between freedom of speech and academic responsibilities; and does the UCU need a formal policy statement on the issue?