POSTED BY MARTIN KICH

I have somewhat lost track of this series and two other series of posts and will try to complete them before the end of this year and the beginning of the new year makes them less relevant.

The United Kingdom: Scotland

Legislation that would overhaul higher education provoked immediate and enduring controversy. Writing for the The Herald in Glasgow, Ian McWhirter framed the debate very sardonically: “The Scottish Government appears to have achieved the impossible: getting the national security whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, and the Institute of Directors to agree on something. The subject? That the Government’s Higher Education Bill stinks. Both seem to believe that the Education Secretary, Angela Constance, wants to abolish elected rectors in Scotland’s ancient universities to impose central controls and undermine academic freedom” {MacWhirter).

Considerably later in the article, MacWhirter focus more pointedly on the potential issues related to academic freedom:

“Most universities are run by a small executive group based around the principal’s confidantes; a kind of privy council. The court, selected from the “great and the good”, has often been  a passive voice or rubber stamp for principals’ decisions. This isn’t the way to run a large public body in the 21st century. Critics of the Bill appear to argue that academic freedom is incompatible with elected chairs of court. But we live in an age of democratic accountability and transparency and, in general, it works. What lies behind this row is, I suspect, the desire among some principals that universities should become closed private companies with a management structure similar to a plc’s. There have even been moves to re-designate principals as chief executives.

“But universities are not private companies. They are public institutions essentially financed by the taxpayer. Parliament has no right to encroach on academic freedom in universities but it has every right to have a say in how they are run. Many believe it is unacceptable for university principals to be pay themselves salaries vastly in excess of the First Minister’s. There was no formal recommendation on principals’ pay in the von Prondzynski report (that would have brought down the Wrath of Khan). But pay inflation, modelled on private companies, is corrosive to morale in universities. And what’s wrong with having responsible trades unionists involved in university governance? Why should it be retired bureaucrats and executives co-opted from banks and legal firms?” (MacWhirter).

MacWhirter concludes the article with some pithy counsel: “On my reading of this Bill, it seems to be in line with what Mr von Prondzynski called for. By all means be critical. We should always read the small print when governments tamper with important institutions and I hope the Bill receives  rigorous scrutiny in Parliament. There may be some fiendish plot; who knows. Abolishing rectors is not part of it. Critics damage their case by repeatedly suggesting it is” (MacWhirter).

Ian McWhirter, Glasgow Herald

____________________

In another article on this topic, written for the Scottish Daily Mail, John MacLeod very unequivocally denounces the proposed legislation, making a case that would surprise many: namely, that the legislation undermines academic freedom because it advances, rather than constrains, progressive viewpoints:

“Substantial autonomy from the state is vital for their charitable status (and, for instance, all the tax breaks it gives them, worth tens of millions of pounds). But it also guarantees academic independence–and protects principals, professors, faculties and courts from political pressure and, indeed, political malevolence.

“Yet proposals are now advanced that are causing widespread disquiet and, even worse, international concern. After a protracted Scottish Government review of higher education governance, the SNP administration now proposes sweeping changes. Now, only the Privy Council can alter the statutes of our ancient universities. But the Nationalists, naturally, want a new ‘Scottish Committee’ with the power to amend instead.

“They plan to redefine academic freedom as a culture ‘to encourage new ideas,’ restyling university principals as chief executive officers and overhauling the membership and appointment of academic bodies. They propose the chairs of university courts be elected from a much broader base, including alumni, instead of present-day students and staff being left to choose a rector.

“Furthermore, the Nationalists demand–in words that should always make the sensible reach for their revolvers–that these bodies be more ‘fully representative.’ They want more women, more alumni, more trades unionists–and, no doubt, other politically correct quotas besides.

“This should cause alarm, for it is evident on other fronts–the controversial Named Person legislation, the enactment of same-sex marriage, and so on–that there are many within the Scottish Government who are determined to reinvent the wheel in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity.’

“They have an agenda and it is determinedly illiberal, anti-Christian and anti-family. It has grave and growing implications for important matters such as freedom of speech, especially in a day when more and more seem to believe there is a right to not be offended” (MacLeod).

John MacLeod, Scottish Daily Mail

____________________

A less highly charged and much more succinct position on this legislation was provided by St. Andrews University in a “submission to a Scottish Government consultation”: “’Governmental legislation on university procedures and values risks making universities into a ‘political football’ by successive governments, which becomes itself a serious threat to responsible autonomy and academic freedom.’ The university said the chairman of its court was already selected by representatives of ‘stakeholder groups’ such as students, staff and alumni. The university also objected to plans to create a new definition of academic freedom to ‘encourage new ideas.’ It said new ideas were fostered through positive relationships between universities and their stakeholders rather than legislation” (Johnson).

In May, academic freedom was cited as one of the reasons why the University of Edinburgh decided to resist activists’ calls for it to divest fully from fossil-fuel companies.

Speaking for the university, Charlie Jeffery said that the university was committed to a change of investment policy,” but that it intended to “’bring about change by engagement’” (Brooks). What this strategy amounts to is “essentially a company-by-company approach,” with the university divesting “from companies involved in the extraction of coal and tar sands, only where feasible alternative sources of energy exist, and where companies do not invest in low carbon technologies” (Brooks). This explanation left open to question, however, the scope of the university’s planned divestments: “The university was unable to specify what percentage of its investments are in those companies specifically, although 8-9% are accounted for by companies involved in fossil fuels extraction more generally. Edinburgh’s endowment is worth £291m–the third biggest of any UK university, behind Oxford and Cambridge” (Brooks).

Jeffery did state very pointedly, however, “that one of the reasons why the university did not choose full divestment was because it could represent an ‘undue incursion into academic freedom’ in terms of research into geological and engineering issues involved in the exploration of fossil fuels” (Brooks).

Charlie Jeffrey, University of Edinburgh

____________________

In 2015, various groups, most prominently Students for a Free Tibet, began calling for the removal of Confucius Institutes in Scottish universities. Despite the widespread criticism of Confucius Institutes at American universities, which culminated in an AAUP statement declaring them a front for the Chinese state and a serious threat to academic freedom, the Confucius Institutes have operated for almost a decade at four Scottish universities– Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Strathclyde—without arousing much attention of any kind. Amie Robertson, the former president of Students for a Free Tibet at Edinburgh University very straightforwardly summarized the main reasons for the opposition to the Confucius Institutes: “’The Confucius Institutes are directly run by the Chinese government. The Chinese government is anti-democratic and anti-human rights and therefore should not be hosted at Edinburgh University, or any other Scottish university. Accepting their money would allow for the censorship of topics like Tibet and Taiwan. Hosting the Confucius Institutes means allowing Chinese propaganda on our campuses’” (Woollard)

The Confucius Institutes are operated by Hanban, a department of the Chinese government, and in an interview with the BBC, Xi Lu, who heads Hanban, insisted that the primary purpose of the Institutes is simply to promote fluency in the Chinese language, but she did acknowledge that  that all employees of the Confucius Institutes are expected to adhere to official government positions on political issues and that their discussions of political topics are closely monitored.

Despite those candid admissions, a spokesman for Edinburgh University asserted: “’There has been no loss of academic freedom nor inhibition of academic debate at the University of Edinburgh as a consequence of Hanban’s support for the Confucius Institute. Edinburgh’s Confucius Institute and the University of Edinburgh continue to conduct open and critical debate about China alongside our efforts to promote cultural outreach, knowledge exchange and dialogue. The institute has contributed to significant discussion of matters relating to contemporary China’” (Woollard).

____________________

Sources:

Brooks, Libby. “Edinburgh University Rejects Calls to Divest from All Fossil Fuels.” Guardian 12 May 2015.

Johnson, Simon. “Universities Revolt over Interference by Ministers: Academic Leaders Warn That Scottish Government Oversight Is a Threat to Their International Reputations.” Daily Telegraph 3 Mar. 2015: 1.

MacLeod, John. “Scotland’s Global Reputation for Academic Quality Is Being Trashed by SNP Meddling.” Scottish Daily Mail 8 Oct. 2015: 16.

MacWhirter, Ian. “A Question of Principles on How Our Universities Are Run.” The Herald [Glasgow] 17 Sep. 2015: 13.

Woollard, Caroline. “Chinese Language Centres ‘Front for Beijing.’” Herald [Glasgow] 3 Jan. 2015: 11.

____________________

Previous Posts in the Series:

Post 1. Canada—University of British Columbia [Part 1]: https://academeblog.org/2016/04/24/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-1-of-a-series/.

Post 2. Canada—University of British Columbia [Part 2]: https://academeblog.org/2016/04/25/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-2-of-a-series/.

Post 3. Canada—University of New Brunswick: https://academeblog.org/2016/04/26/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-3-of-a-series/.

Post 4. Canada—Capilano University: https://academeblog.org/2016/04/30/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-4-of-a-series/

Post 5. Canada—Overview: https://academeblog.org/2016/05/05/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-5-of-a-series/

Post 6. Canada—Additional Items: https://academeblog.org/2016/05/08/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-6-of-a-series/.

Post 7. Australia– Nikolic, Powell, and Price: https://academeblog.org/2016/05/18/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-7-of-a-series/.

Post 8: Australia–Copenhagen Consensus Centre at Flinders University and Monash University Branch Campus in China: https://academeblog.org/2016/05/21/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-8-of-a-series/.

Post 9: New Zealand—Police and Government Interference in Academic Freedom, Tertiary Education Union and Association of Scientists: https://academeblog.org/2016/06/30/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-post-9-of-a-series/.

Part 10: United Kingdom, Part 1: Free-Speech Rankings, Issues in Higher Education, and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act: https://academeblog.org/2016/08/17/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-united-kingdom-part-1-post-10-of-a-series/.

Part 11: Global Survey of Academic Freedom Issues in 2015: United Kingdom, Part 2: https://academeblog.org/2016/08/20/global-survey-of-academic-freedom-issues-in-2015-united-kingdom-part-2-post-11-of-a-series/.