Unexpected Tension

      We have been seeing how people fought for academic freedom for so long that we almost take it for granted. However, the fight is still far from over. In this part of the story, we are going to talk about how academic freedom has been continuously threatened and defended.

      How could people turn their backs on academic freedom after hailing it for so long? Well, turned out, attacks “are not intended to be attacks on academic freedom but have the effect”¹.

Corporate Funding

       One factor is corporate grants. Though most corporate grants are offered with mutual respect and trust, there are exceptions. Corporations would be more attracted to departments that meet their demand, and it is conceivable that administrators want to make their departments attractive to corporations.

       However, University administrators maintained that academic freedom mattered more. The School of Management once turned down a “significant gift because the money was demanded to be used to advocate enterprise economics. According to president C. Peter Magrath, we “get out the facts” and “promote discussion” rather than “please the corporations”².

       Similar issues regarding funding occurred in engineering, too. As stated on Minnesota Daily in 1982,  engineering professors were more pressured to work on projects that will draw immediate outside fundings³. Though the attitude of administrators is clear, compromises proved to be inevitable in the commercialized society.

Retrenchment Plans

       Also caused tensions is the retrenchment plans. The elimination of a program, because it can represent a faculty member’s work, came dangerously close to infringing on academic freedom. This could undermine the tenure code. Tenured faculty members would not “competently perform their duties” in a financial emergency. Therefore, they might face the risk of being removed⁴.

     A letter to Vice President for Academic Affairs addressed the issue in 1983. Two faculty members of the Institute of Technology were made to create a Philosophy of Physics program without consultation. On the other hand, academic research in a unique area might be chopped. IT Dean Roger Staehle was not available for comment⁴.

      Though programmatic cuts are better than general budget cuts that weaken the whole university, it became a problem who should decide what programs to go⁴.

International Relationships

       Another tension was caused by international relationships. The State Department once sought to restrict studies of Qi Yulu, a visiting Chinese scholar. They were concerned that military technologies would be given away. The University refused to cooperate on grounds that it violated academic freedom. This drew a national attention and formed a uniform stance among institutions to fight against such requests⁵.

Political Correctness

       The last tension that is to be mentioned lied within political correctness. People had always hoped to eliminate discriminations in universities, but such good intention could bring some side effects. While respecting women was politically correct, it made some history professors fear to talk about prostitution in Rome and law professors afraid to talk about defending rapists⁶.

      Political correctness was a hot-button issue on campuses across the country. The University would continue to wrestle with racial and sexual equality and issues they brought around⁶.

Conclusion and Connection

       Though these are instances that took place in the 1980s, we can still see a lot of them around today. They are still based on the same intention to solve financial or social issues. As president C. Peter Magrath stated, violations of academic freedom are much more likely to be very subtle. But we risk losing academic freedom if we do not maintain a close watch⁷.

       The U’s Academic Freedom Resolution was updated in the 1980s by the Faculty Consultative Committee after 55 years of use. Revisions helped clarify confusing parts such as academic responsibility for professors. John Adams, chairman of the committee, commented that it is important to continue to update it⁸.
       As a lot of us might not even be aware of such resolutions, we can be sure that our concepts of academic freedom need updating, too. Flagrant abuses of the past are unlikely to happen again. However, under all the economic, social, and governmental pressures that universities face today, we can’t be too careful to defend academic freedom. It is as pertinent and essential to the academy as it has ever been.