I think the concept of academic freedom is related to the history of the university since 13./14. century - and the privileges that it had: its own administration (not directly under the jurisdiction of the city or prince), its own jurisdiction, the privilege to award academic degrees on the basis of finished studies. this . Humboldt's idea that it is a free community of teachers and learners was emphasized once again in the beginning of 19th century and is quoted until our days.

I see it a bit like the freedom all are meant to enjoy in some idyllic place where we listen to one another and act on the best informed opinion. A place where terms like 'normative' and 'public interest' mean the opposite to what we think and exactly what they practically infer: elitism and unjustified exception. Academic freedom is no different.

The privileges of the university were a protection against the prevailing arbitrariness of the municipalities, the princes and the local church authorities. They were thus subject to certain restrictions, even when it came to disputes over teaching content.

To get an academic grade obliged the graduates themselves to teach younger students at the university for several years free of charge. There was no trace of freedom in today's sense. Academic freedom" did not exist in teaching, because professors had to read fixed books and commentaries from historical authorities and were usually so badly paid that they had to accommodate foreign students in their apartments for a rent in order to survive. No trace of romanticism.

I think it means that the university, state and religion powers have to not interface to the territory of lectures and not afraid the ideas that teachers and students will discuss in the classroom. should not be any red borders.

I agree with Hein Retter that there is no trace of romanticism in the existing structures, practices and functioning of universities and institutions of learning. this calls for rephrasing the question to : should we let romanticism of academic freedom die ?

In the present perspective, academic freedom is the liberty of the both the students and professors to express their own understanding based on their research what an issue or topic is all about without the prejudice of the policy or regulation of the learning institution.

Historically, it is the longing of students and even professors to be given fair treatment and chance in presenting the result of their research to the learning institution what their findings are. They want academic freedom since the state and the church have the power to control or screen what inventions and theories the students and even professors have formulated in accordance with their studies.

It is expressing your ideas but not promoting antinationalism.

Dr Kamath Madhusudhana

I take the 'in your country'-question - mine is Denmark. I believe researchers at institutions largely have the freedom to pursue their interests. In principle. There is no direct political intervention. This said it is political what kind of research is funded best, political that universities have to perform on different parametres such as 'production' of students and publications in recognized journals. And similar. It means there is freedom and a certain amount of pressure of what one should do to live up to norms. If one does not, position is in danger - many researchers lose their jobs due to budget cuts, and why keep someone pursuing own interests and not publish in the 'right' journals. So, freedom in principle, limitations in practice. For me now working independent (after assistant/associate professor positions) it is a liberation I can publish where I may have readers rather than being forced to chose style and format of journals that give recognition but little reading/impact.

Adding, about 'what role and rights have individual scholars?' We can (perhaps should) maintain the ideal of Humboldt et al. that the spirit (Geist) is no servant to the state but should be developed for its own sake, however, one must remember the spirit is also a member of a community. On the one hand researchers should have the right to pursue interests free of political/ideological regulations, on the other any researcher has also a responsibility to the community they belong to. Spirit is not single and isolated (only if one follows an ego-oriented ideology such as present in many market-oriented ideologies of today where the belief in being free is to be slave of a particular ideology), spirit is in dialogue with and dependent on community, hence any researcher should also ask: 'does what I do contribute to common good?'

I think there should not be many restrictions, nor total freedom. We need to seek a consensus on what is relevant or not to study or research. Religion and state must keep their distance and their considerations must be closely examined.

There can never be academic freedom when we work under ideological structures, well laid out structures of education, nationalism and producing knowledge to add to regimented fields of knowledge. Curiously to go beyond all these with all imaginations and ideas running free from fear is smashed.

We always think under an specific framework. it means we not free for thinking. also when we think about an academic subject or about an political or social issue academically, we just project our prior knowledge about that specific subject, and nothing else.

In our epistemic systems, there is no straight differences between Projection and Understanding. so they always displaced with together.

By this situation how we can claim that; We understand or discover something???

The university cannot be free if it is forced not to be able to criticize state, economic or religious rules that restrict the freedom of research. Teaching and research, in turn, are bound to general principles of morality and humanity.

Although the history of European universities has always been linked to the idea that they had their own legal capacity, which offered some protection from the local police or church, what we now understand as academic freedom was only possible after the French Revolution in the spirit of liberal ideas. Even today, we are not fully protected from buying competition for grants and funding for research projects with "certain" dependencies on the economy and donors. But there are also control bodies inside and outside the university which, if necessary, publicly discuss what is happening at the universities, if not everything is going correctly.

Dear Hein,

Thanks for your reply.

As I wrote in my previous comment, we do not have any straight differences between projection and understanding yet. so how we could be sure of that "we understand that specific subject", while we all just project our mental states(as Nietzsche says).

So without any epistemic system that provide clear differences between projection and understanding, there is no place for speak about freedom or criticising something or an specific subject in academic sphere.

At last, by this condition, freedom is just an illusion. an illusion that given by governors, states and churches to get the right to punish the people and domesticate them.

"Yours"

In fact, our academic freedom is relative, and it often relates to the type of specialization to be researched, and this freedom is subject to many influences, including intellectual, economic, security and other reasons that restrict academic freedom in our universities ...