the Leisure Studies editors' statement on academic freedom, and the question of institutional neutrality
Journal editors in the academic field of ‘Leisure Studies’ recently shared their new statement on academic freedom. The editors’ statement is generally a principled defence of academic freedom, linked here for those with access.
Below are a number of key quotes from the statement, all positive:
We reaffirm our commitment to open, rigorous, and inclusive scientific inquiry.
Our field thrives on diverse perspectives.
Scholarship that challenges dominant narratives or highlights marginalized voices is not only welcome but essential to advancing knowledge.
Editorial decisions in our journals are and will continue to be based solely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and the significance of the research, as determined through fair and independent peer review. We reject any imposition of ideological litmus tests or political interference in the evaluation of manuscripts.
We commit to transparency in documenting and resisting attempts by governments, institutions, or individuals to influence editorial processes.
We will stand in opposition to censorship, whether overt or subtle, and uphold editorial standards that protect the independence of our publications and the integrity of our discipline.
Whenever possible and appropriate, we will support authors who, for fear of persecution, wish to remain anonymous to ensure well-founded, scholarly knowledge is still shared without political censorship.
To silence critical inquiry in our field is to undermine the very purpose of academia. We […] reaffirm our dedication to […] creating publications that embrace an active neutrality to causes, issues, incidences and the like by offering space to all ideas, perspectives, positions, and thoughts.
All good. But I do have a caveat - it could be clearer on where ‘active neutrality’ is actually being undermined. The statement is prompted by Donald Trump’s recent targeting of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and CRT (critical race theory). I’m tempted to ask “where have you been?” Organisations such as Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in the USA, and Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) in the UK, have been highlighting infringements of free speech and academic freedom for a long time, prior even to Trump’s first term. That has often involved challenging DEI over-reach. When universities mandate certain, contested views as official policy / best practice on sex / gender, race, pedagogy or climate – sometimes in the name of ‘social justice’ - they limit free and open debate. Intolerance comes from the ‘Left’ as well as the ‘Right’ (in this context zombie categories - dead, but still walking amongst us), and there are plenty of recent and extreme examples.
The editors’ statement cites Trump’s Presidential Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” as indicative of the threat to academic freedom. That is one-sided. Universities on both sides of the Atlantic have adopted DEI policies that have actively affirmed ‘gender ideology’, to the detriment of the academic freedom and other rights (such as single sex spaces) of colleagues and students who take a ‘gender critical’ view of sex and gender. Trump’s policy, in so far as it prevents DEI over-reach, benefits academic freedom for those people. Academic freedom and freedom of speech are fundamentally individual rights, not the prerogative of institutions, departments or DEI committees to decide on our behalf.
The editors’ statement also refers to CRT as a viewpoint under attack from the Trump administration. Advocates for CRT in the universities should absolutely have their academic freedom and freedom of speech to espouse this view rigorously defended. But there are instances in both the USA and in the UK where ideas linked to CRT have been presented by institutions as norms all should follow, rather than ideas that you may or may not agree with (and many people, including people subject to racism, disagree with CRT - see for example FAIR and Free Black Thought).
I really hope that journal editors generally will take academic freedom seriously as a principle, and not view it instrumentally: ‘academic freedom for me ... but not for thee’. To do the latter would mimic Trump at his illiberal worst. They should also recognise that, in spite of good intentions, in practice they may not be “publications that embrace an active neutrality to causes, issues, incidences and the like by offering space to all ideas, perspectives, positions, and thoughts”. Affective polarisation (where differences in viewpoint become personal, leading to aversion to the expression of that viewpoint), conservatism around received wisdom, and the conflation of academia with activism are phenomena of our times. It would be surprising if journal reviews were immune from this.
For all that, there is enough in the statement that reads as a principled defence of academic freedom. It is commendably clear in supporting institutional neutrality, a key principle underpinning academic freedom.
But it was notable in the subsequent discussion (e.g. on Trinet, an e-mail list for debate and information known to some readers of this blog) that some questioned that commitment, suggesting that the university, or academic journals, should go further in taking stances on the issues of the day.
The Kalven principles, devised in Chicago in the 1960s to protect free speech at a times of campus activism, are a very useful codification of institutional neutrality and why it’s important. Institutional neutrality does not mean individual academics and students should avoid ideological commitments - far from it. Individuals hold a range of perspectives that they will bring to bear on their writing.
It means that the institutions through which knowledge is passed on, created and critiqued should be neutral and hence open to opposing views. Institutional neutrality should apply to universities and journals. There should be no a priori expectation that people in the leisure studies or any other field, or who work in universities, follow any particular political standpoint. The editors’ statement is clear on this, to its credit.
It is only institutional neutrality that enables the various protagonists in this discussion - in our online exchanges, in seminars, at conferences and in research, with all the different outlooks that we may hold - to be part of the knowledge process and attendant debates.
Institutional neutrality is the only guarantor of the individual’s non-neutral voice. But threats to institutional neutrality and to tolerance are by no means limited to Donald Trump.
Two cheers for the editors!