Academic Freedom @ UBC
As a tenured professor and active participant in UBC governance, I have been closely following ongoing discussions about academic freedom in the Senate. This post is a reflection of my ‘thoughts in progress’, and I’m open to changing my mind or expanding on things as I learn more.
At this point, I should draw your attention to an open letter that has been sent to the Senate (it’s been signed by >160 UBC Faculty). Currently, I am not a signatory, I have considered it; in part, this is because I am waiting to see what the revised policy will look like (and hopefully my delay will become clearer as you read further).
For a number of reasons, I have recently been reading a great deal of scholarship and debate on academic freedom and institutional neutrality. I have also been engaging with colleagues on these topics. Furthermore, I hope to persuade you that good-faith critique improves our systems.
As background, please read this post within the UBC and Canadian context, but also recognize that it is written during a period of significant dismantling of academic freedom worldwide.
International examples include Senate Bill 1 in Ohio, the capitulation of Columbia, and significant concerns emerging globally — including in Serbia. In this context, it is also important to recognize that the UN has raised explicit concerns about scholasticide in Gaza. Not only have these issues been discussed at UBC, but some have also been addressed in the UBC Senates.
Returning to the UBC context, in Canada, academic freedom is effectively a contractual right, often enshrined in agreements between the faculty union (i.e., the Faculty Association at UBC) and the employer. This is strongly emphasized by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).
The proposed policy, currently under committee review, requires input from both Vancouver and Okanagan campuses and multiple stakeholders, which has extended the process. I have not seen the new version, so I will not comment on the specific policy as it stands — but instead I hope to capture some thoughts that I have been having in my discussions.
From the upcoming agenda, the policy will come to this month’s Senate as information (i.e., not to be voted on), but given the open letter, it is timely to voice a few thoughts at this juncture:
(1) Academic freedom is important for the integrity of UBC and the scholarly conduct of all members of our community. It benefits society, as it fosters independent thinking, enables intellectual risk-taking, and allows academics to tackle controversial topics in teaching and research.
“A scholar’s freedom to express ideas through respectful discourse and the pursuit of open discussion, without risk of censure.” — UBC Strategic Plan
I am hoping that a similar statement will be in the upcoming strategic plan — this is a question that colleagues may wish to confirm as often as we can.
(2) Both intramural (inside the university) and extramural (to the public) academic freedom are very important. This is required for us to do our jobs and to strengthen the value of the university to wider society.
(3) Freedom of expression is important for people in Canada, as per the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is intertwined with the public perception of academic freedom and is important in how academics conduct their work in public spaces. While I understand that I hold a right to freedom of expression under Canadian law, I would also expect that my university employer would value and ideally support me in upholding this right.
(4) While we have the Canadian context, and Canadian and BC law to understand, we also have the wider landscape to consider. There are several very real threats on the horizon here in Canada (e.g., CAUT has expressed alarm about the Conservative Party Platform), and we have a very controversial lawsuit that is currently part of the UBC conversation.
(5) There are several ongoing cases of concern regarding academic freedom and tensions on campus. These extend across many topics (the world is complicated right now). In this context, it is notable that the President used an early address to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade to state:
“As you know, these tensions are evoking complex emotions on university campuses. UBC values freedom of expression and respects peaceful protest within the boundaries of university policy and the law. The university must remain a place of reasoned debate where conflicting views can peacefully co-exist.” — President Benoit-Antoine Bacon, May 7, 2024
(6) UBC has bicameral governance — which means that we have powers vested in the Board of Governors and the Senates (Vancouver and Okanagan).
Additionally, the Faculty Association represents UBC faculty as our trade union. Some, but not all, members of the UBC community are covered by other trade unions. Additionally, students are represented by their own student union (the AMS), and graduate students also have additional representation provided by the Graduate Student Society (GSS).
(7) In light of this structure, it could be reasonably considered that the Senate may wish to set academic policy when it comes to academic freedom. Questions that we might ask could extend to who will arbitrate the policy, and what the consequences are — which brings me to the next point…
(8) There is an important aspect of not well-known BC Supreme Court case law which provides precedent about what happens if there is conflicting policy from the Faculty Association Collective Agreement and the UBC Senate. I’m paraphrasing here, but this is really important: it seems that the Supreme Court stated that the Senate policy took precedence over the Collective Agreement (on student evaluation of teaching matters). This was only very recently brought to my attention, and had I known of this I would have spoken different to the Academic Freedom policy in the December Senate meeting.
(9) A significant fraction of our students, faculty, and staff are international. This is particularly important with regard to the impact of a change in employment and/or study status on people’s rights to be in Canada (and the impact of this is currently being tested in the US right now).
(10) While I have concerns about the 1977 policy’s impact on marginalized groups, I also recognize the need to protect academic freedom for all members of the university community.
(11) Academic freedom does not protect illegal activities, including harassment and hate speech.
At the moment, the proposed policy has not come back from Committee yet for us to see or think about.
Given the magnitude of this policy, I hope we will be able to take it back to our Faculties for consideration and discussion. Therefore, as a member of the Senate, I’d like to encourage colleagues to make sure that we get ample time to consider whatever new policy will be put to the floor before we try to vote on this. To be more specific, this should be a special item above just adding it the regular agenda that’s released in a Friday prior to the Wednesday Senate meeting.
There’s some longer background below, but if you want to stop now I won’t blame you.
Dr Ben Britton is a Tenured Profession in Materials Engineering @ UBC, Vancouver Campus. He is an active member of the UBC Senate, and also an incoming member-at-large of the UBC Faculty Association.
In addition to academic governance issues, he has other hobbies and interests, including looking at very small things with very big instruments.
Get Dr Ben Britton’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
These views are my own and do not represent UBC. I welcome further discussion, time permitting. (Thank you to the anonymous colleagues who have contributed to my thoughts on this, especially in surfacing the Supreme Court case — this was eye opening.)
Some backgrounds thoughts -
1 — Why do we need Academic Freedom?
One role of the Academy is to understand the world in which we live. This means we have to be able to ask difficult questions, think about a wide range of topics, study these areas, and hopefully drive forward our collective ‘thinking’ to enable us to make informed change in society at large.
In general, I hope that these thoughts are made and articulated in good faith. By good faith, I am sharing the idea that many academics are genuinely curious people and want to do the right thing, in the most efficient manner to deliver the most benefit to society at large, as well as understanding the consequences of their actions.
Concurrently, I am aware that sometimes they are not, for an example consider that someone has a particular view — perhaps a dislike for the fact that certain people wear blue clothing — and wishes to prejudice action or intervention that will impact the blue-clothing people, via an alternative or malicious manner.
Academic freedom broadly should protect the ability for me to be an academic. This is a pretty broad remit, as I have a number of different roles and interests (as do other academics).
To outline this breadth, most of my work considers my core are of focus and specialism (materials science and engineering). Also, I conduct academic work to help address equity, diversity and inclusion in my field. Also, I’m involved in a significant amounts of academic governance, including as a member of the UBC Vancouver Senate and an incoming member-at-large of the Faculty Association. Also, I’ve work trying to help folks articulate the value of the University & their scholarship to wider society. Also, I’m involved in conversations of distribution of funding or resources within the University system (in my country of residence, but also abroad). Also, I’ve been called into discussions on energy policy and much more. Also, I’ll apply my scholarship, and ways of thinking, to new problems and challenges — these may be timely, such as how a political moment might intersect with an area that I’ve studied or am studying; or they may be because I am one of the not-least-qualified people to call upon in a discussion or topic area.
I stress this list of ‘alsos’ because it’s a pretty broad lane. I read quite widely, and try to listen to a wide range of different people.
So in order for me to be a useful academic, it’s important that I have some protections in the conduct of my work — specifically in areas where I can make statements, or direct inquiry, on topics that some individuals may find uncomfortable (or more). To me, this is this is the heart of my academic freedom.
2 — What else is there?
Academic freedom is something that is specific to the academy, and it helps provide people with another form of ‘check and balance’ in the conduct of civil society. I’m effectively paid, and have tenure protections, to continue to develop my expertise and to use this as much in areas that I deem appropriate.
Freedom of expression is a critically important aspect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Section 2(b) — Freedom of expression
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding from lots of studying is the the Charter sets out rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessarily in a free and democratic society. This is held as one part of the the Canadian Constitution, and provides guidance on how the Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments. It also scopes out some of the expectations of how Canadian society is run, and provides a basis for some of the cultural norms we expect.
While Freedom of Expression is not protected within my tenure, per say, given some of the challenges associated with academic work — especially I would like any policy on academic freedom to also share that there is value in the Freedom of Expression. I’m aware that some may view this as a duplicate statement, given the Charter, but we probably need to have a belt-and-braces approach to addressing things (especially as we know that policies at UBC could also be precedent-supporting elsewhere).
3 —In what forums do I want to see protection of my academic freedom?
It is very important that any policy on academic freedom protects me both within intra-mural (i.e. within the institution) and extra-mural (i.e. to the publics).
Inter-mural: This must be explicit, and it’s very important if we believe that internal critique of facets of the University strengthen the University — which I believe is a foundation of good governance. There are a number of times when I have, and will have to, critique very senior members of the executive, as well as my line manager and more.
While I recognize that most of the time these discussions, critiques and criticisms will land ok — even if people may have a bruised ego or something else for a short while — I am also aware that I am dealing with people, who have their own sensibilities in how they respond and may try to act. (I’m also one to praise many for the great job they do, but the academic freedom topic doesn’t come up then…).
Extra-mural: The University does not exist in a vacuum, and the role of scholarship on society is very important. In my University, my employment is subject to a collective agreement. This details the cases where the President can fire me — and those cases are limited, but not zero — and details can be found in Article 10. Disciplinary Measures of the collective agreement. This means that while other parties (e.g. the government, members of the legislature, MPs, foreign actors, or major donors) may apply pressure to try to get the President to fire someone, it’s very hard for the President to do this in practice (and I suspect that President is probably pretty happy for this, as it means they have a very good excuse for telling someone trying to pressure them to go away.).
4 — Are there limits to Academic Freedom?
Yes.
Academic Freedom does not give me, or my colleagues, the right to break the law.
Additionally, there are justifications to fire an academic for Cause (again, within Article 10. Disciplinary Measures). To paraphrase this section, to fire me the President must demonstrate “Cause” and this initiates a process where the Faculty Association (my union) can represent me to dispute the claims, and it takes quite a lot of work and effort to do go through with firing me — certainly, me saying something which is within the law (e.g. Freedom of Expression) and under the Academic Freedom policy should not be considered to be sufficient cause, if we follow through the explicit definition of Cause to include “incompetence, gross misconduct, or refusal or unjustifiable failure to carry out one’s reasonable duties”.
While colleagues have been fired (and also disciplined) at UBC, it’s quite rare — and of course the central tenant of the Academic Freedom protections are a very substantive part of why this is the case.
5 — Is it sufficient that Academic Freedom be covered by the Faculty Association's Collective Agreement?
This is tricky — I have a vested interest in my own wellbeing. However, as a Tenured Prof I also believe that part of my job is to extend the umbrella of protection further and enable scholars in more vulnerable employ or status (e.g. students) have more protections than were afforded to me. I could imagine that a more broad policy could benefit those interested groups — but given the last policy proposal I saw, and the discussions I’ve been having, I’m still on the fence whether I believe the senate process will provide the added protections they may wish for, while not eroding the protections of those within the Faculty Association.
