The concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an established part of most legal systems. While in the United States the constitutional protection of academic freedom derives from the guarantee of free speech under the
First Amendment, the constitutions of other countries (particularly in civil law systems) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching, and research.
Australia Chile During the late 1950s and early 1960s, students and faculty began advocating for the democratization of university life in Chile. However, after the 1973 coup, academic freedom under the Pinochet military dictatorship was repressed. Nevertheless, during the 1980s, students and faculty, with support from members of the public, collaborated to protect academic freedom. Since the transition to democracy after the end of the Pinochet regime in 1990, academic freedom in higher education in Chile has been strong. In 2025, Chile ranked in the top ten percent of countries on the Academic Freedom Index (AFI).
China as it could cause trouble with the "authorities".|300x300px Academic freedom is severely limited in China. Academics have noted an incentive not to express 'incorrect' opinions about issues sensitive to the
Government of China and the ruling
Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These efforts have been effective in causing academics to self-censor and shift academic discourse. During the
general secretaryship of Xi Jinping, universities in the country have increasingly been put under the direct management of a
CCP committee secretary and have intensified
ideological controls. In December 2020, the
Associated Press reported that China was controlling scientific research into the
origins of COVID-19 under direct orders from
CCP general secretary Xi Jinping. According to the report, an order by China's
State Council required all research to be approved by a task force under their management, saying scientific publication should be orchestrated like "a game of chess", warning that those who publish without permission will be held accountable. According to
National Public Radio, from 2013 to 2017, at least 109 universities in China issued their first charters affirming the CCP leadership. In 2020, Shanghai's
Fudan University removed freedom of thought from its charter following the December 2019 revision of the school charter to emphasize loyalty to the CCP. As of 2025, it ranked in the bottom 20% worldwide for academic freedom according to the Academic Freedom Index. In an August 2021 study, Jue Jiang from the University of London argued that academic freedom in China is impaired by the CCP's system of student informants, who are recruited and encouraged to watch and inform on their professors on university campuses.
Denmark Danish law guarantees both institutional and individual academic freedom at universities, yet the country ranked 24th of 28 EU states in 2017 and 32nd of 179 countries in a 2024 study. Researchers and the academic union DM reported in 2024 that political pressure, insecure employment, competition for external funding and limited public awareness are weakening independence and discouraging basic research. In 2021, a political campaign against alleged “pseudo-research and activism” led to parliamentary resolution V137, with some politicians demanding interventions, lists of “dangerous” programmes and the closure of certain research fields. Over 3,000 academics signed a petition arguing the resolution threatened academic freedom and could increase self-censorship and harassment, including on social media. Earlier and ongoing controversies include the 1986 government-ordered closure of a sociology programme at
Copenhagen University and recent proposals from
Danish People's Party and
Liberal Alliance to shut down
Roskilde University for ideological reasons, including for being '
woke'.
Hungary Central European University was forced to leave
Hungary after its academic freedom deteriorated under
Victor Orban. In 2020, students protested the overhauling by the government of the
University of Theater and Film Arts.
India As of 2025,
India ranks in the bottom 10-20% of countries globally.
Ireland Protections for academic freedom for research, teaching and other activity "to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions" without being disadvantaged, are provided in Section 14 of the 1997 Universities Act.
Israel Academic freedom in Israel is taken from "the Law of the
Council for Higher Education". Paragraph 15 in which it states that "a recognized institution is free to all its academic and
administrative matters, within the framework of its
budget, as it sees fit. In this paragraph, 'academic and administrative matters' – includes: determining a
research and teaching program, appointing the
authorities of the institution, appointing teachers and promoting them, determining a
teaching method and study, and any other scientific, educational or economic activity". It seems that the paragraph is worded in a clear and comprehensible way even for laymen. The body that is supposed to guard academic freedom, as well as maintain an adequate academic level in the higher education institutions, is the Council for Higher Education – hereinafter "The Council". This council consists of academics who serve as professors at universities, and public figures, with the
Minister of Education as the head of the council. At the disposal of "The Council" is an executive body called the "
Committee for Planning and Budgeting", which mainly deals with the matter of universities budgeting and establishing relevant procedures and guidelines for budget and salary matters. Another body that is supposed to guard academic freedom is the "Committee of the Heads of the Universities", which is a voluntary body, but has an influence on the work of the Legislature and "The Council ". Through their employee committees, and through the personal activity of each of them, these bodies can try and influence the preservation of academic freedom. In general, it can be said that the essential academic freedom, the one aimed at the freedom of teaching and research, was preserved, and the government neither interfered nor tried to interfere in these contents. Its way of influencing this matter is by providing
incentives for teaching in this or that way, or for research in certain fields, and this is through grants. The fact that the government finances a significant percentage of the current budget of the universities (around 70% or more), also allows the government to decide what will be the tuition fee for a student at the budgeted universities in Israel. But, In 2021, an academic committee of the prestigious
Israel Prize decided to award the Israel Prize in the field of mathematics and
computer science to Professor
Oded Goldreich from the
Weizmann Institute of Science. The Minister of Education did not accept the committee's recommendation on the grounds that Goldreich signed a
petition calling for an
academic boycott of
Ariel University, which is located in the territories of
Judea and Samaria, which are
occupied territory, as well as for appealing to the
German government to revoke its decision that the
BDS movement is an
anti-Semitic movement. The award committee appealed to the
Supreme Court for a violation of its academic freedom, and the court overturned the decision, and ordered the Minister of Education to award Goldreich the award. Godreich received the award a year later. In recent years, a fierce
debate has erupted on the issue of academic freedom, following extreme political statements by a number of university faculty members. The vast majority of the controversial statements were those that called for an academic boycott of Israel, or support for organizations that support an economic and academic boycott of Israel. The question that was at the center of the storm was whether an academic faculty member (hereafter referred to as a professor) is protected by the principle of freedom of speech, or is it forbidden, when he wears the guise of a professor, to express a political position that might identify the position with the institution he allegedly represents. All the more, is it permissible for the professor to express a political position during his teaching, and even to invite representatives of political bodies to lecture in his classes, and without maintaining a balance between those invited. Referring to that background, the Minister of Education at the time
Naftali Bennett (in 2017) asked Prof.
Asa Kasher to compile an academic
Code of Ethics for universities, a code that was approved by "The Council" in March 2018. All the research universities (7 universities), with the exception of
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, which already had for an academic code of ethics that also included the issue of freedom of expression, refused to adopt this code on the grounds of infringing academic freedom. All research universities in Israel have a Chief
internal auditor, relatively independent. This issue of the interrelationship between the internal audit in universities and the principle of academic freedom is discussed in detail in an article that appeared in a book issued on behalf of the Ben-Gurion university of the Negev – the only one as mentioned that has a binding academic code of ethics.
Mauritius In the Chapter II Constitution of Mauritius, academics have the right to: the protection of freedom of conscience, protection of freedom of expression, protection of freedom of assembly and association, protection of freedom to establish schools and the protection from discrimination. The institutional bureaucracy and the dependence on the state for funds has restricted the freedom of academics to criticize government policy. Academic freedom became a public issue in May 2009 when the university spoke out against the vice chancellor Professor I. Fagoonee, who had forwarded a circular sent by the Ministry of Education to academics. This paper had a proposal that steered away from traditional education and informed that the future of higher education sector should not be regulated by the central government.
Philippines South Africa Academic freedom in the Constitution Section 16(1) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, established in 1996, guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, including “academic freedom and freedom of scientific research". However, the freedom of students and academics to conduct research today is influenced by the legacy of apartheid and continuing efforts to decolonize curriculum in higher education. While academic freedom is enshrined in law, institutional and political conditions shape the extent to which academics can freely teach and publish, especially regarding controversial ideas. According to the FAU
Academic Freedom Index, in 2025 South Africa scored a 0.83 on a scale of 0 to 1 based on freedom to research and teach, academic exchange and dissemination, institutional autonomy, campus integrity, and academic and cultural expression, all of which individually score above 3 of 0 to 4. The index also states that there has been neither significant improvement or regression in academic freedom from 2015 to 2025.
Higher education under apartheid South Africa Under apartheid, universities were racially segregated, a legacy that influences the lives of students and academics in South Africa today. The Population Registration Act of 1950 classified South Africans by race, using categories of White, Indian, Coloured, and Black. Based on this legislation, the Extension of University Education Act 45 dictated that students of nonwhite descent were not permitted to register at traditionally white universities unless given expression permission by the minister. As a result, several non-white universities were established, including the
University of Durban-Westville for Indians, and the
University of the Western Cape at Belleville, open to the Coloured community. Fort Hare University, University of Zululand, and the University of the North at Turfloop were established or reformed as institutions for specific ethnic groups. The higher education system remained starkly segregated until 1988, when the National Party government, led by F.W. de Klerk, put forth a set of policies repealing various systematic segregationist laws. In spite of liberalizing efforts, educational disparities continued into the post-apartheid era, where Black institutions fought underfunding and low enrollment once students began registering at the White institutions formally closed to them.
Movements and controversies As of 2007, there have been scandals over the restricted academic freedom at a number of universities in South Africa. The
University of KwaZulu-Natal received fame over its restricted academic freedom and the scandal that occurred in 2007. Among postdoctoral fellows, there exist sentiments of being taken advantage of, based on the personal testimonies of postdoctoral fellows at the University of Johannesburg. While these conversations occur in many postdoctoral settings, much of the conversation arises from South Africa, where fellows report that the unstable nature of postdoctoral contracts is lends itself to insufficient compensation disproportionate to the demand for fellows. Multiple accounts and reports from postdoctoral fellows have shown two conflicting ideas: one believing the postdoc system to be a reliable pathway for a future scholarly career and one perceiving the system as unreliable and exploitive.
Institutional capture and
patronage networks, informal institutions intertwined with South Africa's academic landscape, Jonas Magedi argues, compromises the integrity of higher education. Specifically, pressure from external sources may suppress dissent and inhibit further growth, especially in the area of humanities.
Turkey In 2016, Erdogan was given the power to appoint professors by decree. This, along with firings, harassment and imprisonment of academics
United Kingdom The
Robbins Report on Higher Education, commissioned by the British government and published in 1963, devoted a full chapter, Chapter XVI, to Academic freedom and its scope. This gives a detailed discussion of the importance attached both to freedom of individual academics and of the institution itself. In a world, both then and now, where illiberal governments are all too ready to attack freedom of expression, the Robbins committee saw the (then) statutory protection given to academic freedom as giving some protection for society as a whole from any temptation to mount such attacks. When Margaret Thatcher's government sought to remove many of the statutory protections of academic freedom which Robbins had regarded as so important, she was partly frustrated by a hostile amendment to her bill in the House of Lords. This incorporated into what became the 1988 Education Reform Act, the legal right of academics in the UK 'to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have'. These principles of academic freedom are thus articulated in the statutes of most UK universities. Professor Kathleen Stock formerly of University of Sussex resigned from her role due to controversy from students and the media regarding her transphobic views. In response to such concerns, the
Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance. The Guidance provides detailed procedures for universities to consider in determining whether or not specific events can go ahead. It also provides ways to reduce any potential barriers for freedom of speech in regards to specific events. The guidance also makes clear the statutory requirement of universities to ensure they protect freedom of speech on campus however as well as compliance with the Prevent Strategy and the Equality Act 2010. In 2016 the Warden of
Wadham College Oxford, a lawyer previously
Director of Public Prosecutions, pointed out that the Conservative government's anti-terrorism "Prevent" strategy legislation has placed on universities 'a specific enforceable duty ... to prevent the expression of views that are otherwise entirely compatible with the criminal law'.
United States Academic freedom started in America after the
Civil War disrupted the previously stagnating systems of higher education. The educational system that Germany had was analyzed by universities to progress fields of research. Johns Hopkins University was the first to use this education system. Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, a professor by the name of Edward Ross published the free silver movement supporting document known as
Honest Dollars. The document placed the professor in political disagreement with the founders of
Stanford University. The Stanford family made their money from the railroad industry that the professor had publicly ridiculed. In 1900, the professor expressed politically charged statements that called for the expulsion of Japanese immigrants from the country which would lead to his termination from the university. This decision was followed by seven other professors resigning from the university and elevated the matter to national scrutiny. This event would set in motion the creation of the AAUP to provide monetary and legal security, filling the gaps in many of their contracts. In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the
Association of American Colleges and Universities. These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject." The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law. In short the statement argues that professors have the privilege to search for truth and knowledge and the right to impart those truths and knowledge to others, including students, the academy, and the general public, unfettered by political or ideological pressure. Since being drafted, this definition has undergone two revisions in 1970 and 1999 respectively. The 1970 revision declares that the protections of academic freedom "apply not only to the full-time probationary and the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such as part-time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching responsibilities". The 1999 revision places emphasis on the idea that post-tenure review should be conducted in a manner that respects academic freedom and due process. In 1957, the
U.S. Supreme Court began to take up the matter starting with the case of
Sweezy v. New Hampshire. In
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), the Supreme Court made connections between the
First Amendment and academic freedom as an especially important protection on the grounds that it was crucial to everyone. Such First Amendment protections only applied to public institutions, and academic freedom contains protections outside of the First Amendment as the Court never outright declared that it contained academic freedom. Additionally, the AAUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with these same institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom and tenure. The AAUP
censures those colleges and universities which it has found, after its own investigations, to violate these principles. By 2022, 88 percent of four-year colleges and universities will limit student free speech, reversing a 15-year trend, according to the College Speech Codes annual report. The
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reported that 426 out of 486 institutions have at least one policy restricting student speech.
For institutions A prominent feature of the English university concept is the freedom to appoint faculty, set standards and admit students. This ideal may be better described as institutional autonomy and is distinct from whatever freedom is granted to students and faculty by the institution. The
Supreme Court of the United States said that academic freedom means a university can "determine for itself on academic grounds: • who may teach, • what may be taught, • how it should be taught, and • who may be admitted to study." In a 2008 case, a federal court in
Virginia ruled that professors have no academic freedom;
all academic freedom resides with the university or college. The
Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the
courts of appeals, including the first, third, and seventh circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, from when university officials may, in their discretionary authority, change the grade upon appeal by a student. The
Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.
Relationship to freedom of speech Academic freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive, although this widely accepted view has been challenged by an "institutionalist" perspective on the First Amendment. Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom. The AAUP gives teachers a set of guidelines to follow when their ideas are considered threatening to religious, political, or social agendas. When teachers speak or write in public, whether via social media or in academic journals, they are able to articulate their own opinions without the fear from institutional restriction or punishment, but they are encouraged to show restraint and clearly specify that they are not speaking for their institution. In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom. In the U.S., the
freedom of speech is guaranteed by the
First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." By extension, the First Amendment applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities. The U.S.
Supreme Court has historically held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at
public institutions. However, the United States' First Amendment has generally been held to
not apply to
private institutions, including religious institutions. These private institutions may honor freedom of speech and academic freedom at their discretion.
Controversies Evolution debate Academic freedom is also associated with a movement to introduce
intelligent design as an alternative explanation to
evolution in US public schools. Supporters claim that academic institutions need to fairly represent all possible explanations for the observed
biodiversity on Earth, rather than implying no alternatives to evolutionary theory exist, although in practice are interested in possible explanations from only one of the world's religious traditions, the
Abrahamic religions. Critics of the movement claim intelligent design is religiously motivated
pseudoscience and cannot be allowed into the curriculum of US public schools due to the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, often citing
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as legal
precedent. They also reject the allegations of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design, of which investigation showed no evidence. A number of "
academic freedom bills" have been introduced in
state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the
Discovery Institute, the hub of the
Intelligent Design movement, and derive from language originally drafted for the
Santorum Amendment in the
United States Senate. According to
The Wall Street Journal, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or biblical
creationism. The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its opposition to these bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of evolution as scientifically controversial. , only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.
ALFP debate (2014) In 2014, a debate was held by the Academic Leadership Fellows Program (ALFP), addressing the potential need to either further revise the text, overhaul it completely, or leave it as is. The argument that revision/overhaul is necessary asserts that due to rapid growth of technology in education, introduction of social media (which effectively blurs the line between existing as an academic and an individual with unique interests), increase in international students, and rise in student expectations for return on investment since 1999, the statement no longer applies to modernized academia and thus should be changed. The counterargument to revision/overhaul asserts that the AAUP's statement has aged well, and that overhauling the standard that has existed for decades would only stir up further confusion. Instead, it is necessary to "clearly articulate the statements' intended meaning through education, discussion, and by not supporting inappropriate behavior in the name of academic freedom". This debate took place in front of a live audience, who after hearing both arguments agreed overwhelmingly with keeping the statement as-is.
Communism In the 20th century and particularly the 1950s during
McCarthyism, there was much public date in print on Communism's role in academic freedom, e.g.,
Sidney Hook's
Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No and
Whittaker Chambers' "Is Academic Freedom in Danger?" among many other books and articles.
Diversity initiatives Since 2014, Harvard Medical School Dean
Jeffrey Flier, and
American Mathematical Society Vice President
Abigail Thompson have contended that academics are asked to support diversity initiatives, and are discouraged from voicing opposition to equity and inclusion through self-censorship, as well as explicit promotion, hiring, and firing.
Controversial opinions While some controversies of academic freedom are reflected in proposed laws that would affect large numbers of students through entire regions, many cases involve individual academics that express unpopular opinions or share politically unfavorable information. These individual cases may receive widespread attention and periodically test the limits of, and support for, academic freedom. Several of these specific cases are also the foundations for later legislation. In 1929,
Experimental Psychology professor
Max Friedrich Meyer and sociology assistant professor Harmon O. DeGraff were dismissed from their positions at the
University of Missouri for advising student
Orval Hobart Mowrer regarding distribution of a questionnaire which inquired about attitudes towards partners' sexual tendencies, modern views of marriage, divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and cohabitation. The university was subsequently censured by the
American Association of University Professors in an early case regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor. In 2006,
Lawrence Summers, while president of Harvard University, led a discussion that was intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to study science and mathematics at advanced levels. He
suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should be explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash. His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom. Due to the adverse reception to his comments, he resigned after a five-year tenure. Another significant factor of his resignation was several votes of no-confidence placed by the deans of schools, notably multiple professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. In 2009
Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at
New York University School of Law after controversy erupted about some anti-gay remarks she had made, prompting a discussion of academic freedom within the law school. Subsequently, Li-ann was asked to step down from her position in the NYU Law School. In 2009 the
University of California at Santa Barbara accused
William I. Robinson of
antisemitism after he circulated an email to his class containing photographs and paragraphs of the Holocaust juxtaposed to those of the Gaza Strip. Robinson was fired from the university, but later the accusations were dropped after a worldwide campaign against the management of the university. ==See also==