This conference looks at the current reality of the situation world-wide and in North, Latin and Central America in particular. It focuses on academic freedom, autonomy, governance, diversity, etc.
Date:
Event location: Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Centre at 555 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC - In presence and online event
Type: Magna Charta Anniversaries
Symposium on Universities Governments and Democracy: International Challenges, Lessons Learned, and Future Strategy
Patrick Deane, president of the governing council of the Magna Charta Observatory (MCO) in Bologna welcomed the participants, in person and online, to the Symposium. He thanked PEN America, the event co-sponsor, for helping MCO in arranging this event. In particular, he thanked Jeremy Young, Program Director of Freedom to Learn PEN America, and his associates, Claire Carter and Amy Reed for all their work, as well as Kevin Riley, Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin System, who worked with Jeremy and David Lock, the Secretary General of the Magna Charta Observatory, on developing the program for this event.
He thanked the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center for hosting the event and acknowledged the participation of Nadia Oussayef, Senior Director of Policy and Research: Administration of the University; Saroyah Callanan from the Agora Institute, and Amy Binder, Interim Director of the Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins. He highlighted Johns Hopkins’ generous support and the kind invitation of President Ron Daniels.
Before welcoming President Daniel to the podium, Deane quoted a paragraph from Daniel’s recent book “What Universities Owe Democracy” in which, after describing important characteristics of universities, the author states that “they owe to the democratic experiment an unequivocal commitment most to fulfilling the highest ideals of democratic discourse and to folding all our students into the always unfinished and ever-expanding conversation of democratic life.”
President Daniels welcomed the attendees to the Hopkins Bloomberg Center, emphasizing the shared commitment to the Magna Charta Universitatum and the crucial role universities play in fostering healthy democracies. He highlighted the interconnectedness of universities and democracies, both stemming from values like freedom of speech and thought, tolerance, and open exchange of ideas. However, he warned, these values are currently under threat due to polarization, disinformation, and declining trust in institutions, creating an environment ripe for authoritarianism.
President Daniels shared how he witnessed the assault on the Central European University (CEU) in Hungary, recalling the university's exile as a stark example of political interference. He noted that this playbook of authoritarian tactics is being used in other countries, including the US, where restrictions on speech in educational institutions have increased.
Despite these challenges, he expressed optimism and the belief that universities are key defense against authoritarianism, especially when upholding freedom of inquiry and fostering respectful dialogue. He stressed the need for universities to preserve facts and expertise, provide socioeconomic mobility, educate for democratic citizenship, and maintain pluralism.
Acknowledging criticisms of universities as insular and disconnected, President Daniels emphasized the importance of addressing valid concerns and pointed out the challenge of polarization on campuses, with many feeling their viewpoints are suppressed. He urged a renewed focus on encouraging engagement across the spectrum of viewpoints, fostering a climate of robust debate, open-mindedness, and respect for diverse experiences.
He concluded highlighting CEU's continued commitment to its values even after its exile, and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to collaborate with other institutions to ensure universities remain vital forces for democracy. He expressed delight at the attendees' presence and looked forward to working together. Finally, he thanked Magna Charta Observatory and PEN America for organizing this event.
After thanking President Daniels for his intervention, Prof. Deane, recounted that the Magna Charta Universitatum was signed in Bologna on September 18, 1988, and John Hopkins was a founding signatory. He noted that the Magna Charta preceded the Treaty of Maastricht by about four years, in a period of European history in which consensus building was occurring, and it was followed by the fall of the Berlin Wall. That is, the document proceeds the creation of the European Union. He emphasized how the Magna Charta is situated in growing consensus, at a time when that consensus is being challenged by heterogeneity and diversity in the university sector. In 2020, Prof. Deane continued, the document was updated in a way responsive to the contemporary conditions.
Prof. Deane noted how we are now in a situation that is rather the inverse of 1988, as one of the challenges for universities right now is that they stand on a set of values regarded as enduring, because of a global consensus about what higher education should be. However, some government infer that universities are tools to promote their policies and priorities exclusively.
Prof. Deane explained how in recent year, the Magna Charta Observatory has taken its annual conference to parts of the world in which these issues are live and potentially under threat, including Poland where discussions about academic freedom regarding Ukraine took place, and now the United States, two weeks before the election.
Topic:
“Threats, Limitations, and Challenges Facing Universities Today in North and South America”
Moderator:
Emma Pettit, Senior Reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education
Panelist:
Jeremy C. Young, PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program
Marcelo Knobel, Physic professor and former rector of Unicamp Brasil, and member of Magna Charta Observatory Governing Board.
Moderator Emma Pettit introduced the panelists and asked them about the most pressing threats facing universities today.
Prof. Marcelo Knobel identified communications as the most important challenge faced by UniCamp, as institutions are failing to communicate why they are good for society. He explained how universities are relatively young in Brazil because of how Portugal colonized the country and how It was until the 1930s that the country had its first universities. By 2024, only 20% of youngsters between 18- and 24-year-old are attending a university, and 80% of universities are private, non-research-intensive institutions. According to him, today, most of the Brazilian society don’t know what good research universities are or why they are essential to sustain society.
Prof. Knobel told how during his tenure as rector at UniCamp, he faced several congressional hearings, as they were claiming that public universities were not spending their monies properly. He had to attend lengthy meetings, answer every type of questions, and justify the university’s research on topics such as abortion or drugs. When the University faced profound budget cuts, the response of society was of complete indifference. As a contrast, he provided the example of Argentina, who is also going through a difficult situation with its current president, but, unlike Brazil, universities have a stronger position in society, and society supports them.
The moderator highlighted important similarities between Prof. Knobel’s recount and the current situation in the US, such as: congressional hearing in which university leaders faced scrutiny, declining public support and knowledge of what universities do, cuts, austerity, and asked Dr. Young about the biggest threats that he sees American universities facing today.
Dr. Young pointed out that the most distinctive characteristic of American universities, compared to other countries, is the decentralization of authority related to American institutions. The federal government does not control very much directly when it comes to universities but plays a role in the regulatory system for student financial aid, for some research funding, particularly in the sciences, as well as some in the humanities, and arts. He continued explaining that there is a private non-profit system of accreditation governed essentially by non-profit organizations that accredit quality control in universities, and this accreditation is tied to whether universities can receive federal financial aid for their students.
While the system is very decentralized, he continued, so are the attacks that we have seen. He described the stages of those attacks. The initial attacks were aimed primarily through state legislatures in states such as Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and others. He recounted that in 2021, state legislatures started restricting speech around a set of so-called “divisive concepts” related to race-gender identity and American history. In the beginning of 2023, there was a shift towards attempts to restrict the autonomy of universities, banning them from creating or maintaining diversity equity and inclusion offices; restricting their curriculum, general education majors minors; restricting mission statements for universities; restricting the what accreditors can be used and what those accreditors can require; restrictions around faculty shared governance, around faculty tenure, and so forth.
He explained that, depending on the outcome of the national general election, there might be a push to nationalize some of these restrictions and illustrated how the Project 2025, a Heritage foundation document, suggests that such nationalization takes place through the accreditation system, by weaponizing accreditors so they are required to follow the dictates of the federal government in order to for their accreditation to account, or recognizing alternative accreditors, or allowing individual states that have passed these restrictions to serve as their own accreditors.
Moderator Emma Pettit asked the panelists how have professors and university leaders responded to these challenges to autonomy in both situations.
Dr. Young started by describing a growing coalition of response from faculty, community members, students, university leaders, associations of universities. He explained that some of this response has been legal, the ACLU has filed lawsuits in Florida, Oklahoma, and Indiana against some of the more egregious of these laws, with some real success in the in the early stage. But he warned, this is a long process and it's going to take a few more years before this gets to the Supreme Court of the United States. He also noted the interest in building coalitions of university leaders and community leaders to push back against the legislation, and noted how more resistance has been seen in the last couple of years. Dr. Young described how lawmakers have responded to this reaction by moving without new legislation, for example, threatening budget cuts in universities if they don’t voluntarily make these restrictions and cuts.
Dr. Young pointed out that the real gap in the US is the lack of understanding of university autonomy as autonomy from ideological control by the government, a topic that is not discussed in great length in the country. He illustrated how legislators pushing this type of legislation may believe that if taxpayers pay for universities, they (legislators) should be able to decide what is taught and said there. He advocates for a more concerted response to say taxpayers pay for university to be a university; they pay for it to be a place of intellectual freedom, and that can't happen if the university is being dictated to ideologically by lawmakers.
Prof. Knobel explained that the response will vary from country to country, but, in his opinion, in Brazil, excluding some who are politically engaged, most people are more interested in their research labs and their research groups, and the academy is not paying attention to what happens, unless they introduce a cut in their research funding. In contrast, he illustrated how in Argentina the situation is completely different; the faculty and staff are more politicized, they go to strike and movements and street protest, they have a different perspective and behavior.
Emma Pettit redirected the discussion toward the public response. She noted how people may be focusing on polls that tend to have sometimes alarming headlines of declining public trust and how some professors feel a lack of trust from the public and ask why people don’t care about their academic freedom or their autonomy in the classroom. Then, she asked Dr. Young about his opinion on those polls.
Dr. Young acknowledged the last ten years, but mostly the las two years, show that public trust in universities, particularly among conservatives, is falling off the cliff. He described how, until the middle of the 2010s, there used to be healthy public support to university. He mentioned some recent facts that, for some people, may contribute to explain this change, including the proliferation of laws on higher education in the US, and issues such as crushing student debt, continued challenges interacting with communities, and misalignments within institutions. But he clarifies, while these are real phenomena, they don’t explain what’s happening in the polls because those are long standing issues, and yet, higher education only falls off the cliff recently, and it only falls for higher education as a sector. He explained that if you ask people how they feel about their own alma mater, or whether they want to send their students to college, or even about the institution in their community, the polls are uniformly positive, as they have been for a long time.
He attributed the change in attitude to two main things: the first one is a political realignment which, for the first time in the history of the US, there is a dramatic disagreement between people with college educations and people without college educations on political issues. The second one is a public relations campaign from a group of people affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and other organizations, who see higher education as a bastion of liberal power and instead of trying to reform it and create more conservative spaces on campus, improve view points diversity, as previous generations did, the want to destroy it or damage it in a significant way.
Dr. Young advocates for a push back against that effort and argues that the education of young people, and not so young people, in institutions of higher education is the best form of fitting American citizens for citizenship and democratic participation that we ever discovered.
Professor Knobel compared the case of Mexico and Brazil. In Mexico, universities have stronger support and the Universidad Autónoma de México, with more than 300,000 students, has the capacity to mobilize a good part of the society. In Brazil, he claims, there is very little knowledge about the university. To illustrate this point, he brought the example of a survey in which Brazilian people were asked to name one institution that makes research in Brazil, and less than 10% of the respondents were able to mention a single institution. So, he insisted, universities are failing on effective communication, not just about what universities do, but the merely fact of their existence.
Emma Pettit noted how Professor Knobel’s point on Brazilian universities need for more visibility caught her attention, because some people, her included, wished universities in America had less visibility. She pointed out how, for example, TikTok accounts and partisan outlets tend to report on every “excess of progressivism” that happens on campus, and how that burnishes universities having a certain reputation of being these bastions of progressivism. She also brought up how Jeremy Young had mentioned the narrative of universities as hotbeds of liberalism and asked the panelists if they see this as a legitimate issue or problem that is contributing to the decline of confidence in our universities and institutions.
Jeremy Young offered two responses. First, he mentioned the existence of some surveys that over the last few years have drilled down on this question; one from the University of North Carolina system, and one from the University of Wisconsin system. These surveys ask conservative students, do you feel uncomfortable? Why do you feel uncomfortable? And where do you feel uncomfortable? The surveys have found that conservative students do in fact feel uncomfortable on campus, in alarming numbers. But they also found that the place where they feel the most comfortable on campus is in the classroom. This might be counterintuitive, because professors are overwhelmingly liberal, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Conservative students feel unsafe outside of the classroom, on social media, that’s where they feel they must censor themselves, and sometimes they feel they must censor themselves in the classroom too because they're afraid of what will happen outside of the classroom. For him, once it is recognized that this problem that is mostly happening between students on a campus, rather than involving big scary liberal professors, you can have a different understanding of what the problem is.
Dr. Young advocates for a regime of education about free expression, about difficult dialogues, from orientation to graduation, because students are not getting this education in high school, where freedom of expression really don’t pertain in the way they do in college. He argues we should look at this not as a failure of our system, but as an unrealized need, something that that universities can meet and are on the way to meeting.
Dr. Young’s second point was about the importance of protecting intellectual freedom on campus. He pointed out how many of the proposals from lawmakers addressed at solving this problem involve not elevating conservative students’ ability to be heard and to express their views but instead using the power of the state to suppress the views of liberal students and liberal faculty members and of the institutions themselves. He believes this is not conductive to a balanced university, but a way that you create a climate of fear for everyone around the campus.
Ms. Pettit mentioned the Magna Charta’s tenet according to which “teaching must be intellectually and morally independent of all political influence,” and commented how this can be complicated in America and other countries because many of our higher education institutions are public and therefore receive funding from state governments or federal governments. She noted how, for some of America’s conservative lawmakers who are passing these legislations, because they are the elected representatives, and university professors and administrators are not, if lawmakers identify ideas or theories that are harmful to society or students, they should excise those ideas and theories from the university curriculum. She asked the panelist opinion about that argument.
Prof. Knobel explained how the situation in Brazil is very different and described how they came out with the current arrangement for the state of Sao Paolo, which have three public universities. After a large and violent strike in 1989, he recounted, the governor, fed up with the situation, decided to give universities the money and forget about them. They modified the state’s constitution, so that 9.7% of the sales tax’s revenue went directly to the university. To illustrate the current relationship between universities and government, Prof. Knobel explained that during his 3-4-year tenure as rector of UniCamp he never met the Governor, who technically was his boss, and the university never had to ask for money, because it came directly from the taxpayer to the university. However, he warned, this may change at any moment. Still, he acknowledged, there are challenges, such as the hearings he mentioned before. But if institutions have responsible governance, a responsible system, and transparency so that society knows what happens with their money, this is a way to achieve the autonomy of the university.
Dr. Young explained that many in the US are calling for a narrower definition of autonomy than what exist in other parts of the world and universities are not calling for financial autonomy. In this view, there is a role for the government and tax payers to play in shaping how the money is spent and used on campus; the way the campus interreacts with the community around it; the way students are served within the institution, whether they have equitable access, whether they successfully complete their degrees, whether they do so with a limited amount of debt, and so forth. But he advocates for universities’ full ideological autonomy, so that any idea can be debated on campus. It doesn’t mean that universities are places where anyone can day whatever they want, but places were ideas must be free to have a full hearing.
Ms. Pettit asked Dr. Young to talk about PEN America’s recent report on what it called “soft censorship” and invited him to give an overview of how the laws introduced in 2021 have changed and what he might expect going into the 2025 legislative session.
Dr. Young explained that they observed a move away from explicit restrictions on speech in 2023, compared to what they saw in 2021 and 2022, partly because those restriction have not tended to hold up well in court, and because there's abundant evidence that they're unpopular. While supporting laws containing these restrictions does not seem to bring negative consequences to politicians, it isn’t wining any votes either. He identified a trend in the last couple of years moving away from splashy press conference war on woke and toward things that are more aimed at undermining autonomy of higher education institutions, such as restrictions on diversity equity and inclusion, restrictions on curriculum, general education and majors and minors, tenure, shared governance, and accreditation. There has also been a move toward passing laws that restrict speech, but in ways that disguise their true intent. As an example, he mentioned that in 2024 Indiana passed a law claiming to enhance viewpoint diversity on campus within the classroom; in reality, it allowed the board of trustees fire any tenured faculty member they deem to insufficiently promoted viewpoint diversity in their classroom, outside of the normal tenure review process.
As a closing question, Ms. Pettit asked the two panelists whether there's anything that gives them hope about the public or the university's responses in the face of these threats.
Professor Knobel declared being pessimistic when considering the geopolitical situation, climate change, and everything that we are facing right now. He said that we as university sector have faced many challenges before and he is sure we will find a way out of this complex situation. He highlighted how Magna Charta decided, not by chance, to organize this conference in the US. To him, the fact that this topic is being discussed right now provides a little spot of optimism.
Dr. Young says that spaces like this gathering give him hope. He believes the attacks on higher education will not stop until higher education, particularly at the state level, ceases to be a soft target, which will require for higher education institutions and those who support higher education, including associations, advocates, the general public, to band together and effectively advocate on behalf of higher education, to restore the public attitudes on higher education, remind the public why this is so important and valuable for democracy, and to build a political muscle, so that higher education, as a sector not just as individual institutions, is able to defend itself against these threats.
Emma Pettit thanked the panelists for a great conversation.
Topic:
“Why Autonomy and Academic Freedom Matter”
Moderator:
Catherine (Kate) Stimpson, professor and Dean emeritus at the Graduate School of Arts and Science at NYU and Council member of the Magna Charta Observatory
Panelist:
Lynn Pasquerella, former president Mount Holyoke College, current president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Martina Darmanin, former president of the European Students’ Union, member of the Magna Charta Observatory Council.
Liviu Matel, former Provost of Central European University. Head of the School of Education Communication and Society, Kings College University of London, member of the Magna Charta Observatory Council.
Moderator Catherine Stimpson announced a slightly different format than the one from the previous panel. Each participant will speak for about ten minutes, followed by ten minutes for the panel members to talk to and questions each other, and then ten minutes for questions from the audience. After introducing the panel members, Prof. Stimpson invited Dr. Pasquerella to start her presentation.
Linn Pasquerella addressed a critical juncture for American higher education, characterized by what she termed a "moment of enormity." The central argument presented was that a confluence of factors, including escalating culture wars, deepening ideological divides, and heightened political polarization, poses an existential threat to the historic mission of educating citizens and leaders for a healthy democracy.
Dr. Pasquerella detailed a concerning trend of politically motivated incursions into higher education, manifested in a flurry of legislative actions. These actions include, but are not limited to: the imposition of educational gag orders restricting discussions on race, racism, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and reproductive rights; the banning of books; efforts to dismantle tenure and terminate tenured faculty; legislative overreach in the appointment and removal of campus leaders; and political influence on admissions processes and curriculum development. Specific examples cited included the push for ideologically driven civics institutes, the elimination of courses deemed controversial (e.g., critical race theory, gender studies), and the reclassification of statements made by professors at public colleges and universities as government speech outside First Amendment protections of academic freedom. She highlighted attempts to restrict research funding in areas like climate change and anti-racism, as well as mandates to prioritize academic programs based on projected economic value and job placement rates.
Dr. Pasquerella argued that these actions fundamentally challenge the American tradition of liberal education, which is grounded in principles of academic freedom, shared governance, and the unfettered pursuit of truth. While acknowledging historical precedents for such challenges, she emphasized the alarming nature and scope of the current wave of interventions. A key point was the assertion that the strength of American higher education has historically derived, in part, from its independence from direct government control and undue political influence. She underscored the essential role of universities in a diverse democratic society, where beliefs are freely expressed, questioned, and debated without fear of retribution or censorship. Liberal education, in this view, aims to liberate the mind from dogma, ideology, and prejudice.
The presentation emphasized the crucial role of academic leaders in reaffirming the importance of liberal education, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy. These principles were presented as vital for discerning truth, interrogating narratives, understanding systemic inequities, and fostering equity and justice. Quoting John Dewey, Dr. Pasquerella reiterated the idea that "democracy has to be borne anew each generation, and education is its midwife," emphasizing the connection between education and the cultivation of informed and engaged citizens. She cited research from Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce to support the claim that liberal education mitigates authoritarian tendencies.
The speaker also grounded their arguments in legal precedent, citing landmark Supreme Court cases such as Sweezy v. New Hampshire and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, which affirm the fundamental importance of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. These cases establish the right of universities to self-govern and protect intellectual freedom.
Finally, the presentation previewed findings from an upcoming study by AAC&U, AUP, and NORC at the University of Chicago, which reportedly reveals a concerning trend of declining academic freedom. Preliminary data suggests that a more than one in three of faculty members perceive a decline in academic freedom and are concerned about expressing their beliefs. Faculty are worried that students may record their lectures without consent and that their words and ideas will be shared out of context. As many as 45% of respondents reported self-censoring due to fear of repercussions. The speaker concluded by highlighting the long-term consequences of suppressing academic freedom, drawing a parallel to the anti-communist purge of the 1950s and emphasizing the importance of learning from history.
Liviu Matei
Addressing the question of “why academic freedom and university autonomy matter?”, Prof. Matei declared that university autonomy and academic freedom matter in different ways, at different times, and in different parts of the world. To illustrate his statement, he offered two examples. The first one presents a case in which models were imported from the United States to Europe; the second one, an example of how academic freedom models were imported from Hungary to the United States, sometimes copying contents almost verbatim.
Prof. Matei referred to President Daniels’ previous remarks about how he was one of the university leaders who spent time providing support to Central European University (CEU) when it came under attack and noted that Daniels was not the only one to solidarize with CEU, as almost all universities in the US and many more from around the world expressed solidarity, despite the small size of the university, with an enrollment of about 1,200 students. He attributed the massive interest to the fact that this was not just about a university, but about the cause of academic freedom. He recounted that there has been extensive discussion about academic freedom since 2017, but the topic was hardly mentioned in Europe between the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and that moment. He credits what happened in Turkey after the coup of 2016 as a starter of the discussion of academic freedom in Europe. Before that, academic freedom, as well as democracy, were taken for granted.
Prof.Matei explained that, in 2017, the European University Association, funded by the European Commission, developed a model of academic freedom for Europe, which started as a tool to assess the degree of autonomy of universities in in the European countries. To that purpose, it was necessary to address questions such as What is university autonomy? What does it mean? What are the obligations of the government? What are the obligations of universities? of other stakeholders? To define university autonomy, they looked toward the US and borrowed the model of autonomy applied to private research-intensive universities. However, he recalled, although they discussed university autonomy, the network never mentioned academic freedom or democracy.
Prof. Matei continued explaining how concerns of efficiency were a motivation to develop the European model of autonomy. Trying to understand how universities could be more efficient in delivering knowledge for the economy, the European Commission agreed to fund the project, and as a result, the idea that was promptly adopted. State governments and parliaments adopted legislation, if they haven’t already, to make it possible for universities to have financial, organizational, administrative, and academic autonomy. A very complex model emerged and, every 2-3 year, they publish a ranking of European countries based on the degree of autonomy given to their universities. He recalled that after the ranking was published, in those countries that did not fare very well, rectors went to the ministries and claimed more autonomy, under the argument of efficiency.
Prof. Matei recounted that, in 2016-2017, the European Commission sued Hungary for infringement of academic freedom, in the case of Central European University. They went to the European Court of Justice and Hungary argued that the European Commission had no legal standing because there was no European legislation or reference on academic freedom. However, the judge used European commercial legislation and treated the issue as a case of delivery and establishment of commercial services. The adverse verdict for Hungary was based on the right of CEU to deliver educational research as a commercial service. After this case, a European framework for academic freedom, including an official list of common fundamental values of higher education, academic freedom, institutional autonomy, academic integrity, participation of students and staff in university governance, public responsibility for higher education and of higher education. There are also voluntary, not legally binding joint European definitions for all these values.
Regarding the second example announced, Prof. Matei mentioned that some of the Florida legislation text was copied from Hungary and that there was movement of consultants between Hungary and Florida. This influence was not limited to higher education but included issues such as LGBTQ rights. As an example, he mentioned that the same Dostoevsky books are forbidden in Hungary and in Florida. He described this is a case of American importing bad models from Europe.
Prof. Matei states that freedom and university autonomy are important and relevant, among other things, because they create frameworks of reference on how to think about this concept, but also norms, regulations, and, sometimes, institutions which say who should do what about that. To conclude, he highlighted as a positive lesson the remarkable mobilization that took place in Europe since 2017 to put forward a common set of so-called fundamental values of higher education, define them, and get the government engaged to protect and promote these values.
Martina Darmanin
After thanking the moderator and highlighting the importance of the questions guiding the panel, Ms. Darmanin declared that she could not do justice to it, because to that purpose the question should have been taken out to the students on campus and, in a wider study, capture this data. However, she provided two examples from when she was in the European Students’ Union, the cases of Belarus and Ukraine. In Belarus, she witnessed how students perceived academic freedom and autonomy as integral to their fight for democracy, to the point that they go hand in hand with civil rights and human rights organizations.
In Ukraine, she continued, the importance of academic freedom has been highlighted as their intellectual communities are being torn apart and their institutions are either bombarded or repurposed by the Russian invasion. In both cases, the European Students’ Union was able to promptly respond to their calls of support by campaigning for aid and for student pathways, as well as by pressuring the ministries of the European Higher Education Area to make clear that these values matter. Ms. Darmanin advocated for a contextualized perspective to these values and pointed out how, for the European Students’ Union, supporting students speaking out against injustice matters because it’s a question of integrity to their values.
Ms. Darmanin finished her intervention with a set of questions to those dealing with students at risk in their universities: What are the formats of conversations that you are having around academic freedom and autonomy, especially where students at risk meet? Why do students at risk matter at universities? Why do your solidarity actions matter? And how do you think these conversations could be improved?
Before opening the floor to the audience, moderator Kate Stimpson invited the panelist to ask questions to each other.
Dr. Pasquerela asked Ms. Darmanin to comment on her view of the responsibility of students to protest.
Ms. Darmanin responded that the responsibility is determined by the way students organize. Some student unions, such as the Belarussians, are more activists in nature. Others are less activists and more representative and are trying to professionalize their operations. In that case, what matters is that they take these conversations to the decision-making table, and there is a solid tradition that many of these students’ organizations are consulted by their governments. Other organizations take a collegial approach and student protest may not be their higher priority, as they would try first to negotiate at the decision-making table. Ms. Darmanin noted that if, during her tenure, she had to call for a protest in Europe, the numbers they would get would be smaller than they wanted, partly because of the responsibility representatives have at the decision-making table. She also pointed out that the student body changes every year and identified as a threat what she called “the commercialization” because of which fewer students are willing to participate in student organizations as they find it a luxury.
The moderator opened the floor to questions from the audience. (As the questions were inaudible to the recording, only the responses can be reported.)
The first question came from a leader of a student’s organization and Prof. Stimpson asked Ms. Darmanin to answer.
Ms. Darmanin started by admitting that there is no perfect answer and highlighting how the battle between an activist on the streets and trying to take a conversation to the decision-making table matters. She illustrated how sometimes you go and protest, but nothing happens, and then you can have more impact by being on the table at the negotiation space. So, finding the right balance to the situation is difficult.
Prof. Pasquarella connected the challenges faced by students to those confronting higher education leaders. She highlighted the increasing moral distress experienced by institutional leaders who feel coerced into making unethical decisions. This distress, she argued, can lead to moral injury as their moral compass erodes. Referencing the 18-day Lane Theological Seminary protest—the first significant US campus protest, focused on abolition, she recounted how it ended up when President Beecher decided to abruptly shut down the debates and, consequently 70% of the seminary students left the institution and went to Oberlin College. She stated that it is possible to subvert from within, but sometimes it is imperative to walk away and decide not to be a part of an institution that shares these values. Then, she asked, “how do we encourage our students exercise that kind of moral courage? How do we engage in the hard work inside and outside of the classroom of speaking and listening across differences? She concluded by stressing that our initial response should not be to persuade others to our viewpoint, but rather to listen critically and empathetically, recognizing our shared humanity, which is essential for success in our globally interconnected world.
Prof. Matei emphasized that in Europe students play a major role in decision making in terms of university governance or higher education policy. They are always at the table, in the department, the university, at the national or European level. This might explain why there are no protests. He explained that there has not been student protest in Europe in about 10-15 years, until now, with Israel Gaza, and wondered why this didn’t go through the normal structures and processes.
Prof. Matei also mentioned the law “Higher Education (Freedom of Speech)” adopted last year (2023) in England and supposed to enter in effect in July 2024. According to his interpretation, the law equates academic freedom with freedom of speech and nothing else, and if the law is not respected by university administrations or student unions there should be financial penalties, or even jail. He believes that a consequence of the law is that everybody has the right to express their opinions irrespective of any academic standards or evidence. He noted that the law was suspended by the new government, a few days before coming into force, despite having been adopted by the Parliament and signed by the King, a move that can be illegal or unconstitutional. However, in Prof. Matei’s opinion equalizing freedom of speech and academic freedom, as the law apparently does, can be dangerous and counterproductive. He pointed out how many of the current cases discussed in the media and academic campuses in the US, are not cases of academic freedom, but cases of freedom of speech, which is a right of all citizens. He believes its dangerous to regulate freedom of speech on campus as if it were a privilege or special professional category.
Moderator Kate Stimpson presented some highlights of each intervention. She started by reminding the task of the panel: to show how the values of academic freedom and university autonomy matter. From Prof. Pasquarella’s intervention, she highlighted the necessary connection of academic freedom and free campus to democracy and how it is not possible to have citizens of a democracy, working citizens of a working democracy, without these values. Later, she pointed out how Prof. Matei’s presentation stressed the importance of contextualized values, the distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech, and the importance of being aware of the reference frameworks. From Ms. Darmanin’s intervention, she underscored the question “do students understand and act on these values,” and added that there should be, within the university, more embodiment of these values the students can learn and learn to support. The moderator also summarized the questions from the audience. The first one, with the statement “don’t dismiss the concerns of conservative students” and brought a topic briefly mention by Ms. Darmanin related to what happens when a university becomes a commercial enterprise where teaching and learning is for the sake of commercial ends. Finally, Prof. Stimpson thanked the panelists and the audience.
Amy Binder
Amy Binder, Interim Director of the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University introduced the Institute as “an academic and public forum where we integrate research, teaching and practice, to improve civic engagement and promote informed inclusive dialogue as the cornerstone of global democracy.” She thanked the speakers and the audience for their attendance and participation, and made some remarks on democratic backsliding, a topic than had been discussed either explicitly or latently during the morning session.
Dr. Binder’s report was informed by a report that SNF Agora commissioned in 2023 to political scientist Jonathan Pinkney and his graduate student Hamza Khan, who were asked to survey democratic backsliding across the globe. Beyond conducting a survey of democratic decline, Pinkney and Khan were asked to analyze how institutions of higher education are in particular peril under these conditions, but also how universities are best suited to help prepare and reverse democratic backsliding. The authors came out with six actionable strategies that institutions of higher Ed can pursue which they rate up as 6D, which stands for:
Diagnosis: Authoritarians typically cloak their anti-democratic actions in democratic rhetoric to confuse citizens. Universities can leverage their expertise to diagnose and unpack the strategies that authoritarian leaders use to attack democracy and then share these diagnoses with the public in different ways.
Deliberation: Democratic backsliding not only is accompanied by obfuscating rhetoric, but it's also frequently fueled by “us versus them” style polarization, which ends up emotionally blinding supporters to the authoritarian actions of their leaders. Colleges and universities have a real role in helping deliberation occur. They can establish spaces where their local communities can talk across difference, which can help reduce polarization and spark civic awakenings.
Defense: Universities are critical free spaces for the conversations and discussions that lead to civic mobilization, and such civic mobilization is crucial we're pushing back against democratic backsliding. Universities should thus defend their campuses against attempts to censor or suppress free expression, including student protest, provided that such protest follows basic norms of nonviolence.
Development of young people's taste for democracy: Higher education should be in the business of developing democratic dispositions among these future leaders, and colleges and universities can do this by bolstering informal interpersonal networks.
Dispelling inaccurate information and inaccurate views of democracy.
Drawing together partnerships: Almost all current research on repairing democratic backsliding focuses on individual short-term outcomes, yet real-world democratic backsliding occurs over extended periods of time, at local, organizational, and state and national or even international levels. However, even the best individual level changes may have little impact when they are embedded in a backsliding democratic system. Institutions can draw together research on the various kinds of interventions that help over the long term, and it's very important for us to be evidence-based again.
Pinkney and Khan, and the SNF Agora Institute appreciate that democratic backsliding is one of the 21st centuries most challenging problems. Repairing it will be a long-term struggle, requiring a coordination and cooperation across all sectors of society.
Dr. Binder thanked to Magna Charta Observatory and PEN America for convening this year at the Hopkins Bloomberg Center.
Patrick Deane
Prof. Deane concluded the symposium by thanking Dr. Binder and summarizing key themes. He focused on the "drawing together" strategy, linking it to what the Magna Charta refers to as the social contract between universities and society, which refers to the undertakings which society makes to universities and universities make to society for their mutual benefit. He echoed Dr. Young's earlier point that universities should have the freedom to do what they do in the interests of society. He also reinforced Prof. Matei's observation about varying approaches to university autonomy across jurisdictions and declared to be shocked with the migration of a bad idea from Hungary to Florida, which he connected to rising parochialism and its impact on academic freedom and suggested the Magna Charta as a counterforce. He emphasized the need for a global dialogue that respects diverse approaches to academic freedom and university autonomy, highlighting the conference's goal of bringing international perspectives, particularly European ones, to the US context. Finally, he thanked the attendees and officially closed the symposium.
Report by Dr Ivan Pacheco.
Conference Rapporteur
9-2-25
