UK universities and authoritarian influences: where are we at?

The panellists, who came from a wide range of research backgrounds, discussed authoritarian influences on academic freedom in the context of a globalised higher education.

Authoritarian practices are widespread within and against academia

In her intervention, Professor Penny Green (Queen Mary) discussed what she qualified as academic unfreedom in Myanmar, Burma. Although universities are critical sites of resistance in most countries, in Myanmar there is direct violence and security action aimed at Rohingyas. Since they are denied citizenship, they cannot access universities. In the context of academia, a solution would be to critically engage with Burmese universities. In other words, academic cooperation and work could continue with these universities whilst maintaining a critical stance on their position regarding the oppression of the Rohingya communities.

Dr Gülistan Yarkin and Dr Derya Bayir (independent researchers) discussed the limits of academic freedom in Turkey, where strong nationalism plays a prominent role in repressing academic freedom. Disciplinary actions are directed not only against academics who resist these views (by studying topics such as Turkish-Kurdish relationships), but also against their colleagues and acquaintances.

Professor Lien Verpoest (KU Leuven) discussed the evolution of academic freedom in Russia, from absolute freedom of speech in the 1990s to a State-controlled academic space. The presentation ended with the State-influenced stance that Russian academic institutions and academics have taken on the war in Ukraine - namely dissidence, emigration and/or (self) censorship.

Democracies are not waterproof to authoritarian practices

Professor Eric Heinze (Queen Mary) interrogated what the place of free speech in academia was, by focusing on whether universities are supposed to be democratic. He concluded by stating that the regime applied within universities should follow the existing law. This means that students can legitimately expect universities to be a forum for the exchange of ideas, rather than impermeable to political activity. According to his argument, universities should not shield students from democracy, its role being to “respect students not as wards of the state but as citizens of the State.”  

The discussion then moved to the topic of antisemitism and academic freedom in the UK, led by Professor Neve Gordon (Queen Mary). He put forward that the current working definition of antisemitism created a risk of conflation between antisemitism and antizionism, harming not only the victims of antisemitism but also Zionist critics who are (wrongly) accused of it. According to him, its adoption by 120 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) committees under political pressure demonstrates that UK universities are engaging in defensive and authoritarian practices.  

The global market economy allows authoritarian States to exercise their influence in the UK

Dr Tim Pringle (SOAS) discussed the internationalisation of higher education in the United Kingdom with a focus on China’s expansion. He explained that, taken in its context of neoliberal globalisation, the internationalisation of the UK higher education system was driven by technological advances, labour mobility and the privatisation of higher education institutions. Dr Pringle started by setting the historical evolution of academic freedom in China, which is heavily State-controlled today. He then  highlighted some similarities with the UK, where there is also a market-driven mindset to the expansion of higher education. It then impacts academic freedom in different ways. For example, the funding of research will be private and thus might come with constraints. Students are seen as clients through the payment of high university fees and as such universities might be less lenient to open criticism of international students’ home-countries.

Dr Jo Smith Finley (Newcastle University), who is currently living under sanctions from China, discussed the impacts it has had on her research, teaching and the prospects for inter-cultural communication. Dr Smith Finley explained that she was sanctioned after working on the persecuted Uighur communities in Xinjiang. This had consequences which led to her removal as a coordinator for student exchanges with China, and limited university advertisements of her academic events because of political and financial pressures. 

An urgent need for governance reform and professional practice response

Professor Eva Pils (King’s College London) then discussed self-censorship in the context of academic collaboration and exchanges with autocracies. She highlighted a tension within the concept of self-censorship, given that silence should be respected as an expression of academic freedom. Yet it also raises some concerns, especially as it represents a challenge to transnational cooperation within areas studies involving authoritarian states. She insisted on the need for increased transparency in foreign donations to the funding of research, on which the UK is heavily dependent.

Professor John Heathershaw (Exeter University) concluded the event by remarking that, in Central Asia, authoritarian politics and security measures pressured scholars into internalising repression and passing it onto others. Thus, academics either agree to be controlled, leave or cultivate a liminal space. The latter can easily be erased by geopolitical crisis or political closure. An answer would be to reinforce accountable and transparent methods of governance, by supporting NGOs who work in the academic field for example.

This summary of the Internationalisation and Threats to Academic Freedom event was written by Mathilda Lorkin – one of our 2023 cohort of Policy Associates. Find out more about our Policy Associates here.

If you wish to learn more about the topic, consider following and supporting the work of the aforementioned academics and NGOs working in this area.

Click here for more information about the Global Policy Institute.