Teaching and Teacher Learning

The pressures and pleasures of academic freedom: How agency bridges the gap

In recent years, the conversation around academic freedom has often centered on political pressure, censorship, or institutional overreach (Darian-Smith, 2025). These are important concerns, yet they tell only part of the story. Academic freedom is not just a matter of external defense; it is also an academic’s internal experience and responsibility. It shapes how academics live their professional lives, relate to their work, and sustain their mental health. Academic freedom is protected by law (Altbach, 2001; Karran, 2009), but this does not mean that academics find themselves in a land of milk and honey. As Karran and Mallinson (2019) emphasize, academic freedom rests on a reciprocal understanding: academics are free to explore and teach controversial and politically sensitive topics, as long as they uphold academic norms and institutional obligations. Academic freedom, thus, is both a privilege and a mission, one that brings pressures as well as pleasures. To make well-informed choices within this freedom, academics need agency, i.e., the capacity to make deliberate decisions in challenging situations. In this blog, I will argue how agency is the crucial link that bridges the gap between pressures and pleasures that come with academic freedom. While academic freedom offers the delight of intellectual exploration with students and self-directed research, it also comes with the weight of expectation, precarity, and sometimes, isolation. By cultivating agency, academics can fulfill their duty to enhance knowledge and educate students to critical free thinkers (cf. Van der Rijst, 2024) while sustaining positive emotions in their work.

Academic freedom is not the same as free speech; it is a professionally bound right
Academic freedom is a cherished principle within modern universities; a cornerstone of a well-functioning society (Darian-Smith, 2025; Whittington, 2022). At its core, academic freedom encompasses the independence to inquire, teach, and speak without undue interference. This freedom enables us to engage in critical debate and challenge the status quo, a vital function of academia. However, despite its foundational role, academic freedom is frequently misunderstood and contested. A common source of confusion lies in its conflation with the concept of free speech (Darian-Smith, 2025). While the two are closely related, they are not identical. Academic freedom is rooted in disciplinary expertise and accountability to academic peers, rather than simply the right to express personal opinions (EUA, 2025). This distinction is fundamental because academic freedom entails both rights and responsibilities. Without this distinction, academic freedom risks being mistaken for unchecked personal expression or activism, thereby weakening public trust. The tension between autonomy and accountability becomes especially pronounced when scholarship confronts societal values, ideologies, or political power. In such contexts, academics may encounter both external pressures and internal forms of censorship. Yet, the discomfort provoked by challenging prevailing norms is not a flaw of academic freedom; it is a feature. It is precisely this disruptive potential that enables academic work to serve the public good, drive progress, and hold institutions to account (EUA, 2025). It empowers academics to pursue and disseminate truth through research, teaching, and public discourse, and demands that such efforts be guided by ethical standards (Giroux, 2024; Netherlands Commission for UNESCO, 2025). As Robert M. Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, stated in 1935:

“Anybody who has real familiarity with higher education will not hesitate to assert that professors are not engaged in subversive teaching. They will also remind the public that professors are citizens. They are not disfranchised when they take academic posts. They therefore enjoy all the rights of free speech, free thought, and free opinion that other citizens have. No university would permit them to indoctrinate their students with their own views. No university would permit them to turn the classroom into a center of propaganda. But off the campus, outside the classroom, they may hold or express any political or economic views that it is legal for an American to express or hold. Any university would be glad to have Mr. Einstein among its professors. Would anybody suggest that he should be discharged because he is a ‘radical’?”

The pressures and pleasures of academic freedom
To understand academic freedom only as a right is to miss its deeper significance (Darian-Smith, 2025). In truth, academic freedom should be understood as a mission, a collective responsibility that carries both pressures and pleasures (cf. Altbach, 2001). It is not merely a shield against interference, but a charge to seek, generate, and share knowledge in service of the public good.

The pressures: Academic freedom as a mission
The genuine meaning of academic freedom brings with it real and enduring pressures (cf. Fuchs, 1963). When seen as a mission, academic freedom demands more than self-direction; it calls for integrity, intellectual courage, and a deep commitment to the pursuit of truth. This can be daunting.

To work under the protection of academic freedom is to be constantly invited, if not required, to interrogate conventional knowledge, confront complex problems, and produce work that may not be easily understood or universally welcomed. Academics engaged in socially relevant or politically sensitive research often find themselves under scrutiny from within the academy and outside it as well (cf. Darian-Smith, 2025; Giroux, 2024). The sense of mission can become a source of tension when external stakeholders – governments, industries, and interest groups – attempt to influence or suppress inquiry that threatens their positions. Moreover, academic freedom, rightly understood, is not a license for personal opinion but a responsibility to engage in evidence-based discourse. The duty that academic freedom insists is not light. It brings with it a unique kind of pressure: to remain intellectually honest in the face of complexity, to resist ideological influence, and to serve the public good even when doing so is inconvenient, unpopular, or even risky. Academic freedom, therefore, puts pressure on academics by the idea that academic work should be connected to societal impact and intellectual responsibility (Altbach, 2001).

The pleasures: Academic freedom calls for academics’ agency
Yet alongside the pressures academic freedom brings, it also brings pleasures. At its core, the privilege of enjoying academic freedom enables academics to show agency. Showing agency means being in charge of deliberate, meaningful choices, a process that is empowering and pleasurable, as it affirms one’s role as an active contributor to work (Vähäsantanen et al., 2020). Academic freedom opens the door to genuine intellectual exploration, allowing us to follow curiosity wherever it leads, to teach courses that challenge assumptions, and to contribute to urgent societal conversations with substance and integrity (Netherlands Commission for UNESCO, 2025).

There is immense privilege in shaping a research agenda driven by authentic questions, in designing courses that provoke real and in-depth dialogue, and in engaging students in learning that can be personally and politically transformative. Academics, in this sense, do not simply observe or comment on the world; they use their agency to help shape it by bringing evidence, nuance, and critique to society.

In my opinion, this may be one of the highest callings and most privileged roles: contributing to a better world by pursuing one’s own intellectual curiosity, while supporting and inspiring others to do the same in their own ways. Fully in line with what Darian-Smith (2025) argues, it is therefore especially alarming that entire academic disciplines are being defunded or eliminated, often on grounds of vague or economically motivated justifications. Such actions frequently result in the marginalization or silencing of research areas and critical perspectives that are essential for interrogating established power structures. The growing pattern of restricting academic inquiry (through budget cuts, policy interference, or blacklists of research topics) forms part of a broader authoritarian trend that threatens the institutional autonomy of universities. As a result, academia is increasingly being stripped of its capacity to challenge orthodoxy and fulfill its democratic responsibility.

To conclude, in defending academic freedom, we are defending much more than the rights of academics; we are safeguarding one of the essential conditions for social progress. And in cherishing the pleasures of academic freedom, we must also recognize the responsibility they entail: to use our agency not only to pursue what fascinates us, but to stand up for the values that make that pursuit possible. I leave it up to the reader to decide whether that is a pressure or a pleasure.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education, 41(1–2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026781906936

Darian-Smith, E. (2025). Knowledge production at a crossroads: Rising antidemocracy and diminishing academic freedom. Studies in Higher Education, 50(3), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2347562

European University Association. (2025, February). How universities can protect and promote academic freedom: EUA principles and guidelines. https://www.eua.eu

Fuchs, R. F. (1963). Academic freedom: Its basic philosophy, function, and history. Indiana University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2024). Educators as public intellectuals and the challenge of fascism. Policy Futures in Education, 22(8), 1533-1539. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241226844

Hutchins, R. M. (1935, April 18). What is a university? In Banout, T. & Ginsburg, T. (Eds.), The Chicago canon on free inquiry and expression. The University of Chicago Press. https://www.press.uchicago.edu (ISBN 978-0-226-83781-9)

Karran, T. (2009). Academic freedom in Europe: time for a Magna Charta? Higher Education Policy, 22, 163-189. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2009.2

Karran, T., & Mallinson, L. (2019). Academic freedom and world-class universities: A virtuous circle? Higher Education Policy, 32, 397-417. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0087-7

Netherlands Commission for UNESCO. (2025, May 26). Een vrije en veilige wetenschap: Vijf adviezen aan de minister voor Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. [A free and safe science: Five recommendations to the Minister of Education, Culture and Science] (Jon Verriet, Ed.). https://www.unesco.nl/nl/publicatie/een-vrije-en-veilige-wetenschap-vijf-adviezen-aan-de-minister-voor-onderwijs-cultuur-en-wetenschap/in-het-kort

Van der Rijst, R. (2024, 13 september). On the relevance and necessity of research into higher education. Scholarly Publications. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/4054961

Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., Räikkönen, E., & Hökkä, P. (2020). Professional agency in a university context: Academic freedom and fetters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103000

Whittington, K. E. (2022). Academic freedom and the mission of the university. Houston Law Review, 59(4), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3998593

Share This Post!

One of the best things about being a researcher is the opportunities it provides to learn from and with colleagues from different countries and contexts. This has certainly been my experience of late, as a member of the COST action, ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning Network for Languages in Education (CLIL NetLE).

Funnily enough, the CLIL NetLE has also sparked new local connections. During the CLIL NetLE’s international Teacher Training School in Leiden, Fred Janssen (Professor of Science Education and ICLON’s Scientific Director) and I explored a question that has been bubbling under the surface for some time: Are his perspective-oriented approach and my main research and teaching interest – disciplinary literacies – actually two sides of the same coin? Or, as our former colleague, Evelyn van Kampen, once put it, are we “digging the same tunnel”?

Subject-specific thinking and knowing

Perspectives and disciplinary literacies have one crucial element in common: the conviction that teaching and learning a subject involves subject-specific thinking and knowing. In other words, learning biology means learning to think like a biologist, and to understand the beliefs and assumptions that influence that discipline.

Perspective-based education is a way to help students get a grip on complex problems by posing questions through different ‘lenses’ (perspectives). The perspectives also provide direction in searching for and testing answers. Take the nitrogen crisis, for example. To grasp this topic, you must approach it from at least biological, chemical, political-administrative and economic perspectives.

The underlying principle of disciplinary literacies is that subject-specific thinking and knowing are linked to subject-specific communication. Due to their different frames of reference a biologist and a historian will each communicate knowledge in distinct ways. Communication in each field will differ again depending on purpose, audience and context. Thus, subject-specific communication is integral to teaching and learning any subject, in any language.

Missing Cs

So what is it that keeps these two tunnels from meeting? It can help to refer a well-established model from content and language integrated learning (CLIL). According to the 4Cs (Coyle et al., 2010), subject teaching involves four key elements, which are inextricably linked with each other: Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture. Through the lens of the 4Cs, it becomes clear why the perspective-based and disciplinary literacies ‘tunnels’ have never quite met. While their core is the same, each of them is missing explicit attention for a ‘C’.

While disciplinary literacies focuses heavily on the ways Communication, Cognition and Culture interact while learning or teaching subject content, there is little explicit attention in this field to which subject-specific Content should be learned and taught.

In the perspective-based approach, choice of Content is the central issue. It relates closely to the Cognitive processes, beliefs and types of behaviour (Culture) associated with the subject. What is missing is attention for the impact these have on how we Communicate in that discipline.

Out of the tunnel and into the tree

We believe this exploration is a valuable step in bringing our respective ‘tunnels’ closer together and in opening them up further so that subject specialists can relate to and translate them into practice.

But perhaps we should get out of our tunnels altogether and breathe some fresh air. CLIL NetLE has published an initial operationalisation of bi- and multilingual disciplinary literacies. There, the concept is broken down into functional, critical, technological, multi- and transsemiotic, and bi-, multi- and translingual dimensions, depicted through the metaphor of a tree. Might there also be room in that tree for a ‘disciplinary perspectives’ dimension? This is a question we hope to explore further, both locally and with our international partners.

Sparked your interest?

• You can find out more about the CLIL NetLE and access its outputs so far, see the CLIL NetLE website. If you are a researcher in CLIL, disciplinary literacies, subject didactics or a related area, and would like to get involved in CLIL NetLE, you can find out how here.
• You can find more information about ICLON’s work with the perspective-based approach, including professional development and workshops for schools, here (in Dutch – fill in the contact form if you would like to discuss possibilities in English).
• For teachers and schools looking to delve further into CLIL, disciplinary literacies or the perspectives, let us know! ICLON’s professional development department can discuss the possibilities for bespoke programmes or guest lectures.
• Another tunnel we may want to access in this discussion is the Pluriliteracies movement, spearheaded by Do Coyle and Oliver Meyer.

Photography: Stefanie Uit Den Boogaard

Tree figure adapted from the original by Talip Gülle

Share This Post!

Leiden University hosted two one-day conferences on second language learning within just three weeks: the Language Learning Resource Centre’s (LLRC) yearly conference, this time on AI in language education, was held on June 13th. On July 1st there was a one-day conference on rhythm and fluency in second language speaking, as satellite workshop alongside the 2024 Speech Prosody conference. As co-organizer of these one-day events, I got to experience both maximally. It made me realize once again the breadth and wealth of language learning research.

LLRC conference on AI in language education

For the 7th edition of the LLRC conference, presenters from Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, a secondary school, and a global testing company from The Netherlands and Flanders showed their research and good practices to a crowd of researchers and language teachers from a similar wide range of different institutes, schools, and companies. With 110 participants, it was the busiest edition so far. Apparently, the theme of the day struck a note. Although AI has been around since the 50’s, it is only in the last two years that LLMs and intelligent tools are quickly and drastically changing language use, language learning, and language teaching. When the LLRC committee came up with the timely theme in the fall of 2023, we did not yet know it, but it turned out that June ‘24 was proclaimed as month of AI in education in the Netherlands, with many events throughout the country, and the one by LLRC was linked to it.

AI is not artificial and it is not intelligent

The keynote speaker, Esther van der Stappen (Avans University of Applied Sciences), introduced the theme by bringing together multiple perspectives and bridging the gap between computer science and education, shedding light on practical and ethical aspects of AI in education more in general. She certainly had our attention when she explained what AI is not: it is not artificial and it is not intelligent, to begin with.

Bastogne cookies and second language learning in both conferences

A little over a fortnight later, the one-day conference on prosodic features of learners’ fluency featured two keynote speakers: Lieke van Maastricht (Radboud University) and Malte Belz (Humboldt University, Berlin). Lieke showed how the use of hand-gestures during speaking in a second language should not be ignored, and Malte showed methodological issues that need to be addressed in research on measures of fluency in speaking such as pausing and filled pauses. This conference had some similarities to the LLRC conference, but the differences were more pronounced. To start with the similarities: on both days, technological advancements and tools played a big role; on both days, Bastogne cookies were served during coffee breaks and vegetarian bitterballen at the end of the day. Obviously, the biggest resemblance between both conferences concerned the broad topic of second language learning. But where the day on AI in the language classroom showcased research and practice on language teaching didactics (using AI) in the broadest sense, the conference on prosody and fluency showed research and research methods on very specific aspects that language learners need to master, namely on hesitations and rhythm in speaking.

Making worlds meet

To advance research and practice of language teaching, both types of exchanges among researchers and teachers are helpful, and in the end, we should strive to have both types of worlds meet. For instance, it is one thing to find out that gestures like arm movements should accompany the word or sentence stress, and that second language learners have trouble in timing gestures in this way; it is another thing to teach the timing of gestures to a classroom of 30 students. And indeed, in the closing session on July 1st, three “D”’s were recognized as Big Questions or New Challenges to tackle within the subfield of prosody in linguistics: 1) Differences between individuals in speaking and learning to speak, 2) the Dynamic nature of speaking processes, and, as third “D”: Didactics. So plans to have both types of worlds meet (more often) are already in the making! 

Share This Post!