At a time when the question being discussed in the Quebec academic world concerns academic freedom of teaching, research, creation and criticism, the rector of the University of Montreal asks: ” What are the universities » (The duty, April 30, 2022). He rightly reminds us that their mission “is part of the long term” and that it is one “of the rare spaces where we can still invoke critical thinking and open debate”.
Some will however find it curious that he considers that their “primary role is to preserve knowledge and the achievements of scientific knowledge”, whereas this is rather the mission of museums and libraries. The “second fundamental role of universities” would be “the transmission of knowledge, the training of young people”. However, training “the youth” is not reserved for the university; CEGEPs contribute strongly to this. At this point, one wonders if the research will end up being mentioned.
Because far from having been a mission of the university for “eight centuries”, research was only added as an official activity in the 19th century.and century, in the wake of the brilliant idea of Wilhelm von Humboldt, founder of the University of Berlin in 1809, to no longer leave scientific research to the academies alone, but to associate it closely with university education. Whatever this historical detail, we are still relieved to read: “Finally, the third role of universities is to create new knowledge”.
One wonders why, instead of improvising on the roles of the university, the rector did not consult the many reports which define very clearly and for a long time the mission of these institutions. Consider, for example, the very recent “Cloutier Report” on academic freedom, which defines this mission as follows: “The production and transmission of knowledge through research, creation, teaching and community service activities. »
But we better understand the aim really aimed at by this circumvented preamble on the “roles” of the university when, suddenly, and without logical connection with what precedes, the rector affirms in a peremptory manner that “we must let the academics define themselves -even the contours of academic freedom” and that we do not “need a legislative text like Bill 32, currently before the National Assembly, to achieve this”.
Autonomy with very variable geometry
But in speaking of “academics”, the recteur seems to forget that, each university being autonomous, his suggestion amounts to saying that the “contours” of academic freedom could, quite logically, vary from one establishment to another, how varied are their working conditions, standardized (or not) by a collective agreement! What professor would agree to have more (or less) academic freedom depending on whether he works in one institution rather than another? And it was inevitable to see the mantra of “autonomy” repeated, as if numerous opinion pieces and journalistic investigations had not amply demonstrated that it is very variable in geometry.
As for the “power of self-correction” of which the university would be capable, it seems to have seriously failed when the government had to adopt, in 2017, the Law aimed at preventing and combating sexual violence in higher education establishments. . It should be remembered that it then imposed on universities – which had apparently not been able to “self-correct” their practices – the creation of a “policy whose objective is to prevent and combat sexual violence” .
It even stipulated that this policy should be “separate from any other policy of the institution” and that the latter should form “a standing committee […] to develop, revise and monitor the policy”. Article 16 goes even further and indicates that “any educational institution that fails to comply with one of the obligations provided for in this law may be subject to monitoring and support measures imposed by the Minister” .
The rector seems to admit that “threats” do exist, but that they would be “passing”. One wonders what crystal ball allows him to formulate his prediction, because very many books and articles on the problems of freedom of teaching, research and creation within universities, published in America as in Europe, suggest the opposite. .
Since academic freedom is an essential condition for the accomplishment of the university mission, and the proof having been amply given of the reluctance of institutions to really defend it in the face of the various attacks to which it is the object, we do not see how a a law that simply obliges universities to adopt specific mechanisms (and not simple “declarations”) to ensure their defense and promotion can seriously be presented as being an unacceptable incursion into the sacrosanct autonomy of universities.
As for trees, remember that to keep them healthy and grow, they sometimes have to be pruned.