I'm closely following Harvard's legal battle in defense of its freedoms (who to teach, what to teach, which professors to hire). Naturally, Harvard appeals to all lines of defense that are favorable to it. And that's why a central argument is that Harvard is a private institution and as such cannot be subject to the discretionary decisions of the political authority. But then I ask myself: how will Berkeley, which is a public university, defend itself, or how would we defend ourselves if tomorrow a minister of the branch were from Vox and wanted to play Trump?
Academic freedoms are, to one degree or another, inherent to the university institution. They include the freedom of a professor to teach what they are supposed to with minimal interference in how they do so. And also the freedom to research in the directions they deem appropriate.
It's worth noting that there are two types of research institutions. The first, which I will call academic, responds to the model of freedoms I just described. It includes universities but also organizations without a teaching function. In its most developed version, the academic typology has evolved toward the primacy of the researcher. For example, today, researchers typically have their own funds for their research. They have obtained them through participation in competitive calls, and although they are administered by the institution that hires them, the resources belong to the researcher and remain with them when they change institutions. This is what guarantees their freedom. In short, these institutions are areas of intellectual freedom that catalyze communities of scholars.
The second type—I'll call them hierarchical research centers—have research programs strictly established by their management. They are oriented toward generating products for the market or solving well-defined technological challenges ("going to the Moon"). The head of research at a research-driven multinational once told me that it was uncomfortable for his company to have researchers who had their own resources. He preferred internal funding.
The world needs both types. Incidentally, salaries tend to be higher than those in hierarchical institutions. For many researchers—including university professors—academic freedom compensates for the monetary loss.
An important caveat. The principle of academic freedom does not imply that society is unable to have academic institutions contribute to advancing the study of topics it considers priority. The principle only implies that governments cannot transform them into hierarchical institutions. They cannot give orders. à la Trump, but they can promote incentive policies. The prevalence of external funding for research facilitates this. It's good to have calls without conditions, but it's also essential to have them with conditions.
How does the public/private issue affect this? I consider it in the context of universities. In principle, all of them will be committed to academic freedom. In a situation of democratic stability in which the political authority respects university freedoms, public universities will do so to the maximum degree, while private universities will have some restrictions (think of religious ones).
Now, if the political authority doesn't respect academic freedom, it will matter a lot whether the university is public or private. In the US, it is being clarified whether public universities are in a weaker position than private ones. The University of California at Berkeley is in the state of California, now under a Democratic government that respects academic freedom. But what if the governor were a Trump? In Europe and Latin America, the danger of public intervention was mitigated by the implementation of the principle of university autonomy in their constitutions. This could protect us if the Minister of Universities were from Vox. In contrast, the US Constitution establishes freedom of expression, but university freedoms depend on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.I wrote about the topic on 1/27/24–. It's a strong guarantee, but not an absolute one. A Supreme Court can change its mind. That's why Harvard may very well believe that privacy is a stronger guarantee. In fact, we've seen situations of democratic fragility around the world where freedom has survived longer in some private institutions than in public ones (think Hungary).
