Free Speech and Academic Freedom

Guest editor, Abhishek Saha

Free speech is central to the pursuit of truth, individual self-realization, and liberal democracy. Yet, as Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), has observed, it remains an “eternally radical idea.” Throughout history, authorities have restricted expression and punished dissenters. The right to freedom of speech must be fought for, justified, and elucidated by each new generation.

Closely related to free speech is the principle of academic freedom. More limited in scope but meriting stronger protection, it is grounded in the university’s distinctive role as a community devoted to the advancement of knowledge. The 1972 Shils Report at the University of Chicago defined academic freedom as the liberty of individual faculty members to investigate, publish, and teach in accordance with their intellectual convictions. In England, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 codifies it as the right of academic staff to “question and test received wisdom” and to “put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions” without fear of dismissal.

The limits of academic freedom, and its precise relationship to free speech, remain contested and call for renewed scholarly attention. Is academic freedom an individual right protecting faculty members, or does it also encompass the autonomy of universities and departments? Should its protections be confined to an academic’s area of professional expertise, or extend more widely? How should practices such as no-platforming and academic boycotts be understood?

What is clear is that free speech and academic freedom in universities have faced sustained pressure over the past decade, even as interpretations of those pressures diverge. According to FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database, there were nearly 1,300 campaigns to sanction academics for their speech between 2014 and 2024. These represent historically high levels. Nearly two-thirds of those campaigns resulted in penalties, and more than 200 scholars ultimately lost their positions. That is twice the number dismissed during the notorious McCarthy era, over a comparable period.

Commentators often describe these developments as the rise of “cancel culture,” tied to social-justice frameworks emphasizing lived experience, intersectionality, decolonization, and broader notions of harm. As these ideas entered university governance, they shaped policy and practice. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements, for example, became common requirements in academic hiring and promotion. Critics argue such mandates chill academic freedom and intellectual diversity, while defenders view them as part of the university’s mission and commitment to equity. These debates intensified after the 2020 killing of George Floyd, as anti-racism protests reshaped public discourse and U.S. science funding agencies began requiring DEI plans. Journals such as Nature Human Behaviour added guidance empowering editors to censor research deemed “harmful” to socially constructed human groups or “reasonably be perceived to undermine” their dignity.

In the UK, concerns about campus free speech, no-platforming, and self-censorship led to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, whose main duties took effect on August 1, 2025. The Act places new obligations on universities to safeguard free speech and academic freedom, and grants the regulator new enforcement powers. In New Zealand, proposed reforms to the Education and Training Act likewise aim to reinforce statutory protections for academic freedom.

In the United States, beginning in January 2025, the Trump administration launched a campaign to roll back DEI initiatives through executive directives—measures defended by some as protecting academic freedom and criticized by others as undermining it. Private universities such as Harvard and Columbia have faced government demands on governance and hiring that critics argue exceed lawful authority and threaten institutional autonomy. Recent data from FIRE’s database reflect this shifting political dynamic: while most cancellation campaigns from 2014 to 2022 came from the political left, a majority now come from the right.

Against this backdrop, this special issue invites contributions that examine the contemporary landscape of free speech and academic freedom in higher education. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• Conceptualizing academic freedom and its relationship to free speech
• The limits of academic freedom and institutional autonomy
• Censorship and self-censorship across disciplines
• Government regulation and legal frameworks to protect academic freedom
• Politicization of disciplines and exclusion of minority or dissenting perspectives
• No-platforming, academic boycotts and cancel culture
• Academic publishing and research funding policies impacting academic freedom
• Social justice and protective initiatives (e.g. DEI, decolonization, anti-harassment, anti-Islamophobia, anti-racism) and their effects on academic freedom
• Strategies to promote open inquiry, intellectual diversity and productive disagreement in universities

Timeline

Proposals (abstract or draft, 500-1000 words) due: November 1, 2025
Accepted proposals to be decided by: December 1, 2025
Final drafts (4000–8000 words) due: July 1, 2026
Editorial feedback: September 15, 2026

Submission

Please send submissions to Abhishek Saha at: abhishek.saha@qmul.ac.uk