"Sander afviser problemer med forskningsfriheden" lyder en overskrift i gårsdagens Information (se her). Det er utroligt, at videnskabsministeren kan foregive en sådan grad af blindhed overfor skrøbeliggørelsen af den akademiske frihed i Danmark, hvor der er stort behov for at styrke den individuelle forskningsfrihed, som bl.a. rektor for Københavns Universitet har foreslået (på et møde i maj 2007).
Den foreløbige undersøgelse, vi omtalte i går, angår primært de juridiske regelsæt som sikrer forskningsfriheden, og sådanne regelsæt - hvad enten de hidrører fra forfatningen eller almindelige lovgivning - siger selvfølgelig intet direkte om den reelle udfoldelse af forsknings- og ytringsfrihed i de enkelte lande. På den baggrund afviser Sander undersøgelsen, og påstår på bedste teflon-maner, at han kun møder "udbredt tilfredshed".
Det er pinligt at høre en regeringsrepræsentant afvise, at Danmark er et af de lande i Europa, der har største problemer med forskningsfriheden. Vi hører til de, der har mest kontrollerende centralstyring af universiteternes virke (som også rektorkollegiet har beklaget sig over), dårlig eller ingen sikring af ansættelsessikkerheden, og store muligheder for politisk styring af forskningen, ikke alene gennem bestemmelserne om pålæggelselse af myndighedsopgaver, men nok så meget gennem den top-down struktur for universiteternes styre (ansatte ledere, eksterne bestyrelser osv.) som et bredt flertal af folketinget indførte med den nye universitetslov af 2003.
Vi har henvendt os til undersøgelsens forfatter og forelagt ham Sanders afvisning. Vi bringer hans svar i kommentaren til dette indlæg nedenfor.
Abonner på:
Kommentarer til indlægget (Atom)
2 kommentarer:
Terence Karran fra University of Lincolm svarer på Helge Sanders udtalelser til Information i går:
--- citat Karran til bloggen:
"Some points that could usefully be made.
First, many of the ex-Communist states are near the top of the list because, in coming out of Russian control, they recognised how important academic freedom was, and this was reflected in their newly written constitutions and legislation on higher education.
Second, my own article was covered by the Times Higher Education Supplement (28th September), which said:
--- qoute THES:
The UK is the worst country in Europe for supporting and protecting academic freedom and free speech, according to a new research paper, writes Louise Radnofsky. Britain is "the sick man of Europe" for academic freedom, lagging behind 23 European Union countries, according to the paper from Lincoln University.
The UK suffers because academics have comparatively weak job protection, more limited self-governance and, in particular, because the UK lacks formal guarantees of freedom of expression or academic freedom, the paper says. But it was argued this week that this fails to take into account strong cultural protections not explicitly set out in laws.
The research was carried out by Terence Karran, a researcher at Lincoln's Centre for Educational Research and Development. He studied legal provisions in 23 EU members, and graded countries' provisions as "high", "medium" or "low". Spain, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Finland came out best, with the UK at the bottom of the table. "In terms of the health of academic freedom, the UK is clearly the sick man of Europe," Dr Karran wrote in a Higher Education Policy paper presenting his findings.
He blamed "the (apparent) need for greater managerial professionalism, both as the participation in higher education rises, and as the universities' research role becomes ever more important in determining national prosperity within the emerging global knowledge economy". The right of academics to "question received wisdom" and to put forward unpopular ideas was enshrined in the 1988 Education Reform Act. But this Act had the effect of weakening academic freedom by removing tenure from newly hired academics and staff at former polytechnics, Dr Karran said.
Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, said UK academics suffered from "cosy indifference" to the problem. "Academic freedom in the UK is constrained by a politicised and compliant academic culture in which debate is discouraged for fear of causing offence to colleagues, students, ministers or the quangocracy," he said.
But Conor Gearty, director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, said it was important to distinguish between formal constitutional law and how it was implemented. "Practice on the ground often reveals a stronger cultural commitment to freedom than is apparent from perusal of the laws," he said.
--- quote THLS end.
As the THES made some factual errors, I asked for a right of reply, which was given, and I stated as follows:
--- Karran's note to THES start:
I am grateful that The Times Higher has raised the issue of the parlous state of academic freedom in the UK when compared with other European Union states via its coverage of my article in the journal Higher Education Policy ("UK lowest on freedom list", September 28).
However, first, I did not say in my paper that the 1988 Educational Reform Act removed tenure from staff at the former polytechnics. Indeed, I stated categorically that "the old polytechnics that were granted university status in 1992 were exempt (from the ERA), as their staff did not have tenure".
Second, to take up the point of my research failing to take into account "strong cultural protections not explicitly set out in laws" and Conor Gearty's comment that "it is important to distinguish between formal constitutional law and how it was implemented" - my paper's title was "Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis", and I state in the conclusion that "legal documents provide the quantitative 'bare bones' of academic freedom, but what is also required is a qualitative analysis of how these legal documents are interpreted within the everyday interactions of academic staff".
I have applied for Economic and Social Research Council funding to investigate fully the veracity of Gearty's statement that "practice on the ground often reveals a stronger cultural commitment to freedom than is apparent from perusal of the laws". Until this research is undertaken, his statement is debatable opinion, not fact.
--- Karran's note to THES end.
In essence, the Danish Minister cannot refute that legal protection for academic freedom in Denmark is low, when compared with other EU nations. Following the argument raised by Conor Gearty in the THES, it may be the case in Denmark that, despite the absence of legal protection, there is a strong cultural commitment to academic freedom within Denmark's universities (hence the Minister's statement that "I sense an extended satisfaction with all this, when I'm around visiting the universities"). However, as I pointed out in my original article and the letter to the THES, until a qualitative analysis of how these legal documents are interpreted within the everyday interactions of academic staff is undertaken, such statements, like those of your Minister are merely debatable opinion, and not fact.
Best Wishes
Terence Karran
Det skal måske nævnes, at Karran også fik en version af sit svar trykt i Information, og at Sander svarede på dette den 17/12, og Karran genreplicerede den 21/12 (læs her).
Send en kommentar