Church Times - EDUCATION: No letting the side down

previous story | next story next

EDUCATION: No letting the side down

Academic freedom has been hotly debated recently in The Times Higher Education Supplement, owing to the fact that two universities that are C of E foundations ask staff, in their articles of governance, not to undermine their Christian ethos. Here, Dennis Hayes, who raised the issue, and Kenneth Ste

A question of integrity? above: Canterbury Christ Church University’s Canterbury campus; below: the Binks Building on Chester University campus, which houses seminar rooms and lecture theatres

WHY should academic freedom in higher-education institutions with a church foundation have been debated in the education press and Parliament earlier this year?

The matter seemed settled, as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988. This contains a fine statement of academic freedom drawn up by Roy Jenkins as an amendment to the earlier Bill. It declares that academics have “the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions”.

Although it did not apply to post-1992 universities, they adopted it into their constitutions, as did the further-education colleges. The church colleges adopted it, except for two: the institutions that are now Canterbury Christ Church University and Chester University. Both modified the Jenkins amendment by inserting a proviso in their instrument and articles of government.

It reads: “In view of the fact that [the University] was established as a Church of England College and continues to be so, no member should at any time undermine the ethos of the College or the code of conduct based on that ethos. Subject to the above qualification [my italics] the Governing Body shall ensure that Academic Staff have freedom, within the law. . .”

One reason why this is now a live issue is that these two colleges have been granted the title of university. With it, one would expect a removal of any qualification of academic freedom. To date, despite criticism by individuals, their own academic community, and Government, they have not moved their ground.

An argument advanced when the Christ Church governing body voted to retain the qualification was that the Archbishops’ Council, which has a “golden vote” in relation to clauses in the articles and instrument of governance, would override the decision.

This is questionable. Christianity is compatible with an unrestricted search for the truth, a point made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his installation address as the first Chancellor at Christ Church, reflecting on the motto of the university: “The truth shall make you free.”

He commented that those who have advanced knowledge and truth across the centuries are often “not safe or easy members of society”, and reminded the assembled staff and students of a paraphrase of the words of Christ: “The truth will make you odd.”

The Bishop of Portsmouth, Dr Kenneth Stevenson, writing in The Times Higher Education Supplement, argued a Christian ethos was fundamentally about freedom and the love of truth, and that there might be more interest in the truth in a university with a such an ethos that in a more “politically correct” institution.

It seems that these two higher-education institutions, by seeming to qualify academic freedom, distance themselves from the essential values of both the Church and the academic community.

In a response to the criticism, the Vice-Chancellor of Canterbury Christ Church and its chair of governors argued that no action had been taken against anyone, and no one had been disciplined, because of this restriction. The director of research also argued that she had been unable to uncover any action that had stopped any particular research going ahead.

This is beside the point. Does this mean that there may be trouble ahead for those who dare to suggest that the qualification may encourage individuals to behave in censorious ways? In my union position, I hear of academics’ being informally asked to tone down research findings, and the questioning of support for certain publications because they may bring the institution into disrepute.

But I prefer to take up academic freedom as a matter of principle. One qualification opens up the way for more. Who can draw a clear line between this and that bit of censorship? The possibility of discipline or dismissal is there if you think or speak freely.

Conrad Russell, in his book Academic Freedom, argues that whether academics are disciplined or dismissed is not what makes them cautious. If they have no “freedom from fear that they might be so dismissed”, this means that they cannot be counted on “to do their work well”. The temptation to trim unpopular conclusions, to cut out the extra sentence that unambiguously spells out the provocative finding, is one from which most academics are not immune.

The qualification of academic freedom exacerbates the culture of caution that exists in universities today, particularly those that offer academic disciplines in which the Government takes a strong interest, such as education.

Academics themselves are not at fault, nor the Christian ethos of these institutions, nor their critics. It is the existence of this qualification. The only way to remove the culture of caution that it has created, and to take away suspicion about the work of the academics in these institutions, is to move the qualification from their statutes.

Dr Hayes is joint President of the University and College Union at Canterbury Christ Church University.

the Binks Building on Chester University campus

The search for truth drives church colleges anduniversities, says Kenneth Stevenson.

Different voices should be heardIn the course of the debate in The Times Higher Educational Supplement (THES), the suggestion that the Christian ethos of a Church of England university may itself be a foe to freedom has been repeated. But this is to misunderstand the Church’s view of freedom, which is enshrined in the ethos of Christian places of education, whether schools, colleges, or universities.

Faith-based institutions do uphold academic freedom. In contrast, a state-sponsored morality that has been artificially constructed to meet imposed “equality criteria” risks excluding more viewpoints than it includes. One university’s guidance on equality and diversity was quoted as saying: “Academic staff should be mindful of issues that may be controversial, and should approach debate around these areas with care and consideration. For one thing, students who are busy reacting emotionally to a contentious issue may be less likely to engage in the effective learning you intend.”

This in turn provoked claims that the university in question wanted academics to avoid controversy. As Dennis Hayes went on to point out, this can amount to no more than “don’t upset the students”; and is “how academic freedom gets quietly shut down”.

Last December, in the context of the discussion about the relationship of Christian Unions and Students’ Unions, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote in the THES that “the danger in issuing sanctions against a body whose views you disapprove of is that it looks like a fear of open argument. If disagreement is to be silenced because offence may be caused, that is not good for intellectual life.”

Andrey Rosowsky’s subsequent comment (THES, 30 March) that “traditional Islamic scholarship has no problems with intellectual debate and freedom” demonstrates that the principle of freedom is also upheld in other faith traditions.

All universities should be places where, to some extent, ideas are explored for their own sake. The Higher Education Minister, Bill Rammell, was absolutely right to say recently that academic freedom is a fundamental principle of our higher-education system, which applies more widely than freedom of speech because it includes freedom to pursue research, and to publish. But, in reality, the freedom of the individual can never be absolute.

Recognising this produces a more realistic view of whether or not academic freedom is limited by a particular ethos or set of values. For example, the choices that exist for research topics depend on where funding is available — from sources that will include interested parties. And giving approval for research proposals doesn’t depend just on funding, but on guarding hard-won reputations from accusations of taint.

Recently, the decision of a student to invite a leading member of the British National Party to speak at a university resulted in a furore, and strong opposition from students and staff. But the university authorities responded to the effect that the decision to allow the speaker to use its premises was “an outworking of the university’s principles of freedom of speech”. We deceive ourselves if we imagine that institutions are not driven by their values. No education, research, or ethos is value-neutral, and an institution that is clear and open about its values framework will be able to avoid simply reflecting the most powerful voices around.

An ethos is not a set of non-negotiable credal beliefs; neither is it a straightforward concept to grapple with. But the evidence of a link between ethos and performance means that ethos cannot be ignored. A church higher-education institution committed to its Christian ethos will want to be explicit about it. This is true for Canterbury Christ Church University and Chester University, which ask staff in their articles of governance not to undermine their Christian ethos — and rightly so. One may ask whether these codicils should remain even if they have never been used, but the point is that they should be used, though never abused. Putting unfair restrictions on academics, in the manner that Dennis Hayes has said he fears, would be wrong.

The Christian ethos of church colleges and universities is what makes them different. The accusation that they limit freedom arises from a misunderstanding of what an “ethos” is. A Christian ethos accepts the right to voice different views. The Christian ethos of a church higher-education institution is what drives it in its search for truth, and sustains it. The search for truth is no stranger to the Christian faith nor to a Christian understanding of the purpose of a university. It lies at the heart of both. (That is not to say that other institutions won’t also behave in the right way.)

If the suggestion is that a church university might not support academic discussion of controversial subjects, one needs only to reflect on the amount of time given by the C of E to discussions of, for example, sexuality, to be left in no doubt at all that academic debate is alive and well. A framework of declared Christian values opens up an institution’s activities to sometimes uncomfortable scrutiny and self-examination.

All higher-education institutions push at boundaries of everything, from ethics to media studies. Jesus himself debunked popular religion and practice, as well as attitudes and conventions. Likewise, pushing at the boundaries of theology is a necessary function of any theology department, inside or outside church institutions. David Friedrich Strauss, the 19th-century German historian and controversial Protestant theologian, argued that the true criticism of dogma is its history.

In any community, freedom is exercised in the context of relationships. In Christian understanding, the tension between personal freedom and allowing others to be themselves calls for a generous and self-denying response. Beyond the freedom prescribed by law is the absolute freedom prescribed — and circumscribed — by that self-denying love. A Christian ethos, properly lived by, will ensure that freedom is given, accepted, and acted upon in relation to others.

Self-fulfilment at its best is not just about a personal search for freedom. It is about an understanding of what needs to be contributed in community. The heart of the Christian gospel is that generous love takes priority over self-protection (even though the Church has not always been good at making this crucial distinction). This should go a long way to reassure anyone who lives in fear of unjust sanctions. They would be a total reversal of what the Christian faith — and education at its most vibrant — is about.

Dr Stevenson is Bishop of Portsmouth, and chairman of the Church of England Board of Education.This article is largely based on an article by him published in the THES (13 April).

back to Features

previous story | next story next

Contents

EDUCATION: No letting the side down