THE ELEVENTH

E G MALHERBE

ACADEMIC FREEDOM LECTURE

DELIVERED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF N ATAL

ON THE 2nd AUGUST 1978

BY

PROFESSOR PETER HÖRNUNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

Academic Freedom Committee

Studcnts' Representative Council

UNIVERSITY OF NATAL

DURBAN

1978

ACADEMIC FREEDOM WITHIN

THE UNIVERSITY

PROFESSOR PETER HÖRN

ISBN 086980166 X

The university äs an Institution is aunique way of educating young people. Whereaseducation in nearly all societies until veryrecently was based on the reproduction of theexisting society with a minimum of innovationdemanding the acceptance of the Status quo,of established authority, be it personalisedäs a traditional ruler or institutionalisedäs traditional laws, education in WesternEurope, at least for the relatively few whoartend a university, is based on thefundamental concept of critical reason andconstant innovation, Education for theacceptance of the Status quo will emphasisesuch values äs tradition, age, experience,wisdom; Western university education on thecontrary emphasises innovation, youth,rationality, criticism. But right from thebeginning the university contained withinitself contradictions and came frequentlyinto an antagonistic position against thesociety within which it was located. As youniight know, the oldest European Universitieswere training schools for the higher ranksof the church; some Italian universities,located in free city states also offeredtraining in law and medicine. The first andmain function of a university was anapologetic one: to provide churchmen of asufficiently high calibre to defend theChristian faith against the intellectualonslaught of Africa, the highly trainedthinkers of the Muslims in Sicily and Spain,but also against the Jewish rabbie of Spain,and against various heretic sects withinChristianity. To achieve this end a thoroughgrounding in philosophy, literature, languageand the natural sciences was a precondition.So before being admitted to the "higherfaculties" of theology, medicine and law,all students were required to pass throughthe "faculty of philosophy". a combinedcourse in arts and sciences. And it is inthis "preparatory course" that both thegreatness and the contradictions of theuniversity throughout its 800 years ofhistory were

The professores theologiae, medicinae andJuris were highly respected members ofsociety, in many cases equal in rank to thenobilüy, asked for advice by popes,cardinals, emperors and kings. Their studentswere a small select group destined to thehighest positions which a commoner coulddream of attaining. With few exceptions theywere conservative, jealous of their standingand authority, highly reluctant to accept newideas. The masters and students in the "lowerfaculty'* of philosophy on the other hand hadless Status and security, lower expectationsfor their future career,

Thcre »v MO out-oft hnc. vvhich deterrnmesthat postgraduale students but no graduatesmav exereise this freedom: therc is nodistinction betvveen permanent staff ortemporarv staff. Academic freedom is also nota privilege that has to be earned. it is afundamental right. which everyone may claim.Equally it is not a private right of theindividual. vvhich he may exereise only in hishörne or study; it is a public right. and itdoes not end at the boundaries of thcunivcrsity. Academic freedom is the concept,that the only arbiter for all disputes iscritical reasoning.

This sounds simple, ncarly banal. Yet is ita claim which so far has not been fulfilledcxccpt partiallv; yet withotit it. everysciencc is pscudo-scicöcc and every democraeypseudo-democracy; because naturally. aunivcrsity which within its walls claims touphold thc maxim that nothing and nobody isexcmpt from the appeal to criticalrationality. bin does not tend to cxtend thistheoretical concept into thc praxis ofevcryday living would bc likc the medicalresearcher who has found that pcncillin isbettcr for certain infections than toad'sfat and spider's web but whcn he himself isinfected gocs 10 a witch doctor for one of hisdark concoctions! To subject a critical thcoryto thc most subtlc tcst proccdures which von rdisciplincs has to offer, but at the sanictime to prevcnt students from critizins yourlecturcs publicly and in print. is to exhibita schixophrcnia similar to the one whichprotcsts against the Minister of Policebecause hc deports an incomeniem Professor,supposedly dan.eerous to thc statc. but atthe same time. in thc secret chambers ofselection oomniitiecs. prcvcnts theappointment of a brilliant voung researcher,because his "leftist" leanings mieht lateronbring thc univcrsity into conflict wirb thcsame Minister of Police. (Let mc assure youthat thc case just citcd is not a hypotheticalone.)

Critical reason. unless one wcrc to assumethat an individual or small groups of sclectindividuals arc cndowcd with it in a spccialway. is public reason. Whüc one might arguc.that decisions in personal matters should becpntldcntial. so äs to spare individuals.cmbarrassment. cvcn humiliation. on balance mv experience has been (hat in thc greatmajoritv of such inquisitions the reputation ofsiaif mcnibcrs to bc dismissed was cvcn moredamaged bv rumours against which thc personconcerned could not dcfend himself than howould havc been had thc complaints against himbeen oircd in open coun. Whilc it iscmbarassing for a candidate for a umversitypost to bc rejected. and whilc hc mightprefer his candidaturc to remain sccrct —which in most cases is :i pious wish anyway —thc secreey of thc selection process removesfrom public critical scrut-

inv \\ hat is pcrhaps thc most importantdccisionmaking process in a univcrsity. Inthc same way univcrsitv authorities keephighly confidentail. what every studcnt inthc dcpartment knows — that a partieularlectureror profcssor is totally incompetcnt,and invokcs t ho most serious sanctions toavoid this public knowledgc to bc discusscd.Confidcnciality should bc invokcd only toprotcct the holploss. the immature. thc vcryyouni».

Denioerats of all ages ha\e known why theyinsistcd that all public proccdures must bcpublic. why they rejected secret trials. \\hv they insistcd that the gencral public musttake part in the üdministration of justicc inthc form of a Jury, why they insistcd thatparliaments sit in public. accesiblc to thcman on thc strcct. cvcn if only seeond handthrough thc press. why many modern democrac-ies transmit important debates fromparliamcnt direcib and without any cutsthrough radio and tclcvision. why theyinsist , mt nobody should keep any filcs onany man, unless he was awarc of i'icm. and atall times had füll access to them, tosatisfy himself that they oontaincd nothingwhich hc could contcst in opcn court ässUuider-ous or libcllous.

It corresponds to this concept of publiccritical reason äs the sole guarantee ofliberty, if progressive states have itwritten in their laws that those who aremost affected by decisionmaking bodies mustbe represented on these decisionmakingbodies, be it workers on board of directorsof their firms, be it students on alldecision making bodies of their universities.

Our universitie* , claiming academicfreedom, freedom of inter-ference fromoutside agencies like the state and suchsocial forces äs the church or commerce, havein their inner structure sacrificed this samefreedom which they pretend to defend. When one

remem-bers that in medieval times most rectorswere elected by all memb-ers of the university— staff and students alike — we can only beashamed of the dark times in which we areliving, when a small group of people, notelected but deputised by various agencies,cxcrt practically uncontrolled power over theuniversities. When most universities in thiscountry have not a single Student with votingpower on any of their decisionmaking bodies,and the few which have representation limitthe number of such representatives to a tokenfew. Universities, instead oi beingcommunities, dedicat-ed to the search oftruth, are hierarchies, whcre you carryweight not on thc basis of the rationality ofyour argumc"• ' u t on the basis of a complexSystem of seniority, promotion and PL. MK«!eonnect-

ions. Hierarchical structures, tbough theymay have some elements of democracy bullt in,are essentially undemocratic and unacadernicstructures: by tbeir very nature, prornotionwithin these structures is not necessarilybased on academic merit, on insigbt,creativity and innovative effort, but by anability not to offend too many people; theytend to promote people into decisionmakingpositions who are characterised by prudenceand caution — admirable qualities indeed,but qualities which smother rather thanencourage critica! thinking directed againstthe university itself.

Howevet, it is not the personality of theaverage member of a 'university's powerstructure which needs to be attacked, but thestructure which cushions him from constructiveand if necessary destructive criticism. Theadministrated university — in contrast to theone which is governed by its members —encourages the belief, that one is on thewhole a jolly nice fellow who, taking mostthings into account. is äs often right äs ishumanly possible to be; the more thesubordinates are dependent on their superiors— and that dependence is greatest in therelationship between students and staff — themore the superiors are accustomed topoliteness instead of criticism, the morethey resent if a subordinate does in factquestion their wisdorn. It is not myintention to encourage rudeness äs the generaltone within a university;but a university ifit wants to live up to its image of academicfreedom, must tolerate a lot more publiccritical debate; rudeness in general isengendered anyway mostly by unbearablefrustrations and inordinate stubb-ornness.

Unquestioned authority is a principle ofthose barbarous ages, when man in theprimeval horde could only survive identifyingfully with the horde and its leadership; butunquestioned authority perpetuates itself andits concomrnitant barbarity. Culture in the

truesense, andnotinthewayit ismisused bygovernments äsanalibitoenforceoppression, istheprocess oftheeverincreasingautonomyoftheindividual,whichcanbeequated tohisemancip-ationfromnature,speci

ficai|y from that part of nature which iscaüed human nature, and which is supposed tobe unchanging, eternal: we are humansbecause we are in the process of over-comingour nature, äs a species in the course ofhistory and each individual during hissocialisation. Autonomy means in the firstplace to be freed from the directions ofothers, who know or who believe to know whatis best for us and to take Charge of andrespon-sibility for our own life. Now whilesuch individual autonomy is generallyadvocated in our society äs an educationalgoal, it is

\ i hardlyrealisableanywhereinoursociety.Whiletheindividualhas acertainroomtomaneuvreandtomakedecisions,innearly allhisimportantactivitieshe isamember oflargecollectives, inwhosedecisionmaking hedoes

take part only marginally. Taking the univ-ersity äs an example of such a collective ofseveral thousand people, and this, äs modernlife goes, is a relatively small collective,he enters this collective äs a Student andfmds it already there and completelyorganised.

In its positive existence it is anoverpowering structure, which äs an individualhe is much too weak to change. The courses andtheir content have been planned long beforehe enters this structure; he has a choice ofcourses, but he cannot shape the content ofthe courses he chooses; he is confronted witha specific methodology, very often withoutbeing made aware that this same subject can beapproached with a variety of methodologies.While he may be deeply worried by the way hischosen subject is offered, he lacks and isnot given the Information to propose or topursue alternatives. If he is a good Student,he may, by the end of his 3rd year, havefound out on the basis of his own reading thatsuch alternatives exist; but even then he hasno say in the future planning of that course.If he is really outstanding and lucky hemight, after a further twenty years, have madehis way to the top, and might now be able toimplement the changes he envisaged long ago.But he never learned to understarid thedecisionmaking process äs a corporateprocess; so he simply repeats theauthoritarian decision of his teachers; andhis students, which he now regards äsimmature, are given another coursestructure, perhaps a better one, but not onein the devising of which they have taken anypart. Authoritarian education has run itsfüll course, perpetuating itself.

Because it assumes the immaturity of theStudent — and there is no doubt that manystudents are immature, when they come touniversity — teaching at the university isorientated towards the student's supposedneeds, it is not centred around solving real

Problems; it is thus divorced from trueresearch. The Student in the first few yearsis handed knowledge which is established,purified of the controversy and excitement ofcurrent research; teacher and Student alike,for the sake of giving the Student agrounding, laboriously plod throughelementary and dead material. The process isnot one of co-operation but of transmission,born out of an authoritarian Situation andreinforcing an authoritarian Situation.

hearts, to monetary theory, to thephilosophv of linguistics. to case law, to thetechnique of etching, to structural analysisof undoubtcd master works of the past.

This kind of unconscious self-ccnsorship.bccause most of us are totally unawarc of it.is the most serious threat against academiefreedom: for the ones who practisc it. becausethcy feel free without bcing frce, becausethey have reprcsscd entire arcas of theirchoscn diseipline (oftcn undcr the pretextthat thev are unscientific): for those whodate to venture into these fields, becausethey disturb the carefully balanced psyche oftheir colleagues, who then tend to reactagressively in relation to the cnergy neededto repress and their bad conscicnce aboutthis act of repression; instead of rationalargumcnt, any venture into these minefieldsproduccs emotional cxplosions.

The social sciences in the widest sense ofthe word — all those scicnces vvhich arecentred around the human being äs a socialbeing - are driven today by their own logictowards a new concept scicntific rationality.For a time they had taken over the modelprovided by the natural sciences: they trcated— even if they did not admit it — man äs. amachine and society äs a factory, obeyingnatural laws which the people in the knowcould manipulate like any other natural objectis manipulated by scientists andtcchnologists. But the translation of theirtheorctical concepts into practice has forcedthcm to reflect on questions which can not besolved on the positivistic model äsessentially technological questions.

While it is true that one can develophighly manipulate consum-ers and voters intopredictable behaviour patterns, such purelytechnological action raises a number ofquestions which have to be answered rationallyyet cannot be answered within the scientificparadigma of the natural sciences. They arequestions of human praxis äs opposed to humantechnology: questions such äs: "Why and forwhat purpose should one human being manipulate

anoth-er?" "Aecording to which criteriashould one human being usurp the function ofbeing a subject and act, while others, withouteven knowing it be condemned to be an objectand merely react? Does not the person whothus usurps Status of subject principallyconsent to be treated like an object byanother manipulator?"

Since education is itself a social praxis,which is widely performed on subjects whichare either unable to consent or dissent orhave been forced to consent, the same kind ofquestions must be asked by

educators And the answer ts obvious. trueeducation cannot take place without the füllco-operation of the education. However much womight bclieve we know what is good for them,if we use our monopoly of knowledge in such away äs to manipulate our students we areessentially not different from a president'scampaign managet- manipulating voters or anadvertising agency manipu-lating consumers.The only alternative is a truly democraticuniversity, in which the objects of oureducation become acting subjects ofthatproccss.

The fear has been expressed that auniversity in which the students take part inall activities and decisions äs equals burdensa university with political tasks whichcontradict its function. As a pol-iticallyconstituted entity it becomes a politicalparty in the struggle of parties, and mustlose its autonomy. But the university does notbecome a political institution by being afully democratic institution; it is not out toattain political power; it merely wants toinsure that the academie freedom it needs isrealised, so that it äs a Community, and notmerely a few privileged individuals within itcan research, teach and learn in the way itmust according to its own concept.

The fear has been expressed that thedemocratic process, fully implemented within

a university must lead to a politisation ofscience, which is incompatible with theimmanent conditions of scientific progress.But who at the moment determines in whichHirertion the socalled "immanent" progress ofscience is develop-ing? fs it not true thatthe socalled objective factors determining thedevelopment of research are economicrentability on the one hand and militarynecessities on the other? Is free researchnot more endangered by processes largelyuncontrolled by the university Community thanby democratic, rational and open control bythe whole of the university Community? Is itnot precisely the loss of automy imposed byoutside agencies, who pursue goals which havenot been rationally discussed within theuniversity politising of science?A politisaingof science in the direction of an autonomousreflection on goals and methods does not onlyseem to bc entirely legitimate, but the trueprecondition of autonomy of science within theuniversity.

While such discussions, on an informal basisought to be part ot the teaching of thesubject itself, the university should alsoprovide institutions, so that theOrganisation of teaching and research in theuniversity could be questioned on the basis ofa critique of the varioussciences. .D'scussion of curricula,examinations and basic

l

decisions on the type of research included inthe teaching program need the co-operation ofthe Student body, unless the co-operativeprocess of selfreflection within a disciplineshould remain a largely theoretical exercisewithout any practical consequences. Thefacult-ies freed of much of theirunnecessarily tedious administrativediscussions by means of Dean's circulars andan Executive Dean's advisory committee, coaldbecome the debating forum for preciselythesefundamentalissues, which are largelyleft to the discretion of the head ofdepartment nowadays, with only an occasionalcorrect-ive action taken by the faculty. Thiswould obviously mean a much largerrepresentation of students on faculty, atleast one representative per department;similarly there should be at least one Studentrepresentative per faculty on Senate, to seeto it that fundamental changes initiated atfaculty level are not torpedoed on that bodywhich is in the last instance charged with thesupervision of teaching and research.Students are young adults, who do not needdemocratic play grounds on the model of SRC'sbut true co-deter-mination of what isessentially their Institution on the basis ofa mature autonomy, everi if that autonomy isan anticipated auto-nomy.

Students are the ones most immediatelyconcerned in any decisions on their study;but their interests and experiences aredifferent from those of their professors. Theyobtain qualifications and 'Information with aview of a future practical application ofwhat they have learned in a profession; theobjective context in which science issocially embeddedfor them has a much greateractuality than for their professors,

This is particularly true for thosestndents who come frorn and will eventuallyserve socially underprivileged classes. Blackstudents on the whole are much more aware ofthe socially lirnited direc-tions of

university education and research than theirprivileged white counterparts. It istherefore essential for the university itselfif it does not want to isolate itself äs anInstitution of a minority Community withinSouth Africa, that it should strive to admitblack students in relationship to the overallpopulation ratios and not merely a few tokenblacks to save its own conscience

It is not an acfof charity or morality ifwhite liberal English universities arefighting against seperate education enforcedon them by the seperate universities act of1959, it is a question of survival äsInstitutes of higher learning on a par withsuch institutions inEurope and America. Thenarrowing of interests and the Containment of

debate within the safe bounds of a dominantclass, challenged only ;>y a helplessminority within the minority, derogativelycalled 'radicals", has crippled andstultified the university, not only thosethat are derogatively called bush Colleges,not only the Afrikaans universities whichdespite their support of apartheid now beginto woo black students for their postgraduatecourses, but also the so-called liberalEnglish universities.

If they ever complacently accept theStatus quo, and there are forces within theEnglish universities which tend in thisdirection — amongst the students äs well äsamongst the staff — these once proudinstitutions of learning will continue ontheir slide down to the intellectual levelof a high grade sausage factory, paid on thebasis of how many students it has stuffedwith knowledge and lab-elled Bachelor ofthis that and the other.

I am proud to be a graduate ofWitwatersrand University, I am proud to havebeen appointed to a chair of Cape TownUniversity, and it is a great honour tohave been invited by your university todeliver this lecture; but unless ouruniversities find a way out of the Isolationinto which apartheid has forced them, mydegree and your degrees soon will not beworth the paper they are written on.

Disparagingly, I have been called aradical, sometimes even an irresponsible.Like the Dutch resistance fighters againstPhilip II of Spain, who were called beggarsby their enemies, I am proud to adopt thistitle/and merely hope that I am fullyqualified to wear it. It is worth mpre to methan my Ph.D. Because to think at all, meansto think radically, to pursue a matter tothe very roots. Galilei and Coperkinus wereradicals, when they did not fit their

discoveries into a concept of astronorny,which clearly could not accomodate these newdiscoveries; Martin Luther and Calvin weretheological radicals who challenged a Centuryold church structure; Descartes and Kant wereradicals, completely redrawing the frontiersof knowledge; Darwin, Marx, Freud andEinstein were radicals each within his owndisciplines. Sometimes to save the essentialand the historically valid nucleus of a thing,one has to question it radically.

In view of the problems which predictablyare going to confront our society, the futureof the university, specifically in SouthAfrica, is by no means assured. Ourpopulation will have doubled by the year twothousand; we will have to provide hundreds andthousands of new Jobs every year; the capitalneeded for that expansion will not begintoflow into South Africa untü we havecreated a politi-

cally stable climate; instead of one Soweto,by the end of the Century we will havethirty; the clamour of the black majority ofour popul-ation to be fully integrated inthe political process will increase; we canexpect increased unemployment every year; wecan also expect an increasingly bitterpolitical struggle and increased press-urefrom the outside world; guerilla warfareagainst South Africa will be increasing inintensity and there might even be theprospect of a conventional war. The more theruling minority of South Africa will feelitself threatened the less it will beprepared to allow free debate on the morecontentious isäaies of South African life.The repressive consequences of censorsmp äswe know it will multiply. Impatience withStudent protest and political dissent willincrease, tolerance for even limited,objective criticism will decrease. The threatof the degradation of the university to aProfessional school, a threat which willremove the last vestiges of the real core ofa university, its academic freedom, alreadypartially fulfilled in our universities, willintensify.

Very often the demand is made thatcriticism should be construc-tive; only heshould criticise who can offer an idea onhow to do things better. Lessing hasrejected this idea äs far äs an is concern-ed 200 years ago. It is not hing but anattempt to domesticate criticism and to takesome of its vehemence away. If one wanted toforego criticism in every case where abetter solution is not yet obvious, onewould harden society in its presentquestionable form, and would increase thedifficulty of changing it. Criticism veryoften must clear the ground, cutting out rotand decay so that air and light can stream inagain.

And unless we, the teachers and studentsof our universities defend this right tocriticism — even when it is turned againstourselves — the university will be an emptyshell not worthy of that name.

To save the university from all thesethreats, from the state, but also from itsown internal structure is not only a moralObligation; it is a question of the survivalof the free autonomous man. Autono-mpus is hewho speaks for himself, fcecause he has

thought for himself and does not onlyreproduce wftat others have produced. Thatimplies a power to resist commoüly acceptedopinions and against existing institutions,against everything which defends itsexistence with the tautology that it doesexist, and therefore must be good. Such aresistance, the ability to differentiatebetween what has really been learned and whathas been accepted on the basis of some orother authority, is identical to criticism.Criticism is essential to all democracy. Notonly does democracy demand freedom tocriticise and needs critical impulses,democracy is ^Öefined by criticism.