promoting academic freedom at home & in partnerships · scholars at risk is a global movement...

Promoting Academic Freedom at Home & in Partnerships

Berlin, November 26, 2018Sinead O’Gorman, Scholars at Risk

Scholars at Risk is a global movement to protect everyone’s freedom to think, question, and share ideas

protectionadvocacylearning

THE NETWORKOver 500 institutions in 39 countries, including ‘sections’ in Canada, Ireland, Netherlands & Belgium (with UAF), Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom (with CARA), Germany, and Finland.




Protection

• hosting threatened

scholars for temporary

academic visits

• referring scholars to the

network for assistance

Advocacy

• offering Student Advocacy

Seminars to teach real-world

advocacy skills

• supporting scholars in prison by

writing letters of appeal

• work with the SAR Academic

Freedom Monitoring Project

Learning

• attending SAR conferences and

workshops

• inviting SAR scholars to share

their stories on campus

• joining research groups looking

at pressing issues facing

international higher education

ACTIVITIESAs SAR members, university leadership, staff, faculty, and students have the opportunity to actively engage in:



FREE TO THINK 2018: STATS

Total 294



Research and LearningSAR convenes faculty, students and professionals to join a growing conversation around human rights and university values.

Speaker Series Workshops

Conferences Research Groups



PROMOTING HIGHER EDUCATION VALUES

• Build understanding and respect for higher education values & their contributions to society

• Support quality higher education & partnerships

• Avoid “pitfalls” of neglect & oversimplification

• Provide a framework for constructive dialogue and analyzing values-related incidents

• Develop expanded menu of pro-values practices and responses to incidents



Goal: Recognize interdependence and interrelatedness. (Avoid privileging one value over all others.)

https://youtu.be/2NYFRD9L6s4

DEFINING “CORE HIGHER EDUCATION VALUES”

https://youtu.be/2NYFRD9L6s4



PROMOTING VALUES

S tatement of values

T radition & culture of communication about values

A ssign responsibility

R eady, transparent processes

T ransparent review & adjustment

What next? Do a campus assessment.

Goal: proactively ritualizing values at home and in partnerships Guards against risks that arise when working with people and institutions in places where academic freedom and related values are not well understood or severely limited. Risks include: (a) quality risks, (b) legal financial, and reputational risks, and (c) values risks.



Steps

1 Stakeholder/partnership assessment

2 Incident assessment

3 Response assessment

Goal: To escape false binary choices by expanding the response menu to identify a wider range of pro-values responses; responses that benefit more stakeholders while minimizing risks to individuals, institutions and programs.

DEFENDING VALUES(AT HOME & IN PARTNERSHIPS)



DEFENDING VALUES: STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENTStep 1: At home. Four factors to consider:.

Stakeholders: Which and how many different types of stakeholders are implicated? Leadership, staff, scholars, students, alumni, parents, donors, the state, society.

Assessment: Wider range suggests greater importance.

Institutional role: What is institution’s role? Official role or secondary? University-wide, limited to a single school or program, or none? Implications for policy? For reputation?

Assessment: Wider role suggests greater importance

Number of people involved: How many people are implicated? Dozens or hundreds?

Assessment: More people implicated suggests greater importance (but not always!).

Academic component: Is it related to core academic activities of research, teaching, and publication?

Assessment: More academically oriented suggests greater importance (but not always—boundaries are fluid!).



DEFENDING VALUES: PARTNERSHIP ASSESSMENTStep 1: In partnerships. Four factors to consider:.

Duration: How old is the project or relationship? Weeks, months, or years?.. Assessment: Longer duration suggests greater importance

Institutional commitment: What is institutional commitment of time, money, or reputation? University-wide, limited to a single school or program, or none?.

Assessment: Wider commitment suggests greater importance

Number of people involved: How many people are implicated? Dozens or hundreds?

Assessment: More people implicated suggests greater importance (but not always!).

Academic component: Is it related to core academic activities of research, teaching, and publication?

Assessment: More academically oriented suggests greater importance (but not always—boundaries are fluid!).



DEFENDING VALUES: INCIDENT ASSESSMENTStep 2: For incidents at home and In partnerships.

Type of harm: What is the nature and scope of harms experienced, if any? Violence or loss of liberty? Dismissal, nonrenewal, or expulsion? Restrictions on travel or movement? On academic expression? On nonacademic expression?

Assessment: More severe or wider harms suggest a more serious incident that might warrant a more significant response...

Identity of victims: Who are the victims? The institution’s own staff or students? A partner higher education institution’s staff or students involved in the project? Other staff or students of a partner higher education institution? Staff or students at another higher education institution? Unknown or not higher education sector?

Assessment: Victims more closely connected to the institution, its partners, the project, or higher education might warrant a more significant response..

Number of people involved: How many victims are involved? One, dozens, more?Assessment: More victims might suggest a more serious incident, although severe harms or threats to academic expression against only a few might still warrant a significant response



DEFENDING VALUES: INCIDENT ASSESSMENTCase example exercises.



DEFENDING VALUES: RESPONSE ASSESSMENTStep 3: For incidents at home and In partnerships.

Risks and benefits: What are the risks and benefits of each response option for…• The institution’s staff and students and its reputation or other interests?• A partner institution’s staff and students and its reputation or other

interests?• Victims or others implicated by the incident?• Other stakeholders?

Assessment: Bias against “do nothing” option when steps 1 and 2 assessments suggest moderate-to-high importance. Bias in favor of “dialogue focused” responses when (1) risks to the institution are low and (2) benefits to the stakeholders, partners, or victims are moderate to high

Financial and other costs: What are the financial or other resource implications of each response option, for each of the above stakeholders?

Assessment Bias against “program-focused” responses when (1) benefits to the institution are low and (2) risks to the institution are moderate-to-high. Bias in favor of responses that increase dialogue and respect for core higher education values, at home and in partnerships.



DEFENDING VALUES: RESPONSE MENUBeyond “stay or go”.



AN INVITATION…– Encourage your university to:

• Join the SAR network • Consider inviting a speaker to campus through the SAR Speaker Series or

organize other events to promote academic freedom and related values• Consider doing a campus assessment or S.T.A.R.T.• Host a SAR workshop or webinar on “Promoting Higher Education Values”

– Contribute examples of good practices promoting higher education values for our upcoming joint publication with Academic Refuge partners

– Stay in touch – sign up for SAR emails at scholarsatrisk.org



www.scholarsatrisk.org

[email protected]

facebook.com/scholarsatrisk

twitter.com/scholarsatrisk

get connected:

Thank you!

promoting academic freedom at home & in partnerships · scholars at risk is a global movement...

Documents