Thread by @AcFreeWorldUK

1/ @UUKIntl released a report today on security guidelines for universities and featured in Times @CharlieHParker. It needs consideration and we are happy to debate it with them at their conference on 11-12 Nov. However, here are some initial thoughts.

universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/New…

2/ We are happy that the reports cites our work as well as that of @Sar @GPPi among others - alas not @ucu. It also adopts our definition of academic freedom and highlights the values of codes of conduct to protect academic from. However, we have a number of concerns.

3/ The report makes some positive references to "values" and academic freedom. But it fails to recognise that the values of UK universities are universal, and the institutions are inherently international not just affected by “internationalisation”.

4/ The framing of universities as guardians of UK national security by UUK is a seismic move with major implications. Clear association of UK universities with UK national security places fieldworkers at more not less risk from those states who may already assume they are spies.

5/ Invoking security and the UK’s national interest may also alienate a large portion of staff. Such language risks excluding them because by invoking security it appears to say this must be handled by the governance team of an institution and it can’t involve staff participation

6/ The report suggests a specifically top-down, managerial approach to the issues. According to the executive summary, it is addressed to 'senior leaders' in universities who are called upon to 'protect your people' - that, in our view, is unfortunately paternalistic language.

7/ There is no direct reference to drawing on academic colleagues in governance of this area. There is just a general statement on p.19: “make use of the academic experts..”. We hope that this is acted upon substantively, inclusively, and in considering new partnerships.

8/ The report says that universities must publish an annual report to the governing body, i.e.upwards. But what about accountability downwards to their staff and students, to academic senates, and to the academic community? Will such a report be published in full?

9/ Universities must involve staff at an early stage in decisions over partnerships. If you’re going to have a new and potentially controversial international partnership, you should be involving your faculty and seeking their input before an agreement is signed.

10/ So far as we can see, the document's main text only contains one direct reference to individual rights at p. 25, re "legal and social frameworks of other countries do not necessarily match those of the UK.. [for] anti-discrimination.. and the protection of individual rights."

11/ “Universities may face a choice between complying with overseas government requirements or discontinuing activity.” However, the document does not whether or not, in the face of demands to ignore academic freedom, universities should choose to terminate such partnerships.

12/ The passages on extraterritorial jurisdiction need more clarity and thought, especially regarding modifying teaching on politically sensitive topics (p 25). It is really not clear if this is something UUK are recommending. But it could be taken as license for self-censorship.

13/ In sum, there’s a danger that academic freedom is put as a value, which is floating around and seen as relevant to all of it, but is not put in practice in terms of the direct involvement of staff and students in formations and decision making.

14/ Our demand is that senior leaders are held accountable for those decisions by being transparent about the funding and decisions they’re taking. For more on our suggestions of the way forward in this debate, please see our Draft Model Code of Conduct.
hrc.sas.ac.uk/networks/acade…

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp unroll