本文轉自專家資訊新聞網The Conversation的報道和評論：5
growing threats to academic freedom。
The ability to teach and conduct research free from political interference is the cornerstone of higher education and its contribution to the public good. Academic freedom, however, has become increasingly threatened. 高等學府的教學和研究能夠不受政治干擾對公眾利益非常重要。
V-Dem Institute, a global research organization that monitors indicators of democracy around the world, determined that academic freedom has “substantially worsened” in the United States in recent years. This is largely due to political and social polarization. V-Dem研究所監測世界各國的民主指標，發現美國的學術自由近年來「嚴重惡化」。
In recent months, professors across the country have sounded the alarm about infringements on academic freedom following crackdowns on pro-Palestine protesters on campus. The current conflict, however, is only the latest iteration of an intensifying decline in academic freedom. 在校園內鎮壓支持巴勒斯坦的抗議活動，反映出學術自由的降低，各地教授紛紛提出警告。
As a researcher who examines the politics of higher education, I believe there are five distinct but mutually reinforcing ways that academic freedom has been threatened in the U.S. in recent years. 政治學教授Isaac Kamola提出5點截然不同但相輔相成的方式，展示出美國的學術自由問題。
1. Legislation and academic gag orders 立法和學術禁言
States across the country have passed educational gag orders that ban the teaching of critical race theory and other concepts. These are sometimes referred to as “divisive concepts” in the laws. 有些州立法禁止教授
種族差異理論等概念。
While most of these bills limit what can be said in K-12 classrooms, a report I authored found that 99 bills were introduced – and 10 passed – between 2021 and 2023 that affect higher education. For example, a North Dakota bill bans state universities from hosting discussions of ideas such as “meritocracy is inherently racist.” A similar bill in Tennessee outlaws teaching the idea that someone could be “inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive.” 新通過的法案有10個涉及高校--北達州有個法案不准探討「精英統治」是否出於種族主義，田州不准教授講「承襲的種族、性別特權」。
These bills misrepresent what discussions about race and gender identity actually look like in the college classroom. Rather than framing them as discussions about history and theory, bills like Florida’s so-called “Stop Woke Act” insinuate that teaching students about race and racism is aimed at making them feel guilty. PEN America has described these bills as “designed to chill academic and educational discussions and impose government dictates on teaching and learning.” 這些法案歪曲大學課堂上關於種族歷史和性別角色理論討論的實質，旨在冷卻學術和教育討論，將政府規定強加於人。
2. Activist governing boards 董事會被活動分子接管
Issues of academic freedom also arise when those without scholarly expertise become involved in academic and curricular decisions. This usually happens through governing boards and trustees who overreach. 外行領導內行。
Colleges and universities should follow the principles of shared governance, according to the American Association of University Professors. Boards oversee the business of running the institution, and faculty oversee the content taught in classrooms. At some institutions, however, the boards have subverted this. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, boards at several schools made unilateral decisions such as revoking tenure without due process. They have also created academic centers without faculty oversight – a core tenet of shared governance. 高等教育應遵循共同治理的原則，然而有些學府顛覆了這原則。比如未經正當程序就做出撤銷終身教職的決定，或創建沒有教師監督的學術中心。
These decisions have serious consequences. The American Association of University Professors, for example, found that politically appointed board members at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill regularly “exercise their considerable power” to circumvent faculty autonomy. This includes the board of trustees’ refusal to offer a tenured position to Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, a series of essays and articles in The New York Times Magazine about the impact of slavery on American history. The board also came under fire for establishing the School of Civic Life and Leadership on campus. The school appears designed to teach conservative content that the board prefers rather than to fulfill a curricular need identified by the faculty. 北卡大學董事會拒絕提供
1619項目創始人Nikole Hannah-Jones教授終身職位，希望學校只教保守內容。
3. Donor influence 捐助人影響太大
Donor influence is also a growing threat to academic freedom. Ideally, donors would view their gifts simply as donations to an institution they trust. In some cases, however, donors play an active role in determining how their money is used. This could mean dictating which speakers are brought to campus, what books are taught in the classroom and what courses are offered. 在某些情況下，捐助人影響學校的資金使用，比如規定哪些人來校講演、課堂上用哪些書籍以及提供哪些課程。
One of the most dramatic recent examples is the ousting of Harvard President Claudine Gay. Hedge fund billionaire and Harvard donor Bill Ackman played an active role in her forced resignation, threatening a “donor exodus if she stayed.” I believe that if it can happen at Harvard, it could happen at other universities, too. 哈佛校長Claudine Gay被迫辭職是億萬富翁捐助人Bill Ackman所推動。
4. Erosion of tenure 終身教職越來越少
The system of tenure was originally created to protect professors from external political interference. In recent decades, however, fewer and fewer professors have been awarded this privilege. Today, 68% of faculty are working off the tenure track, often in year-to-year contracts, compared with 47% in 1987. The economic precarity of contract positions creates incentives for faculty to censor the content they teach for fear of losing their jobs. 終身教授制是為保護教授免受外部政治干預而設，現有68%的教授不求終身教職，而1987年只有47%的教授這樣做。
In some states, such as Florida and Texas, state legislators have passed bills weakening tenure protections through the creation of post-tenure review procedures. This gives administrators greater authority to fire tenured faculty. These bills make faculty increasingly vulnerable to external political influence. 佛州和德州立法設立復查終身教職的制度，讓他們有機會因政治言論而被解職。
5. Delegitimization of higher education 降低高等教育的信譽
As I’ve demonstrated in my research, right-wing activists have built a political infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets that specialize in portraying higher education in a negative light. This includes bringing intentionally provocative speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Charlie Kirk to campus and funding media outlets that specialize in ranting about “liberal bias” on college campuses. 右翼分子建立智庫和媒體宣傳，專門從負面描繪高等教育，把故意挑釁大學的講員帶到校園，攻擊大學裡的「自由主義偏見」等等。
Partisan political operatives, such as the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo, have mainstreamed the claims that faculty regularly engage in political indoctrination and that professors teach content that is divisive and anti-American. For example, days after Hamas’ invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Rufo posted on X that conservatives should “create a strong association” between Hamas, Black Lives Matter, the Democratic Socialists of America and “academic ‘decolonization.’” 知名的黨派人物Rufo之流宣揚，說教授們經常對學生搞反美洗腦，他們提倡「民主社會主義」等等可怖思想，需要革除。
These narratives are designed to justify and legitimize the ongoing attacks on academic freedom. The implication is that faculty are the enemy and that legislatures, governors and governing boards can save higher education. 這些說法試圖為打擊學術自由開脫，把教授當作敵人，應該讓位給政客。
Fierce debates about what should be taught at colleges and universities is part of what academic freedom is all about. But attacks on academic freedom seek to displace the voice of faculty experts with those of partisan legislatures, trustees and donors. I believe this should be disconcerting for anyone who values free and critical thinking. 爭辯大學裡應該教甚麼內容本是學術自由的一部份，然而試圖用外行領導內行的方式奪取教授發言權令人不安。
