Is academic freedom compatible with political influence over governance?

An October decision by the University of Florida to block expert testimony from three professors in a voting rights lawsuit against the Florida government raised concerns across the US academic community. Although the decision was later reversed, concern remains about what the case says about academic freedom, freedom of speech, and an increasing trend of political control over institutions of higher education.

That concern is only heightened by other controversial new Florida laws. One requires state universities and colleges to conduct annual surveys on the personal and political views of faculty, students, and staff. This is still being challenged in a Florida court as an infringement on freedom and free speech and may yet be overturned, but it is noteworthy that it was passed on 1 July, the same day that Florida’s Foreign Influence House Bill, known as HB 7017, was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, amid unanimous political support.

Created to safeguard against intellectual property theft and foreign influence in higher education research, the law shares similarities to Washington’s China Initiative, which is increasingly criticised for targeted discrimination and racist harassment of scholars of Chinese descent. Where HB7017 differs, however, is its broadening of screening and scrutiny to “countries of concern” that include not only China and Russia but also Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro.

Communism has long been the bogeyman of US conservative politics, and the geopolitical nature of the blacklist amounts to a neo-McCarthyist probe that further entrenches Cold war-era divisions and prejudice in higher education. Educators should be concerned not only by the political slant of this regulation, but also the ease with which it has been adopted and implemented.

In Florida, foreign researchers and teachers from or with ties to these “countries of concern” must be screened before they can be employed. So too must US citizens and permanent residents who have “any affiliation with an institution or program, or at least one year of prior employment or training” in one of these countries. As Florida state universities and colleges struggled to create screening procedures, one even mandated a hiring freeze (lifted in November) on all personnel linked to these countries. The law also requires all screened applicants to be reported directly to the FBI, and it encourages whistleblowers with financial rewards.

I am a Florida resident with years of experience working in China. I am also a recent PhD graduate in international education, whose expertise and research centres on China. As such, I feel disheartened and intimidated by HB7017. I’m wary of drawing conclusions given all the pandemic-related disruption, but my applications this year for teaching and research positions at Florida state institutions all came to naught, and one rejection letter arrived just four days after I submitted my application.

Although HB7017 directly challenges academic freedom and most likely a slew of individual rights, the main drivers of this law are underlying structures of governance and funding in Florida’s higher education system. Ironically, this situation illustrates that local politics and business are a far greater threat to academic freedom and free speech than foreign influence.

Florida state universities exist in a structure of authority dominated by individual institutions’ boards of trustees, whose power and duties are delegated by the Board of Governors of the State University System of Florida. The latter is in charge of overseeing the operation, regulation and finances of all of Florida’s public higher education institutions. It also directs sizeable amounts of funding.

For example, the University of Florida’s current president, Kent Fuchs, does not answer to his administration or faculty, but to the university’s 13-member board of trustees, six of whom are appointed by Governor DeSantis, and five by the Board of Governors (14 of whose 17 members are also appointed by DeSantis). Frankly speaking, such a system of governance creates political influence in academia.

In a letter of support for the three Florida professors blocked from testifying earlier this month, a group of previous expert witnesses in cases relating to election administration say that the university is “taking the position that faculty must act in a way that does not affect the interests of a funder of the university”. But looking at the make-up of the boards, it is hard to feel confident that they will oppose HB 7017.

DeSantis’ bellicose rhetoric that China is “the biggest threat” to education in Florida panders to conservatives in business and politics intent on maintaining US economic and military dominance. Academic freedom – the right to conduct research and teaching without political interference – is ultimately contingent on the approval and policy goals of Florida’s political, business, and industry leaders. And that makes the existence of “academic freedom” in such an environment a moot point.

Mei Lan Frame is a recent PhD graduate in international education, specialising in China.