In the US, engaging in scholarship and advocacy on Middle East issues, certainly on Palestine, has long attracted attacks from campus and off-campus organizations and individuals. However, a near consensus has emerged that the threats to academic freedom that we are witnessing today are unprecedented, as it is now the US government that is leading the assault. The weaponization of charges of antisemitism against those engaged in teaching about Palestine and/or in pro-Palestine advocacy has become a battering ram utilized by the political right to achieve a central goal: taming or destroying American higher education as a locus of critical inquiry and potential opposition to the Trump administration’s authoritarian project. What does the current moment mean for us as members of a Middle East studies community? How have the challenges we face evolved and how are today’s attacks different from those of the past? This essay addresses the evolution of these growing threats in the US as well as longer-standing threats in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region in the context of the role and work of MESA’s Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) in responding to them.

With the expulsion of the Central European University (CEU) and the establishment of public trust foundations, the academic world in Hungary has come under pressure unprecedented in the European Union (EU). The measures taken by the Orbán government have been decried as an assault on academic freedom, undermining the fundamental values of the EU. While the European Commission is obligated to uphold European values as per the treaties, its capacity to do so with regard to academic freedom has been underwhelming. In this paper, I argue that the EU is institutionally handicapped in its approach to protecting academic freedom because of, firstly, a lack of competences in the field of higher education and, secondly, an insufficient definition of academic freedom in EU law. By finding innovative ways to link the protection of academic freedom to its competences and by institutionalising an operational definition of academic freedom, the EU could better protect academic freedom and universities in general in its Member States.

The case of Prof. İştar Gözaydın is one of the most visible and tragicomic examples for academics who have been victimized in Turkey by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. Gözaydın was not the first one and perhaps will not be the last because the authoritarian mindset that encapsulates the academics and scholars started long before the foundation of AKP, despite the fact that it was deepened and broadened by it. This article aims to explain the intense recrimination of academics by a repressive and hegemonic political power in Turkey in the second decade of the 2000s. It also tries to shed light on the essential weakness of the authoritarian strong state practices on the face of academic freedom.

Academic freedom is intrinsically linked to the rule of law and fundamental rights, most notably, the freedom of sciences and free speech in general. Academic freedom has been constitutionally embedded in Hungary since the democratic transition. After a series of laws and policies eliminating government criticism and effective checks on those in power for many years, on 4 April 2017 the Hungarian Parliament finally targeted academic freedom as well, and in this vein, adopted a modification to the Act on National Higher Education. The thinly veiled objective behind the legislation is to force Budapest-based and US-accredited Central European University (CEU) out of the country. CEU was founded by Mr George Soros, public enemy number one in the eyes of the rulers of today’s Hungary. The election campaign before the 2018 parliamentary elections is framed around a government initiative entitled “Stop Soros”, harassing organizations receiving Soros money. CEU and Soros-funded NGOs represent everything the government fights against or is suspicious of, such as the rule of law, fundamental rights, multiculturalism, tolerance, accountable government, transparency, justice, equality, liberal democracy, and open society. The modification of the Act on National Higher Education fits into a broader picture of a state in constitutional capture, where fundamental rights in general are in jeopardy. This article explains the broader problem of rule of law backsliding; it assesses the controversial law curbing academic freedom, highlights its bias nature targeting CEU and CEU only, and draws up future scenarios in light of possible national and international responses.

This article analyses a case involving the dismissal of a tenured faculty member at Hiroshima City University of Japan. The university dismissed a Korean woman associate professor after filing a criminal complaint against her, leading to a house raid, her arrest and media coverage. After 11 days of detention, the Hiroshima Prosecutor’s Office decided not to indict her because they could not find criminal intent on her part. With the suspicion of the university’s fabrication of her criminality looming large, she was dismissed within a few hours of her release. The university’s attempt to purge a critical foreign faculty member from the university campus, faculty housing and the country of Japan was an almost complete success until the case became an international controversy with counter-media exposure and the formation of a transnational support network. This case reveals a volatile mixture of race- and gender-based discrimination, administrative incompetence and politicised financial subsidy as a backdrop to violations of human rights and academic freedom. The present article shows that the rights’ violations in this case are closely connected to rising nationalism, the politicisation of educational subsidy and ideological human agencies with a set of professional agendas.

This article aims to provide an overview of the general development of Chinese political science and a critical analysis of the problems and challenges faced by Chinese scholars. The development of Chinese political science is characterised by institutionalisation, professionalisation, and internationalisation on the one hand, and tensions between Westernisation and indigenisation, scientification and methodological pluralism, and the “ivory tower” and political relevance, on the other. The debate centres on contending beliefs on the nature of political knowledge and ways to convert understanding of Chinese politics into knowledge and shows a serious tension and conflict between scientific, universalistic, and positivist traditions on the one hand and particularistic, historical, and contextual traditions on the other hand. We argue that a “glocalisation” approach might be adopted to integrate “globalisation” and “localisation” of Chinese political studies by exploring the reciprocal influences of the two aspects, being methodologically both “scientific” and “pluralistic”, and balancing between scholarship and public relevance. We hope to help Western academics learn about achievements and struggles in the study of political science in China, and also to push Chinese political science to engage more with the rest of the world.

The Academic Freedom in Constitutions dataset is a new resource that empirically maps constitutional guarantees of the freedom of science, of academic freedom, and of university autonomy in 203 countries, spanning the period from 1789 to 2022. While the topic of academic freedom has been gaining increasing prominence in political and legal research over the past decade, it is so far largely absent from the comparative constitutional literature. However, its global codification process holds interesting insights for the study of international norm diffusion, both with respect to its functional connection to higher education development and its distinct constitutional genealogies. The paper first introduces the dataset and explains how it is different from previous coding efforts, before discussing its significance and potential contributions to the comparative legal literature, political science, and other research.

Governments are increasingly targeting academic institutions such as the Central European University in Hungary, Boğaziçi University in Turkey, or CIDE in Mexico. These attacks represent the most visible symptoms of the deterioration of academic freedom. What is the cause of this trend? We argue that populism, being a thin ideology that polarizes the public sphere into virtuous citizens and a corrupt elite while emphasizing the will of the people, has made universities and academics natural targets for leaders who seek to impose a narrative in which only they possess the truth and represent the will of the people. Universities are characterized not only by a pluralism of ideas but also possess an elitist character: these attributes are in direct conflict with the values and vision of populist leaders. To support this argument, we present a global statistical analysis correlating the degree of populism exhibited by executive leaders with the extent of academic freedoms between 2000 and 2021, based on data from the Global Populism Database and V-Dem, and we illustrate our arguments with an in-depth analysis of the case of CIDE in Mexico.

The recent wave of executive orders and other actions at the federal level has received a great deal of attention in recent months. Receiving relatively less attention, however, has been ongoing efforts at the state level over the past couple of years to exercise more control over higher education. The present brief reviews recent state legislation impacting higher education with a particular focus on the recently enacted Ohio Senate Bill 1, as an illustrative example. We suggest that these state legislative efforts pose a threat to academic freedom through attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), curricular control, tenure, and faculty unionization. We provide an overview of these state legislative efforts and implications for I-O psychologists, particularly those in academia.

This essay examines academic freedom in Chile under the 1980s Pinochet military dictatorship. While much has been written on the topic, the literature is fragmented and difficult to access owing to the diverse range of stakeholders involved. Historians have tended to explore single cases, actors, and institutions to highlight struggles with the Chilean dictatorship. Bringing their stories together and assessing them collectively, however, sheds new light on this episode of academic freedom. It captures collaboration among students, faculty, and the public across multiple settings that has not yet been adequately explored by existing literature. Through an analysis of secondary and primary sources—including monographs, journal articles, government reports, newspaper articles, and Spanish-language publications—this essay traces a collaborative turn during the dictatorship that occurred separately among students, faculty, and the public as well as between those groups. It thus offers insight into the Chilean experience during the 1980s and the cooperative efforts to protect academic freedom.

How do academics interested in the study of legal topics that implicate the state relate to and deal with pressures that shape the space available to conduct research? This article examines the nature and impact of such pressures on Asia-focused public law scholars who must contend with a more diverse socio-political environment than the liberal democratic setting in which questions of academic freedom are typically explored. We find that the Asia-centric academy is affected by a wide range of constraints that notably extends beyond intra-institutional demands to those put in place by the state. This article also highlights how the scholarly agenda as set in and by the Global North may reduce the room for Asia-centric research to engage in theory-building and concept formation and explores how Asia-centric scholars can assert agency in the face of pressures. We conclude by emphasising the need for greater self-reflectivity within the legal academy.

Signaling by politicians, bureaucrats, and educational administrators plays a key role in curbing academic freedom in Japan by highlighting taboo subjects and funding priorities. Structural constraints on autonomy, however, represent the most insidious threat to academic freedom. Neoliberal reforms enacted in Japan over the past two decades have compromised academic freedom and undermined university autonomy. Overall, under the pretext of reform, higher education has become more rigidly hierarchical while there is a chronic lack of diversity that fosters narrow groupthink. On Prime Minister Abe Shinzo's watch, online harassment of academics surged while prominent revisionists targeted scholars over interpretations of wartime history.