6. Academic freedom and autonomy

for rights, privacy and security. The most concerning issue for HE moving forward is whether these practices become normalised in the post-COVID environment because technological solutions are easier, and more cost effective.

6. Academic freedom and autonomy

One of the unique areas of concern that has emerged from COVID-19 in the HE context is around guaranteeing academic freedom of staff and students. Instructors have had little say in the unilateral decision to pivot to online learning, and have largely had to accept the tools provided by their HE systems to do so. The expansion of data analytics, AI and predictive technologies potentially also challenges the autonomy of staff to make professionally informed judgments about student engagement and performance, by delegating assessment and evaluation to proprietorial software that can then prescribe ‘personalised learning’ recommendations on their behalf - ‘robot teachers’ acting in programmed pedagogic environments that are fundamentally reconfiguring education by making pedagogical and policy decisions typically left to teachers and policymakers (Zeide, 2017). Another issue is the link between intellectual property (IP) rights over digital teaching content and academic freedom. In the traditional teaching environment it is customary for academics to hold ownership over what they produce, as control over content is essential for the exercise of academic freedom, but in the digital environment - where teaching materials are uploaded to LMS platforms, lectures delivered over videoconferencing and captured by recording software - content ownership and IP are less clear.155 Moreover, concerns raised about videoconferencing and exam proctoring software - by both staff and students - have sat in tension with the need to protect privacy and also the need to deliver continuity of learning and assessment.156 The academic freedom issue has also emerged in the context of platforms such as Zoom, YouTube and Facebook censoring classes and events, as online learning has become vulnerable to corporate control and the policing of the internet for controversial or critical thought.157 Commercial providers have terms of service that grant them significant

155 Maloney, E.J. and Kim, J. 2019, 12 June. Intellectual Property and Digital Learning. Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/technology-and-learning/intellectual-property-and-digital-learning 156 Critical Business. 2020, 6 Jul. Zoom out: Why universities need autonomous technological capacities. USS Briefs: https://medium.com/ussbriefs/zoom-out-22f505559f65 157 Wilson, J.K. 2020, 23 September. Zoom, YouTube, and Facebook Censor Event at SF State. Academe blog: https://academeblog.org/2020/09/23/zoom-youtube-and-facebook-censor-event-at-sf-state/

powers to determine what is permissible to broadcast over their platforms.158 Similarly, there has been concern raised over situations in which students are studying remotely in jurisdictions where there are severe forms of internet censorship and surveillance. For example, HE institutions that are offering remote learning to students studying in China have had to ensure course content complies with strict Chinese Internet regulations about ‘allowable’ material. While Alibaba provides the virtual connection, instructors’ might have to engage in ‘self-censorship’ if teaching ‘sensitive topics’ to ensure the links and resources embedded in their course material work.159 In the UK this has led to the production of a ‘Model Code of Conduct for the Protection of Academic Freedom and the Academic Community in the Context of the Internationalisation of the UK Higher Education Sector’. The code aims to protect against states or organisations directly or indirectly curtailing intellectual inquiry and critical thinking, such as by preventing academics expressing views, as well as teaching and conducting research, on topics within their areas of academic expertise:

Violations of the right to academic freedom in this context can involve and result in surveillance, intimidation, self-censorship, suspension, being banned from academic posts, persecution, attacks, visa denials, deportation, coercive pressure on relatives, prosecution, detention, or, in the most extreme cases, death, obviously impacting the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy, freedom of expression, liberty and life.160

Moreover, the fact that lectures are now recorded and posted online - and subjected to surveillance by administrators - has potentially heightened concerns about the way staff are censoring their curriculum content, and highlights the extent to which contemporary academic work is embedded in surveillance and censorship infrastructures (Tanczer et al, 2020). Online learning technologies, like performance metrics and rankings, have become new ‘engines of anxiety’ in HE, potentially inducing new kinds of reactive behaviours among staff and managers (Espeland and Sauder, 2016). Perhaps the most widespread longer-term fear emanating from academics is whether HE institutions will use the pandemic as a catalyst for adopting more online teaching. While this is not to suggest that

158 NYU-AAUP Executive Committee 2020, 23 October. Statement from the NYU-AAUP on Zoom Censorship Today. Academe blog: https://academeblog.org/2020/10/23/statement-from-the-nyu-aaup-on-zoom-censorship-today/ 159 Coughlan, S. 2020, 9 Jul. UK universities comply with China’s internet restrictions. BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/ education-53341217 160 Academic Freedom and Internationalisation Working Group. 2020. Model Code of Conduct for the Protection of Academic Freedom and the Academic Community in the Context of the Internationalisation of the UK Higher Education Sector. Human Rights Consortium: https://hrc.sas.ac.uk/networks/academic-freedom-and-internationalisation-working-group/model-codeconduct