Policy statement on academic freedom
Approved by the McGill Department of Political Science January 18, 2024
"The Department of Political Science" comprises the tenure-stream faculty, contract academic staff, and representatives of both undergraduate and graduate student associations
The McGill University Department of Political Science endorses the following principles governing disputes about academic freedom that often arise around politically controversial questions. It understands these principles to be compatible with, though perhaps in some ways clearer or stricter than, the statements on academic freedom of McGill University, the McGill Association of University Teachers, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers policy on academic freedom.
1) The department as an organization does not take stands on political questions. It does not issue statements deploring, condemning, celebrating, or expressing concern about world events. The department includes members at all levels who take a wide range of positions on contested questions, both in their academic capacity as scholars studying politics, and in their private capacities as persons and politically engaged citizens of their many various societies. The department does not declare some of those views orthodox and others heterodox. No subset of the department— not its officers, not a majority of its faculty, not a majority of its students, no subset whatsoever— has the authority to take political positions that purport to be those of the whole department.
2) The department as an organization does not endorse or condemn the political speech of its members, whether in their research or in their extramural speech, including speech on social media. Its refusal to do so is not a tacit endorsement, or a tacit condemnation, of that speech. It supports the freedom of all its members both to engage in academic inquiry and to engage in political speech, and will reaffirm that commitment as needed.
3) All academic members of the department are protected by academic freedom: undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, course lecturers, faculty lecturers, and tenure-track academic staff.
This means, first, that in their academic work they are free to pursue their research and argument where it takes them, regardless of the political conclusions it might reach. ("Research" here includes the inquiry in student course papers, not only the more independent work done by faculty and advanced graduate students.) It means, second, that their extramural political speech may not be the basis of adverse academic action against them. Grades, academic standing, thesis evaluation, current employment, potential future employment, promotion, tenure, merit assessment for salary— none of these may be affected by the content of political views or by extramural political speech.
This is a categorical commitment, without exceptions. It is the quality of argument and evidence of academic work, as judged by the methodologically pluralistic but demanding standards of political science as a discipline, that is subject to such evaluation. Some kinds of academic speech may indeed be subject to severe adverse consequences on that basis, such as plagiarism and research fraud. In addition, some ways of expressing political views may face limitations from other institutions; academic freedom does not protect someone from a prosecution for hate speech under the criminal code. But the content of the political views may never be the basis for adverse academic action on the part of the department.
4) Instructors are protected by academic freedom in the content of their classroom teaching, but in a somewhat more limited way than in the content of their research, and in a much more limited way than in their extramural speech. Unlike extramural speech but like research, teaching is subject to the demand for scholarly methods and rigor. Unlike research, teaching faces the added complications of the power differential between the instructor and students who also have academic freedom. An instructor who treats the classroom as a platform for their personal political opinions may create the reasonable fear among students who disagree that their political dissent will affect their academic evaluation. Instructors are expected to discuss contentious political issues in ways that respect students’ academic freedom. This means that instructors are expected to create a classroom environment in which it is both true and clear to students that the basis of evaluation is the quality of argument and the evidence of academic work rather than any political orthodoxy. The enforcement of this expectation does not infringe the instructor’s academic freedom.
Conclusion
These principles and norms may well make it more possible for there to be civil and respectful discussion and disagreement about contentious political questions within our academic community, but these are not principles of civility, and academic freedom does not depend on whether people express their opinions calmly or nicely. Mutually respectful conversation may reasonably be demanded in a classroom, but extramural speech that is extreme, uncivil, or unwise does not change any of these principles.