Nandini Sundar's Academic unfreedom.

Academic freedom means either

1) Scholars have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment.

2) a university can "determine for itself on academic grounds:
who may teach,
what may be taught,
how it should be taught, and
who may be admitted to study

If a University says 'we are committed to academic freedom' it means it can't sack a teacher for communicating any idea or fact.

This is pretty simple to understand. Sadly, Nandini Sundar, a Sociologist, is too stupid to do so. She writes-

Defining academic freedom is not an easy task,

But I just did it easily enough. 

both in relation to the academy and in relation to other kinds of freedom (see essays in Bilgrami and Cole 2015; Carvalho and Downing 2010).

Bilgrami has shit for brains.  But not even he or the others mentioned disputes the simple definition I have given. Rather, these authors focus on difficulties faced in different contexts (e.g. post 9/11 or by reason of the tuition fee crisis) of maintaining academic freedom. Sundar confuses difficulties with sustaining something which is easy to grasp with grasping the thing itself. This shows that her academic work has made her stupider than she would otherwise be. 

Is academic freedom an attribute of individual teachers and/or students within a university or should it be understood in more institutional terms?

It should be understood as either arising at the level of the teacher or the institution. 

Is academic freedom a subset of the wider fundamental right to freedom of expression, or is it an entirely different kind of animal, resting on criteria that are unique to the university?

It is a subset.  

A common argument made for academic freedom is that it leads to greater knowledge as contesting ideas compete. Robert Post (2015) argues against this “marketplace of ideas” justification, pointing out that while the First Amendment protects free speech in the United States (US), academics are bound by evidence as constituted by their disciplines.

Post is a Law Professor. He doesn't understand markets. The guy is simply wrong when he says ' “If a marketplace of ideas model were to be imposed upon Nature or The American Economic Review or The Lancet,” we would rapidly lose track of whatever expertise we possess about the nature of the world.” This is extraordinarily stupid. Nobel Prize winning Economists explained why information asymmetry causes the market to create screening and certifying mechanisms. Indeed, Scientific and Professional Journals thrive under private enterprise. Since such enterprises compete with each other, the outcome is better than a State funded institution doing the same thing. 

Universities cannot allow faculty to teach wrong historical facts or false theories like creationism in the name of freedom of speech.

Yes they can to the same extent as anyone else- indeed, they may be able to do so to a greater extent if they make suitable caveats- e.g. saying 'this is a possible view', rather than 'this is the truth'. Sundar herself constantly makes false statements of fact- because she is as stupid as shit and teaches a worthless subject. But she can't be sacked just for being a stupid liar. 

Academic freedom lies in

either leaving teachers free or leaving Universities free- nothing else 

creating the kind of space where judgments are made not under political or funding pressure but according to the standards of the discipline and the university itself.

It is impossible to 'create' this kind of space because man is a political animal. We can't hermetically seal ourselves off from political pressure any more than we can forget our gender or other types of 'oikieosis'- i.e. affiliation.

 Academic freedom is not dependent on the existence of ideal conditions in the same way that Sexual freedom is not dependent on having an ideal body and getting to hook up with others under ideal conditions. 

In other words, academic freedom requires that the university be a self-regulating space, according to whatever contract has been drawn up between individual faculty, students, and governing boards (Post 2015).

A University may be self-regulating but deny academic freedom both to itself or to its teachers. We can imagine a Catholic University saying 'We will only teach whatever the Pope approves. If he changes his mind on an issue, we will change our stand on that issue and will sack any teacher who doesn't follow suit'. 

Post, fool that he is, thinks that 'self-regulation' magically produces better Science or Scholarship. This is because Post has shit for brains. Most Law Professors do. If they didn't they'd be making big bucks as actual lawyers.  

In 1915, the American Association of University Professors in its Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, seen as one of the foundational charters for academic freedom in the US, defined academic freedom as including not just the freedom of enquiry and research, and freedom to teach within the university, but also “freedom of extra-mural utterance and action” (Carvalho and Downing 2010: 4). The relationship between what a teacher says outside the classroom/university and what she says inside is a tricky one, especially in these times when private views are circulated widely through social media.

This view was immediately rejected. Thus a Professor- like Bertrand Russell- who was guilty of adultery could be sacked for this 'extra-mural' activity. The Supreme Court upholds the right of a private University to determine what should be taught and what can be said off campus as well as on it provided this is done in accordance with the Law of Contract. Thus, if you signed a 'morals clause' then you lose an aspect of your right to privacy. However, this is a justiciable matter.  There is nothing particularly 'tricky' about it. The Law is clear and the facts can be clarified easily enough. 

Sundar is not a lawyer. She is a Sociologist. Does she understand a simple text in her own discipline? Let us see. 

In Max Weber’s classic formulation in “Science as a Vocation” (1919/1948), it is important to keep one’s politics out of the classroom.

This is merely Weber's opinion. By his own logic, he'd be barred from making this argument within a classroom. This lecture is 'extra-mural' in that it discusses what is involved in dedicating yourself to Science rather than Commerce or Politics or getting drunk and having lots of sex.  

However, it is equally important to be able to express oneself freely outside the classroom:

Not if Science is your Vocation. We can imagine a scientist travelling to an authoritarian country, or one at War, so as to be able to do cutting edge research. He wants the freedom to present his theory in the classroom but is willing to forego the freedom to say 'your leader sucks. I think you guys deserve to lose this war because of the horrible way you treat your minorities.'  

'When speaking in a political meeting about democracy, one does not hide one’s personal standpoint; indeed to come out clearly and take a stand is one’s damned duty … But the true teacher will beware of imposing from the platform any political position upon the student, whether it is expressed or suggested. (Weber 1919/1948: 145–46)

 What is the context of this statement? Weber has just said 'In Econ/Poli Sci/Sociology etc. keep politics out of the classroom. Neither seek to indoctrinate your students nor let them start screaming hysterically about being triggered. If you want to talk worthless shite do so at a political meeting outside the campus.

We all wish Sundar & Co. had heeded Weber's advise. But in that case they'd have gotten proper jobs. These cretins only stay on campus to recruit for their own stupid faction of some sclerotic Communist party which shat the bed long ago.

Weber said 'Finally, let us consider the disciplines close to me: sociology, history, economics, political science, and those types of cultural philosophy that make it their task' to interpret these sciences. It is said, and I agree, that politics is out of place in the lecture-room. It does not belong there on the part of the students. If, for instance, in the lecture-room of my former colleague Dietrich Schafer in Berlin, pacifist students were to surround his desk and make an uproar, I should deplore it just as much as I should deplore the uproar which anti-pacifist students are said to have made against Professor Forster, whose views in many ways are as remote as could be from mine. Neither does politics, however, belong in the lecture-room on the part of the docents, and when the docent is scientifically concerned with politics, it belongs there least of all.

So, Weber is saying keep nutters like Sundar out of Poli Sci or Sociology or whatever. Let them go shout themselves hoarse at some political meeting. Don't give them any academic freedom. Sack them and chase them away from the Campus. 

Weber, like other academics, had gained tenure during a period when some Social Democrats were denied teaching jobs while some pro-business scholars were given influential posts. Being German, Weber didn't really stick his neck out on this issue. Sundar writes-

Thus, a teacher who is denied tenure for political views expressed outside (whether through social media or by way of speeches) has a right to ask whether it is on academic grounds, and relates to his or her work within the university.

This is reasonable. But it also applies to a teacher denied tenure coz they be mo fo ugly or they smell like shit. If you have been teaching at a place for the requisite time and you don't get promotion or tenure, you have a right to know why this happened. On the other hand, this right is defeasible. Your employer isn't obliged to tell you that the reason you won't get tenure is coz everybody saw you give Santa a b.j at the Christmas Party- except it wasn't really Santa was it? It was a gross homeless dude with no teeth. Honestly, we think you are scum.  

Sundar's next paragraph appears to have no logical connection with what went before.

What then is the relationship between academic freedom and institutional autonomy?

If the institution is autonomous it can decide to give zero academic freedom to the faculty or the student body. If it is not really autonomous, but rather a Public enterprise, then the law of the land prevails. Teachers and students have superior rights because what they are facing is a Government agency in all but name. 

While the two are mutually reinforcing,

Rubbish! Either the Institution is autonomous or, like a Government body, it is constrained with respect to teachers and students. 

in practice, the issue is far more complicated.

The issue is simple. Sundar has shit for brains and teaches a worthless subject. That is why everything becomes very complicated for her. But what is the upshot of all that complication? She and her ilk prove utterly useless.  

A uniform reservation system for the country may seem like a curb on institutional autonomy but can individual academic institutions be allowed to ignore national goals like inclusiveness?

Either there is autonomy or there isn't. If you want autonomy, then 'national goals' like protecting the holy cow should not be imposed.  

Conversely, how do universities avoid being reduced to a mere extension wing of policies already decided by governments or funders, and retain the space for basic science and social science, and the setting of new agendas?

By being given autonomy. Look at the Indian School of Business. It has autonomy because it has not registered as a University. But this has allowed it to climb high in international league tables.  

While courses, determination of standards, etc, must be within the purview of the university system alone,

Rubbish! They must be wholly subordinated to the wider epistemic community which the University serves. Guys who get qualifications in Medicine or Actuarial Science must be ready to begin training as Doctors or Actuaries or whatever. If this does not happen, Universities are disintermediated.  

one can legitimately debate

Sundar can't coz she got shit for brains 

whether academic freedom should be allowed to be the freedom of the ivory tower, or whether it is conditional upon some sense of social responsibility, especially in a country with scarce resources (see the discussion in Kothari Commission 1966).

Fuck the Kothari Commission! It was shit. The fact is all countries have scarce resources. America has scarcer educational resources than India. Why? Because American students have a higher opportunity cost for staying in College. Still, American Colleges can maintain market share by selling a consumer good of a positional type. That may involve a jacuzzi full of 'girls gone wild' in an Ivory Tower. More sadly, it may not.  

Sundar next asks a question which makes us wonder whether she is a grown-up.

Who is to define the nature and kind of engagement that academics should have with the world around them?

A grown-up would answer, 'grown-ups define the nature and kind of engagements they have for themselves'. Children and lunatics should not always be allowed to do so.  

In practice, the government or the funder, the public at large, university administrators, and academics themselves, all play a role in negotiating the kind of research that gets done and how.

Where research is commissioned, no stipulation is made re. 'the nature and kind of engagements' academics should have with the world around them'. Why? Research is done by grown-ups. They decide for themselves when to get up in the morning and how to go about their work during the day and whom to sleep with at night. 

It may be that Sundar herself was only allowed to do research after the Government stipulated she should not engage with naked people. Then the funder stipulated that she should not get engaged to fat bastards. The public at large mourned her getting married to Siddhartha Varadarajan. Anyway, that's one explanation for why Sundar's research is shite.

However, the truth can't be gainsaid. Her research is shite coz she is a shithead.

The key issue, then, is what are the appropriate spheres of each?

No. The key issue is- are you a grown-up or not? If you aren't, don't do research. Be a research assistant. Let some grown-up decide things for you.  

A question that is often asked is whether the social sciences and humanities lead to intellectual advancement, and if so, for whom

clearly not you, Prof. Sundar 

—for the persons studying these disciplines who might emerge with more cultivated minds, or for society at large?

This question can easily be answered by an Economic calculation. Basically, two years of College probably do enhance productivity in non STEM subjects. After that, diminishing returns set in quickly 

One charge is that a liberal arts education creates a class of elites who place a life of fine-grained argument on a higher pedestal than a life of involvement in the affairs of the state or business.

This 'charge' is ludicrous. Where in the world do you find actual elites- i.e. guys who fly around in private jets- indulging in 'fine-grained arguments'? One might as well say, elites in India are all 'shatranj ke khilari'. They are playing Chess or composing poetry while British are invading innnit?  

Another is that it perpetuates existing hierarchies of class, caste, race or gender, whether through the choice of certain classics as foundational texts (Kimball 2010) or by seemingly neutral institutional procedures (such as insisting on the PhD being a full-time programme, thus closing off higher education to working people).

Fuck off! We think a guy with a non-STEM PhD is a loser- a mere glorified child-minder- though now more commonly a barista or Pizza delivery boy- nothing more.  

As Pierre Bourdieu (1989: 17–19) reminds us, it is not just a coincidence that the values that the academy prizes conveniently happen to be the values of its elite.

Maybe in France. Macron was close to Ricoeur. But then he also married his High School teacher.  Anyway, the guy is now waging war on 'Islamo-Leftism' in the Academy.

All over the world, elites prize things like private jets and mega-mansions with helipads on prime real estate and how to cheat death by using stem cells or nanotechnology or cryogenics or whatever.

What appears to be the disinterested upholding of educational standards is often the upholding of privilege.

But, if that is what it is, then the appearance disappears. Educational standards in STEM subjects matter. We want Doctors who can actually cure us and Actuaries who will ensure we have a decent pension. We don't care about the collapse of standards in non-STEM subjects precisely because this undercuts the privilege of the cultured class. An Etonian may be able to quote Horace and make a good fist of writing a Latin epigram. But I could easily get a Doctorate in Classical Studies by writing some shite about how Black Lesbians were discriminated against in the Alexandria of Plotinus while still being shit at Latin and Greek. Of course, unlike the Etonian, I'll still be on minimum wage delivering pizzas. 

It is for this reason, too, that the university cannot be the sole arbiter of admissions and curricula, based on some notion of “merit.”

Actually, if we are concerned with social mobility, then the sole criteria of admissions and curricula must be 'merit'. This is because low social status people are harmed more by getting credentials which are known to have no signaling or screening value. An Etonian with a PhD in Gender Studies is merely laughed at as an eccentric. Nobody suggests that his effectiveness as a stock-broker has decreased. But a prole who saddled herself with so shite a qualification aint gonna be moving very far out of the ghetto.  

On the other hand, it is the university itself, which is best placed to debate these issues on academic and not extraneous grounds.

Not in India. You stayed on to do a PhD only if you didn't get into the IAS or Chartered Accountancy or whatever. If you ended up a Professor, chances are you are either a thug or a crook or a crooked thug.  

In the Indian context, another important question is how we can have, following J P S Uberoi (1968) what one might call swaraj or self-rule and independence in academic thought.

We can't. Us guys be stooooopid.  

How does one challenge academic colonialism without becoming national–chauvinist or simply isolated from wider currents?

The answer is simple. One pursues excellence till the tables are turned. But that means sacking the Sundars of the world. Out of stupidity nothing but stupidity can be born. Freedom can have an Academic component only if cretinism does not prevail. Academic unfreedom is the consequence of Sundar type stupidity.