Protecting Academic Freedom: Study Recommends Four Strategies to Counter Authoritarian Policies
Sarahmirk CC-BY-SA-4.0
On 22 April 2017, people around the world demonstrated for academic freedom; here in Berlin. The demonstrations came in response to anti-science measures taken by the first Trump administration.
An authoritarian government can put pressure on universities and research institutions – because the state provides them with funding and regulates their organisation. In a study commissioned by the Volkswagen Foundation, legal scholar Christoph Möllers has examined where the German research system is vulnerable to political influence and how it can be better protected.
"Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free." This is guaranteed by Article 5(3) of of Germany's Basic Law. Yet this fundamental right alone cannot reliably protect academic freedom from authoritarian interference. The renowned legal scholar Christoph Möllers is sceptical that the special freedoms of academia can be successfully defended in the Constitutional Court in the event of a political crisis.
How do authoritarian politics threaten academic freedom?
It is precisely because of its privileges of freedom that academia is a prime target for authoritarian politics. Academia operates independently, allows for dissent and must provide transparent justifications for its findings. This is incompatible with the aims of illiberal politics.
Governments do not need to openly ban research or put direct pressure on individual researchers in order to undermine the system. They can:
- withhold funding,
- fill leadership positions with politically loyal individuals,
- abuse their supervisory powers, or
- establish politically driven competition with existing research institutions.
In their study on authoritarian threats to academic freedom – published in German as "Autoritäre Bedrohungen der Wissenschaftsfreiheit" – Christoph Möllers, together with Max Lenz and Nils Weinberg, examines how academic freedom can be protected against these kinds of threats. The Volkswagen Foundation commissioned this legal study.
Academic freedom in international comparison
In Germany, the academic system has so far been largely spared from systematic interference. However, examples from Hungary under Viktor Orbán or from the US under Donald Trump show how quickly governments can use legal and financial leverage against academic institutions.
A particular challenge in Germany's federal system is that the federal government and the federal states not only fund much of the research system but also shape many of the rules governing its organiaation. State structures therefore facilitate research, but at the same time can serve as a gateway for political control. In the authors’ view, it is therefore not enough to rely on the courts and the fundamental right to academic freedom in the event of a conflict. Rules, procedures and institutions must be designed from the outset in such a way as to make authoritarian interference as difficult as possible
What are the strategies for safeguarding academic freedom?
The study identifies four strategies that universities and research institutions can use to strengthen their independence against authoritarian political influence.
- Clear rules: Committees must make decisions despite political deadlock and document their decisions.
- Less political influence: Scientific criteria should determine decisions on scientific matters.
- Jointly upholding rights: Secure jobs protect researchers; institutions work together to resolve conflicts.
- Strong leadership: They defend academic freedom against political and public pressure.
1. Clear majorities: Ensuring that committees can take effective action and safeguarding procedures
A research system is particularly vulnerable when a single political actor can use a veto to block important decisions. Möllers therefore describes Article 91b of Germany's Basic Law as the "Achilles’ heel of German research law". This article enables the federal government and the federal states to jointly fund universities and non-university research institutions. However, in the case of joint funding for universities, all the federal states must give their consent. A single state government hostile to science could exploit this rule to block funding decisions or exert political pressure
The authors therefore recommend removing such veto powers. A state that does not wish to contribute to the funding could be exempted from its share without bringing the entire project to a halt. The federal and state governments have recognised the problem. In July 2026, the Joint Science Conference amended its rules of procedure and removed the requirement for unanimity. However, each federal state retains its right of veto over agreements affecting universities – this can only be removed by amending the Basic Law.
Institutions need clear rules for decision-making, such as those governing majority decisions. Furthermore, the process by which a decision was reached should be documented. This enables courts to verify at a later date whether the procedure was conducted correctly. To date, many academic bodies have tended to reach agreements informally, that is, without a precisely defined and documented procedure. In a political crisis, however, informal rules can facilitate deadlocks, deliberate disruption and subsequent manipulation. Academic institutions should therefore review their statutes and rules of procedure: can decisions be made, justified and defended in court even in the face of deliberate opposition?
2. Protecting scientific decisions from political influence
The second strategy is intended to prevent unrelated political interests from influencing scientific decisions. This does not mean that democratically elected parliaments and governments should not play a role in science policy. They are rightly responsible for deciding on budgets, legislation and policy priorities. However, when applications, appointments or research output are assessed according to scientific standards, politicians should not alter the outcome retrospectively.
The study cites funding for excellence as an example. Once experts have carried out a scientific review of an application, state ministries should no longer intervene in order to favour their own region. The appointment and dismissal of university leadership is also a particularly sensitive matter. University leadership bridges the gap between academia and politics. The procedures must therefore be designed in such a way that academics have a sufficient say in the process.
The state’s supervisory and emergency powers should also be clearly limited. Unclear or very broadly defined rules could enable an authoritarian government to bypass a university’s management or take decisions itself. Universities should also develop their own strategies for dealing with conflicts and security situations that are compatible with the freedom of research and teaching. Funding conditions and the institutions’ objectives should not be constantly expanded to include new tasks that have little to do with academia.
Particular caution is required when filling professorial posts. If a government deliberately appoints individuals who are politically loyal, it can undermine the protection of academic freedom for decades. Transparent appointment procedures based on academic merit are therefore an important safeguard
3. Upholding rights and defending science together
Rights only provide protection if the individuals concerned are actually able to exercise them. To this end, researchers need secure employment and tenure arrangements. For Möllers, therefore, tenure is one of the most important practical prerequisites for academic freedom. Those who do not have to fear losing their livelihood because of a dispute can more easily resist pressure from politicians, the public or their own institution. In the authors’ view, the low proportion of researchers in permanent posts in Germany undermines the effective protection of academic freedom.
Academic institutions, too, should enforce their rights in court if necessary. They should not be content with non-binding assurances from politicians. After all, a future government is under no obligation to honour such promises. The authors therefore recommend that universities and non-university research institutions work more closely together in the event of legal disputes. A joint body could provide information on similar disputes, compile legal knowledge and help connect the institutions concerned with one another.
This collaboration should not be limited to legal proceedings. Universities, research institutions and their members must identify their common interests. They should prevent a government from pitting them against one another through financial incentives or political pressure. Political mobilisation does not mean imposing scientific claims against democratic majorities. Rather, it is about defending the conditions necessary for free research and teaching. This includes students as well. By linking research, teaching and public debate, universities make free scholarship visible to society.
4. University governing bodies as leading champions of academic freedom
Whether academic institutions can defend their independence depends heavily on their leadership. Executive boards, rectorates and boards of directors act as intermediaries between their own institutions, the political sphere and the public. According to the study, they must protect and support the members of their institutions. Their role is not to pass on every political demand or public outcry to academics unfiltered. Rather, leadership must defend academic freedom by virtue of their office. This is particularly true when research or teaching meets with opposition. It also applies when the leadership itself finds the views of individual researchers problematic. It is not the research that everyone agrees with anyway that needs protection in the first place. It is precisely controversial, uncomfortable or politically undesirable research that relies on the support of its institution.
To this end, leaders need a clear professional identity. They should keep their institutions open, resist unlawful pressure and not base their decisions on short-term public approval. A leadership culture that is clearly committed to academic freedom is therefore in itself an important safeguard
How can we ensure the long-term protection of academic freedom?
None of the four strategies can prevent authoritarian interference on its own. Bodies with the capacity to act and legally sound procedures must work in tandem with measures to protect scientific decisions from political influence, effective enforcement of the law, and responsible leadership. This protection is particularly effective when institutions are aware of their rights, collaborate at an early stage, and do not allow themselves to be pitted against one another.
Science also needs support from outside: a political system that respects its independence even when the results are unwelcome; ministries that exercise their powers of intervention with restraint; and a public that values independent research.
"When it comes to warding off threats, the scientific community remains dependent on solidarity within the scientific community itself, as well as on recognition and support from outside the scientific community; on a political process that recognises the autonomy of institutions even when the outcome of their work is not to everyone’s liking; and on line ministries that exercise restraint even where their powers allow for intervention, and which are prepared to act as a buffer against parliamentary scrutiny of scientific activities." (Quote from the study, p. 19)
