The recent publication of a report on academic freedom has obviously generated immense interest from the University Ethics Observatory, especially since our Observatory is mentioned extensively, one of whose missions is precisely to denounce the multiple attacks on academic freedom and which has published several editorials and articles on this subject on its website.
Preliminary remarks
The author of this report is Ms. Stéphanie Balme, director of the Center for International Studies at Sciences Po. The fact that the Institutes of Political Studies, particularly the one in Paris, have been the subject of much discussion over the past two years due to the thunderous demonstrations by student groups, often directed against the freedom of expression of their fellow students and the academic freedom of their teachers, certainly gives Ms. Balme legitimacy, since she has been able to see from the inside how these fundamental freedoms have been undermined; but it may raise concerns that this proximity constitutes a conflict of interest between the author and the institution to which she belongs: her independence could be called into question, and a figure detached from the worrying upheavals in these institutions would have been more appropriate to undertake the drafting of such a report. It should be noted that the institution to which Ms. Balme is attached, the Institute of Political Studies, does not hesitate to practice censorship: an article from The Express we had learned (and this has just been confirmed by an article from Figarothat the Reims campus had a lecture by one of its professors, Leonardo Orlando, cancelled, a lecture which he apparently did not like… This breach of academic freedom, this adherence (this submission?) to the cancel culture The fact that the report is affiliated with the institution hosting its author would be enough to disqualify it outright, given its major conflict of interest. Nevertheless, we read it and attempt to analyze it here.
This report was commissioned by France Universités, the association of directors and presidents of higher education institutions, which is thus positioning itself as a defender of academic freedom. But to play this role of white knight, one must first be beyond reproach. This group has published precisely a " Guide to Secularism 2023 where one can read " Therefore, it is advisable [on religious matters] to avoid asking any overly controversial questions, and to take into consideration both the potentially divergent opinions of other teachers and those of students, both during the course and during the final exam. This means, as Anne-Hélène Ubertini Le Cornec rightly points out[1]“The end of the freedom to teach, to research, the end of academic independence and freedom”… This method, says philosopher Bertrand Vergely, “essentially involves establishing a course model, outlining what one is allowed to say and not say. In terms of form, it amounts to students monitoring the course, giving more weight to the students’ words than to the professor’s.” It therefore seems peculiar that France Universités presents itself as a defender of academic freedom while betraying it in such ways! This group would undoubtedly gain credibility if it were beyond reproach on this issue.
It should be noted that, from the outset, the author attributes the attacks on academic freedom to " the rise of illiberal tendencies targeting science, under the influence of authoritarian regimes and/or contemporary populist movements This attribution, while entirely justified, seems to us far too narrow; other attacks on academic freedom besides those stemming from "illiberal excesses" have manifested themselves for at least a decade worldwide, particularly in France. Does the silencing of philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, who came to give a lecture in Bordeaux in 2016, constitute such an illiberal excess under the influence of an authoritarian regime or a populist movement? It does not seem so to us. On the other hand, the attack on academic freedom is blatant and cannot be denied. We have chosen this emblematic, albeit somewhat dated, example to illustrate the mental constraint that, like the Jesuits, the author imposed upon himself in the context of his work. Unfortunately, this example is not unique, and while the author does indeed cite numerous unacceptable violations of academic freedom perpetrated within the framework she has defined, she fails to mention at least an equal number of equally unacceptable acts perpetrated by pressure groups not driven by an "illiberal drift stemming from an authoritarian regime or a populist movement." This is why we characterize the report's author's selective blindness as hemianopsia.
One of the weaknesses of this report is that it accumulates assertions and generalities, which we are ready to accept, without supporting them with specific and referenced facts, which we would like to discover. When it is written: “ In several countries […], the rise of high-performing scientific ecosystems is now accompanied by a denial of academic freedom "Which is perfectly true, the reader is asking for examples and details: which countries, which "high-performing ecosystems", what factual evidence of this denial of academic freedom? This report also makes a conflation, for example on p. 12, where it moves imperceptibly from French researchers deprived of freedom abroad to foreign influences on our territory, then in the same paragraph to the cancellation of conferences "at the initiative of management of institutions, student associations or external actors" which have nothing to do with the foreign powers active against French researchers, whether they are located in France or abroad.
What is academic freedom?
The report devotes many fascinating pages to the definition, or rather the multiple definitions, of academic freedom. Clearly, the sticking point is measuring this academic freedom, whether diachronically, throughout the history of universities, or synchronically, in different countries around the world. There is no indisputable global metric; there are only facts. Ms. Balme readily accuses—and we wholeheartedly agree with her—non-democratic states, such as those gradually sliding away from democracy, of tolerating and even provoking serious infringements on academic freedom. They are not alone.
The report dwells at length on the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Israel and the Palestinian territories, which have long been in a state of simmering conflict and, for the past two years, of open warfare. All crucial sectors of a country's life are affected when it is at war: hospitals and healthcare, trade and the economy, universities and academic freedom, and many others. Positive indicators of health, the economy, or academic freedom—and freedoms in general—are not to be found in countries at war. However, placing Israel, home to the only universities in the Middle East that uphold academic freedom, in the same group (p. 60) as Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Georgia, Argentina, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, the "Occupied Palestinian Territory," Russia, Turkey, and Sudan is problematic.[2] This is unacceptable. Academic freedom cannot be used as a pretext for the glorification of terrorism, neither in France nor in Israel. Lamenting that "Israel's national democracy score fell to 0,850 in 2023 from 0,935 in 2022" without mentioning that it is close to zero in neighboring states is quite peculiar, just as it is surreal to quantify a "democracy score" with three decimal places.
Academic freedom in the world
Ms. Balme paints an apocalyptic picture of academic freedom worldwide. We fully share her analysis of the harmful, even dangerous, role played by Chinese-style scientific techno-nationalism, as well as the anti-science and post-truth dimensions of the movement. Make America Great Again (MAGA) led by President Trump. We fully share his concern regarding this " a fascination tinged with aversion towards intellectual elites " that a segment of the population carries, and the fact that academics are sometimes perceived as " insufficiently aligned with the objectives of the State "and therefore subversive, sometimes" criticized for their supposed uselessness, deemed all the more unacceptable as they would have a high cost for the community However, it seems to us that this concern is exaggerated: contempt for elites is a constant in all populist movements, particularly in France, as Ms. Balme notes when she refers to Poujadism, which was neither the first nor the last, but one of its many manifestations. It was, after all, a former president of the Academy of Sciences, the chemist Bernard Meunier, who proposed removing the humanities and social sciences from the CNRS where, according to him, they had no business being: should we suspect him of mental Poujadism?
The situation in the United States has deteriorated enormously over the past year with Trump's return to the presidency. Science, health, the economy, and numerous sectors, even those concerning national security, have been placed in the hands of dangerous and incompetent ideologues, and this situation is worrying, even catastrophic, especially given the United States' dominant position in world affairs. But to limit ourselves to academic freedom, have we heard any denunciation of the numerous attacks it suffered during the years when the Democrats were in power? I can only refer the reader to a short list already publishedThis concerns the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom—a list that is, moreover, incomplete. These attacks on academic freedom came sometimes from university authorities, sometimes from student activists occasionally supported by some professors. They in no way excuse the recent attacks by public authorities, but there is no reason to remain silent about them or exonerate those responsible. We have strongly condemned them. the excesses of American universities before the Trump eraAnd we will continue in the same way with his return to power, without turning a blind eye or a deaf ear. No, we do not feel caught between wokeism and trumpism !
Academic freedom in France
In France, numerous attacks on academic freedom have been documented; we have already mentioned the censorship of Sylviane Agacinski and Leonardo Orlando, the former by students, the latter by the hierarchy of an academic institution. It would be tedious to maintain an exhaustive list to update Anne-Sophie Chazaud's.[3]But we cannot forget the silencing of Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, Fabrice Balanche, Céline Masson, Gilles Kepel, and many others, nor can we forget these contemporary witch hunts sanctioned by university authorities outside of any administrative or criminal justice system. The case of this Lyon professor, Fabrice Balanche, is particularly symbolic: harassed, mistreated, and chased from the lecture hall by students, he received only lukewarm support from the president of his university, who went so far as to say that he "had it coming"; a vice-president of this university, undoubtedly exercising what he believes to be academic freedom, went so far as to place a terrorist leader "in the pantheon of our hearts" without facing any disciplinary or criminal sanctions for this apology for terrorism.[4]Ms. Balme seems to have been unaware of this, since she does not mention it in any way in her report.
The most recent incident (contemporary with the publication of Ms. Balme's report, which she is of course excused for not having mentioned) occurred at the Lyon Institute of Political Studies on October 14, 2025, where hordes of pro-Palestinian students gained access (through what complicity?) to the lecture hall where Iannis Roder, a specialist in the history of the Holocaust, was scheduled to give a lecture entitled "The Driving Force of Mass Violence." They then attempted to prevent the lecture from taking place, which only four students were able to attend. The director of the institute, Ms. Hélène Surrel, considered it "an internal matter for the Institute" and did not file a complaint.
How does Ms. Balme intend to "promote a culture of academic freedom in society" if those who are supposed to promote and protect it are burying it and remaining silent? The laws exist, and Ms. Surrel refuses to apply them, preferring "dialogue with students and appeasement": this is a noble stance, but dialogue is only possible with those who are receptive, and appeasement is only possible with those who are willing to be appeased. If the "incident" was the first of its kind and had taken the institute's authorities by surprise, then yes, dialogue and appeasement would have been welcome. But the unacceptable excesses that have been occurring for the past two years reflect a concerted strategy of violence that must be stopped, through disciplinary measures and, where the law has been broken, through criminal prosecution.
Who wants the loss of academic freedom?
After clearly denouncing the political leaders whose responsibility in the United States is overwhelming, Ms. Balme contrasts " politically highly structured minority groups "(but she didn't say how to They are structured, nor are they known by which political parties they would be supported. who believe that the French academic institution is currently threatened by the culture of cancellation "And" The vast majority of academics do not subscribe to this diagnosis or, in any case, remain largely unengaged on these issues. This imprecise assertion could just as easily be formulated by contrasting an awakened minority, vigilant about respecting academic freedom, with a majority that couldn't care less: it would be just as convincing; it's simply a matter of interpretation! And in any case, whoever holds the majority isn't necessarily right: does truth necessarily emerge from consensus? That the indecisive and indifferent masses regarding academic freedom are thus valorized in support of Ms. Balme's arguments is quite disconcerting. Few academics dared to defy the communist stranglehold in the 1960s, and those whose ideas are numerically dominant tend to confuse their opinion, shared by their circle, with the "scientific consensus." Simon Leys stood alone against the pro-Mao university majority in the 1970s, and the opposition of Maoist French Catholic intellectuals cost him, in 1971, the prospect of a career in the French university.
The report thus accuses teachers of promoting attacks on academic freedom: we are less inclined to agree with this accusation, as we have seen that they are often victims of it. It fails to make any accusations against the students themselves, who have proven to be among the most determined to combat it. This phenomenon has certainly grown since the events of October 7, 2023, in the Middle East, but it has existed for a long time; when, in 2015, a Yale University student vehemently criticized Professor Nicholas Christakis for wanting to create an intellectual space, whereas, according to her, he was there to create a homeIsn't this a clear attack on academic freedom? Ms. Balme goes on to exaggerate the attacks on academic freedom perpetrated by certain academics and political actors, while minimizing those perpetrated by pro-Palestinian student movements, whose abuses and acts of vandalism were far more prevalent. This is a classic case of "victimization reversal"; but by failing to cite any specific cases from either side, the report reveals its weak argumentation and its underlying bias.
A whole section of the denunciation of attacks on academic freedom is thus absent from the report prepared by Ms. Balme. It is certainly not essential to revisit the influence of pro-Palestinian students and some professors on universities; the daily and weekly press has reported far too many examples. These students violate the laws of the Republic when they glorify terrorism; they also deliberately undermine academic freedom by preventing professors from delivering their courses, and university officials tolerate this, which is even more serious, sometimes invoking "dialogue" and "appeasement" as a pretext for inaction, and sometimes even blaming the harassed professor for this harassment: we have specific examples of this, which the newspapers have revealed, those on the left with self-pity, those on the right with relish.
What's surprising is that Ms. Balme so quickly exonerates "wokeism" from any infringement on academic freedom, even though it's the primary source of its perversion, albeit not to the extent in which it's being abused in front of the entire world by the American Nero and his entourage of buffoons. Let's just say that the woke crowd, through their excesses, paved the way… Let's remember how many Americans were shocked to hear Kamala Harris reveal her pronouns during her speeches: it wasn't Trump who won in November 2024, it was the Democrats who lost.
Ignoring the relentless propaganda that engulfed America for a decade is unreasonable if we want to analyze the dictatorial onslaught that is now engulfing it. Words and actions have consequences, and those who utter or commit them cannot be absolved of those consequences. This is why the situation in France and Europe seems to us just as dangerous as the one that prevailed for so long in the United States. An example could be found in the calls for projects of the...European Research Council which expressly call for valuing "intersectionality" and "gender issues", particularly for the awarding of Marie Curie scholarships.
The University Ethics Observatory in the crosshairs of the report
It is clear that we recognized ourselves in the passage where Ms. Balme contrasts, on the one hand, " a small group of academics, politicians and media figures [who] seem to believe in the existence of an internal ideological divide within the university " and " On the other hand, a large majority of academic and social actors denounce a caricatured ideological labeling, perceived as a political attack against the autonomy of the academic world, the mechanisms of which are reminiscent of certain forms of populist rhetoric, particularly Trumpian rhetoric."Again, what objective data does Ms. Balme rely on to separate a "small group" from a "large majority"? Was there a survey, a study, an intra-university referendum to minimize the former and maximize the latter? Of course not, and this is yet another major weakness of the report: to navigate by subjective impression rather than objective analysis."
We admit to not having figures, but only individual accounts; all the observations gathered by theUniversity Ethics Observatory in its annual report These remarks elicit outright hilarity from scientists in the "hard" sciences (STEM); those working in the humanities and social sciences, on the other hand, laugh about them secretly, knowing that some of those responsible for their careers may be complicit in the ideology we are denouncing. In some cases, they are forced to self-censor. We highlighted specific examples of this in a blog post.Researchers who admit that their results do not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy worry about the negative consequences that their publication could have on their social and professional lives, and an American study has shown that these fears are well-founded for psychologists.[5]In France, many lecturers waiting for professorships, and many PhDs waiting for even a simple position, refrain from associating themselves with the activities of the University Ethics Observatory for fear of being driven out of their academic careers: they cannot be blamed.
Scientific journals are getting involved: a recent editorial from Nature Human Behavior describing the new procedures for reviewers and editors in this journal is formulated as follows : " New ethics guidelines address potential harms to human groups who do not participate in the research but who could be harmed by its publication Let's go back in time: who could have written and published, until the emergence of the Enlightenment, that God did not exist? If this journal had existed in the 17th century...e and xviiie centuries, she would surely have published " new ethical guidelines to eliminate potential harm to believers who do not participate in the research but who might be harmed by its publication "The return of blasphemy laws is imminent... That's precisely what we're fighting against!"
Let us thank Ms. Balme, who devotes six pages to describing the activities of the University Ethics Observatory, which she denigrates with an immoderate use of disapproving quotation marks, but who acknowledges that its concerns occupy a central place in the contemporary rhetoric denouncing critical approaches in the humanities and social sciences, and of certain disciplines and research objects. Ms. Balme specifically mentions the conference held at the Sorbonne on January 7 and 8, 2022, entitled " After deconstruction: rebuilding science and culture ", organized by the College of Philosophy with the support of the Committee for Secularism and the Republic, which resulted in the publication of a book. She perceives this colloquium as " an explicit attempt to regain ideological control of the French University ».
She fails to mention that this symposium was followed by another symposium " Who's afraid of deconstruction? "which also gave rise to a work which, in turn, is riddled with insults towards his opponents" [The word deconstruction] has become, in the minds of reactionaries of all stripes, the catch-all term designating everything they hate in thought, when it seeks to emancipate rather than to order. Right from the start, those who don't think like them are labeled "reactionaries"... Further on, the enemies of deconstruction would attribute to this concept " Everything that's wrong with the world: cultural degeneration, contempt for great works, interpretive delirium, linguistic gibberish, political danger, sexual confusion, moral license "...The non-deconstructionists would thus have..." the desire to police thought […] in order to better, then, police bodies There is no need to comment on this text. we've already done it —which discredits its authors. Insults should not be present in the debate. The work After deconstruction does not utter any insults of this type and even pays homage to deconstruction in these terms: A once-beneficial endeavor to uncover prejudices and expose illusions ».
Still adopting a one-sided perspective, Ms. Balme cites various authors who, through their works and publications, deny the destructive dimension of "wokism," but cites none of those who offer an opposing analysis, whether or not they belong to the Observatory of University Ethics: Jean-François Braunstein, Pierre-André Taguieff, Nathalie Heinich, Xavier-Laurent Salvador (with the exception of references and notes for the latter two), Emmanuelle Hénin, Samuel Fitoussi, Peggy Sastre, Hubert Heckmann, Nadia Geerts, François Rastier, Pierre Vermeren, Nicolas Weill-Parot, and others—the list is long for a "small group" of academics and media figures! Continuing her denunciation, still devoid of specific facts, Ms. Balme considers that " The undertaking carried out by the Observatory of University Ethics […] creates a climate of mistrust and intimidation, which in particular discourages researchers from addressing certain themes or social issues, or from speaking publicly about their work Let her give us specific examples of researchers who have been "dissuaded" in this way! This dynamicshe continued, This produces a threefold effect: a decline in intellectual freedom within university institutions, increasing self-censorship among teachers, and a dangerous weakening of our collective capacity to produce critical knowledge of social relations. “Certainly, we have clearly identified and published cases of self-censorship… in the opposite direction! No, Stalin was not a victim of the Moscow Trials…”
Regarding Islamo-leftism, which is also one of the areas that has invaded the university, Ms. Balme complacently quotes the Minister Delegate for Higher Education and Research, Philippe Baptiste, who declared that it did not exist; but her blindness prevented her from seeing that her supervising minister, Élisabeth Borne, had corrected her subordinate. The dominant ideology labels purely ideological concepts ("Islamophobia," "intersectionality," "systemic racism") as "scientific" and rejects those who fight it ("wokism," "Islamo-leftism"). To deny the reality of Islamo-leftism today, after the pro-Hamas demonstrations and the electoral canvassing of a political party in predominantly Muslim neighborhoods, is no longer blindness, but blatant bad faith.
What can be done to ensure academic freedom?
A vast catalog of proposals is included in the report. Some are rather outlandish, such as enshrining academic freedom in the Constitution; others are mere gimmicks with no real value; still others are wishful thinking, the implementation of which is illusory. Of course, we must "value academic freedom at the national level," "promote a culture of academic freedom in society," "strengthen academic freedom at the European level," and so on: we all agree on that. But denouncing it on a daily basis seems far more important to us; and relentlessly attacking those who do so regularly, often with sorrow and sometimes with humor, seems counterproductive. Instead of tearing each other apart, let's unite! Join us—teachers, researchers, university administrators—and put academic ethics into practice by sending your contributions to our Observatory: we will be delighted to publish them. It's not just a matter of stating grand principles on which everyone agrees; it's also about working the ground every day. If vigilant academics hadn't stepped up, what would have been done at the Sorbonne to stem the fury of the pro-Palestinian students? unlike their Jewish classmates What would have been done in several universities to combat the censorship imposed on teachers who don't comply with student demands? And, rather than settling for wishful thinking and empty rhetoric, what if Ms. Balme proposed that existing laws be respected, such as that of July 31, 2025 relating to the fight against antisemitism in higher education[6]which reiterates and clarifies various existing penal provisions? But when a Minister of Higher Education, Philippe Baptiste, sees only anti-Semitic "traces" in the university when students hold meetings glorifying terrorists and murderers, and when The university administration claims to have been "abused".It is against these forms of control that we must rise up, just as much as against would-be terrorists and budding assassins. But who will dare to revoke them?
A few remarks on form
Ms. Balme has no sense of humor, and that's a shame. She seems to have been horrified by the misappropriation of that classic scene from the film. The fall (Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004) where we see Hitler fought against decolonial workshops and intersectional studiesThis sequence had been parodied multiple times. to the delight of the viewers and no one saw any malice in it. One of these parodies, putting François Hollande's record into perspective, ends with the sentence: At least we still have gay marriage! » and, parody of parody, that of our colleague Joseph Ciccolini ends with “ At least we still have inclusive writing! “Even LGBTQI+ people laughed at the first one, but not Ms. Balme at the second. Yes, we like it.” humor, parody, irony, pastiche…We are the children of Rabelais, who, nearly 500 years ago, ridiculed the Sorbonne students, Sorbonne aficionados, and Sorbonne scholars. How can one not laugh when reading in the announcement of a conference: Within cis-heteronormative representations, the breast constitutes a bodily attribute strongly associated with femininity. "? We see dozens of these kinds of things every year. And we shouldn't share them with the university community? They say you can laugh at anything, but not with everyone; certainly not with Ms. Balme, apparently…"
Ms. Balme informs us on page 9 that her report has adopted "a measured tone." We readily acknowledge this. That said, using a vehement tone to combat antisemitism seems essential to us, given the gravity of the events that have occurred and continue to occur on university campuses in France and the United States. We would like to reiterate that antisemitism and the glorification of terrorism are crimes and do not fall under the umbrella of freedom of expression. the presidents of American universities those who claimed that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their university's rules of conduct only "depending on the context" disqualified themselves, believing that the sacrosanct First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would protect them from criticism.
Finally, Ms. Balme seems to apologize, from the very beginning of her report, for not using so-called "inclusive" writing, specifying: For the sake of readability, professional terms (such as “researcher”, “teacher”, “professor”, etc.) are generally used in the masculine throughout this text, in accordance with grammatical usage. "Thank goodness!" one might say. Wasn't it forbidden by a prime minister, a prohibition perhaps reluctantly endorsed by a minister of higher education and research, to use a type of writing whose illegibility and impracticality Ms. Balme herself confirms? One shouldn't apologize for using the French language, spelling, and typography in a report intended for French readers... not to mention foreigners who have learned to speak and write proper French! She still manages to slip in a few "author," "researcher," and "professor" in her report to clearly demonstrate that, even without using the "period," she belongs to the Camp of Good.
