Event Highlights: Freedom of Expression in Academia: Institutional Adaptation and Transnational Solidarity
Date: Friday, 21 November
Time: 12:15–13:45
Venue: Auditorium A2, Maison de la Paix
This student-led roundtable on Freedom of Expression in Academia: Institutional Adaptation and Transnational Solidarity roundtable centred on the critical global erosion of academic freedom, institutional strategies for protection, and the role of transnational solidarity. The event was moderated by Master’s students in International Relations and Political Science, Nadya Garg and Mattia Melillo. Key themes addressed included the concrete institutional and national strategies to uphold or erode academic freedoms, how European institutions are responding to eroding freedom, internal adaptation within universities in repressive contexts, and the function of transnational networks like Scholars at Risk (SAR). The conversation also situated threats within the broader trends of democratic erosion, using specific country contexts like Ethiopia, India, and crises involving scholars in Gaza. Summaries of the speakers’ contributions are given below in alphabetical order.
Riccardo Bocco, Emeritus Professor, Anthropology And Sociology, Geneva Graduate Institute
Riccardo Bocco opened the discussion by framing the severity of the crisis using the example of “Educide” in Gaza, noting that almost all schools and 90% of universities were destroyed. He contrasted Europe’s reaction to the Gaza crisis with its response to the Russia-Ukraine issue, pointing out the lack of space for expression for the former in European academic spaces. Bocco provided a key example of how adaptation and resistance can work in Europe, detailing the mobilisation of academics who gathered over 2,000 signatures in 24 hours to force the director of the Collège de France to reverse a politically motivated cancellation of a conference on Palestine. He also analysed the varying institutional reactions within Switzerland to the Israel-Palestine issue, noting that German-speaking universities suppressed recent student demonstrations, while French-speaking universities did not, indicating that institutional decisions are not only based on government pressure. In addition to these individual mobilisations, Bocco detailed the findings of the University of Lausanne’s institutional ethical committee, which found that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem violated ethical standards, leading to the suspension of agreements between the two institutions.
Suddha Chakravartti, Professor of International Relations, EU Business School
Dr. Chakravartti focused on the Indian context, describing its history since 1947 as dominated by a “leftist bastion” monopolizing education, which meant political interference was constant. He noted that the current crisis (post-2014, under the Modi government) is essentially changing one system for another. The major threat in India is not only acute brain drain but also chronic “brain drag,” which is the chilling of debates and academic activity due to extremely intrusive state involvement. He noted that elite institutions are now persecuting scholars and students for saying anything “anti-national”. Dr. Chakravartti argued that academia must undertake internal reflection and come down from its ivory tower. He suggested that academics must take accountability, engage with media and social criticism, and define their own “no-go zones” for discourse, rather than allowing external regulation. He concluded that reforms should move away from a rule-based or compliance system (which will always be dominated by powerful gatekeepers) toward a trust-based system.
Moira Faul, Senior Lecturer Geneva Graduate Institute and Executive Director of NORRAG Global Education Centre
Moira Faul highlighted NORRAG’s coordinating role as the lead of the Coalition for Academic Freedoms in Europe (CAFE), working alongside regional coalitions in Africa, the Americas, and Southeast Asia. She explained that NORRAG’s work on academic freedoms supports critical research, fosters inter-disciplinary and inter-sectoral dialogue, and promotes the defence of academic freedoms nationally, regionally, and globally in concert with the other regional coalitions. She stressed that while academic freedoms are human rights, governments can be either duty bearers or the perpetrators of anti-academic freedom agendas; institutions may uphold or violate them. Counter measures must be differentiated regionally, and then again within regions. She advocated for epistemic humility from European institutions, suggesting they have a “great deal to learn from other regions” and supporting initiatives such as #TheSouthAlsoKnows. She pointed out that Europe, despite being a beacon of academic freedom, must avoid complacency and treat solidarity as justice, not charity. Faul emphasized that students are the most persecuted group and raised the issue of extraterritorial violence affecting academics in Europe who speak out about their home countries. Faul also underscored the importance of protecting research that may seem “taboo” or “off the wall” in the first instance, much of which comes from disciplinary, geographical or epistemological sources considered “less prestigious” in the Global North.
Brightman Ganta, Senior Lecturer of Law, University of Geneva (Scholar at Risk)
Professor Ganta offered a grounded perspective on academic repression in Ethiopia, noting that both institutional and personal freedoms are under attack. Institutional leadership is directly controlled by government appointees, and research on sensitive issues like land rights, ethnic federalism, and political history leads to surveillance. He recounted his personal experience navigating political factions, where his research predicting conflict over territorial claims led to pressures from both the government and competing ethnic groups (Amhara and Tigrayans). He highlighted the disconnect between Ethiopia’s robust legal frameworks (ratified international human rights and a constitution protecting human rights) and the systematic use of domestic laws (like anti-terrorism and hate speech laws) to restrict criticism and silence critical academic engagement. As a Scholar at Risk, he agreed with the challenge of epistemic injustices in the Global North, where he was required to provide written documents to prove he was at risk, ignoring that fleeing for survival should be conclusive evidence. He sadly noted that he had to redefine and reshape his academic focus to align with the interests of the Global North to continue his academic journey in exile.