Depersonalization is a dissociative
phenomenon characterized by a subjective feeling of detachment from
oneself, manifesting as a sense of disconnection from one's thoughts,
emotions, sensations, or actions, and often accompanied by a feeling of
observing oneself from an external perspective.Subjects perceive that the world has become vague, dreamlike, surreal,
or strange, leading to a diminished sense of individuality or identity.
Those affected often feel as though they are observing the world from a
distance, as if separated by a barrier "behind glass". They maintain insight into the subjective nature of their experience,
recognizing that it pertains to their own perception rather than
altering objective reality. This distinction between subjective
experience and objective reality distinguishes depersonalization from delusions, where individuals firmly believe in false perceptions as genuine truths. Depersonalization is also distinct from derealization, which involves a sense of detachment from the external world rather than from oneself.
Depersonalization-derealization disorder refers to chronic depersonalization, classified as a dissociative disorder in both the DSM-4 and the DSM-5, which underscores its association with disruptions in consciousness, memory, identity, or perception. This classification is based on the findings that depersonalization and
derealization are prevalent in other dissociative disorders including dissociative identity disorder.
Individuals
who experience depersonalization feel divorced from their own personal
self by sensing their body sensations, feelings, emotions, behaviors,
etc. as not belonging to the same person or identity. Often a person who has experienced depersonalization claims that things seem unreal or hazy. Also, a recognition of a self breaks down (hence the name). Depersonalization can result in very high anxiety levels, which further increase these perceptions.
Depersonalization is a subjective experience of unreality in one's self, while derealization
is unreality of the outside world. Although most authors currently
regard depersonalization (personal/self) and derealization
(reality/surroundings) as independent constructs, many do not want to
separate derealization from depersonalization.
History
In 1904, Freud
described his own experience of depersonalization at the Athens'
Acropolis. He described the incident 32 years later, in 1936. He
interpreted his experience as an unconscious psychological defense, in which he was repressing feelings of guilt for outliving his father, whose cause of death remained unknown.
In his case study of the Wolf Man,
Freud emphasized that depersonalization and derealization serve
psychologically defensive functions. A young Russian man known as the
"Wolf Man" experienced derealization, which is the sensation of being
separated from his surroundings by a veil. This description of being
separated from one's surroundings by a veil is reminiscent of derealization.
This symptom was accompanied by fear of wolves. Freud's case
description revolves around the man's dream of white wolves in a tree
peering at him through an open window.
Epidemiology
Despite
the distressing nature of symptoms, estimating the prevalence rates of
depersonalization is challenging due to inconsistent definitions and
variable timeframes.
In the general population, transient depersonalization and derealization are common, having a lifetime prevalence between 26 and 74%. A random community-based survey of 1,000 adults in the US rural south
found a 1-year depersonalization prevalence rate at 19%. Standardized
diagnostic interviews have reported prevalence rates of 1.2% to 1.7%
over one month in UK samples, and a rate of 2.4% in a single-point
Canadian sample. In clinical populations, prevalence rates range from 1% to 16%, with
varying rates in specific psychiatric disorders such as panic disorder
and unipolar depression. Co-occurrence between depersonalization/derealization and panic
disorder is common, suggesting a possible common etiology. Co-morbidity
with other disorders does not influence symptom severity consistently.
Depersonalization is reported 2–4 times more in women than in men, but depersonalization/derealization disorder is diagnosed approximately
equally across men and women, with symptoms typically emerging around
the age of 16.
A similar and overlapping concept called ipseity disturbance (ipse is Latin for "self" or "itself") may be part of the core process of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. However, specific to the schizophrenia spectrum seems to be "a dislocation
of first-person perspective such that self and other or self and world
may seem to be non-distinguishable, or in which the individual self or
field of consciousness takes on an inordinate significance in relation
to the objective or intersubjective world" (emphasis in original).
For the purposes of evaluation and measurement, depersonalization
can be conceived of as a construct and scales are now available to map
its dimensions in time and space. A study of undergraduate students found that individuals high on the depersonalization/derealization subscale of the Dissociative Experiences Scale exhibited a more pronounced cortisol response in stress.
Individuals high on the absorption subscale, which measures a subject's
experiences of concentration to the exclusion of awareness of other
events, showed weaker cortisol responses.
A case-control study
conducted at a specialized depersonalization clinic included 164
individuals with chronic depersonalization symptoms, of which 40 linked
their symptoms to illicit drug use. Phenomenological similarity between drug-induced and non-drug groups was observed, and comparison with matched controls
further supported the lack of distinction. The severity of clinical
depersonalization symptoms remains consistent regardless of whether they
are triggered by illicit drugs or psychological factors.
Benzodiazepine dependence,
which can occur with long-term use of benzodiazepines, can induce
chronic depersonalization symptomatology and perceptual disturbances in
some people, even in those who are taking a stable daily dosage, and it
can also become a protracted feature of the benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome.
Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, in his book On Killing, suggests that military training artificially creates depersonalization in soldiers, suppressing empathy and making it easier for them to kill other human beings.
Graham Reed (1974) claimed that depersonalization occurs in relation to the experience of falling in love.
Situational
Experiences
of depersonalization/derealization occur on a continuum, ranging from
momentary episodes in healthy individuals under conditions of stress, fatigue, or drug use, to severe and chronic disorders that can persist for decades. Several studies found that up to 66% of individuals in life-threatening accidents report at least transient depersonalization during or immediately after the accidents.
Several studies, but not all, found age to be a significant factor: adolescents and young adults
in the normal population reported the highest rate. In a study, 46% of
college students reported at least one significant episode in the
previous year. In another study, 20% of patients with minor head injury
experience significant depersonalization and derealization.
Studies have linked dysregulation of the immune system with depersonalisation. Researchers compared protein expression in serum samples of individuals with depersonalisation/derealization disorder (DPDR, DDD) and healthy controls, and found that many key proteins involved in maintaining homeostasis were present at altered levels. Decreased levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), complement C1q subcomponent subunit B,
and apolipoprotein A-IV, and increased levels of
alpha-1-antichymotrypsin (SERPINA3) were observed in patients with DPDR.
Furthermore, expressions of CRP and SERPINA3 were found to be linked
with the ability to inhibit cognitive interference of DPDR.
Depersonalization involves disruptions in the integration of interoceptive and exteroceptive signals, particularly in response to acute anxiety or trauma-related events. Studies spanning from 1992 to 2020 have highlighted abnormalities in primary somatosensory cortex processing and insula activity as contributing factors to depersonalization experiences. Additionally, abnormal EEG
activities, notably in the theta band, suggest potential biomarkers for
emotion processing, attention, and working memory, though specific
oscillatory signatures associated with depersonalization are yet to be
determined. Reduced brain activities in sensory processing units, along with
alterations in visceral signal processing regions, are observed,
particularly in the early stages of information processing.
Furthermore, vestibular
signal processing, crucial for balance and spatial orientation, is
increasingly recognized as a factor contributing to feelings of
disembodiment during depersonalization experiences. Research suggests
that abnormal activity in the left hemisphere
may play a role, although abnormalities in right hemisphere brain
activity, responsible for self-awareness and emotion processing, may
also contribute to depersonalization symptoms. Higher activity in the right parietal lobe'sangular gyrus has been linked to more severe depersonalisation, supporting this idea.
In addition to this, research suggests that individuals with depersonalization often exhibit autonomic blunting,
characterized by reduced physiological responses to stressors or
emotional stimuli. This blunting may reflect a diminished capacity to
engage with the external world or to experience emotions fully,
contributing to the subjective sense of detachment from oneself. Additionally, dysregulation of the HPA axis,
which governs the body's stress response system, is frequently observed
in individuals who experience depersonalization. This dysregulation can
manifest as alterations in cortisol levels and responsiveness to stress, potentially exacerbating feelings of detachment and unreality.
Ultimate mechanism
Depersonalization is a classic response to acute trauma, and may be highly prevalent in individuals involved in different traumatic situations including motor vehicle collision and imprisonment.
Psychologically depersonalization can, just like dissociation in
general, be considered a type of coping mechanism, used to decrease the
intensity of unpleasant experience, whether that is something as mild as
stress or something as severe as chronically high anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The decrease in anxiety and psychobiological hyperarousal helps preserving adaptive behaviors and resources under threat or danger.
Depersonalization is an overgeneralized reaction in that it does
not diminish just the unpleasant experience, but more or less all
experience – leading to a feeling of being detached from the world and
experiencing it in a more bland way. An important distinction must be
made between depersonalization as a mild, short-term reaction to
unpleasant experience and depersonalization as a chronic symptom
stemming from a severe mental disorder such as PTSD or dissociative identity disorder.
Chronic symptoms may represent persistence of depersonalization beyond the situations under threat.
Treatment
Currently,
no universally accepted treatment guidelines have been established for
depersonalization. Pharmacotherapy remains a primary avenue of
treatment, with medications such as clomipramine, fluoxetine, lamotrigine, and opioid antagonists
being commonly prescribed. However, it is important to note that none
of these medications have demonstrated a potent anti-dissociative effect
in managing symptoms.
In addition to pharmacological interventions, various psychotherapeutic
techniques have been employed in attempts to alleviate depersonalization
symptoms. Modalities such as trauma-focused therapy and cognitive-behavioral techniques have been utilized, although their efficacy remains uncertain and not firmly established.
An attempt at a visual representation of depersonalization
Treatment is dependent on the underlying cause, whether it is organic
or psychological in origin. If depersonalization is a symptom of
neurological disease, then diagnosis and treatment of the specific
disease is the first approach. Depersonalization can be a cognitive
symptom of such diseases as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), or any other neurological disease affecting the brain. For those with both depersonalization and migraine, tricyclic antidepressants are often prescribed.
If depersonalization is a symptom of psychological causes such as
developmental trauma, treatment depends on the diagnosis. In case of dissociative identity disorder or DD-NOS as a developmental disorder, in which extreme developmental trauma
interferes with formation of a single cohesive identity, treatment
requires proper psychotherapy, and—in the case of additional (co-morbid)
disorders such as eating disorders—a team of specialists treating such an individual. It can also be a symptom of borderline personality disorder, which can be treated in the long term with proper psychotherapy and psychopharmacology.
A 2001 Russian study showed that naloxone,
a drug used to reverse the intoxicating effects of opioid drugs, can
successfully treat depersonalization disorder. According to the study:
"In three of 14 patients, depersonalization symptoms disappeared
entirely and seven patients showed a marked improvement. The therapeutic
effect of naloxone provides evidence for the role of the endogenous
opioid system in the pathogenesis of depersonalization." The anticonvulsant drug lamotrigine has shown some success in treating symptoms of depersonalization, often in combination with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and is the first drug of choice at the depersonalisation research unit at King's College London.
Research directions
Interest
in DPDR has increased over the past few decades, leading to a large
accumulation of literature on dissociative disorders. There has been a
shift towards the use of research studies, rather than case studies to understand depersonalization. However, there remains a lack of solid consensus on its definition and scales used for assessment. Salami and colleagues argued that studies of electrophysiological
depersonalization-derealization markers are urgently needed, and that
future research should use analysis methods that can account for the
integration of interoceptive and exteroceptive signals.
The Depersonalisation Research Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry in London conducts research into depersonalization disorder. Researchers there use the acronym DPAFU (Depersonalisation and Feelings of Unreality) as a shortened label for the disorder.
In a 2020 article in the Journal Nature,
Vesuna, et al. describe experimental findings which show that layer 5
of the retrosplenial cortex is likely responsible for dissociative
states of consciousness in mammals.
The otherkin subculture developed primarily as an online community during the 1990s. It had partly grown out of some small groups of people who described themselves as elves during the 1970s and 1980s. During the late 2000s, the word has come to be treated as an umbrella term for some other nonhuman identity subcultures.
Etymology
The word otherkin,
in the context of a subculture, was created in July 1990 by
participants of the mailing list Elfinkind Digest. It came along with
the variant "otherkind," which appeared first in April 1990. It was a
more widely inclusive derivative of the mailing list's name. Mailing
list participants used both interchangeably for a while.
Over the following decades, the word "otherkin" entered common usage
enough to be later added to the principal historical dictionary of the
English language. In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary defined otherkin as "a person who identifies as non-human, typically as being wholly or partially an animal or mythical being."
Coincidentally, the word "otherkin" also existed in the Middle English language. The Middle English Dictionary (1981) defines the adjective "otherkin" as "a different or an additional kind of, other kinds of".
The term "therianthrope"
commonly called "therian" refers to people who spiritually, physically,
or psychologically identify as an animal. The species of animal a
therian identifies as is called a theriotype. While therians mainly attribute their experiences of therianthropy to
either spirituality or psychology, the way in which they consider their
therian identity is not a defining characteristic of therianthropy. The identity "transspecies" is used by some.
Community
Otherkin
communities online largely function without formal authority structures
and mostly focus on support and information gathering, often dividing
into more specific groups based on kintype. There are occasional offline gatherings, but the otherkin network is mostly an online phenomenon.
The therian and vampire
subcultures are related to the otherkin community, and are considered
part of it by most otherkin but are culturally and historically distinct
movements of their own, despite some overlap in membership. The word alterhuman exists as an umbrella term which intends to encompass all of these subcultures, as well as others such as plurality.
Symbols
A regular {7/3} heptagram known as the Elven Star or Fairy Star
A common symbol for otherkin is a seven-pointed star, specifically a regular {7/3} heptagram, known as the Elven Star or Fairy Star.
Otherkin have used it for decades. For example, one early use of it was
by the Silver Elves in an article they published in the summer 1986
issue of Circle Network News.
Religious and spiritual beliefs
Joseph P. Laycock, assistant professor of religious studies at Texas State University, considers otherkin beliefs to have a religious
dimension, but asserts that "the argument that Otherkin identity claims
conform to a substantive definition of religion is problematic". Many otherkin themselves reject the notion that being otherkin is a religious belief.
Some otherkin claim to be especially empathic and attuned to nature. Some claim to be able to shapeshift or "shift" mentally or astrally, meaning that they experience the sense of being in their particular form while not actually changing physically.Moreover, the claim to be able to physically shift is generally looked
down on by the community. They may also describe being able to feel
phantom limbs/wings/tails/horns, that coordinates with their kintype. Some otherkin claim to also go through an 'awakening' that alerts them to their kintype.
Many otherkin believe in the existence of a multitude of parallel universes, and their belief in the existence of supernatural or sapient non-human beings is grounded in that idea.
History
1990s
A student at the University of Kentucky created the Elfinkind Digest, a mailing list for "elves and interested observers." Also in the early 1990s, newsgroups such as alt.horror.werewolves (AHWW) and alt.fan.dragons on Usenet, which were initially created for fans of these creatures in the context of fantasy and horror literature and films, also developed followings of individuals who identified as mythological beings.
2000s
On 15 December 2006, the Minneapolis-based newspaperStar Tribune published an article about dragons that included a section about the otherkin blog Draconic. The article took quotes from the mission statement of the blog, written by site founder Chris Dragon.[citation needed]
2010s
On 7 April 2010, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter published an article titled "Ibland får jag lust att yla som en varg"
(“Sometimes I get the urge to howl like a wolf”) in which Lanina,
founder of the Swedish language otherkin and therian forum
therian.forumer.com, described the basics of what it is like to be a
therian. The article is the first known article to offer a description of "therian" identity by a major European newspaper.
Daniell Kirby wrote the first academic paper on otherkin in 2008, which served to introduce the community to other academics. Kirby described otherkin as sharing ideas with the neopagan movement,
however she called this an "interim classification", and warned that
"to construe this group as specifically neo-pagan or techno-pagan
obscures the focus of the participants". Subsequent research has treated the otherkin community as having an essentially religious character.
From 2016 onwards, otherkin research has taken more of a narrative identity approach, investigating how otherkin come to understand their experiences. Reviewing prior research, Stephanie C. Shea criticizes the prevailing
conception of the otherkin subculture as being, or being alike to,
either a religion or a spirituality.
In four surveys of furries (with a sample size
of 4338, 1761, 951 and 1065 respectively), depending on the sample,
between 25% and 44% responded that they consider themselves to be "less
than 100% human", compared to 7% of a sample of 802 non-furries surveyed
at furry conventions.[30]
Public perception and media coverage
Outside
viewers may have varying opinions about people who identify as
otherkin, such as considering them psychologically dysfunctional. Reactions often range from disbelief to aggressive antagonism, especially online.
Otherkin have been called one of the world's most bizarre subcultures, and a religious movement (or a "quasi-religion") that "in some of its forms, largely only exists on the Internet". Although otherkin beliefs deviate from the definition of "religion", they share the primary interest in the paranormal.
Joseph P. Laycock argues that the otherkin community serves
existential and social functions commonly associated with religion, and
regards it as an alternative nomos that sustains alternate ontologies. Professor Jay Johnston feels that nonhuman identity "is perhaps not so much pathological as political".
According to Nick Mamatas, they represent a dissatisfaction with the modern world, and they have taken fairy lore out of its original context.
Integrated information theory (IIT) proposes a mathematical model for the consciousness of a system. It comprises a framework ultimately intended to explain why some physical systems (such as human brains) are conscious, and to be capable of providing a concrete inference about whether any
physical system is conscious, to what degree, and what particular
experience it has; why they feel the particular way they do in
particular states (e.g. why our visual field appears extended when we
gaze out at the night sky), and what it would take for other physical systems to be conscious (Are other animals conscious? Might the whole universe be?).
According to IIT, a system's consciousness (what it is like subjectively) is conjectured to be identical to its causal
properties (what it is like objectively). Therefore, it should be
possible to account for the conscious experience of a physical system by
unfolding its complete causal powers.
IIT was proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in 2004. Despite significant interest, IIT remains controversial and has been criticized in 2023 by scholars who characterized it as unfalsifiablepseudoscience.
Relationship to the "hard problem of consciousness"
David Chalmers
has argued that any attempt to explain consciousness in purely physical
terms (i.e., to start with the laws of physics as they are currently
formulated and derive the necessary and inevitable existence of
consciousness) eventually runs into the so-called "hard problem".
Rather than try to start from physical principles and arrive at
consciousness, IIT "starts with consciousness" (accepts the existence of
our own consciousness as certain) and reasons about the properties that
a postulated physical substrate would need to have in order to account
for it. The ability to perform this jump from phenomenology
to mechanism rests on IIT's assumption that if the formal properties of
a conscious experience can be fully accounted for by an underlying
physical system, then the properties of the physical system must be
constrained by the properties of the experience. The limitations on the
physical system for consciousness to exist are unknown and consciousness
may exist on a spectrum, as implied by studies involving split-brain
patients and conscious patients with large amounts of brain matter missing.
IIT aims to explain which physical systems are conscious, to what
degree, and in what way. The theory begins from the phenomenological
certainty that experience exists, and infers necessary physical
postulates that any conscious substrate must satisfy. Specifically, IIT
moves from phenomenology to mechanism by attempting to identify the
essential properties of conscious experience (dubbed "axioms") and, from there, the essential properties of conscious physical systems (dubbed "postulates").
IIT is grounded in:
Realism – the world exists independently of experience
Operational physicalism – physical existence means the ability to take and make a difference (i.e., to have cause–effect power)
Atomism – causal power can, in principle, be reduced to interactions between minimal units
Axioms and postulates
Starting from the zeroth axiom (experience exists), IIT identifies five essential properties of experience:
Intrinsicality – experience exists for itself
Information – experience is specific
Integration – experience is unitary
Exclusion – experience is definite
Composition – experience is structured
Each axiom is mapped onto a physical postulate about a system’s causal structure:
The system must exert intrinsic cause–effect power
It must specify a specific cause and effect state (via intrinsic information)
It must do so as a whole—irreducibly (measured by small phi, φ)
Only the maximally irreducible substrate (the complex) is conscious
Its subsets must specify structured distinctions and relations, forming a Φ-structure (big Phi)
Mathematical formalism
A system is described by its transition probability matrix (TPM), denoted , over all its possible states. From this, IIT defines:[9]
Intrinsic information (ii) for a state s over a possible cause/effect state :
Integrated information (φ) as the irreducibility of that cause–effect structure across the minimum information partition (MIP):
Complexes are defined as the systems (subsets of units)
that locally maximize φ. Their internal distinctions and relations form
the Φ-structure of the system:
corresponds to the quantity of consciousness, while the particular structure of distinctions and relations defines its quality.
Explanatory identity
IIT proposes an explanatory identity: an experience is identical to the cause–effect structure (Φ-structure) unfolded from a complex
in its current state. This identity is not a correlation but a proposed
explanation for how subjective experience arises from physical
mechanisms.
Extensions
The calculation of even a modestly-sized system's is often computationally intractable, so efforts have been made to develop heuristic or proxy measures of
integrated information. For example, Masafumi Oizumi and colleagues have
developed both and geometric integrated information, which are practical approximations for integrated information. These are related to proxy measures developed earlier by Anil Seth and Adam Barrett. However, none of these proxy measures have a mathematically proven relationship to the actual
value, which complicates the interpretation of analyses that use them.
They can give qualitatively different results even for very small
systems.
In 2021, Angus Leung and colleagues published a direct application of IIT's mathematical formalism to neural data. To circumvent the computational challenges associated with larger
datasets, the authors focused on neuronal population activity in the
fly. The study showed that can readily be computed for smaller sets of neural data. Moreover, matching IIT's predictions, was significantly decreased when the animals underwent general anesthesia.
A significant computational challenge in calculating integrated
information is finding the minimum information partition of a neural
system, which requires iterating through all possible network
partitions. To solve this problem, Daniel Toker and Friedrich T. Sommer
have shown that the spectral decomposition of the correlation matrix of a
system's dynamics is a quick and robust proxy for the minimum
information partition.
Related experimental work
While the algorithm for assessing a system's and conceptual structure is relatively straightforward, its high time complexity makes it computationally intractable for many systems of interest. Heuristics and approximations can sometimes be used to provide ballpark
estimates of a complex system's integrated information, but precise
calculations are often impossible. These computational challenges,
combined with the already difficult task of reliably and accurately
assessing consciousness under experimental conditions, make testing many
of the theory's predictions difficult.
Despite these challenges, researchers have attempted to use
measures of information integration and differentiation to assess levels
of consciousness in a variety of subjects. For instance, a recent study using a less computationally-intensive proxy for
was able to reliably discriminate between varying levels of
consciousness in wakeful, sleeping (dreaming vs. non-dreaming),
anesthetized, and comatose (vegetative vs. minimally-conscious vs.
locked-in) individuals.
The theory has found practical application in the development of the Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI), an empirical measure used in clinical neuroscience to assess the level of consciousness in patients by quantifying the brain's capacity for integrated information through TMS-EEG recordings.
IIT also makes several predictions which fit well with existing
experimental evidence, and can be used to explain some counterintuitive
findings in consciousness research. For example, IIT can be used to explain why some brain regions, such as the cerebellum do not appear to contribute to consciousness, despite their size and/or functional importance.
Reception
Integrated information theory has received both broad criticism and support.
Support
Neuroscientist Christof Koch,
who has helped to develop later versions of the theory, has called IIT
"the only really promising fundamental theory of consciousness".
Neuroscientist and consciousness researcher Anil Seth
is supportive of the theory, with some caveats, claiming that
"conscious experiences are highly informative and always integrated.";
and that "One thing that immediately follows from [IIT] is that you have
a nice post hoc explanation for certain things we know about
consciousness.". But he also claims "the parts of IIT that I find less
promising are where it claims that integrated information actually is
consciousness — that there's an identity between the two.", and has criticized the panpsychist extrapolations of the theory.
Philosopher David Chalmers, famous for the idea of the hard problem of consciousness,
has expressed some enthusiasm about IIT. According to Chalmers, IIT is a
development in the right direction, whether or not it is correct.
Max Tegmark has tried to address the problem of the computational complexity
behind the calculations. According to Max Tegmark "the integration
measure proposed by IIT is computationally infeasible to evaluate for
large systems, growing super-exponentially with the system's information
content." As a result, Φ can only be approximated in general. However, different
ways of approximating Φ provide radically different results. Other works have shown that Φ can be computed in some large mean-field
neural network models, although some assumptions of the theory have to
be revised to capture phase transitions in these large systems.
In 2019, the Templeton Foundation announced funding in excess of $6,000,000 to test opposing empirical predictions of IIT and a rival theory (Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, GNWT). The originators of both theories signed off on experimental protocols
and data analyses as well as the exact conditions that satisfy if their
championed theory correctly predicted the outcome or not. Initial results were revealed in June 2023. None of GNWT's predictions passed what was agreed upon pre-registration
while two out of three of IIT's predictions passed that threshold. The final, peer-reviewed results were published in the 30 April 2025 issue of Nature. In an accompanying editorial, the editors of Nature
noted that “after the initial release of the results, an open letter
was circulated in which IIT was described as a pseudoscience”, and added
that “such language has no place in a process designed to establish
working relationships between competing groups.”
In a March 2025 Nature Neuroscience
commentary titled “Consciousness or pseudo-consciousness? A clash of
two paradigms”, proponents of IIT listed 16 peer-reviewed studies as
empirical tests of the theory’s core claims. A commentary in the same issue by Alex Gomez-Marin and Anil Seth,
titled “A science of consciousness beyond pseudo-science and
pseudo-consciousness”, argued that, despite current empirical
limitations, IIT remains scientifically legitimate.
Criticism
Influential philosopher John Searle has given a critique of the theory saying "The theory implies panpsychism"
and "The problem with panpsychism is not that it is false; it does not
get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless
because no clear notion has been given to the claim." Searle's take has itself been criticized by other philosophers for
misunderstanding and misrepresenting a theory that may actually be
resonant with his own ideas.
Theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson has criticized IIT by demonstrating through its own formulation that an inactive series of logic gates, arranged in the correct way, would not only be conscious but be "unboundedly more conscious than humans are." Tononi himself agrees with the assessment and argues that according to
IIT, an even simpler arrangement of inactive logic gates, if large
enough, would also be conscious. However he further argues that this is a
strength of IIT rather than a weakness, because that's exactly the sort
of cytoarchitecture followed by large portions of the cerebral cortex, specially at the back of the brain, which is the most likely neuroanatomical correlate of consciousness according to some reviews.
Philosopher Tim Bayne has criticized the axiomatic foundations of the theory. He concludes that "the so-called 'axioms' that Tononi et al. appeal to fail to qualify as genuine axioms".
IIT as a scientific theory of consciousness has been criticized
in the scientific literature as only able to be "either false or
unscientific" by its own definitions. IIT has also been denounced by other members of the consciousness field as requiring "an unscientific leap of faith". The theory has also been derided for failing to answer the basic
questions required of a theory of consciousness. Philosopher Adam Pautz
says "As long as proponents of IIT do not address these questions, they
have not put a clear theory on the table that can be evaluated as true
or false." Neuroscientist Michael Graziano, proponent of the competing attention schema theory, rejects IIT as pseudoscience. He claims IIT is a "magicalist theory" that has "no chance of scientific success or understanding". Similarly, IIT was criticized that its claims are "not scientifically established or testable at the moment".
Neuroscientists Björn Merker, David Rudrauf and Philosopher Kenneth Williford
co-authored a paper criticizing IIT on several grounds. Firstly, by not
demonstrating that all members of systems which do in fact combine
integration and differentiation in the formal IIT sense are conscious,
systems which demonstrate high levels of integration and differentiation
of information might provide the necessary conditions for consciousness
but those combinations of attributes do not amount to the conditions
for consciousness. Secondly that the measure, Φ, reflects efficiency of
global information transfer rather than level of consciousness, and that
the correlation of Φ with level of consciousness through different
states of wakefulness (e.g. awake, dreaming and dreamless sleep,
anesthesia, seizures and coma) actually reflect the level of efficient
network interactions performed for cortical engagement. Hence Φ reflects
network efficiency rather than consciousness, which would be one of the
functions served by cortical network efficiency.
A letter published on 15 September 2023 in the preprint repository PsyArXiv and signed by 124 scholars asserted that until IIT is empirically testable, it should be labeled pseudoscience. A number of researchers defended the theory in response. Computer scientist Hector Zenil based his criticism of IIT and what he considers a similarly unscientific theory, Assembly theory (AT), on the lack of correspondence of the methods and theory in some IIT research papers and the media frenzy. He criticized the shallowness and misleading nature of the media coverage, including that which appeared in journals such as Nature and Science. He also criticized the testing methods and evidence used by IIT proponents, noting that one test amounted to simply applying LZW compression
to measure entropy rather than to indicate consciousness as proponents
claimed. An anonymized public survey invited all authors from
peer-reviewed papers published between 2013 and 2023 found by a query of
Web of Science
using "consciousness AND theor*". Of the 60 respondents, 8% "fully"
agreed, and 20% did "not at all" agree with the letter, with the
remainder falling in between these poles.
The 10 March 2025 Nature Neuroscience
commentary "What Makes a Theory of Consciousness Unscientific?" was
signed by many of the same writers as the letter. It asserts that "the
core ideas of IIT lack empirical support and are metaphysical, and not
scientific" and refers to "the core claims of IIT, which we argue are
unscientific".
Academic freedom is the right of a teacher to instruct and the
right of a student to learn in an academic setting unhampered by
outside interference. It may also include the right of academics to engage in social and political criticism.
Academic freedom is often premised on the conviction that freedom
of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the
academy as well as the principles of academia,
and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or
facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political
groups or to authorities) without the fear of being repressed, losing
their job or being imprisoned. While the core of academic freedom covers
scholars acting in an academic capacity (as teachers or researchers
expressing strictly scholarly viewpoints), an expansive interpretation
extends these occupational safeguards to scholars' speech on matters
outside their professional expertise.
Academic tenure
protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only
for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that
evokes condemnation from the academic community itself.
Historically, academic freedom emerged tentatively, as academics
in medieval and early modern Europe could face repression for acting in
ways considered objectionable by religious authorities or by
governments. Scholars tend to link the institutionalization of academic freedom to the rise of the modern research university and the Humboldtian model of higher education from the 19th century. By one estimate, academic freedom has substantially increased worldwide
since the 1960s. Academic freedom is more likely in liberal democratic
states, while it is more heavily constrained in authoritarian states,
illiberal states, and states embroiled in military conflict. Since 2013, while some countries have seen improvements to academic
freedom, the overall trend is towards reductions in freedom.
Definition
A
minimal definition of academic freedom is that a teacher has a right to
instruct, and a student has a right to learn in an academic setting
unhampered by outside interference. Other definitions include the right of teachers to engage in social and political criticism.
A broader definition of academic freedom incorporates individual,
extramural and institutional components. Under this broader definition,
an academic has freedom of expression without government interference,
but this freedom is circumscribed by academic expertise and position.
Academic freedom of speech is therefore narrower than a general freedom
of speech. For example, a non-academic has the freedom of speech to
criticize the efficacy of vaccines, but only has academic freedom
to do so if they possess the prerequisite academic qualifications to do
so. Unlike public speech, academic speech is also subject to quality
controls by academic peers, for example through peer review.
Universities UK
has defined academic freedom as "protecting the intellectual
independence of academics to question and test received views and
wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular
opinions, without placing themselves in danger of losing their jobs or
privileges", while the American Federation of Teachers has seen it as "based on the idea that the free exchange of ideas on campus is essential to good education". Norwegian education sees it as a guarantee that research and teaching
is "intellectually and morally independent of all political and economic
interests", leading to openness, free enquiry and debate.
Historical background
Historically, academic freedom emerged tentatively. However, some scholars, such as Richard Hofstadter
and Walter Metzger contend that academic freedom is "a modern term for
an ancient idea" and "can be traced at least as far back as Socrates'
eloquent defense of himself again the charge of corrupting the youth of Athens."
In medieval Europe, academics who criticized church doctrine or
acted in ways considered objectionable by the church could face
repression. At the same time, civil disturbances, such as the St Scholastica Day riot at the University of Oxford often led to great autonomy for universities. And even those scholars who committed theological heresy, such as John Wyclif and Jan Hus, has support due to their roles as faculty at a university.
During the era when nation-states were emerging, academic could face sanction for acting contrary to the government.
19th century
Academic freedom began to gain institutional footing with the emergence of the modern research university. The Humboldtian model of higher education from the 19th century enshrined the basic ideas of academic freedom and diffused them to other countries. Wilhelm von Humboldt
was a philosopher and linguist who was given the authority to create a
new university in Berlin in the early 19th century. He then founded a
university that adhered to two principles of academic freedom: freedom
of scientific inquiry and the unity between research and teaching.
According to Humboldt, the fundamental proposition underlying the
principles of academic freedom was to uphold the view that science is
not something that has already been found but as knowledge that will
never be fully discovered and, yet, needs to be searched for
unceasingly. The university he founded later became a model and inspiration for modern colleges in Germany and universities in the West.
20th century
The
concept of academic freedom was also formulated in response to the
encroachments of the totalitarian state on science and academia in
general for the furtherance of its own goals. For instance, in the Soviet Union, scientific research was brought under strict political control in the 1930s. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden, notably genetics (see "Lysenkoism") and sociology. Marxist scientist John Desmond Bernal characterized this as part of the interdependence between "applied science" and "pure science".
Michael Polanyi argued that academic freedom was a fundamental necessity for the production of true knowledge.
Michael Polanyi argued that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science. In 1936, as a consequence of an invitation to give lectures for the Ministry of Heavy Industry in the USSR, Polanyi met Bukharin, who told him that in socialist societies all scientific research is directed to accord with the needs of the latest five-year plan. Demands in Britain for centrally planned scientific research led Polanyi, together with John Baker, to found the Society for Freedom in Science. The society promoted a liberal conception of science as free enquiry
against the instrumental view that science should exist primarily to
serve the needs of society. In a series of articles, re-published in The Contempt of Freedom (1940) and The Logic of Liberty (1951), Polanyi claimed that co-operation among scientists is analogous to the way in which agents co-ordinate themselves within a free market. Just as consumers in a free market determine the value of products, science is a spontaneous order
that arises as a consequence of open debate among specialists. Science
can therefore only flourish when scientists have the liberty to pursue
truth as an end in itself:
[S]cientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing
them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact
co-operating as members of a closely knit organization.
Such self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leads to a
joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about.
Any attempt to organize the group ... under a single authority
would eliminate their independent initiatives, and thus reduce their
joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the
centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their co-operation.
Rationale
Proponents
of academic freedom believe that the freedom of inquiry by students and
faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. They argue
that academic communities are repeatedly targeted for repression due to
their ability to shape and control the flow of information. When
scholars attempt to teach or communicate ideas or facts that are
inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, they may
find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss,
imprisonment, or even death. For example, in North Africa, a professor
of public health discovered that his country's infant mortality rate was
higher than government figures indicated. He lost his job and was
imprisoned.
The fate of biology in the Soviet Union
is cited by Jasper Becker as a reason why society has an interest in
protecting academic freedom. Also it is important to make the
distinction between science and pseudoscience, on the border of this
lies the case of a Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko
rejected Western science – then focused primarily on making advances in
theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) – and proposed an approach to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. Lysenko called this "Michurinism", but it is more commonly known today as Lysenkoism,
and named after him. Lysenko's ideas appealed to the Soviet leadership,
in part because of their value as propaganda, and he was ultimately
made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
Subsequently, Lysenko directed a purge of scientists who professed
"harmful ideas", resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of
hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko's ideas were then implemented on
collectivized farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted
partly from Lysenko's influence are believed to have killed 30 million
people in China alone during the Great Leap Forward.
Sociologist Ruth Pearce
argued that the concept of academic freedom exists to protect
scholarship from censure by state or religious authorities, and not to
defend intolerance.
A large-scale empirical study, covering more than 157 countries
over the 1900-2015 period, links academic freedom to the quality and
quantity of patents filed in a given country. David Audretsch
and colleagues estimate that academic freedom has declined over the
last decade for the first time over their century-long observation
period, resulting in at least 4% fewer patents filed. The study claims
to be the first to link academic freedom to economic growth through an
innovation channel.
Academic freedom has also been identified as a leading indicator for whether a government will become more or less democratic.
Academic Freedom Index
In 2020, V-dem institute partnered with Scholars at Risk to create the first index of Academic freedom. The index provides retroactive ratings for countries going back to 1900 that are also updated yearly. The index estimates academic freedom using five categories that follow the UNESCO definition:
The concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an
established part of most legal systems. While in the United States the
constitutional protection of academic freedom derives from the guarantee
of free speech under the First Amendment,
the constitutions of other countries (particularly in civil law
systems) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching,
and research.
Academic freedom in China (1900–2023)
China
Self-censorship in a Chinese academic journal: an editor asks the article's author to remove a sentence about blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China as it could cause trouble with the "authorities".
Academic freedom has been severely limited in China. Academics have noted an incentive not to express 'incorrect' opinions about issues sensitive to the Government of China and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These efforts have been effective in causing academics to self-censor and shift academic discourse.
In December 2020, the Associated Press reported that China was controlling scientific research into the origins of COVID-19 under direct orders from CCP general secretaryXi Jinping. According to the report, an order by China's State Council
required all research to be approved by a task force under their
management, saying scientific publication should be orchestrated like "a
game of chess", warning that those who publish without permission will
be held accountable.
According to National Public Radio, from 2013 to 2017, at least 109 universities in China issued their first charters affirming the CCP leadership. In 2020, Shanghai's Fudan University
removed freedom of thought from its charter following the December 2019
revision of the school charter to emphasize loyalty to the CCP.
Hong Kong academia expressed concerns about the impact of the 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law on academic freedom in Hong Kong. As of 2025, it ranked in the bottom 20% worldwide for academic freedom according to the Academic Freedom Index.
In an August 2021 study, Jue Jiang from the University of London
argued that academic freedom in China is impaired by the CCP's system of
student informants, who are recruited and encouraged to watch and
inform on their professors on university campuses.
As of 2025, India ranks in the bottom 10-20% of countries globally.
Ireland
Protections
for academic freedom for research, teaching and other activity "to
question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state
controversial or unpopular opinions" without being disadvantaged, are
provided in Section 14 of the 1997 Universities Act.
Israel
Academic freedom in Israel is taken from "the Law of the Council for Higher Education". Paragraph 15 in which it states that "a recognized institution is free to all its academic and administrative matters, within the framework of its budget, as it sees fit. In this paragraph, 'academic and administrative matters' – includes: determining a research and teaching program, appointing the authorities of the institution, appointing teachers and promoting them, determining a teaching method
and study, and any other scientific, educational or economic activity".
It seems that the paragraph is worded in a clear and comprehensible way
even for laymen. The body that is supposed to guard academic freedom,
as well as maintain an adequate academic level in the higher education
institutions, is the Council for Higher Education – hereinafter "The
Council". This council consists of academics who serve as professors at
universities, and public figures, with the Minister of Education as the head of the council.
At the disposal of "The Council" is an executive body called the "Committee
for Planning and Budgeting", which mainly deals with the matter of
universities budgeting and establishing relevant procedures and
guidelines for budget and salary matters. Another body that is supposed
to guard academic freedom is the "Committee of the Heads of the
Universities", which is a voluntary body, but has an influence on the
work of the Legislature and "The Council ". Through their employee
committees, and through the personal activity of each of them, these
bodies can try and influence the preservation of academic freedom.
In general, it can be said that the essential academic freedom,
the one aimed at the freedom of teaching and research, was preserved,
and the government neither interfered nor tried to interfere in these
contents. Its way of influencing this matter is by providing incentives
for teaching in this or that way, or for research in certain fields,
and this is through grants. The fact that the government finances a
significant percentage of the current budget of the universities (around
70% or more), also allows the government to decide what will be the
tuition fee for a student at the budgeted universities in Israel. But, In 2021, an academic committee of the prestigious Israel Prize decided to award the Israel Prize in the field of mathematics and computer science to Professor Oded Goldreich from the Weizmann Institute of Science. The Minister of Education did not accept the committee's recommendation on the grounds that Goldreich signed a petition calling for an academic boycott of Ariel University, which is located in the territories of Judea and Samaria, which are occupied territory, as well as for appealing to the German government to revoke its decision that the BDS movement is an anti-Semitic movement. The award committee appealed to the Supreme Court
for a violation of its academic freedom, and the court overturned the
decision, and ordered the Minister of Education to award Goldreich the
award. Godreich received the award a year later.
In recent years, a fierce debate
has erupted on the issue of academic freedom, following extreme
political statements by a number of university faculty members. The vast
majority of the controversial statements were those that called for an
academic boycott of Israel, or support for organizations that support an
economic and academic boycott of Israel. The question that was at the
center of the storm was whether an academic faculty member (hereafter
referred to as a professor) is protected by the principle of freedom of
speech, or is it forbidden, when he wears the guise of a professor, to
express a political position that might identify the position with the
institution he allegedly represents. All the more, is it permissible for
the professor to express a political position during his teaching, and
even to invite representatives of political bodies to lecture in his
classes, and without maintaining a balance between those invited. Referring to that background, the Minister of Education at the time Naftali Bennett (in 2017) asked Prof. Asa Kasher to compile an academic Code of Ethics for universities, a code that was approved by "The Council" in March 2018. All the research universities (7 universities), with the exception of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
which already had for an academic code of ethics that also included the
issue of freedom of expression, refused to adopt this code on the
grounds of infringing academic freedom.
All research universities in Israel have a Chief internal auditor,
relatively independent. This issue of the interrelationship between the
internal audit in universities and the principle of academic freedom is
discussed in detail in an article that appeared in a book issued on
behalf of the Ben-Gurion university of the Negev – the only one as
mentioned that has a binding academic code of ethics.
Mauritius
In
the Chapter II Constitution of Mauritius, academics have the right to:
the protection of freedom of conscience, protection of freedom of
expression, protection of freedom of assembly and association,
protection of freedom to establish schools and the protection from
discrimination. The institutional bureaucracy and the dependence on the state for funds
has restricted the freedom of academics to criticize government policy. Dr. Kasenally, an educator at the University of Mauritius
stated that in 1970s to 1980s the university was at the forefront of
controversial debates, but in the 1990s the university stepped away
after academic freedom was curtailed to not express views or ideas
especially if they oppose those of the management or government. In a 2012 paper on the University of Mauritius
the author states that although there are no records of abuse of human
rights or freedom of the state "subtle threats to freedom of expression
do exist, especially with regard to criticisms of ruling political
parties and their leaders as well as religious groups." While there have
been no cases of arrests or extreme detention of academics, there has
been fear that it would hinder their career progress especially at the
level of a promotion thus, the academics try to avoid participating in
controversial debates. Academic freedom became a public issue in May 2009 when the University of Mauritius
spoke out against the vice chancellor Professor I. Fagoonee, who had
forwarded a circular sent by the Ministry of Education to academics. This circular targeted public officers and required them to consult
their superiors before speaking to the press. The pushback resulted in
the vice chancellor stepping down, with the author speculating the
government used the vice chancellor as the scapegoat for its unpopular
proposal to try to curtail academic freedom.
Netherlands
In the Netherlands the academic freedom is limited relative to other Western European countries. In November 1985 the Dutch Ministry of Education published a policy paper titled Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality. This paper had a proposal that steered away from traditional education
and informed that the future of higher education sector should not be
regulated by the central government. In 1992 the Law of Higher Education and Research (Wet op het hoger
onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, article 1.6) was published and
became effective in 1993. However, this law governs only certain institutions.
New Zealand
The
Education Act 1989 (s161(2)) defines Academic freedom as: a) The
freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and
test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state
controversial or unpopular opinions; b) The freedom of academic staff
and students to engage in research; c) The freedom of the university and
its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the
university; d) The freedom of the university and its staff to teach and
assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning; and
e) The freedom of the university through its council and vice-chancellor
to appoint its own staff.
South Africa
The South African Constitution of 1996 offers protection of academic freedom and the freedom of scholarly research. Academic freedom became a main principle for higher education by 1997. Three main threats are believed to jeopardize academic freedom:
government regulations, excessive influence of private sector sponsor on
a university, and limitations of freedom of speech in universities.
There have been an abundance of scandals over the restricted academic freedom at a number of universities in South Africa. The University of KwaZulu-Natal received fame over its restricted academic freedom and the scandal that occurred in 2007. In this scandal a sociology lecturer, Fazel Khan was fired in April
2007 for "bringing the university into disrepute" after he released
information to the news media. According to Khan he had been airbrushed from a photograph in a campus
publication because of his participation in a staff strike last
February. In light of this scandal the South African Council on Higher Education
released a report stating that the state is influencing academic
freedom. In particular, public universities are more susceptible to political pressure because they receive funds from the public.
In 2016, Erdogan was given the power to appoint professors by decree.
This, along with firings, harassment and imprisonment of academics helped to drop Turkey to one of the countries with the lowest academic
freedom in the world by 2021, leading to protests at institutions like Boğaziçi University.
The Robbins Report on Higher Education, commissioned by the British government and published in 1963, devoted a
full chapter, Chapter XVI, to Academic freedom and its scope. This
gives a detailed discussion of the importance attached both to freedom
of individual academics and of the institution itself. In a world, both
then and now, where illiberal governments are all too ready to attack
freedom of expression, the Robbins committee saw the (then) statutory
protection given to academic freedom as giving some protection for
society as a whole from any temptation to mount such attacks.
When Margaret Thatcher's government sought to remove many of the
statutory protections of academic freedom which Robbins had regarded as
so important, she was partly frustrated by a hostile amendment to her
bill in the House of Lords. This incorporated into what became the 1988
Education Reform Act, the legal right of academics in the UK 'to
question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and
controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in
jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have'. These principles of academic freedom are thus articulated in the
statutes of most UK universities. Professor Kathleen Stock formerly of
University of Sussex resigned from her role due to controversy from
students and the media regarding her transphobic views. In response to such concerns, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance. The Guidance provides detailed procedures for universities to consider
in determining whether or not specific events can go ahead. It also
provides ways to reduce any potential barriers for freedom of speech in
regards to specific events. The guidance also makes clear the statutory
requirement of universities to ensure they protect freedom of speech on
campus however as well as compliance with the Prevent Strategy and the
Equality Act 2010. In 2016 the Warden of Wadham College Oxford, a lawyer previously Director of Public Prosecutions,
pointed out that the Conservative government's anti-terrorism "Prevent"
strategy legislation has placed on universities 'a specific enforceable
duty ... to prevent the expression of views that are otherwise entirely
compatible with the criminal law'.
Academic freedom started in America after the Civil War
disrupted the previously stagnating systems of higher education. The
educational system that Germany had was analyzed by universities to
progress fields of research. Johns Hopkins University was the first to
use this education system.
Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, a professor by the
name of Edward Ross published the free silver movement supporting
document known as Honest Dollars. The document placed the professor in political disagreement with the founders of Stanford University.
The Stanford family made their money from the railroad industry that
the professor had publicly ridiculed. In 1900, the professor expressed
politically charged statements that called for the expulsion of Japanese
immigrants from the country which would lead to his termination from
the university. This decision was followed by seven other professors
resigning from the university and elevated the matter to national
scrutiny. This event would set in motion the creation of the AAUP to
provide monetary and legal security, filling the gaps in many of their
contracts.
In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the
notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles
on Academic Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities. These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject." The statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of
academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long as they
are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment". The principle also refers to the ability of teachers, students, and
educational institutions to pursue knowledge without unreasonable
political or government interference. The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not
that of binding law. In short the statement argues that professors have
the privilege to search for truth and knowledge and the right to impart
those truths and knowledge to others, including students, the academy,
and the general public, unfettered by political or ideological pressure.
Since being drafted, this definition has undergone two revisions
in 1970 and 1999 respectively. The 1970 revision declares that the
protections of academic freedom "apply not only to the full-time
probationary and the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such as
part-time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching
responsibilities". The 1999 revision places emphasis on the idea that post-tenure review
should be conducted in a manner that respects academic freedom and due
process.
In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court began to take up the matter starting with the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), the Supreme Court made connections between the First Amendment
and academic freedom as an especially important protection on the
grounds that it was crucial to everyone. Such First Amendment
protections only applied to public institutions, and academic freedom
contains protections outside of the First Amendment as the Court never
outright declared that it contained academic freedom.
Some accreditors
work with American colleges and universities, including private and
religious institutions, to support academic freedom in various forms,
although this varies by accreditor. Additionally, the AAUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with
these same institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the
accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom
and tenure. The AAUP censures those colleges and universities which it has found, after its own investigations, to violate these principles. By 2022, 88 percent of four-year colleges and universities will limit
student free speech, reversing a 15-year trend, according to the College
Speech Codes annual report. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reported that 426 out of 486 institutions have at least one policy restricting student speech.
For institutions
A
prominent feature of the English university concept is the freedom to
appoint faculty, set standards and admit students. This ideal may be
better described as institutional autonomy and is distinct from whatever
freedom is granted to students and faculty by the institution.
In a 2008 case, a federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic freedom; all academic freedom resides with the university or college. In that case, Stronach v. Virginia State University,
a district court judge held "that no constitutional right to academic
freedom exists that would prohibit senior (university) officials from
changing a grade given by (a professor) to one of his students." The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire and a case from the fourth circuit court of appeals. The Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first, third, and seventh circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university
attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is clearly
in violation of the First Amendment, from when university officials may,
in their discretionary authority, change the grade upon appeal by a
student. The Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.
Relationship to freedom of speech
Academic
freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive, although this
widely accepted view has been challenged by an "institutionalist"
perspective on the First Amendment. Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it
includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom. The AAUP gives teachers a set of guidelines to follow when their ideas
are considered threatening to religious, political, or social agendas.
When teachers speak or write in public, whether via social media or in
academic journals, they are able to articulate their own opinions
without the fear from institutional restriction or punishment, but they
are encouraged to show restraint and clearly specify that they are not
speaking for their institution. In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and
regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective
bargaining agreements, and academic custom.
In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment,
which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press...." By extension, the First Amendment
applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities.
The U.S. Supreme Court has historically held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at public institutions. However, the United States' First Amendment has generally been held to not apply to private
institutions, including religious institutions. These private
institutions may honor freedom of speech and academic freedom at their
discretion.
Academic freedom is also associated with a movement to introduce intelligent design as an alternative explanation to evolution
in US public schools. Supporters claim that academic institutions need
to fairly represent all possible explanations for the observed biodiversity
on Earth, rather than implying no alternatives to evolutionary theory
exist, although in practice are interested in possible explanations from
only one of the world's religious traditions, the Abrahamic religions.
A number of "academic freedom bills" have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and derive from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment in the United States Senate. According to The Wall Street Journal,
the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles
and videos that undercut evolution, most of which are produced by
advocates of intelligent design or biblical creationism. The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its
opposition to these bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a
scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of
evolution as scientifically controversial. As of 2013, only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.
ALFP debate (2014)
In 2014, a debate was held by the Academic Leadership Fellows Program
(ALFP), addressing the potential need to either further revise the
text, overhaul it completely, or leave it as is. The argument that
revision/overhaul is necessary asserts that due to rapid growth of
technology in education, introduction of social media (which effectively
blurs the line between existing as an academic and an individual with
unique interests), increase in international students, and rise in
student expectations for return on investment since 1999, the statement
no longer applies to modernized academia and thus should be changed. The
counterargument to revision/overhaul asserts that the AAUP's statement
has aged well, and that overhauling the standard that has existed for
decades would only stir up further confusion. Instead, it is necessary
to "clearly articulate the statements' intended meaning through
education, discussion, and by not supporting inappropriate behavior in
the name of academic freedom". This debate took place in front of a live audience, who after hearing
both arguments agreed overwhelmingly with keeping the statement as-is.
Communism
In the 20th century and particularly the 1950s during McCarthyism, there was much public date in print on Communism's role in academic freedom, e.g., Sidney Hook's Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No and Whittaker Chambers' "Is Academic Freedom in Danger?" among many other books and articles.
Diversity initiatives
Since 2014, Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier, and American Mathematical Society Vice President Abigail Thompson have contended that academics are asked to support diversity
initiatives, and are discouraged from voicing opposition to equity and
inclusion through self-censorship, as well as explicit promotion,
hiring, and firing.
Controversial opinions
While
some controversies of academic freedom are reflected in proposed laws
that would affect large numbers of students through entire regions, many
cases involve individual academics that express unpopular opinions or
share politically unfavorable information. These individual cases may
receive widespread attention and periodically test the limits of, and
support for, academic freedom. Several of these specific cases are also
the foundations for later legislation.
In 1929, Experimental Psychology professor Max Friedrich Meyer and sociology assistant professor Harmon O. DeGraff were dismissed from their positions at the University of Missouri for advising student Orval Hobart Mowrer
regarding distribution of a questionnaire which inquired about
attitudes towards partners' sexual tendencies, modern views of marriage,
divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and cohabitation. The university was subsequently censured by the American Association of University Professors in an early case regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor.
In 2006, Lawrence Summers,
while president of Harvard University, led a discussion that was
intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to study science
and mathematics at advanced levels. He suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should be explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash. His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom. Due to the adverse reception to his comments, he resigned after a
five-year tenure. Another significant factor of his resignation was
several votes of no-confidence placed by the deans of schools, notably
multiple professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
In 2009 Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at New York University School of Law
after controversy erupted about some anti-gay remarks she had made,
prompting a discussion of academic freedom within the law school. Subsequently, Li-ann was asked to step down from her position in the NYU Law School.
In 2009 the University of California at Santa Barbara accused William I. Robinson of antisemitism
after he circulated an email to his class containing photographs and
paragraphs of the Holocaust juxtaposed to those of the Gaza Strip. Robinson was fired from the university, but later the accusations were
dropped after a worldwide campaign against the management of the
university.
![{\displaystyle \phi =\min _{\theta }\left[{\text{ii}}(s,{\tilde {s}})-{\text{ii}}_{\theta }(s,{\tilde {s}})\right]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/b2ab84d3f56e1ab9a507a885ad3ceb2a9559c26b)
