The ‘Chilling Effect’ on Academic Freedom
Since October 7th, I’ve wrestled with the idea of posting on a variety of media platforms. Observing the heated discourse online, I tried to stay away. But recent events have compelled me to write. This time, it feels different; I find myself hesitating to wear my Star of David necklace because of the current climate of intimidation and fear surrounding expressions of identity. People I once knew, colleagues, acquaintances started spreading hate, some encouraging antisemitism, while others posted it directly. I saw people with plenty of opinions but little understanding, fueling hate and propaganda. I watched the Swedish media distort facts, interviews turned into witch hunts rather than honest conversations. The hypocrisy was everywhere; people preaching diversity, but only when it fits their views, and a wave of “cancel culture” and discrimination based on nationality. Radicals, both on the far-left and far-right, used this tragedy to fuel their political agendas.
I observed how voices in a democracy are being silenced by influences that create fear, using what we know as the “chilling effect”. In spite of the fact that these vocal and influential minorities may not represent the views of the majority, their influence can still have a significant impact, creating an environment where dissenting voices feel intimidated or threatened. This “chilling effect” leads to self-censorship, reducing the diversity of opinions and limiting open discussion. Mainstream influences like dominant media narratives and powerful social groups create a climate of intimidation, undermining democratic principles by stifling public discourse, decreasing transparency, and preventing citizens from holding those in power accountable. We see this through media bias, cultural conformity, political correctness, and “cancel culture”, all of which contribute to the marginalization of alternative viewpoints and the suppression of legitimate dialogue.
In this turbulent environment, I feel it’s more important than ever to speak out and challenge the narratives that threaten the very principles of diversity and inclusion we claim to uphold.
The story I’m telling revolves around my work in academia. For me, academia has always been a safe place for free discussion, diverse opinions, and varied views. Disagreements should be encouraged, and conflict should be dealt with, it should be a place where you can question each other, but also listen, discuss, and learn, sometimes conciliated, sometimes conscientious, but also resolute about disagreements. Unfortunately, this sacred space seems to have lost its core, especially when Israeli nationality is concerned. Despite freedom of speech being advocated, I have observed that it is not equally protected or practiced. Voices advocating for certain viewpoints, particularly those related to Israeli perspectives, are being disproportionately silenced or intimidated. In an environment where every viewpoint should be heard and considered equally, this imbalance undermines academic freedom. The academic environment must remain a place of genuine dialogue and understanding for all perspectives.
In Swedish universities, various incidents create an environment of fear for Israelis/Jews and/or Israel supporters. At Linnaeus University (LNU), faculty members whose research focuses on the role of the European Union in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been attacked and an office vandalized. A Jewish faculty member, whose father survived the Holocaust, told me that he received life-threatening calls if he continued to collaborate on research with Israel. Another example from LNU is a PhD dissertation defense associate with Israel that required significant police protection (imagine, a dissertation defense!).
The demonstrators at LNU submitted three demands to the university, one of which was to formally declare an end to all collaborations with Israeli universities. The interesting part was the response from University Vice Chancellor Peter Aronsson, who stated that LNU has “no active agreements with Israeli institutions that I know of.” But what if they did have an active agreement? And what about individual collaborations between researchers? Are these demands in line with academic freedom, or are university leaders in Sweden taking the easy path?
At various research conferences in Sweden, we observed Israeli researchers facing threats. For example, at KTH, conferences were interrupted, and in other universities, Israeli researchers required protection. In many cases, they were not invited, or their participation was canceled. Additionally, at Karlstad University, the Swedish flag was replaced with a Palestinian one, an incident currently under police investigation, although the responsible party remains unidentified..
At Lund University, various radical groups in the name of radicalism (a lack of any real values, just seeking problems) have united to boycott Israeli researchers. At Jönköping University, one academic sent an email stating, “Israelis are not welcome” in an effort to avoid potential issues. This communication followed the invitation of Israeli speakers to a conference, after which the email was dispatched to express these sentiments. Another faculty member posted anti-Semitic propaganda on her social media account and other AI-generated pictures (in an academic context, we demand resources and references, yet our faculty members do not follow this standard, if it does not suit them). At a recent conference, I overheard two professors discussing how to avoid inviting Israelis to sidestep issues. It’s ironic how freely people discuss these things. At Chalmers, a researcher was threatened by a student for supporting Israel. At the Royal Institute of Art (KKH), a Danish student confided that she couldn’t mention her Israeli heritage for fear of automatic exclusion (something that other students mentioned). Across many campuses, signs with the slogan “Globalize the Intifada” are rampant, and most faculty members do not react. I urge you to look at this term. It’s disturbing that in a place where we encourage science and scientific methods people feel free to spread baseless populism.
Recent alarming incidents outside academia demonstrate how individuals of Israeli descent are frequently targeted in protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In some cases, these individuals were asked to raise their hands, echoing deeply troubling historical precedents. There are serious concerns about the safety and treatment of Jewish people and those affiliated with Israel, especially in environments where they may face discrimination or hostility (does that ring any bells?). A 12-year-old girl in France was raped for expressing support for Israel, and a 14-year-old student in Stockholm with a Star of David was approached by other students raising their hand and screaming “Hiel Hitler” to her.
Where does this go?
A colleague recently praised our students for demonstrating over important issues, and I agree, demostration is an important tool for democracy, provided they stay within the legal framework . Yet, many Swedish universities have seen violations of this principle. Faculty members have also participated in these demonstrations, often surprisingly without first ensuring they are lawful. It’s puzzling that, despite global conflicts and wars, this specific conflict captures so much attention at our universities. Why? Is it simply the influence of the media and politicians? or could there be other underlying factors at play that influence how we prioritize our concerns?
We are facing a war on our doorstep that is affecting us politically, socially, and economically (the Russia-Ukraine war), yet the focus remains narrow. This selective activism mirrors trends in the US, where crises like those in Yemen or Syria rarely provoke university protests or calls to cut academic ties. Why don’t we see similar outrage for other occupied nations? I haven’t heard students chanting “Free Tibet” at Swedish universities.
Could this be indicative of the demonstrators’ political biases? Are we only amplifying voices that align with mainstream media narratives, undermining our commitment to academic freedom and universal human rights? By focusing selectively on certain issues, we compromise our integrity and compromise our ethical principles, letting minority voices and popular narratives dictate our responses instead of upholding a balanced application of our values.
I don’t claim to be experts on everything related to this war, but I recognize when things are going wrong. When vibrant and open academic discourse is silenced, it undermines the very core of our universities’ mission. In the academic environment, we should encourage media pluralism, protect free speech rights, and foster an environment where diverse viewpoints can be expressed without fear of retribution. Currently, certain opinions are marginalized, which points to a dangerous path for academic values. What hope do we have for fostering an open and democratic society if universities, the foundations of free thought and inquiry, cannot uphold these principles? Our academic institutions should be an example of free speech and diverse opinions, not echo chambers that propagate fear and exclusion.
Let us strive for an environment where everyone can voice their opinions without fear of retribution. This is the true essence of a democratic society and the cornerstone of genuine academic freedom.