Academic freedom in question: Is the expression of diverse perspectives for the development of knowledge still possible in academia?
La liberté académique en question: l’expression de la diversité des perspectives est-elle encore possible en milieu universitaire pour élaborer le savoir ?
Revue « Animation, territoires et pratiques socioculturelles »
Published on Friday, May 15, 2026
Abstract
Le numéro 30 de la revue Animation, territoires et pratiques socioculturelles sera consacré à ce thème de la liberté académique. Le présent appel vise à encourager la participation de collègues de différentes disciplines (littérature, linguistique, communication, éducation, philosophie, psychologie, sciences politiques, sociologie, travail social, etc.) et régions géopolitiques, dont l’Europe de l’Est et le Québec. Il s’inscrit dans la perspective d’une réflexion commune sur la valeur de l’information et de sa circulation dans les sociétés globalisées et la littératie permettant de mieux saisir les phénomènes à l’étude pour nous y orienter.
Announcement
About the journal
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
Foundation: 2010 - Editor: Jean-Marie Lafortune – Dissemination on the platform: Érudit
Editorial Board
The editorial board is composed of Ina Motoi and Guy Leboeuf (Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue), Anamaria Fălăuş and Ligia Tomoiaga (Université Technique Cluj-Napoca-Centre Nord Baia Mare).
Orientations
In continuation of the conference held on March 13 and 14, 2026, online, we are launching the 30th issue (winter 2026) of the journal Sociocultural community development and practices, which will be devoted to this subject. This was the Fifth International Conference on MASS COMMUNICATION IN A PROPAGANDA CONTEXT that has led to significant publications. Ligia Tomoiaga, Ina Motoi, and Anamaria Fălăuş were the organizers.
The purpose of this call is to encourage the participation of colleagues from different disciplines (literature, linguistics, communication, education, cultural studies, philosophy, psychology, political science, sociology, social work, etc.) and geographic regions, including Eastern Europe and Quebec, from where most conference participants came. This issue is part of a joint reflection on the value of information circulating in globalized societies and the literacy that would allow us to better understand these phenomena in order to orient ourselves.
One of the important questions facing universities today concerns its mission which is increasingly defined by ideologies that are dominating it and require expertise such as "scientific entrepreneurship"[1]. This matrix is denounced as invalidating the diversity of perspectives necessary to participate in the scientific conversation, this space of intellectual sovereignty devoted to teaching and research through critical thinking. For many years, academic freedom has been subject to constraints, even censorship, internalized as self-censorship and daily tactical omissions. However, although the union struggle of the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université (FQPPU) led to the adoption of a law in 2022 in Quebec[2], freedom of thought and conscience continues to be attacked, which diminishes the diversity of perspectives necessary for the development of knowledge.
At the same time, it is increasingly apparent that the traditional divide between left and right, which hitherto guided our understanding of the world, no longer corresponds to clear definitions of these political currents, but to a juxtaposition or transfer of socio-political ideas from one to the other, which leads in the West to ideological confusion between the two. There is also a dual level of supranational (globalization) and national (sovereignty), perspective that is based on significant divergences in relation to their vision of society. In this socio-political context, a polarization is taking place between the right-wing[3] (Nadeau, 2023) and left-wing[4] (Taguieff, 2023) extremism consolidated by mutual accusations of authoritarianism and invalidation of democracy. On both sides, we find polarization, self-censorship, and censorship. What impact do these developments have on the production of academic knowledge? Should we continue to think in terms of right and left? Should the university escape this political dichotomy, considering that the historical process no longer functions from consensus to consensus, but from contradiction to contradiction?
Extreme in relation to what?
There is no longer a unanimous definition of extremism3. Whether on the left or the right, "both promote and use violence, [...] this is totally unacceptable for our democratic society" (Juneau-Katsuya, 2017)4. At the same time, there is also increasing talk of the extreme center, "claiming to be a reasonable, moderate, and pragmatic, 'middle ground' [...] which presents itself as the only rational way in the face of the excesses of extremism: the radical left and the reactionary right" (Cloutier, July 18, 2025). Rainville (2017, cited in Denault, 2024) defines the path of the centre as "a rejection of political deliberation and the disconnection of thought in favor of a consensus manufactured and maintained by the powerful "[5], which positions managerialism and technobureaucratic obsession as necessary. New concepts are also emerging to explain the current socio-political context: post-truth, anti-inclusion activism[6], wokism, complosphere (conspiracy sphere), etc. Other categories are being updated: political correctness (Motoi, 2024), propaganda, and the mask of virtue[7], ideological discourse and advertising discourse[8], newspeak and wooden language, etc. Taguieff (2023) states that de facto "we are in the presence of two distinct representations of the adversary": on the right, we tend to think of the opposition between right and left as a confrontation between true and false, while on the left, we tend to interpret it as a struggle between good and evil, or even between the pure and the impure". What are the effects of this dynamic on the production of knowledge?
How does the current media and political polarization fuel extremism? There are at least two distinct phenomena: mass polarization and political elite polarization (p. 13). The first, that of the public, "is based on strong psychological attachments and social identification [...] due to cultural norms and practices, religion, attitudes toward subgroups, political preferences, and partisan attachments" (Morris, 2006, cited in McCarty, 2019: 13). The second, that of the elites, points to political conflicts involving societal or geopolitical power interactions and tends to play on division in order to better rule according to personal or partisan interests above all else. Can we talk about diversity at the University without taking into consideration the non-relativistic plurality of perspectives?
What kind of knowledge are we talking about?
Do extremisms cause us to increasingly confuse "science, knowledge, and belief" (Gingras, 2025: 122)? But what science are we talking about when we observe "the multiplication of [its] uses"? The university - taking into consideration its fundamental mission - forges and transmits knowledge through the intellectual work of its professors. Is the purpose of our work to develop knowledge with its inherent contradictions to living things, or to produce politically correct "communications" on the assembly line, and to manufacture tailor-made knowledge approved by technobureaucratic authorities? Should this knowledge carry out a quest for truth in complete transparency, while elaborating disciplinary knowledge that develops through a non-relativistic plurality of paradigms, rather than positioning itself as a unique and fixed knowledge?
The university's mission "lies in the production and dissemination of critical knowledge. This mission must not be subject to commercial considerations."[9] Do we want to go beyond a partisan analysis of who is right and who should win, and make enemies of colleagues who do not think like us? Must we still cancel the other before they do the same to us? Should we choose one side or the other to produce knowledge, or should we grasp the epistemological and historical links between them and develop their articulation as a line of thought?
The crisis of the university and the constraint of academic freedom go hand in hand
"Freedom of expression is subject to legal and social constraints, particularly with regard to issues of security and the protection of the physical and moral integrity of individuals (e.g., hate speech or incitement to violence). It is different from academic, which cannot be restricted without compromising a society's ability to govern itself rationally" (Lafortune and Poirier, 2019: 245).
Academic freedom, as a condition for a quest for truth, is open to diversity and the confrontation of perspectives, as it leads to a rigorous intellectual process in the eyes of peers according to the standards of the discipline concerned. This can be questioned, depending on the constraints contextually located in historical time that are exerted on it (paradigmatic conflicts with fundamental disagreements, infiltration of funding and publication bodies, ideological orientations, etc.). However, convergences and divergences, as well as contradictory perspectives, can facilitate an overview complexified with arguments, but also counterarguments. This is why any hindrance, even when based on good intentions, as in the case of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), must be evaluated. Does it threaten its benefits for both society and researchers or not?
What kind of diversity are we talking about?
As staged in the public debate, the definition of diversity takes two directions:
1. The universalist: opposed to the idea of homogeneity, it designates what is diverse, varied, different, and plural.
2. The restricted: "refers to the conditions, modes of expression and experiences of different groups [defined] by age, education level, sexual orientation, immigration status, [...] religion, disability, language, "race" [...] ethnicity, culture [...]. Diversity also refers to gender identity or gender expression. »[10]
The universalist view of knowledge inherited from modernity is also undermined by cultural relativism and the primacy of a radical subjectivity that accompanies the rise of homo numericus (Cohen, 2022). When, in postmodern societies, convergent or divergent points of view are juxtaposed without questioning and critically evaluating them, what becomes of the honest quest for truth? What intersubjective dynamic is established when research falls back on common sense derived from the multiplication of points of view justified by a self-justified approach and evaluation criteria? What then becomes of context, dialogue, and self-correction?
Wokism’s attacks of the cultural left on academic freedom are based on different values than Trump's attacks on American universities. Their goals, arguments, and logics differ, but the means used to advance their agenda are similar. The socio-discursive strategies put forward call into question the independence of science:
- Ideological excesses aimed at the indoctrination of students;
- Replacement of collegiality with authoritarianism and the struggle for power;
- Bogus or opaque consultations replacing participation in democratic processes;
- Amalgamation of right-wing and far-right discourses, as well as those of the left and far-left.
- Regulation through control of research ethics[11].
Censorship and self-censorship
Censorship in academia can be discreet and silent. Through the network of granting agencies, "aren't researchers in fact being forced to choose the themes that are most likely to be funded"[12]? Increasingly, research topics are being evaluated in an enforceable manner, for example, by faculty or institutional committees, which will rank the projects to be submitted for grants according to the priorities of the faculties and universities[13]. In this context, are we moving from equal opportunities to the standardization of research results? Can we go towards a meta-analysis that will allow us to acquire an understanding of the overall development of knowledge and ideologies in historical time and various geopolitical spaces? Should we aim for a sense of proportion and a socio-cognitive and societal balance?
As a result, the place given to fundamental or conceptual research, critical reflections, or syntheses of diverse perspectives drops sharply in an environment of scientism[14]- which seeks at all costs to transform human and historical processes at work into field data - according to a single model. This leads to "the emphasis on macrosocial and numerical data [positioned] to the detriment of local and qualitative data, as well as to the lack of [responsible] commitment by researchers in the public sphere " (Diaz and Godrie, 2020). This regulation is sometimes accompanied by disciplinary measures:
- Exclusion from the public sphere in the event of scientific disagreements (prototype: the COVID crisis[15]);
- Suspension, dismissal when using non-dominant words, expressions, or ideas[16];
- Purging courses[17] and libraries, to the point of burning books[18];
- Political interference based on ideological criteria for hiring and appointments[19].
Implicit measures of supervision are often accepted, depending on current practices: from promoting a "false consensus" (ideas and values that seem uncontested, but without democratic debate) to the self-assigned posture of moral representation of the majority that does not reflect the diversity of points of view that are at stake. According to a survey conducted in 2021, "60% of professors have avoided using certain words", as well as certain topics over the past five years, while 28% of students said “they have witnessed self-censorship on the part of a professor."[20] This is the case with knowledge and the institutional and socio-political conditions of its elaboration. For the authors of the report, self-censorship goes against the "freedoms to think, to express oneself, to debate [which] are the very foundations of the university and democracy”. According to them, it is important to "reaffirm academic freedom loud and clear while calling for respect for the dignity of each person".[21] While all ideas and methods can be debated with know-how and civility "in a rational and argumentative manner", without insults or indoctrination, professors and university leaders are increasingly divided in terms of partisan attachments and ideological orientations. Beyond freedoms and political positioning, there is the fundamental issue of knowledge and of the institutional and sociopolitical conditions for its elaboration.
Axes and questions to be explored
1. Institutional and socio-political constraints to academic freedom
- How can the diversity of points of view be expressed at the University in a context of competition for research funds and publications, as well as targeted grants?
- How can academic freedom and freedom of expression be reconciled in countries where the latter does not enjoy a constitutional prerogative?
- How can universities be scientific agoras without welcoming into their premises groups with ideologies and dogmas hostile to debate?
- How is the confusion between freedom of expression and academic freedom used by the right of management in the university environment to alter participation in scientific debate?
2. Angles of invalidation of knowledge
- How do the excesses observed – lack of diversity of perspectives and scientific debate, technobureaucratic standardization of means, ends, and challenges, ideologization of content – induce a decline in the work of critical reflection essential to understanding its impact on the quality and coherence of teaching and research?
- How does the choice of an angle from which to observe facts impact the way in which facts are approached, observed, and analyzed?
- Is academic indoctrination a revolutionary process or an intellectual anesthesia?
3. The diversity of perspectives facing disqualifying discourses and cognitive dissonance
- The authoritarianism of woke ideology has generated resistance, tensions, and confrontations. Should it be relegated to the background by a new form of authoritarianism? What would its consequences be?
- How would replacing professors with artificial intelligence affect the teaching and research process by offering "professional opinions" in their place? Is it too late to plan for "risk management" governed by "clear and precise guidelines" in academic circles?
- How can we find the diversity of perspectives without falling into extremes and leading to strict ideological confrontation?
4. Navigating the ideological divide using critical thinking
- What would be the impact of teaching the dynamics of ideological polarization on students' ability to think and on their power to act as future citizens in the democratic process of society?
- What are the interactions between the ideological drifts of the left and the right that limit freedoms? Are they now integrated and propagated by the promotional configuration of university communication?
- What mechanisms can strengthen critical thinking and intellectual self-defence in the era of relativism and post-truth?
Références (See the French text)
Submission guidelines
We are therefore inviting proposals for articles between 1-2 pages written in French or English, with 4-5 keywords by June 15, 2026. The authors of the selected proposals will then have until August 15, 2026, to submit their text, which should be between 30,000 and 50,000 characters in size (excluding bibliography). These texts must be accompanied by an abstract of a maximum of 1000 characters.
Please submit your proposal for articles and texts to : ina.motoi@uqat.ca
Proposals for papers must be received no later than June 15, 2026. They can be submitted in French or English. The evaluation criteria will be:
- Relevance to the theme identified and the objectives, to the axes and the questions to be explored of this issue;
- Explicitness of the context of the research, critical reflection, or practice presented;
- Coherent and meaningful articulation of content;
- Pertinence of the theoretical and methodological foundations supporting them.
Calendar
- June 15 Deadline to submit your 1–2 page proposals, written in French or English, with 4-5 keywords.
- July 1 Response of the scientific committee to the proposals received whether they had been accepted or not.
- August 15 Submission of articles ranging in size from 30,000 to 50,000 characters (excluding bibliography), written in French or English, and accompanied by an abstract of no more than 1,000 characters and a bibliography.
- October 1 Feedback from double-blind peer reviews and possible suggestions for improving the texts.
- October 15 Final deposit of corrected articles and sending for linguistic revision
- Nov 15 Tabling of corrections following the linguistic revision
- Nov 15 The revised texts are sent to the webmaster for layout and editing
- December Publication of issue 30 of the journal.
Notes
[1] https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/app/uploads/2024/09/rapport_es_complet.pdf and https://qcse.ca/
[2]https://www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/fr/2022/2022C21F.PDF
[3] https://www.lapresse.ca/contexte/l-a-b-c-de-l-extreme-droite/2025-02-16/qu-est-ce-que-l-extreme-droite.php
[4]On the Gravel le matin radio show, audio file, November 23, 2017. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/gravel-le-matin/segments/entrevue/48214/extreme-gauche-mouvement-bombe
[5] https://www.lautjournal.info/articles-mensuels/356/retrouver-le-politique-en-sortant-de-lextreme-centre/
[6]https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2024/09/23/activisme-anti-inclusion-une-formule-de-propagande-au-service-de-lideologie-edi
[7] Propaganda and its Masks of Virtue (2024). ATPS Review, (25). https://edition.uqam.ca/atps/issue/view/130
[8]Ideological and advertising discourses in universities and the media (2025). ATPS Review, (28). https://edition.uqam.ca/atps/issue/view/175
[9] https://fqppu.org/ce-que-nous-defendons/
[10] https://edi.uqam.ca/lexique/equite-diversite-inclusion/
[11] https://fqppu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/202402_COPLA_Avisno6_VE.pdf
[12] https://www.affairesuniversitaires.ca/opinion/a-mon-avis/les-universitaires-face-au-risque-de-la-censure/
[13] See the letter to Rémi Quirion, Chief Scientist of Quebec, signed by more than 200 professors. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1984850/denonciation-reforme-education-quebec-lettre-professeurs
[14]"At the end of the nineteenth century, a philosophical opinion asserted that science could solve all philosophical problems" (Antidote).
[15] https://www.revueargument.ca/article/2021-05-06/771-regard-critique-sur-la-crise-sanitaire-du-coronavirus.html and https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2022/03/10/stephan-bureau-brise-le-silence
[16] https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1741520/plainte-mot-en-n-universite-ottawa-suspension-professeure
[17] https://www.journaldequebec.com/2024/11/23/des-profs-sous-tension-des-oeuvres-a-letude-sont-contestees-par-des-cegepiens and https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/03/08/purging-libraries--of-inappropriate-books and
[18] https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1817537/livres-autochtones-bibliotheques-ecoles-tintin-asterix-ontario-canada
[19] https://fqppu.org/la-ministre-de-lenseignement-superieur-pascale-dery-confirme-son-ingerence-politique-dans-le-refus-de-la-nomination-de-la-prof-denise-helly-au-ca-de-linrs/
[20] Survey conducted by the Independent Scientific and Technical Commission on the Recognition of Academic Freedom. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1827939/liberte-academique-universite-quebec-resultat-questionnaire-mccann
[21] https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1779280/comite-experts-liberte-academique-universite-alexandre-cloutier
Subjects
- Representation (Main category)
- Society > Ethnology, anthropology > Social anthropology
- Mind and language > Thought
- Mind and language > Information > Information sciences
- Society > Sociology > Sociology of consumption
- Mind and language > Language
- Mind and language > Epistemology and methodology > Epistemology
- Mind and language > Information > History and sociology of the media
Places
- Montreal, Canada
Date(s)
- Monday, June 15, 2026
Attached files
Keywords
- libetrté académique, extremisme, technobureaucratie, contrainte, censure, auto-censure
Contact(s)
- Ina Motoi
courriel : ina [dot] motoi [at] uqat [dot] ca
Information source
- Ina Motoi
courriel : ina [dot] motoi [at] uqat [dot] ca
License
This announcement is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal.
To cite this announcement
« Academic freedom in question: Is the expression of diverse perspectives for the development of knowledge still possible in academia? », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Friday, May 15, 2026, https://doi.org/10.58079/1681k
