Ko ács, K isz a; Tó h, Gábo A ila
A icle — Published Ve sion
F ee speech p inciples and s anda ds in academia: The
case o acism
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Ko ács, K isz a; Tó h, Gábo A ila (2025) : F ee speech p inciples and s anda ds
in academia: The case o acism, In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch, ISSN 1873-538X,
Else ie , Ams e dam, Vol. 134, pp. 1-10,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ije .2025.102828
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/331213
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
F ee speech p inciples and s anda ds in academia: The case
o acism
K isz a Ko ´
acs
a,*
, G´
abo A ila T´
o h
b
a
Senio esea ch ellow, WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e , Reichpie schu e 50, D-10785 Be lin, Ge many, Associa e p o esso , ELTE Uni e si y
Facul y o Social Sciences, P´
azm´
any P. s 1/a, 1117 Budapes , Hunga y
b
P o esso , Uni e si y o Deb ecen, Facul y o Law, 4028-Deb ecen, Kassai ú 26, Hunga y
ARTICLE INFO
Keywo ds:
Academic speech
Resea ch
F ee speech
Racism
Eu opean Con en ion
US ju isp udence
ABSTRACT
Hos ile and un u h ul exp essions a e no ably p e alen ac oss he wo ld. This phenomenon also
a ec s academia. Ou legally cen ed a icle asks whe he academic speech and esea ch a e
p o ec ed e en i a p o esso ’s s a emen , esea ch ou come o esea ch agenda could po en ially
o end people o e en cause mo al dis ess o membe s o socially disad an aged g oups. The
ocus o he a icle is on wo egions ha ha e long been widely ega ded as o e ing obus ee
speech p o ec ions: he Uni ed S a es and Eu ope.
The a icle demons a es ha unde bo h egula o y models, cou s ine i ably ace scien i ic
and mo al ques ions when add essing acism- ela ed legal cases in academia. Cou s ha e
adi ionally shown de e ence o science, ecognising ha add essing scien i ic ma e s alls
ou side he judicial pu iew and ins ead belongs o he ealm o academia. Howe e , in bo h
models, judges ackle mo al dilemmas h ough he language o law. No wi hs anding hei di -
e ences, bo h egula o y models ha e de eloped legal p inciples and s anda ds ( he ‘clea and
p esen dange ’ s anda d on he one hand, and he balancing o compe ing cons i u ional alues
on he o he ) ha , when in e p e ed p ope ly, could help a e he wo pe ils ha h ea en ac-
ademic eedom: he limi less dissemina ion o acis ideas in he name o ‘absolu e eedom’ and
censo ship.
1. In oduc ion
Hos ile and un u h ul exp essions a e p e alen h oughou he wo ld. Sys ema ic manipula ions, including ‘ ake news’ and
‘al e na i e’ ac s, a e a ea u e o all o ou li es. We encoun e ha e- illed messages, which a e no jus dissemina ed and ampli ied by
hos ile indi iduals, who ha e always been p esen , bu also by con empo a y au oc a s and e en ad anced compu a ional sys ems like
AI. Fo membe s o socially disad an aged g oups, such o ms o manipula ion can ha e pa icula ly p o ound e ec s. They o en ind
hemsel es he a ge s o acis , xenophobic and homophobic speech and p opaganda, including acing cybe ha assmen by ha e s o
olls.
This is a si ua ion ha once again calls o di icul legal choices o be made in o de o a oid wo equally undesi able al e na i es –
as has occu ed a many imes in his o y. The i s op ion is o expand he bounda ies o cons i u ionally p o ec ed speech, which could
lead o g ea e ha m, including bullying o e en iolence, a he han inc eased libe y. An al e na i e op ion is o impose mo e
* Co esponding au ho .
E-mail add esses: [email p o ec ed], [email p o ec ed] (K. Ko ´
acs).
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/ijedu es
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ije .2025.102828
Recei ed 30 Ap il 2025; Recei ed in e ised o m 1 Sep embe 2025; Accep ed 3 Oc obe 2025
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
A ailable online 24 Oc obe 2025
0883-0355/© 2025 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license
( h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).
limi a ions on ee speech, which migh esul in censo ship, e lec ing au oc a ic endencies ha unde mine democ acy.
Is he dilemma he same in he case o academic eedom? The ques ion a ises because when con empo a y au oc a s endo se
uncons ained speech, p ejudices and misconcep ions migh su ace in academia, he eby gi ing ise o pseudoscience (G¨
a di z, 2018,
28). Con e sely, imposing s ic limi a ions on speech and academic eedom migh esul in egula ions ha au oc a s u ilise o
h ea en and de und uni e si ies o punish schola s o hei allegedly acis speech and engagemen in campus p o es s (Volokh e al.,
2025; Ga be , 2025; Pedo a e al., 2025).
The e a e nume ous dimensions and issues associa ed wi h he in e sec ion o ee speech and academic eedom, and many o hese
ha e been he subjec o ecen analy ical a icles. One such a icle analyses he a ious jus i ica ions o ee speech and assesses hei
applicabili y, among o he s, o (online) acis speech (Bono i & Seglow, 2021). O he a icles ha e discussed he ela ionship be ween
academic eedom and ee speech on campus and a gued ha campuses should no be go e ned by gene al ee speech p inciples
(Simpson & S ini asan, 2018; Simpson, 2020). A mo e ecen a icle has p oposed mo ing beyond he deba e abou speech es ic ions
by cen ing campus speech policies based on hei p ac ical e ec s on he i ues essen ial o he uni e si y’s epis emic mission, such as
ole ance and open-mindedness (Ma coci & Op ea, 2024).
This a icle examines he legal dimensions and cen es exclusi ely on a pa icula issue: whe he academic eedom p o ides any
le el o p o ec ion o s a emen s ha migh quali y as acis speech a icula ed by schola s and o esea ch p ojec s ha migh be
conside ed acis . To sha pen i s analy ical ocus, he a icle limi s i s scope o cons i u ional democ acies wi h a ce ain deg ee o he
ule o law, di e se media and an independen judicia y. I concen a es on he wo i al egula o y models ha ha e long been
hough o p o ide obus ee speech p o ec ions: one model eme ges om he sa egua ds es ablished by cou s ha in e p e he
Uni ed S a es Cons i u ion and ano he model om he Eu opean Con en ion on Human Righ s.
The a icle p oceeds as ollows. A e b ie ly ou lining wo i al ee speech egula o y models and hei suppo ing p inciples, i
add esses he dilemma o whe he econciling compe ing alues in academic eedom cases is he same as in ee speech cases and
whe he he igh o academic speech is dis inc om he igh o ee speech. I discusses a Eu opean and a US case in ol ing public
s a emen s by p o esso s ha socially disad an aged indi iduals ound ha m ul and uses hese s a emen s o highligh he simila i ies
and di e ences be ween he wo models and de e mine whe he he legal s anda ds applied by cou s a e app op ia e o academic
eedom issues. Conside ing ha schola ly wo k o en in ol es empi ical esea ch and no jus he public dissemina ion o he indings,
he a icle also add esses whe he he eedom o conduc esea ch applies o esea ch agendas ha migh be pe cei ed as acis .
The a icle a gues ha , when p ope ly in e p e ed, he balancing ac suppo ed by bo h egula o y amewo ks is capable o
ensu ing ample p o ec ion o academic eedom, and i could help a e he wo pe ils ha h ea en academic eedom: he
dissemina ion o acis ideas in he name o ‘absolu e eedom’ and ou igh censo ship.
2. Suppo ing p inciples
Se e al ounda ional p inciples lend suppo o he concep o eedom o speech. Theo e ical pe spec i es, spanning om Mill’s
consequen ialism (Mill, 1962) o Kan ian deon ology (e.g., Bake , 1989), o e p incipled easons why di e en a ie ies o exp ession
should o should no be limi ed. Consequen ialis s con end ha as long as people do no in lic ha m on anyone else, hey should enjoy
a deg ee o pe sonal au onomy o openly exp ess hei hough s. They also add ha while pu suing he u h, a ious alse o e oneous
ideas may eme ge in he ma ke place o ideas, including ha e ul and alse ones, bu he ma ke can co ec i sel . In a ma ke place o
ideas, sound concep s can be sepa a ed om hose ha a e undamen ally lawed. Deon ologis s, ollowing he Kan ian app oach,
add ess he in insic alue o speech. They asse ha he igh o ee speech is ancho ed in digni y and au onomy ha is equally
sha ed by all human beings. F ee speech is essen ial, no because i may con ibu e o he disco e y o u h, bu because i enables
indi iduals o de elop hei own iews and exp ess hem, no ma e wha hese iews en ail.
Following in he oo s eps o hese g ea hinke s, heo e icians ha e e iewed he p inciples and analysed he ha d cases o ee
speech, including acis speech. They ha e p oposed a he di e en solu ions. Je emy Wald on has iden i ied he ha m in he ac ha
disad an aged mino i ies ace h ea s, humilia ion and disc imina ion. Hence, he has p oposed a new a gumen suppo ing ha e
speech es ic ions: An a ack on he human digni y o disad an aged g oups unde mines hei inclusion in socie y, so, Wald on has
a gued, i should be legally es ic ed (Wald on, 2012). Likewise, academics who ha e ecen ly add essed he mode n-day ele ance o
ee speech jus i ica ions, whe e disin o ma ion and online acis speech a e common, ha e con ended ha es ic ions on speech
migh be jus i ied when speech causes ha m o o he s’ au onomy, as occu s in cases o acis speech (Bono i & Seglow, 2021, 4). The
ha m caused by ce ain acis u e ances occu s h ough no m enac men , meaning ha he u e ances shape social eali ies ha can
esul in o pe pe ua e disc imina o y ou comes (McGowan, 2021). These schola s suppo hei a gumen s by making claims abou he
consequences o acis speech o he a ge s o his speech.
Ano he in luen ial a gumen , poin ing o he dange s o pa e nalism and mo alism and he ac ha he e is no co ela ion be ween
he exis ence o acis speech laws and ‘lowe le els o abusi ely exp essed p ejudice abou human di e ence’ (Ash 2016, 220), di ec s
mo e a en ion o he impe illed eedom o speech. Fo example, Timo hy Ga on Ash, ollowing heo ies by Ronald Dwo kin
(Dwo kin, 1977) and Edwin Bake (Bake , 1989), a gues ha no one has a igh no o be o ended and ecommends p inciples ha
os e mo e and also be e speech by ocusing on he ci cums ances o he speech when d a ing ha e speech laws. Ash sugges s
e aining om legally en o cing ci ili y in ou connec ed bu , a he same ime, ex emely di e se wo ld (Ash, 2016, 224–229).
Two egula o y models ha e been de eloped based on hese heo e ical ideas. One egula o y model akes con ex -based speech
egula ion as i s s a ing poin . The o he does no gi e ee speech a p i ileged s a us pe se bu allows con en -based es ic ions unde
speci ic ci cums ances. In wha ollows, we b ie ly ske ch ou he wo i al models o egula ing speech ha exis in oday’s demo-
c a ic wo ld.
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
2
3. Limi s on ee speech
3.1. Con ex -based speech egula ions
In ce ain s a es, eedom o speech has a p i ileged s a us. Fo example, he Fi s Amendmen o he US Cons i u ion p esc ibes ha
‘Cong ess shall make no law (…) ab idging he eedom o speech’ and he cou ’s ask is o in e p e i s meaning. A i s sigh , he
cons i u ional ex seems o es ablish an absolu e ban, and indeed, Sup eme Cou jus ices a gued ha i is o an absolu e na u e,
e e ing o he seminal wo k o he Anglo-Ame ican ee speech adi ion (Blasi, 2018), Mil on’s A eopagi ica (Mil on, 1644). Ye he
majo i y o he US Sup eme Cou ejec ed his iew by asse ing ha ‘ he p ohibi ion o enc oachmen o he Fi s Amendmen is no
absolu e. Res ain s a e pe mi ed o app op ia e easons’ (L El od . Bu ns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 360). Wha a e hose app op ia e
easons?
The unde lying idea o his egula o y model is ha e en ex emis messages should no be banned me ely based on hei con en .
The US cou s ha e long allowed only con ex -based speech es ic ions, whe e he manne , place and/o ime o exp ession migh
jus i y legal in e en ion. A e he end o WWI, wo Sup eme Cou jus ices elabo a ed on he clea and p esen dange es , acco ding
o which ha e speech can only be legally p ohibi ed i i poses a di ec h ea by inci ing ha ed o iolence (Ab ams . Uni ed S a es, 250
U.S. 616 (1919) Jus ice Oli e Wendell Holmes and Jus ice Louis B andeis belie ed he s a e is a g ea e h ea o indi idual eedom
han ice e sa.). The es was e ined la e in he case B andenbu g . Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), whe e he Sup eme Cou held ha
speech can only be es ic ed i i is likely o inci e o p oduce imminen lawless ac ion (Lewis, 1991). The e o e, o es ic speech, he
cou has long demanded lawmake s o demons a e he likelihood ha he ac ion will occu , he speake ’s in en ion o inci e ha
ac ion, and he imminence and lawlessness o he ac ion (Suns ein, 2024). In applying his es , he judges o he Sup eme Cou ound
ha he cons i u ional igh o ee speech co e s, among o he ac ions, he igh o use swas ikas in a ma ch (Na ional Socialis Pa y o
Ame ica . Village o Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), o cu se gay people in public (Snyde . Phelps, 131 S.C . 1207 (2011), o deny he
Holocaus (Schaue , 2012) o o bu n he Ame ican lag in a demons a i e manne (Uni ed S a es . Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 319 (1990).
Ce ain ca ego ies o speech a e no p o ec ed because o he ci cums ances o he speech. Fo example, c oss-bu ning ha symbolises
ha ed o Black people is no cons i u ionally p o ec ed speech when i happens in a Black amily’s backya d because i is in imida ing
(Vi ginia . Black, 538 U.S. 343, 367 (2003). Mo eo e , ‘ igh ing wo ds’, ha is, when a speake uses wo ds in an in ole able way o
inci e iolence, a e also no p o ec ed because, in his case, he e is in e ec no speech; he speake is jus emi ing sound ib a ions ha
dis u b o he s (R.A.V. . Ci y o S . Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 393 (1992) and see Meiklejohn, 1948).
E en wi h he p o ound and apid changes in he di ec ion o he cu en US Sup eme Cou ’s ju isp udence, he Cou has, o da e,
only de e mined whe he an exp ession has p o ec ed s a us a e e alua ing he ci cums ances su ounding ha exp ession. Fo
ins ance, he Cou did no ou law c oss bu ning as such, bu i ound ha i i had he po en ial o in imida e speci ic pe sons, his
symbolic exp ession no longe ecei ed cons i u ional p o ec ion.
3.2. Con en -based speech egula ions
The i al egula o y model, which p e ails in ce ain in e na ional ea ies and in speci ic coun ies in Eu ope, does no jus equi e
he con ex -based es ic ions men ioned abo e bu also pe mi s con en -based es ic ions in he name o democ a ic alues and
human digni y, he eby pe mi ing speech o be limi ed based on i s con en , no wi hs anding he ci cums ances.
A icle 4 o he In e na ional Con en ion on he Elimina ion o All Fo ms o Racial Disc imina ion exp essly equi es s a es o make
i an o ense punishable by law o dissemina e ‘ideas based on acial supe io i y o ha ed’. The e is no such p o ision in he Eu opean
Con en ion on Human Righ s. Ye he case law o he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s associa ed wi h A icle 10 e eals ha he
p o ec ion o his ee speech p o ision does no co e pa icula s a emen s. Fo ins ance, s a emen s ha publicly ad oca e na ional
socialism aiming a impai ing he basic o de o eedom and democ acy (Kühnen . Fede al Republic o Ge many, 12194/86, Decision o
12 May 1988), deny he exis ence o gas chambe s in concen a ion camps unde he Na ional Socialis egime (Honsik . Aus ia,
25062/94, Decision o 27 Feb ua y 1997), agi a e agains membe s o he LGBTQ communi y (Vejdeland and O he s . Sweden, 1813/
07, Judgmen o 9 Feb ua y 2012), o inci e eligious ha ed (No wood . Uni ed Kingdom, 23131/03, Decision o 16 No embe 2004)
a e no p o ec ed unde A icle 10 because hey a e incompa ible wi h he alues gua an eed by he Con en ion, no ably ole ance,
social peace and non-disc imina ion (A icle 17 o he Con en ion).
Ne e heless, hese es ic ions do no cons i u e comp ehensi e p ohibi ions like he a o emen ioned A icle 4 o he In e na ional
Con en ion; hey eme ge a e an examina ion o he po en ial impac s. Judges o he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s balance ee
speech agains compe ing alues such as o he people’s human digni y and p i acy, public secu i y o en o cemen o con en ional
mo ali y. They examine whe he hese in e es s can be conside ed legi ima e g ounds o es ic ing ee speech. And as he p inciple o
p opo ionali y equi es, cou s demand alid jus i ica ions o cla i y whe he a gi en es ic ion o ee speech is sui able, e ec i e and
necessa y o achie e a legi ima e aim.
The ac ha he ci cums ances o he speech ma e is e en mo e ele an in he con ex o EU law. The EU Cha e o Fundamen al
Righ s, h ough i s A icle 11, g an s signi ican p o ec ion o he igh o eedom o exp ession. A Council F amewo k Decision
equi es he EU Membe S a es o punish ins ances o ‘publicly inci ing o iolence o ha ed di ec ed agains a g oup o pe sons o a
membe o such a g oup de ined by e e ence o ace, colou , eligion, descen o na ional o e hnic o igin’, i allows hem o punish
‘only conduc which is ei he ca ied ou in a manne likely o dis u b public o de o which is h ea ening, abusi e o insul ing’ (The
Council o he Eu opean Union, 2008). So, he F amewo k Decision equi es he Membe s S a es o punish exp essions ha publicly
inci e o iolance and ha ed and i does so by allowing hem o implemen i as a con ex -based es ic ion, ocusing on he
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
3
ci cums ances o he speech.
Al hough he e is a concep ual di e ence be ween con ex -based and con en -based es ic ions o ee speech, in p ac ice, he
judicial applica ion o he wo egula o y amewo ks is e y simila . This is because a pu ely con en -based es ic ion ei he would
no wo k o would lead o absu d esul s. Legal es ic ions canno pe se apply o communica ing speci ic con en bu a he i s
dissemina ion o he b oade public. Holocaus denial is a c iminal o ence in ce ain Eu opean coun ies, such as Ge many (§130 Die
‘Auschwi zlüge’ S a gese zbuch) and acco ding o he Eu opean Con en ion, he nega ion o e ision o ‘clea ly es ablished his o ical
ac s – such as he Holocaus ’ is no p o ec ed by A icle 10 because o A icle 17 (Chau y and O he s F ance, Appl no 64915/01,
Judgmen o 29 June 2004, pa a 69). Bu e en in his case, indi iduals who deny he exis ence o he gas chambe s in hei local pub
will no be p osecu ed. Fu he mo e, educa o s can add ess he issue o Holocaus denial as pa o hei cu iculum. The issue can also
be p esen a academic e en s o his o ians and li e a y schola s and may also be e lec ed on in a is ic o ms o communica ion. This
app oach equi es Eu opean cou s o decide in speci ic cases whe he he speake in ended o in o m he public on a ma e o public
in e es o whe he he speake sough o dis u b he public o de . Hence, he balancing ac pe o med by Eu opean cou s be ween
ee speech and o he democ a ic alues is no a om he one US judges ha e applied when deciding i acis speech, unde ce ain
ci cums ances, poses a clea and p esen dange and can hus be es ic ed. Can a simila balancing exe cise be applied o academic
speech?
4. Limi s on academic eedom
4.1. Academic speech
The academic wo ld is no immune o p ejudices and misconcep ions ha a e inconsis en wi h he ounda ional alues and
p inciples o cons i u ional democ acy, mos impo an ly he human digni y o ee and equal people. Academic publica ions and
s a emen s may, a imes, e lec exclusiona y a i udes o con ey ha e ul messages ha may ha m hose in disad an aged social
g oups. Does academic eedom p o ide p o ec ion o hese messages? Wha is dis inc i e abou academic eedom as a igh
compa ed o he igh o eedom o speech?
Bo h in he US and Eu ope, he de ini ion and scope o academic eedom can be in e ed om he judicial case law a he han om
posi i e law i sel . This is because his o ical human igh s documen s, including he US Cons i u ion (Kumm, 2024) and he Eu opean
Con en ion on Human Righ s, do no make explici e e ence o academic eedom (Ko ´
acs, 2025). Al hough A icle 13 o he 2009 EU
Cha e o Fundamen al Righ s explici ly p o ec s academic eedom, indi iduals do no ha e he igh o u n di ec ly o he Cou o
Jus ice o he Eu opean Union i hey eel hei Cha e igh s a e iola ed. The e o e, he ocus o he nex sec ion is on he ju is-
p udence o he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s, whe e academic eedom akes he o m o an indi idual claim. This is wha is
compa able o he ele an US ju isp udence.
The ee speech case law de eloped by bo h he Eu opean and US judges acknowledges ha academic eedom is a dis inc b anch
o eedom o speech. Academic speech may ake he o m o in amu al speech, ha is, speech inside he walls o he uni e si y,
including class oom speech, and ex amu al speech, ha is, ou side- he-uni e si y speech, ypically s a emen s and publica ions made
by p o esso s. The meaning o he ‘wall’ me apho is pe cei ed somewha di e en ly in he Eu opean and US con ex s, gi en he
me apho ’s inhe en luidi y (Bu le , 2025).
4.1.1. The Eu opean cou o human igh s ju isp udence p o ec s academic eedom unde a icle 10 o he con en ion (Bei e
e al., 2023). This p o ec ion includes he academic’s in amu al exp ession: he eedom o c i icise he academic sys em in which hey
wo k (So guç . Tu key, Appl no 17089/03, Judgmen o 23 June 2009) and class oom speech. Al hough he e a e no cases ha di ec ly
add ess class oom speech, in he case o Vog . Ge many (Appl no 17851/91, Judgmen o 26 Sep embe 1995), he Cou in oked he
p inciple ha disciplina y sanc ions o eache s’ exp essi e ac i i ies need o be ca e ully balanced agains hei speech- ela ed igh s.
The p o ec ion o academic eedom also ex ends o he academics’ ex amu al exp ession. Acco ding o he S asbou g case law, i is
wi hin he academic’s ex amu al eedom ‘ o exp ess eely hei iews and opinions, e en i con o e sial o unpopula , in he a eas
o hei esea ch, p o essional expe ise and compe ence’ (Mus a a E dogan and O he s . Tu key, Appl no 346/04 and 39779/04,
Judgmen o 27 May 2014, pa a 40). How much p o ec ion is g an ed o an academic who wishes o eely speak ou side o academia
depends on whe he he subjec ma e is a public conce n and whe he he s a emen alls wi hin he speake ’s expe ise.
The Aksu case illus a es he ex en o which A icle 10 p o ec s an academic’s ex amu al exp ession (Aksu . Tu key, Appl no
4149/04, 41029/04, Judgmen o 15 Ma ch 2012). The book i led Gypsies o Tu key (Tü kiye Çingenele i) w i en by Associa e P o-
esso Ali Ra e ¨
Ozkan, was a he hea o he cou p oceeding. In he in oduc ion o he book, pa ly unded by he go e nmen , he
p o esso explained he aim o he s udy and he me hodology used du ing he esea ch in he ollowing way:
‘This s udy – which I p esen wi hou any p e ensions, bu me ely in a bid o ill a signi ican gap (i being he i s s udy o i s kind),
and o p o ide guidance o o he s wo king on he Gypsies in he u u e – was p epa ed using desc ip i e, compa a i e and
phenomenological me hods, in addi ion o pa icipan obse a ion and in e iew echniques. (…) This esea ch is in ended o p esen
he iden i y o he Gypsies, hese people who ha e li ed among us o cen u ies and ha e become an in eg al pa o con empo a y
Tu kish cul u e, bu abou whom no comp ehensi e scien i ic s udy has as ye been conduc ed because hei cul u al iden i y has been
la gely igno ed as a esul o he di icul ies in iden i ying and de ining hem. This s udy will gi e an accoun o hei socio-cul u al
cha ac e is ics, belie s, my hologies, es i als and celeb a ions in all hei aspec s. (…) In ou opinion hese people, who su e om
humilia ion and ejec ion e e ywhe e, could be ans o med in o ci izens who a e an asse o ou S a e and ou na ion once hei
educa ional, social, cul u al and medical p oblems a e add essed. This simply en ails ocusing on his issue wi h pa ience and
de e mina ion’ (Aksu . Tu key, pa as 10–13).
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
4
The complainan , M Aksu, who is o Roma o igin, ini ia ed a cou p oceeding because he el ha he book included exp essions
ha o ended him in his Roma iden i y. In pa icula , he e e ed o ha pa o he book which p o ided in o ma ion abou he Roma
people’s alleged in ol emen in illegal ac i i ies as ‘ hie es, pickpocke s, swindle s, obbe s, usu e s, begga s, d ug deale s, p os i u es
and b o hel keepe s’ (Aksu . Tu key, pa a 14). He also con ended ha he book con ained se e al o he gene alisa ions ha ‘hu-
milia ed and debased Gypsies’, o ins ance, when i s a ed ha hey we e ‘polygamis and agg essi e’ (Aksu . Tu key, pa a 14).
The Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s acknowledged ha nega i e s e eo yping in e e es wi h he pe son’s capaci y o de e mine
he iden i y and li e cou se. Hence, i is unaccep able unde A icle 8 o he Con en ion, which p o ec s he igh o p i a e li e. I also
acknowledged ha ce ain passages o he book, especially he ones ci ed by M . Aksu, ‘ ead on hei own, appea ed o be disc imi-
na o y and insul ing’ (Aksu . Tu key, pa a 57). Ne e heless, he Cou held ha , as a whole, he book was he ou come o an ‘academic
s udy based on scien i ic esea ch’ (Aksu . Tu key, pa a 69) ocused on he his o y and socio-economic li ing condi ions o he Roma
people. The Cou s essed he impo ance o such wo k and e e ed o i s es ablished case law unde which ‘any es ic ions on he
eedom o academics o ca y ou esea ch and o publish hei indings’ mus be subjec o ca e ul judicial sc u iny (Aksu . Tu key,
pa a 71). In he gi en case, he Cou asse ed ha he au ho o he s udy did no make nega i e ema ks abou he Roma communi y
in Tu key; on he con a y, he au ho con ended ha Roma had been os acised and a ge ed by ili ying ema ks based mainly on
p ejudice (Aksu . Tu key, pa as 69–70). The e o e, he Cou ound no iola ion o M Aksu’s igh o p i a e li e.
The ele an Con en ion case law does no o e a clea and consis en me hodology o de e mining when he mo al dis ess o
indi iduals om disad an aged g oups can jus i y imposing limi s on ee speech. While an o dina y pe son’s poli ical exp ession can
be es ic ed o p o ec membe s o acial mino i ies (see, o ins ance he Eu opean cases men ioned in sec ion 3.2 on agi a ion and
inci emen o ha ed), academic eedom seems o ump hese conce ns i he wo k in ques ion is a se ious wo k o schola ship. Unde
such ci cums ances, A icle 10 p o ec s he dissemina ion o he esea ch ou come e en i he o he wise since e esea ch indings may
be o ensi e o ce ain disad an aged g oup membe s. Hence, acco ding o he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s, he mo al dis ess
expe ienced by an indi idual om a socially disad an aged g oup canno jus i y censo ing an exp ession i i can be p esen ed as
academic wo k.
4.1.2. Likewise, US law does no allow censo ship o he iews p o esso s publicly exp ess, as he Le in case sugges s. Tenu ed
p o esso Michael Le in a CUNY’s Ci y College (Ci y College), who held a doc o a e in philosophy, exp essed he iew ha ‘ he
a e age black is signi ican ly less in elligen han he a e age whi e’ in his w i ings (Le in . Ha les on, 770 F. Supp. 895, 1991 U.S.
Dis ., 902). Mo e speci ically, he Ame ican Philosophical Associa ion P oceedings 62(5) ga e su ey da a on numbe s o blacks in
philosophy and showed ha he p opo ion o blacks in he discipline was conside able below hei p opo ion o he popula ion.
P o esso Le in published a le e in he nex issue o he jou nal, in which he a gued as ollows:
‘The black mean IQ is sligh ly mo e han one s anda d de ia ion below he whi e mean. In mo e amilia e ms, ha amoun s o a
di e ence o mo e han 15 poin s o IQ as measu ed by such s anda d es s as he Wechsle Adul In elligen Scale. (…) In a ecen
su ey o he psychome ic li e a u e, he Na ional Academy o Science concluded ha “in he echnically p ecise meaning o he e m,
(men al) abili y es s ha e no been p o ed o be biased agains blacks; ha is, hey p edic c i e ion pe o mance as well o blacks as
o whi es”. (…) Doc o s as enginee s a e ec ui ed om an IQ ange o 114 o abo e. (…) Only 3 % o he black popula ion (as opposed
o 16 % o he whi e popula ion) has an IQ in his ange. (…) Making he mos op imis ic assump ions, gi en ha blacks cons i u e 12 %
o he popula ion, only 2 % (no 12 %) o he p o ession will be black. Tha is close enough o cu en igu es o all philosophe s o
ega d hemsel es ee o any disc imina o y guil .’ (Le in . Ha les on, 902–903).
A g oup o uni e si y s uden s el ha med by hese public u e ances, and as a eac ion o hese s a emen s, hey conduc ed loud
demons a ions ou side o P o esso Le in’s classes. Du ing he demons a ions, s uden s ca ying banne s and shou ing denounced he
p o esso as a acis . A e se e al such inciden s, he Ci y College publicly condemned he iews exp essed by P o esso Le in in his
w i ings. Fu he mo e, i se up an ad hoc commi ee o de e mine whe he he p o esso ’s public s a emen s wen beyond he bounds
o academic eedom and sen a le e o he s uden s, s a ing ha P o esso Le in had ‘exp essed con o e sial iews’ and o e ing
hem an al e na i e class should hey migh wan o ans e ou o he p o esso ’s equi ed in oduc o y philosophy class (Le in .
Ha les on, 907). P o esso Le in pe cei ed hese s eps as enc oachmen s on his academic eedom and u ned o he cou s (Le in .
Ha les on, 907). P o esso Le in iden i ied se e al igh s in ingemen s, ye ou a en ion will be di ec ed only owa ds he claim
ela ed o academic eedom.
The cou o i s ins ance, he Uni ed S a es Dis ic Cou o he Sou he n Dis ic o New Yo k s essed he impo ance o he
p o esso ’s igh o speak ex e nally on issues o public impo ance. I held ha P o esso Le in’s public ‘s a emen s abou his iews on
he ela ionship be ween ace and es sco es’ we e ‘quin essen ially “issues o public impo ance”’ (Le in . Ha les on, 921). The e o e,
hese s a emen s we e cons i u ionally p o ec ed exp essions, and he uni e si y did no ha e he igh o hinde P o esso Le in’s
exe cise o his igh o speak because i el ha exposu e o his ideas migh be ha m ul o ce ain s uden s. Fu he mo e, poin ing o he
chilling e ec o he p oceeding agains he p o esso , he Cou condemned he sec e delibe a ions o he ad hoc commi ee, which,
acco ding o he Cou , led o P o esso Le in’s being ‘ o ced o “s ay as a away as possible om u e ances o ac s which migh
jeopa dize his li ing” and he e o e declined a leas wen y in i a ions o speak o o w i e abou his iews’ (Le in . Ha les on, 920).
The appella e cou , he Uni ed S a es Cou o Appeals o he Second Ci cui ag eed o his judgmen bu speci ied ha he explici o
implici h ea o disciplina y p oceedings agains he p o esso o his p o ec ed ex amu al speech was i sel a iola ion o his ee
speech igh (Le in . Ha les on, 966 F.2d 85 1992 U.S. App.).
Bo h he i s and second ins ance cou s based hei a gumen s on he Fi s Amendmen igh o ee speech. Why? Because in he
US case law, he Sup eme Cou has ecognised academic eedom as ‘a special conce n o he Fi s Amendmen ’, highligh ing i s
signi icance as a speci ic a ea o conce n ela ed o his cons i u ional igh (Keyishian . Boa d o Regen s, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) 590).
Academic eedom p o ec s bo h he p o esso s’ in amu al exp ession, including hei uni e si y class oom speech, hough he scope
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
5
o his p o ec ion is deba ed by schola s (T ibe e al., 2024; Cole, 2025; Whi ing on, 2025) and he p o esso s’ ex amu al exp ession,
ha is, hei speech ou side o class (See he ecen cases o Su i . T ump, 1:25-c -00,480, (E.D. Va.) O de o 20 Ma ch 2025 and
Ame ican Associa ion o Uni e si y P o esso s . Rubio (2025) No. 25-10685-WGY (D. Mass.)). Ex amu al speech encompasses a
p o esso ’s ema ks ‘u e ed as a ci izen in a non-academic space and o a mo e gene al public pu pose’ (Bu le , 2025). In one case, he
US Sup eme Cou dis inguished be ween s a emen s made by a p o esso wi hin hei a ea o expe ise and ou side o i , asse ing ha
he o me alls unde ‘academic eedom’ while he la e is co e ed by ‘poli ical exp ession’, wi h bo h being dis inc i e libe ies
p o ec ed by he US Cons i u ion (Sweezy . New Hampshi e, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) 250). Ne e heless, he Cou has no ye di e en-
ia ed be ween a dis inc i e Fi s Amendmen heo y o academic eedom and he gene al Fi s Amendmen igh s o ee speech, and
i has no ye elabo a ed a dis inc heo y o academic eedom (Rabban, 2024).
4.1.3. The Eu opean and he US legal amewo ks, de eloped o e ecen decades, sha e many simila i ies ega ding he na u e and
he co e meaning o academic eedom. In bo h ju isdic ions, academic eedom p o ec ion is based on ee speech, ye i is linked o he
eedom o pu sui knowledge.
The Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s has emphasised he impo ance o he academics’ eedom o dis ibu e knowledge and u h
(So guç . Tu key, Appl no 17089/03, Judgmen o 23 June 2009). Fu he mo e, i has speci ically s essed he impo ance o he sea ch
o his o ical u h by p o iding wide p o ec ion o expe speech ha discusses his o ical mo emen s such as he F ench Resis ance
du ing WWII (Chau y and O he s . F ance, Appl no 64915/01, Judgmen o 29 June 2004, pa a 69) o he ope a ion o communis
sec e se ice egimes in pos -So ie coun ies (Ung ´
a y and I odalom K . Hunga y, Appl no 64,520/10, Judgmen o 3 Decembe
2013, pa a 63). Besides, he Cou o en ci es he ecommenda ion o he Pa liamen a y Assembly o he Council o Eu ope, which
explici ly s a es ha academic eedom should gua an ee eedom o dis ibu e knowledge and u h (Pa liamen a y Assembly o he
Council o Eu ope (2006). The Cou hence acknowledges he uni e si y’s epis emic mission, he pu sui o knowledge.
The same poin can be made abou p o ec ing academic eedom in he US. Academic eedom is wi hin he ambi o he ee speech
clause o he US Cons i u ion; he US Sup eme Cou has ecognised academic eedom as a Fi s Amendmen igh . Al hough, in he
ea ly 1950s, jus ices only a gued s ongly o he impo ance o c i ical inqui y by p o esso s in dissen ing opinions (see, e.g., he
a gumen s made by Jus ice William O. Douglas and Jus ice Felix F ank u e in he case Adle . Boa d o Educa ion o Ci y o New Yo k,
342 U.S. 485 (1952) 498), he majo i y la e accep ed ha p o esso s mus emain ee o inqui e because imposing ‘any s ai jacke
upon he in ellec ual leade s’ in uni e si ies would ‘impe il he u u e o he na ion’ (Sweezy . New Hampshi e, 354 U.S. 234 (1957)
250).
Fu he mo e, in bo h ju isdic ions, academic eedom ex ends o he p o esso s’ in amu al and ex amu al speech. So, bo h in he
US and Eu ope, p o esso s a e gi en obus p o ec ion o hei speech inside and ou side he uni e si y walls. This is because hey may
en ich public discou se wi h hei p o ound expe ise and, mos impo an ly, play an impo an ole in ad ancing he pu sui o
knowledge. Hence, hey ha e o be ‘immune’ om he powe o o he s who wish o use hei au ho i y o limi academic eedom
wi hou jus i ied easons (Van Als yne, 1972). Acco dingly, bo h egula o y amewo ks ha e he po en ial o obus ly p o ec pub-
lica ions and s a emen s by academics, e en i ce ain people who iden i y as pa o a socially disad an aged g oup migh eel
o ended, as seen in he Aksu case and in he case o P o esso Le in. As he ele an judgmen s sugges , his obus p o ec ion anishes
i ci cums ances a e p esen ha could jus i y speech being es ic ed. One example o his would a ise i e idence eme ged ha a gi en
academic has disc imina ed agains s uden s o o he s based on hei e hnici y o ace o ha hei iews ha e had an e ec on hei
eaching.
Mo eo e , schola s a e g an ed his obus p o ec ion as long as hei speech complies wi h es ablished academic s anda ds
(Rabban, 2024, 9). The e o e, schola s canno be punished o he iews hey exp ess publicly as long as hese iews mee academic
s anda ds. When does an exp ession mee academic s anda ds? When he cou s e e o academic s anda ds, hey mean he in e nal
s anda ds and mechanisms o academic sel - egula ion de eloped by academics hemsel es. The mos common me hod known oday is
pee e iew. All high-quali y publica ions and esea ch unds employ pee e iew, ha is, he igo ous, usually double-blind e alua ion
o scien i ic wo k by o he academics wo king in he same ield. The ask o hose who engage in pee e iew is o ca e ully assess
whe he he claim o app oach genuinely quali ies as academic. The key aspec s o such assessmen s include whe he he main poin o
he esea ch is open o c i ical deba e and capable o being challenged and po en ially p o en o disp o en h ough objec i e
easoning. I he claim is based on empi ical indings, he assessmen includes an e alua ion o he me hods used and an examina ion o
whe he he claims a e suppo ed by objec i e, e i iable e idence. P o essional s anda ds explici ly o bid academics om ac ing
con a y o hose s anda ds, o ins ance, by mis ep esen ing and manipula ing ac s, selec i ely using da a, o plagia ising (Ko ´
acs &
Spannagel, 2025). Ce ainly, jus as wi h o he human-managed p ocesses, pee e iew is no wi hou i s impe ec ions. The p ocess
does no always sc een ou non-scien i ic con en , and i s in eg i y can be comp omised by many ac o s. Despi e hese challenges, no
al e na i e o academic sel -con ol me hods has eme ged. And in he e en ha a case in ol ing plagia ism o any o he ype o
academic misconduc we e o each he cou , he cou would almos ce ainly conside expe opinion when making i s decision.
Howe e , academics do no exclusi ely w i e pee - e iewed schola ly a icles and book chap e s; hey also con ibu e o news-
pape s and may w i e le e s o he edi o s, as seen in he case o P o esso Le in. Mo e and mo e equen ly, hey sha e hei opinions
on a ious social media channels (as i happened in he case o P o esso Sadu ski, see Mo ijn, 2020). As S asbou g judges emphasised,
he speci ic o ma o a s a emen does no de e mine whe he i is conside ed academic and hus eligible o academic eedom
p o ec ion (see he mino i y opinion o he Mus a a E dogan . Tu key case). Schola s a e expec ed o p esen hei indings publicly,
and social media channels can be app op ia e o his pu pose. A social media pos can be a judgmen ha is g ounded in ex ensi e,
p e iously conduc ed and published esea ch o a summa y o he public sphe e o a conclusion o ongoing and sus ained esea ch. I
is up o he cou o decide i his is indeed he si ua ion.
As seen abo e, se e al commonali ies exis in how he Eu opean and he US ju isdic ions p o ec academic eedom. Ye , he e is an
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
6
impo an di e ence be ween he wo ju isdic ions when i comes o he scope o p o ec ion o ex amu al speech. In Eu ope, his
p o ec ion co e s only he cases when he academic speaks abou ma e s o public conce n wi hin hei expe ise. Thus, academic
eedom ex ends only o expe exp ession o he academic ou side o he uni e si y walls. The ex e nal poli ical speech o academics is
no ela ed o he expe ise o he academic; i is no p o ec ed by academic eedom bu by eedom o speech.
The scope o p o ec ion has his o ically been b oade in he US, whe e, acco ding o es ablished judicial case law, he academic
eedom o he acul y gene ally ex ends o all poli ical exp ession by a p o esso , e en i no ela ionship exis s be ween he p o esso ’s
public u e ance and hei own expe ise. The a gumen behind his wide co e age was ha wi hou his p o ec ion, us ees o he
uni e si ies would use he ‘unp o ec ed speech o p o esso s ou side hei expe ise as a p e ex o dismissing hem o hei academic
iews’ (Rabban, 2024, 24.). Acco ding o hese s anda ds, P o esso Le in’s s a emen is p o ec ed speech. The usual ee speech es
applies o poli ical speech by p o esso s, meaning ha he s a emen should su i e he clea and p esen dange es men ioned in
sec ion 3.2. P o esso Le in’s s a emen p obably o ended people, bu since no hing in i ep esen ed a h ea o p oduced a clea and
p esen dange o an ‘imminen lawless ac ion’, i is p o ec ed by he Fi s Amendmen .
In Eu ope, Le in’s speech is also p o ec ed bu he eason is di e en : academic eedom p o ides immuni y o academics o
exp ess hemsel es in a way ha is in acco dance wi h academic s anda ds wi hin hei own ield. The s a emen ci ed abo e is wi hin
he expe ise o P o esso Le in, gi en ha a philosophy p o esso has claimed ha he lowe IQ sco es o Blacks explain hei low
pe cen age in US philosophy depa men s. Thus, he speech should no ace any es ic ions, i is p o ec ed by academic eedom.
In his sec ion, we ha e examined he long-es ablished legal s anda ds applicable o he ex amu al speech o academics in he US
and Eu ope. We conside ed wo examples in ol ing speech po en ially deemed acis . We ound ha in he a ea o ex amu al aca-
demic speech, he s anda ds di e somewha . In he US, he ‘clea and p esen dange ’ ee speech s anda d is applied o a p o esso ’s
public s a emen , ega dless o whe he i alls wi hin o ou side hei a ea o expe ise. In Eu ope, howe e , academic eedom p o ec s
p o esso s i hei ex e nal ema ks all wi hin hei a ea o expe ise, whe eas ee speech p o ec s hem when making commen s
ou side hei ield. In spi e o hese doc inal di e ences, he le el o p o ec ion a o ded o academics’ ex amu al speech does no a y
g ea ly, because, again, bo h egula o y egimes employ a balancing ac as a s anda d p ac ice.
4.2. Academic esea ch
I is no jus he academic speech ha may posi he exis ence o supe io and in e io e hnic g oups bu also he opic and ocus o
he esea ch i sel . Is i accep able o impose limi s on esea ch agendas in o med by o di ec ed owa ds such p esupposi ions, o do
such limi a ions iola e academic eedom? Mo e gene ally, wha happens when pe spec i es eme ge unde he guise o scien i ic
inqui y ha ei he explici ly o implici ly ejec he equal alue o human beings?
An example o such an agenda may be esea ch on he ele ance o biological di e ences ela ed o dimensions o ace o e hnici y.
‘Gene ic de e minism’ o ‘gene ic essen ialism’ claims ha human ai s, abili ies and condi ions a e de e mined dominan ly by gene ic
ac o s a he han en i onmen al and social ac o s; hence, acial di e ences a e gene ic (Kowal & F ede ic, 2012). The e we e and
a e p o esso s whose esea ch cen es on acial essen ialism and who claim ha he e a e IQ di e ences be ween di e en e hnic
g oups, and i ela es o gene ic di e ences. A hu Jensen, a well-known US educa ional psychologis claimed ha IQ was 80 % a
p oduc o ou genes a he han ou en i onmen s and ha he di e ences be ween black and whi e IQs we e la gely oo ed in ge-
ne ics (Jensen, 1998). Besides, he book Bell Cu e, ep esen ing Social Da winism was published (He ns ein & Mu ay, 1994), and
many ‘scien i ic acis s’ gene ally ollowed i . An example is he UK p o esso Ch is B and, whose book discussed he co ela ion
be ween ace and in elligence and, in he end, concluded ha he e is a meaning ul co ela ion be ween ce ain ma ke s ha a e
connec ed o iden i ying someone as being o a ce ain ace and human in elligence (B and , 1996; Billig, 1997). Such p ojec s abou
ace and IQ ha e a his o y o pe sis ence wi hin academia and emain p esen e en oday (Ba ow, 2009; Wins on, 2020). So, we ask
whe he such a esea ch agenda is p o ec ed by academic eedom.
In he US, he bounda ies o his eedom a e no clea ly es ablished by law. Ins ead o being oo ed in a s a u o y igh (Ba end ,
2010, 262), academic eedom has been in e p e ed by he Sup eme Cou as o igina ing om he Fi s Amendmen ’s ee speech
p o ision (Rabban, 2024, 52). The Fi s Amendmen case law p ohibi s con en -based es ic ions, including iewpoin -based e-
s ic ions; he e o e, e en in ense opposi ion o he poin o iew does no jus i y a p ohibi ion on esea ching ‘gene ic de e minism’.
Some schola s ha e explained his by saying, ollowing Condo ce ’s ‘zeal o u h’, ha he academic ask is o ques ion exis ing
knowledge a he han adhe e o al eady es ablished u hs (Fish, 2014). O he s ha e come o he same conclusion, hough hey ha e
jus i ied i by a guing in a Millian way ha ‘un egula ed ma ke s a e sel -co ec ing’ (B omwich, 2015).
As o Eu ope, he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s has no es ablished so a ha conduc ing esea ch on ce ain a eas, such as
‘gene ic de e minism’ would be in iola ion o he Con en ion, o ha he Con en ion would allow o he supp ession o scien i ic
iews based on hei con en . The a ionale o his migh be ha he Con en ion is based on libe al democ a ic alues such as equal
human igh s and obliges he membe s a es o con o m o democ acy, wi h plu alism being a key componen . The Eu opean Cou o
Human Righ s has s essed he impo ance o plu alism in educa ion (Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Pede sen . Denma k, Appl nos 5095/
71, 5920/72, 5926/72, Judgemen o 7 Decembe 1976, pa a 50) and he plu ali y o opinions in public deba es (Handyside . he UK,
Appl no 5493/72, Judgemen o 7 Decembe 1976, pa a 49). I is his plu alism ha is equi ed in scien i ic esea ch, meaning, among
o he hings, ha academics can e en conduc esea ch on a esea ch opic ha may no align wi h he alues o democ acy, such as
‘gene ic de e minism’. The p o iso he e is ha he esea ch does no ely on a ange o lawed me hodologies and in e p e a ions o
e olu iona y heo y o jus i y acis belie s and ideologies, and i s ou come is p oduced in a manne ha co esponds o he p o es-
sional s anda ds o academic discipline.
The es ablished case law o bo h egula o y egimes seems o subsc ibe o he cen al p inciple o academic eedom; ha is, he
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
7
commi men o no silence academic dissen and allow all o ms o se ious esea ch o p oceed. Academia, including he pee e iewe s
esponsible o w i ing expe e iews o he esea ch p oposal, has he du y o con i m i he esea ch lacks legi ima e scien i ic in en
o ails o mee he minimal c i e ia o in ellec ual igo . In such an e en , he esea ch agenda is no subjec o academic eedom
p o ec ions. And when a scien i ic p oposal is pu o wa d, i is subjec o being challenged because in he academic wo ld, he e a e no
aboos and no asse ions immune o ques ioning. I is he academic communi y’s esponsibili y o challenge and ebu a schola ly claim
o a esea ch p oposal. Hence, academics a e bo h ‘bene icia ies and gua dians o he condi ions unde which hey wo k’
(He manowicz, 2021, 17), and he cou s ha e limi ed oom o manoeu e. Consequen ly, i he e is scien i ic consensus on a
pa icula scien i ic ques ion, cou s acknowledge his consensus when esol ing legal cases. A de ia ion om his is he ecen de-
cision by he US Sup eme Cou , which decided con a y o he exis ing scien i ic consensus a icula ed by majo medical associa ions
as i upheld a Tennessee s a e law ha bans ho mone he apy o gende dyspho ia (Uni ed S a es . Sk me i, 605 U.S. __ (2025).
How all hese conside a ions apply o conduc ing esea ch on ‘gene ic de e minism’, which pe cei es indi iduals as au oma ons
shaped mainly by hei genes? Al hough hose who pu sue esea ch p ojec s in he ield end o sides ep se ious and ca e ul scien i ic
c i icism, and hey o en ely on essen ialised acial ca ego ies, he claims o ‘gene ic de e minism’ can be ebu ed by he academic
communi y (Wins on, 2020). Bu e en i gene ic de e minis schola s we e able o demons a e a co ela ion be ween ace and in-
elligence, i would no logically imply ha indi iduals om speci ic acial o e hnic backg ounds a e mo ally supe io o in e io
based on hose biological di e ences. A biological eali y does no dic a e no ma i e mo al conclusions. The 1978 UNESCO decla a ion
condemns any heo y ha p oclaims ha he e a e inhe en ly supe io o in e io acial o e hnic g oups and denies such heo ies any
scien i ic ounda ions (UNESCO, 1978; Le ne , 1981). Acco ding o A icle 2(1), ‘any heo y which in ol es he claim ha acial o
e hnic g oups a e inhe en ly supe io o in e io , (…) o which bases alue judgmen s on acial di e en ia ion, has no scien i ic
ounda ion and is con a y o he mo al and e hical p inciples o humani y.’ Wha he UNESCO decla a ion uly p ohibi s, when
unde s ood p ope ly, is no conduc ing esea ch on ‘gene ic de e minism’ as such, bu a he he ques ioning o he equal mo al alue
o each pe son’s human digni y.
Whe he he esea ch on ‘gene ic de e minism’ quali ies o public unding is a sepa a e issue, hough, ha wa an s explo a ion in
ano he schola ly a icle. Ne e heless, we can no e he e ha on he one hand, public unding mus no be alloca ed a bi a ily (such as
i s wi hd awal as a puni i e measu e Cole, 2025) and mus no be dis ibu ed disc imina o ily (jus as happened in Na ional Ins i u es o
Heal h, e al. . Ame ican Public Heal h Associa ion, e al. 606 U.S. __ (2025); Ga is o and Kozlo , 2025). On he o he hand, ecei ing
public unding is no a undamen al igh , ei he unde US o Eu opean law, bu an op ion o hose who conduc se ious esea ch and
espec he ounda ional alues o cons i u ional democ acy and whose wo k is backed by he s anda ds o scien i ic inqui y. This
condi ion does no mean ha hose who do no sha e hese alues a e au oma ically excluded om public unding. Fo ins ance, in
p inciple, an academic wi h expe ise in he ield can do esea ch on ‘gene ic de e minism’ and e en de end hei posi ion in a schola ly
manne while complying wi h he equi emen o equal human digni y. None heless, a esea ch p oposal ad oca ing o acial di -
e ences in in elligence and mo ali y could jus i iably be uled ou om ecei ing public inancing. This is because connec ing esea ch
unding o he equi emen o complying wi h he ounda ional alues o cons i u ional democ acy does no iola e academic eedom
(Ko ´
acs, 2025).
5. Concluding ema ks
Hos ile and un u h ul exp essions a e no ably p e alen ac oss he wo ld. This phenomenon also a ec s academia. The e o e, he
a icle asked whe he academic speech and esea ch a e p o ec ed e en i a p o esso ’s s a emen , esea ch ou come o esea ch
agenda could po en ially o end indi iduals o e en cause mo al dis ess o membe s o socially disad an aged g oups. The ocus o he
discussion was on wo egions ha ha e long been widely ega ded as o e ing obus ee speech p o ec ions: he Uni ed S a es and
Eu ope. In he o me con ex , he US Cons i u ion gua an ees he igh o ee speech, while in he la e con ex , he Eu opean
Con en ion on Human Righ s p o ec s he indi idual’s eedom o exp ession.
The a icle e ealed ha bo h Eu ope and he US ha e long p o ided ee speech p o ec ions ha co e ce ain ins ances o speech
ha migh be ega ded as acis . Ye in bo h egula o y egimes, speech can be limi ed legally as a esul o a balancing ac , ei he
because o i s po en ial consequences (e.g., i i poses a clea and p esen dange o an ‘imminen lawless ac ion’, o ins ance, inci ing
ha ed) o in o de o p o ec o he cons i u ional alues (such as equal human digni y). The a icle hen asked whe he a simila
balancing exe cise can be applied o speech in academia ha migh be conside ed acis . In o de o ackle his ques ion, he a icle
analysed wha is dis inc i e in academic eedom when compa ed o ee speech and demons a ed ha he dis inc ion be ween speech
in gene al and academic speech in pa icula lies in he a ionale o academic eedom, he pu sui o knowledge, which is mean o
enhance ou comp ehension o he wo ld and human a ai s in a way ha complies wi h academic no ms and s anda ds. An academic
has he igh o be w ong and o come o conclusions ha may e en be ega ded as o ensi e by ce ain socially disad an aged g oups,
bu his mus be accep ed in bo h egula o y models. Academic eedom pe mi s schola s o d aw hei own conclusions so long as hey
ac acco ding o p o essional s anda ds. While i allows o he possibili y o e o , i does no allow a schola o ac in ways ha
con adic academic s anda ds, o ins ance, by alsi ying and manipula ing ac s.
Bo h academic speech and esea ch equi e a ce ain s uc u ed and easoned o m o engagemen ; he e o e, he membe s o he
academic communi y a e hose who a e quali ied o de e mine whe he esea ch agendas and publica ions a e pu suing scien i ic aims,
whe he he academics hemsel es ha e c edible expe ise in he ield, and whe he hey a e adhe ing o academic s anda ds. Cou s
a e cons ained in hei capaci y o assess he scien i ic quali y o an academic wo k. In he p ocess o balancing, judges can decide
whe he an academic s a emen o a published esea ch ou come iola es legi ima e in e es s, including o he s’ undamen al igh s, o
dis u bs public o de .
K. Ko ´
acs and G.A. T´
o h
In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 134 (2025) 102828
8
