Legal philosopher: The university should not only be a safe space. It should also be a brave space

The debate over the limits of academic freedom in teaching has flared up once again after a law instructor displayed an image bearing the words “DEATH DEATH TO THE IDF” at the beginning of several seminars.

This is not the first time that a debate over offensive material in teaching has erupted at the University of Copenhagen.

In 2023, a number of students in the Global Development programme walked out of a class after an instructor used the N-word while teaching about European colonialism. The same year, the university administration received more than 100 complaints about an old mural in the Friday bar at Frederiksberg Campus after students argued that the image was racist.

READ ALSO: One group of students just got up and left. Then came the storm of emails

Jakob v. H. Holtermann is an associate professor of legal philosophy at the University of Copenhagen and conducts research on academic freedom in teaching. He is also a member of a recently established working group examining the concept of academic freedom in teaching at the university.

He does not wish to comment on the specific case, but is happy to discuss academic freedom in teaching as a principle. In his view, it is a topic that has long been neglected.

READ ALSO: Racist mural covered at University of Copenhagen Friday bar venue after complaints

»The question of academic freedom in teaching has received remarkably little attention. When we talk about academic freedom, we almost exclusively talk about research freedom. Freedom of teaching is not enshrined in the Danish University Act, nor do we have a tradition of writing about or reflecting on it, either theoretically or as a matter of principle,« says Holtermann, who also has a research article on the subject forthcoming.

»If it felt wrong, it was wrong«

Until 1968, during the era of professorial rule, academic freedom in teaching was not a concept that attracted much attention, Holtermann explains. At that time, instructors could, as he puts it, »exercise virtually absolute authority over the classroom.«

There may be material that some people find offensive even though it is entirely legitimate. Historically, many scientific discoveries have run counter to prevailing beliefs

Jakob v. H. Holtermann

»But after the student revolts of 1968, a kind of counter-movement emerged, peaking during the 2010s in what one might call extreme wokeness. Suddenly, freedom in teaching was defined almost entirely by students’ subjective experiences.«

Holtermann recalls that during the same period, the University of Copenhagen launched a zero-tolerance policy on offensive conduct. Instructors were offered courses run by an external consultancy firm on how to facilitate a safe learning environment.

»There, the consultants would repeat the mantra: If it felt wrong, it was wrong. And I believe that is a deeply problematic standard for a teaching environment.«

Too much and too little

According to Holtermann, some teaching »can and will« be experienced as offensive. That does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the content itself.

»There may be material that some people find offensive even though it is entirely legitimate. Historically, many scientific discoveries have run counter to prevailing beliefs,« he says.

For example, when teaching about the racist caricatures used during the Holocaust, it may be necessary to show the original images, the legal philosopher argues.

»It can be extremely difficult to discuss what constitutes a racist stereotype if you cannot point to a concrete example.«

Holtermann himself has, for many years, used the Muhammad cartoons in his legal philosophy teaching as a starting point for discussions about freedom of expression and criminalisation.

»For many years, it never occurred to me that I—as someone discussing what others had expressed in the form of blasphemous statements—could myself be accused of making those statements. But over time I became aware of resistance from Muslim students, which led me to reflect on the issue. Initially for purely pedagogical reasons, later because of career concerns related to the University of Copenhagen’s zero-tolerance policy, and finally, after the murder of Samuel Paty, out of fear for my own life,« he says.

There is a great deal of legitimate, pedagogically sound teaching that may in fact offend students. And in those situations, students must learn to sit with that discomfort

Jakob v. H. Holtermann

Samuel Paty was a French schoolteacher who was beheaded in 2020 by an 18-year-old attacker after showing the Muhammad cartoons during a lesson on freedom of expression. Holtermann believes that this incident in particular prompted reflection on how teachers and communicators of others’ controversial messages can misstep.

»I have experienced cases where students have been offended by seeing the cartoons in class. There have also been students who left the classroom.«

For a period, he therefore stopped showing the cartoons because he became uncertain whether he could persuade students of the educational purpose behind using them.

»But it is important to stress that my considerations were pedagogical and concerned achieving the best possible learning outcomes. They were not about whether I was allowed to show the cartoons.«

Where is the line?

The big question is whether there is a limit to what may be shown in a teaching environment. And according to Jakob v. H. Holtermann, the answer is relatively straightforward:

»As a general rule, there is no limit as long as you have a legitimate academic reason for showing it. If we are talking about material that may not be shown in its own right, it would have to be something that is outright illegal. Snuff videos, child pornography, or something of that nature,« he says.

The situation is different if an instructor presents controversial or potentially offensive material that has no academic relevance or connection to the teaching.

»I often use the example that if I simply projected the Muhammad cartoons onto a large screen in every class without commenting on them, while staring intently at the Muslim students present in the room, then the situation would be quite different,« says Holtermann.

»In that case, it would be difficult to argue that I had a legitimate educational purpose. Instead, one might get the impression that I was using the material to dominate, harass, or ridicule particular students. In such a situation, I believe the university leadership both has the right and the duty to intervene.«

The limits lie in how teaching is framed, the legal philosopher argues. They do not depend on whether someone feels that something is wrong.

»There is a great deal of legitimate, pedagogically sound teaching that may in fact offend students. And in those situations, students must learn to sit with that discomfort.«

Safe space, brave space

At the same time, Holtermann stresses that broad protections for academic freedom in teaching come with significant pedagogical responsibilities.

»We must be able to justify the choices we make. But it should not be in a way that allows university management to walk into a classroom on any given day and ask, why are you teaching like this? It can be restrictive if we teach under a constant fear of being sanctioned by management.«

In recent years, there has been much discussion about safe spaces. But the university should also be a »brave space«, Holtermann argues. That is why it is important not to restrict academic freedom in teaching.

»If instructors fear punishment, they will keep a wide safety margin from any material or discussion that could be perceived as offensive. And then important discussions and learning opportunities will be lost.«