When the Society for Analytic Philosophy was founded in 1990, it committed itself in its statutes to advocating for the freedom of research and teaching—a commitment that is becoming increasingly important in times of growing skepticism and hostility toward science.
The GAP fulfills this commitment structurally by promoting open and understanding-oriented exchange within the discipline (including through organizing and co-financing conferences, supporting early-career researchers, and co-financing PhilPublica), thereby creating space for many different positions.
In addition, the GAP is occasionally asked to engage on specific issues by issuing statements. Some of these requests clearly fall outside the scope of the association’s purpose as defined by the GAP’s statutes, such as statements on wars or conflicts. But how should the GAP respond when asked to issue a critical statement on how individual universities, institutes, or persons exercise their academic freedom in their invitation policies?
Statements of this kind are not simple. To issue them in a well-founded manner requires detailed knowledge of individual cases and thus research that is always very time-consuming and rarely reliable, because it partly involves confidential internal matters. If an incident cannot be independently reconstructed, any statement about it risks not providing context and orientation, but merely fuel for an outrage machinery that is already running hot in times of extreme polarization.
Independent of individual cases, the current board of the GAP holds the following general positions:
- If individual scholars are forced to invite or disinvite persons, this constitutes an infringement of their academic freedom and thus a violation of fundamental rights. This should be condemned unless conflicting fundamental rights or constitutionally protected legal interests were at stake.
- If scholars or academic institutions are also guided by practical considerations when issuing invitations (such as promoting early-career researchers or diversity, but also which political positions they wish to provide a platform for), this is legitimate as long as it is also ensured that a sufficiently relevant academic contribution can be expected from the invited person.
- In individual cases, disinvitations may also be legitimate after thorough consideration of all aspects. Even though a disinvitation carries more weight ceteris paribus than a non-invitation, no one has a right to give a lecture at a particular institution. In particular, no such right arises from the academic freedom of the person concerned.
The GAP is not in a position to issue a statement on every event that could affect academic freedom. However, the current board endeavors to issue statements on serious incidents, provided the relevant facts can be sufficiently well established.
The Board