91ÇÑ×Ó

Policymakers increasingly see higher education institutions¡¯ primary roles as being to produce vocationally orientated graduates and actionable research to drive economic growth. But research universities are and must be much more than that.

Indeed, this wider role is inherent to the concept of academic freedom, which is often enshrined in legislation. That concept has, admittedly, been misused at times by academics and their institutions, politicians and the communities they serve. But at its heart is the profoundly important notion that universities are wellsprings of intellectual thought for a nation.

They are not the only source. Creatives, industrial scientists, authors, journalists, public intellectuals and others all contribute, too. But universities have a key role as institutional protectors and promoters of the kind of intellectual thought in a civil environment that is critical to vibrant democracy, national confidence and identity.

We are used to thinking of sovereignty in political terms. Generally, it is considered to relate to the source of authority and control for a particular set of functions, such as, at a national level, laws and border enforcement. But the purview of sovereignty is broader. Intellectual sovereignty can also apply at an individual and institutional level. For example, indigenous peoples expect a degree of sovereignty over the use of data and knowledge related to them. Intellectual property law gives the owners of patents sovereignty over their ideas and innovations.

Sovereignty confers agency ¨C and no agency can be more important than a nation¡¯s ability to determine its own direction, especially in today¡¯s tense, divided but interconnected world.

Without intellectual sovereignty, countries risk losing what makes them distinct and putting themselves increasingly at the mercy of manipulations from beyond. This goes far deeper than just the superficial consequences of disinformation: it impacts how a country can make decisions and define itself in a changing world while maintaining social cohesion. Perhaps we are already seeing the threats to national determination in the ability of digital platform companies to ignore local sensibilities and regulations. And we saw it in the past in how colonial powers imposed their ways of thinking and acting.

Smaller countries in particular may find themselves with diminished self-worth and influence on a global stage. Alternatively, they may fall victim to extreme populism, whereby the ¡°will of the people¡± is interpreted as being interchangeable with the will of the autocrat. The ability of diverse thinking to counter autocracy is why we have seen universities become the target of suppression in several countries.

But intellectual sovereignty, when considered at a national level, demands that universities as institutions refrain from avowing ideologies. That is because ideologies, by definition, constrain thought. Intellectual monocultures are corrosive ¨C whether arrived at organically by the clustering of self-selecting people or imposed by managerially or financially driven constraints on staff¡¯s academic freedom.

Moreover, public universities operate on the basis of a social licence, which confers their institutional autonomy and the privilege of academic freedom on their staff. But both can be misused and/or confused with political agendas. Some universities have not always conducted themselves wisely in that regard and have invited justified criticism.

That is, they have interpreted the concept of individual academic freedom as licensing the institution itself to position itself as a political agent and to impose ideological views on students. This harms the university¡¯s role in society and invites attacks on those core assets of autonomy and academic freedom.

These considerations do not turn a university into a mindless machine churning out graduates and knowledge. But they do require it to reflect deeply?on whether it is doing all it can to maintain an institutional environment in which ideas, contexts, views and knowledge intermingle, flow and merge.

Collectively, a nation¡¯s public universities create an intellectual wellspring of immense value to a democracy ¨C something that must be sustained to ensure societal cohesion even in the face of multiple pressures. Universities allow a country to stay refreshed, aware of changing contexts, and to advance its international presence and reputation.

Democratic policymakers should therefore value and protect this role of a university, even if it can jar at times. But playing that role also requires that universities do not abuse the privileges they have. Only if both conditions are fulfilled can higher education institutions help create the identity and future of their nations.

Peter Gluckman is director of the Koi T¨± Centre for Informed Futures in Auckland, president of the International Science Council and university distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Auckland. This article expresses his personal views.