In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.

Welcome to Academic Freedom on Life Support, hosted by Joshua Scheer. In this episode, we speak with Austin Sarat, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College, and one of the first contributors to our project examining the nationwide crisis facing higher education. Sarat argues that “academic freedom in the United States is facing the greatest sustained attack in more than three quarters of a century” —a moment he compares to the height of McCarthyism.

Drawing on two of his recent pieces for ScheerPost, Sarat breaks down how the Trump administration’s campaign against expertise, its efforts to discipline universities, and the rise of students acting as ideological informants have created a climate of fear, confusion, and self‑censorship on campuses. He explains the crucial distinction between free speech and academic freedom, why open inquiry requires courage, and how the very mission of the university is being tested.

This conversation is part of our ongoing effort to document what’s being lost—and what’s worth fighting for—as academic freedom comes under unprecedented pressure.

We’ve published Austin’s work many times through our project and look forward to speaking with him again as we continue to follow this battle over academic freedom. His latest piece Does Careerism Threaten Academic Commitment and Academic Freedom?,

and the two articles we discuss on the show are 2025 Rekindled Commitments to Academic Freedom Nationwide, and There’s an Intensifying Kind of Threat to Academic Freedom – Watchful Students Serving As Informants.

Our Academic Freedom Page has more

Subscribe to the podcast: Apple, Spotify

Highlights & Key Takeaways From the Interview

1. Academic freedom is under the most intense pressure in 75 years.

Austin Sarat opens with a stark assessment: “Academic freedom in the United States is facing the greatest sustained attack in more than three quarters of a century.” This moment, he says, echoes the McCarthy era.

2. A federal campaign against expertise is reshaping universities.

Sarat argues that the Trump administration’s broader assault on expert knowledge has placed universities under suspicion because they “purport to rely on, deliver, and respect expert knowledge.” The goal, he says, is to pressure institutions to “hew to a line that more closely resembles the views of the Trump administration.”

3. Free speech and academic freedom are not the same — and most people don’t know the difference.

He stresses that both concepts are widely misunderstood, even on campuses. Free speech protects expression from government censorship; academic freedom is a professional obligation tied to truth‑seeking. As he puts it, “Academic freedom is not license… it’s highly disciplined.”

4. The rise of student informants reflects confusion, not technology.

Sarat downplays the smartphone itself and focuses on the misunderstanding behind it: students “think they understand free speech [and] academic freedom, but I don’t think they often do.” This confusion fuels surveillance, complaints, and self‑censorship.

5. Courage is now part of the job.

He notes that academic freedom has always required bravery — and today requires even more: “The courage to pursue knowledge wherever it leads, no matter who it upsets.”

6. The crisis has sparked a revival of interest and organizing.

Despite the pressure, Sarat points to real progress: academic freedom has moved “from the periphery… to the center,” AAUP membership has surged, and courts are drawing clearer lines around what universities can and cannot do.

EDITED TRANSCRIPT

Opening

Joshua Scheer: This is a special podcast we do called Academic Freedom on Life Support. One of our first writers for ScheerPost on this subject is Austin Sarat. He is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

The Current Moment

Joshua Scheer: We’re discussing two of your articles today: 2025 Rekindled Commitments to Academic Freedom Nationwide and There’s an Intensifying Kind of Threat to Academic Freedom — Watchful Students Serving as Informants. You write that “we don’t know what we’ve got until it’s gone.” What makes academic freedom feel newly fragile in 2025?

Austin Sarat: Academic freedom in the United States is facing the greatest sustained attack in more than three‑quarters of a century. The last time we saw anything like this was at the height of the McCarthy era. The attack is being led by the Trump administration, which has made disciplining colleges and universities one of its central policies.

They’ve done so in the name of protecting students from antisemitism and advancing their own view of free speech. They believe colleges and universities are hotbeds of leftist thinking and want them to hew to a line that more closely resembles the views of the administration.

Tyrants, Truth, and Expertise

Joshua Scheer: You quote a professor who says, “Tyrants hate truth… Tyrants hate scholars for the same reason.” That seems to fit what’s happening now. And you’ve said this isn’t really about “the left,” right?

Austin Sarat: I think you need to keep two things separate. First, the Trump administration has launched a broad‑scale attack on various forms of expertise. We’ve seen it in the policies of the Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy. Universities come under suspicion because they rely on and produce expert knowledge.

That attack doesn’t necessarily have to do with the left politically. Why would you defund scientists working on cancer research? That’s not a left‑right issue. But officials in the administration also don’t like what is being said in classrooms. They believe it advances a line sympathetic to the political left and hostile to their agenda.

Free Speech vs. Academic Freedom

Joshua Scheer: You write about Professor Stanley Fish and the difference between academic freedom and free speech. How do you see that distinction?

Austin Sarat: Both concepts are not very well understood, even on college campuses. Free speech means the government can’t stop you from speaking because it doesn’t like what you’re saying. It applies mainly to public universities.

Academic freedom is different. In the classroom, the job of the faculty member is to use academic freedom in the pursuit of truth. That means academic freedom provides less protection for speech than free speech does. Students often think freedom means license — “I can say whatever I want.” Academic freedom is not license. It is highly disciplined and tied to the norms of the profession.

Is Everything Political?

Joshua Scheer: There’s also the split between fields. A physics professor might think their work is apolitical, while a political science professor deals with charged issues. How do you balance that?

Austin Sarat: The line between the nonpolitical and the political is less sharp than you make it out to be. A biologist might talk about the physiology of gender. An environmental scientist might talk about climate change. A legal historian teaching 16th‑century England might have no more political content than the physicist.

My job is not to advance a political agenda. It’s to teach through the lens of my discipline. The classroom is not a space for “I like President Trump.” It’s a space for knowledge.

People who criticize universities often say certain viewpoints aren’t welcome. But open inquiry is not the same as viewpoint diversity. I can put five liberals and five conservatives together and still not get open inquiry. Open inquiry is a disposition — curiosity, empathy, and a willingness to examine your own views.

Students as Informants

Joshua Scheer: You wrote about students serving as informants — recording professors, filing ideological complaints. How serious is that?

Austin Sarat: I don’t think the smartphone is the problem. The problem is that students think they understand free speech and academic freedom, but often they don’t. Colleges need to do a much better job educating students — and faculty — about academic freedom.

If professors are unwilling to say anything that might upset students, that’s a form of self‑censorship that interferes with academic freedom. Academic freedom has always required courage — the courage to pursue knowledge wherever it leads, no matter who it upsets. Today it may require even more.

Signs of Hope

Joshua Scheer: Your article Rekindled Commitments to Academic Freedom Nationwide ends on a hopeful note. What victories do you see?

Austin Sarat: One major victory is what ScheerPost is doing with this project. Students, many faculty, and people outside the academy are not well informed about academic freedom or open inquiry. Something that was taken for granted has now been put at center stage.

Membership in the AAUP has skyrocketed. Judges have drawn clearer lines around what colleges and universities can and should do. It’s an old story: you take something for granted until it’s threatened. Since January 20, 2025, academic freedom has moved from the periphery to the center.

No one would have wished for an attack to revive interest in it, but that’s what has happened. And that’s why talking about academic freedom on campuses and beyond is more important than ever.

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.