THE primary role of a university is not merely to transmit existing knowledge to a new generation; it is to expand the boundaries of human understanding through research. A university deprived of intellectual freedom is no longer a fertile foundry of new ideas; it turns into a factory — where the capacity to nurture genuine research and true scholarship gradually disappears.
Necessity of friction in research
TRUE research is inherently subversive. It is not simply the act of collecting data to support existing theories; it is the organised attempt to find flaws in the status quo. A sound research method (whether scientific, historical or sociological) depends on the ability to look at an established ‘fact’ or ‘idea’ and ask, ‘What if this is wrong?’
In an environment where speech and thought are restricted by political or any particular ideological dogma, this crucial first step is deemed dangerous. If questioning an established authority or idea carries the risk of professional ruin or physical harm, the intellectual risk-taking necessary for major breakthroughs vanishes.
Furthermore, the integrity of intellect relies on brutal, honest peer review. Research is validated only when peers are free to tear it apart looking for weaknesses. If a researcher is afraid to critique a flawed study because the author has powerful political backing, what the ‘science’ as well as ‘social science’ studies produce becomes unreliable theatre.
The authoritarian paradox: technicians vs pioneers
IT IS often argued that authoritarian regimes have historically achieved significant technical feats — such as the Soviet space programme or Nazi breakthroughs in rocketry — suggesting that freedom is unnecessary for scientific advancement.
This argument, however, misses a crucial nuance. A university under a restrictive regime sometimes can produce exceptional technicians, engineers and specialists in ‘hard’ sciences like physics or chemistry, where the subject matter is harder to immediately politicise. A regime can silo these scientists, granting them resources and a narrow scope of freedom within their laboratories while strictly controlling their speech outside of them.
Yet, this results in directed research, not curiosity-driven research. These scientists are excellent at following existing maps to a state-mandated destination, but they are rarely the ones who draw new maps. The world loses out on the ‘accidental’ discoveries that redefine history because the minds involved are not free to wander into unapproved territory.
Verdict of history: when dogma replaces data
HISTORY provides stark warnings about what happens when political or religious ideology is allowed to overrule empirical inquiry. When the ‘truth’ is mandated by the state rather than discovered through rigorous testing, entire fields of study can collapse, leading to generational stagnation or catastrophe.
Four historical examples illustrate this collapse:
Soviet Union and Lysenkoism (1930s–1960s): Perhaps the most infamous example of ideological science is the rise of Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics because he felt the concept of inherited traits contradicted Marxist-Leninist ideology. Under Stalin’s protection, Lysenkoism became the only officially allowed biological science; dissenting geneticists were imprisoned or executed. The result was a decades-long stagnation in Soviet biology and the implementation of flawed agricultural techniques that contributed to famines killing millions.
Nazi Germany and ‘Aryan Physics’ (1930s): Upon taking power, the Nazi regime attempted to ‘purify’ German science of ‘Jewish influence,’ targeting revolutionary concepts like Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics as ‘un-German.’ Roughly 15 per cent of university scientists were dismissed. This ideological purge decimated Germany’s position as the global epicentre of physics, handing the scientific lead (and many of its brightest minds, including Einstein) to the United States and Britain.
Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966–1976): During Mao Zedong’s ‘Ten Years of Chaos,’ intellectuals were targeted as class enemies. Universities across China were completely shut down for years. When they reopened, admissions were based on political loyalty rather than merit, and scientists were sent to manual labour camps for ‘re-education.’ The result was a ‘lost generation’ of scholars and a near-total halt to fundamental research.
Destruction of the Istanbul Observatory (1580): The destruction of the Istanbul Observatory of Taqi al-Din in 1580 serves as a haunting historical case study in how ideological suppression can derail the progress of an entire civilisation. At its height, the observatory represented the global pinnacle of astronomical research, housing instruments like the mural quadrant and specialised clocks that surpassed even the most advanced European tools of the era. Yet, this scientific golden age was abruptly extinguished when a series of misfortunes (including the appearance of the Great Comet of 1577 and a deadly plague) were weaponized by religious conservatives to argue that such empirical ‘prying into the heavens’ brought divine misfortune. Succumbing to political pressure from the Sheikh ul-Islam, Sultan Murad III ordered the Imperial Navy to physically level the observatory with cannons, a symbolic and literal destruction of rational inquiry.
Institutional consequences
BEYOND historical catastrophes, the lack of freedom creates a structural rot within the university itself that ensures mediocrity over time. A restrictive university inevitably suffers from ‘brain drain’, as top global minds refuse to work there, and home-grown talent flees at the first opportunity. Furthermore, the student mindset is corrupted; instead of being taught to ask ‘why?’ students are trained to ask ‘what is allowed?’ Finally, the global standing of the institution evaporates, as research produced under duress is viewed with scepticism by the international community.
Scholarly inquiries are fragile. It requires a protected space where unpopular ideas can be tested without threat. If the mind is not free to wander into ‘dangerous’ intellectual territory, it will never find the next breakthrough in any field of study. Without the safety to argue with power, the university ceases to be a cradle of discovery and becomes merely an instrument of the state. In other words, a university without freedom of speech and inquiry can function as a high-level technical training centre, producing graduates capable of executing complex tasks within known parameters. However, it cannot produce researchers in the truest sense of the word.
Sameeo Sheesh is a senior research fellow at the Center for Advanced Research in Arts and Social Sciences, University of Dhaka.
