KNAW calls for academic freedom to be enshrined in the Constitution
The academy says current legal protection is too vulnerable and calls for a firmer constitutional foundation.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) wants academic freedom to be protected more explicitly in the Constitution. The recommendation appears in the KNAW’s new report on the legal protection of freedom of science.
The report, entitled Freedom Enshrined, was published this year and examines how researchers and institutions can be better protected by law from political or other pressure. The KNAW recommends enshrining academic freedom in the Constitution. This would mean that freedom was named not only in ordinary legislation, but also as a fundamental right in the Constitution.
The Netherlands already has legal protection in place. Article 1.6 of the Higher Education and Research Act (WHW) requires higher education institutions and academic hospitals to respect academic freedom. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also protects freedom of science.
According to the KNAW, this basis is not sufficiently robust. In its work programme, the academy points to pressure from political direction, the intimidation of scientists, restrictions on international cooperation and conflicts within the academic community. The report does not therefore state that research is generally banned or systematically censored in the Netherlands.
A constitutional amendment does not follow automatically from the advice. The Cabinet and Parliament must first decide whether to adopt the proposal and how exactly a new provision should be worded. The Minister for Education had previously asked the KNAW to advise on the existing protection and on whether inclusion in the Constitution was desirable.
This raises a substantive dilemma. Academic freedom protects the scope to determine research questions, methods and conclusions independently. At the same time, universities are public institutions funded with taxpayers’ money and must be able to set rules for safety, scientific integrity and knowledge security.
The debate is therefore not only about whether freedom should be protected, but also about the boundary between protection and oversight. A constitutional article may make the government more restrained, but it will not automatically resolve problems such as threats on social media, dependence on funders or pressure within institutions.
The KNAW wants its advice to deepen the political debate. The House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) has previously called for better legal protection, while the government pointed to the existing statutory rules and ongoing European initiatives. The advice now makes the choice more concrete: according to the academy, additional protection should not be left solely to ordinary legislation.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- In 2026, the KNAW published a report on the legal safeguarding of academic freedom.
- Academic freedom is already included in Article 1.6 of the WHW and is also protected under European law.
- The minister asked the KNAW about the desirability of enshrining it in the Constitution.
- No decision has yet been taken to amend the Constitution.
Left
Arguments Academic freedom deserves the strongest legal protection because science must be able to take a critical stance towards those in power, funders and majority views. A constitutional article can prevent temporary political majorities from restricting the scope for independent research.
Values Criticism of power, equal access to knowledge and protection of minority views.
Consequences An explicit fundamental right could give institutions and judges a firmer framework, but would also require clear rules against intimidation and exclusion within academia.
Centre
Arguments Existing legislation already provides protection; the question is whether the problem is primarily legal or organisational. The consequences for knowledge security, funding, oversight and the relationship with freedom of education must first be examined carefully.
Values Institutional stability, legal certainty and practicability.
Consequences A gradual approach avoids symbolic legislation, but supporters say it may provide too little protection as long as the advice does not lead to concrete measures.
Right
Arguments Free science is important, but a new fundamental right must not be used to remove public institutions from democratic oversight. Universities must retain the scope to safeguard quality, integrity, safety and the responsible use of public funds.
Values Responsibility, pluralism and democratic legitimacy.
Consequences Caution over a constitutional amendment limits constitutional uncertainty, but requires existing rules against political pressure and threats to be properly enforced.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The legal status of academic freedom, the new KNAW report and the ongoing advisory process were checked against KNAW and parliamentary sources. The article clearly distinguishes between advice and an actual decision to amend the Constitution.
- confirmed The KNAW published the report Freedom Enshrined in 2026. — The KNAW publication page lists its publication status as 2026. source
- confirmed Article 1.6 of the WHW requires institutions to respect academic freedom. — This is stated in the minister’s answers to the Senate. source
- confirmed The minister had asked the KNAW about legal safeguarding and possible constitutional enshrinement. — The advisory question and its wording appear in the parliamentary document. source
- confirmed No decision has yet been taken on a constitutional amendment. — The parliamentary documents describe an advisory and exploratory process, not an adopted constitutional amendment. source
- confirmed The KNAW identifies political direction, intimidation, international cooperation and internal tensions as themes relating to academic freedom. — These four themes appear in the KNAW work programme. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the KNAW published a report on legal safeguarding in 2026 and that constitutional protection was part of the advisory question. No decision has yet been taken on a constitutional amendment; nor has the precise wording of any potential new fundamental right been settled.Sources
- Vrijheid verankerd. Naar een versterkte juridische borging van academische vrijheid — KNAW
- Adviesfunctie KNAW Werkprogramma per april 2026 — KNAW
- Kamerstuk 31288, nr. R — Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal
- Plenaire verslagen 2025-2026, nr. 8 — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „academische vrijheid”
- AD — „academische vrijheid”
- de Volkskrant — „academische vrijheid”