Since their inception, universities have been regarded as lighthouses guiding the storm-tossed ship of society. These institutions, tasked with generating ideas that shape and secure the future of societies, must themselves cultivate a healthy environment that serves as a model for the broader community. However, in today’s academia, the experiences of many students and academic staff fall short of these ideals. Increasingly, academics refrain from speaking out about values and principles, remaining silent in the face of injustice and unfairness within their own institutions. This growing tendency toward silence and indifference has been termed the "culture of silence", a culture in which individuals avoid speaking up when necessary, often out of fear of the consequences.
This culture of silence is a root cause of many issues affecting academics and academia. Among these are the rising rates of harassment and discrimination cases, as well as the growing prevalence of anxiety and depression among academics. In the USA, 28 to 64% of graduate students are depressed, depending on the field of study, in contrast to the 7% for the USA general population. Worse yet, many avoid speaking up about their mental health issues, fearing the potential negative impact such disclosures might have on their future careers.
At first glance, the root cause of the issue can be found in the hierarchical nature of the academic management system. Hierarchies can help organizations run smoothly as long as they evolve in response to constructive criticism. However, they can introduce rigid and stagnant power imbalances if there are no systems in place to provide transparency and accountability. One academic area that has suffered from a lack of transparency and accountability is institutional hiring and promotion mechanisms, which lead scientists to remain silent to avoid potential repercussions that may affect their careers.
Two of the hiring mechanisms that entrench the culture of silence in academia are reference letters and the tenure track system.
Reference letter: Genuine Assessment or Just a Thumbs Up/Down?
It is not precisely known when reference letters became part of the academic enrollment process, but it is understood that in the early 20th century reference letters were more useful and tended to be candid. This was before the onset of “reference inflation” in the 1960s, when the tone of such letters became uniformly positive and no longer always reflected reality. This issue is well illustrated by Dr. Andrew Flagel, former Vice President of Student Affairs at Brandeis University, who noted in a statement reported by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP): “'I can attest that over the course of my career [since the early 1990s]... anything less than a superlative and entirely supportive recommendation from a college counselor can be regarded as a message that there are concerns about the student”.
In other words, rather than offering genuine and honest insights about candidates to help recruiters make informed decisions both before and after enrollment, reference letters have essentially become a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down signal from the former supervisor to the recruiter. This is where reference letters become susceptible to bias, particularly because the comments and terms used are often subjective and lack measurable criteria. This lack of measurability undermines accountability and transparency. It should be noted that if judgment about a candidate is to be based on tangible factors such as the number of publications, grades, awards, or other achievements, these can all be found in their CV. Therefore, there is no need for the involvement of a third party’s personal judgment that most of the time falls in the conflict of interest. Several inquiries have reported the exploitation of reference letters as an effective means of retaliation and control against supervisees who challenge unfair practices or stand up for their rights.
Beyond the inherent issues with the transparency of reference letters in the recruitment process, the requirement for these letters grants unlimited control over trainees, thereby reinforcing the culture of silence in academia. The question is simple: How can a trainee feel confident speaking up when they know that their future might be ruined by a confidential letter written by the same people they are criticizing, even if they have a strong CV? The controlling atmosphere created by letter-writing practices in academia is overwhelming.
Tenure-Track Recruitment: Safeguarding Academic Freedom or Eroding It?
Originally designed to protect professors and allow them to express political and social ideas without fear of dismissal, today’s system often has the opposite effect. The procedures required to achieve tenure encourage young professors to remain silent and refrain from speaking out when necessary. There are several written criteria for receiving tenure, which differ slightly depending on the university, including number of research papers, citations, teaching evaluations, seminar presentations, etc. However, the most important parameter, which is not written in the regulation and which carries significant weight, is whether the assistant professor is considered a “good fit” for the department. It is difficult to consider a young professor a “good fit” when they seriously criticize departmental policies or politics, raise their voice against the misconduct of senior professors, or stand up against bullying and exploiting voice-less students. It is common practice among universities to keep discussions about candidates during promotion committee meetings confidential. Hence, candidates who were denied tenure will not have a clear idea about the arguments that were presented against them in such committees.
An assistant professor must remain in a tenure-track position for several years, after which tenure is granted only if they receive a favorable departmental vote. How, then, can we expect a young faculty member to criticize senior colleagues when their future depends on the very votes of these same individuals? The system seems either to filter out critical scholars or to suppress and extinguish their sense of criticism toward the mainstream.
On the other hand, while this system discourages young tenure-track professors from being critical, it can give senior tenured faculty a sense of impunity and unaccountability, reducing oversight and enabling misconduct. Thus, a system intended to ensure academic freedom has paradoxically become a major driver of self-censorship among young tenure-track professors and promoting the culture of silence, and at the same time granting such impunity to tenure scholars that undermine the concept of accountability in academia.
Where the Roots of All Issues Converge: Transparency and Accountability
In this essay, we have analyzed two academic mechanisms that have evolved into filters that exclude young scholars who are more openly critical of existing structures and mechanisms, or who refuse to be submissive to circumstances. Both mechanisms were established for legitimate reasons; however, the lack of transparency and accountability has turned them into major contributors to the prevailing culture of silence. The academic culture will need a structural self-reform to break this vicious cycle. The realms of science and literature deserve to serve as models for other institutions, instead of lagging behind them.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
About the authors:
Ali Farrokhi received his PhD in microbiology from the Université de Montréal, where his research focused on the bacterial cell cycle. He is currently working as a microbiologist at Pharmascience. His academic interests include justice and inclusion in academia.
Angel F. Cisneros received his PhD in biochemistry from Université Laval. He is currently a postdoc studying the evolution of protein-protein interactions. His interests include science communication and encouraging ECRs to tell their stories.
