Page:Open access and the humanities - contexts, controversies and the future.pdf/78

 such as Ubiquity Press put the ﬁgure for books closer to $3,200 (£2,000 GBP). In light of the precarious labour models of the academy, however, it is clear that this is a seriously ﬂawed model for the humanities and the outcry at APCs even within the university from tenured professors shows the kind of problems this could create for potential job applicants who cannot access fees. Indeed, this mode substantially worsens the situation for those at the bottom of the career ladder.26

It has also been argued, within the context of article and book processing charges, that this model for gold open access would impinge upon academic freedom, an aspect I have already brieﬂy touched upon.27 It is argued that funding mandates restrict academic freedom because they curtail the ability of academics without funding to publish in gold OA venues that have an article or book processing charge, or with other publishers without a policy on green archiving. While being sympathetic to such reasoning and also believing that APCs and BPCs at such rates are unaffordable for the humanities, I feel it is important to note that this argument requires a very speciﬁc reading of the formal term ‘academic freedom’. There are different deﬁnitions of academic freedom in countries worldwide, with varying degrees of legal standing. Take, for instance, the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by the American Association of University Professors which proclaims that ‘Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.’28 As Benjamin Ginsberg points out, this US context is hardly legally binding at all because ‘[i]n recent years, the federal courts have decided that deanlets, not professors, are entitled to academic freedom’ and that ‘professors’ ideas and utterances do not have any special constitutional status’.29 In the UK, via the Education Reform Act of 1988, the wording is even more restricted, although it is enshrined in law: ‘to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions’.30 In one reading, these statements could be seen as endorsing free choice regarding where to publish one’s research, in which case the arguments over academic freedom hold. In another take, though, one