There were cases in the last months which have called attention to freedom of expression in universities and the academic sphere in Hungary. Academic freedom is extremely diverse: it encompasses many things, from the freedom of educators to choose their topics and conduct research, to scientific statements on public affairs, to issues concerning institutional independence. In this blog post, I will mention several examples concerning different areas of academia. My goal is not to dissect each issue and sub-issue, but to point out that academic thinkers are like cats: they cannot be herded. And if they can be, then they are no longer academic thinkers.

Recent Cases in Hungary

Zoltán Fleck (ELTE University, Faculty of Law), told in a public event that “if the opposition wins next year’s election, they should pressure the President, even by threatening or blackmailing him, to secure the formation of a government”, because the President could otherwise ask someone else to try to form a government or call new elections.

Tamás Sulyok, the president of Hungary, reacted on Facebook, sharply condemning Fleck’s words and rhetorically asking whether “Fleck wants street fighting or a revolution”; Sulyok called the remarks “a call to collective criminality and urged all political forces to reject such unconstitutional and violent ideas, or risk removing themselves from democratic discourse”. The episode prompted wider coverage and official reactions: several outlets reported the controversy, and the government circles expressed disquiet; ELTE stated that Fleck participated in the event as a private person. Fleck later said he meant political pressure rather than criminal blackmail and defended his comments as resistance to what he described as “authoritarian practice”. Fleck was not limited in his freedom of expression, but the chilling effect of the president’s words is obvious.

Bulcsú Bognár, a former associate professor at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of Pázmány Péter Catholic University, was dismissed after refusing to accept that the university labeled his academic paper — which examined the relationship between religiosity and social attitudes toward LGBTQ people — as “offensive to the Catholic spirit.” The university officially cited organizational restructuring as the reason for his termination, but Bognár argues this was merely a pretext. He believes the dean disapproves of faculty members researching LGBTQ-related topics and that is unlawful based on the Hungarian equal treatment law. Moreover, it violates the freedom of academic freedom.

The restructuring allegedly affected only Bognár, despite his being one of the most academically qualified lecturers at the Institute, with the highest number of publications and international citations. His disputed paper was published in Religions, a well-known international journal. Although the university’s rules entitled him to an honorarium for such publications, the administration first amended the policy to exclude works deemed contrary to the “Catholic spirit,” then denied his payment under the new rule. After the university refused to explain what aspect of his study violated Catholic values and subsequently terminated his employment, Bognár — with the legal support of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union — filed a lawsuit, claiming unlawful dismissal.  The legality of this issue has not yet been decided by the competent Hungarian court. His filing might point out that other faculty members and students have faced disadvantages for engaging with LGBTQ topics. As Bognár stated: “We can only preserve university autonomy if we stand up against arbitrary restrictions on academic freedom. That’s why I turned to the courts.” We can guess that Bognár referred to both individual and institutional autonomy in this opinion.

At the same institution, ethical and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against three lecturers since they examined the acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities in their academic work and wrote that, as lecturers and psychologists at a Catholic university, they believe that all relationships based on love are equal. They were disciplined after writing that “all relationships based on love are equal”; only one is starting the new academic year at the Catholic university, while the other two resigned in August.

Not Accidents

These stories haven’t happened accidentally. Over the past fifteen years, the Hungarian government has systematically reduced the legal and institutional autonomy of universities, primarily through legislative changes that shifted control from academic bodies to politically appointed or government-aligned entities. The most significant step came with the 2011 Higher Education Act, which replaced earlier guarantees of self-governance with a centralized model. It gave the government extensive powers over university finances, appointments, and institutional strategy. University senates lost their former authority to elect rectors freely; instead, rectors were nominated by the minister. This effectively subordinates university leadership to government approval, eroding internal democratic decision-making.

It must be mentioned here that in 2017, the Parliament introduced a law, widely referred to as “Lex CEU”, that imposed new, seemingly arbitrary requirements on foreign universities operating in Hungary. The law required such universities to have a campus in their country of origin and to operate under an intergovernmental agreement between Hungary and that country. The legislation clearly targeted the Central European University (CEU), founded by George Soros, who is considered a political enemy. Although the CEU quickly complied by establishing a small U.S. campus and securing the necessary agreements, the Hungarian authorities refused to recognize these efforts, effectively making it impossible for the university to continue issuing U.S.-accredited degrees in Hungary.

As a result, CEU announced in late 2018 that it would relocate most of its programs and operations to Vienna, Austria, while maintaining a small presence in Budapest. The move was widely condemned by international academic and human rights organizations as a politically motivated attack on academic freedom and pluralism. In 2020, the European Court of Justice ruled that Hungary’s actions violated EU law on academic freedom and the freedom to provide services, but the ruling came too late to reverse CEU’s relocation. The episode became emblematic of Hungary’s democratic backsliding and the government’s broader campaign against independent institutions perceived as critical of its policies.

A third, even more consequential move was the 2021 transformation of most Hungarian public universities into private “public trust foundations”. Under this model, the state transferred ownership of public assets and institutions to newly created foundations whose governing boards, often composed of political appointees or individuals close to the ruling party, gained permanent control over university property, long-term strategic decisions, and the selection of rectors. Because the foundations are legally independent from the state yet dominated by government allies, this structure has effectively insulated universities from public oversight while stripping academic communities of control over their own governance and finances.

Legally, these reforms have created a hybrid system that undermines both academic freedom and constitutional guarantees of institutional autonomy. By blurring the boundary between public and private ownership, the government has circumvented constitutional limits on state control while retaining decisive influence over higher education. Attempts by academic and civil society actors to challenge these measures — including appeals to the Constitutional Court and to the European Union — have so far produced limited results. The European Commission has, however, suspended certain EU research and mobility funds (notably Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe) for foundation-run universities, citing governance and conflict-of-interest concerns. This obviously does not help the short-term development of academic freedom, as it excludes students and teachers from participating in the European blood circulation. However, the necessity of the measure has drawn attention to the problem. In sum, through legal restructuring, the Hungarian government has achieved a lasting concentration of control over higher education while maintaining the appearance of pluralism and decentralization.

Globally, Indeed

In recent years, global academic freedom has faced a marked decline, with governments across democratic and authoritarian systems increasingly exerting political, financial, and ideological pressure on universities. In the United States, the first Trump administration (2017–2021) exemplified this trend through policies and rhetoric that targeted the autonomy and credibility of academic institutions. The administration repeatedly accused universities of “liberal bias” and promoted measures that sought to limit critical race theory, gender studies, and diversity programs, framing them as politically motivated rather than scholarly. Federal agencies were instructed to review grants for potential “anti-American” content, and executive orders were issued threatening funding cuts to institutions that allegedly restricted conservative speech.

The U.S. Department of Education also intervened in campus free speech disputes (see the ACLU’s summary), using them to justify broader federal oversight of university policies, while the administration’s anti-immigration stance, especially restrictions on student and researcher visas, disrupted international academic collaboration and mobility. The government further attempted to condition federal research funding on ideological compliance, undermining the traditional separation between academic inquiry and political influence.

These actions did not dismantle U.S. academic freedom outright, as the country’s constitutional and institutional checks remained strong, but they normalized political intrusion into higher education and emboldened attacks on academic expertise. In doing so, the Trump administration contributed to a global pattern in which governments seek to delegitimize independent knowledge production, portraying universities as partisan actors rather than essential democratic institutions.

Rooted in History?

István Polónyi (University of Debrecen, Faculty of Arts), a Hungarian education researcher writes that the medieval university (studium generale): “an organization of teachers and students with considerable legislative autonomy, the right to establish statutes and elect their own officials, and a seal, the recognized attribute of authenticity (…). In the thirteenth century, universities had to obtain papal or royal confirmation of their ‘generale’ status sooner or later.” Institutional autonomy was therefore not complete even in the early days. In addition to institutional autonomy, academic freedom was also widespread. Professors could teach in their fields without external control. However, academic freedom was not absolute either. Both the church and the state exercised some control over what could be taught. Professors whose teachings conflicted with those of the Roman Catholic Church were sometimes sanctioned. (For example, Martin Luther was removed from his professorship because of his theological views.) But loyalty to the civil authorities was also expected.

Nevertheless, there was greater freedom of expression at universities than in other parts of society. Altbach emphasizes that academic freedom is central to the mission of the university. It is an essential condition for teaching and research. A developed higher education system cannot exist without academic freedom.

So, we have a great tradition of both freedom and barriers. In 1996, the Hungarian Constitutional Court also confirmed the tradition that academic freedom must be respected. This, therefore, confirmed by the Constitutional Court on the basis of well-known arguments, is also part of Hungarian constitutional tradition.

ECHR Context – The Case of Turkey

Modern human rights thinking has been trying to cover academic freedom as well. In a landmark decision, Sorguç v. Turkey, the ECHR underlines the importance of academics’ freedom, which comprises the academics’ freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction.

Moreover, Robert Spano, President of the ECHR, accepted an honorary doctorate from Istanbul University. He used the occasion to emphasize the importance of academic freedom and free speech as central to democratic societies under the rule of law. He was reaffirming academic freedom’s indispensable role in democracy and pointing to concrete legal rulings that affirm protection for academics under freedom of expression / academic freedom.

Spano discussed the Kula v. Turkey case. In that case, a professor at the University of Mersin participated in a TV program; his superiors thought that participation in the program was not suitable. The faculty dean and disciplinary board intervened, resulting in a reprimand. The disciplinary action was justified under a regulation that required advance permission (or “authorization”) for leaving one’s town of residence. The European Court’s ruling held that even this seemingly small sanction could affect freedom of expression and have a “chilling effect.” It found that academic freedom includes participation in public discourse and that restrictions should be subject to effective judicial review. Spano also mentioned a 2019 Turkish Constitutional Court decision which emphasized that academics enjoy broader protections for expressing their opinions, so long as they do not praise or glorify violence. The court reaffirmed that public authorities and institutions must tolerate criticism, even when it is uncomfortable. In general, Spano emphasized that academic freedom is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. He notes that academic freedom covers not only what is taught or researched, but also the dissemination of knowledge, the freedom to express ideas (including controversial ones), and to take part in public debate. He underscores the medieval idea that universities must be forums for robust and free debate, especially on matters of social concern. They have a special role in cultivating critical thought, dissent, and independence of mind. Without these, democracy suffers.

Conclusions

The recent controversies surrounding Zoltán Fleck, Bulcsú Bognár and others are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a deeper structural problem: the steady erosion of academic freedom and university autonomy in Hungary. As institutional independence diminishes, the space for genuine academic debate and dissent shrinks with it. The result is a pervasive chilling effect, one so comprehensive that the very conditions for scientific inquiry begin to disappear.

While social sciences often become the first victims of political pressure, the consequences extend far beyond them. If freedom of research and expression is constrained, it affects every field, from climate science to medical research. These are precisely the areas where society most needs open inquiry and courageous truth-telling. This is most needed when the executive branch is least willing to hear it.

Moreover, regulating or disciplining scientists into conformity is like herding cats: impossible without destroying what makes them scientists in the first place. This may be possible in a large, free market where academics can always find institutions where they are free to conduct research, teach, and express their opinions on social issues, but it is certainly not possible in a small, state-controlled institutional environment. Genuine research cannot thrive under fear or constraint; once scholars are told what conclusions they may reach or as we have seen in the Hungarian examples, when researchers face some form of retaliation or the prospect of retaliation because of their research findings or social opinions.

Robert Spano’s reflections make it clear that the dissemination of ideas is not merely an individual right but a public good. Academic freedom serves democracy itself: it ensures that knowledge, debate, and critique remain independent from power. Protecting this freedom, therefore, is not only a matter of defending freedom of expression; it is a matter of defending the very capacity of societies to learn, to progress, and to remain free. When the authorities attempt to restrict this, they should clearly demonstrate why and how this contributes to the public good.

---

Attila SZABÓ: The author obtained his PhD in law from the University of Szeged in 2025. He obtained his LLM degree in EU law from the Deák Ferenc Institute of Pázmány Péter Catholic University. He obtained his law degree from the University of Debrecen in 2015. The author is currently the Head of the Legal Aid Service of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union which provides legal representation in one of the mentioned cases.