Research & Teaching

Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in science and the pursuit of knowledge. However, recent evidence indicates a decline in such freedom in the academy with rising calls for sanctions against scholars who make statements about matters of public interest that are perceived as controversial. Using a novel dataset, we examine the effect of these incidents using a series of difference-in-difference designs. We find that the affected scholar’s body of work, published prior to the incident, receives 4 percent fewer citations after the incident. Affected scholars also become less productive after the incidents, publishing 20 percent fewer works, and receiving 15 percent fewer citations than scholars with similar characteristics. Scholars at the same institutions and those in closer coauthorship networks tend to cite the work of affected scholars less often suggesting a 'distancing' effect as one of the mechanisms. Leveraging a large language model (GPT4) to assist with the classification of the rich qualitative data, we find that negative effects are observable for incidents involving subjects within and outside of the scholar’s academic field, and whether or not the incidents are based on statements classified as hate speech or not. Our paper sheds light on the theoretical framework of the Mertonian norm of universalism: do scientists separate the research from the researcher's personal characteristics? The evidence we present suggests this norm may not be upheld, which has implications for the inclusivity, objectivity, and trust in science.