There is a note of activism hanging in the air in many universities, a sense that studying, teaching, and researching is not enough – or, that such traditional academic activities should contribute to the wider society and wider world beyond the educational programmes, university campuses, scholarly journals, and academic circles. New forms of agency become visible amongst junior researchers forming unions locally and nationally and engaging into critical discussions with institutional leadership levels about precarity, employment, wellbeing, and social justice issues (Bengtsen, 2021). Or amongst students and teachers forming more value-based and non-hierarchical participatory academic communities (Aaen and Nørgård, 2015). Around the world concerns arise about a threatened academic freedom tying the choices of research and teaching focus ever more tightly together to policy-driven agendas of professionalisation and marketisation of higher education, diminishing also student freedom and the criticality of student voices (Macfarlane, 2016) and tying universities still closer to state-driven politics (Wright et al., 2020). The growing dissatisfaction with performance indicators, micro-management, league tables, and ranking systems is becoming ever more visible in public debate, union politics, and as part of the research itself. Resistance strategies are also emerging in an effort to activate a re-configuring of the university against anti-intellectual and anti-democratic currents in global politics. We see academic communities starting up grass-roots initiatives around the sharing of understandings and experiences of academic activism in different institutional and national contexts (Dakka and Morini, 2020). But also, we see more tiny revolts in the form of (in)activism, positive ‘irresponsibility’, and everyday muddled activism in an effort to regain an academic life worth living.

中文翻译：

---

激进主义大学和大学激进主义——社论

许多大学都弥漫着激进主义的气息，认为学习、教学和研究是不够的——或者，这种传统的学术活动应该为教育计划、大学校园之外的更广泛的社会和更广阔的世界做出贡献、学术期刊和学术界。在地方和全国范围内组建工会的初级研究人员中，新形式的代理变得显而易见，并与机构领导层就不稳定、就业、福祉和社会正义问题进行了批判性讨论（Bengtsen，2021 年）。或者在学生和教师中形成更多基于价值和非等级的参与性学术社区（Aaen 和 Nørgård，2015 年）。全世界都在担心受到威胁的学术自由将研究和教学重点的选择与高等教育专业化和市场化的政策驱动议程更加紧密地联系在一起，从而削弱了学生自由和学生声音的批判性（Macfarlane，2016 年）并使大学更接近国家驱动的政治（Wright 等，2020）。对绩效指标、微观管理、排名表和排名系统的日益不满在公共辩论、工会政治中以及作为研究本身的一部分变得越来越明显。抵抗策略也正在出现，以努力激活大学的重新配置，以对抗全球政治中的反知识分子和反民主潮流。我们看到学术界围绕在不同机构和国家背景下分享对学术激进主义的理解和经验发起了草根倡议（Dakka 和 Morini，2020 年）。但是，我们也看到了更多以（不）激进主义、积极的“不负责任”和日常混乱的激进主义为形式的微小反抗，以努力重新获得值得过的学术生活。