On December 1, 2020, an online article by Harvard University’s Professor J. Mark Ramseyer was published in the renowned academic journal *International Review of Law and Economics*. The article, named “Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War,” was taken down recently from the website for further examination, having been subjected to concerns from scholars, women’s rights activists, and Koreans. These events caused a major dispute, both academically and globally.

“Comfort women” was the term used to refer to women who were sexually assaulted and raped by Japanese soldiers during World War II. Far undercutting the horror of what these women had undergone, the term derives from the act of “giving comfort to the soldiers.” The controversial article contends that wartime “comfort stations” were run by private entrepreneurs, instead of Japanese military officials. It also asserts that “comfort women” were permitted to negotiate their contracts with the station owners according to their personal needs and following the “basic game theoretic principles of credible commitments,” meaning that they engaged in prostitution based on their own free will.

The article was strongly criticized for these declarations. According to Hankyoreh, a Korean media outlet, an open letter of solidarity issued by activists around the world blasted Ramseyer’s argument. Some, however, disagreed to this response. Harvard president Laurence Bacow commented publicly that Ramseyer’s paper falls under the scope of free speech, and that Harvard cannot withdraw his paper because “academic freedom that we are all entitled to includes the freedom to express controversial views.”

The issue, then, is where to draw the line regarding freedom of speech in academia; what divides legitimate research from unpublishable work? Academic freedom should only be applicable on the premise that the study has research integrity, a justifiably core component of all research. The European Federation of Academies of Humanities and Sciences cites honesty, respect, and accountability as the underlying principles of research integrity. These three principles altogether mean that researchers have a responsibility to genuinely pursue answers and not consciously manipulate or misrepresent the collected data.

While academic freedom should be protected, it must not be abused to justify falsehoods and distortions. In this case, the extent of academic freedom does not extend to Ramseyer’s paper because the article cannot be deemed historically accurate. The paper repeatedly obscures how events unfolded. For instance, Ramseyer’s act of miswriting the number of comfort women who were able to go back to their countries goes beyond the rights provided by free speech. Moreover, the system of so-called “comfort women” is a war crime and an atrocious human rights violation, as continually confirmed by major international institutions such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists. Even Japan’s own Yamaguchi District Court confirmed the illegality of the military’s use of sexual slavery in 1998.

The range of academic freedom has been a controversy for decades, of which a leading question has been whether distorted perspectives should indeed be allowed. In terms of Ramseyer’s paper, which excludes and manipulates facts to support his claim, it is safe to contend that it should not be protected by scholastic liberty.