<p>Academic freedom is widely regarded as foundational to higher education and democratic society, yet its meaning, scope, and perceived threats remain contested. While most publications focus on legal, institutional, or historical dimensions of academic freedom, little empirical research has explored how academic stakeholders themselves <i>perceive</i> academic freedom. This study fills that gap using Q methodology, a mixed-methods approach designed to scientifically study subjectivity. A diverse set of faculty, staff, alumni, and graduate students sorted 45 statements about academic freedom to reveal shared viewpoints. Two distinct perspectives emerged: <i>Academic Freedom is Threatened</i> emphasizes administrative overreach and defends unionization as essential for protecting faculty autonomy and institutional integrity. In contrast, <i>Academic Freedom as Individual Professionalism</i> centers academic freedom in personal ethics, disciplinary expertise, and professional responsibility—while expressing skepticism about unionization and the misuse of academic freedom by some faculty. The latter represents a meritocratic ideal in academia and has not been associated with views of academic freedom in previous studies. Nonetheless, the meritocracy view also ignores inequalities and structural barriers for all types of faculty. However, despite these divergent views, both factors affirm academic freedom as a public good. This study contributes a critical empirical lens to contemporary debates about academic freedom, offering higher education leaders, unionists, and policymakers a clearer understanding of the plurality of views that shape academic freedom’s defense. Recognizing these differences may be essential for sustaining meaningful protections in increasingly politicized academic environments.</p>