The preceding chapterAsymmetry, Epistemic illuminated how academic freedomAcademic Freedom is variably understood, practiced, and constrained across global academic spaces. It raised a deeperEpistemic Asymmetry, often unspoken question: freedom for what kind of knowledge, for whom and by whom? As universities increasingly champion ideals of autonomy, open inquiry, and pluralism, they must also confront the epistemic architectures that silently shape whose knowledge is legitimized, whose methods are valued, and whose voices are systematically marginalized. This chapter delves into the epistemic asymmetries that undergird contemporary academic institutions. While much attention is given to defending freedom of thought, less scrutiny is directed at the frameworks that determine which thoughts are deemed worthy of academic recognition. What counts as “knowledgeKnowledge,” what is classified as “truth-seekingTruth-Seeking,” and who qualifies as an “expert” are not neutral or timeless designations. Rather, they are embedded in long-standing historical patterns shaped by colonial inheritances, disciplinary gatekeeping, and global inequalities in knowledge production. In response, the chapter delves further into the concept of Epistemic Dharma, the ethical and contextual responsibility of universities to steward knowledge with integrity, inclusivityInclusivity, and care. As a normative anchor, Epistemic DharmaEpistemic DharmaDharma (Epistemic, Institutional, Relational) offers a framework for addressing epistemic asymmetries and advancing Epistemic JusticeEpistemic Justice. Building on the previous chapters, the discussion shifts from the question of freedom to that of recognition and responsibility, reimagining the university as a pluralistic and ethically grounded space of inquiry.