The Otago University statement on free speech is stunningly good. The drafts from VUW, Massey and Auckland are full of weasel words that will allow universities to suppress unpopular views. But the Otago one is so good, it should be a template for the other seven universities. Some extracts:
Free speech is the lifeblood of a university. It enables the exploration of ideas, the challenging of assumptions, and the uncovering of truth through open exchange. It allows students, teachers and researchers to know better the variety of beliefs, theories and opinions in the world. Only through a preparedness to challenge, question, and criticise ideas can progress in understanding take place. …
The University affirms that it will not restrict debate or deliberation simply because the ideas put forth are thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the members of the University community – its students and staff – to make those judgments for themselves. The University is not a place for safety from ideas – it is a place to engage in critical thought and debate in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Our students will not be prepared for a complex and challenging world unless they have experience negotiating conflict and disagreement.
What I love about this section is they explicitly rule out that the university’s role is to keep people safe from ideas. The other universities all talk about how they do need to keep people safe from speech or ideas.
The University therefore guarantees all members of its community, including invited visitors, the right to advance ideas in the spirit of free and open enquiry. Furthermore, in its role as critic and conscience of society, the University provides a space in which contrary and unpopular positions can be advanced free from political interference or suppression.
The inclusion of invited visitors is also important.
This commitment to free speech does not mean that any utterance is appropriate in a university setting. The University may properly restrict expression which violates the law. Moreover, the University accepts no duty to provide a space for those who are not members of its community to advance their ideas or theories in ways which fundamentally undermine the University’s character as an institute of higher learning. The University may also reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.
These are all reasonable. There is no inherent right for me (for example) to speak on campus or book a room. However if I am invited by a staff member of affiliated club or society, then as an invited visitor I would have a right to speak.
Although students, staff, and visitors are free to criticise, contest, and condemn the views expressed on campus, they should not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express those views.
Protest is not the same as disruption. Again great to be explicit on that.
I am normally so depressed by what is happening in universities with free speech, that this is like a ray of sunshine. It is better than what I thought any NZ university would adopt.
I do wonder why Otago’s is so good. I may be wrong, but I suspect Grant Robertson as VC may be part of the reason. Maybe he wasn’;’t involved as he has just started, but one advantage Grant brings to the role is he hasn’t been cloistered in academic groves for decades, where 95% of conversations are people agreeing with you and 5% where they are too scared to disagree. He comes from a background where he is constantly exposed to speech he disagrees with.
I suspect Grant understands that NZ universities are at some risk of losing their social licence. 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, the vast majority of NZers would say universities are unambiguously good as they are key institutions in top level research, in training up graduates and professionals and in forming part of a vibrant civil society.
But today many on the centre-right of politics are now regarding universities in a very negative way. Research is also impossible now without making it relevant to the Treaty of Waitangi and universities have become hostile to dissenting views time and time again. I don’t think enough vice-chancellors realise how precarious their position has become. With the Government facing a hard task getting the books back into surplus, cutting funding to universities which are seen as inimically hostile to non-left views becomes rather attractive. A growing number see universities as actually bad for New Zealand (I disagree, but I worry greatly about their direction).
So the Otago University statement goes a long way to regaining that social licence. They of course need to live up to its great words, but the statement makes me proud to have attended Otago University.
The ODT also reports:
Otago University philosophy professor James Maclaurin, who helped lead the engagement process on the statement, said it had been several months in the making.
“A lot of universities have statements on free speech — we think it’s an essential thing for the university to be a champion of free speech.
“We also thought it would be good to get out in front of the government’s plans to require universities to have policies on free speech.”
Prof Maclaurin said the meetings and engagements were “oversubscribed”. …
Prof Maclaurin said the university could develop a course or offer workshops on free speech.
“I think it’s going to be a great thing.”
Well done Professor Maclaurin.
The post Well done Otago University first appeared on Kiwiblog.
