Massey must restore reputation
By now, it will be clear to Massey University vice-chancellor Jan Thomas that she has little support for her decision to stop former politician Don Brash from speaking on campus.
This would be OK if she made the right call. It should be obvious to Massey University’s governing body that she was badly astray. The question now is how it is going to restore its reputation as a credible university.
Thomas cancelled Brash’s visit to the Manawatu¯ campus because of security fears and for other reasons she would have been smarter to have stayed silent on.
More than a mere public relations disaster, her disturbing decision and worrying decision-making rationale raises questions about her judgment and about the university’s values.
Does the university value a range of perspectives? To what extent are students free to think for themselves? Is the university in favour of robust debate?
Thomas ought to face tough questions from her council.
Was her decision to ban Brash mostly politically motivated? Was it an impulsive decision? What has she learned from the debacle? Why is she still the right person to lead the institution?
It would help Thomas if excuses about security held water. We have to say a supposed threat was ‘‘veiled’’, because it was far from explicit. A protester appears to have done little more than make the unremarkable observation that ideas have consequences.
Embarrassingly, Thomas also pointed to concerns about Brash’s involvement in lobby group Hobson’s Pledge and invoked the loaded term ‘‘hate speech’’. ‘‘Mr Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Ma¯ ori wards on councils was clearly of concern to many staff, particularly Ma¯ ori staff.
‘‘In my opinion, the views expressed by members of Hobson’s Pledge come dangerously close to hate speech.’’
Unwittingly, she has insulted her staff. Are they unable to cope with ideas different from their own?
Massey has taught some interesting lessons this week. It showed that some universities pretend to be interested in free speech, but are much more interested in creating a culture of conformity. It provided a valuable case study in how referring to ‘‘hate speech’’ is not often about hate and is instead increasingly about controlfreakery.
Meanwhile, Brash is set to take part in a debate in Auckland this week at a university worthy of the name. The topic, set months ago, just happens to be: ‘‘PC culture has gone too far to the point of limiting freedom of speech’’.
Massey’s council could do worse than send Thomas up there to take notes.
More than a mere public relations disaster, her disturbing decision and worrying decision-making rationale raises questions about her judgment and about the university’s values.