Come clean about Brash ban
Academic and other staff at Massey University’s campuses in Palmerston North, Auckland and Wellington will have every reason to feel decidedly unimpressed by news that they and the public have been misled.
When Massey University Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas made a captain’s call to ban former National Party leader Don Brash from speaking on the Palmerston North campus in August, she cited security issues. In a letter sent to all staff on August 10, she claimed her ‘‘primary concern in deciding about events on a Massey University campus is the safety of you as staff and the student community we belong to’’.
That created an impression of an academic leader committed to free speech principles who reluctantly banned a controversial speaker over fears that violence may erupt as it has on campuses in the United States. This was not the full story.
Internal emails released to Kiwiblog founder David Farrar under the Official Information Act show Thomas was determined to find a way to ban Brash weeks before the event, and was more concerned about the ‘‘racist’’ content of his speech than the safety of staff and students.
As many feared, Thomas’ decision proved to be a direct attack on free speech. When informed in July of Brash’s forthcoming appearance, she asked an assistant about ‘‘restrictions’’ that could be put on the event, as she did not want ‘‘a Te Tiriti-led university’’ to ‘‘be seen to be endorsing racist behaviours’’. A staff member told her there were no grounds to restrict Brash, and that trying to do so ‘‘would present a very real risk of us being accused [of] restricting free speech etc’’. Nevertheless, Thomas then inquired about ‘‘mechanisms’’ the university could use, including its funding of student groups such as the Massey Manawatu¯ Politics Club, which arranged Brash’s appearance. That has ominous implications.
In further emails, Thomas reiterated her ‘‘strong preference’’ that Massey stop the event from taking place, adding ‘‘I really want to find a way to indicate that Brash is not welcome on campus unless he agrees to abide by our values and the laws against hate speech’’.
If security issues were really on her mind, they are not cited in the emails exchanged with staff. Another email indicates she later convinced the university’s academic board that she had never considered cancelling the event, which is a position that now appears to be directly contradicted by the internal emails. The same email does report rumours of a security threat, but they arose long after Thomas first looked at ways to keep Brash off campus.
In her August 10 letter, she concluded with the platitude that ‘‘I value free speech immensely, but the public response has largely been to accuse me of the opposite’’. She recognised that an academic community that values ‘‘the free and frank exchange of ideas’’ would have concerns.
It would be hard not to imagine those concerns have been greatly amplified by revelations that Thomas seems not to have been 100 per cent clear about her highly personal reasons for banning an invited speaker. It should be possible to both disagree with Brash’s problematic views of Ma¯ ori culture and allow those views to be aired in a university setting.
‘‘It should be possible to both disagree with Brash’s problematic views of Ma¯ori culture and allow those views to be aired in a university setting.’’