Free speech debate must be of higher standard
Calls by politicians and other commentators for universities to be censured or financially punished if they do not allow “free speech” events on their campuses betray a profound lack of understanding of the complexity of this issue.
The first thing to appreciate is that the vice-chancellors of all New Zealand universities place a high value on free speech. I absolutely include in this group Massey’s vice-chancellor, Professor Jan Thomas — and I am one of the few commentators on this issue who actually knows her.
New Zealand is rare in having academic freedom and university autonomy enshrined in legislation. Part of our role as leaders of the universities is to protect those values, which are fundamental to free speech in a democratic society. And, as the leaders of the largest research institutions in the country, we can encourage debate that is informed by facts rather than unsubstantiated opinion.
However, the right to free speech is not absolute. Speakers may not, for example, defame others, nor incite violence, nor engage in activities that breach Human Rights legislation. Similarly, the Education Act provides for academic freedom, but only “within the law”.
Even where a speaker is operating within the law, we are seeing increasing claims from some groups that a university has a duty to protect them from what they regard as “hate speech” (which it may not be in a legal sense). As institutions that seek to create opportunities for members of under-represented groups, we certainly work to provide environments in which they can flourish, succeed and be safe. However, the view by some that any speech they deem offensive or threatening should be prohibited from campus would essentially eliminate most debate from the university environment.
From the perspective of university leaders, it is almost impossible to reconcile the rights of those who demand “free speech” (particularly at the more extreme ends of any issue) with the rights of those who demand to be protected from what they see as prejudice and a cause of mental distress.
Finally, and most relevant in the Massey case, vice-chancellors as chief executives of the universities have an obligation to the health, safety and wellbeing of staff, students, visitors and any other person on campus. The challenge here, of course, is in assessing the credibility of threats to particular events.
Thomas has been criticised for cancelling an event because she believed there was a significant risk of harm to participants. At Auckland, the equivalent event went ahead, not because our commitment to free speech was any greater than Massey’s, but because we were lucky enough not to have to deal with the same threats.
Ironically, our colleague Professor Harlene Hayne, vice-chancellor of the University of Otago, was roundly criticised in 2015 because she did not close her campus in response to a threat to the campus community.
The question for universities, and for our wider society, is not whether we support free speech — we absolutely do. The question is how we can create an environment in which we can welcome all speakers and views (within the law), support resilience in those who will hear views they find offensive or harmful, and deal with threats (or actual cases) of physical confrontation and violence.
That will require a much higher standard of discussion and debate than has been evident in recent weeks.