Times when democracy falters
Universities have a superpower in a healthy democracy. It is their autonomy; the right to make role-specific decisions about what is taught, researched, published or performed, without political interference.
Only democratic societies tolerate their critic and conscience, and only they defend this important function.
Autonomy is a central pillar of democracy and the basis for student and staff academic freedom. Autonomy is law. So is a university’s obligation to be the critic and conscience of society.
Academic freedom isn’t free speech (although it has much in common with freedom of expression). The two are often confused, as I think they have been in reactions to Victoria University of Wellington’s postponement of a debate on free speech.
The university planned to host a panel that included guest speakers. Students were concerned that one of the guests had a history of justifying hate speech as free speech. To question the standard of evidence used by speakers, inside or outside the university, is well within the boundaries of student academic freedom.
The additional entitlement of academic freedom for staff and students surprisingly creates a special problem for them in an event where they mix with guests using their free speech. For example, guests can say things in a university event for which a member of the university community might be disciplined, expelled, or fired if they said the same thing.
A university cannot afford – and is not obligated – to provide a platform for every opinion from everybody. It must ration itself for use as a stage. The university community is expected to apply rules of evidence vetting, and high ethical and research standards, to make its own decisions about which ideas merit its attention. This is what it does for academic freedom.
In a critical reaction to student commentary about the postponement, the Associate Minister of Education said: “Taxpayers fund universities to expose students to new ideas.”
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I do with any implication that the minister could interfere with the legislated autonomy given to university communities to determine how students are taught. True autonomy includes the right to sometimes say “no” to ministers.
A proposed guest speaker from the Free Speech Union accused Victoria University of shutting down the event because of “threats of boycotts and protests”.
He said that if “students are not resilient enough or mature enough to be able to deal in ideas – even those that they find uncomfortable – then maybe they shouldn't be at university”.
The history of student activism on campus, and the current demonstrations of it at North American, British, French,
Australian and other universities, provide stark contrast to this condescending punch-down. Academic communities of students and staff have and are pushing back against silencing.
The Free Speech Union representative also said that the “first thing free speech does is protect the minorities”.
When free speech works it can do that. But what he has said creates an artificial friction between free speech and academic freedom, and preys on ignorance of the difference. The students can use their academic freedom to question whether his ideas are valid, or new, or need amplifying on a university stage.
It isn’t clear how minorities are protected if limited event time can be taken up by those from majority groups expressing the viewpoints of the numerically, politically, or financially dominant under the guise of “everyone gets to have a say”.
Auniversity should be careful about who it hosts because “taxpayer funds” must be prioritised for marginalised people and groups rather than transferred to those who already have political or financial means to make themselves heard.
Academic freedom is a feature of a democracy because it draws disproportionate attention to the rare opinions of the marginalised and gives them space to be heard.
The minister quipped that: “I’ve read about lions on the yellow brick road showing more courage than the university leadership here.” Possibly universities have become too complacent in asserting their superpower.
But he may be surprised that when he gets his wish and universities again find their courage, his are the complaints catching a balloon ride to Kansas.
Professor Jack Heinemann is an academic in the Faculty of Science at the University of Canterbury and has served as an expert witness on academic freedom before the Employment Court.