Last week Crikey added up the cost of the free-speech martyrdom of climate and reef science sceptic Peter Ridd.
Ridd’s sacking by James Cook University has launched court actions, occupied valuable Senate committee airtime and been a cause celebre of the free market pressure group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has a related taxpayer-subsidised charity arm.
It has also been on the agenda of a federal government inquiry — established by Education Minister Dan Tehan — into freedom of expression on campuses, with former Deakin University vice-chancellor professor emeritus Sally Walker appointed to review the workings of a new model code to be introduced by universities by the end of the year.
So what are the other free speech issues put forward by the IPA (apart from buckling to pressure from Chinese national students)? Here are some examples:
- The sub-editor of a student newspaper at the Australian National University censored student opinion pieces following the election of Donald Trump
- The Australian National University was criticised for rejecting the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation following internal opposition
- Deakin Young Socialist Alliance members were asked by the Deakin University Student Association to remove t-shirts critical of former prime minister Tony Abbott
- Abbott was forced to cancel a visit to Deakin University following security and logistical issues posed by protests
- Academics at Flinders University rejected the university’s plan to host a Bjørn Lomborg-run Research Centre with $4 million of federal government money, labelling Lomborg as “infamous” for his views on climate change
- La Trobe University refused to allow anti-transgender speaker Babette Francis to book a venue for an event
- Monash University withdrew a textbook that included a quiz question which offended Chinese students. The Monash academic who set the quiz was temporarily suspended and voluntarily left the university following the furore
- The University of Melbourne Student Union held workshops on “male privilege”
- UNSW told students not to use the term “marriage” when referring to the well-known “marriage theorem” in mathematics because this could cause “offence”
- The University of Sydney refused to provide students with a venue to host Australian Christian Lobby head Lyle Shelton
- The University of Sydney refused to answer questions relating to its short-lived decision to ban a Palestinian-American activist, amid claims administrators singled him out for his support of boycotts against Israel.
Re: ‘The academic freedom of speech list. Feel free to argue with it’ – The (cough, choke) Institute of Public Affairs should not be commenting on issues/items that it cannot hope to understand ie mathematics and ‘marriage theorum’ and to be honest neither do I. Given the list in the article it becomes apparent that the IPA have no comprehension of ‘freedom of speech’.
David, you have provided a string of examples which you claim to be representative of what YOU have been pleased to refer to as ‘academic freedom’. You MIGHT take a look at the by-laws that have been applied at UCLA and its many campuses; UCLA being merely one university. There isn’t a trace of the ‘Speech Zones’ of the 70s and if one wished their career to come to an end an attempt at reinstating them would be the fastest means of doing so.
THEN, jot a line (for tomorrow) on the dismissal of Richard Stallman from MIT for only apparently being on the wrong side of the identity brigade. Incidentally, Stallman’s case is far from isolated and you will see for yourself with a bit of digging about.
Let me recommend something to you. Jot a review of the assault against empiricism that has occurred in 1st world universities over the last 30 years in favour of post-modernism and identity politics. You might tie this trend in with family members of victims either positively or negatively liaising with the family of the culprit.
For something really interesting, review the mooted degree in Western Civilisation, inspired by the Ramsay Centre, with the knowledge of history of those who objected to the recommendation.
Supposed issues of ‘freedom of speech’ have been (ageing) radical right libertarians more recent obsession that demonises anything they don’t like and reinforce often for punters or voters to pick up on and agree with; inverse ‘political correctness’, ‘wokeness’, ‘cancel culture’, ‘multiculturalism’ etc..
This dynamic allows the big C conservatives and radical right libertarians to vent, complain, whinge and moan…… under the guise of the above supposed issues allowing themselves to project as many illiberal leaders do…..
If free speech does not include speech with which you disagree it, by definition, not free.
Which is the point of it all. That remark can be traced to Voltaire but we have the contrary case now and the irony is that political correctness etc. has rendered a state of affairs that is Puritan in principle.
The Lomborg climate economics centre was convieved for UWA, not Flinders:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708
The UWA staff association opposed it because it was a political mouthpiece, not an evidence-based body. This is actually a good example of academic freedom being used to resist political pressure. The academics spoke out against the Abbott-government’s attempt to install a policy institute that would be given fake credibility by being in a university.