David Farrar: Understanding academic freedom

Grant Duncan writes:

I too have questioned the boot camps (on grounds of a lack of evidence of effectiveness) and queried the possible reduction of the school lunches programme. But Prof Kidman let herself down, as an academic, by resorting to an ad hominemattack. Accusing the present government (the elected representatives) of hating children and asking if they're a “death-cult” was nothing unusual on X, but was well below par for credible academic debate. And she does display the title Prof. on her X profile.

There is a world of difference between saying boot camps are bad public policy and saying the Government hates children and is a death cult.

In this case, however, I can't defend the professor, as her words strayed from academic standards. Of course she's free, by law, to say what she likes, but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences for her academic reputation. …

DPMC have since expressed concern that Prof Kidman's comments “may bring the centre into disrepute”. May? I'd say the damage is done.

Absolutely. The centre no longer has any credibility.

The Free Speech Union notes

You may have been following in the media the backlash Professor Joanna Kidman has received since tweeting some criticism against the Government.

Victoria University say while they stand for academic freedom, her comments don't “support an inclusive conversation” and they are “discussing this matter” with her.

But, academic freedom depends on individuals having their say and participating in debates. So in Joanna's role as a professor, the university should butt out.

However, her tweet was made in the capacity of her role as director of He Whenua Taurikura, the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, funded by the Department of Cabinet and Prime Minister (DPMC). This brings some other implications. The Government doesn't have to fund someone whose output they clearly can have no confidence in.

So, was Joanna allowed to make the claims she did, or wasn't she? In the capacity as a professor, absolutely. But as a DPMC-funded, minister-appointed advisor, her contribution needs to be credible, moderate, and principled. And big questions exist as to whether that's the case!

I think that is correct. As an academic she has the right to call the government a death cult and appear unhinged. She won't be the only one. So she would remained a tenured Professor at VUW.

But as the director of a government funded anti-extremism organisation, her role is untenable. She is an extremist, and isn't suitable to keep her current role.

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.