Academic freedom is a hot topic at the moment. The coalition agreement required universities to have academic freedom policies to receive government funding. Most universities have now produced draft policies.
Academic freedom is key to the university’s mission. It allows students and academics to explore ideas in the classroom and to produce innovative research. It is also explicitly protected in the Education and Training Act.
Despite this, academic freedom is now under threat in this country. As a recent New Zealand Initiative report by Dr James Kierstead showed, many students and academics now feel too intimidated to offer their views on controversial issues. In a 2023 survey run by the University of Auckland, only 49% of staff responded positively to the statement “I feel able to respectfully voice my views without fear of any negative impact.”
That universities have been drawing up academic freedom policies is hence a good sign. But only Victoria University of Wellington has adopted institutional neutrality, the principle that universities should not take official stances on public issues. That is for individual students and academics to do.
Institutional neutrality is important. When a university announces an official view, academics and students can be hesitant to go against it. The university as an institution becomes a participant in political debate rather than a forum for it. Because of their size and influence, universities also become a rich prize for anyone – including governments – who wants to use them as a megaphone for their own views.
This last risk is especially concerning. The state controls university funding, and could use this to force universities to march to their tune. Institutional neutrality provides some protection against this.
Incidents in recent years illustrate how a lack of institutional neutrality can undermine academic freedom. In 2018, former National Party leader Don Brash was invited to speak by a student politics club, about his time as Reserve Bank governor. But Massey Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas deplatformed him. She thought Brash’s view on the Treaty of Waitangi ran counter to Massey’s status as a ‘Te Tiriti-led’ university.
The ability to invite guest speakers to campuses is an important element of academic freedom. Guest speakers can bring fresh perspectives to bear on debates. But because Brash disagreed with Massey’s institutional position on the Treaty, he was not allowed to speak. (Brash did later speak at Massey following a public backlash.)
Not all academics agree that institutional neutrality is a prerequisite for academic freedom. In a recent article published on the Tertiary Education Union website, Professor Jack Heinemann, a biologist at the University of Canterbury, argues the opposite. According to Heinemann, insisting on institutional neutrality actually undermines academic freedom.
Heinemann thinks universities themselves should be able to put forward opinions, just like individual academics and students. “A university’s opinions and decisions can differ from individual natural persons within it,” he writes. “Autonomy provides for independent decision-making.”
But this is a misreading of the Education and Training Act.
Under the Act, some elements of academic freedom do belong both to academics and to universities as institutions. For example, academic freedom is defined to include “the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses.”
But when it comes to “questioning and testing received wisdom, putting forward new ideas, and stating controversial or unpopular opinions,” only academic staff and students are mentioned. The university as an institution is not included in this clause.
There is a good reason for that. Heinemann says that “vice-chancellors speaking for the academic community … aren’t putting words in the mouths of staff or students, nor … pitting employee against employer.” But universities don’t always take kindly to their institutional positions being challenged, as the Brash ban at Massey demonstrates.
Institutional positions don’t always result in deplatforming. But they can still exert a chilling effect on academic freedom. As the testimonies from academics in Dr Kierstead’s report show, many New Zealand academics fear that they will be passed over for promotion, or even made redundant, if they criticise their university’s official position on an issue.
When a university takes a position on a substantive issue it will inevitably intimidate dissenting voices within the institution and embolden those who agree with it. Throwing the weight of the institution behind one side of a debate amounts to putting a thumb on the scale.
That risks distorting academic debates, which should be conducted in the light of evidence and reason alone. Almost all original ideas start life as minority views. When a university sides with a majority, it risks snuffing out important insights before they can gain traction.
Universities should be venues in which scholars with many different views freely argue their cases and contest ideas. They should not themselves participate in those debates.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne.
Dr James Kierstead is Senior Lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington.
Professor Kendall Clements is a New Zealand academic and as of 2021 is a full professor at the University of Auckland specialising in the ecology and evolution.
Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin PhD. Professor. Doctoral Supervisor New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study.
This article was sourced HERE
That universities have been drawing up academic freedom policies is hence a good sign. But only Victoria University of Wellington has adopted institutional neutrality, the principle that universities should not take official stances on public issues. That is for individual students and academics to do.
Institutional neutrality is important. When a university announces an official view, academics and students can be hesitant to go against it. The university as an institution becomes a participant in political debate rather than a forum for it. Because of their size and influence, universities also become a rich prize for anyone – including governments – who wants to use them as a megaphone for their own views.
This last risk is especially concerning. The state controls university funding, and could use this to force universities to march to their tune. Institutional neutrality provides some protection against this.
Incidents in recent years illustrate how a lack of institutional neutrality can undermine academic freedom. In 2018, former National Party leader Don Brash was invited to speak by a student politics club, about his time as Reserve Bank governor. But Massey Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas deplatformed him. She thought Brash’s view on the Treaty of Waitangi ran counter to Massey’s status as a ‘Te Tiriti-led’ university.
The ability to invite guest speakers to campuses is an important element of academic freedom. Guest speakers can bring fresh perspectives to bear on debates. But because Brash disagreed with Massey’s institutional position on the Treaty, he was not allowed to speak. (Brash did later speak at Massey following a public backlash.)
Not all academics agree that institutional neutrality is a prerequisite for academic freedom. In a recent article published on the Tertiary Education Union website, Professor Jack Heinemann, a biologist at the University of Canterbury, argues the opposite. According to Heinemann, insisting on institutional neutrality actually undermines academic freedom.
Heinemann thinks universities themselves should be able to put forward opinions, just like individual academics and students. “A university’s opinions and decisions can differ from individual natural persons within it,” he writes. “Autonomy provides for independent decision-making.”
But this is a misreading of the Education and Training Act.
Under the Act, some elements of academic freedom do belong both to academics and to universities as institutions. For example, academic freedom is defined to include “the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses.”
But when it comes to “questioning and testing received wisdom, putting forward new ideas, and stating controversial or unpopular opinions,” only academic staff and students are mentioned. The university as an institution is not included in this clause.
There is a good reason for that. Heinemann says that “vice-chancellors speaking for the academic community … aren’t putting words in the mouths of staff or students, nor … pitting employee against employer.” But universities don’t always take kindly to their institutional positions being challenged, as the Brash ban at Massey demonstrates.
Institutional positions don’t always result in deplatforming. But they can still exert a chilling effect on academic freedom. As the testimonies from academics in Dr Kierstead’s report show, many New Zealand academics fear that they will be passed over for promotion, or even made redundant, if they criticise their university’s official position on an issue.
When a university takes a position on a substantive issue it will inevitably intimidate dissenting voices within the institution and embolden those who agree with it. Throwing the weight of the institution behind one side of a debate amounts to putting a thumb on the scale.
That risks distorting academic debates, which should be conducted in the light of evidence and reason alone. Almost all original ideas start life as minority views. When a university sides with a majority, it risks snuffing out important insights before they can gain traction.
Universities should be venues in which scholars with many different views freely argue their cases and contest ideas. They should not themselves participate in those debates.
This article was sourced HERE
6 comments:
It is disgraceful that in 2024 people are debating academic neutrality and free speech. It is equally disgraceful the government is forced to legislate the aforementioned basics to ensure academics abide by them, the offending academics should hang their heads in shame.
The awful and evil self-serving Adern Labour government have a left a huge unnecessary mess to clean up. Unfortunately, you dear reader are footing the bill.
I'm hoping for a record breaking 15 year Luxon National Party term.
Hope away, although it is not National that is largely clearing up the mess since left alone, they would be Labour-lite as per usual. By having the coalition partners in the mix, we are seeing some more steel in the backbone but not enough and certainly not swiftly enough when it comes to muck clearing. So, what I am hoping for is more muck clearing at pace and a higher proportion of ACT/NZ First in any future coalition with National, if not a change of major party in said coalition. History has shown us that past National incumbents have done their share of dropping us in the pooh - eg UNDRIP, allowing co-governance to rear its ugly head, etc.
'A university’s opinions and decisions can differ from individual natural persons within it'.
How can a University have an opinion, it does not have a brain or the capability to reason.
But then Heinemann gives the game away further down - 'vice-chancellors speaking for the academic community'.
So actually the opinions of a University are actually those of it's Vice-Chancellor. Well, we know of a couple of dodgy examples of those.
I concur with the authors, and Anons@3.14 & 4.23. Universities, per se, indeed, must be 'neutral' or it's a case of "Houston, we have a problem!" If, for all their purported intelligence, these Vice-Chancellors can't see that, then they have no business holding those roles and, if they have to be reined in by withholding Govt funding, so be it!
University professors etc are paid employees of the government, therefore the taxpayer and by association the University. Just turn up to teach , shut up and say 'YES Sir" to your employer. NZ is sick to death of university educated pompous and arrogance . Bring on Javier Milei style cuts to government spending next year. Are you listening PM Luxon? You too are a taxpayer employee.
Marxism doesn't have freedom of speech. Indoctrination into their ideology is their main driver.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.