Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds and Associate Minister of Education David Seymour today announced legislation changes to strengthen freedom of speech obligations on universities.
“Freedom of speech is fundamental to the concept of academic freedom and there is concern that universities seem to be taking a more risk-averse approach,” Ms Simmonds says.
“Universities should promote diversity of opinion and encourage students to explore new ideas and perspectives. This includes enabling them to hear from invited speakers with a range of viewpoints.”
The proposed changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues. Each university will adopt a freedom of speech statement consistent with these expectations.
This is excellent news. since Don Brash was banned from speaking at Massey, it has been clear there is a serious problem where a subset of academics and students insist on deplatforming views they don’t agree with on the grounds it makes them feel unsafe.
The expectations agreed by Cabinet are:
- Universities should recognise that freedom of speech is critical to maintaining academic freedom.
- Universities should actively foster an environment where ideas can be challenged, controversial issues discussed, and diverse opinions expressed, in a respectful manner consistent with any university codes.
- Universities’ policies and procedures around freedom of speech should be clear, consistently applied, and focused on fostering genuine debate rather than restricting it.
- Universities should not as institutions take positions on matters that do not directly concern the role or functions of the university.
- Universities should not limit freedom of speech of staff or students, except where it violates the law or as required to avoid disrupting the ordinary activities of the university.
- Universities should seek to uphold their role as critic and conscience of society by providing a platform for invited speakers of diverse viewpoints.
- Universities should not deny the use of university premises by an invited speaker on the basis of their ideas or opinions.
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.
8 comments:
A breath of fresh air David. It will be interesting to observe how various individuals/groups within academia seek to negotiate around the proposed requirements: Occupational health and safety being the old stalwart.
I have a problem with the above expectations, what might that be? The excessive use of the word "should" and this epitomises what is wrong with the wishy washy way legislation is worded and why we are in such a God awful mess in NZ. What is the difference between shall and should? A simple web search comes up with: "The word shall is used to show certainty of intention about an action that will happen in the future. The word should is used to express uncertainty and to give suggestions or advice. Shall is used more in formal writing, like legal documents. Should is used in common conversation and writing." Now, is our coalition seeking to legislate to protect Freedom of Speech or simply doing more of usual blather we expect from left-leaning parties?
Except if the free speech is pro-Palestinian (or more pertinently, anti-Israel) of course, right David? In which case, these ideas make the speaker and thinker "antisemitic" and disqualify them from being heard and expressed, and in the case of Ivy League US universities clamping down on free speech in recent years, blacklisted from future employment by the universities' Zionist alumni donors.
Thought a bit more and wheras "shall" was the norm many years ago (in my time!) and understood, in this modern, warped time maybe the word "must" would be more appropriate to convey "just do it" to those running our unis?
Perhaps Madame Blavatsky what many found offensive and unacceptable about the Ivy League mobs immediate expression of their right to free speech was that they were actually celebrating the Hamas massacre of 1300 innocent people. Their joy knew no bounds celebrating these deaths .
Whilst Israeli families were still searching for their dead loved ones.
And the Ivy League mobs were again quick off the mark to condemn the much delayed Israeli retaliation.
However they have long been silent about the death of 500,000 or more Syrians killed by al-Assad and his allies in defence of his clearly genocidal dictatorship. And silent also about the death of between 100,000 and 500,000 more now revealed to have been killed in his death camps. And silent again about how many tens of thousand of Muslims are being killed by other Muslims ethnicities in Darfur and nearby states.
It would seem that the Ivy League mobs and many others are peculiarly selective about what they are outraged about.
Here in New Zealand we tolerate the Green Party wearing the Hamas tea towel in Parliament and their leader being chorus leader for the Hamas death chant in public.
And I'm sure Massey University would be willing to host pro Palestinian speakers on campus. Whilst Don Brash is banned from the place.
I'm glad this legislation is being proposed, and how ironic it is David Seymour along with Penny Simmonds proposing the Bill. And I for one would be glad to see similar relevant light handed regulation placed over RNZ National and TV One who both currently act as if they are propaganda channels for the opposition parties
At the very minimum, the word 'should' would be banned from legislation, and 'shall' used instead. Even better if the word 'must' was used. Cannot misinterperate that!
Well said Tom, on every count!
What on earth has the behaviour of American Universities got to do with how we conduct our affairs in New Zealand Madam B? Last time I looked, Parliament didn't have a lot of jurisdiction in the US. And that's what Farrar's piece is about. So perhaps you would like to elaborate on which of our tertiary institutions you consider to be proscribing pro-Palestine speech, because it seems to me the towel-heads are getting a pretty good run so far, even if, as Tom Logan has observed, their focus is fatally skewed.
Post a Comment