These measures are sorely needed. There is now overwhelming evidence that we have a problem with academic freedom in this country. Readers who doubt this could consult the report I released last year, Unpopular Opinions: Academic Freedom in New Zealand.
In its current form, the bill would require universities to have policies on freedom of expression, to set up an internal complaints procedure for those who feel their speech rights have been violated, and to report on the climate for free speech on their campus every year.
All of this is very welcome. At the same time, the current draft of the bill lacks any mechanisms to ensure that universities comply with its provisions. In other words, the bill lacks teeth.
Our submission, available on our website, attempts to give the bill teeth. Our model throughout was the United Kingdom’s Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
We recommend establishing an Academic Freedom Ombudsman (AFO) modelled on the UK’s Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom. The AFO would help ensure that universities comply with the law on academic freedom and advocate for academic freedom at the national level.
We also suggest bolstering the complaints process, which as the bill stands would be run entirely by university managers. We suggest making it possible to appeal internal decisions to an external body appointed by the AFO, and for complainants to bring civil proceedings against universities for breaches of their duty to academic freedom.
Finally, we suggest some minor changes to the wording, including strengthening and clarifying the provision for institutional neutrality.
That this bill has been introduced at all is very heartening. In its current form, though, university managers may simply pay lip-service to it while undermining its true intent at every opportunity.
Our recommendations would make sure that universities instead fulfil the obligations to academic freedom that they have ignored or gleefully contravened for far too long.
Dr James Kierstead is Senior Lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington.This article was first published HERE
In its current form, the bill would require universities to have policies on freedom of expression, to set up an internal complaints procedure for those who feel their speech rights have been violated, and to report on the climate for free speech on their campus every year.
All of this is very welcome. At the same time, the current draft of the bill lacks any mechanisms to ensure that universities comply with its provisions. In other words, the bill lacks teeth.
Our submission, available on our website, attempts to give the bill teeth. Our model throughout was the United Kingdom’s Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
We recommend establishing an Academic Freedom Ombudsman (AFO) modelled on the UK’s Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom. The AFO would help ensure that universities comply with the law on academic freedom and advocate for academic freedom at the national level.
We also suggest bolstering the complaints process, which as the bill stands would be run entirely by university managers. We suggest making it possible to appeal internal decisions to an external body appointed by the AFO, and for complainants to bring civil proceedings against universities for breaches of their duty to academic freedom.
Finally, we suggest some minor changes to the wording, including strengthening and clarifying the provision for institutional neutrality.
That this bill has been introduced at all is very heartening. In its current form, though, university managers may simply pay lip-service to it while undermining its true intent at every opportunity.
Our recommendations would make sure that universities instead fulfil the obligations to academic freedom that they have ignored or gleefully contravened for far too long.
Dr James Kierstead is Senior Lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington.This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
Excellent and practical proposals.Ths Bill must have " teeth".
NZ unis are now virtual indoctrination centres staffed by politicized managers and academics who are either radical ideologues or intimidated wimps. Another great legacy from the Ardern regime.
One set of 'false teeth' needs to be pulled out of this draft amendment bill, namely the root cause of the ills besetting a lot of our legislation. The subject amendment bill does not directly reference "Treaty principles" but by attempting to replace section 9(1)(d) with: section 127(2)(e) it in effect does precisely that by instructing Boards to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students; and work to ensure that plans, policies, and teaching and learning programmes reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and finally to take all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori. The concept of equitable outcomes is a Marxist construct and a correct interpretation of the Treaty would be to give equality of opportunity to all students.
Basically the bill needs to have the 'Treaty Principles' elements ripped out as they are not relevant - what is the point of the NZF/National Coalition agreement to deal with this when the references are allowed to remain in something so important as removing indoctrination from our education system? That is a rhetorical question but a relevant one.
Any guesses as to how that will go via the select committee and house processes?
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.