David Farrar: Free speech problems.......

Academics who argue there is no free speech problems, are like whites who argue there is no racism against blacks


Radio NZ reports:

Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a bill protecting free speech on campus.

But the legislation’s supporters say universities can’t be trusted to uphold freedom of expression. …

Whenever I hear an academic insist there are no problems with free speech on campuses, what they mean is that they personally don’t have any issues because their progressive views are in the majority. They remind me of white southerners in the US who insist there is no racism in the south because they have never experienced racism. Try being an academic who doesn’t hold majority views on campus, and you’ll have a vastly different view.

So academics who insist there is no free speech issue on campuses should be given as much regard as Europeans who insist there is no racism in New Zealand.

Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech.

That is because the universities and the TEU go out of their way to prevent any evidence being gathered.

If the TEU really believed there was no evidence, then they would support the universities surveying all staff and students and asking them how free they feel to speak openly on campus. No university has ever ever done this, because it would be a disaster if the wrong results eventuated.

Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee should not be required to host any event or speaker. She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based.

They’re not. That is a misrepresentation. It is about whether universities should be able to veto or withdraw an invite made by an academic or a campus club. Massey tried to ban a politics club from hearing from Don Brash, for those who need a memory boost. And the arrogance of the idea that academics are the only ones who can judge if ideas are robust shows you why the law is so badly needed.

Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws.

If there was a culture of free speech, then I would agree with Geddis. But I disagree that there is, so a law change is needed.

If you wish to persuade me there is a culture of free speech, then again I challenge any university to survey their entire staff and student population on whether they do feel free to speak freely on campus. I’d love to see those results, and would be delighted if I was wrong and in fact only a minuscule proportion of academics and students don’t feel they can speak freely.

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