In the Post of 26 June, Dr. Sereana Naepi and Emeritus Professor Peter Davis inform us that concerns about constraints on free speech on university campuses constitute a manufactured crisis (Naepi and Davis, 2025). The authors claim that the crisis is designed to erode academic freedom while appearing to protect it. This is a very bold claim but how do they evaluate the intent of others in creating a manufactured crisis unless they can see into the minds of those other people?
They mention the cancellation of Dr. Don Brash from speaking at Massey University in 2018 but maybe they should talk to former staff at several New Zealand universities who have lost their jobs, perhaps partly because they voiced opposition to certain strategic directions of the universities. They could also review the serious misconduct cases that have been filed, threats of dismissal and restriction of speech through enforced confidentiality agreements.
Naepi and Davis may be unaware of the 2023 University of Auckland staff experience survey, where only 38% of academic staff agreed with the statement: "I am able to respectfully voice my views without fear of negative impact." Such a low response highlights very clearly a problem with free speech there.
In discussing who should be allowed to speak on campus and who should not, they say that universities, as autonomous, self-governing institutions with well-developed missions and histories of research and education, should be allowed to make this judgment call, rather than an external agency of the State. We do not suggest that the State makes this decision, but within the university, who makes this call - the respective Vice Chancellors and who else? What is important is that ultimately freedom of speech is protected.
The Role of the University
According to the highly respected Kalven Report (Kalven, 1967) the university’s mission involves the discovery, improvement and dissemination of knowledge. The report states that the university has a great and unique role to play in fostering the development of social and political values in society. However, the Kalven Report also emphasises the vital need for neutrality, as follows:
“The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”
The imperative for universities to maintain a secular, politically neutral position is also emphasised in the first of four fundamental principles that are articulated in the European Bologna Accord on the role of universities (Magna Charta Universitatum, 1988). This principle requires the university to conduct research and teaching that is morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power.
Thus, the university's role in relation to freedom of speech is to uphold the right of its academic staff to exercise criticism, but not to engage in punishing them for expressing views that run counter to those of the university's leadership and administration. In addition, any argument put forward by university leaderships to the extent that they are interested primarily in creating safe spaces for their students rather than in facilitating their learning (which emerges from debate, dissent and discussion), must be rejected as a clear attempt to control free speech.
Naepi and Davis hold the view that speakers on campus gain something that they cannot get elsewhere - the implicit endorsement of academic or educational respectability when they speak on campus; in other words, an idea presented in a lecture hall is more likely to be believed than an idea presented at a speaker’s corner. They have a valid point here, but surely the majority of both staff and students of our universities are sufficiently mature to form independent judgements and not to accord automatic credibility to the ideas of each and every speaker.
We cannot have a default view that statements advanced through academic freedom and freedom of speech on campus are authoritative and that they carry the endorsement of the institution. If universities are places where ideas are contested, how can all statements emerging from them be authoritative? The default position cannot be speech on behalf of the institution, but instead that no one speaks on behalf of the institution. That way everyone knows where they stand and all ideas are contestable, within or outside the institution.
Academic Freedom
In contrast to freedom of speech, academic freedom is a unique privilege of universities to encourage and support their academic staff in prioritising what they want to research, study and publish, and what courses they wish to develop and teach. In progressing the ideology-captured agendas of university leaderships, academic freedom is being attacked routinely (becoming "Te Tiriti-led", for example).
Naepi and Davis ask whether the universities are being targeted deliberately because they are oases of intellectual civility, freedom and exchange. Are they posing the question here or telling us that this is the case? Of course, universities are, or should be, oases of intellectual civility, freedom and exchange. Unfortunately, we know many university staff who have experienced professional difficulties for holding views that are not in line with those of the university executives. Some of them have been compromised or even performance managed out of employment for speaking out.
Academic Freedom and Free Speech
Naepi and Davis assert that free speech makes no distinction about quality, whereas academic freedom does make this distinction, and that the difference is foundational to why universities exist. They say that academic freedom protects rigorous inquiry that is conducted according to scholarly standards, and shields researchers who are pursuing evidence-based knowledge from political interference. They believe that free speech, by contrast, makes no quality judgments and protects all expression equally, regardless of whether it meets scholarly criteria or contributes to accepted educational purposes. We may agree partly or wholly, but New Zealand law stands above everything else, and freedom of speech needs to be protected. Surely we do already make judgements on the quality of speech and indeed already we prescribe limits on what kind of speech is acceptable and what is not.
In a prior article, Naepi et al. (2025) admit that, as a concept, academic freedom eludes easy definition, that there is no universally accepted understanding of academic freedom, and that the concept has evolved over time and varies between disciplines and legal contexts. They point out that in legal and political scholarship, the concepts of academic freedom and freedom of speech are often conflated. They note a second issue surrounding the limits of academic freedom; that is, whether academic freedom protects academics who comment on matters outside their areas of expertise.
Perhaps the critical distinction between academic freedom and free speech relates to whether speech comes from academic staff or from non-academics who have been invited onto campus. On whatever basis we make the distinction, we are left with the problems of who gets to decide who speaks and who does not, and who defines concepts such as "rigorous enquiry" and "evidence-based knowledge".
One view is that academic freedom should be defined in terms of disciplinary expertise, but this approach could lead to problems of objectivity. For example, what exactly constitutes expertise where the critical issues are multifaceted or transdisciplinary?
A Culture of Fear?
Kierstead (2025) reminds us that one aspect of the freedom of expression that is protected in our Bill of Rights, academic freedom, is also recognised in the Education Act, where it is defined as the freedom of academics and students to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions. Kierstead is concerned that academic freedom is now under threat in New Zealand, as it is across the English-speaking world. Last year he prepared a report that presents evidence in the form of 72 testimonies from academics, six surveys of academics and students, and 21 incidents relating to academic freedom (Kierstead, 2024).
The report suggests a culture of fear in our universities. Surveys of students and academics on how free they feel to discuss a range of controversial issues show that between 20% and 50% feel uncomfortable, depending on the issue. Many academics fear being disciplined, overlooked for promotion or even sacked for their opinions. In recent years, speakers have been de-platformed, events have been cancelled, and academics have been investigated at our universities, “all because somebody (often a university administrator) didn’t want certain views to get an airing”.
The evidence documented in Kierstead’s report enables us to assess various claims about our universities and suppression or otherwise of free speech. For example, it is sometimes said that only fringe ideas are being suppressed. In fact, the report suggests that most academic freedom incidents over the past decade have concerned mainstream views, such as gender-critical feminism, and topics of widespread public interest, such as the Treaty of Waitangi.
“Contrary to the idea that free speech has always been under threat at our universities, academic freedom incidents seem to have become much more frequent in this country since 2017.” Kierstead (2024)
Possibly the problem of curtailment of free speech and academic freedom is becoming worse, rather than better.
Particular Threats to Academic Freedom
Kierstead observes that one threat to academic freedom and free speech comes from a leftward ideological slant of universities across the English-speaking world and from the extreme progressivism that is so often associated with this slant. In New Zealand, as in other English-speaking countries, surveys suggest that both academics and students, especially those who hold right-leaning perspectives, feel uncomfortable about expressing their views, discussing controversial topics and challenging the consensus of their left-wing peers.
Kierstead also reports a second threat concerning the managerial nature of modern universities; that universities’ main priority today seems to involve protecting their brands. Indeed, several academics admitted to living in fear of students complaining about something they have said. We read:
“Senior administrators (including Vice-Chancellors) have played key roles in several academic freedom incidents in recent years, including in cancelling events. Meanwhile, even less senior managers appear to think that caving in to a vocal minority of student activists and clamping down on internal dissent is the way to boost their universities’ reputations”.
Interestingly, Kaufmann (2021) reports a study involving surveys of academic staff and Ph.D students at universities in the United States, Britain and Canada. He reports dismissals, disciplinary charges and de-platforming at their universities. He found that in the United States right-leaning academics experience a high level of institutional authoritarianism and peer pressure. There, over a third of conservative academics and Ph.D students had been threatened with disciplinary action for their views, while 70% of conservative academics report a hostile departmental climate for their beliefs. Further, a hostile climate plays a part in deterring conservative graduate students from pursuing academic careers.
Kaufmann also found that younger academics and Ph.D students, especially in the United States, were significantly more willing than older academics to support dismissing controversial scholars from their posts, indicating that the problem of progressive authoritarianism is likely to get worse in the coming years.
The main thesis of Kaufmann’s book "Taboo" (Kaufmann, 2024) is that much of the problem with free speech is self-censorship driven by peer pressure; i.e. preference falsification. It does not take much for a strident minority to chill speech, especially when that minority is perceived to have executive or moral authority.
Controlling Academic Freedom
Academic freedom can indeed be controlled by university administrations. We have seen a recent demonstration of this problem in the determined imposition of certain mandatory undergraduate courses in spite of the advice of university staff. Many perceive such courses to serve ideological rather than academic goals and engaging in indoctrination (designed to instil a specific set of beliefs) rather than education (which aims to develop critical thinking skills and independent thought). Freedom of speech can also be controlled by university administrations. Actually, it is hyperbole to call the present situation a crisis. And, further, it is quite incorrect to characterise it as made-up. The word “crisis” sends messages of threat, fear, urgency and worry, while the wording “made up” may be designed to cast doubt on claims of suppression of academic freedom and free speech.
Rather than a crisis to be dismissed as created artificially, there is increasing evidence, both here in New Zealand and internationally, that university leaderships and administrations, supported by political parties, have attempted to control the academic freedoms of staff while, at the same time, controlling the diversity of views that are made available to students, academic staff and the wider public.
Concluding Remarks
Naepi and Davis believe that it is wrong to force universities to bend the knee to an external agency of the state. Their argument is that universities are autonomous, self-governing organisations that have used their independence judiciously to protect the freedom of their staff to push the boundaries of research, to encourage and manage debate on key issues on campus, and to inform public discourse through civil, constructive and evidence-based contributions.
However, university leaderships and administrations in New Zealand, as well as internationally, have already bent the knee in respect of prioritising particular ideological narratives rather than sustaining institutional neutrality. They may have done so through pursuing policies that protect and favour particular political and social goals, by limiting freedom of speech and academic freedom and possibly in some cases through bullying (see Lillis, 2025). If there is a crisis to be observed here it is that the universities are already risking their credibility as independently neutral learning institutions, and ultimately the very concept and nature of a university. One colleague has remarked:
“We are in dangerous waters if some people get to decide by fiat what constitutes evidence and what is merely opinion. Such people are often opponents of free speech because of the implicit belief that they have the moral standing to know what is informed and what is opinion; i.e. what is right and what is wrong. Surely, claims should be evaluated through reason and evidence, and it should not matter where the expertise comes from”.
This argument against authority is captured within the Mertonian norms (Merton, 1942) that outline the ethos of science – Communalism (i.e. the findings of science are common property to the entire scientific community), Universalism (i.e. claims are held to objective and pre-established criteria), Disinterestedness (i.e. the influence of bias must be limited and science undertaken for the sake of science), and Organized Skepticism (i.e. the necessity to verify forces science to undergo great scrutiny).
In any case, possibly what we need most is open discussion of the critical issues in which various parties articulate their proposed mechanisms for determining what constitutes social good and what is harmful.
Many staff feel that universities have failed to live up to expected standards of institutional neutrality and have not protected, but instead have limited, freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus.
Our advice for our academic colleagues is to review the mounting evidence of breaches of freedom of speech and academic freedom at our universities and think beyond politically-motivated conclusions.
References
Kalven (1967). Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, University of Chicago, 11th November 1967. Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action (Kalven) (uchicago.edu)
Kaufmann, Eric (2021). Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship. Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology Report No. 2
Kaufmann, Eric (2024). Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution Hardcover – 2 July 2024
Hardback ISBN: 9781800752665; Published: July 4, 2024
Paperback ISBN: 9781800752689; Published: May 8, 2025
Ebook ISBN: 9781800752672; Published: July 4, 2024
Kierstead, James (2024). Unpopular Opinions: Academic Freedom in New Zealand
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/unpopular-opinions-academic-freedom-in-new-zealand/
Kierstead, James (2025). Academic freedom is now seriously under threat in New Zealand
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/academic-freedom-is-now-seriously-under-threat-in-new-zealand/
Lillis, David (2025). Bullying at New Zealand Universities?
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/01/dr-david-lillis-bullying-at-new-zealand.html
Magna Charta Universitatum. Bologna, 18 September 1988. https://www.cesaer.org/content/7-administration/legal-affairs/values/magna-charta-universitatum.pdf
Merton, Robert King (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. Originally published as Science and Technology in a Democratic Order (1942)
Naepi, Sereana and Davis, Peter (2025). Free speech concern in universities is a manufactured crisis. The Post. 26 June 2025
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360735099/free-speech-concern
Naepi, Sereana; Jack, Kate; Waymouth Matthew; Naepi, Chelsea and Vandewiele, Callie (2025). The right to speak: exploring academic freedom in turbulent times
Higher Education, Vol.(0123456789)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01476-2
2 comments:
Stuff's article will be read avidly by those who feel certain views that are ''disinfo'' or ''misinfo'' or ''conspiracy'' need to be given no ''oxygen''. So no problem of free speech when certain wrongthinks have to be marginalised, monitored and suppressed. Others I know find the idea of biased media, be it TV or print etc, puzzling. As one said to me with some irritation: ''It is just a newspaper isn't it''. To them Breaking Views and its writers are seen as those very people mainstream warned us about.
Are Dr Naepi and Prof Davis clueless or are they indulging in gaslighting?
https://onpointnz.substack.com/p/funding-silence
Post a Comment