MEDIA RELEASE 

 21 August 2024 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  

Free Speech Union welcomes comprehensive report on academic freedom in New Zealand by New Zealand Initiative Research Fellow, Dr. James Kierstead  

The Free Speech Union applauds the New Zealand Initiative’s launch of its largest report ever, thoroughly documenting the troubling state of academic freedom in New Zealand. This is important research that highlights the ongoing failure on the part of universities to protect academics’ right and duty to research, teach, and speak freely, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.   

“Through collating 72 personal accounts of academics, five surveys of students and academics, and over 20 incidents of attacks on academic freedom, the report presents an authoritative history of academic freedom for the past decade. Tragically, much ground has been lost over these 10 years. 

“Increasingly, our would-be-censors are taking ground in the very locations where rigorous and forthright debate and research should be most unconstrained. Without academics who are free to challenge status-quos, ask provocative questions, and say the unspeakable, public discourse is condemned to continue to atrophy.   

“The Free Speech Union will release a partner report to the New Zealand Initiative’s report on academic freedom in coming months, presenting constructive options (including legislative proposals) to correct the dangerous course our universities are currently on.” 

MEDIA RELEASE

06 July 2024
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thousands sign public letter in 24 hours, calling on Government to restore academic freedom

In just 24 hours, thousands have signed a public letter calling on Government Ministers to take action to address the erosion of academic freedom in our universities, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

“It’s clear to Kiwis that academic freedom in New Zealand is under threat. In recent years, both in New Zealand and abroad, we’ve seen the consistent pattern of universities stifling opinions, and individuals feeling unable to speak freely.

“This is antithetical to the function of the university. Universities should be places where knowledge is tested and ideas advance.

“It’s time for the Government to step in. Defending academic freedom and free speech means that the Government must enforce ‘the rules of the game’; not participate in the contest of ideas itself, but ensure that no one is excluded simply by virtue of the belief they hold.

“In the United Kingdom, Canada, and elsewhere, the Government has intervened to ensure that academics, not universities, have their right to academic freedom protected, and as such are able to perform their role of ‘critic and conscience of society.’

“We are pleased to support these thousands of Kiwis as they call on the Government to take action to enable a new generation of students and scholars that is free to challenge the universally accepted, consider the unthinkable, and develop new knowledge for the benefit of all Kiwis.”

ENDS

Note to editor: See the public letter here.

Sent to all eight universities across the country.

This is a long letter, but an important one.

The key point is to unpack new revelations that expose the depth of bigotry and opposition to free speech in our universities. I am writing to ask you to sign our public letter to senior Ministers calling on them to bring universities to heel, and stop their illiberal activism. 

_________________________________

A famous propagandist once said 'Accuse your enemies of that which you are guilty'. That is exactly what our would-be-censors do today. 

And there is a curious (and deeply troubling) number of censors at our universities: Here are three skirmishes we're currently leading at three universities. 

1. Victoria University: Bigotry leads the way to silence speech

Remember the 'free speech panel discussion' that was supposed to be held in April but was postponed until May due to 'difficulty with scheduling'? We can now piece together what really happened – and it's made me more worried for our universities than ever before. 

I have just finished working through an almost 600-page OIA request that was released to me by Victoria University; all material on the decision to postpone the Victoria University panel on free speech, much of it decrying me as a 'racist' 'far-right zealot'.

I like to believe the best in people. I often assume differences with our opponents are questions of emphasis and miscommunication, that they're really working in good faith. 

Unfortunately, that's clearly not the case here. 

As publicised, when the University announced that I would sit on the panel (alongside Dr. Michael Johnston, a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative and FSU member), staff and students at the university 'freaked out'. 

Early on, opponents claimed that "you have two free speech absolutists but no advocates for hate speech laws. Mr. Ayling in particular is a far right-wing zealot."

While this may disappoint some of you, I'm not a free speech "absolutist". 

The OIA showed an invitation was sent to a Māori academic to also sit on the panel. They replied:

"Thanks for this invitation. However, there is no way I would ever agree to be part of a panel that includes Michael Johnston and Jonathan Ayling. Both of them are racist and do not engage in good faith discussion.

I consider this panel discussion to be a terrible idea which will result in real harm to Māori staff and students. By inviting Johnston and Ayling to be part of this panel, the VC has virtually ensured that no Maori will participate.

It sends a clear message that pandering to those who support hate speech is more important to the VC than including Māori voices."

There's incredible and perverse irony in this statement. Did you pick up on it?

In the last sentence, the academic is insisting this is simply a zero-sum game: the VC is not including Māori voices, because he is including me...! 🤔 

Also, there were Māori voices willing to sit alongside me: David Seymour, for one! We hadn't realised until I reviewed this material, but he was invited to participate in the debate, and had accepted. In the end, he simply couldn't make it because of a clash with Cabinet meeting. 

But it shows there were Māori willing to participate in the discussion - just not the 'right' kind of Māori, clearly. It is still unclear how this amounted to "real harm to Māori."

The VC himself then began to look for options to exclude me from the panel, even inviting academics to send him reasons to kick me off! He said: 

"We have been working hard to include Māori representation... any examples you can send me of racism from Michael Johnston and Jonathan Ayling would be valuable so there are increased opportunities to hold them to account." 

You will note that no one was able to send him anything... because these are lies to discredit us, not by challenging our ideas, but by sheer ad hominem attacks. 

The VC goes on to illustrate the very reason why we had concerns about Victoria University's Draft Guiding Principles for Critic and Conscience Public Discourse Conversations. He said the following clause "disqualifies Ayling". It reads: 

As we've said before, while everyone should work to promote good-faith debate, empowering one side to decide when the other side is being 'hateful' is not a solution. You can see this clause was simply going to be used to deal with a nuisance (yours truly).

I had hoped that they were actually standing on principle by keeping me as a participant. But, unfortunately, it's very clear that they would have gotten rid of me quick-smart from the panel if they thought they could get away with it.

Why? Because they knew that for whatever headache they had with academics clutching at their pearls over a 'free speech advocate' speaking in their midst, it would be nothing in comparison to the response they would provoke from us - and you - if they really showed their cards, and kicked me out.

Ultimately, it seems that it was the Māori Studies School that had the panel on free speech replaced with what ended up being a lecture on identity politics.

As below, the school signed a letter to the VC claiming that Dr Johnston and I "hold fixed racist views on 'freedom of speech'. This is unlikely to enable a compassionate conversation and will unlock and embolden previously quest racist or bigoted views." 

Again, what are the "fixed racist views on 'freedom of speech'" that I hold?

Is it simply that I believe all Kiwis should be free to express their views, even if those views are racist because it is far better to know who the bigoted are in our community than it is to suppress them? 

As a result of this OIA, we now know who some more of the bigots in our universities are. 

There were two items of correspondence to the VC that amused me. One academic claimed, while arguing I should be removed, that:

"There's literature on how normalising alt-right perspectives within reasoned debate spaces is counterproductive and just expands their base... Essentially the right presents a very simplistic free-speech line which is hard to reason against... it's always a losing battle in a debate space."

Essentially, 'when we put forward our reasoning and theirs, they win, but we know we're right'...!!!

The other was a letter to the VC following this issue receiving coverage on several radio stations, with a talk-back caller putting in their perspective. The individual was very supportive of the VC, but annoyed that: 

"Ayling said the Union does not support specific positions (the Union came from all persuasions); it only supports the right for them to be expressed. His interview was followed by the talk back host and regular guests on her programme applauding his stand and criticising the university. In short, the university suffered a PR blow and I felt embarrassed."

That sums this all up. We face some major opponents and opposition in our universities, but everyday Kiwis (who pay these academics' salaries) see through their nonsense. 

Let's go right back to the beginning. This whole issue started when I responded in an op-ed in The Post to the VC of Victoria when he complained about the Government's plan to require universities to respect free speech, or face funding cuts.

No one could have made a better case for that than the very academics who are so enraged by the policy.

This has been an ultimate own goal by the university.

When all's said and done, if you're outraged as we were by the duplicitous and censorial conduct of the university, join us in signing our public letter now. 

2. Massey University's censorial discussion paper

Victoria University isn't the only one with a free speech problem.

Massey University recently released its Curriculum Transformation Discussion Paper created with the goal of achieving "a clear, cohesive and shared approach to Massey’s curriculum design".

We've had a read and have two main concerns which we've sent to Jan Thomas, the Vice Chancellor.

Rather than entrusting academics to set the content, assessment, and delivery for their papers, decisions would rest with a qualification committee. 

We believe this does not line up with Section 267 of the Education and Training Act 2020 that states that academic freedom, in relation to an institution means 'the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution' and 'the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner that they consider best promotes learning'. 

Interestingly, recently this piece was also published on Massey's website, written, by Professor Giselle Byrnes who put the discussion policy together.

"The role of the university itself in this is clear. It is to facilitate a safe environment for staff and students to express their academic freedom; it is not for the institution to make a specific statement or adopt a singular position on any particular issue."

It appears she understands, after all, that it's up to academics (not 'the university' or a committee) to take particular stances. So why take power out of the academics' hands?

Remember, the Discussion Paper reflects the University’s positions on The Treaty of Waitangi and de/colonisation. But, seeing as there is no consensus on the meaning of the Treaty, how its principles should be interpreted, or the 'correct' approach to ‘decolonisation’, these are simply ideological hoops that academics must jump through. 

3. University of Auckland's policy: Free speech when it suits them

Speaking of ideological hoops, we recently told you about our concerns over the University of Auckland's drafted free speech policy has similar restrictions. Here's the feedback we submitted to them. I want to share our submission with you. 

The points are ones that we've mentioned before and you can read them in full here. But the thing I want to draw your attention to the authoritarian nature of it. "Free speech, but...". 

It's not a 'free speech' policy when it gives the veto power to 'the University' and its 'policies'; free speech is allowing everyone to have their say, no matter their perspective. 

As our Education Partnership Manager, Nick Hanne recently said, "...the draft policy describes the University as being the “critic” and “conscience” of society, but instead, it should be academics with this role. Universities should strive for institutional neutrality where diversity of thought can occur within its community allowing academics to take their own stance on issues." Read more from Nick here. 

These are three of our key universities in New Zealand  displaying an abysmal attitude towards free speech.

You'll know we had Toby Young, founder and director of the FSU UK, here with us over the past couple of weeks. What he said in an interview sums it up:

"Without academic freedom, we're not going to advance the frontiers of knowledge. If people are inhibited about publicising findings that they believe to be scientifically true because they're worried they might get into trouble for doing so, then that's going to retard the evolution and development of knowledge."

Academic freedom is well worth the fight. 

But who'll call universities out if we don't? We're in a situation that's, unfortunately, beyond a few letters to Vice-Chancellors. We believe it's time the Government stepped in - not to participate in the contest of ideas itself, but to ensure that no one is excluded simply because of the beliefs they hold. 

Call on our Ministers to take action and restore academic freedom in New Zealand.

It's only by your backing that we can keep up this fight, and we can't see it going away any time soon. But if it weren't for the work you're enabling us to do right now, I hate to think where we'd be.  

Jonathan Ayling Chief Executive Free Speech Union www.fsu.nz

PS. Join us in calling on the Government to step in and rescue academic freedom before it's too late. 

By Nick Hanne

Spare a thought for election officials in India who have just run the largest national election in human history. Equally impressive though is the fact that India’s is just one of more than 60 different national elections which will take place in 2024, affecting 50% of the global population. If you were an alien visiting from outer space you could be forgiven for thinking this impressive democratic spectacle represented an upward trend toward greater global liberty and enlightenment.

Everything, however, is not what it seems.

According to a recent article from University of Auckland magazine Ingenio, democracies around the world are in serious freefall. It cites findings released this past February in the Democracy Index (produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit) which paint a grim picture. Nations may be going to the polls in greater numbers, but democratic institutions and egalitarian ideals are in retreat. Dr Stephen Hoadley, recently retired associate professor of Political Studies at UoA, goes on in the article to point out that modern democracy is a “brilliant invention,” but that we, the people, need to keep it alive by, among other things, “exercising freedom of speech” and “engaging in debates.”

Truer words could not be spoken.

But does the University of Auckland hierarchy recognise these things are needed to preserve and promote the democratic ethos?

Let’s consider the University’s Draft Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy which is currently open to submissions from its staff and students. It is, you may be relieved to know, a brief read. Unfortunately its brevity doesn’t quell legitimate concerns about its content.

Two points are worth highlighting.

Firstly, the draft policy describes the University as being the “critic” and “conscience” of society, but instead, it should be academics with this role. Universities should strive for institutional neutrality where diversity of thought can occur within its community allowing academics to take their own stance on issues. So, why is this lack of impartiality so troubling?

The introduction to the draft policy also states that the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi shape the University’s culture and are “central to its mission.” Many of us might think this is fairly unremarkable given how pervasive such Treaty references have become in NZ organisations over the past few decades. I’ve no doubt even my kids’ sports clubs make mention of Te Tiriti in their charters. I recognise the honorable intentions which many Kiwis have towards race relations in this country and I share that aspiration. Yet the wording of the UoA draft policy goes beyond this and has serious implications for free speech, especially when we consider it in the context of the “Listener Seven” controversy.

If you didn’t follow the story at the time, an attempt to blend mātauranga Māori content - traditional Māori knowledge and practises – with the NCEA Science curriculum in 2021 provoked a small but determined reaction from seven UoA professors who signed their names to a public letter of protest in The Listener magazine. While these dissenters were willing to concede that mātauranga Māori offered some useful insights when it came to improving things like ecological management, they were deeply concerned that certain activists within academia – assisted in their aims by university administrators – were radically attempting to rewrite the definition of science in this country. The Seven argued that the natural sciences operated on very different foundations to mātauranga Māori, and if people wanted to study either, they could already do so – as separate disciplines. But to combine them would undermine the fundamental tenets of the natural sciences and create “misunderstandings of science.” Furthermore, they believed the move was designed to discredit and undermine scientific achievements by portraying the whole modern scientific enterprise as “Eurocentric”, “colonial” and “racist” in nature. The universal applicability of the scientific method was, they argued, explicitly being challenged by a relativistic and reductive approach which spoke of  “Western/Pakeha epistemologies” and portrayed modern science as a villain.

The Listener Seven were immediately accused of being everything from colonial apologists to social Darwinists. After all, wasn’t the proposed curriculum simply just acknowledging that indigenous beliefs might have some usefulness in the modern world? The answer was an emphatic “no.”

Ocean Mercier, associate professor at the University of Auckland, and a key proponent of the proposed curriculum disabused people of this more charitable interpretation in her response to the Seven. "I think if there is one thing this particular incident reminds us of is that there is need to decolonise first, to decolonise the science systems before we can create a safe space for mātauranga and indigenous knowledge,” and adding “this is a reminder that this space is not completely safe."

Mercier was by no means alone in her views. The Seven were excoriated by colleagues, journalists and students alike. Many fellow academics, though equally disturbed by the proposed curriculum, remained silent for fear of receiving the same treatment. One of the Seven resigned his role as dean. Three others faced calls for their expulsion from the Royal Society. Prominent figures in the University who knew better and could have publicly lent support to the Seven instead wilted in the face of a vindictive and highly vocal pile-on. The time-honoured tradition of academic freedom may not have been down, but it was certainly on the ropes.

Remarkably, more than a year after this saga had played out a leading AUT researcher and lecturer in mātauranga Māori, Georgina Tuari Stewart writing in E Tangata, admitted that she herself was not prepared to say whether mātauranga Māori and the natural sciences were indeed compatible, let alone similar. There was, she warned, “a danger in rushing to a final and definitive answer on whether Māori knowledge is a science,” but that this “disjunction was an opportunity for learning.” In other words, educators still needed to debate the matter. Such candour came too late for the Seven who’d already been labelled anachronistic, racist and bigoted by many of their learned peers.

The second concern to note about the University draft policy document concerns clause 14. Here restrictions may apply when the speech of visitors to the University “involve the advancement of theories or propositions which fall below scholarly standards to such an extent as to be detrimental to the University’s character and its performance of the functions characteristic of a university.”

Considering that Te Tiriti principles are “central to its mission”, does this mean that Te Tiriti and mātauranga Māori also inform UoA's “character”? And would the Listener Seven, or dissenters like them, therefore still fall foul of the University's speech code should a re-run of the controversy of 2021 somehow occur and the current draft policy end up being ratified?

The subjective wording in the draft policy as it stands would appear to leave the University significant discretion to disinvite or ban outright any visiting speaker it deems unworthy. Those sceptical of decolonisation may well be blacklisted. 

Moreover, determining which “scholarly standards” to apply depends very much on the subject area, the type of event a visitor might be speaking at, and the purpose of the speech. For instance, scientists will not usually engage in questions concerning metaphysics. Theologians or philosophers on the other hand are almost certainly going to be preoccupied with just those sorts of questions. How exactly then would even just a relatively straightforward interdisciplinary lecture on, say, ‘metaphor in medicine’ be assessed according to such criteria?

What then does the University of Auckland policy tell us more broadly about the culture of free speech, debate and inquiry in this country?

The censorial approach we see eroding academic freedom and civil liberties often reflects the insecurity of would-be-censors. They know deep down that certain kinds of claims or beliefs they hold will not withstand intellectual scrutiny when presented to some audiences, particularly audiences equipped with critical thinking skills, specialist knowledge and expertise. Yet often an individual can’t bear to part with a dearly held idea or belief because of their own deep emotional or psychological attachment to such thinking, even if the error is obvious. This is especially difficult when an idea or belief is considered fundamental to one’s identity and status. Ironically, failure to receive the desired approval can often make the desire for approval greater. The trouble is that it also makes us spiteful.

The basic life lesson we need to revive in our homes, our schools and on our university campuses may seem harsh. But it can be expressed quite simply.

If you’re unwilling to allow your ideas to be tested, and if you only want affirmation rather than risking an honest response, stop pushing for intellectual recognition from institutions traditionally shaped by a culture of free speech, reason, standards of evidence and debate. Seek affirmation from someone or something other than a university. Try a social club.

Academic excellence demands humility, a recognition of our shortcomings and awareness that we have only begun to scratch the surface of all that there is to know. As Socrates was fond of pointing out, the wise have a responsibility to question everything, but especially those things we’ve been warned not to question.

Free speech culture in universities requires a society that is brave enough to submit its most sacred, dearly held knowledge claims to the rigorous testing ground we call academic inquiry, the scientific method, and peer review.  Without courage, we resort to a herd mentality and mob rule – even if it more often these days occurs online. Without intellectual honesty, we end up ostracising the dissenter by ignoring their attempts at reasoned debate, straw manning their arguments, and reducing them to distorted caricatures – much like happened to the Listener Seven.

Aside from wanting control or fearing our ideas might be exposed as inadequate, there are obviously instances where we censor out of a genuine concern to protect the powerless and vulnerable. I don’t let my kids watch certain shows on TV for instance. But if we are talking about universities then we are talking about censoring on behalf of other adults.

So we ought to confront head on the claim that some people in our universities aren’t strong enough to handle certain ideas. Because that is palpable nonsense. They can handle it. They just don’t feel comfortable doing so. With exposure and the necessary critical thinking skills, they’ll learn how to better handle it.

We shouldn't be surprised that there are voices in our society who feel aggrieved at the way their forebears were treated. Such injuries run deep for some and we ought not to underestimate the power of inherited memory, whether or not we believe the rest of us have a duty or even capacity to fix the wrongs of the past. Universities are a natural place in which to explore these sorts of questions.

At the same time, in our attempts to expose past wrongs, and consider how we address them, let’s not dispense with the essential tools of critical thinking – free speech, reason, and evidence – which will in the long run actually help to break cycles of injustice rather than perpetuate them.