University challenged – and found wanting

Are our universities failing to perform their duties as institutions of higher learning and dialogue?

In my previous post, I noted that a “freedom of speech” event planned at Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington was “postponed”. A panel discussion about “the rights and responsibilities associated with freedom of speech and how we can find better ways to have challenging but respectful conversations” will now be reorganised, according the VC, as the original agenda and list of speakers had caused “polarisation” and “a depth of feeling” on campus.

An opinion column in the student magazine Salient shows that one significant concern about the seminar was the planned appearance of Jonathan Ayling of the Free Speech Union (FSU). The objection to him was on the grounds that the FSU have supported the free-speech rights of people whose ideas are considered “hateful”.

For its part, the FSU maintains that the best way to deal with ideas that we find abhorrent is to get them out into the open so that they’re exposed to the sunlight and can then be subjected to counter-arguments. Supporting a person’s right to speak must be distinguished from supporting what they say. If we object to an idea, then first let it be heard so that we can make a case against it.

Henry Broadbent, the sub-editor of Salient, has a different view. He accuses the FSU of defending hate speech per se. Citing a UN definition, he asked why hate speech should not be “suppressed”. In a comment to Radio NZ, he said: “If something harmful or hateful is said – even if it’s fact-checked and shut down immediately afterwards – it can't be unsaid, ever.” (My italics.) The safety of marginalised groups on campus outweighs the airing of Mr Ayling’s “grievances”, according to Henry Broadbent, implying that it’s better to ban such speakers before they can even speak.

The sub-editor of a student magazine wants to suppress and shut down the airing of ideas that he believes may make members of marginalised groups feel unsafe – and furthermore, to shut down the idea that such ideas may even be aired. To protect the marginalised groups that he defends, he wants to marginalise another group of people who hold opinions that differ from his. But banishment from campus won’t stop the people whose ideas he abhors from expressing them openly anyway.

Mind you, the FSU’s Mr Ayling didn’t help his own cause by saying: “If students are not resilient enough or mature enough to be able to deal in ideas - even those that they find uncomfortable - then maybe they shouldn't be at university.” (My italics.) That just proposed another form of marginalisation.

In the midst of this high-level debate, most students would be keeping their heads down, worried about their next assignment and terrified of getting cancelled. Many young people aren’t very resilient or mature yet, and they do feel uncomfortable about some ideas. But our universities aren’t reserved for hardened grown-ups.

The ACT Party is now watching this drama closely. Whenever a few lefties get fragile over right-wing opinions, they hand the power to David Seymour, and he knows how to use it.

The coalition agreement between National and ACT stipulates that they will “amend the Education and Training Act 2020 such that tertiary education providers receiving taxpayer funding must commit to a free speech policy.”

Victoria University’s (so far futile) struggle to stage a seminar on freedom of speech may have been a pre-emptive effort to adapt to this imminent policy. University leaders will bend over backwards for the government’s money, so the sub-editor of Salient may have to tolerate hearing more of the things that he doesn’t like to hear in future.

---

As mentioned, Henry Broadbent from Salient cited a UN definition of “hate speech” in support of “suppression” of certain ideas and speakers. What is that definition?

UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law.

That’s a working definition, and is not law. Even if a statement does fall within the definition and arouses our disapproval, that alone doesn’t justify its suppression. But if you believe that suppression is justified in some instances, then how much force should be applied to suppress what someone says?

Many kinds of utterances are presently prohibited by NZ law, for example: threats to kill, false statements about one’s finances, impersonation of a police officer, insider trading, false advertising, blackmail, defamation, and the list goes on, some with the option of a prison sentence. So, the law can and does limit our freedom of speech. The question is: which limitations are reasonable in the context of a democratic society?

Aside from statutory prohibitions, universities impose sanctions against plagiarism, and some things don’t get published in journals because they don’t pass the peer-review test. Furthermore, there are many social and academic norms about what you can and can’t say. For example, I don’t see it as a valid use of my freedom of speech to say things that belittle or marginalise others, and I’d admonish anyone for it. If someone mistakenly does say something pejorative or discriminatory, I don’t see “suppression” as a solution. Open dialogue and education are almost always better.

So, while I’m generally in favour of freedom of speech and academic freedom, it’s impractical to take an “absolutist” stance. For example, anyone who leaves comments on this substack that are insulting to any person(s) will be asked not to do so. I’m not as permissive as Elon Musk. Although they tried to recruit me, I’m not a member or supporter of the FSU, but…

I’m saddened to see a student newspaper become an open advocate for the suppression of lawfully expressed ideas.

Student mags were supposed to be edgy, irreverent and controversial – when they weren’t being daft. How did a well-meaning desire to support gender and ethnic minorities end up turning a student mag into an organ of suppression?

If that’s a question that even needs to be asked, then our university communities really are in a mess. But I’d be kidding myself if I thought that the present government had any effective remedy.

My opening question was: Are our universities failing to perform their duties as institutions of higher learning and dialogue?

My answer is a qualified yes. Thinking of the whole university community, not just senior management, there are still many individuals who are doing their jobs very well. But, despite the efforts of those individuals, the universities don’t live up to their statutory obligations to be intellectually open institutions where curiosity and debate are valued – other than through lip-service and empty policies. The ACT Party’s “free speech policy” will be a low-cost gesture that fails to solve the problem. The solutions should come from within the university community itself, including students. Unfortunately, I anticipate more polarisation and bullying instead.

---

This image was AI-generated on Gencraft.