A manufactured university free speech crisis

The current push to mandate “free speech” policies in New Zealand universities - through legislation being considered by Parliament’s education and workforce select committee - represents a manufactured crisis designed to erode academic freedom while appearing to protect it.

It risks importing culture wars and allowing external actors, through the agency of the state, to curb rather than expand academic freedom - under the aegis of advancing “free speech.”

As the recent removal of humanities and social sciences from Marsden funding suggests, there is a danger such an initiative may align with the closing, not opening, of intellectual and academic debate.

The Government's own assessment of proposed amendments to mandate free speech on campus reveals the manufactured nature of this “crisis”. Officials acknowledge having “limited evidence on the actual extent and impact of freedom of speech concerns in New Zealand” and that “many of these concerns are anecdotal”.

Indeed, a recent op-ed in The Post supporting the legislation did not cite a single recent example of a major intrusion on “free speech” that would have required the exercise of the powers envisaged in the bill.

When a government can’t demonstrate that a problem exists, why are we creating legislation? Are universities being deliberately targeted because they are oases of intellectual civility, freedom and exchange - and because speakers gain something they cannot get elsewhere: the implicit endorsement of academic or educational respectability when they speak on campus? By this, we mean an idea presented in a lecture hall is more likely to be believed than an idea presented at a speaker’s corner. As Professor Joan Scott succinctly explains: “Free speech makes no distinction about quality; academic freedom does.” This difference is foundational to why universities exist. Academic freedom protects rigorous inquiry conducted according to scholarly standards. It shields researchers pursuing evidence-based knowledge from political interference.

Free speech, by contrast, makes no quality judgments; protecting all expression equally, regardless of whether it meets any scholarly criteria or contributes to accepted educational purposes. When we confuse academic freedom and educational purpose with a simple declaration of “free speech,” we transform universities from institutions that advance knowledge and education into platforms where any idea can claim legitimacy simply by demanding access.

Universities, as autonomous, self-governing institutions with a well-developed mission and history of research and education, should be allowed to make this judgment call—not an external agency of the state.

Close to the University of Auckland is a designated speaker’s corner in Albert Park, where anybody can argue any idea. Indeed, not so long ago there was a major furore over the speech of “Posie Parker” in this area that required police intervention. While the topic could well have been discussed on campus, the way it was set up was designed to cause controversy and potential police involvement - precisely the kind of manufactured intervention the university does well to avoid.

Arecent op-ed from a “free speech” advocate argued that institutional neutrality is key to academic freedom. Universities do provide neutral ground on campus for academics to explore and conduct research, and for members of the university community - including students - to debate issues.

But they also engage in public-facing policies such as which research they choose to highlight in alumni magazines, what partnerships they pursue, which research they fund, whom they promote, and how they allocate resources. Every day, universities - as autonomous, self-governing organisations - make decisions that reflect values and priorities. These choices are driven by values that ultimately shape and reflect a university’s mission.

Yes, universities are spaces to test ideas and push boundaries, both in research and educational purpose, but this is done through a process refined over hundreds of years and multiple generations. It relies on evidence-based discourse, whether in traditional academic research or campus debate.

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour recently took part in a debate on a controversial topic organised by the student union on the campus of Oxford University. Undoubtedly, this followed established university guidelines on such debates, an example of how universities can push boundaries not only in conventional scholarship and scientific research but also through debate, as part of their dual mission: to advance knowledge and educate future generations - including informing public discussion in a constructive manner.

It is surely wrong to force universities to bend the knee to an external agency of the state. They are autonomous, self-governing organisations that have used their independence judiciously to protect the freedom of their staff to push the boundaries of research, encourage and manage debate on key issues on campus, and inform public discourse through civil, constructive, evidencebased contributions. If universities were to lose this autonomy, they would also lose their credibility as independent learning institutions - ultimately endangering the very concept and nature of a university.

Associate Professor Sereana Naepi is associate professor in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Auckland, and a Rutherford Discovery Fellow. Peter Davis is emeritus professor in population health and social science at the university.