Another weak free speech university policy
Auckland University has a draft free speech policy. There are some good parts to it, but also parts that will allow significant censorship.
We take our role of critic and conscience seriously and welcome and encourage dialogue and debate including on topics which may be contentious and controversial. It is inevitable that different perspectives will sometimes be in tension with each other. It is important to remember the foundation of our academic community: respect for diverse viewpoints and a commitment to civil discourse.
That’s good.
Every staff member and every student has the same right to freedom of expression on University premises or otherwise in connection with the University as any other person in Aotearoa New Zealand subject only to the constraints imposed by the reasonable and proportionate regulation of conduct to enable the University to fulfil its Duty regarding the wellbeing of staff and students
This is a huge weakness. This means that any snowflake staff member or student can claim that someone else’s speech is a threat to their wellbeing, and hey presto that speech is against the code of conduct.
However, the University may express an institutional position or view.
Harvard have just learnt this is a bad idea. Individual staff and students should take positions. The institution should not.
Academic staff members are not precluded from including content in a course solely on the grounds that it may offend or shock a student or class of students.
That’s good.
The University may refuse to permit a visitor or visitors to speak on University premises where the content of the speech is or is likely to prejudice the fulfilment by the University of its Duty regarding the wellbeing of staff and students
This is a licence for censorship. We know from experience that wellbeing is used as a weapon to censor views people disagree with. They did it at Massey to stop Don Brash from speaking.
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.
This is also a licence to censor. Who decides what meets scholarly standards? On this ground the Deputy PM of NZ could be banned from speaking if he has a view on something which a university administrator disagrees with.
There is no right for outsider speakers to speak on campus without an invitation. But if an academic staff member or an affiliated society decides they wish to hear from someone one, that shouldn’t be a decision for the institution.