Criticising one¡¯s institution is not just a right but an ¡°obligation¡±?for New Zealand academics, according to high-profile employment lawyer Catherine Stewart.

Ms Stewart said the ¡°unique¡± responsibilities on academics, students and universities, imposed under academic freedom clauses in New Zealand¡¯s Education and Training Act, were not ¡°ring-fenced¡± to disciplinary expertise. ?

¡°The distinctive nature of this employment relationship, unlike every other employment relationship, protects you from¡­disciplinary action [for] criticising your university,¡± she told delegates to a Tertiary Education Union (TEU) conference.

This characteristic placed academics in a vastly different position from that of staff?at other types of organisation, who face retribution for breaching contractual obligations to ¡°act with loyalty to the employer¡± or ¡°not bring the employer into disrepute¡± ¨C even if they do so outside the workplace.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°Some might say you are expected ¨C or, even greater than that, it is an obligation on you ¨C to bring to the attention of your employer or the public matters which are of concern to you, which may go against the reputation of the employer,¡± she told the conference.

What can universities do to protect academic freedom?

¡°As long as it¡¯s ethical, it¡¯s within the law and it¡¯s for the betterment overall of the university¡­you are not bringing your employer into disrepute.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Ms Stewart said this aspect of universities¡¯ academic freedom obligations was routinely misinterpreted by academics and particularly by university administrators.

¡°The threats to academic freedom, from my perspective,¡­largely relate to misunderstandings and a lack of knowledge about what academic freedom is and what it means.¡±

Ms Stewart represented University of Auckland bacteriologist Siouxsie Wiles in a landmark academic freedom court case. The high-profile academic claimed that the university had not adequately protected her from harassment and vilification over her Covid-19 commentary.

An employment court judge?found?that the university¡¯s efforts to shield Dr Wiles had been ¡°deficient¡± but disagreed that the case was about academic freedom. Ms Stewart is pursuing an appeal of the ruling and said the outcome could provide a ¡°definitive pronouncement from the courts on what academic freedom really means under the statute¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

TEU president Julie Douglas said this would benefit both staff and management. ¡°If we aren¡¯t on the same page, we¡¯re going to be at loggerheads consistently,¡± she told the conference.

TEU secretary Sandra Grey said staff¡¯s ¡°ability to critique¡± teaching and assessment was paramount. ¡°One of the biggest disagreements we have [is that] vice-chancellors¡­believe ¡®area of expertise¡¯ means the limited area you are currently researching,¡± she said.

¡°That is not the union¡¯s perspective. All academic staff are experts on teaching and learning, because that¡¯s one of the things they do.¡±

Andrew Bonnell, vice-president of the National Tertiary Education Union in Australia, said the latest round of university enterprise agreements in his country had enshrined ¡°good definitions¡± of academic freedom. They included the right of ¡°all staff¡± to comment on their institutions.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com