Speech is only free if the ¡°state stays out of the way¡± and New Zealand must avoid emulating Britain¡¯s ¡°extreme¡± approach to free speech, a Wellington forum has heard.

Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) law professor Nicole Moreham said the UK¡¯s free speech legislation lay at odds with the discerning nature of academia. ¡°It says [universities and student unions] can¡¯t exclude a speaker on the basis of their ideas or their opinions,¡± she told VUW¡¯s forum on the role of universities in supporting free speech.

¡°I¡¯m the editor of a journal. I discriminate on the basis of ideas and opinions all the time.¡±

Under a coalition agreement between two of New Zealand¡¯s governing parties, taxpayer-funded tertiary institutions must have free speech policies. While the legislation to enforce this is yet to materialise, Professor Moreham said it would be ¡°ironic¡± for the government to undermine institutional autonomy with ¡°diktats about what we do and don¡¯t do on campus¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°The problem¡­lies outside of our control to a large degree, and much more in civil society,¡± she said.

M¨¡ori political commentator and VUW law lecturer Morgan Godfery said governments mandating free speech was as undesirable as governments mandating speech content. ¡°The point of freedom of speech is that the state stays out of the way,¡± he told the forum.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said government involvement in campus free speech was a ¡°contradiction¡± and would be unnecessary in an ¡°ideal world¡±. But the union¡¯s polling suggested that most New Zealanders considered free speech to be ¡°under threat¡±, and ¡°significant proportions¡± of academics felt ¡°unfree to speak out on certain issues¡±, he added.

Mr Ayling said the ¡°lead-up¡± to the forum, when student protests precipitated its postponement, suggested a ¡°weak and problematic¡­epistemological underpinning¡± at universities and demonstrated the need for state involvement.

Australian higher education expert John Byron said universities were ¡°not speaker¡¯s corner. A lectern is not a soapbox where you can just say whatever you like.¡±

Dr Byron, policy director at Queensland University of Technology, said ¡°good faith¡± should underpin all debates. Campuses had no obligation to host speakers whose aim was to ¡°shout¡± and ¡°prevent critique¡±.

¡°It¡¯s not what universities are for,¡± he said. ¡°If you¡¯re not serious about everybody else in the room being free and feeling able to speak, then you are not for free speech.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

University of Waikato geographer Lynda Johnston said such speakers were easy to identify. ¡°We can see¡­people¡¯s track records through what they say and where they say it; who they allow into those events,¡± said Professor Johnston, an LGBT advocate and queer geography expert. ¡°It¡¯s pretty obvious really.¡±

Former University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey said the sector had responsibilities to foster informed intellectual engagement in ¡°robust¡± environments: ¡°A university is not a free-for-all zone.¡± She said ¡°censorship¡± of campus speakers was usually motivated by a desire to avoid upsetting sponsors or ¡°the Chinese¡±, not left-wing students or academics. The ¡°weaponisation of free speech¡± was a ¡°beat-up¡±, she said.

Auckland University of Technology law dean Khylee Quince said campuses should not host speakers such as Julian Batchelor, a campaigner against M¨¡ori co-governance. ¡°These are institutions of higher learning. We should not be wasting our time entering into intellectual debates with unarmed opponents.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Campus resource collection: Higher education¡¯s role in upholding democracy

Former VUW academic Michael Johnston, senior fellow with the NZ Initiative thinktank, said universities should be a ¡°neutral ground¡± and avoid pre-judgements. ¡°From time to time, the crackpots turn out to be right,¡± he noted, citing Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin.

¡°Sometimes people turn out to be wrong [but] other people share [their] views. If you want to debunk ideas, you¡¯ve got to confront them head on ¨C otherwise people will continue to believe them.¡±

Human rights activist Anjum Rahman said governments should have no role in determining people¡¯s suitability to speak on campus. Rather, such decisions should be made by groups appointed by university administrators and carrying ¡°diversity of lived experience¡±.

¡°Very often the people who make the arguments around some of this stuff are not the people that have to suffer the harm,¡± said Ms Rahman, founder of the Inclusive Aotearoa Collective. ¡°Speech does cause harm and it isn¡¯t about feelings,¡± she added, saying social media had fuelled deadly violence in Ethiopia, India, Kenya and Myanmar.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°We¡¯ve heard a lot about people¡¯s feelings. Let¡¯s talk about¡­group harm and what that means. As a university¡­what [are] your responsibilities here? What are you upholding? Are you protecting our lives? What is your speech doing? What speech are you bringing here?¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com