A couple of weeks ago, the media made quite a fuss about an open letter “Supporting Freedom of Speech in New Zealand Universities”, initiated by Professor Paul Moon, professor of History at the Auckland University of Technology, and signed by nearly 30 well-known New Zealanders. Signatories were from all walks of life and from all corners of the political spectrum – from Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Bryan Gould on the Left to me on the right.
The letter itself made an eloquent case:
Freedom of speech underpins our way of life in New Zealand as a liberal democracy. It enables religious observance, individual development, societal change, science, reason and progress in all spheres of life. In particular, the free exchange of ideas is a cornerstone of academe.
Governments and particular groups will from time to time seek to restrict freedom of speech in the name of safety of special interest. However, debate or deliberation must not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most people to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.
Universities play a fundamental role in the thought leadership of a society. They, of all places, should be institutions where robust debate and the free exchange of ideas take place, not the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views.
Individuals, not any institution or group, should make their own judgements about ideas and should express these judgements not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas they oppose, without discrimination or intimidation.
We must ensure that our higher learning establishments are places where intellectual rigour prevails over emotional blackmail and where academic freedom, built on free expression, is maintained and protected. We must fight for each other’s right to express opinions, even if we do not agree with them.
Or in the words attributed to 18th century French philosopher Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
A lot of the focus is on freedom of speech in universities, and I suspect that focus was a result partly of the person who initiated the letter – a professor of History at AUT – and partly a result of what has been happening in universities all over the world in recent months.
Despite the First Amendment to the US Constitution making it explicit that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”, there have been some egregious examples of attempts – many of them successful – to prevent people from speaking on American campuses in recent times.
One which has got a lot of attention involved Middlebury College, a long-established liberal arts college in the state of Vermont. Early in March, well-known conservative writer Charles Murray was due to speak to a student audience but was literally prevented from doing so by violently protesting students. He and the female professor who had organized the event were physically attacked as they left the venue. The professor contrasted this treatment with the respectful silence which the student body accorded Edward Snowden, the man who leaked many thousands of top secret documents to the world, when he was beamed into the College two weeks later.
In New Zealand, I can recall three recent events where student pressure shut down views with which they disagreed. One was when Lindsay Perigo – a long-time Radio New Zealand and TVNZ announcer – was prevented from finishing a speech at the University of Auckland in which he was critical of Islam. A second was when a group of students decided, as a result of pressure, not to proceed with the establishment of a club for students of European ethnicity, also at the University of Auckland, despite nobody looking twice at there being a separate club or association for several other ethnicities.
Then there was the furore caused when the chancellor of Massey University had the temerity to suggest that, because women who graduated as vets often left the profession to raise a family, the large number of women students seeking to become vets overstated the number of “full-time equivalent vets” who would be entering the profession. Despite prefacing that comment by noting that “women mature earlier than men, work hard and pass”, he was criticized for being sexist and eventually felt obliged to resign as chancellor.
In Australia, a recent invitation for Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak had to be withdrawn due to concerns about her security and the security of the venues hosting her. Hirsi Ali, a prominent critic of Islam, is herself a former Muslim. Opposition to her visit to Australia was led by the Council for the Prevention of Islamophobia.
Freedom of speech can never be absolute. It can never be acceptable to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre, or to deliberately incite violence. There are defamation laws to deter people from making untruthful assertions about individuals.
But we risk returning to the dark ages when we shut down views with which we disagree, whether those are about political parties, about Islam, about fundamentalist Christians, about abortion, about race, about sexual orientation, about the role of women, or about the Treaty of Waitangi.
As Professor Moon noted, there is “an absurd notion that universities should provide intellectual ‘safe spaces’. There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is precisely these intellectually dangerous or subversive spaces that academics and students must enter and explore.”
Copyright © 2024 Don Brash.