Bettina Arndt’s free speech catch-22

Freedom of speech still has friends at Sydney University and one of them has provided some advice for Bettina Arndt.

Bettina Arndt after her talk at the University of Sydney. Picture: Jonathan Ng

Freedom of speech still has friends at Sydney University and one of them has taken the trouble to provide some free and anonymous advice for journalist and psychologist Bettina Arndt.

Soon after Arndt lodged a complaint over an attempt to prevent her addressing the university’s Liberal Club, an employee of the university contacted this writer with important information.

If Arndt allows her complaint to be processed by the university in the normal way, there is a risk that she could undermine her goal of seeking public redress.

Her complaint, while officially about bullying, concerns an attempt by five named students to prevent her from exercising her right to free speech.

Here is the problem: the university’s policy on the resolution of complaints includes the option of mediation or conciliation.

That might sound civilised. But there is a catch. And that catch is unlikely to appeal to anyone who values transparency and accountability.

Clause 16 (4) of the policy says any information disclosed during the mediation or conciliation is confidential — which is not much good if the goal is to galvanise public support for free speech at tertiary institutions.

If Arndt participates in this procedure and the university rejects her complaint, she has other options. And those options might well draw upon the skills of several lawyers who she says have “reached out” to her after reading in The Australian about her problems at Sydney University and at La Trobe.

The involvement of lawyers might well have something to do with Robert French’s magnificent intervention. Like Arndt, the former chief justice of the High Court has identified the great danger confronting this fundamental right.

The next step for Arndt depends on how she responds to clause 16 (4)(b) of the resolution of complaints policy, which looks like another way of silencing her.

It says “participants must not use or rely on information during or in connection with the mediation or conciliation (including any admissions, offers, concessions or statements made by parties) in any other forum, including in any legal or regulatory proceedings”. This means Arndt is effectively being asked to jeopardise her future prospects in court in the hope of winning a confidential remedy.

But it’s not a total gag. Another provision would allow the university to make public statements to those with “legitimate grounds to receive such information”.