After 27 years at James Cook University, Ridd had failed to overturn his dismissal. Officially, James Cook University won this case. But it’s a pyrrhic victory.
The university was left with a big legal bill and a judgment that identified its improper attempts to silence an academic who questioned the rigour of other scientists.
The High Court broke with normal practice and refused to order Ridd to pay the university’s costs. But James Cook University lost something far more important that money: the reputation of this institution has been trashed.
The world has been left with the impression that this university did not understand the principle that lies at the heart of the scientific method: when searching for truth, robust debate is more important than professional courtesy and collegiality.
So to describe this university as a winner does not capture the full impact of what happened.
The High Court’s ruling falls into two parts: the first is a defeat for one man based on the peculiar circumstances of the case and the court’s even stranger form of reasoning. That aspect of Ridd’s case is best viewed not simply as an aberration, but wrong.
From Ridd’s perspective it was utterly unjust. On the substantive issue of academic freedom, the court’s judgment shows he was right and the university wrong when it tried to silence his criticism of what he considered shoddy science.
Yet these wrongdoers still managed to salvage victory after the court used a form of reasoning that was right out of Kafka: Ridd had failed to respect the confidentiality of an improper disciplinary process that targeted his legitimate right to engage in robust professional discourse.
That form of reasoning is less than persuasive and will eventually be seen for what it is: an embarrassment that sits uneasily with the rest of the ruling.
The lasting significance of this decision is in the second part of the judgment, which is an entirely convincing exposition on the importance of academic freedom and why robust scientific debate needs to prevail over bureaucratic demands for courtesy.
If the next federal government builds on this foundation, the real winners will be future generations – not just of academics but of all those who benefit from academic rigour.
This part of the ruling serves as a warning to university bureaucrats. The nation’s highest court is united on the importance of intellectual freedom and seems likely to side with academics should this issue again come before the court.
That, of course, assumes that other academics will have the fortitude and resources to follow Ridd’s example and fight for the right to speak their mind. That is quite an assumption.
In the real world, it would be a rare soul who would be prepared to risk their career and finances in a fight over an issue of principle. That is why the next federal government has an obligation to build on the foundation laid in the second part of this judgment.
The next education minister needs to ensure academics will never again need to resort to private litigation to defend their right to engage in robust professional discourse.
We have already seen how government action can nudge universities in the right direction through the development of a voluntary code on academic freedom by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French.
This code, however, fails to take account of the fact that universities are sensitive to threats to their revenue and the interests of influential stakeholders. Public policy therefore needs to support those who challenge academic orthodoxy, regardless of who takes offence.
Peter Zahra RIP
Peter Zahra, who died this week, was much more than the NSW District Court judge who was running the embezzlement trial of Guy Sebastian’s former manager, Titus Day.
Behind the scenes Judge Zahra was one of the biggest supporters of a program that gives law and commerce students direct access to NSW courts.
He was part of an excursion program to the courts, known as the Law Day Out, run by the Rule of Law Education Centre, which is closely associated with the Rule of Law Institute.
As well as giving talks to law and commerce students during tours of the courts, the judge made invaluable suggestions on ways to improve the centre’s teaching materials.
As part of the Law Day Out, he outlined the intricacies of sentencing and gave students a chance to experience the trial process and engage in role playing.
“He devoted a great deal of his time to court education and we are incredibly appreciative and grateful for the lasting impact he has had on our program and the many high school students who had the opportunity to meet him,” Rule of Law Education Centre chief executive Sally Layson said.
“From the infancy of the program, he volunteered his time to speak to students and enrich their understanding of the legal system, particularly the role of the judiciary.”
Judge Zahra, who was appointed to the bench in 2007, died in hospital on Sunday after suffering a stroke last Thursday.
Chris Merritt is vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia. This column draws on a paper the author will deliver on Friday morning at a conference on the future of academic freedom hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs.
First Guardian, Shield adviser Ferras Merhi dealt travel ban
Venture Egg’s Ferras Merhi and Aus Super Compare’s Osama Saad, who are caught up in the investigation into the collapse of First Guardian and Shield, are banned from leaving the country.
The transgender dilemma and how MPs overlooked sex discrimination implications
Twelve years ago both sides of politics supported changes to the Sex Discrimination Act, but nowhere did they make explicit reference to treat certain biological men as if they were women.
In October last year when the High Court handed down a short, unanimous decision in Peter Ridd’s case, it was a tragic outcome for a world class professor of physics who tried to defend his right to engage in robust professional discourse – no matter who took offence.