Academics must stand by beliefs and convictions
Academics hold a privileged position in society by utilising the principles of academic freedom and taking part in the contest of ideas in public debate through informed intellectual discourse.
This is because in a democracy we have the right to freedom of thought and expression, the right to disagree in a fair and measured way, and we recognise that debate is healthy. Such robust discourse needs to be conducted in an evidence-based, respectful and civilised manner. Our universities should see their role in a modern society encouraging open communication, community engagement and freedom of expression; these are fundamental tenets.
I use my expertise to actively engage in public debate on criminal justice issues. I hold to no political persuasion, but rather look at the effectiveness of policies and their utility in my field of expertise. I have been critical of the policy of all sides of politics, from the ill-fated Queensland LNP bikie laws to, more recently, the inept juvenile crime responses of the Queensland Labor government.
Academics need to engage with contentious issues – the very meaning of contentious is to cause argument or debate. There is little to gain from commenting on non-contentious issues.
Without such involvement and encouragement of debates, how can we expect students to think independently and immerse themselves in societal issues, examine broad issues and find their voice to speak up.
Yet it is with concern I have watched the shutting down of public debate on contentious issues. Such intolerance has come at the cost of independence of thought.
If you argue against legalisation of drugs or pill testing, you are labelled as someone who wants to harm young people at dance festivals.
Such claims ignore the factual evidence that pill testing does not make drugs safe to take. Users are told that regardless of the findings, testing does not provide evidence of safety, they are told “the only way to guarantee, 100 per cent, that you are not harmed by consuming drugs is not to consume drugs”.
The evidence that legalising drugs is a positive policy response is problematic at best.
If you argue against raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years you are cast as someone who wants to send children to jail and does not care about their welfare. Yet ABS data tells us that the number of custodial sentences in Children’s Court matters in Australia has been declining over the last decade.
Very few young people under the age of 14 ever get sent to jail, only 2 per cent of that cohort received a custodial sentence in 2020-21.
When I published an evidence-based article on a university-funded website arguing against raising the age, the immediate response from those campaigning to raise it was to contact the website and state they were “disappointed to read this”.
The implication being that there is no place for dissension or disagreement. The right to publish an alternative view is forfeited.
The obvious question is why?
Is debate no longer tolerated? Another public figure tweeted: “It’s easy to understand his views, he is an ex-cop. The racial gendered violence of policing doesn’t end because he’s no longer a cop ”.
Why argue with facts when you can just defame someone?
In the absolutist world, acceptance of a differing view is not enough, you must surrender your intellect and agree unconditionally with the opposing view. As one senior academic noted “notions of ambiguity, shades of grey, and multifaceted perspectives can get lost in a populist stance where black is black and white is as pure as driven snow”.
We need to protect freedom of inquiry and expression; such protections have been of major benefit to human society and to the development of knowledge as a whole.
As a detective inspector for 28 years, I protected those whose rights had been transgressed and sought justice for victims of crime – inalienable rights that we should all be able to access.
As an associate professor of criminal justice, I also teach in the field of expertise in relation to miscarriages of justice.
Yet when I posted on my personal social media a short comment on the death of Cardinal George Pell and its implications as a miscarriage of justice I was subject to abuse and vitriol from those so prejudiced they sought to deny the fact of the unanimous 7-0 verdict by Australia’s highest court; a decision that found Pell had been wrongly convicted and was entitled to the presumption of innocence.
I was cast aside by a victim support service I had assisted for a decade; I was told my post was not in accord with “their values”.
My crime was to post a link to the High Court judgment. Hypocrisy is now overlord; the highlighting of fact is punishable. I was to be subject to an inquisition. I resigned out of principle.
As a Catholic I am reminded of the denial by Peter of Jesus. The Gospel tells us Jesus foretold that Peter, one of his disciples, would deny he knew him before the rooster crows. When Jesus was seized, Peter was accused of knowing him, he denied it three times, and then the rooster crowed, and Peter wept.
The message here is that you must stand by your convictions and beliefs; to fail to do so is a betrayal of the contest of ideas and a surrender to the absolutism of populist narratives where only one viewpoint is acceptable.
But worse, it will mean the generations that follow will never hear fearless voices arguing a position with conviction based on fact in the face of the baying mob. And how many of us, like Peter, will then weep for our failure to protect the freedoms that we have come to enjoy.
Terry Goldsworthy is associate professor of criminal justice at Bond University and a former Queensland detective inspector.
