Ridding themselves of dissent

The fragility of intellectual freedom, a cornerstone of universities for centuries, has been underlined by James Cook University’s pursuit of marine physicist Peter Ridd, whom it dismissed in 2018. The institution is appealing against a Federal Circuit Court decision in April last year that found JCU had contravened the Fair Work Act when it dismissed Dr Ridd for criticising colleagues for their research on the impact of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef. The university later was ordered to pay Dr Ridd more than $1.2m for lost income, lost future income and costs.

The appeal, being heard in the Federal Court, is a battle royale between leading barristers. It goes to the heart of what is at stake in terms of free speech and the right of scientists to argue beyond the bounds of institutional groupthink, especially on contentious issues such as climate change. Dr Ridd has been an outspoken critic of the quality of scientific research on the Great Barrier Reef, saying its health has often been misrepresented. He was sacked after 27 years at JCU after being censured three times for publicly criticising his colleagues and the university. JCU has always insisted he was not sacked because of his scientific views but for denigrating the university and its employees and for breaching confidentiality.

On Tuesday, Dr Ridd’s barrister, Stuart Wood QC, told the court JCU’s enterprise agreement protected employees’ “intellectual freedom”. That freedom gave staff the right to express unpopular or controversial views and to disagree with university decisions, he said. This was subject only to the limitation that they could not vilify, harass, bully or intimidate other people, which JCU accepted Dr Ridd had not done, Mr Wood said. But Bret Walker SC, for JCU, said the enterprise agreement incorporated the university’s code of conduct, which required that staff act in a respectful, collegiate manner towards colleagues.

The Australian believes frank debate on issues surrounding climate science serves the public interest. On contentious issues, robust argument is inevitable and helpful in arriving at the truth. As judge Salvatore Vasta said in his findings last year: “In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.”