Ridd case must go all the way to the High Court

The recent Federal Court decision on the sacking of Peter Ridd is a victory for intellectual timidity, collegial double-speak and institutional cowardice by the ironically named James Cook University. Reading the judgment, I was reminded of the way the majority judges in the Pell case came to their conclusion. That miscarriage of justice was fortunately reversed by the High Court.

In the Ridd case, the judges appear to have ignored inconvenient historical precedent relating to what our basic understanding of intellectual freedom means by stating “there is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts and definitions of academic freedoms. Whatever the concept once meant, it has evolved to take into account contemporary circumstances which present a challenge to it, including the internet, social media and trolling, none of which informed the view of persons such as J.S. Mill, John Locke, Isaiah Berlin and others who have written on the topic.”

In other words, because of trolls on Twitter, these basic concepts should no longer apply. This was neatly summed up by Janet Albrechtsen (“How Twitter has killed intellectual freedom”, 25-26/7).

Joe Dowse, Mosman, NSW

Janet Albrechtsen’s analysis of the Federal Court judgment in the Peter Ridd appeal is compelling. The full court decision implies that since Ridd’s university employment at James Cook University 27 years ago, the concept of intellectual freedom and pursuit of truth has changed from historical concepts. This matter impacts on the foundations of Western intellectual tradition and the intellectual inquiry and freedoms of all universities. This case requires an appeal to the High Court, the outcome of which will have an impact on all Australian universities’ administration of intellectual freedom.

Charles Stanger, Manuka, ACT

Janet Albrechtsen’s criticism of James Cook University is well founded. Will we see cancel culture change the name of this university?

I was fortunate to be a graduate of Melbourne University in 1969. The university was not the slick corporate organisation you see today, but a place of intellectual curiosity where one could grow up into young adulthood. Subsequently, the universities were upended by Gough Whitlam making a free university education available to all. To cope with the influx of students Liberal governments encouraged an efficient corporate structure and universities found the rivers of gold full of overseas fee-paying students. Often a hybrid would emerge where some of the worst features of a corporation were combined with a dysfunctional university. Intellectual curiosity and robust debate were suppressed and strange aberrations appeared.

The spending of valuable time and money by University of Queensland and James Cook universities on the matters of Peter Ridd and Drew Pavlov has made these relatively minor matters into traumatic events for all concerned. Maybe the major disruption of the pandemic will upend the universities again and with any luck a rigid corporate top-end controlling system will make way for one that is driven by the passion and intellectual drive of youth with the gentle guidance of the professors and managers. One can only hope.

Alan Woodward, South Melbourne, Vic

Gerard Henderson is spot on regarding the Ridd saga (“Academic freedom bows at the altar of social media”, 25-26/7). As a professional fisherman with 10 solid years working inside and outside the Great Barrier Reef north of Cairns, I was constantly spending time with university students (all nationalities) who were studying to become marine biologists as they were always interested in what we were trawling up besides prawns.

All students were of the opinion (only to me) that the reef was in great shape. However, they were encouraged by the university to search for visible evidence of damaged reef. Consequently, from more than 200,000sq km of reef, a few acres of cyclone-damaged reef (that eventually bleached) was recorded and used to shape public opinion on the need to “protect the reef”.

The Great Barrier Reef is big enough to take care of itself, which it has been doing for the past three billion years. For Peter Ridd to publicly say the reef was in good shape could have been seen as a threat to the endless government funding. Funding is the issue, not the health of the reef.

Kevin Muir, Main Beach, Qld