No easy answers to questions of freedom

The debate over freedom of speech and academic freedom in universities is surprisingly complex.

Much as the two opposing sides in the debate would like it, there is no straightforward solution to the debate over freedom of speech and academic freedom in universities. Last week universities brought out their academic big gun, former University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis, to hit back at the weaknesses in the argument put by groups such as the Institute of Public Affairs, that there is a free speech crisis in universities.

Davis makes worthwhile points. One is that clear instances of breaches of free speech in campus are not numerous. And Australian students have not adopted the “trigger warning”, “no platforming” culture evident in many US universities.

Another point made by Davis is that the IPA’s Matthew Lesh, in his audit of free speech on Australian campuses, relies too much on campus rules against bullying and offensive behaviour to make his case that speech is being infringed.

In fact, such rules are necessary. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to abuse.

Davis does admit that there are “unnecessary and possibly even harmful university regulations”, which would be examined.

My belief is that the anti-bullying rules of some universities could, if poorly implemented, be used to quash views that should be able to be expressed, and universities should clarify or amend them to ensure they can’t be used that way. But these rules also serve an important purpose. Freedom of speech does not give bullies the freedom to viciously mock others, for example.

It also isn’t easy to enforce codes of conduct on freedom of speech. The best protection for freedom of speech is culture, not rules. If there is widely held respect for opposing views, a belief in the value of debate, and a commitment to courtesy, that will go a long way.

The other issue, academic freedom, is actually even less straightforward.

Universities argue vehemently that they cannot, and will not, give up control over curriculum and decisions about academic staff. This was the key reason why the Australian National University says it turned down tens of millions of dollars from the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation for a “great books” course.

But is the issue really this simple? One practice, accepted by all Australian universities, would appear to infringe this principle.

In courses that need professional accreditation in order for graduates to get a job, every university hands some control of the curriculum to the accrediting authority, which is usually a corporate entity or professional organisation.

A 2017 report to the Higher Education Standards Panel found that some of these organisations’ demands on universities were “idiosyncratic, and excessive or unreasonable”, and called for reforms to make the accreditation system work better.

Universities readily agree that accrediting bodies should have some influence on the content of courses. Could this be interpreted as an infringement of academic freedom?

Most would say no. But is this so different to the Ramsay Centre wanting to influence curriculum? If there are students who believe that Ramsay’s imprimatur will give them a worthwhile arts degree, isn’t that a similar situation to architecture students wanting their university to abide by the curriculum requirements of the Institute of Architects so that their degree is recognised?

As is often the case, things are more complicated than they first appear.