University of Tasmania ‘censored’ paper on transgender laws, says academic

An academic has accused the University of Tasmania of censorship after it refused to publish his paper on transgender laws.

University of Queensland dean of law Patrick Parkinson. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

A leading academic has accused the University of Tasmania of censorship, after it refused to publish his paper on transgender laws because it did not “advance human rights” and referred to “biological” sex.

Professor Patrick Parkinson, dean of law at the University of Queensland, said UTAS’s Law Review agreed to receive but then rejected a paper critical of Tasmania’s transgender laws, after reviewers disagreed with his views. “This is not proper peer ­review. It is censorship of a point of view with which the reviewers disagree, in violation of the most basic ethical standards of the university,” Professor Parkinson said. “Free speech in the universities is under huge attack.”

UTAS promised to investigate Professor Parkinson’s concern, describing it as a “serious matter”, but this week ultimately sided with the journal’s decision and the two reviewers who recommended against publication.

Senior lecturer Peter Lawrence, law faculty adviser to the Law Review’s student editors, wrote to Professor Parkinson on Wednesday, denying the paper was rejected simply for taking “an unpopular view”.

“The process relating to your article was handled in exactly the same manner as any other article submitted,” Dr Lawrence wrote.

He said the paper had been recommended by the reviewers for rejection “not just” because “they held a view different to yours”, but also because of “substantive flaws” and “its handling of empirical data”. Professor Parkinson said this was not supported by the ­reviewers’ reports, which he had obtained.

The Weekend Australian has also seen both reports. While they do argue Professor Parkinson could better explain some points, they appear to primarily object to his use of ­“offensive” terminology, such as “biological female” and ­“opposite sex”, and his failure to consider activist and social sciences research.

“I do not recommend the publication of this article, since I believe it would not do any good to the advancement of human rights,” said one reviewer.