Last week I posted an article about a debate about freedom of expression and academic freedom which was to be held at Victoria University and which was cancelled.
The “debate” has been rescheduled - I have put the word "debate” in quote marks because what is proposed is not really a debate between contending views but a mediated discussion. It sounds very anodyne.
The rescheduled date is 28 May. Jonathan Ayling from the Free Speech Union will participate. My sources do not reveal the identities of the others apart from the fact that Corin Dann of Radio NZ will mediate.
The information to hand is this.
Last Friday (3 May) the University Vice-Chancellor said the “debate's” line-up had been expanded to include a "very balanced panel" with the addition of a Māori political commentator, rainbow community and inclusivity advocates and additional academic speakers.
I have a feeling that the concept of viewpoint neutrality will be lost as people wax eloquent not about freedom of expression but expression that they dislike, find “offensive” or “hateful”.
The format has been changed as well.
Five panellists - including Ayling - would be independently interviewed and, in the second half, their responses would be discussed by a panel of academics to explore how universities could constructively hold challenging conversations to the benefit of society.
This format, it is suggested, will bring to the table a diversity of views. The Vice Chancellor said:
"It will be done with the kind of scrutiny that universities have done for many years and I think - in that environment - it's going to be important that we are prepared to listen to things that we may find uncomfortable rather than decide - a priori - that certain groups need to be protected or held back from things that they might hear which I think is a rather patronizing position"
Apparently the proposed location of the debate was a bit of a problem. It was to have been held at the Central Hub but has now been relocated to lecture theatres partly to allow panellists to participate via Zoom but also to prevent any protests disrupting the debate.
Henry Broadbent, the editor of Salient was encouraged by a more diverse panel and also supported the move away from the Hub, but his reasoning is interesting and demonstrates the fragile nature of modern University audiences.
"There [was] the possibility of just wandering into what could very well be quite a heated and potentially difficult thing to walk past and hear if you're not expecting it. The hub is the central gathering point of the university. So moving it away to a more private space where you can go if you're explicitly interested does feel like an improvement to me"
Marcail Parkinson’s comments were something of a shift from her previous position. In an effort to appear rational she said
"Most of our concerns were that the format wasn't going to promote debate that was based in evidence, research and scholarship. We think that this new format enables varieties of voices to be heard and then also enables that academic freedom discussion by that panel of academics afterwards"
She said there was always a risk that harmful rhetoric might be expressed in the debate but she was confident that the structure and moderation would allow the discussion to go ahead while keeping academics "safe to practice academic freedom".
Could someone please explain “safe”. My OED defines it as “free from hurt or damage; unharmed” “Unhurt, uninjured, unharmed; having been preserved from or escaped some real or apprehended danger.”
The modern use of the word seems to suggest “free from risk” and probably demonstrates the risk averseness of many in society.
Life is full of risk. Waking up is probably reasonably risk free. Everything thereafter contains an element of risk. For me, if I wake up, everything thereafter is a bonus. Sadly, one day the risk of not waking up will be fulfilled. That risk is with us all from birth. But in schools and playgrounds trees (for climbing) are seen to present an unacceptable level of risk. Walking to school has an unacceptable level of risk. Cycling on roads has an unacceptable level of risk - that’s why we have dedicated cycleways.
I always liked Tolkien’s statement about risk - from an early part of “The Lord of the Rings”
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
And now it seems that we have to mitigate or eliminate risk by watching what we say or creating an environment where “confronting language” or “robust debate” are not going to be harmful.
One wonders how Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson would go in the Agora of Athens or the Forum Romanun. Not too well I would venture to suggest.
And as a Parthian shot Victoria University is in the process of drafting principles for allowable discourse on campus.
“We should not provide a platform for, nor invite, individuals or groups to speak on campus that have previously demonstrated or are expected to express hate speech as the current law defines…”
Given that the law does not define hate speech in a clear manner (there are provisions in the Human Rights Act) one wonders what is meant by this. As David Farrar points out
“No one in NZ has ever been prosecuted for so called hate speech under the current law”.
Furthermore, the use of the words “expected to express” is anticipatory, reminiscent of the movie “Minority Report” which was based on Philip K. Dick’s novella of the same name.
So we have the ill-defined concept of “hate speech” coupled with a prohibition based on possible propensity. Victoria University sounds like it might be a place to be avoided if you want to engage in controversial speech or ideas. As for a tertiary education…..?
This post owes much to Bill Hickman’s article on the RNZ website and entitled “Free Speech Debate Back on as Victoria University Expands Diversity on Panel”
I wrote to Nic Smith and the Vic Council expressing my bafflement at the postponement of the debate, asking if perhaps they were afraid of their students. I have my answer now.
I hope Jonathan is feeling he'll be 'safe', given that the panel now chosen looks like it will have quite a few who are likely to disagree with him. They may even say something hateful to him. I wonder that he hasnt asked for the re-scheduled event to be re-scheduled yet again, with participants who will not be likely to express anything hateful to him!