The Fragile Nature of the Modern University Audience

How A Discussion about Free Speech Caused a "Freaking Out"

I was at University studying law between 1965 and 1969. University life was a challenge. The late 1960’s were a time of disruption and a certain amount of tumult.

At the Law School we made a point of inviting the most controversial speakers available to address the student body at lunchtime.

It is doubtful that could happen now, although at least there are still the inevitable protests about something.

But what is truly extraordinary has been the seismic shift against freedom of expression in favour of a more relativistic approach based on what audiences would like to hear and, even more concerning, what they are afraid to hear. This article is about one such incident.

In the interests of transparency I disclose that I am a member of the Free Speech Union.

Introduction

On Monday 29 April a Panel Debate was scheduled on the campus of Victoria University of Wellington.

The topic was Freedom of Speech – The Role of the Universities.

The proposed discussion involved participation by Jonathan Ayling, CEO of the Free Speech Union and Dr Michael Johnston of the New Zealand Initiative. But they were not the only ones. The debate line-up included Corin Dann as facilitator along with panelists Professor Nicole Moreham of the Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington,  Dr John Byron – Director of Government Relations and Policy at Queensland University of Technology, Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey – a former law professor at the University of Auckland and one other person to be confirmed.

The objective of the debate was to discuss the necessity of free speech for academic freedom, and the university's role in contributing evidence and critical thinking to debates. 

An announcement of the debate set out the context.

“The panellists will explore ideas around contributing to controversial debate, the importance of separating the topic under discussion from identity politics, and what it takes to change the mind of another when the loudest and most provocative views often dominate the airtime. The session will also consider the pivotal role universities can play in these debates, bringing evidence, rigour and critical thinking to polarising views.”

Six hundred people were keen to attend.

The Shutdown

The event was cancelled.

Apparently there was a backlash within the University.

The notice from the University stated:

“the mere framing of this event has surfaced a depth of feeling and a polarisation of views on how we should proceed, that has made it challenging to even schedule a conversation about how to have challenging conversations”.

Grant Duncan in an article entitled “University Challenged and Found Wanting” sets out the position in this way:

An opinion column in the student magazine Salient shows that one significant concern about the seminar was the planned appearance of Jonathan Ayling of the Free Speech Union (FSU). The objection to him was on the grounds that the FSU have supported the free-speech rights of people whose ideas are considered “hateful”.

For its part, the FSU maintains that the best way to deal with ideas that we find abhorrent is to get them out into the open so that they’re exposed to the sunlight and can then be subjected to counter-arguments. Supporting a person’s right to speak must be distinguished from supporting what they say. If we object to an idea, then first let it be heard so that we can make a case against it.

Henry Broadbent, the sub-editor of Salient, has a different view. He accuses the FSU of defending hate speech per se. Citing a UN definition, he asked why hate speech should not be “suppressed”. In a comment to Radio NZ, he said: “If something harmful or hateful is said – even if it’s fact-checked and shut down immediately afterwards – it can't be unsaid, ever.” (My italics.) The safety of marginalised groups on campus outweighs the airing of Mr Ayling’s “grievances”, according to Henry Broadbent, implying that it’s better to ban such speakers before they can even speak.

The sub-editor of a student magazine wants to suppress and shut down the airing of ideas that he believes may make members of marginalised groups feel unsafe – and furthermore, to shut down the idea that such ideas may even be aired. To protect the marginalised groups that he defends, he wants to marginalise another group of people who hold opinions that differ from his. But banishment from campus won’t stop the people whose ideas he abhors from expressing them openly anyway.

But it wasn’t just Salient that expressed concern. Ms. Marcail Parkinson, the president of the university's student association, told The Post students had "freaked out" after seeing the panel line-up because it appeared to be a "right wing voices" platform.

Student protests had been planned for the event, Ms. Parkinson said, and it remained to be seen whether they would go ahead for the reformatted event.

“Hopefully, those conversations will mean that the event is inclusive and doesn't make people feel unsafe in any way.”

So it seems that the event was cancelled because it had two speakers who might have right wing views (the same views the majority of the country voted for at the last election). Some students were unhappy that two people whose views they disagree with would be allowed to be heard by 600 people who wanted to hear from them.

The irony of the situation was not lost on the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Mr. Nic Smith who noted that the debate had been postponed to ensure there was enough time to finalise the most effective format and speakers for the event.

He stated that it was a 'travesty' that people are no longer willing to listen and draw their own conclusions and that the university remained committed to holding the debate in late May. He also said ( I have noted above) :

"Paradoxically, the mere framing of this event has surfaced a depth of feeling and a polarisation of views on how we should proceed, that has made it challenging to even schedule a conversation about how to have challenging conversations."

Issues Arising

There are a number of issues that arise out of this set of circumstances.

The first is that the Vice-Chancellor should not have allowed the event to be cancelled. Given his recognition of the paradox that arose and the fact that he considered it a travesty that people were no longer willing to listen and draw their own conclusions, the solution was to adopt that employed by Alexander at Gordium, cut through the paradoxical knot and allow the event to proceed on the day.

It is encouraging that the event will proceed although probably in a more modified and anodyne form. That it was postponed is indeed a travesty and an indication of how much value the University places on freedom of expression.

The second point is the composition of the panel. To some it may well seem that Mr. Ayling and Dr. Johnstone sit on the right of the political spectrum, although that is relative and depends on how far the left the person making such a judgement might be. It should be observed that among the panelists proposed was Dr Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law at Auckland University and someone whom I know and respect, although we differ on a number of issues.

Dr. Kelsey is hardly what one would call “right wing” – quite the opposite. She is both academic and activist who has promoted critical examination of the relationship between social, political and economic issues and how these can impact on human rights and justice. Specifically, within the New Zealand context, she has advocated public policy positions on colonialism and the Treaty of Waitangi, globalisation and neoliberalism, and the role of universities as public institutions. She has published widely on these and other issues, and in 2020 won the Global category of the New Zealand Women of Influence Award. She retired from her position at the University in 2022.

A third point is that Mr. Broadbent, the sub-editor of Salient conveniently conflates harmful and hateful speech.

The UN Strategy and Plan of Action defines “hate speech” as

“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law.

The definition favoured by Mr. Broadbent suits his purpose. It is very broad indeed. It contains no reference to any intended outcome by the speaker or communicator. It contains no suggestion of stirring up hatred or threats of imminent violence. It is a definition that dramatically dilutes the quality of speech.

Pejorative or discriminatory language against people based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor is something that we would prefer not take place. It is rude and impolite. There is no place for discrimination against others in our society.

By the same token we must recognize that it exists and may be part of the dialogue of society. It tells us more about the speaker than informs us about the subject upon which he or she is communicating. But importantly that person should not be shut down or censored.

This leads me to my fourth point. Although I might support the right of the person to use pejorative or discriminatory language, it does not automatically mean that I endorse the message – merely the right of the speaker to express it.

This is clearly misunderstood by both Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson. They are unaware of the importance of “viewpoint neutrality”. This is a concept that has developed from the law surrounding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and holds that when government actions implicate the speech rights of groups, those actions must be done in an even handed way.

Viewpoint neutrality means that there cannot be discrimination based on the message advocated. If one side is allowed to put a case, the other side should be allowed to do so as well. Viewpoint discrimination – the opposite of viewpoint neutrality – occurs when an organization uses its power to advance a particular opinion over those of another in matters such as religion, politics and belief.

Viewpoint neutrality underpins the approach of the Free Speech Union and of Mr. Ayling its CEO. The problem is that Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson see the uncritical acceptance of the FSU of the right of people to advance propositions that they find inimical to their beliefs and values as an adoption by the FSU of those propositions. This is a fallacy and demonstrates a conflation of the right of the messenger to express a point of view and the message itself. Support for the freedom of expression does not amount to an endorsement of the message expressed.

One of the criticisms addressed against the FSU is that it supports the anti-trans message. That is incorrect. The FSU supports the right of a person to express an anti-trans message. By the same token the FSU supports the right of a person to express a pro-trans message. Viewpoint neutrality in action. By supporting the right to communicate the message does not automatically amount to an endorsement of the message itself.

Finally, if Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson were to emerge from their Marcusian miasma and look carefully at the realities of existence (something University students are not renowned for) they would see that in fact the FSU and Mr. Ayling actually support their right to express their point of view rather than try, as they have done with the debate, to shut it down.

Risky Ideas

But perhaps Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson demonstrate a problem that besets our society which seems to emphasise the importance of a risk free (safe) environment in a world where life is a risk, starting with getting out of bed in the morning.

One of the risks in modern society is that there are people who hold a different point of view to that held by Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson and they have a right to express it.

Perhaps there is a need for greater resilience. Perhaps if Ms. Parkinson and Mr. Broadbent don’t approve of the event they should express that disapproval but not in such a way that the event is disrupted. “Cancel culture” is just another form of totalitarian censorship.

It is concerning that some of the student body were, as Ms. Parkinson say, “freaked out” at the thought that the diminutive Mr. Ayling and the peaceful Dr. Johnstone were going to be contaminating the campus. Such a response to two speakers (ignoring the redoubtable Dr. Kelsey) suggests an absence of emotional equilibrium and an unwillingness to confront unpleasant and challenging ideas – something that is a major part of a University education; the differing and contending arguments for or against a proposition.

Every Tuesday morning Mr. Simon Wilson, a progressive journalist with whose ideas I usually disagree, writes a column in the Herald. If I were to adopt Ms. Parkinson’s approach I would probably “freak out” at the headline and stop reading. But instead I read Mr. Wilson’s pieces every Tuesday so that I can educate myself as to his point of view and there are times – too few sadly – when I agree with some or all of what he says. Were I to adopt the “freak out” solution I would be less well-informed and might miss something important.

Conclusion

Perhaps Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson could take some advice from the procrastinating Danish prince in Shakespeare’s 1599 play (although I hesitate for a moment for it may well be that Shax is no longer taught at Universities being male, white, very, very old and one who advances racist and sexist ideas although his treatment of a Venetian moneylender may appeal to the pro-Palestinian cohort at the Universities of today).

Act 3 Scene 1 of Hamlet has the Prince trying to deal with some of the major crises that he is facing. He could do nothing “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” or he could confront his fears “take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them”

Perhaps Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Parkinson could, rather than shut down the debate, go along and confront it and at the same time have the courage to confront their fears. They may hear things that are uncomfortable. They may hear things with which they disagree. They may have their worst fears confirmed. They may, mirabile dictu, come away better informed. But rather than adopt a risk-free approach, they will have accepted the challenge that freedom of expression poses for all of us.