By Simon O’Connor:
I was recently asked to give a talk at a New Zealand university, sharing my impressions of my recent trip to Israel and the Gaza envelope. It would have had a political and legal perspective to it (along with the ethical), so I would assume much discussion with those attending on the nature of the conflict; whether international law is being broken; what possible solutions are possible and feasible; and more.
I was happy to accept the invite but knew in the back of my mind that it was highly likely to be cancelled.
So, I was not surprised when an email came to me stating that because the topic and timing were sensitive, that the talk would be cancelled. At one level I chuckled, possibly due to being correctly prescient yet at another level, I was deeply disappointed – not for me, but our universities as a whole.
I will quickly add, the individual organisers themselves have been great to deal with.
There is clearly something deeply wrong with universities when discussion is being actively and repeatedly stifled. My cancellation or de-platforming is just another example in a long list and it is important not to get too caught up in my particular experience. Instead, we should step back and see that universities are no longer serving their core purposes. In fact, they have not been serving their core purposes for some time now and this ultimately does raise the question why we, the taxpayer, continue to fund these institutions.
The Education and Training Act clearly articulates what we intuitively know universities are meant to be about:
“a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher level, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application of knowledge, develops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning.”
And then there is the well-known legislative (and moral) requirement that “they [universities] accept a role as critic and conscience of society”.
Sadly, many are failing in this regard. If people cannot discuss complex, controversial, and complicated issues at a university then why have universities at all. They simply become hollow echo chambers; theatres filled with highly paid actors who are not creative but simply repeat approved creeds to a captive audience.
I recall when I studied at university, it was a wonderful time exploring a whole range of ideas. My memory was of all sorts of lectures and evening talks, from the absurd to the amusing, from the far left to the libertarian right. The biggest and gnarliest of ethical issues were robustly discussed, often with a good dose of enthusiasm and entertainment.
I was initially going to write that our modern universities appear to now have a list of taboo topics. But I think it is worse than that, with certain topics only discussable if they affirm a single perspective. Whether it is Israel-Gaza, the Treaty of Waitangi, gender ideology, or ethical topics like abortion and euthanasia – only one perspective is tolerated within the universities.
The claim that some topics (like the one I was to speak on) are sensitive is incorrect. More accurately, it is that some people are sensitive to perspectives they don’t agree with.
Yet if we run with the idea that there are sensitive topics, then the greater the controversy or sensitivity, the greater the discussion should be. Instead, in the modern university environment, as something becomes controversial we see only greater suppression of discussion – usually by the radical left and progressives.
I think it was several years ago that a leaked report from the University of Auckland noted something like 85% of staff felt they could not speak freely and respectfully without fear of some form of negative repercussion. This at supposedly our foremost university!
Which once again begs the question – why do we have universities if they cannot discuss tough topics? Why do New Zealanders work long hours to fund institutions that are scared to talk, an essential prerequisite of learning?
The government is seeking to address this damaging culture in universities. An amendment to the law is currently making it’s way through Parliament and will impose new duties on university councils to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression. These university councils will also have to report annually around complaints and I would hope, how many talks were cancelled and so on.
While a positive step, I fear the cultural rot within our universities runs deep and a legislative change is not enough. Yet the solution, at this time, is not to remove funding. As with most transformative change, it begins with people being willing to stand up and lead. In this case, it is primarily academics prepared to speak into the difficult topics and not be silenced. It means supporting an array of speakers to come onto campus. It means courage.
Certainly it comes with great risks, but that is what built the great universities – men and women who risked new ideas, often battled entrenched thinking, but whose arguments eventually won the day.
