Australia needs academic freedom
Posted on 20. Oct, 2009 by admin in Academic Freedom, News
Since the announcement that the Commonwealth Government would act to legislate to protect academic freedom, we have seen this important right be turned into a political football.
Mike Riddiford writes in The Australian:
As befits such a protean concept, issues of academic freedom, or lack thereof, are pivotal to many academic controversies. For instance, when the University of Melbourne was allegedly gagging Victorian College of the Arts staff last month, the academic freedom of the staff was at risk.
Criticisms by Howard government minister Joe Hockey in 2007 of University of Sydney research on Work Choices meant “academic freedom was under attack”, according to Sydney’s vice-chancellor Gavin Brown.
Brendan Nelson’s veto of nine Australian Research Council projects in 2005 was specifically cited by George Williams, one of the leading proponents of the legislation, as threatening academic freedom. Even defenders of Andrew Fraser, the Macquarie University professor at the centre of a racism controversy in 2005, claimed any dismissal would be a serious blow to academic freedom.
His article concludes however that legislated protections of academic freedom would not have stopped these cases from occurring. He also points out that in a democracy, arguably politicians should be able to veto certain kinds of research:
The principle of governments having the final say on public spending is a cornerstone of political accountability, so retaining a veto may be in the public interest.
The NTEU as part of its Our Universities Matter campaign has called for academic freedoms that are similar to the ones enjoyed in Ireland:
“A member of the academic staff of a university shall have the freedom, within the law, in his or her teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the university, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions and shall not be disadvantaged, or subject to less favourable treatment by the university, for the exercise of that freedom.
[A university] be entitled to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom, and in doing so it shall have regard to:
(i) the promotion and preservation of equality of opportunity and access,
(ii) the effective and efficient use of resources, and
(iii) its obligations as to public accountability.”
It would be highly inappropriate for any government to impose conditions on university funding or refuse to fund individual research projects or courses for ideological or arbitrary political reasons.
Daniel
Feb 13th, 2010
I think some focus needs to be given to the Australian government’s internet filtering laws as a threat to academic freedom.
We strive to maintain academic freedom primarily in the sense of a kind of freedom of speech, and freedom from political pressure. I feel we are over-looking another important freedom – the freedom to acquire information.
I have not seen the “black list” since it is apparently illegal to possess it or attempt to possess it (please correct me if I’m wrong), but reports I’ve seen from those who have seen it indicate that even Wikipedia pages are on the list, along with Youtube videos. What on earth could a Wikipedia page contain that is remotely illegal enough to warrant it being effectively removed from existence? Hate speech? Chemical formulae for drugs? Surely acting on such information is the problem, not merely reading it.
Some might argue that internet filtering is merely an extension of laws already existing which prevent us from reading material that “censors” consider “inappropriate” – in and of itself an offensive notion (how dare a government we elect tell adult, tax-paying citizens what they may and may not read!)
Can we really consider ourselves to be in possession of academic freedom when the material available to us is limited by a very few people? My understanding is that a board consisting of selected members of the public makes decisions as to appropriateness of material – hardly representative of the population, and who knows what kind of sampling problems are at work here? What is the selection process?
All this aside, the list is (as far as I’ve heard) illegal to possess, limiting transparency and our ability to not only ensure we don’t inadvertently visit an illegal page (how do I know which Wikipedia pages to avoid until I hit the “This page is banned” message? Will the authorities then show up and ask me about why I wanted to know about topic x? Will my excuse of curiosity or professional interest be a defense? Will ethical clearances for research about a banned type of activity now require permits from the government to “unlock” the internet?), but also our ability to critically analyse the list.
It seems difficult to believe that such a curtailing of our academic and civil freedoms would be proposed when it’s only the law-abiding and technologically less-than-savvy that will be affected. Those who really want to download plans to build a backyard drug lab will surely find them on a peer-to-peer service, or access the banned pages via a Virtual Private Network.
It makes me sad to see our wonderful country in such a sad state. I’m hardly one to sit around and mope – I’d love to get up and stop it, but how? This is not something I know much about, but if anyone has feasible ideas, please get them out so those of us able to act can do so.