The coalition is tweaking university regulations to curb what it says is an increasingly “risk-averse approach” to free speech.
The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues.
Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” consistent with the central government’s expectations. The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.
"Despite being required by the Education Act and the Bill of Rights Act to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression, there is a growing trend of universities deplatforming speakers and cancelling events where they might be perceived as controversial or offensive.
You must log in or register to comment.
Last time we had National in charge we had NZ’s pre-eminant fresh water ecologist labeled as an economic terrorist by <sir> John Key.
They can go and get fucked on the free speach
In theory a policy supporting free speech is a good thing. In practice I fear that this is a way to force universities to allow ridiculous points of view that don’t deserve a platform.
Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” consistent with the central government’s expectations.
The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.
free speech, but not that free speech
A possibly pessimistic take is “speakers that support us keep getting their events cancelled so we have changed the law to stop that happening”.
I think this is a form of bothsidesism, where they are requiring universities to give all sides equal weight where not all points of view deserve equal weight.
It’s a strange one, I’m not entirely sure what their angle is. I do like the idea of orgasations like a university not taking a position on issues outside their area of expertise.
We recently had Tory Whanau tell central government to butt out of their business, while the council passed a resolution opposing the treaty principles Bill, for example.
It’s a waste of time, and such actions are seldom taken seriously anyway.
I think the problem is that some views do not deserve to have a platform. In theory, having a reasoned discussion about climate change is a good thing and should be welcomed at a university. In practice, someone coming to a university to talk about how climate change is not real is not going to have a reasoned discussion. Saying the university should not take sides is good in theory, but in practice allowing equal time for climate change deniers as for climate change supporters in the name of free speech does not actually support free speech (given the supporters are 97%).
