20
Government to change free speech rules for universities
(www.rnz.co.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)
NZ Politics
568 readers
2 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
The free speech union is a NZ offshoot of a UK based body. Reading over a few of their campaigns, the wording they use seems reasonable (if somewhat angry) on the surface, but whist reading the feeling is very much of dogwhistle style politics.
Such as:
This is representative of a lot of the rhetoric on the site, on the surface it seems ok, it makes it sound like making a mistake will be a criminal act; but the biggest dogwhistle is "diverse perspective's", this is clear bull shit, they want institutions (especially schools) presenting views on gender/sexuality that are very much not representative of reality. The site doesn't say who is funding them, it would be interesting to see that information.
...
A great response from the TEU:
...
This is just bad policy. It is not about freedom of speech, this is about allowing divisive views an official platform, to legitimize them in the eyes of the public.
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.
Its not that easy to narrow down what the scope of a University's expertise would be though - take Victoria University of Wellington. Let's look at say, the Arts department because they have one and I know some about it.
Would you say that VUW can thus allow expression on any topic of study that Arts schools typically study because the methodology across any of the specific topics is broadly lumped together?
Or, is it no, they can only talk about History, if within the Arts school they have a History Department? Well in that case, should they be expressing opinions on all of History, or only on those areas of History that they actually study?
OK well within that History department they are teaching courses on Pacific History, US History, some periods of European History so they can only opine on that.
Or should they only be allowed to talk on the specific periods / topics of US History that they are running courses on? Or should they only be allowed to talk about particular methods of Historical study when called upon so Dolores Janiewski (who was an awesome lecturer 20 odd years ago when I was there) is only allowed to talk about I dunno 20th Century US Feminism?
Realistically the people who could determine whether or not someone has enough expertise to be considered an expert opinion are the Universities.
Re the WCC asking the Government to butt out, that isn't a matter of expertise but more one of jurisdiction, democratic rights responsibilities & freedom than a matter of free speech.
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%).
That's the problematic aspect of both sides approaches which give equal weight & import to at least two sides of an argument no matter what. And its especially bad when its editorial decisions that determine that equal weighting.
Two examples that come to mind is how for such a long time climate change denial was given equal footing (and is still given loads of airtime) despite a mountain of evidence that most of their arguments were tosh.
But lately Modern Monetary Theory which is absolutely a heterodox theory gets barely any mention even though it is one of the strongest counters to the mainstream economic approach which is almost all we hear despite strong arguments that it doesn't consistently describe reality.