Annual Survey reveals worrying trends
Jonathan Ayling
Wellington, April 10, 2022
The results of the first Annual Survey on Academic Freedom from the Free Speech Union highlight the apprehension many educators at universities have in exercising their academic freedom without fear of reprisal.
This research, conducted by Curia Market Research, provides a reliable insight into how the tens of thousands of Kiwi academics view their speech rights across all eight New Zealand universities.
Questions and responses
Academics were asked to express how free they felt voicing contrary opinions on eight subjects, such as to question and test received wisdom, to raise differing perspectives and argue against the consensus among colleagues, or to debate or discuss issues around sex and gender.
Over a third of Kiwi academics felt more constrained than free (5 or lower out of 10) for five of the eight questions. 45% of respondents felt more constrained than free to question and test received wisdom; 47% of respondents felt more constrained than free to raise differing perspectives or to debate or discuss gender or sexual issues (this was even lower for the responses from men), and a full half (50%) felt more constrained than free to debate or discuss Treaty issues, with almost one-third responding 0-2.5 (very unfree).
While few may be surprised that academics self-censor for fear of reputational damage, the extent to which academics do not feel free to explore unpopular views on certain subjects hurts our educational institutions and limits our ability to continue to move forward.
Freedom of thought critical
Erwin Chemerinsky, an American Legal Scholar says, ‘Freedom of speech is essential to freedom of thought; it is essential to democratic self-governance, and the alternative… censorship and control of ideas, has always led to disaster.’ Free speech is a crucial foundation for the institutions of any free, democratic society, but especially its centres of education and research.
Free speech enables thought leaders and researchers to challenge the status quo, ask provocative questions, and move knowledge forward. If individuals are hesitant to voice disagreement, then it is indisputably clear that they will be unable to continue to lead us in discoveries and ways of thinking. That is why the findings of this research are so concerning.
Without unconstrained freedom to question and test received wisdom or raise differing perspectives, the function of research, which is to develop our knowledge beyond its current state and provide us with better paths forward, is defunct.
On crucial subjects related to social cohesion such as questions on gender and sex, or race, it may be easy to think that silencing one perspective in favour of the other fixes the problem.
This is clearly only a short term solution. It does not take long at all to realise that a perspective silenced is not a perspective changed.
Academics being silenced
Just because academics do not feel able to express themselves freely does not mean they are slowly being convinced of the value of the argument that is silencing them. The opposite is probably true where, devoid of any dialogue and debate on the merits of either side, those who cannot voice disagreement become ever more entrenched in their way of thinking.
The seniority of the responders did not translate into feelings of greater academic freedom, where professors claimed to feel less free than lecturers. This is consistent with the fact that younger respondents rated their freedom higher on average than those in the age bracket above them. If this represents the fact that academic freedom is stronger amongst younger, less senior academics, that is very positive and bodes well for the future.
Unfortunately, a more likely explanation is that younger, less senior academics are already the product of limited academic freedom, and therefore are not inclined to challenge the status quo. It is still academic freedom, to speak in favour of the predominant view, but it’s not very helpful. It is the unconventional and disputing view that challenges our assumptions and develops our knowledge.
One academic claimed ‘I don’t think I should be totally free to discuss some things, as I have a responsibility to others. I am happily free from coercive pressure, but I don’t think that I am free to make independent decisions, because we are a co-dependent academic community, especially on matters that seriously affect others and where others’ voices need to be heard more than mine, such as on Te Tiriti or gender issues.’
Issues defying freedom of expression
To predetermine the value of a contribution based on the ethnicity of an academic, or their sexuality or gender, defies the impartiality of free speech.
Who are we to say that a woman cannot lead the field in men’s health, or a Maori develop a new perspective on Western philosophy?
If academics and the tertiary educators of our nation feel more constrained than free on a majority of the questions raised, it is likely that the case is even more pronounced for students at universities across the country.
The Free Speech Union will be releasing a subsequent survey shortly examining the perception of free speech by university students, also. Universities are failing to foster diverse perspectives, and this will have major implications for the options which we are aware of as we address complex and difficult questions going forward.
Jonathan Ayling is Chief Executive of the Wellington-based Free Speech Union.
