Where are we at with academic freedom?

Following the confected crisis of free speech on university campuses fuelled by conservative think tanks including the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), the Government asked the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and current UWA Chancellor, Robert French, to undertake a review of academic freedom and free speech at Australia’s universities. Justice French’s report, Review into University Freedom of Speech, which was published in April last year included a comprehensive analysis of government policy, university policies, procedures and codes of conduct, enterprise agreements as well as NTEU policy. The report concluded that '(T)here is no evidence, on the basis of recent events, which would answer the pejorative description of a ‘free speech crisis’ on campus.' While French found no evidence of a crisis, he did however conclude that some universities' policies ‘are so broadly framed as to be a burden on academic freedom or free speech.’ He also described trying to tidy up all existing university policies, procedures and codes of conduct as being equivalent to the Herculean task of cleaning the Augean stables. Instead French recommended: • The voluntary adoption by each university of a Model Code as an umbrella set of principles for academic freedom and free speech. • Amending the Higher Education Support Act (HESA) 2003 and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 to clarify the language around the concept of what is currently expressed as ‘free intellectual inquiry’. The Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, made it clear to all universities that he expected each of them to consider how they might adopt French’s proposed model code to suit their own circumstances. Just to make sure universities understood that he was very serious about this, the latest round of Mission Based Compacts (yes, they still do exist) required each university to report on progress in the development and implementation of this ‘voluntary’ code. At a number of universities, the University of Sydney being the most prominent, the development of the code included genuine consultation and participation by staff and student groups, including the local NTEU branch. The NTEU was able to secure a number of important changes to Sydney’s proposed code including clarifying that academic freedom applied to all staff engaged in academic activities, not just those classified as academics. Feedback indicates that the process was a positive experience not only for our members, but also for the university. This level of consultation and cooperation, however has not been case at all universities.

While the development of individual institutional polices is proceeding, the Government is also proposing to amend the HESA (2003) and associated standards, firstly by replacing the phrase ‘free intellectual inquiry’ with phrase ‘academic freedom and free speech’ and secondly, by inserting a definition of academic freedom (based on that proposed by Justice French) into HESA 2003 and the standards. The NTEU is largely supportive of the proposed changes because we believe they will help clarify and strengthen universities' obligations to have policies that uphold the rights of individuals to academic freedom. However, we are seeking to clarify that the definition of staff includes all staff employed in academic activities and not just those classified as ‘academic staff’.

While supportive of the proposed changes, they will never be a substitute for having strong protections of academic freedom as part of our collective agreements. We still maintain the position that the only truly enforceable protection of individual staff member’s academic freedom rights is that provided in collective agreements. Therefore, all members can be reassured that the NTEU will continue to fight for strong and improved academic freedom clauses in our Enterprise Agreements. ◆