Academic freedom is at the heart of innovation and creativity JULY 2016 A research note prepared by Sandra Grey and Charles Sedgwick for the Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa
1
TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa
Academic freedom has its modern origins in the reforms of German universities which afforded academics the freedom of the professor to teach, do research, and publish without fetters in their field of expertise (Altbach, 2001). This was expanded by Americans in the early 20th century to include freedom in the public sphere.
The breadth of freedoms afforded staff and students in New Zealand legislation is reflected in writings on academic freedom internationally. For example, Vrielink et al (in Stergiou and Somarakis, 2016, p. 1) sets out three parts to academic freedom: “the freedom of individuals, the autonomy of institutions and the ‘obligation of the public authorities to respect and protect academic freedom and to make measures in order to ensure an effective enjoyment of the right to promote it’.
In New Zealand the concept of academic freedom is set down in the Education Act 1989: 161 Academic freedom
The New Zealand legislation also reflects accepted norms around academic freedom such as those set out in the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (11 November 1997):
(1) It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.
Advances in higher education, scholarship and research depend largely on infrastructure and resources, both human and material, and on the qualifications and expertise of higher-education teaching personnel as well as on their human, pedagogical and technical qualities, underpinned by academic freedom, professional responsibility, collegiality and institutional autonomy.
(2) For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means — (a) the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions:
Similar ideas are found in the Magna Charta Universitatum which has 808 signatories (universities) in 85 countries. The Charta set outs the importance of academic freedom stating:
(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research: (c) the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution:
Academic freedom is the foundation for the independent search for truth and a barrier against undue intervention for both government and interest groups.
(d) the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning: (e) the freedom of the institution through its chief executive to appoint its own staff.
Both convention and law in New Zealand protect academic freedom for staff and students. However there is significant evidence that academic freedom (and the ability to act as critic and conscience for
2
our tertiary education institutions) is under significant pressure due to both institutional and policy decisions.
freedom does not essentially concern how universities are managed, or whether they are adequately funded or even how the faculty is compensated … Academic freedom protects professorial freedom of teaching, research, and expression – and nothing else.” However we would argue that the way a tertiary education institution is managed; the way the system is funded; and, the working conditions of all staff impact upon the ability to exercise academic freedom on a day-to-day basis.
This paper looks at both overt attacks over time to academic freedom in New Zealand, and the more recent changes in the policy, funding, and institutional regimes which are impacting negatively on the exercise of academic freedom. We agree with Altbach’s (2001, pp. 2-3) warning against extending the concept too far – “Academic
THE HISTORY OF ATTACKS ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN NEW ZEALAND Academic freedom and issues surrounding it have a chequered history in New Zealand. It has never been an unchallenged right; however overt threats to academic freedom are infrequent in New Zealand. A number of cases do show the extent to which governments and institutions can impinge upon this right.
communist influence at the college. The Minister also challenged a teacher (Jean Park) who had written an article to the National Education contesting Weitzel’s dismissal. While he was restrained by a Supreme Court injunction in the latter he did succeed in getting all teachers to sign a loyalty pledge (Te Ara, 2016).
The first is the events surround Hetty (Hedwig) Weitzel who was expelled from Wellington Teacher’s Training College in 1921. Hetty was a socialist (as were her parents) and was involved in the Wellington NZ Socialist Party, which in 1921 became a branch of the Communist Party NZ. She was arrested by an undercover policeman who posed as a member of the CPNZ and purchased a copy of the Australian Communist on the street.1
Another overt attack on academic freedom in New Zealand concerns the career of Professor von Zedlitz whose experience with the New Zealand government caused concern amongst academics and many supporters. The student magazine, Salient, (1940) noted “… the dismissal of Professor von Zedlitz, as an “enemy alien” was clamoured for by hysterical patriots. The Council refused to dismiss him, and refused to accept his resignation, but finally was powerless in view of an Act passed for the express purpose of getting rid of von Zedlitz.”
Hetty was fined £10 for selling ‘seditious literature’ but lost a career in New Zealand (she moved to Australia to teach). Fellow students paid her fine and the Minister of Education C J Parr launched an inquiry at Wellington Training College and Victoria University to examine the extent of
A later incident in the depression years is also recorded in Salient. Here the university seems to have sided with government against the academic freedom of students. The issue was according to an article in Salient: “The College holds no brief for Communism, but it was the invitation of a Communist to speak at the College’s Free Discussions club that was the start of the row in 1933” (Salient, 1940). Salient recorded the following:
1 During WWI German language newspapers, International Socialist Review, The Green Ray, Nova Svijet (Croatian Socialist Paper) and publications of the IWW and in WWII the Co-operative Press and The People’s Voice printing presses were seized (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/censorship/page-2). See also (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/docu) ments/ww1-laws-and-regulations-index.pdf )
3
National Party MPs that principles contained in Learning for Life No. 2 (Hansard, 1989) will be incorporated in the Education Amendment Bill to be brought to the House in 1990. Palmer went on to say:
The action of the Council and the Professorial Board in 1933, when a public heresy hunt was directed against the activities and political beliefs of certain students, was not so praiseworthy. In the fact of Governmental pressure the Council fell down in the traditional fight for non-interference. The immediate results were the banning of the magazine called Student, the banning of Spike, and the banning of the debates on sex and religion, while the College’s capitulation was a blow to the liberty of universities”.
Academic freedom and institutional autonomy will be subject to the highest ethical standards and public scrutiny. The freedom of academic staff and students to question and test received wisdom within the law, and to put forward new ideas and state controversial and unpopular opinions, will be maintained. Those rights will be guaranteed by the Government. They are the essence of academic freedom. If our institutes of higher learning are to function, those principles must be held sacrosanct (Hansard, 1989).
The survival of academic freedom faced a legislative challenge in New Zealand in 1989 when the then Minister of Education introduced the Education Bill 1989 and neglected to account for academic freedom. National Party MP, Dr. Lockwood Smith, (Hansard, 1989) had stated in the House on the third reading of the Bill that: “The universities do not trust the Government. The Minister promised them a clause that would protect academic freedom, and the Government should be ashamed that it has not included a clause that demonstrates its commitment to the protection of academic freedom.” The Labour Prime Minister assured
Academic freedom was set out in the Act when it passed in 1989, not just as simple right, rather it was noted that “academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.”
HOLLOWING OUT THE ACADEMY thought things had deteriorated went from 23 percent to 32 percent (Chalmers, 1998, pp. 6566). One respondent noted:
So what is the current state of play? Surveys of those working in tertiary education institutions over the past two-three decades and several research reports show the gradual erosion of academic freedom for many working in the sector.
The government is directing research at universities already - academic freedom is being eroded. These matters are far more important than most issues addressed in this survey (1998, p.102).
The results from a joint NZCER /AUSNZ survey of staff working in universities in the late 1990s provide evidence of concern about academic freedom. The report notes: “university staff remain concerned about funding, career prospects, the ability to exercise academic freedom, and take research leave, and working life in general” (Chalmers, 1998, p.390). Those responding who thought there had been no change in the areas of employment noted above went from 56 to 53 percent between 1994 and 1998. Those who
In 2000 the Association of University Staff of New Zealand along with the Academic Audit Unit published a monograph ‘Universities as Critic and Conscience of Society: The Role of Academic Freedom’. The authors - Professor D G Jones, Kerry Galvin, Junior Research Fellow and David Woodhouse Director of the
4
Academic Audit Unit - noted that the role of critic and conscience is not only a crucial part of a university’s overall performance but it should be monitored (Jones et al ,2000, p.1). They further noted that if academic freedom is important as is suggested in the above , then a university’s “poor performance in supporting and encouraging it, will have detrimental consequences for teaching, research and that institution’s contribution to the community” (ibid). The authors astutely observed the possible situations in the tertiary education environment that may impinge on academic freedom and that might affect the responsibility for those in the sector to be critic and conscience of society.
A major driving force at present is grant funding success, and this in turn drives staff away from unglamorous areas, which by definition tend to be un-fundable” (ibid p. 3). If their answers were inconclusive in 2000 they are not in 2013. Jones was quoted recently as saying the critic and conscience role is still “absolutely essential for the sort of societies in which we live” (Munro 2016). His affirmation is confirmed also by Professor Howden-Chapman, the first recipient of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize for her work looking at the impact of housing quality on people’s health. She described the critic and conscience role as “the ‘jewel in the crown’ of university legislation” (Munro 2016). She went on to say “[People] forget that taxpayers pay for the university to be in a privileged position to gather knowledge, to interpret it and then to think about what the implications are”(ibid).
Unfortunately their prognosis in 2000 is now very much a reality. For instance the redirecting of research priorities away from social and political issues which they say have ‘a bearing on university perspectives or relationships with outside funding bodies’ (Jones et al 2000, p2). Further they point out the omissions from previous evaluations of the extent of academic freedom, that is, participation as critic and conscience, include failure to evaluate the role of self-censorship, lack of time, and competing priorities, let alone the stigma attached to being too involved in controversial issues, all of which are important today (2000, p.3). We can also ask whether the capacity and willingness to participate in the critic and conscience role has any influence on appointments, distribution of rewards, promotions or access to funding for projects “that may impact on social concerns”(ibid).
However not all is well, and there is a distinct possibility in the current environment that the public who pay may never hear the results of research. Munro quotes the work of Professor Kypros Kypri, who now works in the School of Medicine, University of Newcastle Australia in the area of injury prevention research. Kypri had noted, while at the University of Otago working in the same area that contracts since the 1990s had changed. He is quoted as saying, “My impression is that some government agencies in particular have become more and more controlling of research that is performed for public-good purposes” (Munro 2016). In a presentation at the end of 2015 Professor Kypri specifically drew attention to the hypotheses of their study namely:
The concerns of the authors were that such academics may be looked down upon by other academics. Those deemed ‘successful’ will “tend to be locked in to highly focused specialised areas, with little interest beyond those areas. For some, such excessive specialisation may prevent achieving a broader perspective necessary to function as critic and conscience of society” (ibid p. 3). They asked “To what extent does the university encourage research that is on unglamorous or uncomfortable topics?
“These contracting practices have arisen as a consequence of: 1. government agencies increasingly concerned about their public image, using research as a means of supporting a pre-determined position rather than generating knowledge to
5
guide policy;
official policy when so much research funding (particularly in Māori education) comes directly/indirectly from the Ministry”(McLeod and Bentley, 2014, p.6).
2. the creep of commercial legal practice into government and University research offices; and 3. the increasing preoccupation of universities (administrators and academics) with commercial success.
The decline in academic freedom sits in a broader context. A survey by the New Zealand Association of Scientists on a proposed Code of Public Engagement to replace the existing Code of Professional Standards and Ethics led to expressions of public concern in 2015 about the right of scientists to speak publicly (Collins, 2015; RNZ, 2015). Scientists who responded to the survey felt that the existing Code was sufficient and that any proposed changes might ‘prevent scientists from speaking out against government policy and actions’ (New Zealand Association of Scientists, 2014). The survey included scientists working in the public sector, in crown research institutes, and in universities. In all the survey elicited 384 respondents and 713 written comments. 37.9 percent had concerns about the possibility of a revised code, 42.22 percent were unsure and 19.79 percent said they had no concerns. When asked have you ‘ever been prevented from making a public comment on a controversial issue by your management’s policy or by fear of losing research funding, 39.84 percent of respondents said yes and 8.9 percent were unsure.
We have forgotten our critic and conscience of society role” (Kypri, 2015, 2 October power point presentation). Kypri also draws attention to ‘suppression clauses in standard contracts’ in New Zealand and Australia – which typically limit or attempt to control either the release of research findings and/or public discussion of these. When staff in the tertiary education sector were surveyed for “The State of the Tertiary Education Sector in New Zealand – 2013” (Bentley, McLeod and Teo, 2014a), 39 percent of academic staff felt the level academic freedom they had had worsened since they joined the sector. Bentley and McLeod (2014, p. 5) argue that respondents were reflecting the “loss of professional autonomy for academics, who are increasingly managed by nonacademics” and “… a rigid top-down structure, which is only increasing. Senior staff and divisional heads actively clamp down on staff initiative, and do not let us lower creatures do anything without checking with them a million times”(Bentley et al, 2014, p.14).
While much of the concern came from crown research institute scientists, university academics also commented:
An additional concern was external interference most strongly expressed in the following ways by survey respondents:
In my university there have certainly been attempts by the senior leadership team to place constraints on academics speaking in public on controversial issues or on issues that might impact on the reputation of the institution itself. These attempts have been in breach of the principle of academic freedom and undermine our statutory duty to act as critic and conscience of society.
Government control NZQA/TEC control – much more career focused and less education focused (McLeod and Bentley, 2014, p.6). It appears that Colleges of Education have become appendages of the Ministry of Education and this HAS impacted upon their ability to critique
6
Our University VC and management have implied that we must get permission to speak publicly on certain issues but of course I take no notice of such. When scientists allow themselves to be owned by their employers they lose all value as experts in their chosen field.
2015) that following the survey several more scientists approached her with concerns. She gave the example of a university scientist who told her that ‘he was about to go on live television to talk about a contentious issue when the Vice Chancellor called, but he refused to take the call’ and ‘scientists were being locked up in contracts with industry that say the results of their research can’t be disclosed to anyone else, which effectively stops them from speaking out.’
Dr Nicola Gaston, president of the Association of Scientists, noted in a radio interview (RNZ,
WHY IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM BEING HOLLOWED OUT? The changes in tertiary education are primarily due to the dominance of neo-liberal governance in New Zealand for the last 30-35 years (Bowl and Tobias, 2012; Saunders, 2010). As Boston and Eichbaum (2014, pp. 373-374) state:
Few, if any, democratic countries have witnessed such widespread policy changes in such a short period of time. Codd (Zepke, 2012, p. 157) notes that “according to neo-liberalism, higher education is a market where commodities, primarily knowledge, are traded.” But as Salmi (2007) noted, the increased autonomy to act in the marketplace does not mean absence of outside controls. In fact we have seen a rise in government auditing and accountability measures in tertiary education and the tying of education to the needs of industry and employers (Leach, 2012, p. 714).
The sheer scope, scale, and – not least – the pace of the policy changes instituted between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s was breath-taking. Virtually every significant area of public policy – economic, social, environmental, and administrative – was refashioned or reengineered.
THE IMPACT OF NEW FORMS OF MANAGEMENT AND NEOLIBERAL POLICY ON THE SECTOR The neo-liberal managerial approach is implemented via the government’s Tertiary Education Strategy which has 35 objectives but “[n]one mentioned academic freedom” (Ministry of Education, 2002). The focus for the strategy is very much on economic growth and labour market productivity. This means that institutions and those working in them are evaluated through the counting of ‘desired’ outputs – such as journal articles via the Performance Based Research Fund and degree completions measured by Education Performance Indicators. As such “neo-liberalism does not formally interfere
with the practice of academic freedom, yet opportunities for the practical application of such freedoms have contracted ‘as programme funding, research grants and curricula structuring are determined by their utility in the knowledge-for-profit economy’ (Dyer-Welford in Zepke, 2012, p. 155-6). “The pursuit of knowledge becomes a search for information that is practical and useful, able to be turned into profit. The search for knowledge that attempts to get beneath and beyond facts is side-lined by funding cycles, timelines and other instrumental considerations (Roberts, 2005),” (Zepke, 2012,
7
to develop performance funding policies, and college and university presidents risk losing funding if they do not hit certain performance targets.” (Rutherford and Meier, 2015, p. 30). So it becomes in the interests of presidents to prioritise board goals in order that they continue to receive funding and keep their jobs.
p. 158). The result is that “[t]he university is no longer a cohesive community concerned with the pursuit of knowledge for the wider social good.” (Bentley et al 2014a, p. 27)” And why aren’t institutional managers resisting the changes to their sector? A study of presidents of universities shows that “… the strongest predictor of the university president’s goals are the (now-purged) perceived goals of the governing body” (Rutherford and Meier, 2015, p. 27). “First, university presidents are largely hired and fired by their governing boards. When hiring a president, the board is likely to select a candidate who appears to best match their goals (this line of reasoning is parallel to political control by policymakers through political appointments). Second, state legislators and governing boards continue
There has also been a loss of power by faculty. “Power and control are more centralized, resulting in a dramatic decrease in faculty autonomy” (Benedict, no date p. 5). This is certainly seen when examining the results from the survey of staff in the sector completed by Bentley et al (2014). This study found that those in power are successfully using funding and performance tools to discipline the academy.
CONCLUSION The negative effect of the neoliberal agenda and the resultant New Higher Education environment on academic freedom is evident to those working in the system. The approach to education currently found in New Zealand cuts across the outcomes set out in the Education Act. This approach also cuts across the requirement for the collective collegial endeavour of the education system to meet the needs of our whole society. It is wrong to undermine broad social, economic, scientific, and human goals of tertiary education
with a compliance system which does not acknowledge academic freedom. Real innovation and creativity can only occur if those working in the tertiary education sector are able to act as the critic and conscience of society and to test received wisdoms through the exercise of academic freedom. Any model of tertiary education in which this role is limited or constrained by legislation or practice is unacceptable.
8
References Allison, O. 2014 “Fears proposed code could gag science” Radio NZ, 2 October 2014.
Kelsey, Jane, 2000 “Academic Freedom: Needed Now More Than Ever” in Crozier, Rob, 2000, Troubled Times, Academic Freedom in New Zealand, pp.227-245.
Altbach, P. (2001) “Academic freedom: International realities and challenges”. In Higher Education 41: 205–219, 2001.
Jones, D. Gareth, K.G and Woodhouse, D. 2000. “Universities as Critic and Conscience of Society: The Role of Academic Freedom”. AAU Series on Quality, Number 6. New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit.
Bentley, T, McLeod, L and Teo, S. 2014. The State of the Tertiary Education Sector in New Zealand -2013 New Zealand Work Research Institute, AUT University.
Karran, T. (2007) “Academic Freedom in Europe: a preliminary comparative analysis” In Higher Education Policy 20(3).
Boston, J, and Eichbaum, C. 2014. “New Zealand’s Neoliberal Reforms: Half a Revolution”, In Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration, and Institutions, Volume 27, Issue 3, pages 373–376, July 2014
Leach, L. 2014. “Adult and community education policy in Aotearoa New Zealand 2000-2014: neoliberal influences? In International Journal of Lifelong Education 33:6 pp705-720.
Bowl, M. and Tobias, R. 2012 “Learning from the past, organising for the future: adult and community education in Aotearoa New Zealand” In Adult Education Quarterly 62 pp467-486
McLeod, L, and Bentley, T. 2014b, ‘Perceived Improved and Deteriorated Aspects of Working in the New Zealand Tertiary Education Sector, New Zealand Work Research Institute, AUT University
Chalmers, A. 1998, ‘Workload Stress and New Zealand Universities in 1998, A Follow-Up to the 1994 Study’. Wellington NZCER and AUSNZ
Magna Charta Universitatum (http:// www.magna-charta.org/magna-chartauniversitatum)
Colins, B. 2015, “Call for close look at scientists’ claims”, Radio New Zealand, http://www. Ministry of Education (2002) Tertiary radionz.co.nz/news/political/276896/call-forEducation Strategy 2002-2007 (TES). closer-look-at-scientists’-claims Wellington. Colins, B. 2015 “Calls for investigation into silenced scientists” Radio NZ 22 June 2015
Morton, J. 2016 Prominent Scientists talks about Silencing Science, New Zealand Herald, 8 May 2016
Crozier, Rob (Ed) 2000 Troubled Times, Academic Freedom in New Zealand, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.
Munro, B.2016 ‘Critical clauses’ Otago Daily Times Online News, 5 March 2016.
Fowler, Peter, 2015 ‘More scientists complain of gagging’ Radio NZ, 22 June 2015
New Zealand Association of Scientists, 2014 Survey on the proposed Code of Public Engagement, NZAS Administrator.
9
New Zealand Government. 1989. Education Act 1989 http://legislation.govt.nz/act/ public/1989/0080/latest/DLM175959. html?src=qs
Salmi, J. (2007) “Autonomy from the state vs responsiveness to markets”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 20: 3, pp. 223-242. Stergiou, Konstantinos I. and Stylianos Somarakis (2016) “Academic freedom and tenure: introduction.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Vol 15: 1-5, 2016.
New Zealand Government. 1989. “Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 5 December 1989.” Wellington, New Zealand. RNZ (2015) ‘More scientists complain of gagging’ http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/ national/276812/more-scientists-complain-ofgagging
Te Ara (2016) Weitzel-Hedwig biography, http:// www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4w11/ weitzel-hedwig UNESCO (1997) Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (11 November 1997) http://portal. unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13144&URL_ DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Robertson, B.1997 ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: time for a Reappraisal’, Wellington, New Zealand Business Roundtable Rutherford A. and Meier K.J. 2015 “Managerial goals in a performance driven system: theory and empirical tests in higher education.” In Public Administration 93: 1 pp17-33 Salient, (Vol 3 No. 1 1940) http://nzetc.victoria. ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Salient03011940-t1body-d1.html
Walsh, P. 2013, ‘Reflections from the ViceChancellor’ Victorious, Spring 2013, Victoria University of Wellington. Zepke, N.2012, ‘What of the Future for Academic freedom in Higher Education in Aotearoa New Zealand?’ in Policy Futures in Education 10(2), 2012
10