Two high-profile University of Auckland academics raised important questions about academic freedom with their complaint to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that their employer had failed its duty of care to them.

Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles and Professor Shaun Hendy have become well known for their work explaining the science behind covid-19 and guiding the public and government response.

But not everyone has agreed with that response or valued their contribution, and the academics have been threatened by what they have called “a small but venomous sector of the public”. They argued the university had not adequately responded to their safety concerns and requests for protection.

• READ MORE: University covid-19 experts copping abuse from anti-vaxxers
• Are New Zealand’s universities doing enough to define the limits of academic freedom?
• Academic freedom is under threat around the world – here’s how to defend it

The case has now been referred to the Employment Court and the outcome for all parties remains unknown.

My focus is on the initial determination by the ERA, which referred to a letter from the university to Wiles and Hendy in August 2021 that urged them “to keep their public commentary to a minimum and suggested they take paid leave to enable them ‘to minimise any social media comments at present’.”

According to the ERA, this advice was “apparently given after [the university] received recommendations from its legal advisors to amend its policies so as to ‘not require’ its employees to provide public commentary, in order to limit its potential liability for online harassment.”

The ERA also noted the university “says that the applicants are not ‘expected’ or required to provide public commentary on COVID-19 as part of their employment or roles with the respondent, but it acknowledges they are entitled to do so.”

This issue is central to my concerns about academic freedom.

Some words from me on the abuse and harassment I’ve been subjected to on a near-daily basis for almost 2 years as a scientist speaking to the media about the pandemic https://t.co/qpvy2VJHMs

— Dr Siouxsie Wiles (@SiouxsieW) January 7, 2022

Freedom and risk
The academics argued that the university is statutorily required to “accept a role as critic and conscience of society” – as is set out under section 268 of the Education and Training Act 2020.

Universities routinely fulfil this role when academic staff and students state controversial or unpopular opinions and the results of their independent scholarship. Asking academics to step back from those roles to avoid risk seems to acknowledge that the threat derives from them doing their work.

I also fail to see how it would mitigate risk. An electrician who tried to mitigate the risk of electrocution by spending less time around wires hasn’t actually reduced the risk of electrocution when doing their job. They’ve just reduced the amount of time they are doing their job.

The Auckland academics are not the first to receive threats because of their “critic and conscience” activities. In the US, my former boss Dr Anthony Fauci says he, too, has received death threats from members of the public because of his work on the pandemic.

Less visible but still damaging threats or derogatory comments can come from within the university community, too. Systemic discrimination based on gender and race is well documented in academia. And increasingly, there are conflicts arising out of commercial interests in public research organisations.

Elsewhere it can be even more dangerous, such as the state-sponsored attacks on academics reported in Turkey. As a fellow scientist, I empathise with colleagues forced into the spotlight by virtue of their expertise or conscience.

Uses and limits of institutional power
Universities provide an important protection of academic freedom by not using their power as employers to stifle opinion. But it’s not enough. Universities should be more active in enabling academics to fulfil their role as critic and conscience of society so that, as expected by parliament, academic freedom is “preserved and enhanced”.

But there are also limits. No university in Aotearoa New Zealand has the scale to protect its students and staff from the concerted actions of a hostile country, a multi-billion dollar multinational company, or even the whispers of co-conspirators at coffee breaks during the ranking of grants.

What universities should do cannot exceed what they can do.

A coalition of government, universities, unions, staff and students needs to work together to redefine what can be done.

The government could reaffirm its commitment to critic-and-conscience activities by creating or re-purposing funding explicitly for these. Accountability will follow because universities would be required to expose that activity to public oversight.

The expectations of the university and the government to preserve and enhance academic freedom should become a normal conversation.

The risk is governments might want to influence what does and does not constitute being a critic and conscience of society, and use funding to stifle criticism of its policies. While this risk exists already, the temptation to constrain academic freedom could become stronger.

But balance would be provided by using the United Nations’ higher education declaration as a benchmark, through the transparency of the funding accountability exercise, and the declared precondition the funding allocation process be subject to ongoing and open scrutiny by university staff and students.

Accepting risk with freedom
Universities would be expected to use their additional resources to enable students and staff, as safely as possible, to use their academic freedom for public service.

Jurisdictional responsibilities could be negotiated between universities and government so that, where appropriate, a threat requiring more than campus security would be covered by the country’s police or defence resources.

But students and staff have some responsibilities, too. The university community cannot and should not leave its own protection to others. It needs to take a greater role in self-policing prejudice, privilege and conflicts of interest within the academic community itself.

Confronting the ultimate holders of power within their own academies and professional bodies will be the most painful action for members. But it would be worse for the community to fail in this and therefore do less as the critic and conscience of society.

If the use of academic freedom did not create risk, parliament would not have needed to legislate for its protection. But that risk should not be shouldered by Wiles and Hendy, or anyone else, alone.

Dr Jack Heinemann is professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The news last week that University of Auckland public health researcher Dr Simon Thornley was retracting a co-authored paper about supposed vaccination risks during pregnancy raised deeper questions about the limits of academic freedom.

Dr Thornley’s own head of department had called for the paper to be retracted due to “the anxiety it is creating for expectant parents and those planning to have a child”. Other experts in the field had strongly criticised the paper’s methodology and conclusions.

The university itself responded publicly by asserting, “As an academic staff member […] Dr Thornley has the right to exercise his academic freedom.”

• READ MORE: Let’s choose our words more carefully when discussing mātauranga Māori and science
• How a fake ‘free speech crisis’ could imperil academic freedom
• If not in a university, then where? Academia must define harm to allow open debate on difficult issues

The vice-chancellor later said, “While the university supports academic freedom, we do require research to be conducted with a high degree of integrity.”

The controversy follows an earlier one in July, when a group of academics published an open letter questioning the scientific status of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge). The Royal Society Te Apārangi issued a statement rejecting their views and affirming the value of mātauranga Māori as a knowledge system.

The society is now reported to be investigating two of its fellows who were co-authors of the letter.

In response, a group calling itself the Free Speech Union has called the Royal Society’s response an attack on free speech, saying it sends “a chilling message” to other academics.

Covid-19 vaccination paper criticised as ‘disinformation’ is being withdrawn, co-author Simon Thornley says https://t.co/WZFF068Gdj

— Stuff (@NZStuff) November 16, 2021

Freedom and integrity
These are just two of several conflicts currently playing out in Aotearoa New Zealand over the limits of academic freedom.

Tricky trade-offs surround particular cases like these, and they are not easily resolved. But debates over difficult cases are too often hampered by shallow conceptions of the role of universities within society and flimsy understandings of academic freedom.

Public universities have a public mission: they serve society through generating new knowledge and teaching students. They also, in the language of the Education and Training Act 2020, serve as a “repository of knowledge and expertise” and play a role as “critic and conscience of society”.

University staff and students are granted certain freedoms under the act to fulfil these socially valuable functions.

Two fundamental ideas provide the rationale for academic freedom. The first is that freedom of inquiry is essential for the advancement of knowledge.

Without the freedom to explore new ideas and to test received wisdom, the quest for knowledge cannot progress.

The second is the idea that universities should be free from interference that would corrupt the integrity of research and the dissemination of research findings. It is in the public’s interests that neither the state nor private individuals and corporations are allowed to muzzle researchers from publicising what they know when the public would benefit from knowing.

A debate over science’s role in colonisation and the status of mātauranga Māori has spiralled into a disciplinary process and sparked concerns about impingement on academic freedoms. @SamSachdevaNZ reports https://t.co/H8a4c0GKMJ

— Newsroom (@NewsroomNZ) November 17, 2021

High ethical standards
Institutional autonomy and the right to critically question are essential if universities are to be reliable sources of knowledge and expertise for society at large. But neither implies academics should be free to do what they like or to say what they like with impunity.

The Education and Training Act couples the freedoms granted to universities with expectations of public accountability. It says tertiary institutions should have

as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as is consistent with the nature of the services they provide, the efficient use of national resources, the national interest, and the demands of accountability.

In turn, the legislation places on tertiary institutions the responsibility to ensure the “highest ethical standards” are maintained.

That’s as it should be. Just as we expect medical associations to hold doctors accountable to high standards of competent practice and ethical conduct, so should we expect tertiary institutions to hold academics to the same high standards.

Critic and conscience
Controversial or unpopular opinions are sometimes just what society needs to hear. That’s why the law recognises a “critic and conscience of society” role for academics — the role of speaking truth to power, as we like to say.

But the usefulness of dissenting views to society cannot be defended if these opinions rest on faulty evidence or demonstrable falsehoods. Misinformation is incompatible with performing a role as critic and conscience of society.

From the public’s point of view, a university is malfunctioning if it harbours and protects misinformation. It ceases to be a reliable source of knowledge and expertise.

Likewise, academic freedom does not provide an exemption from ethical standards. Like all public institutions, we should expect universities to be places that foster healthy and respectful relationships, and serve wider societal goals of improving well-being, overcoming injustices and combating environmental destruction.

Universities that tolerate bullying and harassment of staff and students, or marginalise already disadvantaged social groups, fail to live up to their public mission.

Leadership needed
New Zealand universities need to look hard at these issues. In today’s political and media environment, the challenge of mis- and disinformation is only going to intensify. Institutional culture, practices and policies need to account for this.

And universities have barely begun to address the reality that campuses are often experienced as hostile spaces by minority groups, not least Māori and Pacific staff and students.

A genuine democratisation of university life — including tackling institutional racism — is also vital to ensure all communities in Aotearoa New Zealand can see themselves as participants in and beneficiaries of what universities do. Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi should not only be acknowledged but given meaningful expression.

Hard work will be required for our universities to become highly trusted institutions by all communities. This is especially true of tangata whenua and Pacific people.

In fact, our tertiary institutions have a lot to learn from tangata whenua about handling disagreements and responding to unethical behaviour in a way that upholds the mana of all involved.

We would do well to take a lead from legal scholar Moana Jackson who has envisioned universities as “a marae ātea where robust debate and criticism should flourish”, but also as “a whare where relationships should be nurtured and enhanced, and where all students and staff should feel safe and free”.

To realise such a vision will require clear-headed and courageous leadership at all levels within our universities.

Dr Matheson Russell is associate professor of philosophy, University of Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.