Australian university groups have mounted a rearguard action against part of education minister Dan Tehan’s plan to enshrine academic freedom in legislation.
Umbrella group Universities Australia (UA) has warned of “unintended consequences” from the proposed insertion of a definition of academic freedom in the Higher Education Support Act (HESA).
In a submission to the Department of Education, UA stresses its support for the government’s “policy intent”. However, it says, an all-encompassing definition of academic freedom would undermine universities’ institutional autonomy.
The definition would also be inconsistent with the recommendations of reviewer Robert French, who proposed more robust safeguards for freedom of speech and academic freedom but emphasised that they should be voluntary for universities and not imposed in legislation.
The UA submission also highlights problems with the proposed definition, particularly the fourth of seven bullet points. That entry outlines an essential element of academic freedom as the “freedom of academic staff, without constraint imposed by reason of their employment by the university, to make lawful public comment on any issue in their personal capacities”.
UA says this precondition runs the risk of “conflating some elements of academic freedom with freedom of speech”.
Innovative Research Universities (IRU) executive director Conor King, who has also raised objections to the proposed definition, said it could lower the bar on academic standards.
“Freedom of speech need have no academic rigour,” Mr King said. “With academic freedom, there’s meant to be a connection to [your] academic skill, knowledge and expertise. Freedom of speech is about a broader [right] to say what you believe and feel, as opposed to what you’ve rationally thought through.”
In its submission on the proposed legislation, the IRU warns that the fourth bullet point could provide “rogue academics” with “undue protection” from the usual standards of academic scrutiny and rigour.
“When challenged about inaccurate statements or research, the proposed wording would seem to allow any academic to defend themselves by claiming to have been acting in a personal capacity rather than a professional one.
“A university academic would [seem to] be within her or his rights to publicly declare they hold a racial, sexuality or gender prejudice against students they are teaching. They would seem to be able to defend themselves by claiming to have spoken in a personal capacity, not an academic one,” the IRU said.
The submission says there is no need to define academic freedom in legislation because it is a “well-known concept” specified in various ways in university policies and enterprise agreements − many of which were updated before the government floated the HESA amendment.
“A legislated definition would place heavy weight on a specific set of words, not the evolving application of the core concept,” the submission says.
UA chief executive Catriona Jackson said she supported the government’s proposed change to HESA’s objects, with a reference to “free intellectual inquiry” replaced by the term “freedom of speech and academic freedom”. The IRU also supports this change, but both groups oppose defining “academic freedom” in the act.
The IRU said that if the government insisted on including the definition, bullet point four should “be removed in its entirety”.
