On 2 May 2018, Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for serious misconduct. It all started when he called-out his colleague Terry Hughes for falsely claiming healthy inshore coral reefs were dead from climate change and deteriorating water quality.
Ignoring the first censure in April 2016, Professor Ridd went on television in August 2017 and explained in an interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin why so much said and written about the Great Barrier Reef, including by scientists at the Australian Institution of Marine Science, is ‘untrustworthy’.
The interview was to promote a book that I edited, Climate Change: The Facts 2017. The book published by the Institute of Public Affairs, begins with a chapter about the Great Barrier Reef in which the orthodoxy on Great Barrier Reef science is challenged, in particular reporting on coral calcification rates. In that interview – that contributed directly to Peter Ridd’s sacking – the main argument was, and continues to be, for better quality assurance of coral reef science.
It is a fact that the Australian Institute of Marine Science refuses to release 15 years of coral growth data – because it contradicts the claims of high-profile activists that coral growth rates are in decline. They are not. But the false claims are central to their fundraising strategy. Never mind the truth.
The first finding handed down by Judge Salvatore Vasta back in April last year case concerned the photographs taken in 1994 that Terry Hughes used to falsely claim Acropora corals that were alive in 1890 are now all dead. Peter Ridd had photographs taken in 2015 showing live Acropora and the need for quality assurance of Hughes’ claims.
Judge Vasta found in favour of Peter Ridd and ordered that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
It was very significant that Peter Ridd won on the issue of academic freedom: that he did have a right to ignore the university administrators and continuing to speak out about the lack of quality assurance and explain how and why important scientific institutions had become so untrustworthy.
The University never accepted that decision by the Federal Circuit Court, and they have never conceded that Terry Hughes was wrong to suggest all the corals were dead, when a documentary has since been made showing them to be alive. Further, they have never supported any calls for the coral growth data to be made public.
Instead, the University appealed, and today the University won in the Federal Court. In the judgement, Peter Ridd’s academic freedom is portrayed as his ‘personal opinion’.
It is not Peter Ridd’s personal opinion that the corals are alive, and the Great Barrier Reef resilient to climate change. It is fact. I’ve seen the coral reefs whose health is contested with my own eyes: they are very much alive.
What is dead is academic freedom in Australia.
Universities should be understood by the judiciary as different from other workplaces because it is expected by the ordinary Australian that, on occasions, there will be vigorous debates on important and controversial issues. It is essential that academics can engage in these debates without fearing that the use of plain and colloquial English could end their careers.
Yet today, the university’s appeal was upheld on the basis Peter Ridd was un-collegial in stating plainly that his own university and the Australian Institute of Marine Science are ‘untrustworthy’ because of systemic deficiencies in their quality assurance processes. Further, it was mentioned that Peter Ridd did ‘satirise’ the university’s disciplinary processes in a personal email.
Today’s decision means that James Cook University, and other Australian universities, will continue to crush dissent and sack academics who campaign for the truth.
The truth is that coral reefs are resilient, and despite the fear mongering, refuse to die.
Australia’s universities may now be corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy but it is the case that one day, when the travel restrictions are all lifted, you will be able to visit the Great Barrier Reef and see with your own eyes that Peter Ridd told the truth about the Stone Island corals, while Terry Hughes’ photographs deceive.
****
The feature image at the very top of this blog post is of Premnas biaculeatus, an anemone fish, photographed at a Ribbon reef on the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef in January 2020. There are still so many fish, and so much healthy coral where Terry Hughes has most recently claimed devastating coral bleaching. I SCUBA dived for a week and could find very limited coral bleaching. The underwater footage from this expedition will be made into a feature length documentary.
The decision by the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia is here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0123
Please support The Spectator, a publication that continues to republish important information from this blog: https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/07/peter-ridd-loses-we-all-lose/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I am thoroughly looking forward to seeing your documentary. One day I will see these wonders with my own eyes too… as I plan to learn to SCUBA also. You both have my wholehearted support, regardless of the current nonsensical court result. The survival of the corals is to be celebrated and rejoiced. Thank you for the update Jen.
A very sad day for enlightenment via the pursuit of the truth.
Activist judges seem to be a systemic problem.
Quality assurance must be the top priority for ‘science’ underpinning Government decisions.
No we never lose. We never give up. Interesting as l’m on the GBR atm and it looks as stunningly beautiful as ever.
Ahhhh, the wise wizards have stuffed up again ! Well that’s normal. Next take it to the High Court. Bugger JCU ! It ‘s not a university..It’s a propaganda indoctrination camp !
I am sad for Peter and his family, and I am sad for the loss of academic freedom and another knife in the back of freedom of speech.
It needs to be strongly highlighted that James Cook University never argued that Peter Ridd was wrong in what he said about the quality of reef research.
Yes, this is a sad episode akin to Kafka’s The Trial and it is especially hard on Peter Ridd and his family.
Not at all unexpected, though. Amongst the current judiciary, Justice Vasta seems almost alone. We have seen court after court meander through the “greenery”. Empirical evidence is regarded as “personal opinion”. So sayeth the bewigged.
The Enlightenment is smashed now. Peter Ridd’s case just demonstrates this. The integrity of scientific method is just too irksome for those afflicted with power lust. I suggest the public has lost nothing here (Peter and family havelost much, of course) as it has all been well and truly lost much earlier.
We will wait for Peter and his legal team to make a decision on any next step.
Have to broadly agree with ianl.
I have been reading accounts to do with the first fleet and the abolitionist movement that was a key vector of the Enlightenment and how Arthur Phillip and William Dawes for example were bot abolitionists. The enlightenment was broadly associated with what we would call the ‘progressive’ or ‘left’ side of politics these days although perhaps with a more religious dimension. Compare it to the regressive, cancel culture, big brother behaviour of the modern ‘progressive left’ and you wonder what the heck happened. Did it get hijacked or just disappear up its own fundament as it increased in narcissism and self praise for its past achievements.
Universities are now just another instantiation of managerialism gone mad where salary bonus rubrics have become the dominant drover of their ethos and practives. John Ralston Saul wrote a telling volume he entitled “Voltaire’s Bastards” and set out how the cult of managerialism corrupted government, the military, the corporate world and bnow we see it in universities. Objective evidence is now pre-weighted, or should I say ‘homogonised’, for political correctness before it is given consideration, if it is given consideration other than lip service.
Good evening Jennifer,
The campaign started by Dr Ridd will continue, and it will grow and grow.
I remember reading all the expressions of support that Dr Ridd had when he started his GoFundMe – these people are strong and will not let this set back (which is all this decision is) stop the cause of academic freedom.
In this world where the honest pursuit of real knowledge is being threatened more and more, Dr Ridd has become a beacon.
This is not a loss, but is the start of a new movement.
Invictus.
If there is another appeal available, I look forward to contributing to it.
Enough Is Enough.
Resist the dark age.
2+2=4
I too would contribute again if Peter were to appeal (more this time). We have to let him know this.
Would there be any point in raising a petition to have this atrocious injustice examined by a parliamentary committee? Not that I could probably be counted as I’m a UK citizen, but I’m sure many of my aussie cousins would sign.
Patrick Moore suggests the Supreme Court. The English SC? As a commonwealth country is it OK to appeal with the UK SC?
In Commonwealth countries, there is a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is not a particularly expensive procedure. There is a very good chance that the Judicial Committee will overthrow the Federal Court.
Jennifer Mahorasy has done wonderful work supporting Peter Ridd and also showing that the Great Barrier Reef is in good heart, notwithstanding the propaganda to the contrary.
This is the right time in history to MAKE HISTORY.
I look forward to hearing that Dr. Ridd, after he has recovered from the shock and dusted himself off, will lead the charge. There is nothing like a David and Goliath fight to unite supporters. David did not have the advantage of social media to mobilise people to fight for a just cause.
I’m with Peter.
“Strive to seek and not to yield” Tennyson
I simply cannot believe that hard data, rigourously gathered and reviewed is now viewed as “opinion” in this judgement.
More evidence of a world gone mad, where the truth is what I say it is, even when its just opinion with no basis.
Maybe all judges need to retire as their law is just “opinion” and by extension we don’t need courts or the law at all.
Thanks Jennifer for your great work . Mike
Thanks Jen. Yes, it’s now time to take this rubbish judgement to the max to expose to the world the lunacy we are labouring under.
The crux of this judgement by the Federal Court appears to be that legal documentation reflects that the ‘JCU Code of Conduct’ provision trumps Clause 14’s ‘Right to Intellectual Freedom’ (The Case at trial: #25 and also #31)
The following in #35 is key: “… the primary outcome of this appeal is limited solely to the question of whether, properly construed, the Enterprise Agreement provided Professor Ridd with the untrammelled right (provided only that he did not harass, vilify, bully or intimidate) to express his opinions in whatever manner he chose, unconstrained by the behavioural standards imposed by the Code of Conduct, with which he was bound to comply”.
It wasn’t interested in whether Peter is right; THIS is what needs to be argued in another forum to show that truth MUST conquer misinformation. This judgement was all about legalities, not what really matters.
This is maybe a good sign:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/victorias-top-judicial-body-savaged-in-landmark-legal-study/news-story/c46fb9f8959779174508adb11b40344a
“In the judgement, Peter Ridd’s academic freedom is portrayed as his ‘personal opinion’. “
Of course it’s his “opinion.” As Feynman once said “Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” That’s all ANY of it is, even the nonsense JCU is protecting at everyone else’s expense.
Science is dying, and it’s the Universities like JCU that are killing it.
Jennifer, from your postings, the GOFUNDME efforts and the increasing number of voices speaking out about how our universities have perverted, prejudiced and persecuted voices willing to stand up to their obscene behaviour, my hope is that Peter has the physical and mental strength to stand up to Nazi-like behaviour from JCU administration.
To my mind, the very fact that they have a “Code of Conduct” is stark evidence of an institution more interested in running an asylum than a place of learning. The same small minds at the seat of power at JCU are on a losing streak and I await the day those responsible for wasting taxpayer monies and resources are frog-marched out the door and shamed for their over-reach, abusive bullying and absence of professionalism. The hypocrisy of JCU having an anti-bullying policy while practising institutionalised bullying.
Know this Peter Ridd, you are on the winning side and the silent majority (including myself) will back you financially – we are equally appalled at this pathetic “legal” decision and the incompetence of JCU administration. Remember, some people are elevated to their level of absolute incompetence: the Board and management at JCU have hit the ceiling on that one.
Jennifer,
I am horrified, but not surprised at this so called “Justice System”.
When my daughter Katrina and I snorkelled around Stone Island, offshore from Bowen, in September 2019, we sighted HECTARES of healthy, beautiful coral of many different kinds. We don’t know their individual names, but we were with Whitsunday Explorer, so this is not just anecdotal.
I’m calling out the LIES!
Peter,
STAY STRONG!
We’re all behind you!! This is not a minor issue for our society. We have to stand up and be counted.
I was at your Mackay presentation – you have many, many supporters.
Note to PR: I’m ready to donate again so keep fighting the good fight, mate. The truth must win out at all costs, otherwise, we will all lose.
And, surely, if the PM is following this story, he must challenge JCU now to know why they are wasting taxpayers money doing unconscionable things to avoid the truth of the matter, which must be corrected immediately.
This is very depressing news. Can Mr. Ridd appeal this decision?
The Law is an Ass [whether original by Dickens or he poached from earlier is not material]
To put it colloquially are the Judges saying that the employment contract does not allow a professor to call others out that are not speaking the truth.
How far would this go? – not being able to call out falsehoods. Say another was engaged in criminal conduct. Would they still not be permitted to call it out?
Lord Monckton: There is no longer an avenue of appeal to the Privy Council in Australia – but leave can be sought to appeal to the High Court.
Spangled Drongo: That analysis relates to the Victorian Court of Appeal. This is the Federal Court.
A further thought.
Would this judgement mean that a Professor could not do a peer reviews unless they were favorable?
If a peer review was unfavorable, even though honest, the individual writing it may be sacked.
Yes Aynsley, I was aware of that, but I bet it still applies.
Any’ow, the levels of hubris, wokeness and stupidity seem pretty comparable.
Let’s hope Peter goes to the High Court. He will have plenty of moral and financial support.
In “Little America” (read Australia) we don’t argue. We litigate apparently. Sad days.
Cheers, SD.
I’m not sure whether the Federal Court is quite on a par with the Victorian Court of Appeal, but we shall see. It was apparent from reading the minority opinion in the Pell case that the only judge with a criminal law background was setting out the reasons the High Court would uphold an appeal, all reasoned at length and in detail. This analysis confirms there is something wrong there.
I have advanced the argument on the Catallaxy blog that this is a pyrrhic victory because of the reputations hair JCU was done to itself – the Streisand effect, where actions draw even more attention to the case. I was pleased to see Chris Merritt in the Oz this morning advancing essentially the same argument: trouble recruiting good staff and PhD students committed to frank and fearless research, etc.
Upon reflection, there is another cost: the lessening of reliability that those outside JCU will place in research coming out of JCU, thanks to their pursuit of Ridd and the Lionfish case. If they place loyalty to the institution above the search for truth, we will place less credence in anything that comes out of JCU.
That is a huge mistake.
Oops! ‘ reputations hair JCU was done to itself ‘ = reputational harm JCU has done to itself. (And autocorrect even tried to butcher that!)
Very depressing.
Tragically, it shows that our university administrations, science bureaucrats, and judges are beholden to the UN’s fraudulent climate change ideology.
In effect, JCU has created a product, their “consensus” that cannot be disparaged by employees. That is in effect a corporate product. A very faulty, corruptly produced product.
That has implications regarding reps and warranty that is most interesting. Consider their duty to vet their product. To QA/QC their product. To not create deceptive and fraudulent products.
In effect they have silenced a whistle-blower by pretending he broke some internal capricious rules.
we have seen what happened to R. Pielke jr. He has proven that neither hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. do more damage to the United States. He was denounced and fired by the UNI. All of these organisations such as IPCC, WMO or WHO are very powerful and just as corrupt. It is a shame thinks happen today. Nothing to do with academic freedom or democracy at all. The same in Austria and Germany, believe me. Thx for your investigations and work!
Vg point Hunter. The JCU product should be investigated by the ACCC for “false and misleading” product information. However, am uncertain as to whether the ACCC remit limits their ability to investigate government bodies.
Irrespective of that, the JCU conduct simply fails the pub test. The court of public opinion already holds JCU in contempt.
Jennifer, Thank you for all you’ve done to try to help Peter Ridd. I have a suggestion. Could you suggest to him that he appeal on the grounds of the 1948 ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights‘ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ .
“Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
“Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Peter Ridd has the opportunity of seeking good legal advice.
The Majority arguing that the internet has changed things looks a bit specious.
Either Ridd had the Right to object or not, according to his contract.
The JCU is quite capable of giving academic staff superior rights by contract than it already has by common law.
The internet, if anything, magnifies JCU’s treatment of Ridd , a JCU self injury.
Just because JCU’s reliance on common law was not objected to does not mean it was valid.
In the ‘old days’ the staff association would not stand for this.
Some thoughts on AJ’s analysis.
The Pell case just showed the abject gullibility of the Majority at the Victorian Supreme Court level.
In this case, in my non legal opinion,there is a judgement based on the merits of the argument.
When Pell was faced with the clear denial of the Majority Victorian Supreme Court he took advice.
The person he asked was his jailer.
His question, since the system is against me, why bother spending another million dollars, mostly from mums and dads, on an appeal?
The answer he received was ‘you have not done wrong,have faith in the system’.
In Ridd’s case the answer is best left to one of those who defended Pell.
The name Robert Richter comes to mind.
He has sufficient self awareness to know his limits,as well as the law.
Peter Ridd now needs to gather as much detailed scientific data with photos, video, localities, other scientists, and like minded supporters to show that the corals in question in the court case are in fact alive and well. He must publish such data and bring into question the decision of the JCU appeal case and raise the issue of JCU committing perjury in their appeal case evidence suggesting that Ridd was not accurately reporting the coral situation. He must ensure that his scientific evidence shows that JCU can no longer be regarded as an institution fit to provide accurate scientific information. The time has come for proper scientists to ridicule and blacklist the pseudo-scientists who are so damaging to science in general and ensure that the pseudo-scientists are properly exposed on the internet and for popular public support for real scientists is generated.
Richard
I stand to be corrected, but I think the Court decision has nothing to do with whether Peter Ridd is right or wrong.
It is the employment contract and code of conduct that has been ruled on. An employee can bring in disrepute etc.
Yes, if I am correct, the law is an ass.
Such a disappointment, especially after the wonderful initial victory for Peter. This really smacks of bullying by JCU and is not a good look. When will they leave him alone? A robust institution should be able to cop criticism. Why so fragile? Peter, your fellow academics are cheering you on mightily. Today you, tomorrow me.
So much thanks to The Spectator for republishing: https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/07/peter-ridd-loses-we-all-lose/
I hope that Peter Ridd will be taking this matter to the next level in the Australian legal system, which has again proved to be inadequate.
Jock
This is a disgrace a marine scientist sacked for speaking about marine science.
I do not know much about universities, so I googled “university definition” and it comes up with:
“The purpose of a university is to be the guardian of reason, inquiry and philosophical openness, preserving pure inquiry from dominant public opinions.”
James Cook University is definitely not a guardian of philosophical openness and as such such it is no longer fit for purpose. On this basis it should have it s eligibility for Federal funding withdrawn.
I am thinking of starting an e-petition requesting the Federal Government withdraw all funding to James Cook University on the basis it is no longer fit for purpose.
Can one of the learned people that frequent this site please help me with the wording for for the petition. Specifically the “Petition title”; Reasons and Request for Actions here:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Petitions/House_of_Representatives_Petitions/Petitions_General/Request_a_new_e-petition
Dr Peter Ridd should now be reinstated to the James Cook University due to his opinion being the only reason for his sacking. The finding is quite easily fought but will need some further support.
The article linked above, “Victoria’s Court of Appeal savaged in landmark legal study” begins:
“Victoria’s Court of Appeal has been rocked by a landmark legal study finding that 18 criminal judgments under its president, judge Chris Maxwell, have been overturned by the High Court.”
So it would seem that Prof. Ridd can appeal. I hope he does.
Peter Ridd has provided an update to his funding page – yes, a High Court appeal is to be launched.
Amongst many critical issues, one may hope that empirical evidence is no longer regarded as “opinion” (Federal Court appeal). That section of the judgement was particularly scary.
I had wished to respond to Jennifer’s email ‘Keeping You in the Loop’:
𝑲𝒆𝒆𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒐𝒑
“𝐽𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑖𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑦. 𝐼𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑖𝑑𝑑’𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑠 ‘𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛’.
𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑖𝑑𝑑’𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡. 𝐼’𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑓𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑦 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑠: 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒.
𝑊ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎”.
So I’ve been doing a bit of reading and have found the following:
Both Peter Ridd’s successful result at trial and JCU’s subsequent successful appeal were largely to do with the question of whether the University’s Code of conduct was subordinate to the Enterprise Agreement in place at JCU. Basically Professor Ridd argued that he could not be censured/sacked via the Code of Conduct because the Enterprise Agreement provided Intellectual Freedom to staff. Judge Vasta agreed with him, whereas subsequently, the Federal Court of Australia Full Court did not.
From my reading of the trial and appeal judgement documents, Peter Ridd’s censure and ultimate sacking wasn’t about his science, nor about his views on the reef. [It’s worthwhile to read the various email material which Judge Vasta incorporated into his judgement. They begin at Para 55 of his judgement.]
On the face of it, his sacking was about bagging out a fellow professor, questioning the honesty of some academics, not showing proper respect, failing to act in a collegial manner, damaging the reputation of JCU and/or saying that fellow institutions were untrustworthy. Trial-Judge Vasta put it this way in his judgement [Paragraphs 44 & 49]:
“𝑂𝑛 21 𝑁𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 2017, 𝐽𝐶𝑈 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑖𝑑𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡, ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝐻𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑠, ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦,
“𝑂𝑛 13 𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑙 2018, 𝐽𝐶𝑈 𝑤𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑖𝑑𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠, 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑉𝑖𝑐𝑒-𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑟.”
So the matter had gone to trial and then to appeal.
In a nutshell, the Appeal Court found that the Intellectual Freedom described in Clause 14 of the Enterprise Agreement was qualified. It was qualified not just by proscribing harassment, vilification, bullying and intimidation, but also by requiring staff to respect the rights of others.
In any case (still in the ‘nutshell’) the Appeal Court found, contrary to Professor Ridd’s argument, that the Enterprise Agreement did recognise the Code of Conduct as an instrument by which a staff member could be censured/sacked. It noted that the Enterprise Agreement did not intend that the Code of Conduct detract from the right to Intellectual Freedom and found that it did not do so.
What is this Freedom?
14. 𝑰𝑵𝑻𝑬𝑳𝑳𝑬𝑪𝑻𝑼𝑨𝑳 𝑭𝑹𝑬𝑬𝑫𝑶𝑴
14.1. 𝐽𝐶𝑈 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐽𝐶𝑈’𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡.
14.2. 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓 𝑡𝑜:
• 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑦;
• 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒;
• 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝐶𝑈 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑦 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦;
• 𝐵𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝐽𝐶𝑈, 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎;
• 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠.
As I read Clauses 13 & 14 of the Enterprise Agreement and the Code of Conduct, I understand that such rights to Intellectual Freedom are not unlimited (e.g. harassment, vilification etc.) and are accompanied by responsibilities (e.g. respecting the rights of others, using applicable processes and giving opportunity for those processes to be followed).
In court, Peter Ridd’s method of challenging his censure and dismissal was to maintain that the Intellectual Freedom recognised in the Enterprise Agreement over-rode the Code of Conduct. Thus he held that his censure, the directions given to him by JCU and his sacking via the use of the Code of Conduct, were invalid. That was the legal case (as I understand it) which he presented to the courts. He did not argue to the court (as I understand it) that he was sacked and shouldn’t have been, for his views on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, instead he argued that due to the existence of Clause 14 of the Enterprise Agreement, he could not be disciplined via the Code of Conduct. His was an argument based on a legal point, on a question of the legal standing of the Code of Conduct itself. The Court of Appeal was not being asked to decide whether or not the Great Barrier Reef was in danger and Peter Ridd, in my view, was not asking the Court to do so.
I began this comment by referring to a comment of Jennifer’s about academic freedom being dead. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t – I wouldn’t know the realities of what takes place behind closed doors in academia. From what I’ve read (please see the documents as listed below) I would say that it would not seem to be the simple exercise of his intellectual freedoms that got him into trouble, but rather it was the manner in which he did so. I acknowledge however, that there may well be a background of which I’m unaware, which might well throw a different light on this whole matter.
Thank you for reading this lengthy comment,
Garry Stannus.
𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦
𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹: Mar-Apr 2019:
Ridd v JCU 1: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2019/997.html
𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀: July-Sept 2019:
Ridd v JCU 2: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2019/2489.html
𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹: May-July 2020 JCU v Ridd:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0123
𝗝𝗖𝗨 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (in force at the time):
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae405417.pdf
𝗝𝗖𝗨 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁:
https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct [current July 2020 version?, ]
https://tinyurl.com/y354htqs [archived version, from 2015?]
𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗔𝗰𝘁 (𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟵):
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114.txt
𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗘𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝟭𝟵𝟵𝟰 [PSEA]: Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) or
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/qld/consol_act/psea1994210.pdf
One wonders what the Majority really thought was meant by
• 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑦; Probably agreed
• 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒;Well,of course,but lets see what the uni really contracted with this academic, after all, everything is changing now, you know,internet and all that. Everyone knows preambles like this are just that. The honeymoon glow.To get to the meat you have to look at what they are really on about in the contract.
• 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝐶𝑈 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑦 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦;
That’s a hard one.Lets find out what a textbook says and invoke the Twitter crowd to show we are up to date.Clearly if Twitter gets off side, the Uni will surely lose out, but if Twitter thinks it’s a great Uni, then all the specialists and academics in the World will agree and reality will go on, just like it has been.
• 𝐵𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝐽𝐶𝑈, 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎;
Well, of course, he was clearly out of his depth criticising some of the science he saw done. Its great to see he was eligible to participate, but,shucks,he should have known that actually calling into question replicatable science was outside the established criteria, as in his contract, so catch 22.
Joking about it in an email that no one read, of any consequence, was a bridge too far.
Once he was hit with a constructive refusal to address the science then that was just too bad.
After all, it was in his contract.
• 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠.
Yep, but of course ,if he actually did this to inform them, while the Uni gagged him, he would have broken his contract. That’s tough, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.
Time for a cuppa.
We need some safe hands here.
Lewis P Buckingham:
you wrote [ August 1, 2020 at 1:16 pm ] that (on a number of questions relating to academic freedom (?) “we need safe hands here”. I didn’t understand some of your comment, but I thought that I got the gist of it.
You cited “𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑦 ”, “𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ” and “𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝐶𝑈 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑦 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 ”.
I agree with you that (as you seemed to imply) that these things are the things that Peter Ridd had done. Yes, and I can’t think why he should not have been allowed to do so.
But my conservative nature drew a line between his advocacy of non-climate-change-reef-damage views amongst other things etc. (sorry for that ‘mouthful’) and his apparent public ‘bagging out’ of an individual and of JCU’s fellow institutions.
Still, the issue of ‘academic freedom’ (seemingly sequestered into the more general ‘intellectual freedom’ paddock, is, in my view, worthy of pursuit. I’ve not had time to digest yet Katherine Gelber’s “Is there a ‘free speech crisis’ in Australian universities?” [ABC Religion and Ethics 15Jul2020: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/katharine-gelber-free-speech-crisis-in-australian-universities/12459718 ]
Hers is, for me, an interesting article. Perhaps you might have read it, and if so, what would you take from it?
Best wishes,
Garry Stannus.
LIFFEY. TAS.
Thanks.
Not that long ago truth was not a defence in NSW.
That was because it could be true that someone was an ex convict, but not something that should be bruited abroad.
The thing about intellectual freedom and hence the application of intellectual rigor, is that it is a precious flower only nurtured by truth.
There should be no problem with that.
So when the VC’s talk the talk, like in the instance, say
‘𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒;’
The question then comes, will they walk the walk?
Will they make their ‘mission statements’ congruent with their work practices?
The ABC could well have let a few other VC’s chat about all this, as this is the issue.
It is interesting that ACU, a non secular uni, has already adopted wide academic freedoms, in line with the French report.
Let’s see where the Secular universities end up. Then we can measure the fears expressed at the ABC level, about the level and quality of debate.
Its our children, our money and our integrity.