Massey makes censorship on campus easier

Massey University has now got two policies around “freedom of speech. One general policy and one on invited speakers.

There is some good stuff in the general policy such as:

the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the freedom to associate are central to academic inquiry, as is the free and frank exchange of ideas

Good

It follows then that academic staff should not be prevented from including in their teaching materials items or content on the grounds that it may offend or shock any student/s, on the basis that this material is academically quality assured.

Also good that students may be offended or shocked.

Therefore, we affirm the centrality of certain freedoms – of speech and expression, and of association – as central to our University. We also affirm that these freedoms are contingent on ensuring that dialogue should be respectful and should not seek to disparage, marginalise, stigmatise or incite hostility.

This is okay also. I apply this test to Don Brash. People may disagree with what he says, but you can’t argue he “seeks” to incite hostility etc.

The University may itself apply restrictions in circumstances where they are necessary for the University: …

to safeguard the safety, health and welfare of its students, employees and other persons lawfully upon the premises or engaged in activities associated with the University

This is the dangerous part. Because we have seen multiple times that “safety” is now used as a device to censor views some students don’t like as they merely claim it makes them feel unsafe.

And now we turn to the invited speakers policy:

they have provided the correct information to the University so that the relevant University officer can fully consider possible risks associated with having this speaker at an event. Consideration will be given, but not be exclusive to, physical, reputational and mental harm to students, staff and/or visitors

So every invited speaker must now be approved in advance by a member of the SLT and they may be banned if they are deemed cause reputational harm or mental harm. This is so wide, that a VC could ban anyone at all under this policy.

So I’m pessimistic that these policies will enhance free speech. I think their impact will be to make it harder to have dissenting views heard. I hope I’m wrong, and time will tell.