What Do You Reckon FortyTwo? Free Speech Concern

[pErvinalia]

Australia following the US?

La Trobe university has abandoned the cause of intellectual freedom and given in to a “moral panic” by suspending Roz Ward, according to rightwing thinktank the Institute for Public Affairs and a leading education specialist.

The IPA and the National Alliance for Public Universities (Napu) have also condemned La Trobe for moving against Ward, the cofounder of the controversial Safe Schools program and the author of a private Facebook post that described the Australian flag as “racist”.

Emeritus professor Jane Kenway, a fellow with the Australian Research Council and Academy of Social Sciences, said universities had “a moral and ethical purpose to defend intellectual freedom, and that means the university should be a safe space for brave speech”.

“La Trobe at the moment is not,” she said. “It’s basically taken on board all the logic of the moral panic about Safe Schools and the scapegoating of Roz.”

She said “a culture of fear” was developing within education and social research faculties as a result of the intense scrutiny of Ward and Safe Schools.

“People are afraid of putting their heads up for fear of losing funding, for fear of being disciplined by the institution, fearing they might be scapegoated in the way Roz has been,” she said.

La Trobe suspended Ward without pay on Wednesday, arguing she breached her employment conditions by undermining public confidence in Safe Schools, damaging its reputation and drawing colleagues into negative publicity around the program.

The program has been a target of News Corp publications over claims it exposes children to inappropriate sexual material and promotes “cultural Marxism”.

Ward resigned last week from an advisory role with the Victorian government after a media outlet learned of the social media entry, a picture of the LBGTI flag flying above the Victorian parliament with the comment: “Now we just need to get rid of the racist Australian flag on top of the state parliament and get a red one up there and my work is done.”

The Institute of Public Affairs has been critical of Ward’s role in the Safe Schools program but said on Thursday it was wrong to suspend her.

“Expressing a political viewpoint is a fundamental value in a free society, especially for someone who’s a university academic,” research fellow Matthew Lesh said. “The very idea of academic freedom depends on someone being able to explore political ideas.”

Lesh compared Ward’s sacking to the resignation of Barry Spurr, an English professor appointed to review the national curriculum, who left his job at the University of Sydney after emails he had penned, widely criticised as racist and sexist, were leaked to media in 2014.

“[Spurr] made some comments that were offensive, but was clearly a political campaign,” Lesh said. “The message is that you’ve got to be consistent standing up for free political expression on campus.”

Napu, a lobby group for academic staff opposed to university deregulation, called on La Trobe to reinstate the leftwing activist “immediately and unconditionally”.

“It is essential to the intellectual and civic function of universities that both their programmes and their staff be protected from political interference,” the group said.

The university’s vice-chancellor, John Dewar, said La Trobe fully supported the Safe Schools program but reiterated its concerns that Ward’s comments could impact “on the good standing of our researchers in this field”.

Dewar said in a statement that Ward had been suspended pending a disciplinary process and that the university had not yet made a final determination on her case.

Prof Joellen Riley, the dean of the University of Sydney’s law faculty and a specialist in labour law, said employees were generally protected from being sacked or suspended for expressing political opinions, but that the high court had interpreted these clauses narrowly.

“It depends on what the employers says their reason was,” she said. “If the employer says, our reason for sacking her was she expressed political views of which we didn’t agree, then they’re in trouble. But if they say we sacked her because she breached a workplace policy … then they may be able to defend themselves.

“They may well be able to say, anybody who had caused reputational harm to the university and distracted us from our regular work would be suspended in this way, it wasn’t for her political opinions.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... MP=soc_567

[Tyrannical]

So, person against intellectual and academic freedom demands intellectual and academic freedom when she gets fired

[pErvinalia]

How is she "against intellectual and academic freedom"?

[Tyrannical]

How is she "against intellectual and academic freedom"?

She's one of those radical queer leftists that demand everyone accept those freaks as normal.
If I said abbos were a primitive mixed species of archaic proto - humans I doubt she'd stand up for my academic freedom.

[piscator]

Trump University was established for people with opinions no one values, maybe you can find your academic freedom there for a nominal cost?

[JimC]

There is free speech in the sense of no legal repercussions for what she said, which is at should be.

However, if you are in charge of a major program, getting fired for in effect biting the hand that feeds you is perfectly reasonable...

[pErvinalia]

How is she "against intellectual and academic freedom"?

She's one of those radical queer leftists that demand everyone accept those freaks as normal.
If I said abbos were a primitive mixed species of archaic proto - humans I doubt she'd stand up for my academic freedom.

So you have no actual evidence, you just have a feeling that's how she might react in that hypothetical scenario? Ok then.