Speaking As An Academic . . .

Embarrassed By The Silence Over Brash Ban

Michael Johnston
Senior Lecturer in Education
Victoria University
Stuff

OPINION: For a time I have been observing from afar, with rising horror, attacks on open debate and free speech on university campuses in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Speakers – usually, but not always, from the right of politics – have been harassed and assaulted by protesters and sometimes 'de-platformed' – a euphemism for being deprived of the opportunity to speak – by university administrations.

Until very recently New Zealand campuses were blessedly free of this phenomenon. Now, thanks to Professor Jan Thomas, Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, that has changed. Her university has cancelled an event at which ex-Reserve Bank governor and former leader of the opposition Dr Don Brash was to speak about his time at the helm of the National Party.

What is almost as outrageous as the Massey decision itself is that, to the best of my knowledge, the other universities and their leaders have been virtually silent on the incident. As an academic, I am embarrassed by this silence.


Professor Thomas is quoted on the Massey University website as saying that "she supports free speech on campus, but totally opposes hate speech" and that "the views expressed by members of Hobson's Pledge [an organisation opposed to separate political representation for Māori, which Brash leads] come dangerously close to hate speech".

Contrary to claims that the decision to cancel Brash was made on the basis of security concerns, this suggests Thomas banned him from speaking simply because she doesn't like his views.

The tactic of labelling an opponent's point of view "hate speech" is a dishonest and craven attempt to write it off without contending with its substance. For the vice-chancellor of a university to use such tactics is, as current National Party leader Simon Bridges put it, "an absolute disgrace".

Other commentators have already responded to this incident with defences of free speech. Many appeal to the political argument that open public discussion and debate is a critical element of democracy. A culture in which certain points of view can be effectively silenced by authority figures using labels such as "hate speech" would be one in which democracy would quickly wither.

Many New Zealanders agree with Brash's views. If Thomas believes these people are misguided, and it's clear she does, then it's her task to persuade them to change their views using reasoned argument rather than using her position to silence their spokespeople.

A less well-rehearsed argument in favour of free speech, and one especially important to the fundamental mission of universities, is that, for human beings, thinking is a linguistic process: to formulate ideas, the use of language is required. A complex line of thought must be formulated, revised, analysed, debated and reformulated. All of this requires the expression of ideas in language.

An attempt to restrain speech, then, is an attempt to restrain thought.

Jan Thomas is quoted on the Massey website as saying the views expressed by Hobson's Pledge, which Brash leads, ''come dangerously close to hate speech".  Learning to think inevitably involves encountering ideas we find offensive. In fact, to learn to think rigorously, we have to become accustomed to feeling uncomfortable – and even offended – and to maintain a spirit of reason in the face of that negative emotion. Deeply held ideas are, almost by definition, intrinsic to people's identities. To challenge such an idea, therefore, is to challenge a person's identity.

An environment in which people are enabled to develop the ability to contend with ideas that are alien or unpleasant to them comes at a price. That price is allowing people who may not be arguing in good faith to say things that are deliberately hurtful. (For the record, I do not believe Brash is such a person.)

The proper response, even to them, is not to silence them but to allow them to express their ideas and then to point out in a rational manner why we believe they are wrong.

Furthermore, there is a higher price to pay for not engendering such an environment, which is to lose the opportunity for true education. We do not learn by living in an echo chamber and hearing only ideas with which we already agree.

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, universities are not supposed to be intellectually 'safe' environments. They're supposed to be places in which ideas are put to the blowtorch of evidence and analysis.

When I was a 20-year-old student and even more arrogant and opinionated than I am now, I would nonetheless never have attempted to silence a speaker, no matter how offensive I might have found his or her ideas. Instead, I'd be front and centre at the talk and the first with my hand up at question time. My peers were the same.

This trend towards wanting to shut people down is new, and it's deeply illiberal and disturbing.

Dr Michael Johnston is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at Victoria University of Wellington.