Political neutrality is contrary to academic freedom.

By Jack Heinemann

When an institution’s central mission is to find and share the truth, any external or internal power is a threat. To counter these threats, universities have (limited) autonomy, and the students and academic staff of tertiary education institutions have academic freedom.

Decision-making autonomy blunts political interference and also helps to prevent suppression of academic freedom inside the institution by the employer, administrators, students, and by staff. Autonomy is balanced by academic freedom. New Zealand’s Employment Court confirmed this role, saying “Academic freedom includes the right for academic staff to, within the law, criticise the university that employs them. Academic staff are protected from institutional disciplinary action or other sanction where, as they carry out their work, they exercise academic freedom.”

The balance must be the fabric of university governance woven out of the delegated authorities that structure operations. Considered to be a seminal case in academic freedom, The Association of University Staff of New Zealand Inc v The University of Waikato & Gould confirmed the obligation of university councils to consult academic boards (or equivalent) before reaching decisions on academic matters. Council empowers the Vice-Chancellor to carry out its decisions, including those on academic matters.

Speaking on behalf of the university under the authority of Council and an academic mandate is a characteristic of an institution that is a critic and conscience of - and for - society.

Political neutrality as pretext to suppress autonomy and free speech

However, some say that the university should not act as a critic and conscience of society. For example, John Raine, an Emeritus Professor of Engineering and former Deputy and Pro Vice Chancellor at three New Zealand Universities, recalls a 1967 report from the US that says that the critic role should be delegated to staff and students and that universities should never speak in this capacity. He observes an “ideological shift away from institutional political neutrality” in New Zealand.

Similarly, the Free Speech Union writes: “Institutional neutrality – Universities must clearly be apolitical, but also more broadly, institutionally agnostic, for academic freedom to exist. When a university takes a public stand, it either puts words in the mouths of staff and students who can speak for themselves or unfairly positions them against their own employer.”

Defending academic freedom by telling universities to keep quiet is an outright threat to the university’s right to academic freedom and freedom of expression.

And it is outside the law. The Public Sector Act exempts universities from an obligation to be politically neutral.[1] Moreover, universities in Aotearoa New Zealand are legal persons. They have human rights, including the right to free expression.

The broader context in which Raine and FSU write is alleged suppression of their views by social justice or diversity and equity activists. Is this so, or instead are the academic communities of universities just unconvinced of the merit of their ideas? The work of universities is, after all, to see through the universum ineptiarum.[2]

Better ways ahead

A university’s opinions and decisions can differ from individual natural persons within it. Autonomy provides for independent decision-making.

Neither a chancellor nor vice-chancellor has unrestricted freedom as its official spokespeople. They must be informed by academic processes and take the advice of academic boards in expressing the institutional opinion.

Chancellors or vice-chancellors speaking for the academic community following a proper academic process aren’t putting words in the mouths of staff or students, nor are they pitting employee against employer. Staff or students who disagree probably also do so with a majority of their colleagues. And that is okay too.

Striping universities of the fundamental tool they have to seek and impart the truth – their academic freedom – in the name of political neutrality is a backward step anti-thetical to the mission. The answer is instead for governance and management to respect and protect routine lawful use of academic freedom by students and staff.

[1] “Tertiary institutions are explicitly excluded from the definition of State services in the Public Service Act 2020. They are therefore not covered by the Act’s provisions regarding integrity and conduct or employment.” https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/system/system-architecture-and-design/how-the-public-sector-is-organised

[2] With acknowledgement of Chatgpt for the Latin phrase.