The debate on transgender rights is a prime example of why universities must embrace principles that guide what topics may be discussed on campus, according to the co-author of a new Australian book on free speech and academic freedom.

University of Melbourne law professor Adrienne Stone said having principles in place ensures that ¡°you¡¯re not making up your policy at the same time as you¡¯re trying to figure [difficult issues] out¡±. But the principles must not be too prescriptive.

¡°We¡¯re not suggesting a detailed codification that tells you everything you should do in every single circumstance,¡± Professor Stone said. ¡°There are always nuances, and [they] might differ from campus to campus [depending on] the composition of the student or staff body.

¡°It may be that you can¡¯t say in advance [that] you should always allow [a certain] sort of speaker to say [a certain] sort of thing on any campus at any point. There are going to be easy cases, and there are always going to be hard cases. [Transgender rights is] the hardest one right now, and one that is still being worked out.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

THE Campus resource: Expert Q&A on equity-first instruction

Professor Stone¡¯s book, Open Minds: Academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia, says there can be justifications for limiting speech that risks causing ¡°serious emotional harm¡± rather than mere offence. ¡°The difficult question for universities is where to draw the line,¡± the book says.

¡°Some forms of hateful speech ¨C those that target groups defined by their gender or sexual identity, for instance ¨C are often not subject to the law. It is no accident that a number of recent controversies in Australia and elsewhere concern transgender identity and transgender rights.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Events involving some Australian, British and American academics have been disrupted or cancelled over claims that they promote ¡°transphobic¡± hate speech. The academics deny the accusation, insisting that they are raising legitimate conflicts between transgender-related policies and other groups¡¯ rights, medical ethics or scientific principles.

The book¡¯s other co-author, Griffith University vice-chancellor Carolyn Evans, said it was extremely difficult to judge when such debates transgressed beyond ¡°people being upset or offended¡± to where ¡°real psychological harm¡± was inflicted.

¡°I¡¯m not sure that can be done in the abstract,¡± Professor Evans said. ¡°It has to be done somewhat on a case-by-case basis.¡±

She said universities were ¡°not Hyde Park Corner¡± and had good reason to be ¡°thoughtful¡± about the speakers invited on campus, and the conditions that applied.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Controversial speakers might have to be open to questions or to be part of a panel. That¡¯s not a limitation you would put on [speakers] in the public square, but it might be one that encourages a rigour of debate consistent with the university¡¯s identity.¡±

The book cites a 2007 controversy when Columbia University invited Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at a world leaders¡¯ forum. While the university resisted pressure to withdraw the invitation, Columbia president Lee Bollinger opened the event by listing Iran¡¯s human rights crimes and obliging President Ahmadinejad to take questions.

While ¡°no doubt painful for some¡±, the event was ¡°a profound statement of both Columbia¡¯s commitment to freedom of speech and its commitment to reasoned and balanced discussion¡±, the book says.

Professor Stone said that while universities were seen by some as ¡°an extension of the public square¡±, they were ¡°particular communities with very specific goals of advancing knowledge through research and teaching¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°That requires approaches to intellectual freedom that might sometimes be different from the way you would expect other institutions to work,¡± she said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com