Australian universities should not be obliged to provide a venue for ¡°any intellectual rubbish¡±, a review of free speech on Australian campuses has concluded.

The review, by former High Court chief justice Robert French, highlights an ¡°abundance¡± of nonsense seeking access to campuses. It says universities are entitled to exclude external speakers spouting theories?that are purportedly based on scholarship or research, ¡°but which fall below scholarly standards to such an extent as to be detrimental to the university¡¯s character¡±.

Universities are also within their rights to demand that invited speakers cover security costs and comply with booking procedures. The principles are outlined in a ¡°model code¡± contained in Mr French¡¯s 300-page report, which has now been?.

While not legally enforceable, the code would furnish universities with ¡°umbrella principles¡±, the report says, adding: ¡°Its purpose is effectively to restrain the exercise of overbroad powers to the extent that they would otherwise be applied adversely.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Education minister Dan Tehan backed the idea. ¡°While recognising that universities are autonomous institutions, I am writing to all higher education providers to urge them to carefully consider the adoption of the model code,¡± he said.

As?revealed?by?Times Higher Education?last month, Mr French also wants a definition of academic freedom included in the Higher Education Support Act. And in line with a submission from the National Tertiary Education Union, he suggests replacing references to ¡°free intellectual inquiry¡± with the term ¡°freedom of expression and academic freedom¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

While claiming to have accepted Mr French¡¯s recommendations, Mr Tehan poured cold water on the amendments. ¡°As Mr French makes very clear in his report, the model code can be adopted without the suggested changes to the Higher Education Support Act and the Higher Education Standards,¡± Mr Tehan said.

The report says amendments to the act and standards are ¡°not essential¡± but would be ¡°preferable¡±.

As flagged by?THE, the review found no evidence of a ¡°free speech crisis¡± on Australian university campuses. But overly broad policies create the impression of one, the report says.

University rules and policies are littered with expressions like ¡°lack of respect¡±, ¡°prejudicial¡± and ¡°reprehensible¡±, the report says. Such widely interpretable terminology allows for regulatory ¡°overreach¡± which can erode ¡°important freedoms¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°It makes the sector an easy target for those who would argue that the potential exists for restrictive approaches to the expression of contentious or unwelcome opinions,¡± the report says.

¡°The diversity and language of a range of policies and rules give rise to unnecessary risks to freedom of speech and to academic freedom. Even a small number of high-profile incidents can have adverse reputational effects on the sector as a whole.¡±

The complexities of managing free speech issues are illustrated by Mr French¡¯s reflections on ¡°intellectual rubbish¡±. ¡°Sometimes one person¡¯s intellectual rubbish is another¡¯s profound wisdom,¡± the report says.

¡°What is intellectual rubbish today may be received wisdom tomorrow, and vice versa,¡± it adds.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The report says there is an argument for exposing students to ¡°the proponents of intellectual rubbish, including racist opinion¡±. Such experiences might help them ¡°better identify it [and] understand how it is propagated and how to challenge it effectively¡±.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com