The postponement of a panel discussion about free speech has illustrated the challenge confronting New Zealand universities, whose funding?may be withdrawn over perceived failures on the issue.

Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) vice-chancellor Nic Smith said the event, which had been planned for 29 April and attracted more than 600 registrations, had been rescheduled?for late May after a student backlash made the ¡°scheduling¡­too difficult¡±.

Professor Smith??Newstalk ZB?radio that he had planned a ¡°respectful, evidence-based conversation¡± among panellists with different views. ¡°I can¡¯t do that unless I get the right voices around the table,¡± he said.

¡°How has our society got to the point that we¡¯re not resilient enough to be able to listen to ideas that we might fundamentally¡­reject?¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Students had objected to the ¡°polarising panel¡± primarily because it included Free Speech Union (FSU) chief executive Jonathan Ayling, whose organisation had promoted events featuring ¡°hate speech¡±, according to students¡¯ association president Marcail Parkinson.

¡°We wanted to make sure that¡­the points being put across weren¡¯t promoting any disinformation,¡± she??Newstalk. Students would have been unable to avoid the debate venue¡¯s ¡°central¡± location ¡°if they didn¡¯t feel comfortable being around¡± the debaters, she added.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Mr Ayling said he had defended the speech rights of people considered by others to have expressed hate. ¡°If it¡¯s scandalous¡­to claim that universities need to sponsor open and rigorous debate, I¡¯m not really sure what the purpose of a university is any more,¡± he told?Times Higher Education. ?

The FSU has vowed to organise its own debate on campus if the event does not proceed as originally planned.

The Act Party, a junior member of the governing coalition, has??to force tertiary education providers that receive taxpayer funding to ¡°commit to a free speech policy¡±. In a February?, Professor Smith said universities should not be obliged to accommodate ¡°anyone who wants to speak on campus¡±.

Such an interpretation would ¡°diminish our capacity for people to¡­discuss conflicting ideas¡±, he warned.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In a responding?, Mr Ayling said academics rather than administrators should be gatekeepers of free expression. ¡°It¡¯s the role of academics that really makes academic freedom important, not the vice-chancellors and not the non-academic staff,¡± he told?THE.

Professor Smith said topics?such as Gaza, gender identity, the Treaty of Waitangi and relations with China had become so polarised that people were withdrawing from debates where ¡°nuance or context¡± were considered ¡°anathema¡±.

Campus resource collection: Higher education¡¯s role in upholding democracy

He said that under principles being developed at VUW, discussion at the university must be respectful, must critique ideas rather than their advocates, must be evidence-based and must acknowledge that participants were free to change their minds.

While acknowledging ¡°value judgements¡± in all of these parameters, he said they were useful ground rules. ¡°If it is framed as part of a discussion in the spirit of increasing understanding, then anybody should be able to say almost anything. That¡¯s my view. And I would stand behind anybody in my university saying almost anything if those criteria are met.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°What I can¡¯t defend is people who¡­resort to the same tactics [used by] the trolls of social media.¡±

Mr Ayling said the principles ¡°contain some strong references to academic freedom, but also undermine those very references with vague conditions and material that will likely be used against academics seeking to sponsor contentious debate¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com