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.”
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 – those that target groups defined by their gender or sexual identity, for instance – 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.”
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.
“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”.
“That requires approaches to intellectual freedom that might sometimes be different from the way you would expect other institutions to work,” she said.
