The coalition is tweaking university regulations to curb what it says is an increasingly “risk-averse approach” to free speech.
The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues.
Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” consistent with the central government’s expectations. The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.
"Despite being required by the Education Act and the Bill of Rights Act to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression, there is a growing trend of universities deplatforming speakers and cancelling events where they might be perceived as controversial or offensive.
In theory a policy supporting free speech is a good thing. In practice I fear that this is a way to force universities to allow ridiculous points of view that don’t deserve a platform.
Yo! It’s all good if I necro-post? I think in general it isn’t a bad idea to let people rent out a room and then advertise an event at their own expense?
When Lord Monckton came to New Zealand and spoke at a private venue I went to that event. Climate change is an area of government policy which affects the economy and our lives. I oppose the crazy ideas that they have in Europe, like wanting to phase out petrol cars by 2035, and allowing EVs into some central city areas but banning petrol cars. These ideas must be challenged, because not everybody is a rich political elite, living in Wellington, who drives a car worth $20,000 - $120,000. I can’t afford to buy a Nissan Leaf, and I don’t want crazy climate change fanatics to go unchallenged. It isn’t about “denial”. Usually it’s the case that we simply don’t like certain policies because they are sometimes more of an ideological goal, a benchmark, rather than a certain reality.
I disagree with your opinion that some views don’t deserve a platform, or that some views deserve less time, or perhaps less reach. There’s no reason to reduce the amount of speaking time, I mean are universities just short on time these days or something? In the worst scenario, I think that less popular speakers should be allowed a platform and access to a live stream. That way, even if they had a limited time slot, they could still talk for much longer via a stream, or something like that. Then people can follow the full speech and watch a replay, and not miss anything.
We are reaching ridiculous levels of paranoia over free speech and foreign influence. I personally don’t care about any debate about maori language or the treaty, it always attracts the same crowds of people. Instead of bickering over co-governance, why don’t we just do something simple, like build houses that people can actually afford, so we don’t have maori people living in poverty? Instead of bickering over power politics, do something useful. If people want to argue over stuff, let them, but I’m not interested in most of it.
free speech, but not that free speech
Also what is an isn’t thier “core functions” will probably be dependent on whether or not the current ministers like what they’re saying…
This is the thing.
The Freeze Peach morons were campaigning recently to allow Candace Owens in on free speech grounds, as if she doesn’t already have a massive platform to speak whatever she wants.
Freedom for individuals to express themselves how they want isn’t the same as forcing venues or institutions to host that expression if they don’t want to.