NZ Politics

572 readers

15 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Government to change free speech rules for universities (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 4 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the problem is that some views do not deserve to have a platform. In theory, having a reasoned discussion about climate change is a good thing and should be welcomed at a university. In practice, someone coming to a university to talk about how climate change is not real is not going to have a reasoned discussion. Saying the university should not take sides is good in theory, but in practice allowing equal time for climate change deniers as for climate change supporters in the name of free speech does not actually support free speech (given the supporters are 97%).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

That's the problematic aspect of both sides approaches which give equal weight & import to at least two sides of an argument no matter what. And its especially bad when its editorial decisions that determine that equal weighting.

Two examples that come to mind is how for such a long time climate change denial was given equal footing (and is still given loads of airtime) despite a mountain of evidence that most of their arguments were tosh.

But lately Modern Monetary Theory which is absolutely a heterodox theory gets barely any mention even though it is one of the strongest counters to the mainstream economic approach which is almost all we hear despite strong arguments that it doesn't consistently describe reality.