Academic Freedom

Last week it was all about Arts, Music and the VCA. This week is all about academic freedom [1] . Last week it was about UMPA and UMSU criticising the University’s handling of the chronic underfunding of Arts and Humanities, and worrying about our own funding from the Uni as we take a position on behalf of those we represent. This week it is a senior lecturer defending his right to criticise the government, yet being demoted and disaffected for doing so. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, they say. I guess they don’t have a particularly complex view of just who owns that hand…

Pre-VSU (Voluntary Student Unionism), UMPA and other student organisations received our funding from the compulsory fees paid by students when they enrolled. Accountabilities are arguably inherent in such a system, and UMPA has always taken our duties to our members very seriously indeed. We have always sought to represent students’ interests as they are reported to us. When the Howard government legislated against the collection of compulsory union fees, they didn’t provide another source of funding. And so many Universities said “sorry, you’re on your own.” At Melbourne Uni, we’ve been very fortunate that our leaders have taken a different view, and managed to create a budget line where none existed before (that is, the money had to be taken from elsewhere in order to support our ongoing existence). For this we are grateful, but painfully conscious of the conflict of interest in being funded by the very institution we have to criticise, push and lobby when students bring us their concerns. To their credit, the University is also very aware of the conflict, and seeks to keep it all at arm’s distance to mitigate the possible consequences.

Although we believe in the integrity of those who are funding us, we are often nervous of a ‘misstep’, that is, a critique that’s too incisive, public or goddess help us, both. We worry that if we’re too critical, we might lose our funding entirely. Part of you has to wonder why, indeed, any institution would continue to fund its sharpest critics. Of course we provide quality assurance – we tell the Uni if they’re making a mistake that they mightn’t notice without our representation at all levels. They often tell us they are grateful for such input. Sometimes they grimace as they say so.

We know that governments don’t like to be criticised. Who does? But we also know that feedback is essential to improvement, it’s part of the cycle of renewal and progress. Paul Mees has been hailed as a public transport advocate for a long time, and I know I have found him a welcome voice on issues for which I personally have no platform to contribute. Melbourne’s public transport has been worsening for some years, it seems. I have personally been terribly inconvenienced, annoyed and frustrated at decreasing levels of service on our trains over the past five years. Yet every year they ask us to pay more for this (dis)pleasure, and “Connex apologises for any inconvenience”. Thank you to Paul Mees for speaking up and demanding improvements. But apparently Dr Mees spoke too frankly. Apparently the University’s relationship with the state government is too fragile to allow academics to speak so frankly. Apparently Dr Mees is no longer a public transport advocate, rather he is now a transport dissident. (And The Age is hopelessly transparent in its sensationalist tactics.) Apparently our University doesn’t approve of dissidence. I find this very worrying, yet I don’t have all the facts, so this is really just a reflective ramble provoked by this week’s news and my own involvement in ‘dissidence’, whereby my views may be at odds with University or Government policies (not to mention procedures…).

Academic freedom should not be contingent. Individual reputations have been built over time and should be cherished, as is truth. There are defamation laws to protect everyone, but truth shouldn’t need protection. And I don’t see anyone suing Dr Mees for defamation. Demotion is a pretty poor substitute, an impoverished substitute. We must all stand up for our right and our obligation to dissent. O ur institutional integrity depends on it.

Pax.