news campusreview . com . au
It ’ s a no win , win case
Peter Ridd before the High Court appeal in Canberra . Photo : Jamila Toderas / The Australian
Peter Ridd loses High Court appeal , but academic freedom gets a win .
By Conor Burke
The High Court has upheld the sacking of controversial academic Dr Peter Ridd by James Cook University , putting an end to a near fouryear battle .
The five justices of the High Court unanimously dismissed Dr Ridd ’ s appeal , but in doing so gave hope to those concerned with academic and intellectual freedoms in Australia .
Ridd told Campus Review that “ there ' s plenty of wins ” in the ruling , and despite his loss , he believes that academia is “ in a better position , ironically ”.
Ridd was sacked by JCU in 2018 because he “ dared to fight the university and speak the truth about science and the Great Barrier Reef ”.
The university held that his dismissal was due to repeated refusal to comply with its code of conduct and the “ repeated disrespect he showed for the university as a senior employee ”.
In early 2019 , a judge in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled that JCU ’ s termination of Ridd ’ s employment was unlawful and JCU was ordered to pay him $ 1.2 million . It later appealed the court ’ s decision .
However , in mid-2020 , the Federal Court in Brisbane determined that the university did not act unlawfully when it sacked Ridd .
In dismissing Ridd ’ s appeal , the high court said that Ridd ’ s early criticism of climate science was protected by academic freedom , but it was his later conduct that put him in hot water .
“ The 2016 Censure and part of the basis of the Final Censure were unjustified because they related to the expression of honestly held views by Dr Ridd within his academic expertise ,” the court wrote in its findings .
“ The Final Censure was justified only insofar as it relied upon expressions of opinion unrelated to Dr Ridd ’ s academic expertise , and findings that he repeatedly failed to comply with his confidentiality obligations .”
Ridd was unrepentant in a post on Facebook informing supporters of the outcome .
The actions by JCU were lawful “ technically ”, he said , but “ never right , proper , decent , moral , or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave ”.
“ It has cost me my job , my career , over $ 300K in legal fees , and more than a few grey hairs .
“ All I can say is that I hope I would do it again .”
The saga was a rare example of the political left and right coming together on an issue .
Ridd was backed by both the NTEU and the right-leaning think tank , the IPA .
NTEU general secretary Matthew McGowan said the findings reinforce the idea that Ridd was “ exercising his legitimate rights to academic freedom ”, and that JCU should never have taken action against him in the first place .
“ It is disappointing Dr Ridd had to take this matter to the High Court for this to be reinforced ,” he said .
“ Academic staff must have the right to engage in robust scientific , political and academic debates without fear of retribution , otherwise universities will cease to be worthy of the title .”
The IPA said the outcome “ shines a spotlight on the insidious cancel culture permeating Australia ’ s institutions ”.
Ridd told Campus Review that the last few years have been a rollercoaster , between losing a job he held for 27 years and the stress of ongoing litigation . Added to the outcome , he says , he will likely never work at a university again .
“ I ’ m living on my superannuation . Look , I ’ m 60 , okay ? As I like to say , I think I ’ m retired . My wife says I ’ m unemployed and life ’ s not so bad .”
Academic staff must have the right to engage in robust scientific , political and academic debates without fear of retribution .
In an interview with this publication in 2018 , Ridd declared that “ academic freedom is effectively dead ”.
But four years on he believes that things are looking up .
“ I think it ’ s in a much better state now , ironically , partly because of this decision which we lost . Partly because the way we have lost has highlighted some of the remaining problems that weren ’ t fixed up by the French code and also by the new legislation , which hadn ’ t come in when I made those comments .
He says the new French Model Code , recently announced by Alan Tudge , is a good start , but does not go far enough as Australian universities are focused on making profits and are “ Orwellian in nature ”.
“ They ’ d be seen to value free speech , but then crush it .”
And he says it is up to the government to get tough with universities on freedom of academic thought .
“[ Universities have ] just got to be told , ‘ no , this is the way it ’ s going to be . If you want to take money from the government purse , these are the conditions . If you don ’ t , that ’ s fine ’.
“ If the government told a couple of universities that , they would get accolades from the large part of the population .” ■
4