Campus Review Volume 28 - Issue 10 | October 2018 | Page 24

ON CAMPUS campusreview.com.au The fight for free speech: Pt 4 A tale of two controversial academics. By Conor Burke T he apparent battle for free speech being played out across our university campuses is difficult to navigate, with many competing viewpoints and intangible ideas at play. The ‘chilling effect’ and other actions allegedly perpetrated by universities to stifle open debate are hard to prove and can often be explained by reference to guidelines and policies: all of which makes it hard to pin down a definitive answer to the question of where we currently stand. We have heard politicians and academics opine on the subject, but what about the people in the thick of it, the so-called controversial players being silenced? THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC “My view is that academic freedom is effectively dead.” 22 That is essentially how my conversation with Peter Ridd starts. An ex-James Cook University professor and, to some, a climate change denier, who can blame him for having this view if we are to believe everything that has been written about his battle with JCU. For Ridd, the long and short of this struggle is what he sees as an egregious dismissal over his climate scepticism. To many news outlets, as well as the Institute of Public Affairs, Ridd’s scepticism about the damage to the Great Barrier Reef has led to the end of a successful academic career. The story began in 2016 when Ridd spoke to a journalist regarding some pictures of the reef. “A journalist from the Courier Mail rang me up to ask me something about the reef. I can’t actually even remember what it was; it wasn’t particularly interesting. Quite coincidentally, I’d actually been looking at a couple of photographs, very famous photographs supposedly showing damage to the reef,” he said. “I gave the journalist some questions that he might ask Professor Terry Hughes [director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies] and whoever else was actually using these photographs, to tease out what quality assurance mechanisms [are being used].” “The journalist actually sent all my questions and the whole thing to Terry Hughes and then he – I presume it was him, I don’t even know – sent it to the university and didn’t like the tone of some of my questions.” This is the first instance of what JCU describe as Ridd’s uncollegial conduct. “I said, ‘If you ask him this question, I think he will wiggle and squirm’ … but they didn’t like me using the term ‘wiggle and squirm’. “I also said, ‘He’ll wiggle and squirm because he may think that I think that his statements about it are misleading.’ They also didn’t like the word ‘misleading’.” The next incident involved broadcaster Alan Jones and his Sky News show. Ridd had the peer review system in his sights that day. “I’m making the argument that if you’re just using peer reviewers as your quality assurance mechanisms … then you cannot regard that work as reliable, and if an institution is only using peer review as a