Campus Review Volume 28 - Issue 10 | October 2018 | Seite 25

ON CAMPUS
campusreview.com.au
quality assurance mechanism, then the
work coming out of that institution cannot
be reliable.
“I said that the Australian Institute of
Marine Science, the work essentially
coming out of them couldn’t be trusted
because they were only using peer
review. They’re [JCU] saying that broke the
academic freedom.”
This is where the issue gets contentious.
Ridd alleges that he was “given a brown
envelope” by his dean and advised that he
should not talk to anyone about the case.
Ridd did not acquiesce, and according
to him, JCU trawled his emails “to find
other examples of where I had done
naughty things”.
He recounts an instance when, prior to a
talk at the Sydney Institute, his speech was
heavily vetted and PowerPoint slides were
thrown out by JCU.
“Now that’s a breach of academic
freedom, if there is one,” he says.
“They can read your emails. They can
force you to be confidential, which means
that … well, they think they can, that’s what
we’re fighting in court.
“They can then make it so you can’t even
seek help. If I hadn’t got that IPA help on
that original letter, I’m certain I would have
been fired last August.”
And this is where we find ourselves now:
Ridd is out of a job because – according to
JCU deputy vice-chancellor Iain Gordon –
he broke the code of conduct and now
awaits a new court date to decide his fate.
I mention the two recent Guardian
articles written about him, one in which
Gordon says that Ridd “had transgressed
that code of conduct that we would expect
any member of our staff to adhere to”.
“What I want him to explain,” Ridd says,
“is precisely in what way did I break the
code of conduct? Not just say, ‘Well, he’s
said things.’ You ring him up and ask him,
‘Exactly what did he do or say that broke
the code of conduct?’”
Campus Review tried to put this to
Gordon and received this reply from a
JCU spokesperson: “Intellectual freedom
comes also with responsibilities. No one
would expect that it would cloak or provide
immunity from conduct that amounts
to bullying, harassment, vilification,
discrimination or which otherwise attacks
the personal integrity of individuals or
an organisation.
“It does not excuse conduct that
damages the reputation of JCU staff or
key stakeholders. As with all workplaces,
JCU employees are expected to
maintain appropriate professional and
ethical standards when engaging in
intellectual freedom.”
The spokesperson added, “JCU will not
comment on Dr Ridd’s legal proceedings,
other than to say that they are being
vigorously defended.”
Bumping heads with the brass is nothing
new for Ridd. A perennial agitator, he just
about stops short of blaming financial
blowback as JCU’s reason for giving him
the boot. In the end, he thinks he was just
too much trouble.
“I think they think that, ‘This guy’s just out
of control. He’s saying things that are just
ridiculous.’
“This is not the first, second or third time.
This is like the 10th time that I’ve been in
trouble with the university,” he says.
“They just looked at this, and they
thought, ‘He’s been a troublemaker
in the past, not just on this, but on
education matters.’
“I was responsible for a parliamentary
inquiry in 2013 to change the way we do
assessment in Queensland. I could talk
about that. That was very unpopular with
the university higher-ups.”
A change in the power structure at
institutions as well as policy are other
reasons Ridd cites for his troubles.
“In the last 10 years, the way that the
universities are run by the administrators
with no input from the professoriate, that’s
the big thing,” he says.
“Of course, these sorts of official
procedures are quite a recent thing, these
very formal processes of misconduct. When
I got into trouble, say in 1996 or something,
there was none of these sorts of procedures.
“If you look at the way universities are
run now, the professors are not important
people. They don’t have any power like
they did 20 years ago. They can’t dictate
what’s going on. It’s very top-down, and
like a company.”
Isolation has been a problem for Ridd
(he says ex-colleagues have been told
not to contact him) and aside from union
backing, Ridd’s cause has mainly been
championed by those in conservative
circles as they wage war on what they
see as politically correct, leftist agendas
in universities.
Does Ridd worry that his scientifically
based opinion is being co-opted by the
right for their own ideological ends?
“Do I worry? Yeah, a little bit … but I’ll tell
you what worries me more: I would like to
see more support from the left.
“Look, on other things people would
regard me as on the right. So, on things like
… freedom of speech, I think the left has
lost the plot. I’m with Tony Abbott on the
Ramsay Centre, for instance.
“I do think we have massive problems
with our universities with things on gender
and multiculturalism. I would side with the
right more than the left on those things
without any doubt.”
As he awaits a new court date and
ponders a life outside academia, Ridd
remains defiant. He’s confident he can win
and get his job back.
He seems to genuinely love teaching,
and to hear him tell it, he is very well
regarded for it.
“I was often put in front of big first-
year classes with students who weren’t
necessarily wanting to learn physics, but
I was put in front of them because I’m a
good teacher and I’m a good researcher.”
Ridd does have some advice for
academics everywhere.
“If I win my case are other academics
going to look at that and say, ‘Oh Peter
Ridd won his case, isn’t that wonderful? I
can now say whatever I like without any
fear of being persecuted by the university’?
“It’s much better to not even go close to
what I call ‘the cliff edge’ and just stay safe
and make sure you don’t say anything that’s
possibly going to be controversial and
upset the powers that be.”
THE WRONGLY ACCUSED
Backing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
is not a popular line on this side of the
world. Yet this is what Dr Tim Anderson,
senior lecturer in the Department of
Political Economy at the University of
Sydney does, ferociously.
A vocal activist, wrongly accused
and imprisoned on terrorism charges in
the 1970s, Anderson would be a prime
candidate if an institution wanted to crack
down on free speech.
“They never have. Never once [have they]
done that,” he says when asked if USYD or
UTS before that, ever told him, point blank,
to be quiet.
“You’d think that they would, because this
goes back at least four years. I think the first
time was when I came back from Syria four
years ago and the Murdoch media did a big
personal attack on me. But the university …
23