Campus Review Volume 28 Issue 12 December 2018 | Page 16

POLICY & REFORM campusreview.com.au “Increasingly, the word ‘safety’ is being used in relation to ideas people feel challenged by or dislike. That’s patently absurd” – @matthewlesh #CRFreeSpeech — Campus Review (@CampusReview) 20 November 2018 Bell, on the other hand, hasn’t witnessed such situations. She noted that her “students are not snowflakes”. That is, in her view, they aren’t easily offended by perceived slights to their freedom of speech. A vast proportion of the students who attend WSU are from migrant, refugee or low socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or are first-in-family. Never mind free speech; financially surviving throughout their degree and getting a job afterwards are often their sole considerations, Bell said, adding that “today, the pressure to succeed is immense because the cost of failure is much higher than it used to be”. Professor Sharon Bell, pro vice- chancellor (strategy and planning) at @westernsydneyu says “students think sticks and stones will break their bones and words will actually hurt them” #CRFreeSpeech — Campus Review (@CampusReview) 21 November 2018 UON's Johnson also questioned who the free speech-activist minority purport to speak for. Referring to an incident at Columbia University in the US, where a small group of students, in protesting events on campus and subsequently being investigated by the university, claimed they represented ‘people of colour’ and ‘the working class’, Johnson said: “I’m from a working class family. They don’t speak for me.” Presenter Dr David Baker, lecturer in big history at Macquarie University, generally agreed with Johnson and Bell. “A minority of cases make appalling headlines,” he said. Yet he diverged from them in that he thinks free speech on campus is a grave problem. “That I was concerned about speaking today speaks to the fact that there is something very wrong with free speech in universities today,” he said. He is particularly troubled by administrative overreach in this respect, stating that some universities have banned sarcasm. This provoked audience questioning: How had universities Matthew Lesh addresses the seminar. Photo: APN done this? And if they had, wasn’t it in the (justifiable) context of sarcasm as it relates to bullying and harassment? Baker argued that even if it appeared in this context, it remains disturbing, as it could be manipulated. “The best business decision you could make as a university administrator is a commitment to free speech” – David Baker @Macquarie_Uni #CRFreeSpeech — Campus Review (@CampusReview) 20 November 2018 How did we get to this point? Free speech on campus arguments grew out of the civil rights movement in the US, explained Philadelphia-based presenter Marieke Beck-Coon, via Google Hangouts. Although free speech on campus remains a heated issue in the US, it is generally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, so alleged infringements of it are not as acute as they are in Australia. Further to this point, presenter Richard Fisher, general counsel of the University of Sydney, set out universities’ legal obligations as they pertain to free speech, including in constitutional law. He posed the question: Do universities need a ‘charter of rights’? His lofty speech was grounded by the panel discussion that concluded the seminar. A touch awkwardly for Campus Review, most speakers, Fisher included, chastised the media for inflaming the campus free speech issue. “What is making matters more complicated is that the media are prepared to demonise students – for example, columns by Miranda Devine. That is skewing the debate. I think conservative media is playing a divisive role,” Johnson said. To this end, a USYD audience member pointed out that, in her view, Lesh’s characterisation of an incident at USYD involving controversial speaker Bettina Arndt, based on parliamentary and media reports of it, was incorrect. However, the discussion ended on a sympathetic note. The panellists pondered whether students could be protesting about their free speech being curtailed simply because they are craving the sense of community that mass gatherings can generate. They mentioned that with tutorials increasingly becoming optional, the rise of online learning, and economic pressures leading to less time being spent on campus, students are more isolated from their peers than they used to be. “In some of my tutorial classes where 35 students are enrolled, only three show up,” Johnson said. “When the whole class is there for the few mandatory lessons, students always say they wish there were more of them.”  ■ 15