Dr. Jennifer Marohasy writes:
Professor Peter Ridd’s trial in the Brisbane Federal Circuit Court has just wrapped-up after three days. With Judge Salvadore Vasta presiding, Stuart Wood QC acting for Peter Ridd (the applicant) argued the case with great skill. However, on the most critical of issues the university (the defendant), and important media, refused to engage at all. Specifically, Chris Murdoch QC, acting for James Cook University, refused to outline to Judge Vasta what processes it has in place for quality assurance of scientific research, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) simply didn’t attend or report.
At the heart of this court case is the matter of Peter Ridd disputing media’s reporting of the health of the Great Barrier Reef back in 2015 and 2016. Specifically, Peter Ridd was first censured for proposing to a journalist in April 2016 that he investigate the state of the fringing coral reefs around Stone Island, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef.
Instead of investigating, the journalist sent Dr Ridd’s evidence that the reefs were in good health with spectacular coral, to his arch adversary at the university, Terry Hughes, who was claiming the exact opposite, and who promptly forwarded the evidence from Dr Ridd to university management. This began a disciplinary procedure that would eventually result in Peter Ridd’s sacking.
The trial opened on Tuesday with Mr Wood QC outlining Dr Ridd’s honestly held expert opinion that the Great Barrier Reef is in good health, but that many of his colleagues, particularly Professor Hughes, suggest otherwise, that their research is “untrustworthy” and is not subject to any “quality assurance”.
The Judge seemed genuinely interested in this issue of “quality assurance” of the research. Towards the end of Day 2 he specifically requested that Mr Murdoch QC explain to the court what quality assurance procedures were in place.
I had assumed that Mr Murdoch QC, the Barrister acting for the University, would thus begin Day 3 with some explanation of this – but he didn’t. The University continued to refuse to engage on any matters of science, particularly the issue of quality assurance. Rather the University simply argued that because there is a code of conduct that expects professors to be collegial – they thus had a right to sack Peter Ridd because he had become disrespectful of his colleagues and also had broken confidentiality.
At the beginning of Day 2 Peter Ridd clearly explained that he was concerned about the trustworthiness of the science, and the lack of quality assurance because it was having a significant negative economic impact on rural and regional economies – because of the bad publicity for tourism and increasing government regulation of farming.
It is generally agreed that modern, cohesive democracies work because there is an independent judiciary (legal system), impartial media, and a government that makes public-policy based on evidence. The judiciary and the media are generally educated university-graduates. Universities are expected to be dominated by intellectuals, who are curious and dispassionately seek out the truth.
Mr Wood QC, acting for Dr Ridd, emphasized the importance of intellectual freedom in his closing remarks today – that it is integral to a university.
Universities are expected to be places where there is vigorous discussion of contentious issues. It would be expected that where there is disagreement – for example about the condition of the fringing coral reefs at Stone Island – there could be a debate that followed rules of logic and considers evidence in an attempt to arrive at the truth.
This requires both sides to engage.
Back in 2016, and again today, instead of considering Dr Ridd’s evidence and concerns, the University choose to look away. It showed no interest in finding out about the real state of the corals surrounding Stone Island, or at the Great Barrier Reef in general.
There is a crisis in our democracy and as clearly illustrated by this court case, it is at least in part because the mainstream media, and our universities, too often refuse to engage in any real discussion with those who hold an opinion contradicting their own.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“It is generally agreed that modern, cohesive democracies work because there is an independent judiciary (legal system), impartial media, and a government that makes public-policy based on evidence.”
What I find interesting is that JCU decided it was better to fire Peter Ridd and risk the public exposure that the message Peter was making would actually hit home and expose the academic feud/fraud of JCU et al and the GBR. Had they just left Peter Ridd alone, no one would be hearing about how powerful monied influences in academia and media were corrupting real science. While Peter may wind up being crucified for his public statement about the state of science on the GBR, there is no doubt that the ‘advertising’ that JCU has given the debate may wind up sinking it in the long run. Generally, the truth does finally surface in advanced democracies…assuming we stay advanced democracies and not wind up corrupted by the state and its tentacles in academia and justice.
You are assuming they approached this logically. I think it more likely they were emotional in their decision and simply wanted to “hurt” Professor Ridd at any cost. This publicity is their cost.
I have met people in the work place who are determined to pursue a course because they think it is the right course. As a manager of such people, it could be difficult not to become angry at them. In my case it was a business trying to make a profit, not a University, so the idea of “Right and Wrong” was more about making a profit and staying in business (most people, but not all that I knew were moral people). In cases where I could not change their behavior, I tried to minimize the damage (to themselves and their organization) as long as they were providing value to the company.
In a University environment, you would be judging value and damage to the Reputation of the organization, and the stress that individual was putting on others – versus the value of their research. If you place no value on their research – well, there you are. Stress on others IS important – you can cause many people to be less productive in total versus the value of your own research. The moral aspect is much more difficult – you would have to be very careful not to overlay your bias on the research topic versus the results being published – this can be difficult to do and it’s why one person SHOULD NEVER be in a position to make this decision. Of course, when everyone has the same opinion as you because of biased screening, well again – there you go.
Universities should welcome diversity of opinion, but they no longer do. They should encourage debate, but they don’t. Researcher’s need to be less emotional about their own research and learn to tolerate skeptical opposing research – yeah, good luck with that. Tolerance is no longer taught in schools as far as intellectual matters are concerned – its all dogma. I honestly do not think liberals even understand what the word “tolerance” means.
The big question is, ….. which of the following definitions best describes James Cook University?
1. An educational institution that instructs students in many branches of advanced learning,
2. An educational institution that prepares students to be priests, ministers or rabbis.
In other words, …. a university or a seminary?
Has not many (most) public schools, colleges and universities morphed into becoming pseudo-seminaries?
I took a few courses at a seminary and they fit in to your definition #1 much better than many of the courses I took at the University of Maryland.
Has not many (most) public schools, colleges and universities morphed into becoming pseudo-seminaries?
Yes, occasional cortex is a perfect example, and the “education systems” are churning them out like production-lines. The disciples are called “SWJs”, and the gods they worship are marxism and Mother Gaia.
Robert said;
“In my case it was a business trying to make a profit, not a University, so the idea of “Right and Wrong” was more about making a profit and staying in business…”
Here lays the flaw in most people’s logic and understanding. Universities are businesses. The sell parchments to 19 year olds (with a 3 to 4 year waiting period) and reports to people named Grant. The expansion of knowledge is a by product, not an objective.
This is why higher education has become increasingly masculine bovine mammary over the generations. Knowledge is not important. Maintaining their existence is important. If shutting down everything that threatens to upset the smooth running of their day jobs is the quickest and cheapest way of operating, then that is what they do and knowledge be damned.
(How much a business? In my little Australian town on of the three universities has secured naming rights for a one of our domestic sporting stadiums. Projecting their brand… just like business.)
I was told that the escalation began at the direction of a HR manager who was a recent import from the UK where protections for academic freedom are anecdotally much weaker than in Australia – a manager who didn’t understand the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and who has since moved on. Why JCU *kept* going down this path as it snowballed into a global public relations nightmare, that I don’t understand….
Had they just left Peter Ridd alone, no one would be hearing about how powerful monied influences in academia and media were corrupting real science
The Streisand effect in action.
I’m hoping and praying for the best of all outcomes for Dr. Ridd!
John Endicott,
Heh, I was going to say that, but wanted to scroll a little to see if anyone else made that connection. Wonder how many don’t know what the Streisand Effect is. 🙂
Insider jokes are tedious. I don’t care.
Oh, c’mon guys – the inborn snootiness of those “in the know”, I tell ya! The Streisand Effect: Barbara Streisand, for reasons known only to herself, decided she wanted a little privacy, so when pictures of her beach-front home in Malibu started cropping-up in the media, she sought to have the pictures suppressed. This had the obvious effect of making the Great Unwashed curious about what was in the pictures and what her beach-front home looked like, resulting in the opposite of what she’d wanted when she set-out to suppress the pictures.
Quite like Margaret Thatcher seeking to have Peter Wright’s book “Spycatcher” outlawed, or the occasional Playboy issue with excessively-racy pictures declared pornographic – the items flew-off the store shelves, and when officials showed-up to collect them, they were sold-out already, thereby generating a lot more interest (and profit) for their authors than otherwise would’ve occurred.
Human nature, really: “DON’T LOOK!” ” – Where, WHERE?”
“he had become disrespectful of his colleagues”
Didn’t John Gotti wack guys for being disrespectful? This appears to be little different, metaphorically, of course.
(To any True Believers quote-mining: that’s a joke . I can just see the headline on HuffPoo or the DailyLeast: “WUWT is a hangout for conspiracy theorists who float far-out ideas that climate deniers are being assassinated).
That’s what you get when unqualified interns write clickbait to keep the lights on…
“he had become disrespectful of his colleagues”
One might argue that by denigrating Dr. Ridd’s work and sacking him that his colleagues and the administrators were being disrespectful of Dr. Ridd!
Its very easy for good scientists to become disrespectful of colleagues who consistently produce junk science.
The above could be taken to mean that Peter Ridd has been telling the truth in his criticism of the science, the scientists, the university, and other organizations.
If this were a defamation case, in Australia the truth is a complete defense. link
It may well be that the judge can consider the apparent, uncontested, truth of Peter Ridd’s accusations.
It seems obvious to me that academics have a social duty to call BS whenever they see it.
If there is any justice, Peter Ridd should win. Whether that actually happens is another matter, the courts being pretty unpredictable.
“If there is any justice, Peter Ridd should win.”
Agreed! If I were sitting on the bench, the outright refusal of the university to “engage” on the scientific matters, which is just more of the climate fascist crowd’s “the science is settled/debate is over” attitude, despite there never being any such debate and the so-called “science” being crap, would cement my view that Dr. Ridd’s treatment was unjustified.
If you can’t question supposed “science,” then it ISN’T SCIENCE.
By not challenging that accuracy and truth of the criticism, the university has essentially conceded the point that the criticism is accurate. It would be rather bizarre if the accurate criticism of bad science is proper grounds for firing on the grounds that it is not collegial.
The university’s legal team may have blundered.
The grounds for the sacking had nothing to do with correct or incorrect science , that Peter offered .
The grounds where ‘his behaviour toward others ‘
All they needed to do was show they followed the correct procedures to deal with such behaviour , and that those procedures where in turn an acceptable process to use. That is it , no science involved .
commieBob says “If there is any justice, Peter Ridd should win. Whether that actually happens is another matter, the courts being pretty unpredictable.“. Spot on. And “unpredictable” is an understatement, especially in this case, as my understanding is that courts do not like ruling on scientific matters.
This particular court can’t rule on science, if elephants are white or any other thing outside it’s scope ….. it deals specifically with labour law between employeer and employee.
People over think what this particular court is and does.
There is only a legal system in Australia, and winning depends on how deep your pockets are.
Same in the U.S. — it’s a legal system and not a justice system. It seems actual justice in the U.S. system likely doesn’t rise to a 50-50 proposition. Your shot at justice if you’re identified as a conservative is considerably lower. And if you’re a white, male conservative, well you’re just screwed.
As a retired attorney I can say with some authority that is not true. It is he who has the bucks who is most inclined to win and most of the time the people with the most most bucks are white conservative males.
Let me be a bit more precise. The legal system is about two things primarily: process and substantive law (the justice side). Process is extremely expensive and time consuming and has nothing to do with substantive law or justice. Most cases in the US are decided on process grounds not substantive law grounds. And thus the person with the most bucks usually wins the process fight and having won the process fight, the substantive law fight is never decided.
In the words of Billy Bragg….
“This isn’t a court of justice, son
This is a court of law.”
“…a defamation case, in Australia the truth is a complete defense.”
Not so. It varies by jurisdiction, but in many parts of the country it is far from a complete defence. The ACT is a great place to sue people for defamation because the laws are so skewed to favour the claimant.
the judge should TAKE the courts to the beach/reef in question!
if they can do it for murder and other trials then they could do it for something as important as PROOF in this case.
as for the useless gutless reporter…well looking at the statements by usa journos on the rusia/trump fiasco aying it wasnt their job to do research….just report what they are told/hear
same sh** differnt topic
The quality assurance issue is probably too technical for a court of law, which lacks the expertise to decide, especially when the self-styled “experts” disagree themselves. Surely the case is simply one of academic free speech, was Dr. Ridd entitled to express his views on the quality or otherwise of research done by colleagues.
If you want to see this type of science by jury look at the Monsanto (glyphosate) trials in the US. The science is overwhelming that glyphosate is not a carcinogen but emotion rules the day. Carl Sagan said it well:
“We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
What’s worse is the average person does not even understand how much detailed scientific knowledge they lack. Add to that a lack of any knowledge of statistics and the scientific process and what we have is a primitive culture that believes the most charismatic shaman.
You have to consider where the trials are held and how the jurors are picked. Having a degree in physics I would never be allowed on a jury requiring scientific judgement. They look for people that can be emotionally swayed.
I have been called to serve on juries 4 times at municipal and Federal levels. Each time I’m asked my education and degrees (B.S. Aeronautics and Astronautics, M.S. Engineering Mgmt), I am tossed. I’m 0 for 4. The resulting juries are thus largely composed of housewives who have spent significant amounts of their lives watching Oprah–which results in emotional verdicts.
monsantos science says its fine…
other non affiliated research says otherwise.
You are right about quality assurance being too technical for a judge to do anything which seems to be taking sides but — the fact that the University provided NO response to the question the judge himself (herself?) asked is significant and would NOT count in favor of the university. If he were given a response and tried to figure out if the QA were adequate he would be over his head quickly but it is pretty easy to figure out means that either the lawyers were not paying attention or it was not in the best interest of the case to answer negatively. Either way they lose points on the issue.
I understand that Dr Terry Hughes had filed the original complaint. Not surprising, since it was his shoddy work Dr Ridd was skewering. During argument, it was brought out that Hughes in his complaint used language just as, if not more inflammatory, than Dr Ridd was alleged to have employed. There have so far been no consequences for Dr Hughes.
It was a slim reed that JCU was pinning their hopes on with regard to “collegiality” and I’m guessing it’s snapped under the strain. The fact that the judge was interested in the substance of Dr Ridd’s questions regarding quality control should have been a big clue for JCU’s solicitor. I hope he got his money up front because I wouldn’t want to pay him for his rather tepid efforts if he were arguing my case.
The judge showed interest in the substance of Ridd’s claims, and the university failed to challenge them. They have therefore conceded the point that Ridd’s criticisms are valid.
The position that the university is arguing, therefore, is that valid criticism of bad science is still grounds for dismissal. That would be quite a precedent!
No ,their grounds are that Peter’s behaviour toward others was unacceptable , and that they therefore where required to follow the procedures on dealing with this type of problem.
knr , what behaviour are you referring to ? Peter Ridd acting like any good scientist should ?
But if a labour hire contract says you can’t act like a good scientist then you may not be able to … that is the issue being argued.
You can listen to music but if your workplace law says you can’t while working then you may not be able to without getting sacked. It is that sort of issue.
Wrong-O, LdB! This is about the type of music to which you may listen. Subjective standards will lose in court.
Yeah that is a fair call and probably a better example.
So do I get the sack if I play rock music at work rather than classical 🙂
In Australia, it’s not only words or music, images, decorations, personal items too. Pretty much ANYTHING someone MIGHT find offensive. Believe it or not, family pictures too. That is why I practice a “clear desk” policy at work in Australia. There is no-one who can control what goes on in my mind, yet!
Someone said to me in passing my desk at work once…
“Empty desk, empty mind.”
I replied…”No manager or corporate can tell me how to use my mind.”
@SteveO it is sets no precedent for anything outside the fair work act, for the love of all things can you guys realize this is not a normal civil actions court.
My impression is that the JCU argument aims to discredit Peter Ridd. As an inferior academic he does not have the right to exercise intellectual freedom enjoyed by more credentialed academics. Thus the JCU Code of Conduct is the key element of his employment contract and must take precedence over intellectual freedom.
I expect the JCU legal representatives would have been given clear guidelines to stick to the matter of the Code of Conduct and avoid offering any evidence on technical matters regarding science. They would not want the JCU brand of science to be exposed to scrutiny in the court.
Best of luck Dr Ridd.
The other side is desperately afraid of engaging as we are well aware. Despite that they will be engaged at every opportunity. Peter Ridd is doing us all a favor
Looks like JCU was not very collegial toward Peter Ridd.
There is an outrageous asymmetry between the Left’s expectations of their treatment by others and their own treatment of others. Something there is that doesn’t love hypocrisy.
“There is an outrageous asymmetry between the Left’s expectations of their treatment by others and their own treatment of others.”
There is also an outrageous asymmetry between the Left’s belief in climate science and their belief in pseudo-science.
Don’t believe me? Here in Canada our Prime Minister (Socks Zoolander) has drank deep of the CAWG Kool-Aid (as a “feminist” he’s been firing female ministers right and left buy still keeps Climate Barbie on), yet he practises the “alternative medicine” of cupping.
You can make all kinds of inflammatory accusations in court that you can not make outside of court. In court you have protection where outside of court you do not.
It wasn’t “collegial” of Terry Hughes to promptly complain about Peter Ridd’s evidence to university management. As though a dispute about data were a personal or professional insult.
It wasn’t “collegial” of university management to treat a dispute about data as though it were a personal or professional insult.
In fact, Peter Ridd is the only one of the three parties to have acted in a collegial manner. The other two, Terry Hughes and the university, have violated collegiality at every turn.
In this particular case, I suspect it’s all about the money. Terry Hughes needs his grant. The university gets lots of overhead cash from the cumulated grants issued to to faculty, to pursue the barrier reef in crisis narrative.
And that’s the problem. Neither Terry Hughes nor the university can afford to have it get out that it’s a concocted narrative they’re pushing, not science. The Australian government would have every cause to ask for their money, illicitly obtained, back.
Pat
You are correct that the university is acting to protect their funding and aparantly is not concerned about the validity of the science they are funding. Macquarie U. treated Dr. Salby just as bad for the same offense of finding flaws in the CAGW argument but were able to drag out the legal procedures until he could not afford to get into court. (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/28/day3-peter-ridd-versus-james-cook-university-uni-and-state-sponsored-media-stuck-in-denial/ ) At least Dr. Ridd got his day in court and there is a chance that the story will come out. Let’s hope so.
Agreed, DMA. It’s too bad we didn’t think to start a GoFundMe for Murray Salby. It would have been good if he’d had the chance to fight it out.
University administrators seem to be either cynically venal or alternatively to be moral cowards these days. Ethical principle or professional responsibility appear completely foreign to far too many.
There don’t seem to be many exceptions, possibly except the University of Chicago, regarding the cowardice.
Actually DMA, Salby did fight it out – on his own. From his recent lecture at Hamburg university, a shameful tale:
https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie
At least he got his just desserts from Macquerie U. – check out the section on legal costs.
Let’s hope that financial support gets Peter Ridd a fairer ride.
Jurgen
Your link is the one I meant to put in. I apologize for the error to all who followed it .
Well said Pat Frank. I agree 100% .
I would dare say (and hopefully the argument was made) that it was Terry Hughes was the one who was not being “collegial,” by throwing a temper tantrum and tattling to the university’s management. If there was to be any disciplinary action regarding someone not being “collegial,” it should have been against Terry Hughes, who displayed such thin skin at the first questioning of his pseudo-science.
Of course, Mr. Hughes probably brings lots of “climate change” research grant dollars to this institution of INDOCTRINATION (certainly NOT “education), which is the whole reason Peter Ridd was quickly cut out like a cancer – he threatened the “golden goose” of bullshit “climate” propaganda funding.
“he had become disrespectful of his colleagues”
?Que? Because he had a different theory and evidence for it than his collegues?
Did that ‘University’ ever hear of the word ‘science’?
Some “Universities” can’t hear anything, once money whispers in their ear.
Jaap, it’s what’s expected in first world cultures now: everyone finds identity in whatever they do, so much so that to relay a dissenting viewpoint to someone’s “identity” is now deemed offensive, non-collegial, disrespectful, even a hate crime. Dr. Ridd went against the grain of the consensus viewpoint at JCU and offended a committee.
If JCU doesn’t want to answer the judge’s questions, then I think that woud count against them.
Indeed. I should think most fair judges would not look too kindly on those who avoid answering their questions.
I don’t know about Austrialia, but in the US I doubt this contractual requirement to be nice (collegial) to your peers is enforceable. For one, it’s too vague. In terms of workspace behavior, it’s better to proscribe what one may not do, and even then to be as specific as possible.
Or even in Australia…
Employment law is very complex in Australia (And yet many employers get away with breaches simply because employees can’t afford to fight an issue in court). Then there is the contract you sign, which usually has a lot about code of conduct etc where not being nice could be viewed as “bullying” or “offensive”, and that is a big no no here.
+10 Someone with some sense who gets it
If this stands political correctness at work has taken a whole new meaning and standby for a lot of sackings for behaviour. That is why I think and hope it will fail.
“Some universities are not so tolerant of critical thinking in their own ranks, however. In Brisbane, Federal Circuit Court judge Salvatore Vasta has blasted James Cook University for silencing, rather than debating, sacked professor Peter Ridd, who criticised the quality of the institution’s research into the Great Barrier Reef. Professor Ridd is awaiting the results of his unfair dismissal case.”
Degrees of vincible ignorance
The Australian 12:00AM MARCH 29, 2019
Link doesn’t work.
(It worked for me, but it is a subscription only site) MOD
Why hasn’t this university fired or retired Terry Hughes for incompetence? His work on the GBR is an embarrassment to his Department.
At the least, his inability to properly assess the health of reefs makes his work dubious, putting the university in a position of serious reputational risk. Similarly, any student assigned to him for supervision is at risk because they are being trained to work without proper quality control over their outputs and in methods that do not deliver valid assessments.
This is not a complicated matter. If the university has no quality control measures in place, any professor should have implemented them as a matter of professional obligation. Clearly that did not happen because the conclusions he reached are in conflict with any independent analysis one might make of that reef system’s condition.
Admin has fired the wrong person. If the Senate cannot be convinced the administration has this matter in hand, the Senate should have those responsible within the administration demoted or dismissed for dereliction of duty, not only for improper conduct in the investigation, but for placing the institution in a very unfavourable light and holding it there, with menaces.
In fact, the University administration has fired the right person. They were getting rid of a troublesome gadfly who was highly likely to interfere with the free flow of funding. This is to be expected when institutions of higher learning are perverted to become business entities.
The University has taken the sensible course of avoiding the science (where it was in serious trouble) and gone for confirmation of its legal right to enforce confidentiality. The judge may well have to deliver a finding on this narrow basis.
I am not at all confident in a positive outcome.
“They were getting rid of a troublesome gadfly who was highly likely to interfere with the free flow of funding.”
Heard this a while ago:
A man was travelling in China in the 1800s when he came to bend in the river where thousands of men were toiling away with picks and shovels.
“They are building a dam”, he was told by his guide.
“Why aren’t they using a steam shovel?” he asked.
“That would put these men out of work”, he was told.
“Ah”, he replied, “I thought you were making a dam. If then if you want to make jobs, you should take away their shovels and make them use spoons.”
If you want to make science, give them science.
If you want to make money, take away the science and give them funding.
‘The judge may well have to deliver a finding on this narrow basis …’.
========================================
A decision along those lines would have profound negative consequences for higher education in Australia.
I’m starting to wonder if that is any longer possible!
If they start firing profs for being Socialist morons, who will teach/indoctrinate the kiddies? Clowns like Hughes are hired by other clowns who count Lefty politics as a critical plus on the old c.v.
There may be no greater population of smart people in the world who are more disconnected from reality than university profs. Maybe church officials.
Yeah that is basically what is at stake, how enforcible is political correctness at what point does it hit your personal rights.
I agree that Professor Ridd should engage forcefully to secure his academic freedom, but he is also an established expert in his field.
The establishment’s true objective though is to send a message to younger, less established researchers in many disciplines that disobeying the alarmists climate message with contrary data would effectively end their career.
JCU may have decided that losing the battle would win the war by sending a message that dissent by others wouldn’t be tolerated..
Joel O’Bryan wrote “The establishment’s true objective though is to send a message to younger, less established researchers in many disciplines that disobeying the alarmists climate message with contrary data would effectively end their career.
JCU may have decided that losing the battle would win the war by sending a message that dissent by others wouldn’t be tolerated..”
Anyone who doubts the accuracy of what he wrote needs to read Judith Curry’s explanation of why she left academia behind. You can find it here:
judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/
A biased media hurts both ways: 1) in promoting bad science as a means to a policy end and 2) turning silent on policy driven injustice.
Shame on the ABC and all “journalists” in Australia.
This about employment contract law (as I see it). There are no doubt precedent cases involving whistle-blowers who have allegedly breached their agreed terms of employment. This is what the judge will be looking at ( I expect).
Therefore, the honorable (or otherwise) motivations behind this (debatable) breach of contract may have little to do with the legal issue.
This is why I did not support this case financially.
Cheers
M
If the contract is unduly vague, the interpretation of its terms goes against the party writing the contract. Or so I have been taught in contract law.
I concur in my education in contract law.
They have used a vague description to forbid a time honored tradition in science and academia in general. It should be a slam dunk.
Just what is the basis for the charge of ‘not collegial’ the university lodged against Dr. Ridd? I am sure the judge will weigh that as well. No reasonable person would classify telling someone to look at the reefs for themself as being ‘uncollegial’ to anyone.
jtom
You are spot on with this view. If a term in a contract is not one with a common understanding or definition, it has to be defined. When writing Standards, and when reviewing them, one puts into the comment section something like this (example seen this week):
Text: “Gasifier stoves shall have a thermal efficiency of not less than…”
Comment type: Technical
Comment: “gasifier stove” is an undefined term. All solid-fuel fires involve burning gases. Proposed change: Define “gasifier stove” in section 3 in such a way that this requirement shall not be imposed on stoves that fall outside that category.
A contract that has some woolly term as “not collegial” has to be defined either as the presence of something or the absence of something. An academic disagreement over facts collected does not cover such circumstances as appear in this case.
The reported who took the matter privately to the complainant violated the norms of scholarship by not waiting until Ridd published his findings. The proper place for a conversation is in the Journals, not the side halls of the university nor the courts.
The reporter had mischievous intents, which were realized. He intended to bring Ridd and his ideas into disrepute by circumventing the normal channels of scientific communication. He was successful, up to a point.
If Ridd loses this case, it will have terrible consequences for academic discourse. It is ultimately an attack by the university administration on the integrity of the processes by which science advances. That they are chopping enthusiastically at the foundations of their own institution is an indication of how far they are from understanding the whole point of having a university in the first place. They are undoing 800 years of progress, sending youth into the dark ages of madras-style repetition and memorization of anointed viewpoints.
It is literally medieval.
If Peter Ridd’s findings about the Great Barrier Reef are acknowledged as truth, and he stood up for the truth in the face of people who perpetuated half-truths or falsehoods, then what dignity, pray tell, was James Cook University trying to maintain, when the university censured him?
There is NO dignity or respect in play for those who perpetuate lies, and so appealing to respect has positively zero basis.
Do liars deserve respect? Does the definition of “respect” extend to such liars? NO! — it does NOT.
The underlying severely flawed premise here is that people who perpetuate falsehoods are as equally deserving of respect as those who perpetuate truths — they are NOT. Respect is reserved for truth tellers. Trying to force this concept of respect to fit non-truth-tellers is an attempt to redefine the concept of “respect” onto its opposite meaning.
James Cook University wants to be cordial to people who perpetuate falsehoods? Really? Is THAT the message being conveyed here by this institution of “higher learning”? … Cordial at all costs? … Respect given to shoddy research ?
This university is best to acknowledge its error, or it will be known hereafter as “James Crooks University”.
The university was out parading around the scientific world pretending to have clothes on. It is an insult to their dignity to be out there naked so obviously it is an insult to point out that they are, in fact, naked.
cook (ko͝ok)
v. cooked, cook·ing, cooks
v.tr.
1. To prepare (food) for eating by applying heat.
2. To prepare or treat by heating: slowly cooked the medicinal mixture.
3. Slang To alter or falsify so as to make a more favorable impression; doctor: disreputable accountants who were paid to cook the firm’s books.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Just checked the BBC’s Australia news page. Nothing on Peter Ridd’s case but they find space to report the case of a worker who accuses his boss of bullying because he kept farting on him. The man said, his boss would “lift his bum and fart” on him up to six times a day. Fascinating, I’m sure, but hardly news I need to know about in the UK.
But did you click the link?
If so, mission accomplished.
I’m afraid that JCU and Peter Ridd are arguing at cross-purposes. If JCU has a clearly-stated code of conduct and they can show that it doesn’t violate Australian law and that Ridd violated it, they will win this case. That seems to be the position JCU is taking. If Ridd can show that their code of conduct is unlawful or that their application of it was arbitrary he can prevail.
Australia doesn’t have an explicit protection of speech in their constitution but it has an implied one. Ridd needs to demonstrate that a publicly-funded university cannot create a code of conduct that violates Australia’s freedom of speech as it is currently understood. He’s making a great case that legitimate scientific disputes should be allowed and encouraged, but beyond that he needs to make the case that the JCU is violating his right to express those disputes.
No, they are not, really. It’s just that the fundamental link between there arguments has not been pinpointed yet.
Take a look at the JCU code of conduct: https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct
To me, it is clear that the definition of “integrity” is violated by people who carry out shoddy research or who cooperate in such a way as to perpetuate shoddy research.
Thus, what integrity has Peter Ridd violated? If integrity is lacking, then there is no call to uphold what is NOT there to begin with, and so applying the definition of “integrity” to people who lack it is plainly unfounded, with zero basis. If anything, he has demonstrated how OTHERS at the university are violating the code.
The code need not be shown to be unlawful, but that it completely contradicts itself and improperly forces its definition of “integrity” onto the word’s opposite meaning, in order to cushion people who lack integrity from any criticism. It creates a double meaning for the word, “integrity”, thus, a double standard in how the concept is applied.
How can one person challenge another person’s integrity, when integrity is lacking to begin with in the person being criticized? There is zero basis.
stinkerp,
The Judge doesn’t seem to agree with you since he showed interest in “quality assurance” and wanted that addressed in court:
“The Judge seemed genuinely interested in this issue of “quality assurance” of the research. Towards the end of Day 2 he specifically requested that Mr Murdoch QC explain to the court what quality assurance procedures were in place. ”
He made a specific request that it be EXPLIANED in court, but the next day they didn’t answer the Judge:
“I had assumed that Mr Murdoch QC, the Barrister acting for the University, would thus begin Day 3 with some explanation of this – but he didn’t. The University continued to refuse to engage on any matters of science, particularly the issue of quality assurance. ”
I think the University is slowly losing the case, especially when they ignore the judge on an important question.
You also seemed to have glossed over this part:
“Specifically, Peter Ridd was first censured for proposing to a journalist in April 2016 that he investigate the state of the fringing coral reefs around Stone Island, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef. ”
A PROPOSAL was enough for the University to censure him, which I find amazing, it got worse when the journalist decided to stab him in the back, by giving it to Terry Hughes instead, who went to his daddy University to whine that Dr. Ridd was INDIRECTLY showing a different viewpoint about the Reefs situation.
“Instead of investigating, the journalist sent Dr Ridd’s evidence that the reefs were in good health with spectacular coral, to his arch adversary at the university, Terry Hughes, who was claiming the exact opposite, and who promptly forwarded the evidence from Dr Ridd to university management. This began a disciplinary procedure that would eventually result in Peter Ridd’s sacking. ”
I think Hughes wanted to shut down debate on the health of the reef for reasons YOU failed to consider. It smacks of professional discourtesy to PREVENT debate on the Reef, which is contrary to freedom of debate, and that it is Hughes research (allegedly) that was in question.
I think he wanted to protect something, which has NOTHING to do with science research.
If he made no public statements about Hughes or his research, and did not confront Hughes, it would seem to me that making the case that Dr. Ridd was in any way being ‘uncollegial’ would be a tough argument to make. Dr. Ridd only encourage individual research. Privately expressing doubts and concerns about a person or his research has got to be allowed to foster debate.
The fact Ridd has a QC on board suggests to me he has a strong case. Even with the help of sourced funds from WUWT readers etc, the QC would not bother with the case if it were weak.
@stinkerp No you got it right they are but by design.
UQ is saying they don’t care about bigger principles they have labour hire clauses.
Peter Ridd is arguing public interest and human freedoms to express these views should not be able to be surpressed by labour hire laws.
“the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) simply didn’t attend or report. ”
Yep, and if he wins his case those Barrier reef catastrophe story’s will go on as though nothing happened
Just imagine the stories if he looses, even on a technicality.
“Just imagine the stories if he looses”
If he looses what?
Oh…loses.
OK, I’ll bite…everyone seems to agree on that a review of the Quality Assurance should have been given in this court case and that a lack of it is evidence it doesn’t exist. This seems a reasonable conclusion, except what are we looking for?
I started thinking about what this means, and I am now wondering how many people commenting here really know what the Quality Assurance for a Reef Study should look like.
So tell me, as I am actually quite curious, what would Quality Assurance of a “Reef in Peril” study look like? (I have my ideas, but having never performed this kind of research, I can only speculate. I have little doubt that a LOT of reefs are in peril, just not due to global warming…) Any takers?
One requirement for an unbiased study is to stick to the originally planned study area, and not to modify the study area in light of what is found in the original.
OK. First employ an expert on corals with no links to JCU. Then set up a grid across the area of the original study. Then select random grid squares and define level of coral health in each. Then report on the proportion of squares adversely impacted . Only then compare to original study to see if it correlated. If not study fails.
I seriously doubt if the judge is interested in quality assurance methods, i.e., the methodology of the research. His concern is probably the PROCESS. Who initiates it? How is the effort delegated? What questions are asked? Who gets the final report? What are the metrics against which the study is measured? Who does what if the research fails?
In the US, there is great emphasis placed on ‘due process’. There is also great misunderstanding. In court, the issues are: is there a specific process, written down, and available to all as to what happens when a situation occurs; and was that process followed?
It matters not if the process isn’t ‘fair’ or has shortcomings. It can be crappy as hell. But as long as it exists and was followed, then the party received ‘due process’.
So I suspect the judge wants to know what the ‘due process’ for ensuring quality is, and was it followed. I also suspect it either doesn’t exist or wasn’t followed, which pushes all of Dr. Ridd’s comments towards that of a whistleblower.
I searched around and found some published marine coral studies and THEIR quality assurance methods…it reminded me a lot of putting together a good Project Plan (not a Project Schedule which many people confuse) for business. The best was a Hawaii reef study.
In it, they described what reefs would be monitored, how they would be selected, and for how long they would be monitored. They described how “change” to each reef would be monitored (a grid of over lapping photos and how many, what rate, how often, and how to quality check for focus and malfunction), how the data would be reviewed (how soon, how many times, how to look for missing or incorrect data), how data would be stored (what kind of technology, how data is transferred, how data is quality checked again for errors in entry, how data would be archived and for how long). They described methods and how those methods are enforced to keep everything consistent. They described sample collection, how each sample is handled and protected from contamination, how it is preserved, where, for how long. Etc. The impressive thing was how many times they rechecked the data.
Quite impressive, but just exactly the kind of procedures and forward thinking I would expect from a good competent scientist or engineer – but not what I would expect from a person more interested in promotion, politics, or power/prestige.
Now I went looking for Australian reef monitoring and found a combined paper that included JCU as one of its contributors. Hmmm…They have a few very ambiguous paragraphs but are missing the kind of detail I found in the Hawaii paper. Perhaps their QA is described somewhere else? Otherwise, it appears they are monitoring water quality for specific chemicals and traits, and are not really setup to monitor the reefs at all – just observe them in a casual way.
Now I may have the wrong paper, but if this is an example of the work that Professor Ridd is referring to, I think I agree with him – they are missing and real description of QA. If it isn’t described, then how does one maintain quality in a consistent manner? Do they have any at all, or is it all ad-hoc?
This material is not above a judge’s ability to understand – it’s common sense when read out. The trick is having enough background to be able to write down the common sense, not understanding it once its written. If they skipped describing this, then its because it would have been embarrassing.
The Left would always prefer proclamations vs engagement and when cornered they reply their proven tactic of Delay Delay Delay.
Never forget that judges are political animals and often activist, I suspect the University suspects the judge will fall in line with the climate-change-fear-narrative-regressives.
The judges political views are unimportant he can’t rule on anything to do with politics, please try and understand what sort of court this is.