Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova; Courageous Reef Scientist Peter Ridd needs your help. He plans to continue the battle against James Cook University, to protect the right of Australian professors to be uncollegial, their right to publicly criticise the work of other scientists. Ridd intends to appeal a court judgement which which suggests Academic Freedom as most people understand it is a “historical concept“.
From Peter Ridd’s GoFundMe page;
We have had a setback, but my lawyers have carefully gone over the judgement, and believe there are numerous strong grounds for appeal to the High Court of Australia. We are re-opening the fundraising campaign and will carry on with the legal action.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund-2019
In the final analysis, I was fired for saying that, because of systemic problems with quality assurance, work from the JCU coral reef centre, which also publishes extensively on climate change, was untrustworthy. I believe what I said was true and have given plenty of published evidence to support the statement. After I was fired, it was proven beyond doubt that I was correct when a group of seven international scientists who audited eight of the major studies from the JCU coral reef centre found them ALL to be 100% wrong. You can’t get much more scientifically untrustworthy than that. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ex-judge-investigate-controversial-marine-research.
I don’t take the decision to appeal lightly. The financial and emotional costs are high and legal action is fraught with uncertainties. In addition to the $300K Cheryl and I have spent on this case, I have received from you, and about four thousand other people, over $800K. It is matter that rests heavily on my conscience. You have already done your bit, but I’d appreciate if you could share this with other people. I also thank you for your words of support to continue the fight.
We have an excellent chance, but we might lose. There are, however, too many important principles at stake to walk away at this stage.
This case has already demonstrated a major problem with Academic Freedom of Speech at a university. This ultimately affects what academics are prepared to say on controversial topics such as climate change, or the fate of the Great Barrier Reef. The Commonwealth government has already signalled its intention to consider adapting the French Review Model Code to prevent a similar case. This may be the most important long-term implication of the case. Ironically, even if we lose in the High Court, it will demonstrate beyond doubt that the work contracts at universities have the effect of crushing free speech. I have little doubt the Education Minister will have something to say about that once the legal action is over.
So even if we lose the High Court challenge, we still win the ultimate political battle.
Many thanks again for your support
Peter
For those interested in the detailed 80 page judgement, this is the link.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0123
Why will this appeal cost so much? Legal action is horrendously expensive especially when going to the highest court in Australia. There is a large amount of legal documentation to be reviewed in order to put forward the strongest arguments backed with case law evidence. Also the Federal Court judgement must be forensically examined.
Note 1: We are just continuing the last gofundme campaign which raised $100K rather than start a brand new campaign. So the counter starts at $100K. The history of all the appeals is below.
Note 2: for overseas people, the High Court is Australia’s highest court.
Note 3: My lawyers, led by Stuart Wood QC AM, are of the highest calibre and greatly respected in the legal fraternity.
Note 4: If we end up with excess funds, they will be donated to help the cause of academic freedom especially for those who have expressed controversial ideas and then been penalised.
Note 5: For those who would rather make a direct donation by bank transfer, my phone number is in the white pages. Peter RIdd Townsville
Note 6: Apologies to multiple donors if this is a duplicate message
Source: Peter Ridd GoFundMe Page
People who have waded through the entire judgment have dug up some truly eyebrow raising passages.
From JoNova’s website;
The judges reasoning is essentially that academic freedom doesn’t mean freedom in academia because J S Mill, John Locke and Isiah Berlin didn’t have any facebook trolls.
From Gideon Rozner at the IPA:
… this decision has proven how serious the freedom of speech crisis on campus is. You can read the judgment here, but this part in particular – found at paragraph 94 – is absolutely unbelievable:
There is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts and definitions of academic freedom. Whatever the concept once meant, it has evolved to take into account contemporary circumstances which present a challenge to it, including the internet, social media and trolling, none of which informed the view of persons such as J S Mill, John Locke, Isaiah Berlin and others who have written on the topic.
The judges argue that academic freedom is indispensable to universities, but is dispensable enough to toss to the wind. The right of Professors to speak is now determined by students who are demanding safe spaces where their favourite delusions can hide. The judges admit they are in uncharted territory.
Australian law is now set by teenage twitter mobs.
The court went on to quote a passage from an academic textbook that endorses the view that intellectual freedom is an outdated concept:
Academic freedom plays an indispensable role in fulfilling the mission of the university… But a host of new challenges have arisen in recent years in response to the changing norms and expectations of the university. With the increasing role of the Internet in research, the rise of social media in both professional and extramural exchanges, and student demands for accommodations such as content warnings and safe spaces, the parameters of, and challenges to, academic freedom often leave us in unchartered territory.
Source: JoNova
If scientists no longer enjoy academic freedom, if they risk termination for making a public comment the University Chancellor or Dean does not support, then they are no longer free to challenge or condemn pseudoscience. Scientific truth will subordinated to other considerations.
If this judgement is allowed to stand it could affect more than Australia. Sometimes courts reference judgements made in similar cases in other jurisdictions, even other nations, when searching for an applicable precedent. Next time a dean or chancellor challenges a US or British professor on the grounds the professors public comments violated their safe space, a court judge looking for applicable precedent could very well cite the Ridd case as the reason for their decision.
Please provide a donation to help Peter Ridd defend the right of academics to speak their minds, without having to check whether their department head or university dean or chancellor or students approve of their views.
Donation made. Good luck, Dr. Ridd
“With the increasing role of the Internet in research, the rise of social media in both professional and extramural exchanges, and student demands for accommodations such as content warnings and safe spaces, the parameters of, and challenges to, academic freedom often leave us in unchartered territory.”
No, they don’t.
Freedom of individual speech and of research take complete precedence over social media, professional and extramural exchanges, and most especially student demands for accommodation.
The weak-minded twits who wrote that academic textbook are making the implicit claim for superior valuation of student demands; superior valuation of social media, and superior valuation of professional and extramural exchanges.
That is, they’re claiming that those venues have the freedom to suppress an individual’s freedom of speech and of research. Not only are there no ethical grounds to suppose such things, but these academic second-raters don’t seem to realize that their argument is self-contradictory.
After all, how can there be student demands at all, without the freedom of speech accorded to individual students? Likewise, expression within all the other claimed superior venues requires freedom of individual speech for their proponents.
The same could be said for the authorial twits. Even to publish their book requires the freedom of speech they deny be accorded to them.
These academics express intellectual cretinism, and so does the judge.
“Free speech for me, but not for thee” increasingly seems to be the Left’s operating standard. And they harness the twitter and facebook mobs to enforce it for them. But the problem with mobs, is they are like a wildfire; they can turn on you at any moment.
the Kruddmeister just donated. Fingers crossed that the judges aren’t activists, looks like the appeal judges were, unbelievable decision.
Exposing fraudulent research seems to be in another category besides academic freedom. And by “fraudulent”, I mean this in the softer sense of the concept, as in a reasonable person’s deep interest in looking at all the facts, before stating a reckless conclusion, in which many professionals might place their trust in its truthfulness.
Who judges what is right and appropriate? Without academic freedom there is no freedom to expose fraudulent or poorly conducted research.
I have the strong feeling that while JCU may win the battle, they will lose the war
Goliath crushes David with public money. JCU cannot get out of this without egg on their moosh
There will be a reckoning – I betcha
What the left do not get is that the more they shout and dictate, the more people move in the opposite direction
I fear they will win the battle and the war, and then hide it as if it never happened. This is Australia remember.
This ongoing case raises a deep question about the court system.
Just how free are the judges to make fair judgements?
They are agents of the state because they are paid for by the state. They have a subconscious mindset to protect their employer no matter how “ethical” they may claim to be.
What is to stop the state from just adding more and more appeal procedures, until the appellant is worn down to dust, both economically and emotionally?
We must keep funding Peter’s cause because the state called JCU in this case, uses our money via taxation to oppose him.
“their right to publicly criticise the work of other scientists” id private criticism doesnt get an inaccurate article withdraw then it has to be public.
Better uncollegiate than fraudulent.
Contributed $100. Peter Ridd is a genuine “hero” for continuing this battle.
The appeal judgement in a nutshell:
The JCU Code of Conduct is not subordinate to the Enterprise Agreement. (technical judgement)
The terms of “Academic Freedom” and “Intellectual Freedom” have no meaningful historical basis, and can be construed to mean whatever anybody wants at any time, so the inherent conflict between the COC and the EA is academic, and JCU can do whatever it wants. (philosophical judgement)
Regardless of the what the High Court decides, this is clearly a geopolitical issue and requires political intervention and clarification. Note that this could work both ways…side with JCU and mandate that you can’t hurt anybody’s feelings, or side with history and countless bodies and note that the fact that you don’t like my opinion is meaningless.
While there is clearly a back and forth on this conflict, the direction is clearly towards the latter (ie too bad if you don’t like what I say). If you are pessimistic about this direction…pick up any good history book.
Ethan Brand
Dear Prof. Ridd, as a man of science myself, I have always struggled to look for real science in each and every scientific work, and very often found very little.
I contributed for your struggle for basic scientific truth and freedom.
Best wishes for victory against blind activists!
This whole thing looks really bad. The judges seem to think any meaning of a word has to be interpreted according to contemporary views (Orwell would say: according to newspeak…). A few examples: SCIENCE is dictated by consensus (97%????) and not by experimental evidence. Even worse: TRUTH will be defined in the future by consensus (number of clicks???), and not by factual evidence. The nightmares of Lyssenko (politically rigged science) and politically rigged justice are again crawling out of their leftist dark pits… This has to be stopped. Prof. Ridd is right to bring this to the supreme court. I’ve also donated.