Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Australia’s High Court has ruled that University administrators have the right to fire academics for breach of employment code of conduct, which has precedence over academic freedom.
It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that we have lost the appeal in the High Court. We lost, in my opinion, because JCU’s work contract, under which I was employed, effectively kills academic freedom of speech – and the contract is effectively the law.
So, JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave.
I often ask myself, if I knew what was going to happen, would I have handled that fateful interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin in 2017 differently. Would I still say that, due to systemic quality assurance problems, work from a couple of Great Barrier Reef science institutions was “untrustworthy”?
It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs.
All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.
This is just a small battle in a much bigger war. It was a battle which we had to have and, in retrospect, lose. JCU’s and almost every other university in Australia and the western world are behaving badly. We have shown how badly.
Decent people and governments can see the immense problem we have. The universities are not our friends. Only when the problem is recognised will public pressure force a solution
The failure of our legal action, and JCU’s determination to effectively destroy academic freedom of speech, demonstrates that further legislation is required to force universities to behave properly – especially if they are to receive any public funding. The Commonwealth government introduced excellent legislation in parliament early this year, partly in response to our legal case, to bolster academic freedom of speech. It is an excellent step in the right direction.
If my case had been fought under this legislation, I would have had a better chance of winning. But it would still have been far from certain. There would still have been a clash between the new legislation and the work agreement.
There needs to be major punishment against universities for infringement of academic freedom of speech, such as fines or losing their accreditation. There needs to be active policing and investigations of the universities to make sure they comply and do not threaten academics with expensive legal action to stop the university’s behaviour becoming public. Universities must be told that they cannot spy on academic’s email communications (this should only be done by the police) or use secrecy directives to silence and intimidate staff. And all this protection for academics MUST be written into the work contracts to put the matter beyond legal doubt.
I am very mindful that I asked for, and received, donations of about $1,500,000 (in two GoFundMe campaigns of around $750k#) for the legal battle – from over 10,000 people. And I lost. Some of those donations were from people who have very slender financial resources. All I can say is that it weighs heavily on my conscience, but I hope they agree that it was still worth the battle.
A last thank you
I would like to express, one last time, my thanks to Stuart Wood AM QC, Ben Jellis, Ben Kidston, Colette Mintz, Mitchell Downes, Amelia Hasson and the rest of the team. They were fabulous. They did everything that was possible.
Thanks also to John Roskam, Gideon Rozner, Evan Mulholland, Morgan Begg and the Institute of Public Affairs. They backed me when things got tough. They are one of the few institutions in the country that will fight on issues of freedom of speech. I’d like to make a special mention of the IPA’s Jennifer Marohasy. She has been a great support over many years and played a crucial role in the critical early days of this fight.
Thanks to the National Tertiary Education Union. They supported the cause in court, even though my views on the Reef may well be opposed to the views of many of their members.
There are many politicians who have gone into bat on my behalf such as Matt Canavan, George Christensen, Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, Gerard Rennick, Malcolm Roberts, Dan Tehan, and Alan Tudge (in alphabetical order). They obviously could not interfere with the legal proceedings, but were instrumental in bringing in the new academic freedom legislation.
There are many journalists and bloggers who helped spread the word, but I would particularly like to thanks Graham Lloyd from The Australian, Jo Nova, and Anthony Watts (WUWT).
There are also many other people, far too many to list, that I am thankful to. They will know who they are.
And finally, thanks to my family, and especially Cheryl.
Links
https://www.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund
https://www.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund-2019
Regardless of your view on the specifics of the Peter Ridd case, there is no doubt in my mind that this ruling will have a chilling effect on academic conduct and scientific progress.
Academics across Australia now know that universities have the legal right to oversee and regulate their public statements, because under Australian law, code of conduct rules now unambiguously have precedence over academic freedom.
There is a federal government bill – the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 – which was specifically introduced and passed in response to the JCU / Peter Ridd case. But James Cook University pursued their case against Peter Ridd anyway. Time will tell if the protections afforded, if the government response to the Peter Ridd case is enough to repair Australia’s reputation and academic environment.
Update (EW): I asked Peter Ridd to comment on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, his response was That legislation will need a major overhaul.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The corruption within all areas of ‘climate’ science is appalling. This result, though bad, will hopefully galvanise the other real scientists and academics to rebel.
It doesn’t seem to. Instead, they quit the scientific societies, thus allowing those organizations to say “all of our members agree…”
If you want to see where we are heading, look at Australia.
Although it won’t be reported as such, this does not change the central issue that the GBR isn’t dying off.
That is the ultimate victory we must all hold onto.
And for JCU, it means committed academics won’t be keen to work there. The question of academic integrity will hang around them like a bad smell.
One can only hope. Unfortunately, “academia” is so polluted with “right think” that they probably see this “judgment” as a “victory” for the “Cause.”
I sort of had a suspicion this would happen based on my own experience in the Australian legal system, especially family law. There is no justice here.
One wonders if The Conversation will discuss this and how badly they’ll treat Prof Ridd if they do.
“One wonders if The Monologue will discuss this and how badly they’ll treat Prof Ridd if they do.”
FIFY
I think the real takeaway point is that the University made a decision to enforce its terms of employment against an employee who was telling the objective truth but failed to do so against employees whose work was less than competent.
In making that decision it was acting from political motives which should have put it in breach of its charter, if there is one.
That’s one more goal for Marxism. Universities in Australia have not been the fortresses of truth that they should be for many years. The convenient lie now rules the roost.
I’m heartsick at this outcome. The poor suffering deluded sods down under are going to have to get worse, perhaps even way worse, before they get better. Enjoy your blackouts and economic collapse, you fools.
It’s high time for an Australian version of Nigel Farage to create an anti-Armageddon, anti-CAGW panic political party that touts efficient, reliable energy, and thus efficient reliable economic growth to give the griffters [sic] of the political far left a more stark message and Aussie voters a more stark choice when it comes to choosing Senators, MPs and judges, not to mention university administrators.
God Bless you Peter Ridd for all the slings and arrows you have suffered for the sake of those of us who feel that CAGW panic is hurting the cause of free inquiry and free speech. If you want to run another GoFundMe and this time just keep the money to make up for lost income due to this unjust and foolish and short-sighted decision, I would donate one more time.
Peter, from a Kiwi, still backing you….Brett Keane
This is sad news indeed.
However my admiration for Dr Ridd is undiminished. He took the fightto the establishment at great personal cost, which was truly heroic.
I am pleased I made small donations to each of the cases and would do so again.
The fight must go on against governments and the establishment generally around the world who are accruing to themselves ever greater powers at the expense of our freedoms.
Paradoxically, sometimes a defeat can have a greater galvanising effect than a win. I hope so in this case.
Just a thought.
If this is about academic freedom of speech vs contractual code of conduct, doesn’t this mean you can still:-
A. Go after someone from a different university.
B. Publish first, forcing alarmists to be the ones to challenge.
A very small but important tactic proposed by Vaclav Havel is to hold authorities accountable to the law’s they create.
A. Not sure if they can’t still twist that as being “non-congenial.”
B. Publish is difficult when the Eco-Nazis are the gatekeepers to being “published.”
Which means he would be forced to publish in a “non-standard” journal, which would just be scoffed at and minimized by those same gatekeepers.
James Cook used his honest (sic) skills to meticulously map lands and name features, islands and coastlines from New Zealand to Hawaii. Cook left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge that influenced his successors well into the 20th century, and universities have been dedicated to his memory.
One of them, JCU, has now brought more than shame upon his name.
This is a sickening decision.
Thank you Dr Ridd for your determination. Morally, this is a win, whose consequences will maybe take time to emerge.
I have contributed as I could to the Go Fund Me campaigns. Peter should feel absolutely nothing on his conscience there – we contributed because we knew the cause was just and necessary. The ultimate failure in law directs our contempt at the law itself, and most particularly at JCU and its greasy defence of its interests.
I would certainly support another round of funding, if this could put Peter and family back where they were financially, before this began. I only speak for myself, of course, but I dare guess that most who have already given would be prepared to give again. Let us know. I am from the UK, if that is useful information.
WHERE ARE THE STUDENTS? From what I remember of being a student (c.1970), this is the kind of issue that would have had us out on the streets, howling down the powers that be, and fighting (or trying to fight, at least; we were naturally a bit naive) for the lone academic and for freedom of speech.
Sadly, “the students” today are the useful idiots that in the main will see this as a “victory” for the “Cause,” being willfully blind to facts, logic and reason whenever they conflict with the ideology they have been indoctrinated with.
Buy a copy of Dr Peter Ridd’s Reef Heresy. It is a brilliant expose of the climate change ™ “science” standards applied to Great Barrier Reef research. No wonder they wanted to silence him.
Thank you. I will.
Thanks for the reminder. Just did (at Barnes & Noble — got free shipping 🙂 ).
Thank you for the reminder. Done!
Ps. don’t buy it from Amazon if you can avoid it. No reason to give Jeff Bezos any percentage.
Is it any wonder that universities in the western world have been able to shut down conservative voices that do not follow the desired narrative?
Australia is now on academic union watch until such time that academic freedom returns there.
Start a new university with real research and academic freedom.
Good luck. See how long the freedom lasts!
Australia has fallen. 🙁
The U.S. has better protections for academic freedom than Australia, free speech protections also.
See my comments about my M.I.T. experience above.
Unfortunately, Ridd never seemed to grasp that “public expectations of how a university should behave” is not the purview of the courts.
Where should he have tried instead, Weakly?
Apart from trying the legal question, of which the answer was fairly obvious to most, there was nothing else to be done, here. Perhaps if Ridd feels the law is unjust he can start campaigning to change the law.
So a belief that universities should respect academic freedom and employment contracts is not something that is supportable?
The university honored the letter of the employment contract, according to the court.
I don’t necessarily agree we are living in 1984…but it sure sounds like we may be in a prequel.
Maybe it all started in Oceania…
Eventually everything that happens in the USA lands on the shores of Australia, maybe 5 or 10 years latter. I’m not a lawyer but I think this decision clearly shows that our High Court is now totally politised just like the Supreme Court in the USA has been for many years. A very sad day for Peter Ridd and Australia. And what is the Federal Government doing? Nothing I’m sure, aka Eric’s last comment here.
JCU has revealed itself as a propaganda farm and does not deserve the title “university”. Whether people believe in a merit-based society or not, nature is unambiguously dedicated to the idea. If society doesn’t fix this it will ultimately be buried under the forces of nature and competition. When you make it your mission to sell useless junk and steal value from those you dominate you will eventually find yourself staring up at your former victims from a position of mortal risk with no means of defence.
It’s not just the death of academic freedom, it’s also the death of contracts.
The courts just ruled that the Academic code of conduct, which the administration can change on a whim, takes precedence over employment contracts.
If they want you gone, they just change to code of conduct, then declare that actions you have taken in the past violate the new policy, and you are gone.
The court decided for Academic Freedom which allows robust debate. Its just that on other minor matters he lost.
I see it as hes lost the battle ( a close one) but won the war for others as the Academic Freedom precedent in the wording will be binding for lower courts throughout Australia
Duker, that sounds like a fanciful dream to me. We all can presume that the high court found the excuse to kill Ridd’s case and posited a piece of bullshit to shut up the noisy minority (in their view).
“We live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science. (1966)” – R Feynman
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” – N Tesla
An opinion column from a Law professor in the sort of left wing Sydney Morning Herald looks in the decision and is surprisingly sympathetic to Dr Ridd
It even suggest that had the case been argued differently or that Dr Ridd hadnt breached the confidentiality of the disciplinary hearing he could have won.
It seems that The Court loved the ‘principle of academic freedom’ but in this case decided it on minor and inconsequential items
Hopefully the precedent on Academic freedom which allows for ‘robust debate’ over the science will be of more use for others.
Thanks go to Dr Ridd for taking on the challenge to go all the way.