ACADEMIC FREEDOM is one of those “public goods” that most people seldom question. Even in New Zealand, a country not especially hospitable to intellectuals of any sort, academics are seldom identified as persons in need of official restraint. New Zealanders prefer to joke about the otherworldliness and impracticality of academic research – especially in the social sciences and liberal arts. That is to say, they used to joke about it. Over the last few years academics have given ordinary New Zealanders small cause for laughter.
Indeed, it has become increasingly clear to the Free Speech Union, along with many other advocates of freedom of expression, that the place where academic freedom is most at risk is, paradoxically, academia itself.
The banning of Don Brash from the Palmerston North campus of Massey University – by no lesser person than the Vice-Chancellor herself – was one of the most dramatic early examples. There have been many others. Not the least of these was the initial failure of the University of Auckland to defend the seven members of its own academic staff who dared to declare, on the pages of The NZ Listener, that Mātaurānga Māori was not Science.
While paying lip-service to the principle of academic freedom, New Zealand’s university authorities have begun to hedge it around with all manner of restrictions. The pursuit of research subjects and/or the articulation of ideas capable of inflicting “harm” on other staff and students has become decidedly “career-limiting”
To discover exactly how pervasive this revisionist approach to academic freedom has become, and to identify how many academics still uphold freedom of expression, the Free Speech Union commissioned Curia Research to survey a representative cross section of the New Zealand academic community. That survey is ongoing, but one of the responses received was so startling that the FSU posted it on its website.
This is what it said:
Tēnā koe,
Please remove me from your e-mail list.
Freedom is an archaic feudal principal (sic) employed by colonial capitalism to advance the upward mobility of the few and maintain the status quo, and I do not subscribe to it.
It is important to bear in mind that the person who wrote this is a member of the academic staff of a New Zealand university. Someone bound by the terms of their employment to uphold the highest standards of scholarship. Someone who is almost certainly lecturing to and/or tutoring young New Zealanders. Someone who, by their own admission, does not subscribe to the principle of freedom.
Disturbing.
Let us begin by unpacking the anonymous respondent’s declaration.
The first observation to make is that the his/her understanding of both European and New Zealand history is entirely untethered from reality. To begin with, feudalism was not based upon the idea of freedom, but of reciprocity.
In the fiercely hierarchical societies of the medieval period even those at the summit of the social pyramid owed a duty of care and protection to those whose status was inferior to their own. Those at the bottom, far from being free, were legally tied to their lord’s land. Male dependents of the lord were also expected to fight for him when required to do so.
What the serfs (as these dependents were called) received in return was access to the sustenance that the lord’s land provided, as well as military and legal protection against those seeking to harm them. In certain rare circumstances a serf might be released from his obligations, thereby becoming a “freed” man. With nobody now obligated to care for him, however, such a person faced a difficult future. Unless he was especially gifted, a freed man would hasten to “bind” himself to another lord or master.
Clearly, feudalism and freedom are not concepts one usually finds grouped together – quite the reverse in fact. What about “colonial capitalism”? Is it legitimate to associate the capitalist economic system with feudalism and freedom?
Not really.
Historically speaking, capitalism is the economic system that dissolved feudalism, along with the aristocratic political system it sustained. Rather than a society founded upon hierarchy and mutual obligation, capitalism gave rise to a society based upon the freedom of the individual to enter into contracts with other individuals – for money. If you were inventive, clever, or just plain lucky, these contracts could make you rich. If you had nothing to offer but your unskilled labour, then the contracts entered into generally offered little more than the barest subsistence.
In the context of New Zealand’s colonisation, however, a persistent shortage of skilled – and unskilled – labour offered working-class colonists a considerably better existence than the one they were escaping on the immigrant ships. At least initially, it wasn’t freedom that underpinned the growth of the colony, but the prospect of a more prosperous and open-ended life – which emigration to New Zealand promised.
New Zealanders’ interest in political freedom grew out of the failure of the colony’s rulers to ensure that opportunity and prosperity remained a realistic prospect for the ordinary colonist. A large part of that failure was attributable to the difficulty encountered by the colonial authorities in acquiring sufficient land from the Māori to keep the New Zealand enterprise going.
It was precisely the freedom to contract, or not to contract, with the Crown in respect to the sale of land – a freedom guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi – and exercised vigorously (to the consternation and rising fury of the settler government) by the Kingitanga and its allies, that caused the British Crown to make war upon the Māori.
If anyone was defending freedom in 1860s New Zealand it was the tangata whenua.
In making war upon the Māori, the colonial capitalists and their servants in the colonial legislature were not defending the status quo, they were tearing it – and the Treaty of Waitangi – to pieces. Their legal justification for seizing Māori land had nothing to do with the laws of capitalist enterprise, but to archaic English laws pertaining to rebellion against the Crown. Feudal laws.
What’s more, the seizure of Māori land did not advance the upward mobility of wealthy capitalists alone. Thousands of Pakeha colonists benefitted from the parcelling-out of the territories seized, mostly in the form of leased small-holdings – later translated into freehold farms. It was the Pakeha many who prospered, and the Māori few who were dispossessed.
It is hard to see how this great wrong can ever be righted in an Aotearoa-New Zealand where freedom has no subscribers among the tangata whenua. Harder still to see such a rectification being accomplished where the research and intellectual labour needed to convince a majority of New Zealanders that change is necessary is not rigorously monitored, or the fierce debates it sparks given the freest rein. Academic freedom must amount to more than protecting ignorance and sanctioning disinformation.
The simple truth of the matter is that freedom is always and everywhere indivisible. Suppress it in our universities and its suppression elsewhere will soon follow. Those who do not subscribe to freedom have no place in our halls of learning – or anywhere else enlightened human values are cherished.
You will also find a distain of history coming from the same source. Even where history supports their world view. A kind of ‘I reject your reality and substitute my own’, sort of approach. It makes any sort of discussion or compromise impossible and hardens attitudes on both sides.
Yep Alan, well put.
It was a lot easier for the Identity Politics cult to infiltrate and purge the Humanities and “soft sciences” back in the 80s and 90s with their pseudo intellectual Marxist gibberish. But 30yrs later they nearly have total control of the hard sciences too. A few hold outs left like that Auckland Uni science dept. gun fight where a handful of mostly old skool white male scientists are making one last heroic stand.
Academia needs a thorough flush out. There are entire faculties that are fraudulent these days.
Did you see this?
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2022/03/you_tuber_gets_rave_review_for_fake_paper_from_fake_person_at_massey_university_conference.html
Yes Andrew, that Fat Studies debacle is illustrative of the gullibility of the critical theory (most definitely not to be confused with critical thinking) adherents generally.
Some of the more famous exposés, piss takes really, of the “Emperor’s new clothes” has been the Sokal hoax and, more recently Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian with their so called Sokal squared. Though the revelation that our institutions of (what used to be called) higher learning are batshit crazy won’t come as a complete surprise to many, their pernicious influence on young minds should be a cause for concern. You know things are pretty far gone when the idea that physical reality itself is a “social construct” is being promoted a swallowed whole by these fools.
Sokal sets out his reasons for faith in science: “there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in eternal physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the objective procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the scientific method.
Sokal went on to “disprove” his credo in fashionable jargon. “Feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ‘objectivity,’” he claimed. “It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality,’ no less than social ‘reality,’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
It’s been removed
I would hazard an educated guess that this is not an uncommon view in academia, including NZ. Even the NY Times Editorial (hardly a bastion of anti-woke) is recognising this. It’s bad, real bad, and destroying cherished traditions that everyone in society benefits from.
But the concern coming from Chris Trotter is beyond hypocrisy. This is the man who cheered on those hypochondriac, Safetyism-is-my-religion Left-wingers as they yelled “freedumb, more like” with pitchforks from their influential social and mainstream media caccoon. The man who wished the “lumpenproletariat” who should be squashed because their vision of freedom (which ultimately equalled simply having fundamental rights returned – that’s actually all that was ultimately asked; hardly a radical proposition and a month later, now partly Government policy as of 4 April) didn’t suit his nose.
Freedom, and freedom of speech, is the antithesis of everything this Government and virtually every social and cultural institution (including universities) now stand for.
Forgive me if I laugh my ass off the chair right now as Labour-apologist Trotter comes with his “see here young man” concern now for freedom.
Another cracker Chris
“Freedom is an archaic feudal principal (sic) employed by colonial capitalism to advance the upward mobility of the few and maintain the status quo, and I do not subscribe to it”.
Freedom in the general sense? Academic freedom in sense of ‘freedom of expression’? Are they the same? It seems to me that the author of the statement simply has an axe to grind but given deconstruction of the key premises clearly doesn’t think it through.
When I think of academic freedom, or for that matter, freedom of expression, what comes to mind is the role of the university as critic and conscience of society, something that is I believe enshrined in some Education Act. What this entails is an environment that encourages creativity, radical ideas and criticism of the status quo.
I guess what this unknown academic is trying to express is just that, but is blinded by a combination of their own ideological beliefs and uncertainty of the provenance of key terms. Language does matter. Ironic really, coming from an academic (although to be fair not all academics are language specialists). And in recent times there are of course all sorts employed in the ivory towers of learning, from those long abandoning the lectern for senior management roles, to contract researchers who have no particular interest in education per se, to a precarious workforce made up of postgraduate students and casualised part-timers? These days never quite know who’s on the receiving end of an email survey.
This is symptomatic of the slow moving cultural revolution of the Critical Theorists that has been gradually moving through and coming to dominate in western academia, progressive activism, the cultural left and now the civil service, government, business and public discourse via ‘woke’ politics especially in the anglophone world.
The particular flavour of CT relativism, historical inaccuracy combined with moral superiority, expressed by the anonymous respondent is likely to be from ‘Post-Colonial Studies’ but there are other flavours (Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Gender Critical Feminism etc).
Herbert Marcuse’s ‘Repressive Tolerance’ is a point of reference to understand where this comes from and to get a sense of how it moves through institutions, this article discusses what is coming down the pipe in the US legal system.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system
You make it sound likes its a bad thing.
Quite frankly we need to purge all religious conservatism and white supramacey from civil society and all people to live how they want to live.
You posting a link to Bari Weiss’s substack page is evidence to me that you are on the site of reactionary Pentecostal Christian dominionism and intend to impose Old Testament law at gunpoint.
That makes you an enemy of humanity.
Hi Milsy, I thought I’d engage with your deeply substantive, insightful and above all logically constructed comment. However as it must be hard feeling so resentful and angry all the time I won’t stir the bile pot. Take a walk, enjoy the sunshine, find a hobby. pottery or the flute is relaxing, go on a date with someone who makes you smile try to make them happy too (Barry White may help).
Remember to breathe.
*** THE BEST OF MILSY RANT SCRIPTS ***
[person(s) I disagree with] is/are racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic old Testament supporting Christians who oppose tax, high wages, unions, welfare and public services.
[person(s) I disagree with] have/has no place in the ‘working class’
[person(s) I disagree with] are a religious Trump supporter who thinks LGBT’s should be banned and women should be relegated to being baby machine.
[person(s) I disagree with] supported George Floyd’s execution at the hand of racist cops.
Why dont you just admit you support police brutality and the percecution of LGBT’s?
What is ‘freedom’ anyway? Too many people think its the “freedom” to impose Christian sharia biblical law on others. Rather like elements of the anti-vax movement.
You posting a link to Bari Weiss’s substack page is evidence to me that you are on the site of reactionary Pentecostal Christian dominionism and intend to impose Old Testament law at gunpoint.
That makes you an enemy of humanity.
*** THANK YOU FOR FLYING MILSY-BOT ***
Jeez Tui, you put all that effort into finding all my posts. Or, copying and pasting when you read them.
At least you recognise your own work, that’s a start.
“…and all people to live how they want to live.”
But you dont practice that nillsy. If a person or group wants to start a club that does not allow individuals who believe there are 83 gender identities to join you will not let them do that. In fact you will try and destroy their lives.
“enemy of humanity” – seriously? Talk about psychological projection.
@MR This is fairly normal, there is the ‘Iron law of Woke projection’.
The way they characterise individuals and society is exactly what they embody in themselves and bring into being.
Religious Conservatism is the only way out of this mess.
Is it possible that the writer was trying to imply that colonial capitalist ‘freedom’ is far from this for indigenous and other oppressed minorities. Further, the wonder that we dote on, democracy, is again flawed if you are not part of the majority.
Many wish to be ground breaking avant-garde, to discover the next missing link, to go down in the history books. Motivated by fame and prestige, with truth being the first casualty of war. Many also wish to just be controversial, stirrers, to be acknowledged by the herd of other academics. A loud baaaaaa emits from the flock.
Many times science is weaponised by high priests to steer society in economic and social ways for the benefit of the ruling classes and also altruistic reasons such as global warming.
Take evolution for example: Reducing Africans to sub human allows others to use them in ways that most others would find abhorrent if Africans had the same evolutionary status as white people. Yes, evolution did consider blacks to be closer to apes than whites.
Most A-lister rock star type academics are tools for steering public opinion. And have notoriety not for academic ability, but for the people and ends they serve.
Positive change happens slowly. Take for example the germ theory medical guy who was ridiculed and died young from frustration. It was only 50 years later that his work regarding surgeon hygiene during operations was accepted as fact.
And today we have the same situation in most areas of thought.
Thought crime has been with us since the beginning of time, and the bible speaks widely of guarding ones speech least one is killed for speaking truth.
Metaphysically, if the world was run totally on truth, then peoples immunity to deception would weaken due to lack of exposure. The whole god/satan axis like the yin yang symbol keeps the world is balance.
If all dropped their guards due to a paradise society totally free of deception and non truth, a lie would be like a virus and like little open minded babies it gets absorbed into the psyche due to lack of exposure to harmful thought. Learned discernment needs bullshit.
The peaceful harmonious nation suffers invasion from the barbarian hordes, as they are unversed and unpractised in the ways of deceivers and bad people.
In the same way, a vaccine or inoculation serves to bolster and guard against dis-ease. Fiction and theatre are like inoculations for thought cancer. However a day should come when a warrior class is employed by the king to protect the flock of worker bees from wolves…. oh wait…A good shepherd protects his flock from wolves, but only to eat them later on.
However I digress.
The great reset will ask many questions of academia. But if we continue to still harm others due to ignorance or financial gain, the reset will only be partial, and society may revert to kind due to lack of momentum. Boost boost boost
Gene therapy for the true benefit of humanity is best achieved thru thought inducing the needed MRNA changes.
Bypassing the mind and its effects on MRNA and subsequently DNA, will not yield the same results as an injection. An injection to the mind will serve humanity much more holistically and properly, with reduced unwanted side effects and lasting results.
All disease begins in the mind, including the collective mind of humanity. A vaccine is like the tail wagging the dog.
Yes there’s nothing like the freedom of the majority to rip the minority off.
There is still far too much Settler mentality in this Country, especially from the Right.
To employ the mediaeval spelling, no doubt, phuque me! Plus I would have thought that a modern academic of all people would know that principal was a non-gendered term for headmaster or headmistress, regardless of their principles.
prince + pal
What is ‘freedom’ anyway? Too many people think its the “freedom” to impose Christian sharia biblical law on others. Rather like elements of the anti-vax movement.
Hence the ideal of universalism. You do realised that a hyper-slacktivist persona is not going to help you get laid?
Agree Chris, especially as, as you point out, it effectively shuts out the dialogue on what needs to be discussed fulsomely and consensus sought.
I have a friend at Vic who has been there 15 years in lower/middle management and we have had this convo. Effectively she said its always been the same, every year there are new protocols and cultural add ons and social mores. Such that after a few years, you forget to even question it or think about what it all means. You know its BS but you do what you’re told and go with the flow because that is how you survive.
People are so inured that they dont see the ridiculousness around them. So what do you do with that? How do you practically unpick it? Especially when its happening right around the world.
That Anonymous reponse gives every indication that someone has just had their value system challanged. There is no point talking to them in academic terms about the definition of ‘fuedal’ because they used it for emotional purposes to express their feeling that they had just come across something barbaric.
It’s partciularly worrying that this is an attitide toward the concept of ‘freedom’ – although I have to admit it’s a term that has been much abused by the US
‘Historically speaking, capitalism is the economic system that dissolved feudalism, along with the aristocratic political system it sustained. Rather than a society founded upon hierarchy and mutual obligation, capitalism gave rise to a society based upon the freedom of the individual to enter into contracts with other individuals – for money’
Except if you ask yourself what is ‘money’ ,where does it come from and who allocates it,you must conclude all the ruling class have done, is change the window dressing of ….Feudalism.
Comments are closed.