An academic who
doesn’t have the ability
to challenge the research
findings of colleagues
doesn’t have intellectual
freedom.
Academics have been fired
for asking uncomfortable
questions about climate
change "research".
In Australia, that happened
to Peter Ridd, who is still
fighting for his freedom
of speech on climate change.
James Cook University
vs
Peter Vincent Ridd,
has significance for the
future of Australia’s
universities and
scientific institutions.
It will determine whether
universities have the ability
to censor opinions that
threaten their sources
of funding.
It is one of the most important
cases for intellectual freedom
in the history of Australian
jurisprudence.
The Ridd case attracted
significant attention worldwide,
because It confirms what
many people have suspected
for a long time:
Australia’s universities
do not promote intellectual
freedom and the scientific
method in pursuit of truth.
Instead, they rigidly enforce
an unquestioning orthodoxy,
and are capable of firing
anyone who strays outside
their rigid groupthink.
JCU is attempting to severely
limit the intellectual freedom
of a professor working
at the university to question
the quality of scientific research
conducted by other academics
at the institution.
It is a consequence of
universities seeking
taxpayer-funded
research grants,
not truth.
Taxpayers are funding
JCU’s court case.
Following a Freedom
of Information request
by the Institute of Public
Affairs, the university
was forced to reveal
that up until July 2019,
it had already spent
$630,000 in legal fees.
The barrister who JCU
employed in the Federal Court
recently was Bret Walker SC,
one of Australia’s most eminent
lawyers.
Barristers of his standing
can command fees
of $20,000 a day.
At the same time,
the vice-chancellor
of the university,
Sandra Harding —
who earns at least
$975,000 a year ,
complains about the
impact of government
funding cuts.
Ridd’s legal costs are
paid for by him, his wife
and voluntary donations
from the public.
As yet, neither the federal
nor the Queensland Education
Minister has publicly commented
on whether JCU is appropriately
spending taxpayers’ money.
Ridd describes himself
as a “luke-warmist”.
“I think carbon dioxide
will have a small effect
on the Earth’s temperature,”
he told an IPA podcast
recently.
“But it won’t be dangerous.”
He has been studying
the Great Barrier Reef
since the early 1980s
and was even, at one point,
president of his local chapter
of the Wildlife Preservation
Society.
But Ridd is skeptical about
the conventional wisdom
that the Great Barrier Reef
is dying because of
climate change
“I don’t think the reef
is in any particular trouble
at all,” he says.
“In fact, I think it’s probably
one of the best protected
ecosystems in the world
'and virtually pristine.”
The university claims to be
a leading institution for
reef science, and has
several joint ventures with
taxpayer-funded bodies
such as the Australian
Research Council Centre
for Excellence in Coral
Reef Studies.
Ridd challenged his firing
in the Federal Circuit Court
on the basis
that the university’s
enterprise agreement
(which determined his
employment conditions)
specifically guaranteed
his right to “pursue critical
and open inquiry”,
“express unpopular
or controversial views”,
and even
"express opinions about
the operations of JCU
and higher education
policy more generally”.
In September 2019,
Ridd won his case.
The court found
he had been
unlawfully sacked
and he was awarded
$1.2m in damages
and compensation
for lost earnings.
The current case in the
Federal Court is an appeal
by JCU against that decision.
At issue:
Whether the inte
llectual freedom
clauses in the
enterprise agreement
covering JCU staff
protected his criticism
of quality assurance
issues in reef science
at the university.
The university alleges
that in going public
with his concerns
that organizations
such as
the ARC Centre
“cannot be trusted”
on reef science,
Ridd committed
several breaches
of the university’s
staff code of conduct.
He failed to act
“collegiately”,
and to
"uphold the integrity
and good reputation
of the university”.
Apparently,
in Australia,
intellectual
freedom,
and the
scientific method
in pursuit of truth,
only apply
when you agree
with the majority !