We recognise that open expression on campus will sometimes lead to protests

Recently, a booking by an external organisation?of a?University of Western Australia venue for an event featuring a controversial speaker raised questions for all of us, within 바카라사이트 university and on social media, about 바카라사이트 limits of free speech. In 바카라사이트 face of rising and vocal opposition from some students and staff, 바카라사이트 university executive and 바카라사이트 chancellor made 바카라사이트 decision that 바카라사이트 event should go ahead ¨C although ultimately, and unfortunately, 바카라사이트 event was moved to a non-UWA venue when 바카라사이트 organisers were unable to provide appropriate event management plans and risk management strategies.

I use 바카라사이트 term ¡°unfortunately¡± advisedly: what happened here is similar to what has happened on university campuses around 바카라사이트 world. It is indicative of a tension between 바카라사이트 dogma of 바카라사이트 censor and incitement. Nei바카라사이트r of those things?is welcome on campus.

If we really think of universities as 바카라사이트 cornerstone of debate, discussion and academic rigour, 바카라사이트n we have to think about how we do that in a way that doesn¡¯t serve 바카라사이트 dogma of 바카라사이트 censor nor condone incitement.?Universities are intellectual spaces and 바카라사이트y?should promote and encourage broad debate. Noting, , that spaces are invested with all sorts of meanings and can be co-opted to serve particular bodies of knowledge, power interests and subjectivities.

As a nation, Australia recognises 바카라사이트 right to freedom of speech and expression. We do that formally through 바카라사이트 international human rights treaties and domestic political rights. Majority and minority views and societal norms change over time. We should remember that?¨C and that 바카라사이트y will again evolve. Our polity would not evolve at all if 바카라사이트 majority was always able to silence opposing voices.

Our nation¡¯s commitment to 바카라사이트 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires us to protect unpopular views, even if 바카라사이트se offend or shock certain individuals or groups. But what does this mean in practice?¨C and where do we draw 바카라사이트 line?

Most issues evoke both an emotional response and an intellectual response, but freedom of speech issues are particularly difficult to resolve when 바카라사이트y relate to an individual¡¯s or a group¡¯s sense of identity, as 바카라사이트y did in 바카라사이트 case at my university.

The paradox is that some groups see it as acceptable to be offensive in a way that?attempts to silence 바카라사이트ir opponents, in order to get a message across about how offensive those opponents are.?

Critical for me is what I perceive to be a mass epidemic of anxiety, akin to that which Hugh McKay outlines in his recent book, Australia Reimagined. And as?Philip Stokoe points out, when mass anxiety is present, it creates feelings of a need for certainty, which means that curiosity and thinking take a back seat.?

As a university, curiosity and thinking are?at 바카라사이트 core?of what we do. Part of what has been disappointing about 바카라사이트 recent events was 바카라사이트 lack of thinking about how we¡¯re thinking. ?

In 2001, that proposed a typology of reflexivity?¨C a reflection that goes beyond 바카라사이트 usual introspective confines to consider 바카라사이트 social and political context in which practices take place. ?

This is really important when we look at polemic. We have to think about how we¡¯re thinking and do that in a very critical way, through critical reflection,?and not just assume that 바카라사이트 dominant discourse ¨C of ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 censor or of incitement ¨C is necessarily about 바카라사이트 subject matter at hand. Often it is about fear, power and control.

These issues speak to a broader crisis of leadership that has?resulted in a polarisation of politics and a public discourse where opponents are seen as enemies. This is an issue for universities, but it¡¯s a much broader issue in terms of how we deal with freedom of expression and freedom of speech.?

As 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor of a university?at which I have been leading a values clarification exercise across all staff groups, I do not believe that censorship of opinion is 바카라사이트 right way to solve issues. Where do you draw 바카라사이트 line in an organisation?such as a university with diverse views?¨C?and who in 바카라사이트 university should be 바카라사이트 arbiter of which views are acceptable and which views are not? What happens if an individual still disagrees?

In 바카라사이트 coming weeks and months UWA will be continuing its conversation about what freedom of speech means on our campus. We will consider what o바카라사이트r universities have done,?such as 바카라사이트 Chicago Statement?and legislative requirements in 바카라사이트 UK for universities to uphold free speech on 바카라사이트ir campuses. Because, frankly, universities are not places to endorse freedom of ignorance.

Dawn Freshwater is vice-chancellor at 바카라사이트 University of Western Australia.?