Academic freedom is an ancient principle strongly protected in the great university systems of the world. The basic idea is that research and teaching flourish when researchers are allowed maximum freedom to pursue their research as they think best.
That is not to say that research is a free-for-all. On the contrary,research is disciplined by academic methods as well as ethical and other norms. But the basic point is that the quality of research and the correctness of claims made by researchers are matters for the academic community. In other words,it is for researchers to determine what is good research and not governments,university leaders or anyone else.
From this perspective,the history of the Ridd case was dispiriting. Ridd was sanctioned and eventually terminated for criticisms he made of colleagues during scientific dispute about the effect of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef,a matter on which he holds unorthodox views. The dispute was highly personal and unpleasant,but it was,at bottom,a disputebetween scientists about science.
The decision of the Full Federal Court (from which Ridd appealed to the High Court) was particularly dispiriting. That Court had decided that the principles of academic freedom - which it thought to be unhelpfully vague - were not relevant to the rights and wrong of this dispute. Even more worryingly,Ridd was found to have violated an obligation in his university’s Code of Conduct to treat others with ‘honesty,respect and courtesy’,a requirement at odds with the central principles of academic freedom.
The last point is very important. Many workplaces make such demands of their staff. But in universities they are dangerous,at least if applied to academic discourse. Academic freedom requires that researchers should be free to disagree with each other vigorously and even in ways that would be disrespectful in other contexts and academics will often unsettle and even offend their colleagues.
It may be necessary to point out that another academic’s research is fundamentally misconceived,sloppy,disingenuous or even fraudulent. There are obvious limits to scholarly discourse,including bullying,harassment and defamation,but objective (and responsibility) of universities to advance knowledge demands an openness to challenge that goes beyond that of an ordinary workplace.