Tuesday, October 13, 2020



'We may slip sometimes': Western Australia university leaders talk free speech after whistleblower saga

The leader of a Perth university which sued a whistleblower for speaking out about questionable international student intake practices says “we may slip sometimes” but freedom of information was taken very seriously.

WA university vice chancellors were questioned in September about transparency and freedom of speech policies at a Committee for Economic Development Australia panel where Murdoch vice chancellor Professor Eeva Leinonen said she “absolutely” believed in academic freedom and freedom of speech.

It comes about three months after Murdoch withdrew all its legal claims against Associate Professor Gerd Schröder-Turk who blew the whistle over “moral concerns” about international student recruitment practices at the WA university in ABC’s Four Corners segment titled ‘Cash Cows’ in May 2019.

The university refuted Mr Schröder-Turk's claims and later sued the mathematics academic for what could potentially have been millions of dollars.

In June, Dr Schröder-Turk said he and the university had decided to drop all legal claims against each other as part of an agreed resolution.

Associate Professor Schröder-Turk had been supported by more than 50 Laureate professors around the country, who signed an open letter calling for the university to drop its case against him months before the institution did.

At the CEDA event, Professor Leinonen said universities had academic freedom and freedom of speech constrained in their policies, strategies and enterprise agreements.

“We also have a national model code for freedom of speech and academic freedom that universities are currently considering whether to adopt or adapt that code and that is a requirement by the current government that we consider that code,” she said.

“So we are taking it very seriously and, you know, we may slip sometimes, but it actually is not intentional. We absolutely believe in academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

Incorrect logic

Scotland Yard has vowed to continue its investigation of a Brexit blogger yesterday – despite facing a freedom of speech backlash.

It refused to back down amid fury from politicians and free speech campaigners at the decision to probe Darren Grimes for allegedly stirring up racial hatred in an interview with historian David Starkey.

During the interview, shared on Mr Grimes's YouTube channel, Dr Starkey said 'slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain, would there?'

The incendiary remark led to a police investigation of Dr Starkey, 75.

But it has now emerged that Mr Grimes has been asked to attend a police interview under caution to respond to accusations of stirring up racial hatred, an offence which carries a potential penalty of seven years in prison.

The 27-year-old Tory blogger, who came to prominence as a pro-Brexit campaigner, admitted he should have 'robustly questioned' the historian about his comments, but said the decision to investigate him raises 'serious repercussions for freedom of expression'.

Home Secretary Priti Patel yesterday tweeted: 'Decisions of the police to investigate particular cases are clearly an operational matter... but as a general principle, it's important the law protects freedom of speech.'

Former Home Secretary Sajid Javid wrote on Twitter: 'David Starkey's comments were appalling. But, the idea that it's appropriate to go after journalists for the remarks of their interviewees is plainly absurd. For the sake of our cherished free press, I hope the Metropolitan Police reconsider.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8829569/Police-spark-freedom-speech-outcry-investigation-Darren-Grimes.html

1 comment:

Stan B said...

Black Slavery was NOT Genocidal - although he could have chosen his "proof" more tactfully.

"Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part."

There was no widespread attempt to destroy the black race during Slavery, and no amount of historical revision could possibly paint such a picture with any credibility. If anything, Black populations where slavery was practiced increased during the time black slavery was in effect.

It's a shame that a man can be investigated for telling the truth, and someone else gets in trouble for not confronting him for telling the truth.