Academic freedom is supposed to be sacrosanct at universities. However, the Voice referendum has exposed it as a sham. Universities and their leadership teams vocally and assertively support the Voice. This creates a fear, even if it is accidental, that holding an opposing opinion is a career risk. In turn, this chills debate that would otherwise happen on policy issues. This phenomenon falsely makes it look like ‘experts’ in the academic class universally support the Voice when many actually intend to vote ‘no’.
All major universities have decided to support the Voice. This is despite it being a contentious, partisan issue. It is also despite the majority – or at least a sizeable minority – of Australians indicating they intend to vote ‘no’.
UNSW was one of the first to endorse the Voice. This is unsurprising, given that key voice proponents occupy senior leadership positions. Megan Davis was also the co-chair of the Uluru Dialogues and has stated that silence is political. Other universities have followed suit including Monash University, the University of Sydney, and University of Melbourne.
Some universities came out in support the Voice before the debate had properly begun. This is odd. One would think that universities would encourage well-informed decision making after hearing all sides of the argument, not before.
There are myriad contentious issues with the Voice. Ordinarily, academics would analyze these in an open and impartial way. At least that is the hope. Debates rage over whether the Voice’s breadth and powers are appropriate, the impact it will have on government decision making, and whether it will lead to treaty and reparations. Perhaps even more than other institutions, academics are supposed to be able to explore and debate these issues. It is anathema to intellectual and academic freedom to display signs of group think.
In my view, academics are encouraged to support the Voice while, conversely, many feel as if they should remain quiet if they do not support the Voice. In a world of heightened cancel culture, those who intend to vote ‘no’ may feel concerned about their careers. They might have mortgages or families and simply do not feel free to express themselves.
This means we tend to hear only one side of the argument from universities, which are supposed to be bastions of intellectual freedom and exploration. It means that students are indirectly left with the perception that their educators hold a united view: when they only hear one side of the debate, they would plausibly come to believe that is the correct side.
Universities have thus abandoned one of their core purposes: open and respectful discussion that encourages free speech, especially on political matters. By leaving Australians worse informed, universities undermine one of their reasons for being.
Universities would do well to stay out of political issues unless they directly impact their business. Societal trust in universities is declining. One reason might be that universities are regarded as out of touch, condescending, or dismissive. Silencing ‘wrong think’ only exacerbates this issue.
