Academic Freedom Survey 2023

INTRODUCTION

Lastyear,theFreeSpeechUnion,withCuriaResearch,ranitsfrstsurveyofacademic freedominNewZealand.Thisyear wehaverepeatedthesurveyandnowpresent thefndingsofthatresearch,alongwithourviewsonwhatwebelieveittells usandwhatneedstobedone.ThisdatahascomefromacademicswithinKiwiuniversities,commentingontheacademic freedomtheyfeeltheyhavewithintheirowninstitution.

TheFreeSpeechUnion’smissionis:tofghtfor,protect,andexpandNewZealanders’rightstofreedomofspeech,of conscience,andofintellectualinquiry.Weenvision afourishingNewZealandcivilsocietythatvaluesandprotectsvigorousdebate, dissentingideas,andfreedomofspeech asculturalcornerstones.

Academicfreedomandfreespeecharenotthesamethingbuttheyarecloselyrelated. FromtheearlydaysoftheFree SpeechUnion,weidentifedtheacademicsphereas akeyarenainthefghtforfreespeech.Withoutfreedomtodo research,toadvance knowledge,ortheabilityofbothstaffandstudentstospeakoutontheissuesfacingoursociety,we areallworseoff.Weallrelyonacademicsandstudentstopushpublic discussionforward,toworktomaintaintheopenmindednessofoursociety,andto preventusfromsuccumbingtoourfearoftheunknownandpreferenceforthefamiliar.

TheEducationAct1989outlinestheroleoftheuniversityas,amongotherthings,acriticandconscienceofsociety. Likewise,theEducationandTrainingAct2020notes thatacademicfreedommeans,amongotherthings:‘thefreedomof academicstaff andstudents,withinthelaw,toquestionandtestreceivedwisdom,toputforwardnewideas,andtostate controversialorunpopularopinions’.Thisreportraisesserious questionsaboutwhetheratleastsomeaspectsoftheNew Zealandstatutorydefnition ofacademicfreedomarebeingmet.Ifcorrect,thisisafailureofthetertiaryeducationsector. Moreover,itisafailureoftheoversightofthelegislativeframeworkthatregulates thetertiaryeducationsector,asthese failureshavenoapparentconsequencesforthosewhoaresupposedtolead.

Theconsequencesare,instead,long-termandbornebyKiwiacademics,their students,andNewZealandsociety whichtruststheacademytooperatewithout fearorfavour.Webelieveactionmustbetakentoaddressthis.

PotentialLimitations

ThepreferenceoftheFreeSpeechUnionwastohavethissurveydoneco-operativelybetweentheFSUandNZ universities.However,nouniversitywaspreparedtosurveytheirownstaffonhowsatisfedtheyarewithacademic freedomattheirinstitution.

Theeightuniversitywebsiteswerescrapedfore-mailaddressesofacademicstaff.16,000addresseswereidentifed,and thesurveywassenttothoseaddresses.Unfortunately,weestimateapproximately40%oftheacademicsweidentifed werenotcontactedwiththesurvey,astheinvitationwasblockedbyflteringsoftware.ThesurveywassentbytheFSU. DifferentacademicswillhavedifferentviewsontheFSU,andthismayhaveimpacteddecisionsonwhetherornotto completethesurvey.

Atotalof452academicsrespondedtothesurvey.Outofthe16,000e-mailaddressesitwassentto,thisisaresponse rateof2.8%.AsthereisnooveralldemographicprofleavailableofNewZealandacademicsatuniversities,the responsescouldnotbeweightedtocompensateforanydifferencesbetweenrespondentsandthetargetpopulation.

The4.5%marginoferrorshouldonlybetreatedasanindicativemarginoferror.Itdoesnottakeintoaccountpotential non-responsebiasandpossibleblockingofthesurveybyuniversitye-mailsoftware.Forthesereasons,theseresults shouldnotbetreatedasnecessarilyrepresentingtheviewsofallacademicsinNZuniversities.Theyaretheviewsof thosewhoresponded.

Thelong-standingpreferenceoftheFSUremainsthatfuturesurveyseitherbedonebytheuniversitiesthemselvesor failingthat,bytheTertiaryEducationCommission.ItshouldnotfalltooutsidegroupsliketheFSUtotryandascertainif statutoryrequirementsaroundacademicfreedomarebeinghonoured.

WHAT THIS RESEARCH TELLS US

Our research repeated the questions from last year’s survey, and added in some new questions to give academics a chance to tell us about their experiences of academic freedom in their own words.

The results show that academics felt they had more freedom in some areas than others - engaging in research of their choice (74% agreed) or regulating the subject matter of their courses (65%) were rated the highest. There was far less agreement, however, that people felt free to raise di ering perspectives with colleagues (52%) or to state controversial or unpopular opinions (43%).

When asked about how comfortable they felt discussing certain topics in their institution, over one-third said they didn’t feel comfortable discussing religion (63% were comfortable), half were not comfortable discussing sex and gender (50%), and over half were not comfortable discussing race (45% were comfortable). Only 41% said they felt comfortable discussing the Treaty of Waitangi/colonisation. These results are broken down further in the attached report.

On all metrics, people said they felt less free than in last year’s survey. It should be noted that the scales and questions were slightly di erent so we cannot say for sure how comparable the results are. Nor would we necessarily expect ratings of 100% on every question. Nevertheless, these results are concerning.

The analysis of the open-ended questions provided further insights into people’s experiences of academic freedom, free speech, and views about some of the factors a ecting it. Over half of the respondents provided comments. While those who felt less free were more likely to provide examples, and the results are therefore not necessarily representative of all respondents, some clear themes emerged.

Foremost amongst these themes, is what can only be described as a climate of fear in academic settings. Multiple respondents told us about their fear of speaking up on certain topics, the penalties they felt would result in terms of job loss or barriers to promotion if they did, and their constant self-censorship. Even filling in this survey was perceived as risky by some.

A number of people elaborated on how free they felt to do research of their choice. While this was rated relatively high in the survey, many people qualified this by highlighting that doing research is dependent on getting research funding. While they are technically free to do their own research, it is funders who ultimately determine what research gets done.

The comments about which topics are seen as “o limits” mirrored the results in the main survey, with only a few people mentioning topics not asked about (such as climate change). Very few people made specific comments about politics, religion, or sexual orientation - all of which people felt somewhat more comfortable discussing at their institution. People were far more likely to make comments about sex and gender, race, and the Treaty of Waitangi/colonisation. These topics were seen as much riskier to discuss openly, with people describing being shut down, called racist or phobic, and not able to discuss or debate o cial positions adopted by their institution.

People talked about di erent sources of constraint such as from colleagues, students, speaking in public, and funders. In particular, though, the role of universities themselves was singled out with a number of people saying that academic freedom was not being upheld by their institution, was being watered down, or even that universities were redefining academic freedom to say that it sits with the institution rather than academics within it and that they can therefore tell academics what they can and can’t say - a clear misinterpretation of the Education and Training Act.

Many people talked about universities being increasingly driven by economic and financial factors, the need to attract students, marketing and branding, and a growing “culture of managerialism”. They felt that these drivers could override other considerations including quality, excellence, and academic freedom.

They also talked about the growing trend for universities to adopt positions on certain social and political issues, which cannot be debated or challenged. This is in stark contrast to the traditional mission of universities outlined in the seminal Kalven Report of 1967 as being to foster debate about important issues in society, be the champion of open intellectual inquiry, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its community. This was especially seen in relation to institutions that were becoming Te Tiriti-led. Those who did not agree, or even those who were supportive of the approach but had questions or wanted a more nuanced discussion, described being silenced and afraid to speak up.

Finally, a number of people made the point that the trend in universities toward the silencing of dissenting or questioning views is not unique to academia and reflects trends in wider society. But the point was made strongly that if the issues that matter to all of us cannot be discussed in a university, then where can they be?

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN

The Free Speech Union is a registered trade union with a remit beyond employment to include education and public advocacy for free speech. This means we are not a think tank. While the authors of this report are experts in their respective fields of statistics, public policy, education, and democracy, we do not claim that this report is the definitive research on academic freedom in New Zealand. In fact, much of this data raises more questions than it answers. But this in itself raises an important question.

Why is the Free Speech Union having to conduct this work, and advocate on behalf of academics and their freedom?

Where are the Tertiary Education Commission, the Minister of Education, the Vice-Chancellors of universities, and the Tertiary Education Union?

Surely, each of these parties are well placed to assess whether academics are in fact operating with freedom, and if not, consider the causes and implement policies to address this.

The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and the Minister of Tertiary Education are among those leading the sector who should be leading the sector to have the greatest academic freedom in the world. Yet they have dismissed concerns raised regarding academic freedom, and are intent on not only refusing to engage with the problem but refusing to assess whether there is a problem at all. It is abundantly clear that our university sector will not fare well, both in terms of its financial viability and the actual contribution to societal questions, if there is no freedom to challenge the status quo, contribute novel approaches, or call out assumptions, no matter how controversial or unpopular this may be.

The TEC is currently failing to engage proactively with its responsibility to develop a robust teaching and research sector that has the freedom to help lead us forward. The Minister must acknowledge that the Free Speech Union’s research indicates there is a problem emerging. We call on her to engage with this issue seriously, and perform the role she has been appointed to, by leading the development of a policy or legislative framework to address these concerns.

Further, late last year we approached each Vice-Chancellor inviting them to work with us on this survey. We hoped to build constructive alliances to shed light on this critical issue. Not a single one agreed to participate, despite the fact that, to our knowledge, no other research currently seeks to give voice to academics on the academic freedom they feel they have at their own institution.

Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University, Prof. Dawn Freshwater, has shared inspiring words with regard to free speech and academic freedom. Last year in an op-ed, she stated “Academic

freedom is a fundamental tenet of the university. Further, we uphold the rights of sta , students and citizens to free speechthat is, the right to express one’s opinion.” Following the Listener 7 saga, which saw a number of prominent professors and academics berated for expressing concern about how mātauranga Māori is being integrated into the teaching of science, Prof. Freshwater committed to a symposium, saying “I am calling for a return to a more respectful, open-minded, fact-based exchange of views on the relationship between mātauranga Māori and science, and I am committing the University to action on this.” The Vice-Chancellor’s failure to fulfil this commitment related to an important and controversial question, which led to considerable opposition of the Listener 7 writers’ academic freedom, is inconsistent with her statements above about the importance of academic freedom. We urge the VC to follow through on her stated commitment to hold this symposium and we urge all VCs to show the leadership needed to support academic freedom.

Likewise, the atmosphere of fear that many academics operate in should very much be of concern to the Tertiary Education Union. Without academic freedom, and freedom of speech, academics cannot perform their role which is so crucial to society. Why is the Tertiary Education Union not conducting its own assessment of the context its members operate in? How do they so easily dismiss the concerns and fears of their own members? It potentially appears that in the mind of the TEC, concerns related to academic freedom are a partisan issue and that some of their members should feel afraid or concerned about their ability to say certain things. This is entirely inconsistent and at odds with the important role they are called to play.

Every academic who is concerned about academic freedom in New Zealand should join the movement that is actually fighting for their right to perform their role. Academics are welcome to join the Free Speech Union while also remaining members of the Tertiary Education Union. To date, we have proven to be reliable advocates for academics’ freedom and (unfortunately, because we’d love for this not to be true) it is unlikely the TEU is going to pick up this work any time soon.

The Tertiary Education Union, the Tertiary Education Commission, the Minister of Education, and the Vice-Chancellors are failing Kiwi academics and, by extension, all of us. Either wilfully or unknowingly, they are ignoring a growing problem that strikes the heart of each of their functions.

This research presents academics’ own perspectives and words, reflecting on academic freedom at their own institutions. More significant research can, and should, be done on this issue, but these results are an indictment on this sector, not least because of the indi erence of its leaders.

SURVEY QUESTIONS

Q1 Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I feel free to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions”?

Q2 Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I feel free to engage in research of my choice”?

Q3 Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I am free to regulate the subject matter of my courses without inappropriate pressure”?

Q4 Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I am free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus amongst my colleagues”?

Q5 Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I am free to teach and assess students in the manner that I consider best promotes learning”?

Q6 How comfortable would you be in discussing issues at your institution around each of the issues below?

• Politics

• Sex and gender

• Religion

• The Treaty of Waitangi and colonisation

• Sexual orientation

• Race

Q7 Do you have any general comments or feedback on academic freedom and free speech at your institution?

Q8 Which university are you a sta member at?

Q9 What is the highest role you have at your university?

Q10 What area do you primarily teach or research in?

Q11 Which age group are you in?

Q12 Which ethnicity or ethnicities do you identify with?

Q13 Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum?

Q14 What is your gender?

Q15 Finally, if you have any feedback on this survey, such as other questions or changes to questions for future years, feel free to let us know.

RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS

Methodology

The survey included two open-ended questions, giving respondents the opportunity to make any general comments about academic freedom (Q7), as well as providing opportunity for feedback on the survey itself (Q15).

Two hundred and thirty-four people provided comments in relation to Q7, and 336 in relation to Q15.

The original intention in including the open-ended questions had been simply to identify any issues raised that might point to areas for future investigation. However, it was apparent that there was a much greater volume and richness of comments than had been anticipated. It was therefore decided to do a more thorough review and identify comments that could help illustrate the results from the quantitative questions in the survey.

A small group of researchers reviewed the comments in relation to Q7. This group included academics on FSU’s Council (Dr David Cumin and Dr Melissa Derby), two external academic advisors (Dr Michael Johnston and Dr James Kierstead) , and FSU’s policy and research director (Dr Paula Martin). The initial review simply involved each member of the group separately identifying comments that usefully illustrated or represented the quantitative results.

Many of the comments made went beyond the specific questions or topics that had been asked, so it was decided to also carry out a high-level thematic analysis. One member of the group developed an initial coding schedule which was then checked by another member. The schedule focused particularly on questions 1-6 (both agree and disagree statements), as well as other themes that related to people’s experiences of academic freedom and perceptions of underlying drivers (e.g. the perceived source of constraints on academic freedom). Comments were then sorted according to this schedule (manually, using Excel and Word), with cross-checking between two of the team. All team members were involved in identifying illustrative quotes and reviewing the write-up of the key themes.

The key themes reported below were either particularly dominant or were particularly relevant to the underlying purpose of the survey. Comments on broader issues, such as terms and conditions for academic sta or wider university culture were coded but are not included in the write-up as they are outside the scope of this research.

Care has been taken to ensure respondents cannot be identified and some quotes have been edited slightly to protect the identities of individuals. We have deliberately avoided identifying specific institutions for that reason.

Responses to Q13 (comments on the survey itself) have not been included here but will be used to inform the design of future surveys.

Results – key themes

The results reported here focus on themes most relevant to the questions in the survey. There were many nuances in views, and many contextual factors were highlighted. Not all of these variations are reflected below. Here we provide a high-level snapshot of key issues that complement the quantitative survey results, rather than a comprehensive analysis. These should be seen as areas for further investigation rather than as supporting firm conclusions.

It should be noted that most of the open-ended comments were made by people expressing concern about aspects of academic freedom; those who felt academic freedom was not at risk or agreed they had a high degree of academic freedom were less likely to make comments. We emphasise that the comments should not, therefore, be taken as representative of all survey respondents.

Theme 1: Academic freedom is under threat and there is a climate of fear

A few people commented that they felt there were no problems with academic freedom, or that academic freedom is being appropriately balanced against other concerns.

I don’t think there is a problem at my institution.

My university is attempting to appropriately balance the line between academic freedom, the guarantees in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the rights not to be discriminated against.

The majority of comments, however, reflected concerns about the current state of academic freedom, with a clear sense of growing di culty in raising and discussing a range of issues in the university context. This was seen at all levels of academic discourse including with colleagues, university management, students, teaching, or speaking in public. Many respondents referred to a “climate of fear”, and a large number mentioned concerns about job security or barriers to promotion for expressing the “wrong” views.

I would worry about discussing the issues above because if you don’t agree with mainstream perspectives, I could get fired or receive complaints that are then actioned.

I feel my job is at risk if I question the direction the university is taking.

I am legally entitled to discuss certain ideas, but I would likely be ostracised and ridiculed so it’s not very appealing.

I am cautious about posting about controversial social/ political issues on my personal social media because of my job. Free speech is dead; I feel I’m in the silent majority.

If you want to be promoted or funded, you have to be careful and wise with what you say.

There is a culture of fear in the university. It is very common to have an academic or post-grad student in my o ce and even with the door shut, they will whisper things to me rather than say them out loud when speaking about topics related to the culture war.

Even filling in this survey makes me uncomfortable. To say I feel uncomfortable discussing things – I am anxious about that.

Theme 2: Freedom to do research is constrained by the ability to attract funding, or to do certain types of research

A number of people discussed their ability to do research, with many making the point that, while they may technically be free to do the research of their choice, getting funding was another matter. Many expressed a clear sense that only certain topics, and sometimes only certain approved researchers, would attract funding.

What we’re ‘allowed’ to research and what would get funded, internally and externally, are entirely di erent things.

Research funding applications can determine research areas, so funders somewhat determine our ‘freedom’.

The problem for academic freedom in NZ is not some sort of bar on free speech or culture that prevents it… it is the university leadership’s sad e orts to force us to publish in certain ways so their rankings go up. That forces us to do work that is ‘funded’ and so is of interest to the funder rather than the academic.

Our university is moving away from “researcher-initiated” research and instead towards an “institution-led” process. The message was that junior academics should expect much stronger guidance about which research questions the university wants them to pursue based on priorities articulated by government through their funding programmes.

Theme 3: Certain issues are o -limits for debate

The survey asked people to say how they comfortable they felt discussing a number of issues at their institution. Many of the comments made related to those topics, with people elaborating on what they perceived as the di culties in discussing those issues. There were very few comments on issues such as politics, religion or sexual orientation – these were also the issues that fewer people in the main survey said they felt uncomfortable discussing. Comments were more likely to be made about the

Treaty of Waitangi and colonialism, race, or sex and gender. There were a few comments on topics not asked about in the survey, such as climate change. Respondents who commented on these issues often described them as being out of bounds or not up for debate. Fear of being misinterpreted or being called racist or phobic, as well as the impacts on job security and promotion mentioned in Theme 1, resulted in many people saying they had decided that it is best to say nothing at all on these topics.

I have the impression that saying anything around race, gender, the Treaty of Waitangi, sexual orientation, or what political structures lead to the best outcomes for society, or what the best outcomes for society are, would be fraught with career danger.

The pressure to be ‘PC’ and ‘woke’ is enormous – and my views are pretty PC and woke! But I feel the most gentle, careful questioning of ideas around issues such as trans rights or mātauranga Māori would result in ostracism by sta and negative feedback from students (at best).

Treaty of Waitangi/biculturalism/Māori/race-related issues featured particularly, in relation to teaching and assessment, course content, research, promotion and general discourse and debate. This was especially the case in institutions that were moving to becoming ‘Te Tiriti-led’.

The greatest challenge to academic freedom relates to Treaty of Waitangi and race issues where there is no ability to speak without dire consequences for academics.

There is definitely a chilling e ect on academics when it comes to debate on topics such as colonisation and racism for fear of being labelled racist.

Our university has a host of pre-ordained positions on things, especially Te Tiriti, race, colonialism and rainbow topics. I don’t know what would happen to someone if they spoke out in disagreement with these positions because no one ever does. I think everyone knows not to touch these issues and not to try to explain any nuance or slight disagreement on their part, as we know it will likely end badly.

Many respondents emphasised that their comments should not be seen as dismissing concepts such as mātauranga Māori, or the role of the Treaty in informing the university’s work. However, they wanted to be able to ask questions, discuss and not compromise on quality.

I teach a science and while I am happy to include cultural examples of that science as appropriate, my priority is making sure the students learn the science. I am feeling pressured to include cultural constructs at the expense of the science. I strongly believe in the value of a rmative action and changing our language to be more inclusive. At the moment, I feel excluded from the discussion.

Theme 4:

Universities themselves are not always upholding academic freedom

Many respondents commented on the role of the university itself in not upholding academic freedom, or a sense that academic freedom was being “watered down”.

Some of our managers, including a VC, have become fond of downplaying our legislative right to academic freedom with ‘yes, but’ statements.

A senior leader told a group of academics that the university was the rightful holder of academic freedom according to their interpretation of the law governing universities, not the academics, and therefore the university had the right to restrict the views of academics if it wanted.

Our university has changed its strategic direction document which used to enshrine the idea that we were free to question received wisdom and now say that we should do so ‘when prudent’.

Two other major subthemes emerged in relation to the role of universities.

Subtheme: Universities have adopted positions on social and political issues which cannot be debated

Respondents at several universities commented that their institution has taken a clear stand on a range of social and political issues, and that these positions cannot be debated or challenged:

It’s clear that some issues are e ectively out of bounds for discussion at this university, as the university has taken a stand on them and wants their sta to be consistent with that position….if they can’t be discussed here, then where?

Our university is a Te Tiriti-led institution and as such there is no opportunity to debate whether it shouldn’t be Te Tiriti-led.

There certainly seems to be substantial pressure from above to have the ‘correct’ opinions on many of the issues listed above. Discussion is not welcomed (racism and safety are frequently mentioned), and it does not feel safe to enter into discussions.

I dislike being expected to buy into what the University decides is the correct socio-political agenda(s). There needs to be freedom to express alternative views and have these respected.

Subtheme: Universities are driven by economic and financial factors, the need to attract students, and a culture of managerialism

A number of people commented that universities were under financial pressure and were increasingly being driven by factors such as image, marketing and branding in order to attract students, rather than things like academic excellence. There were also several comments about a “culture of managerialism”.

The university is run by managers and accountants who systematically demolish/destroy/remove any other points of view.

Universities are becoming managerial… focused on quantity and rankings. Academics are treated as assets and the culture is driven by politics not by a genuine e ort to educate impartially a new generation.

It looks like faculty members will lose all right to make decisions of the university, certainly what to teach/assess will be assigned in a top-down approach soon.

Any constraints on academic freedom I have experienced are due to the managerialism and profit-driven orientation of tertiary education in NZ, including pressures to pass poorly performing students, rather than wokeness or political correctness.

Our university is very restrictive in what views are allowed to be held by academic sta . Management is coercive. Diverse views are not tolerated. Sta fear speaking up or expressing di erent views from that mandated by management. Criticism of management is not tolerated and easily punished in times of frequent redundancies.

Theme 5: Trends in universities reflect wider societal trends

Several people commented that the declining trends in being able to speak freely, ask questions or debate certain topics in universities, were not unique to campus but reflect broader societal trends.

Freedom of speech is critical for a healthy society but we are moving into an environment where speaking out on certain topics is far too often being classified as racist, hate speech, sexist or the like. The problem is not confined to universities but is becoming the norm in New Zealand.

I think my institution reflects the general closing down of debate around certain topics within wider society.

There is no free speech at our institution or in NZ generally.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM POLL RESULTS APRIL 2023

CLIENT: Free Speech Union

POLL DATES: Wednesday 22 March to Saturday 6 May March 2023. The median response was collected on Wednesday 22 March 2023.

TARGET POPULATION: Academic sta at New Zealand universities.

SAMPLE POPULATION: Academic sta at New Zealand universities who had a working e-mail address listed on their institution’s website.

SAMPLE SIZE: 452 respondents agreed to participate.

SAMPLE SELECTION: Academic sta who had a listed e-mail address were e-mailed with an invitation to participate in the survey.

SAMPLE ERROR: Based on this sample of 452 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 4.5%, at the 95% confidence level.

CODE COMPLIANCE: This poll was conducted in accordance with the Research Association New Zealand Code of Practice and the International Chamber of Commerce/European Society for Opinion and Market Research Code on Market and Social Research.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Academics felt they were not free in some aspects of academic freedom, but were free in other aspects.

The proportion saying they were free in the areas surveyed were:

• Engage in research of their choice 74%

• Regulate the subject matter of their courses 65%

• Teach and assess in manner they consider best 60%

• Raise di ering perspectives with colleagues 52%

• State controversial or unpopular opinions 43%

Broadly academic freedom was seen to be working best with research, moderately well with course curriculum and teaching but not well with discussions.

The fact di erent areas received di erent scores means that responding academics considered each question carefully, and didn’t just answer with the same responses to each area of academic freedom.

To ascertain which types of issues academics do feel free or not free to discuss, we asked specifically about their comfort in six areas.

The proportion who are very or somewhat comfortable to discuss each are:

1. Religion 63%

2. Politics 62%

3. Sexual Orientation 54%

4. Sex and Gender 50%

5. Race 45%

6. Treaty/colonialism 41%

In all areas, at least one in three academics were loath to discuss issues in those areas. With issues around race, colonialism and the Treaty, fewer than half are comfortable.

There were significant di erences between di erent demographic groups. The results here should be treated cautiously as the sample sizes can be quite small, but generally what we found in terms of freedom to discuss unpopular or controversial ideas:

• Female academics felt more free than male academics

• Younger academic felt more free

• European academics felt less free

• Academics whose political orientation was very left or left felt much more free than academics who were centrist or right.

• Lincoln academics felt most free and AUT least free but again this is based on small sample sizes

• Professors felt less free than other academics

• Academics in the business and science disciplines felt less free

This is the second annual academic freedom poll done for the Free Speech Union. The questions and scales changed slightly between 2022 and 2023 so a direct comparison can’t be done, but in terms of those who said they were more free than unfree, the di erences between 2022 and 2023 was:

• Engage in research of their choice 80% to 74%

• Regulate the subject matter of their courses 69% to 65%

• Teach and assess in manner they consider best 66% to 60%

• Raise di ering perspectives with colleagues 54% to 52%

• State controversial or unpopular opinions 55% to 43%

• Discuss sex and gender issues 53% to 50%

• Discuss Treaty/colonialism issues 50 to 41%

So overall there may have been a small decline in most areas and a moderate decline in the freedom to state controversial or unpopular opinions.

SURVEY QUESTIONS

Academic Freedom in New Zealand is enshrined in law in the Education and Training Act 2020. It defines academic freedom in relation to an institution as:

(a) the freedom of academic sta and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions:

(b) the freedom of academic sta and students to engage in research:

(c) the freedom of the institution and its sta to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution:

(d) the freedom of the institution and its sta to teach and assess students in the manner that they consider best promotes learning:

(e) the freedom of the institution through its chief executive to appoint its own sta

This survey is designed to establish how sta and students at New Zealand universities feel academic freedom is functioning.

All responses to the survey are confidential and only a summary of responses will be published.

MARGINS OF ERROR

Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I feel free to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions”

Free to state controversial or unpopular opinions

Only 46% of responding academics agreed they felt free to question received wisdom and state controversial in unpopular opinions with 53% disagreeing they felt free to do so.

or

Agreement was 57% with women and 41% with men.

Agreement by age group was:

• Under 30s: 61%

• 31 to 45s: 48%

• 46 to 60s: 43%

• Over 60s: 42%

Agreement by ethnicity was:

• European 45%

• Māori 65%

• Asian 48%

• Pacific 50%

• Other 45%

Political Orientation

Very left wing Left wing Slightly left wing Centrist Slightly rightwing Right wing Very right wing

Agreement by political orientation was:

• Very left 64%

• Left 70%

• Slightly left 46%

• Centrist 34%

• Slightly right26%

• Right 18%

• Very right 0% University

Agreement by university was:

• Lincoln 63%

• Auckland 55%

• Waikato 54%

• Victoria 45%

• Canterbury 45%

• Otago 43%

• AUT 40%

• Massey 33%

or unpopular opinions

Academic Leader Professor Assistant Professor Snr Lecturer Lecturer Assistant Lecturer Fellow Other

Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I feel free to engage in research of my choice”

74% of responding academics say they are free to engage in research of their choice with 26% disagreeing.

Agreement by role was:

• Associate Lecturer 100%

• Academic Leader 57%

• Other 56%

• Research Fellow 54%

• Senior Lecturer 46%

• Associate Professor 45%

• Lecturer 42%

• Professor 31% Area

Other Arts Bus/Comm Creative Arts Education Engineering Law Health Science

Free to state

or unpopular opinions

Agreement by area was:

• Creative Arts 80%

• Creative Arts 64%

• Education 64%

• Law 60%

• Engineering 55%

• Arts 52%

• Other 49%

• Health

• Science

•

Ethnicity

Political Orientation

Very left wing Left wing Slightly left wing Centrist Slightly rightwing Right wing Very right wing

Free to regulate the subject matter of my courses without inappropriate pressure

Strongly disagree

Slightly agree

59 13%

Role Academic Leader Professor Assistant Professor Snr Lecturer Lecturer Assistant Lecturer Fellow Other

Free

M

Free to regulate the subject matter of my courses without inappropriate pressure

Political Orientation

Free to regulate the subject matter of my courses without inappropriate pressure

Role Academic Leader Professor Assistant Professor Snr Lecturer Lecturer Assistant Lecturer Fellow

Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I am free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus amongst my colleagues”

Count Col N %

Free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus amongst my colleagues

Strongly disagree 75 17%

Disagree 96 21%

Slightly disagree 49 11%

Slightly agree 70 16%

Agree 89 20%

Strongly agree 70 16%

Total 449 100%

52% of responding academics said they are free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus with 48% disagreeing.

Area

Other Arts Bus/Comm Creative Arts Education Engineering Law Health Science

raise di ering perspectives and argue against

Ethnicity

Māori Asian Pacific

Free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus amongst my colleagues

Political Orientation

Very left wing Left wing Slightly left wing Centrist Slightly rightwing Right wing Very right wing

Do you agree or disagree with the statement “At my institution I am free to teach and assess students in the manner that I consider best promotes learning”

Free to teach and assess students in the manner that I consider best promotes learning

Strongly disagree

Slightly disagree

Strongly agree

60% of responding academics say they are free to teach and assess in the manner they consider best.

Free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus amongst my colleagues

Free to raise di ering perspectives and argue against the consensus amongst my colleagues

Role Academic Leader Professor Assistant Professor Snr Lecturer Lecturer Assistant Lecturer Fellow Other

Area Other Arts Bus/Comm Creative Arts Education Engineering Law Health Science

and

Free to teach and assess students in the manner that consider best promotes learning

Political Orientation

Role Academic Leader Professor Assistant Professor Snr Lecturer Lecturer Assistant Lecturer Fellow

Free to teach and assess students in the manner that consider best promotes learning

Area

Other Arts Bus/Comm Creative Arts Education Engineering Law Health Science

How comfortable would you be in discussing issues at your institution around each of the areas below?

• Politics

• Sex and Gender

• Religion

• The Treaty of Waitangi and colonialism

• Sexual Orientation

• Race

The proportion who are very or somewhat comfortable to discuss each are:

• Religion 63%

• Politics 62%

• Sexual Orientation 54%

• Sex and Gender 50%

• Race 45%

• Treaty/colonialism 41%

Race

Somewhat

Not

Political Orientation

Very left wing Left wing Slightly left wing Centrist Slightly rightwing Right wing Very right wing

Race

Not really comfortable 24% 14% 30% 0% 9% 19% 5% 25% 19%

Not at all comfortable 22% 22% 33% 10% 23% 35% 35% 23% 26%

comfortable