Figure 1: The Far Right ideologue Lauren Southern, whose visit to Aotearoa formed the backdrop of the birth of the Free Speech Union
I have argued elsewhere that the Far Right constructs an ideologically driven definition of academic freedom to re-organize universities and education.
Attacking DEI under the guise of advocacy for academic freedom
In my analysis of this far-right agenda, I have critically interrogated how the trope of academic freedom is deployed by the Free Speech Union (FSU) here in Aotearoa New Zealand as the basis for organizing a moral panic around the state of tertiary education. This moral panic is then mobilized by the far-right to organize campaigns targeting Universities, specifically campaigns targeting academic programs researching and teaching decolonization; cultural studies including Critical Race Theory (CRT) and postcolonial theory; and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). This moral panic will tell you that Western University is rotting, and this rot has been brought about because of the presence of diverse voices.
Yes, you read it right. The diversity of the University, according to the Far Right, is the reason for the rot. The solution, ironically then is to weed out DEI and CRT from the University. In more malignant forms of these attacks, the solution is to weed out diverse academics based on the premise we don't understand the norms of the Western world.
In my analysis of this far-right agenda, I have critically interrogated how the trope of academic freedom is deployed by the Free Speech Union (FSU) here in Aotearoa New Zealand as the basis for organizing a moral panic around the state of tertiary education. This moral panic is then mobilized by the far-right to organize campaigns targeting Universities, specifically campaigns targeting academic programs researching and teaching decolonization; cultural studies including Critical Race Theory (CRT) and postcolonial theory; and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). This moral panic will tell you that Western University is rotting, and this rot has been brought about because of the presence of diverse voices.
Yes, you read it right. The diversity of the University, according to the Far Right, is the reason for the rot. The solution, ironically then is to weed out DEI and CRT from the University. In more malignant forms of these attacks, the solution is to weed out diverse academics based on the premise we don't understand the norms of the Western world.
This targeted campaign of the far-right seeks fundamentally to reorganize Universities in the West, to turn back the clock to the days when education was (supposedly) free from politics, i.e. diversity. The implicit goal of this targeted attack is clear, the University is the hallowed place for teaching white civilizational ideas and needs to be returned back to these days of yore.
The fascist thread that forms the basis of this organized attack is rendered thoroughly transparent in Trump's white supremacist Executive Order banning diversity training, the subsequent legislations across 30+ states in the US targeting diversity and its teaching, and the racist proposal for banning diversity education in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Worth noting here is the statement of the Vice Presidential nominee J. D. Vance declaring that "Professors are the enemy."
This extremist attack on academic freedom across the U.S. and in the West is a powerful example of communicative inversion, turning materiality on its head through the deployment of symbols. To attack the academic freedom of teaching and research in areas such as DEI, decolonization, and Critical Race Theory, the far-right constructs the fear around academic freedom under attack. It directly speaks to white fragility and seeks to stoke fears among its white supremacist audience of the great replacement, of the white civilization by migrants, Blacks, and Indigenous academics taking over the University.
The fascist thread that forms the basis of this organized attack is rendered thoroughly transparent in Trump's white supremacist Executive Order banning diversity training, the subsequent legislations across 30+ states in the US targeting diversity and its teaching, and the racist proposal for banning diversity education in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Worth noting here is the statement of the Vice Presidential nominee J. D. Vance declaring that "Professors are the enemy."
This extremist attack on academic freedom across the U.S. and in the West is a powerful example of communicative inversion, turning materiality on its head through the deployment of symbols. To attack the academic freedom of teaching and research in areas such as DEI, decolonization, and Critical Race Theory, the far-right constructs the fear around academic freedom under attack. It directly speaks to white fragility and seeks to stoke fears among its white supremacist audience of the great replacement, of the white civilization by migrants, Blacks, and Indigenous academics taking over the University.
Free Speech Union, Te Tiriti, and Gender Diversity
Now let's turn to the Free Speech Union in Aotearoa and examine what it defines as academic freedom.
As I had noted earlier, in its survey, for instance, the Free Speech Union constructs items around Te Tiriti and gender diversity, with these issues serving as anchoring devices for the measurement of academic freedom. Note here the obsession of the FSU with Te Tiriti.
In this earlier analysis, I pointed out that the FSU survey is fundamentally flawed because it draws upon a flawed definition of academic freedom. It confuses academic freedom with free speech, with academic freedom being at the core connected to responsibility and accountability. I critically analysed this selective agenda around Te Tiriti and gender diversity, noting that the academic freedom around specific topics (ones that form the basis of the Far Right's moral panic) cherry-picked by the FSU should specifically apply to academics who research and teach in those subject areas (i.e. with expertise in Te Tiriti and expertise in gender diversity).
Now let's turn to the Free Speech Union in Aotearoa and examine what it defines as academic freedom.
As I had noted earlier, in its survey, for instance, the Free Speech Union constructs items around Te Tiriti and gender diversity, with these issues serving as anchoring devices for the measurement of academic freedom. Note here the obsession of the FSU with Te Tiriti.
In this earlier analysis, I pointed out that the FSU survey is fundamentally flawed because it draws upon a flawed definition of academic freedom. It confuses academic freedom with free speech, with academic freedom being at the core connected to responsibility and accountability. I critically analysed this selective agenda around Te Tiriti and gender diversity, noting that the academic freedom around specific topics (ones that form the basis of the Far Right's moral panic) cherry-picked by the FSU should specifically apply to academics who research and teach in those subject areas (i.e. with expertise in Te Tiriti and expertise in gender diversity).
The FSU report doesn't break down the findings by research and teaching areas, and so the reader doesn't really know the subject areas/areas of expertise of the academics experiencing the threats to academic freedom around Te Tiriti and gender diversity.
In other words, questions about academic freedom related to specific topics and areas are subject-specific and apply to academics who teach and research within that area.
In other words, questions about academic freedom related to specific topics and areas are subject-specific and apply to academics who teach and research within that area.
Academic Freedom is based on Expertise
The Free Speech Union intentionally obfuscates the definition of academic freedom to concoct a crisis. As an example of the communicative strategy at work, I noted that if the survey measured academic freedom around quantum physics and I was responding to that item as a Professor of Communication, I would note that I feel relatively unfree to research and teach in the area. That response would be accurate and indeed, my academic freedom as a Communication scholar would not apply to that subject as I am not an expert in the area. Expertise and knowledge in the modern university are measured based on broadly accepted criteria that describe professional competence, tied to the areas in which one engages the broader professional community.
Let me draw here on what the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) describes as academic freedom:
"Academic freedom in the AAUP’s definition applies to faculty members; it is a professional right extended to members of the profession and is subject to certain limitations. Academic freedom means that faculty are free to engage in the professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching that are necessary for the purposes of the university. It does not mean that individual faculty members are free to teach or publish whatever they want without repercussions."
Note here the emphasis on "professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching." In other words, an academic should have the academic freedom to engage in research and teaching in areas where they hold professional competence. Note also the concept of limitations outlined here. The AAUP document on academic freedom further goes on to unpack what it means by professional competence.
"Academic freedom of an individual faculty member is subject to
The collective: The faculty who are responsible for a particular course of study may share responsibility for determining courses to be offered or texts to be assigned to students. The shared academic freedom to make this decision trumps the freedom of an individual faculty member to assign a textbook that he or she alone prefers.
Professional ethics: A faculty member must act ethically in their teaching and research; for example, by following regulations on human subject research.
Professional competence: In order to produce and disseminate the highest quality of knowledge in a given field, academics are regulated by other academics who are in a position to judge the work of their peers. A faculty member is not entitled to teach something that their academic peers judge is invalid--for example, teaching that 2+2=5 would not be protected; neither would teaching intelligent design in an evolutionary biology class."
Inherent to the definition of professional competence is the concept of regulation through rigorous peer review, with expectations regarding professional ethics and accountability to a community of peers. Academic freedom therefore is subject to and draws its strength from rigorous peer review and accountability. The specific example of "teaching intelligent design in an evolutionary biology class" spells this out, setting up the boundaries for what is protected by academic freedom.
The Free Speech Union intentionally obfuscates the definition of academic freedom to concoct a crisis. As an example of the communicative strategy at work, I noted that if the survey measured academic freedom around quantum physics and I was responding to that item as a Professor of Communication, I would note that I feel relatively unfree to research and teach in the area. That response would be accurate and indeed, my academic freedom as a Communication scholar would not apply to that subject as I am not an expert in the area. Expertise and knowledge in the modern university are measured based on broadly accepted criteria that describe professional competence, tied to the areas in which one engages the broader professional community.
Let me draw here on what the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) describes as academic freedom:
"Academic freedom in the AAUP’s definition applies to faculty members; it is a professional right extended to members of the profession and is subject to certain limitations. Academic freedom means that faculty are free to engage in the professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching that are necessary for the purposes of the university. It does not mean that individual faculty members are free to teach or publish whatever they want without repercussions."
Note here the emphasis on "professionally competent forms of inquiry and teaching." In other words, an academic should have the academic freedom to engage in research and teaching in areas where they hold professional competence. Note also the concept of limitations outlined here. The AAUP document on academic freedom further goes on to unpack what it means by professional competence.
"Academic freedom of an individual faculty member is subject to
The collective: The faculty who are responsible for a particular course of study may share responsibility for determining courses to be offered or texts to be assigned to students. The shared academic freedom to make this decision trumps the freedom of an individual faculty member to assign a textbook that he or she alone prefers.
Professional ethics: A faculty member must act ethically in their teaching and research; for example, by following regulations on human subject research.
Professional competence: In order to produce and disseminate the highest quality of knowledge in a given field, academics are regulated by other academics who are in a position to judge the work of their peers. A faculty member is not entitled to teach something that their academic peers judge is invalid--for example, teaching that 2+2=5 would not be protected; neither would teaching intelligent design in an evolutionary biology class."
Inherent to the definition of professional competence is the concept of regulation through rigorous peer review, with expectations regarding professional ethics and accountability to a community of peers. Academic freedom therefore is subject to and draws its strength from rigorous peer review and accountability. The specific example of "teaching intelligent design in an evolutionary biology class" spells this out, setting up the boundaries for what is protected by academic freedom.
Conclusion
That the Free Speech Union selectively uses specific topics (Te Tiriti and gender diversity) to organise its survey, which then it uses to make claims about the chilling climate on university campuses in Aotearoa speaks to its agenda, of propping up specific forms of speech around Te Tiriti and of gender diversity.
That the Free Speech Union selectively uses specific topics (Te Tiriti and gender diversity) to organise its survey, which then it uses to make claims about the chilling climate on university campuses in Aotearoa speaks to its agenda, of propping up specific forms of speech around Te Tiriti and of gender diversity.
Given FSU's far-right ideological agenda evident in its formation in the backdrop of the activism that sought regulation around far-right hate speech, one can potentially infer that the minuscule number of faculty (it turns out the response rate on the FSU survey is 2.8%, something that was conveniently unreported in the FSU report on academic freedom, and only disclosed after Dr. Ben Gray raised a complaint to Research Association of New Zealand) who state feeling a climate of fear in expressing their differing perspectives on these issues are non-experts in the areas of Te Tiriti and gender diversity.
What is common about both of these issues is the underlying white supremacist ideology that works actively to marginalize, stigmatize and silence the voices of Indigenous, Black, migrants of colour, and gender diverse individuals and communities, and the scholarship in these areas.
The hysteria around academic freedom, created and crafted by the far-right, is specifically organised as a communicative inversion, appeals to white supremacy, and mobilises far-right fear around the replacement of the white civilisation by diversity (the University being a critical bastion for propagating white civilisational goals).