Freedom of expression scenarios

These hypothetical scenarios have been developed to aid in understanding Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland’s responsibilities in protecting freedom of expression and academic freedom, and should be read alongside our Freedom of Expression Statement and Academic freedom and freedom of expression in New Zealand.  

Two staff members publish an open letter in a newspaper criticising the University’s proposal to merge two administrative units. One is a scholar in organisational leadership, and one is a professional staff member, neither are directly affected by the proposal. The organisational leadership scholar further develops this critique by publishing a journal article on university administration using the example of the University’s decisions.

Are these actions supported by freedom of expression or academic freedom?

Both staff members are exercising their right to freedom of expression, which is protected under New Zealand law. Freedom of expression applies broadly to all individuals as long as their statements are lawful and do not prevent the University from fulfilling its duties. In this case, both staff members are well within the law, and their criticism does not seriously impede the functioning of the University.

The organisational leadership scholar is also protected by academic freedom. Academic freedom protects speech of an academic within their area or areas of expertise. Since this scholar's field of study directly involves leadership, management, and the structure of organisations, their critique of the University’s decision falls squarely within the scope of their academic expertise. Therefore, the critical journal article is protected under academic freedom, as the author is contributing to scholarly discourse within their discipline.

Both staff members are welcome to identify themselves using their University titles and to name their University. To comply with the University’s Media, Public Communication and Statements Policy both staff members must also make it clear they are speaking in a personal capacity and not officially representing the University in their open letter.  

The government has released, for consultation, a proposed regulatory change that affects intellectual property rights and references Mātauranga Māori. The University community has diverse, strong views on the topic. One member of academic staff, Professor A, an expert in research and innovation, is strongly against the regulation and is vocal about their position online. Other members of staff support the regulatory change and have publicly lambasted their colleague for being racist.

This expression by Professor A is protected by academic freedom and is not a breach of any University policy, so long as their expression is compliant with the University’s Media, Public Communication and Statements Policy. There would be no adverse consequence of this expression, such as a head of department disciplining Professor A because of their views.

As required by the Education and Training Act 2020, the University would uphold the academic freedom of Professor A and note the academic freedom and/or rights to freedom of expression for other staff to have a contrary view. That said the University would encourage respectful discourse reflecting the University’s Code of Conduct. Behaviour that breached the University’s Addressing Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Procedures would be addressed accordingly.

The academic head for Professor A could contact the HR adviser and the Staff Risk Intervention Team to ensure Professor A is appropriately supported given the very negative personalised public commentary. Relevant leaders/HR may also provide support and coaching to the group lambasting Professor A encouraging them to take a different approach that avoids personalising the response and shifts to one of respectful robust debate of the issues.  

The government has released a draft bill for community consultation on liberalising assisted dying legislation. The University community is deeply divided on this matter.

A member of academic staff is strongly in favour of the liberalisation, based on their research, expertise, and clinical experience, and provides extensive commentary in the national media while making it clear they are not representing the University. This commentary is the subject of significant debate and complaints are made to the University about the comments. The expression of views on this topic is an exercise of academic freedom for this academic staff member despite the controversy.

On a topic like this, other staff for whom this is not an area of academic expertise can publicly comment on this topic too, making it clear that they are not representing or speaking on behalf of the University. No disciplinary action would be taken in relation to this expression, provided the speech was lawful and the staff member had not breached policies such as the University’s Addressing Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Procedures. The University would encourage respectful discourse reflecting the University’s Code of Conduct. In the event staff members received ongoing negative personalised communications, the relevant line manager, HR adviser and the Staff Risk Intervention Team (staff intranet) would ensure appropriate support.

A prominent journalist, known for their divisive views on immigration policy, is invited to speak at a University event organised by a recognised student group. The journalist has previously made comments that some consider inflammatory, leading to concerns among students and staff who claim that the speaker’s presence could lead to student distress.

Several student organisations, alongside some staff members, demand the University cancel the event, citing concerns for student safety and wellbeing. They argue that allowing the speaker on campus will create a hostile environment and incite anger, distress and protests. Despite these concerns, the University upholds the principles of freedom of expression, stating that, while it recognises the controversial nature of the speaker's views, the event itself is a lawful exercise of free expression.

To address concerns about student and staff safety and wellbeing, the University or the event owner may implement several supportive measures:

• The University’s Events Management team would collaborate with the event owner and Security to mitigate risks of disruption to the event and to the University’s functioning, while working together to ensure that protests can occur peacefully and without disruption to the event itself.
• Students and staff can be reminded of the counselling services and support networks that are available to them should they feel distressed or vulnerable in relation to the event.

In its public statement, the University reaffirms its commitment to freedom of expression, stating that, while it understands the discomfort some may feel, it is essential to protect the freedom to hear and express divergent views in an academic setting. The University makes it clear that lawful speech, even if provocative or controversial, will not be suppressed simply because it elicits strong reactions.

At the same time, the University would encourage respectful dialogue by reminding the speaker and the University community of the University’s Code of Conduct. Events must be scheduled in accordance with the Events Management Policy and any behaviour that breached the University’s Addressing Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Procedures or any other applicable policies would be addressed accordingly. 

A student discovers an academic staff member is posting derogatory comments about certain ethnic groups on their personal social media account. The staff member also makes regular posts about their research and teaching duties at the University on this social media account and has a high public profile.

Staff members have the right to express personal views on personal social media accounts. However, in this instance the posts are public, and are connected to the staff member’s employment at the University because they have previously used their social media account to communicate University activities and they have a high public profile as a University academic. In this instance the University could consider whether the staff member has breached the Addressing Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Procedures.

A self-proclaimed "alternative science" speaker requests to hold a public event on campus to share their views that well-established scientific facts, such as climate change, vaccine efficacy, and evolution, are fraudulent and part of a global conspiracy. The individual has no scientific credentials, and their theories have been widely discredited by reputable experts.

Section 281(1) of the Education and Training Act 2020 gives councils the legal duty to ensure that proper standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest and the wellbeing of students attending the institution are maintained, and for this reason the University may decline the event. While individuals are free to express personal views in other forums, the University emphasises that it is not obligated to host events that contradict its academic standards or misinform the public.

The University further explains that allowing this event could mislead the public and undermine the credibility of genuine scientific research. By declining to host the event, the University fulfils its duty to uphold an environment dedicated to evidence-based learning and intellectual integrity, in line with its mission as outlined in the Education and Training Act 2020.

During a public lecture a speaker communicates anti-immigrant sentiment and expresses concern about "radical Islam". After the event, posters appear around campus, specifically in spaces frequented by Muslim students, showing images of Muslims in religious dress with the caption “Stop the Muslim invasion.”

While controversial and offensive to some, the speaker’s generalised critique of immigration policy and religious ideology falls under protected speech. The posters cross the line into unacceptable speech because they denigrate a specific group based on religion, are targeted, and are likely to incite hostility or intimidation against Muslim students and staff.

During a lecture, an academic staff member makes comparisons between the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza and Nazi Germany. While the speaker claims the intention is to critique state violence for academic purposes, several Jewish students lodge complaints, stating that the comparison is antisemitic and creates a hostile environment on campus.

In New Zealand, freedom of expression is protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and criticism of governments – including Israel – is lawful and protected. Academic freedom is also protected under the Education and Training Act 2020, and the academic staff member made the statements as part of an academic exercise.

The Human Rights Act 1993, section 61, states speech that is threatening, abusive or insulting and likely to excite hostility or contempt against a group on the basis of race or ethnicity may be unlawful. However, because the comments were made about the Israeli government and not Jewish people the Human Rights Act 1993 would not apply. Students can be reminded of the counselling services and support networks that are available to them should they feel distressed or vulnerable in relation to comments made in class and are encouraged to engage in constructive dialogue with the staff member about alternative comparisons that would be less hurtful.  

A staff member regularly uses a custom background image during online University meetings. The image features symbols and slogans that other staff members report as threatening and politically extreme, including visual references to armed resistance. One staff member raises a concern that the imagery promotes violence, particularly in light of recent international events. The staff member using the background states that it reflects personal political beliefs and is protected under freedom of expression.

While employees in New Zealand have a right to freedom of expression, the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Crimes Act 1961 both prohibit inciting violence. The University would review all details of the situation closely. If the review panel determined that the image could be reasonably interpreted as inciting violence the staff member may be asked to change the background.  

A group of students and staff sign an open letter demanding that the University make a public statement condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

The University responds by saying its position of institutional neutrality means it will not take public positions on matters that do not directly concern the University’s roles, functions or duties. It further explains that this position of institutional neutrality is intended to create a University environment in which staff and students feel free to voice their own opinions on controversial issues.