Last week, Peter Ridd, the Institute of Public Affairs’ poster boy for academic freedom, lost his case in the High Court by 5-0. Ridd was employed by James Cook University (JCU) for 27 years. For 15 of those years he managed JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory. From 2009 until 2016 he was the head of physics. He was ranked globally by ResearchGate within the top 5 per cent of researchers.
On 15 December 2015, Professor Ridd sent a lengthy email to a journalist expressing strong criticism of the work done by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). He stated that GBRMPA was ‘grossly misusing some scientific “data” to make the case that the Great Barrier Reef is greatly damaged’. He declared that ‘GBRMPA, and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC) should check their facts before they spin their story’ and that ‘my guess is that they will both wiggle and squirm because they actually know that these pictures are likely to be telling a misleading story’.
The journalist sent these comments on to the head of the ARC who took great offence and sent them on to JCU’s Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor. The university decided to take disciplinary action and issued Ridd with a formal censure on 29 April 2016. Like all academics at the university, Ridd was bound by the Code of Conduct in the university’s Enterprise Agreement with staff.
The Enterprise Agreement contained a strong statement on intellectual freedom and a note that ‘the Code of Conduct is not intended to detract’ from the clause setting out the key elements of intellectual freedom. Intellectual freedom specifically included the rights of staff to pursue critical and open inquiry, and to participate in public debate and express opinions about issues and ideas related to their respective fields of competence.
The intellectual freedom clause stated: ‘All staff have the right to express unpopular or controversial views. However, this comes with a responsibility to respect the rights of others and they do not have the right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with their views.’
There was no suggestion that Ridd was harassing, vilifying, bullying or intimidating GBRMPA or staff of the ARC. He was in violent disagreement with them, and he was none too genteel in expressing his views. The views he expressed related to his area of expertise. The High Court noted: ‘Nothing said in