Written By:
- Date published:
11:54 am, June 4th, 2026 - 117 comments
Categories: human rights, making shit up, Media, Social issues, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up -
Tags:
I look forward to the mental gymnastics involved trying to explain how a Union nominally established to protect free speech should attack someone espressing his view on a proposed law change.
The background is that NZ First is engaging in this idiotic attempt to state in legal terms that there are only two sexes, male and female. This may please its base, but biologists everywhere will be pulling out their hair. Gender and gender identity are complex matters and not binary.
But anything to attack the intellectual elites for votes and media attention.
Grant Robertson expressed some concern at the bill, and particularly about the effect the bill would have on Otago University Students for which the issue is complex.
From Ben Tomsett at the Herald:
In a recent email to the university community, Robertson addressed the legislation while discussing student wellbeing and support services ahead of exams.
“I know this bill will be upsetting for many in our Otago community – particularly those who identify as, and love and support our trans, intersex, takatāpui, gender diverse and non-binary whānau,” Robertson wrote.
“At a personal level, I find this legislation to be unnecessary and disturbing.”
So what should a free speech union do? Back him up and support his expression of free speech?
You would think so.
Instead they did this
Again from the Herald:
Free Speech Union stakeholder relationships manager Steph Martin said the organisation’s concern was not with Robertson providing support to students.
“Supporting students who feel affected by a bill is part of his role, and we have no problem with that,” Martin said.
“The issue is taking an institutional position on a strongly contested political question. When the Vice-Chancellor signs his views with his title and sends them through the university’s own channels, the institution speaks with him – and staff and students who take a different view are left on the wrong side of an official line.”
Martin said institutional neutrality existed to protect academic freedom.
“A university stays open by not announcing, from the chair, which side of a contested question its members should be on,” she said.
The union pointed to the University of Otago’s Statement on Free Speech, adopted in 2024, and legislative changes made last year requiring universities to adopt freedom of expression statements incorporating principles of institutional neutrality.
“We take no position on the merits of the Bill or the Budget,” Martin said.
“Reasonable New Zealanders will hold a range of perspectives on both, including at Otago. The point is that a university should be a place where they can disagree – including with their Vice-Chancellor.”
So let me see if I get this right? The Vice Chancellor should say nothing so that others can disagree with him even though he says nothing?
If Robertson had attempted to prevent a student from expressing their view on a matter then they may have a point. But such a delicately expressed personal view should never be suppressed.
Of course Free Speech Union get to suck up more media bandwidth and dumb down political discourse. This may be the intent.
But it does not matter how many words you throw at this.
The FSU claims that its reason for being is to protect, expand, and fight for New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and intellectual inquiry and that it envisions a flourishing New Zealand civil society that values and protects vigorous debate, dissenting ideas, and freedom of speech as cultural cornerstones.
To attack Robertson for saying something shows a complete disregard of its core values. It should be fighting for his right to say what he did, and not attacking him.
Did Robertson attempt to silence any student, academic or member of the administrative staff at Otago from disagreeing with him? Did he threaten any of them with dismissal, sanctions or expulsion? It appears he did not.
Therefore, the substance of the FSU's argument amounts to this: expressing an opinion is a violation of the freedom of others to express contrary opinions.
Which seems like a fairly bizarre argument. Does the fact that Robertson is in a powerful position give this argument any validity? Not really – especially in the absence of any threatened repercussions for disagreement.
This throws some light on what I think is a feature of right-wing politics generally – that even hearing contrary opinions, or being required to consider them, amounts to 'being told what to think'. And when this paranoia gets tied into free speech movements, what it really seeks is not free speech, but the hegemonic dominance of its own speech.
afaik FSU are not saying GR shouldn't express his political opinions, they're saying but that he shouldn't use his position as Vice Chancellor of a university to do so.
The reason for that is that neutrality serves academia (teaching and research) better. This doesn't mean that all people who work in a university can't express political opinions, nor even do so at work. It means that positions of power need to be used wisely.
Consider John Key as Vice Chancellor sending an email out to students saying that x Bill would cause great harm to the country. Do you think the left would object to that? On what grounds?
Whether or not neutrality should have been observed, and I personally think what Robertson said was fine, do you think FSU should be involved in this?
I think both are entitled to express a public opinion about it.
I don't have a problem with what GR said (although I disagree with some of it). I'm not sure about whether it's ok for him to have used his VC position to oppose the bill (obv expressing concern about LGBTQI people is valid, just wish he would extend the courtesy to women). I would like someone, anyone, who knows, to talk about what the current norm is for VCs. Because that would answer the question more definitively than us lot saying our reckons.
The issue of neutrality interests me more, because of what has happened in the US, where there is now a massive backlash against liberal ideas and programmes. If we say that we want universities to have a liberal bias, then we have to justify that not in our minds but to the general population. If we say that universities should be full of people free to express their opinion (my preference) then the left and liberals need to take some responsibility over cancel culture. Because now the right are getting into cancel culture and we are seeing the problem of the partisan approach.
If we want to have liberal society, we have to bring people with us. Shifting the Overton window, rather than trying to impose our will because we think we are right and righteous.
There was no reaction from the FSU to this.
Because it is not part of the international "free speech" cause on the right that the FSU represents here.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/594883/it-will-be-very-disruptive-grant-robertson-on-scrapping-of-fees-free-policy
When I first worked at a university at the end of the 1990s, it would have been inconceivable for a VC to do this. Unfortunately, the current norm is that VCs are a kind of CEO and don't necessarily even need an academic background (eg, Grant Robertson), so it's open slather.
The New Zealand Initiative has an agenda as to questioning the status of Maori and the Treaty at our tertiary institutions
Both on institutional neutrality and academic freedom grounds.
They support the removal of the Treaty from legislation agenda of the government.
25 April.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360992385/vague-treaty-clauses-cause-chilling-effect-academia
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/universities-approach-to-treaty-at-odds-with-academic-freedom/
Including or excluding the VC of the university…?
It’s my preference too but the actions of the FSU and associated RW thought is eroding that concept.
What he said was fine… he just should have sent it from his home email.. not his work email.. and not his work email that he can spam EVERY SINGLE student.
What does your username mean?
Mine is a reference to the New Zealand band The Muttonbirds, a few songs of theirs which I grew up with and one of their songs in particular, Dominion Road was an area I lived in.
Mitt Romney was challenged on his lack of women in his shadow cabinet.. and he replied there was heaps of women in his ticket. "We've got binders full of women"… it was weird… no actual women on his ticket but binders full of potential, vetted, profiled .. but no actual walking talking women.
Robertson expressed an opinion that a particular piece of legislation may be harmful to a portion of the student body at Otago. Student and staff welfare is within his remit as Vice Chancellor.
He did not indicate that the University would act to prevent or sanction anyone else who had a different opinion. He was not threatening to (or actually) suppressing free speech of anyone within the university.
If John Key as (theoretical) Vice Chancellor had said that he approved of the legislation because it would make female students feel safer, my reaction would have been exactly the same. I might have disagreed with him to some extent, but I would never have suggested his actions infringed anyone's free speech – nor I suspect would the FSU.
Both Robertson's and the theoretical Key's statements might exhibit one-sidedness, but threats to free speech they are not.
I strongly support a hard-nosed turn by the left to become again the champions of free speech that they historically have been. This ground should not have been surrendered. But it needs to be clear-eyed and consistent.
Good comment, AB.
"I strongly support a hard-nosed turn by the left to become again the champions of free speech that they historically have been."
I support your view.
I agree about the remit re student wellbeing. It's not just that someone wasn't speaking to women's wellbeing, it's that his words actively negate women's wellbeing, and women on campus will be limited in what they can say about that.
Read the comment above where I pasted Women's Liberation Aotearoa's tweet about this. He doesn't have to threaten, social and institutional sanction will have a dampening effect. That already happens.
That's the conversation I wish we would be having. What would that a strong leftist freedom of expression position look like? Can we talk about that if we dont't address the left's contribution to cancel culture?
You have a point, Robertson is able to publicly state his opinion, and other people or organisations are also allowed to hold the opinion that it’s not appropriate for him to publicly state his opinion, at the same time he is representing the university. It’s neither right nor wrong.
I’m still confused as to why we need a definition for men or women, we have been happily coexisting for thousands of years, without any real issues. There are two sexes, male and female, likewise two genders. However I guess when some grubby little man decides that he’s not only a woman, but a lesbian to boot, and should be able to indulge in his male heterosexual sexual fantasy of being involved in a lesbian f..k fest, and e included in a lesbian only dating site, we need to do something about it.
But the 'other people or organisations' in this case is one founded on the idea people should be able to publicly state their opinion.
The FSU seem to take the line that any publicly funded individual or organisation should be forced to be politically neutral. But why should they when privately funded individuals and organisation are free to be as political as they like?
Universities and public broadcasters should be independent from political interference and the actions of the FSU and similar are intended to have RW voices promoted on campuses, in the news rooms of RNZ and TVNZ and in the offices of the public service.
if you don't preserve neutrality as a principle in tertiary education you end up with the situation in the US were there is a massive backlash against DEI and similar projects. People are getting sacked, funding is being withdrawn, DEI is being removed. If the left says that it's ok to be partisan when in a position of power, we cannot complain when the other side do it too.
Why would an organisation called the Free Speech Union take any interest in the concept of neutrality? Speech doesn't have to be neutral to be free, nor does non-neutral speech have a suppressive effect on anyone else's right to free speech.
If we want to criticise Robertson, then the best angle would be to criticise him for putting the welfare of one part of the student body (trans, non-binary) ahead of another part of the student body (women). I don't buy that argument because I reckon it's probably a false binary, but at least it has the virtue of having some coherence.
In this case, free speech or the lack of it are completely irrelevant to the substantive issue – except perhaps tangentially, because it looks like the FSU has an agenda and that (ironically given their name) is to shut Robertson up
Because freedom of expression can be suppressed in indirect ways.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept.
Yes, FSU are politically biased. But the solution to that (as you know) is for the left to hold its own political position on freedom of expression. By which I don't mean free speech for lefties and not righties.
This is a very weird debate (here and on twitter). It's like the whole left championing of cancel culture never happened.
Isn't "the massive [US] backlash against DEI and similar projects" largely a politically-motivated culture war? ["Florida is where woke goes to die."] Coalition 'partners' Peters&Seymour are duking it out to see who's the most anti-woke, but a massive backlash against DEI and similar 'projects' simply never materialised here.
Yes, there will always be a small percentage of Kiwis who obsess about culture war issues, but it seems to me that for most, "DEI and similar projects" will continue to pale into insignificance compared to, say, the cost of living. Politically, they are fringe/niche issues, imho, and their political utility is to generate distracting heat.
Anyway, lots of intelligent and informed discussion under this post, but for a real 'story', how about another example of the nACTf Coalition of Corrupt Charlatans punching down on the poor, so that the sorted don't pay more.
Wasn't the implementation of critical race theory, gender identity ideology and DEI departments "a politically motivated culture war?" If the one wasn't, neither is the other.
All those things are progressive, left wing political values and if you find yourself on the other side of that then you have to begin to question your position from the very beginning.
A revealing question. Might "DEI and similar projects" simply be progressive? Ample examples exist, a few of them quite recent. Still, 'progressive' is in the eye of the beholder – some say "Only so far, and no further."
https://www.women.govt.nz/about-us/history-womens-suffrage-aotearoa-new-zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Law_Reform_Act_1986
So maybe New Zealand still has a way to go? Not if I can help it
P.S. I see Muttonbird has already replied, much more succinctly.
That's the liberal left position, yes. Can be summed up as: "Political agendas I support are simply 'progress.' Political agendas I oppose are a 'political culture war.'"
Yes, that's my position, liberal (progressive) left. What's your position?
Your framing does beg the question: What constitutes 'progress' to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#New_Zealand
The FSU criticising Robertson for what he said [wrote] seems too weird.
only if you have a child like idea of free speech.
Thanks weka, that'll show me and my distractingly childlike ideas
thing is, it’s not a hard concept to understand. Freedom of expression doesn’t mean we get to say whatever we want, or that we should say whatever comes through our brains.
If people want to have a pop at FSU for being hypocrites, have at it. Can we please just do it in a way that doesn’t make the left sound stupid when it comes to freedom of expression?
And it’s the left that has been championing suppression of debate and freedom of expression in recent years, have we really forgotten about that?
and if we want to use ‘culture war’ as a dismissive pejorative, let’s not forget that ‘free speech’ is an imported American concept. In NZ the Bill of Rights Act says,
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/109/en/latest/#DLM225511
Good points weka, and how could 'we' possibly forget about 'that.'
In Nov 2025, Newsroom published a three-part report on the FSU. Worth a read, if you have time, including a range of comments.
Part 1 The rise and rise of the Free Speech Union
Part 2 A lobby group’s charm offensive and a doubting Thomas
Part 3 Seymour steps in and directs officials to consult
Imho, Robertson said what he said because he felt a duty of care towards the University of Otago community, not because he wanted to say "fuck off" to anyone. A(t)las, the FSU pounced on his words in an (apparently partially successful) attempt to inflame the 'No Debate' culture wars issue named in Micky Savage's post, and not for the first time. The FSU may have started as just a bunch of right-wing reactionaries with its volume setting stuck on 'shrill', but it's now semi-sophisticated.
The gender-war is currently a fringe/niche issue in NZ; not especially relevant to most voters. A few Kiwis would like that to change, and I predict in the lead-up to the election there will be concerted and at times wily culture war-based efforts to distract voters from major issues on which the nACTf CoC is very vulnerable, as they continue to sell-off NZ for parts and sorted investment opportunities.
In the forgettable words of our CEO, what I would say to you* is (sincerely) be careful what you wish for. I won't comment again under this "When is a Free Speech Union not a Free Speech Union?" post, lest I contribute (further) to the very type of distraction I'm wary and weary of.
*To be clear, I mean 'you' as in some of the "a few Kiwis".
My position is that universities hiring people to enforce dogma and punish wrongthink is the very opposite of "progressive," ie it's "regressive."
I see this over and over again on X: liberal leftists apparently assuming that having a commitment to freedom of speech means you must never criticise anything anyone else says. It doesn't mean that at all.
Sorry PM, I wasn't clear. I was meaning what you see your (political) position as more generally, in the context of my declaration of being a liberal (progressive) lefty. It’s OK if you don’t want to answer.
And, with my question to you @9:17 pm: What constitutes 'progress' to you?, I was hoping to ellicit some examples of what you would consider positive progress. Saying what you're against is one thing, but what are you for – maybe some of the NZ examples in the links I provided @7:21 pm?
" I was meaning what you see your (political) position as more generally, in the context of my declaration of being a liberal (progressive) lefty."
Sorry, yes I did misunderstand. I'm an old-school materialist. I don't share Marx's enthusiasm for communist revolution, but am still convinced of the importance of rationalism, materialism, the need for class analysis of social issues and the conviction that political interests are not to be confused with morality. Am also non-Marxist in believing in the open society (hence the free speech commitment) and disliking the open society's enemies.
Really? Are they not themselves criticising what Trump and right wingers on the site say?
FYI, the FSU did not criticise what Robertson wrote, but his doing so in an administrative message.
That the Vice-Chancellor chose to add his personal opinion (about an issue) that an administrative message is about (concern for student and staff well-being) is quite understandable.
The FSU choosing to play the institutional neutrality card angle is a little like the non issue of the photo taken in parliament.
The real politics is about legislation going through parliament, not this but removal of references to the Treaty in legislation and The New Zealand Initiative wanting a re-write of university rules in this area on grounds of academic freedom.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360992385/vague-treaty-clauses-cause-chilling-effect-academia
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/universities-approach-to-treaty-at-odds-with-academic-freedom/
Precisely! The FSU is spinning a narrative and constructed the concept of ‘institutional neutrality’. In doing so, it misconstrued and distorted facts, and created a straw man.
The concept of ‘neutrality’ is not defined nor mentioned in the Education and Training Amendment Act 2025 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2025/65/en/latest/#LMS1426285).
The concept of ‘neutrality’ is not defined nor mentioned in the University of Otago Statement on Free Speech (https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/newsroom/otago-university-approves-statement-on-free-speech).
The reason for its absence in relevant official documents is that it is an impossible standard.
The FSU is shit-stirring and unfortunately, some people took the bait and were stirred up.
First of all I'd say let kids be kids. I don't know the research but I'm guessing young people in general are more compassionate and progressive than the general population as a whole. If this has been taught to them in primary and secondary education then that is a good thing, no? The alternative seems revolting.
Second, if the the FSU and RW in general feel they are under-represented in tertiary education (and public broadcasting and the public service), such that they have to lobby for intervention, they might want to look at how they eschew roles in that sector in favour of higher paying roles in the private sector.
If public sector industry has a competitive advantage with respect to progressive politics that is the reason, and it should not be removed under this bizarre neutrality policy.
Capital has always dominated society outside of the public sector and now you want it to dominate inside as well?
It's worth noting that the Bill doesn't include a definition of a man or a woman. It just says that when leg refers to a man or a woman it means biological man or biological woman. Which is hilarious because then your like 'ok, so what exactly is a biological man or woman?' and the bill cant answer that as it has no interpretation section.
We still have a law on the books "male assaults female". This new bill defines woman as a biological female; man as a biological male.
The inclusion of the word, biological, is redundant, but I guess it's there to clarify the intention of the Bill; women = female; female = woman. man = male; male = man.
What is a man?
Someone who has two X chromosomes with one carrying the SRY gene that is most often attached to the Y chromosome? They were born with a penis.
Someone who has an X and a Y chromosome, where the Y does carry the SRY gene but their cells don't have testosterone receptors? They were born with a vagina.
You can be chromosomally male/female, hormonally male/female with cells that may or may not hear the male/female signals your body creates, and that's before you get into XXY, XXYY and all the other variations. All these variations can lead to a body that is male, non-binary, or female, and if you’re an XY with a female body who feels like a male? Are you a man or not?
sex is the reproductive strategy that Homo sapiens uses to reproduce. It's binary: the individuals whose bodies are designed to produce large gametes and those that are designed to produce small. There is not third sex, and a new human can *only be made if you have one of the large gametes and one of the small.
That's what people mean when they say sex is binary. How that manifests can vary, hence people with differences of sexual development (DSD) who are still a variation of one of the two sexes.
The political/social issue is whether biological sex matters in human society, and how it intersects with identity. Some people say sex matters and we need language to be able to talk about it. Others say sex doesn't matter outside of a small number of areas eg medical, and that language should adapt around the more important gender identity.
That's why there is a fight over the definition of woman and man. The problem with the GI side is it is by definition exclusive. Whereas a left position on sex and gender can accommodate both sex and gender non-conformity.
Robertson's letter basically says fuck off to the people who believe sex matters. It's quite remarkable from a man whose sexuality is defined by biological sex but it neatly demonstrates the divide. He chose gender identity over sex.
Gareth; What do you mean ‘what is a man’?
We’ve always known what ‘man’ and ‘woman’ mean. Polite society uses gender instead of sex because we’re not talking about breeding stock, but the underlying reality hasn’t changed: humans are a sexually dimorphic species with two sexes, and those map to the two genders everyone recognizes.
Yes, there are rare biological variations — just like most people have two arms, even though a tiny number don’t. Those exceptions don’t redefine the entire species.
For the overwhelming majority of humanity, sex and gender align cleanly: male/man, female/woman. Pretending that the rare edge cases somehow erase the basic structure is just intellectual gymnastics. It’s taking statistical outliers and trying to turn them into a new rulebook.
We can acknowledge that variations exist without pretending that humanity suddenly has an infinite number of sexes or genders. The everyday reality is simple: two sexes, two genders, with a small number of exceptions that don’t rewrite the whole system.
"we have been happily coexisting for thousands of years, without any real issues"
Ha!
Funny as, Terry!
Is the argument here that anyone in any job should be allowed to express a political opinion from their work platform?
Or is it that FSU are selective in who they criticise?
The former would obviously be a nonsense, and this is why criticising GR has some validity.
The latter is probably true, and likewise a legit criticism of FSU.
But beyond that, the left has a real problem over freedom of expression. Our position should be that freedom of expression is fundamental to human rights and democracy, and that there are some limits on that in civil society. The debate then becomes where that line is. GR's email is a classic example. It's hard not to see the reaction against the FSU as partisan. If it was a RW person, I'm sure there would be those on the left quite happy to criticise the poor boundaries and abuse of power. This makes us look like partisan hypocrites.
How then are politicians able to express a political opinion from their work platform?
If you meant to exclude politicians, you should have said that.
well duh, people in a job whose job it is to express political opinions will do so. The question was whether Micky's argument is that anyone should be able to to, or is teh VC special, or just GR?
According to Section 162 (4) (a) (v) of the Education Amendment Act, New Zealand universities are to be characterised by an acceptance of “the role of critic and conscience of society." This tells me that universities are to provide an environment within which academic staff – of which Robertson is one – can state and publish ideas and conclusions without fear of retribution or persecution, either within or beyond the walls of the universities.
So the Free Speech Union can go fuck themselves.
Anyone who is a staff or student of a New Zealand university must be prepared to tolerate deviations from conventional wisdom by their academic staff, and to defend these staff when adverse pressures are brought to bear on them from sources outside the university.
Time for NZFirst and the Free Speech Union to go back to school.
So the Free Speech Union can go fuck themselves.
I wish I had said that!
"…universities are to provide an environment within which academic staff – of which Robertson is one – can state and publish ideas and conclusions without fear of retribution or persecution…"
Robertson is an honorary academic, yes. He's also the boss of all Uni of Otago academics and all the non-academic staff. If you think there's no potential chilling effect in him declaring a position as their boss, you must be very naive.
Claiming this was on the organisations behalf is clearly untrue.
That's ridiculous. If Winston Peters sends a newsletter to Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff and embassies as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and includes the view that being polite to the Chinese is for cowards, with "At a personal level" as a disclaimer, that's nevertheless a statement by the New Zealand Foreign Minister to his staff and embassies. Institutional neutrality for universities isn't some kind of joke a VC can just hand-wave away as irrelevant.
The PM said he was open to nuclear power in the future.
No one confuses that with a statement of the governments position. Not even Luxon because the time frame would not include him being PM.
It's his personal opinion while he is PM.
It would be incredibly naive to suggest that him saying that held no political weight.
It is Luxon and it was totally disconnected from his own party and government policy (being nuclear free and not changing that).
It is part of their whispering (more recently Penk, separating out the neither confirm nor deny impasse with the Americans from Oz nuclear sub future) sounds that please the American AUKUS Pillar 2 bandwagon audience.
It is little different to Willis wanting to move on super and everyone knowing the NZF party coalition dynamic. Their current plan is no change till the late 2030's – but they signal they might move earlier when Peters is gone c2029 to give their budget plan more credibility.
What is the origin of this belief in "institutional neutrality for universities"? Has it been introduced by our CoC, ‘govt’ by and for the sorted? Seems a little too convenient for the FSU's position if you ask me.
Just one academic's opinion.
https://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/latest-news-and-publications/submission-freedom-expression-2025
The FSU's been consistent that the academic freedom declared in NZ legislation is the academic freedom of individual researchers, not the freedom of university administrators to declare institutional opinions on behalf of the universities they administer and the researchers who work in them. The FSU's position is correct. The TEU's is not only false, it's dishonest (because if university administrators were to start declaring right-wing political opinions as institutional positions, the TEU would be fighting it tooth and nail).
So university researchers are free to express their opinion but university administration is not. Where is this written? It seems fine line difficult to police. And where does it leave students, some of which might be employed by the university to tutor and extend their teaching credentials. Are they banned from speaking about progressive values too?
Also, the David Farrar type flip question, "if university administrators were to start declaring right-wing political opinions", doesn't apply (it never applies) because RW capitalist workers do not involve themselves with tertiary teaching and admin positions.
Well, no. "University administration" isn't a person. It can't have opinions. Grant Robertson's welcome to comment here with his opinions (I assume), he's just not welcome to put his personal opinions into official statements of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Otago.
"Where is this written?"
The Education and Training Act 2020, section 267, specifically: "the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions."
Notice: I'm on the general (support) staff of a university. Technically I'm part of the university administration, and I am not covered by the above statement. Only academic staff and students are.
It doesn't say the institution is not allowed to make leadership statements related to the wellbeing of the student body.
It does say the institution has to give effect to the intention of parliament but unless I'm mistaken, the anti-transgender NZF bill is not current legislation.
Thank you at least for implicitly admitting that yes Grant Robertson was making a 'leadership statement' on behalf of the institution. That is exactly what the FSU has a problem with.
If you bother to think about it all, you might figure out how such 'institution leadership statements' might have a chilling effect on the academic freedom of academic employees of the institution who are subject to its authority.
He's the leader of the university. Overall, specifically tasked with the well-being of the student body and faculty, I would have thought.
To the second point, you did just claim the Act protects freedom of expression for academic employees. But now suddenly Grant Robertson's authority overrides that?
"If you bother to think about it all, you might figure out how such 'institution leadership statements' might have a chilling effect on the academic freedom of academic employees of the institution who are subject to its authority."
Why are you so surprised that Grant Robertson should express so mildly his views on the subject. And your all out onslaught ignores the premise of the post. Why should a supposed protector of free speech advocate for Robertson’s very nuanced expression of his personal view to be punished.
Silly me for going down this rabbit hole. At a time when the Government is punching down on so many parts of our community we are debating exactly how far a Vice Chancellor’s free speech rights should be restricted.
Imagine how I feel being in this conversation as a feminist who can no longer write posts about a certain topic.
But if you want to understand the left freedom of expression view on this, WLA did a really good job explaining it here.
https://x.com/wlaotearoa/status/2062342487692529824
https://x.com/wlaotearoa/status/2062350800865857697
It's freedom of expression for thee but not for me.
I'm not sure where this part of the quote is from because it's not in the Twitter post but if we're talking about "Stress-inducing, fear-inducing, and concern for one's own wellbeing if one is required to make a display of supporting a belief system one is opposed to", spare a thought for our young rainbow people who question themselves every day and are now being subject to a bill introduced by a geriatric patriarch populist which requires them to chose between one of two binaries, by law, or be erased.
it was their next comment down in the thread. I've added an extra link.
WLA are left wing feminists. They've been strongly critical of the Bill mostly because it's badly written, and because Peters is using it as a populist vote catcher.
But your antipathy towards young lesbian and gay people whose lives are made harder by the denial of sex is noted.
Clarifying sex in law won't erase anyone. It's possible to protect sex and gender identity (and not actually that hard). Removing sex realism from law however will remove the concept of homosexuality (you can't define homosexuality without talking about biological sex).
Are they, who says? In reality, their position on gender identity suggests the opposite.
It looks like the same conservative lament where they don’t have the influence over young tertiary students they want.
Anyone with any sense can see they are left wing simply by looking at their website and twitter account. But maybe you are confusing left with liberal.
That you are so far behind on who is involved in this fight is on you. More of a concern is you can't tell the difference between left wing feminist and conservative. That matters a lot in this election.
"…you can't tell the difference between left wing feminist and conservative. That matters a lot in this election."
It does???
Gotta get the word out!
I'm not surprised at all that Grant Robertson should express political opinions. I'm surprised and annoyed that he'd do so in official statements as Vice Chancellor of the University of Otago.
I'm asking you to consider that the privilege of a wealthy and powerful man to use the imprimatur of his authority to make political statements without experiencing criticism for them has to be weighed against the potential chilling effect of those statements on the freedom of speech of people who are subject to his authority.
How about you reply to the basic premise of this post. Whatever the merits of Robertson’s statement an astroturf group that seems to specialise in supporting right wing speech and has an absolutist view of the freedom of speech should not criticise him for exercising that right.
I did, in comment 8. Copying the relevant bit here:
IF he'd expressed a personal political opinion as Grant Robertson, member of the public, and someone was giving him trouble over it, you bet it should, and would if asked.
Instead, he addressed a personal political opinion to the University of Otago as its Vice Chancellor. What should a free speech union do in that case? It should defend the free speech rights of University of Otago's staff: first, from having their VC declare his own personal political opinions on the University's behalf, and second, from the chilling effect this must inevitably have on the speech rights of those staff who hold the opposite opinion.
They coould have said nothing. They decidied to make an issue out of it instead and given current issues such as Middle East war, pending fuel shortages, corruption in the Prime Minister's office and attacks on local democracy this is a strange choice. The more I think of it the more it appears to be a diversion.
The FSU doesn't exist to provide commentary on current political issues, it exists to promote and defend freedom of speech. It's been consistent in highlighting the risks university managerialism poses to academic freedom, and as part of that, defending the fact that the legislation protecting academic freedom applies to individual academic staff and students, not institutions. This is just maintaining that consistency.
The Free Speech Union
Yes institutional neutrality is distinct from academic freedom and freedom of speech.
What it fails to note is that it was a message of the Vice-Chancellor by email to those of the university. Expressing concern that legislation proposed would impact on student well-being is just someone doing their job.
His comment
separates it out from his role of protecting institutional neutrality. Thus neither threatens freedom of speech at the university, nor academic freedom.
This idea that the VC can address his political opinions to the university as its VC using a communications channel he has access to only by virtue of being the VC, and also claim to be protecting institutional neutrality because he put an "At a personal level" fig leaf on it may feel like it's tactically successful, but it can only be persuasive to people who already share Robertson's opinion on the subject.
Or only contested by those who oppose it, right back at you.
The distinction is between a personal opinion and the institution as an entity.
A very pertinent fig leaf
Like Grant Robertson, I work at a university. Unlike Grant Robertson, if I were so foolish as to declare a personal political opinion in an official communication to university staff and students, and try to cover it with "At a personal level," the bollocking I'd receive for that would be in no way (ie, by 0.0%) diminished by having applied that fig leaf.
Try this, "the end of the free fees policy sucks for some of our students". You are welcome.
Comprehension
There is a distinction between defence of institutional neutrality and silencing the personal opinion of the Vice Chancellor of a university.
Whether expressing a personal opinion in communications within the institution, or to the wider public.
Back to school, comprehension is required for civics education.
1.Humpty (Dumpty) wears boots (to land safely on his feet)
2.tap dancing shoes (for dancing a retreat when caught trying to silence the free speech rights of others for partisan reasons)
The reality is that the nation which had the first transgender MP is now set on banning them from areas of parliament.
The last time a Winston got involved in such a matter was in 1920 in the Commons with the first woman MP.
Under
https://speakola.com/political/nancy-astor-alcohol-maiden-speech-1920
https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-02-06-2026/#comment-2063778
Thanks for this excellent demonstration of why the Bill is needed.
IF he'd expressed a personal political opinion as Grant Robertson, member of the public, and someone was giving him trouble over it, you bet it should, and would if asked.
Instead, he addressed a personal political opinion to the University of Otago as its Vice Chancellor. What should a free speech union do in that case? It should defend the free speech rights of University of Otago's staff: first, from having their VC declare his own personal political opinions on the University's behalf, and second, from the chilling effect this must inevitably have on the speech rights of those staff who hold the opposite opinion.
And that's exactly what the FSU has done. What I don't get is why so many on the left are apparently incapable of grasping one of the principal enlightenment values and founding principles of liberal democracy. It's really not that difficult.
Claiming this was on the organisations behalf is clearly untrue.
See 5.1.
See 5.1.1
https://thestandard.nz/when-is-a-free-speech-union-not-a-free-speech-union/#comment-2063953
I'd be very surprised if the Otago Uni .V.C., speaking as a leader of the organization did not consult with and represent the views of the his peers. If he got that wrong no doubt the University Council would have something to say.
I urge the Free Speech Union to test the waters by launching a petition – essentially involving the democratic mass of staff and students. Could generate a general debate about all kinds of issues including poverty, war, and the future coming towards us.
You are encouraging a war on campus. Typical MAGA stuff.
I urge Stephen B to desist from stirring this pot. It is incendiary and inhumane in effect, and Palestine and homeless people could do being quoted as needing attention by govt. That is the right target of his stinging critique; they deserve attention which shouldn't be sidetracked.
Perhaps it would generate another thunderstorm as we are now experiencing who knows. You must be very young and volatile SB. If you want excitement in your life and controversy go, fight in Ukraine. Get it out of your system and return wiser, if you are lucky.
This is shite. Why has it generated so much interest?
Shite is like mud; it sticks to everything and everyone who touches it and leaves a permanent stain.
Looks to me an attempt at fuelling culture wars by an astroturfing pressure group in Election Year.
the left does like its own goals.
It is part of the right wing narrative, to attack universities and media, that we have imported from offshore.
It sometimes also involves re-litigating issues that cause divisions within the left.
The fact that you see this as an attack on universities rather than a defence of them is very revealing. It's beyond me how we got to a point where it's a union dominated by right-wingers that's standing up for the right of university academic employees not to have their boss announce political positions from his official platform, with all its implications for employees who wish to argue the opposite opinion, and leftists who are siding with the boss.
That you need to misrepresent a comment about a wider matter in society to make such a claim says it all.
The same lack of perspective allows you to portray a clearly indicated personal comment about a matter in the administrative communication, as some sort of reign of terror regime that poses a threat to academic freedom.
In the USA they are removing students for pro Palestinian activism opinion and punishing universities if they allow any Palestinian activism.
Yes, SPC and just look at this thread!
The FSU choosing to play the institutional neutrality card angle is connected to legislation going through parliament, removal of references to the Treaty in legislation and The New Zealand Initiative wanting a re-write of university rules in this area on grounds of academic freedom.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360992385/vague-treaty-clauses-cause-chilling-effect-academia
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/universities-approach-to-treaty-at-odds-with-academic-freedom/
Personally I would have expected more both/and.
TPU are attacking the left, and they're raising an important issue about universities and why neutrality matters. They're not getting the latter right, but the left's reactivity – 'ooh evil righties are being hypocritical/it's a stoopid culture war' – demonstrates some lefties don't understand the larger dynamics at play as well as reinforcing we don't have anything sensible to say about freedom of belief and expression.
So it was an interesting thread, but a lost opportunity imo. Have we really been reduced to just picking a side?
A serious free-expression position should defend Robertson’s right to say something, defend others’ right to disagree with him, and still allow criticism of whether the official channel was appropriate. What it should not do is collapse every disagreement over institutional tone into “free speech” whenever the speaker is on the side of a culture-war issue we dislike.
To be fair to Robertson, even if he had made the same comment outside an official Vice-Chancellor communication, people would not simply forget that he is the Vice-Chancellor. Senior roles follow people around. The question is not whether his position gives his words weight (it obviously does) but whether he used that weight to suppress disagreement.
That is a distinction worth holding onto.
Because there is no evidence that his comments blocked, threatened, disciplined, or institutionally bound any University of Otago staff member to his position. Nor is it obviously an abuse of his role. Universities in New Zealand have a long-standing and legally protected role as the “critic and conscience of society”. Part of that role necessarily involves senior academic leaders engaging with contested social and political questions, particularly where they believe student welfare may be affected.
People are entirely free to disagree with Robertson’s judgement, his framing, or whether the email was appropriate. But that is different from claiming free speech itself was somehow endangered. If anything, this looks less like suppression of speech and more like an argument over the boundaries of institutional leadership, neutrality, and public responsibility.
"Asked whether any formal complaints had been received, the university said: “As far as we can ascertain, the university has received one email complaining about the Vice-Chancellor’s email.”"
The FSU should STFU.
The FSU isn't claiming there is (if there were, this would be a lot bigger than some social media commentary). However, now that the VC has announced to staff and students where he stands on this issue, picture yourself as a biology or feminism academic who wants to publish commentary supporting the Bill's intent and encouraging people to make select committee submissions to overcome its flaws.
Your intended commentary now explicitly contradicts the boss' declared position. You need to warn your head of school that you're about to publicly contradict the boss. Your head of school may well have a regular meeting with the boss and not want to risk having to explain why you, a lowly pleb, aren't toeing the line, and is happy to tell you so. Your colleagues will see your commentary as a political denunciation of the boss, making you not a good person to be seen with. When you go to the comms people and ask them to publicise your commentary, they'll take one look at it, think "You must be fucking joking pal" and come up with reasons why it can't possibly be published on the university's web site.
In short, the chilling effect on academic freedom doesn't necessarily involve anything so explicit as commands or threats.
That's really not how academic freedom works.
Because by your logic, no manager or head of department at a university would ever be able to offer a public opinion on anything for fear of suppressing free speech.
The fact your head of school is unhappy with you doesn't prevent you publishing your commentary, sure. This isn't the USSR. However, what FSU's referring to is a chilling effect on people's willingness to publish dissenting views, and you bet this stuff has a chilling effect.
That is the argument he has made when the VC has an opinion, and you can see from his reply, he does not want to face up to how risible it really is.
Even the FSU restricted itself to the institutional neutrality aspect – the opinion being expressed in an administrative message.
People who don't know what they're talking about often find the arguments of people who do know what they're talking about "risible."
The VC speaks for the institution in a way that no manager or head of department can, and everyone at the institution knows it. Claiming that "by my logic" a statement by any manager or HoD would have a similar chilling effect to Robertson's statement is just plain wrong. I didn't feel any need to point that out earlier, but your mockery tells me I need to say so explicitly.
What the FSU actually said:
They're right.
You are the one claiming a chilling effect on academic freedom at a university resulting from the method used in communicating a personal opinion by its Vice-Chancellor.
That is risible.
The FSU union merely talks about form, process and appearance.
To go as far as they did, they had to ignore his clear reference to a personal opinion, in separating it out from the rest of the communication.
Liberal leftists "Don't let identity politics get you siding with bosses against workers" challenge failed again.
Your conflating this with oppression of workers is not based on any real materialism.
Your bringing up "identity politic", which is not the issue here, is lazy.
@ Incognito @ 10.1
We don't need the right stirring up culture wars the left is self sabotaging in that respect.
https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-04-06-2026/#comment-2064031
If reasonable heads could come together and reconsile the trans rights/women's rights then we defang the likes of Peters and Seymour.
Good to see the the left is nowadays refusing to get distracted by tedious identity politics /sarc/
It is a serious matter.
The FSU choosing to play the institutional neutrality card angle is part of the removing the Treaty from legislation issue.
The New Zealand Initiative wanting a re-write of university rules in this area on grounds of academic freedom.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360992385/vague-treaty-clauses-cause-chilling-effect-academia
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/universities-approach-to-treaty-at-odds-with-academic-freedom/
105 comments. What a good way for the right to draw attention from important essential matters. All they have to do at stages through to the election is get everybody steamed up about sexual identity.
We're always evolving towards something from our own mix of genes and nurture and familiarisation through nightly tv, or dark matter on the dark web, or reading about the difference between ordinary animals and the pretentious ones that we are.
If people try and stop the pollies from making any changes, that would be a good thing, they will muck up anything they put their sticky little hands on. They are just ring-masters in a circus of freaks which we all are. That is what makes us so interesting, we are all different, and some hugely so, and why it is great to get out and meet others. Let's all freak out. In the meantime buy a subscription to NZ Geographic, it tells lots about the world and then you can talk about real things that matter to our part of life on the planet while we have that chance.
The conservatives wallow in this stuff. Family First guy ("christian" Bob McCroskery) is enthusiastically spreading hate and fear. They have constructed a boogeyman of blue haired lefty activists (probably teachers) trying to brainwash children. There's a lot of suppressed shadow projection going on. They use it to demonise and vilify people who don’t conform to gender stereotypes. This is common in the evangelical churches and a favourite topic of right wing conspiracy nuts. It motivates hate crimes, and that's why I resiled from some of my earlier gender critical opinions.
Religious oppression, (and single-minded, zealous rigidity of opinion about anything ) – seems to grow and go beyond the original saying of the Great One whomever if stirred with alacrity.
I'll just pass on the facts about the Albigensian Crusade against Cathars, which I came across. Over almost 200 years the repression and death toll mounted, sometimes torture, sometimes burning alive, because they believed in a different vision of what happened after death I think. Good living people with farms and homes, a built community with their own stone churches. Done over by Catholics first but later taken up by the French crown, leading nobles and politicians who saw advantage of clearing those people out from their area of control. Languedoc I think in France. They cleared them right out all adherents – in the end – about 1 million people.
Atrocities in the name of "god" but the real purpose is vengeance, bloodlust, theft, or political power
Go Psycho!
Psygo?