Update on Ridd Case

[Alan Mighty]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...19418a421f7fe8

Physicist Peter Ridd has lost an appeal to the High Court over his sacking by James Cook University, in a test of academic freedom in Australia.

The court found that the “intellectual freedom” Dr Ridd had relied on was not a general freedom of speech, and he was bound by the university’s code of conduct.

And while Dr Ridd was not required to exercise his intellectual freedom respectfully or courteously — as stipulated in the code — he had to follow the university rules when dissenting from JCU decisions and maintain confidentiality.

The decision ends a saga that began when Dr Ridd, then a professor of physics at JCU’s home campus in Townsville, broke ranks with the scientific consensus on climate change and questioned the work of a leading reef scientist and the trustworthiness of research bodies such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

He was sacked by JCU in 2018 for breaching code of conduct requirements that he air criticism of colleagues or the university in a collegial and respectful manner, but then won $1.2m in damages from the Federal Circuit Court. This was in turn overturned on appeal.

Ruling on Dr Ridd’s appeal against that decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court, the High Court found today that neither the position of the primary trial judge or the Full Court could be fully accepted.

With the cases of both sides conducted on an “all-or-nothing basis”, Dr Ridd had failed to convince the bench led by Chief Justice Susan Kiefel that none of the university’s actions against him was justified.

“At the high level of principle at which the appeal was argued, the essential question is whether … intellectual freedom should be qualified (1) by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy to others in the expression of issues and ideas in one’s field of competence and (2) by obligations of confidentiality in relation to JCU’s disciplinary processes,” the court found.

“The best interpretation … is that the intellectual freedom is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise. That interpretation aligns with the long-standing core meaning of intellectual freedom.”

But this did not affect the outcome of Dr Ridd’s appeal, the court found.

His sacking was justified on 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.

The decision comes as every university in the country adopted a robust framework to protect freedom of speech among academics, ending a two-year Morrison government push to introduce a model code for the higher education sector.

As of this month, all 41 universities in Australia have either fully implemented the model code for academic free speech – designed by former chief justice Robert French in 2019 – or created pro-free speech policies that completely align with the code.

Professor Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for criticism of colleagues and their research into climate change and the Great Barrier Reef.

Education Minister Alan Tudge – who previously threatened to make the model code law if universities did not implement it – said on Tuesday the successful implementation of the code would help to ensure opposing viewpoints flourish on campus.

“If universities are not places for free, robust speech, then their very purpose is jeopardised. You cannot advance knowledge without challenging existing orthodoxies, and risk causing offence in the process,” Mr Tudge said.

“Freedom of expression is the most fundamental foundational principle of a university. Academics who don’t believe in free speech, or cannot handle someone challenging their work, should not be at a university.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

... A marine physicist sacked after challenging his colleague’s views on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, along with the university’s attempts to discipline him, has lost his High Court battle against James Cook University in a mixed decision for academic freedom ...
... The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.
... the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.” ...

Interesting.

[RaymondR]

It's a cop out on the part of the court.

Basically what it says is that whilst an individual might have rights in relation to freedom of expression these can be limited by conditions of employment.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

It's a cop out on the part of the court.

Basically what it says is that whilst an individual might have rights in relation to freedom of expression these can be limited by conditions of employment.

Twas always thus.

Many many employers place limits on what their employees may express, always have.

Sounds like the court simply confirmed this.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

It's a cop out on the part of the court.

Basically what it says is that whilst an individual might have rights in relation to freedom of expression these can be limited by conditions of employment.

The court simply recognized that there was more to Ridd's dismissal than just his dissent re GBR science.

It seems that this case has resulted in some clearer lines being drawn about the right to express dissent, if that's of comfort to anybody.

[RaymondR]

I've been through a few of these things myself.

They usually start off with precipitate abuses of authority on the part of management, which continues to progress because ego prevents a rethink and then further progresses into a tests of will.

[bstreep]

As I read it, he was fired because he engaged in commentary outside of his area of expertise. And with the rules that are NOW in place, he would not have been fired.



As others have said, free speech does not apply in a workplace.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by bstreep

As I read it, he was fired because he engaged in commentary outside of his area of expertise. And with the rules that are NOW in place, he would not have been fired.



As others have said, free speech does not apply in a workplace.

He is a physicist and "climate science" is fairly predominately physics anyway (the rest of it is largely black arts)

Universities are conceptually required to inquire with considerable cross disciplinary traffic.

The management requires "collegiality" but only within the strait jacket of speciality??

[Alan Mighty]

The 13 October 2021 final decision of the High Court of Australia is now published on the High Court's eresources website.

No need to base your thinking and argument on the decision on press reports or social media.

PDF download is about 266 KB.

Two easy ways:

1. browse:

https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2021/HCA/32

and click PDF; or

2. browse and automatically open/download:

https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/dow...df/2021/HCA/32

[jordanbigel]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

He is a physicist and "climate science" is fairly predominately physics anyway (the rest of it is largely black arts)

No. It is incorrect to imply that expertise in Physics confers expertise in climate science. That is just dead wrong.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by jordanbigel

No. It is incorrect to imply that expertise in Physics confers expertise in climate science. That is just dead wrong.

So you are saying that climate science is not based on the laws of physics? That would make climate science a religious cult.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

The 13 October 2021 final decision of the High Court of Australia is now published on the High Court's eresources website.

No need to base your thinking and argument on the decision on press reports or social media.

PDF download is about 266 KB.

Two easy ways:

1. browse:

https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2021/HCA/32

and click PDF; or

2. browse and automatically open/download:

https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/dow...df/2021/HCA/32

And, to cut to the chase;

"Conclusion


This appeal was conducted by both parties on an all-or-nothing basis. JCU's position was that all of the findings against Dr Ridd were justified. Dr Ridd's position was that none of the findings made against him was justified. Dr Ridd sought to reinstate all of the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court with adjustments for compensation and pecuniary penalties to reflect errors identified by the Full Court which he conceded had been made. No submissions were made by Dr Ridd to justify an alternative ground of relief that the matter be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court.

At the high level of principle at which this appeal was argued, the essential question is whether, in the interpretation of cl 14 of the Enterprise Agreement, the intellectual freedom should be qualified (i) by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy to others in the expression of issues and ideas in one's field of competence and (ii) by obligations of confidentiality in relation to JCU's disciplinary processes. The best interpretation of cl 14, having regard to its text, context, and purpose, is that the intellectual freedom is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise. That interpretation aligns with the long-standing core meaning of intellectual freedom. Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a "convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world", the "price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind*". The 2016 Censure given to Dr Ridd was, therefore, not justified.


That conclusion does not affect the outcome of this appeal. The only conduct that falls within the intellectual freedom in cl 14 is the expression of opinion within an area of academic expertise and the criticism of JCU decisions and processes through applicable processes which include obligations of confidentiality. This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 Censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom in cl 14. That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom. Since this appeal was run on an all-or-nothing basis, the appeal should be dismissed. There should be no order as to costs."

*Mill, On Liberty (1859) at 60.

https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/dow...df/2021/HCA/32


So, I wonder what happens to the money this charlatan raised from naive supporters for the defense of this self-inflicted defeat?

Originally Posted by jordanbigel

No. It is incorrect to imply that expertise in Physics confers expertise in climate science. That is just dead wrong.

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

So you are saying that climate science is not based on the laws of physics? That would make climate science a religious cult.

As par for the denier crowd, a deliberate twisting of an obvious truth. Which is a standard primary method for cult indoctrination.

The root cause is the primary fallacious statement

"He is a physicist and "climate science" is fairly predominately physics anyway (the rest of it is largely black arts)."

of which the first part is so broad as to be meaningless, and the second is just denialist BS opinion. ("black arts" --- a bald admission that should be read as 'I don't [or won't] understand)

[donradcliffe]

Climate science obeys the laws of physics, but the non-linear interactions and feedback mechanisms are complex enough that physicists have not yet been able to model the future accurately. That leaves the door open for honest disagreement. However, as the Ridd case shows, the climate change crowd does not permit any opinions but their own.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

... However, as the Ridd case shows, the climate change crowd does not permit any opinions but their own.

So, when you argue your position, it's legitimate debate; but when another argues her alternate position, it's shutting down debate.
And, when you go over the CF's "be nice" line, any Moderation would be undue censure.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Climate science obeys the laws of physics, but the non-linear interactions and feedback mechanisms are complex enough that physicists have not yet been able to model the future accurately. That leaves the door open for honest disagreement. However, as the Ridd case shows, the climate change crowd does not permit any opinions but their own.

No it’s that’s you need to argue with a body of facts and peer reviewed science behind you not just extract information from quack sites and Facebook