The university’s annual report (CMM Monday)  refers to its High Court win against “a former staff member” who lost an unfair dismissal case

The university means scientist Peter Ridd, who JCU sacked for breaching its code of conduct over his criticism of university science on the state of the Great Barrier Reef (CMM November 1 2021).

JCU states the High Court “found that the university’s action to terminate the former employee’s employment was both lawful and justified and had nothing to do with academic freedom. The High Court also made some useful, more general observations about academic freedom and enterprise agreements.”

All correct,  but the court also found that the university was not justified in censuring Dr Ridd in 2016, for his first statement – that it was subsequent statements that justified his dismissal.

As for Clause 14 of James Cook U’s then enterprise agreement, which dealt with intellectual freedom, and which Dr Ridd relied on, the High Court stated.

“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.”