by MERLIN CROSSLEY

A friend of mine has a T-shirt with the words “Gravity, it’s not just an idea, it’s the law”.

I tell him gravity is a guideline that reduces in strength in an inverse squared relationship, until it eventually becomes undetectable.

Our debate continues and I keep asking myself whether my university should take a position or whether universities should stand aloof as institutions committed to being unique venues for debating difficult ideas.

It’s a false dichotomy.

UNSW does have an undeclared position on gravity. My friend is right – our experts tell us gravity is a law of physics, most of our staff and students accept that (or don’t care), and in practice UNSW operates with gravity being taken seriously (we have guardrails on stairs to prevent people falling). What’s more if anyone can prove that gravity is not a law of physics (and some of our physicists won a Eureka Prize for arguing that the laws of physics are not universal) they are headed not for silencing, but for a Nobel Prize.

When it comes to a more political issue like fossil fuel induced climate change, the university both has a position and is open to debate. The three criteria are satisfied – our experts’ intellectual arguments stack up to show carbon induced climate change is real, our staff and students appear to accept this, and in practice we are committed to reducing our carbon footprint, are seeking to divest from fossil fuels, and we have funded climate change and renewable energy research centres for decades. But if anyone can come up with an explanation for global warming unrelated to carbon dioxide pollution, they are free to speak on campus.

Now for two obviously political issues: the non-funding of Australian Research Council Grants that had been approved for funding via peer review and the policy to remove Commonwealth support from students who fail half their subjects in first year, Job Ready Graduates etc.

Does UNSW have a position? Yes, in public and in private consultations the university management regularly makes its views known. These things directly affect the running of the university, so this is part of the responsibility of management. Perhaps this is why it doesn’t attract much attention.

When it comes to the culture of the institution management also has a responsibility. UNSW participates in “Wear it Purple Day”. Three of the official UNSW values are “Inclusion”, “Respect”, and “Excellence”. These three things are related. Management, after consultation, listed values that ensure we include and respect everyone, because we believe that only in that way can we be as good and as excellent a university as possible.

When it comes to our values and our operations management sometimes goes further, imposing laws. In championing respect, we outlaw hate speech and incitement to violence. But we remain open to respectful debate and support free speech.

When it comes to past referenda, I don’t think UNSW had a position on the republic. In the case of the marriage equality plebiscite the then vice chancellor and chancellor expressed their personal support, but not an institutional position. Some people felt this didn’t go far enough, others too far. This diversity reassures us that we are effectively supporting academic freedom.

What about the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its call to improve the welfare of First Nations people via a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution? Let’s look at the criteria. Our experts in social science, history, and law, tell us this is a step in the right direction. Our staff and students agree. We know because in practice so many people at our university are already actively supporting First Nations students and their rights, we know because our Indigenous Strategy is embraced, and in practice UNSW has long supported the Indigenous Law Centre, and our staff (particularly Professor Megan Davis, Pro-Vice Chancellor Society and her team) have contributed to the referendum councils and the writing of the Uluru Statement. The three criteria are met: arguments stacking up, our community being supportive, and us operating in practice as supportive. How could we claim UNSW has no position?

The UNSW position does not compel any member of our community to vote one way or the other. Nor is there any prohibition on advancing arguments against the Voice. Freedom of voting and free speech are intact. But in practice UNSW obviously has a position. Importantly, the values of the Uluru Statement also align with our institutional values of inclusion, respect, and excellence (and innovation and collaboration – we have five values!), so this is territory where management can make a statement with great confidence, and should. Management Board has. “UNSW supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its quest for a Voice to Parliament”.

I hope that gradually as the “whispering in our hearts” grows and individuals speak out, the managers of universities and other institutions will respond. If the vast majority of experts in a university speak positively, it would be misleading, even unconscionable for an institution to pretend things are undecided and remain silent.

Some universities will explain that the organisation does not have a brain or a vote, just a responsibility to support its academics, and that will enable them to speak in support. At others senior leaders will stand up as individuals.

Australian premiers and chief ministers signing up does not affect our political freedoms, and universities signing up will not hinder academic freedom.

Conversely, remaining silent could be seen as a political move. If that happens too often, who knows how things will progress in Australia, or whether they will progress at all.

Merlin Crossley is Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic Quality, UNSW Sydney