Fact-checker suspension ‘reflects mistrust’ of universities

A social media giant’s suspension of a university fact-checking service exemplifies what can happen when academic institutions take sides on contentious social issues, according to an Australian philosopher.

Meta, which owns platforms including Facebook and Instagram, has suspended its use of RMIT University’s FactLab service because of “possible bias or unfairness” in rulings related to Australia’s 14 October referendum on a constitutionally enshrined indigenous advisory “voice”.

In a letter to shadow home affairs minister James Paterson, reported by The Australian, Meta also cited FactLab’s lack of current accreditation from the International Fact-checking Network and said it would reconsider its decision once the “expired certification” had been reinstated.

FactLab has attracted accusations of bias after posting a warning label on a claim that the referendum’s underpinning document, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, was 26 pages long. Voice advocates say all but one of those pages are minutes from the meetings that produced the document.

The controversy has arisen as 22 Australian universities endorse the Uluru Statement, with many explicitly backing a “yes” vote. Another 20 institutions, including RMIT, have not expressed institutional preferences about the referendum’s outcome.

Instead, they have vowed to help inform the community about the underlying issues by hosting public lectures and panel debates, offering microcredentials, providing access to reference material and – in RMIT’s case – performing fact-checking.

Lawyer and philosopher Russell Blackford said such efforts risked being undermined when universities expressed views on politically controversial issues.

“We start looking like a partisan player rather than a kind of honest broker trying to keep debate as sensible as we can, but allowing for the expression of all the arguments,” said Dr Blackford, a conjoint senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Newcastle.

He said he did not believe an institutional stance helped the “yes” cause. “It might even cause a backlash if it’s seen as yet more evidence of ideological thinking,” he said.

Jill Blackmore, professor of education at Deakin University, said institutional positions were consistent with universities’ social critic role “given current prioritisation of indigenous participation in higher education”.

“Taking a stance…on such an important national issue as the voice is, as many universities have already stated, in alignment with the core purpose of a university as a conscience in a democracy,” said Professor Blackmore, who is president of the Australian Association of University Professors.

“It in no way constrains academics and students as individuals or groups within the university from taking a different position.”

Dr Blackford, who personally backs the “yes” case, said there was a widespread opinion that academic bodies could not resile from adopting positions because the indigenous voice to parliament was “such an important constitutional step”. But this was a mistake, he said.

“It’s one thing to take a view on established science such as climate change, but this is different. Should universities take a stance on abortion? I think it’s pretty obvious that they shouldn’t. I find it hard to distinguish the two situations.”

An RMIT spokeswoman said the fact-checking service’s accreditation was currently being renewed. “RMIT FactLab stands by the accuracy of its work to date and remains dedicated to slowing the spread of viral misinformation and disinformation,” she said.

“Fact checking aims to bring transparency to debate and reporting on issues of public importance and does not involve the removal or censoring of information.” 

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com