Should universities take sides in Australian ‘voice’ referendum?

When one of Australia’s foremost indigenous intellects gave the opening keynote address at this year’s Universities Australia (UA) conference, she revived a longstanding argument. Should the sector function as society’s moral compass, or as a neutral forum for debate?

As a co-chair of the “Uluru Dialogue”, UNSW Sydney law professor Megan Davis has played an instrumental role in what is shaping up as Australia’s issue of the year: a referendum to decide whether an indigenous “voice to parliament” should be enshrined in the country’s constitution.

Professor Davis said protracted Aboriginal activism had ensued against a backdrop of indiscriminate murder during the Frontier Wars, “what we now know as Australia’s first great war”, and policies that had left today’s indigenous Australians as “proportionally the most incarcerated people on the planet”.

“The brutality of the Australian state towards Aboriginal people is a part of those values that imbue the constitutional order to this day,” Professor Davis said, adding that she had become a constitutional lawyer to rectify this. “Constitutions can create the material conditions for a dignified human life,” she explained.

Colleagues at her university, UNSW, had “laboured” for a successful result in the referendum. Other institutions should follow suit and “not sit on the fence”, Professor Davis warned.

“Universities say they don’t want to be political, but the decision not to take a stance for…the referendum on a voice to parliament is a political decision. Imagine taking money from the Commonwealth for indigenous students, and then turning around and saying that your university is above politics when it comes to the single most important reform facing first nations since 1967.”

But the previous evening, vice-chancellors had collectively sat on the fence. In a meeting ahead of the conference, they had resolved to support the process of a referendum without backing a particular result.

In a statement, UA vowed to “work with members to promote and facilitate sector wide discussion about the first nations voice to parliament underpinned by academic freedom and a commitment to the cultural safety of our indigenous students and staff”.

At the individual level, some institutions take a different view. UNSW has formally affirmed its support for a voice to parliament in a statement approved by its management board. Vice-chancellor Attila Brungs said UNSW had “actively supported the process of the first nations voice from its early days”.

Some other universities have adopted similar positions backing the yes vote. But the University of Sydney said it was “considering our institutional position” in consultation with its community.

“Throughout our history we have served as a forum for debate on wider political issues rather than to act as a participant in those debates,” it said. “We…encourage individual academics, students and members of our wider community to engage with broader issues and express their views, in line with our strong commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom.”

In 2017, Sydney attracted staff and student ire when – unlike at least 10 other institutions – it declined to take sides in the looming plebiscite on same-sex marriage.

Then vice-chancellor Michael Spence told staff he did not consider it appropriate to adopt an institutional position. “Universities in the secular liberal tradition are essentially fora for debate in which ideas can be freely expressed and discussed,” he said.

University of South Australia boss David Lloyd, who is UA’s lead vice-chancellor on indigenous issues, took a different view. “This is a constitutional opportunity where we can’t sit on the fence, and institutions shouldn’t sit on the fence,” he told the conference. “How many universities sat on the fence through the pandemic? None. There wasn’t one that said you shouldn’t get vaccinated.”

The difference over institutional stances on the referendum seems somewhat academic, in a sector where personal support for a yes vote appears overwhelming. Mentions of the voice to parliament routinely prompt enthusiastic applause at university events. Professor Davis’ audience at the conference rose en masse to offer her a standing ovation.

Formal institutional positions may not mean that much anyway, in a sector where vice-chancellors and chancellors are taken to be speaking for their institutions when they express their personal views. “I think in the public arena, it’s seen as very much the same thing,” University of Canberra deputy vice-chancellor Geoff Crisp told Times Higher Education.

He said universities sometimes needed to adopt public stances on complex and contested subjects. “It’s always a judgement call. It’s important that people see where universities stand on major issues such as this. I don’t see a contradiction in that. It’s still up to the individual to vote.”

Institutional positions could make a difference to the outcome, in a country where referendums seldom succeed. Under the country’s electoral laws, changes to the constitution must be approved by not only a majority of voters across the nation but also a majority of voters in most of the six states. Since Australia federated in 1901, its citizens have agreed to just eight of 44 proposals to change the constitution.

Professor Davis told the conference that UNSW’s position on the coming referendum would not prevent forthright debate. “Being a robust university and facilitating both sides is not at odds with universities taking a position on the referendum on a voice to parliament,” she said.

“It’s important for young minds and the leaders of tomorrow and the first nations collegiate to see what leadership looks like; what courage looks like.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com