Comment: Universities are institutions with a history of creating unique understanding and remarkable opportunities. However, it is important to acknowledge that the return on the investment we make in our tertiary institutions typically accrues over much longer timeframes than meeting a fortnightly mortgage payment or even an election cycle.

In our current political and economic climate, this timescale is understandably leading to questions about the continued relevance of university education. Are we just institutions to train the next generation in the technical skills they need to join the work force? Are we primarily repositories of valuable knowledge and expertise that can inform actions when needed? Or do we have a role providing public commentary?

My view is that we are all these things, but our role also includes providing an environment that facilitates increased understanding through supporting conversations and hosting debates on subjects that are important for us all.

This role must be a tumu (mooring post) for scholars who are trusted to bring evidence and scrutiny to important issues. A university should also provide a meeting house for people to argue with passion so long as they are also prepared to listen with care.

I am in no way suggesting this is an easy or comfortable role. I do, however, think it is increasingly important—particularly because, as I highlighted in a previous opinion piece, I believe we are too frequently encountering a polarised set of extreme views and that people who could provide context, nuance, and evidence are withdrawing from debate.

The response to my opinion piece turned out to be a case in point.

Many people wrote to me to express support, with some others offering alternative views and suggestions for how I could have made my argument more clearly. This was feedback that I appreciated in the good faith with which it was offered.

However, there was also a small but much louder cohort that took to social media, not to interrogate my ideas but to call me a range of names while aggressively and abusively questioning my right to express them. Paradoxically, sometimes under the banner of free speech.

It was for this reason Victoria University started work on setting up a panel discussion on how society can more constructively grapple with and discuss controversial issues. We sought to invite a wide range of different views from across the political spectrum. We wanted to bring people together whose ideas are strongly supported within isolated political bubbles but who rarely share the same public stage.

There would be no keyboard or screen for the typical keyboard warrior to hide behind. In front of a university audience of reasonable people, many of them disciplined in the art of evidence and peer review, there would be nowhere for grandstanding. My hope was that this format and setting could start to change the discourse.

Following the event’s announcement, three things happened.

The first was that there was huge interest. Within a couple of weeks, more than 600 people registered to attend in person revealing a potential to engage the middle ground and bring debate out of isolated bubbles.

The second was that many different voices came forward indicating they would like to be part of the panel. These viewpoints were sometimes robustly, but always respectfully, communicated. Once again, we appreciated these contributions and the feedback they contained. In some cases, interest was because people represented a community that they felt was particularly affected by the debate (such as Māori, rainbow, or religious groups). In other cases, it was because they were interested in the principles and norms that govern public speech and debate. The work needed to accommodate this diversity of interest led us to postpone the event for a few weeks to organise a new format better able to include a wider range of views.

The third development was that loud voices again emerged seeking to discredit opposing views by playing the proverbial person not the ball. Some argued for speakers to be removed from the event because they disagreed with what they perceived as the speakers’ wider politics. Others questioned the university’s courage, incorrectly suggesting a short delay equated to cancelling the event and/or some of the participants. These contributions have been less helpful for developing the event in ways that can better support inclusive, respectful debate that will advance understanding.

To fulfil our role as a critic and conscience of society—a role every university in this country has—we need to foster the skills of critical thinking, along with the resilience to apply these skills. I believe we also need to foster the humility to acknowledge that we should be open to changing our opinion when the evidence or context changes. We must stop seeking to denigrate the views of others if we are going to support the creation of a more tolerant and inclusive society.

It is with these goals in mind that I am very pleased to confirm our event to discuss the role of universities in supporting freedom of speech will now be held on May 28, from 3:30 to 5:30pm. More details can be found here.

This article was originally published by Stuff.

Professor Nic Smith is Vice-Chancellor of Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington.