Thanks Sandra for the constructive post.

My problem isn’t with an academic using research to contribute to policy debates or simply becoming a political activist – I’m happy with both and think they enrich public discussions. But as the relative emphasis shifts from academia to activism (or any other role), one is judged by different criteria. You’re an academic but in your role as TEU president I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that you should provide peer-reviewed data to back all your media releases, as you’re primarily working in a political and industrial relations role, not in your academic specialty.

Similarly, Prof Doug Sellman, in his Alcohol Action role, put out a media release that differed not one jot from a hundred other lobby group releases in the last week. It had no strong academic basis, but was a piece of political rhetoric – and quite unlike the release that went out under Otago Uni’s name on the same research.

Any academic should participate in public debate whenever they like and to whatever ends, but that does not give them a free pass from criticism, nor would it be healthy to do so.

On your point that academics might stop speaking out, I can’t see that happening as I read about, and link to, hundreds of them speaking out on issues every month. And tens of them are activists for one issue or another.

“When the government is at odds with publically funded scientific experts we should all be very concerned that vested interests have captured the attention of key Ministers of the Crown” – says Doug Sellman.
Unless they’re actively misrepresenting the scientific evidence, I have absolutely no problem with elected politicians being at odds with the views of “scientific experts” whether publicly or privately funded.
Academics (including the subset of these who are actual scientific experts) often have far narrower interests and agendas than those that need to be balanced in making public policy.
In public health, the broader interests that get ignored can include people’s enjoyment of freedom of choice (about what to eat, whether to smoke etc), economic efficiency (targeting tax breaks on healthy stuff, vs a broad simple and flat tax base), etc.
Unfortunately, academics who cross over into political campaigns often become rather selective in the “science” they’re willing to admit into the debate (eg hence the distorted rubbish that masquerades as cost-benefit estimates of the cost of smoking).

Stephen, I hope you’re not suggesting I attacked the reputation of an academic.

No, but I am suggesting that criticising or dismissing academics who comment or agitate on their research does discourage many others from entering public debate.

My view is that you were just articulating a commonly held position about the boundaries between academia and political activism. Sandra articulated an opposing view. For me the problem is when people apply and extend the view you articulated to then attack academics, as was the case with Prof Thrupp.

Is Doug Sellman’s Alcohol Action group actually partisan? If I look at the 5+ solutions I think I see social conservatism. But on this issue I’m not convinced that is linked to right or left parties. The more libertarian parties (Act & Greens) might be less happy with Alcohol Action’s positions but there are strong conservative/ pro-control elements in National and Labour that would support Alcohol Action’s positions.

Sandra, my view is that the academic cloak is very relevant when a person is directly drawing upon their research and scholarship, but if they have moved beyond that into essentially political activity, then they have the same rights of free speech as everyone else, but can hardly pull out an academic freedom card if they get criticised. It is unreasonable for a person to make a political statement and then try to claim that their statements and motivations are above debate because of academic freedom. But I guess the arguments have been well discussed and I thank you again for extending the debate.

Darel, I don’t see partisan as linking to a party. A definition I found largely fits what I meant: Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: eg partisan politics.

[...] worth their reputation to speak publicly on their area of expertise.” TEU national president Sandra Grey takes a public stand in favour of academics taking public [...]

Thanks for the input John. I’m happy to be challenged, but I did find your post a little condescending – it is entirely possible for reasonable people to disagree, as Sandra and I had already done.

I think you have misinterpreted my approach. I would agree with you that everything can be seen as political, but that wasn’t the thrust of my argument. My main point was that when someone acts as an activist participating in the formal political process (as opposed to the politics inherent in everything), it is reasonable for others in the public debate to judge them how they would any other activist.

I’m not seeking to limit what academics do and have no power to do so. I’m not seeking to have any limits on academic freedom or curtail anyone’s employment. What I am saying is if someone heads up a lobby group and acts much like any other lobbyist, then I’ll respond to them in that way, regardless of whether they also happen to be an academic, a mechanic or a lawyer. You obviously disagree with that, but my argument is a reasonable one and I can’t see any particular dangers in it, and nor have you named any.

I’m not sure why you started the argument about the use of public resources, as no-one has raised this to date in this thread.