Massey scientists are ‘shocked and upset’ by new public relations policies

Massey scientists say they are muzzled by publicly criticizing their university, as they await a crucial proposal for the future of their professors and jobs.

But the university rejects claims that its new communication policies will silence its scientists or curb their legally enshrined academic freedom, instead offering “guidance and clarification” that the staff had requested.

Several Massey scientists reached out to the Herald after the policies, which cover how academics should interact with the media, as well as social platforms such as Twitter, were distributed last week.

They were pulled months after Massey faculty were told on the first day of the semester that the university proposed to stop offering a science degree at its Albany campus, in a restructuring that could result in the loss of 50 jobs. sciences in Auckland and hundreds of students forced to relocate.

It was a bombshell that came amid a major restructuring and the rollout of an online-centric strategy called Digital Plus that would see many subjects taught face-to-face only on designated “anchor” campuses.

The movements were met with backlash from faculty members, many of whom have taken to social media to protest and have been published in media articles.

Some now claim that the new policies are a deliberate move to prevent them from being pronounced at a time when Massey is about to publish his revised proposal.

“The impression that the staff now has is that the university wants to avoid bad publicity and quietly advance to the next stage,” said a faculty member.

Another senior scientist, who also declined to be named, said: “The timing, the wording and the lack of consultation appear to be aimed at silencing the academics at Massey University.”

Under the policies, staff members are encouraged to collaborate with the media to “promote civic leadership on matters of concern nationally and internationally.”

They are also required to adhere to the university’s policy on staff conduct and ensure that they do not “disparage the university” by publicly discrediting the university, through the conduct, and by claiming affiliation with Massey.

Additionally, staff should indicate whether they are commenting in a personal or professional capacity, and not associate with Massey if they are speaking outside their range of professional experience.

Any inquiries from the media about staff, in addition to those inviting academic staff to comment on their area of ​​expertise, should also be referred to the university’s communications team.

Massey’s policy on social media also states that rules of staff conduct must be followed, “including taking care not to discredit the university.”

“The staff have been shocked and upset by the publication of this policy … nothing the university has done with this policy is in the spirit of respecting academic freedom of expression or kindness,” said a member of the personal.

“Many staff members have contacted the union and plan to fight this.”

Scientists outside of Massey have also reacted with concern.

The president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, Professor Troy Baisden, described the policies as a “confusing package” that should have been consulted more.

“We need universities to protect the mobility of academic expertise to innovate, address emerging issues, and reshape research and teaching to serve the future rather than the past,” he said.

“I do not see a viable way to draw a line in the social media space that prevents academic discourse from criticizing the university’s strategy, policy or actions and it is believed to be enshrined in New Zealand law establishing the universities “.

Prominent Kiwi scientist Professor Shaun Hendy, whose 2016 book Silencing Science explored these issues, said that restricting an academic’s ability to speak on matters that are only directly relevant to their experience is a well-known method of silencing scholarly comment. .

Enshrining it in university policy means that outside interest groups can target academics whose comments they don’t like with complaints.

He was also concerned about how preventing Massey academics from criticizing his university would affect transparency to the public.

“When Massey tried to restructure its scientific staff recently, the ability of its own academics to comment publicly on this restructuring was vital for the public to understand this issue,” he said.

“Massey’s policy appears to be designed to avoid public scrutiny.”

National science spokeswoman Parmjeet Parmar said she could understand why the policies had been viewed as preventing scientists from freely sharing their views on Massey’s decision-making.

He called on the Minister of Science, Research and Innovation, Megan Woods, to support them.

The Herald asked Massey why the policies were implemented, what consultations he had conducted and if they were at odds with academic freedom, or if they were deliberately intended to silence staff prior to the landing of the new proposal.

Associate director of communications Mike Shaw said Massey had been the only university without a formally prescribed guide for staff in the area.

“We look at what other universities are doing, in New Zealand and internationally, and this is a middle ground where we respect academic freedom while also providing clarity on the ability with which staff participate in public forums.”

Shaw said the policies were developed by the university’s communications team and, “as with any other document that provides guidance on using media channels, it has gone through our normal decision-making processes.”

“Staff have asked for guidance and clarification in this area and now many welcome this guidance.”

Shaw insisted that the policies were “not in any way” intended to interfere with or undermine the role of academic staff in exercising their role as “critical and conscientious.”

“The university strongly supports the exercise of academic freedom, which includes the right to conduct research, question and test received wisdom, propose new ideas, and express opinions even if they are controversial or unpopular.”

He rejected arguments that the policies had been designed to shut down public discussion of Massey’s proposals.

“We reject any suggestion that the policies are at odds with the university’s role as a critic and conscience of society, nor do we believe that criticism of the university’s policies or direction violates this policy, unless the comments are of nature that violated the existing policy of the Personnel Code of Conduct, “he said.

“We also refute the suggestion that these policies, which have been in development for some time, have been shared with the university community in an effort to silence staff in the context of discussion papers that are shared with them.”

It’s not the first time New Zealand academics have attacked media policies, and Hendy and his colleagues challenged similar ones at the University of Auckland earlier this year.