Claire Harvey: The new obscenity on campus is dissent

Swearing's fine, and committing crimes is okay, just don't tarnish the brand. That's the message coming from some of our universities: students and staff can do what they like, as long as they don't make the university look bad.

On the modern tertiary campus, dissent is the new obscenity.

Around New Zealand, universities are using the courts to protect their reputations, and some have apparently decided that debate and journalism are not vital elements of healthy democracy but pests to be managed away.

Have a look at the headline on a story published in the Victoria University student newspaper Salient this week.

"The story they didn't want you to read: 5-10% fee rise! Sh*tf*ck!"

In a strange twist of morality, Victoria's managers objected to the headline not because it involved naughty language, but because it threatened to give students too much information - specifically, that Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh had quietly proposed lifting annual fees by up to 10 per cent for some or all students.

Victoria made itself look absolutely foolish by rushing to the High Court to get an injunction preventing distribution of its student magazine, even though Salient had been printed and was awaiting distribution, and the text of the story was about to be published in other publications as well as on the internet.

Salient was "not entitled" to know about the proposed fee increase, the university said.

Why not? A university is a public institution, not a corporation whose share price might be affected by ill-timed publicity.

The document's authenticity was not in question. And if we're talking entitlement, the news media are entitled to find out whatever they can about what is going on inside the powerful institutions of society, even if those inquiries threaten profits or reputations.

That's the whole point of an open society, and universities should be the institutions we can rely on to foster inquiry, investigation and enlightenment.

The Salient episode was an outrageous example of the trend, but there are plenty of other universities aping the worst reputation-management practices of corporate bullies like Sony or McDonald's.

Otago University has lobbied for and won name suppression for a convicted criminal because they want to keep employing him as an academic without fellow staff or students knowing his identity.

The academic pleaded guilty this year to maliciously hacking into the computer system of an ex-employer and deliberately damaging the business.

In August he was sentenced to 200 hours' community work and ordered to pay US$8290 ($11,870) to his former employer in the district court, but Otago University submitted affidavits supporting a name suppression order on the grounds that negative publicity might turn away potential students or make it difficult to recruit staff.

So what's the message? Otago University does not care that one of its staff is a criminal and a vandal.

In the university's view, the man would only become a problem if those sensationalist grubs in the media were allowed to tell the story.

At Auckland University, some academics say they feel gagged by paranoid managers who punish or persecute staff who complain or dare to speak to journalists.

In August after the Herald published a story airing some of these concerns, the academics' union said it had been "contacted by a number of members who are unhappy about being approached by management [and asked] to sign a letter to the New Zealand Herald in response".

And last year, Auckland and Victoria Universities successfully took legal action to prevent the Tertiary Education Commission publishing a "league table" of international comparisons between universities, which is used to assess the level of Government research funding given to each university.

Auckland and Victoria said comparing the research achievements of New Zealand academics with their foreign counterparts was like trying to match "apples with oranges" and could hurt universities' reputations.

The High Court agreed and issued an injunction against the commission, preventing the information's public release.

Not even when there's a good intention can these universities see the way to defend freedom of speech.

When Otago's student magazine Critic published a controversial how-to guide on committing drug rapes last month, Vice-Chancellor David Skegg's first instinct was damage control.

Instead of taking the brave line and defending Critic's independence, Skegg was quick to distance the university from the article in case readers thought it reflected university policy.

In a way, these universities are giving their students a good lesson in what the media business is like.

If any of these student reporters become professional journalists, they will have to deal with constant obstructions from corporations and governments who do not believe the media has a legitimate role to play in an open society.

What a shame the universities are teaching that lesson in the courtroom rather than the lecture theatre.