Mike Hosking: It's simple - Massey's Jan Thomas has got to go

COMMENT:

What a scandal eh? And if Massey values it's reputation, Jan Thomas is gone.

I suspect most of us knew that when it came to the Don Brash fiasco the security excuse was bogus, given it never really got detailed and the police were never called.

But little did we know just how fundamentally dishonest Jan Thomas would appear to be in this matter.

If you haven't seen the emails obtained through the Official Information Act then they're worth a read.

And further, it's a reminder of the value and power of the OIA.

And one wonders whether Thomas - while writing her fears, concerns, and views - ever thought this would end up where it has.

But to the notes. Thomas didn't want Brash on campus. She didn't like his views and spent a fair amount of time getting advice, asking questions, and working out how to prevent him from appearing.

It would seem she couldn't find a good enough reason, so in the end cited security.

Basically, it seems to me, she lied. And the trouble with that? Well, where do you start?

The campus, the university, the home of free speech, the exchange of ideas, the heated debate, the ability to learn through diversity, the welcoming of diversity, the open arms approach to expression. Well, that's all been made a joke. The university of 2018 is a hijacked enclave of hand wringing and political correctness.

It's where offence is guarded, if not policed against, where views held must adhere to hierarchies, where there is a gate keeper driven by the Treaty of Waitangi and its politically correct outworking.

It's where what was once welcomed is now to be closed down at all costs. And, tragically, seemingly done so with dishonesty, subterfuge and underhand tactics.

I'm not sure what's worse, the overarching agenda that it's our view or no view, or what seems dishonesty keeping it in place.

Is a politically driven view of the world, a left-leaning one, of more danger to the community? Or the fact that morally these people will seemingly stop at nothing to drive it, and protect it?

There is nothing wrong with holding a view as clearly Thomas does. But to me the protection of that view at the expense of other views, especially on a place like a campus, is a crime, certainly morally.

And to go to such extent and effort to have your view, and your view alone, enforced smacks of an extraordinary level of paranoia.

A view well held is a view that can be defended and debated.

But so far this seems a basic abuse of power by dishonesty. I would have thought it is a sackable offence. You'd like to think she'd quit in humiliation. But I hope the university doesn't give her the chance.