Free speech and institutional trust issues

What happens when a university loses its license to orchestrate the many voices within it? Australia is providing a cautionary tale. At the Australian National University and the University of Technology Sydney, staff and students have taken control of the public narrative about cuts, strategy, and governance. Their voices are passionate, diverse, and sometimes contradictory. The result is “narrative chaos,” in Tim Winkler’s phrase, where the story of higher education is being told not by institutions but by those who feel excluded from decision-making. New Zealand does not yet have an ANU or a UTS moment. But we would be naïve to think we are immune. Our universities face the same structural pressures and the same risk: if leaders do not communicate openly, clearly, and consistently, others will step into the vacuum. The lessons for New Zealand universities are straightforward but urgent: 🔹Internal communication is the foundation of trust. 🔹Staff and students will create their own narratives if they do not feel heard. 🔹 Professional staff voices matter as much as academic ones. 🔹 "Corporate-like" statements rarely cut through when set against lived experience and emotion. Universities hold a privileged role as convenors of diverse perspectives. When they lose that role, their legitimacy and their future are both at stake. Tim Winkler’s piece on Australia’s higher education “narrative chaos” is well worth reading for what it tells us about communications, leadership, and the fragility of institutional trust. #Universities #HigherEducation 👉 https://lnkd.in/gWGhPE8m

The brutal repression of students protesting in solidarity with Gaza and Palestine is a sign of a broader crisis of governance and meaning across universities. Most universities today seem to lack the institutional willingness, skills and political will to engage with vital, sensitive political issues with the necessary care, calm and openness. The prevalent institutional response to urgent political questions seems to usually begin with silence, and more or less subtle dismissiveness of those who raise concerns. It then quickly escalates into repression of its own students and staff, and a clear decision of treating protest and political mobilization as a ‘safety’ and ‘public order’ issue, rather than as opportunities for dialogue, and learning. This fuels confusion, frustration and mistrust in our communities, and endangers students’ and staffs’ lives. It also further encourages instincts of self-protection/preservation and avoidance of responsibilities which are already so prevalent in neoliberal academia. For months, across universities – publicly, or internally, and at various institutional levels– many of us have raised concerns over restrictions on freedom of expression, and the need for conversations on universities’ position vis-a-vis the war in Gaza and Israeli institutions For months, the institutional answer was mostly one of silence, dismissiveness, or defensiveness. This approach keeps eroding the credibility of universities as one of the few institutions which has the potential to hold space for hard, complex and uncomfortable conversations Not to mention that in Europe, police repression such as the one we are witnessing here in Amsterdam likely violates human rights. As our societies face multiple accelerating crises —from ecological breakdown, rising inequalities and the strengthening of ethnonationalism— in a context that is increasingly polarized, university governance need to be radically re-imagined. That is – if we care about universities as spaces of non-violent, open discussions and freedom of expression. This is hard work. The alternative is, as Branko Milanovic puts it, to continue to strengthen the idea of ‘universities as factories’ disciplined through coercion: https://lnkd.in/eykefCxN That’s a bleak future for students, educators and the society at large.

NITDA's report boasts over 13.5 million accounts closed and nearly 59 million contents removed. But these numbers, far from being a sign of a "safer" internet, are a stark illustration of gross internet censorship. This process, which compels tech giants to act on vague government notices without judicial oversight, is not true collaboration. It's a system where the government and Big Tech benefit from a model that bypasses due process and suppresses free expression. Nigeria has a documented history of using vague laws like the Cybercrimes Act to silence journalists and activists. The Code of Practice is a more sophisticated extension of this same strategy. To restore trust and protect free expression, the process must be independently vetted by a third party. Oversight should not rest solely with the government and tech companies, but with trusted NGOs and private investigators, ensuring due process and accountability for all Nigerians. We must demand a digital ecosystem that is not just safe, but also free. The time for a truly rights-respecting digital governance is now.

After a decade of working at the intersection of politics, social media, and public communication, I’ve seen how platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and WhatsApp have reshaped governance. They are no longer just spaces for personal expression; they’re now real-time public feedback loops. The Maharashtra government’s latest guidelines for its employees attempt to regulate that space, banning criticism of policies, restricting content sharing, mandating account separation, and tightening control over official narratives. From a policy perspective, I understand the need for discipline, accuracy, and confidentiality, especially when handling official information. Misinformation from within the system can erode public trust faster than any external narrative. But here’s the challenge: When restrictions cross into silencing legitimate criticism, the feedback loop breaks. Social media isn’t just a PR channel; it’s a living barometer of public sentiment. For governments, ignoring or suppressing critical voices (even from within) means losing an early-warning system that can prevent larger governance failures. In my experience, the most impactful public campaigns are those in which leaders and institutions have not only embraced but also fearlessly engaged in this dialogue. Feedback, even if uncomfortable, is an asset, not a threat. A strong democracy doesn’t just allow space for dissent, it values it. #Governance #SocialMedia #PublicPolicy #DigitalCommunication #FreeSpeech #Democracy #PoliticalCommunication

India’s Universities Are at a Crossroads: Leadership Matters More Than Ever India’s universities—both public and private—are grappling with rising ideological tensions and a shifting understanding of freedom of speech. These institutions, long regarded as sanctuaries for open inquiry and intellectual exploration, are now increasingly constrained by political polarization and administrative overreach. At the core of this crisis is a leadership failure: many Vice Chancellors today are appointed not for their academic merit, research credentials, or institutional vision, but for reasons tied to political patronage, ideological alignment, or bureaucratic convenience. This is not a minor flaw—it’s a systemic weakness. The Vice Chancellor is not just an administrator; they are the intellectual and moral compass of the university. When individuals lacking academic depth or leadership experience occupy this role, the consequences are far-reaching: academic freedom is curtailed, faculty are disempowered, students are silenced, and the global credibility of our institutions suffers. The ability to manage ideological diversity, promote research, and safeguard autonomy is fundamentally compromised. To move forward, we must reform how leadership is chosen in higher education. Vice Chancellors should be appointed through a transparent, merit-based process led by independent search committees composed of respected academics across disciplines. Structured leadership development and mentoring should be integral to preparing future university heads. And above all, universities must adopt and defend institutional frameworks that protect free thought, constructive dissent, and academic integrity. A university must be more than a physical campus—it must be a thriving space for ideas, debate, and innovation. That vision cannot survive without principled and competent leadership. If we care about the future of education in India, we must start by putting the right people in the right positions. #HigherEducation #AcademicLeadership #UniversityGovernance #FreedomOfSpeech #ViceChancellor #IndiaEducation #LeadershipMatters #EducationReform

As universities struggle to respond to a growing loss of trust and a sense that we are sources of intolerance and polarization--we see initiatives like this one to encourage civility and disagreement among students. The challenge is that efforts to promote civil discourse cannot be civil unless there is viewpoint diversity among faculty, students, and administrators--and that diversity is protected by robust free speech rules. Otherwise, efforts to promote civil discourse simply reaffirm an institutional status quo--using a polite tone of voice. https://lnkd.in/e8ZufP2E