History Now and the Thomas Fudge Article

 

Published by the Communications and Development Department

 

23 July 2003

In view of the public interest surrounding the debate on the matter of Dr Thomas Fudge and the article he had printed in the May issue of UC’s Department of History’s History Now magazine, the Vice Chancellor Professor Roy Sharp released a statement outlining the University’s position.

 

“The University does not see this as a debate about academic freedom.

 

“The Education Act states that academic freedom is to be ‘preserved and enhanced’. In this case, academic freedom means the freedom of academic staff ‘within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions’.

 

“Our interpretation of this section of the Act is that the University should not prevent an academic staff member from publishing an article that puts forward new ideas and states controversial or unpopular opinions. It does not suggest to us that the University or a department of the University is obliged to publish such an article itself.

 

“No attempt has been made to stop publication of Dr Fudge’s article in the wider public arena. Indeed, Dr Fudge was offered suggestions as to other media in which he could publish. Dr Fudge did not respond to those offers of assistance.

 

“History Now is a collective enterprise of the Department of History, subsidised annually from the department’s budget. Dr Fudge’s colleagues believed there was a professional and collegial responsibility — whether explicit or implicit — to have an article of a sensitive and publicly controversial nature that potentially misrepresented the behaviour of individuals and the Department, considered by the editorial board and the people implicated before any decision on publication.

 

“Following robust debate, the overwhelming majority of the academic staff of the History Department agreed the article, in its then form, should not be published in the May issue of History Now.”

 

More specifically, Professor Sharp said academic staff were concerned about:

 

• Possible inaccuracies and misleading statements in the article that no one in the department had been given a chance to check
• Use of documents internal to the department’s business without at least clearing the use of those documents with the people concerned
• Naming of specific individuals and businesses, which could expose the University to legal action from those named.

 

“These issues were followed through by the History Now editorial board and the Head of Department accepted its recommendation that the article should not be published in its present form.”

 

Professor Sharp upheld that decision when the matter was subsequently referred to him.

 

“The University defends the rights inherent in upholding academic freedom but has an obligation to ensure that these rights are exercised responsibly. In the article published this week in the Christchurch Press, in an abridged form, the points that were of concern had been removed.

 

“Although Dr Fudge has signalled publicly that he has resigned, we have not received a resignation and wish to make it clear that there is no pressure on Dr Fudge to resign.”

 

For more information contact
Deborah Parker
Communications Manager
University of Canterbury
Christchurch
Ph 03 364 2910
Email deb.parker@canterbury.ac.nz