Universities more concerned about brand reputation than freedom

This has enormous implications. Universities now have a "brand" and the primary responsibility of university staff is to protect and foster that brand.

In the minds of the new bureaucrats who run universities, the worst crime an academic can commit is to bring their university into disrepute.

Such an attitude would be fine if universities were companies selling toothpaste. They are not. They are national institutions seeking to benefit the country.

Anyone who speaks out will invariably upset some people. Every academic who has controversial views has the potential to bring their university into disrepute. In a world in which the competition for students, especially international students, is fierce, the last thing any university wants is an incident that will damage its brand.

Given this combination of bureaucratic rigidity and the need to protect their brand, what universities want are for their staff to have "dangerous ideas" (a mixture of platitudes and virtue-signalling) in safe areas such as climate change and gender fluidity. They do not want real controversy.

They particularly do not want controversy in areas that affect their direct financial interests such as international students. It is interesting that the two principal critics of the influence of the Chinese government in Australia, John Fitzgerald and Clive Hamilton, are senior academics at institutions that do not have large numbers of Chinese students.

They are both beyond being harmed, which is why they can speak out so freely. I would suggest, however, that it is far more difficult to find such critics among junior academics who have yet to make a name for themselves.

What I suggest is freedom of speech in Australian universities is not just about the rules and regulations piled on top of each other at various institutions. It is equally about ­academic culture.

In the past, this culture encouraged staff and students to speak out and express their views freely. It was a crucial part of academic culture. One fears that this culture is dying. The real danger is that the new world of the university "brand" and the complex web of bureaucratic regulations will encourage young people who aspire to an academic career to avoid any really dangerous ideas that might affect their career prospects.