‘We defend Peter’s right to make statements … until we are blue in the face,’ says deputy vice chancellor

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

A James Cook University boss says media reports about its sacking of controversial marine scientist Peter Ridd are “misleading and untrue” and that his academic freedom had always been upheld.



In an exclusive interview with Guardian Australia, deputy vice chancellor Prof Iain Gordon said he was frustrated at reports claiming Ridd was sacked for his fringe views on climate change or for his rejection of the scientific evidence linking human activity to degradation of the Great Barrier Reef.

• Sign up to receive the top stories every morning

“We defend Peter’s right to make statements in his area of academic expertise and would continue to do that until we are blue in the face,” Gordon says.

“The issue has never been about Peter’s right to make statements – it’s about how he has continually broken a code of conduct that we would expect all our staff to stick to, to create a safe, respectful and professional workplace.”

Ridd’s case has been followed extensively in conservative media, where it has been claimed he was fired for his rejection of the science of human-caused climate change and of evidence that the Great Barrier Reef is threatened by global warming and poor water quality from dredging and farm run-off.

Ridd was sacked in May, prompting an outcry among conservative commentators and climate science deniers.

Politicians including the former prime minister Tony Abbott, the environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, the assistant science minister, Zed Seselja, and independent MP Bob Katter have gone on the record expressing concern about Ridd’s sacking.

Peter Ridd's sacking pushes the limit of academic freedom | Gay Alcorn Read more

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) last week called for JCU to reinstate Ridd, arguing he was allowed to publicly question the university’s decisions.

Michael McNally, Queensland NTEU secretary, wrote: “Given the nature of the (entirely predictable) extensive media coverage, all management have done is to feed a rightwing media narrative that universities are conformist and actively suppress heterodox views on topics such as climate change.”

In November 2017 Ridd started court proceedings against JCU over the misconduct allegations and, later, his sacking, and raised $260,000 in a crowdfunding campaign to cover legal costs.

The disciplinary process began after Ridd wrote a December 2016 email to a News Corp Australia journalist with a report attached, claiming the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which is based at JCU, was knowingly using “misleading” historical pictures of degraded reef.

That email was forwarded to a JCU academic, who complained, leading the university to investigate and issue a formal censure, saying Ridd had broken the university’s code of conduct. Ridd defended his actions and denied his alleged breach.

Against the university’s instructions, Ridd later spoke about the disciplinary proceedings, repeating some of his criticisms and then, in later interviews, claimed the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies “can no longer be trusted”.

Both AIMS and the coral studies centre have staff based at JCU. Ridd later published “private and confidential” correspondence on a blog and wrote about the issue on a crowdfunding page, while repeating other claims in further interviews and on his website.

Climate sceptic group IPA suggested as co-host of Australian visit by Trump's environment chief Read more

“There has never been any constraint on Peter to express his opinion,” Gordon says.

He pointed to a “viewpoint” paper Ridd had cowritten for a journal in late 2017 that had laid out his claims about a lack of quality control in scientific studies related to the Great Barrier Reef. Some of the scientists Ridd had criticised responded, saying his claims were largely based on misinterpretations and “selective use of data”.

Gordon said: “That is what you would except an academic to do – to publish their views on the ways in which data is interpreted and that gives other academics the chance to rebut his particular views.

“So this is not about academic freedom. It is to do with the code of conduct at the university and the ways in which he had transgressed that code of conduct that we would expect any member of our staff to adhere to.”

He said the university was now trying to “put the record straight” about why it had disciplined and then sacked Ridd, amidst media claims he was muzzled because of is his views on climate change, reef science and his academic freedom was not upheld.

“The university characterises the coverage of this issue in the media as untrue and misleading,” Gordon says.

“There is a significant amount of information out there that would allow people to come to a conclusion other than those that some outlets are coming to.

“This appears to be Peter using the media attention to achieve some ends to his own that I don’t always understand.

“It is a mystery to me and I’m genuine about that. We would not have wished this matter to end in the way that it did, but ultimately we have to ensure we uphold the ethics and the code of conduct of this organisation.”

'It's all about vested interests': untangling conspiracy, conservatism and climate scepticism | Graham Readfearn Read more

In a termination letter published on Ridd’s website, the university lays out a series of allegations relating to “serious misconduct” which Ridd is challenging in an ongoing court case.

Among the allegations, the university says Ridd had “perpetuated a view that you were not allowed to talk to your wife about the disciplinary process, when in fact this was contrary to what you were told by verbally, and in writing … ”. He had denigrated a colleague, disclosed confidential information and “failed to take reasonable steps to avoid or manage a conflict of interest between your own interests and the interests of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the interests of the university”.

The IPA has been a key promoter of climate science denialism for two decades, publishing books and sponsoring speaking tours. The Melbourne-based thinktank has supported Ridd, helped his crowdfunding campaign and given him $8,566 to pay for initial legal advice.

Ridd’s case against JCU is adjourned until later this month.