MICHAEL JOHNSTON: A test case for universities
- Administrator
- Jun 14
- 2 min read
In May 2025, University of Otago Vice-Chancellor Grant Robertson eloquently explained why universities, as institutions, should be neutral on matters of public and political debate. If universities take stances on political issues, he said, they place members of their communities with different views in a difficult position.
Robertson made those comments when he presented his university’s statement on institutional neutrality, required under the Education and Training Amendment Act 2025. The Act states that “universities, as institutions, should not take public positions on matters that do not directly concern their role or functions.”
Argumentation based on evidence and reason moves human understanding closer to truth. But when universities take institutional positions, they put a thumb on the scale of academic debate.
Given Robertson’s clear articulation of the need for institutional neutrality, it is ironic that he now appears to have breached the legislation. In a recent email to his university’s staff and students, he made politicised comments on the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill and the abolition of the fees-free year of study in Budget 2026.
Regarding the Definitions Bill, he said, “At a personal level, I find this legislation to be unnecessary and disturbing. As a University, we remain resolute in upholding our commitments to respect and inclusion.”
Robertson pivoted from a personal view to an institutional commitment in consecutive sentences. He was communicating as the university’s Chief Executive. The email came from the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
Staff and students could easily interpret those comments as meaning the university opposes the bill. If Robertson did not intend that interpretation, he should refrain from sharing his personal views when communicating in his capacity as Vice-Chancellor.
The fees-free decision clearly affects university business. The Vice-Chancellor’s public disagreement with it therefore falls within the legislated exception to institutional neutrality. But Robertson crossed a line when he “acknowledged” a protest against the decision and told students, “…the Budget seeks to shift even more of the burden of the cost of education … to you.”
Robertson praised students for engaging in political protest. Then he made a political statement, accusing the government of setting out to impose costs on them. As Vice-Chancellor, Robertson should leave his well-known political affiliations at his office door.
Unfortunately, the legislation lacks meaningful consequences for breaches. The government should be prepared to give it some teeth.
That would help concentrate Vice-Chancellors’ minds.
Michael Johnston is a Senior fellow at the New Zealand Initiative
Brought and paid for - yesterday’s fish and chips wrapping. he should not be in an Ivory castle, more like one with steel doors and barb wire
Robertson gets to be a VC as a high-up Labour honcho, and the author of this piece gets a King's Birthday gong for being on the other side ..... Meanwhile I'd criticise the actual Bill as a bit of simplistic junk aimed entirely at getting votes for NZF. It's only a few sentences long, so obviously has no other purpose.
I suspect Grant Robertson’s opinion regarding the Legislation Amendment Bill is wholly motivated by his desire to be back on the political stage prior to the General Election in support of his preferred political allies….. or he simply can’t stay out of others choice of underwear.
Michael explained the circumstances in which his evidence agreed were not breaches of the legislation. The first was explicitly described as a personal view and the second incident did directly concern the university's role or functions.
It's pretty clear cut to be honest
Grant who?