Dear Leo Lane,

Now normally of course I would have given your temerity short shrift but I am trying to moderate my tone.

So I am instead going to direct you to an earlier post on this thread where I gave the following reference;

“The National Tertiary Education Union campaigns for academic freedom clauses in Enterprise Agreements rather than in university policies. National President Alison Barnes explains why; “the most important implication of this judgement is that the only real protections for academic freedom in Australia are in the enterprise agreements negotiated by the NTEU. Most universities have policies on academic freedom, but they are completely unenforceable and therefore of very limited value.”
“Professor Ridd’s views on climate change would be at odds with the strongly held opinions of many NTEU members. However, that is not the point. The right to speak freely about academic matters needs to be especially protected when views are unpopular or controversial. It is greatly to the credit of his colleagues, many of whom disagree with his views, that they did not support the heavy-handed approach of the university management in this case,” Dr Barnes says.”
http://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/why-peter-ridd-won-his-case-against-james-cook-u/

As you had obviously missed it I would be interested to see if you had anything that would counter the above?

If you are going to assert that the EBA was negotiated without the union then it would probably make James Cook University staff as probably the only uni in the country where that has occurred. Highly unlikely of course.

You may well be considering remarking that this doesn't prove the union was instrumental in including the academic clause within this specific agreement and that it was placed in there at the insistence of the University, but that of course would be ludicrous so you won't.

In a statement James Cook
University Provost, Professor Chris Cocklin did more
than just disagree
with the judge - he said the university was "considering its
options."

And he went on to further explain that -

"We are also troubled by the fact that he (the judge) fails
to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia
to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement,
or academic freedom in Australian employment law." His
statement said.

Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement that
Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific views."

"Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced." the statement said.

"We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's nor any
other employee's right to academic freedom."

"What was an issue was how he (Ridd) communicated about
others, how he denigrated others,
and how he breached confidentiality,
which impacted not only on him, but on others."

Penalty hearings are to be set for a later date.

It shall be interesting to see if Dr Ridd gets re-instated.

On what grounds is Peter Ridd's view of the state of the GBR not relevant to his dismissal?
If his view is incorrect then surely dismissing him would be justified.
If his view is correct and that view offends others, then surely his dismissal is not justified.

This JCU/Ridd affair is not just about academia. The very future of the GBR and coral worldwide is at stake. Peter Ridd has shown photos of healthy coral where JCU science has claimed coral is dead or damaged. Doubt needs to be resolved. Questions need answers.

Is the GBR seriously damaged as some JCU coral scientists say according to news media?
Is there any damage to GBR coral, if so from what scientifically proven cause, is the sole cause due to climate change or is there another cause?
Is climate change absolutely the only cause of widespread coral bleaching?

There is evidence coral in some areas of the GBR is very healthy. In other areas there is dead coral amongst living coral. There are areas of old reef with new coral sprouting up here and there.

CO2 is everywhere but coral is not dead everywhere.
The whole GBR is not dead. But most GBR coral could be dead in the future due to eutrophication.

There is evidence of substance including absolute fact that JCU science and also Prof Ridd, have not been measuring the total nutrient load being transported from all point sources into GBR waters. For presently unknown reason the northerly flow of sewage nutrient from Australia’s east coast cities and towns, transported within the known sediment dispersal system, is not observed and measured in JCU and GBRMPA associated science. That dispersal system is definitely transporting unprecedented southern city and town sewage nutrient (pollution) into GBR waters and beyond Cape York.
Dissolved nutrient bonded to fresher surface water is sometimes pushed long distances by prevailing wind.

If the JCU/ Ridd affair develops solely into academic debate then its likely nutrient pollution feeding algae killing coral will continue without solutions. Even crown of thorns larvae plagues thrive on micro algae.

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1

JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin clearly explained
why they sacked Dr Ridd.

Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific views."

"We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's, nor
any other employee's rights to academic freedom"

In other words Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced.

"What was an issue was HOW Dr Ridd communicated about
others, how he denigrated others, and how he breached
confidentiality, which impacted not only on him, but
on others."

Penalty hearings are to be set for a later date.
And whether Dr Ridd will be re=-instated we don't
yet kn ow. Perhaps he'll get a better offer from
some media outlets.

I think JCU took issue with Peter Ridd's personal view, not his scientific view. There was no paper.

The Great Barrier Reef (Queensland version), is "kapoot". Peter Ridd is of total insignificance.