Macquarie University is threatening to fail law students if they don’t perform an adequate acknowledgement of country in a demonstration of compelled speech by a major mainstream institution. 

Non-indigenous students are required to deliver an acknowledgement of country, while students from the local indigenous tribe have to perform a welcome to country.

As reported by the Australian, the criteria of a key law exam included a demand that students:

... perform a “thoughtful”, “culturally respectful” and “exceptionally well-written” ode to Aboriginal traditional owners at the start of an oral law exam…despite the course on “age and the law” having no direct ­relation to Indigenous matters.

The university’s exam rubric stipulates that a student would fail if they:

… did not present an acknowledgement of country or welcome to country at the beginning of the presentation or did so in a way that was inappropriate or did not comply with the instructions.

This is a clear case of compelled speech, where students are threatened with a fail mark if they do not include politically charged and contentious language in a presentation that is not related to the issue at hand.

Simply uttering the relevant words is not enough. The rubric states that if the marking authority deems the ceremony is in appropriate or not sufficiently respectful, the student may still fail.

As the Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen wrote:

It’s one thing to fail a subject, or do poorly, if you don’t know what the law is, or if you can’t identify the issues in a legal problem. But to fail or get bad marks in a legal subject for not uttering a form of political speech in the correct tone as mandated by a lecturer is an abuse of authority.

Last year HRLA assisted in the case of Dave Pellowe, who had a vilification complaint lodged against him after he voiced objections to acknowledgement of country and welcome to country statements, which he considers to be pagan religious rituals.

The complaint was ultimately dropped, but the process itself is the punishment, and Dave had to endure several months of uncertainty, stress, and cost before it was resolved.

These cases show the need to be vigilant in defending free speech, especially when attacks on that right come in the form of compelled speech. It’s a vigilance HRLA will continue to maintain.