A New Zealand court has ruled that the University of Auckland failed to protect high-profile microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles from intense abuse and harassment while she was providing public information about the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court did not find that the university had suppressed Wiles’ academic freedom when it advised her to limit her public commentary to reduce harassment.
This case highlights a global debate about the extent to which universities are responsible for protecting academics who face harassment for engaging in public discussions about their work.
Harassment During COVID-19
Wiles began facing abuse in March 2020 after she started providing commentary about COVID-19 in the media and on social media. The harassment included abusive messages, her personal details being posted online, threatening phone calls, public confrontations, and vandalism of her home. Wiles argued that the university’s policies and practices were inadequate in providing support against this abuse.
Court Ruling
Judge Joanna Holden of the Employment Court of New Zealand ruled that the university had breached its contractual obligations to protect Wiles’ health and safety. The judge found that the university failed to respond appropriately to the sustained abuse and that some of its responses exacerbated Wiles’ distress. While acknowledging the challenges of the pandemic, the judge ordered the university to pay Wiles NZ$20,000 (US$12,000) in damages, the maximum allowed under the New Zealand Employment Relations Act. However, no penalty was imposed on the university.
Academic Freedom and Responsibilities
Wiles also claimed that the university’s instructions to reduce her public activities were inconsistent with its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to support Māori, New Zealand’s Indigenous peoples. The judge found no breach in these obligations.
A key issue was whether Wiles' public and media engagements were part of her work. The university argued that these were outside activities, but the judge ruled that Wiles' public COVID-19 commentary was part of her job, which made her a target of abuse.
Wiles, who remains employed by the University of Auckland, felt vindicated by the decision, especially the recognition that her expert commentary was part of her job and thus warranted employer protection. She emphasized that providing expert commentary is part of academics’ jobs and that their employers must ensure their safety.
Institutional Responses and Future Implications
Dawn Freshwater, vice-chancellor of the University of Auckland, stated that the ruling on academic freedom would be well-received by universities globally. However, Jack Heinemann, a geneticist and expert witness on academic freedom, pointed out that occupational health and safety concerns should not override academic freedom.
Physicist Shaun Hendy, who originally co-filed a grievance with Wiles but settled when he left the university, stated that the judgment should prompt universities to improve how they handle harassment. Institutions need to adopt best practices for protecting their staff during media engagements.
The University of Auckland has since implemented recommendations from a 2021 external security and safety audit to provide additional support and resources for staff facing harassment.
