The Posters Went Up. The Posters Came Down. The Questions Remain.

NEWS | MATARIKI

Written by Mila Van Der Plas (she/her) | @mila.vdp | News Editor

At universities, posters come and go as quickly as club invites, cultural events and the occasional student initiative. But when political messages go up, it turns out they sometimes come down faster than you can say “freedom of expression.”

That’s exactly what took place towards the end of the first semester in the City Campus Science building, where Green Party pamphlets encouraging students to email Outreach NZ and urge sanctions against Israel were placed on Level 3. The pamphlets, which steered clear of standard "Free Palestine" discourse in favor of political action terminology, did not last long.

Within hours, they were removed. Behind them was a staff member, Stacey, a research officer in science communication and education, who received an email from AUT reminding them that "unauthorised posters" are prohibited on campus.

Stacey told Debate that they've put up a lot of these posters in the past, no problem. Others, they say, have put up the same exact posters across WG, no vanishing act or reminders about policy.

Stacey describes a broader concern percolating between employees and students: At what point, exactly, does political speech cross a line? Who gets to decide what posters stay, and what seep away unremarked?

"If it does not affect me, why would it matter?" is seemingly a common mantra in AUT staff offices, one which, Stacey argues, says much about a culture of disengagement when dealing with complex issues of the world such as Palestine.

Technically, AUT's poster rules are simple: unauthorised materials are banned. Enforcement? Less so. In this case, the posters called for sanctions on Israel language that, while political, wasn't hate speech. Even so, sanctions do count. They're considered to pass from information-raising into territory where there are real-world consequences which can get institutions nervous.

Whether or not such anxiety is responsible for the posters' removal is unknown. But it does raise an old campus question: How free is speech when it clashes with reputation risk?

Others quote an unspoken hierarchy of "safe" reasons: Climate change? Fine. Pride? Fine, mostly. Mental health? Good on you. But Palestine? All of a sudden, it's complicated.

AUT's letter to Stacey contained a reference to "support resources for those impacted by geopolitical content," which, according to your sense of irony, was either providing useful wellbeing tools or exactly captured the paradox: deal with the emotional fallout of affairs around the world but perhaps avoid solidarity too openly. It reflects a wider debate unfolding on university campuses around the world: Are institutions of higher learning empowering students and faculty to address global crises, or sanitising environments to sidestep discomfort?

In areas like Science, traditionally seen as "apolitical" or "neutral," there is a further level of tension. Stacey quotes that newer staff in particular feel under pressure to stay quiet about anything even remotely contentious whether it's fear of professional backlash, insulting overseas partners, or simply the old Kiwi "don't rock the boat" maxim. "Science doesn't exist in a vacuum," Stacey goes on. "We talk of sustainability, of climate justice, of ethics but when it's Palestine, then we have to be careful suddenly."

AUT has not formally addressed its stance on Palestine, two years into the present crisis. To students and staff looking for an end to uncertainty on what is considered acceptable campus expression or for guarantees that campaigning will not carry silent consequences the poster incident has managed to raise yet more questions.

Debate has contacted AUT for comment on implementing poster policy, what is meant by "unauthorised" material, and how the university will strike a balance between free expression and community well-being in the future.

In a written reply to Debate, an AUT spokesperson explained that, “Posters are used widely at AUT to communicate with staff and students and the approach we take is a campus-wide one. Their function is to provide information and news to people about the University’s activities (research, teaching and learning, events etc).”

They clarified that posters are only permitted in designated areas such as notice boards in kitchens and student spaces like Refuel, and said that posters are removed from other locations, regardless of content, as they can “cause damage and be intrusive.”

On freedom of expression, AUT stated, “AUT respects freedom of expression and has been the venue for protest activity on different occasions.” However, the university reiterated that it does not take a formal position on issues outside of its core role, while providing wellbeing resources for those affected by global conflict.

Whether the event reflects an isolated miscommunication or a broader misunderstanding of political expression on campus remains to be seen. In the meantime, the posters might be down but the debate? Very much still on the wall.

Speak your mind: Got opinions about campus expression, political activism, or poster policing? Email me at vdplasmila@gmail.com, or slide into our DMs @debate_mag.