A prominent anti-abortion campaigner, Joanna Howe, who has faced bans from the South Australian parliament and accusations of bullying, claims that the University of Adelaide, her employer, has granted her immunity from complaints by pro-choice campaigners. Howe, a law professor at the university, asserts that complaints from those holding ideologically opposed views will be considered “vexatious” and thus not pursued.
The University of Adelaide responded to inquiries about Howe’s claims by stating that it “considers each matter on its merits in line with the university’s enterprise agreement and applicable policies and procedures.” Howe, known for her expertise in migration law, has recently been active in efforts to limit women’s access to abortion, collaborating with both state and federal politicians.
Background and Controversy
Howe’s activism has led to significant controversy. After a heated debate on a bill against late-term abortion, she was banned from the South Australian parliament. The upper house president, Terry Stephens, cited complaints from MPs who accused her of using “insults and threatening and intimidating tactics.” Additionally, former New South Wales Liberal leader Mark Speakman accused Howe of “brazen bullying” during discussions on proposed legislation in that state.
Howe’s rhetoric has been provocative; she labeled politicians opposing her views as members of the “Baby Killers Club” after a failed attempt to restrict abortion access beyond 22 weeks and six days. Her social media activity has reportedly led to MPs receiving threats and abuse from third parties.
University Investigations and Legal Actions
In response to multiple complaints, the University of Adelaide has conducted six investigations into Howe’s conduct. These complaints have touched on her abortion activism, alleged plagiarism, and misrepresentation of facts. Despite these investigations, Howe claims victory after taking the university to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for bullying, which resulted in a conciliation process.
“We agreed on a new process around complaints … and in that conciliation the university agreed that if a complaint came in from someone with an ideological position that was opposite to mine, so they were pro-abortion, then the university wouldn’t take their complaint further because it would be deemed vexatious,” Howe stated.
Howe reportedly spent $100,000 on the FWC case, which she claims ended in her favor as she was not required to complete an anti-bias course. The FWC, however, maintains that conciliation outcomes are confidential.
Public Reaction and Future Implications
Howe’s public statements have continued to stir controversy. On social media, she accused “TikTok trolls” of attempting to have her dismissed and criticized media outlets for allegedly writing biased reports against her. She has also expressed frustration at being targeted due to her ethnic background and professional status, asserting her determination to continue her activism.
The situation at the University of Adelaide highlights the complex intersection of academic freedom, ideological conflict, and institutional policy. As universities navigate these challenges, the case of Joanna Howe may serve as a precedent for how similar disputes are managed in the future.
Meanwhile, the university’s handling of complaints and its commitment to maintaining a balanced approach to contentious issues will likely remain under scrutiny. The broader implications for academic institutions dealing with polarizing figures are significant, as they must balance individual rights with community standards and expectations.
As the debate over abortion rights continues to evolve, the actions and statements of activists like Howe will undoubtedly influence public discourse and policy development. The University of Adelaide’s response to this controversy will be closely watched by both supporters and critics of Howe’s views.
