The fact Jacinda Ardern was canonised overseas was a major boost for her domestically. Her international stardom became a proxy for loving New Zealand — we calculated that if foreigners loved her, they must love us too.
As a British expat living in Christchurch in the 1960s, author, television journalist and university lecturer Austin Mitchell noted with affectionate humour that a visiting “Pom” would be “asked a thousand times how you like the country; two thousand times if you’ve already left the airport tarmac”.
He was hardly the first to remark on the nation’s emotional neediness. In 1886, New Zealand politician Edward Wakefield wrote that the verdict of any famous writer visiting the country was awaited with “feverish impatience”. All good colonists, he opined, were “elated or depressed in proportion as his colony is represented in a favourable or unfavourable light”.
Unfortunately, visiting British scientist Richard Dawkins must have depressed most local journalists so severely that they have been unable to report his assessment of New Zealand — despite the fact he is one of the world’s foremost evolutionary biologists and a best-selling science author.
Last week, in a column published in The Spectator UK — which has an international circulation of over 100,000 and counts among its regular columnists the likes of Lionel Shriver, Rod Liddle and Douglas Murray — Richard Dawkins laid bare his feelings about New Zealand.
Fresh from an Antipodean speaking tour, he made clear that, when asked, he invariably nominates New Zealand as his favourite country, not least because of his admiration for Ernest Rutherford — “the greatest experimental physicist since Faraday”.
However, the rest of his column — titled “Why I’m sticking up for science” — was damning.
The focus of his criticism was the implementation of a “ludicrous policy, spawned by Chris Hipkins’s Ministry of Education before he became Prime Minister. Science classes are to be taught that Māori ‘ways of knowing’ (mātauranga Māori) have equal standing with ‘Western’ science.
“Not surprisingly, this adolescent virtue-signalling horrified New Zealand’s grown-up scientists and scholars. Seven of them wrote to the Listener magazine [in July 2021]. Three who were fellows of the NZ Royal Society were threatened with an inquisitorial investigation. Two of these, including the distinguished medical scientist Garth Cooper, himself of Māori descent, resigned (the third unfortunately died).”
Dawkins’ assessment of the backlash against the professors’ letter — titled “In defence of science” — pulled no punches: “The magnificent seven [have been] branded heretics by a nastily zealous new religion, a witch-hunt that recalls the false accusations against J.K. Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
“Professor Kendall Clements was removed from teaching evolution at the University of Auckland, after the School of Biological Sciences Putaiao Committee submitted the following recommendation: ‘We do not feel that either Kendall or Garth should be put in front of students as teachers. This is not safe for students…’
“Not safe? Who are these cringing little wimps whose ‘safety’ requires protection against free speech? What on Earth do they think a university is for?”
Well might Dawkins ask. It’s certainly a question many New Zealanders are asking as our universities seem hell bent on creating “safe spaces” for the easily offended by clamping down on unorthodox opinions while dedicating themselves to becoming “Te Tiriti-led” institutions.
In Otago University’s recent “Vision 2040” document”, Vice-Chancellor David Murdoch says: “A key change in the new strategy is the aspiration to be a Te Tiriti-led university.
“To do so means substantial change away from Otago’s initial colonial framework and working towards one in which the university has a strong partnership with mana whenua, and where there is a safe environment actively supporting Māori staff and students.”
In his column, Dawkins made it clear he approves of mātauranga Māori being taught, as long as it’s not included in a science syllabus.
He noted that it includes “valuable tips on edible fungi, star navigation and species conservation” adding — “pity the moas were all eaten”.
The seven professors who wrote to the Listener made a similar point in their 2021 letter: “Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy.”
Nevertheless, they concluded, that “Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science.
“In the discovery of empirical, universal truths, [mātauranga] falls far short of what we can define as science itself.”
Dawkins’ objections to mātauranga Māori being included in a science curriculum centred on its “vitalism”.
“New Zealand children will be taught the true wonder of DNA, while being simultaneously confused by the doctrine that all life throbs with a vital force conferred by the Earth Mother and the Sky Father. Origin myths are haunting and poetic, but they belong elsewhere in the curriculum.”
Dawkins tweeted a link to his Spectator column. The tweet has been viewed 4.5 million times. And if that wasn’t enough bad publicity, Elon Musk chipped in with his view of New Zealand’s education policy: “This is insane.”
That comment by Twitter’s owner and one of the world’s most famous entrepreneurs, thanks to his roles with Tesla and SpaceX, has had more than three million views.
Dawkins also tweeted a link to an article in The Times published in the wake of his Spectator column that reminded its readers of a letter he sent to the Royal Society of New Zealand in 2021 in support of the professors. In it he wrote: ‘Science classes are emphatically not the right place to teach scientific falsehoods. Creationism is still bollocks even if it is indigenous bollocks.’”
That tweet had 450,000 views (and the article on The Times website had 760 comments, the vast majority supporting Dawkins).
The wave of negative publicity should concern Chris Hipkins, who was the Minister of Education from 2017 to January this year and responsible for the introduction of the policy of giving mātauranga Māori equal standing with science.
However, Hipkins can undoubtedly rest easy. The chances of Dawkins’ views being seriously analysed in New Zealand’s mainstream media, or journalists quizzing him on the policy introduced on his watch, are extremely low.
As Dawkins noted in his tweet: “The Times picked up [my Spectator column] but my NZ friends are betting local media won’t dare.”
As it happens, the New Zealand Herald’s Anna Leask did address Dawkins’ column but turned solely to a relatively junior Māori academic, Dr Tara McAllister, for an assessment. McAllister’s research interests are in freshwater ecology and racism in the tertiary sector.
Unfortunately, McAllister’s response reinforced the widespread suspicion that rigorous logic and reasoned argument are no longer prerequisites for a university career.
She dismissed Dawkins’ views as “boring, embarrassing, inaccurate and full of racist tropes” and alleged the letter would “embolden other racist scientists in Aotearoa”.
She asserted: “People who agree with Richard’s poorly researched [reckonings] need to check their racist assumptions about what is and isn’t science and read a book.”
That a university academic seems to think crying “Racist!” is actually an argument should alarm anyone who is intending to pay good money for a university education. Predictably, McAllister also managed to refer to “white supremacy” in her reported statements.
Another famous evolutionary biologist and best-selling author, Chicago University’s Jerry Coyne, devoted a blog post over the weekend to the Herald article, describing Leask’s piece as a “hit job” on Dawkins.
Coyne has researched mātauranga Māori and written about it extensively since the professors’ letter was published in the Listener in 2021.
In response to McAllister’s claim that Dawkins can’t legitimately criticise mātauranga Māori because “he knows nothing about it”, Coyne says: “Believe me, you don’t have to be an expert to see that it’s by no means co-equal to science.”
Perhaps his most alarming comment was that he gets “at least one or two emails a day from Kiwi scientists objecting to the takeover of academia and science by mātauranga Māori” but they are “prevented from speaking out by fear of losing their jobs”.
Even though Leask covered the main points of Dawkins’ column, she didn’t find space to mention his mocking postscript about his flight home from New Zealand.
Dawkins wrote: “Air New Zealand think it a cute idea to invoke Māori gods in their safety briefing. Imagine if British Airways announced that their planes are kept aloft by the Holy Ghost in equal partnership with Bernoulli’s Principle and Newton’s First Law.
“Science explains. It lightens our darkness. Science is the poetry of reality. It belongs to all humanity.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
He was hardly the first to remark on the nation’s emotional neediness. In 1886, New Zealand politician Edward Wakefield wrote that the verdict of any famous writer visiting the country was awaited with “feverish impatience”. All good colonists, he opined, were “elated or depressed in proportion as his colony is represented in a favourable or unfavourable light”.
Unfortunately, visiting British scientist Richard Dawkins must have depressed most local journalists so severely that they have been unable to report his assessment of New Zealand — despite the fact he is one of the world’s foremost evolutionary biologists and a best-selling science author.
Last week, in a column published in The Spectator UK — which has an international circulation of over 100,000 and counts among its regular columnists the likes of Lionel Shriver, Rod Liddle and Douglas Murray — Richard Dawkins laid bare his feelings about New Zealand.
Fresh from an Antipodean speaking tour, he made clear that, when asked, he invariably nominates New Zealand as his favourite country, not least because of his admiration for Ernest Rutherford — “the greatest experimental physicist since Faraday”.
However, the rest of his column — titled “Why I’m sticking up for science” — was damning.
The focus of his criticism was the implementation of a “ludicrous policy, spawned by Chris Hipkins’s Ministry of Education before he became Prime Minister. Science classes are to be taught that Māori ‘ways of knowing’ (mātauranga Māori) have equal standing with ‘Western’ science.
“Not surprisingly, this adolescent virtue-signalling horrified New Zealand’s grown-up scientists and scholars. Seven of them wrote to the Listener magazine [in July 2021]. Three who were fellows of the NZ Royal Society were threatened with an inquisitorial investigation. Two of these, including the distinguished medical scientist Garth Cooper, himself of Māori descent, resigned (the third unfortunately died).”
Dawkins’ assessment of the backlash against the professors’ letter — titled “In defence of science” — pulled no punches: “The magnificent seven [have been] branded heretics by a nastily zealous new religion, a witch-hunt that recalls the false accusations against J.K. Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
“Professor Kendall Clements was removed from teaching evolution at the University of Auckland, after the School of Biological Sciences Putaiao Committee submitted the following recommendation: ‘We do not feel that either Kendall or Garth should be put in front of students as teachers. This is not safe for students…’
“Not safe? Who are these cringing little wimps whose ‘safety’ requires protection against free speech? What on Earth do they think a university is for?”
Well might Dawkins ask. It’s certainly a question many New Zealanders are asking as our universities seem hell bent on creating “safe spaces” for the easily offended by clamping down on unorthodox opinions while dedicating themselves to becoming “Te Tiriti-led” institutions.
In Otago University’s recent “Vision 2040” document”, Vice-Chancellor David Murdoch says: “A key change in the new strategy is the aspiration to be a Te Tiriti-led university.
“To do so means substantial change away from Otago’s initial colonial framework and working towards one in which the university has a strong partnership with mana whenua, and where there is a safe environment actively supporting Māori staff and students.”
In his column, Dawkins made it clear he approves of mātauranga Māori being taught, as long as it’s not included in a science syllabus.
He noted that it includes “valuable tips on edible fungi, star navigation and species conservation” adding — “pity the moas were all eaten”.
The seven professors who wrote to the Listener made a similar point in their 2021 letter: “Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy.”
Nevertheless, they concluded, that “Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science.
“In the discovery of empirical, universal truths, [mātauranga] falls far short of what we can define as science itself.”
Dawkins’ objections to mātauranga Māori being included in a science curriculum centred on its “vitalism”.
“New Zealand children will be taught the true wonder of DNA, while being simultaneously confused by the doctrine that all life throbs with a vital force conferred by the Earth Mother and the Sky Father. Origin myths are haunting and poetic, but they belong elsewhere in the curriculum.”
Dawkins tweeted a link to his Spectator column. The tweet has been viewed 4.5 million times. And if that wasn’t enough bad publicity, Elon Musk chipped in with his view of New Zealand’s education policy: “This is insane.”
That comment by Twitter’s owner and one of the world’s most famous entrepreneurs, thanks to his roles with Tesla and SpaceX, has had more than three million views.
Dawkins also tweeted a link to an article in The Times published in the wake of his Spectator column that reminded its readers of a letter he sent to the Royal Society of New Zealand in 2021 in support of the professors. In it he wrote: ‘Science classes are emphatically not the right place to teach scientific falsehoods. Creationism is still bollocks even if it is indigenous bollocks.’”
That tweet had 450,000 views (and the article on The Times website had 760 comments, the vast majority supporting Dawkins).
The wave of negative publicity should concern Chris Hipkins, who was the Minister of Education from 2017 to January this year and responsible for the introduction of the policy of giving mātauranga Māori equal standing with science.
However, Hipkins can undoubtedly rest easy. The chances of Dawkins’ views being seriously analysed in New Zealand’s mainstream media, or journalists quizzing him on the policy introduced on his watch, are extremely low.
As Dawkins noted in his tweet: “The Times picked up [my Spectator column] but my NZ friends are betting local media won’t dare.”
As it happens, the New Zealand Herald’s Anna Leask did address Dawkins’ column but turned solely to a relatively junior Māori academic, Dr Tara McAllister, for an assessment. McAllister’s research interests are in freshwater ecology and racism in the tertiary sector.
Unfortunately, McAllister’s response reinforced the widespread suspicion that rigorous logic and reasoned argument are no longer prerequisites for a university career.
She dismissed Dawkins’ views as “boring, embarrassing, inaccurate and full of racist tropes” and alleged the letter would “embolden other racist scientists in Aotearoa”.
She asserted: “People who agree with Richard’s poorly researched [reckonings] need to check their racist assumptions about what is and isn’t science and read a book.”
That a university academic seems to think crying “Racist!” is actually an argument should alarm anyone who is intending to pay good money for a university education. Predictably, McAllister also managed to refer to “white supremacy” in her reported statements.
Another famous evolutionary biologist and best-selling author, Chicago University’s Jerry Coyne, devoted a blog post over the weekend to the Herald article, describing Leask’s piece as a “hit job” on Dawkins.
Coyne has researched mātauranga Māori and written about it extensively since the professors’ letter was published in the Listener in 2021.
In response to McAllister’s claim that Dawkins can’t legitimately criticise mātauranga Māori because “he knows nothing about it”, Coyne says: “Believe me, you don’t have to be an expert to see that it’s by no means co-equal to science.”
Perhaps his most alarming comment was that he gets “at least one or two emails a day from Kiwi scientists objecting to the takeover of academia and science by mātauranga Māori” but they are “prevented from speaking out by fear of losing their jobs”.
Even though Leask covered the main points of Dawkins’ column, she didn’t find space to mention his mocking postscript about his flight home from New Zealand.
Dawkins wrote: “Air New Zealand think it a cute idea to invoke Māori gods in their safety briefing. Imagine if British Airways announced that their planes are kept aloft by the Holy Ghost in equal partnership with Bernoulli’s Principle and Newton’s First Law.
“Science explains. It lightens our darkness. Science is the poetry of reality. It belongs to all humanity.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
16 comments:
Our Educational Institutions are full of these self aggrandizing idiots. Just tolerating their insanities is especially difficult. On behalf of New Zealand Richard, "Sorry". Being insulted by some grunting obesity hissing who knows sweet F.A can't be pleasant.
When, and if, NZ starts to welcome in large numbers of high fee paying university students from S.E. Asia, what will their parents say when their children report back that they are being taught Maori myth. I suspect that many will look to Universities across the ditch to send their children to, I know I would in their position.
I do wonder what John Lennox, a christian creationist and apologist,an Oxford professor of mathematics and scientific philosophy, who has frequently debated with Richard Dawkins would have added to this absolutely fascinating topic.
Anon, Lennox would have been in a cleft stick between science on the one hand up against on the other hand his Bronze Age desert tribal god and a neolithic island deity. And of course he can't have both of the latter. Life would be so much simpler for his ilk if there were only one supernatural alternative to materialist science but there are thousands........
Barend,even Dawkins acknowledges that true science with its distinctive method came uniquely out of about 16th Century western ( christian ) culture.The other thousands of supernatural alternatives in other cultures curiously did not enable their cultures to arrive at it despite the millennia of human civilization. I would still like Lennox's view not your interpretation of his view.
McAllister's rebuttal was little more than pathetic name-calling. No reasoned argument was provided regarding any point made by Dawkins. No explanation was provided to back up her cheap name-calling shots. No evidence was provided to support her assertive claims. How embarrassing that this would be NZ's heralded response to the intellectual titan and one of the most important scientific contributors to humanity, Richard Dawkins.
Anon, the Islamic civilisations in the Middle Ages were streets ahead of Europe and made the distinction between the material and the non-material domains. Europe followed suit so I'm not all that convinced about modern science having come as you claim 'uniquely out of about 16th century western (christian) culture'.
In the NZ Herald articles attacking Dawkins' comments (Willie Jackson’s 7/3/23(online) & Katie Harris p. A14 8/3/23), they quote Massey university Professor of Matauranga Maori, Rangi Matamua saying:
“You don’t traverse the greatest expanse of ocean on the planet, crisscrossing it and populating every single habitable land mass in that space on myths and legends, nor do you do it on spirituality, you do it on science.
So much for Maori being “indigenous” and victims of colonisation, they admit to being the perpetrators!
Going with the prevailing currents can get you to many places; the fact that NZ Maori never returned to anywhere they'd been suggests some limitations to mataurangi Maori, so perhaps international science is quite useful after all.
certainly other cultures have produced superior technologies and contributed to modern science eg Middle Eastern algebra.I have visited the sites of ancient civilizations with far superior sanitary systems and horticulture to European systems,I acknowledge these achievements, Why the reluctance to acknowledge the foundations of modern science were established by Copernicus,Kepler,Gallilei, Bacon and Newton? They developed the paradigm for the unique scientific method. This is quite distinct, in many ways, to technology which prevailed elsewhere in other cultures. This includes the Maori world.
Atheism and science do not explain all of life's big questions.About half of the Nobel Science prize winners of the 20th century were Christians. They did not have to struggle with the material and non material domains. Christianity is an evidenced based religion.It isn't science versus religion as much as the clash between two different world views.
Those promoting Matauranga Maori keep banging on about how their ancestors who emigrated to NZ by waka were such brilliant scientists because they navigated by the stars. Well, if they used science to navigate here, they would know where they came from. Which they don’t.
My ancestors navigated by the stars too. And they knew where they came from. Ireland, Scotland, Channel Islands, Cornwall for starters. They came in vessels powered by wind from just about as far away from NZ as possible.
Has Stuff or herald published Dawkins full article yet so that its readers amy be able to decide for themselves without coaching from maori activists?
Presuambly by now there is an encyclopaedia or somesuch of matauranga otherwise teachers imaginations will be taxed dreaming it up (as the elders, with more time, mostly have)
School teachers are going to be very busy adapting to the new curriculum. To help out, I have developed some exam questions they can use in various subjects:
1. Science. How effective is Maori star navigation?
(a) Highly effective in navigating from A to B, but hopeless in figuring out where A is after arriving at B.
(b) So effective that Air New Zealand should remove navigation instruments from aircraft and train pilots in Maori star navigation science.
(c) A bit hit-and-miss – if star navigation worked, Maori arrived in Aotearoa, if it did not work, Maori discovered Antarctica.
Answer: (a)
2. Mathematics. Honi made $132 charging his pakeha mates for access to the beach. He then acquired a $58 box of Lion Red. How much money does Honi have left?
(a) $74.
(b) $132, the Lion Red was acquired in a ram raid.
(c) $0, all proceeds of extortion must be paid to the tribal chief.
Answer: (c)
3. Communication Studies. How would you explain the concept of the wheel to a pre-1840 Maori Chief? Your answer must be verbal and not written.
4. Te Reo studies. Invent a new Maori word for “cloud computing” using 5 A’s and 3 random consonants.
5. History. Who was James Cook?
(a) A famous British explorer/navigator.
(b) A Maori chief well known for barbequing prisoners before eating them.
(c) I haven’t a clue.
Answer: (c) Students are not encouraged to know who James Cook was.
Superstition, whether Māori or Abrahamic, has no place in science. Western culture has ancient Mediterranean roots, and was held back by the monotheists' suppression of contrary knowledge. The church banned medical cures, suppressed free expression in the arts and science, and forced their book of superstition and magic on educational establishments. Matauranga Māori has no more right to claim it is science based than the Bible or Quran or Torah has. Science isn't European, Chinese, Māori, nor is it Christian or Muslim. Science is man made and universal.
O dear,***** your test is so last century.Not only has the content of the curriculum been trashed but also the methods of teaching.
Take that difficult maths word problem. You omitted to state that all such problems should be done in a group setting ,discussed and come to a combined conclusion. You have failed to grasp that learning occurs best in a social way. Bizarrely you suggest there ought to be only one right answer.It is the process that matters,right or wrong doesn't enter into it! You do know there are at least five strategies for doing a tough subtraction like this.To remind you they are-jump to tidy numbers,splitting numbers,look for doubling, looking for 10s with adjustments,using an abacus by drawing or imaging it or even writing in columns. If you managed to do the problem mentally you will receive no commendation, since you have not filled a whole page with the working. Writing 132 tallies and crossing off the 58 would show you have a full understanding of the concept.
Now we come to the assessment of your other questions. Goodness me, since we now have catastrophic failure in reading, a large proportion of students are only semi literate. I suggest you rewrite these questions so they look something like a graphic novel.It would best if there is only one simple sentence per page using only one or two syllable words and the rest of the page an illustration to help the student guess the meaning. If they read national for navigation well that's close enough.
***said: Your test only needs some population norms to be a good university entrance test. Anyone achieving high scores wouldn't get into university because their politics obviously aren't suitable and not enough safe spaces are available for all the Marxist fragile flowers who would be traumatized by any opinion conflicting with their fashionably correct ones.
Oh, but I forgot, any population norms-based test won't be used by our education authorities who don't want to measure performance in any valid way. So, sorry about that.
Post a Comment