University management should take note of that, as there have been unrealistic efforts to force poorly defined “Treaty obligations” into teaching and research. For example, one university is now telling its academic staff that all curricula should, as a high priority, be “designed, developed and delivered in authentic partnerships with Māori [and] uphold provisions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.
It’s not clear how so many authentic partnerships can be achieved across all disciplines, from chemistry to ancient history. The 1840 text of te Tiriti gives no guidance on advanced learning in the twenty-first century. A parochial requirement to “honour the Treaty as a partnership between iwi and the Crown” has little relevance to, or recognition in, the competitive international world of academic disciplines.
These top-down Tiriti-led strategies have lost any emancipatory or decolonising effect and instead they’re now having an oppressive and chilling effect on academic freedom, not least within law schools, as the learned judge may be aware.
It would be good to be able to have a nuanced debate on this, but sadly it is near impossible.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
4 comments:
Partnership is a myth. How can we have a partnership when we are one people? I posed that question to certain members of academia, the judiciary, and politicians of the left years ago. Just we well I didn't hold my breath! There is no answer to it, so why do they persist with it? Mathematics was my weakest subject, but what I know is that two into one won't go. He Iwi Tahi Tatou, we are now two people!
Kevan
You would think that maori would want nothing to do with universities as they are colonist institutions. More proof of the total hypocrisy of activists.
Sr Peter Gluckman and his advisory group on higher education and universities should take note.
Honouring the Treaty is one of the areas for comment
"authentic partnerships with Māori "
I see this type of phrasing more and more, (such as in the Country Kindy case) and yet it remains undefined and confusing.
Maori are not one people group with a centralised leadership. Nor are they a homogenous group when it comes to beliefs or politics.
So when 'partnering' with Maori who exactly is on the Maori side of that partnership? A person? an iwi?
Who is representing Maori in this partnership and what is their role? Representing all Maori without an election? Representing their own vision of what Maori want? Is this a job people can apply for? 'Seeking a representative for Maori - apply here'
Are Maori allowed on the other side of this partnership too? If someone is qualified and knowledgable in designing curricula, but also happens to be Maori, on what side of this partership are they allowed to sit? What if they do not want to represent Maori in the partnership, are they allowed to 'choose sides'?
These are all legitimate questions that no one will ask or answer because anyone who wants to discuss these topics is labelled 'racist'
Post a Comment