John Raine and David Lillis: Giselle Byrnes’ Opinion Piece, “Why Te Tiriti and not Gaza?” – a Counter View

Why Te Tiriti and not Gaza?

In an opinion piece, published in Massey News of 12th July 2024, Professor Giselle Byrnes, Provost of Massey University, emphasises the importance of universities remaining neutral on political matters and, appropriately in our view, not taking a partisan stance on the Israel-Hamas war. Professor Byrnes points out correctly that to take a political position would place the University at odds with the Education and Training Act 2020. She quotes the 1967 Chicago University Kalven Report, as we have done in previous pieces; for example, Reference 1.
The Kalven Report [2] noted that the university’s mission is the:

“…..discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge”, and that it has: “…..a great and unique role to play in fostering the development of social and political values in a society.”

However, the Kalven Report emphasises the vital need for neutrality:

“The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”

The imperative for universities to maintain a secular, politically neutral position is also emphasised in the first of four fundamental principles that are articulated in the 1988 European Bologna Accord on the role of universities [3]. The Bologna Accord affirms that:

“The university is an autonomous institution at the heart of societies differently organised because of geography and historical heritage; it produces, examines, appraises, and hands down culture by research and teaching. To meet the need of the world around it, its research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power.”

However, Professor Byrnes asserts that being Te Tiriti-led does not constitute politicisation of the University. She states that there is no contradiction on the grounds that:

“…….Thanks to the efforts of numerous educators, it is now well known that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not a political issue, but refers to an historical reality – a document signed between Māori and the British Crown in 1840.”

We profoundly disagree with this statement, as Te Tiriti o Waitangi was very clearly a political document, and its status as an historic document does not exclude it from being political. How the Treaty of Waitangi should influence the governance of our country continues to be a key issue in New Zealand politics.

As noted in an earlier piece by Raine [4]:

“Under the Education and Training Act 2020 281(1)(b), university Councils are required to acknowledge the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but also to preserve academic freedom. This has led to a conflicted situation in which giving of expression to Treaty principles has begun to trump academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

Professor Byrnes makes the following comment that illustrates the conflicted position in which the universities now find themselves, having declared that they are Te-Tiriti-led:

“Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its core principles are values that serve to guide the mission and purpose of the university, underpinning teaching, research and the core operations of the university in a way that is appropriate for our historical, geographical, and social context.”

First, Te Tiriti is silent on education, and the “values” that might be inferred from Te Tiriti relate to education only insofar as that Māori should benefit from education, along with other subjects of the Crown.

Second, the core principles, possibly as interpreted in the eight Treaty principles of Victoria University of Wellington [5, 6], make very general statements around, in particular, rangatiratanga (autonomy and self-determination), whai wāhi (participation). While these principles appear reasonable in general terms, any imposition of tenets of Māori culture, or any other culture, raises the risk of intruding on academic freedom.

Furthermore, the principle of kawanatanga (governance) ensures that the University Council has Māorirepresentation, and discharges appropriately its obligations to Māori, but makes no requirement that the Council discharges its obligations to all other ethnicities present on campus.

There is an assertion in Professor Byrnes’ statement that, simply because of this historic context, values from Te Ao Māori are the appropriate values to guide the core operations of the University. These values may indeed be helpful sometimes, depending on circumstances. However, as all university staff and many students know, there has been widespread adoption of Māori culture within our university campuses, including powhiri or shorter mihi on more formal occasions, internal meeting protocols which include karakia and sometimes waiata, the increasing introduction of traditional Māori knowledge into programmes and specific courses (in some cases now compulsory), and increasing requirements to analyse and manage operations through a Te Ao Māori lens.

When such developments, which at least in part involve elements of mysticism and spirituality, become mandated, we move into the realm of ideological indoctrination, and when we have an increasing decolonisation narrative in New Zealand academia, the universities de facto lose their secular, neutral character and have already become politicised. Such politicisation is particularly problematic in relation to courses involving matauranga Māori, where the content cannot be questioned by non-Māori. Further, in 2019 Government moved to accord “mana orite”, or equal standing, between matauranga Māori and modern science [7], an initiative that was overtly political.

Moreover, in the wider publicly funded research arena, we have already seen the consequences of an imposition of Vision Matauranga leading to top science researchers becoming effectively ineligible for research grant funding.

Serving our Community?

Professor Byrnes states that the priorities of a university must also reflect and advance the wider values and vision of the communities in which her university is embedded. Massey’s publicly declared commitments to honour Te Tiriti fall into this latter category. She states further that Massey is reflecting and advancing the priorities and concerns of 21st century “Aotearoa” and that it would simply not make sense for any university to be out of step with the communities it seeks to serve. How does forcing our universities to become Te Tiriti-led serve the wider community of New Zealanders, and how is it in line with being internationally relevant and competitive?

Lillis [8] has explored in some depth Massey University’s Te Tiriti-led strategy and has noted an issue with Massey's treatment of staff who contest their policies, including their Te Tiriti trajectory. Several misconduct cases that do not pertain to strictly academic matters have been lodged at New Zealand universities against academic staff who have openly criticised the leadership. At Massey University, several staff have been involved in misconduct cases for speaking out against the University’s policies [8], and some outspoken critics have been made redundant. We are informed that the University imposes a confidentiality clause in these cases without the agreement of the person involved. If such instances where we hear of managerial actions against staff are true, then this trend only underlines that politicisation of the University has occurred as a result of the Treaty becoming central to the University’s operations. Our opinion is that such management actions constitute an abuse of managerial and executive power.

In our view, it is very naïve to suggest that the University can maintain political neutrality by remaining non-partisan on an issue such as the Israel-Hamas war, but also have Te Tiriti at the heart of its teaching and research. As we have noted before, New Zealand established Wananga specifically and appropriately to be Māori culture-led, but our universities must remain neutral in their culture in order to maintain their international relevance and attractiveness to international students. They must also encourage an unambiguous focus on excellence in teaching and research. Thus, the potential enrichment of the student experience from contact with Māori culture, or any other culture, should remain an option rather than an ideological imposition.

John Raine is an Emeritus Professor of Engineering and held Deputy and Pro Vice Chancellor roles in three New Zealand Universities.

Dr David Lillis is a retired researcher, statistician and academic manager who also worked in research evaluation for the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.

References

1. John Raine, David Lillis, and Peter Schwerdtfeger, “Where are our Universities Heading?” Breaking Views NZ, 28th June 2023. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/06/john-raine-david-lillis-peter.html#more (Reprinted in Bassett Brash and Hide 29th June 2023 https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/john-raine-david-lillis-peter-schwerdtfeger-where-are-our-universities-heading )

2. Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, University of Chicago, 11th November 1967. Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action (Kalven) (uchicago.edu)

3. “Magna Charta Universitatum”, Bologna, 18th September 1988. https://www.cesaer.org/content/7-administration/legal-affairs/values/magna-charta-universitatum.pdf

4. John Raine, “Cultural High Noon in our Universities”, Breaking Views NZ, 19th June 2024.https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/06/john-raine-cultural-high-noon-in-our.html (published updated and edited in Bassett Brash and Hide 19th June 2024 https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/john-raine-cultural-high-noon-in-our-universities )

5. Victoria University of Wellington “Treaty of Waitangi Statute”, 11th February 2019. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/documents/policy/governance/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-statute.pdf

6. Victoria University of Wellington Māori Hub, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi Guide” https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/maori-hub/rauemi/te-tiriti-o-waitangi

7. Rex Ahdar, Brian Boyd, Ananish Chaudhuri, Kendall D. Clements, Garth Cooper, Douglas Elliffe, Brian Gill, Russell D. Gray, Natasha Hamilton-Hart, David Lillis, Michael Matthews, John Raine, Elizabeth Rata, Peter Schwerdtfeger “World Science and Indigenous Knowledge”. Letters to Science Journal, Volume 385, issue 6705, p151, 12th July 2024. www.science.org

8. Lillis, D. A. (2024). New Initiatives at Massey University

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/06/david-lillis-new-initiatives-at-massey.html