Distinction between a University and a Culturally Based Education Institution
New
Zealand universities have been undergoing a cultural reshaping, and Government
intervention is needed if we are to avoid adverse societal and financial consequences.
Earlier articles by Raine, Lillis and Schwerdtfeger [e.g. 1, 2] have already covered
this issue in some detail.
New Zealand has three wānanga as publicly owned tertiary education institutions, providing tertiary education in a Māori cultural context, and creating these institutions was positive for young Māori. They are: Te Wānanga o Raukawa (1981), Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (1984), and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiarangi (1991). Why then, should our universities appear to be on a determined march towards indigenisation that will leave them looking like wānanga and no longer recognisable as universities in the internationally understood sense?
An education institution may, of course, be based
around the knowledge and belief system of a particular culture but, like
adherents to a religious movement, those attending such an institution must
accept, as doctrine, aspects of cultural lore that require an act of faith, as
they cannot be verified through modern science.
An example is the attribution of spiritual properties to water by Māori,
as discussed by Gary Judd recently [3].
By contrast, universities should be characterised
by an environment of open enquiry and criticism, where ideas on any subject can
be debated, in an open-ended quest for truth, and where modern science is
underpinned by method: hypothesis, test, verification or falsification, and
always the possibility of new evidence or knowledge reshaping our understanding
of a particular phenomenon. In such an environment, indoctrination or the mandated
teaching of unquestionable traditional knowledge has no place, nor does the
overlay of a particular culture that must be treated as sacrosanct. If these things occur, and if the institution
itself imposes a particular cultural rule set on the academic community, then
it has been directly or indirectly politicised.
The imperative for universities to maintain a
secular, politically neutral position is emphasised in the first of four
fundamental principles that are articulated in the 1988 European Bologna Accord
on the role of universities [4]. 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.”
Critical Social Justice, the Politicisation of
Academia, and Academic Freedom
The
academic community has welcomed greater engagement with Māori culture over the
past 25 years, and efforts to bring more Māori students into university. This was
liberal social justice in action, with real efforts to deliver more equitable
outcomes for one population group. However, the more recent declarations of
being “te Tiriti-led”, and activism to decolonise or indigenise the culture of
our universities, has put universities increasingly at risk of being seen internationally
as ethno-institutions, whose standing in teaching and research excellence has
fallen before the juggernaut of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) ideology, which denies
the existence of objective truths, is exclusionary, intolerant of dissenting
views and tends to be anti-science. Doug
Stokes [5] states in this respect:
“..the historical
telos of universities as depositories of our collective cultural wisdom and
knowledge is thus changed from forms of debate and free speech to those of
multiple truths and power plays to impose dominance. In this way, the
universities and those academics within them are transformed from fallible but
authoritative judges and teachers of the sum of human knowledge to being part
of a broader political struggle between a binary of oppressed versus the
oppressors.” (Against Decolonisation, pp. 81-82)
“The
assertion that all human knowledge is equally valid and the university is a
site of power contestation makes it easier to understand the abandonment of
fundamental academic principles, not least that of academic freedom.” (Against Decolonisation, pp. 83-84)
The
characteristics and worldwide damaging effects of CSJ have been well summed up
in the opening chapters of Helen Pluckrose’s latest book [6]. In the USA, pressures
to pull back on oppressive Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies in businesses
and universities are gathering momentum.
Not so elsewhere, it seems. The UK Labour Government has said recently that
it will not support the Freedom of Speech Act 2023 legislation that could see
universities and student unions fined for failing to uphold freedom of speech.
In
New Zealand, CSJ and related DEI activism have, if anything, gathered momentum in
our universities since 2020, showing increasing intolerance towards academics
whose views do not align with universities’ policies, particularly around the
Treaty of Waitangi.
As I noted in an earlier article [7]:
“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.”
The
Victoria University of Wellington free speech panel discussion event on
28th May was notable more for Critical Social Justice polemic that
supported control over free speech than for intelligent discussion in its support.
Jonathan Ayling from the Free Speech Union and Michael Johnston from the New
Zealand Initiative were notable exceptions and spoke effectively in defence of
academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Dr
James Kierstead has given excellent interviews on Reality Check Radio (RCR) and
The Platform following the publication of his recent substantial New Zealand
Initiative report, “Unpopular Opinions”, presenting 72 testimonies of
suppression of academic freedom in New Zealand universities [8]. Such instances,
which most probably comprise a fraction of those that have occurred, are of
course related to all academic matters - not only the Treaty of Waitangi. The
report of the recent AUT Law School Staff Survey (NZ Herald 8th
September 2024) indicated that 20% experienced discrimination and 35% faced
bullying in recent years. While it is only
one example, this suggests an environment which is not conducive to academic
freedom.
Imposition
of te Ao Māori
Te Tiriti is silent on education, and the “values”
that might be inferred from Te Tiriti are that Māori should benefit from
education, along with other subjects of the Crown. Nonetheless, the eight
Treaty principles of Victoria University of Wellington [9,10], 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, puts academic freedom at risk. And, while the
principle of kawanatanga (governance) ensures Māori representation
on the University Council, which must discharge appropriately its obligations
to Māori, there is no requirement that the Council discharges its obligations
to all other ethnicities present on campus.
Professor
Elizabeth Rata (University of Auckland) has again spoken up courageously in
recent interviews on The Platform and on RCR about the ongoing indigenisation/decolonisation
in our universities, and the effect this movement is having on academic programmes.
It seems to be most apparent in Education, Law and the Social Sciences, but is
now occurring in the in the STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics, Medicine) areas, particularly in the Biological Sciences. Both
documented and anecdotal evidence indicate that such developments are occurring
quite widely across our universities.
Despite
the University of Auckland urgent Senate vote that led to a pause on
their Curriculum Framework Transformation project (reported in the NZ Herald 20th
August 2024), the University appears to be moving ahead with the introduction
of the mandatory Stage 1 Waipapa Taumata Rau course in 2025, which is heavy on
Treaty indoctrination (instruction that cannot be questioned or debated). This
has been critiqued by Lillis [11]. In
the same context, a colleague at the University of Auckland commented to
me during the last month: “It's quite extraordinary that we are launching a
course called "Epistemological justice: indigenising STEM" while at
the same time we're being forced to cut science courses.”
Massey
University Provost,
Professor Giselle Byrnes recently made the following comment that illustrates the conflicted position in which
Massey and other 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.” Given
Massey’s commitment to being te Tiriti-led and its support for increasing Māori
cultural content despite the concerns of many esteemed academics, the risk of
indoctrination and loss of academic freedom is significant, and the next steps
in their curriculum restructuring should be watched very closely.
In
this context, Massey University has closed Engineering at all its campuses
and has also closed Food Technology and most of its Sciences at the Albany
campus, ostensibly for financial reasons (although I am advised these were disputed).
This is astonishing at a campus surrounded by high-performing secondary schools,
and in the Auckland region where there is a high demand for degree studies in
the Sciences and Engineering. It is unsurprising in this situation that
Massey’s latest staff survey shows an extraordinarily low 6% of staff feel positively
motivated by the University’s present leadership and only 5% positive that
there was open and honest two-way communication. One might well ask whether the
loss of positions in traditional areas to make space for new appointments in Te
Tiriti-led disciplines.
A
recent advertisement for positions of Dean of Science and Head of School of
Physical and Chemical Sciences at the University of Canterbury stated,
in the list of “Experience and skills” for the two advertised positions, “Active
commitment to upholding the values, tikanga (protocols and processes), kawa
(rules) of cultural practice and traditions as guided by mana whenua, Ngāi
Tūāhuriri.” Why in an institution
that should be secular and not subject to cultural protocols from any external
cultural or political group, should staff be required to uphold tribal tikanga
and kawa?
The daughter of a colleague undertook a
mandatory University of Otago full-year 300 level Jurisprudence course
where one semester was focused on Maori concepts of justice. Surely such a course should be mostly focused on the
New Zealand legal system which is based on British Common Law.
The infusion of CSJ ideology into the Ministry of Education and MBIE sits behind their declaring equivalent standing (mana orite) between matauranga Māori and modern science, equating matauranga Māori with science, now reflected in the public funding of research, where MBIE advice to grant applicants and assessors for the Endeavour Fund (echoed in the University of Otago MBIE grant advice to staff, for example) makes it clear that success is unlikely unless applicants have a strong section on Vision Matauranga, Māori research programme participants (preferably a co-lead) and iwi engagement. This is highly prejudicial for many Science and Engineering grant applicants. For example, Vision Matauranga is extremely unlikely to be relevant in a nuclear physics research project. Moreover, such restrictions will deter international scholars from applying for positions in New Zealand.
Government
Must Act
So,
where does all of this leave us. University Councils and Vice Chancellors may have
chosen that their institutions should be te Tiriti-led in order to acknowledge
Treaty principles (as unclear as these may be in practice), but they appear
reluctant to push back against indigenisation and decolonisation activism. While
it is completely appropriate to include Māori cultural content optionally in
taught courses, it is paramount that our universities continue to meet the
Bologna Accord definition of a university, and demonstrate clear political and
cultural neutrality, free of any indoctrination. Otherwise, we will see a loss
of international standing, lower international student enrolments, and less international
teaching and research collaboration.
Let
us hope that the forthcoming University Advisory Group report to Government
addresses the foregoing concerns. Although the universities are substantially
autonomous, it is time for the Government to step up and help steady their
direction through the following actions:
1.
Revise
the Education and Training Act (2020) to:
(i)
Enshrine
stronger and more explicit provisions for protection of academic freedom and
freedom of speech.
(ii)
Remove
the requirement to acknowledge Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, or if this
is retained, state specifically that universities are expected to respect but not
be defined by te Ao Māori.
(iii)
Return
academic decision-making power to academics.
2.
Decline
to fund courses that contain incontestable content: i.e. indoctrination,
whether in relation to matauranga Māori or any other cultural knowledge.
3.
Require
universities to demonstrate through their annual reporting that they are
maintaining currency, international relevance, and high standards of excellence
in their teaching and research. Failure to do this should attract funding
penalties.
4.
Of
the four (out of up to 12) university Council members who are Government
appointees, Government should decline to appoint any who support decolonisation
and indigenisation of our universities.
*********************************************************
John Raine is an Emeritus Professor of Engineering and has formerly held positions as Pro Vice Chancellor (Research and Innovation) at AUT, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Albany and International) at Massey University, and Pro Vice Chancellor (Enterprise and International) at University of Canterbury. He has had a long-term involvement in NZ’s innovation system and chaired the Government’s Powering Innovation Review in 2011.
References
1.
John
Raine, David Lillis, and Peter Schwerdtfeger, “Universities or Indoctrination
Centres?” Breaking Views NZ, 7th October 2023. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/10/john-raine-david-lillis-and-peter.html . (Reprinted in Bassett Brash and Hide 8th
October 2023. https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/john-raine-david-lillis-and-peter-schwerdtfeger-universities-or-indoctrination-centres)
2.
Peter Schwerdtfeger, David Lillis, John Raine, “New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Sector in Deep
Financial Crisis “Breaking Views NZ, 13th October 2023
3.
Gary Judd, KC, “Return of the Primitive – A World of Ignorance and
Superstition”, Bassett Brash and Hide, 30th August 2024 https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/gary-judd-kc-return-of-the-primitive-a-world-of-ignorance-and-superstition
4.
“Magna Charta Universitatum”, Bologna,
18th September 1988. https://www.cesaer.org/content/7-administration/legal-affairs/values/magna-charta-universitatum.pdf
5.
Doug
Stokes, “Against Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the
West” 1st
Edition, Polity, October 2023
6.
Helen Pluckrose, “The Counterweight Handbook:
Principled Strategies for Surviving and Defeating Critical Social Justice - At
Work, in Schools, and Beyond”, Swift Press, 2024.
7.
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 )
8.
James Kierstead, “Unpopular Opinions – academic Freedom in New Zealand”,
a report from the New Zealand Initiative, August 2024. https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/unpopular-opinions-academic-freedom-in-new-zealand/
9.
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
10.
Victoria University of Wellington Māori Hub, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Guide” https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/maori-hub/rauemi/te-tiriti-o-waitangi
11. David
Lillis, “Is tertiary Education for Learning or Indoctrination.” Bassett Brash
and Hide, 1st September 2024 https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/david-lillis-is-tertiary-education-for-learning-or-for-indoctrination
5 comments:
Excellent advice but would require the backbone to take on the marxofascist cliques that call the shots in the universities and I'm not sure whether there are enough vertebrates in the political system in which jellyfish are more common to meet that requirement.
How long before the dignified AU motto - Ingenio et labore - is replaced by a Maori expression?
Has AU become a madrasa or a seminary?
When will Ministers Stanford and Simmonds understand that tax payers no longer wish to fund this lunacy?
Thanks, John. That seems like a very good summing up of a dire situation.
"university Councils are required to acknowledge the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi"
University councils obviously invent their own principles or take instruction from Maori as there are no defined treaty principles.
(as yet)
While our universities are substantially funded by the Crown, they are not Crown entities and nor were they signatories to the Treaty, so why do they have this fixation on this "Te Tiriti led" nonsense? It is nothing more than indoctrination and warped virtue signalling, but with very dire, self-harming consequences that truly defy logic. A performative contradiction by hypocrites of the first order when you consider the wider world to which they aim to appeal to and serve, and the very essence of what a university strives to achieve.
Maybe they fully deserve what's inevitably fast coming their way, or are they seeking to prove "Go Woke, Go Broke" is but a myth - akin to their self-proclaimed non-existent ‘Treaty principles’ that clearly have no public recognition, acceptance nor mandate? An indictment of the wayward, deluded woke fools that currently head these institutions.
But I do feel deeply saddened that the sound logic and impassioned pleas of enlightenment by the learned Professor, and others of his ilk, have all to date fallen only on what appears to be the deaf ears of the woke. I, like many, are now looking at you, Minister Stanford, and are wondering is this the legacy you really want to leave? For, if it's gonna be, it's now up to yee.
Post a Comment