Professor Jerry Coyne: Ideological indoctrination of New Zealand science majors - a bizarre required course

I’ve mentioned before that at the University of Auckland—New Zealand’s most prestigious university—every student has to take a mandatory course related to indigenous knowledge, a course ostensibly related to their their field of study. In reality, these courses are exercises in propaganda, created to indoctrinate students into sacralizing indigenous “ways of knowing”. As an example, I gave this course, which is required for all science majors. Click to access the course description, which I went through a while back (see the link above).

Now I’m going to be on a radio show in New Zealand next week (stay tuned!), talking about the ideological distortion of that country’s science, and it’s a great chance for me to share my thoughts with Kiwis without the fear of being punished. To prepare for the show, I have a pile of stuff to read and review, and, besides the whale/kauri tree mishigass that I described before, I managed to get hold of the syllabus for this course. (It came from an anonymous New Zealander, of course; they are too afraid to reveal personal information on this site.) You might have a listen to this podcast on related issues, and this 140-page report about the “culture of fear” among New Zealand academics is indispensable in explaining why all my correspondents insist on remaining anonymous. In that country you stand to lose your job if you even raise your voice to contest the academic Zeitgeist.

The course syllabus is in fact frightening in its “progressive” authoritarianism and its neglect of real science in favor of ideology. I can’t find the syllabus on the Internet (I got it from someone who wants to remain anonymous), but would be glad to send a pdf to those who request it. Here’s the heading of the syllabus:



If you read the course description, you’ll see that it’s largely designed to inculcate students into the (1840) Treaty of Waitangi (in Māori: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”) as a way of showing that Māori ways of knowing, or Mātauranga Māori (MM), should be considered coequal to modern science. This, in turn, is part of a push to insinuate indigenous ways of knowing into New Zealand science, as well as giving Māori increased power over what science is done and how it is done. (For my criticisms of this approach, see the many pieces I’ve written about it.) The general view of the indigenous people of New Zealand is that Māori have the sole power to use and control how indigenous knowledge is used. That’s in contrast to modern science, in which no ethnic group has any control about what projects are done or funded.

I’ll simply give some highlighted extracts from the syllabus. Remember, the course required for all science majors at Auckland Uni. I’ll have to give screenshots as copy-paste doesn’t work well. Ask for the 15-page pdf if you want to check it out.

Here we go:






Click images above to view

The rest of the bits below are from the course schedule. A whole week, the second, is devoted to the Treaty of Waitangi. “What does this have to do with science?”, you ask. Good question! See below. “Aotearoa” is the Māori term for New Zealand, and woe to whoever forgets to use it when referring to their country. Note the emphasis on the importance of “place,” which we’ll discuss shortly.


Click to view

As Wikipedia notes, about one term below, “Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei or Ngāti Whātua-o-Ōrākei is an Auckland-based Māori hapū (sub-tribe) in New Zealand.” Again, the relationship to science eludes me, but the relationship to ideology is clear. The emphasis on “place” for science is grossly distorted, as science should be pretty much the same no matter where it’s done. But the reason is clear: science (e.g, MM) done in New Zealand is thought to be critically different from science done elsewhere. In reality, the place where science is done, except in those cases where the object of study is in a particular location, is irrelevant. And the place where science is done has no effect on how science is practiced, even if you’re doing field work in a particular place in, say, Alaska.

Ah, my favorite topic, “knowledge systems”, appears:




Click images above to view

Note that MM is characterized as a “knowledge system.” This is untrue. There is some empirical “knowledge” in there, but it’s based largely on trial and error, is specific to New Zealand (where and when to pick berries or catch eels), and is larded and guided by myth, as in the kauri tree/whale research. In that case, based on Māori mythology, people are trying to play whale songs and utter Māori prayers to kauri trees dying en masse of an oomycete infection, and rubbing sperm whale oil and ground-up bones on the trunks. This is based on a mythological belief about the relationship between whales and kauri trees so ludicrous that it defies belief (see here and here).

And, as I’ve discussed ad infinitum, MM is more than just “knowledge”: it includes superstition, mythology, religion, guidelines for behavior, morality, and traditions handed down by word of mouth. If you consider such stuff “knowledge”, then there are a gazillion competing and conflicting “knowledge systems” in the world, each corresponding to the views of indigenous people in a different area. But of course there is only one form of modern science. Chemistry, for example is understood and practiced the same way by chemists throughout the world.

Another trope pops up in Week 7: the weaknesses of modern science:


Click to view

That needs no comment; I’ve discussed it before and it’s largely science-dissing.

But wait! The course isn’t done yet! They haven’t yet gone over the value of narrative and storytelling in science communication. Remember, this course is taking up time that could be use to teach science itself. “Pūrākao” is “storytelling” in Māori:


Click to view

Finally, in the penultimate week, the sweating science majors have to learn more about the Treaty of Waitangi:



Click to view

Now what is the relevance of “Te Tiriti” to science? There isn’t one, really, as the treaty was signed in 1840 and its main goals are outlined at the site New Zealand History (excerpt below). Note that not all Māori tribes signed this treaty, and its interpretation is still subject to dispute:

The Treaty is a broad statement of principles on which the British and Māori made a political compact to found a nation state and build a government in New Zealand. The document has three articles. In the English version, Māori cede the sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Māori give the Crown an exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell, and, in return, are guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions; and Māori are given the rights and privileges of British subjects.

The Treaty in Māori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, the word ‘sovereignty’ was translated as ‘kawanatanga’ (governance). Some Māori believed they were giving up government over their lands but retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed ‘undisturbed possession’ of all their ‘properties’, but the Māori version guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over ‘taonga’ (treasures, which may be intangible). Māori understanding was at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the Crown, and as Māori society valued the spoken word, explanations given at the time were probably as important as the wording of the document.

Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of debate. From the 1970s especially, many Māori have called for the terms of the Treaty to be honoured. Some have protested – by marching on Parliament and by occupying land. There have been studies of the Treaty and a growing awareness of its meaning in modern New Zealand.

Why, then are students majoring in science being force-fed a huge dose of Treaty, which would seem to belong in a New Zealand Aotearoa history course? It’s not absolutely clear, but making science majors learn this stiff is surely part of the effort, promoted both by Māori and woke non-Māori activists, to ensure that MM is taught alongside regular science in the classroom. But again, what does this have to do with the Treaty? My best guess is that because the treaty was a swap of privileges between Māori and Europeans (called “The Crown”), Māori “ways of knowing” should have equal representation in the classroom. That is, MM, which is seen as indigenous science, should be taught as if it were as useful as modern science.

This of course comes from postmodernism, which denies the existence of objective knowledge and sees “knowledge” as the outcome of competing and struggling points of view, with the most powerful group getting its point of view spread most widely. MM is thus in a power struggle with modern science. The Treaty is the rationale that supposedly gives power to MM, though of course there’s nothing about educational systems, much less “ways of knowing,” in the Treaty.

Many think that postmodernism is also a major source of DEI initiatives, and while I won’t weigh in on that, it’s clear that this course is designed to inculcate science majors with the ideology that not only are Māori the victims of colonization (and yes, historically they were oppressed), but are still the victims of colonization, and must assert their presence by having their way of knowing taught in the classroom. And taught not just taught as sociology, anthropology, or history, but as real ongoing science,

The whale/kauri story exemplifies all that is wrong with this initiative, and all that is wrong with this course. It grounds empirical investigation partly in mythology, diverts scientific investigation into blind alleys, and, most of all, takes up time that students could use to learn real science, not mythology or place-specific information about when the berries should be ripe. Many of New Zealand’s universities are funded substantially by high tuition charged to foreign students, particularly those from Asia. If you were a parent who wanted to give a kid a good science education, could you in all honesty look at the syllabus above (again, this is a required science course) and want to send your kid to the University of Auckland?

Needless to say, the indigenization of the science curriculum is happening not just at Auckland University, but through the entire country of New Zealand/Aortearoa. It’s a shame, for the long-term results of this misguided policy are predictable. Anybody who wants to seriously study science will leave the country, and those who remain will become confused over what science really is.

Oh, and I’ll add, as a coda, that this stuff is already going on big time in Canada, and has got its feelers in the U.S. as well. Of course, the “ways of knowing” that are pushed in these places are different from those in New Zealand. But the drive for indigeneity is pretty much the same everywhere.

Professor Jerry Coyne is an American biologist known for his work on speciation and his commentary on intelligent design, a prolific scientist and author. This article was first published HERE