John Raine and David Lillis: Can a Te Tiriti-Led University be Politically Neutral?

Critical Social Justice Ideology in Universities of the Western World

In “The Treason of the Intellectuals” [1], Sir Niall Ferguson describes parallels between a new politicisation of universities throughout the Western World and that which occurred in the German Weimar Republic in the 1920’s, resulting in German universities such as Heidelberg and Tubingen losing their top international standings.

Driven by Critical Social Justice ideology, this politicisation has resulted in universities, notably in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, moving away from institutional political neutrality, and away from a primary focus on excellence in teaching and research, towards the imposition of the Critical Social Justice (CSJ) politics of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Unfortunately, CSJ ideology denies the existence of objective truths, is intolerant of dissenting views, and tends to be anti-science.

In relation to CSJ, Pluckrose and Lindsay, in “Cynical Theories” [2] p. 208 state:

“Social Justice Scholarship does not merely present the postmodern knowledge principle – that objective truth does not exist and knowledge is socially constructed and a product of culture – and the postmodern political principle – society is constructed through knowledge by language and discourses, designed to keep the dominant in power over the oppressed. It treats them as The Truth, tolerates no dissent and expects everyone to agree or be “cancelled”.

………..and on p. 210:

“It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation and disagreement of any kind.”

The characteristics and worldwide adverse effects of CSJ in our public institutions and businesses have also been well summed up in the opening chapters of Helen Pluckrose’s latest book, “The Counterweight Handbook” [3].

Typically, CSJ/DEI agendas internationally have focused on issues such as race, gender, socioeconomic inequality and climate change. In New Zealand universities CSJ ideology has manifested itself most strongly around Treaty of Waitangi politics and efforts by some to decolonise and indigenise the country’s senior academic institutions. Articles by Raine, Lillis and Schwerdtfeger [e.g. 4, 5] have commented on this issue. This activism has been strongest in areas such as Education, Law and Social Sciences, but is now occurring within the STEMM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine), particularly in the Biological Sciences.

Decolonisation activists seek to impose Māori culture as the defining culture of New Zealand’s universities, for example as described by Hoskins & Jones [6]. New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) Annual Reports from 2011 and 2022 [7] indicate that such a fundamental change cannot be justified on the grounds of increasing Māori enrolments at university, as the barriers to entry mostly relate to the low proportion of Māori leaving secondary school with a University Entrance qualification. Research findings of Marie et al. [8] further suggest that educational underachievement amongst Māori can be largely explained by disparities in socio-economic status during childhood.

Decolonisation agendas involve the introduction of courses, taught by Māori staff, that are intended to be mandatory, introducing students to the Māori worldview (Te Ao Māori), elements of Māori traditional knowledge (mātauranga Māori), tikanga (protocols and processes), kawa (rules), together with particular interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand colonial history. Such courses are not problematic per se provided that they are optional, but course content which cannot be questioned by students or other staff becomes indoctrination, which should have no place in a university.

Activism that aims to decolonise and indigenise the culture of our universities has put them increasingly at risk of being seen internationally as narrowly ethnically focused, and where their primary focus on teaching and research excellence has been diverted onto cultural change and equitable outcomes for historically under-represented minorities.

The Defining characteristics of Universities

In this changed environment, we must remind ourselves of the defining characteristics of a university and how these characteristics conflict with aims to transform the university into an organisation dominated by a single culture and where indoctrination pervades.

Robert Anderson, in “The Idea of a University Today” [9] states:

“The idea of a university in which teaching and research were combined in the search for impartial truth reached classic form in nineteenth-century Germany, and eventually became the dominant model. Other features of the model were intellectual freedom in research and teaching, university autonomy, the growth of independent disciplines with their own standards and priorities, and internationalism.

The 1967 University of Chicago Kalven Committee Report [10] reaffirmed the role and functions of the university in the modern world. The Kalven Report states, in particular:

“To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures.”

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 [11]. This document 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.”

In an interview with Yasha Mounk, Larry Summers [12], former Harvard University President, states:

"I think the values that animated me to spend my life in universities were values of excellence in thought, in pursuit of truth. We're never going to find some ultimate perfect truth, but through argument, analysis, discussion, and study we can get closer to truth. And a world that is better understood is a world that is made better.”

Universities should thus be characterised by a politically neutral 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, the requirement that a particular culture that must be treated as sacrosanct, and the indoctrination or the mandated teaching of unquestionable traditional knowledge, have no valid place. 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 impositions of indigenisation thus conflict with the very nature of a university.

Engagement with Māori Culture and Being Te-Tiriti-led

The academic community has welcomed greater engagement with Māori culture over the past 25 years, and efforts to bring more Māori students into university. Here was liberal social justice in action, and real efforts to deliver more equitable outcomes for Māori. Similar efforts have been made with Pacific People.

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, as Māori traditional knowledge taught in a university course cannot be questioned or critiqued by non-Māori.

The decision of New Zealand universities to become “Te Tiriti-led” at first sight appears to be a positive gesture to create greater understanding of Te Ao Māori and a more unified future for our country. However, the statements contained in university Treaty of Waitangi statutes or policies raise significant risks of cultural capture and politicisation of these institutions, particularly as the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and its constitutional role in New Zealand’s future are currently major political issues. The Treaty is silent on any matter to do with education and inferences/interpretations drawn from the Treaty are broad and varied. We see a priori assumptions around the Treaty being a partnership, and around the very malleable Treaty Principles themselves.

The authors have looked specifically at Treaty of Waitangi statements from three of our universities, Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) [13, 14], the University of Otago [15], and Massey University [16]. While Otago’s statement in its strategic plan talks about the partnership with Ngai Tahu and how they working to determine how they will become Te Tiriti-led in the future, Massey’s Treaty policy states several principles which are similar to those from VUW, on whose Treaty Statute our following comments are focused.

The VUW Treaty guidelines statements [14] flesh out their 2019 Treaty Statute [13]. which includes eight principles that are drawn from Te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand case law, Waitangi Tribunal reports, Crown policy documents, Victoria University’s governance documents and mātauranga Māori.

These eight principles are as follows:

· The principle of Kāwanatanga stems from Article One of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which used Kāwanatanga to mean governance. In the context of the University, this means that the Council has an obligation to provide good governance for the University as a whole and to act reasonably and in good faith, including with its Māori staff, students and stakeholders.

· The principle of Rangatiratanga recognises Māori autonomy and self-determination, as guaranteed in Article Two of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In the context of the University, it means encouraging senior Māori leadership roles and entities, spaces and events where tikanga Māori prevails, and engagement with and rights over te Reo and mātauranga Māori.

· The principle of Options (Kōwhiringa) acknowledges Māori rights to pursue their own personal direction, whether that be in accordance with tikanga Māori or not. In the context of the University, this means that Māori staff and students have a choice about whether or not to access Māori-specific processes, services or support within the University environment.

· The principle of Partnership (Mahi tahi) requires Māori and the Crown to work together for mutually beneficial outcomes. In the context of the University, this Principle underpins the integrity of the relationships formed between the University and its Māori stakeholders.

· The principle of Kaitiakitanga (Protection) ensures Māori rights and interests are actively protected through honourable conduct, fair processes, robust consultation and good decision making. In the context of the University, this means actively protecting Māori student, staff and stakeholder rights and interests in relation to University activities.

· The principle of Participation (Whai wāhi) ensures that Māori are fully involved in all parts of New Zealand society. In the context of the University, it requires the University to ensure Māori representation in key decision-making bodies and the involvement of Māori across all parts of the University.

· The principle of Equality (Rite tahi) focuses on providing an environment that supports equitable Māori outcomes. In the context of the University, it means actively working towards achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students and staff.

· The principle of Redress (Whakaoranga) provides for the effective resolution of Māori grievances. In the context of the University, this means actively addressing any inequities for Māori across the institution.

These principles are quite open to interpretation, and the italicised parts are potentially onerous. For example, the Rangitiratanga, Whai wāhi and Kaitiakitanga principles have already led to large Māori directorates within the universities and very significant influence at Vice Chancellor and senior leadership team level around the culture and direction of the university. Moreover, we ask, why is there not similar policy provision for the 25% of New Zealand’s total population whose cultures are non-Māori/non-European, particularly our Pacific community? We have a growing Islamic population. Do we forget about our Asian people because they do well here in New Zealand? They comprise 28% of the Auckland population, and 47% of university students at the University of Auckland in 2024.

What is taking place at VUW is mirrored at the other universities. Unfortunately, Te Ao Māori is being forced onto these institutions as a dominant culture, and this development runs counter to the fundamental idea of the university as a secular, apolitical body.

In the end, the Treaty of Waitangi does not form any part of New Zealand domestic law, apart from situations where its Principles are referred to in Acts of Parliament. But what exactly are those Principles and to what extent do they apply to non-Māori/non-Europeans? Currently, we have 177,210 university students in New Zealand, including 147,915 New Zealanders, of whom 13% are Māori and 9% are Pacific (Universities NZ, 2024). How does the VUW Statute accommodate the 87% of university students who are non-Māori?

University policy statements around the Treaty of Waitangi undermine the ability of the universities to govern themselves in a politically neutral way, and to manage academic processes and quality. As one example, the principle of rite tahi around equitable outcomes for Māori students means that there will be pressure to graduate Māori students pro rata, even if academic standards are compromised.

Concluding Remarks

It is problematical that Treaty of Waitangi policy statements are being enshrined in our universities in a way that goes well beyond achieving better outcomes for Māori and towards decolonisation and indigenisation of our universities, and this will undermine their international credibility and standing.

We are concerned that our university Councils do not appear to have a proper understanding of the vital need for political/cultural neutrality in a university nor, unfortunately, do we necessarily have neutral Councils. It is our view that university Councils should have vetoed the implementation of such onerous Treaty statutes/policies/statements of intent, as these have opened the door to the imposition of an ideological environment which directly contradicts the nature of what a university should be.

*****************************************************

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.

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.

References

1. Niall Ferguson, “The Treason of the Intellectuals”, The Free Press, 11th December 2023. https://www.thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-treason-intellectuals-third-reich

2. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, “Cynical Theories”, Pitchstone Publishing, August 2020.

3. Helen Pluckrose, “The Counterweight Handbook: Principled Strategies for Surviving and Defeating Critical Social Justice - At Work, in Schools, and Beyond”, Swift Press, 2024.

4. 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)

5. Peter Schwerdtfeger, David Lillis, John Raine, “New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Sector in Deep Financial Crisis “Breaking Views NZ, 13th October 2023

6. Te Kawehau Hoskins and Alison Jones, “Indigenous Inclusion and Indigenising the University”, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, volume 57, pp 305-320, 2022

7. New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA): (i) Annual Report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship Data and Statistics (2011), April 2012, 84pp; (ii) Annual Report NCEA, University Entrance and NZ Scholarship Data and Statistics (2022), May 2023, 94pp. www.nzqa.govt.nz

8. Marie, D., Fergusson, D. M. and Boden, J. M. (2008). Educational Achievement in Maori: The Roles of Cultural Identity and Social Disadvantage. Australian Journal of Education. 52: 2, 183-196. Article first published online: August 1, 2008; Issue published August 1, 2008.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/000494410805200206

9. Robert Anderson, “The Idea of a University Today”, History and Policy, 1st March 2010.https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-idea-of-a-university-today

10. Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, University of Chicago, 11th November 1967

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

12. Larry Summers, “What Went Wrong on Campus.” Persuasion 24th February, 2024, https://www.persuasion.community/p/summers

13. 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

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

15. University of Otago Pae Tata Strategic Plan to 2030, https://www.otago.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/314885/download-pae-tata-strategic-plan-to-2030-0245908.pdf

16. Massey University Tiriti o Waitangi Policy, July 2023 https://www.massey.ac.nz/documents/1796/Treaty_of_Waitangi_Te_Tiriti_o_Waitangi_Policy.pdf