It is high time for our universities to focus away from activist ideology that is antithetical to their foundational principles and concentrate simply on excellence in research and teaching. So, it is good to see institutional neutrality statements appearing, but they will not help this situation if they include carve-outs that enable the pursuit of ideological agendas.
The University of Otago statement on institutional neutrality [1] has just been released. More on this below, but it is a statement that gives little confidence that the current Education and Training Amendment Bill (No.2) [2] will ensure institutional neutrality in universities.
The Bill [2] before parliament, which the Free Speech Union has helped draft, addresses two critical problem areas in the universities:
(i) Institutional neutrality.
(ii) Academic Freedom and freedom of expression.
The amended Education and Training Act will require that university Councils adopt a statement that sets out the university’s approach to these two issues. This statement must recognise that “freedom of expression is critical to maintaining academic freedom”, and that “universities should actively foster an environment where ideas can be challenged, controversial issues can be discussed, and diverse opinions can be expressed, in a respectful manner consistent with any statute made by the university”.
Moreover, “universities should not take positions on matters that do not directly concern their role or functions”, and “should seek to uphold their role as critic and conscience of society by providing a platform for invited speakers of diverse viewpoints.” The Act will also require universities to have a complaints procedure relating to academic freedom and freedom of expression.
Institutional Neutrality – A Necessary Precondition for Academic Freedom
The need for institutional neutrality is emphasised in both the 1967 Kalven Report [3] and the 1988 Bologna Accord [4]. Universities must ensure their people operate within the law but provide an academic environment of open inquiry. This involves an unhindered search for truth, open and respectful debate on all subjects, no imposed orthodoxy, and all viewpoints heard. Students and staff can articulate their views on social or political matters as individuals or distinct collectives, but the university itself should not.
When the university itself adopts an ideological position, this tends to stifle differing viewpoints, hinders constructive discussion, and compromises academic freedom within the institution.
Suppose a university (through its Vice Chancellor and management team) declared that it would henceforth be led by the doctrine and beliefs of a fundamental Christian Church, including creationism. This departs from the Enlightenment principles of fact and reason that are central to universities. It compromises the teaching and research of a staff member who teaches evolutionary biology and is openly atheist. It would be difficult for this academic to promote open discussion in class, or to believe that his or her promotion chances were not affected by the University’s position.
Getting the Rainbow tick, for example, or declaring that they are Te Tiriti-led, also potentially or actually makes our universities non-neutral. Regarding the Treaty, it appears that under Section 281, the amended Education and Training Act will still require that university Councils, “Acknowledge the Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”. This is vague, as the Te Tiriti is silent on education and research, and does not explicitly require universities to submit to a cultural authority.
Universities have declared that they will be guided by tikanga of the iwi with mana whenua in their region. Staff are expected to uphold general Treaty Principles such as rangatiratanga (autonomy and self-determination), whai wāhi (participation) and kawanatanga (governance) [e.g. 5,6]. Learning about Te Ao Māori should be valuable to all students, as should engaging with and celebrating Māori culture, but an imposed culture should have no place in a university.
Institutional autonomy gives universities latitude as to how they define institutional neutrality and academic freedom. Vice Chancellor Grant Robertson explained the University of Otago statement [1] thus, “Our University upholds free speech and academic freedom as essential values. By not taking a University-wide position on political issues not related to our core roles and functions, we ensure that our community can freely explore, discuss and engage with critical issues. If the University were to take a stance on political issues not connected to our roles and functions, this would place those members of the community who hold a different view in a difficult position and potentially have a chilling effect on them and their work. ……
The restrictions on taking political positions only apply to those who act as managers and does not cover scholarly or scientific work or statements made outside of work.
The statement also makes clear what the University considers to be its roles and functions. These include the safety and wellbeing of staff and students, financial and regulatory concerns, sustainability, equity, ethical investment and obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as mandated in legislation…...
The core strategy and framework documents of the University outline the goals and actions that the University will take in these areas, and they are not subject to the institutional neutrality statement………
In the face of many things happening in the world today, it is understandable that there are very strong views on political issues held by many people on campus. ….. The University not taking a single position on them is not indifference, but rather it is our job to make sure that the right for people to peacefully express their views upheld.”
The problem with this statement is that it is not possible to argue that being Te Tiriti -led is a politically neutral position in New Zealand. Clearly, respectful engagement with Te Tiriti o Waitangi should be encouraged, but simply acknowledging Treaty Principles should meet “…obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi as mandated in legislation”.
The University of Otago statement is inherently self-contradictory. The specific core roles and functions in bold above, none of which are stated university functions based on the relevant legislation, give wide opportunity for it to take politicised positions and legitimise cultural authority from one group. Neutrality statements such as these open the door for activists to engage the university in various causes and prejudice the position of staff who may not agree with a stated institutional position.
Consequences of Non-Neutral Neutrality Statements
Institutional Neutrality and Academic Freedom
Institutional neutrality statements generally claim to support academic freedom. This has been increasingly undermined with the rise of critical social justice ideology and DEI agendas within universities across the Western world over the past 50 years. It is also a serious issue in New Zealand, as investigated by Kierstead [7].
Academic environments lean hard to the “progressive” left: 90% of academics in the USA according to Ferguson [8]. This leads to unbalanced academic discourse where ideological dogma more easily prevails, and intolerance of those dissenting from a dominant narrative or presenting conservative views. This is commonly manifested around race, gender identity, or climate change politics. On the latter, for example, many highly respected scientists such as Dr John Clauser or Professor Richard Lindzen, who have disagreed with climate change alarmism have been subject to aggressive efforts to silence them [e.g. 9,10].
There have been multiple instances worldwide of university academics being vilified by colleagues for simply speaking the truth, as happened to the “Listener Seven” professors [11] in New Zealand. They emphasised the value and importance of Māori traditional knowledge in our society, that it can contribute to advancing science, but that it cannot be equated with modern science. Since it rests on cultural authority, mātauranga Māori is epistemologically incompatible with science. Abbot et al. explore this issue in the wider critical social justice context [12].
Universities must embed academic freedom by providing an environment where staff can pursue their specialisation, hold their own philosophical views, teach these, and carry out related research. Academics with opposing views should be able to debate these openly without either one being condemned as morally bankrupt or wrong, although knowingly teaching something that is factually wrong should lead to disciplinary action. Moreover, safeguards are needed in subjects with non-unique viewpoints, to avoid ideologically motivated lecturers slipping into indoctrination by presenting a single incontestable view or marking students down who do not parrot a prescribed view back in an assignment. This is contrary to the nature of what a university should be.
Academic freedom should accommodate multiple viewpoints, contestable views and beliefs. University teachers should present alternative theories or historical perspectives on a subject where these exist, and ask students to critique these and reach their own preferred position.
The truly neutral university would provide an internal environment where there is no university position on a subject that could lead to either academics or students being penalised for their views. The foregoing would be an ideal outcome of the Education and Training Act Amendment Bill (No.2), but this requires the elimination of exclusion clauses in institutional neutrality statements.
Staff Appointment Criteria
The University of Otago recently advertised for a new Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research and Innovation). Among the usual qualifications and experience requirements, the advertisement stated that candidates would ideally have a “commitment to the University’s goal of being Te Tiriti-led, and a strong understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its place in research and innovation.” Outside the social sciences and the humanities, the only connection to the Treaty for most researchers is either political or through a laudable socio-cultural change objective. This might be, for example, increasing Māori participation in academia, the research community and in the innovative industrial sector.
The single key appointment criterion must always be excellence – in teaching and research, academic leadership, and relevant administrative experience. Cultural requirements, particularly they relate a university’s institutional stance, put the appointment at risk of being swayed by the applicant’s race or cultural background and disadvantage international candidates.
Curriculum Content
The ideological activism in some university courses is problematic, such as in the mandatory 2025 Stage 1 Treaty-oriented Waipapa Taumata Rau (WTR100) courses at the University of Auckland (UoA). Learning about Te Ao Māori becomes indoctrination if students are subjected to content they cannot question or criticise, such as a Māori mythology, the nature and standing of mātauranga Māori, or a partisan and divisive anti-colonial view of New Zealand history. Links in Reference 13 show some WTR100 course content.
Graham Adams [14] offers strong critical commentary on the decolonisation agenda in some courses at UoA, and comments on the widespread pushback from students on how the WTR100 content has been presented. Courses presenting cultural belief systems should simply be optional. An open critical examination of the content of these courses is needed to ensure they meet standards of academic objectivity. Such open discussion has been difficult, as staff with concerns over the management-mandated infusion of Te Ao Māori have found that they should remain silent to avoid damaging their career prospects or even placing their employment at risk.
Undermining Scholarship
Imposing cultural authority as to what is treated as factual knowledge undermines academic disciplines. Kaupapa Māori Theory is problematical in this respect. As Nēpia Mahuika [15] put it in the context of history, “Kaupapa Māori, for instance, places mātauranga Māori at the centre, and challenges the place of Pākehā history and power, re-positioning them as historians from elsewhere whose cultural and intellectual frameworks are inadequate for interpreting the histories and worldviews of the indigenous peoples here in Aotearoa”.
In science, Moko-Painting and colleagues [16] have stated, “Pūtaiao (tr. science) is envisioned as a Kaupapa Māori way of doing science in which Indigenous leadership is imperative. It incorporates Māori ways of knowing, being, and doing when undertaking scientific research. An essential element of Pūtaiao is setting a decolonising agenda, drawing from both Kaupapa Māori Theory and Indigenous methodologies.” The problem with this is immediately evident, as science is universal, and its epistemology is entirely independent of race and cultural background.
Under affirmative action, we see ideological activism replacing genuine scholarship, and this is enabled when the university itself has taken a position on an area of strong debate. Decolonisation of curricula, or indeed the culture of the whole university, as called for by Hoskins and Jones [17], ironically militates against the sort of education that could improve life for disadvantaged groups. Displacing rigorous science content with traditional knowledge and beliefs are unlikely to make our students more upwardly mobile through careers in STEM disciplines. They should at least be offered balanced and evidence-based course content. The introduction of beliefs and ‘other ways of knowing’ in academic programmes may have value in comparative studies, but protected status for such content is inappropriate for university curricula.
Where are We Heading?
Universities fail as neutral institutions if they repress open enquiry and debate, and tolerance of dissenting views, regardless, for example, of whether these are around Treaty politics, gender politics, climate change, or international conflicts. However, New Zealand has been internationally ridiculed [e.g.18, 19] for fostering the teaching of belief systems as science and mandating the teaching of traditional knowledge and spiritual concepts in science classes. On one hand academic freedom must be protected but on the other indoctrination must be avoided.
University leaders appear to support institutional neutrality, but currently appear not to be inclined, or to lack the courage, to protect their internal environment from ideological activism, particularly related to science, the Treaty and New Zealand history. They therefore risk further negative impact on teaching and research quality, and the international reputation of their institutions. Specifically, in statements of institutional neutrality, the inappropriate imposition of cultural authority will only be resolved by removing references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Education and Training Act where they lack an objective context.
Ultimately, I believe the defence of excellence ahead of ideologies, now a critical issue in universities across the Western world, will depend on internal pressure from the academic community on management to reject ideological activism in favour of balanced scholarship. Without this, or perhaps heavy financial Government sanctions for failure to maintain institutional neutrality and academic freedom, it looks as though the cultural horse may have bolted despite the good but likely unenforceable intentions of the Education and Training Act Amendment Bill (No.2), and it will take some time to corral.
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.
References
1. University of Otago Statement on Institutional Neutrality, May 2025 https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/newsroom/working-group-report-accepted#:~:text=The%20University%20of%20Otago%20–%20Ōtākou%20Whakaihu%20Waka%20adopts%20a%20position,the%20University's%20role%20or%20functions.
2. Draft Education and Training Amendment Bill (No.2), New Zealand Parliament, 11th April 2025. https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/8826c9d4-8f6e-4018-cdf7-08dd758b2660?Tab=history
3. 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)
4. “Magna Charta Universitatum”, Bologna, 18th September 1988. https://www.cesaer.org/content/7-administration/legal-affairs/values/magna-charta-universitatum.pdf
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. 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/
8. Sir Niall Ferguson, “After the Treason of the Intellectuals” Address given at the University of Austin (UATX), March 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5QID4HVUTY
9. Carl Deconinck, “Nobel prize-winning physicist’s IMF speech cancelled due to his questioning of the climate crisis”, Brussels Signal, 25th July 2023 https://brusselssignal.eu/2023/07/nobel-prize-winning-physicists-speech-at-imf-blocked-after-questioning-.climate-crisis/#google_vignette
10. Stuart Wachowicz,” The Culture of Censorship and Cancellation in Western Democracies” Viewpoint, March 12th 2024. https://www.tomorrowsworldviewpoint.org/viewpoints/culture-censorship-and-cancellation-western-democracies
11. Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Ellife, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, John Werry, “In Defence of Science”, The Listener, 31st July 2021, p.4.
12. D. Abbot, A. Bikfalvi, A.L. Bleske-Rechek, W. Bodmer, P. Boghossian, C.M. Carvalho, J. Ciccolini, J.A. Coyne,. Gauss, P.M.W. Gill, S. Jitomirskaya, L. Jussim, A.I. Krylov, G.C. Loury, L. Maroja, J.H. McWhorter,S. Moosavi, P. Nayna Schwerdtle, J. Pearl, M.A. Quintanilla Tornel, H.F. Schaefer III, P.R. Schreiner, P. Schwerdtfeger, D. Shechtman, M. Shifman, J. Tanzman, B.L. Trout, A. Warshel, and J.D. West, “In Defense of Merit in Science”. Journal of Controversial Ideas 2023, 3(1), 1; 10.35995/jci03010001, pp1-26.
13. University of Auckland WTR100 Resources published online by students
https://www.studocu.com/en-nz/course/university-of-auckland/waipapa-taumata-rau-contemporary-science-in-aotearoa-new-zealand/7507073
or
https://www.atlas.org/explore/wtrsci-100-cQfbaVRJFpuFZVE7tuP1rb/resources
14. Graham Adams, “Auckland Uni students react to Treaty ‘indoctrination’”, Bassett Brash and Hide, 20th April 2025. https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/graham-adams-auckland-uni-students-react-to-treaty-indoctrination
15. Nēpia Mahuika, “Closing the Gaps: From Postcolonialism to Kaupapa Māori and Beyond”, New Zealand Journal of History, Vol. 45, 1, 2011, pp 15-32.
16. Te Kahuratai Moko-Painting, Logan Hamley, Dan Hikuroa, Jade Le Grice, Tara McAllister, Georgia McLellan, Hineatua Parkinson, Larissa Renfrew, Sarah T Rewi. “(Re)emergence of Pūtaiao: Conceptualising Kaupapa Māori science”, Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice, Vol. 2(1-2), 2023, pp11-37.
17. Te Kawehau Hoskins and Alison Jones, “Indigenous Inclusion and Indigenising the University”, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, volume 57, pp 305-320, 2022
18. Jerry Coyne “Professor Jerry Coyne: Gods cause earthquakes....” Breaking Views NZ 26th July 2024.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/07/professor-jerry-coyne-gods-cause.html
19. Jerry Coyne, “the Periodical Science Touts Indigenous Science”, Why Evolution is True, 19th January 2024. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/01/19/indigenous-science-in-science/
12 comments:
The problem is quite clear.
We as kiwis can talk and talk but the coalition need to act decisively now and correct the march before it's too late.
Last para. - pressure for neutrality from the academic staff seems very unlikely . Most are cowered into silence by the
" indigenization" bullies.
Instead - try Trump's tactics: cut the funds unless neutrality is restored and watch the impact.
Compare the first 100 days in America under Trump to the first 552 days under this lot. It’s like comparing an F1 with a wheelbarrow.
Sorry, Anonymous, reckon its already too late. This has taken a half century of stupidity to reach this point. Ahead.... calamity.... very soon. Good NZ folk are nearing revolt. [TPM should banned from parliament for instance.]
Revolt?
Revolting perhaps?
But Revolt?
Or does revolt now mean complacency.
Too many too complacent for too long I think.
Makes one wonder if we would benefit from a benevolent dictator instead of a wishy, washy, woke Luxon.
Once upon a time, in a small, windswept democracy at the bottom of the world, there were universities. You know—the places where students learned how to think, not to chant karakias and waiatas. It was all terribly elitist and inconvenient.
Naturally, it had to be stopped.
Behold the modern New Zealand university: a hybrid of Treaty workshops and DEI karaoke night.
These are no longer institutions of higher learning. They are “Te Tiriti-led Centres of Reflective Practice,” where the mission is not to educate but to “navigate bicultural epistemologies through a decolonised lens while centring Indigenous worldviews and avoiding epistemic violence.”
If you understood that sentence, congratulations: you’re already halfway to a PhD in Critical Treaty Embodied Positionality Studies.
Otago V-C Grant Robertson. Remember him? Of course you don’t. He was once Minister of Finance, best known for steering the economy into a ditch so deep we may yet find Muldoon’s ghost haunting the bottom. Now ensconced in academia—apparently the traditional retirement home for failed politicians—he’s taken up the noble defence of “institutional neutrality.”
Well, sort of. In Robertson’s hands, neutrality means having any opinion you like, so long as it’s the official one. His idea of balance is a university that proclaims itself a fearless champion of free speech—while requiring staff to complete treaty compliance training, teach compulsory maori worldview courses, and align research with an 1840 document best known for its footnote wars.
Still, you’ve got to admire the gall. Only a former finance minister could deliver this with a straight face. “We’re neutral,” says Robertson, while behind him equity strategies cascade from every wall.
Meanwhile, actual education—the kind involving difficult questions and potentially wrong answers—has quietly left the building. Students are now taught to centre their trauma, honour their positionality, and never, ever ask whether mythology belongs in the science curriculum. If they do, a restorative justice circle and disciplinary panel stand ready to realign their haka performance.
Academics, those who still think truth matters, survive by publishing something vaguely decolonial once a year and attending their treaty indoctrination with the blank smile of someone wondering if their research funding depends on it.
As for governance—once run by people who understood, say, chemistry—it now includes Treaty compliance officers, equity managers, cultural capability advisors, and the occasional biologist who remembers when data wasn’t colonial.
So here we are: a university system allergic to dissent, high on cultural virtue, and terrified of its own mission. We’re not creating graduates anymore.
We’re minting future HR managers fluent in PowerPoint te reo and allergic to nuance while insisting on creating exclusive ethnic safe spaces.
I do believe we are witnessing a change in views of the Enlightenment and Darwinism/ Evolution . Certainly overseas if not here.
The term 'Christian Enlightenment ' is a relatively recent term according to a Cambridge University Press publication. The earlier consensus that the the very essence of the Enlightenment was to annihilate 'the religious interpretation of life ' was focused only on France and anti -Christian, anti Church and anti religious.
Rather it is now seen as a variety of discourses across Europe and America.' It has become clear that earlier interpretations were based on an impoverished view or religious traditions, even an outright disdain for them.
In my personal experience in the "reading Wars', last century , I witnessed this outright disdain for traditionally held views and stances including Christian ones. from our modern progressive education system.
Whole Language (WL) theory for teaching reading was founded on , now a soundly proven false evolutionary idea. In contrast Traditional intensive phonics inherited from a Christian past was a threat to this WL theory and the intent of academic Progressives was to stamp out traditionalism in education , in keeping with their narrow -minded and staunchly held views of the Enlightenment and supported by their addiction to Darwinism.
For me progressivism in Education at all levels is full of irrational unscientific nonsense including insisting on Darwinism to be a fact and constructivist theory.
Maori radicals and supporters have replaced our Traditional Western values with even more irrationality . What an absolute fiasco. One radical stated she didn't believe in the Enlightenment . I believe in a more balanced interpretation of it .Our Christian Heritage has much to offer us, including scientific rationality. The great Universities of the past were the product of Christian desire for Knowledge that aided society.
In my orbit (security, hospital staff now and former media in past life) I encounter people who a/ don't believe it is happening otherwise it would be reported (masm) b/support it avidly especially ex stuff staff and some medical staff c/ think it is a beat up and or don't care ''as it doesn't affect me'', ''it is all conspiracy'' (I encounter people who have never heard of the PJF and its fishhooks or Te Hapua and think it is all made up. Those who know they exist avidly support them (ex-Stuff colleagues, some med staff) or d/ wan't it all to happen as they want the existing system overthrown.
>"The introduction of beliefs and ‘other ways of knowing’ in academic programmes may have value in comparative studies, but protected status for such content is inappropriate for university curricula."
Donning different lenses when investigating reality is a great way of training the mind to apply various rules of reasoning. I personally have degrees in both Science and Arts, diplomas in Law and even completed a course in Astrology! Among my publications are works based on hard empirical research and philosophical/ethical paradigms.
I dare say I am intellectually versatile but one thing I would never do is equate the various reasoning modes and the paradigms they arise from. For instance, Astrology is a barrel of fun and remains an interesting topic from historical and psychological perspectives but no way would I ever give it 'equivalence' with scientific astronomy/cosmology. Indeed, given the modus operandi of the two, I can't see how I could 'equivalate' them even if I wanted to.
Huge ignorance in the general population has been my observation also. Few read beyond msm click bait...if they get that far. It was a long time before even column writers got around to reading the outlandish blatant PIJF conditons.I am horrified by attempts to lower the voting age and to induce all to particiapte in the lottery. i do not consider I was sufficently informed to vote in a well considered manner until I retired and had time to ponder.
"Specifically, in statements of institutional neutrality, the inappropriate imposition of cultural authority will only be resolved by removing references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Education and Training Act where they lack an objective context."
With all due respect, I concur, but with the deletion of the 'qualifier' after "Act", which otherwise just leaves the "stable door" wide open.
I see the Education and Training Act 2020 is 19th of the list of 28 Acts to be reviewed in relation to the applicability of Te Tiriti and that the draft Education and Training Amendment Bill (No.2), inter alia, includes:
127 Paramount objective of boards in governing schools...
(2) To meet the paramount objective, the board must meet the following supporting objectives: ...
(b) to ensure that the school uses good quality assessment and aromatawai information to monitor and evaluate students’ progress and achievement, including any assessment or aromatawai specified in a foundation curriculum policy statement: ...
(e) to ensure that the school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by—
(i) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students; and
(ii) working to ensure that its plans, policies, and teaching and learning programmes reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and (iii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori: ...
Then there is Section 9 of the Principal Act, which is to undergo some amendment but there remains a plethora of Treaty acknowledging provisions that incorporate the tertiary learning institutions to which the author's comments are principally directed.
In all, it represents a veritable minefield of obligations, all designed to infuse and indoctrinate our young with a distinct cultural ideology bias. With the embodiment of undefined te reo words and vague often fictional Treaty concepts, these only provide fuel for the future 'consultation' grievance/grift industry. If we really want a high performing, successful education system where our available resources are directed at achieving that end, all references to Te Tiriti should be removed from that Act. Our Bill of Rights and Human Rights Acts, which are both referenced therein, surely cover all that is needed?
Post a Comment