Graham Adams: Five years on, the tide turns against ideological censors

It is five years this month since a letter signed by seven Auckland University professors was published in the Listener under the title “In Defence of Science”. They argued that although mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) is “critical for the preservation of culture and perpetuation of local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy… it falls far short of what we can define as science itself.”

The letter sparked a firestorm. Auckland University’s Vice-chancellor, Dawn Freshwater, wrote that questioning “whether mātauranga Māori can be called science has caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni”. She emphasised the letter did not represent the university’s views.

An open letter which backed mātauranga Māori as “not lesser to other knowledge systems” and recommended not “putting science on a pedestal” quickly gathered more than 2000 signatures, mainly from academics and researchers.

They were egged on by microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles, who tweeted: “Calling all academics in Aotearoa New Zealand. Add your name to the open letter if you are also appalled by that letter claiming to defend science published last week in the NZ Listener. It’s caused untold harm and hurt & points to major problems with some of our colleagues.”

The Royal Society of New Zealand, to its lasting shame, began a disciplinary investigation into the professors who were fellows that could have resulted in their expulsion.

Now, five years later, a similar case about treating mātauranga Māori as equivalent to science is making the news globally but this time the reaction has been markedly different.

Last month, the editorial board of the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) retracted a scholarly article it published in 2025 after it belatedly decided it could “harm” Māori because the author had suggested that clinical psychology should rest on a scientific base, not “Māori ways of knowing”.

This time, the censors, not the dissenter, are taking the most flak. When clinical neuropsychologist Dr Helen Buckland-Wright was interviewed on RNZ’s The Panel, guest Mike Yardley described the retraction as “the most outrageous, belated form of censorship”.

Last week, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins told his 2.8 million followers on X that the retraction of the article was “utterly contemptible”.

There has been almost no direct criticism of the views expressed by the article’s author, Dr Arna Mitchell, a Māori clinical psychologist. When Stuff quoted two senior psychology academics last week who were critical of her article having been published at all, they preferred to remain anonymous. The 2000 academics so keen in 2021 to publicly back mātauranga Māori as equivalent to science, and pillory the professors, have fallen silent.

Yet the views expressed by Mitchell about a report by a research group called WERO (Working to End Racism and Oppression) firmly echo the professors’ concerns.

In her 4200-word article — titled, “He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand” — Mitchell wrote:

“The researchers claim that science itself is a social construct of white Europeans, and that it is this association with perceived white power and prestige alone that justifies the dominance of scientific ways of knowing in the practice of psychology.

“This supposed truth is interpreted as an injustice against what they see as Māori ways of knowing. The researchers go on to claim that in order to eradicate racism and oppression in psychology, Māori ways of knowing should be given equal weight to scientific ways of knowing in the training and practice of psychologists in New Zealand.”

Questioning the equivalence between Māori lore and science and arguing that psychologists should follow empirical evidence in their practice rather than spiritual or cultural beliefs is apparently unacceptable to the NZCCP.

In an email on June 18 advising Dr Mitchell of their decision to remove her work from the online journal, they wrote: “In particular, the [NZCCP] Council was concerned that retaining the article could perpetuate harm to Māori, and that this did not reflect the College’s ongoing commitment to honouring and upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

Laughably, the NZCCP also claimed to be “committed to open and rigorous dialogue within psychological science and practice” while asserting “at the same time, the Council holds that such dialogue must occur in ways consistent with our values and our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

A fortnight ago, the topic of the Listener letter and its enduring effect on the debate over academic freedom and free speech was raised in a discussion between philosopher Peter Boghossian, NZ Initiative senior fellow Michael Johnston, and the Free Speech Union’s Stephanie Martin.

The speakers agreed that — despite the professors being “slammed” at the time and “attacked by just about everybody” — their letter now appears to mark a historical turning point when ideological coercion in institutions became a topic of widespread concern.

The panel pointed to Act’s push for legislative amendments last November to ensure university councils protect and promote academic freedom and freedom of expression as one result of the discussion initiated by the “Listener 7”.

In fact, the extensive publicity around the NZCCP’s censorship couldn’t have come at a better time for Act, which last month also announced it would campaign this election to protect free speech in every profession and require regulators to remain institutionally neutral on political and ideological issues. Act MP Todd Stephenson summarised its aim as stopping “professional regulators acting as ideological enforcers”.

It’s true that the NZCCP’s retraction is not technically a free-speech issue, inasmuch as no organisation is obliged to publish views it doesn’t agree with or thinks are poorly argued. However, retracting the article has obvious implications for free speech inasmuch as it signals official hostility to certain kinds of criticism that will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on anyone else who might be inclined to dissent.

The NZCCP is also not a statutory regulator like the Law Society or the Real Estate Authority, which have come under fire for imposing ideological shackles on members. But, as the Free Speech Union noted: “Even though the NZCCP is not a professional regulator, this… does connect with our work in this space because many psychologists rely on NZCCP membership for professional opportunities and accreditation.”

Buckland-Wright reinforced that point when she told RNZ’s Panel that she and other psychologists were “locked into” college membership because their work with agencies such as ACC, Corrections and the Ministry of Justice required it. Yet their actual regulatory body is the NZ Psychologists’ Board.

She said she and other colleagues were consulting lawyers to find a way to “distance themselves” from the college and its censorship.

Health Minister Simeon Brown has been active in reining in the censors. Last month, he restructured the board of the Nursing Council with the aim of stripping back “distracting ideological agendas”, in particular an emphasis on te Tiriti.

He has also declined to reappoint the leaders of the Medical Council, alleging they had become distracted by politics and an “ideological agenda”.

He told the Post that the council’s recent consultation documents had asked doctors to examine their own ‘privilege’, to challenge the ‘dominant culture’ of the health system, and to study the difference between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation.

Last year, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee advised the Real Estate Authority to ensure it restricts the training requirements placed on its members to those directly relevant to real estate practice. She acted after Auckland real estate agent Janet Dickson was banned for five years when she refused to complete a compulsory course in tikanga on the grounds it was not relevant to her work, and against her personal beliefs.

It’s hard to imagine that the professors could have guessed in July 2021 the impact their Listener letter was going to have — both on New Zealand society and themselves.

As Boghossian said: “The Listener letter was the most tame, polite [and] carefully worded [document]… Those guys were so nice, and look at all the shit they got. They were tormented for years for that.”

Three of the “Listener 7” — Robert Nola, Michael Corballis and John Werry — have died since the letter was published. But the stand they took alongside their fellow professors Kendall Clements, Dame Elizabeth Rata, Douglas Elliffe and Garth Cooper continues to reverberate in public debate and government policy.

Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE