New Zealand is too small for separate natural history or ethnographic museums.  Instead, the four largest museums (in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin) are encyclopaedic general museums where science (natural history, e.g. botany, zoology, geology) and culture (human history, e.g. ethnology, history, applied arts) must co-habit.  Among their duties these museums must prominently promote their science half.  Science museums (and therefore the science part of encyclopaedic museums) have “an ethical responsibility to safeguard scientific integrity” and need “loyalty to facts and evidence.” 

Politicisation of museums

New Zealand museums have increasingly embraced identity politics.  This is evident in many museum planning documents.  Future Museum, Auckland Museum’s 2012 “strategic vision”, for example, includes two major policy documents, He Korahi Māori: a Māori Dimension, and Teu Le Va: Pacific Dimension.  The latter offers “pathways of acknowledgement and inclusiveness” within the museum, based on the idea that “Pacific people have a special place in Aotearoa.”  No other ethno-cultural groups get their own guiding documents. 

He Korahi Māori ensures a Māori dimension in “all of the museum’s plans and activities”.  What might this mean?  It is hard to imagine a Māori dimension to an exhibition of English pewter or Chinese porcelain, when pre-contact Māori society had no metals or pottery.  Importantly, He Korahi Māori overlooks that specific cultural dimensions have little relevance to science in museums.  This is because the scientific method serves to overcome the limitations of local cultural perspectives by inviting criticism from everywhere.  There is only one version of science, which is universal and understood internationally.  Investigations or findings are either science, open to any informed criticism, or not science.  Science has no shielded local or cultural varieties.  Despite Hitler and Stalin, there is no “Aryan science” or “communist science” with special bodies of protected knowledge.

Many museum planning documents push a particular view of the Treaty of Waitangi, and any perceived principles of the Treaty are political.  The original 1840 “Articles Treaty” can be distinguished from the recently-developed “Principles Treaty“.  The contemporary reinterpretation of the Treaty as a “partnership”, favoured by the political Left, is contestable.  Former Labour prime minister David Lange stated: “The treaty [of Waitangi] cannot be any kind of founding document, as it is sometimes said to be.  …  The Court of Appeal once, absurdly, described it as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not”. 

Auckland Museum’s administration now talks about challenging “colonial narratives” and making the museum “tikanga-led” (led by Māori culture, values and knowledge).  I checked word-counts in the two most recent annual plans of Auckland Museum and annual reports of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Wellington).  All four documents show the same pattern: culture is privileged and science marginalised.  The word “science” appears 0–5 times in each document and science words like zoology, botany and archaeology get 0–2 mentions.  Meanwhile, the documents are swamped with cultural key words: Māori (44–81 mentions per document), iwi (= Māori tribes, 16–43), culture (9–37), mātauranga (= Māori knowledge, 7–26).  Te Papa’s recently-developed natural history exhibition gives further signs of ideological positioning.

Te Papa’s natural history gallery

In tandem with their large natural science research collections, museums provide secular space for major long-term natural history exhibitions presenting evidence-based explanations of the natural world.  These exhibitions contribute to a world-wide intellectual movement to advance science, a mission bigger than, and different from, parochial political or cultural concerns.  Museums may mount temporary exhibitions with different disciplines combined for special effect, but core, long-term galleries generally cover single broad subjects. 

Te Papa disrupted this traditional arrangement, when in 2019 it unveiled a new principal natural history gallery (Te Taiao / Nature).  Instead of devoting Te Taiao / Nature exclusively to science, as in the natural history galleries it replaced, Te Papa incorporated Māori cultural material throughout, to contrive a novel science-culture gallery.  Spiritual beliefs now sit alongside scientific knowledge.  To be clear, it is thoroughly appropriate that museum displays cover mātauranga Māori.  My objection is to the shifting of the Māori view of nature from ethnographic galleries (Te Papa has two permanent Māori galleries) to science galleries.  I question the asymmetry whereby human history galleries continue to present just culture, but science galleries now get one local cultural system mixed in with universal science.

Te Taiao / Nature is a new “nature and environment zone” that explains the natural world “through mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) alongside science”.  Exhibition developers refer throughout to the demigod Maui, who “can shapeshift into a bird, a lizard”.  “He helps us understand the nuances of Te Taiao [nature] from a Māori perspective.”  The Māori view of nature makes no distinction between nature and culture and includes mythology and spirituality (Roberts, M. Auckland Museum Annual Report 1999–2000: 45–47).  So, labels in Te Taiao / Nature state, for example, that the jostling of tectonic plates is “the shifting of Ruaumoko, god of earthquakes”.  A “mauri stone placed by a hinaki [eel trap] kept eels thriving”.  The creation story of Maui fishing up the North Island gets a mention.  

Museums need to maintain academic standards but Te Taiao / Nature makes a category error.  Mātauranga Māori is the counterpart, not of science, but of the folklore about nature that all societies around the world developed from their beginnings.  Modern science emerged before and during the European and North American Enlightenment, transcending local folkloric explanations of the natural world and becoming an international system.  Mixing parochial mātauranga Māori and international science may confuse visitors and undermine young people’s developing understanding of science.  Local academics have recently noted, for example, that science and mātauranga are “intrinsically contradictory approaches to knowledge that resist both combination and interrogation of one by the other” (Anderson, A. 2021, [Letter to the editor], Listener 277(4211): 6–7) and that placing science and indigenous knowledge alongside each other “does disservice to the coherence and understanding of both” (Ahdar et al. 2024, World science and indigenous knowledge [letter], Science 385(6705): 151–152).  Putting a system that depends on unrestricted openness to criticism, as if on a par with a system that depends on protection from criticism in the interests of faithful transmission, is problematic.

By putting the Māori view of nature in the single science gallery, Te Papa seems to promote the postmodernist ideas that there are no universal truths and that all knowledge is culturally derived.  This confused and simplistic ideology seeks to undermine science and other narratives construed as Eurocentric and colonial.  Te Taiao / Nature implies by its mixed content that science is unremarkable—just one of many equivalent world views—and that indigenous “ways of knowing” are somehow equivalent to science.  By shrinking its science contribution in this way, Te Papa wavers from its truth-seeking mission.

Risk to reputation

Until recently, science remained unaffected by postmodernism, an ideology that many consider has damaged the humanities.  The imposition of postmodern views in the science sphere is a serious concern that scientists must oppose (Krauss 2024, Alan Sokal’s joke is on us as postmodernism comes to science, Wall Street Journal). 

To protect their public credibility and reputations, here are three suggestions for New Zealand museums:  1.  Regain political neutrality in your organisational viewpoints.  2.  Restore science and science thinking to its equal place as a core museum component alongside culture.  3.  Maintain or restore science galleries, which by definition can present only knowledge, not a mixture of knowledge and belief.

Museums could choose to continue traditional pride in the universals of science and world cultural heritages alongside increasing support for the renaissance in Māori culture and knowledge.  This does justice to all and minimises reputational risk.  They should avoid the fashionable politics of aggrandising one while playing down another.  Making science exhibitions share space with cultural content, and challenging “colonial” narratives, is risky.  If politicians, donors, and the visiting public tire of a bias of culture over science, then visitation and funding may be threatened.

Brian Gill has a PhD in zoology from the University of Canterbury.  He was Curator of Land Vertebrates at Auckland Museum for 30 years.  Brian publishes in ecology and palaeontogy and has undertaken field-work in New Zealand, Australia and Pacific Islands.]

The post New Zealand museums need neutral organisational viewpoints and stronger science appeared first on Open Inquiry.

As Provost, Prof. James holds one of the university’s most senior positions. That made it all the more troubling to see how weak a grasp she has on the concept of free speech, something universities are required to uphold in the Education and Training Act.  

Prof. James’ piece is a series of reflections on Victoria’s panel discussion on free speech, which was held last year. ‘This event,’ she correctly says, ‘stirred strong feelings.’ But she then goes on to describe the event and the response to it in terms that can generously be described as misleading.  

Prof. James summarizes the response to Victoria’ free speech event as follows (to use her punctuation):  

What surfaced, from one direction, was genuine anxiety about amplifying views that might cause harm.  What this provoked from the other direction was, at best, a mischievous and provocative misinterpretation of the word “postponed” (swapping it for that most charged of words; “cancelled”).  At worst it was vitriolic petulance, best summed up in the quote, by one of the parties; “Good news, kids. It’s OK; words aren’t violence.”  

How Prof. James knows how genuine the anxiety about certain people’s views was is not clear. It is worth noticing, though, that many of the claims that student activists made about how worried people were about speech strained credulity.   

A few students, for example, were described as ‘freaking out’ over ‘right-wing voices,’ those voices apparently belonging to Free Speech Union director Jonathan Ayling and one of us (Michael), neither of whom are especially right-wing. VUWSA President Marcail Parkinson, for her part, said she was concerned that students would not have been able to ‘avoid that area’ – that is, the Kelburn campus’ central ‘Hub’ – ‘if they didn’t feel comfortable being around the debate.’   

But it seems hard to believe that anyone would be seriously discomfited by Ayling or Michael’s speech. Ayling spent three years at Vic, and Michael spent a decade there, both fairly recently. In neither case have there been reports of serious trauma being caused by their speech.   

Prof. James asserts that this ‘genuine anxiety’ provoked ‘at best, a mischievous and provocative misinterpretation of the word “postponed” (swapping it for that most charged of words; “cancelled”).’   

‘Postponed,’ of course, usually implies that the event is question has remained basically the same, but has simply been shifted to a different date. That is obviously not what happened in the case of Victoria University’s ‘free speech’ event. The original event was going to feature four speakers and be held in the Hub, a public area at the heart of Victoria’s Kelburn campus. The event that actually took place featured eight speakers and was held in a lecture theatre. It also had a changed format that ensured there was no exchange of arguments among the panellists. Most reasonable people would agree that saying that the original event was ‘cancelled’ would be perfectly fair.   

It is also not true to describe the response to the cancellation of the first event as ‘at best…mischievous and provocative.’ Sean Plunket invited VUWSA President Marcail Parkinson onto The Platform to discuss the cancellation. Jonathan Ayling was able to remind VUW leadership via the The Post that universities have an obligation to ‘allow for ideas to be thoroughly tested and for robust debate to occur.’ And Michael was able to make a number of important points about Victoria University, free speech and diversity, both in The Post and in an episode of our Free Kiwis! podcast.  

Finally, Prof. James describes a social media post by the Free Speech Union stating that ‘words aren’t violence’ as ‘vitriolic petulance.’ If the Provost of Victoria University views a simple statement of fact as ‘vitriolic petulance,’ what does that suggest about the climate for free speech there? At the very least, Prof. James’ reaction should remind us that what New Zealand academics describe as ‘harmful’ or ‘violent’ speech is often simply speech that they disagree with.

Prof. James goes on in her piece to reflect on the way ‘the internet has provided incredible ease of connection, and simultaneously created communication cul-de-sacs, that trap people in isolated cliques and sycophantic claques.’ She notes that free speech is protected in the UN Declaration of Human Rights alongside freedom of thought, and interestingly takes from this an ‘encouragement to pause before we express our opinions.’ And she reflects on how her ‘privilege is being in the white majority’ and in ‘revelling in robust argument,’ something she somewhat unexpectedly characterizes as ‘my approach to debate.’  

Prof. James ends her article with ‘a last word on words’ that deserves to be quoted in full:  

when I was walking to work a few mornings ago a pile of leaves was swirling down the curb and my mind said, “there is the wind”. The wind, though, was all around, strong and invisible and shaping the way I leaned into is as I walked.  We choose to notice some words, the lively, swirling ones; or the ones that blow stinging dust into our eyes.  We need to remember to notice all the other words; that have shaped our environment, our thoughts, and twisted some of us into beautiful, windswept oddities.  

This kind of lyricism is obviously something that recipients of Oko are free to spend some portion of their mornings on if they feel so inclined. But there are at least two things about James’ ‘thing about words’ that we found quite disturbing.  

The first is that this is an article sent to all academic staff by a very senior administrator (i.e. boss) at one of our leading universities. It is on the freedom of speech, the keystone principle of both liberalism and democracy, and a topic on which there is (understandably) an enormous literature in fields such as political theory, the philosophy of law, and intellectual history. Obviously, a full panoply of footnotes and scholarly references wouldn’t have been appropriate in an op-ed in a staff newsletter. But some indication that James wasn’t thinking about this most important of topics for the first time might have been reassuring.  

This is especially the case in view of the fact that we have been having a debate about free speech and academic freedom across the English-speaking world for at least a decade now (though admittedly this debate has tended to be more lively outside the academy than inside it, for obvious reasons).   

We have tried to contribute to this debate ourselves, most substantively in the report we released with the New Zealand Initiative last year. In it, we presented a number of surveys of academics and students, a selection of anonymous testimonies from academics, and a catalogue of incidents involving academic freedom that have taken place on our campuses over the past decade.   

Prof. James doesn’t have to cite our work. But the fact that she seems to feel no need to even mention any of the now overwhelming evidence that we have a problem with free speech at New Zealand universities is interesting, to say the least. ‘Can the modern University be the place where robust, relevant debate can happen?’ she asks, before immediately answering her own question, astonishingly blithely, ‘We already are!’   

It is of course true that a lot of ‘robust, relevant’ debate does take place at our universities. But it is also true (as several different surveys have now shown) that substantial numbers of academics and students feel uncomfortable discussing a few crucial topics, including the Treaty of Waitangi and the nature of sex and gender.   

Prof. James’ column appeared at just the right time, as the government was preparing its revisions to the Education and Training Act, revisions that will include enhanced protections for academic freedom. Draft legislation has now been released.   

What Prof. James’ column shows, yet again, is that New Zealand universities cannot be trusted to uphold their statutory or ethical obligations to academic freedom and the freedom of speech. Senior administrators either do not understand free speech, actively dislike it, or are not willing to openly defend it, and the same can be said for a good proportion of New Zealand’s academics. As Prof. James’ piece reminds us, they are often not even willing to educate themselves on the issue or to engage with the now plentiful evidence that academic freedom in under threat in an honest way.  

So make no mistake: senior administrators at our universities have neither the wit nor the wherewithal to restore genuine academic freedom themselves. It is vital not only the academic freedom legislation that is currently before the house passes, but also that it has teeth, and doesn’t naively trust our largely anti-free speech university managers to police themselves.

The post Another high-ranking Victoria University of Wellington administrator doesn’t understand free speech   appeared first on Open Inquiry.

Does this apply to the university sector? Universities have a very high degree of institutional autonomy, which is a critical safeguard that protects academic freedom and research integrity. In return for this freedom, universities bear duties. Our ability to innovate and meet the needs of our society depends on nurturing the resources of the university sector wisely and well.

So it’s pretty important that those in charge of universities do their jobs well, and unless we assume they are both infallible and paragons of virtue, there needs to be accountability somewhere in the system. 

Holding universities accountable: the Commission and the councils

Who holds the universities to account? The current law provides for two main avenues of accountability: one via the universities’ annual reporting and funding agreements with the Tertiary Education Commission and the other via the council that each university is required to have. The law endows university councils with a lot of authority. Councils formally make or approve university decisions and internal policies (or delegate responsibility for them) on pretty much everything the university does as a corporate entity. Of course, the actual day to day running of a university is delegated to the Vice Chancellor, who is effectively the CEO. Councils have the critical responsibility of appointing the Vice Chancellor and holding that person to account for his or her management of the university.

This means it is a big deal who gets to be on the council and how they get to be there. What does the law say? Actually, not that much. The law says councils must have between 8 and 12 members, with 3 or 4 of these appointed by the minister. A few types of people are disqualified (undischarged bankrupts, for example) and a few types of people must be included: a student representative, two staff representatives (one academic, one non-academic) and at least one council member must be Māori. And there’s general language about needing to ensure representativeness, appropriate skills and experience, and ability to perform their duties as members.

Beyond that, the law basically leaves university councils to decide for themselves how they will operate. Section 279 of the Act says: ‘An institution’s council may make statutes relating to the appointment of members..’ Even the minister responsible for the universities needs to consult with the council before deciding on the 3 or 4 individuals he or she gets to appoint: Section 278(7) says that ‘Before making an appointment under this section, the Minister must seek, and consider, nominations from the relevant council.’

Council roles to be filled at the University of Auckland

So councils get to write their own statutes setting out how they appoint members. What do these statutes say? I’ll take the University of Auckland’s one as an example. Others may be different, but the University of Auckland is our country’s largest. It is also in the process of appointing four council members. And, because the current Vice Chancellor resigned only a few months after being reappointed by the current council, the council is tasked with the weighty responsibility of choosing a new Vice Chancellor over the coming months.

The council revised its procedures for appointing its own members three times in the last three years. Its 2023 statute sets out desirable qualities in council members and notes they can be appointed for a maximum of four years and a maximum of three times – so one could serve for up to 12 years. The statute says the Vice Chancellor is always a member of the council, by virtue of being Vice Chancellor. The statute also sets out the procedures for the election of staff and student representative members. There’s another document – made by the council – that gives a bit more detail on how exactly members get appointed or reappointed. This shows that the central role is played by something called the VCRERC – the Vice-Chancellor’s Review and Executive Remuneration Committee. This committee gets to specify what skills and experience members should have, before a call for expressions of interest in joining the council is made. The VCRERC also gets to view these expressions of interest and draw up a shortlist, to present to council, along with its recommendation. 

The powerholders answerable to.. themselves

Who is on the VCRERC? It is a committee of the council itself and comprises just four people: the Chancellor, who chairs the council, the pro-chancellor (effectively the deputy) and chairs of the council committees for finance and audit.

A look at its responsibilities shows that the VCRERC really is the centre of power on the council. As well as reviewing and recommending appointments or reappointments of council members, it also has the responsibility of ‘Reviewing and managing the performance, composition and succession of Council.’

What all this boils down to is that the council, the body charged with holding the university’s paramount manager, the Vice Chancellor, to account: a) includes the Vice Chancellor; b) determines for itself how it will operate; c) appoints and reappoints itself (with the exception of the 3 elected members and the minister’s appointees – but it gets to nominate ministerial appointees; d) reviews its own performance.

Managing conflicts of interest

All pretty cosy. There’s a cute provision for managing conflicts of interest in the appointment of council members: ‘If any member of VCRERC is a candidate for appointment as a Council member, that VCRERC member will not be present or participate in any part of the appointments process for the relevant position including the receipt and consideration of expressions of interest.’ So (for example), when considering the expressions of interest in positions that are currently vacant or up for reappointment, should the current Chancellor wish to be reappointed as the alumni member, she will excuse herself as a member of the VCRERC, which she has led since 2021, while the rest of the committee considers any competing expressions of interest received for the alumni role she currently fills on council. No problem at all.

Another quirk of the council appointments process is that the council’s appointments statute stipulates that the university’s Pro Vice-Chancellor (Māori), a member of the university’s executive team, ‘is to be invited to attend meetings of the VCRERC to assist the VCRERC… when the appointment of a Māori member is being considered.’ So the council member with particular responsibility for monitoring the university’s performance with respect to Māori interests – performance which is led by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Māori) – is appointed on the advice of that same Pro Vice-Chancellor. Taken together, we may not have a chumocracy, but we surely have a system vulnerable to chumocracy and all the risks associated with it. Of course, everyone may be doing their job honourably and competently. Nothing I have written here suggests otherwise. But it’s a system that bears some similarities to what historian Peter Hennessy calls the ‘good chaps’ theory of British government. That’s a system that depends on everyone being a self-restrained good chap – which is to say, a system that is vulnerable to decay and capture.

Photo by Roberto Carlos Román Don on Unsplash

The post Chumocracy in the universities? appeared first on Open Inquiry.

The Minister of Education, Erica Stanford is determined to introduce a knowledge rich curriculum for all New Zealand students. What does this mean? First, it is a standardised curriculum which ensures that students across the country receive the same high-quality knowledge. That knowledge consists of academic subjects with content selected for its value and justified for its veracity. Furthermore, the content must be designed so that it is coherently organised and built progressively from the most basic to the more complex.

Second, it is about planning for teaching. It is here that teachers take the designed national curriculum and turn it into effective teaching plans suitable for their school and their students. The latest ideas from cognitive science about secondary mental abilities, time perception, memory load, and feedback are needed at this stage. They help connect the content to students’ thinking processes.

Third, both good curriculum design and planning for teaching set the foundation for the actual teaching. Many teachers know their subjects well and use teaching methods that best connect students to rich content. They will welcome a knowledge-rich curriculum because it is what they have taught for years. We know and respect those teachers. The real benefits will be for those teachers and students who have been disadvantaged by eighteen years of a localised curriculum.

This ambitious knowledge-rich curriculum will link Erica Stanford to Peter Fraser. His commitment in the 1940s to prescribed subject content laid the foundation for the first-rate education system enjoyed by the post-war generation. Stanford’s knowledge rich curriculum will be as momentous and as far-reaching as Fraser’s. However, its success is not yet assured. The professional class which benefited most from that post-war subject-based curriculum has worked tirelessly to dismantle the source of its privilege in a strange alliance of decolonisation and socialism.

This ambitious knowledge-rich curriculum will link Erica Stanford to Peter Fraser. His commitment in the 1940s to prescribed subject content laid the foundation for the first-rate education system enjoyed by the post-war generation. Stanford’s knowledge rich curriculum will be as momentous and as far-reaching as Fraser’s. 

We can thank the recent secondary school incident for revealing what this alliance looks like in practice – a junior English class, a video playing, a teacher instructing how to analyse the video’s tone and mood. In the video, How colonisers went from learning to reo Māori to trying to exterminate it, students hear the authoritative voice of sociolinguist, Dr Vini Olsen-Reeder declaiming, Once the pakeha government was established here, from there the desire grew to exterminate the Māori people.

The video’s content is either wrong or seriously distorted. Such propaganda will be difficult to teach in a knowledge-rich subject that requires the selection of content to be justified. That’s the sticking point – who justifies the content? What criteria are used?

In the coming months, the public will be consulted on the draft English curriculum. This is right and proper – it is not a curriculum for teachers alone, but for the nation.  It is here, in the national discussion about the subject of English that I predict a simmering conflict will surface. Some, like me, regard school English as the study of language and literature in the English language. For others, English is the tool of the capitalist coloniser, intent on locking the colonised into a permanent state of subjugation. Their demands are for the decolonisation, then indigenisation, of the entire education system.

It is unsurprising that English is at the centre of the gathering storm, although History and Science are not far behind. English has a very particular role – that of creating society’s cultural repertoire. When we study English at school we are taught, or should be taught, the content and conventions of our nation’s most widely spoken language. New Zealand’s democratic institutions, social practices and universalist values were developed in English. It is the language of the 19th century colonial era and of 20th century nation building. According to one secondary school principal, the most effective way to decolonise the nation is by removing English, that dangerous language of the Eurocentric coloniser from the school curriculum.

New Zealand’s democratic institutions, social practices and universalist values were developed in English.

If we agree that the subject is the study of English language and literature, then the content selected must be justified. A straightforward process, one might think. But no, at the very source of the creation and justification of academic knowledge is the wellspring of the conflict. It is in the nation’s universities that decolonisation and indigenisation are being promoted. School subjects which are drawn from university disciplines and accountable to their rules and methods, will be hostages to the unaccountable ideologies of our decolonising universities.

English as a school subject draws in the main from the disciplines of literary criticism (including Shakespearean studies), linguistics, sociolinguistics, and history. Decolonising those disciplines removes all means of accountability – those methods of empirical evidence, logical argument and ongoing criticism which ensure that disciplinary knowledge is always on trial and always subject to rejection, revision, or provisional confirmation. These methods are what gives the disciplines, and by extension those who practise them, authority and status.

Although Dr Olsen-Reeder does not identify himself in the video as a university lecturer, his title and sociolinguist label convey authority. Teachers and high school students are likely to take him at his word. If anything, thanks are indeed due to the secondary school incident mentioned above for providing us with a glimpse of a decolonised education system. It should alert us to the difficulties faced by those tasked with introducing a knowledge rich curriculum.

If you contribute to the consultation of the draft English curriculum, I ask that you justify what you want taught. The content must have value not only for its literary beauty, its grammatical precision, its vocabulary richness, but it must challenge students. When teachers introduce young people to abstract content beyond their immediate experience, the students develop the secondary cognitive abilities necessary for the complexities of modern life. 

A decolonised curriculum does not provide quality content. Instead it locks young people into emotional responses. But emoting is not thinking. Abstract thinking develops only when students are confronted by complex content. A knowledge-rich English curriculum offers both that content and the development of the mental skills needed for the modern world.

Professor Elizabeth Rata is an international curriculum expert. She is a co-author of Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking: The Knowledge Turn. Springer.  

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-74661-1.

Cover photograph of Peter Fraser by S P Andrew Ltd: Portrait negatives, reference 1/4-020106-F, Alexander Turnbull Library Collection. Available at https://natlib.govt.nz/records/23146991. Used with permission of the National Library of New Zealand.

The post A Knowledge Rich Curriculum for New Zealand appeared first on Open Inquiry.

As cancelations go, it didn’t make waves. It was covered by the Free Speech Union, some nonmainstream websites and Britain’s Daily Mail. An eminent professor of history withdraws from his proposed talk at the National Library because the Library requested a change to the description of the talk on the event’s publicity. The offending phrase? A quote from a nineteenth century historian that the British Empire appeared to have been acquired ‘in a fit of absence of mind.’ It’s a well-used quote that captures the haphazard processes of imperial expansion from ancient Rome to the United States. 

The initial explanation given by the National Library staffer who requested the quote be removed was that ‘our [the Library’s] director wasn’t keen on the quote.’ After being queried as to why, she replied the quote was ‘of concern’, that it ‘could be seen as us agreeing with Britain conquering the world’, that the matter was ‘political’, and that it was ‘the director’s wish to have it taken out.’

I am able to quote these emails because the historian involved, Professor Paul Moon, has made them available to me. The two emails are sent from a named official using a @dia.govt.nz email address (the National Library sits within the Department of Internal Affairs) and dated 12 December 2024. 

From censorship to misrepresentation

What happened next moves from censorious to something worse. Someone unknown to Professor Moon wrote to the National Library requesting, under the terms of the Official Information Act, ‘What is the reasoning behind the National Library director’s request for Paul Moon to drop a quote from his work?’ In its formal response dated 30 January 2025, the Office of the National Librarian asserts ‘the quote referred to was to be used in an event listing and was too long to fit within the six lines available for the proposed event listing to be used on the National Library website and social media.’

This response is plainly, factually, wrong. The National Library’s email exchanges with Professor Moon did not mention word count, and did very explicitly refer to political sensitivities. Professor Moon’s initial text was well below the limit stated in the Library’s own ‘Information request for speakers & audio/video consent form.’ And the first email from the Library requesting the change asks for the quote to be replaced with ‘a sentence or two’ of something else. Clearly, the Office of the National Librarian is misrepresenting basic facts. 

So we have a National Library that is censorious and untruthful. Disturbing, given the National Library is custodian of many official records of the nation’s history. It exists to preserve and disseminate information. An agency prone to distorting the record in favour of a sanctimonious vision of what is politically acceptable belongs in the propaganda toolkit of authoritarian regimes. 

Truth and spin

Sadly, this kind of distortion is unusual only for being so clearly documented. Many professionals regularly engage in processes of tweaking, toning down, rewording and selective editing in order to serve their bosses or their own advantage. For some, it is an explicit part of the job. Corporate comms speak, or PR, refers to the art of massaging the record in ways that work for the client. We can expect the record to be strategically edited when it comes to corporate press releases and political messaging coming from politicians. 

It’s a betrayal of public trust and purpose when those staffing ‘truth-seeking institutions’ – libraries, universities, the press – engage in this kind of agenda-driven censorship. 

Why do they do it? Why would a professional whose entire professional ethos and purpose is to discover and disseminate accurate information sacrifice this commitment to political expedience or piety? 

One can only speculate, but it seems to me that two things are likely to be going on when well-intentioned professionals appear to lose their minds in this way.

The moral imperative

First, I’d guess they have a pretty elevated sense of moral righteousness, a conviction that being morally right is what matters. Most of us, including officials staffing state bureaucracies, like to maintain beliefs about ourselves as essentially good people. It’s one source of cognitive bias that has repeatedly been shown to lead to all sorts of distortions and selective interpretation of evidence. This may be inherent to human nature, but surely becomes more salient the more overt moralism is adopted as part of an organization or professional sphere’s set of operating norms. And it’s not hard to find examples of such moralism becoming increasingly espoused in statements of organizational purpose. 

It’s no longer enough to run a competent library service that informs the public accurately, or a university that pursues knowledge. Instead, our libraries and universities give prominence to statements of moral purpose and commitment. The University of Auckland, for example, says its purpose is to have ‘globally transformative impacts’, its vision is to be recognized for our ‘our unique contribution to fair, ethical and sustainable societies’ and its ‘fundamental principles reflect our foundational relationship with tangata whenua and our commitment to Te Tiriti.’ The National Library itself headlines its strategic directions to 2030 as ‘Turning knowledge into value.’ 

Fear

Second, it’s likely that a dose of fear helps professionals make sure ‘knowledge’ gets turned into the right sort of ‘value.’ Fear of upsetting the narrative. Fear of asking questions that might yield the wrong answers. Fear that kills curiosity.

Surely there is some very effective killing of curiosity behind the National Library’s request to delete the offending quote that the British empire was acquired in ‘a fit of absence of mind.’ The mere suggestion that colonial empire advanced in a haphazard manner, rather than according to some grand plan of imperial domination, is too uncomfortable to headline. Coming from a professional in a supposedly truth-seeking institution, this looks like losing one’s mind. 

To be uncomfortable with historical interpretation means being uncomfortable with historical enquiry. Historical judgements such as how empires were acquired are very obviously not simple statements of descriptive fact. If one were the slightest bit interested in how and why colonial rule advanced, the motives and perceptions of colonial agents would seem pretty relevant. This should be a central question for anyone interested in either the past or present-day legacies and parallels. Far from condoning ‘conquering the world’, some of the sharpest criticisms of colonial intervention have been based on archival sources of colonial bureaucracies and neo-imperial ventures. Such research has shown that pathways to disastrous interventions were frequently buffeted by events and forces that officials did not control, along with an array of contending beliefs, assumptions and aspirations. Agents of imperial intervention often believed themselves to be doing the right thing, even as some also expressed doubt and dismay at how their ventures were working out. 

Far from condoning imperial rule, these historical interpretations provide a useful reminder of both institutional capacities for self-delusion and the futility of populating history with nothing but a cast of cartoon heroes and villains. 

I would be surprised if a professional such as the director of the National Library actually espouses a heroes and villains view of history. Indeed, the willingness to invite Professor Moon in the first place suggests that the Library does wish to foster discussion of different ways of interpreting history. 

If so, the forces driving censorship and misrepresentation can co-exist with sincere efforts to do the right thing. 

Photo by Cliff Johnson on Unsplash

The post Fear and Loathing in the National Library appeared first on Open Inquiry.

They’ve been hanging around for a while, those principles. A mention in an 1975 Act passed mostly unnoticed, but a low profile reference in a 1986 law on state-owned enterprises proved consequential. That mention paved the way for a landmark court decision in 1987. Since then the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been interpreting references to the ‘principles of the Treaty’ now scattered plentifully across legislation. In doing so, they have been changing New Zealand’s constitutional order.

Parliament has never defined these principles.  The principles are also not fixed. So somebody has to continually interpret them. That somebody turns out to be judges and appointed members of the Waitangi Tribunal. As noted in a government-issued guide that the Waitangi Tribunal references on its website:

 ‘The Courts and Tribunal have emphasized that the principles of the Treaty are not set in stone and that they may change as the Treaty partnership evolves. Accordingly, they have not developed an exhaustive list of principles and continue to refine their explanations in response to new circumstances.’

The principles now affect almost all areas of law and public policy. Few of us are untouched, with the principles regularly cited to justify public policy decisions on everything from health and education to conservation and urban planning. It is now common to hear legal professionals refer to the Treaty and its principles as forming part of New Zealand’s constitution. Indeed a group of King’s Counsel, in marking their objections to the Treaty principles bill, also appeared ‘to be questioning the constitutional right of Parliament to legislate in these circumstances.’ Judges and other public sector decisionmakers defer to these principles as if they do have constitutional status.

A constitutional revolution

This makes for a de facto constitutional revolution. One of the country’s foremost Treaty scholars, Claudia Orange, has referred to the change in the status of the Treaty as revolutionary.

Most attempted revolutions fail, so it is interesting to figure out why this one succeeded. The ‘principles Treaty’ bears little relationship to the actual historical Treaty. The courts have explicitly rejected the possibility of an ‘originalist’ interpretation of the Treaty.

So how did the constitutional hijack happen? After all, New Zealand is a democracy in which parliament has traditionally been regarded as sovereign. Did the legislature vote to curb its own powers? Sort of. The constitutional hijack required parliamentary complicity.

Palmer’s plan to clip parliament’s wings

The story starts with a politician-cum-legal scholar who, way back in 1979, decried the ‘unbridled power’ of the New Zealand parliament. That man, Geoffrey Palmer, got himself elected to parliament and attempted to legislate for constitutional change that would clip parliament’s wings and entrench the Treaty of Waitangi. It appeared initially that he failed: over two years, public submissions were largely opposed. The resulting Constitution Act of 1986 did not mention the Treaty of Waitangi (except in a parenthetical schedular amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975), let alone elevate it to constitutional status. New Zealanders were very explicitly not prepared to go along with Palmer’s ambitions.

But Palmer was not deterred. What he could not achieve openly, he set about bringing about by stealth. His plan was to litter legislation with innocuous-sounding references to undefined ‘principles’ and ‘procedures’; things so devoid of substance that most parliamentarians would not bother to oppose them. He counted on the courts to then give teeth to the new order over time.

We know this was a deliberate plan because Palmer himself tells us about it. In 1992, soon after retiring from politics and returning to educating law students (and many of the current generation of judges), he published New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis. There, on page 76, he writes:

‘The logic of the approach was as follows… Some parliamentary action by way of legislation was needed to make a base. But if that legislation itself redressed the grievances it would run into the problem that the majority of the community would oppose it. If, on the other hand, legislation was used to set up processes, and procedures and the principles on which decisions should be based were stated, it may be possible to get even a majoritarian legislature to act. The initial commitment required was to a process. No tangible outcome was provided by the legislation itself. What should be done was to be decided only after judicial or quasi-judicial processes had assessed individual cases. First it was necessary to give the courts something to interpret. Such was the nature of the approach I brought to both statutory incorporation of the Treaty in statutes, and extension of the Waitangi Tribunal to examine grievances back to 1840.’

The intent to sideline parliament is explicit:

The hijack appeared to work precisely as planned over the following decades. Whether it can continue to work is another matter.

The architects of New Zealand’s Treaty principles bill, whether they are aware of it or not, are part of a broader pushback against perceived excesses of judicial power in many countries. The ‘judicialization of politics’ has been underway for more than thirty years, moving decision-making away from arenas subject to democratic control and accountability to tribunals, courts and quasi-judicial panels of experts. A backlash now looms in many places.

The Treaty principles bill will no doubt fail to clear its second and third readings. But the attempt at clawing back parliamentary control has already made a difference. No one can now say with any credibility that the Treaty principles are ‘not political.’

The post Design principles for constitutional hijack – or how we got those Treaty principles in the first place appeared first on Open Inquiry.

The first question in politics is “who rules?” It’s at the forefront of the debate about David Seymour’s Treaty Principles bill, which holds that the Government has the ultimate right to govern and Parliament has the full power to make laws. Te Pati Māori argues that Māori never ceded sovereignty and should hold governing power over themselves. 

But there’s another power struggle taking place in the background of this debate: a quiet but profound contest between Parliament and the courts over the power to make laws. In the week that Seymour’s bill passed its first reading, an open letter from forty-two members of the King’s Council called on the Prime Minister and the Attorney General to abandon the legislation, and it contained the aside “even if Parliament can legislate in this way (which is uncertain)…”

Crown Law’s advice on the bill struck a similar note, advising that if Act’s proposed principles became law after a public referendum, the courts would likely ignore them.

The Rise of judicial activism

New Zealand’s political system is based on the Westminster model. Parliament is supreme, and its laws cannot be challenged by the judiciary, whose role is to interpret them. This is very different from the US model of government, in which the Supreme Court can invalidate laws and executive actions that it finds to be in breach of the constitution.

Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has long argued that New Zealand should move closer to the US model. In this model, New Zealand adopts a written, codified constitution that defines fundamental rights and freedoms and empowers the judiciary to invalidate legislation in conflict with the constitutional framework.

There has never been much political appetite for Palmer’s reforms. Still, some legal commentators argue that the courts have quietly moved towards this model, adopting the principles of the Treaty – which are undefined in law – as a de facto constitution. 

Lawyer and political commentator Liam Hehir has written a background piece on this topic. He identifies the eminent judge and legal scholar Lord Cooke of Thorndon as the patron saint of New Zealand’s judicial activism, citing his judgement in a case known as Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board in which Cooke decided that some common law rights are so fundamental Parliament cannot abridge them.

Hehir writes: “And so a case about illegal egg sales ended up as an important inflection point for future questions about who governs New Zealand… Over time, Cooke’s philosophy has gained traction within New Zealand’s legal community. His influential stance has fostered a subtle yet persistent view that the courts, not Parliament, should have the final say on fundamental rights and principles. This has led to a culture within the legal profession that, consciously or unconsciously, questions Parliament’s authority, promoting a quasi-constitutional role for the judiciary.”

Who makes the law? Reining in the Supreme Court

The issue has also been taken up by Roger Partridge, chair of the New Zealand Institute who recently published a report titled “Who makes the law? Reining in the Supreme Court.” In a recent Herald column Partridge notes recent comments by Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann that the courts are “where the decisions in society that can’t be worked out in other ways are taken,” because judges “take the hard decisions in society.” 

He cites the 2022 Peter Ellis case, in which the court cited Tikanga Māori as being applicable in its decision as a form of common law, finding it to be “the first law of New Zealand and not secondary to the colonial common law”, despite it having no apparent relevance to Ellis or his case.

Partridge writes: “The Court bypassed ongoing work by the Law Commission on this very issue and overturned established rules for recognising tikanga as law. It did this without providing a clear new framework. The result is a quagmire. Neither judges nor lawyers now know when or how tikanga should be considered in future cases. The Ellis decision reveals a court more captivated by the allure of making grand symbolic gestures than concerned with the careful, methodical development of the law. Such judicial activism creates precisely the sort of uncertainty and confusion that proper legal development should avoid.” 

Geoffrey Palmer has persuasively argued that New Zealand’s Executive branch is too powerful, leading to poor-quality legislation and poor governance. Successful democracies have checks and balances that constrain the branches of government.

It’s possible that Palmer’s proposals would be beneficial to New Zealand, although progressives looking at this form of government to advance their politics should consider the current state of the US Supreme Court. But, as Partridge points out, the current judiciary has no democratic mandate to take on a political role. Nobody voted for them. And the Treaty is not a constitution.

Hehir notes in this regard, “If the Treaty of Waitangi is law, it bears many of the hallmarks of the worst law making. It is sweeping, vague and open to extensive interpretation, which can lead to inconsistent application and unpredictable judicial outcomes.”

He warns, “Such a system would paralyze decision-making, forcing policy into a state of perpetual review, litigation and delay. We have had a foretaste of this following the election of the current government, where it feels like almost every initiative has been called a Treaty breach, regardless of campaign promises.” 

How a Constitutional crisis plays out

What would happen if a New Zealand court directly refused to implement a law passed by Parliament? This would undoubtedly provoke a constitutional crisis.

Parliament has the right to remove judges for misbehaviour or incapacity, but it is a lengthy process. Although judges in New Zealand have resigned, none have ever been removed.

We’re more likely to see the courts continue to offer expansive interpretations of laws that alter their effect rather than refuse them. The likely consequence of this will be the politicisation of the judiciary, which will also bring us closer to the US model.

In Westminster systems, the courts are supposed to act as apolitical arbiters of existing laws. However, if the courts themselves insist on functioning as political actors, politicians will respond by appointing judges who advance their policies and values. Even though it will not pass, David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill has highlighted a profound tension at the heart of our democracy. 

Dr Bryce Edwards

Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, Victoria University of Wellington

Note to Media: This analysis can be published by any media outlets for free under a Creative Commons copyright-free license. Attributions should include a link to the Substack page.

Key Sources

David Harvey (Listener): Law & society: Should our Supreme Court address societal issues where Parliament has failed to do so? (paywalled)

Liam Hehir (Blue Review): KCs and the Courtroom Bands (paywalled)

Roger Partridge (Herald): Attorney-General and Chief Justice reveal contrasting visions of judicial power (paywalled)

Cover image from https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/democracy-briefing-foundations-of

The post Democracy Briefing: Foundations of a constitutional crisis? appeared first on Open Inquiry.

As Johnston and Kierstead have described, in New Zealand our ratio of non-academic to academic staff of 1.5 to 1 is much higher than in Australia, the UK, or the USA (where it is about 0.8 to 1). If research-only staff are treated as academic staff this ratio still only improves to 1.4 to 1. Numerous “managers” and support staff have appeared in areas such as Human Resources, Health and Safety, Student Learning Support and Pastoral Care, Outreach, Māori and Pasifika directorates, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

This growing administrative cost has to some extent been offset by the growth in international student business. By 2019, over 117,000 enrolled students delivered the country a total economic benefit of around $5Bn. University international 2019 student fee revenue was about $600m, or around 15% of universities’ total revenue.  International students pay up to five times the domestic student fee rate. Covid-19 dramatically reduced the number of international students studying within New Zealand, though partly replaced by students enrolled for on-line studies. Mid-2020, universities faced a year-end financial shortfall from lost international enrolments of about $200m, and this was expected to rise to $400m in 2021. The financial hangover for the universities has been major, damaging, and aggravated by financial commitments to ongoing new building projects.

Looking now at what and how we teach, it is usual for the universities to periodically rationalise their course offerings with the aim of greater administrative efficiency and to contain costs, particularly where courses may have low enrolment numbers. I note at the outset that what is important is not necessarily the low enrolments in a particular course, but the total of the taught Equivalent Full-Time Student (EFTS) count for each academic staff member. Many courses are important but will have low enrolments because they are specialised, or they are pitched at postgraduate level. A staff member’s personally attributable EFTS, added up over their undergraduate and postgraduate teaching plus supervision commitments, tells us how much they earn for the university. Most academics who teach large enrolment courses teach small enrolment courses too. This reality should be part of the analysis in current curriculum transformation projects. If a narrow view is taken simply of the enrolment numbers per course, the richness and diversity of course offerings will be damaged.

A critical and controversial factor in the current course rationalisation exercises is the increasing pressure to include courses that reflect relativist postmodern views (“other ways of knowing”) and Te Ao Māori (specifically matauranga Māori), even within science programmes. This situation raises questions that must be answered.

The University of Auckland has stated, “The rationale is to reduce workload to allow time to develop relational pedagogies, to address timetabling constraints, and to reduce costs….”.  One can infer that “relational pedagogies”, mean relativist views that come through in traditional knowledge courses, for example, where we are seeing courses offered in science programmes that do not strictly stand the test of being taught science, but instead may deliver a mix of observational knowledge, cultural lore, myth, mysticism and animism or vitalism. Most of us support the inclusion of such content in history, sociology or anthropology courses, but not in the Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) area. This situation comes into closer focus if such courses are intended to replace pre-existing science courses, as appears to be the case.

As one colleague at the University of Auckland said, “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.”  

There is a clear logical fallacy in any university course that seeks to indigenise STEM:

• As regards STEM subjects, when European colonists arrived in the late 18^th and into the 19^th century, Māori scientific/technical knowledge was approximately at the stage of other developing societies at or pre-3,000 BC, acknowledging that the spiritual/vitalist/animist parts of matauranga Māori would have been differentiated form those of other societies by the names for, and qualities ascribed to, flora, fauna and inanimate objects, and also to gods such as Ranginui/sky father.  This was a society without the wheel, and without mathematics, physics, chemistry or biology, but which had extensive phenomenological understandings of food sources, that fire cooks and can cause burns, that clean water is necessary for life, that some plants have medicinal properties, weather patterns, and navigation by the sun and stars, etc. Such knowledge is of very considerable interest from a historical point of view, clearly desirable to preserve for cultural reasons, but of current relevance to STEM courses only if it complements modern science in a functional way, as unpalatable as that is to those who would include it.
• STEM rests heavily on knowledge discovered during the liberal enlightenment from the 17^th century up to today, and modern science (not “Western” science, as many non-Western societies Asia, the Middle and the far East contributed, for example) went through similar earlier processes of knowledge development through observation of nature and phenomenological discovery, as did matauranga Māori.  It then developed through new discovery to the present day.
• Unless it adds science content to a STEM degree programme, to insert matauranga Māori or other indigenous knowledge back into modern STEM education means excluding something else that had been deemed important in any one course, with older knowledge and belief that has long been superseded in the same way in which Mechanical Engineering students no longer study the steam engine – as I confess we did when I was a student!  STEM course content is continually updated to reflect the latest scientific discoveries, computational techniques, and the advent of AI, for example.  When I was a student, we were learning about how transistors worked, as they were then a recent development. By contrast, we spent little time on obsolescent radio valve technology. Why should we be obliging students to study something in the sciences that should be sitting in a course outside modern science (e.g. history, history of science, anthropology). Abbot et al., in “In Defense of Merit in Science” compare liberal epistemology, under which the scientific method falls, versus critical social justice theory, where indigenous and traditional knowledge find a more comfortable home. To “indigenise” STEM can only mean to re-introduce older knowledge and belief into courses where it is no longer relevant. This in my view can only be for ideological or political purposes, as otherwise it defies logic.

My foregoing remarks are not intended to diminish or disrespect traditional knowledge. However, curricula in STEM degree programmes are constantly under pressure to introduce new content and drop material that can be let go.  Even this is problematic, and past considerations have been given to increasing the Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) from four to five years to avoid dropping essential content.  In our modern world we cannot afford to impose traditional knowledge content in science programmes for purely ideological reasons (or to determine academic staff career progression based on their acceptance or adoption of this ideological position).  Apart from the potential diminishment of the overall scientific content of the degree, doing so will inevitably reduce the standing of these degree programmes internationally.

Photo by Ram Kishor on Unsplash

The post Ideological Illogic – Facts Not Feels, Please appeared first on Open Inquiry.

Cover Photo by Khashayar Kouchpeydeh on Unsplash

The post University of Auckland faculty restructures appeared first on Open Inquiry.

Any edifice that rests on the shifting sands of contemporary academic fashion is bound sooner or later to fall. The university of the future will, paradoxically, need to offer its students an education with deeper historical roots

Ferguson and Howland

Compulsory Courses at the University of Auckland

The University of Auckland is set to deliver courses entitled ‘Waipapa Taumata Rau’. All students must complete a Waipapa Taumata Rau core course in their first year of study. 

The university website informs us that ‘Waipapa Taumata Rau’ is the Māori name gifted to the University of Auckland and that the relevant courses are called by this name to symbolize students’ aspirations as they seek to be a part of the University and to succeed in their studies. 

 “Designed to transition you into University life, your Waipapa Taumata Rau course provides knowledge vital to your studies and essential skills (like critical and ethical thinking, effective communication, and the ability to work well with others).

Each faculty course teaches you why place matters, introducing you to knowledge associated with the University, the wider city, this country, and its people and history, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

You’ll learn about different knowledge systems that underpin your area of study to provide a foundation for your future learning. Your Waipapa Taumata Rau core course will play a key role in shaping your first year of study with us.

Completion is required to progress into your second year of study where you will have opportunities to build on what you have learned.”

Some of the material does seem very relevant, especially critical and ethical thinking, effective communication and the ability to work well with others. Also positive is the discussion of knowledge associated with the University, the wider city, this country and its people and history, provided that a balanced picture of New Zealand’s history is encouraged.

However, we ask why all students must take such a course in order to progress into second year at a time when STEM courses are being cut. Why is Te Tiriti an enforced part of these courses but apparently not the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852? Will the Constitution Act of 1986 be discussed, or other recent legislation?  

Knowledge Systems?

What exactly are the ‘knowledge systems’ that underpin students’ areas of study and that will provide a foundation for their future learning? How will these knowledge systems support electrical, civil and mechanical engineering, theoretical and experimental physics, pure mathematics, theoretical and applied statistics, organic and inorganic chemistry, evolutionary biology and cancer research? How will they assist in combatting malnutrition and infant and child mortality, clean energy technologies, efficient transportation and many other fields of endeavour?

Will students of forestry science at New Zealand universities be introduced to traditional medicine for restoration of kauri forests? One account of such medicine asserts  the “need to tune into the vibrations of the forest” and recommends burial of mauri stones within the affected areas, along with appropriate rituals? Will students be taught that sperm whale oil embodies healing properties for kauri? Will they be encouraged to “send out a call to the world, asking communities to hold special ceremony on behalf of kauri” and “invite the world to Aotearoa to join us in prayer and ceremony in the initiation of our future Rongoā interventions.”? In that account we are told:

“Through listening and traditional meditation in the forest, will assist those to align to the cellular frequency of the forest and to become more enlightened in the work of looking after the forest.”  

Will students of agriculture learn that farmers should manage their farms on the basis of the phases of the moon, when in reality the lunar cycle has no effect whatsoever on plant growth or physiology?

If the thinking behind such traditional knowledge is taken as an allegory for loving and caring for the natural world and its living environments, then something wonderful has indeed been gifted to us. But if such beliefs are accorded the status of literal truth then we have the makings of a very serious problem in tertiary education.

In New Zealand, what about the approximately 25% of tertiary students who are non-Māori/non-European? Will their knowledge systems be presented too? Will the international students who are forced to take these courses consider their fees to be money well spent?

Today in various countries we hear demands for decolonization of mathematics. For example, Rowena Ball claims that mathematics has been gate-kept by the West, defined to exclude entire cultures and that almost all mathematics that students have ever come across is European-based. Among others, she wants to enrich the discipline through the inclusion of cross-cultural mathematics. However, Sergiu Klainerman responds as follows:

“If mathematics was in fact a cultural artifact, like music, literature or the arts, it would be impossible to explain its extraordinary effectiveness in the physical sciences, weather prediction, engineering or artificial intelligence.“

We agree with Professor Klainerman. Further, we believe that both science and mathematics transcend all political, cultural, ethnic and religious frontiers.

A Core Curriculum?

Today, readings at many universities in the Western world cover “progressive preoccupations” that include anti-colonialism, sex and gender, antiracism and climate. Surely, there is great merit in dialogue and action on such issues but it is critical that students’ readings are diverse rather than comprising only the perspectives of the contemporary left.

Ferguson and Howland tell us that if students are to become active and reflective individuals, they must learn to regard the past not merely as the crime scene of bygone ages, but as the record of human possibilities – an always unfinished tapestry of both admirable and shameful lives and both noble and base deeds. They must develop an ear for the English language and the language of ancestral wisdom, as well as the various languages of intellectual inquiry, including mathematics. They need a good grasp of modern statistical methods and they must also allow themselves to be inwardly-formed and cultivated by the classics.

They suggest that a sound foundation would also require an introduction to the modes of cognition, including intellectual and moral intuition and scientific demonstration. Aristotle, informal logic and Karl Popper would introduce students to the “preeminently learnable and knowable things.”

Will Students Vote with their Feet?

The perceptions of international students that New Zealand is indigenizing its degrees could lead to a significant loss of international enrolments and reduced credibility of our universities. The motive of preparing students to be effective learners is laudable, but is it strictly necessary to demand of them to assimilate these systems in order to progress in their other studies?

If the academic and political initiatives relating to these courses were truly about preparing students for university studies, then perhaps they should take the form of preparatory courses, possibly available online, before students begin their degrees. In the United States, for example, many universities provide future students access to “Cornerstone” courses in order to prepare them for assessment on writing, reasoning, research and literacy.  

Any mandatory belief-based curriculum amounts to indoctrination and should have no place in our universities. In a competition amongst the universities for fee-paying students and Government funding, will universities that insist on such courses see their enrolments fall, as students go to wherever they are not forced to pay for indoctrination?

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. 

An earlier version of this article was first published at Breaking Views

Cover image by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

The post Is Tertiary Education for Learning or for Indoctrination? appeared first on Open Inquiry.