I don’t want to recount the whole story about how seven professors at Auckland University, three of them members of the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ), wrote a letter to a magazine (“The Listener”) questioning whether Maori “ways of knowing” (Mātauranga Māori, or “MM”) should be taught along with and coequal to science, as the government is planning.
Because they questioned whether MM,, which is a collection of myths, superstition, legend, morality, some practical knowledge, and misinformation (i.e., creationism) should be taught as “science”, the “Satanic Seven” were largely demonized as racists. Two of the members (one recently died), were chastised in a tweet from the RSNZ, and then were investigated by the RSNZ because there were ludicrous complaints that their letter caused “harm”. They were eventually exculpated, but at the beginning the RSNZ put this statement on its website:
This statement criticizes the signing members by asserting that MM is science, that the modern definition of science is “outmoded” (presumably it should include creationism), and simply rejecting the assertions of their three members. This announcement is invidious, and eventually the RSNZ, after what seems to have been a complaint from London’s Royal society, took it down.
You can read more about this, and see the petition described below, at an earlier post. In the meantime, 73 fellows of the RSNZ—a substantial portion of the members—signed a petition complaining about the Society’s behavior and making three motions:
We therefore move that:
1. Both the Society and Academy write to Professors Cooper and Nola, and to the Estate of Professor Corballis, and apologise for its handling of the entire process.
2. The Society reviews its current code of conduct to ensure that this cannot happen again, and in future the actions of the Academy/Council are far more circumspect and considered in regards to complaints concerning contentious matters.
3. The entirety of the RSNZ/RSTA entity be reviewed, examining structure and function and alignment with other international academies, and the agency given its Fellows upon whom its reputation rests.
The RSNZ responded that it would hold a special meeting on Wednesday to consider this petition. It did, but, as the notes below show, the RSNZ didn’t do squat, much less even vote on the motions.
An RSNZ member who will remain anonymous conveyed these notes to me abut the meeting. (Note: “RSTA” in the text below, which stands for “The Royal Society Te Apārangi”, is the same thing as what I’ve been calling RSNZ—”Royal Society of New Zealand”—whose full name is “Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi.” The notes taken by the member are indented, while the are mine. Note the quotes from Māori experts affirming that MM is not science!
Notes on RSTA meeting 13 April 2022
The RSTA meeting involved about 100 people on site in Wellington and over 100 people online.
The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule, which means participants can report on the “information received” but not on the identity of the speakers or their affiliation. This is supposed to facilitate open discussion. Of course participants were not allowed to discuss the Rule.
The next procedural matter participants were told was that there could not be a vote on any of the motions proposed.
One of the two facilitators explained that the President of RSTA, Brent Clothier, and the Chair of Academy Council, Charlotte Macdonald, would not be answering questions since this was about “you having your say.” To many it seemed, rather, that the facilitators were there to serve the RSTA executive in damage control. In accord with this rule the President and Academy Chair did not have to answer questions, repeatedly put, about how the message they both signed, denouncing the Listener letter-writers for things they did not actually say, and kept on the RSTA website for months, was decided upon and worked out.
After the mover of the motions spoke to them at length and corporate governance was then also spoken to, there was a little discussion of the ruling that there could be no vote on any of the motions proposed. But further discussion was blocked (except for one objection) when it was reiterated by the “independent” facilitators that it was “inappropriate” to have votes today, “not possible” because the rules of the Society do not allow it. True enough: this was one of the complaints, of course, that there is almost no way Fellows can have input, either by putting items on an AGM or calling for another meeting (at least RSTA agreed to this meeting, knowing that the widely-supported request for it had already become an embarrassingly public fact) or voting on issues.
There was some discussion of mātauranga Māori and science, including one early speaker who claimed that there were racist tropes in the Listener letter [JAC: You can read the letter here.] because it claimed that “indigenous knowledge is not science” and this was like saying “indigenous art is not art.” It was not said at the meeting that it is very strange to claim that it is racist to suggest that “indigenous knowledge is not science,” in view of the fact that leading Māori advocates of mātauranga Maori, Professor Sir Mason Durie, and of the decolonisation of education and research, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, say the same thing:
“You can’t understand science through the tools of Mātauranga Māori, and you can’t understand Mātauranga Māori through the tools of science. They’re different bodies of knowledge, and if you try to see one through the eyes of the other you mess up. “
Sir Mason Durie, Vision Mātauranga Rauika Māngai [2nd Ed], 2020, p. 26
“Indigenous knowledge cannot be verified by scientific criteria nor can science be adequately assessed according to the tenets of indigenous knowledge. Each is built on distinctive philosophies, methodologies and criteria.”
Durie, M. (2004) ‘Exploring the Interface between Science and Indigenous Knowledge’. 5th APEC Research and Development Leaders Forum. Capturing Value from Science.
And from the intellectual leader of the decolonisation movement, Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2016):
“[S]ome aspects of IK mātauranga are fundamentally incommensurate with other, established disciplines of knowledge and in particular with science, and are a much grander and more ‘mysterious’ set of ideas, values and ways of being than science.”
Smith, L., Maxwell, Te K., Puke, H., Temara, P. (2016) ‘Indigenous Knowledge, Methodology and Mayhem: What is the Role of Methodology in Producing Indigenous Insights? A Discussion from Mātauranga Māori’. Knowledge Cultures 4(3): 131-56.)
But it was said that while it would now be racist to claim that indigenous art is not art, partly because art has fuzzy boundaries and because indigenous art contains such treasures, science has much sharper boundaries and rules, especially that anyone can propose or challenge ideas in science, and that there is no final say—positions directly at odds with the claims about mātauranga Māori by leading Māori:
“Māori are the only ones who should be controlling all aspects of its retention, its transmission, its protection.”
Aroha Te Pareake Mead, Rauika Māngai, A Guide to Vision Mātauranga, p. 33)
Most of the discussion of MM (and there wasn’t much) consisted of affirmations that it is valued (often as if this is an argument for its being science). No one of course argued otherwise at the meeting, and the Listener letter writers had explicitly affirmed its value, including for science, and that it should be taught—just not as science.
More of the discussion was on governance and RSTA’s engagement, or lack of it, with Fellows, and discouragement of free speech. There was certainly widespread agreement that there was insufficient engagement or space for input or discussion among Fellows.
A number of Fellows independently called for the apology to Garth Cooper, Robert Nola and Michael Corballis’s estate in motion 1 to be sent out by RSTA, and no one spoke against it. No one maintained that the RSTA acted correctly in their website denunciation or the removal of the exoneration of any suggestion of bad faith on the fellows’ part from the report of the Investigating Panel. To many, however, it seems unlikely that RSTA will take this request on board, although signed by the seventy-plus signatories of the letter to RSTA and supported again viva voce in the meeting.
On the other hand it does seem likely that the RSTA officers will have to take on board the widespread criticisms of the lack of accountability and engagement. But that seems entirely up to them and their readiness to move beyond protecting their positions. There is no concrete pressure on them except the moral pressure they may feel from the unhappiness of many about the current system.
The two “independent” facilitators will write a report to go to the RSTA executives, which they can then do what they like with it.
Those present at the meeting in person or online have also been given an email to write to, until late (5pm? midnight?) on April 14 (i.e. the day after the meeting) where they can send in written comments to the RSTA executive. [JAC: Of course I don’t have this email, and even if I did I would not publish it because it is for Fellows alone.]
So there it is: a meeting RSTA didn’t have to call (although it would have elicited still more international embarrassment had they not), but with the predetermined rule that there was to be no vote on any motion; and with wide affirmation of MM and RSTA’s support for it (whether or not as science was much less clear); and wide criticism of RSTA’s corporate structure and lack of accountability, of its poor engagement with its Fellows and discouragement of free speech; and an emphasis on the RSTA’s need to clarify its function and to shape its form to fit this function. But this criticism is at this point to be responded to entirely as they see fit by a self-policing executive.
In other words, the Royal Society of New Zealand feels no responsibility to respond to its members’ motions, or to investigate its own behavior. It can if it wants, but if it doesn’t want to—and I suspect this will be the case—it doesn’t have to. They’re likely hoping the kerfuffle will blow over. As for “meeting”, it was simply window-dressing: giving its members a chance to blow off steam.
The RSNZ has come out of this with not just egg on its face, but a massive omelet draped over its body. They were wrong to demonize and publicly disagree with their members, they were wrong in their characterization of MM as “science” (do they even know what science is?), and they were wrong to stonewall and not respond to the members’ call for apologies and structural form.
The two members who were investigated, Drs. Robert Nola and Garth Cooper, have resigned from the RSNZ. A large number of the other members are disaffected. The RSNZ won’t do the right thing because it would be considered “racist”.
The institution is ridiculous and and should be mocked.
I feel bad for it, but I wish they would have a few more resignations of prominent members of the RSNZ, enough to make them have to take notice. But I don’t know if such a thing would be productive or not. It’s just terribly depressing when scientific institutions become so benighted.
Just wait, if the RSTA doesn’t come up with a sensible solution, a number of fellows will resign including myself.
Peter,
why didn’t anyone use the ‘B’ word; namely, Bullying?
The treatment of the Listenergate authors from the RSNZ is institutional bullying in almost all respects.
I am personally looking forward to hearing the news of a mass resignation of fellows.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
I suspect that Dr McAllister means that she is hoping for a mass resignation of the proper scientists because she is a supporter of the mumbo jumbo faction in the Society
why not a mass signup?
while the royal society is not controlled by the Fellows, it is ultimately controlled by constituent division who are in turn controlled by board members directly elected by members of the royal society. members do not have to be distinguished scientists; they can be just rank-and-file intellectuals (academic posting NOT required) with a PhD or a few papers to their name.
Siouxsie Wiles explained it like this on twitter: “What’s difficult about the Royal Society Te Apārangi is that it is basically two intertwined organisations – the society & the academy of fellows. The society is on a journey to try to address systemic inequities in the system but clearly too many of the fellows disagree :(”
She and Dr McAllister are, I believe, on the side of the society rather than the fellows.
Easier to threaten to resign than actually do it. In the end, I suspect the urge to hold on to the ‘glittering prizes’ will win out.
I don’t understand why the leadership of the RSNZ feels no pressure to be held accountable, unless they are appointed for life. But that seems unlikely. Given their handling of The Letter, and now the unilateral and completely unsatisfactory handling of this meeting, it seems to me the next thing to do is to look into how the President and the Chair can be replaced.
My thoughts entirely. It’s not quite easy to tell, but if these are elected posts, there could be quite an insurrection come the next election.
Another thought is that, unless the entire population of NZ is up with the MM agenda, this persistent denial of the facts, and indeed of science itself, might end up doing the interests of the indigenous community more harm than good in the eyes of non-indigenous citizens.
Not surprising, unfortunately. I think it is interesting that the RSNZ characterized the criticism of MM as saying that “it is not a valid truth.” Without going back to all the previous info, I am pretty that the claim was that it is not Science. Ignoring the question of whether there can be more than one truth (no), “truth” is a broad claim, and one that would be difficult to disprove, as opposed to holding MM claims to the standards of Scientific proof. Do some parts of MM factually represent the world? Undoubtedly, and therefore it’s a much better basis upon which to fight (and discredit opponents). Is MM scientifically valid as a set of information or as a method of identifying false data? No. Time for RSNZ to put up the shutters.
I’ve become convinced that the phrase “valid truth” (which is something of a tautology) actually means “opinion I don’t want you to dispute”.
“Note: “RSTA” in the text below, which stands for “The Royal Society Te Apārangi”, is the same thing as what I’ve been calling RSNZ—”Royal Society of New Zealand”—whose full name is “Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi.”- Indeed; however, its legal name remains “Royal Society of New Zealand”: https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/who-we-are/our-name
The insider reporting for you did not explain that there was also comment from speakers about NOT wanting separate societies: (1) a science society and (2) a social science/humanities society. RSNZ used to be only science. Since the early 2000s humanities and social science fellows have been elected ‘normally’. I’m puzzled by the preference to remain a single society. Where is there any advantage in keeping them together?
The suggestion that more fellows resign won’t work here, not just now. If more of the senior fellows resign, then the business will likely turn into yet another NZ political machine. So far it is not completely that, which is why fellows are working to bring the RSNZ to heel. But so far no one is talking about whether having social scientists and education theorists as fellows of the RSNZ is any value to anyone but those individual fellows. Maybe fellowship would return to being overwhelmingly male and white if humanities and social sciences were excluded. Maybe there are other reasons?
Your second paragraph assumes that the RSNZ is something worth saving – or something that can be saved. I’m not convinced that either of those are true.
It allows the people from the humanities to claim some degree of credibility, which they did not have (being “humanities”) beforehand.
From the other end of the telescope … there is no benefit to the sciences from this merger.
Hopefully this case will act as a dire warning to other scientific societies wishing to indulge in a protracted public sepukku like this.
Regardless of all this carrying on, I think the central issue is that many of us assume the the Royal Society NZ is about science as it was for many years since its inception as the New Zealand Institute in the 19th century. But a fundamental shift in scope seems to have taken place in 2012, leading to an opening for a hostile takeover of the Society. I put together the following this afternoon:
I have been trying to follow the back and forth with respect to the Royal Society New Zealand (NZ) and the ongoing controversy that Jerry has kept in front of us. I did a bit of Google searching and found that we appear to have walked in at the fifth act of a play of at least five acts …. so far. The reality seems to me to be a drift of scope and most recently, the hijacking (more than a simple adaptation with time) of an organization originally created in the 19th century to promote science (the New Zealand Institute founded in 1868 as a result of the Royal Institute Act of 1867) that later obtained a Royal Charter in 1933 as the Royal Society of New Zealand (still for science and scientists), calling for increased interaction with the scientists in Europe (Noted in September 15, 1934 issue of Nature pg 427). This was then amended in a 1965 Act to extend engagement with other scientists globally and to provide advice to the Minister on future fruitful areas of scientific research. Then this was amended with a change of scope by the addition of “technology” to efforts in “science” in a 1997 Act, along with increasing public awareness of science and contributing to science education. The major metamorphosis that has led to today’s kerfuffle took place in 2012 with the addition of the “humanities” to the “science and technology” scope, with an enumeration of specific elements in the humanities to “include languages, and in particular te reo, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, Maori studies, media studies, art history, film, and drama”. One must be careful when searching to be aware that many of the archived documents have been modified with the 2012 wording.
So the science focus of the original 1833 Institute and the later Royal Society of 1933 and 1965 have radically changed as of 2012 to the point it is no longer a society dedicated to science or even STEM, but rather is now chartered to promote all knowledge, including humanities,…along with its original remit…science. The issue of membership and bad behavior is more subjective, but from my readings on the matter, it is clear that the Royal Society NZ is, since 2012, very different from the Royal Society London and even what the Royal Society NZ was created to do. That said, I also see nothing that says that Maori be treated as science in science classrooms. It seems to be listed under the enumeration of humanities – separate from the science discipline enumeration of “applied, biological, earth, engineering, information, mathematical, medical, physical, social, and technological sciences”.
Regardless of all this carrying on, I think the central issue is that many of us assume the the Royal Society NZ is about science as it was for many years since its inception as the New Zealand Institute in the 19th century. But a fundamental shift in scope seems to have taken place in 2012, leading to an opening for a hostile takeover of the Society. I put together the following this afternoon:
I have been trying to follow the back and forth with respect to the Royal Society New Zealand (NZ) and the ongoing controversy that Jerry has kept in front of us. I did a bit of Google searching and found that we appear to have walked in at the fifth act of a play of at least five acts …. so far. The reality seems to me to be a drift of scope and most recently, the hijacking (more than a simple adaptation with time) of an organization originally created in the 19th century to promote science (the New Zealand Institute founded in 1868 as a result of the Royal Institute Act of 1867) that later obtained a Royal Charter in 1933 as the Royal Society of New Zealand (still for science and scientists), calling for increased interaction with the scientists in Europe (Noted in September 15, 1934 issue of Nature pg 427). This was then amended in a 1965 Act to extend engagement with other scientists globally and to provide advice to the Minister on future fruitful areas of scientific research. Then this was amended with a change of scope by the addition of “technology” to efforts in “science” in a 1997 Act, along with increasing public awareness of science and contributing to science education. The major metamorphosis that has led to today’s kerfuffle took place in 2012 with the addition of the “humanities” to the “science and technology” scope, with an enumeration of specific elements in the humanities to “include languages, and in particular te reo, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, Maori studies, media studies, art history, film, and drama”. One must be careful when searching to be aware that many of the archived documents have been modified with the 2012 wording.
So the science focus of the original 1833 Institute and the later Royal Society of 1933 and 1965 have radically changed as of 2012 to the point it is no longer a society dedicated to science or even STEM, but rather is now chartered to promote all knowledge, including humanities,…along with its original remit…science. The issue of membership and bad behavior is more subjective, but from my readings on the matter, it is clear that the Royal Society NZ is, since 2012, very different from the Royal Society London and even what the Royal Society NZ was created to do. That said, I also see nothing that says that Maori be treated as science in science classrooms. It seems to be listed under the enumeration of humanities – separate from the science discipline enumeration of “applied, biological, earth, engineering, information, mathematical, medical, physical, social, and technological sciences”.
Sorry about the double posting, 6 and 7 above, but #6 did not show up in my window until 3 hours later simultaneously when i re-posted it with what came out as #7.
I just read the controlling legislation for RSNZ/RSTA, the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, and it would seem that its Fellows actually have no formal role in its governance. The Society’s ruling Council is elected from “Electoral Colleges” that the Council establishes (constituent societies?), combined with Appointed and Co-opted Councillers.
Are its Fellows just window-dressing?