An unanswered letter to the head of the University of Auckland

July 10, 2024 • 9:45 am

This brouhaha all started in 2021 when seven faculty members at the University of Auckland posted the “The Listener letter on science”, a call to prevent teaching indigenous “ways of knowing” as science.   The letter is archived here and here though the text isn’t online.  If you click to enlarge the screenshot below, you’ll see it’s not all that controversial in itself; but its call that indigenous knowledge  “falls far short of what we can define as science itself” got plenty of Kiwi hackles up.  (The authors are talking about the local indigenous “way of knowing”, Mātauranga Māori (MM), which the government and schools were pushing should be taught in science classes as coequal to modern science.)

The authors were widely demonized, two were investigated by New Zealand’s Royal Society (who insisted at first that MM was indeed science), and several were threatened with academic punishment. As I wrote in my post of Dec. 14, 2021, the Vice-Chancellor of Auckland Uni, who is the head of the institution, also criticized the letter and its arguments:

Earlier this summer, Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater issued a statement explicitly criticizing The Listener letter and its seven signers, making their identities easy to find. Two of her statements from Freshwater’s official announcement of July 26:

A letter in this week’s issue of The Listener magazine from seven of our academic staff on the subject of whether mātauranga Māori can be called science has caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni.

Note the “hurt and dismay claim”, which at the very outset puts her statement in a context of emotionality rather than reason. And there was more:

While the academics are free to express their views, I want to make it clear that they do not represent the views of the University of Auckland.

The University has deep respect for mātauranga Māori as a distinctive and valuable knowledge system. We believe that mātauranga Māori and Western empirical science are not at odds and do not need to compete. They are complementary and have much to learn from each other.

This view is at the heart of our new strategy and vision, Taumata Teitei, and the Waipapa Toitū framework, and is part of our wider commitment to Te Tiriti and te ao principles.

Now it’s not even clear if the University of Auckland even has an official view about science vs. mātauranga Māori, yet note that Freshwater characterizes the latter as “a distinctive and valuable knowledge system”, maintaining that “mātauranga Māori and Western empirical science are not at odds and do not need to compete.”  That is an arrant falsehood. For one thing, mātauranga Māori is creationist, which puts it squarely at odds with evolution. I won’t go on; you can find for yourself many other ways the two areas are “at odds” with each other.

Freshwater subsequently walked back her opposition after some pushback, and announced twice that year that the University of Auckland would host a series of discussions, debates, and panels on the relationship of local indigenous knowledge to modern science. All of us dealing with this issue from the “modern-science-is-not-equivalent-to-indigenous knowledge” side eagerly awaited this event.

It never happened. That of course is not surprising given that the climate in NZ sacralizes indigenous knowledge, and if you question it as a form of science you can be fired or deplatformed.  But of course I’m not a Kiwi, and I can say what I want. What I’ve wanted to do all these four years is to ask Dr. Freshwater what happened to the debates. So I wrote her this email last week:

Dear Vice-Chancellor Freshwater,

 

I’ve followed for some time the debates in New Zealand about the relationship between modern science and Mātauranga Māori.  Looking at my records,I see that on August 13 and December 14 of 2021, you sent out two notices that the University of Auckland would hold a series of lectures, panels, and debates on this issue.

This is from August 13, 2021:

In recent weeks we have witnessed a widespread public debate on the issue of mātauranga Māori and science. The debate has raised important questions about freedom
of expression, respect for opposing views, academic freedom and the role of universities in Aotearoa New Zealand. On Tuesday the NZ Herald published an opinion piece
on these issues, which you can read on our News pages here.

 

We will be setting up a series of VC lectures, panels and debating sessions, both within the University and externally, to address this and other topics. Universities like ours have an important thought-leadership role to play on these issues, which we embrace, while recognising that we need to foster an environment within which such debates can take place positively, respectfully and constructively.

And from December 14 of the same year:

I am calling for a return to a more respectful, open-minded, fact-based exchange of views on the relationship between mātauranga Māori and science, and I am committing the University to action on this.

In the first quarter of 2022 we will be holding a symposium in which the different viewpoints on this issue can be discussed and debated calmly, constructively and respectfully. I envisage a high-quality intellectual discourse with representation from all viewpoints: mātauranga Māori, science, the humanities, Pacific knowledge systems and others.

As far as I know, no symposia, discussions, or debates were ever held, though this was nearly three years ago. Was this idea discarded, or did I miss something?

Thanks for your attention.

Cordially,
Jerry Coyne
Professor Emeritus
Dept. Ecology and Evolution
The University of Chicago

I have had no reply.  Do you think I will get one? I’m not holding my breath.  I know, because Auckland Uni scours the internet for its mentions (I’ve received stern emails from them demanding corrections of my posts), that they’ll see this, even if Freshwater doesn’t read my email.

The upshot is that there’s never been ANY discussion or debate of this kind in New Zealand, although there have been articles written back and forth, most of them defending the scientific aspect of MM. But rumor has it that there will soon be some significant pushback soon on equating MM with science.

But the University of Auckland, the premier university in New Zealand, has failed abysmally in its promise to encourage free discussion of this important issue. It’s important because resolving whether indigenous knowledge should be taught as science will decide how the country and its students fare in competition with other first-world countries in scientific advances and education.  One of the purposes of a university is to find the truth, but that can’t be done if free discussion is banned.

29 thoughts on “An unanswered letter to the head of the University of Auckland”

  1. It’s slowly creeping in here in Canada too. From a recent post on the Can Geo Instagram page:

    “This summer the rcgs_sgrc is pleased to welcome Chloe Bluebird Mustooch, the first member of its Indigenous Fellowship Program. Bluebird will be working with the CanGeoedu team to bring an Indigenous perspective to the educational resources created for teachers and students across the country.

    The two year programme is overseen by an incredible Indigenous Advisory Council that includes First Nations, Inuit and Métis experts and leaders in their respective fields, communities and Nations. The RCGS and Can Geo are uniquely positioned to deliver a Fellowship program that creates a respectful space for Indigenous knowledge, experience and perspective while offering mentorship and opportunity in storytelling through multiple media including editorial, education, film and design.”

    1. Good grief. They use so many superfluous adjectives that belie belief ie an incredible Indigenous Advisory Council. What makes them incredible?

      What is a respectful space for Indigenous Knowledge?

      Mentorship and opportunity through storytelling? Give me a break. Exchanging fairy tales is hardly a leg up in the real world.

      The whole thing seems to be a concerted effort to dumb down Western civilisation scientific progress.

      1. A respectful space for Indigenous Knowledge is where you abandoned critical thinking and remain silent while all manner of primitive superstitions are trotted out. Otherwise, you are clearly a racist.

      1. My favorite example of this fashion trend is Concordia U., where “The five-year initiative will recentre Indigenous voices, histories and ways of doing across the university.” “…For Donna Kahérakwas Goodleaf, director of decolonizing curriculum and pedagogy in the university’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, impressing the principles of the Two Row Wampum Belt into the strategic plan creates a path where everyone is equal and no worldview is superior. ” See: https://www.concordia.ca/news/stories/2023/09/08/concordia-launches-a-plan-to-decolonize-and-indigenize-its-curriculum-and-pedagogy.html

    1. Yes, thanks indeed.

      I’m not an academic but a retired hack English teacher of 13-18 rear olds, who graduated from the University of Auckland – a horizon-broadening experience I enjoyed hugely – more than 50 years ago and later regretted my early lack of interest in science and maths.

      It’s great to know that the trahison des clercs of NZ has not gone unnoticed, and also their inability to defend in open debate their narrow, backward, anti-Enlightenment values, though whether or not they can be shamed or persuaded into seeing their false idols’ nakedness, I don’t know.

      Long may you run.

  3. I doubt that you’ll get a response but, if you do, it may be similar to the original statements, namely, that they will be convening panels and discussions at some time to be determined. The strategy is to kick the can down the road until people forget about it or move on to other concerns.

  4. “Note the “hurt and dismay claim”, which at the very outset puts her statement in a context of emotionality rather than reason.”

    Emotionality rather than reason. Even if the modern university were not infected with ideology, the domination of emotion over reason would destroy it.

  5. Wonderful e-mail, PCC(E). Hits just the right tone. Note perfect. Thanks by the boat load.
    I can just see V-C Freshwater’s eye-roll: “Oh Gawd, that pest, Coyne!”

  6. I am impressed that the original “group of seven” includes a professor from Philosophy Dept and one from Critical Studies in Education. But I wonder why no physical sciences?

    Thanks for poking yet another bear, Jerry.

  7. Dr. Coyne, I’ll be greatly surprised if you do receive a response as the “Dark Ages” are again taking primacy over Science. The same movement is occurring in our own country as well as elsewhere (i.e., India), and I expect that in the not so distant future that similar changes in curriculum will happen here.

  8. Yeah, understanding the development of science is deceptive – looks easy, but boiling it down to a concise sentence never does anything justice — one might say it is an impossible task…. (is there an expression, to coerce someone in taking up an impossible task?)…

    I recommend two from Oxford’s Very Short Introduction series (a personal favorite) for handy reference for that fascinating history :

    The Scientific Revolution – A Very Short Introduction
    Lawrence M. Principe
    2011

    Maybe a 2nd priority:

    The Enlightenment – A Very Short Introduction
    John Robertson
    2015

    Once in the VSI series, other titles might occur. Such a useful series — even fits in the average back pocket!

  9. YES! Don’t let this drop. Keep it up. Your stature and fame make the cause as unignorable as it can be. Her silence is as good as a guilty plea.
    Kudos. Don’t let this be the last off it.

    D.A.
    NYC

  10. Thanks for pursuing this. I would imagine that, if any event does finally take place, it will be structured so as to heavily favour the mātauranga Māori enthusiasts and will not involve any substantive exchange of views. The recent symposium on free speech at the University of Wellington does not bode well for this – it was postponed after a good deal of whining from the usual suspects, and then took place with a mere two supporters of free speech. The format involved each participant making a statement, but no discussion took place. Some of the despicably shoddy behaviour by the University of Wellington after the initial complaints is discussed here:
    https://www.fsu.nz/this_oia_response_reveals_true_state_of_free_speech_in_universities

    A link to the full discussion is here:
    https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/news/2024/06/watch-free-speech-event

    It’s pretty tedious in the main, but worth looking at the contribution by Khylee Quinn at around 1:34:23 to see an extreme example of what we’re up against in New Zealand.

  11. Thank you Dr Coyne for your continuing fight for science in New Zealand.
    As an academic in NZ and an alumnus of UChicago, I find the determined attempt to mingle science and mythology in the classroom surprising and distressing.
    However, the current climate strongly discourages any “frank and fair exchange of views”, so I doubt you will get any reply to your queries.

  12. Hey, they mentioned the Māori Creation story at a Te Papa exhibit about Argentine dinosaurs where everything was translated into Te Reo, even binomial names, locations (probably made for it intentionally or in the recent past to be complete internationally) and even scientific terminology, even a curator saw it stupid to translate a dinosaur name. I think the museums “natural history” center is the same.

    One scientist said they either compromise with the classic ones or Brian Tamaki… coward!

  13. On his substance today Freddie DeBoer touches on an explanation for this stupid emphasis on MM as science: proponents want to be taken seriously but not literally. They don’t really believe the Maori origin stories, and they don’t want those stories (or the claim to have discovered Antarctica) to be taken as literally true. They just want those stories and claims to be taken seriously, and given proper emotional valence. It’s a kind of emotional claim on the reader’s or listener’s attention. Not a rational claim.

    https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/alice-munro-is-dead

  14. Well, I just did some backtracking to better understand your (Professor Coyne) connection to the original story and it seems your motivation was to support your peers in New Zealand. Not surprisingly unselfish of you. Good on you!

  15. I asked Dawn Freshwater in mid-February 2022 whether the symposium on matauranga Maori that was promised to be held in the first quarter of 2022 was still going ahead. At that time, the university still insisted it would be but plans had been delayed by Covid.
    The reply I received came from the Deputy VC::

    Dear Graham,
    In response to your email to Professor Freshwater dated 18 February, it is still our intention to hold one or more events in the coming months that provide a platform for discussion about Mātauranga Māori. Whether this will strictly speaking be in Q1 is difficult to say; the University has understandably had to prioritise managing the ongoing Omicron outbreak, the move of our operations to the Red setting, preparing for additional online teaching in the new semester and supporting the wellbeing of our staff and students in a highly uncertain and volatile environment. Also, we would very much like one or more of the events to be in-person events, so Q1 may not be realistic from that perspective. We anticipate being able to progress the planning for these events in the coming weeks and will be happy to share details with you when they become public in due course.
    Ngā mihi nui,
    Erik
    Dr Erik Lithander
    Ihorua (Kōtui Tangata) | Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Strategic Engagement)

Comments are closed.