In 2021, the Listener Letter fracas erupted in New Zealand when seven professors at Auckland University argued that the indigenous “way of knowing,” Mātauranga Māori (MM), while valuable in anthropology and sociology classes, should not be taught, as the government planned, as coequal with modern science. The seven signers were right: while MM does contain some empirical knowledge obtained by trial and error, it’s also a mixture of that empiricism with religion, spirituality, morality, teleology, legends from word of mouth, and guidelines for proper behavior. That stuff doesn’t belong in science class, but they keep trying to sneak it in anyway.
Nevertheless, because the entire country has been captured by a woke mentality that holds the indigenous people as sacred, and their legends as sacrosanct, the signers of the Listener letter were demonized, threatened, and had some of their jobs downgraded. Further the Royal Society of New Zealand investigated the two members who signed the letter. (They were eventually exculpated.)
Since then, the drive to make MM coequal to science, and replace modern knowledge with Māori legends and tales, continues, even under a new and more conservative government. And many people were “offended” by the letter; that is, they claimed it was hurtful to the indigenous people and damaged higher education. As I wrote on July 10, the Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University, Dawn Freshwater, issued a statement that said this in part:
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.
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 [the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi] and te ao [Māori] principles.
But the braver academics continued to beef, and so Vice-Chancellor Freshwater, the top official of Auckland Uni, promised in both August and December of 2021 that she would commission a series of academic debates and symposia on MM versus modern science. Her promises included these statements:
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.
. . . . 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.
To give a short summary, these promises amounted to what comes out of the south end of a wildebeest facing north.
The debates and symposia never materialized, and I predicted as much. Yes, there were at least three symposia, but they were purely rah-rah affairs boosting MM and indigenous knowledge, devoid of any dissenting views or debate, much less robust intellectual debate. Dean Freshwater simply brushed the issue under the rug in favor of further burnishing Auckland Uni’s worship of MM.
In light of this, I wrote Dean Freshwater in July of this year—THREE YEARS after she’d made her unfulfilled promise—asking her when the debates would happen between advocates of MM and advocates of modern science. I could do this because I’m not a Kiwi and won’t suffer professionally simply by asking this question. You can see my letter to VC Freshwater here.
I received no response from Freshwater, but she delegated her chief of staff to respond to me, and I got this email on August 7.
Dear Dr Coyne,
I write in response to your 06 July message to Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater in reference to Mātauranga Māori and science at the University of Auckland.As it happens, the University began holding an annual symposium on Mātauranga Māori in 2022, and our third event is scheduled for 11 September of this year. This symposium is open to the University community and focusses on different aspects of Māori knowledge systems (mātauranga). Our two events to date have each provided an opportunity for robust engagement.In addition, during this same period the University’s Pro Vice-Chancellor Māori, Te Kawehau Hoskins, and Prof Alison Jones have led open discussions on a range of topics relating to Mātauranga and its relation to science, in every Faculty and a number of service divisions across the University.Please know that the Vice-Chancellor’s position on this has not changed: respectful, open-minded, fact-based exchange of views—as enabled by the kinds of activities mentioned above—are essential within research universities such as ours. Thank you for your continued interest in this important topic.Cordially,Brian
Brian C. Ten Eyck, EdD
Poumatua Kaimahi | Chief of Staff
Tari o te Ihorangi | Office of the Vice Chancellor
Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland
This letter is a masterpiece of disingenous rhetoric. Check out the link to the “annual symposium” in Ten Eyck’s letter. Do you see any dissent or pushback in the summary below? Neither did I.
The University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, is hosting its first Mātauranga Māori Symposium, exploring Te Ao Toi (Māori arts) and creative expression, with a diverse range of experts.
The symposium, set to occur annually with a focus on looking at different aspects of Mātauranga Māori, or Indigenous knowledge, will take place on Thursday 24 November and be held at Waipapa Marae at the University’s City Campus.
It will feature speakers who are experts in their respective fields, ranging from: Indigenous art history and architecture; moko signatures and iwi histories and traditions to whakairo (carving), weaving, multimedia installation, visual arts, photography, and the revival of Māori aute.
Speakers will include Waipapa Taumata Rau’s Associate Professor Ngarino Ellis, Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal, Bernard Makoare, Maureen Lander MNZM, Rongomai Grbic-Hoskins, Makareta Janke and Nikau Hindin.
Pro Vice-Chancellor Māori Te Kawehau Hoskins says the University is looking forward to opening this space to celebrate, share and engage with Mātauranga.
Several anonymous viewers of this symposium told me that there was no debate at all; one of them wrote me this:
This response is disingenuous. There have been presentations on MM but no opportunity to present different viewpoints. In other words, there has been no symposium fitting the description of the one promised by the VC in August 2021.
I’m told that there was a single pushback question from the floor, but it was largely sidestepped.
In other words, Vice Chancellor Freshwater lied when she promised a civil but robust debate on science vs. MM. My guess is that she knew when she made this promise that the debate would never take place. The University and VC Freshwater’s behavior are shameful.
And I’m pretty sure these debates never will happen. The entire curriculum of Auckland University, including its science offerings, is being captured by concepts from MM (more to come later), a capture heavily watering down the amount of science Auckland students will learn and giving them, instead, a big dose of postmodern philosophy of science. I’ll give one example of a “science” course, lacking any science, in a later post.
At any rate, the whole country is also subject to this ideological capture, despite the “progressive” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern being replaced by the more moderate Christopher Luxon. The whole science curriculum of the country, from primary school through university, is in dire straits, accompanied by layoffs of faculty and staff.
Since I’m the only person outside of New Zealand to call the country repeatedly to account, and to point out the dissimulation of Vice-Chancellor Freshwater, my cry in the wilderness is made in hopes that things will change. But they won’t, for so long as the indigenous people are seen as sacred and their way of knowing immune from criticism or debate, the country’s educational system will be swirling down the drain.
************
To show you how much rancor this issue creates, here’s a comment I got from a Kiwi on this post (the address is clearly fake). Needless to say, I didn’t allow it to go through, but now seems an appropriate time to show it (“Aotearoa” is the Māori word for “New Zealand”):
fuckjerrycoyne
jerrycoynedefendsepsteinpedos@gmail.comkiwi here. please none of you ever come to aotearoa, you racist fucks. kill yourselves, instead.
In all fairness, they’d all end up being pathetic anyway. I hate to say it but when these things happen, they all go down to a level that is part embarrassing and part Monty Python.
“A masterpiece of disingenuous rhetoric.”
The writer is highly skilled at that! Sounds like the “exchange” of views is more of an ongoing one-way delivery.
You got that right! The “progressive side” brooks no dissent: far less dissent is tolerated there than in the U.S.
Not very different, apparently, from what happens in the US on racism.
Somebody calls for an honest discussion on racism which, in the hands of university administrators or corporate DEI personnel, becomes one-sided lectures on critical race theory, the historic evils of racism, some contemporary anecdotes and lived experiences, some selected statistics, while the audience is invited to confess their sins. Dissent is not only divisive, disrespectful and hurtful, but career ending evidence of your failure to admit your racism.
There’s an article to be written about how people pore over their personal mythologies (Bible, Koran, MM, etc.) to find texts that can be used to claim that they somehow align with, support, or anticipate modern Science or Medicine. No doubt, if there were modern adherents, we would be hearing about Zeus or Thor and climate.
Pathetic. But this is how it’s done. Politely prevaricate, delay, and sidestep the issue until it goes away, is forgotten, or is superseded by the next shiny object.
“… and so the dialectic continues.”
-Delgado and Stefancic
Critical Race Theory – An Introduction, p.66, 3rd Ed., 2017
No debate? I’m shocked! Shocked to find out the debate won’t occur!
The idea that debate consists of “respectful, open-minded … exchange of views” is a familiar one even outside of the political desire to sacralize Māori Ways of Knowing. We’ve seen it — and still see it — in forums where “diversity” is being celebrated.
The template isn’t adversarial attempts to persuade, but Show & Tell. You explain what YOU believe and then it’s our turn to explain what WE believe. Afterwards we hug, sing kumbaya, and have some milk and cookies. Everybody has a point of view to share, and we make no judgments.
The Vice Chancellor obviously had some dark suspicions regarding the science advocates who, contrary to the values of diversity and acceptance, were likely going to go on the attack. Aggression has no place in Auckland University. It will be stamped out as soon as it rears its head.
MM, after all, advocates harmony — and who would be against that?
Again you nailed it Sastra: “Show and tell.”
Totally.
It is a fools errand anyway. To “take on” science with religion/MM like this. And it is as deeply patronizing as the DNC’s “Land Acknowledgment” on page 1 of their meeting booklet in Chicago this week. (sigh)
The whole construct that “Western” science is somehow owned by white people/colonizers/racists etc is the height of stupidity.
The left is now totally self beclowned – on an international scale – and I want no part of it.
D.A.
NYC
Standard postmodernist shite:
There’s no truths, only opinions. So any debate is about imposing your opinion on others – hence, very very bad.
I would love to get these ‘no truths’ people to hold on to some bare electrical wire while I go turn on the power. if electricity is just a construct they don’t believe in it won’t hurt them eh?
Is it the majority of Kiwis who feel like sacralizing MM? I realize the country is more left-ward on the whole than say the U.S., but there are situations where a majority will just keep silent out of concern for consequences, or just out of relative indifference.
Certainly sociology and anthropology courses. But also maybe more to the point of distinguishing MM from science, a history of western philosophy course.
The history of western philosophy is not much taught in NZ universities. Patches of it persist, but not, I’m told, in the form of specific ancient-philosophy and modern-philosophy distribution requirements within the major. You cannot be certain that someone with a BA in philosophy from NZ has ever studied Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, or even Bertrand Russell. Interestingly, however, NZ’s only endowed position in philosophy is the Kurt and Annette Baier chair in modern philosophy at Otago University.
Thank you. Good grief. My ignorance knows no bounds. But I guess that geographically, NZ is more the East than West, though in colonial populations, clearly the West.
Very useful courses include courses in the history and historiography of science. See for example MIT Open Couse Ware on the history and historiography of science from Ancient Greece to the present. Lots of stuff to think about and contrast with the New Zealand approach. Think how important the historical development of laboratory science is, just for example.
Good lord. I know and work with several folks from New Zealand and none of them seem insane.
Through WEIT, I have followed the strange and alarming attempts to supplant science with MM myths in New Zealand (thanks, Dr PCCe, BTW. I don’t think I’d have heard a peep about this otherwise) and, frankly, I just can’t wrap my mind around the hatred and anger this issue brings up. It’s distressing to think that so many good scientists, academics, and thinkers there are intimidated to silence and inaction by the wokenuts.
A university refusing to hold discussions about a subject directly applicable to its very mission? Pathetic and openly dishonest! The unprofessionalism of both the university president and her mouthpiece is disturbing, but given the recent antics of some of the US’s “elite” university presidents, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
This is why I hope that belief in “the MM ways of knowing” is a very vocal minority, not a majority.
I don’t think it is fair to say these two people are “unprofessional”. This sort of misdirection IS their profession.
Why they call this kind of thinking “multiculturalism’? 🤔 They all think the same….and refuse to talk to others…
There it is. If you know what science is, you’re a racist.
Both chief of staff Ten Eyck and VC Freshwater have doctorates in education, and in some perverse fairness to them, haven’t a clue as to what science is.
To get an idea about this cluelessness, I highly recommend talking with a professor of education at any university (even a really good university) and get him or her to tell you about the study design, sampling, and analytical methods used by the most recent EdD student they supervised. It’s really extraordinary what passes for “science” in the study of education. “Cargo cult” hardly begins to describe it. For example
https://summit.sfu.ca/item/38015
“Combining seascape epistemology, autoethnography, Science of Aloha, Pedagogy of Aloha and hula, my connection to science and my practice of teaching science has become deeper and relational [but] is difficult to fully articulate with words and is more accurate to how I feel when I finally ‘feel” hula [which] moves and flows fluidly in [a] rhythmic dance [which] opens multiple ways of knowing, being, and becoming.”
This approach to writing a doctoral dissertation (!) was beneficial for the student because it allowed her to “initiate a rigorous process of self-reflection centered around my teaching practices” and led her to “learn about other ways of doing science that did not follow the scientific method.” As a result, dear reader, “In this thesis, you will not find a presentation of sectioned chapters, or representation of carefully curated and calculated data, nor a stated hypothesis or generalized conclusion.” Figure 1 is an electron micrograph (mislabelled “microscopy”) used to illustrate an anecdote about the author’s preschool-aged son. That’s as close as one gets to data.
Aaarrrgghh!
To twist the knife, author self-describes on her personal web site as “an entrepreneur, a stem cell biologist, [and] an educator.”
[I’m not linking to the author because she’s in a sense blameless: she’s just following the incentives created by universities to spend a couple years engaged in this kind of worthless, narcissistic mentalizing, then wrap it in 177 pages of gnostic wizard’s magic words, and get an EdD for her troubles.]
[edit:
I take it back. This is a PhD, not an EdD – the Faculty of Education offers both programs. The EdDs are even worse!
https://summit.sfu.ca/item/37849%5D
Aaaarrgh as well! It’s like reading a post from Titania McGrath if s(he) pretended to dabble in science.
Unbelievable. That’s SFU in BC, Canada, where I graduated in 1973.
Canada is going down the same road as NZ.
Oh dear.
And I say this after actually downloading it and reading some of it. It’s really does tick all the boxes you real scientists have been warning about.
Oh c’mon Jim. You don’t need a degree in science to know ABOUT science or what it is. It isn’t a terribly difficult concept.
And hell – she’s supposed to “know” about education ffs.
Schools of ed are routinely the bottom of the barrel intellectual quality wise – DESPITE the fact a *lot* of teachers are way smarter than the profession and change lives for the better utterly. The sorting mechanism (Schools of Ed) are terrible, Marxist and activist factories.
D.A.
NYC
The debate would be:
Scientist: “Where is the actual evidence for your assertion about X…”
MM advocate: “You’re racist!”
Kiwi here. You are welcome to come to NZ whenever you like. Thank you for holding the government to account on this issue.
That is a vile little post directed at you.
Truly nasty. I guess it’s the only way they can fight back. No facts to be found on their side. It’s 100% ideology.
Indeed it is. Also lacking in creativity and gutless as hell.
Thanks again to PPC/E for bringing this to our attention – and probably large twitter a/cs like Dawkins again to cover this evolving, devolving sad kiwi story.
Hats off. Cheers!
D.A.
NYC
I was at the Alison Jones & Te Kawehau Hoskins event held for the Faculty of Science (each Faculty had one) in 2022. It was billed as a free and frank discussion about the science curriculum, but the science curriculum was COMPLETELY AVOIDED by Jones & Hoskins, who talked generically about their paper on decolonisation, had us organise into small group discussions, until finally I stuck my hand up at the very end of the 90-minute session and got in the one question about the problems introducing relativism into science. Which they dodged. It was a fiasco and many there said so. Even the Dean of Science seemed annoyed. Further discussions were suggested but did not happen.
Now, due to the Curriculum Framework Transformation at the University, we’ve had to make major changes to the science curriculum, cut previously required fundamental courses, and now there is a “course rationalization” going on where every Faculty is being asked to cut upper-level courses, apparently to make space for the 2 new required first-year courses that the Curriculum Framework Transformation demands.
The controversy is now very widespread among the faculty and the students, the New Zealand Herald wrote it up recently:
Auckland Uni senior academics outraged over proposed course shake-up
By Jamie Morton
NZ Herald
14 Aug, 2024
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-uni-senior-academics-outraged-over-proposed-course-shake-up/6V7XCX4AERFGLEO2DHDKZ5ZLFE/
“A letter sent to vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater, and signed by more than 200 staff, said the changes would have “significant implications” for research and teaching at the university.
They could affect the university’s degree programmes, the letter said, and could lead to redundancies, meaning the university risked losing core expertise that would affect its ability to deliver academic programmes.
There was also outrage among staff that the changes hadn’t been discussed at a recent meeting of the university’s senate, which comprised professors, some staff and student representatives.
The letter urged Freshwater to call an extraordinary meeting of the senate and defer any changes until that had taken place.
“Senior academics are shocked, especially given the short timeframes they’ve been given to respond within,” one professor told the Herald.
“They feel that this is going to greatly diminish the student experience and the value that they get out of post-graduate education.
“It’d also greatly diminish our capability to be competitive globally at high-level research, which would have flow-on effects for student recruitment, and our ranking in the world.”
Another top academic said: “There is real concern about this, and a level of anger across the institution that I have never seen here before.”
Flyers have already appeared around the university, calling on students to send in their feedback.
Tertiary Education Union organiser Nicole Wallace said the union had been made aware “of a proposal that, if implemented, will result in reduced course offerings across the university for students in the near future”.
“We have serious concerns about the changes taking place with no consultation. Our members are angry, both with the proposal and the process,” Wallace said.
“We think the proposed changes are unnecessary given the university is in a good financial position, and they undermine their commitment to quality public education.””
These objections are colonialist, racist and hurtful. You will be investigated. [This is how the steamroller keeps rolling, of course].
First the steamroller, next the wood chipper
This is incredible. Really, a dismantling of competence and rigor by some very mediocre minds who unfortunately seem to have a lot of power. What a travesty and I hope sanity is restored.
A similar proposal is underway at my university in Australia – a single curricular structure imposed across the entire university, fewer choices for students, professors made redundant and replaced with junior teaching-focused staff. All being pushed through without proper consultation with students, staff or external partners. It seems like Vice Chancellors talk to each other and share the same bad ideas.
Which uni, if you don’t mind me asking?
La Trobe University. I just forwarded your link to the NZ Herald article to the union reps here. We’re fighting against these insane changes.
Good luck to you.
The ‘science’ policy is part of a wider context which is getting significant pushback: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/20/new-zealand-1news-verian-poll-racial-tension
Mark..
we are all just fedup with the racist ‘special treatment’ and millions$$ being thrown at the Whingers. The schools promote/teach the ‘victim’ mentality and white apologists abound……We just want to get on with our lives now as it’s just too hard to care any longer….and each Govt we vote in ends up being spineless jackasses. Promises mean nothing!.
New Zealand is now a ‘soft’ theocracy. By ‘soft’ i mean that, in contrast to Iran and Saudi Arabia, one is not at risk of beheading if one dares to criticise the doctrine of matauranga; one is simply publicly denounced as ‘racist’, and if one is in employment, one’s career is at risk. Forget about promotion!
No need to use the term ‘blasphemy’ – ‘racist’ is far more effective, while concealing the quasi-religious reality.
And not just a “racist fuck” either: “jerrycoynedefendsepsteinpedos” suggests something potentially worse. The ad hominem argument is certainly the last refuge of the intellectually destitute. I’d be surprised if NZ doesn’t have laws about hate speech, and the suggestion that concerned parties should kill themselves probably contravenes them.
Maybe as a compromise, Indigenous Ways of Knowledge can be better placed with the Arts faculty, much like social sciences and feminist studies?
This is typical of how things are furthered these days, false equivalancies, suppression of dissenting ideas and resorting to a questionnaire.
Scientific method anyone?
An example of the same nonsense unfolding in Canada popped into my inbox this morning: a conference in Victoria about indigenizing education, with the attendance — ominously — of a 40-strong delegation from New Zealand: https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/indigenizing-education-focus-delegates-camosuns-stenistolw-conference?utm_source=CapitalDaily&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=aug-21-camosun-hosts-international-indigenous-education-conference&_bhlid=83ab9ac215af83937d24f472194b451ceff3d4e7
Their aim is, quite nakedly, “the Indigenization of public higher education institutions around the world”.
That “Kiwi” who posted you the abusive message sounds like someone over at Pharyngula…