The newish government of New Zealand is finally seeing the light, and has mandated that every one of the country’s eight universities (all government funded) must at some point adopt a policy of freedom of speech and institutional neutrality (the latter resembles Chicago’s Kalven Report).
The University of Auckland, the country’s flagship university and its best and most important one, issued a public announcement after adopting this policy, which happened this month via the University’s council. The PR announcement is here, and reads like this:
Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland has formally adopted its Freedom of Expression Statement, following approval by the University Council at its meeting on 10 December.
The statement outlines the University’s commitment to protecting and promoting freedom of expression and academic freedom, and reaffirms its role as a critic and conscience of society. It sets expectations for lawful, constructive and civil debate across the University and outlines the principle of institutional neutrality, which helps create an environment where conversations can freely take place.
Vice-Chancellor Professor Dawn Freshwater says the statement reflects extensive engagement and consultation with the University community.
“Freedom of expression and academic freedom are foundational to our role as a university. This statement provides clarity about our responsibilities and expectations as a community, and reaffirms our commitment to fostering an environment where diverse viewpoints can be expressed lawfully and constructively.”
The statement’s development involved an extended period of careful discussion and refinement through both a Senate working group and the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group.
Professor Cathy Stinear, Pro Vice-Chancellor Equity and a member of the Advisory Group, says the work was challenging but rewarding for those involved.
“I’m particularly proud of the way we respectfully debated the issues and carefully balanced the tensions between free expression and caring for the diverse communities that make up our University.”
istinguished Professor Sir Peter Hunter, who chaired the Senate working group and led the development of the statement with support from Professor Nikki Harré and the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group on Freedom of Expression, says the process was shaped by robust feedback.
“In my view, the process of finding common ground between many different points of view has been as important as the statement itself. Universities must demonstrate the ability to freely debate contentious issues.
“I would like to thank the members of the groups involved and the near unanimous endorsement from Senate.”
I’ve also obtained a copy of the Senate’s minutes that resulted in this outcome, and here’s a brief excerpt:
The majority of Senate voted in favour of the motion with only a few votes against and abstentions recorded.
The motion was declared carried.
Professor Hunter expressed appreciation for the extensive work undertaken by the Working and Advisory Groups and all contributors throughout the consultation process. He observed that the process had demonstrated the value of constructive debate and the willingness of participants to listen and adapt their views. He acknowledged all involved in the process and specifically Professors Stinear and Clements and encouraged commitment to ongoing dialogue and improvement.
The Vice-Chancellor concluded by encouraging Senate to continue fostering an environment in which open and respectful debate could take place and the voice of academic excellence could be heard. She recommended that Senate would continue to provide leadership in this regard.
Note that Sir Peter Hunter, the head of the working group, thanks not only Professor Cathy Stinear for help, but also Kendall Clements, one of the demonized signers of the infamous “Listener Letter” arguing why indigenous “ways of knowing” are not the same as modern science. I find it interesting and heartening that all three of these people are in STEM: Hunter is a bioengineer, Stinear a neuroscientist, and Clements is an evolutionary biologist and ichthyologist. And note that there was very little dissent about passing this. I suspect, though I don’t know, that the administration of Auckland Uni had put this on the back burner for years. I find it ironic as well that the Vice-Chancellor, Dawn Dishwater, now says she’s in favor of this policy when for years she has put roadblocks on freedom of speech. (Remember when she promised an open discussion of indigenous versus modern science and then it never took place?)
This intimidation is especially notable in New Zealand’s universities. The hope of those who pushed this policy is that the University of Auckland will be a model for the country’s other schools. But the policies outlined above will face stiff opposition—opposition from an entrnched academic and ideological culture based on identity politics. Fingers crossed! At least it looks like a step forward.
Well this is encouraging news – glad to hear it.
This is good news. We’ll see over time how the statement plays out in practice.
The actual big picture is this :
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about-us/about-the-university/equity-at-the-university/university-demographic-data.html
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/national-ethnic-population-projections-2023base-2048/
Currently over half of Auckland University students, and over one third of the staff, identify with Asian ethnicities. This is despite the crackpot attempted ‘Maorification’ of the university education system. ( For instance, where is the scientific evidence that slapping on maori names beside English language ones for university names will improve Maori university student grades. Personally, I would be happier if UoA had a CHINESE ideographic co-title, eg ‘Big University of the Southernmost Vassal State of the Middle Kingdom Zhongguo.’ This, at least, would be true.)
The most recent national statistics data project that the number of Asians in NZ by 2048 will exceed the total numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders.
The absurdity in the just made non-compulsory UoA first year courses of Maori cultural propaganda is that this mainly comprised of maori staff/white fellow ideologues hectoring Asian students about how Maori suffered under colonialism. Of course, Indians had English, Portuguese, and before that Arab/Timurid colonialism for many more years.
The risk is that ‘institutional neutrality’ will be used in bad faith, to stop what should be Asian cultural influence in the university system, in keeping with Asian numbers and cultural expectations.
Ramesh 49% Chinese 49% Indian 2% Denisovan
It is to be hoped that affinity groups/cultural courses will soon be concocted for the Indian, Chinese, and Denisovan identity communities. In the meantime, Greetings to Ramesh from the Neanderthalensis community, to which a part of my genome belongs, reported a few years ago at: https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2022/guest-post-a-community-is-born/
Good to see you commenting again Ramesh, our (REMUERA!) friend. 🙂
When I lived there as a kid (70s/80s) “biculturalism” was the Thing. Maybe partly to distinguish themselves from the “Multicultural” Aussies next door. The 2 countries have diff immigration patterns.
The ppn of anything other than British Isles, Maori and Pacific Island groups was pretty slim. Not like Australia at all.
That being the “frame” … esp this century with new admixture, the neglect of other categories, like yourself Ramesh, has been of legitimate annoyance of groups not in those 3.
best regards,
D.A.
NYC
*formerly of Remuera!
“… a crack were the light gets in”
Look — it is a step in the right direction for sure, and maybe the (only mid-left rather than Maoist struggle session style) new NZ gvt there is a partial influence, but I’ll hold off buying the champaign until I see less (possibly) cosmetic changes.
I bet lots of kiwi academics read WEIT and even the comments. WEIT is one of the few institutions calling attention to all this. Like in world maps little NZ gets ignored too much.
D.A.
NYC
From the press release
Mmhmm…. Note the infantilization here.
From the Statement,
I interpret this as saying that the University will take public positions on matauranga maori because this ideological view is central to the University’s mission and legal obligation to foster it. (Much as Canadian universities have adopted DEI and indigenization as central to their missions.)
The most they are saying is that they will not cancel or suppress dissident voices against matauranga maori. They are serving notice, though, that such opposition would be swimming against the tide of what the university is all about, “who we are”.
Leslie MacMillan partially quotes our university statement as follows:
“equity and University obligations related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
The full sentence is important here:
“equity and university obligations related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as laid out in the Education and Training Act 2020.”
It is important to note the additional context of the Education and Training Act 2020, which imposes some legal obligations on universities. I think Leslie goes beyond these legal obligations in saying:
“I interpret this as saying that the University will take public positions on mātauranga Māori because this ideological view is central to the University’s mission and legal obligation to foster it.”
The university is obliged to uphold the provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020, but is not obliged to go beyond that.
Leslie et al, this is just to endorse my friend and fellow demon Kendall on this point. The ToW clause is carefully worded, after a good deal of back and forth, to restrict UoA’s responsibilities to those legally required under the Education and Training Act, which is itself undergoing positive change. It doesn’t entitle the university to take positions that go beyond our legal obligations.
Of course, ideological pressure and self-censorship won’t disappear because of this, but it’s a big step forward and a policy my fellow dissident classical liberals can point to. I’m hopeful.
I truncated the quotation just to save space. I think “obligations” captures the idea of imposed obligations. The original is there for all to read.
I accept that the university is obliged to uphold the 2020 legal provisions re maturanga maori and is not “obliged” or “entitled” to go beyond those. But my question is, does the statement of neutrality prohibit it from doing so, the way the U of Chicago’s Kalven Principle does?
If the government spells out what obeisance you must make to maturangi maori under its interpretation of the ToW, then you are severely constrained. But if your legal obligations are already explicitly spelled out, why do you need to write them into a university neutrality statement? Does the law say, respecting maturangi maori, you must do “at least” XYZ, “exactly” XYZ, or “not more than” XYZ. If the law says you must not exceed the legal obligations under ToW, then OK, you won’t. But if the law says you must do “at least” XYZ, how does the neutrality statement prevent the university from being more energetic than the mere law requires, by adopting maturangi maori as part of its core mission and institutionally promoting it wherever it can?
With a lot of work you’ve accomplished something important, I grant that. There’s probably no answer to my questions yet. I just submit it’s something you could be watching for. If administration really believes in MM they and their activist pressure groups will be pushing it every chance they get, interpreting every concession to MM as being required under law and therefore not contravening the Statement. That’s what I’d do.
I notice in the UoA statement there is a comma after ‘equity’. The question is how much overlap there is in the Venn diagram of the set ‘equity’ and the set ‘affirmative action’. ‘Institutional neutrality’ would seem to be, prima facie, at some distance to equity when the means to achieve ‘equity’ is overt and covert discrimination by means of university admissions policies. This institutional non-neutrality is overwhelmingly based on ethnic affinities for ‘affirmative action’, with token figleafs of tiny numbers in the ‘refugee’ and ‘disabled’ categories for highly-competitive restricted entry courses. Institutional neutrality seems certainly present when the nearly 60 : 40 ratio of female to male students is not recognised as an equity problem that needs to be addressed.
“Canadian universities have adopted DEI and indigenization as central to their missions.”
Or as their only mission. At a public meeting earlier this year, an arts professor at my cozy university said in front of her colleagues, “I don’t like the phrase ‘academic mission’ [the discovery, dissemination, and curation of knowledge].” She also admitted, “I don’t really think of myself as a teacher.” I ’bout sprained an eyeball.
I only stop at free speech if it’s intentionally inciting violence, property damage/destruction or obstruction of others doing their business, even if you’re protesting at what they’re doing, if they’re breaking no law, you can’t stop them.
There was a protest I walked through years ago, can’t remember for what, I only remember they made it impossible to get to my bus after a full night shift. I was angry at them for that!
“I find it ironic as well that the Vice-Chancellor, Dawn Dishwater, now says she’s in favor of this policy when for years she has put roadblocks on freedom of speech. (Remember when she promised an open discussion of indigenous versus modern science and then it never took place?)”
In fact it seems that she resigned back in June, with effect from “early 2026”. I wonder if the adoption of this measure might have had something to do with it …
https://www.craccum.co.nz/breaking-news-vc-dawn-freshwater-resigns/