Structural Racism in New Zealand Science?

In our previous post, we noted that racism has become the issue of our day. In fact, claims of racism are ubiquitous. One phrase that I keep hearing is structural racism or systemic racism. This is racism within the structure of our societies. Apparently it’s a thing here in New Zealand too. I came across a classic case on the Herald website recently. The headline was ‘Structural racism’: Woeful Maori, Pasifika representation in NZ science.

The lead paragraph outlines the fact that Maori and Pasifika students are under-represented at the country’s universities and Crown Research Institutes. According to some, this highlights structural racism in New Zealand science.

Dangerous and Simplistic Assumption

Now to me, it is not immediately clear that this disparity is necessarily a result of racism. I for one do not look at NBA basketball league and think to myself there is structural racism that is resulting in Asian Americans being ‘severely under-represented’ in the NBA. I guess it’s possible, but it seems to me that we shouldn’t first assume racism without any evidence for that fact. Perhaps there are other reasons for this disparity other than race. Nor do I look at the number of females involved in working on oil rigs and assume that there is some kind of sexism involved that prevents them from working in this environment. Disparities do not necessarily indicate nefarious discrimination or a system that has some kind of explicit or even implicit bias against a particular group. To assume that they do is lazy research.

Thomas Sowell

To assume structural racism is the reason for underrepresentation of Maori and Pasifika scientists is an example of what Thomas Sowell describes as the “invincible fallacy” in his book Discrimination and Disparities. It’s an invincible fallacy because academics and others find it convenient to believe and therefore will not look for evidence that might disprove their theories of racism. In the end, for these kinds of academics, the disparity is the evidence of racism. There is no need to look further. They simply assume the problem lies where the data is collected.

The Treaty of Waitangi

The Treaty of Waitangi

Further to this, Dr Tara McAllister, the lead researcher in this study also argues that universities and CRIs are not meeting their obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. At this point, I can only suggest that Dr McAllister is dishonest, or she is not overly familiar with the Treaty of Waitangi. Which obligations are universities and CRIs not meeting? Article one of the Treaty speaks of chiefs ceding sovereignty to the Queen of England. Article 2 guarantees Maori the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties so long as they wish to retain possession. Article 3 imparts to all Maori the rights and privileges of British subjects. As such, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the treaty speaks to this issue at all. This is part of an extremely disturbing trend I have noticed in which people with an axe to grind try to use the Treaty as a weapon to enact societal change.

Why might these disparities exist?

An important question we might like to ask is, “Should we expect to see equal numbers of different ethnicities in all lines of work?” The simple answer is no. Let me outline three reasons these disparities might exist other than racism.

1. Different Groups and Different Cultures have different values

It should come as no surprise to thinking people that different cultures have different systems of values. Since this is the case, we should expect to see this work itself out in the life choices people make.

Let me give you an example that is not so much to do with race. Conservative Christians believe that the role of wife and mother is extremely important, and thus, you will find higher incidences of home makers amongst this group of women than among say secular women who tend to place a high degree of value on career.

Now let’s move to an example to do with ethnicity. Let’s consider what might be thought of as a positive case of over representation of Pasifika people: the All Blacks. Now clearly Pacific Island men are over-represented in the All Blacks. And at the same time, take Asian men. We could say they are conspicuously under-represented in the team. Is this a result of racism against Asian men? Or is it perhaps a difference in culture? Just travel around Auckland on Saturday and look at the children playing sports like rugby or rugby league. Or perhaps ask a tutoring service what their statistics are for ethnicities or a teacher on the ethnicities of parents who are regularly asking for more homework for their children. This will paint a picture. What’s valuable to one culture is less significant to another.

And to expect different cultures, with their differing value systems to produce outcomes that are similar is wildly naïve. Why would you expect Asian men to be represented at their percentage in the population of New Zealand in the All Blacks?

As a student, I attended a large South Auckland high school. The difference in approach from various cultural groups was obvious. Many of the Pasifika and Maori students attended a multi-day Pasifika festival that often took them out of classes for dance practices, not to mention rehearsals after school or in lunch times. Obviously I am not denigrating this, I am just pointing out that this was a priority for a particular cultural group. It was not a priority of students from other cultures. Will these priorities play out in areas of strength and weakness? Without doubt.

2. Under-representation is the Flip Side of Overrepresentation

Here I make an assumption that we are all happy to see Pacific Island men overrepresented at the highest level of rugby. This is something to be celebrated. However, if we logically think about that, that necessitates them being underrepresented in another area. Even someone who has no strong background in maths should be able to see this.

Now it seems absurd to me to expect Pacific Island men to be over-represented only in things we celebrate and under-represented in things we don’t celebrate. Because if that were the case, another ethnic group would have to be under-represented in something we celebrate and over represented in something we don’t. And we’d be left with exactly the same problem.

3. Disparities are a result of freedom and choice

Disparities exist because people make choices. Individuals are all blessed by God with their own unique personalities, and abilities. In addition to this, individuals all choose to use their time differently. This is part of what it means to be human and made in God’s image. God has made us able to make choices to a far greater degree than any of the rest of his creation. The choices we make are real, and have real consequences.

As we pointed out earlier, different values lead to different choices. Even Dr McAllister’s research points to this. She notes that universities do have diversity and equity programmes in place, but they aren’t having much effect. According to Dr McAllister, “these policies haven’t resulted in any real increases in the total percentage of Māori and Pasifika academics.” It sounds like the universities are willing to have a diverse workforce in science, but in spite of this, there has not really been an increase in Maori and Pasifika representation in science. Why? Because people make choices. Nevertheless, Dr McAllister lays the blame at the feet of our universities and Crown Research Institutes, saying that there is “quantitative evidence that universities and CRIs in New Zealand are failing to build a sustainable Maori and Pacific scientific workforce.”

She seems to me to have the cart before the horse. As we have seen, it seems they are trying to be welcoming and diverse. But really, is it the job of universities and Crown Research Institutes to discriminate to ensure Maori and Pacific are represented at levels consistent with their proportion of the population if that is not something they seem to be choosing? Would we expect the NBA to ensure that Asian Americans are drafted into the league at the same rate as their proportion of the population?

Can we ever remove disparities?

If we are to remove disparities, we must have a state that ultimately controls everyone and everything to set up the ‘perfect utopia’ of each group being accurately represented in every area of life. And that means all disciplines, not just the lucrative and desirable ones. However, this would fail to be a utopia, because we would have to remove choice from the mix and determine everybody’s choices and outcomes for them to ensure equity in all fields. Sounds like a dystopian hell to me!

The Blind Who Claim to See

Racism has become the number one issue of our times. It’s seen everywhere. But for all that, it’s often those who seem most sensitive to racism, that are most ignorant of it in themselves. It’s the blind who claim to see. Here’s a classic case.

In the Dominion Posts’ editorial from August 16, Judith Collin’s “It’s ok to be white” comment is described as a dog whistle. In other words, it’s a coded phrase that is designed to attract racists to her side while not attracting much attention from ordinary people. Naturally, the unbiased Dominion Post sees these racists as coming from ACT and other minor parties of the right. Racists only come from that side of the political spectrum you see.

Hilariously, they then obliviously continued their moral posturing without noticing the irony. “These are attitudes that should have stayed in the past. Compared with the new leadership, the younger, browner duo of Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett looked much more like New Zealand in the 21st century.”

So racism should have stayed in the past, but it seems it remains in the present. It’s the old chestnut. I’m not a racist, “but“. In this case, it is, I’m not a racist, but I’d prefer our politicians to be younger and browner than old and white.

Now before I get attacked as a closet racist or some such nonsense, I actually liked Simon Bridges and thought he was doing a reasonable job as opposition leader. But for me, the colour of someone’s skin is irrelevant to whether they can do the job well or not. When media is so focussed on skin colour and ‘diversity’ in political parties, I worry. What an absolutely trivial thing to focus on.

Furthermore, as a father of young lighter-skinned New Zealanders, I do not like the implications that they aren’t the ‘look’ of 21st century New Zealand. They have just as much right to be a part of the future look of New Zealand as New Zealand kids of other hues. I hope they will be judged not on their skin tone, but on their character and competence.

Conservative Parents, Liberal Teachers

As a conservative Christian parent, I’ve always known that schools, in general, are not places that will support me as I attempt to impart my values and worldview to my children. Teaching tends to attract liberals and leftists who understand the power of moulding the minds of the next generation. This is why we as a family have chosen to homeschool our children. We believe this to be our job and we don’t want someone whose values are an antithesis to ours having anything to do with shaping our children.

Nevertheless, as a teacher, I do keep an eye on things educational, and I have friends who have children in a variety of different schools. I love to hear stories of what goes on. It is very interesting to see the double standards. The slightest whiff of conservative bias in a school and all hell breaks loose. But liberal bias is the norm and is ignored. Let me give you a few examples.

The Marijuana Debate

Recently, St Paul’s College, A Catholic school in Ponsonby Auckland had the message ‘To legalise is to normalise – Say No’ displayed on its electronic school sign. The sign referred to the upcoming referendum on liberalising cannabis law.

There were a number of complaints regarding this sign, as in New Zealand, people working in State services are required to act in the course of their duties in a politically neutral manner. This sign, according to some, contravenes this.

Questioning BLM out of School

Another particularly egregious example of the hounding of conservatives involved a teacher friend of mine who happened to wear a famous red hat to a BLM protest in order to provoke discussion about the Marixst origins of the movement. Despite doing this in his own time, his private details including where he worked were posted online, his school came under attack, complaints were made to the teacher’s council asking for his registration to be revoked, and on top of this he received death threats and threats that his wife would be raped.

Promoting BLM in School

What I find interesting is that this incident which occurred outside of school has lead to complaints, but far more insidious political bias is shown in schools day to day. For instance, one of my friend’s children, unbeknownst to him participated in a Black Lives Matter march around the school during school hours. Apparently this was ‘organised by the students‘. This was in a primary school (Years 0-6). Now let me assure you, dear reader, that having taught Year 5 & 6 students, I find it unlikely in the extreme that they would organise something like this unless they were prompted and supported in doing it.

In addition, this same state school, on its public Facebook page, posted A Parent’s Guide to Black Lives Matter, which contained sections such as How do I explain White Privilege? and The danger of saying “My child isn’t racist”. The booklet suggests further resources for parents to investigate. Let’s just say the list is hardly apolitical.

To give you an idea of the quality of the resources, let me highlight two. Parents were encouraged to get hold of Innosanto Nagara’s: A is for Activist, for age 1 and up. It’s an ABC book packed with definitions and eye-catching pictures that help children engage in and understand activism. Seriously! Activism for children age 1 up. How about education before we get to activism. Or for those with older kids, Reni Eddo-Lodge’s Why I’m no longer talking to White people about race is another recommendation. Doesn’t that sound like a wonderful book to help unite people!

So how did this go down in the media? What’s that sound you hear? Yes. Crickets.

The Reality

The reality out there in our public schools is that teachers are not unbiased. Teacher training was eye-opening in this regard. Teachers in NZ, are drawn mostly from the left side of the political spectrum. Many who go into teaching intend to push certain social agendas. I can recall teachers who wanted to ensure their students were forced to read more literature showing different kinds of family structures to counter the heteronormative ‘bias’. One teacher I know when being trained on sexuality education asked, “What if you think that it is the parents job to teach this sort of thing?” The reply of the lecturer? “Don’t be a teacher.”

Other parents have told me of their child’s teacher promoting veganism ‘for the good of the environment’, and telling their students why a particular left-wing party is the one they support.

A Call to Action

So do we just take this? Is this just the way it is? Should we give up and move on. No! Here are three things conservative parents should be doing.

1. Choose an option that fits with your family values

Conservative parents, realise that many schools are not places which support your life philosophy. Recognise that many teachers are hostile to your viewpoint and would consider you a bigot.

Recently I have heard some really tragic stories of grown children turning against parents. In one case, a father posted “all lives matter” on his Facebook profile only to be savagely attacked by his children’s friends as a bigot. Worst of all his children berated him publicly. These children have grown up and imbibed the liberal ethos of the day through the slow but steady brainwashing of school. The parents have not passed on their values to the next generation; someone else has.

If you have the opportunity and financial wherewithal, I certainly recommend looking at independent or special character schooling. Find a school that shares your values. Talk to the principal. Ask to meet a few teachers and see if you can chat with some parents who have children at the school. Perhaps consider homeschooling. While this is a financial sacrifice, it ensures that you are the ones who pass your values on to your children. If you can’t afford either of these options, get involved in the school as much as you can. Perhaps try to get elected to the board. Be seen and known.

2. Complain when your values are denigrated

What I have noticed is that conservatives tend to be less concerned with their values being threatened than more liberal folk. This is why there were complaints about a Catholic school promoting a ‘no’ vote for the cannabis referendum, but not a dicky bird regarding schools supporting the BLM protests.

Conservatives, you are tax-payers too. Your hard-earned money is spent lavishly on education. Your children are forced to attend these monopolistic schools unless you pay twice – once for the public schools in your taxes, and twice for the school of your choice. If you are paying for state schooling, then you have every right to complain about bias and brainwashing that goes against your family values. Do it! At the slightest whiff of political bias, arrange a meeting with the principal and lay a complaint.

If you get push-back, point your principal in this direction. State servants are meant to be politically neutral:

Persons working in the State services (State servants) are required to act in the course of their duties in a politically neutral manner.  This includes the requirement to act impartially and to implement the Government’s policies.

3. Push for true school choice

As I have suggested previously, it is parents who are responsible for the education of their children. As a Christian, I would go so far as to say, the government has no right to determine the education of children. They have stepped outside their God-given role when they dabble in education.

Unfortunately we live in times when the state has become the idol of the people, and people look to their god for everything, including education.

While we cannot help living in these times, we can push against the prevailing and faulty view of government. Vote for parties that push for school choice and options such as charter schools. Vote for parties that want to abolish zoning which has the tragic effect of forcing children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to attend schools that are often performing poorly. Vote for parties that want to increase diversity of educational options for parents. Vote for parties that want education to be less centralized and more influenced by parents. Talk to other parents and sell the benefits of independent education. Get together other concerned parents and write to your MP or ask to meet with him or her.

You as a parent need to be able to ensure that your values are the ones that teachers are passing on to your children. Why should you have to pay for an education that runs counter to what you hold dear? Why should a conservative family have to pay tax for a school run by social liberals who are doing their best to undermine the values that your family has? They are our children. We brought them into the world, it’s up to us to train them and send them out into it.

The Endgame

So what’s the endgame? If we could get to the stage where the government backed right out of school education and left it up to parents to choose how their children were educated, that would be wonderful. Our taxes would be reduced significantly, education would be more efficient and no doubt cheaper, and we would have the freedom to choose an education that suits our children and families.

Rationality and Belief

If the intellectual climate is such that, when a man comes to the crisis at which he must accept or reject Christ, his reason and imagination are not on the wrong side, then his conflict will be fought out under favourable conditions. Those who help to produce and spread such a climate are therefore doing useful work.

C.S. Lewis

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

Austin Farrer

Blasphemy and the New god Tolerance

Cancel culture. Outrage. Twitter mob. Disinvited. Doxing. This is the world we now live in. One false move and you could be history. The mob could be unleashed and your family and workplace targeted. So what do you do? You shut up and make sure to the best of your ability you don’t say certain things out loud, or at least not outside of certain ‘safe’ acquaintances.

Image by Robin Higgins from Pixabay 

Blasphemy is not a common word these days. But amongst religious people, some knowledge of the concept still exists. When I was growing up, I was taught never to say, “Oh my God!” as an exclamation, and “Jesus Christ!” would have certainly been frowned upon. Not so much today.

What you can or can’t say tells you a lot about the faith of a people. Refusal to say God’s name in an irreverent manner, or to use Jesus as a swear word, indicates an acknowledgement of the worth and value of God and his Son Christ. It is to acknowledge that God exists and that He is special and deserving of reverence and awe. Further, it is an acknowledgement that God rules through his Son Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, and that that Son will judge every human being for every idle word they have spoken.

Despite the word blasphemy having fallen from common use, we still have the concept in our modern world. We now use the term ‘hate speech’. This is speech that offends our modern sensibilities. What counts as blasphemy indicates the object of a society’s worship. Yes, modern though we be, our society still worships. So what do the new blasphemies tell us? They tell us we have replaced the Lord of all with a new false god whose name is Tolerance.

And the strange thing about this new god is that unlike the LORD God, Tolerance’s rules are endless and onerous. One thing we can no longer safely say is “men aren’t women“! This is modern blasphemy. Thou shalt not deny that gender is a social construct, for Tolerance thy god shall not hold him/her/zir/xer guiltless who denies this.

But Tolerance is a difficult god to serve. One can know where one stands with the LORD God. He at least is the same yesterday, today and forever. Tolerance, on the other hand, is fickle. Fifteen years ago, it was permissible, and even redundant to state ‘men aren’t women’. Today it is evil. And unfortunately for his/her/zirs/xyrs servants, Tolerance’s changes in morality are retroactively applied. Woe betide any servant of Tolerance whose past behaviour, despite being morally acceptable at the time, is found in the future to be sinful. They shall never enter his/her/zirs/xyrs rest. One cannot go to Tolerance’s throne of grace and apply for mercy because there is no throne of grace, only judgment in our time of need.

It’s a strange thing that our god Tolerance is not very patient with our failures. In fact, he/she/xe/ze seems rather intolerant.