Grinding poverty can certainly come about through natural disasters – famines and so on – but the thing we really need to be on guard against is organized and coercive poverty, by which I mean socialism. Socialism is the drive to control the free choices of other people, especially in the future, in order to prevent them from doing things that seem stupid to the self-appointed organizers, but which will lead to staggering wealth, or so the organizers say, three generations from now.
Douglas Wilson – Ploductivity
Preventing an Educational Train Wreck
We’ve all heard the definition of insanity: doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. That’s where we are at with education in New Zealand right now. The latest TIMSS (Trends In International Mathematics And Science Study) results are in, and once again, Kiwi kids are tracking downwards.
Look at the list of countries and read them to yourself. Look at where NZ sits in this list for fourth graders. We are fortieth behind countries like Kazakhstan, Croatia, Serbia, Armenia and Albania. So enough with the “NZ has the best education system in the world” nonsense. We don’t. Our children are being deprived of a decent education because of the hubris and stupidity of successive governments, our ideologically driven and self-interested teacher unions, and a much-vaunted but vacuous national curriculum.
What do you do with this impending train-wreck? For a start, you stop listening to the ‘experts’ who have been encouraging the driver to speed up! The leftist teacher unions have had a stranglehold on education for years, and what do they have to show for it? Continued and accelerating decline. Few governments have had the balls to stand up to them and do anything truly transformational. And when we see a glimmer of hope like Partnership Schools which were doing so much good for our Pacific and Maori students, they fight tooth and nail to shut them down.
A year or so back, I became acquainted with a TIMSS field trial in NZ in a small independent school. The school entered all its Year 10 students into the trial, and I happen to know that this particular cohort was not the most mathematically capable cohort the school had produced. Of great interest to me were the results that came back. The students were split into five small groups which sat slightly different tests. Despite this particular cohort struggling at times with the Mathematics that they were learning in the Cambridge curriculum, they aced these tests. The mean (of 2-3 students) from each of the five different test versions was significantly above the upper quartile (75th percentile) of the NZ wide results.
What is special about this school? Are the fees ridiculously high? No. Do they draw from an affluent neighbourhood? No, in fact they are in South Auckland. Do they have modern technology and all the bells and whistles in all their classes? No, they are very traditional in their approach to education, and some visitors have commented that they have the look of a deprived school. A more charitable observation would be that the facilities are basic but functional. Nevertheless, they have high expectations in terms of academic success and moral character, teachers who teach rather than ‘facilitate’, and a knowledge rich curriculum. The results speak for themselves.
So what needs to happen in education in NZ for improvement to be made? How can we get more schools performing like this little independent school? What is the solution? Here are seven things I think could help our education system.
1. The government needs to level the playing field in education
If I ran a business and paid someone to manage it for me, and if my business continued to lose revenue, I would fire that manager and get someone new to take over. Well, what do we have in our education system? Successive governments have shown that whatever they do in education does not help. Things get worse. So they should move aside. They clearly have no skill in this area. They need to stop running a hopelessly inefficient system of education and encourage more independent schools into the market place. Hence the current government created monopoly needs to be crushed. They can begin to do this by giving a tax break to all families who opt to send their children to independent schools or homeschool. These families are saving the government money and producing better-educated citizens.
Ultimately they need to get out of education altogether and allow a free market. Free up education. Charter schools were a step in the right direction. But we must be more radical. We need a market where parents can choose the school they want their children to attend. A voucher system might help provided there were very few government strings attached and a true diversity of school approaches was allowed. The removal of zoning certainly would help. These innovations would have the benefit of forcing schools to up their game. Most parents are far more invested in their children’s education than anyone else, including paper-pushing education bureaucrats. They know their children and their needs and are more than capable of selecting a school that suits their child. Schools that are not meeting the needs of children will not have many students. How sad. Maybe they will have to provide a service parents actually want. It’s called the real world. Teachers and schools do not deserve charity. They actually need to provide a worthwhile service. In a free market, schools will be forced to truly care about the education of children or they will cease to exist.
2. Ignore the teacher unions and break their power
Secondly, the government will also need to stand up to the self-interested teacher unions. They care nothing about decent education. Any true reforms that have been likely to lead to educational improvements for our poorest children they have opposed – charter schools being the case in point. They have no moral legitimacy and should be made to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on!
3. Abolish the Teaching Council and Strip Down Teacher Registration Requirements
Next we need to scrap the leftist Teaching Council; a truly inept and bloated bureaucracy that rips off teachers with a now annual fee of $157 in order to spout leftist propaganda. Quite simply, the Teaching Council is about gate-keeping. Much of their code and standards have little to do with teaching, and more to do with forcing compliance and uniformity of thinking with regards to the Treaty of Waitangi and woke issues du jour. Teacher registration, which they control, has become a joke. It supposedly protects children against incompetent and unprofessional teachers. Clearly, to anyone who reads the news, this is not the case. The truth of the matter is registration has become a political system of ensuring leftist domination of education.
With the Teaching Council removed, we would be able to reduce registration requirements to attract a more diverse range of competent people into the teaching workforce. A simpler system of registration would ensure teachers are police vetted, can pass certain cognitive tests and have satisfactory general knowledge and teaching competency. Of course, this would have the downside (or should we say upside) of weeding out a significant proportion of the current teaching population.
I am only half-joking in that last sentence. When I completed my primary teacher training some years ago I was shocked by the ability of some of the prospective teachers. One aspect of the course required us to pass an Intermediate Maths test. Many of the prospective (and I will add here women, because that is the truth) teachers struggled with this and a couple of the young men helped tutor these women in preparation for the test. Not ideal to have these sorts teaching our precious children!
4. Allow Principals to Determine Pay
This is controversial but necessary. It’s not hard to determine a good teacher from a mediocre one. Principals are educational leaders and if they can’t tell the difference, they shouldn’t be in positions of leadership. More flexibility in pay scales and an ability to pay better teachers more as a reward for their expertise will help encourage the right type of hard-working and driven people into the profession. Some say this will destroy collegiality. Nonsense. I’ve worked in business environments where some sales people earned a lot more than others. But they were always willing to advise newer or less able workmates on how they could improve.
5. Scrap the New Zealand Curriculum and NCEA as Requirements
The New Zealand Curriculum is a truly vacuous document. It gives teachers very little assistance regarding what children actually need to know. Briar Lipson has written extensively on this. New Zealand would be far better off introducing a truly International Curriculum like CAIE (Cambridge) with its external benchmarks. In the meantime, it should no longer be compulsory for New Zealand schools to use the New Zealand curriculum or to offer NCEA.
6. Introduce externally measured benchmarks
Related to the previous point is the need for externally measured benchmarks. Parents need snapshots of where their children are at. The teacher unions, of course, hated National Standards, and they would hate externally assessed benchmarks even more. These would leave little wriggle room for fudging the results, which schools did with National Standards. They have the added benefit of parents being able to determine which schools are performing well and provide an environment conducive to academic success. CAIE of course offers external examinations that are a true test of a student’s capabilities. The content of examinations is a tightly kept secret, and the only way teachers can prepare their students is by ensuring they have covered the extensive syllabus requirements.
7. Stop Seeing Schools as the Fix-Alls of Society
An unfortunate trend I have seen in education is that schools have been viewed as a panacea for all social ills. If there is a problem, schools need to deal with it. This in my opinion is also an unfortunate result of the femininisation of education.
Teaching has become feminised and more focused on caring and less on academic rigour. We need a more masculine and results orientated approach. We need to get back to the concept that schools exist to provide an academic education. They do not exist to give hugs, provide lunches, and ensure every child gets a certificate. We need to get back to the main thing being the main thing. Providing incentives to encourage more men back into primary teaching could help.
So there are my 7 tips for improving education in New Zealand. However, I’m not holding my breath with this government!
Monopoly Education is Poor Education
In New Zealand, the Ministry of Truth Education may be looking at introducing or amending 135 school enrolment zones in Auckland. The plan is designed to save the Ministry millions of dollars by forcing parents to send their children to undersubscribed schools rather than oversubscribed ones which would require expensive expansion projects to keep up with demand. Having more enrolment zones gives the MOE more ability to manage this demand.
Obviously this is going to rub many parents up the wrong way. There is a reason parents try at all costs to avoid a local school and instead elect to send their child to a school further away. Why would parents make their lives more difficult? Quite simply, parents are closer to understanding their child’s needs, and have more skin in the game than faceless bureaucrats drawing lines on a map. Perhaps it would be better to consider why some schools are unpopular and why others are full. Perhaps instead of continuing to restrict choice we could increase choice and make schools more responsible for attracting students to their area by providing a service that parents actually want. Maybe, just maybe, leaders in unpopular schools could consider what it is that makes them unpopular and figure out how to turn the ship around.
Monopolies do not tend to provide excellent customer service, and we have a near-monopoly situation with education in New Zealand. Being in education, I am aware of independent schools in areas of Auckland that offer a basic no-frills education. These schools charge fees and still are bursting at the seams. You have to ask yourself why. Seriously. If these schools can attract people away from free schools charging thousands of dollars per year while simultaneously offering no optional extras – just a basic traditional education – how bad must the local schools be?
Could it be possible that most parents might know more about what good education looks like than the MOE and government bureaucracy? Yes. Would we be better off if the government retreated from its overly controlling approach to all things education and allowed parents more choice? Without a doubt. Would more choice lead to healthy competition? Certainly. Would educational standards rise? Of course. Would the unions and many teachers complain? Naturally, why would the turkey vote for Christmas? Should we do it anyway? Imagine the fun! Will this government do anything that will increase educational outcomes? Can the blind lead the blind?
Journalism at its Finest?
The danger of criticising media on issues of spelling and punctuation is that it is very easy to make these mistakes oneself. And yet sometimes journalistic mistakes demonstrate an unfortunate lack of knowledge that just seems inappropriate for journalists, let alone the Chief of staff of the New Zealand Herald.
Take this article on the investigation into historic sexual abuse at Dilworth school. Not once, but twice in this piece we have one of the alleged perpetrators being described as a past victor of St Luke’s Anglican Church in Manurewa. The word I think she was looking for is vicar!
Is this an indication of the appalling ignorance of Christian faith that has become mainstream? And if our journalists are so ignorant, how can we trust them to understand the issues and report in a fair and balanced way? Maybe I have this wrong, but I would have thought that journalists should be some of the more well rounded and knowledgeable citizens. Furthermore, to be that kind of citizen in New Zealand should mean at the very least, a cursory understanding of the Christian faith and its place in New Zealand.
It should go without saying that I am not here defending (or maintaining the guilt of) the men before the courts. I am merely making a comment on journalistic ignorance.
UPDATE: By 7:00pm, the NZ Herald article had been updated and corrected. No mention of the mistake of course.
The State Is My Shepherd
The state is my shepherd; I shall not want.
She maketh me lie down on the couch: she leadeth me besides the still waters of self-indulgence and irresponsibility
She removeth my soul.
She stealeth my children and leadeth them in the paths of social justice for her name’s sake.
Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy public healthcare system and cradle to grave welfare system they comfort me.
Thou prepareth a table of confiscated goodies before me in the presence of mine enemies who would have kept what belonged to them; my greed and avarice runneth over.
Surely pampering and apathy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of slavery until I die.
Cultural Appropriation is Stupid.
So some poor woman is in trouble for posting about giving her husband a didgeridoo for Father’s Day. Apparently she is guilty of the sin of ‘cultural appropriation’. And indeed, it is not the first time this ‘influencer’ has been found wanting in this area of modern morality, for earlier in the year she was forced to apologise for the awful sin of wearing her hair in two braids. Let’s put aside our opinions on her taste in gifts for a moment and focus on the charge of cultural appropriation.
How can this be cultural appropriation? It’s a glorified stick with a hole through it. What kid has not played with something similar in their childhood? How can any culture own that? And who’s to say that the Australian aborigines did not in the deep dark recesses of time appropriate it from another culture? Furthermore, how can aboriginal culture claim special rights and privileges over this particular stick with a hole in it, when other cultures have more sophisticated sticks with multiple holes in them as part of their cultural heritage. These have the advantage of being more pleasant on the ears and versatile – being tuned and all. The didgeridoo is hardly the pinnacle of woodwind instruments. It’s an extremely limited albeit interesting instrument. There’s a reason you don’t listen to Mozart’s Concerto for the Didgeridoo in D minor, and let’s just say that it’s not only because Mozart didn’t know about them.
As a connoisseur of human folly, I find there is something delightfully ironic about the way these things play out. Often we have a – shall we say ‘person of colour’ bemoaning the fact that some trinket from their culture has been inappropriately used. How do they bemoan this great sin? Usually while they appropriate the world wide web, an invention of a Westerner, using electricity appropriated from Western civilization, living in countries that because of Western culture have spawned freedom of speech and democratic rights for citizens. But of course, that is totally different. Delicious irony!
It’s pure folly. Were all non-Mesopotamian cultures wrong to appropriate the use of the wheel from them? What about non-Chinese cultures and their use of gunpowder and fireworks? Was it wrong for non-Germans to use the printing press and play or manufacture clarinets? Should all non-Americans hang their heads in shame when they use a lightbulb?
The fact is that cultures and civilizations grow stronger by learning from the strengths of each other. That is why cultures that were geographically more remote, were historically more backward. They lacked the opportunity to learn from other cultures. The New Zealand Maori, despite their cleverness in many areas, including warfare and navigation, because of their geographical remoteness were quite primitive when they encountered the British. They had no wheel, nor did they have iron. Naturally they were very keen to appropriate much of the cultural treasure of the British – particularly guns. Had Australian aboriginal culture been in closer geographical proximity to other music making cultures, I think we can safely assume their didgeridoo would have evolved to become a more sophisticated instrument.
If cultural appropriation had never occurred, we would all be living in squalor and absolute poverty. Our lives would be short, our houses and clothes basic, and our time would be spent finding food to survive. So thank goodness for cultural appropriation!
Cultures who shrilly charge others with cultural appropriation are just acting like a bratty three year old kid at a party who refuses to share his toys. Hardly likely to engender respect or love.
Is Institutional Racism in Health Killing Maori?
The Herald article screamed at me: Covid 19 coronavirus: Racism within New Zealand health system – “It’s killing our people”. That’s a pretty serious claim. Racism is killing our people. Let those words sink in for a minute. If that’s true, New Zealanders ought to feel a sense of righteous outrage. Here in New Zealand, it’s claimed that racism in our health system is killing Maori. We’ve seen racism kill people elsewhere. We’ve seen ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and other places. Surely that can’t be happening here? Are people with evil in their hearts deliberately showing favouritism toward some ethnicities in the health system and mistreating others? What’s going on?
Statistics Showing Disparities
1. COVID is racist?
The article commences with a few shocking statistics. For instance, a study in the New Zealand Medical Journal shows that Maori are 50 percent more likely to die from Covid-19 than non-Maori. So are we to conclude that Covid-19 is itself a racist virus? Are we to remonstrate against the virus and ask it to pick up its game and become a more equal opportunities virus? So far, the neutral reader could hardly be convinced of racism. More information please.
2. Cigarettes are racist?
Then we are presented with another recent study that showed that Maori and Pacific people have a greater risk of heart disease due to a higher prevalence of smoking, obesity and heart failure. Again, this is hardly evidence of racism. I have not seen cigarettes sneak out of a packet, glance left toward a Pakeha and then right toward a Maori, and then perniciously make a racist choice to fly toward the Maori face to then forcibly insert itself between unwilling lips. Smoking is a choice, and like other choices, is a result of what individuals value.
3. Obesity is racist?
With regards to obesity, I’m sure we could accept that some ethnicities are more prone to this than others – perhaps genetically, but we can hardly blame this on racism. Racism is treating someone with partiality or mistreating them based on something that is beyond their control, something that is genetic. If we are not responsible for our own skin colour and shouldn’t be mistreated as a result of that, we certainly shouldn’t be accused of racism for the genes someone else receives!
4. Western Approaches to Medicine are racist?
Another study calls for more culturally appropriate care to be made available to Maori men. This seems odd to me. What does it even mean? Are Maori men so different because of their culture that they need an entirely different way of health care being provided? Because I would have assumed that Western medicine has been a boon for most indigenous cultures, Maori included. Surely this is not a request to go back to the kind of cultural health care that was on offer pre-colonisation when life was nasty, brutish and short?
Currently, Maori die seven years earlier than non-Maori. This is disturbing. It’s sad, and we should investigate this. Of course, we want people to live long and healthy lives. But we do not immediately assume sexism is the reason males all around the world have lower life expectancies than women. Why should we assume that racism is the cause of the lower life expectancy of Maori? Furthermore, current Maori life expectancies under the supposedly racist health system which is killing them, compare very favourably with the life-expectancies of Maori pre Europeans when there was no health system and warring tribes were literally killing each other.
Furthermore, let’s not be tempted to hold idealistic and naïve views of the cultural superiority of pre-European Maori health care. Samuel Marsden’s Memoir of Duaterra, a primary record, highlights the unhelpful cultural practice of leaving the sick out in the open air to prevent the defilement of wharepuni. In the particular case mentioned, a sick woman and her child who was about three days old had been left outside with only a few reeds placed in the direction from which the storm of wind and rain blew. She had been left exposed like this all night. As a result of contact with Pakeha, Maori saw the value of Western ways and appropriated them.
Summary
That these disparities exist warrants further study, but to suggest they are indicative of racism is just plain silly. Maori life expectancies pre colonisation were undoubtedly lower than they are now, and the disparities between Maori and Pakeha life expectancy existed then too. In fact, the introduction of our supposedly racist health care system has without a shadow of a doubt actually improved Maori health.
Institutional Racism is the Cause?
So thus far, these statistics prove nothing except differences in outcomes for Maori. But apparently, these disparities are a result of institutional racism. So says the interim CEO of Hapai Te Hauora, Jason Alexander. Apparently institutional racism is deeply embedded in the health system. Alexander points out he is not talking about individual racism. Rather it is institutional racism that is killing Maori. So where is this institutional racism at work?
1. Access Issues
The first major example given is access to healthcare. We are informed that Maori in rural areas don’t have easy access to health systems like people do in cities. But this is not racist. This is just a simple fact of geography. Anyone who lives in a rural area is going to come up against this same difficulty.
But wait, there’s more. Poverty in the city was also cited as an access issue highlighting institutional racism. Again, saying that access issues caused by poverty is racist is arrant nonsense. Any poor person will suffer these same access issues.
So there is our first major example of institutional racism, and it’s absolute bosh.
2. Barriers within healthcare services
The second major example given is that there are barriers within healthcare services. Apparently access to healthcare can make things worse for Maori according to Professor Alan Merry who is the Health Quality & Safety Commission chairman. Sounds like a hopeless case doesn’t it? Access to healthcare is difficult, and getting access makes things worse.
But how can access to health care make things worse? I’m not quite sure what that is supposed to mean unless we are to take from that statement that healthcare professionals are so bad at their jobs that they make matters worse for the Maori who do access their services, much like blood-letting 19th-century doctors.
So what is meant? Once again we are presented with some statistics that apparently prove institutional racism. Here they are.
- Specialist appointments happen less often for Maori.
- Inappropriate prescribing happens more often for Maori
- Maori children with asthma have more prescriptions for reliever medications without any preventer prescribed.
- The percentage of Maori getting an operation for a hip fracture on the day of or after admission has steadily decreased since 2013, whereas the percentage for non-Maori has steadily improved.
- Maori consistently rate the communication with hospital staff and doctors lower than other groups.
- In old age, disabled Maori are less likely to secure specialist equipment.
Some of these statistics are disturbing, but are they evidence of institutional racism? Of course no! They are no more evidence of racism than the underrepresentation of Asian men in the All Blacks is a result of institutional racism. Once again we have racism assumed before proven and any disparity in data leads to the immediate assumption that racism is the cause. Another case of the invincible fallacy. Our world is not as simple as that.
I don’t for a minute believe that doctors in New Zealand look at the children that come into their surgery, and then prescribe differently based on the ethnicity of the child. Can you imagine it? “This is a Pakeha child here, so I’ll give him the reliever and preventer asthma medication, but this next one is Maori, so I’ll only give him the reliever.” I can’t imagine that happening. And do you know why? Because I actually believe that our health workers really care about people. It is an absolute insult to our health professionals to charge our health system with the crime of institutional racism. These individuals who make up our health institutions are by and large doing their utmost despite difficult circumstances to help their fellow citizens. Go into any doctor’s surgery in South Auckland and you’ll find posters targeting Maori and encouraging them not to smoke. There is without a doubt, a real desire in our health system to improve Maori health.
Get the Diagnosis Right!
Please hear me, I am not saying we shouldn’t care about these disparities. The real reasons should be investigated. My problem is that assuming racism is the cause when it most likely is not is like assuming the red spots on my arm are mosquito bites and giving me a soothing lotion when they are actually a result of the measles. Incorrectly diagnosing the problem will invariably lead to incorrect treatment. And incorrect courses of treatment do not solve problems. Often they just create bigger problems.
So don’t just point to a disparity and claim racism. Show me actual racism.
The Problem – Faulty Definitions
This leads us to the heart of the issue: a faulty definition. How exactly is this concept of Institutional Racism defined by academics and these so-called experts? The definition mentioned is ‘the procedures or practices of particular organisations that result in some groups being advantaged.’ Read that definition again. If this is our definition, anything that causes disparities between groups is considered institutional racism.
This is just plain stupid, and the fact that otherwise intelligent people believe it is extremely disturbing. In all of human life, where do we see all groups achieving equal results? We don’t. A diverse world leads to diverse outcomes. Some groups will always produce better results in some areas than other groups. But why must we assume that this is because of racism? Didn’t we once learn somewhere back in school that correlation does not equal causation? Are we no longer wise enough to realise there are often multiple reasons for disparities in data?
A More Accurate and Truthful Definition
Before you tune me out as some kind of crazy who denies racism, let me assure you that I believe there is such a thing as institutional racism. I’m a Christian, and Jesus Christ is my Lord and king. His law condemns those who show partiality, so I am fully opposed to racism in any form, and that includes institutional racism, which I do believe exists. We can all imagine a system where there is institutional racism fairly easily. Apartheid South Africa would be a classic case. So how should Institutional racism be defined?
Here is my rough attempt at a definition. Institutional racism is the existence of preference or favouritism in an institution toward a particular race or races, by a deliberate decision based on ethnicity alone. I think that is a definition that fits much better with our actual definition of racism.
There IS Institutional Racism in New Zealand
Now, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that we do therefore have institutional racism in New Zealand. But contrary to the media promoted common misconception, that institutional racism is all in favour of Maori. In New Zealand, we have separate Maori seats in Parliament. We have affirmative action policies for Maori students wishing to enter medical school. We have decisions by DHB’s to promote Maori up the health waiting list based on their ethnicity. Councils around the country have appointed non-elected iwi representatives, sometimes with voting rights.
Conclusion
So is racism in our health system killing Maori? No. This is another example of poor research and the assumption that disparities automatically mean racism. In truth, they automatically mean no such thing. Disparities between groups is the norm, not the exception. It’s hard to believe that these kinds of articles are not disingenuous and part of a slow but steady move toward a co-governance approach that will be the end of true democracy in New Zealand. You can bet that reports in this vein will be used to lead the charge into a separate health system for Maori.
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.
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
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.