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?

Image by realworkhard

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?

Samuel Marsden

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.

Image by 00luvicecream

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.

Image by PDPics

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.

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.

Why Statists Fear Homeschooling

Recently we looked at Elizabeth Bartholet’s attack on homeschooling. There have been many excellent articles critiquing her thinking. One such, written by Kevin D Williamson appeared in the National Review. Williamson notes the reason many like Bartholet fear homeschooling and want it banned. School is an essential part of state monitoring.

Homeschooling inhibits the ability of the state to conduct surveillance on some families. “There is no way of knowing how many homeschooled children experience a childhood comparable to Tara’s,” she [Bartholet] writes. “But we do know that the homeschooling regime permits children to be raised this way.”

In addition, Williamson further highlights why Statists love public schooling, and fear homeschooling: public schooling is actually for the benefit of the State.

The economic argument is straightforward and points back to Prussia, the spiritual homeland of progressivism. From Frederick the Great and Johann Julius Hecker through the Progressive Era to today, schools have been treated as factories that produce what the state needs: able administrators and bureaucrats in the context of the emerging Bismarckian welfare regimes and, later, workers in the industrial economies. Schools organized this way do not exist to serve children or families: They exist to serve the state, and children are not the customers — they are the product.

Williamson argues that what is being fought over here is whether children are the property of the state, whether education exists for the student or the state, and whether there is any private realm.

Homeschooling is based on a radical proposition that is utterly incompatible with Professor Bartholet’s politics. Homeschoolers insist that their children are not the property of the state, to be farmed and dispatched in accordance with the state’s needs; the homeschooling ethos insists that the purpose of education is to serve the needs and interests of students rather than those of the state or of business; it insists that there exists a sphere of life that is private and not subject to state surveillance, and that this sphere covers family life and child-rearing unless and until there is some immediate pressing reason for intervention. 

So what is the debate really about?

The debate about homeschooling is not really about educational outcomes — there are good and bad homeschooling practices, good and bad public schools, good and bad private schools, etc. — but about who serves whom and on what terms. Do American families serve the state or does the state serve them? Do we live our lives and raise our children at the sufferance of the state, or is the state an instrument of our convenience?

Fair Tax Analogy

It’s sometimes helpful to use an analogy to stimulate thinking on fairness in taxation, and perhaps also the potential dangers of punishing wealthy citizens and treating them as the enemy. This one’s been floating around the internet for some time, but it’s a good one!

Restaurant Analogy

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn’t share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

Photo by Zakaria Zayane

“You’re all very good customers,” the owner said, “so I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I’m going to charge you just $80 in total.” The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren’t paying anything for their meals anyway. They’ll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that’s fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person’s bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got one dollar out of the $20,” said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, “and he got $9!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too! It’s not fair that he got nine times more than me!” “That’s true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn’t faced before. They were $50 short.