Unteach Racism – Module 6 – Exclusion

Exclusion is the title of module 6 of the Unteach Racism app which the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission with typical bureaucratic efficiency has spent a number of years developing. If you wish to review the earlier modules, click the links that follow for module 1 introduction, module 2 low self-belief, module 3 low expectations and module 4 harmful assumptions and module 5 racist exchanges.

On the brainwashing menu for today is an exploration of how “in Aotearoa New Zealand, the dominant Eurocentric culture means that in some settings, the values and culture of the learning environment can exclude indigenous and minority learners.” Please note, dear reader, that the name of our country is no longer New Zealand. It is evolving. It is now Aotearoa New Zealand, and will become Aotearoa. We are promised that the module will explore the dominant values and culture in New Zealand, identify how these can exclude learners, and help unteach racism by affirming the values and culture of all learners.

As we commence the module we are presented with a quote by Ann Milne who wrote a thesis entitled, Colouring in the White Spaces: Reclaiming Cultural Identity in Whitestream Schools. Apparently many of our schools “constitute ‘white spaces’ that deny Māori and Pasifika students this crucial [cultural] identity.” I find this extremely interesting because as a young white chap growing up in Auckland, my experience of high school was quite different. I knew what Maori and Pasifika identity was. It was celebrated. Yet I never knew exactly what ‘my culture’ was. I felt very much a minority, but I do not think this had much of an impact on my achievement. According to the module, however, our identity and sense of self-worth depends on how our values align with wider society. Our sense of belonging can be undermined if our values are undermined. We’ll come back to this point later.

We are then told that New Zealand has a dominant Euro-centric culture. What does this even mean? Nowhere is this dominant Euro-centric culture explained or defined, and there is a reason for that. It’s not possible. Are all Pakeha cultures the same? Do we all share the same values? Does every ethnically British person have the same values? And just because they share the same skin tone as Polish Pakeha New Zealanders, does that mean their values are the same? Seriously?

Let’s just take for granted for the moment that there is such a thing as ‘Euro-centric’ culture. We could argue perhaps that Western ideas are common to many of us, despite the fact that Western ideas transcend ethnicity and culture. The irony is, that it is this Western approach that has produced a care and concern for diversity and the representation of other points of view and cultural ideas. That’s what’s great about the West. Because of its Christian moorings, and consequent care for others, it is precisely in places that have been blessed oppressed by Western ideas that allow silly courses like Unteach racism to be produced and then excoriated. So surely the Teaching Council should want Western cultural values to be taught in our classrooms.

We are next presented with a quote from a hand wringing Pakeha teacher. She notes that her identity is “embedded in New Zealand’s colonial societal systems and structures,” and that she can see herself everywhere, “in the language that is spoken; in the faces of those I recognise as the powerful; and in the values that uphold familiar institutions.” Is she correct? Take a look at the current Labour MPs. Are there not a diverse range of cultures and ethnicities, not to mention other minorities there? This is all just very silly. Culture is more than ethnicity. Culture is about what people value and treasure – what our highest goals and goods are. So this is why a Pakeha New Zealander who is a conservative Christian will have far more in common with a man like Elliot Ikilei than a man like Grant Robinson. Cultural values transcend ethnicity.

Homogeneity is the next topic. Apparently, say our benevolent all-wise Teaching Council leaders, a homogeneous perspective focuses on the similarities among individuals within a group and assumes that they all think, behave, or learn in the same way. Yeah, that kinda reminds me a little bit about this whole brainwashing course. Why does the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand assume all teachers think that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between the Crown and Maori and that we must all agree to this when we get registered? Why is this whole Unteach racism business assuming the homogeneous perspective that because white people share the same skin colour they share the same cultural viewpoints and force this on other people through institutions? Why does the Teaching Council itself exhibit a homogeneous perspective when it put together Tataiako a list of cultural competencies for teachers of Maori learners. Does it assume that all Maori learners share the same values and needs just because they share the same ethnicity? It seems to me that the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is rather hypocritical here. On the one hand, we are being told to reject a homogeneous perspective, and on the other hand, their very approach to things Maori is a homogeneous perspective.

Next, we move onto a values prioritisation activity. We are told that some of our learners feel their cultural values are overlooked, or undermined. We then are presented with a list of values and asked to pick our top five values. The values listed are: aroha, spirituality, service, individuality, equity, secularism, humarie, tolerance, conformity, excellence, kotahitanga, diversity, equality, honesty, self-reliance, reason, kaitiakitanga, sustainability, reciprocity and innovation. After selecting our top five we are asked to reflect on our prioritised values and think about how these might influence the culture of our learning environments. We are also asked to consider how much we know about our students and their values and how these might differ to our own. No mention at all is made of which are supposedly Euro-centric. I think it would be dangerous for the Teaching Council to do so – what racist fool would suggest that ‘reason’ or ‘excellence’ are Euro-centric?

So this brings us to our critique of this nonsense. The first problem with this module is that it doesn’t at any point explain the dominant values and culture of “Aotearoa New Zealand”. Apparently, according to some of the quotes presented, there is a real problem with whitestream schools. If this is the case, surely we should be told what exactly it is that makes for whitestreaming. What particular values are inimical to non-white students? I don’t believe they exist. I believe there are commonalities in values between cultures, and wide variations within cultures. In my teaching experience which has been in ethnically diverse environments, I have seen this. I have seen Maori families who are far more like me in their approach to education than Pakeha parents. Programmes like Unteach Racism are an attempt to divide us along the lines of race. We don’t need that.

Secondly, and in my opinion most importantly, the Teaching Council fails to understand that secular state education necessarily excludes the values and cultures of many of its minority learners. I’ve argued this before in a post about conservative parents and liberal teachers. If their argument does anything, it shows that schools sometimes do not cater for the values of some families. These values, as we have seen transcend ethnicity. So whose values are ignored or relegated in our public school system? Well, for those who are religious, secular state schools remove what we hold to be the centre of life to the periphery. To us this is an intensely aggressively religious action that denigrates our cultural values. In removing God and Christian morality from the classrooms, it alienates the minority group of Christians. So-called ‘secular’ or ‘neutral’ education also alienates other religious groups who no doubt would want their values and faith passed on to their children. We could easily argue in a similar fashion to this module that State-controlled education is an attempt to force the religious (yes I do mean religious!) values of the elite or powerful on the less powerful. Unlike the Teaching Council, I’m willing to suggest some of the values this elite wants to foist on our children: secular atheism or at the very least a God who has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of life, a two-tiered apartheid-like system for New Zealand and sexual confusion and degeneracy in the name of tolerance.

How do we fix this? Not by creating stupid apps at great expense. We get the government out of education. Create an environment where schools are free to compete for students. Give power back to parents and allow them to choose the kind of school that fits with their cultural values and avoid schools that contravene them. Reduce red-tape and control over curriculum content. Stop forcing teachers to accept a politically biased code and standard before they can be registered. Trust that parents in the vast majority of cases care about their children and want them to succeed. Then we might end up with schools that are not alienated from the values of their parent and student body. In the meantime parents, if you want your values passed onto your children, homeschool, or find a school, most likely independent, that will support you and your cultural values.

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!