Structural Racism in New Zealand Science?

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

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

Dangerous and Simplistic Assumption

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

Thomas Sowell

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

The Treaty of Waitangi

The Treaty of Waitangi

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

Why might these disparities exist?

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

1. Different Groups and Different Cultures have different values

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

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

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

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

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

2. Under-representation is the Flip Side of Overrepresentation

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

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

3. Disparities are a result of freedom and choice

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

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

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

Can we ever remove disparities?

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

The Blind Who Claim to See

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

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

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

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

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

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