Aaron Hawkins, in his reply to correspondents (ODT 15.7.23) who objected to his reference to "white supremacy" in an earlier comment on the University of Otago’s Treaty focus and new logo, has raised, perhaps unwittingly, some interesting questions and revealed some startling assumptions.
These need to be examined closely because, if taken at face value, the consequent divisiveness they are likely to provoke will only make a complex and fraught situation worse.
Firstly, "White supremacy isn’t just Romper Stomper or the Christchurch mosque attacks. It is the sum total of systems and structures that privilege people like me."
From the outset he extends the meaning of the phrase far beyond its normal usage to include a whole class of people who strongly object to the kind of violence usually associated with it.
His point, of course, is that "systems and structures" are intrinsically racist. They, however, consist of us, those who either serve in, or are served by them.
And his expression of apparent personal guilt for his privileged status conveniently removes him from the rest of us, who, it appears, are unaware how racist our everyday lives are.
And it is this assumption which is perhaps the most problematic, our "unconscious racism".
It is a popular notion in some quarters and you can even find people who can reveal to you the inner darkness you weren’t aware of. This is a dangerously circular and by definition unfalsifiable concept that delegitimises any view that does not conform to a reality understood by a privileged few.
The "unconscious" is a fraught space and positively dangerous when slipped into a political context.
Mr Hawkins is indeed privileged, just not in the way he thought.
Secondly, the University of Otago is to be a "Treaty-centric institution". The phrase trips off the tongue, but I have yet to find anyone who knows exactly what it means.
Yes, there is a relationship with the local iwi, which is well established and over many years has addressed issues of mutual concern.
Yes, the "University of Otago" has long also been "Te Whare Wānanga o Otago".
But now we seem to go much further into vague notions of partnership, working together, "building [a] relationship with mana whenua".
I can’t hope to find an answer myself, so ask on behalf of many curious academics what this might entail for teaching and research in the multitude of disciplines across the institution?
Have we strayed into yet another fraught area wherein Mātauranga Māori and modern science share an equal epistemological partnership?
It has been facetiously suggested that all lectures begin with a karakia; I have long since learned that jokes like that can come back to haunt you.
But whatever "Treaty-centred" means, it does not mean tradition, according to Mr Hawkins.
Tradition means "the status quo and accepts that Māori will remain poorly served by our health, justice and education systems".
No. Here, I think, we have a profound misunderstanding of what a university is and what it does.
Indeed, some of those who dislike the university’s changes will be motivated by nostalgia, but there is much more to it than that.
What concerns many is the danger of a potentially crippling insularity and loss of international reputation.
And no-one doubts the statistics of Māori deprivation.
They are not alone in this, though their plight is disproportionate.
But solutions to questions of health, justice and education, while addressed by much of what universities do, can only be established by governments.
Symbolic genuflections by universities address nothing.
Finally, Mr Hawkins refers to issues raised in the PhysEd School review, which ultimately condemned the whole university. This was a review into a dysfunctional department in which accusations of racism were raised. Dysfunctional departments are not new and invariably reflect personalities and either personal or factional conflict.
I cannot comment on anything specific vis-a-vis the PhysEd School, but I can, as do many others, dispute the accusation that the University of Otago as a whole is a racist institution.
This is a sweeping, untrue and irresponsible accusation which is naturally resented by the many academics and support staff who have for years supported all their colleagues and students.
What is most disappointing, even concerning, about the document is that no-one had the fortitude to question it.
- Harry Love is honorary fellow in classics at the University of Otago.
