Expert opinion from University of Auckland - Waipapa Taumata Rau
Opinion: A distinct pleasure of my job as a university lecturer is an annual, four-day marine biology field trip to Whangārei Heads with roughly 40 University of Auckland students.
Over the course of these four days, students of Asian, European, Indian, Māori, Pasifika, and South American (and more) descent work together in groups to undertake a number of small-scale ecological studies. The students work together, eat together, share the same accommodation, laugh, chat, and assist each other with data collection, statistical analysis, and report writing. They learn about each other’s cultures, how to work professionally with each other, and willingly lend a hand to help others get their work done. It’s inspiring to see.
So, it was curious to see the comments by Act’s tertiary education spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar on a Te Ao with Moana show suggesting spaces for Māori and Pasifika (M/PI) at the University of Auckland exclude others and lock Māori and Pasifika students away from experiencing, and engaging with, a diverse multicultural education. As a fellow scientist, I question the evidence on which this is based.
I can only draw on my own experience of 19 years teaching at the university; the last seven of these as academic coordinator of a Māori and Pacific student learning community (which incidentally has a dedicated space for M/PI tauira – students) to counter her claims.
Our philosophy in the programme is non-M/PI students are welcome to attend, but we ask that they ‘participate and not dominate’ within our space. We have had Pākeha staff (of which I am one) successfully run and tutor our programme. Non-M/PI friends of tauira frequently come and use the space, filling it with laughter and humour, as they work together to achieve the best they can. They are spaces where lifelong friends, and future career connections, are made. We frequently offer our visitors some kai and/or advice and manaaki where resources allow. Many non-Māori teaching staff find interacting with our programme to be a singular highlight of the job.
Our M/PI students attend the same lectures, the same laboratory sessions, the same tutorials, and sit the same exams as all students. They are not as Parmar’s words would imply, cloistered away and segregated, not mixing with the general student body. So, to ease her mind there is no danger here, as she frequently suggested in her interview.
But picking up on another of her questions –why do we need the spaces at all? Indeed, why? In the words of the students themselves, who feel these are safe spaces where they can just “be”, because these are spaces where they don’t need to explain themselves and don’t feel culturally compromised. Year after year they tell me they are a refuge, that helps offset the remarks that imply they don’t belong here.
Can we write these comments off as evidence of a generation of ‘snowflake wusses’ who’ll blub over a stubbed toe?’ Unlikely, given some of the neighbourhoods and circumstances our tauira are raised in, and the grit and determination they show to attend and succeed at university.
Many tauira in our programme are resilient, talented, and frequently overperform, academically and as citizens. They readily seek whatever resources/expertise improves their performance (as they should). Moreover, they’ll give back to the institution (and future tauira) long after they have left.
These spaces (and associated programmes) allow students to realise their academic talents, improve their performance and the overall experience for M/PI students. In many instances it is only because of these spaces, and friends made within, that some tauira find the grit to finish their studies and take up productive careers that improve New Zealand society and contribute to future economic growth.
My personal wish is the opposite to which the MP is promoting. I would hope such spaces and programmes could be expanded and rolled out across the university for more student groups. We already have a bespoke programme developed by our own staff here in Biological Sciences and successfully running for the past 30 years to serve as a model. No doubt a pipe dream in these fiscally constrained times – but hope springs eternal.
So, apologies to Parmar, but reality and your reckons don’t match. These spaces are not exclusionary, but a vital response by an institution eager to improve the student experience and educational outcomes for treaty partners and key minority groups.
Imagine the fuss if there was a “safe space” at Auckland University labeled “This is a designated area for biological women, thank you”. You can gloss over the sign all you like, but “race” is a social construct, with complicated ancestry and a disturbing history. For older members in the community that sign has disturbing links back to the 1930’s “Aryans only” areas and the troubles with South African sports teams.
In my time as the mediator at the University of Auckland, it was always clear to me that designated spaces were examples of pro policies, rather than anti or exclusionary policies. So, spaces for Maori and Pasifika students did provide respite from anti Maori and anti Pasifika comments. Spaces for prayer and contemplation, based on religious grounds provided similar respite. Spaces for breast feeding mothers were another example. Taking offence at such provisions is a reflection on the offended person’s inability to recognise the impact of a dominant culture.
I was part of introducing such spaces at the University of Queensland about 40 years ago.
Les Holborow
This is an excellent response to “one size suits all” from Brendon Dunphy .
Dear Mr Dunphy,
The visual accompanying your opinion-piece only says “This is a Designated Area for Maori and Pasifika Students.” Nothing about “Our philosophy in the programme is non-M/PI students are welcome to attend, but we ask that they ‘participate and not dominate’ within our space”. It is tempting to ask – can we have a space for people of each different ethnicity where they’ll be first among equals?
Wouldn’t your purpose of achieving a healthy and productive interaction between students be better achieved by removing the sign but creating a distinctly culture-specific area using colours, designs and textures?
Regards,
Deepak
Thanks Brendon. An elegant response to Parmar and others, where you use clearly illustrated experience of what’s happening on the ground to push back against the woefully uninformed (inexperienced) and scaremongering stories of what M/P spaces mean in a university. Power to your writing (and teaching) arm!
Thank you Brendon.
I sometimes find it useful,(ie more constructive), to use the term and think about “culture” instead of “race”. Race is often deemed to be colonial construct with no basis in science. Culture, on the hand, is definitely real. But it is more difficult, and perhap impossible, to understand for the majority who only know (ie have lived in, experienced) one culture. And so they also have difficulty in recognising the needs of those with a different culture, eg, connecting with others who share that culture.