HOW VERY DIFFERENT the university campuses of 2019 are from the campuses of 1981. Thirty-eight years is a long time. There will be lecturers and tutors on campus today who weren’t even born in the year the Springboks came to tour. To those whose job it is to look back into the darker episodes of our past, New Zealand must seem like another country. Just how much that other country differed from the New Zealand of today was driven home to me while listening to RNZ journalist Katie Scotcher’s story on this morning’s (24/6/19) edition of Morning Report.
At the heart of that story were the feelings of shock, horror and disgust that gripped a University of Auckland staff member, and her class, when, just five days after the Christchurch Shootings, a young, Pakeha, male student gave voice to his profoundly racist beliefs. The staff member in question was outraged that the University authorities, upon receiving her complaint against the student’s behaviour, counselled her to say nothing more concerning the incident until the complaints process had been completed. This, she asserted, amounted to the university “silencing” a staff member who was attempting to confront the presence of “white supremacists” on the Auckland campus.
I couldn’t help wondering how that staff member would react if she was somehow transported back in time 38 years to the University of Otago campus of 1981.
Rough-and-ready polling conducted during that year’s Orientation Week had indicated that while roughly 60 percent of the student body opposed the forthcoming tour of the Springbok rugby team from Apartheid South Africa, at least a third of the student body supported the tour.
Determined to organise this large percentage of the student body, a young post-graduate history student and tutor by the name of Michael Laws (later to become a controversial National Party, then NZ First, Member of Parliament, and, later still, an even more controversial talk-back host and Mayor of Whanganui) formed what he called the “Students Civil Rights University Movement” (SCRUM). As the months went by, the membership of SCRUM increased to number hundreds of highly vocal student supporters of the Springbok Tour.
All-too-aware of the sizeable number of pro-tour students on campus, I felt obliged as the editor of the Otago University Students Association’s newspaper, “Critic”, to invite Laws to submit a weekly opinion column. He accepted with alacrity, and “Dragonfly” was born. The subject matter of “Dragonfly” was by no means limited to the Tour, Laws was equally vociferous on a broad range of social issues – all of them approached from a decidedly (and, at times, outrageously) right-wing perspective.
Though many of my comrades urged me to do so, I never once considered what we would today call “de-platforming” Michael Laws. The student newspaper was paid for by the student body, and a significant part of that body were staunchly right-wing in their opinions. It was always my view that, in spite of my personal distaste for conservative students’ opinions, they had a right to see them represented on the pages of their newspaper. Certainly, they had no less a right to representation than those students who, like myself, viewed matters from a radically left-wing perspective.
I can only imagine how the staff member in Katie Scotcher’s story would have responded to Michael Laws. A champion New Zealand debater, he would, I suspect, have made a considerably more cogent case for his views than the rather unfortunate-sounding young man in her class. Indeed, she would have been required to do what my old history professor, John Omer-Cooper, did when, in the early months of 1981, he squared-off against Laws, his former student, in the Main Common Room, in a white-hot debate on whether the Springbok Tour should proceed.
Omer-Cooper, in front of hundreds of students, won that debate. Not by silencing Laws, but by simply out-arguing him. The professor had spent much of his life in southern Africa. He knew of what he spoke – and everybody in the MCR that day could see that he did.
I have never forgotten the professor’s response to Laws’ crowning accusation that he was abandoning the right thing for the expedient thing:
“Sometimes, Michael,” the professor said quietly, “the right thing, and the expedient thing, are the same thing.”
It seems to me, still, even after the passage of 38 years, that Professor John Omer-Cooper’s command of the evidence; his obvious moral commitment to the cause of racial equality; and his quiet dignity (in the face of all the rhetorical slings and arrows Laws could hurl at him) provided that student audience with a truly magnificent example of what a university was – and still should be – about.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of Scotcher’s story was the staff member’s statement that after the confrontation with the young “white supremacist” a significant number of her students stopped coming to class. The contrast between these students’ response to overtly racist behaviour, and the response of Otago students to the provocations of SCRUM and the violence of the Police and the “Rugby Thugs” off-campus, is stark. The students of 38 years ago didn’t run to the nearest authority figure tearful and distraught: they padded-up, put on crash helmets, and went out onto the streets; risking pro-tour fists and police batons to do all that they could to end the genuinely and murderously white supremacist regime that was Apartheid South Africa.
What a pity that the staff member in Scotcher’s story didn’t present the infamous “Dawn Raids” against Pasifika immigrants (which triggered the young man’s outburst) as proof of how far this country has come since the days of Rob Muldoon and his ilk. She could have reminded her students that, even then, in the 1970s, there were thousands of horrified New Zealanders prepared to challenge the racist policies of their government.
Because that, in the end, is the point. By joining together in solidarity with the victims of imperialism and colonialism; by facing down both the personal and institutional racism that is its toxic legacy; we can bring it to an end. Public outrage halted the Dawn raids. Apartheid South Africa is no more.
The evil of racism, again on the rise, will not be defeated by hiding from it and issuing complaints, but by confronting it openly and fearlessly – as tens-of-thousands of New Zealanders did in the aftermath of the Christchurch tragedy.
In the words of that pioneer of African-American civil rights, the freed slave, Frederick Douglass:
“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Defiantly agree with
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
And the demands seem to be coming with our government’s continued silence on many human rights abuses around the world and in NZ aka operation Burnham.
Just like being against foreign companies and power interests coming in and taking resources away from other’s who live there I think racism itself has been manipulated as a concept to aid the power interests gain against the vulnerable. It’s happening all over the world, not just NZ, and it’s called many things but neoliberalism or authoritarianism is some versions.
People can now buy anything. Even universities! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/22/ethics-fly-out-window-oxford-university-when-big-donors-come-calling
Even being an MP or honorary titles like New Zealand Order of Merit
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/16/279660/zhang-yikun-and-the-alleged-100k-donation
Colonisation is not about colour and race in the modern world, it is about ideology and buying more and more power.
People of the same race and colour are just as likely to exploit each other as those of different races.
Race is now used in the tool box to support colonisation.
Poor people should give their water away to foreign interests, if they don’t apparently that is racism!
Weird how the woke are upset about Brash types but happy for Tarrent to come into NZ and train for years here, no questions asked.
Media don’t notice the migrant slumlords or importers. Phil T seemed keen to rush out to condemn the swamp lord who was probably the new designation of “passport holding NZer”, but less said and no visits from Phil T about the growing container accomodation for migrants or bullying from social housing operators to Kiwis!
I think in NZ, we seem to have reverse racism, aka book thrown at Maori and Pakeha offenders but all quiet on newcomers to NZ that commit crimes plus they get lighter sentences! (or maybe that is just the money talking). Who knows! Must keep the fake degrees, 2 year marriages and industry feeding off that alive and not upset our trading partners!
There is certainly a lot of social harm being inflicted on people in NZ including redundancies that unlike other countries cause a lot more poverty and harm in NZ, drugs out of control here, going to much worse housing situations for many, very low, insecure jobs here… meanwhile many are prospering aka supermarkets, hotels, recruitment companies who bring in migrant workers…
sadly not much future in a country than is dumbing down jobs, creating more middle men to take profits and not creating high value jobs in fact like Fonterra, destroying value here to be sold off piece by piece cheaper. (like our government and council assets).
We can’t even get a train working with our current neoliberal strategy , maybe the Ponzi of neoliberalism and importing in (among hundreds of thousands of other nationalities) 22,000 Philippino’s aint working because Kiwis are too drugged out and lazy apparently… or maybe like the Italian tomato growers, the actual migration itself is the way to riches and monopoly, in NZ and the modern world.
Apparently migration is actually more lucrative than drugs now in Italy!
“The Roman mafioso, Salvatore Buzzi, whose consortium repeatedly won contracts to arrange housing for migrants, was heard in a 2014 police wiretap boasting: “Have you got any idea how much I earn through immigrants? I make more from immigrants than I do from drugs.” His consortium enjoyed annual revenues of €55m.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/tomatoes-italy-mafia-migrant-labour-modern-slavery
Goodbye farmers, hello criminal cartels in NZ operating our food, hospitality and construction here!
Oh and drugs too and legally bank profits!
(heard the one about ANZ being asked to self certify and get 2 reports they are still doing a good job and not acting illegally? Apparently too difficult for our government agencies to check them out probably because it is too much work, and they can’t be bothered and would like a piece of paper from someone else to wave to the public).
Yknow what I find weird is all these woke de woke deez who obviously don’t watch rugby coming in to defend the image of rugby. So I don’t think rugby has anything to do with being woke.
So I, as a rugby mad player and spectator have always been pro tour. It also shouldn’t be a surprise that I am deeply against apartheid from an earlier age than when I picked up a rugby ball.
Y’know rugby is what New Zealand is most known for. These other niche attributes people can claim New Zealand ought to be known for but non of them could consistently draw a crowd of a billion viewers. Perhaps maybe the Americas cup but not year in year out.
So you’d have to be a bit thing in head to come along after 38 years and wake up all of a sudden to the false claims that rugby is populated with societies radical extremists political groups.
Y’know a lot of people whinge about the All Blacks winning so much. They claim that the All Balcks are cheats, they claim that the refs are biased towards the All blacks and I tell them no, it’s no of that. I tell them that until Grahem Henry became All Blacks coach in 2004 after John Mitchel the All Blacks was terrible at blooding in coconuts and brown players because the were in fact a little racist towards brown kids.
So brown kids was in fact coming into All Blacks development programmes a little underdeveloped, it used to take brown players a couple more games to get up to All Blacks standards. Now thanks to Grahem Henry and Steve Hansons development programmes pretty much 80% of Super rugby (the next tier down from the All Blacks) are players are playing at international. Where as every other international team it takes them ages to get there brown kids up to code. And you can put that squarely down to racism.
So long may the All Blacks rein.
“I think racism itself has been manipulated as a concept to aid the power interests gain against the vulnerable” Spot on, SaveNZ.
“People of the same race and colour are just as likely to exploit each other as those of different races. ” Another spot, Save NZ. This we see happening regularly in NZ now, with immigrant, usually Asian employers, ripping off their countrymen.
A close West Indian friend in the UK, told me that although she encountered racism there, it would be much worse if she returned home where her own people can be exploitive and utterly ruthless.
But at least in contemporary NZ, anything that goes wrong is now due to a junior staff member. I guess that’s reverse age-ism.
Thanks, SNOW WHITE, and I also agree with your comments about “anything that goes wrong is now due to a junior staff member” being spot on, but my observations are that instead of reverse age-ism it is often due to older members being made redundant as they get to higher price points of wages, not to encourage the youth up the ladder but to remove older more expensive workers and replace them with a cheaper one!
It has become common in the west to make those over 40 redundant so that big firms can save money by replacing them with younger less experienced staff members (but still bill them out as though they were the experienced people).
Obviously a select few like executives are exempt where they can keep going at exorbitant wages forever!
The growing menace isn’t colonialism as done in the past, it’s globalism and the mass transfer of different nationalities across borders for increased corporate profit.
Wages, quality of life and culture all fall.
To speak in defense of national or cultural identity may soon be a hate crime.
What a sick world the woke left are championing.
What “cultural identity ” are you referring to? We have an indiginous one, plus a multitude of others (British, Greek, Polish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian, Indian, Pacifica, etc)
“Kiwi” I know that such (formerly)inclusive cultures are foreign to you wokies who must break and pit each part against the other.
“Kiwi”?
I have immigrant families families as my neighbours. They’re decent people who are proud of their heritage and languages they speak. I safely assume you include them as “kiwis”?
I also assume that “kiwi” is not code for white English-speaking Anglo Saxons?
What is it with wokies making assumptions.
Did I say white Anglo Saxon?
I said kiwi.
I don’t give a fuck what your skin color is, clearly you are another one who does.
So what is a “kiwi” then?
Explain it to us. What is this “cultural identity” you referred to above?
Is it inclusive of others or singular?
Shit, someone is a bit touchy ! You really need to keep calm, carry on!
I’m calm as thanks 🙂
+1 KEEPCALMCARRYON
I’m sorry Chris but just what the hell are you advocating??
If youre an apostle for free speech then “they padded-up, put on crash helmets, and went out onto the streets; risking pro-tour fists and police batons to do all that they could to end the genuinely and murderously white supremacist regime that was Apartheid South Africa” is just using physical force tomimpose YOUR WILL on those who would countenance racism
On the one hand you decry “deplatforming” people like Michael Laws, then on tge other youre advocating for a violent response??
Fuck me, just what ARE you calling for??
Herein lies the innate contradictions of the so called liberal left: supporting free speech while actively campaigning against what racists are saying wuth that speech, which effectively undermines free speech because youre attacking those with a counter viewpoint ( which is an attempt to deplatform, as you put it)
Once you clear up what youre advocating, let us know
Because i’m buggered if i know where you stand
confronting racism is one thing living with it for 150 years is another and that is what we have had to put up with and its still going strong
The comparison is a little bit stretched and also doesn’t consider the fact that we progress and move forward culturally and politically over time – we don’t have the same debate over and over again – generally speaking.
The students in 81 made a stand because they had to at that time and place – as did many other NZer’s. And that moved the country forward – culturally and politically because the 81 protesters won the arguments and changed how we think. Given the same set of circumstances today there would be no rugby tour to protest against because it simply wouldn’t happen.
We don’t need to debate white supremacy anymore just like we don’t need to debate slavery or reparation to Maori for stolen land. The debates are over the matter settled.
Any expression of white supremacy is hateful and ignorant and the fact that today – in 2019 – it is completely unacceptable at a university is exactly as it should be. And the fact that the teacher and students had that outright expectation is a good thing not something to be ashamed of.
SaveNZ: “….I think racism itself has been manipulated as a concept to aid the power interests gain against the vulnerable.”
Indeed. When I was very young, we understood racism to be the structural stuff that governments do: apartheid South Africa- and Rhodesia-style; the US prior to the civil rights era. It didn’t apply to what people thought and said about and to each other: if opinions were negative, that was characterised as prejudice or bigotry.
Since that time, the term “racism” has gradually become conflated with prejudice, such that it’s become almost meaningless. It’s now just used as an epithet, to shut people down when they say things that others don’t like.
I think that those pushing the notion of globalism are responsible; large-scale immigration is in the interests of globalists, because it helps to drive down wages in target countries – NZ being a prime example. Another is the EU: have a look at what’s been happening regarding immigration in the Schengen zone.
The unfortunate citizens of the countries into which immigrants flood are beaten about the ears – often by their own governments – with accusations of racism!, if they raise objections to the practice. Nobody likes being accused of it – Hitler and all that – so debate is squashed.
“People of the same race and colour are just as likely to exploit each other as those of different races.”
Exactly so. And nobody should be surprised at that. Humans are a groupish species: we can be very kind and empathetic to one another, and on the other hand, we can behave like arseholes. That’s why we have the rule of law: to restrain the worst aspects of the human condition.
Good post, Comrade Trotter, I learned a bit more about that nasty piece of a human called Michael Laws, thanks.
But one other thing deserves to be considered. The students attending university in the larger cities of New Zealand then were predominantly white born and bred New Zealanders, now we have a very mixed lot of students, of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and many are studying here as overseas students, paying high fees.
The once dominant white NZ elite lot of students have been reduced to be just another lot of privileged youth, as many come from middle class and striving families in many other countries, all wanting to get an education that sets them apart from the common lot of people, those working in the ordinary jobs down the bottom, and keeping things running.
Hence some of those white NZ students that are at Auckland and other universities now, they may feel some resentment to being more of a minority now, which makes them more toxic even then the Laws’ and his buddies in 1981.
Re South Africa, yes, Apartheid South Africa is no more, but have things really improved much for the majority of black South Africans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_in_post-apartheid_South_Africa
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/business/south-africa-economy-apartheid.html
Racism is decidedly not on the rise, although many on the left seem to want that to be the case.
Great post Chris, fabulous writing and wisdom. I remember 1981 well, that’s how we were, how it was. No safe spaces. Friends and family opposed, injured.
Healing followed, rugby that divided us brought us all back together when an anti tour player captained us to the first rugby World Cup.
We had learned that we had to talk, allow all their say.
How soon forgotten.
Another example of NZ in 2018… and the phrase “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/368902/bridges-ross-comments-labelled-ugly-and-racist
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/simon-bridges-defends-asian-comments-from-ross-recording-at-auckland-s-diwali-festival.html
The transcript of the Jami-Lee Ross and Simon Bridges audio and how $100k goes a long way in the National party, aka private dinner invitations and more!
JLR: [laughs] Hey um you know at Paul Goldsmith’s function you saw those two Chinese guys, Zhang Yikun and Colin? You had dinner at their home?
SB: Yes.
JLR: They talked to you about a hundred thousand dollar donation –
SB: Yep
JLR: That is now in.
SB: Fantastic
JLR: What would you like done with it? It’s currently sitting in a Botany electorate account.
SB: Mmmmmm yeah that’s good, I’d need to-I’d say – By the way, on that, just before we get to that. I promised them that we would have dinner at my place, that you should come. I mean, we might as well make a bit of fun of it. The only thing that would be good is if they brought the wine because they’ve got better wine –
JLR: [laughs]
SB: – when I move into my new house so that’s probably…we’ve got to sell ours. It could be earlier but it’s probably around September so we should make good on that cos otherwise I’ve lied to them, cos I’ve said it a couple of times now. We should definitely do that.
Um look, I just think we want it for, uh, the advertisements and the like, you know? We want it for the things that we’re gonna need to do over the next year or so, sort of outside of the – not outside of the party but um, uh, you know, like I say we want to do some more attack ads – say we want to do another regional fuel one, say we want to do an industrial relations one. We just want to keep doing those things, right?
JLR: Yeah
SB: So look, I’ll tell you what. I had cancelled it because I’m at a Chinese function and I’m gonna be bloody tired. We could meet this evening briefly. We could talk about this.
JLR: Oh okay, um, if you want. But we’ve all accepted that you’ve got stuff on. I’m not calling about that.
SB: Nah, I’m just trying to think.
JLR: I’m just aware there’s – the money’s fine sitting there in the Botany account. I don’t know what your arrangement is with Goodfellow or not, that’s all.
SB: I need to talk to him. I’m actually seeing him tonight, I wonder if I should..
JLR: I don’t think we can-
SB: I should wait and get the right words.
JLR: I don’t think we can raise tens of thousands and completely keep him out of the loop.
SB: No no we can’t.
JLR: Maybe if you’re just honest with him about it.
SB: I think that’s right. Look, I’ll raise it with him but we should probably just think it through. I mean, it can be in the party but I do just wanna make sure we’ve got that money to do those sort of things, right? Don’t you think?
JLR: Donations can only be raised two ways – party donation or candidate donation. Party donation has a different disclosure which is fine, and the way they’ve done it meets the disclosure requirements – sorry, it meets the requirements where it’s under the particular disclosure level because they’re a big association and there’s multiple people and multiple people make donations, so that’s all fine, but if it was a candidate donation it’s different. So making them party donations is the way to do it. Legally, though, if they’re party donations they’re kind of under Greg’s name as the party secretary, so –
SB: So we need to tell them, I get that. I get that. I’m going to tell him – I think he’ll accept it, I just need to explain to him what it is I want it for. Uh, unless I get him to come along to, unless I get him to – leave it with me, I might talk to McClay as well, see what he’s got up his sleeve. Cause Peter is going to be at this meeting with me in Wellington, that’s all. If I then brought him after that – good work though man, that’s a lot of money.
JLR: Yeah they’re good people. Now there’s no catch or anything to it. You may recall at the dinner they did discuss candidacy, and another Chinese candidate.
SB: Two MPs, yeah.
JLR: Colin Zheng, the younger one, he’s put his name in for candidates college and so I assume he’ll get through candidates college and we’ll just make some decisions as a party further down the track as to what we want to do with candidates.
SB: I mean, it’s like all these things, it’s bloody hard, you’ve only got so much space. Depends where we’re polling, you know? All that sort of thing. Two Chinese would be nice, but would it be one Chinese or one Filipino, or one – what do we do?
JLR: Two Chinese would be more valuable than two Indians, I have to say.
SB: Which is what we’ve got at the moment, right? Your problem there is you end up in a shit fight because you’ve got a list MP – you’ve got two list MPs – it’s a pretty mercenary cull – sitting MPs, all that shit. And then we’ve got the issue of – we could end up getting rid of some list MPs if we want and bringing in some of those new ones, and if you do that you’re just filling up your list even further with ones that you’ve gotta sort of look after – I mean I reckon there’s two or three of our MPs, not picking up obvious ones like Finlayson or Carter, but actually we just want them to go. You know? Like Maureen Pugh is fucking useless.
JLR: Yeah, I know. Carter, Finlayson, Nicky Wagner – they don’t really need to hang around.
Simon: Yeah, but then, we get, yeah, yeah, we don’t want them to go this year though.
JLR: Oh, no.
SB: We don’t want them all to go, we want to do it well and we just want to think it all through. Look that’s really good, well look thanks for that, I’ll consider when I have a [INAUDIBLE] and send you a text, I’ll do that in the next half an hour if we’re going to.
JLR: OK, all good.”
And how it is seen internationally…
https://sinopsis.cz/en/new-zealand-united-frontlings-bearing-gifts/
https://crux.org.nz/community/local-mp-and-mayors-highly-unusual-chinese-trips/
https://crux.org.nz/community/national-party-silent-on-escorting-mayor-to-china/
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/16/279660/zhang-yikun-and-the-alleged-100k-donation
It’s just a shame the “free speech” has become synonymous with expressions of racism, white supremacy, homophobia, sexism, islamophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and attacks on anything that isn’t white, male, and privileged.
If that’s what free speech is for, to spread hatred , I’ll sit this one out thanks very much.
What on planet earth do you think we have been discussing for the last 200,000 years?
“At the heart of that story were the feelings of shock, horror and disgust that gripped a University of Auckland staff member, and her class, when, just five days after the Christchurch Shootings, a young, Pakeha, male student gave voice to his profoundly racist beliefs. The staff member in question was outraged that the University authorities, upon receiving her complaint against the student’s behaviour, counselled her to say nothing more concerning the incident until the complaints process had been completed. This, she asserted, amounted to the university “silencing” a staff member who was attempting to confront the presence of “white supremacists” on the Auckland campus.”
At present, a young family member is a student at UoA. When claims of “white supremacism” on campus began to hit the headlines, I linked the stories to said family member. Who was astonished: where was this supposed to be happening? They’d seen none of it.
I’d point out that this person is a STEM student: according to them, there isn’t a whisper of that sort of thing in that part of the campus. The conclusion was that, if there’s a problem, it’s small-scale and limited to maybe one or two classes in what in my younger days we used to call the “land-rights-for-gay-whales” courses.
But even so, the entire episode as described by RNZ has surprised me. Isn’t the uni supposed to be the critic and conscience of society, able to handle wildly divergent opinions? At least the lecturers ought to be robust enough – and be in possession of enough background knowledge – to be able to deal with the sort of views expressed by that student? There is a counter-argument to all that white superiority waffle: it cropped up in the uni classes I was in, and we had many a debate about it.
“Perhaps the most depressing aspect of Scotcher’s story was the staff member’s statement that after the confrontation with the young “white supremacist” a significant number of her students stopped coming to class.”
It sure is depressing. What’s that about?
“The students of 38 years ago didn’t run to the nearest authority figure tearful and distraught…”
Yup. Anyone involved with the anti-tour movement back then saw the bravery of those students; not just from Otago, of course, but from all the other unis as well. I doubt that the current generation would have the courage to put themselves on the line in the way that those young people did at that time.
Comments are closed.