FEW SPECTACLES are more tragic than those in which a community destroys its core values in the misguided belief that it is upholding them. The 400+ academics who put their names to an open letter condemning racism and white supremacy on the Auckland campus undoubtedly did so with the best of intentions, but in signing the document they have either deliberately, or unwittingly, endorsed a document of profound illiberality. They have placed their reputations at the disposal of extremists whose exhortations will only exacerbate the intolerance they purport to condemn.
The Open Letter begins by invoking the idea of the university as a community of scholars and students: a place “dedicated to the creation, preservation and sharing of knowledge”. This fine beginning is marred almost immediately by the jarring claim that the university is also a place where: “We build our collective understanding of the world and ourselves, while nurturing innovation and maintaining what is best in our society.”
This transformation of knowledge: from the fruits of work undertaken by individual scholars; to a collectivist endeavour undertaken for the maintenance of “what is best in our society”; is as sinister as it is tendentious. By this definition, the university is a place where individual insights must be subordinated to those which, in the collective judgement of the individual’s peers, constitute “what is best”. Ignored completely in this formulation is the fact that “what is best”, both in and for “our society”, has been a matter of continuous disputation since at least the time of Socrates and Plato.
In case we were in any doubt, the Open Letter declares it to be the opinion of the 400+ signatories that “racism and white supremacy have no place at the University of Auckland”.
No place? Not even in the disciplines of Anthropology, History, Philosophy and Sociology? Is it truly the case that the ideas and behaviours constitutive of so many of the characters and cultures of the University of Auckland’s students (and staff) are unworthy of academic scrutiny? Is the ideology of white supremacy, potentially so dangerous when driven underground, not to be interrogated and analysed? Is the near ubiquity of racism in everyday human behaviour not something to be investigated and discussed?
Apparently not.
The Open Letter makes it clear that its authors have already investigated the website of those responsible for postering and stickering the Auckland campus – the casus belli of this little culture war – and, in their own words: “have no difficulty in identifying this group and such displays as white supremacist in nature”.
It is most unlikely that “Action Zealandia”, the proprietor of the website and publisher of the offending posters and stickers, would disagree. These “radical nationalists” (as they prefer to call themselves) make no attempt to disguise their belief that a reassertion of European male supremacy is “what is best” for New Zealand society.
Many New Zealanders would assume that such an obviously anachronistic political organisation would not present much of a threat to a university full of highly-educated men and women. Surely, a group of confused young men, nostalgic for the lost social and political verities of the nineteenth century, are more to be pitied than feared?
That was certainly the opinion of the University of Auckland’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, who upheld the right of those putting up the posters and stickers to exercise their freedom of speech – not matter how distasteful that speech might be. A wiser community of students and scholars would have nodded their agreement and moved on. But, alas, throughout the twenty-first century academic world such expressions of tolerance (and intellectual maturity) are as rare as they are inflammatory. The position taken by the Vice-Chancellor was not to be allowed to stand unchallenged. Into the valley of censorship and suppression rode the four-hundred!
The world-view of the Open Letter’s authors merits every bit as much scrutiny as that of Action Zealandia’s – if only because both display an equal measure of ideological vehemence. Enveloping the academics’ critique is the Tiriti O Waitangi, serving here as the incongruous stand-in for New Zealand’s yet-to-be-written bi-cultural constitution. As such, it becomes the principal tool for delegitimating not only Action Zealandia and its by-right-of-conquest arguments for the hegemony of European males in Aotearoa, but also un-reconstructed Vice-Chancellors.
According to the Open Letter, these colonialist throwbacks are guilty of taking the “absolutist” position that “freedom of speech extends to the right to speak in ways that are hateful.” Hateful to whom? Ah well, that’s not a question that can be responded to straightforwardly. To answer that question required this little masterpiece of what the unkind might call “woke-speak”. (Or, what the even more unkind readers of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four would call “Newspeak”.)
“We also understand that the language of rights is complex and nuanced, recognising that such displays create an environment that brings harm to segments of our community, fraying the cultural tapestry that provides our diverse campus community with vitality and energy.”
Or, to render this unicorns-and-flowers circumlocution into plain speech: “Our students have become so fragile, psychologically and ideologically, that they fall to pieces when confronted by people who do not like them or the cultures they come from.”
Not that the authors of the Open Letter were above fraying a cultural tapestry or two of their own. How about this for a flowery way of calling the Vice-Chancellor a “pale, stale, male”?
“We also note that by virtue of their race, gender, class, country of origin, religious affiliation, sexual or gender identity, many people empowered to judge conduct on university campuses are less likely to be the focus of hate speech, and may be slower to recognise its impact on its intended targets.”
Upon further analysis, however, the humour of this sentence begins to fade. At its heart is the idea that credible political judgement derives purely and simply from one’s identity. Followed to its logical conclusion this variety of “identity politics” accords more weight to the opinions of a 19-year-old undergraduate woman from a non-European cultural background, than it does to a male Professor of Philosophy who has been teaching, writing and publishing peer-reviewed articles and books for the best part of 40 years.
This surrendering of expertise to identity is not the worst of it, however: not when one considers this remarkable sentence:
“However, ‘speech’ has many forms, including gesture and nonviolent protest. If these posters constitute ‘free speech’, the same can be said of the actions of individuals who remove those that they encounter.”
Um, no, actually, it can’t. Action Zealandia, in displaying its posters and stickers, is asserting its right to have its ideas considered, debated, and, if unable to convince its interlocutors, rejected. Bluntly, it is declaring: “We are here – so come and contend with us openly on the battlefield of ideas.” The only honourable answer that “any university worthy of the name” can give to such a challenge is: “Bring it on!”
No such luck. That is not the way the authors of the Open Letter roll. They are not really into contending openly on the battlefield of ideas. The only form of speech they’re willing to defend is the form that rips down posters and tears off stickers. The form that screams “STFU!” at everyone with whom it disagrees.
The anonymous authors of the Open Letter may wax eloquent about an “environment that celebrates free and open enquiry, teaches the lessons of the past, and builds a better future for all”, but their interpretation of “what is best” for society looks suspiciously like the one provided by every other totalitarian ideology: “What is best is what we say is best.” It may be the Academic Left that is ripping down posters today, confident that it possesses the power to silence all those who refuse to toe its line. But, times change.
Those insisting upon ideological conformity and suppressing dissenting opinion today may yet be given cause to look back upon the sentiments contained in this Open Letter and rue the day that the “critic and conscience” of society gave away the chance to expose the Right’s weaknesses in front of those who, 20 years later, are telling them that their left-wing ideas “have no place at the University of Auckland”.
Why? Why should a modern liberal society have to waste time “challenging” the arguments expounded by people who are clearly wrong. If there are no boundaries to what can be said – and the only recourse for the rest of us is to engage in a debate – does that mean anything and everything must be heard and allowed to take expression?
Where does the author draw the line? Should we engage in a debate about restoring slavery? Should we engage with people who want to commit genocide and allow them to put up posters and stickers?
By writing a letter and signing it are the academics and students not exercising there right to free speech and more importantly expressing solidarity with the historic victims of oppression?
At a certain point society moves forward and free speech does not give you the right to express ideas that are abhorrent and potentially harmful to your fellow citizens.
The crucial phrase in your comment is “clearly wrong”. Flat Earthers are “clearly wrong” – does that mean they should be prevented from sharing their odds views? Society says “No.” In my view, society should also say “No.” to suppressing the free speech of people who yearn for a return to the patriarchal colonial society of the 19th century.
Now, you may object that such beliefs are harmful. But, I would respond that the propaganda of Action Zealandia only becomes harmful when it shifts from its antiquated social philosophising and begins openly encouraging its followers to inflict violence and/or other injury upon individuals and groups they abhor. Our legal system already outlaws such behaviour. Having perused the Action Zealandia website, I must report that I found no calls to genocide – or, indeed, any other forms of violence.
It astonishes me that at least 400 academics are willing to sign their names to a document that essentially calls for the suppression of any and all speech which the signatories find objectionable. How that equates with their duty to act as the “critic and conscience” of society leaves me baffled. How are scholars supposed to critique their society without upsetting anyone? It’s a mystery.
“Now, you may object that such beliefs are harmful. But, I would respond that the propaganda of Action Zealandia only becomes harmful when it shifts from its antiquated social philosophising and begins openly encouraging its followers to inflict violence and/or other injury upon individuals and groups they abhor. Our legal system already outlaws such behaviour. Having perused the Action Zealandia website, I must report that I found no calls to genocide – or, indeed, any other forms of violence.”
Chris Trotter: that is one of the most naive comments I’ve ever read from you. You know as well as I doing that White Supremacists don’t have to call for direct genocide. They use coded language. They set fertile ground for others to act, by first dehumanising their targets.
They create a groundswell of resentment. Then point to others who’ve acted. (Names I will not mention.) Then action, by others, follows.
i don’t for one minute believe you are unaware of all this.
Because it’s how you teach people to reason well. The fact that I have to explain this to you demonstrates how low we have sunk.
Peter Bradley: “By writing a letter and signing it are the academics and students not exercising there right to free speech and more importantly expressing solidarity with the historic victims of oppression?”
No. As Chris Trotter says, they’re trying to squelch opinions that they don’t like.
“….free speech does not give you the right to express ideas that are abhorrent and potentially harmful to your fellow citizens.”
Yes. It does. Here’s the definition of free speech:
“the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint”
It doesn’t say anything about refraining from saying things that other people find offensive; that indeed is the point of such freedoms. What offends some people is completely unexceptionable to others.
The response I’d expect from a bunch of academics is what would have happened when I was at uni: argue the toss with them. Whose arguments have the more validity and will prevail? That’s the test: not trying to shut people up.
In a cohesive society we do not have complete free speech – by necessity we draw boundaries and limit human behavior to protect ourselves collectively from harm. What I find most disappointing about the anti-woke movement that has sprung up globally is that it is a weak fight to choose.
Acting as though cancel culture and feminism are terrible threats to our freedom is completely bogus. No-one is being stopped from expressing their views but they are being stopped from having an unlimited platform by people who oppose those views. We have to protect not just our own freedom but ensure that others do not lose theirs – that is a something that non-whites, women, and the trans and gay community have to fight for and protect because they do not have it by birthright.
UK fascist Oswald Mosley was banned from appearing on the BBC in 1935 for over 30 years – his views and political ambitions were not banned but his platform was removed.
Was this a bad thing? If Mosley had succeeded politically by being given a platform what would have been the consequences to “free speech” in the UK for Jewish and non-white people?
In the end we have to make choices about what is acceptable and what isn’t – to not do so is in fact to increase the probability that “our freedoms” (or more likely the freedoms of a minority) will be removed.
Peter Bradley -“In a cohesive society we do not have complete free speech – by necessity we draw boundaries and limit human behavior to protect ourselves collectively from harm. What I find most disappointing about the anti-woke movement that has sprung up globally is that it is a weak fight to choose.”
Y’know what you can do with your disappointment don’t you. Free speech goes both ways. Just because fascism is weak today does not make suppression-of-speech a vital tool in the continued suppression of fascism. Let’s flip it and say that fascism is truely strong as the woke would have everyone believe. Would you still be saying freespeech is harmful? No, of course not you would need free speech to argue your case in parliament especially if it came down to one vote and you needed to convince a 51% majority of the folly of fascism. Under these circumstances if you can’t find one descent human being to make a 51% majority then maybe we deserve to die.
Peter Bradley-“Acting as though cancel culture and feminism are terrible threats to our freedom is completely bogus. No-one is being stopped from expressing their views but they are being stopped from having an unlimited platform by people who oppose those views.”
Have you noticed how no one actually says out aloud that anyone hates woman. It’s always implied but no one can actually say oh that person said he hates woman.
Peter Bradley-“We have to protect not just our own freedom but ensure that others do not lose theirs – that is a something that non-whites, women, and the trans and gay community have to fight for and protect because they do not have it by birthright.
UK fascist Oswald Mosley was banned from appearing on the BBC in 1935 for over 30 years – his views and political ambitions were not banned but his platform was removed.
Was this a bad thing? If Mosley had succeeded politically by being given a platform what would have been the consequences to “free speech” in the UK for Jewish and non-white people?”
Consequences are that bombs start reining down around them and no one really knows why. All of a sudden everyone is deaf dumb and blind as well as dead. The implication being is if you hide fascism behind a wall of silence you give it freedom to operate with impunity.
Peter Bradley- “In the end we have to make choices about what is acceptable and what isn’t – to not do so is in fact to increase the probability that “our freedoms” (or more likely the freedoms of a minority) will be removed.”
What ever you may think of my freedoms, I’ll die in a ditch for yours which is more than I can say for the woke.
Sam, thanks for responding to Peter Bradley. I was going to, but you’ve eloquently made the points I would’ve made.
Though I’d add this:
Peter Bradley: “In a cohesive society we do not have complete free speech – by necessity we draw boundaries and limit human behavior to protect ourselves collectively from harm.”
This doesn’t in any way resemble NZ society, for which we should all give thanks. Isn’t a “cohesive society” what China is aiming for? And isn’t it China’s want of freedoms – in particular its lack of free speech – that’s criticised by so many commenters on this site?
This is a multi-cultural society, with the concomitant conflict between varying opinions and ways of doing things that one would expect in such a society. Conflict is part of the human condition, neither good nor bad. I’ll have our current society, warts and all, thanks, in preference to your dystopian vision.
Here here. Let the prats make prats of themselves.
You need to analyse and understand history warts and all, in order to avoid making the same mistakes… one of the worst things to create racism is a lack of democracy and authority figures… I once asked someone from Serbia, how the Bosnian war could have happened in the 1990’s and their view was that after Communism the Serbs believed their leader was always right…
Take a completely different example also from the 1990’s of a bizarre authority figure scam that targeted poorly educated fast food staff in particular in the US, using authority gullibility…
“A caller who identified himself as a police officer or other authority figure would contact a manager or supervisor and would solicit their help in detaining a female employee or customer who was suspected of a crime. He would provide a description of the suspect, which the manager would recognize, and he would then ask the manager to search the suspected woman.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam
The best way to defend humanity is to both educate the population as much as possible and in particular critical thinking which has been destroyed in NZ after 30 years of Rogernomics.
It is the NZ identity itself that Rogernomics seeks to destroy. Where else in the world can a political call their nationals drugged out and lazy and people in NZ are so beaten down they just accept it?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/new-zealand-needs-migrants-as-some-kiwis-are-lazy-and-on-drugs-says-pm
Before not noticing a students body for 8 weeks in his dorm, NZ universities had already been rapidly declining in morality, aka they had started burning and destroying books to save money, while paying it’s chancellor the third highest state sector salary in NZ….https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/354932/no-book-burning-but-some-may-face-shredder-auckland-uni
Our universities like our cities are being stripped of critical thinkers of diverse views, in favour of a narrow definition that favours getting international students and workers and relatives in for money while pretending it is for diversity. NZ universities also seem to be full of exceptions aka accepting of the ethnic and gender discrimination .. aka Tibetans and Uyghur against Han Chinese groups for example. There is no university chancellor support for Hong Kong protesters, it was quickly cancelled as that might annoy the money coming on from pro Beijing international students.
Universities should not be forcing people to all think the same views aka worship money while pretending it is for diversity, they should be challenging people to explore a range of views and then looking at history to make society better and more accepting and not look at issues so narrowly and shallowly.
Universities used to be a place for debate and radical views… now the neoliberal agenda is that everyone has to think the same way, have plenty of money to go to university, and be paid a fortune to be a university chancellor (while of course lowering wages and conditions for the lecturers, staff and students), while looking different but all thinking the same thing is the new diversity!
There are plenty of local targets who are worse off with that approach, think the worsening situation in South Auckland with measles (which in woke style was initially blamed on the pale, stale anti vaxers) all roads seem to lead to blaming the pale, stale locals many of whom are not exactly that pale or stale, think Pacific Island and Maori, who apparently have less worth now due to their out dated identity, lazy drugged out approach, and need displacing to better workers and capitalists and foreign money, John Key style.
SaveNZ: “I once asked someone from Serbia, how the Bosnian war could have happened in the 1990’s and their view was that after Communism the Serbs believed their leader was always right…”
Here’s an account of what actually happened in Bosnia, as opposed to the outright lies we were told at the time. If the Republicans were to have impeached Clinton on a substantive issue – rather than a bit of rumpy pumpy with Lewinsky in the map room, so to speak – it would have been Bosnia.
http://thesaker.is/clinton-era-bosnia-war-precedent-to-the-war-on-terror/
Clinton: another awful US president in a very long line of awful US presidents. These people do not give a good goddamn how many lives are sacrificed to their nefarious schemes. It is incumbent upon the rest of us to know about this stuff. Do not believe what the msm says. About anything….
Excellent column, Chris. I am mystified by why so many academics felt compelled to put up their hand publicly to assert they were against racism, as if we might assume they were in favour of it. The letter seemed to me to be a hasty declaration of moral uprightness.
They don’t seem to understand that allowing free speech does not mean they or the organisation they belong to necessarily likes, believes or in any way endorses the views being debated or promoted.
I also noticed the veiled dig at Stuart McCutcheon that implies he is unqualified to understand the issue, which, as you say, is extraordinary. It seems to me to be a very sorry day when a University VC makes the news for defending free speech (and hundreds of his staff publicly criticise him for it).
Because it’s the ‘woke’ thing to do, and if they didn’t, the pitchforks and flaming brands would come for them. Say the wrong thing these days and you get dog-piled.
“I am mystified by why so many academics felt compelled to put up their hand publicly to assert they were against racism, as if we might assume they were in favour of it. The letter seemed to me to be a hasty declaration of moral uprightness.”
Maybe they were – checks notes – using free speech to challenge other speech??
A sample of the quality institutions on offer here, offering their wares!
The invisible college that wants your cash
“Online it’s the imaginary Auckland campus of the New Zealand College of Education.
The website of the college offers PhDs for $31,750, a Bachelor of Arts for $5999 and mini-MBAs for $1390. Religious courses are offered free. It caters for domestic, as well as international, students and offers to help arrange homestay accommodation.”
If only NZ universities were as motivated in protecting the integrity of a NZ education in the same way they collectively collaborate on writing open letters and shutting down some posters and stickers from the Action Zelandia.
Nor do the NZ police or fraud office seem as interested in this, as it has been operating here for months while no doubt the posters going up were removed promptly with great fanfare from the university zealots who are less interested in those being ripped off by education fraudsters….. whose identity remains unknown and anonymous.
The link to the above article about the NZ college of Education.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/116318875/the-invisible-college-that-wants-your-cash
(Taking diversity to new levels with ghost universities)
saveNZ – I might set one up myself, but I really really need to know what exactly is a “mini-MBA” ? I’m wondering if perhaps now that MBA’s are no longer flavour of the month, whether they’re downsizing to mini ones to keep everyone happy.
There’ll be no free courses from me – all I need is guidance from that ANZ chairman chappie about setting up a Cayman Islands bank account to get the student loan income paid in directly, and keep the NZ taxman right out of it – in fact that could be a separate course.
I’ll make all my courses extra-mural – the drop-out rates are phenomenal, and the main thing is to rake in that money upfront first; if some sneaky type goes off to the NZQA, I’ll try to whip up a mind-boggling demo on how to knit heels in sox – that’ll shut them up, but they’re probably as easy as WINZ to bog down in paper warfare, so I’m not worrying too much about them, but I do take myself very seriously.
What about throat singing ? Russian a cappella ? Is that racist ? I’m not really keen on racism which is why I can’t mention world-leading German philosophers, and Mrs Beaton being another white supremisist English cook – I mean, chef. French cooking -out. Swedish gym exercises – out. Mini curriculum. Could do well.
I wasn’t going to pay much attention to this until I read, ” We build our collective understanding of the world and ourselves, while nurturing innovation, and maintaining what is best in our society.” Isn’t Auckland one of the universities where the VC has to personally approve all research topics ? I wonder why ? If it’s true, then I think he should be fired for that – it is not nurturing innovation, it is a mechanism for suppressing original thought.
More than ever, our future may lie in the hands of original thinkers. But apart from that they also carry the same spiritual gifts as poetry and art and music and mountains and trees and seas which expand the aesthetic pleasures which help keep us mentally healthy and productive.
The open letter is complete and utter crap – and dangerous crap. A ‘collective understanding’ = stagnation. Everything is fluid, including ideas, and the moment that anyone suggests that they have an understanding, let alone a collective understanding, we’re walking backwards. Ditto, “maintaining what is best in our society.” Remember Francis Fukuyama ? He maintained that History has stopped, that we have reached ultimate development with liberalism and the free market. Wrong. Fukuyama saw America in the late 20thC as the final culmination of human achievement – something I find profoundly depressing, and obviously wrong.
These Auckland nitwits are worse – pretentious jargon trying to elevate itself with predictable current buzzwords like “nuanced” and “tapestry” – which I could argue are an oxymoron, but I can’t be bothered.
Good old Thomas Aquinas said the raison d’etre of the university was ‘the intellect for the intellect’s sake.’
Try that on Auckland’s VC and the obedient little letter signatories. Good old Steven Joyce seemed to see it as a job training outfit, a bit like the technical colleges which used to adorn our cities, and known as Techs.
I have a reference which an elderly Pommie Kiwi academic gave me carrying myself to the UK, in which he mentions a university education providing one with a trained mind. Probably I would dispute whether this is necessarily so, and he may have been influenced by the great institutions of history, but looking at Auckland University, it is unpalatable if what they are doing is brain washing people, and if they think that they know what is best in our society, then they are a complete menace.
Just who do they think they are ? Even Chairman Mao presents greater profundity of thought than these piddling minnows.
Snow White: I agree with everything you say here.
“Isn’t Auckland one of the universities where the VC has to personally approve all research topics ?”
I believe so. I’ve also heard that it’s the same at Otago; all research proposals must be assessed against Treaty principles. Or so I’ve heard. I assume that also applies at UoA.
“If it’s true, then I think he should be fired for that – it is not nurturing innovation, it is a mechanism for suppressing original thought.”
Yup.
“The open letter is complete and utter crap – and dangerous crap. A ‘collective understanding’ = stagnation.”
True. Christ…. I have a relative currently studying at UoA. When this story first broke, said relative remarked that they’d seen nothing of the posters and stickers claimed to have been put up by Action Zealandia; they thought that maybe it was a scam, someone doing a bit of piss-taking.
My relative is taking STEM papers: perhaps not surprising that they wouldn’t have seen this sort of thing. We figured that it was more likely to be in the humanities area that posters, stickers and the like would be put up.
When I read that letter, I didn’t expect to see any signatories at all from the STEM faculties; not just because I doubted that there was much of a story, but because I expected that academics from the sciences – broadly conceived – wouldn’t be sucked down into this sort of anti-intellectual rabbit hole. Boy, was I wrong:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/116269672/white-supremacists-at-auckland-uni-staff-sign-open-letter-saying-racism-has-no-place-there
I suspected that they’d possibly been intimidated into signing it, said as much to relative, whose response was: “What are you going to do? Say that you won’t sign it?” True enough. These are people who in many cases depend upon the good offices of their colleagues for career advancement, tenure and so on. It’d take a brave person to stand out against that sort of pressure.
I remember when Fran Wilde brought the Homosexual Law Reform Bill to parliament, and the sheer ferocity of the opposition. It seemed that they’d stop at nothing. At that time, a petition against the bill was circulating, and turned up in my work place. The proponents of it had misrepresented what it was actually about; nevertheless, almost everyone had signed it. However, I read the thing properly and refused to sign it, which occasioned some raised eyebrows. It was easier for me: I was obviously not gay, and fortunate not to be dependent upon anyone there for my employment or career advancement. Moreover, there was at that time no such thing as the woke left distorting the thought patterns of so many people.
“Good old Thomas Aquinas said the raison d’etre of the university was ‘the intellect for the intellect’s sake.’”
Poor Thomas Aquinas: I doubt that he’d recognise UoA as a uni at all. One of us in this household is a graduate: they’re deeply unhappy at the extent to which it’s deteriorated intellectually in the last 40-ish years.
In that Stuff article above, there’s this quote:
” Acting vice-chancellor Professor John Morrow said he had no doubt vice-chancellor Professor Stuart McCutcheon would applaud this initiative.
“Universities are established to be society’s critic and conscience and this is what we would expect from our community,” he said.
“The open letter demonstrates our staff members’ exercise of their right to academic freedom and makes a welcome contribution to ongoing debate on matters that are central to the University’s values.””
John Morrow was one of my lecturers, back in the day. He was a terrific lecturer; one of many really good teachers by whom I was fortunate to have been taught, back then. To be blunt, he’s the last person I’d have expected to be making a statement of this sort. Nor would I have thought that he’d be signing a piece of anti-intellectual tosh like this letter. When I last looked – and as far through the signatures as I’d looked – he hadn’t signed it. I do sincerely hope that he doesn’t; I’d like to keep that particular illusion intact.
It’s only recently we got rid of a blasphemy law, and it would still be there if National had won the election.
So let’s not imagine that there has not been restriction on free speech in our tradition. Darwin waited decades to publish a book for fear of being prosecuted for it.
A few decades back members of a local Anglican Church advertised on campus using a burning cross poster, when I responded by placing a poster alongside it, mine was taken down – they said while they were not against free speech they did not like what I said about their poster.
Left-wing views are about inclusivity and equality for all, Far-Right views are about exclusion, division and hatred.
The whole agenda of the Far-right is to normalise racism and make it become mainstream, every time their rhetoric or public posting of racist Propaganda goes unopposed, they pat themselves on the backs for yet another success.
If you don’t believe this, then visit 8Chan message boards or Stormfront to see for yourself.
Racism and Fascist ideology must never be allowed to become normalised, tolerated or acceptable, people either have a zero-tolerance to Far-Right ideology, or they choose to enable it.
There’s no middle ground when it comes to White Supremacist Ideology.
Alison Withers: “Left-wing views are about inclusivity and equality for all, Far-Right views are about exclusion, division and hatred.”
History worldwide begs to differ. Here’s what was happening just in the US during my childhood and much of my adulthood:
http://archive.is/WPrYb
“The whole agenda of the Far-right is to normalise racism and make it become mainstream…”
No. It isn’t. If you believe that, you don’t know very much about what commentators dismissively refer to as the “far right”. I’d add that racism is the purview of governments. Used against individuals, it’s just an epithet, intended to shut down debate and suggestive of a lack of countervailing argument; the last refuge of the scoundrel and all that.
“If you don’t believe this, then visit 8Chan message boards or Stormfront to see for yourself.”
Ooh….surely you don’t go to those sites! You better hope that you haven’t thereby attracted the attention of the spooks.
In any event, I hear tell that 8chan is only intermittently accessible, and Stormfront is run by the US government. In both cases, it seems that they’re frequented by angry young – mostly American and probably incel – men with a grudge against the world and living in their parents’ basement. They’re letting off steam; they’re not a threat to anybody, except possibly themselves. Americans don’t need that sort of motivation to shoot each other up, I’ve noticed.
” Racism and Fascist ideology must never be allowed to become normalised, tolerated or acceptable, people either have a zero-tolerance to Far-Right ideology, or they choose to enable it.
There’s no middle ground when it comes to White Supremacist Ideology.”
Perhaps you’ve failed to notice that the calling for zero tolerance and the silencing of such views is every bit as fascist as those you purport to deplore.
I’d add that, if you imagine that ethnic supremacy is exhausted by white supremacy, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on in the world over the years since WW2. And you don’t have a grasp of history.
It’s really grotesque when the University showed a great deal of tolerance to Chinese Supremacists who disrupted the peaceful HK demonstration
Your confusion is entirely justified, D’Esterre.
The letter posted on The Spinoff is attributed to no-one.
Yes, 400+ people signed it, but, unless all the signatories had a hand in its composition (unlikely) its authorship is unacknowledged. The Spinoff editor/s have given it the by-line of “Guest Writer” – hence my claim that its author/s is/are “anonymous”.
The failure of the author/s to clearly identify themselves is curious – and worrying. Critics and Consciences should be made of sterner stuff!
Chris Trotter: “….unless all the signatories had a hand in its composition….”
I’m familiar with documents written by committee: had a hand in one or two myself (though nothing as contentious), back in the day. It doesn’t read like a joint effort, though I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, whoever wrote it ought to have the courage of their convictions and name themselves.
It’s pusillanimous in the extreme to hide behind anonymity.
Today’s ‘racist’ headlines
“Mark Reason: Are All Blacks supporters racist?”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/116319399/mark-reason-are-all-blacks-supporters-racist
“Government scraps refugee policy labelled as racist by migrant advocates”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/400277/government-scraps-refugee-policy-labelled-as-racist-by-migrant-advocates
Racism, most overused word in MSM?
I agree with the overall thrust of the argument, but …
> This transformation of knowledge: from the fruits of work undertaken by individual scholars; to a collectivist endeavour undertaken for the maintenance of “what is best in our society”; is as sinister as it is tendentious.
.. this is an odd argument for a regular champion of collectivism to be making. It could be argued that the emergence of the university as an institution was all about transforming the lonely solo work of scholars into a collegial effort, and that it is the takeover of universities by neoliberal managerialism that has split scholars up into individual units creating “IP” and struggling to meet KPIs.
Greetings Danyl and Joseph, I have coupled you – You may be able to get an ACC payout for that.
…”is as sinister as it is tendentious.” Absolutely, but they could just be twerps who signed the letter without reading it – it is totally woeful – I read it last night. I was surprised at some of the signatories – and it was also cracking walnuts with a sledge hammer. Undergrads have always done nutty things.
‘Europeans in this country have “No Culture”. ‘ This is something I really resent, and it is crude, and untrue.
I was delighted when Hone Harawira went AWOL in Paris, so that he could see a little of what the Pakeha to whom he is so hostile have in our history. He could also have done what so many of us did when younger, and camped all over Europe on the smell of oily rags – but Hone’s too precious and angry to go seeking out this part of his history – but at least he got to do a bit on the taxpayer and I for one, do not begrudge it.
I stood, packed my bag, and walked out of a 300 level class at OU once, when the late Kenneth Melvin stated that Christianity was a millstone around a child’s neck. I boycotted him thenceforth, did my last two assignments punctiliously, got no mark higher than C; I later ascertained from the Prof that Melvin failed me, but I was passed by the external assessors.
European culture in NZ carries tragedies of suffering and deprivation which dwarf everything ever inflicted upon Maori in NZ which some constantly milk for martyrdom, and use to justify personal hostilities towards assumed descendants of baddies whose histories can bring tears to the eyes those reading them.
In the ghastly govt department where I briefly worked, I unsuccessfully raised the issue of a Maori or Pacifica person always being called upon to say grace before the awful shared lunches. I said this implied that others had no spiritual dimension in their lives. I lost.
Whenever that section relocated to another building, a kaumatua was called to bless the building, and an email revealed his koha as $300. I said that I could get a Catholic priest much cheaper than that, and another woman said she could get an Anglican vicar for free, but we were brushed aside, it had to be Maori.
Were I still in the paid workforce I guess I could take this to the Race Relations Commissioner.
Successive govts choking themselves with political correctness have done their damnedest to make European culture invisible, and there is so much that is totally glorious in our culture – our music, art, science, philosophy, poetry- chappies like Shakespeare and Verdi and Beethoven – and Spike Mulligan.
Joseph – tell your daughter that at the time the first operas were being composed in Italy, her lecturer’s people were still virtually stone age, and some still are. Her ignorance is a shocker – and it is a shame that she has never heard truly wonderful music, or read poetry which uplifts.
Currently, in Italy, a woman with my first christian name and continental birth surname, has just been beautified on her first steps towards sainthood. Like me, she had a violent spouse, and I have pondered how I could have her made patron saint of NZ women, to establish some sort of cultural link between we in this cold threshold land, and the northern hemisphere from which so many of our families came.
Any idea how hard to is to starch and iron a damask tablecloth ?
Thank-you. Our universities have gone from casting a critical eye on European culture to downright despising it and treating it as shameful, Whiteness studies being the worst offender.
I agree. There have been constraints on free speech in the past (science challenging religion, left wingers seen as a security threat). Which progressives for change (secular and economic) have had to overcome to effect it.
Free Speech, all one can buy, is the traditional and or constitutional privilege the right will preserve (so they can maximise the power of wealth politically) – except where they cite security imperatives. Of course they have less concern for the security of minority groups – thus the mosque attack under their radar.
Of course minorites
Well, it’s not surprising there are 400 academics at Auckland Uni happy to sign up for this. My daughter in her second year of Social Work Degree witnessed a Polynesian lecturer asserting to her class that Europeans in this country have “No Culture”.
Meanwhile at my work this week I had a customer, a new Chinese immigrant, call my Fijian coworker a Nigger and proceeded to have a fit of laughter.
Racist Supremecy its Everywhere.
Joseph ‘Europeans in this country have “No Culture”. ‘ Really ? What about:
Crowded house/SplitEnz, Dave Dobbin, Lorde, Hayley Westenra, European singers, (And I know nothing about pop music); Michael Houston, European concert pianist; James Baxter, European not-really-dead-poet; Sam Hunt, European poet; Eleanor Catton, European Booker Prize winning novelist; Margaret Mahy, Linley Dodd kids’ writers; European film maker with all his entourage who has put NZ on a global cult map: Sir Peter Jackson; writers who feature regularly in ‘Landfall’; writers in Random House’s story collections (incl me) Katherine Mansfield-forever alive; artists (internationally recognised) Colin McCahon, Peter Robinson, and Sean Kerr -actually a senior lecturer in art at AU; masses of writers actually, but I’d place Maurice Gee at the top, for, “Plumb”, which I think the best NZ novel ever written.
These are from the top of my head – and I don’t watch television – there’ll be more.
Because this so-called university lecturer has said that there is no European culture in NZ, I think that she is racist, and that she should be reported to the VC as such pronto, and she should apologise to all of her students for misleading them. If she is so ignorant, she has no place inside any university, and AU has been making it clear that they don’t like racist supremacists. (Wonder if she signed that stupid damn letter ?)
I can’t do it because I have no standing in the matter, but one of her audience can, and should.
Obviously I’ve stuck to Pakeha here, as it is white people who this woman is trying to degrade, otherwise Kiri Te Kanawa would be right up the top there too.
Lloyd Geering is and has always been a cultural trailblazer – I love him – but only a masochist would try and talk about this to ignorant heads.( The most erudite and tolerant thinker I have ever known.)
(Chinese guy might have been being funny – they do have a good sense of humour, and are keen on correct behavior – fascinating culture – and please don’t say, “cultural Revolution” or I shall start crying.)
Lloyd Geering might have signed the letter as a collective work in creating a more progressive God order, one providing a safer space for minorites.
A Pakeha male making a joke about lesbians before a group of women might have just being funny – they do have a sense of humour, and a proud cultural legacy, and please do not say chauvinism or patriarchy or I will have to laugh.
OK, SPC. I’m thinking it unsafe to say anything much now, so I’ll just wander around speaking in tongues; anyone understanding me would be most welcome to tell me what I’m talking about.
Plus the Topp Twins. How can anyone living in the Topp Twins country possibly say that there is no European culture ? They are us.
Rugby, racing and beer was our NZ culture now what is it?
Michelle – Rugby, racing and craft beers.
Pip: wine; all kinds, but for me personally, especially Gimblett Gravels reds (oh, and, back in the day, Dry River reds – from Martinborough. God, they were divine), Gewurtstraminer and Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc. Oh the Sav Blanc, redolent of passionfruit! Or cats’ piss, if you prefer….
Mine is rugby and beer – don’t give to sh*ts about horse racing.
Snow White: in no particular order: Simon O’Neill; Jack Lasenby; Murray Khouri; fish and chips; meringues; pavlova; the NZSO; the ballet; Janet Frame; Frank Sargeson; Fred Dagg; “A Week of It”. Etc…..
D’Esterre – Are you sure about the meringues? Richmal Crompton in the ‘William’ books gives the impression that meringues and blanc mange are pretty English and I’m trying to avoid cultural appropriation here – or the sort of law suits that the Brit tabloids are currently facing.
Eileen Duggan- one of our best not often met poets – Somewhere I have stuff on her, and she was being well reviewed in the UK press when I think she was much less well known here.
Fleur Adcock and Marilyn Duckworth and Rita Angus and Denis Glover esp Denis Glover, and I prefer not to mention Barry Crump, having known one of his wives, and met another fore mentioned, and Aunt Daisy, who wore her hat while broadcasting – that’s real culture that is.
Ngaio Marsh – Not just for her detective novels, but establishing a great Shakespearean tradition at Canterbury Univ. (Daresay I’ve got that wrong and that some bastard has now sold off the space for car parking.)
“. The 400+ academics who put their names to an open letter condemning racism and white supremacy on the Auckland campus undoubtedly did so with the best of intentions, but in signing the document they have either deliberately, or unwittingly, endorsed a document of profound illiberality. ”
Sooo……. free speech is a one way road for you Chris??
No one is allowed to challenge an opinion??
And yet, here you are with your opinion
Since you haven’t managed to post my comment, or respond to me by email, I will withdraw my comment. Discard it; do not post it.
Comments are closed.