A group of New Zealand academics at Otago University have drawn up a “Declaration on Palestine” against genocide, apartheid and scholasticide of Palestinians by Israel that has illegally occupied their indigenous lands for more than seven decades.

The document, which had already drawn more than 300 signatures from staff, students and alumni by the weekend, will be formally adopted at a congress of the Otago Staff for Justice in Palestine (OSJP) group on Thursday.

“At a time when our universities, our public institutions and our political leaders are silent in the face of the daily horrors we are shown from illegally-occupied Palestine, this declaration is an act of solidarity with our Palestinian whānau,” declared Professor Richard Jackson from Te Ao O Rongomaraeroa — The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.

“It expresses the brutal truth of what is currently taking place in Palestine, as well as our commitment to international law and human rights, and our social responsibilities as academics.

“We hope the declaration will be an inspiration to others and a call to action at a moment when the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is accelerating at an alarming rate.”

Scholars and students at the university had expressed concern that they did not want to be teaching or learning about the Palestinian genocide in future courses on the history of the Palestinian people, Professor Jackson said.

Nor did they want to feel ashamed when they were asked what they did while the genocide was taking place.

‘Collective moral courage’
“Signing up to the declaration represents an act of individual and collective moral courage, and a public commitment to working to end the genocide.”

In an interview with the Otago Daily Times published at the weekend, Professor Jackson said boycotting academic ties with Israel was among the measures included in a declaration.

The declaration commits its signatories to an academic boycott as part of the wider Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign “until such time as Palestinians enjoy freedom from genocide, apartheid and scholasticide”, they had national self-determination and full and complete enjoyment of human rights, as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The declaration says that given the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled there is a “plausible” case that Israel has been committing genocide, and that all states that are signatory to the Genocide Convention must take all necessary measures to prevent acts of genocide, the signatories commit themselves to an academic boycott.

BDS is a campaign, begun in 2005, to promote economic, social and cultural boycotts of the Israeli government, Israeli companies and companies that support Israel, in an effort to end the occupation of Palestinian territories and win equal rights for Palestinian citizens within Israel.

It draws inspiration from South African anti-apartheid campaigns and the United States civil rights movement.

The full text of the declaration:

The Otago Declaration on the Situation in Palestine

We, the staff, students and graduates, being members of the University of Otago, make the following declaration.

We fully and completely recognise that:
– The Palestinian people have a right under international law to national self-determination;
– The Palestinians have the right to security and the full enjoyment of all human and social rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

And furthermore that:
– Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian nation, according to experts, official bodies, international lawyers and human rights organisations;
– Israel operates a system of apartheid in the territories it controls, and denies the full expression and enjoyment of human rights to Palestinians, according to international courts, human rights organisations, legal and academic experts;
– Israel is committing scholasticide, thereby denying Palestinians their right to education;

We recognise that:
– Given the International Court of Justice has ruled that there is a plausible case that Israel has been committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, that all states that are signatory to the Genocide Convention, which includes Aotearoa New Zealand, have a responsibility to take all necessary measures to prevent acts of genocide;

We also acknowledge that as members of a public institution with educational responsibilities:
– We hold a legal and ethical responsibility to act as critic and conscience of society, both individually as members of the University and collectively as a social institution;
– We have a responsibility to follow international law and norms and to act in an ethical manner in our personal and professional endeavours;
– We hold an ethical responsibility to act in solidarity with oppressed and disadvantaged people, including those who struggle against settler colonial regimes or discriminatory apartheid systems and the harmful long-term effects of colonisation;
– We owe a responsibility to fellow educators who are victimised by apartheid and scholasticide;

Therefore, we, the under-signed, do solemnly commit ourselves to:
– Uphold the practices, standards and ethics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in terms of investment and procurement as called for by Palestinian civil society and international legal bodies; until such time as Palestinians enjoy freedom from genocide, apartheid and scholasticide, national self-determination and full and complete enjoyment of human rights, as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
– Adopt as part of the BDS campaign an Academic Boycott, as called for by Palestinian civil society and international legal bodies; until such time as Palestinians enjoy freedom from genocide, apartheid and scholasticide, national self-determination and full and complete enjoyment of human rights, as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• The Otago Declaration congress meeting will be held on Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 12 noon at the Museum Lawn, Dunedin.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

After almost a year of consistent pressure from the student body, the Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) Foundation has announced its divestment from all Israeli government bonds and shares of companies listed in Israel.

The foundation had previously reported having close to $50,000 invested in Israeli government bonds, which finance the apartheid state’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The news of divestment came through some weeks after Student Justice for Palestine Pōneke (SJPP) conducted an unannounced sit-in at the Hunter Building, where the vice-chancellor’s office of Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington is located.

Two weeks prior to that action, the Kelburn campus was adorned with spray-painted messages by activists calling for the university to divest from genocide.

Pressure on the VUW leadership and the foundation to disclose and divest, which has been ramping up over the last year, has come from multiple campus groups. These include SJPP, VUW Student Association (VUWSA), Ngāi Tauira, VicMuslims Club and Uni Workers for Palestine.

“This is a big, collective win; undoubtedly the work of numerous individuals and groups that have remained consistent in their activism for Palestine,” said Frank Mackenzie, an organiser at SJPP.

“This is student power, pushing to hold these academic institutions and leaders to account, so that we are not complicit in these settler colonial, genocidal regimes.

“And yet — divestment is the very least the university can do. It is only the first step.

“The foundation and university leaders must now institutionalise a commitment to divesting from human rights violators. We can’t leave the door open for leadership to walk back this win.

“The only way to ensure that is to implement a full, financial and academic Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) policy against Israel. We also need ongoing proactive disclosure of all investments so the university and foundation can be held accountable” .

Marcail Parkinson, president of VUWSA, said: “As the only student on the university’s foundation board I am incredibly encouraged by the foundation’s move to stop supporting genocide and divest from Israeli government bonds.

“This victory reflects the power of collective student action. This moment demonstrates the profound influence students can have in shaping the future of our institution.

“I am deeply proud of what we’ve achieved, and I hope students continue to push for change.”

An open letter by SJPP calling for divestment, BDS policy and scholarships for Palestinian students was signed by 1400 people. The university has not formally responded to the letter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Thousands of students across Aotearoa New Zealand protested in a nationwide rally at seven universities across the country in a global day of solidarity with Palestine, calling on their universities to divest all partnerships with Israel.

A combined group of students and academic staff from the country’s two largest universities chanted “AUT take a stand” at their rally in the Hikuwai Plaza in the heart of Auckland University of Technology (AUT).

Students from the neighbouring University of Auckland (UOA) also took part.

The students carried placards such as “Educators against genocide”, “Stand for students. Stand for justice. Stand with Palestine”, “Maite Te Awa Ki Te Moana” – te reo for “From the river to the sea – Free Palestine”.

Another sign said, “No universities left in Gaza”, referring to Israeli military forces having destroyed all 12 universities in the besieged enclave during the war now in its eighth month.

“We urge all students, alumni, and staff from universities across Aotearoa to sign the University Students’ Open Letter,” said organisers.

“Let’s hold our institutions accountable, demanding they meet our calls for action and adhere to the guidelines of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.

‘Gross injustices’
“Together, we can push for change and recognise Israel’s violations for what they are — gross injustices against humanity.

“Stand with us in this global movement of solidarity with Palestine.”

The rally was in support of thousands of students around the world demonstrating against the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Their aim with their universities:

* Declare and recognise Palestine as an independent and sovereign state;
* Disclose and divest all partnerships with Israel; and
* Denounce antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of discrimination.

Ali, the “voice of Free Palestine”.      Video: Café Pacific

A declaration said that the nationwide protest expressed “our unapologetic solidarity with Palestinians and our commitment to the Palestinian struggle for liberation “.

“We refuse to be silent or complicit in genocide, and we reject all forms of cooperation between our institutions and the Israeli state.

‘Major win’ at Melbourne University
Meanwhile, in Melbourne pro-Palestine protesters who occupied a university building last week called off their encampment.

Protest leaders told a media conference at the University of Melbourne that had agreed to end the protest after the institution had agreed to disclose research partnerships with weapons manufacturers.

“After months of campaigning, rallies, petitions, meetings and in recent weeks, the encampment, the University of Melbourne has finally agreed to meet an important demand of our campaign,” a spokesperson later told the ABC.

“This is a major win.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group of academic staff at New Zealand’s largest university have expressed concern at the administration’s move to block a protest encampment that was planned to take place on campus calling for support for the rights of Palestinians.

This week, the University of Auckland warned that while it supported the right of students and staff to protest peacefully and legally, it would not support an overnight encampment due to health and safety concerns.

The university’s statement said advice from police had been taken into account, and the university would “work constructively” with the protesters to facilitate an alternative form of protest.

“This compromise enables students and staff who wish to express their views to do so in a peaceful and lawful manner, without introducing the significant risks that such encampments have brought to other university campuses,” the statement said.

On Wednesday, more than 100 people gathered at the university’s central city campus for the rally, with those taking part expressing a range of views toward violence between Israel and Palestinians and the war in Gaza.

Protest organisers Students for Justice in Palestine, said the demonstration was the initial event in a long-term campaign to advocate for Palestinian rights, in “support for justice and peace”, and invited any member of the university to take part, “regardless of background or affiliation”.

After the university’s statement against the planned encampment, the group changed the event to a campus rally, which they said would make it more accessible to a more diverse range of people.

Open letter of concern
However, now an open letter signed by 65 university staff and academics says they held deep concerns about the university’s stance toward the protest.

The institution’s reaction “mischaracterised” the focus of the protest, minimised the violence in Gaza, and had not acknowledged a call for the institution to “divest from any entities and corporations enabling Israel’s ongoing military violence against Palestinians in Gaza”, the letter said.

It condemned the university for not seeking advice about the planned protest from its own students and staff, and said the institution’s stance had implied the protesters would “introduce significant risks”.

One of the signatories, senior law lecturer Dylan Asafo, told RNZ the University of Auckland vice-chancellor had taken poor advice.

“The vice-chancellor is essentially blaming the violence and unrest that we’re seeing on the newest campuses [overseas] on staff and students who set up peaceful encampments there, rather than on university administrators and police forces who have broken up those peaceful encampments.”

The academics also want confirmation protesters won’t be punished by the university.

“We also urge you not to discipline or penalise students and staff who may choose to participate in peaceful protests and encampments in any way, and to engage with them in good faith,” the letter said.

The university has been approached for comment.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tertiary education is in crisis in Aotearoa New Zealand. Vocational education, the domain of the Polytechnic ‘Institutes of Technology’; and Science and Humanities’ education, the traditional domain of the Universities.

2023 was an election year, yet tertiary education did not feature in the election campaign, despite these manifest crises. The Labour government was not interested in campaigning on its record, and for the mainstream media who frame election campaigns, the matter was not sexy enough. The media wanted a campaign largely restricted to fiscal holes, identity politics (especially bi-cultural divisions), and coalition-alignments (with a fascination for Winston Peters comparable with the fascination of the American media for Donald Trump).

(Occasionally health, education and climate change got into the election campaign discussion; but for health it was largely about constrained clinical services, in education it was about schools and possible curriculum impositions, and for climate change it was mainly about electric car subsidies. Nothing about the state of the population’s health, meeting New Zealand’s demographic challenges, the extent to which the consumers of education at all levels are disengaging with learning, addressing the lifestyle choices of the entitled minority, or fairly distributing the real cost burdens which we face.)

New Zealand’s underfunded universities are shedding staff in the public disciplines: humanities and public science. Once we were aspirational, or at least we wished to appear to be so, with Bright Future in 1999 and its predecessor, the Knowledge Society.

The Polytechnic Sector

The Te Pūkenga polytechnic saga is a scandal; a scandal attributable to former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins before he became Prime Minister. Yet his record in ministering to tertiary education was largely unremarked upon when he became Prime Minister, unopposed.

It was in the 1990s that the rot set in. Tertiary education became an export industry – not in itself a bad thing – which meant that this important public infrastructure increasingly came to be seen as a business (subject to private-market discipline) that just happened to do some intellectual public good as a side gig. The universities came to emulate polytechnics in that they increasingly emphasised professional vocational education over humanities; and they increasingly emphasised applied science over pure science.

Further, re the polytechnics, the governments either side of the millennium dropped the ball massively by not rebranding the leading polytechnics – as happened in Australia and United Kingdom – as Universities of Technology. For the polytechnics to be at the vanguard of a successful export-education model, they had to be branded as ‘universities’. So, for someone in Sri Lanka or Vietnam today – some young person who wants a good education which will gain them a good job in their home country – which was/is more attractive: University of Central Queensland at Rockhampton, or Manukau Institute of Technology?

New Zealand in 2023 has a tight labour market, though with unacceptably high levels of structural unemployment. The historical role of the New Zealand’s polytechnics has to address labour supply through reducing structural unemployment and structural underemployment; of upskilling the labour force. Yet this purpose of the polytechnic sector has been almost entirely absent from the minimal profile the sector has had in the mainstream media this decade so far; almost all I have heard is about financial losses, indicating the widespread perspective that the polytechnics are principally lame-duck businesses and only incidentally a critical part of the country’s educational infrastructure.

When such infrastructure is underfunded – the direct cause of the poor financial performance – two things happen. The polytechnic sector makes financial losses, the sector overinvests in a cost-management superstructure, and the sector gets restructured by the Ministry of Education. Service delivery – the sector’s raison d’être – becomes squeezed by the underfunding, management bloat, and top-down bureaucracy.

My impression has been that Treasury has been advocating a ‘free-rider’ policy; wishing to import skills from other countries, while seeking to suppressing investment in human capital on the grounds that employable educated Aotearoans can gain higher returns to themselves by emigrating. Such a free-rider policy is to be a net poacher of human capital; a poacher of people with employable skills.

In 2024 we, as a nation – as a mainstream liberal mediocracy – must start asking the right questions about the contributions that tertiary education can make to alleviating critical skills’ shortages. Labour supply is a critical component of a successful macroeconomy; and should not be addressed by austere monetary and fiscal policies which seek to suppress labour demand as a way of restoring balance to the labour market.

At least, in 2024, we have a Minister for Tertiary Education – Penny Simmonds – who understands the Polytechnic sector and its critical importance in addressing New Zealand’s labour supply problem.

The Polytechnic sector only made it through the media wall-of-silence this month because the cancelling of the Te Pūkenga project was just too big a story to ignore entirely. (Nevertheless, if I put ‘Te Pūkenga’ into the search facility of the New Zealand Herald android app, there are just two stories from 2023: one about a successful open day at UCOL’s Whanganui campus, 9 Aug 2023; and one from March about Microsoft facilitating the training of Māori and Pasifika for cybersecurity careers. Yet 2023 was an election year; a year in which the critical economic problem faced by this country was/is labour supply.)

The Universities

The previous government not only mangled the Polytechnic sector, it, also abandoned the University sector. (This abandonment took place despite, so much of the time since 2020, the government was saying “the science says …”.) While it had no functioning Minister of Tertiary Education – the Minister of Education in 2023 only really seemed to understand school education – the Government had a substantially underemployed Minister in Deborah Russell who could have been an excellent advocate for the universities, and their potential contribution to an evolving knowledge society. I trust that Penny Simmonds has a vision for universities – other than cost-cutting – while understanding that most of her ministerial bandwidth will be taken up with the polytechnic(s). The confirmation of Massey University’s retrenchment was discussed on RNZ today, 14 Dec, on Checkpoint: Massey University confirms it’s pressing ahead with its plans.

The new government needs to make an urgent and clear statement that it values the sciences and the humanities as public goods, and that the support of these civilisational cornerstone activities needs to be broader than cross-subsidies of university student fees.

Unitec

Unitec – formally Carrington Polytechnic, and which might have been better understood by non-Aucklanders had it been called West Auckland Institute of Technology – has suffered an appalling fate. Once New Zealand’s biggest Polytechnic – and the only tertiary educator of any note in West Auckland – Unitec became a land company around 2012. It became a campus with a Polytech as its main tenant. The first major problem was the Business School being turfed out of its purpose-built premises; premises which were then gutted by the new star tenant – multinational company IBM. Within about a year IBM abandoned its project, though the building continues to house a commercial tenant.

The polytechnic continued, doing great things despite underfunding and the machinations going on around the land which the government was coveting; and despite a burgeoning management superstructure, and its edict of ‘change management’. Eventually Unitec – a government owned land company cum polytechnic – was (unsurprisingly) practically bankrupt, and most of the land was sold to the government; and has subsequently been on-sold to a property development company.

The former campus is now a sorry site, and the property development scale and logistics will probably be unsurvivable for the tenant polytechnic; like a well-nourished rata tree strangling its host. This RNZ story this week Auckland urban development: complex manoeuvrings in Mt Albert gives a very pollyanna-ish take on the current state of this wonderful former green-space (and piece of Auckland’s history); now a ‘model’ “brownfield” development. (And we should note that, as well as suffocating Unitec – the tertiary educator, not the land bank – the development will surround the Mason Clinic, Aotearoa’s maximum-security psychiatric detention centre.)

My final plea is for the mainstream media to look at this ‘model’ property development with a critical eye, and see if it ‘cuts the mustard’ as a high density mixed-housing development. And to compare the potential of this ‘brownfields’ site with a nearby genuine brownfield site, the former Crown Lynn lands. Even if the former Unitec campus can be made to work as a modern tenement complex, will it have been worth the cost to the environment and to the educational infrastructure of West Auckland and Aotearoa New Zealand?

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

A third New Zealand university is close to signing with Mumbai’s Bombay Stock Exchange Institute, opening up opportunities for Indian students to study in Aotearoa.

The Bombay Stock Exchange Institute is a subsidiary of Bombay Stock Exchange, which at 148 years old, is the oldest stock exchange in Asia.

Managing director and CEO of the Bombay Stock Exchange Institute Ambarish Datta said it was a privilege to partner with universities in New Zealand.

“New Zealand education is recognised worldwide, and students are offered a fantastic opportunity to learn in a great country,” he said.

The University of Canterbury signed a memorandum of understanding in late 2018, allowing students to study in New Zealand for two of its master’s programmes.

It allows students to start their course in India and then travel to New Zealand to graduate while still qualifying for a Post Study Work Visa.

University of Canterbury Business Taught Masters programme director Stephen Hickinson said the agreement was beneficial to universities because they get students in different levels of study.

Cheaper for students
“It is also cheaper for students because they spend the first half of their study in India.”

The University of Otago reached agreements with five Indian institutions in 2017.

International director Jason Cushen said staff were also looking to develop further partnerships across India, particularly in the southern region and in the state of Maharashtra.

He said these programmes offer more opportunities for international students that may not be accessible in their home country

RNZ understands that another New Zealand university is in the final stages of signing an agreement with the Bombay Stock Exchange Institute.

A spokesperson for the institute said they are currently finalising the curriculum and planning to start the programme by February next year.

Covid-19 impact
According to a recent Education New Zealand study, international students contributed $3.7 billion to New Zealand’s economy in 2019, with a sizeable portion going to universities.

But the pandemic changed everything.

“We started the course in 2019 and then covid hit, so we have only had a few students so far,” Hickinson said.

“At the moment, it’s a little unknown how things will turn out.”

Education Minister Jan Tinetti and Finance Minister Grant Robertson recently announced extra funding for struggling universities and tertiary institutions.

An additional $128 million will be invested to increase tuition subsidies at degree-level and above by a further 4 percent in 2024 and 2025. This is in addition to the 5 percent funding increase that was included in the 2023 Budget, which the government described as the most significant funding increase in 20 years.

“The government has heard the concerns of the sector,” Tinetti said.

“When we began our Budget process, universities and other degree providers were forecasting enrolment increases. The opposite has occurred, and it is clear that there is a need for additional support.”

A new approach
However, Quality NZ Education chief executive Sandeep Sharma believed the pandemic offered a fresh perspective.

The organisation was formed during covid-19 and played a major role in creating the pathway programmes that connect Indian students with New Zealand universities.

“The pandemic was a good time for us because all our shareholders were in New Zealand, and they found that the pandemic [changed] a lot of things in the education industry, especially the traditional way of recruiting students,” he said.

He mentioned that there was considerable interest among Kiwis to go to India to learn about “wellbeing, Ayurveda and yoga”.

Sharma believed that it was time for universities to introduce programmes that were not dependent on border control.

He also highlighted the importance of Indian contributions to New Zealand’s education sector in the coming years.

“India is going to be the largest pool of international students, overtaking China by 2027,” Sharma said.

“It’s vital to have these pathway programmes and I think New Zealand should capitalise on these opportunities.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins faced a grilling by University of Otago students during his trip to Ōtepoti yesterday.

Students, staff and community members have been fighting against the university’s request for staff to consider redundancies in a bid to save $60 million.

But the students did not keep their questions to cuts alone.

Hipkins got a mixed welcome with protesters chanting and asking for selfies with the prime minister.

Associate professor of politics Brian Roper said staff were already finding out that their courses were being cut and they were losing their jobs.

“I bumped into one of them. She was in tears, she’s absolutely distraught. What this government is doing to our universities is scandalous,” he said.

“Five out of eight of them are currently experiencing severe financial difficulties because of a chronic underfunding from this government.”

Declining enrolments
Hipkins said declining enrolments meant universities across the motu were finding ways to rebalance their books.

“I know that’s a really uncertain and uncomfortable time for the staff. The universities make their own decisions about how they manage their finances so it’s not something we can intervene on as a government.”

The prime minister attended a student association forum yesterday afternoon, making a speech before opening the floor to questions from students.

“I was just in a lecture where we’re doing course evaluations and my lecturer was begging the class to give a positive evaluation to keep her job. We have a $60 million budget hole, why can’t you just fix it?”

Hipkins said there was a lot of demand on the government’s coffers, and they could not cover all of the requests they got.

He offered no policy promises, telling students they would hear them well before the election

“Our rent has increased, the university’s spiralling down. I’m just thinking why on Earth should I be voting for you?” one student asked.

‘Most political answer’
Hipkins said: “I’ll probably give you the most political answer I’ve given you so far. The biggest increase in tertiary funding that we’ve seen in 20 years in this year’s Budget versus a government that actually wants to do the opposite of that.”

But his responses in regards to the National Party did not go over well with multiple students telling him to stop the blame game or saying what the opposing party would not give them, and instead tell them his policies and what he would deliver.

A yellow-suited monkey has become a feature of recent university protests — they want the government to bail out the university to save jobs and courses.

“I have a banana addiction as a monkey, but my Bachelor of Arts is being cut and I think that’s appalling. Millions and millions of dollars are sitting there which could bail out our university for underfunding, but he’s just not spending it, which he needs to,” the monkey said.

Earlier in the day, Hipkins toured KiwiRail’s Hillside Workshops in South Dunedin as it works on a multi-million dollar redevelopment to build a new wagon assembly facility.

Then he swapped a hard hat for a console, visiting three gaming development studios, after announcing $160 million to set up a 20 percent rebate for game developers in the recent Budget.

Hopeful over rebate
Balancing Monkey Games co-founder Sam Barham is hopeful the rebate could help them hire more staff and continue to do what they love.

Currently, he said developers made most of their money straight after releasing a game and then lived off that until they released another one.

“It makes a huge difference in terms of our ability to survive. It’s not the least risky business out there so we’ve got to think about how do we keep going. Our main aim is to still be doing this. It’s a thing that we love doing.”

The details of the rebate will be consulted on, but up to $3 million in rebate funding is likely to be up for grabs per year for individual studios.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As part of its aspiration to be “Tiriti-led”, the University of Otago has embarked on a consultation process to re-brand. The proposed change involves a new logo and a new, deeply symbolic Māori name: Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka.

Universities occasionally change logos, names and marketing strategies. All New Zealand institutions have added te reo Māori to their original titles, often opting for a literal translation — “Te Whare Wānanga” — to describe their status as a university. But Otago is taking it a step further.

Metaphorically, “whakaihu” refers to the university’s place as the country’s oldest university, as well as its Māori students often being the first to graduate from their whanau and communities. And it symbolically includes everyone on the “waka”.

That is exactly what a university is supposed to be, of course — a place for everyone. A place where people are free to think and develop ideas, even contested or unpopular ones.

As the Education and Training Act 2020 says, universities must operate as the “critic and conscience of society”.

But being “Tiriti-led” is not as straightforward. It throws into sharp relief where universities sit in relation to the Crown under te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. This, in turn, raises quite fundamental questions about what a university is in the first place.

The University has collaborated with mana whenua to create a proposed new visual identity including a new Māori name and tohu (symbol), to sit along the official University of Otago name, which we believe represent where we have come from and where we’re going. pic.twitter.com/mZ86NPOzE2

— University of Otago (@otago) March 15, 2023

What is te Tiriti, what is a university?
Essentially, te Tiriti o Waitangi was the Māori language agreement in 1840 between Māori hapu and the British Crown which set out the terms of British settlement. Britain could establish government over its own people, hapu would retain authority over their own affairs.

Māori would enjoy the “rights and privileges” of British subjects, a legal status which continues to evolve as New Zealand citizenship. The Treaty of Waitangi is an English language version of the agreement with different and less favourable emphases for Māori.

By wanting to become “Tiriti-led”, Otago has decided it is part of the Crown party to this agreement. This makes Kai Tahu, as mana whenua (people of the land), the university’s “principal Tiriti partner”.

By contrast, when Massey University says it’s Tiriti-led, it doesn’t explicitly say it’s part of the Crown. Auckland University of Technology’s vice-chancellor has said his university is Tiriti-led, but there’s no definition to be easily found on the public record.

Styling a relationship in this way is significant — but not necessarily in ways that keep faith with te Tiriti o Waitangi, or with the essential purposes of a university.

Universities are owned and principally funded by the Crown. But their obligation to independent scholarship means they cannot be part of the Crown in the same way as a government department.

Universities don not take direction from ministers in the same way, and their staff are not public servants. They are not part of the executive branch of government.

Together with their students and graduates, academics are the university — a community of scholars obliged to contribute to the discovery and sharing of knowledge, but not obliged to serve the government of the day.

Us and them
Parliament and the executive (government ministers) together decide what te Tiriti means to the Crown side of the relationship. Public servants offer advice, but ultimately take ministers’ instructions on giving effect to whatever is the Crown’s Tiriti policy.

Academics, however, can take a different view. They are not bound by what the Crown side of the agreement thinks. And, as developments in te Tiriti policy show, academic independence makes a difference.

In 1877, New Zealand’s Supreme Court found the Treaty was legally a “simple nullity” because it had not been incorporated into domestic law. It wasn’t the public servant’s role to object, at least not in public. That kind of intellectual freedom belongs elsewhere. Explicitly, it’s one of the reasons universities exist.

Academics — Māori and others — have contributed significantly to developments in te Tiriti policy since 1877, especially in more recent years. Their contributions have often contested prevailing political thought. Universities have given Māori academics — and through them, Māori communities — the kind of voice unavailable to public servants working for the Crown partner.

Partnership is one of the “Treaty principles”, developed legally and politically as an interpretive guide to the agreement. But partnership creates a “them” and “us” binary.

In my book, Sharing the Sovereign: recognition, treaties and the state, I show how this binary encourages people to think of the Crown as exclusively Pākehā. Any institution that is not solely Māori is an institution that belongs to “them”.

This reinforces Māori separation from the university as an institution that should belong to all of us — and to each of us in our own ways.

Academics are not public servants
If an institution represents one side of a partnership, that institution cannot be a “place for everyone”. A Māori student or staff member should be able to say, “I belong here as much as anybody else, with the same rights, opportunities and obligations to contribute to the institution’s culture, values and purpose.”

That includes the right to study and teach te Tiriti with an independence that is not available to public servants.

In 2020, I helped develop “Critical Tiriti Analysis”, a policy evaluation method that could be used to assess public policy consistency with te Tiriti. While anecdotally it seems now to be widely used across the public service, it’s not something likely to have been written by a public servant.

The Crown is a cautious Tiriti partner.

Thoroughness and objectivity — but not political caution — guide academic contributions to policy debate. Such contributions are different in style and purpose from the kind of policy making that it is the duty of the public service to undertake.

Universities are not the Crown in the same sense, and this is why they are not Tiriti partners.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Late last year, the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) initiated a process to eliminate 170 academic jobs to cut costs. The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found AUT’s approach breached its collective employment agreement with staff and their union and ordered it to withdraw the termination notices.

Tertiary education runs on an insecure labour force in New Zealand and elsewhere. The AUT decision illustrates that even traditionally secure positions are becoming less so.

Tenure is the traditional protection for academics in the tertiary sector, but New Zealand does not have tenure at its universities.

Tenure is more than a perk

A common argument against tenure is that it leads to a complacent, under-motivated university professor. These concerns are hypothetical — evidence that tenure causes productivity differences is lacking.

In fact, one of few large studies on the subject found the opposite. Good administrators should be able to manage any actual productivity issues as they do in all other workplaces.

On the other hand, lack of tenure creates risks for free societies. Tenure is common practice in other liberal democracies. UNESCO says:

Security of employment in the profession, including tenure […] should be safeguarded as it is essential to the interests of higher education.

Tenure is important, if not indispensable, for academic freedom. Academic freedom is essential to a university’s mission, and this mission is a characteristic of a democracy. As University of Regina professor Marc Spooner put it:

A country’s institutional commitment to academic freedom is a key indicator of whether its democracy is in good health.

The Employment Relations Authority has issued a compliance order to the university, requiring it to withdraw its notices of termination. https://t.co/NUvBfqS6ad

— Stuff (@NZStuff) January 5, 2023

Scholarship is not piecework
The ERA said AUT misunderstood terminology in the collective employment agreement.
The clash term was “specific position”. AUT’s position was that specific positions are identified by professional ranks (from lecturer to professor) and the numbers of each role across four particular faculties.

The ERA did not agree and concluded an essential component for identifying specific positions is the employee, being the person who is the current position holder or appointee to a position.

AUT’s assertion would be like the air force using the rank of “captain” to adjust its number of pilots. The number of captains does not tell you what each captain does, be it to fly planes or fix them.

Without tenure, a standard less than this minimum established by the ERA can be used to eliminate academics who have legitimate priorities that do not align with the administrative staff of the day, or are the victims of any other concealed discrimination. The ERA clarification makes it more difficult to inhibit intramural criticism, the right to criticise the actions taken by managers and leaders of the university.

The authoritative review of freedom of speech and academic freedom in Australian universities singles out the importance of academic freedom for this purpose, saying:

It […] reflects the distinctive relationship of academic staff and universities, a relationship not able to be defined by reference to the ordinary law of employer and employee relationships.

The ERA clarification helps to prevent the firing of academics who are teaching, researching or questioning things administrators, funders or governments don’t want them to. But it is a finger in a leaking dyke. Tenure is a tried and tested general solution.

Health of the democracy
We only need to observe the events in the United States to recognise the importance of tenure. This benchmark country has a proud tradition of tenure. Nevertheless state governments are dismantling tenure to impose political control on curriculums. Our liberal democracy is not immune to this.

We need more than tenure-secured academic freedom to enable universities to do the sometimes dreary and at other times risky work of providing societies alternatives to populist, nationalist or autocratic movements. But as the Douglas Dillon chair in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, Darrell M. West, wrote, academic freedom is a problem for these movements.

Recognizing the moral authority of independent experts, when despots come to power, one of the first things they do is discredit authoritative institutions who hold leaders accountable and encourage an informed citizenry.

In a system with tenure, a university would have a defined stand-down period preventing reappointment to vacated positions. For example, if an academic program and associated tenured staff that teach it were eliminated at the University of Arkansas for financial reasons, the program could not be reactivated for at least five years. The stand-down inhibits whimsical or agenda-fuelled restructuring as a lazy option to manage staff.

If a similar trade-off were to be applied to how AUT defined specific positions, then no academics could be hired there for five years. It is very different to be prevented from hiring academics than it is to, say, not re-establishing a financially struggling department or program.

Herein lies the true value of tenure. It is greater than a protection of the individual. It protects society from wasteful or ideologically motivated restructuring as an alternative to poor management. Tenure is security of the public trust in our universities.

Dr Jack Heinemann is professor of molecular biology and genetics, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The launch of a New Zealand project to produce more Pacific news and provide a “voice for the voiceless” on the islands has highlighted the neglect of that field by Australia and New Zealand — and also problems in universities.

The new development is the non-government, non-university Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), a research base and publishing platform.

Its opening followed the cleaning-out of a centre within the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) — in an exercise exemplifying the kind of micro infighting that goes on hardly glimpsed from outside the academic world.

Cleaning out media centre
The story features an unannounced move by university staff to vacate the offices of an active journalism teaching and publishing base, the Pacific Media Centre, in early February 2021.

Seven weeks after the retirement of that centre’s foundation director, Professor David Robie, staff of AUT’s School of Communication Studies turned up and stripped it, taking out the archives and Pacific taonga — valued artifacts from across the region.

Staff still based there did not know of this move until later.

The centre had been in operation for 13 years — it was popular with Pasifika students, especially postgrads who would go on reporting ventures for practice-led research around the Pacific; it was a base for online news, for example prolific outlets including a regular Pacific Media Watch; it had international standing especially through the well-rated (“SCOPUS-listed”) academic journal Pacific Journalism Review; and it was a cultural hub, where guests might receive a sung greeting from the staff, Pacific-style, or see fascinating art works and craft.

Its uptake across the “Blue Continent” showed up gaps in mainstream media services and in Australia’s case famously the backlog in promoting economic and cultural ties.

The PMC Project — a short documentary about the centre by Alistar Kata in 2016. Video: Pacific Media Centre

Human rights and media freedom
The centre was founded in 2007, in a troubled era following a rogue military coup d’etat in Fiji, civil disturbances in Papua New Guinea, violent attacks on journalists in several parts, and endemic gender violence listed as a priority problem for the Pacific Islands Forum.

Through its publishing and conference activity it would take a stand on human rights and media freedom issues, social justice, economic and media domination from outside.

The actual physical evacuation was on the orders of the communications head of school at AUT, Dr Rosser Johnson, a recently appointed associate professor with a history of management service in several acting roles since 2005. He told the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAPMI) that the university planned to keep a centre called the PMC and co-locate its offices with other centres — but that never happened.

His intervention caused predictable critical responses, as with this comment by a former New Zealand Herald editor-in-chief Dr Gavin Ellis, on dealing with corporatised universities, in “neo-liberal” times:

“For many years I thought universities were the ideal place to establish centres of investigative journalism excellence … My views have been shaken to the core by the Auckland University of Technology gutting the Pacific Media Centre.”

Conflicts over truth-telling
The “PMC affair” has stirred conflicts that should worry observers who place value on truth-finding and truth-telling in university research, preparation for the professions, and academic freedom.

The centre along with its counterpart at the University of Technology Sydney, called the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ), worked in the area of journalism as research, applying journalistic skills and methods, especially exercises in investigative journalism.

The ACIJ produced among many investigations, work on the reporting of climate policy and climate science, and the News of the World phone hacking scandal. It also was peremptorily shut-down, three years ahead of the PMC.

Both centres were placed in the journalism academic discipline, a “professional” and “teaching” discipline that traditionally draws in high achieving students interested in its practice-led approach.

All of which is decried by line academics in disciplines without professional linkages but a professional interest in the hierarchical arrangements and power relations within the confined space of their universities.

There the interest is in theoretical teaching and research outputs, often-enough called “Marxist”, “postmodern”, “communications” or “cultural studies”, angled at a de-legitimisation of “Western-liberal” mass media. Not that journalism education itself shies away from media criticism, as Dr Robie told Independent Australia:

“The Pacific Media Centre frequently challenged ‘ethnocentric journalistic practice’ and placed Māori, Pacific and indigenous and cultural diversity at the heart of the centre’s experiential knowledge and critical-thinking news narratives.”

Yet it can be seen how conflict may arise, especially where smaller journalism departments come under “takeover” pressure. It is a handy option for academic managers to subsume “journalism”, and get the staff positions that can be filled with non-journalists; the contribution the journalists may make to research earnings (through the Australian Excellence in Research process, or NZ Performance Based Research Fund), and especially government funding for student places.

There, better students likely to excel and complete their programmes can be induced to do more generalised courses with a specialist “journalism” label.

Any such conflict in the AUT case cannot be measured but must be at least lurking in the background.

The head of school, Dr Johnson, works in communication studies and cultural studies, with publications especially about info-advertising. He indicates just a lay interest in journalism listing three articles published in mass media since 2002.

What is ‘ideology’?
Another problem exists, where a centre like the former PMC will commit to defined values, even officially sanctioned ones like inclusivity and rejection of discrimination.

Undertakings like the PMC’s “Bearing Witness” projects, where students would deploy classic journalism techniques for investigations on a nuclear-free Pacific or climate change, can irritate conservative interests.

The derogatory expression for any connection with social movements is “ideological”. This time it is an unknown, but a School moving against an “ideological” unit, might get at least tacit support from higher-ups supposing that eviscerating it might help the institution’s “good name”.

What implications for future journalism, freedom and quality of media? Hostility towards specific professional education for journalism exists fairly widely. The rough-housing of the journalism centre at AUT is indicative, where efforts by the out-going director to organise succession after his retirement, five years in advance, received no response.

The position statement was changed to take away a requirement for actual Pacific media identity or expertise, and the job left vacant, in part a covid effect. The centre performed well on its key performance indicators, if small in size, which brought in limited research grants but good returns for academic publications:

“On 18 December 2020 – the day I officially retired – I wrote to the [then] Vice-Chancellor, Derek McCormack … expressing my concern about the future of the centre, saying the situation was “unconscionable and inexplicable”. I never received an acknowledgement or reply.”

Pacific futures
Journalism education has persisted through an adverse climate, where the number of journalists in mainstream media has declined, in New Zealand almost halved to 2061, (2006 – 2018). Also, AUT is currently in turmoil over the future of Māori and Pacific academics and the status of the university with an unpopular move to retrench 170 academic staff.

However new media are expanding, new demands exist for media competency across the exploding world “mediascape”, schools cultivating conscionable practices are providing an antidote to floods of bigotry and lies in social media.

The new NGO in Auckland, the APMN, has found a good base of support across the Pacific communities, limbering up for a future free of interference, outside of the former university base.

It will be bidding for a share of NZ government grants intended to assist public journalism, ethnic broadcasting and outreach to the region. While several products of the former centre have closed, the successful 28-year-old research journal Pacific Journalism Review has continued, producing two editions under its new management.

The operation is also keeping its production-side media strengths, such as with the online title Asia Pacific Report.

Independent Australia media editor Lee Duffield is a former ABC correspondent and academic. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Pacific Journalism Review. This article is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Thousands of New Zealand tertiary union members will go on strike at eight universities tomorrow over a cost of living pay demand.

The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said its members were walking off the job for part of the day at the eight universities in the country.

Union members at Auckland University of Technology initially planned to refuse to enter students’ marks from October 6 to 21, the union said.

However, after the AUT management warned that striking staff would face suspension and loss of pay for two weeks, TEU withdrew the action so that staff would join the Thursday strike instead, a later union statement said today.

The TEU, which has 7000 members, is demanding an 8 percent pay rise needed to keep up with the cost of living.

Each university was negotiating its own collective agreements with the union, but the agreements expired at about the same time enabling a co-ordinated industrial action.

The action announced includes full stoppage between 1pm and 5pm at University of Auckland, University of Waikato and AUT; from 12pm to 4.30pm at Victoria University of Wellington and for shorter periods at three other universities.

There will be rallies at each university and marches and pickets at Waikato and Massey universities.

On its website, the University of Auckland stated it had explained to the unions that it had made an offer that was fair and reasonable and rewarded staff, while retaining fiscal responsibility.

“The university has made a best offer of a 5 percent and 4 percent general revision offer over two years, subject to certain conditions,” the statement said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz