In the wake of the controversy surrounding a group of academics who argued that traditional Maori knowledge cannot be equated with science, six of their colleagues say our universities must remain places of robust debate
In their 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explore the recent explosion of anxiety and depression experienced by young people in many of the wealthier countries of the world.
Lukianoff and Haidt lay the blame on “three great untruths” that, they believe, have taken hold in these societies, one of which – in an inversion of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous maxim – is, “what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker”.
By this they mean that our society has become so risk-averse that many young people have grown up without experiencing the psychological strengthening that comes with suffering setbacks and overcoming difficulties.
Among the chief culprits for this over-protective society, argue Lukianoff and Haidt, are universities, which have promulgated the notion that even mere exposure to ideas with which one disagrees can be dangerous to one’s mental health.
This is, in fact, precisely the opposite of what universities are supposed to do. In addition to teaching the knowledge associated with specific academic disciplines, it is the mission of universities to prepare students to think critically.
Critical thinking requires us to engage with ideas we find disagreeable, difficult and even offensive, and to learn to bring to bear reason and evidence, rather than emotion, when we respond to them. One of the core principles that have historically enabled universities to fulfil this mission is academic freedom.
New Zealand’s Education and Training Act (2020) enshrines “the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions”.
Thus, the Act recognises that the expression of unpopular opinions – which, almost by definition, will be deemed offensive by some – must be allowed, if universities are to fulfil their mission to advance knowledge. Members of the academic community must accept that universities are venues for robust debate, which will inevitably sometimes cause upset or offence.
Academic freedom – and the benefits to human knowledge it brings – requires the tolerance to hear and engage with ideas to which one objects. To be sure, such tolerance often doesn’t come naturally, which is why academics must model it to students.
But the importance of this kind of tolerance goes beyond the academy. The free and open society we, perhaps, take too much for granted depends on the willingness of its citizens to tolerate the expression of rival opinions.
A recent incident in New Zealand might serve to remind us why academic freedom is so important and to warn us that it may be under threat. In a letter to The Listener published in July of this year, seven prominent professors argued that mātauranga Māori – traditional Māori knowledge – cannot be equated with science.
After the letter was published, its authors were besieged on a number of fronts. There was widespread condemnation in the media, some 2,000 members of university communities signed an open letter taking them to task, and the Tertiary Education Union claimed that its members found the letter racist and offensive.
Even the Vice Chancellor of Auckland University, Professor Dawn Freshwater, invoked the anti-academic notion that hearing ideas can harm people, opining that the Listener letter had “caused considerable hurt and dismay among … staff, students and alumni”.
It seems not to have occurred to Professor Freshwater that this statement amounts to admitting that her university has failed to prepare young people to engage robustly with ideas, and that some of her staff simply aren’t up to the task.
To be fair, we note that Professor Freshwater has recently changed tack, saying that the seven authors were acting in good faith and calling for a symposium to discuss these different viewpoints “calmly, constructively and respectfully”. We hope that her symposium will be structured in a way that will accomplish this aim.
Perhaps most outrageously of all, the Royal Society Te Apārangi has instigated an investigation that may result in two of the authors, both fellows of the society, having their fellowships revoked. This development risks turning New Zealand into an international laughing stock. No lesser figure than Richard Dawkins has weighed in, asking, “if New Zealand’s Royal Society won’t stand up for true science … who will?”
Well-reasoned criticism of the arguments raised by the Listener seven would, of course, be entirely legitimate and firmly in keeping with academic freedom. However, the personalised attacks on them from several quarters and the action by the Royal Society – both of which are likely to intimidate anyone tempted to make similar arguments – are not. Such reactions stifle, rather than promote, healthy public debate, not to mention debate within universities themselves.
Furthermore, they send a terrible signal, especially to young people, that some ideas are too sensitive – or even too sacred – to discuss openly. This is anathema to the spirit of academic freedom and to the scientific mindset.
There is nothing in the Listener letter that, to our reading, seems to justify either the vitriol directed against its authors or the investigation by the Royal Society. The authors do not devalue, insult or disrespect mātauranga Māori. Indeed, they say that it is “critical for the perpetuation of culture” and that it “plays key roles in management and policy”. The debate in which they were trying to engage is clearly important.
The Ministry of Education is currently reviewing the achievement standards for NCEA science, in large part to infuse them with understandings from mātauranga Māori. It seems essential that scientists, philosophers and experts in mātauranga Māori should be able to conduct an open, public debate to inform that review. If we get it wrong, it may harm both sources of knowledge.
One of the things that defines scientific inquiry is that it brooks no sacred claims. True science is never ‘settled’. Even when theories seem to explain observed phenomena perfectly, new information and fresh insights may throw everything up in the air once more.
So it was when Einstein developed his theory of special relativity, which called into question aspects of Newton’s 200 year-old theory of mechanics. Newton’s theory had seemed to describe the relationships between speed, mass, time and space better than any scientific theory had ever described anything. But Einstein showed that, as a moving body approaches the speed of light, these relationships take on very different characteristics.
In science, ideas must be tested against evidence, never against what we would prefer to believe. For example, religious conviction does not provide a valid basis for objection to a scientific idea. Neither is it ever legitimate in science to allow personalised attacks to substitute for reasoned, evidence-based argument. Galileo was threatened with torture by the Catholic Church for theorising that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe.
The church authorities, it would seem, were not big fans of academic freedom. Indeed, in 1619 Lucilio Vanini had his tongue cut out before being strangled and burned at a stake in Toulouse for his sins, one of which was proposing that humans had evolved from an ape. Two and a half centuries later, when Darwin made his similarly outrageous claim, that human beings had descended from ape-like ancestors, the church’s power had waned.
Science was coming into its own and, while many of a religious bent were incensed – although some clergy were also supportive – Darwin promulgated his theory without threat of reprisal, to the great benefit of human knowledge.
Obviously, the reaction to the Listener letter doesn't come anywhere close to the violent persecutions that were faced by scientists and free-thinkers in the past. Still, the role that powerful institutions have historically played in setting the boundaries of discussion – often to the great detriment of society as a whole – should lead us to think hard about the relationship between academic freedom and whatever ideology is currently in the ascendant. If the record of intellectual history shows anything, it is that opinions that were once seen as indefensible – both morally and intellectually – have often turned out to advance knowledge.
- Dr Michael Johnston, Associate Dean (Academic), Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, michael.johnston@vuw.ac.nz
- Dr James Kierstead, Senior Lecturer, School of Languages and Cultures, Victoria University of Wellington, jameskierstead@hotmail.com
- Dr David Lillis, sigma@outlook.co.nz
- Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study, Massey University, P.A.Schwerdtfeger@massey.ac.nz
- Professor Lindsey White, School of Science, Auckland University of Technology, wlindseywhite@fastmail.com
- Distinguished Professor Brian Boyd, Faculty of Arts, University of Auckland, b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz
