Affirmative Reaction

As controversial as ever, Dr. Pita Sharples’ remarks always generate interesting debate and his remarks on open university access for Maori are no different. Dr. Sharples is now modifying his remarks a little by adding that Maori would still need to meet education standards. His suggestion of some sort of bridging course meets with no disapproval from me, provided it is open to all New Zealanders and not simply Maori. My eldest daughter did not do university entrance at school as, at the time, she had no inclination to go to university. Three years later, she changed her mind, found her métier and enrolled as a mature student. She did find the first year difficult and would probably have benefitted from a bridging course. It is my understanding that something of this nature is already available, at least at Auckland Uni. But this post is not about education per se.

AdamSmith1922 at Inquiring Mind posted on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the supreme court and linked to an article by Clive Crook. Crook writes about one of the more controversial judgements of Ms. Sotomayor and touches on the subject of affirmative action. The article concludes:

“Pollsters at Quinnipiac University found that voters disagreed with Ms Sotomayor’s ruling in the firemen case by 71 per cent to 19 per cent. By margins of three to one, voters oppose racial preferences in public and private sector hiring. “Whether it’s a belief that the statute of limitations on past wrongs has run out or economic pressures on workers, programmes that supporters call affirmative action and opponents label racial preferences are unpopular with most American voters,” said one of the polling team. Whatever you call them, it’s time to roll them back.”

I have heard that sentiment expressed in many situations both here and in South Africa, where much bigger disparities lie. To my mind, it reveals the fundamental problem with all forms of affirmative action – the question of when it should cease.

Affirmative action is there to correct a wrong. A wrong that has usually been perpetrated by historical, institutional racism. But affirmative action is, in itself, institutional racism,  and cannot be supported by society in the long term. It is therefore essential that affirmative action has some sort of goal and that that goal is reasonably achievable.

It is, of course, the “reasonably achievable” part that we have such difficulty with. Take Maori education, for instance. Dr. Sharples rightly points out that only 7.1% of Maori  (as opposed to 17.6% of europeans ) have bachelors degrees, hence his original suggestion of open access to university. Yet the number of Maoris with degrees would certainly not increase to 17.6%, simply because there is no racial discrimination in the selection process for university. The issues causing the lower levels of tertiary education are happening well before the university level. Affirmative action in this case would merely extend this form of institutionalised racism with no prospect of achieving the goal set for it. It is exactly this sort of issue that raises the ire of the average Kiwi as they perceive it’s innate unfairness and discrimination.

This is not to suggest that there is no inequality in our society, nor is it to suggest that there are no past wrongs to be righted. But it is necessary to recognise that affirmative action is blunt tool when it attempts to right these things beyond the point where discrimination is eliminated from a society. Once a society has moved beyond discrimination as a limiting factor, furtherance of discrimination using affirmative action techniques is invariably perceived as unfair. The lesson behind the resonance of Don Brash’s Orewa speech is not that Pakeha are inherently racist, despite what the left may wish to portray, it is that affirmative action is inherently racist and Kiwis, white and brown, instinctively understand that.

The question Dr Sharples should really be looking at is what can be done to help Maori achieve equality on their own merits, because nothing less will suffice. Affirmative action can provide some immediate redress, but is a solution that soon loses its utility and quickly generates division. Government handouts do little more than plaster over the gaps between the two peoples and can seriously demotivate the struggling culture. The only lasting solutions are generated within a culture not for a culture.

Sotomayor thinks that equality will be achieved when equitable numbers of black people are employed in all walks of life. That is simply not true. History shows that equality is achieved when it does not matter who is employed where or who has what. America is a long way from that (witness the catharsis experienced because a black man is President of the US). New Zealand is a little closer to that ideal. It seems to me to be very silly to squander that hard-won egalitarianism  on a new set of privileges for the Maori people.

Don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that all the wrongs of the past have been redressed, or that there is no inequality between Maori and Pakeha. Clearly, there is. I am saying that there is little that Pakeha can do to address this and attempting to legislate equality is doomed to fail. It is now up to Maori to find their own solutions to uplift themselves. If Pakeha can contribute to this uplifting, then they shall. But that contribution should not be forced or legislated. The only way to achieve a true equal society is through a proper partnership – and a partnership always requires two willing sides. The only way a partnership can survive is if each participant considers the other worthy of trust and worthy of investment of time and energy. The partnership between Maori and Pakeha still has some way to go to attain this.

“Can two walk together unless they be agreed?” Amos 3:3

Related posts: