More wisdom from Auckland students
April 29th, 2004 at 8:48 am by David FarrarA couple of weeks ago Auckland students voted to instruct their President to apologise to Don Brash for calling him a racist.
Yesterday they voted again by a 2:1 majority in favour of “That AUSA urge the government to drop the 33% and 39% marginal tax rates so that graduates have more money to repay their loans faster.”
I understand TV3 and Radio NZ attended the meeting, yet have not noticed any coverage of the resolution. Have I missed it?
No tag for this post.
April 29th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
To be fair, if RNZ reported every SRC resolution, the airwaves up til now would have been awash in cries for harshly progressive taxation and vegan rights, and the campus right would have been apoplectic. Well, more apoplectic, anyway.
And I know it’s a little late (sorry) but Brash’s comments in question were racist (the “racist comments” and “racist person” distinction not one that I particularly respect, but it’s been well traversed since the Paul Holmes debacle). Not the entirety of the Orewa speech, of course, but later comments about the worth of degrees earned by quota entrants. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that the quality of a degree can easily be ascertained from the academic transcript – there’s no need for obscure conjecture about the graduate’s entry into the programme etc. The comments were obviously racist, in the pure sense of judging individual members of a race (a Maori job applicant) by characteristics shared by some other members of that race. Therefore, a reference to racist comments really didn’t demand an apology.
On the other hand, Graham W deserves massive credit for getting a result to withdraw from NZUSA. Big ups, and I ‘ll buy him a beer next time I see him.
Can I have $5 on Steven Franks?
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
What amuses me most is that Auckland student politics is still in thrall to GPJ Watson. Second most amusing is that anyone would report the SRC resolutions of AUSA as being of interest outside the drinking horn club and 4 Alfred St.
As for the NZUSA withdrawal, it’s a long-standing right wing ambition to undermine any effective national representation for tertiary students. AUSA student politicos are in a fantasy land most of the time, unfortunately, and one of the elements of that fantasy is that AUSA is taken as seriously as/more seriously than NZUSA. It isn’t, of course – but hell, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Jordan
PS Ben – hope life is treating you well
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 3:34 pm
Ben, I’m pleased that agile mind of yours is able to come up with such a spectacular technicality from which the AUSA President [original phrase used by the Whig deleted by Davd Farrar to remove it from Google] can hang, but to be fair, you’re a helluva lot smarter than she is, and I seriously doubt she engaged her brain to that extent. She should apologise.
Jordan, nice to see you’re still alive and kicking after all these years. Fantasy is of course relative, and the fantasy that politicians actually listen to student unions should be one that you are aware of.
Like yourself I am also perplexed at the strange hold student politics still has over Graham, but the likelihood of its abatement seems low. In any event, it’s fun to watch.
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
The “Don Brash defence” since Orwea has been that it is explicitly not racist to treat people equally, without regard to colour.
Vote:When Brash proposed that any Maori job applicants should be looked at askance because some Maori enter University courses on lower grades, then he was suggesting something that violated the principle of treating people as individuals rather than members of a race.
It was a suggestion that’s racist, even (in fact particularly) by the Brash definition (above) – there’s no getting around it in logical terms, and it’s hardly a “technicality”.
April 29th, 2004 at 4:25 pm
Please note that I am currently a paid up member of the National Party, and support the Good Doctor in his overall endeavours. But insisting people recant on true statements just because of their political leanings seems a bit… er, PC?
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Brash said racist entry policies could lead to maori graduates being “looked at askance” in job interviews. He didn’t say their degrees were worth any less. Brash was concerned that individual Maori graduates NOT be victims of racism.
Vote:But I guess you’ll find a way to call that concern “racist”.
April 29th, 2004 at 4:51 pm
Mike – Thanks for clearing that up for Ben. You saved me the trouble.
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 4:56 pm
I don’t think Brash thought much at all when he made the comment, in truth.
Vote:The contention that preferential racial entry could have that result only makes as much sense as saying that ad eundem entry, provisional entry, or a host of exemptions from normal standards would cause tremors of concern in the employer community. Employers tend to look at your grades during your degree, not your entrance qualification.
Brash was suggesting that was a valid concern (ie by being concerned about it). That’s a little like saying, “boy, I’m not sure the government is doing the right thing letting Asian immigrants settle here, given the inevitable and justifiable racial harassment they will receive.”
I’m not debating the National race policy. I’m not talking about the rights and wrongs of quota systems. The specific comment was ill considered and criticism of it was fair.
Brash is human, and he makes errors of judgment like every one else. Why be precious on his behalf about it?
April 29th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
One more time for Ben: Brash was concerned that the Maori students NOT be discriminated against because they might have gotten a free ride into (or even through) tertiary education.
Vote:He was not validating the discrimination. He was only debating the unintended consequences of racist government policy.
April 29th, 2004 at 6:22 pm
Jordon, I’m confused. How can you possible claim unions are effective at representing students? The NZUSA tertiary policy was endorsed by exactly 1.7% of the electorate at the last election. Forcing people to belong to a student union is no more legitimate than forcing people to join the National Party would be.
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
Okay Mike, parting word: Cheers for exposing the wider concern – the innuendo that Maori are perhaps getting a “free ride… through” tertiary education (though noone has produced any evidence of this). The only conclusion from this insinuation is that Maori graduates’ degrees are worth less (the conclusion you denied above).
Brash was saying that, because of the race of a job applicant, you are justified in doubting the veracity of their qualifications as they appear, and their grades as they appear. Ie a Maori’s BA is somehow even more worthless than a European’s BA (or LLB, or whatever).
That is racist. Bend it, shape it, anyway you want it – the Great Leader made a dumb remark, that he hasn’t persevered with, that crossed the line into the racist territory he has otherwise assiduously and responsibly avoided.
And don’t come back with “just because the overall thrust of the statements led ineffably to discriminatory results, Don Brash personally isn’t a racist”. It doesn’t matter. Just like his underpants washing habits, his true soul has nothing to do with the policies and outlooks he’s espousing. What matters is Don Brash the public figure.
I’m very impressed with DB’s performance as Nat Leader on the whole; it was the reason I jumped ship. But please, this kind of hyper-sensitive leader worship is what I expect from the Young Labour members I know.
In fact
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 6:34 pm
Ben said: “Brash is human, and he makes errors of judgment like every one else. Why be precious on his behalf about it?”
I don’t believe Brash’s sentiment was what you ascribe to him and therefore he did not make an error and was not being racist. If he was hyping a problem beyond its actual weight, then my response would be that I don’t know of a politician (including you yourself in your student days) who is not guilty of that charge. One could however, equally ask why anyone should be precious on behalf of AUSA President Kate Sutton, and as a result of your friendship with her I think your otherwise generally sound judgement is clouded on this issue.
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 6:58 pm
Okay, final comment (I promise).
As I’ve demonstrated above, Brash’s statements were wrong (at the very, very least condoning irrational bigotry in hiring, at the worst promoting it).
A press release was issued saying the comments were racist and ill informed.
Question: should you press for an apology and retraction of fair comments just because they don’t fit your personal conception of your leader/party? Answer: No.
Act went down this path – a bunch of ultra conservative missives dismissed as “liberal in intent” and then, before you knew it, we were the militant wing of the Maxim Institute.
Vote:April 29th, 2004 at 10:14 pm
My comment on the media reporting was because they actually had turned up to report on the meeting. Seems unusual to not file a report if one did cover it.
And as far as I can tell RNZ is awash in cries for harshly progressive taxation and vegan rights.
And as for saying that the right wish to undermine any effective national representation for tertiary students, that assumes NZUSA is effective national representation.
Personally I think it is insulting to suggest that one bady can ever speak for all students. NZUSA certainly does not – they don’t even speak for a majority.
Vote:April 30th, 2004 at 10:20 am
Look, it
Vote:April 30th, 2004 at 12:22 pm
On your final point, Brash was not labelled a racist in the AUSA press release; his comments regarding the worth or perceived woth of “Maori degrees” were labelled as racist and inflammatory. Perhaps I should have made that clear earlier (or you should have read the item you’re so upset about).
The assertion Brash was called a racist was only made in the referendum; sadly GPJW’s newest, not-so-bright cronies are resorting to old style leftie games – eg the assertion that a 26 person vote at an SRC means “Auckland sudents” (as a collective, no less) support flat tax. What was that about no organisation can claim to speak for all students? (see the Student Choice “RPGers for God” press release on scoop today).
I agree that Brash has made clear time and time again that he believes in equal treatment regardless of race, which is why the statements in question were out of character and execrable.
I am discussing the statements that he made; so was the AUSA press release. It is only the “campus right” and Mike/Glenn that are attempting a post modern deconstruction where meaning is to be construed from anything other than the plain meaning of words.
On your “facts” discussion – what you can say about the effect of quota entrants on performance during the degre is at most this. If the quota students (who had B- grades in their intermediate year) remain locked at the bottom of the class, but receive C’s during their law degree that would have otherwise gone to non quota students (who had B’s or B+’s in their intermediate year) then you can say that the value of a C average law degree has been degraded.
If, as Glenn suggest, there is no discernable difference between the performance of quota and non-quota students in the degree proper, all this suggests is that the primary means of selection (first year grades in non-law subjects) may be somewhat arbitrary itself, and a poor predictor of later success. (Unless the presence of quota students somehow drains the deserving Grammar Boys of their intelligence after stage one).
This ignores the point that, if you are worried any prospective applicant may not “deserve” thier interview, you can quickly pick from their transcript that they had poor grades in their first year, followed by poor grades in subsequent years. Easy. If the interviewer is not checking transcripts, it’s likely he doesn’t care whom he hires in any case.
You can weed out bad applicants by checking their qualifications. The problem with the Brash comments was that he suggested that the objective reality of a graduate’s grades may be altered by their race.
The assertion that Brash was just making an observation, proffering an opinion is fine – so was Enoch Powell (he never said he’d LIKE to see rivers of blood). He was condoning what (I reiterate again) is an irrational bigoted approach (not rational utility maximisation, as it happens).
So, key points:
- Brash was not called a racist (so the referendum question was a non-sequitur)
- Brash’s comments were called racist and misleading
- Brash’s comments were racist and misleading
- Brash believes in treating people as individuals, not on the basis of race
- His comments condoned or encouraged the treatment of individuals not based on the objective reality of their grades/degrees but stereotypes about race
- Brash made a mistake
- You can’t vote facts out of existence with a referendum. SRC/AUSA is not God, even if Graham is Jesus.
- Don’t cry about it.
On a final note, Glenn, if we ever meet, I will give you $10 in retrospective fulfilment of my policy of monetarily rewarding right wingers who defile WROs. We must maintain standards
Vote:April 30th, 2004 at 12:38 pm
Ben – you will not convince reasonable people that Brash is a racist. He was only pointing out some of the the consequences of racial preferences. Thomas Sowell has been saying the same thing for decades and no-one claims he is a racist…
Vote:April 30th, 2004 at 1:08 pm
Sean – I’m not trying to convince anyone Brash is (a?)a racist in his whole world view. I am saying the natural meaning of his words, in that particular case, was to condone racist behaviour. Therefore, the righteous indignation of the campus right at criticism couched in the same terms is not legitimate.
I repeat – the particular “consequence of racial preferences” he was pointing out is not a valid consequence – it doesn’t stand up to reasoned examination (see, interminably, above). He was therefore condoning an irrational stance which discriminated on the basis of race – the antithesis of his stated principles.
I don’t believe Brash is (a?) racist. But that is all the more reason to avoid making statements which can only lead to racist conclusions, geddit?
It’s a welcome change pouring metaphorical boiling oil on lefties from the moral high ground over the race thing but, just like “PC” before it, we need to be able to take things on an issue by issue basis and not degenerate into cant and sloganeering.
Vote:April 30th, 2004 at 2:17 pm
Ben – I gotta tell you my reading of his statement does not match yours. It seems to me your “natural meaning” is nothing more than your interpretation. And to claim that “consequences” are “invalid” is again, only your interpretation. Seems we’re spending a lot of time over nothing. Students should spend more time learning and less time pontificating.
Vote:May 3rd, 2004 at 9:37 am
Sean – you seem to have missed the point I’ve been trying to make. I’ll generously assume that’s because of a failure to communicate clearly on my part.
Compare Brash’s comments about employers being reticent to hire Maori because of (1) quotas; and (2) “tangi leave”.
Brash was, to a point, right about tangi leave (‘tangihuna” leave in the CTU’s original submission to the select committee). This additional bereavement leave entitlement kicks in on the death of someone who is not a close family member (as per the relatives listed in the Holidays Act) where the employer accepts there has nonetheless been a breavement. The employer needs to take into account factors such as cultural obligations and closeness of association between the worker and the deceased. Statistically, Maori have bigger families; shorter life expectancies, and closer ties to a wider range of non-nuclear family members – the average Maori could be expected to take more of the effectively unlimited bereavement leave, at the employer’s cost (even before looking at the requirements to consider “cultural factors” when granting leave). Deciding whether the particular Maori job applicant in front of you fits this stereotype will be difficult – you can’t ask about their family without possibly contravening the Human Rights Act; plus they could lie – also, it’s not clear what questions you could ask to elicit the relevant information (“so, is your grandma as fat as you? Get on well with your cousins?” etc). Of course, there are also non-Maori who have large, close extended families with short life-spans and odd rituals at death. The employer, if he has nothing else to go on and all other things being equal may guess that there is a lower likelihood a given Pakeha will fit this category than a given Maori will.
The decision not to employ, on that basis, would be racist (in the technical sense Brash uses), but it may also be rational, utility maximising behaviour, as Glenn describes above, and perhaps understandable as the result of the government’s policies.
Contrast this with the quota situation. Some quota entrants will have substandard law degrees (for example). The employer does not want a substandard employee. However, rather than having to make a broad generalisation based on what he believes to be true about other members of the applicants race, and judge the individual appllicant on the basis of that generalisation (to minimise the risk of an adverse outcome), he can simply look at the academic record of the applicant. A high proportion of C’s and low B’s will signal that this applicant may be unsuitable. A’s will signal that this candidate is a high achiever. Neither record will definitively answer the question of how the applicant ended up in law school, but that is irrelevant since the employer has much more direct and useful data about the applicant’s suitability for the job. It is not understandable, or rational, in this case to bring race into the decision.
Brash makes a fine point when he says that racially targetted policies may produce a racist backlash to the detriment of individuals as a logical consequence of the policies (as with tangi leave).
Vote:There is no such logical consequence where the quota system, and the issues he raised with it, are concerned.