Martin Lally
On the 23rd of July of this year, seven professors of the University of Auckland penned a letter to the Listener asserting that Matauranga Maori was not science. Professor Joanna Kidman of Victoria University was the first to sound the alarm and went straight to the heart of the matter by tweeting the following question one day later: “Where do these shuffling zombies come from?” Where indeed! In the face of such offence against Maori, it would be understandable if she had reflexively responded with a personal attack on the seven professors but, to her credit, Prof Kidman took the high road.
With equal restraint, and in the spirit of a scientist seeking to explain unusual phenomena, she went on to ask “Is there something in the water?” Equally restrained responses came from Prof Hendy and Dr Wiles, in the Science Faculty at the University, who presumably drink the same water as the letter writers but who drafted a Petition not only condemning this offensive letter but critiquing “science’s ongoing role in perpetuating ‘scientific’ racism, justifying colonisation, and continuing support of systems that create injustice.” To date, over 2,000 people have signed it, many of them from Auckland and therefore presumably drinking the same water.
Prof Dawn Freshwater, the VC of the University, joined the fray three days after the letter appeared, to state that “while the academics are free to express their views…they do not represent the views of the University of Auckland,” and added that the letter had “caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni.”
There will be those who point to outdated legislation recognising the right of academics to express “unpopular and controversial views” but Prof Freshwater rightly understood that avoiding hurt and dismay is a far more important requirement in a modern university. In fact, to avoid any risk at all in this area, it may be better for academics to say nothing on any subject.
Prof Freshwater is also to be congratulated for divining within three days the views of the University on such an important issue, a process that would normally take months of consultation, thereby enabling her to promptly identify the professors’ views as those of a small minority. Progress in science is only possible if minority views are culled, and university administrators are clearly in the best position to do so. If there could be any criticism of Prof Freshwater, it would involve her conceding the right of the seven professors to even express their views. Laudatory as this sentiment is, it can only encourage more statements that could lead to hurt and dismay.
Even stronger action was taken by the Royal Society of New Zealand, which immediately rejected the professors’ “outmoded definition of science” and then initiated action to expel two of the letter writers who are members of the Society.
The Society’s immediate condemnation of the professors placed them in an excellent position to then objectively assess whether to expel them. So as to ensure fairness, the Society first had to conduct an investigation, and it set up a panel to do so. Two of the panel members had already signed the Petition condemning the letter, which would have put them in an excellent position to ensure fairness before then expelling the two miscreants. However the two miscreants pedantically complained and, so as to avoid even the slightest suggestion of prejudice, these two panel members courageously stood aside, hopefully in favour of others who were equally offended by the letter but had not yet put their signatures to the Petition.
Four hundred years ago, another scientist called Galileo expressed his support for the minority view that the Earth rotated around the sun. This caused considerable hurt and dismay amongst the faithful. Senior members of the Inquisition then spoke to him about this matter, and gave up their valuable time to show him the instruments of torture. Galileo subsequently withdrew his statements, by then aware of the hurt and dismay that his views had caused (and might cause to himself). It is unfortunate that this model for addressing scientific disputes has not always been faithfully observed since, and we now find ourselves needing to once again take a strong position on offensive views.