John Langley: 'Tauiwi' celebrates the differences

COMMENT

National MP Murray McCully has accused the Auckland College of Education of being overly politically correct and myself of "stupidity".

He did so because he does not agree with something we did.

The issue is race. It has been whipped up in recent weeks; Mr McCully saw a gap in the clouds and he struck. He is behaving like a bully.

He hopes to change things by a show of bravado rather than intelligent discussion.

His concerns relate to the fact that in the college's social work graduation ceremony, one group of graduates (and only one) passes across the stage as tangata whenua, pasifika or tauiwi. His concern was about the term "tauiwi" - a Maori word for foreigners.

Here are the facts. The social work programme has been going in the college for 21 years. It was started at the behest of Prime Minister Rob Muldoon. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he became increasingly concerned at the gang problem in Auckland, particularly as it affected Maori and Pasifika communities.

As a result the College of Education was given leave to develop a social work diploma that would address some of these issues. In the subsequent 21 years it has widened into a degree programme with a much wider base.

At an early stage in the programme it was seen to be important that both Maori and Pasifika students were recruited and retained. This addressed an imbalance, rather than suggested that Pakeha students were less important.

For obvious reasons it is likely that those of the same cultural background have a greater chance to effect change in their communities than those who do not understand the values and customs of those they are working with.

When the early graduations for this programme were planned in the early 1980s, the students apparently wanted those who had worked most closely with them, their tutors, to read their names as they walked across the stage. Hence the three groups.

It was not a statement of separatism but an effort to acknowledge the identities of the various groups involved.

At the time, the term "tauiwi" was thought to be appropriate for those whose ancestry was from other lands. It is a term that was meant to include not only Pakeha but Asian and Middle Eastern graduates and any other non-Polynesian group.

While it is acknowledged that in recent times this term has engendered an emotive response, its original purpose was to celebrate both the similarities and differences that exist between the various groups in New Zealand and the original places from which we came.

In a recent address, Joan Metge likened it to a rope; all of the strands are separate and distinctive but when wound together form a union of considerably greater strength and character. Each must maintain its own strength and character but contribute to the whole.

Mr McCully seems to think that ropes should have only one strand. Those ones break.

Now let's turn to success. In the past 10 or so years we have heard endless bleating about the lack of success of Maori and Pasifika students in the tertiary sector. The Tertiary Education Strategy places particular emphasis on the success of Maori and Pasifika peoples.

The programme Mr McCully denigrates has, over the past 21 years, produced about 800 graduates. A third of these have been Maori, a third from Pasifika backgrounds and a third had ancestry from other places.

This success rate is second to none. They are now out in their communities doing the things that both National and Labour Governments have been trying to achieve, without much success, for two decades.

All of us are New Zealanders. All of us want, and share the aspirations to be, a prosperous and socially just society. All of us want to have each other's similarities and differences recognised, and to know that the values of each are respected and understood by others.

Perhaps the term tauiwi is redundant in 2004, but let's us not confuse that with the original intent with which it was used.

If Mr McCully wishes to engage in a conversation about the terminology, I welcome that. Perhaps we do need to address it after all these years.

However, for an institution that has for many years tried to demonstrate sensitivity to the aspirations and needs of our fellow citizens, to be slagged off in the manner which has occurred, is a very sad testimony to the direction we may be heading in and those who may lead that direction.

If political correctness means bowing to a prevailing ethos against which we should not argue, I oppose that absolutely. But if it means we have begun to recognise and discuss the aspirations and concerns of others, and to think about how we treat them with distinction and respect, I am unashamedly politically correct.

The sad thing is that Mr McCully does not seem to know the difference.

* Dr John Langley is the principal of the Auckland College of Education.