What are the lessons from Auckland University’s backtrack? – Jonathan Ayling

The University of Auckland has reversed a compulsory course policy after a strong backlash. Photo / Getty Images

THE FACTS

• The University of Auckland senate has recommended that Waipapa Taumata Rau (WTR) courses become an optional choice, rather than a core requirement.
• Opposition came from political leaders, professors and students, with a petition gathering over 1700 signatures.
• The decision highlights debates over whether universities should shape students into advocates for particular world views.

The University of Auckland’s decision to abandon its controversial compulsory Waipapa Taumata Rau courses for all graduates offers a glimpse into the quiet cultural battles playing out inside our universities, and to me underscores the weakness of coercion.

It is also a reminder that values imposed by force rarely take root, while those freely chosen are the ones that endure.

Opposed by some political leaders and activist groups on the outside and by some professors and students on the inside, the courses will now only be required for a handful of degrees with specific professional accreditation, such as engineering or medicine.

After just one semester, this is a remarkable U-turn.

I believe it leaves the outgoing Vice-Chancellor with egg on her face (she resigned just six months into her new five-year tenure, following another reversed decision to merge the Law and Business schools and the university being found in a substantial Employment Court decision to have breached an employment agreement). More importantly, the retreat leaves the very content the courses were supposed to advance in an even weaker position than before.

Is this not often the path of well-intentioned but overly eager initiatives that resort to compulsion, justifying it on the basis of the nobility of their cause?

External opposition to the courses focused especially on particular content in the courses: specifically, the “knowledge systems” portion. With the 2021 saga of the Listener 7 and the disputed role of mātauranga Māori fresh in the minds of at least the Act Party’s Parmjeet Parmar and activist group Hobson’s Pledge, for them, this was proof of everything wrong with “ideological universities”.

Inside the institution, opposition was voiced in more subtle tones but often echoed the same concerns. The university Senate (the collection of all the professors at Auckland University) voted decidedly (75% to 25%) in favour of making the courses optional.

These professors cited factors such as a false premise that equated science and mātauranga Māori and an overemphasis on te ao Māori at the expense of other cultures, even if more students actually identify with these cultures.

It seems, ultimately, that political posturing and internal pressure aside, the students had the deciding say. A petition which garnered over 1700 signatures from among the student population underlined an “urgent call” for a “decisive and comprehensive” review of the courses.

They wrote that these “courses are lacking in clarity, depth, and relevance ... Workshops have devolved into repetitive group discussions devoid of substantial lecturer engagement or academic focus. This leads to confusion, disengagement and dissatisfaction – outcomes that contradict the very educational purpose these courses are intended to serve ... the content is often perceived as oversimplified and politically biased, leaving students feeling more alienated than informed".

Some students have even wondered whether they are entitled to compensation, claiming they were forced to spend no small sum on material that appears to have been poorly designed and taught.

Will they have any luck before the Commerce Commission claiming they were sold a faulty product? That is not yet clear. A more pressing question, in my mind, is whether the university learnt anything from this process?

The Auckland University student graduate profile (relevant to all graduates, regardless of what they studied) still outlines that they must be “conversant with mātauranga Māori, kaupapa Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and that they “advocate for just and equitable societies”.

In other words, while the compulsory courses are gone, the ambition to prescribe what graduates should believe and promote remains. But is it really the role of a university to decide what its students must advocate for, especially when definitions of “justice” and “equity” are somewhat disputed (to put it mildly)?

This tension is not unique to Auckland. Across Western universities, there are live debates about whether higher education is primarily about equipping students with knowledge and critical skills, or about shaping them into advocates for particular world views. One way or the other, to me the Auckland case is a small but vivid example of what happens when institutions overstep the boundary between their core role and the power to compel.

Of course, let me be very clear: virtually all agree tomorrow’s leaders must appreciate the richness of the place they come from, converse with our historical and cultural nuances and seek to advocate for justice and equity (precise definitions pending). But every time we impose, coerce and compel individuals into the so-called noble or moral position, we inevitably evoke the exact opposite reaction we sought to promote.

If we truly care about these values, we should care about pursuing them in ways that actually lead to individuals choosing to adopt them.

Just and equitable societies are not built by decree. They are built on the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves. If universities truly want to foster cultural understanding, informed debate and enlightened graduates, they must begin by trusting students with the very thing education is supposed to cultivate: the freedom to think and the freedom to choose.

Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.