Act leader Don Brash says the party needs more young women and brown faces as candidates.
Brash in a Herald story. Intriguingly . . .
Dr Brash said he had met three Maori who were interested in representing the party, but two were unsuitable and the other was not willing to stand at the moment.
I wonder why they weren’t willing to stand for a party which publishes ads like this?
Comment by Idiot/Savant — July 13, 2011 @ 2:58 pm
Perhaps they should go looking.
Also, I’m not sure Don Brash has even been against representativeness, and tokenism is different. Tokenism would have been standing one of the two who weren’t suitable, just for the same of it (e.g. wanting more Maori women on one’s list, so going with Alamein Kopu).
Comment by Graeme Edgeler — July 13, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
Why? Act is a party for white men (and white women who think like white men).
Helps a lot if you are old, too.
Is Garth George interested in politics these days?
Comment by Grassed Up — July 13, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
ACT is telling it like it is. Finally a breath of fresh air in amongst the stink of politics and rancid smell of the racist Maori and Mana parties.
Comment by Jason Woody (aka James for any one that wants me to be) — July 13, 2011 @ 3:13 pm
Graeme,
But if one’s whole schtick is “it doesn’t matter if you are black or white (or man or woman)”, then shouldn’t Brash just be saying “the party needs more people of quality as candidates”? In other words, what is the independent value of “representativeness” that means quality person A (who happens to be a young, brown woman) is a more desirable candidate than higehr-quality person B (who happens to be an old, white man)? And if the answer is “because it is (somehow) good to have a political party that looks like society at large”, then aren’t you by definition engaging in “tokenism” … deciding what makes a desirable candidate by reference to how well they match some external demographic pattern, rather than their individual qualities as a person?
Or, put it this way – does Brash’s comment mean there is no difference in practice between the Act and Green parties when it comes to candidate selection … it’s just the Greens formalize the desire for gender balance while Act leaves it at the level of “nice to have”?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
But Jason – don’t you see how ACT wants to privilege woman and Maori over real New Zealanders?
Comment by danylmc — July 13, 2011 @ 3:15 pm
We certainly do want to ensure that our list includes some highly competent, able women, and, indeed, some younger people, and, indeed, some people who are not European. We want the Act list to be broadly representative of New Zealand society.
he has an ability to make a quite reasonable statement sound somehow sinister.
Comment by NeilM — July 13, 2011 @ 3:19 pm
No, danyl … Brash references “brown faces”. You’ll note he is very careful to say that none of the Maori expressing interest in being candidates will be allowed anywhere near the Party’s label.
Incidentally, where in the Act Party constitution does it say “decisions on who may or may not be a candidate rests with the leader of the Party”? Ein volk, ein reich, ein Fuhrer indeed!
Comment by Grassed Up — July 13, 2011 @ 3:20 pm
We want the Act list to be broadly representative of New Zealand society.
Then they should have policies and leadership and party practices that are representative of what New Zealand society wants.
Comment by Pete George — July 13, 2011 @ 3:33 pm
Maybe Brash is looking for winsome young white ladies that spend excessive time in tanning salons.
Vote winner.
Comment by Gregor W — July 13, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
In other words, what is the independent value of “representativeness” that means quality person A (who happens to be a young, brown woman) is a more desirable candidate than higehr-quality person B (who happens to be an old, white man)?
Because what is important is ensuring that as many ACT voices as possible are in Parliament.
Consider two lists:
Old white male 1
Older white male 1
Oldish white male1
Older white male 2
Oldish white male 2
Youngish female 1
Oldish non-white male 1
This may be the best possible selection of prospective MPs: all excellent ACT MPs with the right collection of intelligence, skill sets, policy and legislative nous etc. in the right order: if we can only have 1 MP it must be Old White Male 1. If we get 2, Older White Male 1 is next most important etc. Running this this will see ACT get three-point-some percent of the vote and four MPs total.
Instead, ACT might run this list:
Old white male 1
Older white male 1
Youngish female 1
Oldish white male1
Oldish non-white male 1
Older white male 2
Oldish white male 2
Again, all wonderful ACT MPs. But this list gets the support of four-point-something percent and six MPs total.
Which is better? ACT really wants both Youngish Female 1 and Oldish non-white male 1 in Parliament and it considers that any of these seven candidates would make a fantastic MP. Finding someone from a demographic – racial cultural, employment, whatever – who will bring in support that you want in order to get a number of thoroughly excellent MPs into parliament is not tokenism. Or at least, isn’t tokenism of the type that Don Brash has ever raised concerns about.
The “tokenism” with which Brash has raised concerns is around entrance to, for example, law or med school: his concern was in allowing in people who aren’t up to the grade just because they fill a minority, leading to his concern that people would then have substandard medical or legal help. That’s of a different nature to looking at a bunch of thoroughly excellent candidates and deciding among those people – each of whom would be excellent – to choose some to focus on particular areas – whether that’s farmers, or younger women.
I believe Brash’s concerns have long been with people – whether doctors or lawyers, or MPs, or government board appointments, or judges or whatever – who aren’t up to the job, and are there as tokens, rather than those who are up to the job, and may also be tokens.
Comment by Graeme Edgeler — July 13, 2011 @ 3:54 pm
So, the ACT selection process is – Don approaches you, asks if you can think like an old white man, and makes you an offer . None of that time-consuming fussy stuff about being a member. Are old white men really that sloppy in organization? He could have approached Harawira mere et fils, only to decide at last minute that they were unsuitable. Pity – with a Mana takeover of ACT, real wackiness would ensue…
No mention of Women who think like Old White Men – None available? Heather has too much sense, and Hilary’s thought processes are too alien even for OWM (Speaking as an OWM)
Comment by Leopold — July 13, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
Pushing someone down the list because they’re not female or brown isn’t “the bad tokenism” huh? Sheesh pal, the default-to-nitpicking-devil’s-advocate is getting a little tired…
Comment by garethw — July 13, 2011 @ 3:58 pm
note he says ‘brown faces’, not ‘brown peopel’. It’s not necessarily a reference to wanting new candidates – maybe some of their existing candidates only have one face, and are expected to have two.
Comment by kahikatea — July 13, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
<iI believe Brash’s concerns have long been with people – whether doctors or lawyers, or MPs, or government board appointments, or judges or whatever – who aren’t up to the job, and are there as tokens, rather than those who are up to the job, and may also be tokens.
I believe the people’s concerns have long been with people – whether list MPs or electorate MPs or whatever – who aren’t up to the job, whether they are tokens or not.
Comment by Pete George — July 13, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
Has Cactus been confirmed? If not, rather a long time between throwing in her hat and being accepted.
Comment by Owen — July 13, 2011 @ 4:07 pm
There’s something about Brash’s overuse of the word indeed that’s always intrigued me
Comment by Leg Break — July 13, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
Has Cactus been confirmed? If not, rather a long time between throwing in her hat and being accepted.
And it’s a long time since she’s blogged anything about her candidacy, though her anti-Maori, pro-white men rants continue unabated.
I think there is one hell of a shitfight going on between her and Act.
Someone in Act may actually have read her blog and realised the kind of publicity she would bring down on them.
Today’s Herald has Brash making this lukewarm comment in the Herald article Danyl has linked to above:
Dr Brash would not confirm her candidacy yesterday, saying the list would be confirmed at the end of the month.
Comment by johnsonmike — July 13, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
@Graeme – did you get my email begging you for free legal advice?
Comment by danylmc — July 13, 2011 @ 4:16 pm
I don’t think Cactus has been confirmed. They say the list won’t be reelased until the end of the month, although Nicolson is effectively a list candidate and they chose to announce him now. I guess they wanted to try and change the subject.
Internal unity doesn’t seem to be a strong point for Act, it would be interesting to see how Cactus got on with them, and them with her.
Comment by Pete George — July 13, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
…the kind of publicity she would bring down on them.
cheaper than a half-page add though
Comment by NeilM — July 13, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
Graeme,
No quibble with your analysis of the potential pragmatic benefits of presenting a diverse range of faces in terms of maximising potential votes – of course that is (at least in part) why parties do this. However, you cook the books by saying “[ACT] considers that any of these seven candidates would make a fantastic MP.” Because that isn’t the point … no party puts up a candidate in a winnable list spot they do not think would be an (at least) competent MP. Even Alamein Kopu was, prior to actually seeing her fail in action, thought to be up to the job (he says, prepared for rebuttal evidence). So, the question always comes down to “which potential competent MP are we going to privilege over another potential competent MP, always being aware that only one of them may get in?” (Because no party knows in advance its actual share of the party vote – especially as the list has to be finalised well in advance of polling day – meaning that there is always a risk that putting A over B on the list means you only get A. And so in your second example, what if the gambit fails and ACT still only gets 3 point something percent and 4 MPs?) Thus, where candidate A is chosen over B because of their gender/race/age etc, the party is saying “we are prepared to take the risk of a slightly-less good MP entering Parliament in place of a better MP, purely because of their potential demographic appeal”. Which is … tokenism?
Of course, if you can point to examples where parties ARE deliberately choosing people THEY KNOW IN ADVANCE cannot do the job purely because of their skin colour/gender (again – did the Alliance really know Alamein Kopu would be such a train-wreck?), then you may have a genuine comparator to ACT’s approach. But in the absence of that, then either ACT is engaging in tokenism, or no-one is engaging in tokenism … but either way ACT loses its claim to difference.
Finally, if the problem really is “The “tokenism” with which Brash has raised concerns is around entrance to, for example, law or med school: his concern was in allowing in people who aren’t up to the grade just because they fill a minority, leading to his concern that people would then have substandard medical or legal help”, then Brash is decrying a problem that simply does not exist. He may genuinely think it exists, or he may cynically be pretending it exists for public consumption, but it doesn’t.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
“Someone in Act may actually have read her blog and realised the kind of publicity she would bring down on them.”
i wondered about that.
not so sure that people who actually get sex would be welcomed in the party.
Comment by Che Tibby — July 13, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
I don’t think Cactus is shaping as a serious candidate in any event, as she’s made clear on her blog just now that she will be running from Hong Kong, not NZ.
In reply to this comment:
What number on the list do you expect to be now? Please tell me that you will be higher on the list than Calvert. Would be good to see you as a Auckland Central candidate, up against Kaye and Jacinda.
She replies:
I don’t believe in standing in a seat unless you are in the country the extended period of the campaign to do so, which I will not be. ACT have lined up another young candidate for that seat, who will be announced in due course I imagine. Obviously the above affects the list ranking I can expect to receive, as opposed if for example I quit my job (and pay…sob) and came back to NZ to campaign right now for the party when some polls still have it under 2%. As tempting as it may be, I cannot comment on Hillary Calvert. You know what I would say anyway, such is the beauty of my blog archives. I understand she has put her name forward for re-election and therefore is another candidate.
Given she has lived in Hong Kong for so many years, I wonder if she is still even entitled to vote in New Zealand? I presume there is a residency requirement, otherwise the 600,000 Kiwis in Australia alone would be voting here.
Comment by johnsonmike — July 13, 2011 @ 4:26 pm
not so sure that people who actually get sex would be welcomed in the party.
It is quite clear from her blog that she only shags wealthy married white men 20 or so years older than her. She has likely shagged a good number of men connected to the party, on her regular visits to Wellington/Auckland and their regular visits to Hong Kong. It would make interesting reading when Jonathan Marshall approaches the wives…
Comment by johnsonmike — July 13, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
not so sure that people who actually get sex would be welcomed in the party.
Brash has a surprisingly active record in the department
Comment by Leg Break — July 13, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
The quote of the day has to be this from Brash:’When asked about the gender imbalance in the party’s confirmed candidates, Dr Brash quipped: “I’m always uneasy about being asked if I’m courting females.”‘
Comment by MeToo — July 13, 2011 @ 4:31 pm
johnsonmike: “Given she has lived in Hong Kong for so many years, I wonder if she is still even entitled to vote in New Zealand? I presume there is a residency requirement, otherwise the 600,000 Kiwis in Australia alone would be voting here.”
As long as you return to NZ every 3 years (for any length of time), you retain the right to be registered to vote (and thus to vote … as well as be a candidate for election). Given that DPF reported Cactus Kate as being part of his post-election celebrations in 2008, she’s good to go.
I suspect most Kiwis in Aussie don’t vote because they are lazy – which is why they are in Australia in the first place.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 4:31 pm
Even Alamein Kopu was, prior to actually seeing her fail in action, thought to be up to the job
I’d assume that would have to be the case – but any new MP is a punt, there’s no way of knowing how they will manage and how well they will perform until they get there.
Kopu got in at a time that the candidate pool broadened quickly, so she (and others) were possibly a riskier propositions, that’s all.
There’s no guarantee of MP success, there have been hot shot new MPs who have gone cold by the end of their first term.
Comment by Pete George — July 13, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
I’m not quite sure why they’re bothering with the inclusion thing — it’s unlikely to actually win many votes. Nicolson, otoh, might actually bring in a useful rural vote.
Comment by Russell Brown — July 13, 2011 @ 4:44 pm
“I’m not quite sure why they’re bothering with the inclusion thing — it’s unlikely to actually win many votes.”
Probably right – but is Brash REALLY likely to stand up and say “Frankly, we don’t care if we have any women, brown folks or young people interested in standing for ACT”?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 4:46 pm
“Brash has a surprisingly active record in the department”
i think you mean, “appears to have”.
Comment by Che Tibby — July 13, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
“Frankly, we don’t care if we have any women, brown folks or young people interested in standing for ACT”?
ACT: once again telling the truth, not some PC diversity crap
Comment by nommopilot — July 13, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
actually they have some golden potential young candidates in ACT on campus but they’re too compelling to actually be on the party list
Comment by nommopilot — July 13, 2011 @ 4:51 pm
“I’m not quite sure why they’re bothering with the inclusion thing – ”
More pertinent now – is it likely to find any suitable candidates. Act haven’t exactly appealed to a wide range of women and brown faced peeps over the last few days.
I know Ansell is now ex creative director but the association with Act and his his comments is hard to ignore.
Comment by Pete George — July 13, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
I really want cactus to run, I think it would be hilarious.
And ACT is already extremely representative of their membership – they shouldn’t change a thing.
Comment by Michael S — July 13, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
“Someone in Act may actually have read her blog and realised the kind of publicity she would bring down on them.”
someone who presumably didn’t read Lindsay Perigo’s blog before they hired him.
In all honesty, I’m not convinced that ACT are actually trying to be taken seriously. Given that they are a party that depends on MMP for its existence, and depends on opponents of MMP for its funding, they may actually be acting like a train wreck on purpose to help their funders’ anti-MMP agenda.
Comment by kahikatea — July 13, 2011 @ 5:21 pm
Andrew Geddis said:
“Finally, if the problem really is “The “tokenism” with which Brash has raised concerns is around entrance to, for example, law or med school: his concern was in allowing in people who aren’t up to the grade just because they fill a minority, leading to his concern that people would then have substandard medical or legal help”, then Brash is decrying a problem that simply does not exist. He may genuinely think it exists, or he may cynically be pretending it exists for public consumption, but it doesn’t.”
You work at Otago University and yet you deny the fact that Maori students (not to mention Pacific students) have places reserved for them in Law and Medicine, even if they get significantly lower grades? And then you have the gall to accuse someone else of “cynically pretending” something? Wow.
Comment by Scarfie — July 13, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
Dr Brash said he had met three Maori who were interested in representing the party, but two were unsuitable . . .
According to Brash’s Orewa speech, “Anthropologists tell us that by 1900 there were no full-blooded Maori left in the South Island. By 2000, the same was true of the North Island.” Presumably he employed the services of an anthropologist in eliminating the two unsuitables.
. . . and the other was not willing to stand at the moment.
Prostrated himself in the presence of the great white father?
Comment by Joe Wylie — July 13, 2011 @ 5:37 pm
The only thing stopping a more diverse look to ACT’s lineup is death itself, according to Brash.
It’s just hard to get good help these days; they don’t make them like they used to, etc.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 13, 2011 @ 5:49 pm
Oh. I didn’t realise it would do that. Cool.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 13, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
“did Don Brash just tell Te Karere Apirana Ngata would’ve been leader of Act if he was still alive?”
Is that before or after Brash took over the party?
It would raise the average age in the party a bit.
Comment by Pete George — July 13, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
Apirana Ngata would’ve been leader of Act if he was still alive?
I could easily be doing something else if I wasn’t writing this comment. perhaps selling sesame seeds.
Comment by NeilM — July 13, 2011 @ 5:59 pm
14.note he says ‘brown faces’, not ‘brown people’.
That’s the journalist, Derek Cheng talking. Not Brash.
There’s no directly attributable quote from Brash, in the article, making that kind of (potentially usable for accusations of racism) statement.
Comment by Phil — July 13, 2011 @ 6:30 pm
14.note he says ‘brown faces’, not ‘brown people’.
So what you’re saying is they’ll even take minstrels to make up their token quota these days? Sweet!
All together now: Swannee, How I love ya, How I love ya….
Comment by Exclamation Mark — July 13, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
Cough, splutter, did Don Brash just tell Te Karere Apirana Ngata would’ve been leader of Act if he was still alive?
You’re reading it wrong. The ‘he’ referred to is Brash.
Comment by Gregor W — July 13, 2011 @ 7:59 pm
You work at Otago University and yet you deny the fact that Maori students (not to mention Pacific students) have places reserved for them in Law and Medicine, even if they get significantly lower grades? And then you have the gall to accuse someone else of “cynically pretending” something? Wow.
Comment by Scarfie
He’d know. And I’d honestly prefer the opinion of an Otago University lecturer on the subject that some conspiracy theorist bell-end on a blog.
OMG NO IT’S A COVER UP!!!!
Comment by Dizzy — July 13, 2011 @ 8:13 pm
Gregor – 10 points. That’s funny.
Comment by TBWood — July 13, 2011 @ 8:30 pm
@Scarfie: “You work at Otago University and yet you deny the fact that Maori students (not to mention Pacific students) have places reserved for them in Law and Medicine, even if they get significantly lower grades? ”
Ummm … yeah? Coz it is, like, not true that there are reserved places? And I, like, know how my own department works?
But I would hate for this perspective to interfere with your view of how the world is, scarfie. So please feel free to believe I am lying to you for cynical reasons. It’s easier than changing your mind.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
@Andrew Geddis:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualifications/llb.html#1
(f) The Law Admissions Committee shall select candidates for admission according to the following categories:
* standard entry
* alternative entry.
(h) Candidates for alternative entry
(i) shall be considered by virtue of their Māori descent;
Maybe you ought to take a closer look at your department’s policies.
Comment by Scarfie — July 13, 2011 @ 9:45 pm
scarfie,
Maybe you ought to include this extra little bit in your comment:
“(ii) must have achieved a minimum academic standard to be determined by the Law Admissions Committee from year to year”
So the claim that there is a set number of reserved places set aside for Maori irrespective of their abilities is, as I have said, false. And I can tell you, once again from having actually seen this policy in practice, it does not result in Maori applicants with “substantially lower grades” then non-Maori getting into second year law.
Now, the question is whether there should be ANY difference between Maori applicants and non-Maori applicants. I guess I’ll get concerned about that when I see the educational achievement gap between Maori and non-Maori disappearing … because at the moment a small bending of the stick at the end of 1st year law is pretty inconsequential against the general background of how badly the education system fails Maori throughout their schooling.
One last point – you’ll note that Medicine at Otago has similar special consideration at the admissions stage for Maori and Pacific Island students. (See http://www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualifications/mbchb.html). You’ll also note that “Applicants in any category (see regulation 1(c)) who have had a rural New Zealand upbringing and/or education (see note) may seek admission under the New Zealand Rural Origins sub category.” I await your angry comment about the deep unfairness involved in giving people from rural New Zealand special opportunities to study medicine as against their urban competitors.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 10:11 pm
it does seem however that the min. academic standard may be lower than that of a student admitted under standard entry.
Comment by abel the amish — July 13, 2011 @ 10:30 pm
…because at the moment a small bending of the stick at the end of 1st year law is pretty inconsequential against the general background of how badly the education system fails Maori throughout their schooling.
are those who get in with that small bending extra in number to how many who would have been accepted otherwise?
Comment by NeilM — July 13, 2011 @ 10:31 pm
Andrew – how about the Saudis in the Med School?
Comment by Micky — July 13, 2011 @ 10:35 pm
Lol, The Geddinator spake thus “I suspect most Kiwis in Aussie don’t vote because they are lazy – which is why they are in Australia in the first place.”
I love an Ocker joke as much as the next man especially in RWC year but sometimes it’s good to think the best of people and their motivations.
Comment by abel the amish — July 13, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
Like they couldn’t fill out the leaving card in time to reach their flight back to NZ.
Comment by abel the amish — July 13, 2011 @ 10:47 pm
ACT is getting quite a bit of screen time around these parts…
Comment by Bed Rater — July 13, 2011 @ 10:47 pm
abel,
Yes re the difference … it may be that a Maori student is admitted with 74% while a non-Maori student with 74% is not admitted. But (i) the gap between “standard entry” and “alternative entry” grades is not more than a couple of percent (certainly not “substantially lower” as scarfie claims); (ii) no-one gets in by either the standard or alternative entry who is not thought able to complete the degree (and thus get credentialed as being a “lawyer”) … and if anyone manifestly unsuitable to be a lawyer did slip in through a crack, they’d end up getting failed in the rest of the 3 years study required. So the idea that there’s hoards of Maori getting a free ride into the professions and emerging without the necessary skill to do the job they’ve been credentialed for is, I repeat, a falsehood.
PS: The Ocker joke? My attempt to insert a softening tail to that comment got eaten by danyl’s temperamental wordpress platform.
NeilM,
Can’t say, as the numbers taken into 2nd year law in any given year aren’t set in stone – they go up and down depending on the pool being drawn from each year. So if students presently accepted via “alternative entry” did not exist, it may be that the numbers accepted by “standard entry” would remain the same, or they may increase. Not trying to duck the question, just saying that there’s no rigid numbers attached to this and it’s a process of evaluating carried out year-on-year.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 11:08 pm
I should note that my use of “74%” was illustrative only … the actual cut-off will vary year on year depending (again) on the pool being selected from – some years may be higher, some lower.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 13, 2011 @ 11:17 pm
Brash’s comment is not worth all this analysis. (not wanting to spoil the fun). He’s only trying to soften ansell’s shocking racism. In his own way of course which is deeply twisted.
Comment by Myles thomas — July 14, 2011 @ 2:56 am
Ok look we get it….ACT gets your panties all up in a bunch…you poor dears.
Comment by James (the actual one) — July 14, 2011 @ 5:30 am
Care to point out some of this “shocking racism Myles…? What anti Maori racial comments has Ansell made?
Comment by James (the actual one) — July 14, 2011 @ 5:31 am
Ngata’s political heir is Pita Shaples, who was no doubt inspired by his fellow Te Aute alum. But Brash could claim the mantle if he adopted Ngata’s signature policy of major government funding for Maori economic development, education, and health.
Comment by bradluen — July 14, 2011 @ 7:50 am
Back to being James now Jimbo? That’s nice, that Jason guy was a dickwad. Decrying the supposed maorification of everything was an “anti Maori racial comment”. Unless of course the universe has told you it wasn’t. In which case, game over munters!
Comment by Guy Smiley — July 14, 2011 @ 8:13 am
“but two were unsuitable”
If Hilary Calvert was considered suitable enough to be number 6 on their list, I wonder how atrocious these two would have been to not even qualify for a place on ACT’s list.
And I wonder how low the pass mark was the year Calvert got into 2nd year law.
Comment by Newtown News — July 14, 2011 @ 9:31 am
“57.ACT is getting quite a bit of screen time around these parts…”
Trainwrecks will do that.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 14, 2011 @ 10:23 am
Don Brash came onto VicUni yesterday. He was actually wandering around asking people if they were part Maori. Perhaps these three were the only ones keen to talk to him that were.
Comment by Rob — July 14, 2011 @ 10:26 am
Also as regards Maori getting into law the rate in my year was a c+ average if you were Maori and a high b- average if you were Pakeha. The amount will fluctuate from year to year though and it is not really a major deal that someone scored a grade lower on the first year papers they are nothing like the rest of the degree.
Comment by Rob — July 14, 2011 @ 10:28 am
“ACT is getting quite a bit of screen time around these parts…”
Trainwrecks will do that.
I was going to say “if it bleeds, it leads”. But on reflection, that was the epic missed opportunity of the whole Alasdair Thompson fiasco…
L
Comment by Lew — July 14, 2011 @ 10:29 am
“The “tokenism” with which Brash has raised concerns is around entrance to, for example, law or med school: his concern was in allowing in people who aren’t up to the grade just because they fill a minority, leading to his concern that people would then have substandard medical or legal help. That’s of a different nature to looking at a bunch of thoroughly excellent candidates and deciding among those people – each of whom would be excellent – to choose some to focus on particular areas – whether that’s farmers, or younger women.:
Andrew has already noted that acceptance to a training programme is not the same thing as a free pass into a profession – i.e. once you are in the school you have to do as well as everyone else. But I’ll add that this further assumes that there is no benefit in having Maori doctors and lawyers other than the benefits which accrue to the individuals. There are some fairly obvious reasons why having diversity among the professions is good for the professions. (For example: women often like to go to doctors of similar genders; if you can visit a doctor of your own ethnicity, you may be less likely to feel that the medical profession doesn’t care about you or your culture, you might go to the doctor more often which saves us all money, et cetera. This is obviously particularly important in primary health care. It’s vital that we have doctors and nurses and health professionals who can speak to, relate to, work with and understand all parts of the country. I think I need only point to the Unfortunate Experiment to demonstrate that doctors have not always been very good at this.)
Comment by Tui — July 14, 2011 @ 12:00 pm
What on earth is the Herald getting at with this strange paragraph in a story about Christine Rankin not standing for Act?
Mr Meanger, 55, a homosexual Fiji Indian and director of the Guava Tree, a shop selling Indian goods, said he was a member and supporter of the party.
Is it some kind of attempt to destroy the hapless Mr Meanger by painting him as gay, a Fijian Indian, a seller of Indian goods and a supporter of Act? Or is it somehow trying to show how PC he is or Act is or even the Herald is?
How bizarre.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10738337
Comment by johnsonmike — July 14, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
. . . the hapless Mr Meanger . . .
One of Brash’s potential Maori candidates, until his outing as an Indian rendered him “unsuitable”?
Comment by Joe Wylie — July 14, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
Tui,
Exactly. Which also is why Otago medical school has special entrance procedures for those applicants from rural backgrounds who are prepared to go back and practice in rural areas … there’s a dire shortage of such people in the profession, so they get an easier ride into the institution (where they must then meet the same standards as everyone else to progress).
Again, I await the bitter howls of upset at this privileging of rural interests over urban, and dire warnings that unless this separatist nonsense stops then New Zealand can never progress. Don Nicolson … where are you when we need you?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 14, 2011 @ 12:46 pm
I await the bitter howls of upset at this privileging of rural interests over urban
It’s the rubeification of New Zealand, and I’m sick of it.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 14, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
@Andrew Geddis:
1) You may think it’s not significant that Maori can get into medicine with 70% while everyone else needs 94%-ish. But I know which doctor I’d prefer to be treated by. As for law, my understanding is that Maori students tend to need about 65% compared to around 78% for everyone else. Seems pretty wrong, considering many of them are unable to deal with the rigours of second-year law after being ill-advisedly snuck in via the racial door.
2) You know perfectly well that people who oppose Maori privilege at universities also oppose rural privilege. Although privileging an area is not quite as bad as privileging a race.
Comment by Scarfie — July 14, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
Scarfie,
1) Your understanding is wrong as it applies at Otago. (I also query your figures with respect to medicine, but don’t have direct first hand knowledge of that faculty’s processes … but I suspect you don’t either.) And as the person who teaches 2nd year law, I can tell you that it is not the case that “many of them are unable to deal with the rigours of second-year law after being ill-advisedly snuck in via the racial door.” So insofar as your views are based on what you believe to be ‘the facts”, your views are wrong. Whether you choose to change them is, of course, up to you.
2) If it really is the case that “people who oppose Maori privilege at universities also oppose rural privilege”, it’s pretty stupid of such people. Tailoring those accepted into medical school toward the medical needs of the population makes perfect sense to me. But each to their own.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 14, 2011 @ 2:25 pm
“You may think it’s not significant that Maori can get into medicine with 70% while everyone else needs 94%-ish. But I know which doctor I’d prefer to be treated by. ”
Do you think the correlation between “grades in first-year university” and “skill in eventual profession” is that strong? I would be really surprised if it was so strong even for people who go on to be academics, and absolutely blown away if such a strong correlation existed for professions like law and medicine where practice, experience, communication, and so on (skills first-year students are not noted for) play such a strong part.
Comment by Tui — July 14, 2011 @ 2:32 pm
Actually, the point about competence is easily resolved. The “alternative entry” scheme has been in place for a good few years now. There’ll be quite a number of Maori/Pacifica lawyers and doctors who have entered law and medical school under it and since graduated.
Where is the evidence – in the form of complaints to the relevant disciplinary bodies for each profession – that these (allegedly incompetent) individuals have caused problems?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 14, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
As per Tui – high academic grades don’t necessarily equate to ability in a profession. Hasn’t med school moved their emphasis away from straight academic grades to take into acount things that should matter in professions like medicine and law, like interpersonal skills.
Neither lawyer nor doctor, no matter how academic they might have been, will practice well if they can’t listen to their clients/patients.
And as per Andrew, if there is a shortage of rural doctors, or of doctors with an understanding of Maori culture, shouldn’t students with an empathy in those areas be sought?
Has any analysis been done on any correlation between academic level and propensity to bugger off overseas? Maybe we should target students that are committed to working in the country that educated them, similr to the rural and Maori focus.
Comment by Pete George — July 14, 2011 @ 2:42 pm
Med schools have had entry interviews for a while now anyway. Everyone is assessed on criteria other than grades.
Comment by NeilM — July 14, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
If grades don’t matter, why don’t universities just give everyone an A+? Maori students are allowed to get lower grades and that means they do not have as much knowledge on the subjects as other students.
The funny thing is that there are probably plenty of Maori doctors/lawyers who got top grades and didn’t enter via the back door, but they will be looked at with suspicion by people wondering whether they are there because of race or merit. They are the ones who suffer from the policy to have lower standards for Maori students.
Comment by Scarfie — July 14, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Who says “grades don’t matter”? You’re saying “only grades matter”, which is questionable. Why is taking only the “best of the best” (at least as demonstrated by grades achieved) a better method of selecting who gets into restricted enrollment degrees than the present arrangements?
That said, I agree the “stigmatisation” point is a valid one. But how big a problem it is is questionable – I suspect top-achieving Maori find ways of demonstrating their abilities pretty conclusively – and it isn’t helped by ill-informed claims about how the system “really” works. Just saying.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 14, 2011 @ 3:37 pm
“Maori students are allowed to get lower grades and that means they do not have as much knowledge on the subjects as other students.”
In point of fact, it means “Some Maori students who are accepted may be slightly worse than their classmates at *demonstrating* their knowledge in particular ways in the first year of their degree”. This might mean differing levels of knowledge, but in fact it’s so easy to set up conditions in which students in certain demographics do better or worse (irrelevant of actual knowledge) in exams and papers that it’s difficult to claim, as you seem to, that “Maori student scoring 74% knows less than student scoring 75%” completely conclusively. The reason not everyone gets A+s is because exams and papers are *one* way of assessing students’ knowledge, but it is a mistake to claim that they are a complete way, or that class scores are all we should look at before admitting students to training programmes (or, indeed, before hiring people!)
Comment by Tui — July 14, 2011 @ 3:47 pm
Maori students are allowed to get lower grades and that means they do not have as much knowledge on the subjects as other students.
for medicine that’s not how it works. There is a minimum grade (which is set quite high so as to weed out those who will not cope academically) which qualifies you for an interview. The interview is to determine if an individual is suitable and also to to see if the overall intake will best be able to deliver health services to the population. So they’ll want a range of apptitudes, interests and yes, backgrounds.
Prior to interviews med schools were much better at producing specialists – those who tended to do the best at exams – rather than generalists who often require greater people skills.
So there is a high base level of academic ability but also other – social, personal – criteria are consdered for all applicants.
Comment by NeilM — July 14, 2011 @ 3:54 pm
“Why is taking only the “best of the best” (at least as demonstrated by grades achieved) a better method of selecting who gets into restricted enrollment degrees than the present arrangements?”
Because racism is wrong.
Comment by Scarfie — July 14, 2011 @ 6:34 pm
Oh clap, clap scarfie. 1 million internets for winning.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 14, 2011 @ 7:00 pm
I agree that medical school should take the best of the best, but why do you suppose that academic marks alone are the best way to assess who are the best people to train as doctors?
Communication is a big part of a doctor’s work – in terms of eliciting and understanding information from the patient, and in terms of communicating to the patient what the patient needs to know wto get better. Both cultural familiarity and general communication skills are useful for this, and they can both be assessed through an interview.
It’s also useful to have doctors who want to work where they’re needed. It’s more useful to have candidates willing to live in Murupara, where not many doctors want to live, than in Dunedin, where lots of doctors want to live. It’s even less useful to have medical students who intend to leave the country in search of higher pay in Perth as soon as they graduate.
Comment by kahikatea — July 14, 2011 @ 7:00 pm
Because racism is wrong.
I think you’re at least 15 yrs too late with that criticism.
There were indeed some things done in the health system in the name of redressing past wrongs which in themselves were wrong. Mostly done by liberal pakeha who, it seemed to me, were more interested in creating in-group/out-group divisions for their own career advantage.
And there was the horrendous Maori mental health unit set up at Carrington Hospital run by the Harawiras
But by the mid 1990s that was mostly all dealt with. Lessons were learnt and now there’s a pretty fierce focus on what is the most beneficial ting to do.
Comment by NeilM — July 14, 2011 @ 7:32 pm
Danyl, your filing is correct.
Comment by peterlepaysan — July 15, 2011 @ 12:20 am