Anne Tolley: see no racism, hear no racism, speak no racism

Maori women challenging racism in the early feminist movement
H/T Te Ara

Don’t act surprised. From RNZ:

"The Government is rejecting suggestions Maori are being unfairly targetted in the police or corrections systems the Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell has described as institutionally racist. 

A visiting United Nations delegation says the Government needs to investigate why a systemic bias against Maori is evident in the country's criminal justice system. 

The delegation, which reports to the UN Human Rights Council, says any bias against Maori leading to their incarceration more than other New Zealanders constitutes arbitrary detention and is illegal under international law. 

Police and Corrections Minister Anne Tolley says she has seen no evidence of institutional racism in either police or Corrections. 

"Quite the reverse in fact; there's a lot of work going on. The police are turning the tide and we're very impressed by that work and of course in Corrections the work that's going on to reduce reoffending."

It’s easy when you have the privilege of detachment – and, of course, the authority of objectivity – to deny that racism exists. But even then, Tolley’s remarks are neither a full denial nor a proper admission. Her response is bureaucratic: “the police are turning the tide and we’re very impressed by that work”.

What does that even mean? If the police “are turning the tide” is that an admission institutional racism did exist? Or is “quite the reverse” a denial that institutional racism ever existed? Does it matter? Unfortunately it does.

Tolley’s position doesn’t change the facts: Maori adults are 3.8 times more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence. Maori young people are more likely than Pakeha to be apprehended and prosecuted for committing the same offence. This is the reality of the racial hierarchy: the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gaps. But add the health, wealth, education, employment and housing gaps too.

But if Tolley denies that this is the product of institutional racism, she doesn’t have to do anything substantive about it. Her response can be bureaucratic: we are doing [insert glib policy] in hope of achieving [insert rosy outcome] for [insert folksy platitude].

Tolley’s position is profoundly ahistorical. Settler colonialism is based on the denial of indigenous systems and culture. You can’t complete the colonial project – namely to import the capitalist economy and recreate the architecture of liberal democracy - while allowing an indigenous system to co-exist.

The New Zealand experience is no different. In the 19th century Maori were invited to assimilate under the Treaty. In 20th century New Zealand Maori have been invited to integrate under the Treaty settlement process. But under neither regime were Maori offered full membership of the state. Institutional racism made assimilation and integration conditional - sovereignty had to be transferred, discrimination tolerated and wrongdoing (eventually) forgiven. 

Indulge me for a moment and imagine if we started setting some conditions like, say, extracting a genuine commitment to do something about institutional racism. But perhaps a commitment from government isn't necessary. Iwi, hapu, whanau, community groups, national organisations and individuals - of different ethnicities - are doing their best to turn the tide. In many areas, it’s working. Maori do have better access to housing and education than a century ago. But I’m suspicious of the government’s claim to be turning the tide. Here’s why: 

“You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me”. – Malcolm X 

Anne Tolley: an agent of colourblind racism?

Green co-leader Metiria Turei: stereotyped and slandered.

From Stuff.co.nz:

Tolley said she was insulted by Green Party claims that she was out of touch. 

"I'm actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designer jackets and tells me I'm out of touch," Tolley said. 

It is not the first time National MPs have attacked Turei's choice of clothing. Justice Minister Judith Collins said last year on Twitter that a speech by Turei was "vile, wrong and ugly, just like her jacket today".

It’s easy to think that racism is an act that belonged to other people, in another time, in another place. Except it isn’t. And it never was.

Some New Zealanders are aware of the realities of the racial hierarchy: the wealth gap; the employment gap; the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gap. But less New Zealanders appreciate the language of racism. Not the language of niggers, kikes and kaffirs. But of "semantic moves" - of coded insults and racist premises.

We live in the age of racism without racists. Racism comes with its own stigma. People want to avoid that. But rather than change their behaviour, society has invented rhetorical parachutes. Suddenly racism can’t exist without racial words. Racism becomes the use of "Wogistan", but not the history and ideas that sustain it.

Tolley didn’t need to mention race. Her attack is loaded with social, political and racial assumptions. The unspoken context is that Metiria, a Maori woman who lives well and dresses better, is acting out of turn and out of step with her community. How can she be in touch with her community when she isn’t living like them? The premise is that a Maori woman cannot dress well and claim to represent her people. Because Maori live exclusively in poverty, amirite.

But Tolley can. She dresses like her community, lives with them and – it seems – perpetuates their prejudices. The premise is that her community is well off and that gives her the right to live well, dress well and hold power. Tolley is constructing a self-serving stereotype. A world of (literally) black and white where binary assumptions can be made about how racial communities live.

Metiria explains further:

"I think they seem to think it is all right for them to wear perfectly good suits for their professional job but that a Maori woman from a working-class background is not entitled to do the same. I think it is pure racism." 

Ask how the attack was racist, Turei said she shopped at the same place some of her opponents did. 

"They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work," she said. 

"I buy my clothes from some of the same shops they do. I think they find that they can't cope with that and I think it's because I'm a Maori woman from a working-class background."

The common refrain is Tolley didn't invoke racial terms, ipso facto, she isn't racist. But it takes a determined effort in self-deception to strip Tolley’s remarks of their racial context. Metiria doesn't conform to Tolley's idea of what and who Maori should be, therefore Metiria is out of touch with her community. That's racial stereptyping. That's colourblind racism.

A hijacked version of colourblindness has become the dominant racial ideology in New Zealand (and across the west). Because of that most New Zealanders are hyper-attuned to racialism. But what they refuse to acknowledge is when racial stereotypes – stripped of their overtly racial words – are projected onto individuals, situations and communities. Like, say, when the assumption of Maori poverty is projected onto a Maori politician.

There are several comparisons: when people discuss the warrior gene it can be framed as “science” and not a narrative used to explain inherent Maori criminality and violence. Welfarism can be used as morse code - a way to talk about Maori dependency without explicitly racialising the prejudice. Positive discrimination can be used to attack the growth of the Maori worldview in universities. The subtext is clear. It's colourblind racism.

If there's no such thing as race - "I don't see in colour" - there can be no such thing as racial disadvantage. We're all a lump of humanity that cannot be distinguished. But this sort of colourblind racism is self-serving. It preserves the status quo and ignores why some people are better off than others. Where the colourblind ideologies of liberalism aimed to control for prejudice in society, the colourblind ideologies dominant today work to validate prejudice.

Master Republican strategist Lee Atwater (father of the Southern Strategy) explains how racial discourse had to change (and did):

“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Racial ideologies are highly contested. Rejecting colourblind racism is a political struggle. Colourblind racism seeks to silence multicultural pluralism and, instead, celebrate a kind of monocultural nationalism that can't include non-conformists. That serves the status quo. Racial progress is stalled. We can't allow the racists to create their imaginary future. And calling Tolley on her (conscious or unconscious) racism is part of that.

Kawerau Intermediate files frivolous action

Few judicial review actions are filed in New Zealand each year and even fewer succeed. With that in mind, I just can’t fathom why Kawerau Intermediate is taking that route. From RNZ:

Kawerau Intermediate School (KI) in the Eastern Bay of Plenty has lodged an application for a High Court judicial review to try and save the school from closure.

Education Minister Hekia Parata wants to close the school and nearby Kawerau College from the end of this year.

A new year seven to 13 secondary school in the town will then be opened on the existing college site.

The principal of the intermediate says the judicial review is the final chance the community has to save the school.

That’s the thing, judicial review can’t and won’t save the school. The remedies available to KI are limited. The best the Court can do is order the Minister to revisit the decision, this time correcting any errors of law, breaches to natural justice and so on. All this means in practice is 1) The Minister will revisit the decision, but this time ticking all of the boxes and 2) The same decision will be reached. In other words, the Minister will still close the school. Let me be clear, the Court cannot order the government to leave KI open. The Courts cannot decide on the substantive merits of the Minister’s decision, merely the process.

If you ask me, this is a frivolous action on behalf of KI. It’s a massive waste of money. Money that could go towards providing high quality education and activities for the remaining students. The school may win a moral victory if they win the case, but they won’t score a substantive victory. It’s about time they let this issue rest.

How not to help your cause

I take issue with this sort of shit:

Education minister Anne Tolley may be used to facing protests from school teachers, but on Friday night it was a group of school children shouting and jeering at her (Kawerau Intermediate students and supporters).

The youngsters’ anger and frustration appeared close to boiling over into a direct confrontation at the meeting’s conclusion at 9.20pm, with their attempts to get the minister to explain her actions being stymied.

Mrs Tolley declined to answer a question posed by pupil Kunere Timoti about why she had decided to close the school “when you did not even visit it”. Her response that she was unable to comment on the issue because it had entered a 28-day legal process proved far from satisfactory for the assembled school crowd – and when the meeting’s chairman Mark Longley pulled the plug soon after, it appeared the pupils were on the verge of breaking into a spontaneous haka or finding some other way to vent their anger.

Although there are legitimate questions around Tolley’s refusal to visit Kawerau and front the Intermediate supporters, it is the height of arrogance for those supporters to gate crash a meeting for East Coast voters. Kawerau is part of the Rotorua electorate. The Intermediate supporters have no right to barge into a candidates meeting for East Coast voters, emphasis on East Coast voters, and demand Tolley’s attention and, in the process, distract her from issues that affect the East Coast electorate. This was not an appropriate venue for the Intermediate supporters to attend. Tolley’s first obligation in the above situation is to her electorate. Her obligation to the Intermediate supporters is secondary. The story continues:

Some of the now-shirtless youngsters gathered on the driveway outside the church in an apparent bid to confront Mrs Tolley as she was leaving. However the minister and her supporters remained inside the church.

The caregivers, evidently anxious to avoid an incident involving their charges and no doubt aware it had already been a late night for them, quickly herded them back onto an awaiting school bus for transport back to Kawerau.

Good one. Now you’ve made Kawerau look like a town of nutters. This was my biggest worry when I heard the school was putting on some buses and ferrying their supporters and students to the meeting. I was afraid some one would lose it or, as appears to have happened, a few of the kids have lost it and further damaged the already dim view many people hold of Kawerau.

Which brings me to another point. Why were the kids there anyway? What useful purpose do they serve? Other than to add an emotional element to what should be a dispassionate debate. I think it is tantamount to child abuse that the Intermediate supporters keep using these kids, especially their headboy, in an attempt to garner sympathy.

The Intermediate supporters seem to have cultivated a lot of anger in these kids and that’s unacceptable. Tolley’s going to close the school and what are these kids going to do with that anger when that happens. Smash something up? Rob a house? Tag? Misbehave with their parents?

Anyway, the story goes on:

Maori Party candidate Tina Porou backed out of Friday night’s meeting in Whakatane over fears for her safety.  

“Upon arriving at the church, our candidate was greeted by a group of approximately 200 Mana party and Labour party supporters, apparently targeting the meeting for a protest against the education minister in connection with the closure of Kawerau Intermediate,” party president Pem Bird said in a statement.

“We’d be the last ones to challenge the right to political expression – but there has to be some boundaries in place around public safety.

“My candidate felt there was such a level of tension and anger among the crowd … that it might escalate into a situation which was unsafe. I made the decision that given the volatility of the rally as she described it to me, it would not be wise for her to attend.

“According to her account, some of the young people were particularly riled up and she was not confident that the meeting could proceed without incident.”

Unacceptable. Just unacceptable. The Intermediate supporters really have ruined the candidates meeting. One of less than a handful. They’ve stuck it to East Coast voters sending the message that the Intermediates concerns are greater than those on the East Coast. Oh, the arrogance.

This saga really tops itself off with this:

Earlier this week Rotorua MP Todd McClay made thinly-veiled comments about Mr Aim, who lives in Papamoa.

He said the Kawerau community “would be interested to know” that someone making a lot of noise about the education reorganisation had also sent videos of Kawerau students fighting to television media.

So it was the Intermediate Principal, Daryl Aim, who sent those videos to Closeup and sparked what was the most negative media story I've ever seen on the town. He must be gutted, or possibly ashamed. His actions certainly didn't help his cause. In fact, the opposite happened and the videos galvanised the Minister and local figures to push a head with the reorganisation of education in Kawerau. The irony's killing me. I admire Mr Aim’s shrewdness, but if he is indulging in unfair play he has no right to go accuses the Minister of playing the game unfairly. Pretty disgraceful really. I guess this the killer credibility blow for the Intermediate supporters. I think it’s high time they accepted the inevitable.

More on Kawerau Intermediate

Let’s be straight up; schooling in Kawerau needs to be reorganised. While I think Anne Tolley ignored a section of the community and that is undesirable, I think she came to the right decision. The current schooling arrangements in Kawerau are unsustainable. The numbers don’t exist to justify four separate primary schools (one of which is a full primary school i.e. years 1-8), one intermediate and one high school. Basically, supply outstrips demand. The costs of maintaining six schools with massively declining rolls are unacceptable.

Tolley has approved the establishment of a dual campus year 7-14 school on the Kawerau College site. The school will be split along the junior/senior high model, meaning there will be one years 7 to 10 school and another catering for years 11 to 13/14. Some specialist facilities will be shared, for example science labs.

Some members of the community are disappointed with the lack of consultation. I don’t accept this; the consultation was more than adequate. The community was given adequate time to submit to the Minister and convey their concerns to the Ministry of Education. Several hui were held for the entire community and each school held their own individual hui to determine what model they would support. Kawerau South, Kawerau North, Kawerau Central and Putauaki all supported the closure of the Intermediate. Even though the Mayor, Malcolm Campbell, even says it is time to move on and make education in Kawerau work.

Tolley’s reorganisation will facilitate a culture change in Kawerau schools. The useless management will be rid of and the deadwood on the College and Intermediate boards will be rid of too. Useless staff will not be rehired either. I understand some Kawerau people, as former students, have an emotional connection to the Intermediate. But they need to put that aside and face reality. The schools have to be reorganised and closing the Intermediate is the most sensible option. When the new school comes to life in 2013 the government will spend millions upgrading facilities and attracting high quality staff. This can only be a good thing.

As an aside, Steve Chadwick is taking a gamble. Should, on a slim chance, Labour form the next government Steve will have to make an about face. She has come down on the side of the Intermediate supporters, but if she came into government and saw the official advice I'm of the view that she would change her position and support the reorganisation. The advice from the Ministry is, I believe, emphatic. Schooling must be reorganised and the best model is to shut the Intermediate and partially merge it with the College.