Affirmative action: class or ethnicity?

Nicholas Jones at the Herald reports:

Students from poor backgrounds could have places reserved for them at the country's largest university in a shake-up of admissions currently targeted according to ethnicity. 

In a first for the country, the University of Auckland council has supported a proposal to improve access to higher education for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, regardless of ethnicity. 

At present, the targeted admission programme allows for Maori, Pasifika and students with disabilities.

For the most part, I’m not opposed to affirmative action on the basis of income.

Having said that, reserving places for low income students might compromise affirmative action’s most important aim: diversity, or, “that a critical mass of racial diversity is an education necessity”. That was the leading argument in Grutter/Gratz v. Bollinger – an affirmative action case before the Supreme Court of the United States – and Fisher v. University of Texas (where the argument was upheld – again).*

Affirmative action (on the basis of ethnicity) isn’t and shouldn’t be seen solely as atonement for past injustice. Affirmative action is, for the most part, a response to contemporary ethnic inequalities. It happens that ethnic inequality is sometimes a stand in for class inequality. For that reason, I'm not entirely opposed to affirmative action based on income.

However, recognising ethnicity acknowledges that the education system isn’t designed to accommodate Polynesian** learning styles. Education in New Zealand is largely monocultural. That puts Polynesian students, especially Polynesians immersed in their own culture, at a disadvantage. Systemic disadvantage exists. Under Article 2.2 of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination affirmative action can be a requirement to remedy systemic disadvantage. In other words, there's broad consensus that affirmative action based on ethnicity is acceptable and sometimes necessary.**  

The argument holds for disabled students too. The New Zealand education system treats disabled students poorly. Many opportunities are not open to disabled students. The best method to rectify that is to base affirmative action around ethnicity and disabilities. Class has its merits, but it misses, say, Maori students who don't meet the income threshold but are disadvantaged because they're oral learners. 

Race can be a proxy for (low) income, but race and disability is a better proxy for (lack of) opportunity.

Resistance to affirmative action based on ethnicity and disability is resistance against sharing privilege. Equality in law and policy – that nebulous, protean and prejudiced idea – must give way to equality in fact. Auckland University may be making the wrong decision. Thoughts? 

Post script: ideally, affirmative action programmes consider several factors including: ethnicity, language spoken at home (e.g Maori, Samona, Somali etc), household income and makeup (e.g. did the applicant grow up in a single-parent household) and school decile. Ethnicity should be the primary factor, though. Perhaps framing affirmative action as about ethnicity only or income only is problematic.

*The Fisher case is not without its difficulties. Although affirmative action was upheld, the Supreme Court sent it back to the lower courts. The strategy behind the decision is “a cynical attempt to let the lower court bury it”.

**The Bill of Rights Act 1990 holds that affirmative action is legal, but there the act doesn't impose a requirement for affirmative action. The Human Rights Act 1993 also allows affirmative action. 

Happy-go-lucky JK

John Key is doing a shitload of smiling and waving at Te Matatini. No news story is complete without mention of Keys presence at the festival and a cute audio or visual accompaniment. But the question is why bother? This isn’t the A&P festival, it is Te Matatini, meaning National supporters are scarce. But that is the key, National supporters are scarce. Key approaches politics as if it is some sort of glorified marketing exercise. This is all about increasing brand awareness and reaching into a new political marketplace.

Over the past two years Key has attempted to break into the Maori market. Soften the Maori vote so when the political climate generates the right circumstances National can have a serious stab at the Maori vote. To do so Key needs to develop a strong relationship between Maori voters and his brand. This is a huge challenge because brand loyalty must be sufficiently strong as to offset policy sensitivities. Of course John Key will realise this but I tend to think he has underestimated the challenge. How does one build brand loyalty that is so strong that it offsets policy concerns? Well this is how I think John Key is doing it.  

First of all Key went for symbolism. He firmly attached his brand to The Maori Party, especially Pita Sharples (in a personal capacity). He also elevated Hekia Parata and advanced Maori policy such as Whanau Ora. This created the perception that Key is not hostile towards Maori aspirations, in fact quite the opposite and he shares the same goals and aspirations as Maori.   

The next step, and the most difficult, was personalising Brand Key. The symbolism is there but how will Key reach out to ordinary Maori voters? The answer: by immersing himself in Maori culture (i.e. Te Matatini). The best way to connect with Maori is on a cultural level. Forget class it’s all about cultural identity. This is where Brand Key will earn the trust and respect of Maori. Key creates the image that he shares the same values as Maori.

Of course there is a risk in attaching Brand Key to Maori. His image may become diluted, confused or outright spoilt. However, this is unlikely, It just reinforces the idea that Key is an everyman with the common touch.

In all honesty I am probably overanalysing this. Maybe Key just wanted to laugh at Pita Sharples or have another day off. Either way Labour should take a few lessons from Key on how to reach out to Maori.