Ethnicity no proxy for class
Race and ethnicity are as much determinants of social outcomes as social class, Professor Mason Durie told the SPRE conference.
Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Maori) and Professor of Maori Research and Development at Massey University, Mason said recent debate about race-based policies in New Zealand had revealed a general lack of understanding about the objectives of policies, their application, and measures of effectiveness.
The strong relationship between ethnicity and adverse socio-economic circumstances had sometimes led to an assumption that one was a proxy measure for the other. “Being Maori, for example, is often seen as a synonym for being poor and being poor is sometimes seen as the distinguishing characteristic of Maori and Pacific peoples.” But, while there was strong correlation between the two measures of ethnicity and socio-economic status, they did not measure the same phenomena. “Needs-based policies and policies of equity as between individuals have tended to regard ethnicity and race as significant only insofar as they might be subsumed under universal indicators such as social class, life expectancy and educational achievement. However, recent research has demonstrated that class is distinguishable from ethnicity,” he said.
In education, for example, research indicated there was often a mismatch between the culture of the school and the ethnic cultures of the learners, with both teachers and learners making assumptions about ‘normal’ that implicitly excluded Maori. “Evidence therefore suggests that difference in the educational outcomes of Maori children cannot be explained entirely on family incomes or class – the centrality of ethnicity and culture to outcomes is a factor in its own right.”
A second area of debate focused on affirmative action programmes based on race and ethnicity, such as entry schemes that allowed a limited number of Maori students to enter medical school without necessarily having the same academic profiles as other students. Such programmes were criticised on two grounds – first, that such students were allowed to graduate with lesser standards. “Clearly that view represents a gross distortion. While different criteria might be used to justify admission, once admitted, students undertake similar course work, sit the same examinations and meet the same qualifying standards.” The second argument was that all students should be admitted on ‘merit’. “Merit appears to mean that academic criteria should be the sole determinant of admission. The need for a non-Maori student with high grades to forfeit a place to a Maori student with lower grades seems wrong to those who associate academic performance with academic right. However, successful educational outcomes depend on many factors apart from earlier academic achievement.”
It was also important for educational institutions to contribute to society, in accordance with the public good statements in their charters. “It is both simplistic and short-sighted to define merit solely on the academic merits of individual students in isolation from other students or the institution’s broader social goals. In that respect it may be perfectly fair to reject a student because too many others like him or her have already been enrolled at the expense of diversity and institutional goals for a better society.” Taking account of race helped institutions achieve their mission of promoting academic advancement and diversity on campus, and to attend to long-term society needs.
It was misleading to develop policies and programmes that purported to be ‘blind’ to race and ethnicity. “The New Zealand reality is that an increasingly large number of people have an indigenous or ethnic orientation that underlies both personal and collective identity, provides pathways to participation in society, and largely influences the ways in which societal institutions and systems respond to their needs.”
