‘…Pockets of racial extremism can be found in many government institutions, with one of the country’s top universities now leading the way.
From next year, every student who enrols at Canterbury University will be required to become “biculturally competent” by the time they graduate. Essentially, this means that students will be force-fed separatist dogma on a compulsory basis.
The initiative is the brainchild of Ngai Tahu. The University of Canterbury established the Ngai Tahu Research Centre in partnership with the tribe in 2011, with the objective, “To create intellectual capital and leadership able to lead and support tribal development”. But their aspiration was to have their bicultural ‘world-view’ dominate the institution.
Last year’s annual report explains that the University has a “memorandum of understanding” with Ngai Tahu and is working cooperatively with the iwi. In 2012, the Strategy for Maori Development – Te Rautaki Whakawhanake Kaupapa Maori – was developed and adopted by the University Council. Additional funding was allocated for the project.
Essentially the Strategy requires all university programmes to support bicultural competency. In practice, that means Matauranga Maori must be incorporated into all policies and processes across the curricula – including course content, new course approval, academic reviews and accreditation. In addition, the revitalisation of the Maori language must be supported in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and qualifications. Furthermore, cultural competency must be acknowledged and demonstrated in the ‘learning objectives’ of the university’s graduate profile.
Accordingly, the University of Canterbury’s Graduate Profile now states that the university is committed to ensuring that students obtain a number of “attributes” when they graduate in 2018, one of which is that they will be “Biculturally competent and confident”.
The ‘Learning Outcomes’ for bicultural competency for a Bachelor of Commerce degree includes, “Students can explain how Maori values could be incorporated into Aotearoa New Zealand workplaces and the reasons for their incorporation; how the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi underpin the relationship between Maori and the Crown in the management of national resources; students can explain the evolution of iwi corporations and their role in contemporary (inter)national commerce.”
The problem for the University of Canterbury is that their newfound commitment to biculturalism is unlikely to be the end of the matter. They should look at the experience of the Anglican Church to see where it all may lead.
The Anglican Church was persuaded to adopt racial objectives in 1992. The initiative was driven by Professor Whatarangi Winiata, the founding President of the Maori Party. He pushed for the Treaty of Waitangi to be embedded in the constitution of the Church. However, while they agreed to a race-based constitution, it was divided in three – Maori, Pacific Islander, and ‘Pakeha’.
According to the Church’s website, this constitution “provides an opportunity for each of the three partners, tikanga Maori, tikanga Pakeha (European), tikanga Pasifika, to express its mind as an equal partner in the decision-making process of the General Synod…”
However, having Maori as one of three branches of the Church, was not enough. The separatists driving the agenda wanted half of the power and control, especially over ‘taonga’ – the $300 million Church trust fund.
As a result, they are claiming that under the principal of tino rangatiratanga, Maori should have absolute sovereignty over their own affairs, and they say that the present structure, which splits power in three ways, breaches that….’
Chinese domination or Sharia Law is going to blow Maori domination ideas into the stratosphere. I won’t be here to see it so that does not stop me chuckling at the thought.
There is a word for this proposed power structure- apartheid.
Apparently, Maori would like to inflict this on themselves voluntarily.
Go figure. Verwoerd would have been delighted at such compliance.
“Bi-culturally competent” does this mean being (mono-culturally) incompetent?
I say screw the Universities. Its time employers gave these institutions a notice, that if they don’t scrap this nonsense, they will be forced to employ other people who learnt their skills elsewhere. For instance suppose you need an accountant, a polytech would teach that as well, without all this nonsense. If Unis want to teach this nonsense then let employers say screw you. I’m really angry, if you haven’t guessed.
Watch, as legislation is passed quicker than a speeding bullet requiring that job (x) must by law require degree (y).
Gaze in wonder as insurers jump tall buildings for the opportunity to demand fatuous diplomas as a precursor to liability contracts lest miraculously newfound risks result in higher premiums.
Watch as a lifetime of university debt is stacked on junior in order to engage in even the most banal occupation.
What? You thought they were going to leave you loopholes?
Wombat, whether I studied accounting at a polytech or University, it still counts as a qualification. It is still NZQA accredited. The difference is one is more theory, and the other is more practical.
I talked to someone who went to Wellington University, and he said it was all talk. And then he thought about how polytech was totally different. I went to the equivalent of a polytech. At first Auckland University of Technology was a Polytech an institute of technology, then they became a university, but they only changed that slowly.
So again a degree is a degree, a diploma is a diploma. And universities are more talk and more theory, meanwhile other institutions are more hands on.
2ndly I understand how the licencing system works. That to use a trolley you’d have to have a licence. So these silly and unnecessary qualifications do happen. However that is more of a separate issue. With a licence they teach you something quick. With a degree from a university they rearrange your thinking.
And in regards to this licensing nonsense I see it hit the financial advisers. For me to be an authorised financial adviser I would have to pay $5,000 to do a course which teaches about all sorts of financial products like insurance, mortgages, borrowing. But when it comes to investing, they teach just a little bit about investing concepts. So if I want to advise people on investments I learn almost nothing from this course but am required to do so. So I have seen these things creep in, but a degree doesn’t fix it. Its a 6 month course. Even a Chartered Accountant has to do this course to advise.
So I know exactly what you are saying, but I know exactly how they are and aren’t implementing it.
Thanks KG.
In the States home schooling for primary education and Internet college degrees are becoming more and more popular – in addition to private technical/vocational schools aimed increasing skills for high paying jobs.
The fact is that the traditional “educational” system is reactionary and a throwback to the 19th century age of early industrialization where a disciplined and regimented workforce was needed to man the machines.
Great Ronbo, this is exactly what we need. With vocational schools, if you know what your doing you don’t need to put up with this garbage, cause its all about you learning skills that are appropriate to your career.
And I have a friend who homeschools his children, cause he’s just totally had enough of this system. So I say, may God bless this way, and let those in charge of the other system go to hell by themselves. I know that sounds mean, but I’ve just really had enough of some of these people.
It seems we used to have the useless pretending to work on railways, roads etc… but now they are running things. We are so screwed.
Yep.
It’s hard enough to earn a degree without having to study for extra stuff you never would have picked. That is one uni I would be avoiding, but I bet the rest all follow suit asap? Actually give the future students a say? Yougottabekidding!!!!!!! Lefties in ivory towers…
Lara in regards to what you are saying and a previous point I made:
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQFjAAahUKEwiswpn35ZvHAhWmKKYKHVfEA_w&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openpolytechnic.ac.nz%2Fqualifications-and-courses%2Fnc1476-national-certificate-in-financial-services-financial-advice-level-5&ei=_CvHVazUAabRmAXXiI_gDw&usg=AFQjCNHH6uwVZ7kfW3nPHudxzOFT3SqAdA&sig2=1aTaoU_7vmv_oskq_ZvgbA
I studied accounting, I did a couple of finance papers. But if I want to be a financial adviser even if I am a Chartered Accountant, I would still have to pass this course to give financial advice. But what gets my goat is if you look at the modules (by scrolling down), only one module tells you about investment concepts, and another teaches you how to give investment advice. The rest of the course is debt products. Mortgages, loans etc.
So if I want to give people advice on the risk of an investment, I have to do a course that teaches barely a thing about it, and that will cost $5,000. Now here’s the absolute hillarious thing about it. When I confronted an MP about it (the Minister of Commerce), and said this is why kiwisaver charges ridiculous fees, because of all the costs added, the MP said I was wrong because anybody can start up a kiwisaver fund, as the jurisdiction of financial advisers doesn’t apply.
So anyhow, I just wanted you to know that even if you have a degree, they will sometimes still require you to do further courses, until of course they get caught with their pants down.
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQtwIwB2oVChMIkeC-muibxwIVJC6mCh1t9AqL&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGuoRGuxs8FY&ei=Xi7HVZG5N6TcmAXt6KvYCA&usg=AFQjCNEutYQynoF325WyHuZUqDxbzv6wTA&sig2=lU3JzDrOiqkJIv9zDini_A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.dGY
Oh and when I talked to the financial marketing authority they said the course was designed for people who know nothing about money. And I have a twisted sense of humour.
Yep, it’s all hopeless. Forget their faggoty degrees and learn a trade or just get a job and stick to it like glue, like in the old days. The left have wrecked higher education. My partner is an electrical engineer, he went to polytechs years ago, and says all the graduates his firm takes on these days are mostly useless: all theory and no know-how, hard to train up as well. not many of them last, and his firm is starting to look elsewhere for recruits.
That’s excellent news. Not excellent news for those poor graduates, but excellent news for your business and giving others a go. Once this news becomes widespread they will have to change or die (not the people but those silly organisations). And when those graduates have difficulty finding work, well unfortunately that’s what its going to take, for the pendulum to swing.
And its good news for vocational schools and polytechnics.