The following is a statement from ACT Tertiary Education spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar, first published as an opinion piece in Times.co.nz last week.

From next year, the University of Auckland will require all first-year students to complete a ‘Waipapa Taumata Rau’ course covering the Treaty of Waitangi and traditional Māori knowledge systems.

ACT has a number of concerns about this plan.

Firstly, students’ time is precious. We fund universities to prepare students for their careers, and that requires time spent specialising on subjects relevant to their chosen majors. Students studying for careers in medicine or computer engineering are unlikely to find much relevance in Māori mythology or Treaty interpretations.

Where students have time in their schedules to study subjects beyond their chosen majors, many use ‘electives’ to pursue subjects of personal interest. This element of choice brings diversity and joy to the university experience. Forcing students to sacrifice valuable time for compulsory courses will make the university experience less enjoyable.

Secondly, the proposal risks damaging the reputation of the university, especially among foreign students who we rely on to pay full fees, subsidising university costs for local students and taxpayers. A student who speaks English as a second language and who only plans to stay in New Zealand for the duration of their study will not benefit from courses on local indigenous belief systems.

Finally, the course risks a dangerous uniformity of perspective on Treaty issues.

Whatever you may think about the current Treaty principles debate, it’s clear these issues are controversial and politically contested.

Having a small group of academics in consultation with local iwi prepare a course on Treaty issues will leave graduates with a narrow, one-sided view of the history of the Treaty and its implications for our rights and democracy.

I would go as far as calling the planned courses a form of indoctrination.

As a university student learning about the scientific method, I was taught that knowledge is contestable. Even the most basic premises can be challenged, and it’s the process of debate, experimentation, and evidence-gathering that results in some ideas enduring while others are consigned to history. But an emerging political perspective is that one particular interpretation of the Treaty should be taken on faith.

Looking at the premises embedded in the proposed course, it’s difficult to see how any student could pass while expressing a contrarian view. We should expect better from our universities.

© Scoop Media