Maori Engagement with New Zealand's Child Care and Protection Industry

The following figures relate to recent Maori engagement with New Zealand's care and protection/youth 'justice' systems.  The figures were provided by Poara Moyle, which graciously agreed to have them published on this blog.  If you are interested in an Indigenous-centred, critical perspective on the care and protection industry's impact on Maori, or wish to engage with material aimed at developing empowering social work practice, visit Paora's webpage at https://www.paoramoyle.com/.

I am providing this information here to a) enhance understanding of Maori experience of the industry, and b) as a source for researchers and students interested in this area of sociological/criminological/social work scholarship:

In the 2012 ‐ 2013 year, 80 Maori newborns were removed from their mother within the first 30 days of their birth. More than half of the total newborn uplifts. (Bernadette McKenzie, Deputy Chief Executive, Child Youth and Family, personal communication, June, 6, 2014).

Since then, uplifted Maori newborns have increased to 64% of the total (I would argue give or take the professional defining/recording the ethnicity, it could be as high as 2/3s of the total uplifts).

A snapshot view of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)/Child Youth and Family (CYF)/Ministry of Vulnerable Children (MVC) statistics for the years 2006 – 2017 shows the most increasing client group is the under 5s (including unborn). From 2006 - 2011 under 5s increased whilst the 6-9, 10-13, 16-17 age groups, decreased.

For the same period there was a steady increase for Maori having had a new care and protection Family Group Conference (FGC), whilst the Pakeha (European) client group decreased. From 2011-2017 the older age groups have remained fairly static.

‘New’ FGCs are held for new care and protection concerns. During the period 2006 - 2011 there was a 27% increase (4447 to 5667) in 'new' FGCs. The biggest increase were for the under fives 44% of the total. FGCs for Māori increased to 53% of the total.

From the CYF figures for the period 2010 to 2017 the overall number of Maori children and young people uplifted into state care increased, whilst Pakeha numbers decreased. In 2017 Maori make up 62% of the total (3439 of 5,603). The fastest growing client group over this time being the under 5’s.

Also in 2017, the number of distinct children and young people in the custody of the Chief Executive increased by 8% from the previous year (from 5,204 to 5,603).

Maori make up 62% of the total (3439 of 5,603) and this had increased 6% from the previous year.

There was also an 8% increase in the number of out-of-home placements (from 4,260 to 4,609). The most increasing client group of out-of-home placements being the under 5s. With the most increasing ethnicity of out-of-home placements being Māori at 61%, whilst Pakeha are decreasing.

This shows overwhelmingly that Maori are being targeted, particularly the under 5s, which fits with what young wahine Maori and Kaimahi in Refuge, MVC and Family Court are reporting their experiences to be, especially around the FGC being used to justify/rubber stamp state enforcement. stamp state enforcement. 

A Comment on the Epistemic Violence of White Academic Privilege - Part 2

Blind Spots

During a presentation at a conference in Oslo in 2014 anthropologist Richard Wilk discussed the topic of 'the negative terrain of discipline' and in the process exposed significant weaknesses in the discipline of anthropology. Richard made three arguments pertinent to this discussion:

1. What we do not study can be more informative than comfortable and conventional topics.
2. Sometimes the hardest thing to see is what is right in front of your face; what D. Miller calls the 'blindingly obvious'. And
3. These zones of wilful blindness are always worth investigating (because 'open fields' are liberating).

In this blog I want to focus on the first statement, but before I do so I want to deal briefly with statement 2:

In previous blogs I have dealt with the Eurocentrism and white privilege that provide the ideological and epistemological basis of much of western criminology's engagement with Indigenous peoples and their 'issues'. The evidence of racism and the practice (and its effects) of white privilege within the Academy is extensive (see Aguirre, 2000; Cobb-Roberts, 2011; Iverson, 2007; Jeffries, 2006; Johnson-Bailey and Cervero, 2008; Miller, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2002; Myers, 2002; Smith et al, 2006; Stanley, 2006; Takara, 2006; Ward and Weems, 2010) - it is an empirical reality for many 'scholars of colour' who work in the academy. The racist, white privileged conduct of members of the academy touches on significant social (justice) issues including racism, discrimination, disempowerment, sexism and unethical conduct. All these 'issues' receive significant attention by criminologists and other academics; except it seems when their own colleagues conduct themselves in ways that disempower Indigenous scholars. In my experience members of the white privileged academy are much less interested in turning their critical gaze to a) the historical and contemporary role their discipline plays in the subjugation of Indigenous peoples, and b) exposing the racist, white privileged conduct of their colleagues. In my view:

the issue of racism and white privilege within academic criminology is one of the significant empirical blind spots of the discipline.

This blog utilises preliminary results of recent and ongoing research project to offer insights into the racist and white privileged strategies deployed by members of the western academy, and especially of members of the discipline of criminology, against Indigenous scholars.  

The Academy's Approach to Indigenous Peoples: Ignorance or Arrogance?

"One of the significant features of white [privileged, academic] ignorance is that it involves not just knowing but not knowing what one does not know and believing that one knows" (Applebaum, 2010: 13).

I recently engaged with work by non-Indigenous scholars on research they conducted in Indigenous communities. Two issues stood out from their work:

1. The researchers had little background in researching on or with Indigenous peoples, and needed to engage Indigenous advisers on how to research Indigenous communities. And
2. The advisers seemed to know little about the communities in which the research was being conducted, and so most of the information given to the principal researchers before entering the communities was inaccurate.  As a result they had to learn how to appropriately research in these communities post-entry.

First of all, hats off to the academics for recognising they had issues and needed to do better in the future. However, two thoughts came to mind while I engaged with their work:

1. Why would white middle class academics with no meaningful experience of researching with Indigenous peoples believe they have the right to apply for this contract and carry out the research?  And
2. Why would the contracting government agency give them a contract when they demonstrably lacked the necessary experience and knowledge?

The short answer to question two is that officials from contracting institutions often go for the 'familiar' when deciding who can/should do research on their behalf; meaning they go for academics who look, think and talk like they do.  In the majority of research funding situations, Indigenous academics and the research institutions they work for are less likely to be trusted with sensitive, politically charged topics, unless they are overseen by members of the white, privileged academy. It is also likely that contracting officials lack the critical knowledge and experience to be able to recognise that the individuals involved are not suited to carrying out the research.

The answer to question one is much more complex: How do you explain the fact that a group of non-Indigenous academics lacking both experience and knowledge, still apply for the research contract?

We could start to answer the question by acknowledging that people working in the contemporary academy are expected to apply for grants as part of performance management. The increasing commercialisation of the tertiary education sector means that applying for (and hopefully attaining) commercial monies is a key performance indicator for contemporary academics. The fact that the pool of contract research monies in many western, neo-liberal contexts is steadily diminishing, and the political nature of the grant decision-making process makes the chances of success minimal, are largely ignored. Most of the academics and university administrators involved know this to be the case, but pretty much everyone ignores it and so the act of simply applying becomes the key measure of success. Therefore, one could argue that the fiscal imperative is such that academics apply for grants they are wholly unsuited to because the pressure of being 'seen' to be attempting to fulfil the required performance measure means they apply for any grant regardless of their suitability. On paper it reads like a tidy rationale, but in my experience it is rarely the reason for applying for grants they are unsuited for.  

Perhaps the academics in question don't realise they are the wrong people to be carrying out research in Indigenous communities? Maybe they are so blind to their weaknesses that they genuinely believe themselves to be appropriate, when in reality they are not? In which case perhaps we should be forgiving and gently take them by the hand, sit them down for a quiet chat about their inadequacies and offer to help them to achieve the knowledge necessary for carrying out the research?

Sorry, but that excuse simply won't fly either, although I acknowledge having dealt with a number of academics in the past 20 years who were totally ignorant of their shortcomings in engaging with Indigenous people. No, the main reason why they apply is not ignorance but arrogance; an arrogance born of their white privileged position as members of an institution and of a discipline (in this case, criminology) that too often treats 'coloured folk' as methodological, financial and reputational cannon fodder; as sources of research grant monies to enhance their chances of promotion.  

In my experience, white privileged academics, especially those from the discipline of criminology, apply for research contracts on Indigenous issues for which they are unsuited because they genuinely believe they are entitled to do so. In this situation obvious personal shortcomings in method, methodology, theory, epistemology, etc, are overcome by seeking advice from one of their brown mates, regardless of that persons suitability for the role, or by simply reading a methods text book (although it is unlikely the book will be Linda Smith's 1999 Decolonising Methodologies!). The philosophical framework that emboldens these academics can be summarised in two words, white privilege - a state of mind and being that fosters their belief in the inherent superiority of the western, middle class academic environment; one that provides them the right to research brown people and their issues despite their lack of knowledge and experience. Having worked for a number of years in the academy, and carrying out research on the experiences of other Indigenous academics of working in this environment, none of this surprises me - the academy is replete with racist, white privileged conduct.

This brings me to the preliminary results of my ongoing research on racism in the academy, and especially within criminology.  In 2015 and 2016 I will be seeking to publish journal articles and book chapters that provide more detailed discussion of my findings.

Racism - the Epistemological Foundations of the Western Academy

Throughout my academic career I have experienced or observed a number of acts of racism and disempowerment perpetrated by white colleagues against Indigenous scholars. Over the past 18 months I've had discussions with 12 Indigenous scholars in Australasia and North America on the issue of racism and the academy as part of an ongoing research project. From this research I have discerned a half dozen or so actions/behaviours that commonly occur when white academics are seeking to empower themselves and, as a result, disempower 'colleagues of colour'. In the following section I discuss three of the 'actions' identified so far:

We own your name, we own you

One of the most common racist and disempowering acts is to place our name on research funding proposals without our consent.  I've experienced this behaviour in the past, as have four of the scholars I have spoken with thus far. In all instances white colleagues added our names to research grant applications without our permission. Why? Because the research topic either touched on Indigenous issues or the application form instructed them to explain how they will ensure their research is "culturally appropriate" (note that such forms rarely if ever ask the applicant if they will ensure their research is culturally grounded and empowering). How to deal with this? Simple - add a brown name.  

One of my research participants who works in a New Zealand university, recounted how one of his colleagues informed him his name had been added to a grant application as they were passing in a hallway with the words 'just thought I'd let you know that I'm doing research on such-and-such so I included your name on the application because I thought you'd be interested and we need a Maori presence'.  

Can you imagine the sh*t that would hit the fan if I as a male academic walked past a female colleague and said 'hey, I'm doing some research on Maori and since it might involve Maori women I added your name cause, you know, we need a female presence'. How long do you think it would take for the formal complaint paperwork to come through; at the very least you can expect the HoD to have a quiet but firm word in your ear?  So let me ask the obvious question: why do white academics, both male and female (2 of the perpetrators of this conduct reported during my research were women) act as if they have the right to conduct themselves in such a condescending, patronising way? Surely it is because they believe they are empowered to conduct themselves in this way by their white privileged colleagues, the discipline they belong to, and the institution they work in?

Any person of colour will do - as long as I get out of work

Another disempowering behaviour consistently reported involved colleagues using Indigenous colleagues to get themselves out of work. A number of the academics I interviewed reported receiving emails from colleagues or the chair of the workloads committee, informing them that 'wouldn't it be good for you, an Indigenous scholar, to sit on such and such a committee because it would be useful to have an Indigenous perspective', etc, etc. Now, this argument probably stands up for a teaching and learning committee which oversees what is taught and how (to ensure units or courses cover Indigenous issues), but academics I spoke to for this project reported being placed on four or five committees for which a specific Indigenous perspective was not paramount - it was simply a case of colleagues using the 'Indigenous perspective' argument to get themselves moved off committees they had no interest in attending.

If you disagree with me you are angry, aggressive and violent

This was one of the most powerful strategies identified by participants, one that most of the eight men I spoke with had experienced, or observed another Indigenous/black scholar experiencing. If you are an academic of colour and you disagree with white colleagues, and especially if you pull them up for unethical or racist conduct, there is a good chance this strategy will be used to silence you. Participants spoke of being accused of being verbally aggressive for calling out colleagues for racist conduct - regardless of the 'tone' in which they delivered their rebuke, and two found themselves placed under surveillance by university security because colleagues they had challenged subsequently reported feeling 'threatened'; a strategy WIlliams (2001) discusses with some vigour in her piece entitled The Angry Black Women Scholar. Two Australian scholars I discussed this strategy with made interesting observations that are pertinent to this discussion: one said in response this issue "aren't we always angry? No matter how we respond, or what language we use, it will be represented as anger; it is a simple a way of turning attention away from their conduct". While his colleagues response was "so what? Sometimes we have the right to be angry when we are faced with racism. Why are we expected to keep our cool in the face of white privileged arrogance".  

An interesting aside to this issue is the fact all bar one of the participants who discussed this issue reported that senior officials at the institution where they worked failed to do anything significant when they reported the white privileged, racist conduct of their colleagues. Instead, the institutional response focused on their response to the racist conduct, or officials tried to channel the complaint away from the formal disciplinary process and into informal 'mediation'.  

We decide when you are Indigenous and when your work is important
Another strategy employed by white privileged academics to 'own' us is to control when we can/cannot speak or work as Indigenous scholars. In two instances participants related how they had been redefined as non-Indigenous so that work they had previously been doing could be offered to someone else. 

Three of my respondents reported experiencing what can only be described as non-Indigenous colleagues deciding when they can speak as an Indigenous person, and proscribing when they can no longer do so. In two instances respondents reported being stopped from giving a lecture on Indigenous perspectives so a colleague could instead lecture in their place. One incident involved an Indigenous scholar being stopped from giving a lecture on the topic of Indigenous women's experiences of prison, an issue they had actually done research on, and replaced by a white colleague who had not. 

Another reported debating with a colleague on the suitability of people shortlisted for a lecturing position. The colleague argued that it was imperative that increasing the number of women be the top selection criteria. The Indigenous scholar described the resulting interaction thus:

"I responded by pointing out that as I was the only Indigenous scholar on staff it is equally important to consider increasing the Indigenous quota.  Her response was 'I'm surprised you say that, I've never heard you speak as a Maori before'.  Initially I was shocked, but then asked her 'I'm surprised you say that; have you actually read my research, my publications?' To which she replied 'well ok, but you've never spoken openly here about Maori issues'. I got the feeling that I was supposed to earn my Indigenous badge everyday; everyday I need to wear the Tino Rangatiratanga t-shirt and lecture everyone on Maori issues, just to remind them of my ongoing commitment to Maori issues".

Concluding Comment
It is my experience and that of the majority of my participants, that institutions rarely live up to the marketing rhetoric of their 'Aboriginal Strategy' or code of conduct, by holding white academics formally accountable for the types of conduct discussed in this blog. In relation to the criminal justice system Cunneen (2008: 37) argues that "the current direction of the criminal justice system is one that could be regarded as criminogenic to the extent that it fosters and compounds Indigenous anger". I argue that a similar statement can be made about the way in which academic institutions often fail to safeguard Indigenous scholars and hold academics accountable for employing racist strategies like the purposeful construction of Indigenous resistance per se as acts of aggression and violence, using our names and CV's to enhance grant applications without our permission, or redefining us as non-Indigenous in order to remove work from us and empower themselves. Andrea Smith (2011) once gifted us an Indigenous Feminism Without Apology. In similar fashion I offer this blog and future publications resulting from this research without apology, as part of an evolving Indigenous (Warrior) Criminology, in the hope that one day Indigenous scholars are able to participate in the academy free of the disempowering, unethical conduct discussed here.    

References
Aguirre, A (2000) Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace: Recruitment, Retention, and Academic Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Applebaum, B (2010) White: On the Possibility of Doing Philosophy in Good Failth, in G. Yancy (Ed.) The Centre Must Hold: White Women Philosophers on the Whiteness of Philosophy. Lanham (MD): Lexington.  
Cunneen, C (2008) Indigneous Anger and the Criminogenic Effects of the Criminal Justice System, in A. Day; M. Nakata and K. Howells (Eds.), Anger and Indigenous Men. Leichhardt: Federation Press: 37-46. 
Iverson, S (2007) Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies, Educational Administration Quarterly, 43: 586-611. 
Jeffries, M (2006) Centering the Edge: Addressing Institutional Racism and Habitual Exclusion in the Academy, Du Bois Review, 3(2): 481-484. 
Johnson-Bailey, J and Cervero, R (2008) Different Worlds and Divergent Paths: Academic Careers Defined by Race and Gender, Harvard Educational Review, 78: 311-332. 
Miller, D (2008) Shades of Grey: An Autoethnographic Study of Race in the Academy, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21: 347-373. 
Moreton-Robinson, E (2002) Talkin' Up to the White Woman: Indigenous Women and Feminism. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. 
Myers, L (2002) A Broken Silence: Voices of African American Women in the Academy. Westport: Bergin and Garvey. 
Smith, A (2011) Indigenous Feminism Without Apology, Unsettling America: Decolonisation in Theory and Practice, available at http:unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/ 
Smith, W; Yosso, T and Solorzano, D (2006) Challenging Racial Battle Fatigue on Historically White Campuses: A Critical Race Examination of Race-Related Stress, in C. Stanley (Ed.), Faculty of Colour Teaching in Predominantly White Colleges and Universities. Bolton (MA): Anker: 299-327. 
Stanley, C (2006) Colouring the Academic Landscape: Faculty of Colour Breaking the Silence in Predominantly White Colleges and Universities, American Educational Research Journal, 43: 701-736. 
Takara, K (2006) A View from the Academic Edge: One Black Woman Who is Dancing as Fast as She Can, Du Bois Review, 3(2): 463-470. 
Ward, A and Weems, M (2010) Speak Truth and Shame the Devil: An Ethnodrama in Response to Racism in the Academy, Qualitative Inquiry, 16: 310-313. 
Williams, C (2001) The Angry Black Woman Scholar, NWSA Journal, 13: 87-97. 

Publication of the Special Edition - Indigenous Perspectives and Counter-Colonial Criminologies

Hi all

The long-awaited special edition on Indigenous Perspectives and Counter-Colonial Criminologies has now been published in the African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies.

The edition includes papers on issues of significance for Indigenous peoples from 

Professor Biko Agozino

Dr Tamari Kitossa

Juan Tauri

Dr Antje Deckert

Professor Andrea Smith

Professor Harry Blagg

Dr Thalia Anthony

Joey Lwart

The journal is free access and can be found via the following web page.

http://www.umes.edu/ajcjs/default.aspx?id=50660

A big thanks to Professor Agozino and the editorial staff of the journal for supporting our work.  Antje Deckert and I appreciate all the support we received in bringing this project to a successful conclusion.  There is a possibility that two further papers will be added to the edition, most likely in the New Year - we will keep you posted if/when this happens.

Heio ano

Juan

Racism, White Privilege and Scary Brown Boys... and the Development of a Critical Indigenous Justice Studies

Hi all

Below is a link to an interesting commentary on racism, white privilege and the demonisation of brown boys - enjoy:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/27/there-problem-discerning-racism-white-privilege-southwest-airlines-flight-30000-feet

Research Project - Maori, Pacific and Indigenous Scholars Experience of the Academy

As reported previously there have been a number of positive developments within the Indigenous Academy, some of which will be discussed below.  I want to take this opportunity to provide background detail on a research project that I am involved with at present, focused on Maori, Pacific and Indigenous scholars experiences of the academy.

The project was developed by, and led by Dr David Mayeda, a researcher and lecturer at the University of Auckland in the Department of Sociology.  The aim of this study is to explore Māori, Pacific and Indigenous experiences of the Academy, with a significant focus on the role of Indigenous academics as leaders, both in the academy and their communities development.small group or individual interviews with Māori, Pacific and international Indigenous academicians. The research project aims to identify the factors that assist Māori, Pacific and Indigenous academicians in their professional development. Some of these factors may include relationships with colleagues, balancing research, service and teaching responsibilities, family support, and professional mentoring.  The research also aims to identify the barriers Indigenous academics face in advancing their careers, and carrying out the research that they and their communities believe is essential to enhancing the social well being of Indigenous peoples.  

If you would like more information on the project, or wish to participate, please contact Dr Mayeda via his email address d.mayeda@auckland.ac.nz, or the author of this blog, Juan Tauri, on marcellos2006@hotmail.com - we will happily forward a detailed information sheet to you.

Advancing Critical Indigenous Justice Studies

A key highlight of the last 12 months was evidence of an increasing number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous colleagues publishing critical material that privileges the Indigenous perspective on social justice issues.  I had the privilege last year of collaborating with many of these individuals while developing of a special edition of a journal on counter-colonial perspectives (see below for information on the edition).  The work of Stolo academic Dr Wenona Victor on the inequities of the Canadian criminal justice and child care and protection systems and Dr Tamari Kitossa on the policing of black youth, augers well for critical Indigenous scholarship in that particular jurisdiction.  There has also been an increase in critical Maori/non-Maori scholarship in New Zealand, driven by the likes of  University of Auckland academics Dr Robert Webb, Dr Khylie Quince and Assoc. Professor Tracey McIntosh, and Dr Antje Deckert of AUT University.  

Tracey's ground breaking work on Maori experiences of the borstal system of the 1960s/1970s and imprisonment generally, is especially important given the paucity of research on this issue. In the Australian context the rise of Dr Thalia Anthony has given me hope that the golden age of critical Indigenous-inspired research in Australia, is not yet over.  Her recent publications and presentations on the history of colonial, racist policing on Palm Island, and the criminalisation of Aboriginal peoples through social policy in the Northern Territory, are as good as critical, engaging research gets in the contemporary context.  What is also pleasing (and important) is the support we are receiving from the 'old guard' (no disrespect intended), including Professors Chris Cunneen, Harry Blagg and Gillian Cowlishaw in Australia, the esteemed Maori lawyer, Moana Jackson in New Zealand, and the Nigerian criminologist Biko Agozino.

It seems to me the that recent increase in scholarship coincided with a parallel increase in the number of Indigenous academic journals in the last 10 to 15 years.  In the past we relied on the A and B journals of the Western academy for publication of our work.  However, as Dr Antje Deckert's recent research has demonstrated, these so-called 'top shelf' journals rarely publish Indigenous-centred, critical work that privilege the experiences of Indigenous peoples.  It is obvious that we are increasingly turning to Indigenous journals to publish our work, such as the New Zealand-based journals Mai Review and AlterNative, the African Journal of Criminal Justice, and North American based publications such as International Indigenous Policy Journal and Indigenous Policy Journal.  There is a definite trend in the increase of critical Indigenous justice scholarship, namely that we are increasingly turning away from the journals of the Western academy, and choosing to publish in our own.

There are a number of projects on the go for 2014 and out-years that are designed to support the increase in activity in the area of critical Indigenous justice studies, including:

Publication of a Special Edition on Counter-Colonial Criminologies and Indigenous Perspectives

As stated in an earlier blog, a special edition on 'Counter Colonial Perspectives on Indigenous Justice' is currently being developed for publication in the African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies. Right now, Dr Antje Deckert, my co-guest editor and I are in the process of completing the peer review process.  We hope to have the edition formally published in the next few months.  The contributors to the special edition include:

Professor Biko Agozino - Virginia Tech

Dr Tamari Kitossa - Brock University

Dr Andrea Smith - University of California

Associate Professor Tracey McIntosh - University of Auckland

Dr Robert Webb - University of Auckland

Dr Antje Deckert - AUT University

Juan Tauri - University of Wollongong

Professor Harry Blagg - University of Western Australia

Dr Thalia Anthony - University of Technology Sydney

Dr Wenona Victor - University of Fraser Valley

Joey Lywak - University of Winnipeg.

Dr Deckert and I are extremely grateful to Professor Biko Agozino for organising the transfer of the special edition to the AJCJS.  We can think of no better home for critical Indigenous/non-Indigenous scholarship like this.

The International Journal of Indigenous Justice (IJIJ)

Given the experiences of myself and other contributors to the above special edition, we have decided to develop a new journal, tentatively titled The International Journal of Indigenous Justice.  We have found a home for the journal at the University of Wollongong (Australia).  A big thanks to Associate Professor Evan Poata-Smith for making this happen.  The new journal will focus on publishing critical commentaries on the Indigenous experience of criminal justice.  Professor Poata-Smith, Dr Robert Webb, Dr Antje Deckert and I will be developing the journal throughout 2014, with a view to launching the first edition in 2015.  Watch this space for further information.

An International Conference on Aboriginal and Maori Social Science

Lastly, Assoc. Professor Evan Poata-Smith and I are currently organising a conference on Aboriginal and Maori social science, to be held at the University of Wollongong in late 2016.  Further information on the conference will be made available through this blog and my Face Book page Indigenous Criminologists, over the coming months.

Cheers

Juan Tauri

Critiquing Arguments Against Extending the Jurisdiction of Indigenous Law

The following post is not written in the 'academic style', just notes I use when discussing with students in my Indigenous Justice unit at Queensland University of Technology, arguments for and against extending the use of 'customary law', or what I prefer to call Indigenous Law.  My apologies to colleagues if I haven't referenced as per the academic convention (as long as I've presented our ideas accurately!).  Nor have I rewritten the piece to correct grammar, etc; instead it is written very much how it is spoken in class; in general, not specific terms. I've simply uploaded the notes as prepared for the lecture; in other words posted 'as is' in order to contribute to debate on this issue:

A Few Comments on Customary Law to my QUT Indigenous Justice Students

For JSB381 students to consider:

The term customary law: is something that should give you all pause to think; why is it that any other ‘law’ besides European (British) law is often described as ‘customary’? 

This is an issue within ‘law’ and justice that has been pondered by great Indigenous theorists, jurist and thinkers.  For example, the great Nigerian Criminologist, Biko Agozino refers to this type of ‘reasoning’ – that all European law is ‘the law’ while all others are ‘customary’ - as a continuation of the Imperialist Reasoning used to legitimise the colonisation of Indigenous peoples and the imposition of European legal jurisdiction over subjugated peoples.

The Maori jurist, Moana Jackson, goes a little further, describing this kind of representation of Indigenous law as being based upon racist assumptions of the superiority of Eurocentric law, and the baseness of the law of coloured folk; of its inherent weakness due to its not being written, codified or institutionalised.  Building on the work of the legal Anthropologist Fitzgerald, who wrote about the mythology of law, we might describe these assumptions as forming the Great White Myth of Law, one based on the racist assumption of the inherent superiority of ‘White Ways’ due to a related belief that the legal system we now practice in Settler Societies is the end point of legal evolution; that is it the ‘best way’ of 'doing law and seeking justice'.

Let us take a moment to consider and dissect these notions:

1.    That Indigenous law was not codified: we are able to demonstrate that this is pure myth; at the time of colonisation, Europeans were writing of the codified laws of the Dine (Navajo), and of the six Nations of the Iroquois peoples who straddled what is now the Eastern US/Canadian border, and who’s Confederation the founding fathers of the American constitution and the Republic, actually based that constitution upon (at least in part). 

2.  The myth of codification is based on an assumption that Indigenous law is inherently weak(er) than White Law because it was not written down; it was practiced and hand down thru generations orally.  And yet we have 19^th and 20^th century European Anthropologists recording and reporting the sophisticated, orally derived legal processes of numerous First Nations; of Tohunga, legal specialists trained in linking genealogy with ‘cases’ that demonstrate precedence and an evolving jurisdiction, the supposed hallmark of the superior, codified Western European law.

3.   Indigenous law is inferior because it is based in the distant past: things have changed, so therefore it is not applicable to the contemporary moment: and yet we see in Africa, over the past 2 decades, more and more jurisdictional autonomy being given to First Nations in various countries, to mould a contemporary justice system based on ‘ancient’ philosophies and practices, carried out via resurrected, localised justice institutions.  We see in New Zealand over the same period (in a small number of largely rural areas), the resurrection of communal, marae-based justice processes, based on tikanga (think about Aroha Terry's marae-based justice process for dealing with sexual offending, practiced in the Waikato region in the 1990s onwards), blended with contemporary notions and practices of human rights, which yet again highlights the racism inherent in the assumption that Indigenous justice and cultural is incapable of ‘evolving and changing’, and incapable of being applicable to the modern world. 

      If this were so, then how do we explain the movement amongst Western, European jurisdictions to adopt so many of our justice philosophies and practices; FGC’s, Circles, significant elements of what they call restorative justice, etc?  It is evident that continued moves by existing legal institutions, law makers, politicians and the like, to block the extension of jurisdictional autonomy to First Nations, has little to do with the inherent weakness of Indigenous law, or the inability of our peoples and culture to ‘evolve’, but instead has everything to do with maintaining the status quo, namely the hegemony of their way of law.

4.   So, let's look closely at the law and legal institutions of contemporary Settler States:  does the fact that it is written (in fact almost all contemporary Indigenous justice processes are now written and codified, yet again underlining the myth of our inability to grow and adapt), that it is codified and institutionalised make it inherently more just than Indigenous justice?  If your answer is yes, then think about the growing numbers of exonerations being passed down in American, Canadian, New Zealand jurisdictions, and becoming a not so rare feature of Australian jurisdictions: decisions that come about, in the main (or in part, depending on your ideological persuasion!), because of judicial and police racism, classism and sexism.  Think about the racist laws passed (or the laws and powers used in racist ways) that drive people of colour in to the system, or drive them ever deeper into it; e.g. the anti-drug laws of America, search and seizure laws in Great Britain targeting black youth, ‘move on’ and search laws in Australia, the NTER, and so on.  Think about the massive amount of research evidence gathered by white criminologists and Indigenous researchers on the failings of our legal system; of its class, race and gender bias, of the myriad unjust sentences/decisions, and of the inhumanity of our correctional regimes….. consider all this body of evidence and think twice about arguing, as some do here in Australia, that Indigenous justice should not be promoted or extended because it promotes/supports child rape, violence against women, and is founded on archaic, inhumane punishments.

5.   On the argument of the violence of Indigenous justice: we often hear or read non-Indigenous commentators saying that ‘customary law’ supports violence, that it is inhumane – let us be frank, in times past our responses to social harm were by today’s standards, ‘inhumane’, but as previously discussed, this presupposes that those same penalties will be employed in a contemporary, reconstituted Indigenous legal system.  In others words, those espousing such views are falling back on the tired, racist assumptions about our inability to change with the times.  And with all the injustice and inhumanity practiced in Western jurisdictions, as stated previously, can anyone truly argue that the contemporary system is always just and humane? 

 

Lastly, on the argument that Indigenous law supports violence against women and children, we have no evidence to that effect so we can’t argue definitively either way on this matter: unfortunately, what we most definitely have is evidence that western influences have permeated some Indigenous communities, re: ‘imported’ notions and practices of gender and familial relations, power and authority, that have framed ‘institutionalised’ violence within our communities (and yes, a trend we must acknowledge, own and respond to ourselves).

Criminologists Behaving Badly

The following blog focuses on two related topics resulting from attending the Australian, New Zealand Society of Criminology conference, held at University of Auckland (jointly with AUT University of Auckland), from 27-30 November, 2012.  

Part 1 offers a brief summary of the Maori-focused papers presented at the conference, while Part 2, titled When Criminologists Behave Badly, provides commentary on some of the bizarre behaviour exhibited by senior members of the Academy in response to the Maori-centric presentations.

Part 1 - Maori focused papers.

A couple of things stuck out about this years ANZSOC conference; 1) unsurprisingly (given it was held in New Zealand) a decent number of papers focused on Maori perspectives were offered, and 2) all of said papers either spoke directly from the Maori perspective (by using 'engaging methodologies'), or (if delivered by a non-Maori  presenter) took a 'critical' view of issues of importance to Maori.  This situation was a distinct improvement on the trend evident at past ANZSOC's where the greater majority of 'Aboriginal papers' were delivered by non-Indigenous scholars utilising non-engaging methods while largely ignoring Indigenous-generated theorising, empirical evidence and literature (the specific session on 'Aboriginal issues' at the 2011 conference in Geelong a recent, classic example). 

In all, 8 papers were offered that privileged the Maori voice and experience of criminal justice issues.  The following section provides some brief comments on each paper; I will make available longer commentaries sometime early in the New Year:

Moana Jackson (Keynote speech): Taking the 'Crim' out of Criminology: Towards an Indigenous Causation Theory.  Moana's key points related to the weaknesses of Eurocentric criminology, in particular its lack of focus on the historical drivers of Indigenous marginalisation and the part this plays in over-representation, and the power of Indigenous theories and responses  to social harm, based on the (re)building of relationships, using a theory of relational distance to analyse and explain incidents of social harm, and why the state and criminology's responses are often ineffective.

Terikirangi Miheare (Victoria University of Wellington): The Misappropriation of Maori Culture in Prison.  A beautifully presented paper; started off with a gentle meander through the recent history of Corrections use of Maori culture to sell itself as 'culturally responsive', and ended with a devastating critique that demonstrated that the Departments so-called 'tikanga programmes' are little more than a misappropriation of Maori culture in pursuit of policy/political legitimation.  

Kristen Maynard: Ruru Parirau: The Power of Stereotypes and Potential Implications for Justice Policy and Practice.  This excellent presentation focused on the negative impact that stereotypes of Maori amongst policy workers is having on the development of effective policies and interventions.  Kristen used a recent example where she and her colleagues purposefully challenged stereotypes of Maori and alcohol to develop an effective policy programme aimed at minimising harm from alcohol consumption.  This paper provided a nice policy-in action case study to supplement the more 'theoretical/political/ideological' focus of other papers presented at the conference.

Antje Deckert (AUT University):  Neo-Colonial Criminology: Decolonising Research Methods and Discourse. Antje's paper was based on preliminary findings from analysis of the types of methods used by criminologists who publish journal articles on Indigenous people: her conclusion so far: about 75% don't bother to talk to Indigenous peoples directly, preferring instead to use silencing methodologies.  Interesting, one criminologist who attended this session seemed to think this was unfair as it implied that any criminologist who didn't write about Indigenous issues was therefore guilty of silencing, which is weird given that this has no bearing on the focus of the paper as was clearly stated by the presenter during her talk.

Juan Tauri (Queensland University of Technology): 'If You're so Good, Why is Your Policy so Bad?' A Critical Indigenous Appraisal of New Zealand's Crime Control Industry.  My perspectives on the poor quality of NZ policy making is well documented elsewhere :-)

Robert Webb (AUT University): Maori Offending: A Critical Analysis.  Rob's paper took us through the recent history of policy making in New Zealand and Maori in the criminal justice system, and how this has resulted in individualistic, poorly crafted interventions.  Anyone wanting to read his perspective simply type in Robert Webb, Maori and crime into google - there are at least 2 papers readily available on line. 

Tracey McIntosh (University of Auckland): Rethinking Over-representation: Maori and Confinement. This paper provided a Maori/offender informed critique of issues with correctional policy making with regards Maori (especially Maori women).  

Kim Workman Maori over-representation in the criminal justice system: the police response.  In this paper Kim decided to focus on policing and Maori issues.  Starting with an overview of research that evidences the drivers for the poor relations between Maori and the police, Kim then highlighted some of the genuine attempts by police to improve the situation (for example, Liaison Officers), but finished by highlighting that the recent Tuhoe incident and statements that no bias exists in police in NZ demonstrate that we still have work to do in this area. 

Part 2 - Criminologists Behaving Badly

A summary of the ANZSOC 2012 experience wouldn't be complete without commnetary on the behaviour of a small group of (prominent) Criminologists towards Indigenous issues (in general ) and a small group of Indigenous speakers (specifically). My reasons for mentioning these issues are 1) to educate these people about how to act respectfully when engaging with people they disagree with regardless of ethnicity, and 2) to forewarn our post-graduates about the types of people, attitudes and behaviour they are likely to experience as they go about their work as Indigenous scholars.

Overall, the majority of participants appeared receptive to the issues raised by Maori/non-Maori scholars who attempted to bring Maori perspectives into the conference; even if they did not fully agree with the perspectives they brought to the table.  Unfortunately, a small group of scholars offered the sad, old style of engagement reminiscent of the colonial era.  This generally entails talking about Indigenous issues while lacking detailed knowledge of the Indigenous context, Indigenous theory, research, literature, and socio-cultural/political context.  This same group appeared to believe that the conventions regarding respectful conduct towards other delegates did not apply to them, something that was especially evident when Indigenous delegates presented their papers.  Here is a small number of 'case studies' from the conference that illustrate these issues:

1. The 'I know bugger all, but I'll make an expert comment anyway' Criminologist

This is one of my favourite 'criminological types' who  frequent criminology conferences.  This sub-species is more often than not white, middle class and male; academics who have spent little time researching with First Nations, but who might have written a paper (or 2) sometime in the distant past about Aboriginal people (extensively panned by critics).  These individuals enjoy 'putting the natives right' about their past and current social context, but react badly to any critique of their perspective, especially if it comes from said natives.  

A classic example of the boorish behaviour of this 'type' occurred during the Post-Graduate day: In a presentation on comparisons of Romani and Maori youth and criminal justice, one criminologist began his poorly evidenced rhetoric by stating "I don't really no much about Maori and New Zealand'... but continued, regardless, to argue that because Maori have parliamentary representation they cannot be viewed as 'marginalised', or not as marginalised as other Indigenous/marginalised peoples (as though there is some sort of international league table of Indigenous marginalisation).  Now, if this statement had been framed as a question regarding empirical issues relating to problems with comparing one group to another, and across jurisdictions there wouldn't have been much of a problem.  Sadly, this was not the case, as the commentator chose  instead to offer it as a statement that they clearly did not expect a response to.  It was delivered with the 'perspective of an expert'; presented as an incontestable statement on the current situation of Maori in the New Zealand context.  This situation is highly problematic both in terms of the accuracy of the statement offered by said Criminologist, and their expectation that the statement was beyond comment.  I responded anyway, stating that it was simplistic to equate political representation with empowerment, and that because of this, Maori cannot be considered as marginalised as other social groups.  This kind of representation is simplistic because it is contradicted by plenty of 'empirical evidence' that political representation does not automatically = significant impact on or over the development of policy and legislation: simplistic because the statement demonstrates a lack of meaningful engagement with material on the contemporary social context in which Maori live.  Unfortunately, this particular commentator was simply replicating the same misinformed perspective that is offered on a regular basis in New Zealand by non-Indigenous scholars, policy workers and talk-back radio hosts.  

The speakers responded later that evening by accusing me of playing the 'Race Card' (a claim they repeated to my boss the next day).  I interpreted this to mean one of two things, either a) I had disempowered him by talking as an Indigenous person (can't really help that!) or b) I had unfairly lumped him in with other ignorant non-Indigenous commentators, which was true, but impossible to avoid given the poor quality of his statement.  As usual, this individual gave me little chance to respond as he simply walked away after making his allegation.  If he had stuck around and engaged with me as he should have, I would have politely but firmly told him that we had both played the Race Card, me when I spoke as an Indigenous person in response to his uninformed comment, and he when he chose to speak with authority on the 'Maori situation', despite his own admission that he knew very little about either Maori or the New Zealand context.  Hopefully in future this individual will consider their ignorance of such matters, and think a bit more before privileging their own voice in this way.  I am also hoping that in future they learn to cease such puerile behaviour as falling back on the use of allegations such as 'the Race Card' against their detractors, and instead choose to debate the issues directly with us.  

The same individual confirmed both their ignorance of Indigenous issues and arrogance in thinking they can talk regardless when he asked Moana Jackson if he had "Any evidence to back anything he said" during this keeynote speech.  The ignorance/arrogance of this question is highlighted by the fact that plenty of evidence exists to back all aspects of Moana's talk, whether related to his argument for socio-cultural genocide of First Nations (truckloads), his contention that First Nations had their own law and 'justice' processes (shitloads), and that these processes are applicable to some/all Indigenous peoples today and will likely work better for us (a small amount and growing).  I would expect this experienced Criminologist, who enjoys commenting on  Indigenous issues with regularity, to have engaged with this material.  Unfortunately, the tone and nature of his question hints that he hasn't, to which only 2 explanations are possible (in my view of course): 1) he hasn't engaged, which does not require further comment, or 2) he knows it exists but because the material is generated by Indigenous people it is 'probably unscientific, and therefore invalid and easily dismissed'.  Either way, all he did was underline the reputation of this particular sub-species of Criminologist, universally ignorant of First Nation perspectives, but all too willing to 'tell the natives how it is' regardless of their lack of knowledge of the Indigenous world. 

2. The 'conventions of right, ethical behaviour don't apply to me' Criminologist

A number of incidents highlighted that certain Criminologists think themselves above all others when it comes to respectful behaviour towards participants.  Unfortunately, and whether by design or not, these incidents occurred too often when Maori delegates were presenting:

a) to the senior Criminologist who walked down about 12 rows, in front of Moana Jackson as he delivered his keynote speech and thrust the microphone in his face; this is rude and obnoxious to Maori and non-Maori alike: instead of being rude, simply ask for something to be done, or sit closer to a speaker!  Next time you behave this way you will be told in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is offensive... in front of 180 other criminologists :-)

b) to the same person and a colleague who talked, moaned and bitched through the entire session on Maori perspectives, and who's ill-informed, prejudiced comments could be heard by those around them; if you can't handle different perspectives to yours being aired, especially by Indigenous peoples, and you actually believe it's ok to behave in such an unprofessional manner, perhaps you shouldn't come to our sessions?  You'll probably have more fun talking to each other anyway.  

To both individuals concerned I present my third and last 'Bullsh*t Artist of the Week' award for 2012.

Cheers and a happy New Year to you all :-)

Control Freaks and Criminologists

Control Freaks and Criminologists

The focus of this blog entry are non-Indigenous criminologists who build their careers on the backs of Indigenous peoples yet demonstrate little commitment to First Nation issues or engagement with the communities they write about with such authority.

One of the most influential criminologists in the world today is Biko Agozino, a Nigerian academic currently teaching at Virginia Tech in the US. I regard Biko as one of the key criminologists of the 21st century for a number of reasons, in particular the fact that he dares to speak truth to power, namely the discipline of criminology and the part it plays in the continued subjugation of First Nations peoples and other marginalised communities.  Biko's importance to the development of Indigenous perspectives on social harm/crime, and critique of Eurocentric criminology is beautifully captured when he asks and answers the question:

"What is criminology? A control freak discipline!"(Agozino, 2010).

Control-freak indeed: has any academic discipline (apart from psychology) failed so dismally to achieve what it tells everyone are its key objectives namely to 'understand and reduce crime'? When the celebrated Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University was set up in the 1950s, the British Home Office gave it the task of 'identifying crime and solving the crime problem', meaning that it had to identify the causes and discover a cure.  If that is what we were meant to be doing then by every measure the academy has been a dismal failure.  The same can be said of the disciplines main host, supporter and funder, government (yes, if government is the host, then the discipline of criminology is a parasite).

Throughout the 20th century and so far in the 21st, we have offered ever more sophisticated theories of criminality and cures such as boot camps, tough on crime policies including New York's much praised (but greatly exaggerated) broken windows approach, longer prison sentences, ever more sophisticated prison regimes (for example, New Zealand's Integrated Offender Management process) community policing, militaristic policing strategies, conferencing and restorative justice, crime prevention through environmental design (for example, CCTV) and my favourite academic discovery of the moment, crime science. Anyone out there feeling any safer due to all these successful solutions?  Seen any significant reductions in offending rates? Of course if they are confronted with difficult questions like 'why do your scientifically-derived interventions not = meaningful, long-term reductions in crime', criminologists, clinicians, practitioners and policy wonks will invariably produce a small, localised evaluation of their pet project and say 'here, we reduced crime for this group over 12 months.....' or something similar.  Dig deeper and invariably you will find that those who designed the solutions manufactured (and often carried out) said research, or paid someone to do it for them while maintaining control over research production (a particular skill of the policy sector). One thing that can be said with accuracy about criminology is that it is extremely skillful in the art of self-promotion and self-preservation through making itself relevant.  And how does it make itself relevant?  Well, too often by kissing the backside of the state via gazing uncritically at its activities while gazing from afar at the life-world of First Nation peoples (Tauri, 2011: by 'from afar' I refer to the tendency of some criminologists to analyse statistics whilst sitting at their desks, then write with authority about the Indigenous context while getting no closer to engaging with us than staring out the window).

Of course I need to qualify the previous statement by stating that when I talk about the failures of criminology, I am referring to particular schools within the discipline often referred to as administrative criminology or positivist criminology. In short, these criminologies are characterised by a) a focus on issues, definitions (of crime), policies, etc deemed by the state to be important and worthy of empirical enquiry; b) take as their theoretical and epistemological (a word so loved by post-modernists that simply means 'world view') framework from dead white guys or live ones, that are sprinkled liberally over social and cultural contexts for which the said framework lacks explanatory power; c) 'job for the state', meaning take the Crown's coin and do the Crown's bidding; d) knowing little about the communities they research and write about, highlighted by the fact they prefer to use non-engaging methods (statistical analysis, written questionnaires, etc); and e) ignore or are uninterested in key issues for  marginalised communities like the impact of colonial dispossession, genocide, institutional racism and bias and the historical lack of meaningful infrastructural investment (see Cohen, 1988 and Young, 2011 for excellent discussions of these forms of criminology).

In neo-colonial jurisdictions there exists an even more virulent form of the criminology described above, to which I give the title Authoritarian Criminology. This form shares many of the identifying markers of administrative criminology highlighted previously, but is distinguished by:

• confining its criminological gaze to issues relating to state-defined ‘problem populations’, more often than not people of colour and working class youth, and issues without significant engagement with individuals or communities from these populations; and
• the utilisation of methodologies/methods that highlight Eurocentric knowledge construction  and ‘expertise’ devoid of meaningful engagement with First Nations, while silencing our methods of knowledge construction and dissemination through labelling them non-scientific, ideological and value-laden.  

This form of criminology can be called Authoritarian because it purposely seeks to ingratiate itself to the Policy Industry by isolating the Indigenous experience and voice and seeking to speak for us.  It perpetrates our disempowerment through its blindness to the role played by colonisation, genocide and institutional racism in ongoing Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system (or through focusing on individual antecedents of crime while sidelining structural drivers because they are 'unmeasurable').

Of particular concern to me is that there is far too much of this type of criminology happening in New Zealand and Australia at the moment.  Too often the work produced by this school is being peer reviewed and published in journals, edited books, etc, that are produced by like-minded colleagues, and without the necessary critical scrutiny of the First Nations about which these experts say so much (for those of you wanting to engage with this type of criminological material I suggest starting with Marie (2010), Weatherburn (2010), Weatherburn and a myriad of colleagues who provide exemplars of this type of work in the Australasian context).

Understandably the work produced by Authoritarian Criminologists is extremely popular with the mainstream media in Australasia, in part because it silences the Indigenous voice and offers simplistic statements on the causes of brown crime whilst avoiding nasty, complex issues like institutional racism, and the impact of neo-liberal social and economic policy on marginalised communities.  Remember, darkies behaving badly = revenue, and we can't let these people speak for themselves and offer informed commentary because they must be biased. Commentary must be left to outsiders, because after all they are objective aren't they?  The body of work is popular with policy makers for similar reasons and because its data is derived scientifically and practitioners don't ask political risky questions like 'what does the community want to do about this issue'?  For the very same reasons the work of Authoritarian Criminology is worthless to many Indigenous peoples.  Why?  Because it looks and sounds nothing like our experience of police, courts, prisons and the work of the Policy Industry.

It is imperative that First Nation commentators and practitioners take Authoritarian Criminology to task for the lazy, disempowering, culturally inappropriate research activities of its practitioners.  If you are doing this kind of research, then do us a favour and put aside your pretence at objectivity, because the fact that you choose to silence our voices while empowering yours through the use of non-engaging methods, invalidates this particular claim to authority.  Put aside your pretence at value neutrality because what you do as just as value-laden, ideological, and political as my commitment to Indigenous peoples and indigenous issues.  The difference between an Indigenous empowerment approach which I and the likes of Biko Agozino aspire to, and your approach, is we actually talk to First Nations and let them speak for themselves.  Try engaging with Indigenous communities in a meaningful way (with our permission and guidance); you might find it liberating to give voice to actual experiences and not just statistics.  

References

Agozino, B (2010) Editorial: What is Criminology? A Control-Freak Discipline! African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 4(1): i-xx.

Cohen, S (1988) Against Criminology. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Marie, D (2010) Maori and Criminal Offending: A Critical Appraisal, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 283-300.

Tauri, J (2011) Criminology and the Disempowerment of First Nations in Settler Societies, paper presented at the Crime, Justice and Social Democracy: An International Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 25-28 September.

Weatherburn, D (2010) Guest Editorial: Indigenous Violence, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 197-198.

Weatherburn, D; Snowball, L and Hunter, B (2006) The social and economic factors underpinning Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system, Crime and Justice Bulletin 104. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Young, J (2011) The Criminological Imagination. Cambridge: Polity.