Massey Vice Chancellor appears to have lied over Brash ban

The controversial cancelling of a student political club event at Massey University due to the scheduled inclusion of Don Brash kicked up a lot of discussion about Brash’s views (strongly criticised by some), about free speech, and about free speech at universities.

The issue has been raised again by David Farrar, who through emails obtained through the Official Information Act shows that Vice Chancellor Jan Thomas was not being truthful to the public or to the Massey academic board in her explanations for the cancellation of the event.

She had explained on Newstalk ZB (8 August)

Massey University defends barring Don Brash

Larry Williams: What were the reasons for cancelling?

Jan Thomas: The reason we cancelled was because the students who had booked the venue and had agreed to terms of use had come to us and identified their concerns around their ability to maintain security at the event, and so on the basis of that we took another look at things and based on some things we were observing on social media I became concerned that there was a genuine threat to the safety of our staff and students and members of the public.

And so unfortunately it’s a really tough decision and I don’t like making these decisions but based on the safety of our community I chose to cancel the event.

Larry Williams: Was this more about your personal views though, you don’t like Dr Brash?

Jan Thomas: Ah, I made the decision on the basis of the safety of our staff. In fact the venue had been booked um for some time and the students association, the politics society, had done a terrific job of setting up a programme of speakers who were going to be discussing their particular perspectives on politics. That of course is the mandate of the student association and I supported that and that had all gone through the normal processes.

So he would have spoken along with other current and future leaders of ah the National Party in a sequence of talks past current and future, ah and ah I think that was, these are precisely the sorts of things that should and do happen on university campuses, and it wasn’t until we became aware of ah concerns around security ah that I made a really difficult decision to cancel the event.

But the emails show that Thomas wanted the event cancelled because of what she described as Brash’s racist views, which she described a month prior to the above ‘explanation’ as “I do not want a te tiriti university to be seen to be enoorsing racist behaviours” (9 July):

After a series of emails on 13 July what Farrar describes as the “smoking bullet”:

Farrar comments:

Here the VC says allow Brash to speak will clash with the te Tiriti led ambition and affect their Maori colleagues. She asks if funding can be used to pressure the student associations. And she concludes:

She says she wants the event stopped, and “if it proves impossible” suggests modifying conditions of use of facilities and student funding to make it easier to stop similar events in the future.

Farrar:

There is no doubt that Massey University is lying and treating us as fools when they now try and claim it was purely about security. They have become a university without integrity and without free speech.

And here she talks about refusing entry:

And all this is before any security issues were raised.

The OIA release shows that Massey University has leadership that is hostile to free speech and believes that anyone who has a view different to them on the Treaty of Waitangi has no place at Massey University.

Not only did Thomas mislead the public over this, she appears to have lied to the Massey academic board. Farrar says that “This is what the academic board chair e-mailed colleagues”:

Distinguished Professor Sally Morgan Chair of Academic Board Meeting with the Vice-Chancellor. In light of the public accusations that Massey University is not committed to the Principle of Free Speech, I asked to meet with the Vice-Chancellor in my capacity as Chair of Academic Board, to gain reassurances that this is not the case, and to discuss the recent controversy caused by the cancellation of the Don Brash lecture which was to be hosted by the Students Political Club. I did this because I wanted to fully understand the facts of the case and what, if any, impact it might have on the business of the Board. I was not finding the public debate and the emotional speculation on social media and in the press very helpful and needed to know more before I could happily form an opinion.

The Vice-Chancellor agreed to meet me and to answer my questions. She began by assuring me that she was committed to free speech and the notion of the University as well-informed and scholarly, Conscience and Critic of Society.

I asked the Vice-Chancellor how long she had been aware of Dr Brash’s proposed lecture before she took the decision to cancel the lease of the room to the students. She told me that she had been aware of the event for many weeks and had been invited to attend. The students had also informed her that their planned programme of talks would include politicians from all New Zealand’s major political parties.

My understanding from what Professor Thomas told me, is that she had not considered cancelling the event at any point during that period, because she had no pressing reason to do so. She did not deny that she does not agree with Dr Brash’s views, but she pointed out that she had not at any stage banned him from campus nor insisted that the students disinvite him.

Professor Thomas told me that the situation changed when she was shown a thread on social media where there was a discussion of a plan to violently disrupt the talk, making mention of bringing a gun.

There certainly seems to be some discrepancies in what Thomas said publicly and what she discussed with university staff, and what she told the academic board.

What is said in the emails is certainly different to her explanation to Newstalk ZB.

More detail at Kiwiblog: Massey lying over cancellation of Brash speech

192 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  September 19, 2018

    That she is still in her position shows her Council is as bad as she is. Disgusting.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 19, 2018

      Wake up, Alan, she’s a woman. She’s so PC that she wants to run the university on treaty princlples….now do you see why she’s still there ?

  2. Griff.

     /  September 19, 2018

    Well done DPF.
    I think this confirms what most of us were thinking. The attack on brash was generated by the te treaty mafia. The debate on the position of the treaty with in our Constitution is often one sided due to cry’s of racism directed at any one who holds an informed view of the documents history.
    She should resign.
    An education facility should not be dictated to by those who hold a revisionist interpretation of an obsolete document .

  3. Corky

     /  September 19, 2018

    Our universities are rotten from top to bottom with this bs.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 19, 2018

      Which one did you go to ?

      • Corky

         /  September 19, 2018

        I did not go to University. However, Auckland University did provide help when I was building my first cloud buster and orgone accumulator. You think I’m weird…try Big Daddy Hayes from Auckland University. He knows things that even blow my mind. Your mind would crumble under his non-linear concepts.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 19, 2018

          I doubt if my mind would crumble if I read his non-linear concepts, even if yours blows at these. I am well read in many areas; it would take more than that to make my mind crumble.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 19, 2018

          It was no surprise to find that the only Hayes at Auckland University is in the field of genetic conditions.

          I didn’t bother to look for orgone accumulators and cloudbusters there, as the chances of debunked pseudo science being taught there are zero. Universities don’t teach that sort of thing, as you would know had you been to one.

          • Corky

             /  September 19, 2018

            Correct. I was put on to him by Jonathan Eisen ( look that name up). Always remember not all researchers can show their true heart and passion to their peers. Not if they want to eat that is.

            Glad you did some homework…I despise liars and bs artists.

          • Corky

             /  September 19, 2018

            ps- not sure if that’s the same Hayes. He never disclosed his specialty.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 19, 2018

              If he showed these things to you,a stranger, it’s unlikely that nobody at the university would know that he was into them, and the fields of expertise are so different (as are those of Jonathan Eisen) that I find it very hard to believe that they are into things like orgone accumulators which are so widely debunked as pseudo science with no merit.

              Nice try at a face-save about Ian Hayes. If the Hayes you knew isn’t him, he is not a staff member at the university. Not an academic one, that is; there may be a cleaner or gardener with the name Hayes.

              It hardly requires doing much homework to see if someone is, in fact, an academic at a given university.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 19, 2018

              What made you ask a Californian microbiologist about the orgone thing and cloudbusters, anyway ? He doesn’t seem to have anything to do with either, which isn’t surprising if he is a serious scientist.

            • Corky

               /  September 19, 2018

              That I find it very hard to believe.”

              So in other words you are calling me a liar? This will be the last time I waste time on a prat like you.

              By the way, I don’t know any Ian Hayes. You have trouble digesting what you read. My post said ”Big Daddy Hayes.” Given this was 20 years ago that’s why I added the post script…. in case it was a different Hayes. I was introduced to him as Big Daddy Hayes. He signed his work Big Daddy Hayes. That’s all you need to know.

              Good bye…good riddance…troll someone else.

            • Corky

               /  September 19, 2018

              Damn, feeling better already. It’s like being released from jail.👍👍👍

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 19, 2018

          I have never been in prison, so don’t know what it feels like to be released, If this is your last trolling of me, I will be very glad.

          You confuse trolling with someone questioning things that are highly improbable. You said that it was the Hayes who was a geneticist; (‘Correct.’ now you say it wasn’t.

          To you, anyone who dares to disagree with or challenge your nonsensical claims is a troll. Your ego is so inflated that you cannot bear any opposition.

          You claim that someone who is a microbiologist in California put you onto someone at Auckland University about pseudo science nonsense….and expect people to believe it.

  4. Missy

     /  September 19, 2018

    Is the free speech coalition still taking Jan Thomas to court? If so this can only strengthen their case that Brash was banned from speaking based on her personal political views and not due to any security issues.

  5. artcroft

     /  September 19, 2018

    There is no surprises here, her decisions were obviously manufactured to suit her politics contray to the idea of free speech. The only interesting thing to see is whether she has read the uni politics correctly and will escape scott free despite lying to her own employers. I guess she’ll go trumpy and play the “I didn’t lie and if you think I did, its because you are a colonial oppressor” card.

  6. lurcher1948

     /  September 19, 2018

    It’s a pity the first reply post is a particularly vile childish nasty post against the PM over on kiwiblog,maybe stopping the old racist from speaking was a good punishment,with “free speech”comes responsible behavior

    • Corky

       /  September 19, 2018

      ”Hmmm. never underestimate the rank-closing powers of socialists.”

      Pohangina Ham Co. Ltd.

    • Gezza

       /  September 19, 2018

      All of my pooks have told me emphatically it wasn’t them, but I have my suspicions about Betty Starling who is absent this morning and may be keeping a low profile.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 19, 2018

        It wasn’t any of mine, either. Nobody’s been missing.

        Sparky the cafe Sparrer hasn’t been seen for a while, but he isn’t into politics.

  7. lurcher1948

     /  September 19, 2018

    Why bring the Prime Minister Jacinda Adern into it,righties
    Quick, get this over to the Horrid, the mule toothed communist is the guest editor, and is a great supporter of free speech. Surely this will be front page news tomorrow….yeah right
    Why do the right try to outdo each other with baby talk which then changes into racist talk??

    • Corky

       /  September 19, 2018

      You mean like Mikey catching the PM out again after she claimed she’d had no contact with
      the candidate for Chief Technology advisor when in fact she had received a text from him.

      Early election territory approaching.

    • Gezza

       /  September 19, 2018

      I’m certainly not going to condone this kind of nastiness from a nasty person like that one Lurchy but I personally wouldn’t bring baby talk into the mix. Some princess we all know whose name doesn’t need to be mentioned was very clearly pouty & petulant @ yesterday & I think she might also have even done a foot stamp behind those benches.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 19, 2018

        I kept expecting her to poke her tongue out, or start crying with temper.

        • robertguyton

           /  September 19, 2018

          Did she though, or were your expectations…ill-conceived?

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  September 19, 2018

            She certainly spoke like a petulant, showing-off child.

            Her final words on two issues were “We’re the government and you’re not.’ Rather childish.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Rather John-Keyish, I’d have said. He behaved similarly, often.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 19, 2018

              I never saw him pouting and tossing his curls.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              You’ve not watched the video Gazza posted today then?
              Pouting and curl-tossing to the MAX!

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              He wasn’t pouting!

  8. NZH has picked up the story now: Internal emails reveal Massey University vice-chancellor more concerned about Don Brash racism than security

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12127703

    • PDB

       /  September 19, 2018

      She also lied about contacting police, no evidence of that backing the police claim she didn’t do so.

  9. robertguyton

     /  September 19, 2018

    There was much talk about Don Brash lying about his meetings with the Exclusive Brethren back when the issue of political interference by that sect was news. I expect all of you were as incensed then as you are now.

    • PDB

       /  September 19, 2018

      Such obvious whataboutism is letting your side down Robert. Has nothing to do with this topic.

      • robertguyton

         /  September 19, 2018

        Don Brash has nothing to do with this topic, PDB?
        Better tell Pete then; he’s mistakenly inserted Brash into the title of the post!

        • PDB

           /  September 19, 2018

          The whole Don Brash/Exclusive Brethren incident has nothing to do with this topic. Jan Thomas wanted to ban Brash because of perceived racism not any ties with the Brethren. The story here is the lies she has obviously told making her position untenable.

          If you are wanting to derail every topic at least make it less obvious.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 19, 2018

            I was making the point, PDB, that Don Brash would be a hypocrite if he was complaining about someone (allegedly) lying, having (allegedly) lied himself, at a level of public interest higher even, than the Vice Chancellor’s issue. Those who are now salivating after her might like to think back to see if they were salivating in the same manner when Brash’s alleged lies were in the news: were you, PDB? I’m keen to know.
            (I’m in no way trying to deflect from the Vice Chancellors issue. I have no bias there. The focus will hopefully reveal the truth).

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 19, 2018

              The Brethren printed flyers (I think it was flyers) without the consent of him or the party, which is inexcusable and made things very awkward for him’

              He didn’t lie, they did.

              In an election, anything like that has to be signed off by the party and paid for by them . As the amount that they can spend is limited, no party wants to have someone doing something like this, even if it’s well intentioned.

              When Kenneth Wang included Pansy Wong’s name on his posters, he was embarrassed and she was angry that she had to pay for half their cost. His generous gesture backfired badly.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Kitty! Such a naive view of the “Brethren/Brash” saga!
              Quite refreshing, really, given the tawdriness of the events and the dishonesty shown.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              As I recall he was asked who printed the posters and said he didn’t know. Afterwards he said he knew the EB were going to do some but he never saw them or knew they had been distributed so he didn’t know those were theirs. How is that comparable to Thomas’s blatant knowing lie?

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Sneakier?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              So if he had said the EB had printed them when he didn’t know that was true it would not have been a lie even though it might have been? Fact is he told the truth and you pillory him for it. Time for your apology.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              If? Pillory Brash? Hardly, I said (allegedly) lied. It was alleged, strongly and with plenty of material to back the accusation, that Brash lied over the Brethren affair. It was not Don’s finest hour. Hasn’t this featured in a book and a film? We could look to that for guidance.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              You won’t find any proof of your allegation – merely lots of Lefties repeating it to each other – so best just apologise and save time and trouble.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              My allegation is that Brash was alleged to have lied. There’s a mountain of evidence to prove my allegation true!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              In the light of that clarification I can answer your original question as a no. I was not as exercised about the Left making false accusations of lying (happens daily) as I am about Thomas’s supression of opposing political views in pursuit of her own.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Alan – I read accusations that Jacinda is lying, here on Yournz, daily, are they from left-wingers, do you think?

      • robertguyton

         /  September 19, 2018

        If we must avoid discussing Don Brash’s lies, perhaps we should attend to his racism. Pete mentions this above, “NZH has picked up the story now: Internal emails reveal Massey University vice-chancellor more concerned about Don Brash racism than security” or do you think, PDB, that racism isn’t a factor in this discussion also?

        • PDB

           /  September 19, 2018

          That’s more on topic Robert – she thinks him racist because he’s in favour of removing the Maori seats as do a lot of Maori – does that mean they are racist as well?

          • robertguyton

             /  September 19, 2018

            PDB, do you have some very close connection/relationship with the Vice Chancellor? Your claim “she thinks he’s racist because…” is very specific; can you share how it is you know this detail and are confident of its accuracy?

            • PDB

               /  September 19, 2018

              It’s in her emails – have you not even read the above before wading in??

              I suppose actually reading what the discussion is about is secondary to you blindly defending some left-winger regardless of what they’ve done.

            • Gerrit

               /  September 19, 2018

              A little reading from today’s leading Herald article.

              “However, racist behaviour of Brash – given te reo is a official language of NZ and we are a tiriti led university – can’t be ignored”

              By my language she called his behaviour racist and thus by extension Brash personally a racist.

              Robert you are spinning this worse than when riding that penny farthing bicycle.

              Brash is actually ant racist in wanting equality for ALL. That COL term so beloved, equality, is what Brash stands for.

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12127703

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              PDB – I’m not defending her at all. My point is, she may have other reasons for thinking he’s racist as well. As to your point around the removal of the Maori seats, you know as well as I that many people with racists views think the Maori seats should be removed. Do you?

            • PDB

               /  September 19, 2018

              The problem is some Maori would like to see the seats gone, Winston for one, so it would seem that racism isn’t the issue. Personally I’d like to think they have served their purpose considering Maori are well represented in our parliament but would leave it up to Maori to do so. I think once they do so Maori will actually be taking a big step forward so someone will need to show some leadership.

            • Gerrit

               /  September 19, 2018

              I think Maori seats and the treaty should be abolished as they are a continuation of repressive colonialism.

              Token gestures to appeasement, designed to keep 85% .

              Handsomely played by ALL the elites to maintain control.

            • Griff.

               /  September 19, 2018

              Robert
              A minority with Maori blood support the Maori seats .
              A greater percentage with maori blood are in Parliament than they are in the general population .
              All the seats do is guarantee a minority view has more influence than it deserves .
              As such they repent a distortion in our democratic system that give far more power to a bunch of maori malcontents pushing a racist agenda .

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              That’s a considered view you’ve offered there, PDB – thanks. In response, I reckon…
              “The problem is some Maori would like to see the seats gone, Winston for one, so it would seem that racism isn’t the issue. ” is not logical; some Maori might like to see the seats gone, but as you know, some Maori are racist, so your claim that racism isn’t the issue isn’t supported by your own words. Winston too, might be racist, so again…
              “Personally I’d like to think they have served their purpose…” fair enough, that’s your personal opinion. You think Maori would be taking a big step forward by dropping the Maori seats – fair enough, Brash thinks so as well. The pan-Maori community, whatever that is, might think differently and seem to.
              I’m a bit tired of talking about Brash now. I’m off out into the garden after first feeding the hens, accompanied by my little grandson.

            • PDB

               /  September 19, 2018

              “is not logical; some Maori might like to see the seats gone, but as you know, some Maori are racist, so your claim that racism isn’t the issue isn’t supported by your own words.”

              The issue isn’t if some Maori are racist (all people are capable of racism)but whether a Maori can be racist against Maori?

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Complicated, isn’t it! Most people in New Zealand with Maori ancestors also have European ancestors, so the question is, can such people hold racist views about either or both of their ‘races’ 🙂

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              Most people in New Zealand with Maori ancestors also have European ancestors, so the question is, can such people hold racist views about either or both of their ‘races’

              Yes. Absolutely and we see it all the time. There are even Pakeha people with no Maori ancestry who hold racist views about Pakeha people.

              What I see quite a lot is that the more Maori people look the more they are identified as Maori however they might want to see themselves & this is quite unfair to some who just see themselves as Kiwis and are forced to explain that.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Just for accuracy’s sake:
              noun
              1.
              a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

              adjective: racist
              1.
              showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

              Seems you can hold racist views about your own race;
              “or believing that a particular race is superior to another.”
              This bit, Gezza, seems wrong:
              “Yes. Absolutely and we see it all the time. There are even Pakeha people with no Maori ancestry who hold racist views about Pakeha people.”
              I would think “even Pakeha people with no non-Pakeha ancestry…” would be more suitable. In any case, Pakeha isn’t a race. It’s a cultural label.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 19, 2018

          Pakeha may not be a race de jure, but de facto it applies to NZers who are not Maori.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 19, 2018

          It is very offensive to accuse someone of being a liar when it is obvious that they are not one.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 19, 2018

            I think it’s offensive to call someone a liar, even if they are!

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 19, 2018

              Why ? if they are one. Usually they know they are, so they can’t complain if they are and someone says it.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              It just..lacks…grace, in my view.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              From now on, I’ll not do it, no matter what!

    • sorethumb

       /  September 19, 2018

      Your politically-correct slip is showing Robert.

  10. Gerrit

     /  September 19, 2018

    ant=anti

    Brash is actually anti racism. Which gets somehow read as racism.

  11. robertguyton

     /  September 19, 2018

    “Brash is actually anti racism. Which gets somehow read as racism.”
    Best comment ever.
    Trump is actually anti-dishonesty. Which gets somehow read as dishonesty.

    • Gerrit

       /  September 19, 2018

      Thanks for that compliment Robert. Keep spinning.

    • Gezza

       /  September 19, 2018

      It’s true though, robert. In the sense that Brash has no issue with people’s race. What he is against is the idea that we are not simply one people and everybody has the same rights and opportunities. He doesn’t see the Treaty as particularly relevant today. He thinks those that do are advocating separatism and sees no need for it. He thinks THEY are the racists. And there are people of Maori heritage who think that way too. Therein lies the tension.

      • robertguyton

         /  September 19, 2018

        Yes, thanks Gezza, I know Brash’s position. Do you think it’s possible that anyone professing those views could in fact be racist? There are others, such as Pauline Hanson, who say, “One People”. I think the white supremacy folk use the phrase…

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 19, 2018

          I am certain they can be called racist but the policies advocated by them are certainly not.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 19, 2018

            The policies on race held by racists aren’t racist? Can you explain how you might judge those policies then, Alan and can you tell me if you might think, even briefly, that they might be racist, coming from … racists…as the do?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              They are called racists by those who want to implement racially favouring legislation. Can you explain that?

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Anyone’s free to call a racist a racist, I suppose, Alan. Racists probably do it all the time; pot, kettle, etc.

            • Griff.

               /  September 19, 2018

              DPF is live on live now

      • Gerrit

         /  September 19, 2018

        My answer is; No it is not possible to be racist when advocating for equality for ALL races .

        Hard for you to grasp that racial specific “special” parliamentary seats and racially divided powers / privileged are racist, I guess.

        • robertguyton

           /  September 19, 2018

          Racist views are defined by including the believing that a particular race is superior to another. “Special” seats don’t imply superiority of Maori, Gerrit. Do they?

          • robertguyton

             /  September 19, 2018

            superflous “the”

            • Gerrit

               /  September 19, 2018

              No, just the opposite. They define Maori as needing “special” favours due to not able to participate equally with Tauiwi.

              They are defined as inferior and needing “special: privileged due to that inability to participate equally. .

              Brash for example is not saying that he (or any race) is superior, and that equality can only come from equality among races, not through separatism through racism.

          • sorethumb

             /  September 20, 2018

            That’s the Paul Spoonley/Green Party definition. The evidence points to human ethnocentrism as an evolved mechanism to hold groups together. If Group B see Group A as achievers they view them as competition for resources and hate their guts.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 19, 2018

          Brash and his ilk, IMHO, are racist in the sense of being racially biased towards White superiority. Whenever they talk about “equality”, what they really mean is equality on Pakeha terms … Like “One Law for All” means Pakeha or (essentially) English Law for All …

          They don’t mean ‘equality’ between the Maori world-view and the Pakeha world-view … They don’t mean equal recognition or acknowledgement of both …

          Instead they mean that everyone, Maori and Pakeha, should accept the Pakeha world-view … presumably and often explicitly because it’s superior … It’s Western Secular-Christian European or ‘White’ and it’s superior … hence White superiority … hence racist …

          I suspect that “equal recognition and acknowledgement” is what so frightens you folks about ‘racial difference’, which is not actually racism and not necessarily racial privilege or separatism at all … it is racial or ethnic difference …

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 20, 2018

            Utter nonsense. There is no pakeha world view since you can only define it as the non-Maori NZer world view because actually there are a myriad of them and Brash like everyone else accepts that. That is why we debate and have political parties. One law for all is the notion that despite our differences we can treat each other fairly and equally. Please review your delusions.

      • sorethumb

         /  September 19, 2018

        I agree with Brash – sort of.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 19, 2018

      Depends a lot on who is doing the reading and who is doing the writing:
      https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-17/colleges-have-way-too-many-liberal-professors

    • Trevors_elbow

       /  September 19, 2018

      Nice derailment of the entire thread Robert. You are a troll of the highest order.

      Do you think it’s acceptable that the day to day leader of an academic institution funded by NZ taxpayers willfully lies.. willfully labels someone a racist based on her personal view…looks at ways to suborn student clubs to her will by looking at how they ate funded (clearly looking for a do as I say or the funding is cut lever)…

      I suspect you think is 100 % the right approach… being a authoritarian commie… sorry a NZ Green… meh same, same

      • robertguyton

         /  September 19, 2018

        Thanks, Trevor, I felt it went well. You asked me a question that I would be happy to answer, but then answered on my behalf, wrongly, leaving me thinking my contribution wasn’t really wanted. You could ask again, if you cared to, but I’ll not hold my breath waiting. In fact, I’m off to plant flowering currants in a hedgerow I’m making to border the community orchard in Riverton, but, like every dedicated troll (of the highest order), I’ll be back!

  12. Alan Wilkinson

     /  September 19, 2018

    This has gone front page on the Herald now with Brash calling for her resignation.

  13. lurcher1948

     /  September 19, 2018

    Don Brash calling from Peking calls for her sacking,helping females celebrate female suffrage by promoting racism

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 19, 2018

      Female suffrage requires incompetent females to be sacked as males would be, Lurch.

      • lurcher1948

         /  September 19, 2018

        Another rightwinger wants his pound of flesh, David Seymour the VERY expensive party of one has backed another ACT racist for the ceremonial dismissal

    • robertguyton

       /  September 19, 2018

      “Don Brash calling from Peking calls for her sacking,helping females celebrate female suffrage by promoting racism”
      Always had a deft touch, that Donald! Now, he’ll be attracting criticisms that he’s a misogynist as well as a racist!

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 19, 2018

        Only from people who have no idea what misogynist really means and/or water it down by attributing it to any criticism of a woman.

        Lurch’s statement is a gross distortion.

        • robertguyton

           /  September 19, 2018

          There are thousands of people who don’t know what misogynist really means, Kitty, or water it down as you describe. Are they wrong in accusing Brash of misogyny, if in fact, they do?

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  September 19, 2018

            Yes, anyone who does that is an idiot who doesn’t know him. He is a real gentleman and I am proud that I know this great man. He is very courteous and a very nice person.

  14. lurcher1948

     /  September 19, 2018

    Barry Soper has said the VC should be sacked, and using his logic, the South African HDPA should be sacked for making racist comments on air on NZME NewstalkZB. The comments she made stated that islanders are leeches,and in doing that she’s insulting her island listening public.Cannot Wellington get something better.

  15. Alan Wilkinson

     /  September 19, 2018

    I see I was wrong to call her a lying, ignorant, amoral scumbag. Judging by the press statement the University has just made she is a lying, ignorant, amoral, slithering scumbag. But I was right that she won’t resign until forced.

    • Corky

       /  September 19, 2018

      We need her scalp, Alan. In fact everyone who believes in the concept of free speech needs her scalp.

  16. lurcher1948

     /  September 19, 2018

    I can tell you are struggling with anger AW i feel you should go over to kiwiblog where you can post things that would upset PG here…i have posted the link so you can rant forth
    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/massey_lying_over_cancellation_of_brash_speech.html
    Have fun, its a long drop cesspool over there with simmering hatred

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 19, 2018

      I’m fine, Lurch. Just giving some eloquence an appropriate trot. Thank heavens I no longer work in a University and might have to put up with that kind of contemptible administration.

      • lurcher1948

         /  September 19, 2018

        That’s alright AW but I’m a pensioner so for my support and advice and Corky has stated, heating benefits are finishing i have to apply a consulting fee mutual to each consultation,it’s a capitalistic thing

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 19, 2018

          Good on you, Lurch. I guessed there must be some reason you keep reading Kiwiblog.

  17. Tipene

     /  September 19, 2018

    What’s the bet The “Uni-diversity of Messey” will be clamoring for Govt bail-out soon, a la Unitec and Whitereia?

    If they can’t get sufficient students to sustain their organisation – LET THEM FALL.

    • PartisanZ

       /  September 19, 2018

      Tertiary education as we know it today is nothing much except a government bail-out IMHO Tipene …

      The institutions should be judged by the circumstances and especially the political forces that brought them about …

      Those political forces are best described as the ideology and economics of neoliberalism … which would have failed a lot earlier had not tertiary institutions absorbed neoliberalism’s human castoffs, flotsam and debris … for ‘retraining’, maintaining, subjugating or simply occupying … while corporate-political elites reaped their obscene fortunes …

      Piratical ‘Robber Baron’ sophistry always gives out “pieces of eight” though … Bread and Circuses for a compliant population …

      Like all the other social agenda bribes used during neoliberalism – ‘nuclear free’, minority rights et al (along with fatally two-edged Maori legislation) – ‘expanded’ tertiary education had to be more ‘inclusive’, ‘diverse’ and politically correct in order to soak up the less ‘productive and efficient’ members of our society … the ones who hadn’t yet been converted into “units of production and consumption” …

      The *exquisite irony* of this is that it has made society a much better place and sown the seeds of paradigm shift … The ‘informed public’ which corporate-political elites most fear has been brought about by the actions, essentially, of corporate-political elites …

  18. duperez

     /  September 19, 2018

    It’s so good to see so many knickers in so many twists. The VC used her office to further her personal perspectives and biases, she evidently lied and misled deliberately. That her institution is sullied by her actions is certain. That demands for her firing are loud is no surprise.

    And what surprise that David Farrar and Matthew Hooton are in the van? In the most unlikely event that a cobber of theirs in a prestigious and important role were to use their office to further their personal biases and lie and mislead, would they be into OIA mode and hollering from the treetops? If the cobber were a Prime Minister for example?

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 19, 2018

      Hooton was no cobber of Key. I don’t know if either are a cobber of Brash but this has nothing to do with anything except appalling and unacceptable behaviour by a university administrator and by the university Council which facilitates it.

  19. duperez

     /  September 19, 2018

    I accept that AW.
    Appalling and acceptable behaviour are matters of opinion and doing something about them and making a fuss and using the OIA are subject to that.
    Attributing some sort of status to a university administrator and her council as if there is some august quality about them and how they should act I understand too. Yet we accept much less from our political bodies and take that as read. And people like David Farrar (and me I suppose) are just playing a game. He’s feigning seriousness. He has to given his picking and choosing of his targets.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 19, 2018

      I don’t believe Farrar is feigning seriousness at all. We cannot have universities run as partisan political factions nor allow supression of reasonable opinion, speech and dissent. This is a far more serious issue than goes on in Parliamentary Question Time squabbling.

  20. Alan Wilkinson

     /  September 19, 2018

    Bridges has supported Brash’s call for Thomas’s resignation and said the Government must act if she doesn’t go or get sacked.

    • robertguyton

       /  September 19, 2018

      Incredible! Unbelievable! Has he???
      WOW!!

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  September 19, 2018

        Contain your excitement, Robert. Winston hasn’t decided what to do yet.

  21. Gezza

     /  September 19, 2018

    1ewes at 6 gave this major news item treatment. The angle was that the Vice Chancellor had a clear agenda to ban Brash and that when told there were no grounds appears to have been determined to find some. That her security argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny (the viewer left to deduce the obvious from the evidence and commentary angle).

    Brash featured in several clips and was given a clear run to state his view that it was a disgrace and the VC should stand down. She was shown by contrast making that excuse.

    It concluded with saying he has been invited to go back there next month & the political club spokesperson featured saying they will be making sure the security angle is covered. Trouble is expected again as at Auckland.

    This silly woman tried to prevent Brash being given the opportunity to state his case and maybe have it challenged (as it can and should be) and has achieved precisely the opposite result and wrecked her own reputation and that of the University.

    • robertguyton

       /  September 19, 2018

      “Silly woman”?
      Perhaps she’s an ordinary woman who made a mistake?

      • Gezza

         /  September 19, 2018

        No I don’t think so robert. The documents released make it pretty clear she was a university official on a determined mission to prevent someone with a view she didn’t want others to hear and maybe debate from even being allowed to do that. The “threat” was laughable and the people who supposedly made it were stunned it was even taken seriously. The police weren’t even involved in spite of her attempt to say they were. She appears to have lied like a flatfish or at the very least been dishonest with the media and the public and the students. There’s a price Massey will have to pay for that.

        • robertguyton

           /  September 19, 2018

          Gezza. The Vice Chancellor wrote:

          ““I feel a great sense of responsibility around the WHS responsibilities to our Maori staff and students”

          “… I have spent a lot of time thinking about thus(sic). I have also has (sic) the opportunity to discuss with (redacted) while I am in London. His measured view is that, particularly so soon after the Hobson’s pledge damage, it will seriously affect our Maori colleagues.”
          Does that sound like the thinking of a “silly” woman? Or someone thinking deeply about these issues?

          • Gezza

             /  September 19, 2018

            The silly part is her poor strategy, failure to understand and accept that Maori themselves are perfectly able to state their case and argue it (god knows, we see enuf of it – and the Treaty itself was the subject of fierce debate: Maori kaupapa encourages extremely passionate discussion & argument – followed by hongi and kai if the parties are so disposed.) and her misleading so many people including the public.

            The net result, as I say, was that Brash who would’ve got up and said nothing much controversial and may not even have got reported has now had exposure and several triumphant platforms even tRump would tip his MAGA cap to.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              She’s Vice Chancellor. She took advice. She was concerned about some of her colleagues. Silly?
              I don’t think so.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              On that question we must agree to disagree: I don’t feel taking it further would persuade either of us otherwise. I should perhaps have used another word but I’ll stop here if you don’t mind, robert.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              “Silly woman” and “silly part” are…different, Gezza. Can you see it?

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              The distinction is so fine, to me it is irrelevant. I have considered your view and mine and arrived at the conclusion she did something (several things) really silly. The outcome bears me out and I am stopping here because it is such a minor issue in the overall scheme of things. I will let you have the last word if it is vitally important for you to do that.

            • PDB

               /  September 19, 2018

              She had a pre-determined outcome and only wanted ‘advice’ from people that matched her own world view. She didn’t get that from one staff member who said free speech could be compromised and instead looked for alternative, more underhand means of stopping Brash.

              If anything her email trail shows someone on a personal crusade who is somewhat paranoid.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Okay, Gezza.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              PDB, yours is unsubstantiated supposition. Come back to us with…facts.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              I’ve thought some more about what you said and I do understand what you’re saying. You’re right robert. What she did doesn’t make her a silly woman per se. Just like PG having standards for a VC that she didn’t meet doesn’t make him high and mighty and the ultimate arbiter of such matters. I’ll leave it here and thanks for that. I might try and be more careful in future not to label someone as stupid for doing something I think was silly.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              I will also, Gazza. It’s so easy to do.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              *nigh on impossble.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              Bugger. wrong place ignore I’ll try again. 🙄

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  September 19, 2018

        A mistake? The creep worked on it for weeks. Wouldn’t be surprised if she had a hand in generating the security “threat” that wasn’t.

        • robertguyton

           /  September 19, 2018

          “The creep”?
          Alan, you’re disqualified from any reasonable discussion on this matter, Imo.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 19, 2018

            You are only disqualifying yourself, Robert, so don’t delude yourself.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              That
              makes
              no
              sense
              at
              all.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              He means if you disqualify him from discussion you are disqualifying yourself from it as well.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              It makes as much sense as your disqualification since the only way you can implement that is to withdraw yourself.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 19, 2018

            OED: Creep
            informal A detestable person.
            A person who behaves obsequiously in the hope of advancement.

            An Aussie VC grovelling to Maori.

      • A series of mistakes, and still digging.

        • lurcher1948

           /  September 19, 2018

          Surprised you were up there with the lynch mob PG I. expected higher standard’s

          • I expect higher standards for a vice chancellor and for a university.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Pete George “expects higher standards”.
              Arbiter of all that is good now, are you, Pete.
              High and Mighty (both).

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              That’s unfair. PG is expressing a personal opinion only.
              None of us is an arbiter on this matter.

            • PDB

               /  September 19, 2018

              You obvious have much lower standards for our universities then Robert?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              You may have disqualified yourself, Robert, but that doesn’t entitle you to ad hominems. Particularly when you object to mine despite their appropriateness.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Pete’s the blogmeister, as one of you declared. His view is…different. He has power, power to ban and delete. He is not the same as us. He sounds somewhat imperious when he says that he , ” expects higher standards”.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              “You obvious”, PDB? Pull yourself together, man! Say what you mean!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              PG was just echoing Lurch’s words back to him, Robert. Blame Lurch if anyone.

            • lurcher1948

               /  September 19, 2018

              Folks,life as it is We will be ripping our hair out over some shit tpmorrow,So relaxe

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              Pete’s the blogmeister, as one of you declared. His view is…different. He has power, power to ban and delete.

              I said it. His view is not different to anyone else’s. I am amazed at how prepared he is to debate with people who say rude, obnoxious & hateful things to him.

              Bannings from here are bloody rare and mostly for people seeking to compromise the blog or posting shite when pissed or something.

              Just because he runs the blog doesn’t mean he runs around deleting things he doesn’t like. He bloody doesn’t.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              And even people posting shite when pissed or whatever tend to not get banned just auto-moderated for a quick check before being released .

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              It did sound imperious though, didn’t it. Pete’s not on equal footing with us – can you delete someone’s words, Gazza. Pete’s a [deleted} there’s no doubt about that!

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              [blogmeister]

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              It did sound imperious though, didn’t it.
              No. It sounded like PG expressing his opinion, as always.
              You’re the one who sounds like the arbiter of what is right good and just.
              Sometimes so do I. It happens to us all – so I don’t get bogged down over it.

              Getting an admission you’re right from someone like Sir Alan is night on impossible even when you are and everybody knows it. So I never go on about it. Well, not often, or the page would take forever to get through.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              *nigh on impossible

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              That’s good advice (re. Alan), Gazza. PDB, the elbow guy, David and Kitty too, foreshore! 🙂

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Sorry, Gezza, Gezza !

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              Any one of them might have been accidentally dropped on their head as a baby. I happens. I have a strong suspicion it happened to me. I make allowances.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 19, 2018

              Have you caught up with the newest Green Party policy on thicker carpets for the family home?
              Save us all a lot of anguish.
              (Humour? Am I getting the hang of it. Yet?)

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              No – actually I thought you were serious 😀
              It wouldn’t be entirely out of the ball park – I can see that that might be a good thing 😀

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 19, 2018

              @Sir Gerald, I obviously need to remind you I admitted you were right both times it happened. Regards, Sir Alan.

            • Gezza

               /  September 19, 2018

              @Sir Alan. Those are only the two times you admitted it. According to my spreadsheet there are 58 times I was right already this year, and two draws.
              Sir Gerald

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 20, 2018

              Tragically, you are wrong again, Sir Gerald.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 19, 2018

      Yep, as I said she is stupid, ignorant, amoral, a liar and is now slithering. Wholely unfit to run a university. Looks like the Uni Council is also buggered. Probably a legacy of Maharey’s regime.

  1. Massey Vice Chancellor appears to have lied over Brash ban — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition
  2. Massey University responds | Your NZ