Qualitative interviews reveal challenges faced by supporters of equity programmes for Māori and Pasifika students, highlighting the need for proactive leadership.
Programmes designed to support Indigenous (Māori) and marginalised (Pasifika) students to participate and succeed at (our) university are well-established, yet continue to meet challenge and resistance. As supporters and a participant in these programmes, we wanted to explore the possibility of speaking up and against (racist) resistance to programmes designed to make the university a more equitable and inclusive space. We sought to explore how those who supported such programmes would engage with, and respond to – or not – expressions of racist resistance. We aimed to find answers and solutions, strategies to melt resistance away. We used a qualitative interview design within a critical realist theoretical position and heavily informed by Kaupapa Māori research principles. Twenty participants were recruited carefully, and analysis used reflexive thematic analysis. Our first theme captured a strong moral imperative to challenge opposition to equity programmes, with silence representing complicity and a failed moral duty to improve the world. Theme two discussed anti-equity sentiment as harmful, particularly to Māori and Pasifika students. Theme three focused on emotion: anger was rendered a justified yet unhelpful emotion to express in discussions of equity programmes, while rationality was positioned as positive and useful. Theme four centred around futility, with participants suggesting responding to anti-equity expressions as highly unlikely to be successful, even if tackled ‘calmly’ and ‘rationally’. Students articulated a complex, fraught, and even impossible position in relation to speaking up, and challenging racist resistance. Given the impossibility of being a ‘speaking subject’ who can effectively challenge racism, participants felt the university needed to ‘lead from above’ to create a space and place in which resistance to such social-justice-based initiatives was not articulable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cowie et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: