Abstract:
Ethnic-Specific Equity (ESE) programmes, such as targeted admissions schemes, targeted scholarships, and support programmes, have existed for some time. Previous research, however, suggests that anti-ESE expressions are common, and can promote understandings of Māori and Pacific students as underserving, lazy and morally suspect (Bacchi, 2004; Mayeda, Keil, Dutton & ‘Ofamo’oni, 2014; Sibley & Liu, 2004). Research on race talk and modern racism has also posited that opposition to minority rights tends to be framed in deracialised, highly “rational” ways, creating space to do prejudice while being able to deny racist intentions (Augoustinos & Every, 2007; Wetherell & Potter, 1992). How then, do students who support ESE respond to anti-ESE sentiment? Drawing on data from 20 semi-structured interviews, this thesis examines the experiences of self-identified supporters of ESE in responding to and challenging anti-ESE expressions. Using thematic analysis, I identified five themes which structured talk of the difficulties of challenging anti-ESE expressions. Theme one explores participants’ suggestions that there was a strong moral imperative to challenge opposition to ESE, with silence representing complicity and a failed moral duty to improve the world. Theme two discusses portrayals of anti-ESE sentiment as harmful, particularly to Māori and Pacific students. Theme three outlines participants’ talk in which anger was rendered a justified, yet unhelpful emotion to express in discussions of ESE. In comparison, rationality was positioned as a positive way to discuss ESE. Theme four describes the ways that participants positioned responding to anti-ESE expressions as unlikely to be successful and almost futile, even if done within the constraints of theme three. Finally, theme five explores participants’ talk of who is responsible for challenging anti-ESE sentiment, and explores participants’ suggestion that the university needs to do more to support Māori and Pacific students. I reflect on the importance of disrupting ideas of personal responsibility in challenging criticism of ESE.
