As a believer in free speech, I would never question John Campbell’s right to unburden himself of a long, whiny lament about where New Zealand is going under the new government.
I do object, however, when it’s published on the website of a taxpayer-owned broadcaster, TVNZ, which has an ethical obligation to observe editorial balance and political neutrality.
If you wanted proof that brazenly activist journalism is not only accepted but encouraged, even by state-owned media, there it is, right there. Clearly, TVNZ is untroubled by the fact that the man it calls its Chief Correspondent adopts an unashamedly political posture and sets himself up as an outspoken adversary of a democratically elected government. It’s a measure of his ego that he can take such a provocatively defiant stance and expect to get away with it.
And it’s not as if this was the first such column. In an epic display of dummy-spitting, Campbell has grizzled repeatedly about the election outcome – here, here and here. I’m surprised he hasn’t demanded we vote again and keep doing it until we get the right result.
That he doesn’t like the new government is not so much the issue here. That’s his right as a citizen. What’s offensive is that he misuses his position as a high-profile journalist – one who has spent a large part of his career in the state-owned broadcasting system, with all the power and privilege that confers – by petulantly and very publicly railing against a government that his fellow New Zealanders voted for. The Labour Party may be beaten and demoralised, but that’s okay because Campbell has set himself up as the de facto Opposition.
It possibly doesn’t occur to Campbell – nor to TVNZ, obviously – that his political partisanship seriously compromises his journalistic credibility among the many New Zealanders who voted Labour out and welcomed the policy U-turns that he finds so egregious. What chance do New Zealanders have of hearing politically neutral comment from the state-owned TV network’s Chief Correspondent? What chance of a straight, unbiased account of any contentious issue about which Campbell holds strong opinions? The answer, it seems, is zero. That being the case, shouldn’t it matter to TVNZ that viewers who object to Campbell’s posturing are likely to switch off or turn away whenever his face comes on screen?
Nearly three months on from the election, Campbell still appears unable to accept that the country voted emphatically for change. I suspect that like many journalists, six ecstatic years under Labour misled him into thinking that a radical left-wing government was now the natural order of things. He exemplifies the elitist metropolitan commentariat which, for those six years, so dominated media discourse that dissenting opinion was all but smothered.
Nowhere in his anguished lamentation does Campbell acknowledge that the government he objects to was legitimately elected by ordinary people exercising their one chance in every three years to influence public policy. Perhaps he avoided mentioning this because he’s too polite to come right out and say his fellow New Zealanders are thickos, racists and reactionaries, although the implication is clear enough.
The falsity of his carefully crafted image as a Man of the People has thus been laid bare. He displays nothing but contempt for the government and, by extension, for the people who elected it. He has made a career out of oozing empathy, but his goodwill toward his fellow New Zealanders stops short of accepting their right to vote for a government he doesn’t approve of.
Having said all that, let’s give Campbell his due. He writes very well, albeit a bit too emotively. He is achingly sincere. You can feel his pain. I think he genuinely cares about his fellow New Zealanders. The thing is, so too, no doubt, do Christopher Luxon, David Seymour and – who knows? – perhaps even Winston Peters. That presumably is why they entered politics.
The mistake Campbell makes, as is frequently the case with the sanctimonious Left, is that he thinks he has a monopoly on virtue and compassion.
On a broader note, the government has a problem. It owns two powerful media organisations, TVNZ and RNZ, that are essentially hostile to it and will function as centres of resistance to its policies. Democratically speaking, this is intolerable. The obvious solution is for the government to send a signal by sacking the TVNZ and RNZ boards, but the question then becomes: would it replace them with strong, competent, independent directors, or would it succumb to the temptation to install political toadies? I wish I could be confident of the answer.
To finish on a personal note, I hesitated for a long time before writing this because my wife and I were good friends of John Campbell’s parents. They are (or were, in the case of his late father) lovely people. The two degrees of separation that characterises New Zealand society sometimes makes things awkward, but there it is.
46 comments:
Karl I personally believe few enter politics for entirely altruistic reasons. I have met the occasional labour MP who it seemed did have deep ideological beliefs but generally I found a few bevvies soon consigned those beliefs to the dustbin.
On the National/ACT side the few that I have met did seem rather personable but in some way disconnected so I tend to believe pragmatism rather than ideology is their driver and for many entering Parliament did entail a drop in gross income rather than the massive uplift experienced by many in the labour/greens etc movement.
I choose to believe that that underlying pragmatism may lead a National led government to appoint on competence rather than ideology but I am not so naive that I do not believe there will be a tad of "political/business incest" in the equation.
Karl,
After giving yourself nearly as long off from the pleasure of us reading your posts as teachers and pollies give themselves, it’s good to see you start the new year both right on time and with a bang.
Campbell’s piece is such an extensive and lengthy article of bitterness and loathing it’s near impossible to know where to start. You rightly point out that, as a journalist in a government funded news organisation where balanced reporting should be at its heart, his position there is untenable. He should clearly see this himself and resign. Surely TVNZ could not consider him for the newly vacated political editor position.
The recurring theme in Campbell's piece is “all”. However, this theme is wrapped up with as much of the left’s usual thinly-veiled slurs of ‘racism’, ‘populism’ and whatever other ‘isms’ he can think of to denigrate the government and particularly the individual MPs he can’t abide. “All” is such a disingenuous theme, as he knows no government can deliver what “all” want. He knows “all” is what a government believes are outcomes and policies that it believes are “best for all”. It is childish for him to try and extrapolate a government’s actions as having to have the same effect for “everyone” and say that is what “all” has to mean and be.
There will always be the disappointed, those who lose elections, whose policies that they believe are “best for all” are discarded, ignored and particularly reversed. Campbell laments so many reversals of actions of the previous government while ignoring that government was never elected to enact such policies – discarding, ignoring and reversing them is exactly why the new government was elected. He knows it and is just bitter that a clear majority of New Zealanders want what is happening and want what more is to come - more power to the people and not John Campbell.
Campbell has become an embarrassment to watch.
Same problem in UK with soccer pundits and others turning their programmes on BBC into pro EU and basically pro Labour clips. ''Anti-racist'' etc. BTW I see Jessica M. is moving on to work for the ANZ...PR for horrible capitalists? I thought she championed ''the people''.
I met Campbell once. Nice fellow.
Having noted that Campbell is merely a symptom of the vast majority of New Zealand mainstream media.
The solution of these people being given a tax-payer subsidy to spout their brain-poison is not for the Coalition to fire the respective boards, it is to disband the two organisations completely.
Only then will honest journalism have a chance.
Phil Blackwell
In my mind the government should take action with RNZ and TVNZ. I'm continually drawn to the idea of selling them off?
It goes without saying that our state owned media must remain independent from politicians - but I quote from the Broadcasting Act 1989, “Responsibility of broadcasters for Program Standards” 1.d. : “....the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.”
Doesn’t this just simply mean that all governments are obliged to employ an old-fashioned Editor (like you used to be, Karl) - who can check on everything published to ensure that TVNZ and RNZ at all times uphold the Standards of Ethics which the Fourth Estate voluntarily used to adhere to? Journalists like John Campbell should simply be told not to write biased journalism - or face dismissal.
I was not aware of the article until this, but having read it I cannot say that it bothers me greatly. I found the article objective and well reasoned and hardly the left wing invective that you suggested.
I dispute strongly that the NZ public voted "emphatically for change". Only a small percentage voted for the major changes wrought by ACT. An even smaller percentage voted for the Q anon party in the form of NZF. It is one of the vagaries of MMP that the nutty Nora parties wield disproportionate power.
I voted National. I did not vote for the weird and wonderful. I shied away from Labour since I viewed the GP and TPM in the same light as ACT and NZF. I am one of the majority who did not vote ‘emphatically for change' and there is much in JC's article with which I agree. I certainly do not agree that his article has in any way damaged the credibility of TVNZ.
To put it bluntly John Campbell should just piss off. Enough is enough. I stopped watching the ‘news’ a long time ago as I couldn’t stomach the rubbish that is served up to us, treating us as idiots. Give the TVNZ Board and Campbell the boot and start afresh. I think a lot of Kiwis would be very happy to reclaim their own broadcasting entity once it has been cleansed. Does this Government have the courage required?
Have you considered that by linking to the articles you help sustain a media paradigm that needs to die? The success of the article is measured on page views, and more importantly the page views are seen as an indicator that the position of the author is correct.
One of the fundamental problem with the illiberal classes is that they equate readership with belief. Which is why they are so opposed to free speech. And unfortunately the believers of free speech in NZ have adopted the participation award approach. John Campbell et al are like the intellectual equivalent of over cooked pasta. They need to be ignored and energy put into more uplifting subjects and people.
I don't get the impression that writing this made you feel any better, and frankly reading it felt like more grievance culture.
R Singers,
You highlight an interesting dilemma. Do you ignore flagrant abuses of media power (which is what we're talking about here) for fear that by drawing attention to them, you risk promulgating them more widely? That's the "pretend it isn't happening" approach. The danger, of course, is that by remaining silent, you imply they're acceptable. Silence equates with submission.
But you're quite right about one thing. Writing this sort of post doesn't give me any warm glow of satisfaction. There are lots of other things I'd far rather be doing.
Campbell is clearly high on his own supply of performance emoting. For the past six years, that's what's passed as intellectual debate - a smug, pretentious, condescending virtue signalling based on unquestioning unithought.
I admire that you've taken the time and effort to intellectually critique it, Karl. I struggle to get past my inner "oh, just fuck off!" when confronted with it.
Thanks for this Karl, John Campbell's article needs to be read, and challenged. He is so self righteous, and seemingly unable to see that well- meaning people have different views - and voted on them. Thank goodness the baleful disastrous former administration is gone.
I watched Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's maiden speech, it was uninspiring, underwhelming, I cannot see her making much impact on NZ public life. Privileged and I would suggest sheltered, Maori background.
I didn't catch Tim Costley's maiden speech, but have seen the hilarious video he made when he was with the RNZAF in East Timor. Self mocking, self-aware; Google tells ne he's achieved as an engineer and as an officer. Having him in Parliament gives hope.
John Campbell is unable to accept or even sense, "the will of the people " and is a big part of the problem.
Sorry Ben - it’s not the Key govt any longer. National is well aware that any fiddling about on a number of fundamental issues including cogovernment will send voters to Act.
JC = Just Crap
John Campbell should stand for Parliament if he wants to vent his highly partisan political opinions. Who knows, he might quickly find himself Leader of the Opposition given the dearth of talent in Labour's ranks. I agree it is unacceptable for him to use his taxpayer-funded position as a soap-box to continually express his hostility to the government and those who voted for it.
Nor do I see what public good is served by the government retaining ownership of TVNZ. Its content is abysmal, we haven't watched it in the years since it became Ardern's personal "podium of truth". No great loss if it is hocked off any time soon.
Houtman Abrolhos,
You mention the will of the people, but of course the mistake we make - which I keep forgetting - is that democracy is supposedly the tyranny of the majority and hence just another tool of oppression.
@Huskynut - well said! Especially the second line as it appears on this page.
FTR - John Campbell has been banned from my presence for nearly ten years now, not that that will make a jot of difference to him in his self-absorbed bubble.
I say it again - they (including the majority Left-leaning broadcasters) breathe different air, isolated from the reality of democratic change. Thing is, the majority of those who voted for change did so without giving thought to commenting on these Blogs, and on Breaking Views. Hence their well-weathered label 'The Silent Majority'.
Agreed. He is insufferable as are so many who have driven our media over a cliff. Their stratospheric egos and self reverence/reference is ever more astounding. RNZ is actively working against New Zealand interests with/through tauiwi and it must be broken up.
Nicely put.
I've come across references to John Campbell's piece in a number of different contexts and have resisted reading it until now; I braced myself and read it, and indeed, it is a long, whiney lament that at times descends into ad hominem attacks. Over the last three years we've grown accustomed to the extreme "left" bias exhibited by the mainstream media in all its forms, and since the election, the lack of almost any positive reporting related to the new government. That Campbell was allowed to publish this is flagrant misuse of a publicly owned, tax-payer funded entity. Yes, it's an "opinion piece" but where is the counter argument for balance as laid out in the broadcasting act? I haven't come across it yet. I suspect this will backfire on him badly.
The trouble I have with the series of John Campbell articles is that the Labour Government pushed through the co-governance agenda with no democratic mandate and with a compliant media that mostly looked the other way. John is now complaining that the new Government, that sought a very clear mandate to roll back these changes, is somehow populist. John weakly acknowledges that much money has disappeared down a black hole but I don't recall him questioning any decisions at the time the money was being sprayed around.
I managed to get only part way through John Campbell’s lament before giving up. Realised that he seemed to be more concerned about the removal of Maori nomenclature than anything else.
Mr Ben Thomas has made an off the planet claim that the NZ public did not vote emphatically for change. Labour’s vote share went through the floor. That proved a vote for change. Mr Thomas should read the numbers on the Electoral Commission site. My vote was for change, to bypass the Maori caucus challenge within Labour. There, I’ve said it. Does that make me a racist?
The coalition will certainly not please all who voted for it. I cannot agree with some of the moves it has planned. The smoking ban should have been continued and extended to vaping. The point has been made many times that cigarette smokers are burdened with the hefty taxes placed on cigarettes. The tax “loss” resulting from a ban would be offset by less spending in our health system.
Back to Mr Thomas. He wrote, referring to Campbell: “I certainly do not agree that his article has in any way damaged the credibility of TVNZ”. Mr Thomas has been interviewed on TV1 before today. He could not afford to say anything that might jeopardise a future TV1 relationship.
Karl, you could conceivably use this blog as the vehicle that Media Watch should be and that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is driving traffic to those sites by linking to the articles. In addition to increasing their read count you're also telling search engines that those pages are worth serving back in a search.
If you do feel like creating a Media Watch worth reading can I suggest teaming up with Graham Adams, Bryce Edwards, and Rob MacCulloch and using Substack as the vehicle.
Eamon,
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you may be referring to another Ben Thomas. I understand the Ben Thomas who pops up here is not the political commentator of the same name. (At least that's what I'm told. Perhaps he can confirm one way or the other.)
Campbell's generalisations are typical of the arguments of one who is devoid of true evidence.
He rather shoots himself in the foot by failing to write his rant in Maori !!
Buster Bruce.
R Singers,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm actually not too bothered if a few more people go to those sites because I've linked to them. I refuse to be a slave to metrics.
Mr Singers has me salivating.
Let it be.
A media-watch type site featuring you Karl, Adams, Brill, Bassett, Prebble, Edwards and McCulloch with guest commentators would set the World on fire.
I'd break the habit of a lifetime and pay for that!
Lepidopterists would be in heaven.
Phil Blackwell
I have to admit, I have an aversion to John Campbell. His sanctimonious style really irritates me. Karl, I think your description of his writing is generous. Perhaps Campbell’s ego is so large he assumes 2000 words of drivel will be lapped up enthusiastically by the masses. In some quarters this will be true. Sadly the trend for newsrooms to be full of screaming lefties is totally normal, or mainstream. It’s a trend that has been building since the 1970s. So Campbell’s one-eyed tirade on New Zealand’s newish Government is totally within scope.
Legacy I media – of which Campbell is a member - waged a relentless campaign against National, ACT, and NZ First in the months leading up to the general election. Their anger that their pet political parties lost the election knows no bounds. Useful and objective journalism will be a rare commodity in the next three years. We can expect legacy media to put their bile into overdrive; they’ll try every ruse to make life a nightmare for the National-led coalition until 2026. In such an environment, alternative media has some excellent opportunities.
Ben, I tend to disagree with you on a number of your points, two in particular. That you dispute the NZ public voted emphatically for change and characterising ACT and NZF as “the weird and wonderful”.
On emphatic change. A government of the right holding 68 seats is actually a ‘stonking’ majority in New Zealand MMP parliamentary terms. This emphatic change is even more obvious when the previous ruling party held an absolute majority but had its support near halved. With only 38% of the vote, National was actually very fortunate to be able to call on support from, in many areas, like-minded parties of the right to form a strong majority government. A National voter not liking some of those other parties’ policies is neither here nor there, as without either of them National could not have formed a majority government. That’s MMP and whether you or I like it isn’t relevant to the outcome that has been negotiated and achieved. (As an aside, a Michael Wood (of Porirua not Mt Roskill) has written a fine letter to the editor in today’s dimpost on matters MMP).
On your weird and wonderful point. I suspect many who voted for ACT and NZ First did so to ensure what they wanted, a coalition government that would have some spine. This has already been proved in spades and with a lot more digging to come. The two coalition agreements have many similarities and I’m not aware of any total nutbar elements in them. Characterising NZF as “”the Q anon party” is clearly silly when we know what Q anon actually is. There are total nutbars who represent, vote for and support each of the parties and National is not immune to this, as we have seen through the disgraceful behaviour of some of them over recent years.
Karl, I can confirm, as I’ve had correspondence with the rather well known Ben Thomas of political commentary infamy, that he does not comment here - at least not using the name Ben Thomas. As for the well meaning, but in my opinion deluded John Campbell, I think I learned all I needed about him when I entered Romero Bresolin’s wonderful Il Casino for a late summer dinner many years ago and saw John Campbell and Nicky Hager at a cosy table for two in the corner. Peas in a pod.
My name is Ben Thomas but I am NOT the political commentator of the same name. I am not prepared to change my name just because people jump to conclusions.
To Karl and Anonymous. My assumption that Ben Thomas is Ben Thomas seems to be off the mark. To Ben Thomas and Ben Thomas please accept my apologies.
TVNZ is not publicly funded, it is commercially funded. It largely makes it's money through selling advertising, not from government allocations.
I see that as a result of this article, Martyn Bradbury considers you a "crypto fascist". Whilst I may disagree with what you write I hardly think that the term "crypto fascist" is accurate. But it seems to be common for both extremes to resort to name calling. Is it no longer possible to have reasoned argument, without resorting to name calling; I won’t even say insults since such parotted terms have become meaningless.
And on another topic I see that Stephen Fry has been set upon by the 'woke mob' for his denunciation of anti-Semiticm. Were we alway so intolerant of others' opinions?
Anonymous,
I think you're splitting hairs, but you're technically correct and I have amended the post to read "taxpayer-owned".
Ben Thomas,
I'm not sure what a crypto-fascist is, but I can only repeat Katharine Hepburn's line: "I don't care what anyone says about me as long as it isn't true."
Hear hear
Huskynut I couldn't have put it better myself..ššš
To some degree that is what The Platform is attempting to fulfill.
Good article Karl, it must have been difficult to hit 'send' with you personal connections, but what you said has to be said! Personally, I find John Campbell to be perpetually obsequious in his so called 'journalism', which is nothing more than an expression of his personal opinion. It is not and almost never is a balanced recount of 'the news'. I would like to see the RNZ/TVNZ Boards fired and replaced with a new mandate, that there is no place for journalistic 'opinion' in MSM, just stick to the news, the facts, tell all sides of the story, and ban 'journalistic' opinion. Thank you for calling this out, it needs to be said, Campbell is just one of them, they are called 'media stars'! Stars, for lords sake! They're just self opinionated story tellers, always the story they want to tell, rarely the whole story or the whole truth. The fourth estate is in disarray after the previous labour government bought them out, it is an unprecedented and intolerable abuse of democracy, and must be reversed.
I haven't read John Campbell in many years, but I forced myself to read Karl's link. And it was predictably painful. Campbell excoriates those of us who voted out the last government, but fails to take a clear-eyed look at why we voted as we did.
I'm an old Lefty, but I've voted ACT at the last two elections. In 2017, I voted Labour, but by 2018, it had lost my support. It was clear by then that the government couldn't - or wouldn't - implement its own electoral promises. Comments on left-wing blog sites suggested that I wasn't alone.
Then after 2020, the government attempted to ram through its co-governance agenda - on which it hadn't campaigned - including the undemocratic changes to local government, along with the hated 3 Waters reforms. Once the electorate found out about co-governance, that was the end of the government, in my view. People can recognise the erosion of democracy when they see it, and they take a very dim view of left-wing elites screaming the "racism!" epithet at them.
Campbell's views about the Maori language bespeak ignorance about how languages are revived and promoted.
For survival, any language needs native speakers: that is, people whose first language it is, who hear only that language and speak it exclusively for the first few years of their lives. Maori is no exception. Without native speakers, a language is dead. That doesn't mean that it isn't spoken: it can survive as a second language for millennia - as has Latin - but ultimately it will go extinct.
No amount of government departments and NGOs thinking up Maori names for themselves will save the language. It doesn't matter how many people learn it as a second language - either fluently or just a few words - it won't save the language.
Moreover, Maori language promotion is being accompanied by a hefty - and unwelcome - dose of ethno-nationalism, which is an aspect of fascism, as doubtless many commenters here are aware. People don't necessarily know that term, but they know that they don't like what's happening.
Skin colour has no influence on health and education status, nor on the propensity to commit crime. This country doesn't need separate health, education and justice systems for Maori, despite shrill claims to the contrary. By-Maori for-Maori services are separatism. There's no getting around this. It's the kind of discrimination that was practised in apartheid South Africa and pre-civil rights US, and against which my generation campaigned.
As to climate change: people change their views. I certainly have. I have a long-standing interest in science, and I've followed the climate change science for many years. Nowadays, I'm increasingly sceptical about the dire predictions of the climate scientists: many years ago, we were being told that low lying cities would be under water long before now. They're not, of course. Where we have seen sea levels rise, such as in the west Pacific, it's much more likely to be tectonic plate movement or subduction. No polity should take radical action - such as moving communities from the coast - until there is actual evidence of rising sea levels. It would be foolish to embark upon such a project on the basis of what scientists say might happen.
"I dispute strongly that the NZ public voted "emphatically for change"."
The election results suggest otherwise. The Mt Albert electorate is a case in point. Held by Labour for many years, at this election, only just retained by Helen White. Melissa Lee almost took it from her. Nelson ditto. And my own electorate, Ohariu, held by Labour, but with a much smaller majority. The National party vote here comfortably beat that of Labour.
"It is one of the vagaries of MMP that the nutty Nora parties wield disproportionate power."
Given that coalitions are a feature of MMP, presumably you preferred the "nutty Nora" parties accompanying the Nats? Good to know...
John C deplores the impact of colonisation and must believe it should never have happened but, like many who share his views and are of totally non-Maori descent, he fails to take appropriate action.
That is : You were born here so you will say you are not responsible for it. No excuse. You recognise the ''wrong'' and you are a legacy coloniser benefitting from it, probably with land and so forth.
The right thing to do is not wring your hands and have a bob each way by staying here. And suggest you are battling for the victims.
Approach your local iwi. Do a deal for them to get ''their land'' back at a cut rate (after all it was bought cheaply or stolen, right) . Then return to the land (or if several one of the lands) of your ancestors.
That gives you the moral high ground. Maori (although now all part-Maori to varying degrees) get their land back and you have decolonised. You are not Maori, so in line with your beliefs you should not be here.
Silly. No. I put it to associates (ex media) who are carbon copies of JC-plus in their views and they squirmed. It is much easier to have a bob each way . Stay here and lament.
The bizarre aspect pops up when I hear (personally) relatively new arrivals from Eire and UK here deploring colonisation. I point out they are merely adding to the colonisation . That's where they say it is different now and they didn't do it. They feel bad, though . Dodging the issue.
Colonisation with all its aspects has been going on for thousands of years. People of one race ''invading'' territory of another race or people. Or invading an adjoing territory and subjugating its people. Some results were positive ( I count the Romans in England ) and many were not, far from it. Often mixed. Today we have highly selective lenses viewing colonisation to project the past into the present in the normal human quest for power, assets and money. We do not change.
The Maori Party (and its allies) : it is like the old British National Front ...ethnic -based nationalism. Is it fascist, crypto-fascist or neo-crypto-fascist? They must really resent and wish to disown their ''white'' ancestry. Since 2017 events in this country have sure soured relations in my wider family, dividing the part-Maori side , in part down to to Vic Uni's brainwashing of the younger ones.
Folks, for what it's worth, I decided this for my Christmas/new year holiday:
Less intensity about Karl's and Chris T's blogs,
Less notice of NZ 'news' media,
Quitting my mostly Eurocentric / Anglophone reading treadmill.
Guess what.
I discovered a senior scribe on 'The Australian' saying one of his two best lifetime interviewees was the Chinese Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (1955 - 2017).
Now I'm halfway through a biography on Liu by Yu Jie. This is prompting me to do a bit more this year towards furthering our fragile 'flower' democracy. And to complain less.
I wish you all a courageous new year.
Great comments. Colonization was the best thing to happen to this country and helped save Maori from themselves. I am so over this critical race theory b/s imported from effete ivy league American universities, and I sense an increasing number of New Zealanders are now ready to challenge it too. There is much to be done, including downsizing and rationalizing the universities who are on the brink of bankruptcy, both financial and moral.
Well said
Post a Comment