After a brief vacation in Australia to snorkel at the Great Barrier Reef (no photos of me in a wetsuit available) and to feed rehabilitating wallabies and kangaroos, I landed in New Zealand. My first step? To understand the water I’ll (not literally) be swimming in.
Based in Wellington - the capital of New Zealand - my first two days were spent at orientation with other Axford and Fulbright Fellows. My new friend and colleague, Jock Phillips, gave me an overview of New Zealand’s History in 60 minutes and then I was given a brief introduction to Māori language and rituals before heading to Waiwhetū Marae to stay the night at their meeting house. At the marae, we participated in pōwhiri, a traditional Māori greeting ceremony with Matiu Tahi (our cultural advisor). I was also given an education on the Treaty of Waitangi.
Unlike in the United States where there were hundreds of treaties between the government and the First Nations and other indigenous peoples, in New Zealand there was one treaty. The treaty commits to protect all the native people of New Zealand (the Māori) and to give them unqualified autonomy over their lands, people, and treasures. The treaty was violated repeatedly and now iwi (tribes) can apply for a hearing from the Waitangi Tribunal regarding their grievances.
Māori children, like African American children in North Carolina, are overrepresented at each phase of the child welfare process. Māori children are 2.5 times more likely to be reported, more likely to have a report assessed (investigated), more likely to be placed into foster care, and more likely to stay in care for more than a year. But here, this inequity is being explicitly addressed.
The Oranga Tamariki outcomes framework explicitly spells out how their new end goals will impact Maori children and the ways they will work differently to achieve better outcomes than in the past. In addition, legislation specifically holds the government accountable for improving outcomes and reducing the disparities; building up the cultural competency of the workforce; increasing the cultural fit of policies, practices, as well as services; and developing strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organizations.
I am impressed by the thought and effort that goes into addressing inequity here. Although solutions have not yet been fully realized, the conversations being held at multiple levels and the clear consensus about the ways the system isn’t yet functioning are impressive.
All kinds of families need support and it is essential that the support offered doesn’t come with judgment or compound the already existing damage done by blaming people for creating circumstances that were forced upon them.
At the Racial Equity Institute training I attended in Durham, they talked about a sociology experiment using the game Monopoly. Instead of having everyone start at the same time, there were three phases. The first group played for an hour, and then the second group started. After another hour, a third group joined the game. Even though everyone was playing by the same rules, the initial players had already acquired property and wealth. Winners almost always came from the first group. However, instead of attributing their success to their earlier start, they often indicated their skill at playing the game. The people who started in the last group never won. They would often get so frustrated with the gameplay, they would wish to go to jail where no one would ask them for money they didn’t have.
Until we unpack the ways the system hasn’t functioned in the past, we can’t create good solutions moving forward. It’s not that the winner wasn’t skilled, but they also benefitted from the privilege of being in the original cohort.
I read another use of Monopoly in the Journal of Effective Teaching that helps people conceptualize how historic discrimination continues to manifest. This professor has everyone introduce themselves and then introduces a special version of Monopoly, picking one student for a special rule.
“Is everyone familiar with the Monopoly rule “Pass Go, Collect $200”? Everyone circles the board; everyone passes ‘Go’; everyone gets $200. However, anyone who is named ‘Lydia’ does not get any money as they pass ‘Go’. “
The professor goes around once; passes ‘Go’; collect $200. The first student goes around once; passes ‘Go’; collects $200. The next student goes around once; passes ‘Go’; collects $200. Lydia goes around once; passes ‘Go’; but does not collect $200. The professor then checks in:
“Is everyone clear how this game works? Okay, now we are going to go around the board 349 times. How much money does each player have?”
The students calculate $0 for Lydia, $69,800 for everyone else.
Then the professor announces it’s time to adjust the rules for a more equitable game:
“Okay, clearly this is not working out for everyone So now we’ll change the rule: everyone who passes ‘Go’ gets $200. The next turn is our 350th. On that turn, all of the players will get $200. How much money will each player have then?”
The students calculate that Lydia now has $200 and everyone else has $70,000. According to the article, the student selected is typically pretty upset at this point. They have been singled out, through no fault of their own, and are being forced to lose and being asked to accept this small step as a victory in equity.
I love how this exercise engages students in thinking about how equal opportunities now aren’t the same a repairing or redressing the past.
I look forward to sharing more with you about how New Zealand is working to be the best place in the world for children and young people, making sure that children are safe and nurtured in their families and homes.
Rachel Galanter, Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellow in Public Policy
Exchange Family Center Executive Director