William Massey was a Racist
In 2016 racist comments by the University’s namesake were unearthed. Lecturers and students called for a discussion around a name change. This never happened.
Names have never been more important. When you look, debates around names are everywhere. National has been calling for a referendum on whether New Zealand should even be referred to as Aotearoa, with MP Stuart Smith saying the name Aotearoa should be banned from all official documents. In 2019, Victoria University tried to unsuccessfully change to the University of Wellington, only to drop the move after widespread backlash from students and government officials (although that hasn’t stopped them from buying a $69,000 sign, sneaky). The Crusaders rugby team, after announcing a comprehensive review of their name and branding following the Christchurch shootings, doubled back to only changing their logo. The decision was met with strong criticism.
Massey, however, has tended to sneak under the radar without discussing the elephant in the room: our racist namesake. To be more specific: our white supremacist namesake. Yeah. Let’s get into it.
Massey’s racist comments:
For context, William Massey was a former Prime Minister, serving from 1912 until his death in 1925. He was the founding leader of the Reform Party, notably known for his antagonism to unionized labour and his support for the farming industry. The latter being why Massey University, formerly a small agricultural college, was named after him.
In 2016, lecturer Dr Steven Elers (yes, the same one who has written opinions pieces for NZ Herald deemed transphobic and homophobic. We never said this wasn’t going to be messy) was conducting PhD research on how Māori were represented in media, when he unearthed a series of racist remarks made by William Massey. The comments spanned over 11 years, almost the full extent of his political career.
In 1910, Massey remarked in a parliamentary debate: “I am not a lover or admirer of the Chinese race, and I am glad to know that the number of Chinese in this country is not increasing. I say I am not an admirer of the Chinese.” He went on to say, “But if it turned out that the number of Chinese did increase in this country, I should be one of the very first to insist on very drastic legislation to prevent them coming here in any numbers, and I am glad such is not the case.”
In 1920, again in a parliamentary debate, he said “... this Dominion shall be what is often called a ‘white’ New Zealand, and that the people who come here should, as far as it is possible for us to provide for it, be of the same way of thinking from the British Empire point of view” and, “Clearly, we want to keep the race as pure in this Dominion as it is possible to keep it.” In this year, The Immigration Restriction Amendment Act was passed, aimed to further limit Asian immigration by requiring all potential migrants not of British or Irish parentage to apply in writing for a permit to enter New Zealand. Massey himself was born in Ireland, convenient right?
Massey’s racism wasn’t limited to the Asian population. In 1921, Massey wrote in the Evening Post, “New Zealanders are probably the purest Anglo-Saxon population in the British Empire. Nature intended New Zealand to be a white man’s country, and it must be kept as such. The strain of Polynesian will be no detriment.”
William Massey was also behind the “utter devastation of the natural environment of Nauru, once, but never again, known as Pleasant Island” according to research by Massey sociologist, Matt Wynyard.
Nauru was rich in a particular fertiliser, phosphate, which Massey lobbied throughout the war for a share of this valuable resource. After the conclusion of the First World War, Nauru was “carved up” between Australia, New Zealand and Britain, giving them exclusive entitlement to the mineral, alongside the right to purchase phosphate at cost price, rather than market rate. For decades after, “Nauru was systematically plundered of guano and rock phosphate without regard to the indigenous people or indeed the Nauruan environment,” Wynyard writes. The economic, social and environmental impacts were unspeakable. The interior of the island was “ripped out” according to M. Nazzal, leaving over 80% of the island land mass uninhabitable and unusable. Meanwhile, New Zealand enjoyed a post-war boom of prosperity from phosphate’s agricultural benefits.
Although perhaps coming as no great surprise given Massey’s political acts, Elers published his findings around Massey’s statements in 2016. The comments were covered in national news outlets such as Stuff, RNZ, Vice and of course, Massive. Various opinion pieces were published, mostly pushing against the call for a name change debate. Alan Duff wrote in the New Zealand Herald that it’s “not for us to retry past crimes” whilst Waikato Times’ Richard Swainson stated that “we have business recasting history with our values”. Jonathan Tracy, a Classical Studies lecturer at Massey, even wrote an opinion piece for Stuff entitled “Why we honour flawed heroes”.
Elers told Massive at the time that the statements express a clear ideological viewpoint, saying “these are clearly ideological in the sense that they put out white supremacist beliefs. When you are talking about racial purity and keeping New Zealand white, people are trying to deny it, but you can’t deny it. These comments stand for themselves and they’re not off the cuff either. They were in either crafted messages to the media or they were said in parliament, multiple times.” Whilst he wasn’t optimistic that a name change would occur, he thought that the University should undertake a debate on the issue.
So, what did Massey University do? And what do they think now?
During this media uproar, university spokesman James Gardiner stated the institution doesn’t “form views on the opinions of academics”, but indicated the matter would have to be raised formally with university management before it could be considered.
After an OIA request made by Massive this year, a spokesperson confirmed that the matter “was not formally raised with University management or the University Council”. They also noted that “there is no current consideration of moving away from our existing name”.
Elers claims that Massey didn’t approach him in regards to his findings, apart from the University’s Assistant Vice-Chancellor, Dr Selwyn Katene, who loved the research and offered to set up a meeting between Elers and the Vice-Chancellor at the time, Steve Maharey. Allegedly, Katene then went back to Elers, claiming that Maharey didn’t want to speak with him, stating that it was “bad publicity” for the University.
In response to this specific incident, the Massey comms team gave us this nice little quote from Vice-Chancellor, Jan Thomas, who says: “I value and support our staff and students’ right to speak on important matters, regardless of the potential impact on university reputation. I can’t comment on any past occurrences but we do strongly value free speech and academic freedom.”
Massive had the recent opportunity to sit down with Jan Thomas to chat about the issue. Thomas wasn’t VC at the time the comments were made public in 2016, but admits she was shocked by them. “That preceded me, and I’m not sure what happened or where that went, to be perfectly honest, I don’t know. And it’s not been raised formally with me at all, in my four years, other than right now,” she says.
Claiming to be “ambivalent” about the debate, Thomas notes, “I can really appreciate where that’s coming from, but I’m also really focused on making this university a really good one, and I’m just nervous that these sorts of processes can be intensely time consuming, when I feel like we have a hell of a lot of other stuff to get on with.” She confesses that the matter hasn’t been “on my radar” until Massive’s recent OIA.
Thomas points to the recent renaming debacle at Victoria University, calling it a “a shitstorm, putting it frankly”. She notes, “They’ve wasted so much time and money on that, and I kind of go ‘woooaah’, why would I bother when I have other things to focus on?” This theme continues with Thomas, who mentions that any discussion would be a “distraction” for her, when “it’s what we do rather than what we’re named that matters, and I’ve got a real sense of urgency about the work that we’re doing, and I really want to focus on that.”
Massey does have a Māori name, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa, gifted to the University in 1997 by revered Māori academic Kahu Stirling, which Massey is “increasingly using” according to a university spokesperson. Te ‘Pūrehuroa’ references the endless line of stars in the Milky Way, whilst ‘Te Kunenga’ references the notion of inception. Combining the two suggests “from inception to infinity” as a nod to learning without barriers or limits. Quite simply, it’s a beautiful name.
Thomas says the University is “pushing” Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa in everything they do, adding that it matches in with their Te Tiriti ambitions and “captures ‘us’ better as a university and our ambition for our students”.
“People get nervous about it because they can’t pronounce it, but I just think ‘well just practice the damn thing’! I don’t think that’s an excuse,” she laughs. Thomas admits that “it may end up that we [are] using that only in a lot of things” but an official name change would be a “very big step”. If a decision were to be made, it would be one made by University Council and the Government.
The Vice-Chancellor suggests that student representation on council and academic boards is “an entirely appropriate way to bring up those topics of concern” and for the University to gather a sense of what students want. “I don’t shy away from a discussion but I just haven’t heard it from really anybody and I know it wouldn’t be an easy discussion for the University, and I feel like I’ve got bigger fish to fry at the moment than that particular one. But if there was a strong voice from the University for us to engage with this, I’d be happy to engage with it,” she summarises. “You know, if you students got 15 thousand signatures on a petition, you have to listen to that. You really have to listen to that, it’s important. So, go nuts.”
What do students think?
In 2016, when the issue arose, Massive asked incoming and hopeful presidential candidates their thoughts on the debate. Incoming MAWSA President Adam Logan Cairns, who served in 2017, was against changing the name, and stated that “like New Zealand, Massey University has changed so much for the better since that time”. Students asked were in “two minds” about the issue, sympathising with those pushing for a change, but also acknowledging that Massey itself is not inherently a racist organisation.
But it’s been five years since the comments have been unearthed, so what do students think now?
A representative from Massey Albany Pasifika Students Association (MAPSA) says, from their understanding, “this issue comes up every couple of years or so which speaks volumes about our university”. They say, “I guess from our perspective as Pasifika students, there should be some coverage of the harm William Massey caused in the Pacific - specifically Nauru.”
“We’d be over the moon if the University opened this up for talanoa (discussion) with students and staff. As a club, we are committed to providing a safe space for Pasifika students to feel at home, to build connections and to reach their goals while at university. This is yet another example of how our institutions are enmeshed in colonialism, racism and capitalist extraction,” they summarise.
Tessa Guest, MAWSA President, says she thinks that the University should drop ‘Massey’ and keep Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa. “Massey was a racist man from 1900s, and Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa has a beautiful symbolic translation about the journey of learning. Why wouldn’t we adopt the latter? From my conversations with university staff, the te reo name is already being used frequently. It’d totally be doable to transition.”
A representative from Massey University Auckland Chinese Student Association (MUACSA) says they personally don’t want to change the name as it’s an “international well-known university name”. They’re fearful that a name change could make Massey sound like a “college within New Zealand” rather than “a global education institution”.
Master’s student Hineana Tihore thinks it’s “equally important” to address the culture of the institution as it is the name. “There are too many instances of slapping Māori names on things expecting them to somehow be better for us as Māori and for us as a nation, but they’re not because it’s only the name that changes. The fundamental issues are left unaddressed,” she says. Hineana also notes that, in her opinion, “We should always have discussions about confronting issues to find resolutions, cancel culture doesn’t really solve anything. We’re in an academic institute and should always look to engage in discussion about issues rather than pretend they’re not happening.”
Ben Austin, ASA President, says he personally believes that Massey is currently “disconnected from the original political beliefs” and adds “many students don’t know the history of where Massey’s name came from and that is something that I am happy to support Massive in teaching... Looking at America where Duke University renamed one of their halls that was named after a white supremacist is a good starting point for a larger conversation within Massey.” Ben thinks that the decision is ultimately up to students and faculty to decide on whether they want a name change and “whether William Massey reflects us as a university today”.
Massive reached out to for comments from M@D, MUSA, Manawatahi, Te Waka o Ngā Akonga, Kōkiri Ngātahi, MUPSA and MUTSA but did not receive a comment in time for print.
The Big Question
Massey prides itself on becoming Te Tiriti-led, and is an institution that boasts a diverse domestic and international student community. William Massey’s statements are a direct contradiction, if not spitting in the face, of these values.
A name change is, of course, a complex issue. Implementing one could simply be a costly, superficial act of virtue signalling, without properly tackling the systemic racism that lies within our tertiary system. The cost and time spent could be used to tackle more pressing issues by Massey. On the other hand, a name change could be the first, much needed step in acknowledging and addressing deep-set cultural issues.
Maybe the biggest “fuck you” to a white supremacist is to turn their legacy into something inclusive and diverse, in the face of their exclusion. But, I’m not sure about that. Not when there’s so many more beautiful names; names that can be used to honour someone or something, rather than persevering in spite of.
Is a name change expensive and complicated? Yes. But that’s often the cost of dismantling bigoted frameworks. Houses built upon rocky foundations, as it were. Fixing systemic issues isn’t a cheap, easy solution. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. Whilst the move could be countered as virtue signalling, perhaps it’s good to signal that Massey, as an institution, is working towards addressing these its historic issues alongside present-day ones. Make no mistake, colonial racism is still a pressing issue in New Zealand, not a notion left behind in William Massey’s era.
Even if the University is against a name change, some acknowledgement of Massey’s politics would go a long way. All Massey says in their website bio is: “Massey is named after former Prime Minister William Ferguson Massey. He announced the establishment of an agricultural college in the North Island as a priority in his inaugural speech in 1912.” Arming students with all the information, as well as the chance for a debate, well, isn’t that what universities are all about?
Elers tells Massive, “My whole approach then was just to put [the research] out and then have it as a means to have a discussion and dialogue. You might not end up changing the name, but at least we could talk about it and say, you can’t deny the history of it.” He thinks the best way forward would be for the university to have a symposium or conference “where people would talk about it and acknowledge it”. He says, “Massey could flip it to their advantage, to get positive attention over something that’s negative. By owning it, saying ‘hey this is our past’ or they could even do a campaign, kind of like the flag thing: should we change our name or not? And I reckon that would be a positive thing.”
When re-examining the past, let’s not forget that William Massey wasn’t the only racist politician. Many notable figures of our country are responsible for installing and perpetuating xenophobic ideology. These include, amongst many others:
John Duthie: Former MP, Founder of The Dominion Newspaper and Mayor of Wellington.
Richard Seddon: Former Prime Minister.
Richard McCallum: Former MP and Mayor of Blenheim.
Christopher William Richmond: Former MP and Supreme Court Judge.
Figures such as these held immense power and shaped the very fabric of the institutions that we live by today. Simply put, by scrutinising buildings and statues upon which these names still stand, these debates make room for much discussion around the systemic mark still left by these men and their policies.
You might read this article and think that a name change is necessary, or you might think that there’s more important systemic issues to be fixing with the time and money needed. Regardless, it’s clear that some sort of discussion is needed. The fact that Massey robbed us of that opportunity in 2016 sucks. Because let’s all be clear of what they did: they pushed the issue under the carpet. Let’s not let them get away with it in 2021. Let’s go to the fucking Red Table.
As Elers says, “Massey cannot be Te Tiriti-led if it doesn’t address this issue.”
Correction: An earlier version of this piece stated that Massey University spokesman James Gardiner said that the name-change matter would be raised formally with the university’s management. This was incorrect, Mr Gardiner’s original statement only said the matter would have to be raised formally with university management before it could be considered. Massive apologises for the unintended misquote.