In the landscape of Aotearoa New Zealand’s higher education, the university is legally mandated to serve as the "critic and conscience" of society. This role is not merely a professional privilege; it is a democratic necessity. However, this mandate is increasingly under siege by external political actors who seek to weaponize inflammatory rhetoric to police the boundaries of scholarly inquiry. A recent public statement by David Cumin of the Israel Institute of New Zealand—calling me a "terror justifier" and demanding an apology for my appointment to the National Counter Extremism Research Centre—offers a visceral case study in what I consider to be the rise of Zionist extremism as a direct threat to academic freedom.
The Weaponization of "Terror" Labels
When Cumin uses the label "terror justifier," he is not engaging in academic critique. He is engaging in securitization. In my view, this is a calculated attempt to move my work—grounded in the Culture-Centered Approach (CCA) and the study of structural inequalities—out of the realm of social science and into the crosshairs of national security.
As a scholar who has spent decades unpacking how power structures marginalize voices in the Global South, I see this tactic for what it is: an attempt to disqualify the subaltern perspective. By labeling the analysis of resistance and state-sanctioned violence as "justifying terror," extremists seek to create a "no-go zone" around the Palestinian struggle and its parallels with decolonization globally. This is an extremist positioning because it demands the total erasure of any framework that challenges the status quo of military occupation and settler-colonialism.
The Strategy of Institutional Coercion
Cumin’s demand that Professor Paul Spoonley, Professor Joanna Kidman, and their board engage in "self-reflection" and "apology" is a direct attempt at institutional bullying. It is my opinion that this rhetoric seeks to trigger a "chilling effect." The goal is clear: to make university leadership fear the reputational cost of defending scholars who engage in critical work.
In my view, this behavior fits the definition of extremism because it refuses to coexist with dissenting academic views. Instead of submitting a rebuttal to my peer-reviewed chapters or debating me in a public forum, the strategy is to go over the scholar's head and demand their removal from the public square. When "enough is enough" becomes a call for censorship, the integrity of our national research centers is at stake.
Decolonization and the Zionist Veto
My work focuses on decolonizing academic and professional fields. This involves naming structures of colonialism and imperialism—a task that is inherently uncomfortable for those who benefit from or ideologically align with those structures.
I believe that the specific vitriol directed at me stems from the fact that the Culture-Centered Approach provides a vocabulary for the oppressed. When we discuss health as a human right or the material-discursive trajectories of pandemic responses, we inevitably touch upon the lives of those living under siege or occupation. To Cumin and the Israel Institute, the mere act of centering these voices is perceived as an act of "terror." In my opinion, this reflects a radicalized worldview that views any recognition of Palestinian humanity or indigenous sovereignty as an existential threat.
My Commitment to Resistance
As I have stated previously in my manifestos: I choose resistance. I choose courage. I choose solidarity.
Defending academic freedom in Aotearoa means defending our right to teach Treaty education and our right to critique global structures of power without fear of being labeled a criminal or a "justifier" of violence. I view Cumin’s statement as a badge of the necessity of my work. If the work of CARE did not challenge the foundations of extremist ideologies, it would not be met with such desperate attempts at suppression.
Conclusion: The Line in the Sand
The university cannot be a place where lobby groups dictate the composition of committees or the content of curricula. If we allow Zionist extremism—or any other political extremism—to determine who is "fit" to research extremism, we have already lost the battle for institutional autonomy.
I will not be silenced by labels designed to incite fear. I will continue to decenter and dewesternize the structures of communication, and I will continue to stand in solidarity with those whose voices are systematically erased. The threat to New Zealand’s academic landscape is not the critical scholar; it is the extremist who demands their silence.