this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1618 readers
51 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
49
Ministry of Justice workers call researcher a 'bitch' in online conversation (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Two Ministry of Justice workers are in hot water for describing a researcher as a "bitch" in an online conversation.

Academic and author Barbara Sumner made a number of Official Information Act requests as part of her PhD research into the systems around adoption. Then, in October last year, she asked for all correspondence mentioning her by name.

"Because I had felt all along that there was a resistance to everything I sent in and you know, just the sort of snottiness, I guess, of some of the responses that came in that request. I wanted to understand how they were treating me throughout the process."

One page of the response stood out among more than 100 others. A November 2022 Teams conversation between two staffers, whose names were redacted, complained about Sumner's latest request.

They described it as "a waste of time" and said it "should have been refused on the ground of substantial collation" or that the ministry should "charge her for it and get a contractor".

"our ministerial services team sucks cuz they wouldnt let us refuse, and helen didnt push back hard [sic]," one worker wrote.

"but also shes a bitch for wanting everything. does she think govt just has unlimited resources for this type of crap lol.

"like theres no public interest in our emails back and forward."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

This is why I don't like these types of platforms. If you are bitching about someone, keep it offline.

Sumner said she was shocked to read how staff had been speaking about her, and found the reaction to her request "deeply disturbing".

This seems like she is playing it up for the media, "deeply disturbing", are you really so thin skinned that someone calling you a schoolyard name is "deeply disturbing". I'm sorry but people have real feelings and have good/bad days. Was the language unprofessional, totally. Was language required or helpful, absolutely not.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

She sounds like a massive pain in the ass, and the story is written to be sympathetic to her. I don't blame the employees for getting annoyed, but putting something like this in writing is just dumb.

What's so important about a PhD that justifies this level of access, anyway? How does it benefit NZ?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Found one of the employees

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Not a single comment you've made has added anything of value to the conversation, do you realise that?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (7 children)

How do you know what is or isn't of benefit to NZ unless it is disclosed? If that takes effort, then thats one of the many costs of having a (always tenuous) democracy.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I looked it up, it's this research here so depending on how it's written up I can definitely see it potentially benefiting a subset of society.

That said, the bar for PhD research is it has to make an original contribution of new material to its field - that's for the universities to gatekeep. PhDs only have to be "of benefit to NZ" above and beyond that if they are getting direct funding from the Government (or other funding body with that requirement).

But either way a PhD is literally a piece of research so anyone undertaking one has to, well, research all the relevant info to the very best of their ability.

I think the issue here is whether their staff are funded to the level to meet these OIAs and if not, their manager should have requested her to apply for funding to cover it. Which is hard to know without knowing what the level of access actually was.

There's a wikipedia article on her and she seems to mainly be a film maker/journalist not an academic, and is now involved in adoption activism around people who weren't allowed to know who their real parents are. So the request about her name kind of makes more sense to me in that context.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Hmm. The PhD study does sound like it's more to benefit her career as an author and her activism than NZ as a whole, but I can see why, in theory at least, a PhD is worthwhile for public interest.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The fact she put in an OIA request for all correspondence mentioning her by name kinda shows that she's probably doing a lot of unnecessary requests, but it also shows that her suspicions were kinda correct.

Maybe she had to put in a lot of extra requests due to people filling the requests not supplying all the relevant info the first time, or denying her requests more frequently once people started to recognise her name... 🤔

That said, reaction of info can be extremely tedious(speaking from what I've heard from friends who have to redact videos of software testing), and will drive almost anyone a bit up the wall... 😅

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"but also shes a bitch for wanting everything.

Call me pedantic, but I think there's an important distinction between calling someone something, and referring to someone as something. When I read "called her a bitch" I'm imagining that someone said that to her face. It's still negative to refer to your coworkers with derogatory slurs, but IMO it's not nearly as bad as directly insulting them in a way that requires their response. Am I off-base here?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This was my view too. It was barely calling her a bitch, it was basically referring to her actions as being annoying. But I expect that is heavily soaked in my view of these words, and many people would be offended by this comment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The word has joined the ranks of trigger words that really set some people off.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It means female asshole. There's plenty of woman who are complete assholes. Men too. I don't get it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

See, that's what I thought too, and that's how I've always interpreted and used it. But there is a not insignificant group of people who think it represents systemic misogyny, and even white supremacy. One of my lifelong friends gets really worked up over the word, and has lectured me at le length about it. I think he's overanalyzing everything, and granting words way more power than they're supposed to have. But I feel that way in general about a lot of hot topic subjects right now. Out of respect for his views I don't use that word around him any more. I generally use it less overall now that I know it triggers some people, and I guess I probably haven't used it towards a woman since learning how some people view it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sometimes using a word to commonality takes the sting out. Grammatical gender is built into the bones of our language and I've always considered bitch to be apart of that. I very rarely use the word and if comes up I guess I'll ask them if they prefer asshole instead.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Oh, I agree with you, and I'm actually kind of pissed at my friend for ruining a perfectly good adjective for me, but at the same time I want to respect people, so...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

In this context, I feel it has more of the sting of "dick". What a dick for requesting so much stuff. She's a bitch for requesting so much stuff.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Any thoughts on this? I tend to think anyone that asks for all correspondence relating to them is kinda being a dick unless they have a good reason, and we only get one side of the story here. And it probably depends on the person but I don't find the language used here to be particularly strong, as in I interpret this as meaning she's being annoying, but I would acknowledge not everyone would see it that way.

Plus it tends to be SovCits or similar that request everything held about themselves, and it's a bitch to collate because no one has a system that you just click a button and all emails, chats, comments, and notes from everywhere all come together in one place.

However, I think the staff have it wrong. The information is about herself, so it's a Privacy Act request and not an Official Information Act request. Goverment agencies can't charge for Privacy Act Requests (Unless something changed in the new Act, it's been over a decade since I was near this stuff).

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She did the request for her own info because she suspected staff were dragging their heels with her other requests, and the request for her own info proved her suspicions were well-founded.

Asking for information on how a section of government operates should be commended, not discouraged. The government works for the people and their operations should be transparent. Doubly so when they act like they have something to hide.

But, Ive been a staff member who had a bad day and found a customer's legitimate request frustrating - "this is the last thing I needed" - so I have some level of sympathy for the staffers too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Part of their job is to respond to OIA requests.

That those requests might take effort is irrelevant, or at least considered by higher-ups before directing staff to assemble the OIA material.

The PhD had among the strongest reasons for her principal requests: research. That she felt that something was slightly off is relevant: if her requests have been responded to without proper care then her research is flawed.

She likey was looking for evidence that some of her requests were not properly responded to... instead she found a personal attack.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Part of their job is to respond to OIA requests.

On thinking about this, this is relevant for another reason: they know that the chat information will be provided, so they have no excuse for their comments regardless of context.

She likey was looking for evidence that some of her requests were not properly responded to… instead she found a personal attack.

I don't think I quite got this on my first reading. But on scanning through the article again, I think you're right. My bias is that people ask for all information about themselves as a sort of punishment for staff not doing what they want. I have this bias because it happens all the time. But this case is different, it's about a feeling that the information provided may not be correct, which is important when it's for research.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is possibly a mismanagement problem.
"You must deliver this project in this timeframe, no matter what additional requests come through"

So workers see these requests as an impediment to their progress.
This doesn't excuse the staffers behavior, but I imagine they were under some sort of pressure.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My thoughts are that there are no villains here.

a) being annoyed at being overworked is understandable. (Writing what you really think/personal opinions in an institutional email is crazy though - save it for ftf).

b) wanting access to information for a major research project is also understandable and it's not her fault they are overworked.

c) she's an ex journalist and filmmaker and her current research seems to be about the web of lies and ommissions surrounding historical closed adoptions.

The only way anyone has ever got any traction on institutional "secrets" - everything from baby theft adoptions of the 1960s, child abuse in boarding schools in the 70s, the "Unfortunate Experiment" killing women at National Womens in the 80s, etc etc has been by being a "bitch" and pushing the authorities for information they don't want to part with.

OTOH as an ex journo she knows talking to the media about this will create a bit of buzz around her forthcoming research.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and her current research seems to be about the web of lies and ommissions surrounding historical closed adoptions.

Wow, I didn't see this in the article but that provides some much needed context!

OTOH as an ex journo she knows talking to the media about this will create a bit of buzz around her forthcoming research.

Yeah this is probably what's happening here. With the above context I can definitely see why she made the request. It was dumb for the staff to put that in writing, but I don't think they should lose their job over it. Her making such a big deal seemed on the surface to be just someone making a big deal, but you're probably right that as an author and ex journalist she is probably trying to get in the media to build some buzz and recognition for when her research is released.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It got me interested in her other work! Turns out I've actually seen one of her documentaries, it's this thing about a Maori family who breed horses in the Ruakines, plays on Maori TV sometimes.

Relevant to OP article though, found this in a review of her book:

As she tells her story, she very clearly identifies the cause of the suffering of those involved in adoption, the archaic 1955 Adoption Act. A policy formed on an ideology that total disconnection between adopted children and their biological parents was essential.

“In all, I had over seventy interactions with government departments. The result was always the same. Yes, they had my files. Yes, any staff member could read those files. But no, I had no right to them.”

If that was her experience, then going forward, feeling like you were being obstructed in an OIA process would reopen a few old wounds. Especially when now here she is at uni and trying to undertake academic research.

I think many people don't realise these days how bad adoption in NZ was, you sort of have to hear about it from the old timers. Teenage"unmarried mothers" were taken to special facilities and when they gave birth their babies were taken, even against their will/without consent in some cases, and never allowed to know who their parents were or why they were adopted or even what their own ethnicity was.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It got me interested in her other work!

No, that's what she's trying to make you do!

Sorry, gotta break up the seriousness. Back to serious face.

I've got some limited knowledge on adoption stuff, and yeah, some pretty awful processes. I'm tempted to say it was a different time, but I'm pretty convinced we* will find out in 50 years about terrible things happening today that would horrify future generations and probably horrify current generations.

* Well maybe not us specifically, 50 years is a long time in the future

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, that’s what she’s trying to make you do!

I mean I mentioned it because it's working on me!

Wait why aren't you going to be around in 50 years? Live to 100 go on I dare you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have no desire to live to 100! But maybe now I know about anticholinergic burden I might be able to be a sprightly 100 year old.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I used to know a sprightly 100 year old who still lived alone in their own home. Their longevity advice was "don't eat too many takeaways"! Bet they had a low anticholinergic burden though 😃

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You've got to be careful with single data points. There are also 100 years olds saying the secret to longevity is a whiskey before breakfast, and a pack of cigarettes a day to keep the bugs away.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not going to let it get between me and takeaways ha ha.

Seriously though as well as being a single data point it was self-reported and I noticed it changed depending on the interlocuter - from memory they told the local paper that the secret is going to church.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the real secret behind living a really long time is some combination of genetics and statistics (as in, if you have a 0.0001% chance of living that long, if you apply this to 8B people then you get 8,000 of these people).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Definitely. Something like 2/3 of cancer is luck for example.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Our immune system is constantly euthanising cancerous cells because they happen all the time. To "get" cancer, it has to miss the cell and let it grow to be noticeable. Lots of (bad) luck involved!

However, I'd be carefully putting numbers on it. There's not really a difference between cancer appearing to be luck vs we don't understand the risk factors. I'd guess that 2/3 luck would become 1/3 over the next 50 or 100 years as we understand risk factors better. Also I'm not really sure how you quantify the amount of luck when risk factors increase the chances, rather that directly causing it. In that sense you could say cancer is 100% luck.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

A doctor once pointed out to me that every time there is cell replenishment, there's a possibility of cancer. 😶

I'm recuperating from a journey at the moment and too lazy to battle the newly terible search engine capabilities to find the articles I got the number from but as I understand it cancer scientists were pointing out that around 60- something percent of cancers in the body cannot be accounted for by environmental factors (diet, pollutants etc) once you control for those risk factors. Obviously it varies by cancer type, but this was the general estimate.

I think you're right that knowledge will increase but I think chance is worth bearing in mind because I think knowledge of external risks (and internal ones, like a bunch of missing immune cells) tends to be overstated in our thinking. Someone I knew with leukemia was the healthiest most clean living person I've ever met and I got so tired of people asking me what he had done to get it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe in 100 years cancer drugs will be the new paracetamol.

"Take this drug, it prevents cancer"

"How does it work?"

"We have some theories, but really we have no idea. It just does."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a cool idea!

There are so many drugs sort of like that rn. They get approved for one thing and then end up being approved for something totally different because it turns out they seem to do this other thing because reasons.

Found out the other day people are using low dose lithium of all things for cardiovascular health.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It kinda makes sense, since studies are more often "some people are getting better and we think it might be X, maybe, lets give it to 1000 people and measure against a control to see if it works" than they are "we understand the interactions in detail and based on how they interact it's certain to cure it".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Definitely, there's also what I think of as the Listerine factor.

(The people who invented Listerine had no idea what to do with it. They wanted doctors to wash their hands in it, then they tried to market it as a floor cleaner. Finally they worked out they could sell it as a cure for bad breath if they called bad breath a scarier name, "halitosis").

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Haha yes. More generalised, everyone assumes that others know what they are doing but really everyone is just making it up as they go along.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not everyone though surely. At the other end of the scale there's stuff like scientists trying to create a compound that will cause a very specific molecular behaviour in a particular set of blood vessels.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I bet it is everyone 😆. I bet if you ask those scientists, they would say they have a general idea of what should work but within that scope they are just trying things too see if they work.

I don't mean everyone has no idea what they are doing, but that there's a bit of "I have no idea what I'm doing" in everyone (whether they realise it or not).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I get what you mean now. Totally agree. There's an element of creativity in STEM and creativity itself has an element of chaos.

On a related tangent there's the idea of vocation - the people who most seem to know what they are doing tend to be doing it because they are "driven" or it "comes naturally" and both those things are essentially black box.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On a related tangent there’s the idea of vocation - the people who most seem to know what they are doing tend to be doing it because they are “driven” or it “comes naturally” and both those things are essentially black box.

I'll counter that with the Peter Principle 😆

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Fair point, we have all met plenty of those!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Idiots badmouthing someone who clearly knows how to file an OIA on a platform subject to OIA requests.

That said I've had the displeasure of dealing with fishing expedition OIAs and ones where the question is nearly impossible to answer because the person asking either expressed it poorly or deeply misunderstands the thing they're asking about.

load more comments
view more: next ›