Bicultural to Te Tiriti Competencies: Is the Culture ready?
View of UC Puaka-James Hight library from C-Block lawn. Source: Charlotte Thornton.
When the University of Canterbury first introduced its Bicultural Confidence and Competence (BiCC) graduate attribute, it marked a turning point in the country’s tertiary sector. UC proudly calls itself Aotearoa’s first Tiriti-based university, a place where partnership with mana whenua is built into the institution’s DNA. But as 2026 approaches, UC is preparing to move from BiCC to a new model - Te Tiriti Competencies – leaving some wondering whether the change will be more than just a box-ticking exercise.
What UC Says:
In conversation earlier this term, Liz Brown (Kāi Tahu), the Kaihautū Matua and Executive Director of the Office of Treaty Partnership, said UC is now developing a Te Tiriti Competencies Framework to replace the current bicultural model. This indicates that the new framework aims to embed obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi across the university, for students, staff and leadership alike.
Brown, however, didn’t respond to Canta’s follow-up request for comment before publication, and neither did Kaihautū and Director of UC Māori, Blair Johnstone, who is currently involved in similar review work.
What BiCC Became:
The BiCC framework was originally meant to ensure every UC graduate could demonstrate an understanding of biculturalism in Aotearoa. On paper, it sounded revolutionary: a requirement for all students, regardless of discipline, to leave with some competence in Māori knowledge and Te Tiriti partnership.
In practice, though, its visibility has faded. One academic staff member said BiCC seemed to have mattered most when courses were first approved rather than when they were taught. “It feels like it was embedded in paperwork, not in delivery,” they said.
Many students agree. A postgraduate psychology student told Canta they were “disappointed that for a department which talks about decolonising research, it’s taken four years to even see a Māori perspective in class.” When they raised this at a staff–student meeting, they were told the Bachelor of Psychological Science would begin incorporating Māori courses “in a few years.”
“I was even advised by student services that taking te reo Māori in undergrad would be a waste of time,” the student said.
Tense Tokenism:
As a Māori postgraduate myself, I’ve heard versions of this story across multiple faculties. Students talk about well-meaning but tokenistic Te Whare Tapa Whā slides delivered with a collective sigh, or guest lecturers who offer genuine engagement, but only for one-off sessions.
This pattern isn’t unique to UC. As education scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) reminds us, universities built on Western epistemologies often attempt to “add Māori content without challenging institutional power.” It’s not just about what is taught, but who defines knowledge and how it’s valued.
Likewise, Leonie Pihama (2019) argues that without structural commitment, “cultural competency becomes a managerial term”, a way to appear responsive to Māori issues without redistributing authority or resources.
UC’s BiCC framework, by that measure, may have fallen into the same trap: a policy more performative than transformative.
From Bicultural to Tiriti-based:
The move toward Te Tiriti Competencies could, in theory, change that. According to UC’s website, the goal is to ensure graduates “understand their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi” rather than simply demonstrate bicultural awareness. It’s a subtle but meaningful distinction from confidence to commitment.
Educationalist Wally Penetito (2010) wrote “biculturalism must be about restructuring relationships of knowledge, not just recognising difference.” If UC’s new competencies can help shift the relationship from symbolic partnership to genuine accountability, they might just work.
Cultural Policy:
Success will depend on whether the framework reaches classrooms, not just course outlines. Right now, few students could say how or why their degree is deemed BiCC-aligned. Most just know it’s a checkbox attached to graduation.
The deeper challenge isn’t just policy; it’s culture. If students continue to treat Māori content as optional, or staff see it as an administrative hurdle, then UC’s Tiriti goals risk remaining theoretical.
Still, there’s reason for optimism. The very fact that UC is revising the framework shows an institutional willingness to evolve. A well-designed Tiriti Competencies model could reshape the culture of learning: not by adding more slides about Māori values, but by asking every discipline what partnership looks like in its own language of knowledge.
Looking Ahead:
UC’s shift from bicultural confidence to Tiriti competence represents a crossroads for the university’s identity. Will it be a policy rebrand, or a real opportunity to make Te Tiriti the foundation of academic culture?
If UC can move past the rhetoric and resource its commitments meaningfully, then the next generation of graduates won’t just know about partnership, they’ll practice it.