... Or so criticsrant.com tells me. They use a readibility index algorithm to calculate the general level of writing on your blog. I am very pleased to discover that my outrageous pretention is in fact scientifically quantifiable. Somehow, here, in my lonely pit of existential angst, this kind of certainty comforts me.
Still... I can't help but wonder if it wasn't all the "lofty" language in my quotations from The Great White North that skewed the results...
It is perhaps appropriate that I finish* this blog with a response to an essay by Paul Carr. Indeed, he has been something of a thorn in my side for over a month now, as co-editor of a book that I have not enjoyed reading, and yet I have never had the chance to address him directly. I cannot tell the reader how many times I have had to suppress the urge to throw The Great White North out the window of Paragraphe bookstore, where I sit and read the chapters each week as an alternative to spending $50 to buy the book. And I am not the kind of person who under-spends on books. But philosophically, The Great White North is just… not my cup of tea.
Still, I have learned a great deal about myself by questioning what it is about the text that bothers me so much. Perhaps it is the heavily theoretical (and overly-emotional) nature of the writing that gnaws at me. As somebody with a background in science, I like to be able to examine the data for myself and draw my own conclusions, and judge whether or not the conclusions of the authors are appropriate. That is to say, I would have valued more emphasis on the history, policy, and current issues in Canada which have a cultural component and which deserve attention from educators and socially active citizens. More than that, I would have preferred to read a book that is more concerned with discussing solutions to problems, rather than one which, in essay after essay, tells me that one exists and that I can’t see it because I’m White. Perhaps I have missed the point, and maybe the fact that I have missed the point proves Carr’s point. Still, I feel compelled to admit here that often, while reading The Great White North, I felt as if I were being preached to, talked down to, or perhaps even indoctrinated.
But enough of that; let’s do something constructive. I was happy that Carr’s essay, The Whiteness of Educational Policymaking, was concerned with policy in Ontario, and I was disappointed that, in his discussion with our class last week, he did not devote more time to talking about policy issues in Ontario. I have sent him an email asking if he’ll answer the open-ended question I composed for him – that is, Is the debate regarding Afrocentric education in Toronto similar to the debate about faith-based education that the province engaged in only a month ago? I am very interested to hear if Carr sees these two issues as nearly identical, or if he judges race-based education and faith-based education as separate debates. His answer to this question, I think, would speak to what he believes multicultural education in Canada should look like.
The questions that Carr poses at the end of his essay are, in the context of my blog, rather redundant. He asks the reader, How should Whiteness be broached within an institutional context by those who may not be in positions of power? He also asks, How should Whites be made aware of, and become engaged in, the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism? I have already addressed these questions – I think, in nearly every posting, but most specifically here and here. However, there is more than one way to address institutionalized Whiteness, and there is more than one way to make people aware of it. So, I will answer these questions again using a new example, and as a nod to Carr (as if to make up for the rudeness of not enjoying his book), I will take my example from his native Toronto.
George Dei (who is a contributing author to The Great White North), is shown here speaking to his class at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Dei says an experimental black-focused school is 'long overdue.' Photo credit: Charla Jones/ Toronto Star
The Whiteness of Toronto’s public schools has become the target of some scrutiny of late, as the school board, concerned parents and community organizers try to address the high dropout rate among Black students (according to the Toronto Star, the current dropout rate for Black students is “40-something” percent). A solution being deliberated right now is an alternative school specially designed for at-risk Black students, with teachers, mentors, and a curriculum that focus on Black heritage and values. This idea has received a great deal of criticism from the public, with many calling it “segregation” (a one-word sound-bite that is reminiscent of last month’s election). Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has said that the idea makes him “personally uncomfortable.”
Now, I’ve disagreed with McGuinty before, and I’m going to disagree with him again. If anything, the 40% dropout rate should make him uncomfortable. Right now, the Toronto District School Board has 33 alternative schools, including ones for gay and lesbian students, and ones for Aboriginal students. If anything, a school for African-Canadian youth at risk seems long overdue. McGuinty’s refusal to entertain ideas of “segregating” students by race or religion is, I think, reminiscent of Charania’s observation that the liberal idea of multiculturalism is having many different students in one environment, regardless of whether or not there is truly social cohesion and peace in that environment. Simply put, wishing that all students of all backgrounds can always learn and live together to the benefit of all does not make it so.
On November 8th and 12th, the TDSB held public meetings to discuss the issue with parents and community leaders. At the first meeting, the general opinion of attendees was in favor of the new school. At the second meeting, the sentiment was more split. Currently, the school board is awaiting a feasibility report, which the prospective staff is expected to file early next year. Below I have embedded reporting on the debate by CityNews:
These public meetings are an example of how I think institutionalized Whiteness can be addressed by people who are not in power. Several hundred people attended in Toronto, which is a promising number that reflects the importance of the issue. It is at these public events, and later in the media which reports on them, that the public can be made aware of the problems that can, and do, arise from the current format of public education. Being educated about racial issues in schools is one thing, but it is particularly meaningful to live those issues and effect their solutions.
While the direct benefits of such a school to the at-risk youth is perhaps obvious, I would also argue that an experiment in Afrocentric education can have positive repercussions throughout the public school community. That is, the curriculum and critical pedagogy developed by teachers and community leaders for the Afrocentric school will be useful to educators in all schools, helping to address directly the problem of White-centered curriculum and teaching in Canada. This is one of the reasons I am such a strong advocate of a diversified field in public education. Open and constructive dialogue among educators from many different schools can, I think, have a synergistic effect on the whole, providing that an open and constructive dialogue is maintained between professionals of all backgrounds. An example of this comes nicely in my response to Charania, which follows below.
The incident described by Gulzar Charania in his essay, A Group That Plays Together Stays Together, is an example of where the perspective of a Black educator would be very useful. Absolutely, addressing a problem such as the one Charania described as a purely class-generated conflict is tantamount to willfully ignoring what is probably the central issue of race. When answering Charania’s question of how the framework of interlocking oppressions reframe issues of girl violence, I am reminded of those two debaters – Napande and Shimby – who noted during their arguments about affirmative action that race and socio-economic status are historically, systemically and unfortunately, intertwined. What was clear to those two girls should have been clear to the administrators of the school Charania studied, and the realization should have indicated that focusing only on economic class to resolve the conflict is as politically cowardly as it is probably ineffective.
A more critical analysis of the conflict between the two groups of girls would have alerted the administrators that there was an element of racial conflict that needed to be addressed. A responsible educator then would have looked for outside expertise to give recommendations on how to proceed, both in addressing the specific students implicated in the incidents and, more broadly, the school as a whole. While the idea to place the students together in a close environment and engage them in activities together was probably born from the best of intentions, I agree with Charania that a better approach would have been to speak to the groups individually before initiating a dialogue. Anti-racist curricular and pedagogical interventions developed by leaders in the Black community, and (perhaps ideally) educators from an Afrocentric school working in conjunction with educators from the predominantly White district would be an effective tool for teachers hoping to educate their students about racism in Canada. Specific examples of the kinds of activities which would be effective in educating students about these issues can be found in my response to Helen Fox.
*To the Teaching Assistant: I have decided that this post will be my last formal response to a homework assignment – the amount of time that I invest in my responses precludes me from answering the questions for the Quintero text before the deadline, though I may post a comment on these readings on a later date.
I’m exhausted, my voice is hoarse, I haven’t done any of my weekend homework… and yet I’ve never felt better. McGill’s 48th Annual High School Debating Tournament was a complete success and an absolute joy to attend – I served as a judge at the event on Friday night and through Saturday. We hosted students from across Canada and the New England States, all arriving with folders full of notes and stomachs full of butterflies, ready to argue about whether or not Iran has a right to develop nuclear arms. Although my second team of Friday evening was so late that we broke for the night at ten, happy declarations such as “With respect, Madame Speaker, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is as holey as Swiss cheese!” made it all worth-while.
Was I ever so cheeky? Probably. I hope so. It’s a wonderful thing to be at that age – cheeky. I hope that I have these kinds of students in my classes one day. I get the impression that they are a rare breed, though maybe with some coaxing and coaching we can winnow a few more keeners out of the masses. Even as I watched one girl struggle to pronounce, and ultimately fail to pronounce correctly, the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about six times in the same speech, or as I watched one overly-confident debater stare daggers at me as I constructively critiqued his delivery and a few badly-timed Points of Information, I admired them all for voluntarily subjecting themselves to the competition. It isn’t easy for a high school student to debate a topic rooted in something so foreign as Middle-Eastern politics, or something so abstract as the ethics of war.
That many of my debaters probably had not had any previous exposure to the history of the Middle-East conflict certainly ties into my response to this week’s readings. But I’ll leave that until later; right now I want to talk about one of the impromptu rounds. In impromptu debate, teams are given a resolution and ten minutes to prepare their arguments – and the one I want to talk about is a mouthful: Be it resolved that this House will favour socio-economically based affirmative action instead of racially-based affirmative action in American college admissions. I was surprised the debaters were being given such a contentious topic in an impromptu round, especially one that is based on an American policy with which many of the Canadian students would not be familiar. In truth, my teams struggled through it, and once it was over I expressed my congratulations and sympathies, citing the difficulty of the topic. We had a discussion about the issues, and then I spoke briefly about our policy of multiculturalism in Canada and the issues being discussed in the media these days, which I knew about mostly because of my studies in this class.
What was interesting to me what that the Opposition team was composed of two Black girls, and the Government team was two White students – a boy and a girl. I thought to myself, will this influence how the White team argues? Will the Black students try to take the moral high ground by virtue of their skin color? I looked up from my scoring sheet and watched them shuffle their papers in anticipation of the round, and the young lady on side-Government smiled and pointed at side-Opposition. “Public school!” she declared, nodding approvingly. The Black students nodded back. “Public school!” they answered, returning the smile.
“You all know each other?” I asked. But no. One team was from Toronto, the other from Winnipeg. What they were recognizing was their opponents’ lack of uniforms. “Aha. Is that where the battle-line is being drawn at this debate?” I asked. “Not by city, not by province or country, but it’s a public versus private thing?” And the students replied in the affirmative. The kids in the uniforms are arrogant, I was told. The publicly-schooled debaters liked it much better when they were paired with other ‘people like them.’
“It’s interesting, given the resolution, isn’t it?” I mused. “These days, is segregation more about economic class than it is about race, or even nationality?” The students looked pensive, and I got a few shrugs. “I guess we’ll find out. You need to convince me,” I said, and with that I started the debate by ceremoniously reading out the resolution and the debaters’ names, having no small difficulty with the unfamiliar phonetics of those on side-Opposition. Pronouncing the name Napande with French intonation caused a giggle, and remembering some advice from Helen Fox, I stopped and asked to be corrected… and then, naturally, I butchered her last name, too. It sounded so musical when she said it that I made the self-deprecating remark that I must be as tone-deaf in language as I am in music.
If the White students were in any way inhibited by debating the subject of affirmative action with a Black team, it didn’t show. They clearly articulated their side’s argument that racially-based affirmative action is unfair to White students who come from the same socio-economic disadvantages as Black students do. Side-Opposition made the argument that usually, the socio-economically disadvantaged students and those students who are members of an ethnic minority are one-in-the-same. The purpose of affirmative action, argued side-Opposition, is to compensate for historical and institutionalized racism, to remove racial stigmas, and to foster a diverse student body. After the debate, I told side-Government that they missed a good opportunity to refute the ‘racial-stigma argument,’ that they could have claimed that affirmative action actually propagates said stigmas by generating the perception that all minority students at colleges are there only because they are members of a minority. Napande and her partner, Shimby, nodded vigorously when I said this.
In general, side-Opposition seemed more familiar with the topic than side-Government. The one young man in the room rose to ask some revealing Points of Information such as, “How is it that Black students are disadvantaged in school, if they go to public schools just like White students do?” Side-Opposition had the answer, and voiced it with conviction, and indeed the Member of the Opposition’s answer to this question was the most articulate and successful part of her speech. I might go so far as to say that side-Government learned a lot from the debate, not just about how to debate, but about the issue itself.
This is a very embarrassing picture of me from my high school debating days. (You see how committed I am to your entertainment, Reader?) Most of you will recognize the name of the coach. I could have included his yearbook picture too, but I'm scared that doing that would jeopardize my grade in Policy Issues...
The other impromptu resolutions lent themselves to similar discussions about multiculturalism and tolerance. For example, the last round of debate I judged asked the debaters to resolve whether the House would “exchange citizenship for military service.” Interestingly, side-Government made the argument that encouraging immigrants to serve their country in peacekeeping missions would promote multiculturalism by forcing them to interact with other Canadians and embrace Canadian values. The young lady serving as Minister of the Crown even went so far as to claim that “immigrants tend to move to Canada and then just segregate into their own ghettos. This way, they will be socializing and at least, doing something positive for their country.”
It was difficult for me to tell how much of this idea was hers, and how much of it was ‘in-character.’ I found it peculiar that she worded her argument this way, rather than saying something like, “Newly-arriving immigrants bring skills into this country that the military desperately needs, such as translation services and technological know-how. We want to do everything possible to encourage these highly-skilled workers to join our military. If an immigrant is willing to donate these services, and in so doing make such a noble sacrifice for Canada, the least our country can do is recognize him or her as a Canadian citizen.” After the debate was over I brought the issue up, assuring the debater that I didn’t think she intended her remarks to sound discriminatory, but cautioning her to word her arguments very carefully when debating such a sensitive issue. In impromptu debate it is easy to let your words get away from you, because you don’t have a prepared speech. This is why it’s very important that you pay attention to the politics of what you’re saying. And besides, strategically speaking, I think my wording of the argument made for a much more appealing case. All the debaters agreed, and found it interesting that none of them thought to phrase the argument this way. “Let’s blame the media,” one of them said, half in jest. Everyone present then pounded their hands on the table, over and over again, which in the debating world is a way of expressing emphatic agreement.
I hope I had a future journalist in that room. Or a future debating coach who will pay it forward. As someone who had an excellent debating coach in high school, I can say with certainty that it makes all the difference in the world. I want to encourage my fellow student-teachers to consider coaching and supporting the debating team at their future schools. As I hope I have articulated in this post, debating seminars are an excellent venue for giving voice to many of the issues we are discussing in this class. And it’s fun. I mean, how often do you hear a high-school student compare a piece of international law to a dairy product? Really, these days you can’t buy that sort of entertainment.
At the conclusion of her piece, The Parents of Baywoods – Intersections Between Whiteness and Jewish Ethnicities Cynthia Levine-Rasky asks her Readers how the Holocaust is represented in the curriculum, and how teaching about the Holocaust compares to teaching about Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East and other genocides. The following essay is a summary of, and critique of, my own experiences, and a discussion of the programs currently being pursued in Montreal which are geared towards Holocaust sensitization.
In secondary V, I read Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning, which chronicles the author’s imprisonment in the Theresienstadt concentration camp during the Holocaust. As a psychologist, Dr. Frankl not only gives the reader an idea of the unimaginable conditions which he survived, but he also provides insight into the psychological reactions the inmates had to the camp. His conclusion is that meaning in life can be found in even the most oppressive and painful of circumstances. Frankl also concludes that there are only two races of men – decent and indecent, and both these races, he tells us, were represented in the Nazi guards, and in the prisoners.
I read this book because it was required reading in my World Religions class. In this class I also learned about the three Abrahamic faiths and their historical roots, and about the doctrines of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. This is, to the best of my recollection, the only class in which the Holocaust, Israel and Palestine were directly addressed in my secondary school. I say ‘directly’ because there were certainly other, more incidental moments of exposure to the story of the Holocaust – visits and discussion with the boys from Bialik High School, and class trips to local theatre events, one of which was a play about survivors of the Holocaust. Later, in University, I would take a World War II history class, where the genocide would be studied in much greater detail.
The unfortunate reality of my schooling is that I have never been formally educated in world history or even the history of western civilization. The CEGEP which I attended did not make these electives easily available to Science students. There seemed to be the general opinion amongst my peers that we didn’t need to waste our time with ‘arts’ classes, and among the ‘arts’ teachers there seemed to be the general opinion that science students didn’t read or write well enough to handle the coursework. As somebody who didn’t subscribe to either position, and who quite frankly found the first one arrogant and the second one insulting, I was left to flip through my friends’ textbooks and drool over their notes. It is a shame that World History is not a required course for graduation from any CEGEP program, even the programs sympathetically designed for illiterate science students like me.
My exposure to the concept of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to the realities of other genocides (namely those which took place or are taking place in Turkey, Iraq, East Timor, Rwanda, Darfur and Tibet) occurred almost exclusively through participation in debating tournaments and model United Nations seminars. Every year, McGill hosts an excellent model United Nations seminar for beginners (SSUNS), where high school students are able to serve as delegates for member nations and debate current events of global interest with other students from around the world. For example, I remember my first experience was representing Syria on the General Assembly, and the topic of debate was weapons proliferation in the Middle East. My research for this event led me to questions about the conflict on the West Bank, the split in Muslim loyalties between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions, and the human rights violations occurring in nations throughout the region and beyond (at the time, the Kosovo War was very much a topic of discussion). Of course, to be thrust into so many new ideas at once was overwhelming, but better to drown in a sea of information than to die of thirst for want of it. I remember wishing that my Religion class, after reading Frankl, had gone beyond the Holocaust to discuss current instances of genocide. In this respect, I am very much in agreement with Taylor and would like to second her call for more education about contemporary issues.
A quick reading of recent newsletters from the English Montreal School Board tells me that a ‘Holocaust Sensitization Program’ has been established since 2004, and is a joint effort between the EMSB and the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Center Museum. This project is being funded partially by the Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal. This gives some reinforcement to my feeling that the reason that the Holocaust usually receives some or quite a bit of attention in the high school curriculum, and why other genocides often do not, is because of the political and social prominence of the Jewish minority in Montreal in particular, and in North America in general. It is largely through the efforts of this community to raise awareness and offer financial support to Holocaust education programs in secondary schools that we see results. Now let me be clear: I do not mean to fault the Jewish community for influencing secondary education; on the contrary, this is a success story. It is unfortunate that other minority groups have not been as able to, or have not been as willing to stand up and tell their stories – to build museums, to establish foundations, to work in partnerships with local school boards to organize events. In a 2004 poll, 40% of Canadians were able to answer correctly that the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust totaled approximately 6 million. I doubt even one-half that many could offer similar information about other world tragedies.
For an analysis of Holocaust education in Canada, conducted by B’nai Brith Canada, go here. For an article reporting on Montreal teachers’ experiences with teaching students about the Holocaust, go here.
Well, okay. We know that isn't true, but it was probably very close to being true when I first saw the film in 1995. I still watch it sometimes. And before any of our esteemed historians begin to lecture me about the historical inaccuracies of Disney's version of Pocahontas' life, I'll quickly interject and say that it is the sentiment of the film that matters to children. And as for me - well, we all know that I just love musicals.
Below I have embedded Disney's multilingual version of the song, Colors of the Wind. If you'd like to hear the entire thing in English, go here. Happy listening, and Happy Halloween!
links - government documents and policy on multiculturalism and education
Multicultural Education: the State of the Art: A collection of 5 reports on multicultural education in Canada (1992-96). Includes policy, research and recommendations for teachers.
Culture in the School, A Class Act: A MELS reference document for teachers (2003). The focus is on integrating a cultural dimension into school. (PDF!)
Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan. An official response to the above report (1998-2001).
Our Children- Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge: A report commissioned the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, addressing the ongoing negotiations in First Nations education (2002).
Education Action Plan: A vision for Aboriginal education in Canada that reviews and enhances current policy. Put forth by the Deparment of Indian and Northern Affairs (2004).
Where Are the Children?: A wonderful piece of work by the Legacy of Hope Foundation documenting the effect of residential schools on Aboriginal communities. Photos, videos, words of healing.
Creation of Nunavut: From the CBC Archives, a multi-part look at Inuit nationalism and the creation of Nunavut. Includes a section for teachers on educational activities.
Religion in the Classroom: Also from the CBC Archives. A multi-part look at religion in our classrooms. Also includes educational activities for teachers.
