Offended by Offence

On Wednesday February 3, 2010, the CBC surpassed its usual efforts to promote irrationality.  The show in question was aired on the radio program, The Current, hosted that day by both Anna Maria Tremonti and a CBC producer, David Gutnick (www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/201002/20100203.html).  Also featured was an interview with Wade Davis, the unctuous pontificator featured in an earlier post on this blog (Davis was selected by the CBC to present the 2009 Massey Lectures, where he celebrated a wide variety of dubious beliefs as ”ancient wisdom”).  Davis has been called upon again for his “expertise” because he is author of The Serpent and the Rainbow and Passage of Darkness – books that evidently “explore Haitian voodoo, magic and zombies”.

Tremonti, Gutnick, and Davis are all ardent supporters of voodoo, and the only opponent given air time is a silly Christian missionary with her own brand of religious nonsense to spout.  We are told by Tremonti et al. that viewing voodoo as a primitive relic is a “stereotype”.  One of the main practices of voodoo, the horrific spectacle of animal sacrifice, is not mentioned; instead “voodoo priests” are commended for instilling in people “a deep sense of responsibility toward the other”, helping the poor and downtrodden to “live with life and loss”, and providing “a set of ideas that tries to deal with the mystery that death implies”.  It is even pointed out that “there are a lot of people who think Voudou [sic] will actually play a major role in how Haitians rebuild their capital city for the 21st century”.

In addition to voodoo’s purported capacity to “help” people deal with suffering, the role of voodoo priests in “healing the sick” is also mentioned.  This viewpoint, however, fails to examine how the religion enables its practitioners to extract funds in the name of quackery.   Although Jean-Bertrand Aristide warned Haitians in his autobiography  to be “careful to distinguish the voodoo priest from the charlatan who deceives people through sleight of hand, and whose aim is to get rich”, how can a legitimate “voodoo priest” and a charlatan be differentiated from one another?  In the case of AIDS treatment, for example, a “voodoo priest” charges $1,400 to pray to “voodoo spirits for guidance”, administer an emetic, and to dispense vitamins “to promote blood flow”.  This is in contrast to a three-month supply of antibiotics to treat AIDS-related infections, which costs $350.   As the result of a belief in voodoo, ineffective and expensive ”cures” are provided in lieu of scientifically valid treatments. 

What is particularly outrageous is the CBC’s promotion of Max Beauvoir, “a friend and mentor” of Davis - a person referred to as the ”pope of voodoo”.  Beauvoir, a person educated in scientific methods in the U.S. and France, had no interest in voodoo until his dying voodoo priest grandfather beseeched him to follow in his footsteps.  He now has a grand residence on the outskirts of Haiti where he and his followers “dance around a giant totem to the beat of drums”,  ”light bonfires to summon the spirits’, and “drain the blood of animals like that scrawny white goat to, among other things, heal the sick”.  This “voodoo priest” is not universally admired.  On the contrary, Amy Wilentz, in her book The Rainy Season: Haiti Since Duvalier, describes Beauvoir as an opportunist who has “the oily manner of a man whom you wouldn’t want to leave alone with your money or your child”. 

Even more disturbing is the fact that Beauvoir has been linked to the Duvaliers - the brutal dictators that controlled the country for decades while bleeding it dry – and even had to flee to the United States after Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier was exiled.  Part of the Duvaliers’ power, in fact, was made possible by the “voodoo priests” that the CBC is legitimizing.  It has been noted, for example, that Francois (Papa Doc) Duvalier managed “to persuade and coerce Haiti’s leading voodoo priests to work with him to neutralize his enemies”, which helped him to instill widespread fear in the population.  As Claude Douge, a religious scholar, points out, “once he had the priests in his hand, he had the Haitian people”.

It goes without saying the Haitian people have suffered terribly over the last centuries because of colonialism, imperialism, and other horrendous circumstances that were not of their own making.  Unfortunately, however, many misguided people, such as many journalists working for the CBC, seem to think that supporting voodoo will somehow ”empower” the country.  But voodoo is merely a tool of the powerful to keep the Haitian people submissive, and it should be exposed for what it is – a collection of ancient superstitions that are preventing Haitians from understanding the nature of their oppression and fighting against it.  It is disgraceful that smarmy romantics  like Wade Davis are enabling charlatans like Max Beauvoir to increase their wealth and power by exploiting the ignorance and suffering of the Haitian people.

Recently, there have been a number of newspaper articles about the ongoing troubles at the First Nations University of Canada (FNUC).  Since its designation as a university in 2003, the educational institution (the title of “university” is somewhat of a misnomer, since its degrees are granted by the University of Regina) has had continual problems with governance.  In 2005, a taskforce was formed after Morley Watson, the chair of the Board of Governors, dismissed several administrators, copied faculty and student records from university computers, and removed staff from their offices.  There were also allegations that academic freedom was being suppressed.  The taskforce recommended that the 29-member board, largely made up of representatives from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) be reduced to 13 people, where only six would be appointed by the FSIN.  This recommendation was intended to ensure that the board remained at arm’s length from the FSIN, so that academic freedom could be protected from political interference (for a further discussion see (http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=2148&EditionID=9&EditionName=Vol%2055&EditionStartDate=1/17/2008&SectionID=823&SectionName=News&VolID=212&VolumeName=No%205&VolumeStartDate=5/16/2008 and http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=5&is=18&an=246&sc=2).

These taskforce recommendations, however, were never implemented, and the problems continued to worsen.  The latest episode concerns Murray Westerlund, the Chief Financial Officer, who was fired after he prepared documents in November 2009 alleging financial improprieties.  According to the CBC, “Westerlund raised the alarm about $265,000 in vacation leave paid out as cash to senior staff at FNUC, including $98,000 paid to FNUC president Charles Pratt over four years”.  Westerland also discussed “a $6,500 trip to Las Vegas for three senior staff, approved by Pratt, for a one-day seminar that could have been held in Regina” and $47,000 spent on trips to Montreal and Hawaii. In addition, $2.57 million was spent on a “massive teepee” on the FNUC campus as “a tribute to First nations veterans”.  Westerland maintained that, out of this amount, “$216,000 was paid to veterans and other First Nations people to review plans and ‘monitor progress’” (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/01/22/sk-fnuc-finances-100122.html).

The controversy has led Murray Mandryk, a columnist for the Leader-Post, to speculate about the future of FNUC.  He notes that there are only three things that are currently keeping the university open – “the puzzling ability of the taxpaying public — whether motivated by indifference to what goes on in ‘Indian Country’ or by white-guilt fear of being viewed as too colonial — to overlook the FNUniv mess”, lack of decisive action by either the provincial or federal governments, and “reluctance to mess with a conceptually strong and valued institution”.  He argues for the development of a new board structure, but maintains that the reluctance of the FNUC board to do anything about this will likely result in the eventual Canadian governmental intervention (http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/editorials/FNUniv+running+lifelines/2488229/story.html).

But what about Mandryk’s assertion that the FNUC is a “conceptually strong and valued institution”?  What are the strong concepts that shaped the university’s formation, and how is it valuable?  Why is it necessary to have a separate university (existing in name only), with a large autonomous bureaucratic structure, when much more academic and administrative integrity could have been maintained if the FNUC had remained a college affiliated with the University of Regina?

The FNUC came into existence for two reasons: 1) it allowed for much larger rents to be extracted from the government and distributed to native elites and members of the Aboriginal Industry; and 2) the new designation enabled a lower standard of university qualifications to be awarded to aboriginal students under the guise of “cultural sensitivity”.  Lower qualifications have the advantage of artificially inflating aboriginal rates of participation in post-secondary education, as well as the promise of increasing employment with unsuspecting employers. 

The dubious academic merit of the institution can be seen in the romantic nonsense it proudly proclaims in its “vision” and “mission” statements, where cultural indoctrination masquerades as education.  It is declared that “We, the First Nations, are children of the Earth, placed here by the Creator to live in harmony with each other, the land, animals and other living beings. All beings are interconnected in the Great Circle of Life”.  Concerning educational processes, the following is noted: “the university is a special place of learning where we recognize the spiritual power of knowledge and where knowledge is respected and promoted. In following the paths given to us by the Creator, the First Nations have a unique vision to contribute to higher education. With the diversity and scope of the First Nations degree programs, the university occupies a unique role in Canadian higher education” (http://www.firstnationsuniversity.ca/default.aspx?page=52).

Even worse is FNUC’s “Department of Science”, which is “guided by a strong and caring team of Aboriginal Elders, faculty, students and community representatives” and offers “Aboriginal content and traditional knowledge in science courses where appropriate” and “spiritual…support services and workshops” (http://www.firstnationsuniversity.ca/default.aspx?page=30). Dr. Herman Michell, who used to be the previous “Department Head of Science”, is now the Vice-President (Academic).  In his “Message from the Vice-President (Academic)”, Michell informs students that “as you begin a new year of study, be aware that people who work to acquire knowledge about the world, and about themselves, receive spiritual power from the Creator. Each of us has been given a special path to follow by the Creator, and so your academic year encompasses not just course subject matter and assignments, but also opportunities to learn more about yourself in a friendly, constructive atmosphere enriched by First Nations perspectives, values and beliefs” (http://www.firstnationsuniversity.ca/default.aspx?page=128).

While it is bad enough that the religious denominations have control over educational institutions, and thus are able to legitimize their religious propaganda as a “form of education”, the First Nations University of Canada’s mandate is more pernicious because it conflates irrationality with ancestry (race).  Aboriginal peoples are seen as being naturally “spiritual” and teaching scientific viewpoints, such as the theory of evolution, is perceived as offensive because of their capacity to wreak “cultural genocide” upon a people.  Although the cultural indoctrination is justified under the guise that it will raise aboriginal “self-esteem”, it is very destructive because it encourages aboriginal people, as an ancestral group, to forego critical thinking (at least it is accepted that Christians can “lose their faith” and Muslims can become apostates).  This idea of the inherent spirituality of aboriginal people is now even intruding into secular educational institutions, where prayers, smudging, and sweatlodges are offered to the native population so that they can ”receive spiritual power from the Creator”.

A true understanding of the academic standards at FNUC will only emerge from a rigorous and disinterested comparison of the curriculum, faculty, and administration with other universities in Canada.  Various “aboriginal” degrees and a focus on spirituality, elders’ “wisdom”, and “indigenous knowledge” will ensure that aboriginal students will not acquire the skills needed to participate in actual occupations; they will only be able to work in Indian Affairs bureaucracies or aboriginal communities.  Unqualified aboriginal participation in the latter is particularly disturbing since it will mean that lower standards of services will be provided to isolated Natives, further entrenching their dependency and marginalization.

There is an interesting story in The Globe and Mail about a sentencing hearing for the killer of Hunter Brown, an elderly man stabbed to death while delivering Christmas cards (Romina Maurino, “Outpouring of grief at killer’s sentencing hearing”, January 19, 2010, p. A7).  The article inadvertently raises questions about the nature of the Canadian justice system when it is noted that six relatives and neighbours gave Victim Impact Statements “to describe the anguish they have suffered since finding the beloved grandfather, described as a warm and gentle man, laying in a pool of blood, undelivered cards at his side”. 

According to the John Howard Society of Alberta, “Canadian legislation concerning Victim Impact Statements was proclaimed in force in October, 1988″.  This legislation, Bill C-41,  ”allows victims to describe in writing the harm done to them or the loss suffered as a result of the crime” and also requires the court ”to take statements into consideration for the purpose of determining sentence…” (http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C53.htm#impact).

While this legislation is justified under the guise that it attempts to “meet the needs and interests of crime victims” by allowing them to be involved in the process, the John Howard Society points out that Victim Impact Statements have been opposed by those who “argue that their use makes sentencing an arbitrary process, shifting the focus from the offender to the victim”.  Furthermore, critics argue that their use “creates classes of victims, leading to stiffer sanctions for those who offend against particularly eloquent, loved or upper class victims”.

What if Mr. Brown, for example, had not been a “beloved grandfather” and a “warm and gentle man”?  Would this mean that his murderer should receive a more lenient sentence?   By shifting the focus from the offender to the victim, sentencing becomes inconsistent with two principles that are fundamental to ensuring that there is equality under the law.  These principles, described by Julian Roberts and Carol LaPrairie, are “proportionality”  and “equity” – that “the severity of punishments should be directly proportional to the seriousness of the crimes for which they are imposed” and “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”.

It is perfectly reasonable to try to ensure that the victims of crime, such as the friends and family of Mr. Brown, receive whatever support they need to try to deal with the grief that they are experiencing.  Sensitivity to the suffering of others, however, should not be used to justify a two-tiered justice system.  The poor, orphaned and despised deserve the same legal treatment as the rich and popular.   Victims should be able to express their pain as much as is necessary, but public grieving should not subvert the essential goals of a justice system – impartiality and fairness.

On January 12, 2010, the CBC Radio program, The Current, investigated the topic of “Women’s Studies” in universities today (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/).  It noted that, with these programs, “women created a new field of study… one centred on their own experiences and perspectives”.  There was also a discussion of the fact that Women’s Studies programs are transforming themselves into “Gender Studies” and “Sexuality Studies” because it is becoming difficult to attract sufficient numbers of students to major in these programs.  To investigate this topic, Catherine Porter (a columnist with the Toronto Star)  and Barbara Kay (a columnist with the National Post) were interviewed. 

Although a number of important criticisms of Women’s Studies were expressed by Barbara Kay, the columnist’s anti-feminist stance inhibited an understanding of the troubles the have been brewing for quite a while in these interdisciplinary programs.  As has been argued in Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge’s Professing Feminism and Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism?, one can be a feminist while still being opposed to the field known as Women’s Studies.  This is because it is currently not a program that focuses on women as a subject (a valid and important topic for academic study) that can be analyzed with a wide range of theoretical perspectives.  Instead, it insists that women must be studied in a particular way, which, as Patai and Koertge have pointed out, results in all sorts of ideological policing. 

The main problem, which was not discussed on The Current, is the insistence of Women’s Studies programs that biology determines knowledge (i.e. “perspectives”).  Women have a special ”way of knowing” that is different from how men understand the world.   Those who do not study women in the right “way” are not welcomed into the postmodern sisterhood.  The result is the isolation of the study of women from mainstream disciplines, and an entire body of research that has not been scrutinized by scientific methods accessible to all.

Studying women is very important to the knowledge of humanity as a whole, and it should not be immune from rigorous scholarly evaluation.  To do so makes the entire field subject to wishful thinking, demagoguery and superstition.  Instead of understanding women’s role in history and the social and economic conditions influencing female-male relations, the field is contributing to sexual segregation.  Taking the arguments of Women’s Studies seriously would mean that women cannot participate equally in scientific research and modern occupations because their “way of knowing” would prevent them from collaborating with men for the benefit of all.   This obstructs, rather than facilitates, the achievement of gender equality.

Stuart Soroka, the 2010 Programme Committee Chairperson for the CPSA, had a message posted on the Women’s Caucus listserve before it was moderated (see Email from Stuart Soroka – January 4 on the Ethics page of this blog).  In this message, Soroka assured members of the Women’s Caucus that my paper was transferred to a poster session because it “did not easily fit into a panel with other papers from the REIPP [Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics] section”.  He goes on to point out that the “the committee approved of the decision (as the committee must approve of all section heads’ decisions for CPSA conferences)” and that “the charge of any unprofessionalism on [Kiera Ladner’s] part is, to be frank, wholly unfounded”.

While “the charge of any unprofessionalism” could very well be without merit (it was merely noted that Ladner “seems to have left herself open to a charge of unprofessionalism”, and this suspicion was based on Ladner’s previous inability to be objective about my work on aboriginal policy), there are a few things that should be mentioned in response to the committee’s decision about my proposal’s lack of “fit” within the REIPP section.  I have been told that the CPSA, in the past, has been concerned about placing me on a panel with other scholars who study aboriginal politics out of fear that my ideas could create a hostile reaction (a circumstance that was realized at the 2008 conference).  The creation of the REIPP section has exacerbated this problem because it has tended to move presentations about aboriginal peoples and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations out of more traditional academic sections (comparative politics, Canadian politics, etc.), and into a section that is influenced by an “identity politics” orientation.  Therefore, the idea of “fit” could have more to do with trying to avoid conflict than with academic considerations.

Second, it seems odd that the CPSA would not want to have a proposal concerning research ethics and aboriginal peoples, aboriginal epistemology, etc., discussed in a formal panel.  The CPSA devoted a section of its report on research ethics to “Research involving Aboriginal peoples”, and the second draft of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans’ chapter concerning “Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples in Canada” has just been released for scholarly consideration.  Brock et al., in their letter “Racism, chilly climate, our responsibility and the discipline”, even suggested that a “major CPSA *Plenary on Responsibility Difference and the Discipline* might be productive” and “would attract a phenomenal attendance and would generate the kind of constructive professional debate we desire within the CPSA, and would be a mentoring opportunity for graduate students and junior faculty” (the people recommended for the plenary, however, did not come from a wide range of perspectives and were largely supportive of the existence of different “ways of knowing”). 

Past CPSA sessions also have sparked considerable interest in these topics.  The panel that Albert Howard and I participated in with Sandra Tomsons in 2009 was packed and led to a lively, but restrained, discussion.  Kiera Ladner’s proposal last year entitled “Decolonizing the Discipline: Respecting Indigenous Knowledge & Using Indigenist Methodologies” was also accepted.  The abstract for this presentation was as follows:

“Since Columbus was discovered, knowledge of the Americas and the peoples who lived there captured the minds and imaginations of some of Europe’s greatest political philosophers: More, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Spencer, and Engels, to name but a few. Despite the fact that Indians of the Americas have occupied the imaginations of the world since the time of ‘discovery’, Indians have not occupied the imaginations of modern political scientists. Political science has ignored Indigenous political traditions and studied contemporary Indigenous politics only from the vantage point of the western-eurocentric tradition. Simply put, most have been unable to escape their paradigm paralysis to understand the politics of the ‘other’ on its own terms or as separate from the western-eurocentric experience. In so doing, political science has perpetuated a western-eurocentric understanding that virtually denies ‘others’ a voice within the discipline. This paper draws on the theoretical undertaking of my dissertation and updates the uncirculated paper presented at UofA (the abstract of which led to a heated exchange at CPSA). It engages the discipline’s construction of the Indigenous and argues that it is necessary to understand the ‘other’ not from the vantage of the western-eurocentric intellectual tradition as this readily perpetuates misunderstanding but from the vantage of their own intellectual and political traditions. It argues that proceeding as such enables a trustworthy post-colonial/decolonizing understanding of Indigenous politics within political science and that the effect of such a paradigm shift has the potential to be of great benefit to the discipline as a whole not just the study of Indigenous politics”.

A number of assertions put forward by Ladner still need to be analyzed and debated (for some reason, Ladner did not produce a paper fleshing out this abstract).  What are the “Indigenous political traditions” to which Ladner refers?  How do we “understand the politics of the ‘other’ on its own terms”?  And what is a “trustworthy post-colonial/decolonizing understanding of Indigenous politics within political science” and how will this “be of great benefit to the discipline as a whole not just the study of Indigenous politics”?  Once again, we seem to have the contradiction of saying that there should be a “different” understanding that only the identity group can have (i.e. it cannot be evaluated with universally accessible social scientific methods), yet this “understanding” must be accepted by all as a benefit to political science.

Ladner’s proposal was included in a workshop on “‘Race’, Racism and Anti-racism as Political Science: Framing and Re-Framing Relationships”, which also included presentations on “Race, Empowerment and Crisis Management: Black Political Leadership and Hurricane Katrina” and “Beyond Racial Exceptionalism: Explaining the Convergence of Mixed-Race Census Categorizations in Canada, the US and Great Britain”.  Interestingly, the two latter presentations are very dissimilar from Ladner’s and do not really concern epistemological matters.  Ladner’s presentation, in fact, would have “fit” much better with the presentations of Tomsons, Howard and myself, but, for some reason, Ladner was not included on our panel, which largely concerned epistemological questions.  Therefore, “fit” appears to be a very subjective determination of the programme committee.

It should be noted that unscholarly responses to work critical of the prevailing “aboriginal orthodoxy” have been occurring for quite some time, and so it should not really be surprising if this is continuing in my case. Radha Jhappan, for example, stated publicly that “fundamental racism” formed the basis of Tom Flanagan’s book First Nations? Second Thoughts even though no evidence was provided to sustain this accusation. Similar problematic conduct occurred when Flanagan’s book was awarded the Donald Smiley Prize. The chair of the jury, Gurston Dacks, quit when he was outvoted, displaying contempt for a process that he had agreed to participate in (rejecting it only when he lost the vote).  Joyce Green has noted that the political science community was “fractured” because the jury’s decision “implicated us all in rewarding something that many of us felt was deeply wrong” (Marci McDonald, “The Man Behind Stephen Harper”, The Walrus, October 2004, www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/5/).

Green’s comments reflect the deep problems that exist in political science with respect to the study of aboriginal peoples and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations.  What is meant by saying that someone’s scholarship is “deeply wrong”?   Shouldn’t political scientists be concerned about the quality of the arguments and the amount of evidence that is being put forward to support them?  Unfortunately, the characterization of Flanagan’s work in moral terms has prevented a comprehensive analysis of his arguments.  Postmodern political scientists feel justified in dismissing Flanagan’s arguments as reprehensible, when engaging with them would help us all to more fully understand aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations.  One does not have to agree with arguments to critically analyze them; avoiding opposing viewpoints because one dislikes their preconceived implications, however, is anti-intellectual and is harmful to the academic integrity of the discipline of political science.

The following letter was printed in the National Post today(www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2422478).  I have been invited to respond, and will be doing so shortly.  There was one error in my column (and original blog entry); I assumed that the executive director of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was non-aboriginal, since his ancestry/identity was not stated in his bio.   Determining whether or not someone is “Aboriginal” is becoming increasingly difficult since in certain cases (hiring at Memorial University, for example) one only has to check a box “identifying” as such to be considered an indigenous person.  This means that many people who now identify as ”Aboriginal” have little in common with the isolated members of the native population who, because of their marginalization, are the focus of social policy. 

FW

***

Aboriginal healing group responds

Re: The Aboriginal Healing Boondoggle, Frances Widdowson, Jan. 4.

It is false that “the only ‘evaluation’ of Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF) programs has come from the organization itself.” The AHF and the programs it funds have been audited and evaluated by independent third parties in government and the private sector. These evaluations are available for public view on our website in their entirety. Only in this limited sense are they “from” the organization.

More important, Frances Widdowson’s dismissal of healing itself insults survivors of institutional physical and sexual abuses, mocking the front-line workers who dedicate themselves to battling root causes of poverty, violence, suicide and despair in aboriginal communities. It is these 950 front-line workers, hired by the aboriginal community, who Ms. Widdowson is certain are politically selected persons of privilege.

If she had made a two-minute phone call to the AHF, she would not have described the AHF’s executive director as “the most significant non-aboriginal player”). He is aboriginal.

Other points: healers, whether trained in aboriginal traditions or Western academic methods, have the appropriate credentials; AHF research in aboriginal health is more than a collection of press releases; the AHF operates entirely on interest earned from careful investment of the money entrusted to it and has committed more money to community projects than it has received; a focus on residential schools does not prevent, but rather promotes, understanding of why “many aboriginal people who did not attend residential schools are also suffering from the same symptoms.”

It is understandable that Ms. Widdowson denies the efficacy of aboriginal organizations; positive outcomes are inconsistent with the premise of her book. But the facts would reveal that the AHF is exactly what Ms. Widdowson espouses– a funder of high-quality services that are tailored to the special needs of the aboriginal population.

Mike DeGagne, executive director, Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Ottawa.

Subscribers to the Women’s Caucus listserve received a message yesterday with the following information:  “Due to the volume and content of recent messages on the WC-CPSA list serve, and following consultation with members of the WC, the WC-CPSA is now a moderated list-serve. Its purpose is to share information about job opportunities and future events of interest to WC subscribers”.  It is also noted that Janice Newton is the person who will moderate the listserve (see Email from Jane Arscott on the Ethics page of this blog).

And just when things were starting to get interesting.  I had posted a message (see Widdowson Letter to Women’s Caucus – January 4 on the Ethics page) in response to an email from Jill Vickers, who was warning Janet Ajzenstat about the perils of ”casting aspersions on a  colleagues’ [sic] professional  reputation using   this public medium without [key]  information” (see Email from Jill Vickers – January 3).  Then, Rhoda Howard-Hassmann told me she was intending to send a message to the listserve encouraging the Women’s Caucus to support the presentation of my work (see Email from Howard-Hassmann – January 4).  Unfortunately, members were prevented from receiving Howard-Hassmann’s message, which also provided some important criticisms of research ethics restrictions on the study of aboriginal peoples.

Now, I would be a little more open to the idea that the listserve is only supposed to “share information about job opportunities and future events of interest to WC subscribers”, if it had not been used for a month in 2008 to make libelous claims about my conduct.  “Casting aspersions” about my “professional reputation” was certainly not objected to; rather it appeared to be enthusiatically supported.  Janice Newton, the person now appointed to “moderate” the listserve even compiled the anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations that “overt and blatant racism” had been expressed at a CPSA panel – “aspersions” that were then distributed on the listserve and then made public on the Women’s Caucus’ website.

There is one other interesting piece of information in Arscott’s message.  It is noted that the decision to go to a moderated discussion occurred “following consultation with members of the WC”.  But who are the “members of the WC”?  All women in the Canadian Political Science Association?   All women who subscribe to the listserve?  I am a female member of the CPSA who subscribes to the listserve, but I was not consulted.  This means that “members of the WC” are actually a clique masquerading as the voice of women within the CPSA.

The battle with certain members of the Women’s Caucus of the Canadian Political Science Association appears to be entering a new phase.  In a posting on the Women’s Caucus listserve, the distinguished political science professor from McMaster University, Janet Ajzenstat, weighed in with the following (for the full posting see “WC email – Janet Ajzenstat” on the Ethics page of this blog):

“In a recent contribution Jill Vickers speaks of “an issue” but doesn’t elaborate [see  "WC email - Jill Vickers" on the Ethics page of this blog]. She apparently wants to settle an issue. Let me suggest two issues the Caucus might discuss. Neither can be easily settled.

The first is that Kiera Ladner seems to have left herself open to a charge of unprofessionalism. I may not be in possession of all the facts. Correct me if I am wrong. It seems – a number of people may conclude – that Ladner rejected Frances Widdowson’s submission for a panel presentation at the CPSA this spring because it criticizes Ladner’s research.

I’m in touch with Widdowson. I read her Mount Royal University blog. I understand that she was offered a poster session. For goodness sakes! She could fill an auditorium. She should have been invited to address the Congress at large.

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (with co-author Albert Howard) has attracted almost unprecedented attention in academe and in the public sphere. Widdowson and Howard are major contributors to what many see as the most important domestic problem in this country: the wretched poverty on some reserves, the appalling condition of housing, and aboriginal exclusion from Canadian political life. Not everyone agrees with the analysis in Disrobing, but the argument is extensive, well grounded, and must be addressed openly. A few panel presentations will not suffice. There will be – there should be – continuing exploration of Widdowson’s facts and arguments. She must be allowed to develop her argument and take it in new directions. We can expect years of fruitful debate.

The second – related -  issue is this: Widdowson is tackling the problem of cultural relativism. The book has additional gravity because it deals head on with one of the central philosophical themes of our age. The main outlines of the argument on cultural relativism are well established. I won’t rehearse them. “Aboriginal ways of knowing,” “women’s ways of knowing”: there is every reason to welcome discussion of the subject. Indeed it can’t be suppressed. It cannot be adequately pursued on a poster board.

Widdowson’s current research promises an investigation into the SSHRC’s insistence that research on aboriginal reserves be limited by respect for “aboriginal ways of knowing.” Let me urge the Women’s Caucus to endorse investigation of this topic. Widdowson writes (Mount Royal blog): ‘If the CPSA were really interested in open and vigorous debate, as it claims, it would organize a debate on aboriginal epistemologies in political science between Kiera Ladner and myself.’ I agree. I’d nominate Rhoda Hassmann as commentator/chair”.

Ajzenstat’s comments about cultural relativism are especially pertinent.  If it can be believed, it seems that the question “is criticism of cultural relativism racist?” is being answered in the affirmative by certain members of the Women’s Caucus of the Canadian Political Science Association.  Although there has been no substantiation of the anonymous allegations that “racist remarks” were made and “overt and blatant racism” was expressed in my presentation, a person attending the 2008 Women’s Caucus meeting inferred that it was my “critique of aboriginal epistemology which was racist and offensive” (see the “Email exchange between F and and L” on the Ethics page of this blog).  Because these members of the Women’s Caucus appear to assume that questioning the scholarly value of “aboriginal ways of knowing” is “racist”, they feel that it is appropriate to prevent this viewpoint from being discussed.

But does it make sense to argue that there are “aboriginal ways of knowing”?  To do so is to assume that ancestry (race?!) determines philosophy – a proposition that is actually racist.

This is not to argue the point, as Joanna Quinn has attributed to me (see Letter from Joanna Quinn on the Ethics page), that “aboriginal scholars have nothing to contribute simply because they are aboriginal”.  It is to state that all people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, must use rigorous methods if they are to make a meaningful contribution to political science.   As I pointed out in “Native Studies and Canadian Political Science: The Implications of ‘Decolonizing the Discipline” (see the Advocacy Studies page of this blog), what is referred to as “aboriginal ways of knowing” in the Native Studies literature does not really constitute “knowledge” at all, since it asserts that subjective opinions are fact and maintains that unsubstantiated supernatural forces shape the nature of the universe.

The community of Natuashish in northern Labrador is in the news once again (www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-red-flags-of-a-thriving-black-market/article1412287/.  It is noted that while the community voted to ban alcohol within its borders, this decision has only resulted in a black market for alcohol, where residents pay smugglers $350 for 60-ounce bottle of hard liquor.  The existence of the continuing demand in the face of the ban on alcohol shows that the deeply entrenched problems in the community continue.

Although the existence of alcohol smuggling in so-called dry aboriginal communities, and the continuing problem of substance abuse, would not be normally considered news, it is in the case of Natuashish because of its particular history.  For those unfamiliar with this community, its previous home was Davis Inlet – an area that became famous in 1993 when a police officer released a video of six children sniffing gas and screaming that they wanted to die.  To deal with these serious social problems, the federal government spent $200 million building a new town and moved the people of Davis Inlet to Natuashish 15 kilometres away.  And $200 million is only part of the funding that the community has received; this is because the social problems in the area continue, and $70 million between 2002-2005 was spent on a “Labrador Healing Strategy” to deal with the social dysfunction plaguing Natuashish and one other town (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/natuashish.html).  After 2005, the federal government approved millions more for the strategy.

The moving of the town of Davis Inlet is a classic example of aboriginal policy – throw money at a problem without considering its root causes, and hope that it will go away.  The money goes into the pockets of the “planners” of Natuashish, but nothing of substance has changed.  Although the housing conditions in Davis Inlet were substandard, these conditions were a symptom, not a cause, of the serious social problems plaguing this community.  These problems will continue, regardless of how “warm and cozy” the houses are, since the isolated nature of the community, both geographically and culturally, means that no one can make a meaningful contribution to the wider society and have the stimulation needed to feel comfortable in the world today.

Natuashish is very similar to all the other isolated aboriginal communities in Canada.  There is no future for these places, and they are an extremely harmful environment for youth, who have “nothing to do” since they lack an attachment to the old way of life that some of the more traditionally minded still retain.  The solution for these communities is not to move people; it is to create a cultural development strategy so that people will have the skills, values and attitudes to make the transition to modernity sometime in the future.

This year marks the ten year anniversary of the creation of a “Gladue Court” – the consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling  that identified “aboriginal over-incaceration as a full-fledged crisis that must be attacked at all levels…”   (www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/courts-falling-short-on-effort-to-keep-natives-out-of-jail/article1412973/).  As a result of this ruling, judges were urged to be sensitive to the circumstances of aboriginal people when sentencing – in  other words, to be more lenient in sentencing so as to reduce the number of Natives being incarcerated.  As Mr. Justice Melvyn Green puts it: “We had to get the numbers down because they were ridiculous”.  

Green also notes, however, that the creation of Gladue courts have not changed this “ridiculous” circumstance.  While aboriginal people make  up only four per cent of the population, they accounted for 24 per cent of those in custody in 2006-7.  The reason given for this by Jonathan Rudin of Toronto’s Aboriginal Legal Services is that ”racism is real, and one of the places it exists is in jail…Aboriginal people have less access to parole and rehabilitation programs”.   It is noted that this problem has not been addressed because prosecutors resist alternatives to sentencing that do not involve jail and defence attorneys do not stress how systemic discrimination has impacted the lives of their clients.  Professor Jane McMillan, an aboriginal legal professor at St. Francis Xavier University, maintains that judges have yet to understand how aboriginal incarceration has been influenced by aboriginal marginalization and the denigration of native culture that has occurred over hundreds of years. 

There are two problems with these assertions, however.  The first is that it is understandable why the justice system would be resistant to the idea of culturally differentiated sentencing, because it flies in the face of one of the fundamental principles of legal systems in liberal democracies – equality under the law.  As we pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (quoting the work of Julian Roberts and Carol LaPrairie), two of the fundamental principles that have developed in modern legal systems are ”proportionality”  and “equity” – that “the severity of punishments should be directly proportional to the seriousness of the crimes for which they are imposed” and “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”.  These two principles are violated by “culturally sensitive” sentencing and therefore, in the view of Roberts and LaPrairie, constitute a “retrograde rather than a progressive step” (Roberts and LaPrairie, cited on p. 139). 

Secondly, the focus on the percentage of Natives being incarcerated relative to their population ignores the question of the number of criminal acts being committed.  When one considers that the police are reluctant to even enter a reserve without permission, and that there have been few arrests in areas like Caledonia despite widespread lawlessness, it is highly likely that far more aboriginal people are committing crimes than non-aboriginal people and, if anything, are underrepresented in Canadian prisons when one considers the number of illegal activities that are being engaged in.  Although advocacy research like that conducted for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples maintains that the “rule of law” is a principle in traditional “aboriginal governance”, this is not supported with convincing evidence.  On the contrary, the principle operating in aboriginal cultures is kinship reciprocity, which actually conflicts with the idea of equality under the law (since response to social breaches is determined by one’s status within the community).

The large number of aboriginal people being incarcerated reflects the higher than average rates of lawbreaking that occurs in native communities – actions that often involve the acceptance of violence as a means to an end.  Attempting to reduce aboriginal incarceration rates without dealing with this cultural problem will have disastrous results for vulnerable members of the native population (often women and children).  This reality, however, will be ignored by those who are more interested in appeasing native leaders than in identifying, and actually addressing, the root causes of aboriginal problems.

When double checking how the list of women attending the 2008 Women’s Caucus’ meeting was represented on the minutes (Kiera Ladner, who is now helping to vet proposals for the 2010 CPSA  conference, played a prominent role in this meeting but was not recorded as being “present”), it was discovered that these minutes have been removed from the CPSA Women’s Caucus website (www.cpsawomen.ca/lucheon/index.htm).  Fortunately, I was able to retrieve a cached version from November 2009 and have made a PDF and posted it on the Ethics page of this blog.

As I am not included in the correspondence about these matters, I have no idea what the removal of the minutes means.  Is there now concern, after over a year, that making unsubstantiated allegations about the expression of “overt and blatant racism” is at best unethical, and at worst libelous?  Or perhaps it is the fact that not recording Kiera Ladner as being “present” at this meeting (a fact publicized two days ago on this blog) might result in a questioning of the professionalism of this body? 

This omission in the Women’s Caucus’ minutes, in fact, led me to be much too charitable about Kiera Ladner’s behaviour last year.  As I stated in the following comment on Janet Ajzenstat’s blog “The Idea File” on November 22, 2008: “It should be noted that this letter [to Canadian Political Science Association members] does not concern the conduct of either Joyce Green or Kiera Ladner, two political scientists were originally mentioned in relationship to the events that transpired… The people to whom this letter refers are those unidentified members of the Women’s Caucus who were in attendance at the June 6 meeting and stated that my presentation expressed “overt and blatant racism” (according to the Women’s Caucus’ minutes, neither Green nor Ladner were present at the meeting [emphasis added])”   (http://janetajzenstat.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/from-fierlbeck).

If the Canadian Political Science Association really wants to repair the damage caused by its affiliate, it should demand that those present at the 2008 meeting either substantiate their accusations that “overt and blatant racism” was expressed in my presentation, or a retraction should be posted on PolCan for all members to see.  But since the CPSA seems reluctant to take a principled stance against this clique of its membership, this remedy is likely to remain elusive.

A few days ago, an old friend decided to share a video asking “What would Jesus do?”.  The intent of the video was to encourage Christians to engage in charitable activities, rather than consumerism, because this is what Jesus would have wanted, and that an important part of “worship” was to humbly follow HIS example.  When I responded by stating that there was no evidence that Jesus existed and that we should determine our behaviour through critical thinking rather than blindly following a mythology, I was informed that “it is a historical FACT that Jesus lived just like other people in history, Julius Cesar, Mohammed, ect…. [sic]“. 

Since it is December 25 – the day set aside to support the birth of Jesus, it is appropriate to investigate whether the man that everyone is worshipping actually existed.  When one looks at the evidence, however, the “best” support available is the Bible, which is not a form of evidence that historians would accept (it also talks about virgin birth, the creation of the earth in 7 days, etc., which further repudiates its authority).   In fact, there is not the slightest physical evidence to support Jesus’ existence; there are no artifacts, dwellings, or written works that can be linked to him. There are no contemporary Roman records that establish that Pontius Pilate executed a “Jesus” (although records for Pontius Pilate exist).  There are no eyewitness accounts or contemporary documents that refer to Jesus – all references appear well after Jesus is alleged to have died, and came from either people who had never actually met Jesus or were obtained from mythological writings.  These forms of “evidence” would not be accepted in a court of law or in rigorous scholarship. The case of Jesus’ existence becomes even more weak when one considers that he is not mentioned by any philosphers, scribes or followers from the period, despite the fact that he was supposed to be a person known far and wide.

Although the most “authoritative” descriptions of Jesus come from the four Gospels of the Bible – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, these were not the only instances of hearsay concerning Jesus’ life. The four Gospels that we know today were chosen by early church leaders, most notably Irenaeus of Lyons (200 AD). Irenaeus chose only four of the many after the fact accounts of Jesus’ existence, according to John Romer, because of the spiritual significance he believed to be associated with the number four: “like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man’s estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures– the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost” (Testament: The Bible and History (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1988)).

Although Jesus’ existence does not shed any light on the really important matter that is on many minds at this time of the year, since establishing Jesus’ historical presence would not show that he was spiritually “connected”, we should resist any attempts by Christians to assert the existence of Jesus as fact.  While Jesus’ existence does not matter to non-believers, it does to Christians, and this gives them an emotional incentive to distort history to buttress their beliefs. And since Christian beliefs still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges, anyone doing research on Jesus, even those who are scientifically minded, deny the existence of Jesus at the peril of losing research funding, damaging their reputation, or causing embarrassment to their Christian colleagues.  Separating history from mythology matters, and until we see Christmas for what it is – a celebration of the myth of Jesus – we are allowing religious propagandists to control our understanding of the past.

Writing about the circumstances surrounding climategate has prompted me to think about the peer review process and research involving aboriginal peoples. While climategate constituted just one instance of peer review politicization, and is unlikely to be representative of the huge amount of research that is currently being undertaken with respect to global warming, the same cannot be said of the peer review process for scholarship undertaken on aboriginal peoples.  Even more disturbing is that the corruption of the process takes place at the level of the selection of reviewers, and so evidence is suppressed much earlier in the process.  This circumstance is legitimized by an acceptance of “indigenous knowledge and methods” in scholarship pertaining to aboriginal people, which results in highly dubious claims being published in respected peer reviewed journals.

In political science, the politicization of the review process has meant research that comes to conclusions that are supportive of parallelist arguments for land claims and self-government is eagerly embraced, while scholarship challenging these political demands is rejected.  As a result, there are numerous claims about the existence of pre-contact aboriginal “nationalism”, “governance”, “law”, and even “constitutionalism”, which are being incorporated into the foundations of the discipline and introductory textbooks. In the case of the Canadian Journal of Political Science, for example, an article published is supposed to be “excellent in all its aspects”, yet this journal published an article by Kiera Ladner - “Up the Creek: Fishing for a New Constitutional Order” (December 2005) – that made many claims supported only by political statements from the Union of Nova Scotia Indians and the wishful thinking of James Youngblood Henderson and his associates.   The paper is so poorly proofread, in fact, that it misspells the name of John Borrows numerous times, and does not contain a reference for “Henderson et al., 2000″, even though this work was used to provide a full page quotation in support of the alleged “connections…between the Mi’kmaw worldview and their constitutional order”.

Compare the publication of Ladner’s piece, which makes highly improbable claims that a pre-contact “Mi’kmaw constitutional order” was “similar to the British Constitutution” and “comprises and defines distinct, political, economic, educational, property and legal systems” (without any evidence except a reference to another, very problematic peer reviewed article of Ladner’s - ”Governing Within an Ecological Context: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Blackfoot Governance”, Studies in Political Economy, 2003), to my article on corruption in aboriginal communities that was rejected (the article, “Inherent Right of Unethical Governance – Widdowson – peer reviewed copy”, is available on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog). This article was rejected because

“the author offers the argument that traditional governance systems based on kinship networks and norms of generalized reciprocity deny the rule of law and are inherently unethical and an inappropriate basis for governance in modernity. The author argues that corruption is inherent in aboriginal governance, without providing a compelling account of its actual scope. The author provides evidence from a variety of reasonable sources that corruption exists in aboriginal communities, however this evidence is largely anecdotal.  As a reader I am not provided with an analysis that allows me to make my own evaluation of the severity and extent of corruption on a national level.  The author makes no attempt to show that x% of reserve communities, for instance, have evidence of corrupt political practices, or have an endemic history of political nepotism. For if such an analysis showed, for instance, that 60% of aboriginal governments were corrupt and 40% were not, then I would be able to accept a conclusion that corruption is a big problem, but certainly not inherently so. If the numbers showed a corruption rate of 100%, then I could go about evaluating the empirical analysis and then, if the data was sound, have to deal with the consequences of such a remarkable finding. Surely making a sound empirical case is difficult, given the difficulty in getting this kind of data.  However, this type of methodical empirical analysis is necessary for me as the reader to jump from the observation that corruption exists to the conclusion that aboriginal governance is inherently unsound”. 

Publishing this piece would have been impossible  under these conditions – as the reviewer seems to recognize – because of the difficulties in acquiring the data that would be necessary to meet this standard or rigour, even though it is generally recognized that corruption is much higher in aboriginal governments than in municipal, provincial or federal governments in Canada.

A similar problem occurred in an article that Albert Howard and I tried to submit to the journal Arctic on “traditional knowledge” (the article – “Aboriginal traditional knowledge, science and public policy – Widdowson and Howard – peer reviewed copy” - is available on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog).  Although the the article was favourably reviewed by two wildlife biologists working for the federal government and Robert McGhee, an archaeologist with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, it was rejected by three other reviewers who thought it was too “antagonistic” and did not contribute to constructive debate.  One reviewer even stated that the paper “…should offer a more balanced way forward rather than just a rant. The overall tone is too negative and sometimes, just outright offensive. The paper puts ’science’ on a pedestal where it does not belong. The argument about relativism is perhaps ironic as there is not much in this paper in seeking common ground…”.   One of the most interesting aspects of this review is that the word “science” is put in ironic quotation marks, suggesting that its existence is somehow in doubt, even though the journal’s mandate is to “advance the study” of this region “through the natural and social sciences”.

 The obstacles to expressing critical viewpoints in scholarly venues appear to be increasing with the decision of the Canadian Political Science Association to divert a paper that I proposed presenting – “Aboriginal Peoples, Political Science and Research Ethics: Should Indigenous Politics be Studied Differently?” - to a “poster session” (where pictures and graphs are put on a 4′-6′ poster in the reception area, not in a formal panel).  The ideas in this proposal will be very difficult to present in this visual form, since they will require the elaboration of complex arguments with detailed examples provided as evidence.  This problem can be discerned by examining the proposal’s abstract: 

“In the development of research in Canada, there are increasing attempts to ensure that the study of human subjects is conducted ethically. As a result, bodies like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC] recommend that research ethics boards should be put in place to review research applications requesting funding. Of particular significance is research pertaining to the study of groups that are perceived as vulnerable. There is heightened concern about the impact that research can have on aboriginal peoples, for example, because of the power imbalances instituted by colonization. It is argued that additional protection should be provided to the native population, and it is even assumed that the preservation of culture should be a goal of the studies conducted. Although it is important that individuals be protected from physical and psychological harm as much as possible, these developments in research ethics raise a number of questions about the constraints that will be placed upon academic freedom and a researcher’s capacity to investigate their area of study. In the efforts to balance the risk of harm with the potential benefits for society, it has become apparent that the importance of academic freedom is almost completely ignored in these ethics guidelines. This is particularly pertinent with respect to the study of aboriginal peoples; it needs to be recognized that the application of “research ethics” in the area of Native Studies often opposes researchers’ attempts to increase knowledge about the actual character of aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations”. 

How can this be represented on a poster?  As a result of this decision, I will be unable to present these ideas and “aboriginal epistemologies” will be promoted unopposed within political science.  This will be detrimental to to the academic credibility of the discipline of political science and its professional body in Canada.

Although it is not clear why diverting this topic to a poster session occurred, it probably has something to do with the fact that Kiera Ladner is the head of the section of the programme committee to which the proposal was submitted (the Women’s Caucus cabal is also heavily involved in promoting this session).  Ladner’s work, in fact, would have been discussed in my paper as an example of the problem of insisting that “aboriginal knowledge” must be respected (a requirement of current research ethics guidelines).  Ladner was also present at the infamous meeting of the Women’s Caucus in 2008 where anonymous allegations that my work was “racist” were made (I did not know Ladner was present until a few months ago because her name was not recorded in the minutes in the list of members “Present: (2008 Caucus Meeting)”. Evidently, at this meeting, Ladner was very distraught during the discussions about the paper that I had presented. It is reported that a large amount of hugging and comforting Ladner ensued,  as well as “talk of solidarity and outrage”. Although the discussion of the nature of my “overt and blatant racism” was not specified, it appeared that my critique of aboriginal epistemology - the idea that native people, because of their ancestry, have a “different way of knowing”, not accessible to others – was believed to be offensive by the postmodern clique now controlling the content of some CPSA panels.

When will it end?  One colleague has recommended that I try to present my ideas in other political science venues that are “less parochial”.  But, if I choose this course of action, doesn’t this mean that unsubstantiated and highly improbable arguments such as Ladner’s will continue to be accepted as legitimate within the discipline of political science?  What impact will this have on the discipline and our capacity to understand aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations and the development of politics and government more generally?  If the CPSA were really interested in open and vigorous debate, as it claims, it should organize a debate on “aboriginal epistemologies” in political science between Kiera Ladner and myself.

The proceedings in Copenhagen have wrapped up, and to no one’s surprise, the efforts to come up with an effective and binding international treaty to address global warming have been elusive.  After all, attempting to reduce carbon emissions has significant implications for economic development in all countries (not to mention capitalism as we know it), and putting a ceiling on emissions will put some countries at a competitive disadvantage in relation to others (Europe, for example, uses more nuclear power and renewable energy than the United States and China, and is poised to expand its market share on this basis).  The impotence of all parties involved results in delaying any actual action for 10, 20 or even 40 years.  Making promises in the far distant future means that economic development can continue unrestrained – even if this means that the survival of humanity is threatened.

While these political problems were predictable, another, more surpising, circumstance occurred just before the summit.  A number of emails were obtained by hacking into the server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.   Thousands of emails, written over the last 13 years, were then disseminated and posted on a number of websites.

Controversy erupted because some of these emails could be interpreted as showing that scientists at East Anglia had engaged in a number of unethical, and perhaps illegal,  activities.  These activities included collusion to withhold data, interference in peer-review processes to prevent dissenting viewpoints from being published, attempts to delete information to prevent it from being accessed by freedom of information legislation, and manipulated data to artificially strengthen the case for global warming.  Climate scientists responded to these accusations, stating that they were a smear campaign and an attempt to use statements in the emails out of context so as to sabotage the meeting at Copenhagen.

Although it appears that some of the emails were interpreted incorrectly or used out of context (see, for example, “University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes”, The Daily Telegraph, November 23, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html and ”Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context”, The Times, December 8, 2009,  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6948008.ece), there were some instances of unethical conduct (for example, attempts to exclude peer-reviewed papers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports).  This raises questions about why these scientists would engage in these practices.  It is entirely understandable why scientists funded by the oil and gas industry would have an interest in distorting their research findings to downplay the existence of global warming; the realization that global warming is a serious problem, and the resulting political pressure to address it, could place restrictions on these companies, threatening their profitability.  In looking at the case of University of East Anglia scientists, however, it is not clear why they would engage in these unethical practices.

Two reasons have been given for why these scientists would attempt to manipulate their data to support the case for global warming.   The first is economic interest; is it possible that these scientists benefit financially from asserting the existence of man-made global warming (heightened concern, for example, could increase the research funding available to study the problem)?  The second is ideological.  Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their book Higher Superstition, for example, have noted that many environmental ideologies have an unscientific streak and often embrace “appocalyptic scenarios”, which make them predisposed to exaggerate the extent of the environmental crisis.  There is also the charge that proponents of environmental ideologies are closet socialists, and are promoting restrictions on industry so as to strangle economic development to bring about the revolution.

Although there may be economic and ideological factors that are influencing the activities of these scientists, the problem seems to have its roots in arrogance more than anything.  There seems to be a great deal of evidence for global warming – rapid melting of glaciers and ice caps, overall increases in temperatures that appear to be accelerating, more severe droughts and forest fires, and a general heightened volatility in weather patterns (something that insurance companies are recognizing), and it would be best to take a precautionary stance because “no one wants to use the earth as a crash test dummy” (Gross and Levitt).  The scientific community appears to recognize the severity of the crisis, but the complexity of the studies documenting it cannot be communicated easily to the public.  As a result, these scientists do not want to “confuse” those who lack the scientific literacy to understand how to interpret conflicting data.  The actions of industry in having a predetermined agenda (to downplay the effects of global warming) also has added to the problem since any inconsistent studies are immediately regarded with suspicion.

It is an extremely dangerous course of action to assume that one knows the truth, and therefore it is a waste of time to try to go through the laborious process of providing evidence to support one’s claims.  The most obvious objection to this tendency is that the truth can only emerge through, as Alan Sokal points out, “incessant confrontation of theories with the real world” so that reasoned argument, evidence and logic can prevail over “wishful thinking, superstition and demagoguery”.  

Omitting contradictory information to better communicate what seems to be the truth is also problematic because it fails include the public in the conversation about the necessity to weigh evidence.  There are huge deficiencies in the understanding of scientific principles around the world, and this does not bode very well for the future of humanity.  In the United States, for example, many people do not accept the theory of evolution, even though there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support it.  This exclusion from scientific debates prevents the public from developing the necessary skills to think rationally, and thereby protect themselves from fraudulent claims and manipulation.  Members of the public need to understand that the truth is not what someone in a white coat (or a black robe) says; we move towards it by carefully evaluating the evidence and discarding what cannot be supported by rational argument.

In case anyone was wondering, the malevolent forces in the universe temporarily caused all the pages and posts to disappear on Sunday.  Jonathan, the IT guy, seems to have fixed the problem, and so more posts are on the way!

FW

Margaret Wente, in an article in The Globe and Mail – “When in doubt: an atheist’s Christmas” (December 19, 2009, p. A23, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/when-in-doubt-an-atheists-christmas/article1406082/) – maintains that she feels uncomfortable calling herself an atheist because people are hard-wired for faith (her argument is drawn from the book, previously mentioned on this blog, The Faith Instinct).  As a result, she prefers the designation “reluctant unbeliever”.   In response to Wente’s column, Albert Howard had the following comments, which I have reproduced below.

FW

***

Wente’s argument, for religion as an instinct, is a common device of the god-believers who grab at even the most flaccid straws when all real possibilities of survival are extinct. First of all, a contemporary child, not offered irrational explanations for the universe, and all that is in it, would not come to unscientific conclusions. Since the enlightenment humans have the encouragement and opportunity to seek material explanations for phenomena. Since the more they understand, the more they realize how much more there is to be known, their real instinct is that of intellectual curiosity – not fairy tale answers.

Religionists have struggled since then to maintain the manipulative possibilities of belief without evidence. Whether true believers or charlatans, it is in their interest to defend the foolishness of irrational thought. Wente’s objectives, while having no apparent material basis, are still suspect because of her use of sophistry to support the baseless claim that we are “hard-wired for faith”.

Wente’s sophistry is in the form of the claims she makes to prove a kind of innate witlessness in all human beings. Only the most soft-headed of us will fail to notice the exchange of form for content as she gives example after example of the contrived comforts of everyday religious practices. Let’s look at them in order.

First there is that tried and true instrument of the agenda-laden writer, a realistic personal anecdote that we can all relate to in a minute. She lost her faith, yep! Then she reads Bertrand Russell (and Ayn Rand!), and gosh, if she didn’t realize that religion was senseless and the cause of endless misery in the world. Well, now we know we’re in the company of a fellow rationalist, our guard is down, and we’re going to be told it as it is. And how is it? Well, we all like to get together with people we like, and hang around the fire getting drunk and not have anything to do tomorrow. Church music can be divorced from its mindless motivations and enjoyed abstractly, and we can even see how, while it doesn’t turn our crank, Wente is thrilled by the rituals of religion – even the Muslim call to prayer, Jewish seders and that old chestnut – the Christmas Eve church-going.

One rationale for her argument is that she loves Renaissance art, and of course Renaissance art is loaded with religious imagery. Disregarding the historical reason for this, Wente tells us that we cannot dismiss the roots of this art as primitive superstition. Why not? That’s obviously what it is, but assuming our tacit acceptance, she barges on to declare that she was deeply moved by churches, synagogues and Mosques – as though that were relevant.

The urging of religious practice for non-believers continues with another heartwarming anecdote involving a “little picture-postcard church” in the country, where, after a Saturday Evening Post cover experience, she impulsively kneeled for communion, taking the wine and wafer. To keep the reader on side, we are assured that she “didn’t believe a word of it.” But that doesn’t matter, because she was so affected that she “could hardly speak.” This is where we find that it’s okay to feel uneasy about calling ourselves atheists – after all, we’ve agreed so far, so let’s opt for the fence-sitting “reluctant non-believer”. The only meaningful feature of this bit of ambiguity is that it is not atheism. And, of course, that is the point.

Now that we’re not atheists any more, but still not adhering to the inanity of blind faith, we can go ahead and enjoy the abstracted pleasures of religious ritual and practice. The balance of Wente’s article consists of trying to associate responsible social behavior with religious dictates. Even civilization is accountable to religious belief. Humanity would be an untamed social-Darwinesque jungle were it not for religion binding us together. Quoting Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct, Wente tells us that religion’s role is to bind us together, making us “extraordinarily co-operative.” She doesn’t seem to notice the internecine slaughter of Muslim groups divided over who is the real descendant of Mohammed, or Sikhs fighting one another over furniture in their places of worship. These conflicts are caused by religion, and much more killing has gone on in the name of religious against other faiths as well as non-believers.

Wente also argues that ignorance is bliss, when she makes the dubious claim that the religious are “happier, healthier and more emotionally secure than the rest of us”. The singular quality that distinguishes us from other life forms is rational intelligence, and our happiness originates in the fulfillment of our humanity, not in the abstracted creature comforts that satisfy a cat. Wente’s argument is cited by Richard Dawkins as “believing in belief” – the view that justifies manipulation against intelligence, and shows a disbelief in the capacity of humanity to function rationally on its own volition. It is not only an insult to the human condition but, more importantly, a hypocritical and sophistic attempt to reinforce religion through non-religious practice of religious ritual.

Over the next few months, the Catalan parliament in Barcelona is considering a proposal to ban bullfighting.  The debate is occurring because 180,000 signatures have been gathered that propose including the bull in animal rights legislation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8418014.stm). 

Eric Gallego, a representative of the group Prou, which supports the ban, argues that bullfighting is cruel and “a bloody entertainment”, and that stopping the spectacle is necessary to prevent Spain from being seen as “a barbaric society inside Europe”.  Bullfighting is described as “barbaric” because it involves the torture of animals for entertainment purposes - a practice that traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice.   Throughout the fight the bull is tormented by picadores and banderilleros who stab the animal repeatedly with sharped barbed sticks.  These rituals are constructed so as to tire the bull and make it easier for the matador to produce a “beautiful display”.  After three to six hours of this torture, the bleeding and exhausted bull is killed by the matador.

Supporters of the bullfight respond by noting that the bullfight has a long history in Spain and it is deeply intertwined with the culture.  Bullfighting should not be thought of as animal torture, advocates assert, but  a “struggle between man and beast, transformed into art”, which involves the “dignified death of an animal that has been able to fight for its life”.  Bullfighting is also justified on the basis that animals suffer in slaughterhouses all over the world (ignoring the fact that while cruelty to animals during slaughtering should also be opposed, slaughtering is undertaken to acquire food, not for entertainment).

For proponents of cultural relativism, the arguments in favour of bullfighting must be accepted.  After all, how can one oppose a practice that has informed a culture for “thousands of years”?  Wouldn’t this be “cultural genocide”?    There is a huge problem with the cultural relativist position, however.  This is that all people, at one time, engaged in forms of sacrifice.  Some societies gave this up, yet their cultures continued.  Cultural change cannot be considered a form of “genocide” because it is necessary to discard some cultural features to ensure  a group’s survival.  In the case of bullfighting, this barbaric practice is impeding the survival of Spanish citizens because it glorifies suffering and death.  Celebrating such cruelty towards a sentient being impedes the development of empathy.  A person who enjoys a bullfight is much more likely to accept and condone suffering more generally.  Increasing cooperation in society requires that empathy be encouraged, and the continuation of bullfighting is an obstacle to the development of socially positive human emotions.

It should be noted that most Spaniards (68.8%) have “no interest” in bullfighting, while only 10.4% are very interested (20.6% have “some interest”).  The younger generation also has much less interest in bullfighting than their elders (77% of youth are not interested versus 49% of seniors).  Even in the areas where bullfighting is the most popular, 63% of the population has ”no interest” in the spectacle  (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/spanish/cultura/texts/gallup_corridastoros_0702.htm).  These statistics are very encouraging for those who are disturbed by the continuation of primitive cultural practices in the modern world.

Niki Ashton, the New Democratic MP for Churchill, has organized a petition calling for an extension of the funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation or AHF (http://nikiashton.ndp.ca/ahf).  Eliminating funding for the Foundation (supposedly on March 31, 2010) is opposed in the petitition because the “healing from the impacts of Residential Schools is far from complete after 10 years which is the length of time the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has existed”.

The impact on “healing”, however, is not the only reason given for continuing AHF funding.  Ashton also points out that 950 jobs will be lost if this funding is cut (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Churchill-MP-urges-Ottawa-to-renew-funding-for-healing-foundation-79429022.html).  But what do these “jobs” consist of, and how effective have they been in addressing the pscyhological problems plaguing aboriginal communities?  As there has been no evaluation of the plethora of “healing” initiatives, it is likely that these “jobs” are actually sinecure positions aimed at buying off privileged members of the native population.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation, in fact, is a classic Aboriginal Industry enterprise.  It emerged out of recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was another Aboriginal Industry venture (the Royal Commission, in fact, was co-chaired by Georges Erasmus, who is now the President of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation).  The Foundation was made possible by the $515 million healing fund ($350 million and an additional disbursal of $40 million and then $125 million).

And where does all the money go?  An examination of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation’s website indicates a “Board of Directors” of 17 people and an “Elder Advisory Group of the Board” (all with previous experience on other aboriginal organizations), as well as the “Executive Director” (housed in the “Executive Director’s Office”).  These executive members oversee ”staff” in ”Operations”, “Communications”, and “Research”. It is members of this unnamed “staff”, that produce the plethora of written materials – “legal documents”, the “evaluation series”, the “research series”, “newsletters”, “residential school resources”, “press releases & open editorials”, and “speeches”.  The millions of dollars in salaries to these individuals does not count the funds acquired by communities (i.e. Aboriginal Industry consultants) to develop grant applications to be submitted to the AHF.

It appears, however, that certain aboriginal commentators are beginning to expose these Aboriginal Industry machinations.  Gilbert Oskaboose, for example, notes that  “the Aboriginal Healing Foundation in Ottawa is staffed by native fat cats and other bottom feeders who have no problem with growing fat feeding off the bodies of Survivors who never made it this far”.  He goes on to point out that the Executive Director of the AHF made $141,000 last year, and it is not known what the President, Georges Erasmus, made (http://www.firstnations.com/oskaboose/nest-of-maggots.htm).  The career of the Executive Director of the AHF, Mike DeGagné, has been described elsewhere as follows: “he has previously worked with Federal, Provincial, and non-governmental organizations in the health, mental health and addictions areas. He has served as senior negotiator in complex, multi-party negotiations in the Comprehensive Land Claims process. Before joining the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, he held positions with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the federal government departments of Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada…Mr. DeGagné holds a Masters degree in Health Administration, and a Ph.D. focusing on First Nations post-secondary education” (http://www.thedirectorscollege.com/grads_detail.asp?id=1299).

Although Oskaboose is right to attack the self-serving character of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the alternative course of action that he proposes is just as (if not more) destructive than the existing boondoggle – going to court and having money transferred directly to ”survivors” (the term is problematic because it includes not only victims of sexual and physical abuse, but all people who attended residential schools, regardless of their experiences).  Court cases mean that even more money will be siphoned off by the Aboriginal Industry – although it will go to lawyers instead of consultants.  Disubursing monies directly to survivors will not do anything to address the educational, health and housing problems in aboriginal communities.  It will just provide money for gambling, drugs and other consumer goods.  After the money is spent, everyone will be right back where they started, just a little worse for wear.

On January 19, 2009, Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights, Wilfrid Laurier University, sent a letter to the the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics.  The letter was commenting on the revised Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS), and it provides a number of criticisms of this document.  Because of the important contribution that this letter makes to the discsusion of research ethics, especially those concerning the study of aboriginal peoples, I have posted it on the Ethics page of this blog (see TCPS research ethics – Howard-Hassmann).

It should be noted that Howard-Hassmann’s criticisms relate to an earlier draft of TCPS, since the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics has just released a revised version in November 2009 (www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/chapter9-chapitre9/).  This revision involves chapter nine of the draft – “Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples in Canada”.  A review of this document indicates that many of Howard-Hassmann’s criticisms are still valid.  Because of the implications that this revised version has for academic freedom, it is important that people concerned about the rigorous study of aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations analyze this document and submit their comments to draft2e@pre.ethics.gc.ca by March 1, 2010.

The interest in developing special research guidelines for the study of aboriginal peoples began in 2002, when it was asserted that research involving aboriginal peoples should be “based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge, research modalities, and rights and needs”.  As Howard-Hassmann points out, the guidelines that came out of this concern are extremely problematic because they state that aboriginal peoples should be able to control all aspects of research that pertains to them.  Restrictions on research being undertaken with respect to aboriginal communities have been around for a while (for example, an editor at UBC Press told me a number of years ago that his publishing house had protocols in place that stipulated that “the community” had to approve research findings before they could be published), but what is changing is that these restrictions are now being formalized, and therefore will be imposed more widely and deeply across the country.

While it is important that research is controlled to try to prevent harm to individuals (in drug studies, for example), the restrictions being imposed on research being conducted with respect to aboriginal communities are much broader. What one sees is often not the protection of individuals from harm, but an attempt to prevent research that is threatening particular political interests. The result is that studies done in aboriginal communities are more advocacy than research.

This pressure to turn research into advocacy occurs in a number of ways. The first, as is mentioned by Howard-Hassmann, is the focus on “the community”. “The community” usually means the native leadership, and as a result, research that is threatening to those in power is censored. This has been happening informally for a number of years; Noel Dyck mentions that nepotism in aboriginal politics often is silenced out of concern for the image of “the community”. This problem is even greater when leaders are abusers of women and children; research that would document these circumstances often cannot be published, enabling powerful members of the community to oppress the vulnerable unopposed.

This is related to two other points that Howard-Hassmann mentions – preventing “division” and “stigmatization”. Promoting “harmony” in aboriginal communities often amounts to pressuring the marginalized and abused from rising up against their oppressors (as has occurred in many “sentencing circles”). Stopping “stigmatization” means the prevention of studies that indicate high levels of dysfunction. As Howard-Hassmann correctly points out, this inhibits a timely response to address serious social problems. In the case of research into Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) in B.C. for example, a study was halted because a high percentage of children were discovered to have been affected. This censorship is often justified under the guise that it is up to “the community”, not “outsiders”, to deal with the problem. But what if “the community” is in denial? Should the lives of future generations be sacrificed to appease “aboriginal pride”?

Another significant problem concerns, as Howard-Hassmann notes, the definition of “aboriginal knowledge” itself. As Albert Howard and I have also pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, much of what is referred to as “aboriginal knowledge” is not knowledge at all. It is often the unsubstantiated beliefs of certain members of the native population (usually elders). The result is the demand that assertions unsupported by evidence be accepted within the social sciences, and the questioning of these beliefs is met with all sorts of hostility and demands for censorship (as was shown by the reaction to my presentation on “indigenous methodologies” in June 2008 at the CPSA). The Bering Strait theory, the refutation of the assertion that the Iroquois influenced the American constitution, and the questioning of the claim that aboriginal peoples discovered hundreds of drugs now being used in modern pharmacology, etc., are vehemently opposed because a frank discussion of these ideas are perceived as a threat to aboriginal political aspirations. This has implications for a wide range of academic disciplines; even the scientific enterprise of archaeology is under threat because of the aboriginal “interest” in ensuring that thousand of year old skeletons should remain undisturbed.

There is one statement of Howard-Hassmann’s that requires much more discussion within the academic community. This is her assertion that “…the interests of aboriginal groups must be protected, given their long suffering under colonial and assimilationist policies…”. What are the “interests of aboriginal groups” and how do these differ from those of non-aboriginal people? Are these “interests” perceived as being in conflict with the research that is being undertaken in the social sciences and humanities? One often hears, for example, how science has been “harmful” to aboriginal communities, but no elaboration is provided. There needs to be much more detailed analysis of what such cases consist of, and when these accusations of “harm” constitute an attempt to prevent incovenient truths from being recognized.