Offended by Offence

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.