What’s new at Canada’s aboriginal university?
January 30, 2010
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.
5 Responses to “What’s new at Canada’s aboriginal university?”
Leave a Reply
February 7th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Can you point me in the direction of further reading/documentation in support of these assertions: A.) “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.”
and
B.) “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.”
I’ve been following the issue in the news for the past couple of weeks, and have written about it on my blog. I am not surprised by what has happened. I was somewhat heartened by the role taken by the students themselves, particularly statements made by Cadmus Delorme, president of the Student’s Association to the effect that the Chiefs viewed the university’s funding as their own “cash cow”. The stories of FSIN chiefs and/or their cronies being involved in misappropriation are legion and have been going on for at least thirty years. They are likely under reported by our politically correct media which considers the subject taboo,too, unless it’s a really big one like this.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Unfortunately, there is no coherent literature to point you to with respect to these questions. Some of this is discussed in the education chapter of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, as well as my Ph.D. dissertation, The Political Economy of Aboriginal Dependency: A Critique of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. From these sources, as well as some papers on aboriginal education policy (available on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog), inferences have been made about FNUC from “Native Studies” programs more generally (FNUC appears to share many of the same assumptions).
A-1) With respect to rent seeking behaviour, it is interesting to point out that the Board of Governors of the University of Regina – a much larger institution than FNUC – contains 11 members, while FNUC has 29. The creation of separate institutions more generally enables greater rents to be extracted by putting up barriers to entry for non-identifying groups (Kimenyi wrote on this with respect to advocacy studies programs more generally in the journal Academic Questions).
A-2) The lower standards can be seen in the “Aboriginal”/”Indian” programs at FNUC, as well as looking at its “Department of Science”. There is no reason to have the “Aboriginal”/”Indian” qualifier, except for the purpose of lowering standards. The “Department of Science” is filled with professors who have no background in Chemistry, Physics, Biology or Mathematics. This can be contrasted to any other university that offers science courses.
2. With respect to the theory of evolution, all Native Studies programs are unabashedly creationist, and FNUC is no exception. This can be seen in its vision and mission statements. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples also maintains that native “world views” conflict with evolutionary theories and conceptions of historical progress. Peter Kulchyski et al.’s The Words of the Elders maintains that Creation stories should be taught instead of the theory about the Bering Strait, which is connected to the theory of evolution. This is also the case in a number of Native Studies programs in the U.S.. The University of Victoria stated a while ago that the myths of aboriginal people should not be challenged in aboriginal education programs since this would be perceived as disrespectful. There is an argument, more generally, that aboriginal viewpoints should not be challenged because this would be to perpetrate “cultural genocide”. This argument, of course, confuses culture and race. Culture (learned behaviour) often changes rapidly, even within a generation, to enable groups to adapt to their environment, and it does not make sense to characterize this as genocidal.
I hope this helps. It is my hope that these general observations can be used by others to pursue research on the problematic character of Native Studies programs – the tradition in which FNUC is operating.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Thank you. I’m not in the academic field but I have had an interest in the history of Indian and White relations for a very long time and have done extensive archival and secondary source research as well as actually working in Native communities in a earlier part of my life.
Personally, I think things began to go downhill in the mid-1970s and early 1980s when copious dollars became available for land claims and treaty negotiations. I think the leadership, if you can call it that, within the First Nations organizations is as much a part of the Industry as the lawyers are. In fact, there are several blocs besides the legal profession, and they include civil servants, academics. Together they have conspired to create a narrative designed to prevent anyone from thinking outside the box which imprisons them and facing reality. I do take note, however, that there is some fresh thinking coming out of British Columbia, and I think that came about because, until recently there were no treaties to exploit and embellish beyond recognition. Some day, I’ll write a book.
I read your book, btw, and agree with almost every word. Same goes with Tom Flanagan’s work.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:43 am
And speaking of the problematic character of Native Studies programs, my niece took an introductory course in said “discipline” last fall at the University of Saskatchewan and the instructor was still teaching that the “whiteman” taught scalping to the Indian. And this was almost 30 years after James Axtell had demolished that nonsense with a magnificent and impeccable piece of scholarship.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Thanks very much for your reply. It is interesting that many people agree with the views of Tom Flanagan AND those of Albert Howard and I. There are some similarities in our views (we agree about the Aboriginal Industry and cultural evolution, for example), but many differences (the most significant concerns the role of private property in addressing aboriginal marginalization). Unfortunately, Flanagan’s work has been largely ignored in the academy (except for a few ad hominem remarks); it is hoped that in the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum (May 5, 2010) that real debate will take place on this issue.
There are some interesting developments occurring in B.C. – Louie and Helin, for example – and these need much more analysis. How does the economy of Louie’s band compare with non-aboriginal communities in British Columbia? I have heard Louie speak and appreciate his candour, but I find his “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” rhetoric a little simplistic.
Whether or not some members of the native leadership are part of the Aboriginal Industry is an interesting question. I think that Albert and I will have to reformulate this somewhat. Since I know a number of completely integrated people who “identify” as Aboriginal, I am beginning to think that the important distinction is between integrated and segregated, not aboriginal and non-aboriginal. A number of completely integrated aboriginal people are now putting forward romantic viewpoints that justify the segregation of isolated and dependent natives. It is hard to distinguish this kind of activity from what non-aboriginal members of the Aboriginal Industry do.