Offended by Offence

On July 22, 2010 the CBC repeated the documentary “The education of Ashif Jaffer” about a man with Down syndrome taking a course at Ryerson University last year (www.cbc.ca/globalperspectives/).  Jaffer was taking the course Writing for Disability Activism and planned to apply to Ryerson’s degree program in Politics and Governance in the fall of 2009.

Jaffer’s attempt to pursue a university degree was not the first.  In 2006 Jaffer was admitted into York University, but had to withdraw in his first year.  This was because York University would not allow Jaffer to write his exams while accompanied by a teaching assistant – the extraordinary accommodation that had enabled Jaffer to graduate from high school as an “Ontario Scholar” (a student who achieves 80% or higher in six Grade 12 courses).  It is asserted that Jaffer needs a teaching assistant during exams to “help get the full answers out so that he can write them down” because Down syndrome has “altered” his brain’s “retrieval functions ” (Daniel Girard, “School Denies Access”, Toronto Star, December 5, 2006, p. D6).

Although it is not clear if Jaffer was accepted in a degree program at Ryerson, the documentary raises questions about the extent to which universities should accommodate the mentally disabled.  It is one thing to allow intellectually challenged people to audit courses and benefit from participating in a university environment; it is another to award degrees that assume that certain skills and learning outcomes have been achieved.

Jaffer’s actual intellectual abilities are difficult to determine because he is always accompanied by his mother, Fran Marinic-Jaffer (or a hired note-taker), and the analysis of his case is influenced by advocates for the disabled who are prone to wishful thinking.  There is no exam in the Writing for Disability Activism course, and Marinic-Jaffer oversees all of her son’s assignments.  Although Marinic-Jaffer insists that her son does his own work, it is hard to take her assertions at face value because of her emotional involvement.  In the documentary, Marinic-Jaffer defiantly states that there was “no doubt” in her mind that, when her son was born, he would go to university.   As a result, she has continuously waged battles against educational institutions, even suing York University for three million dollars, and is adamant that “no” is not an option with respect to her son obtaining a university degree.

While the obsessive advocacy of Marinic-Jaffer could be attributed to parental narcissism, more disturbing is the fawning tone of the documentary, and its assumption that obtaining a university degree is a “right” regardless of one’s abilities.  One is also left with the impression that those trying to uphold academic standards are unreasonable and lack compassion.  Similar responses were received by Leonard Stern, when he commented about Jaffer’s withdrawal from York University in the Ottawa Citizen last year.  According to Stern,

“…parents of children with Down syndrome have suggested that it is wrong to make intelligence a requirement of university.

One mother accused me of ‘IQ’ism.’ One father was furious that I said York University would be devaluing its undergraduate degree by changing the goalposts for Ashif Jaffer. He wrote that I have ‘entirely missed the point of education.’ What matters is that Ashif would ‘command respect for his efforts’ in a way that would bring honour to York University.

Other parents of children with Down syndrome talked about the ‘diversity’ that cognitively impaired students could bring to a university seminar room. It was pointed out that people with Down syndrome are ‘inspirational’ examples for the rest of us. Others argued that ‘emotional’ and ‘spiritual’ intelligence — the kinds that can’t be assessed by any exam — are more important than the measurable intellectual achievement which York University is unfairly demanding” (Stern, “Devaluing a University Degree”, Ottawa Citizen, May 9, 2009).

And it is not just parents of Down syndrome children who put forward such arguments.  These sentiments are consistent with the belief that anyone can achieve anything, regardless of the obstacles that stand in their way. They also reflect the postmodern confusion of political equality with intellectual ability.  Recognizing that certain people do not have the intelligence to master the abstract reasoning needed to obtain a university degree has nothing to do with a person’s political rights.  This is a reality, and it is counterproductive to award mock degrees so as to satisfy confused thinking and false hopes.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for qualified students to attend university because of financial restrictions, and the lawsuits, teaching assistants, disability consultants, etc., required in cases like Jaffer’s mean that even fewer resources will be available for those who are actually capable of obtaining a degree.

Today I received an email from the Chair of my department, which forwarded a letter from Frank Elliott, a Ph.D. student at the University of Alberta, to him and Hope Knudsen, the President of the Alberta Teachers’ Association.   His letter was protesting my speech at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) conference on February 26, 2010 (a PDF version of the letter, which includes a 19 page bibliography, is posted on the Aboriginal Policy page as “Letter from Frank Elliott”).  Elliott objects to the fact that I called the graduate students attempting to to censor my speech “disciples” of professor Cora Weber-Pillwax (“this type of personal name-calling indicates a level of discourse which should have no place in academia and particularly not from an individual given a venue to voice personal opinions disguised as fact at an ATA conference”).  He then goes on to shamelessly compare my views with those of Jim Keegstra, the holocaust denier, and seems to think it is appropropriate not to copy me on correspondence about my conduct.  It also should be made clear that my reference to “disciples” was made in an email to Weber-Pillwax, and did not occur at the GETCA conference, which could be inferred from Elliott’s letter (in the email I was referring to Cora Weber-Pillwax’s encouragement of graduate students to demand censorship rather than engage in an evaluation of arguments and evidence, and I didn’t “personally implicate” any particular student in this remark). 

More importantly, Elliott maintains that I was “voic[ing] personal opinions disguised as fact at an ATA conference”.  He offers no substantiation for this assertion.  He argues that “there is an immense amount of sophisticated thinking about Aboriginal education”, but does not show how this is the case.  All he does is refer to an attached bibliography (presumably the one that he compiled for his Ph.D. dissertation), which contains a number of highly questionable sources on “Native science”, including works by Gregory Cajete and Leroy Little Bear (“What’s Einstein got to do with it?”).  These works are not academically rigorous; they have a romantic view of history and constantly assume that spiritual beliefs are a “kind of science”.  Little Bear even argues that aboriginal people before contact had an understanding of the theory of relativity, a modern advancement in physics.  He seems to think that this knowledge was possible to acquire without even having the benefit of a rudimentary numbering system.

To get some understanding of where Elliott is coming from I found one article about his views on the University of Alberta website entitled “Diversity Institute raising awareness of holistic approaches to education” (www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/secondaryed/news.cfm?story=42104).   The article discusses an event sponsored by the ”Diversity Institute”, where sixty educational students at the U of A listened to Francis Whiskeyjack, a Cree Elder, “drum as he sang about mother earth and the Aboriginal love of nature”.  Whiskeyjack evidently “believes in a holistic approach to obtaining values”, which consists of the following insight: “Education is a lifetime journey”.   Whiskeyjack also uses a feather and rattle to “[accentuate] the four elements of nature”, maintains “that in Aboriginal tradition, everything, whether animate or inanimate, has a spirit” and promotes “the power of the circle and of working together”.

This “holistic and personal approach to education” promoted by Whiskeyjack is enthusiastically embraced by Frank Elliott, who was interviewed in the article.  Elliott argues that “if you are going to learn the meaning of something, then you need to understand it subjectively”.   Elliott, according to the article, “encourages students to look at their own belief structures as a way of moving beyond objective understandings”.  In the words of Elliott, “understanding your own belief structure may help you in your teaching. Hopefully you might begin to see the world in another way”.

If we were to accept Elliott’s assertions, and incorporate them into the curriculum, this would constitute an extreme form of educational malpractice.  Should students be encouraged to “[move] beyond objective understandings”?  Is there evidence to support the assertion that “everything…has a spirit”, that there are “four elements of nature”, and that the circle has “power”?  And what if a student decides to challenge these assertions?  Will they be reprimanded as “culturally insensitive” by Elliott?  Promoting these irrational beliefs does not help students at all to acquire the knowledge, skills and disciplines to participate in a wide range of occupations.   Under the auspices of “diversity”, aboriginal students will be kept segregated from the mainstream and forever dependent upon condescending enablers like Frank Elliott.

Below is a message posted by “Sarah” (presumably Sarah Auger) last week on the contemptuously delusional website of Mohawk “warrior” Taiaiake Alfred (http://www.taiaiake.com/42#comments).  “Sarah” is one of the people responsible for the press release condemning my GETCA speech and advocating censorship in discussions of aboriginal educational policy; she attended the speech as a parent, and is not a graduate student as I had assumed.  I apologize for the error.

It is also interesting to note that the press release that Auger and al. distributed was printed before I gave the speech, not after.  Therefore, “Sarah” (Auger?), Michelle Rost, Cora Weber-Pillwax, etc. had made up their minds without even listening to my arguments.  This is particularly disheartening with respect to the release’s reference to my “racist…views”, when one considers that a person in the audience (I think it was Rost, judging from her picture in the Edmonton Sun) asked me what my definition of racism was and then requested that I link this definition to a comment that I had made in an interview opposing direct monetary transfers to aboriginal individuals (I had stated at the time that these transfers were unlikely to address aboriginal deprivation because “the money gets spent on pickup trucks and, in the worst case scenario, gambling and drugs” and this “doesn’t do anything to address the developmental problems that exist in Aboriginal communities” – http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2619).

I thanked the person (Rost?) for the question and said that I was glad to have the chance to clarify the matter.  I explained that racism was the ideology that one group should be subordinated to, and oppressed by, another because their racial characteristics are believed to make them “inferior”.  After providing this definition, I pointed out that the answer that I had given in the interview about the monetary transfers being spent on consumer goods applied to all marginalized people, regardless of racial characteristics, and concerned how deprived and uneducated people react to a monetary windfall.  No one is advocating that monetary transfers be given to impoverished people living in, say, Regent Park in Toronto, so as to address low educational levels in this deprived community.  What is required is high quality services – health care, education and housing, not distributing funds directly to individuals.

After giving this answer, I thought that great progress had been made in educating people about the actual nature of racism, and how a critical analysis of cultural features (which are changeable) cannot be considered racist.  All cultures have negative and positive characteristics, and therefore we all need to critically analyze cultural influences so that decisions can be made about what is best for humanity.  Unfortunately, for people like “Sarah” (Auger?), whose mind is made up so as not to be confused by the facts, having such an open and honest debate becomes impossible. 

FW

***

Sarah Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 7:54 am

Barry…

I was at that session on invite from the ATA after a group of us at the University of Alberta learned of her appearance the day before. We contacted the ATA and asked for her removal from the program, and asked who had invited her in the first place. We also offered Aboriginal scholars concentrating on Aboriginal education as a replacement. We were refused the first, and denied information about the second. Although, I’ve learned since (on Widdowson’s blog where she’s written about this) that the invite came from the President GETCA, Hope Knudsen. Two of us went to the session as guests to listen firsthand to Widdowson and walked away certainly less than impressed. I think there was some expectation that we would engage Widdowson in some debate, which I think is unfair given the short timeframe we had, and our positioning as audience members rather than panel presenters on equal footing. And this is more about the institutionalized racism that exists within Alberta education that allowed this to occur in the first place than it is about her. I have been listed on her blog as a graduate student, which I’m not. I was there as a parent. I do not want Widdowson’s ideology anywhere near our children either directly or indirectly.

After the session we stood outside and handed out a media release that went out that same morning to different news outlets, the Ministry of Education and the ATA.

This is the text we handed out:

The Alberta Teachers Association is complicit in furthering the racist and assimilationist views of Frances Widdowson by inviting her to speak at the Greater Edmonton Teachers Convention February 26th, 2010 on the topic of Aboriginal education. Widdowsonhas openly denied the existence of Aboriginal histories or knowledge systems relevant to Aboriginal education: “If there was a more realistic assessment of what the historical circumstances of Aboriginal people were actually like, few would be advocating a return to the past…there is no history of literacy, science and mathematics in aboriginal societies, and therefore little expertise exists to improve native educational levels”. The presence of Widdowsonsuggests a strong disregard for Ministerial Order #016/97 which recognizes “the importance of respecting students’ human dignity” and outlines the responsibility of teachers to “establish, with different students, professional relationships that are characterized by mutual respect, trust and harmony”.

The ATA licenses teachers, wields great influence within the ministry of education and post-secondary teacher education, and holds responsibility for teachers’ professional development, defined as “any planned activity that provides teachers with an opportunity for growth in knowledge, skills, and attitudes leading to improved teaching practice and enhanced student learning.” Teachers have a responsibility to ensure the safety and human dignity of students, and the presence of this anti-aboriginal scholar as a guest at one of the largest gatherings of teachers in Canada must be recognized as a threat to the sense of security of every Aboriginal child in Alberta. The ATA represents thousands of teachers and its decision to provide Widdowson a platform to promote her views that traditional Aboriginal knowledge is meaningless to formal schooling constitutes a direct attack on Aboriginal students in this province.

Contact with Indigenous scholars from Alberta and internationally are accessible to the ATA, the University of Alberta and the Ministry of Education, all of whom are implicated in the selection of Widdowson as a GETCA speaker on Aboriginal education for Alberta teachers. As the protectors of our Aboriginal children, Elders and communities, we cannot trust that the ATA would support and promote the safe-guarding of our children now that we have witnessed their support of professional development that denies the existence of Aboriginal knowledge and, essentially, of Aboriginal humanity. In presenting Widdowson as an Aboriginal education specialist, we see that the ATA has chosen to add its weights to the ignorance and oppression of racism that counters the efforts of compassionate and respectful Alberta educators.

In today’s Edmonton Sun, there is a column by Andrew Hanon about the continuing controversy concerning the speech that I gave at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) on February 26, 2010 (www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/andrew_hanon/2010/03/04/13104741.html).  One professor from the University of Alberta, Cora Weber-Pillwax, and Michelle Rost and Sarah Auger (who I believe are two graduate students at the same university), have put out a press release condemning the Alberta Teachers’ Association for allowing me to speak in Edmonton.  These “humanitarian” censors make the libelous claim that I have “racist and assimilationist views”, and therefore am “unfit to speak to school teachers” and a “threat to the sense of security of every aboriginal child in Alberta” (see Press Release – Weber-Pillwax et al. on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog). 

Fortunately, both GETCA and the Alberta Teachers’ Association are standing up to this intimidation.  Patrick Loyer, the Association representative who debated me after the speech, realizes that it is important for teachers to hear critical viewpoints and that aboriginal educational policy should be openly debated and discussed.  Hopefully the integrity and courage of these organizations will enable others to express their critical opinions and we can actually have real debate, as opposed to school yard name-calling, on aboriginal policy in this country.

What also needs to be recognized is the reason behind Weber-Pillwax’s opposition to frank speech about aboriginal education policy.  Weber-Pillwax has a Ph.D. in “First Nations Education” from the University of Alberta, which values the incorporation of indigenous “perspectives and experiences” and “indigenous ontologies and epistemologies” in the educational system.  She also teaches a course entitled  ”Indigenous Research Methods” that explores “culturally appropriate research methodologies for Indigenous peoples”. Some of these “methodologies” are “interpretive” and are developed “within the context of Indigenous research ethics, paradigms and strategies…” and “structured in the context of the relationship between formal research and the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples” (http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckw/cora.htm).  Her views have been published in two articles (“Indigenous Research Methodologies”, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 2001 Vol 25(2) 166-174 and “Principles of Indigenous Research Methodology”, Journal of Educational Thought, January 1999).

Now, while I have not examined the rigour of Weber-Pillwax’s work, her use of the qualifier “indigenous” before “research methods” is indicative that the personal authority of various indigenous “knowledge keepers” will be uncritically accepted. This means that unsubstantiated opinions and spiritual mythology will be accepted as “knowledge” within the education system.  Weber-Pillwax wants to prevent the expression of ideas that would delegitimize her position as a “Specialization Coordinator of Indigenous Peoples Education” at the University of Alberta.  Pretentious arrogance and bullying are the only ways to prevent her dubious teaching philosophy and research agenda from being disrobed.

While many well-meaning people might condescendingly support Weber-Pillwax so as to raise aboriginal “self-esteem”, accepting the notion that there are “indigenous research methods” is very destructive to the educational achievement of native students in Alberta.  The disturbing statistics about aboriginal education are well known; how will these be improved if aboriginal students are not provided with high quality educational services that enable them to become critical thinkers and understand and use rigorous methodologies?  Aboriginal students need highly qualified teachers who will help them to acquire the skills that they need to participate in a wide variety of occupations.  Schooling them in “indigenous research methods” will only act to justify their marginalization from the mainstream and further entrench their dependency on the non-native “helpers” in the Aboriginal Industry.

On Friday February 26, I spoke at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA).  I was invited to speak by Hope Knudsen, the President of GETCA, after she heard me interviewed by Michael Enright on CBC radio on June 14, 2009 about Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (the interview is available on the Video/Audio/Interviews page of this blog and the CBC’s website).  In the interview, I argued that funding for aboriginal education was being diverted to non-aboriginal lawyers, consultants, and comprador aboriginal elites, and this money should be spent on hiring specially trained teachers to improve native educational deficiencies.

Ms. Knudsen was honestly responding to the ideas that were being presented, and was unaware that they were controversial.  She was unprepared for the fact that there are a number of people in Canada who do not want critical viewpoints on aboriginal policy development to be expressed, either because of their vested interests or the fact that they are “humanitarian” opponents of free speech – an ideology that is discussed in “the kindly inquisitors” post on this blog.  ”Humanitarians” maintain that ideas should not be criticized if this ”causes hurt” or “gives offence” (especially if the ideas are being put forward by groups that have been the historical victims of oppression). 

The first I became aware of the opposition to my speech was on the arrogantly irrational website of Taiaiake Alfred, a romantic indigenous “warrior” employed in the University of Victoria’s Indigenous Governance advocacy program.  A posting from “Barry” on February 10, 2010 noted that “unbelievably, Ms. Widdowson is being allowed to speak at an upcoming Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) convention at the end of this month. Upon finding this out today I have contacted one of the Local presidents of the Alberta Teachers’ Association as well as the president of GETCA to find out how this has happened and to inquire if they know who it is they have invited. Ms. W. is not part of a panel (this I would have encouraged) but will, to my understanding, have a captive audience with her as the sole presenter. I am appalled! However, I promise that I will condense many of the arguments presented here and confront her when she appears in Edmonton.  I am expecting she will be as slippery as anything I have heretofore encountered” (http://www.taiaiake.com/42).

It was no surprise, therefore, when, upon returning from dinner the night before I was scheduled to speak, I found a message on my answering machine inviting me to come for a drink with the conference organizers.  Upon arrival, the organizers informed me that one professor and two graduate students from the University of Alberta had been lobbying to have me excluded from the program.  Fortunately, GETCA was standing firm but they were concerned about the reception that I might receive; I assured them that I was not worried, and hoped that the humanitarian censors from the University of Alberta would attend the session and engage me in a civil debate.  It was then decided that another session, presented by Patrick Loyer, “Addressing Aboriginal Learning Outcomes”, would be cancelled so that he could comment on my speech (presumably so that the convention could meet the demands of people like “Barry”, who were concerned that I would have a “captive audience”).  Loyer’s session was intending to show that ”it is becoming increasingly important for all teachers to know about aboriginal history and culture to address curriculum outcomes”.  He was also going to distribute a document entitled Education is Our Buffalo: A Teachers’ Resource for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education in Alberta” (produced by the Alberta Teachers’ Association, and also available on the internet – http://www.ldaa.ca/assets/pdfs/freeResources/EducationIsOurBuffalo.pdf ).

Although I was pleased that Loyer would be providing comments, because bringing together opposing viewpoints is how we move closer to the truth, his response to my speech ”Speaking Frankly About Aboriginal Education” (the transcript/speaking notes is available on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog), was very disappointing.  This was because Loyer appeared not to have read my work and did not provide any evidence for his criticisms, but instead relied upon the biased commentary of people like James Frideres and Peter Kulchyski.  Loyer began with the inane observation that my speech ”was only words”, and then went on to make the following points:

1. That I discussed technological development that had occurred in Europe but had not recognized the sophistication of aboriginal technology (when pressed, the example that he came up with was the canoe).

2. My presentation gave the appearance of being reasonable and offering conclusions, but it did not “meet the minimum of research” (the wording of the unsubstantiated argument was very familiar, and was likely plagiarized from a speech given by James Frideres in December 2008  that was subsequently posted on the internet).

3. That I had a “euroecentric” view of science and used methodology that was akin to ”logical positivism” (an argument that was not substantiated and appears to have been plagiarized from Sandra Tomsons). 

4. I was guilty of “intellectual dishonesty” (a claim that was not substantiated, and presumably plagiarized from Peter Kulchyski);

5. Aboriginal peoples also had made advancements in science, mathematics and logic; the substantiation for this claim was the example of the Mayan calendar. 

6. That I had dismissed aboriginal oral traditions, which have value because they have been around for a long time.

While these criticisms were superficial and largely unsubstantiated, there was some fruitful dialogue that took place in the question period.  One of the most important outcomes was that I was able to articulate how important science was for all people, and that assertions about “eurocentric science” discouraged non-Europeans from accessing this essential educational tool.  The fact that GETCA stood up to the political pressure and allowed the talk to go forward also was a victory for science and a blow to the “humanitarian” agenda of censoring ideas under the auspices of professed offence.  As Rauch points out, we have to realize that “humanitarianism” is contrary to critical thinking and scientific progress because it fails to understand that “knowledge does not come free to any of us; we have to suffer for it.  We have to stand naked before the court of critical checkers and watch our most cherished beliefs come under fire.  Sometimes we have to watch while our notion of evident truth gets tossed in the gutter.  Sometimes we feel we are treated rudely, even viciously.  As others prod and test and criticize our ideas, we feel angry, hurt, embarassed” (Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, p. 125).

I have just had the pleasure of reading Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (www.amazon.ca/Kindly-Inquisitors-Attacks-Free-Thought/dp/0226705757).  Although the book was published in 1993, all of its arguments continue to have relevance today. 

In the book, Rauch outlines three threats to free thought – what he calls “fundamentalism”, “egalitarianism” and “humanitarianism”.  While the threat of fundamentalism - those who are convinced that they know the truth, and therefore do not need to listen to criticisms and opposing points of view – has been extensively documented, the impact of what he calls “egalitarianism” and “humanitarianism” is not well understood. 

According to Rauch, “egalitarianism” appeals to the ideal of fairness and has two principles – one simple and the other radical.  In the case of the former, it is maintained that “all sincere persons’ beliefs have equal claims to respect”, while the latter is modified so that it is ”the beliefs of persons in historically oppressed classes or groups [that should] get special consideration” (p. 6).  Egalitarianism essentially denies the validity of the scientific method for improving our understanding of the natural world, and it maintains that oppressed groups, because their views have been historically excluded from the academy, should have their “perspectives” incorporated into the educational system.

Humanitarianism, on the other hand, is a “challenge from compassion”.  It argues that words, as well as physical harm, can be ”violent”, and therefore no one should cause offence.  Humanitarianism is the driving force behind the howls of outrage that greet any person who dares to question the assumptions informing gender feminism, multiculturalism and “queer theory”.  One should not criticize the claims of historically oppressed minorities, it is argued, because this would lower their self-esteem, resulting in further marginalization and oppression.

Egalitarianism and humanitarianism are related, in that the eqalitarian idea that all beliefs deserve equal respect cuts the legs out from under the argument that sometimes it is necessary to offend to be able to pursue the truth.  The egalitarian assumption that there is no truth, only ”equally valid” truths, justifies the assertion that it must be hatred of “the Other” that drives criticisms of cultural relativism.

It is these two ideas – egalitarianism and humanitarianism – that shape a great deal of public discourse today, including many university courses.  Particularly informative is Rauch’s discussion of the argument, common in various “advocacy studies” programs, that “only-minorities-can-understand” their circumstances.  As Rauch points out, this argument is “denying the very possibility of …science, whose premise is that knowledge is available to everyone and comes through public inquiry and criticism, not from the color of your skin or your ethnic heritage or your social class” (p. 146).  He goes on to point out that it does not make sense to claim that there are racially-based perspectives since “within any racial or ethnic group that you care to define, perspectives are much more different than alike.  Knowing a man’s color or descent tells you nothing whatever about his ‘perspective’; nor does it make him a bit more or less credible as a player in the game of science.  No personal authority is allowed – nor any racial authority”.

With this statement, Rauch is able to clarify how egalitarianism and humanitarianism are undermining science, and to encourage people to “stand firm” on the following principles:

“No one is allowed the right to end any debate, or to claim special control over it or exemption from it.  No one under any circumstances is excempt from criticism of any kind, however unpleasant.

No one will be punished for the beliefs he holds or the opinions he states, because to believe incorrectly is never a crime.

Criticism, however unpleasant, is not violence.  Except in cases where violence or vandalism is threatened or incited, the very notion of ‘words that wound’ or ‘verbal harassment’ is to be repudiated and junked.

Those who claim to be hurt by words must be led to expect nothing as compensation.  Otherwise, once they learn they can get something by claiming to be hurt, they will go into the business of being offended” (pp. 158-9).

Frances Widdowson, Ph.D., Department of Policy Studies, Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW, Calgary, Alberta T3E 6K6, Email: fwiddowson@mtroyal.ca, Telephone: 403-440-6884

February 14, 2010

Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, 350 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 1H5

Dear Colleagues,

I am a political scientist who studies aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations, and I would like to comment on the second draft of Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS).  Quite frankly, I find this chapter very disturbing and a threat to the principles of sound academic inquiry.  The threat lies in the Chapter’s attempt to politicize research, resulting in the justification of the suppression of findings that are contrary to the agenda of various aboriginal political organizations.  In fact, Chapter 9 seems to be much more interested in pandering to the political concerns of the aboriginal leadership than in ensuring that research is conducted in an ethical manner.

The politicization of research is apparent in the first paragraph of Chapter 9, when it states that the recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Canadian Constitution “implies an ethical duty for those involved in research to acknowledge and support the desire of Aboriginal Peoples to maintain their collective identities and the continuity of their cultures”.  This statement confuses politics with ethics.  It should be recognized that the Constitution Act, 1982 was the result of a great deal of political gamesmanship (the reference to the “supremacy of God” in this document, for example, was incorporated because a number of evangelical Christians lobbied the government of the time, but this does not mean that researchers should be required to “acknowledge and support the desire” of these groups to assert the existence of “God”). Therefore, it is very dangerous to try to impose this political agenda on researchers.  What if a researcher finds that the maintenance of certain aspects of “collective identities” and “the “continuity of…cultures” are socially destructive? Should they be prevented from documenting this in their research?  Chapter 9 notes that “Aboriginal peoples are particularly concerned that research should enhance their capacity to maintain their cultures, languages and identities as distinct peoples and to facilitate their full participation in and contribution to Canadian society”, but this is a political argument and not the basis for a scientific research agenda.  What if the aboriginal “capacity to maintain their cultures, languages and identities as distinct peoples” conflicts with “their full participation in and contribution to Canadian society”?  Should a researcher avoid coming to this conclusion even if it is warranted by the evidence?

More specifically, there are two areas of the TCPS that are particularly destructive to the acquisition of knowledge about aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations.  One involves “community control” over research.  The second pertains to assertions that “Indigenous knowledge systems” should be “respected” by researchers.

With respect to “community control” over research, Chapter 9 notes that “while continuing to respect individual autonomy, this Policy acknowledges the role of community in shaping the conduct of research, in particular, research that affects First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”.  To achieve this end, it is maintained that “collaborative research should be relevant to community needs and priorities and should benefit the participating community as well as extend the boundaries of societal knowledge”.  Research, therefore, “should be relevant and have the potential to produce valued outcomes from the perspective of the community and its members”.

But what if the “role of the community in shaping the conduct of research” conflicts with “respect [for] individual autonomy”?  And what if “community…priorities” are intent on opposing “extend[ing] the boundaries of societal knowledge”?

These statements in Chapter 9 are completely oblivious to the possibility that “community control” over research can be used to oppose the acquisition of knowledge.  This has been seen in two of the examples referred to in Chapter 9 – the “violation of community norms regarding the use of human tissue and remains” and the “dissemination of information that… stigmatized whole communities”.  With respect to the use of “human tissue and remains”, some aboriginal leaders have tried to obstruct the study of ancient skeletons because it was feared that this knowledge would challenge their claims to the land based on original occupancy (the case of Kennewick man, for example). Finding the Long Ago Person Found skeleton even resulted in the remains being cremated in a “spiritual ceremony”, resulting in the destruction of a priceless piece of archaeological data that could have been used indefinitely to increase knowledge about the people living at that time.  The research of Spencer Wells into genetics also has been obstructed because a number of aboriginal leaders did not want their creation myth to be refuted with DNA evidence.  In addition, concerns about “stigmatization” have been used to suppress research on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, AIDS in native communities and reserve corruption.  The muzzling of these research findings under the guise of “community control” has prevented an understanding of the seriousness of these problems and the urgency of the policy response needed.   

These problems about “community control” of research are related to the other major difficulty found in Chapter 9 – the dictate that research findings should be interpreted “in the context of cultural norms and traditional knowledge”.  It is maintained that researchers should “respect…Indigenous knowledge systems by ensuring that distinct world views are represented wherever possible…”, but “indigenous knowledge”  is defined as including “feelings”, “spirit”, “the land as a living entity that reveals the way to living a good life”, and “spirituality expressed in traditional or Christian practices, relationships with ancestors and responsibilities to future generations”.   With this definition, Chapter 9 is confusing knowledge with belief, and is therefore mandating researchers to accept untrue beliefs and opinions as “knowledge”.  This will not have the effect of “extend[ing] the boundaries of societal knowledge”, but the opposite.

Chapter 9 refers to circumstances where there has been a “devaluing of Indigenous knowledge as primitive or superstitious”, but there are numerous examples of “Indigenous knowledge” where such a label would be appropriate.  Throwing beaver fetuses into the water so that they can be “reborn” is just one such instance.  This is a belief that existed before the development of scientific wildlife management practices, and it could, therefore, be characterized as “primitive”.  Also, the definition for “superstition” is the following: “an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome” or a “belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance”. The views of some aboriginal people, like all who believe in the supernatural, can be characterized as such.  Why should researchers be prevented from making such an accurate declaration if the beliefs in question are consistent with this dictionary definition?

The demand that that research findings should be interpreted “in the context of cultural norms and traditional knowledge” is very destructive to the research process and will result in the acceptance of research findings that are not supported with evidence.  This has the capacity to undermine research that is being undertaken in all academic disciplines.  In the case of political science, for example, pressure to accept the viewpoints of certain aboriginal people as “knowledge” is already resulting in the acceptance of incorrect information in our discipline.  One example concerns claims about the “Iroquois Constitution”.  Aboriginal political scientists like Kiera Ladner, for example, maintain that the Iroquois political system influenced the American Constitution, despite the paucity of evidence to support this contention.   Arguing that aboriginal viewpoints must be accepted as “knowledge”, however, is preventing these dubious claims from being subjected to scholarly criticism.

Another example concerns the claim by the aboriginal “oral historian” Stephen Augustine.  According to Augustine, his “reading” of a wampum belt indicated that it was a component of the “Mi’kmaq Constitution”.   An in depth investigation of the matter by the University of Toronto anthropologist Alexander von Gernet, however, found that the belt had nothing to do with the Mi’kmaq, but had actually belonged to a French aboriginal group that gave it to the Pope as a present.  In this case, would the dictate to “respect…Indigenous knowledge systems by ensuring that distinct world views are represented wherever possible…”, mean that researchers would have to put forward Augustine’s highly suspect “interpretation” as a form of “knowledge”?   If so, how would the two “world views” be reconciled in terms of trying to understand the actual nature of the wampum belt or the political traditions of the Mi’kmaq?

Chapter 9 needs to determine its purpose.  Is its goal to appease the political demands of aboriginal organizations or increase knowledge in academic disciplines?  These two objectives are often incompatible with one another.  As has been shown above, mandating aboriginal “community control” over the research process and respect for “Indigenous knowledge” often results in incorrect ideas being incorporated into academic disciplines such as political science.  Not only will this seriously undermine scholarship on aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations; it is also condescending to aboriginal people and prevents them from becoming legitimate actors in the research process and actual contributors to social knowledge.

Sincerely,

Frances Widdowson

Below is a letter from Rhoda Howard-Hassmann to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics concerning Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement (I have also posted a PDF of this letter on the Ethics page of this blog).   Many very important points are raised in this letter, which will be of interest to all who study aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations.  I will also be providing my comments shortly to the Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA) and to the Interagency Advisory Panel (due March 1, 2010), and urge others to do the same.  Interestingly, Graham White, the President-Elect of the CPSA, wrote me on January 22, 2010 asking for feedback on Chapter 9 because he had been asked “to coordinate the Association’s reponse to one aspect of an important, ongoing process relating to the ethics regime for academic research in Canada”.  This request is somewhat surprising since I was intending to present a paper on this “important, ongoing process” at the CPSA’s 2010 Annual Meeting, but the organization decided that my paper did not “fit” within the program, and subsequently relegated it to a “poster” session.   Because of the CPSA’s recognition of the issue’s importance, one would think that it would jump at the chance to have the matter discussed on a panel, as well as having a scholarly paper on the subject posted on its website.

FW

***

February 5, 2010

Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, 350 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 1H5

Dear Colleagues,

I am pleased to have the chance to comment on the second draft of Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. I am copying this letter to the Associate Vice-President, Research, at Wilfrid Laurier University, to the WLU Faculty Association (WLUFA), and to the CAUT.  These are my own comments, and should not be understood as the views of WLU, the WLUFA, or the CAUT.

Since the Panel intends to post comments on this draft on its website, I wish to clarify my own background before presenting my concerns. I am a scholar of international human rights; I have also been teaching comparative genocide studies for twenty-five years. Although I am not a scholar of aboriginal affairs, I believe that a strong and compelling argument can be made that Aboriginal Canadians are victims of cultural genocide. Thus, I believe that attempts to preserve their languages, indigenous religions, traditions, and cultures are very important. At the same time, however, I do not believe aboriginal communities should be essentialized as unchanging and without internal cleavages and disputes. Moreover, as a specialist in human rights I am concerned about academic freedom and freedom of speech as it pertains to research on Aboriginal communities, as it pertains everywhere else.

I am pleased to see that some of the problems I noted in my earlier letter to you of January 19, 2009 have been remedied. Some, however, remain, or new problems have emerged. While I agree with most of the principles set out in this version of Chapter 9, I am still worried about what happens in cases of conflicts of interests between communities and researchers, and conflicts between communities and individuals. I also have some concerns about aboriginal knowledge, and about some potential legal matters.

 Academic Freedom

 The Draft still sidesteps the question of whether a community can absolutely block a research project. There may be occasions when communities and researchers cannot come to an agreement on research. If this happens, does the researcher have the right to continue with her research—perhaps by contacting individual members of the community—or not?  Article 9:10, lines 3678 ff states that a community can engage nominally or not at all in research,  Can the community deny the researcher access? 

 The idea of “partnership” (e.g. line 3363) between scholars and research subjects assumes no conflicts, or conflicts that can be resolved with good will. One would hope that such resolution would be the case, most of the time. But if conflicts can’t be resolved, whose views take precedence if there are disagreements over questions, methods, results, or conclusions? Line 3468-69 notes Aboriginal communities have often not had the chance to correct misinformation or ethnocentric interpretations. While this is true, what onus, if any, is the Panel putting on researchers here to accept such corrections, if offered?  Does the researcher have the right to reject offered corrections? Article 9:17, lines 3870-77 imply that the researcher does have such a right: but the Panel should make it clear that the researcher is entitled to have the last word. Similarly, with regard to Article 9:11:, lines 3704-3705: If there are “mutual responsibilities” in analysis and interpretations, production of reports and dissemination of results, does the researcher enjoy the academic freedom to publish her own analysis and interpretations in event of disagreement? Does she enjoy the academic freedom to disseminate her findings wherever she wishes?

These matters must be clarified: as it stands, this draft waffles about what happens in case of conflict between researchers and aboriginal communities. If researchers do not enjoy the normal rights of academic freedom, then Chapter 9 should begin with an Article that states clearly that researchers on Aboriginal affairs do not enjoy these rights. As I stated in my letter of 2009, if the principles of academic freedom are to apply to all research except research about aboriginal communities, then this should be clearly stated so that researchers on aboriginal matters know they are operating under a different set of rules than they are used to.

 Individuals and Community

 This draft, like the earlier version, still assumes that individual aboriginal Canadians do not have the same rights to autonomy as all other Canadians. The foreword states that First Nation, Inuit and Métis communities, but not individuals from these communities, are invited to respond to the draft. A community is defined (line 3178-79) as “a collectivity with shared identity or interests that has the capacity to act or express itself as a group.” This definition ignores communities within which interests many not be shared, even if identities are.

Throughout, references are made to Aboriginal communities as if all Aboriginal individuals live in such communities. Many do not. How is research on urban aboriginals without ties to any Aboriginal community to be conducted? If, for example, a researcher wishes to conduct research on Aboriginal university graduates living in Toronto, how is she supposed to do so?

The phrase, “while continuing to respect individual autonomy” (l. 3139-40) is not sufficient to protect the autonomy of Aboriginal individuals, an autonomy considered in other parts of the Policy Statement as key to respect for all non-Aboriginal Canadians. The Policy does not yet clarify what a researcher is to do if the interests of the “community” (or those who represent it or purport to do so) do not coincide with the interests of individuals. Indeed, the Policy still does not present guidance on how researchers can by-pass community leaders to access individuals who may wish to participate in research that the community leaders do not wish to see conducted.

I repeat what I said in my letter of 2009: there must be some statement that aboriginal leaders or elders do not have the right to veto research in which individual aboriginals might be interested in participating. The possibility of not engaging with the community in some situations must be allowed; for example, if all the community leaders are members of extended family x, and do not want extended family y’s circumstances to be investigated, the researcher must be permitted to circumvent the community leaders and go directly to family y. Aboriginal leaders do not always serve the collective welfare of the individuals within their communities (l. 3239). Lines 3330-31- state that when the “welfare of relevant communities is not affected…informed consent of individuals is sufficient.” Who decides when the welfare of the community is affected? This statement presumes, once more, that community leaders enjoy the support of all members of the community and make decisions that do not adversely affect any community members. In no other Canadian community is this assumed. 

 The Chapter as a whole glosses over real and potential differences between individual and community interests. Acknowledgement of diversity among and within Aboriginal communities, and the statement that such diversity “increases the important of clarifying mutual expectations and obligations within the community” (line 3338-44) is facile, and does not confront the hard question of whose interests take precedence when there is conflict. The statement in lines 3389-93 that “First Nations, Inuit and Métis individuals…enjoy freedom of expression as does any other citizen [and that] “they are free to give informed consent…” is not strong enough.  This statement should be front and centre in this chapter and it should be made clear that potential research participants enjoy this freedom whether or not the welfare of the community is likely to be affected by their decisions and whether or not community leaders agree with their decision.

Similarly, the paragraph starting at line 3510 should be front and centre. It should refer not only to “subgroups” but to individuals, whether vulnerable or not.  It should clarify that research among these people should not be viewed as covert. The Panel should be supporting overt research in communities even when there are intra-community conflicts and especially when there are risks to participants. Canada is a democracy: no citizen should have to fear that her or his rights as an individual will be undermined because of her or his decision to participate in research. This paragraph is written as though Aboriginal communities are not legally obliged to protect their citizens’ individual rights.

The larger question here is whether Aboriginals are citizens of Canada, or only members of their own Aboriginal communities. If they are citizens of Canada, then they have the same right as any other citizen to make up their own mind as to whether to participate in a research project, irrespective of the wishes of community leaders. No other competent Canadian adult is obliged to take into account any opinion but her own before deciding whether to participate in a research project. If collective decision-making is merely a “complement” to individual decisions (l. 3272) in research projects on indigenous peoples outside Canada, then it should be clear throughout this document that within Canada as well, researchers may have direct access to individuals, who may make their own decisions about participation in research regardless of their community’s views. If, however, individual Aboriginals are to be denied the autonomy that all other competent Canadian adults are assumed to enjoy, that should be clearly stated at the outset of the Chapter. 

Indigenous Knowledge

 “Indigenous knowledge” is now defined as “holistic, involving body, mind, feeling and spirit” (lines 3208-09). As far as I can determine, however, this Draft still refers not only to statements of fact that are empirically verifiable according to normal scientific standards, but also to non-verifiable Aboriginal beliefs and myths, as knowledge. There is still no suggestion that this “knowledge” could be inaccurate. Yet academic freedom implies that any researcher can investigate anything an individual or a group claims to be its “knowledge”; we do not, for example, protect non-aboriginal Christians who insist on the empirical accuracy of their Biblical origin myth from academic inquiry into it, even if falsification of such a myth might undermine their Christian identity.  I find it patronizing that this Draft assumes that Aboriginal Canadians—alone among all the peoples of the world—are incapable of withstanding normal academic challenges to what they construe to be knowledge, and incapable of differentiating between verifiable scientific knowledge and unverifiable beliefs or myths.

Moreover, I question the statement (l. 3211-12) that “indigenous peoples value their relationship with the land as a living entity that reveals the way to living a good life.” This may be true of many indigenous (as well as some non-indigenous) individuals, but it is a romanticized view of many others, some of whom live in such situations of severe poverty and social dislocation that their relationship (if any) with the land is unlikely to figure largely in their worldview.  That such poverty and social dislocation is a consequence in large part of past Canadian genocidal and colonial policies does not mean that all indigenous people would, if they could, value their relationship with the land. Aboriginal knowledge is here essentialized as a consequence of an undifferentiated, romantic view of Aboriginal people that does not take account of social reality.

As a minor point, why assume that indigenous Canadians can express their spirituality only through traditional or Christian practices? Does the Panel possess evidence that no spiritual indigenous person practices any other religion?

Legal Matters

Surely the statement that Article 9.1, (a), lines 3300-3302, applies to “lands over which a claim has been asserted but not settled,” is too broad. What about non-Aboriginals living on such land, as in the current concern over land claims in Caledonia, Ontario? Are researchers to be precluded from access to such individuals because the land claim is not settled?  Does the Panel have the authority to pre-judge legal claims in this manner, making authoritative statements about the responsibilities of researchers based on hypothetical outcomes of legal cases? 

Also regarding Article 9; 1, lines 3310-3311. Canada did not vote for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Surely this should be noted, whether one agrees with Canada’s negative vote or not. How can a publicly funded organization refer Canadian researchers to an international document that the Canadian government has not accepted, without noting that fact?

Article 9:18 re intellectual copyright. Has the Tri-Council Panel come up with proper guidelines on this? Individual researchers in fields such as anthropology probably do not have the capacity, even with complete good will, to negotiate appropriate intellectual property guidelines. Do individual REBs now have the responsibility to assist researchers in copyright matters? This is an extremely complex legal field. Legal advice is absolutely necessary to both researcher and the Aboriginal group concerned. Theft of traditional plant knowledge by private corporations, for example, is now common in many indigenous communities. Are there budget lines in the three Councils’ grant applications for the researcher(s) to seek appropriate legal advice? If so, will these budgets cover the costs of consulting with lawyers who may well charge up to $1,000 per hour?

Surely the three councils should be drafting a document with legal guidelines, having consulted with top-flight intellectual property lawyers, separate from the Research Ethics document, on the problem of intellectual copyright?

Smaller questions/concerns

Article 9.1: does this refer only to research on human subjects, or is it meant to apply, e.g. to statistical research about Aboriginal Canadians?

 Article 9.8 line 3555-56. Are Aboriginal cultures predominantly oral in 2010? Surely most Aboriginal Canadians are literate and many if not most of their laws, if not customs, are written down?

Article 9:14. I agree that research projects should support the enhancement of skills, education and training of Aboriginal peoples. However, do the individual granting agencies now have budget categories to make such training possible? Are there budget lines to cover costs such as feasting and gift-giving (lines 3822-28), which in other contexts would be considered illegitimate bribery?

I hope that the Panel will find my comments useful.

Yours sincerely,

Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann

Cc. Dr. Paul Maxim, Associate Vice-President, Research, WLU

      Dr. Judy Bates, President, WLUFA

      Dr. Jim Turk, CAUT

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Over the last two weeks there has been much discussion of the case of Rom Houben (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200911/20091127.html), a man who was misdiagnosed as being in a coma for over 20 years, but recently began communicating.  A number of media outlets have reported Houben as making the following statements about his ordeal: “I would scream, but no sound would come out”, “I became the witness to my own suffering, as doctors and nurses tried to speak to me and eventually gave up”, “I will never forget the day they finally discovered what was wrong — it was my second birth”, “All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt”, and ”I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead”  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Rom-Houben-Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html#ixzz0ZAUWm8Ni).  Mr. Houben has evidently become so loquacious that, according to his mother, he is now writing a book.

Houben’s “statements”, however, have been made through a process known as facilitated communication.  This entails having a specially trained “facilitator” sense movements in his hand, then guide his fingers over a touch-screen keyboard so that he can spell out words letter-by-letter. Although there are a number of supporters of this practice, including Douglas Biklen, the Dean of the School of Education at Syracuse University and the Director of the University’s Facilitated Communication Institute, many question its validity to the point of calling it a hoax (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/houben-communication/#Replay).  The most well known opponent is James Randi, a magician and founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/site), a non-profit organization that promotes critical thinking.

With respect to Rom Houben, Randi explains what has to occur before the claim of actual communication can be sustained.  According to Randi, it “could only be considered credible if the facilitator didn’t look at the keyboard or screen while supporting Houben’s hand, and helped him type messages in response to questions she had not heard, thus ensuring that Houben’s responses are entirely his own”.  Arthur Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics, also notes another factor that casts doubt on the claims about Houben – that Houben was completely lucid after suffering the damage to cognition that would have been sustained from being completely isolated for over twenty years.  Caplan notes that “you’re going to lie for 23 years in a hospital bed with almost no stimuli, and then sound completely coherent and cogent?”.  According to Caplan, “Something is wrong with that picture. The messages are almost poetic. It sounds too lucid, like someone prepared these things to say…”.

In an interview on CBC Radio’s The Current about the Houben case, Randi points to the factors that enable self-deception to occur with respect to the efficacy of facilitated communication (an insight that also applies to things like faith healing, ghost hunting, fortune telling, and religious claims more generally). The first concerns the funds that are being made available for this technique, largely from relatives of disabled people, who desperately hope that communication with their loved ones is possible.  The second factor, which is related to the first, is the self-deception and charlatanism made possible by wishful thinking.  People who want to believe something are inclined to accept any evidence, no matter how dubious, which gives them emotional satisfaction (as Randi puts it: “a willingness to believe can overwhelm the evidence…”).  This is why particular care needs to be exercised to ensure that people with no interest in facilitated communication (financial or emotional) are designated as its evaluators.  James Randi’s organization, for example, is offering a $1 million prize to anyone who can show that the technique works in a double-blind study.  Douglas Bilken, however, refuses to participate in Randi’s challenge because his “Institute” does not engage in interaction with “entertainers”.  It is obvious that Bilken’s career and the funding for his “Institute” are tied up with trying to “prove” the efficacy of facilitated communication.  As a result, any findings that he presents should be viewed with skepticism.

Although people like James Randi and Arthur Caplan are skeptical about the claims concerning Rom Houben, there has been no critical analysis of one of the most famous instances of apparent “facilitated communication” – the case of Helen Keller.  All that we know about Helen Keller’s ability to communicate comes from her “facilitator”, Annie Sullivan.  Considerable fame was acquired by Sullivan in this position, even though it would have been extremely unlikely for Keller to graduate from university, give talks and write books in her disabled state.  The “Miracle Worker”, however, is a feel good story that tells us what we want to hear.  Once again, the “willingness to believe overwhelm[s] the evidence”.

On December 3, 2009, the CBC Radio program The Current explored what it means to be gay in the world today.  The program featured the ideas of Sky Gilbert, a drag queen and University Research Chair in Creative Writing and Theatre Studies at the University of Guelph.  During the interview, and also in a column written for The Globe and Mail, entitled “If that’s what it means to be gay, I quit” (December 2, 2009, p. A21), Gilbert asserts that he no longer identifies as “gay” because the culture associated with it is now so boring and meaningless that it is indistinguishable from being straight.  As a result, Gilbert now prefers to identify as ESP, an Effeminate Sexual Person (pronounced e-s-p-i-e).

But how, according to Gilbert, is “gay culture” different from “straight culture”?  For Gilbert, being gay should involve much more than just copulating with the same sex.  It also means “challenging the status quo”, which includes being promiscuous and engaging in “gender play” (in Gilbert’s words: “I prefer my women to act like men and my men to act like women”).  He objects to television comedies such as Modern Family, which portray gay men as being “normal” (presumably, not effeminate and promiscuous), caring and “good citizens”.

Gilbert attempts to promote promiscuity and “gender inappropriate behaviour” by linking these behaviours to the social radicalism of the 1960s.  But what do these activities have to do with “lefty politics” and the opposition to consumerism?  While progressive politics did challenge the backward traditional morality of the 1950s, which resulted in the oppression of various groups, this does not mean that promiscuity and “gender play” are socially beneficial in themselves.  In fact, these activities largely consist of sexual exhibitionism and narcissism - behaviour that is closely intertwined with the excessive consumerism necessitated by late capitalism.   The decadence of “drag” and sado-masochism just opens up another market to be exploited.

In addition to the mistaken linkage of exhibitionism and narcissism with “challenging the status quo”, Gilbert’s conception of “gay culture” also has negative implications for the relations between men and women.  Why should a man who has sex with another man adopt exaggerated effiminate mannerisms?  Isn’t “gender play” just an extreme form of gender stereotyping, where men are gruff and dominant and women are flighty and submissive?  The stereotypes that are exhibited by “drag performers” like Gilbert discourage society from understanding that individual men and women have a range of masculine and feminine characteristics, and they cannot just be labelled “butch” and ”femme, or “bear” and “flamer”/”nellie”, as tends to occur in the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) community.  Gilbert even has the audacity to claim that “heterosexual sex disempowers women” – a bizarre claim when one considers the gender stereotyping that he is advocating for gay sexual relationships.

The lesbian and gay rights movement came out of the legitimate response to political oppression and state coercion that was occurring at the time.  This discrimination still occurs in many contexts, especially in high schools, and should be vigorously opposed.  What is happening, however, is that legitimate grievances are being hijacked by people like Sky Gilbert who want to be “visible” and pursue self-aggrandizing and socially negative behaviours to achieve this end.  Sky Gilbert has the right to say whatever inane thing pops into his head, but fear about being perceived as “homophobic” should not prevent people from severely criticizing his nonsensical brand of self-indulgence.

If you scroll down to the post on this blog entitled “Caledonia: A glimpse of aboriginal self-government” (November 23, 2009), you will find a lengthy comment by Mark Vandermaas, the editor of www.VoiceofCanada.ca and co-founder of CANACE (Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality).  I recently became acquainted with Mr. Vandermaas and his organization after he sent me a message in appreciation of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.  Vandermaas noted that, while not mentioned specifically in our book, other circumstances that we had documented were eerily reminiscent of what had transpired in Caledonia and Ipperwash (interestingly, Albert Howard and I had followed some of the media coverage and hearings pertaining to Ipperwash, and were disturbed by the  inconsistencies and subterfuge that we observed.  For example, it was maintained that the aboriginal people involved were not in possession of guns, but one person was told by their lawyer to retract their testimony about participating in target practice with a rifle earlier that day).

One of the most significant aspects of Vandermaas’ post is that he notes that ”[Caledonia: A glimpse of self-government"] makes an excellent point about non-natives having no expectation of justice under an aboriginal system…” but there should also be the reconition that “native people themselves have been badly victimized by native extremists and by the refusal of police to enforce the law”.  Vandermaas then provides the following links that document the problems of lawlessness for vulnerable members of aboriginal communities: http://voiceofcanada.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/voc-speech-at-remember-us-march-oct-0807/ and http://voiceofcanada.wordpress.com/victimizing-native-people/.

This was an unfortunate omission of my previous post.  It should be stressed that both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are harmed by lawlessness.  As we pointed out in chapter six, “Justice: Rewarding Friends and Punishing Enemies”, in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (pp. 129-159), lawlessness in aboriginal communities results in the continued oppression of the most vulnerable members of aboriginal communities – especially women and children – because no mechanism exists to protect them from powerful abusers in the community.  “Justice” is kinship-based, and those not related to powerful families in aboriginal communities can be oppressed with impunity.

Some might question how my support for the rule of law in Caledonia is consistent with the historical materialist analysis that informs Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.  How can someone who claims to be on the “left” be supportive of the laws enforced by the Canadian state?  Such an argument fails to recognize that equality under law is a progressive principle, and is an advancement over kinship-based “justice” systems.  Although the wealthy can often gain advantages in a modern legal system by, for example, hiring highly skilled legal help, we pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry that “modern laws serve the interests of society in common, and so, have the general support of all citizens.  Equal, objective and impersonal application of the law makes sexual assault of anyone and everyone illegal, regardless of social position” (p. 140).

It should be recognized, therefore, that the non-aboriginal supporters of the “Mohawk Warriors”  are right-wing, not left-wing.  They are right-wing because they advocate a return to tribal politics, where entitlements are determined by kinship (blood and marriage), not laws that apply universally to the citizenry, regardless of their status and/or ancestry.  Accepting the views of the pseudoleftist supporters of the “Mohawk Warriors” would make Canada more unequal than it is right now (and inequality is the essence of right-wing ideologies).  In fact, current demands for “aboriginal nationalism” and “sovereignty”, because they connect land to ancestry, have more in common with the ideology of Nazi Germany than left-wing ideas.

Support for the “Mohawk Warriors” exists because it is mistakenly assumed that this criminal gang, which is often acting to protect its drug and gambling turf, represents socialist ideals.  Therefore, any argument put forward is accepted, regardless of the implications that this has for working class people in towns like Caledonia and marginalized members of the aboriginal population.  Although left-wing thinkers should support those who are struggling for social justice and equality, achieving this will mean challenging the romantic reactionaries that have turned Caledonia into a tribal war zone.

During the week of November 2-6, 2009, CBC listeners were subjected to the windbaggery and theatre of Wade Davis, an anthropologist, ethnobotanist, and “explorer in residence” at the National Geographic Society.  These talks were given as the Massey Lectures, which, according to the host Paul Kennedy, are attempts of ”the best minds of our time [to] discuss the issues that face us…” (www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey.html).

In these lectures, Davis argues that “ancient wisdom” matters today, and therefore it is in the interest of all human beings to preserve cultural diversity  (these views also have been published in a book The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World (House of Anansi Press, 2009)).  The important questions that arise from these claims are 1) what is this “wisdom”; and 2) why does it “matter” today.  Unfortunately for the listener, one does not really receive answers to these questions from Davis.  “Wisdom” includes “myth”, “magic”, sacred sites that “eternally inform the present”, a belief in spirits, the efficacy of prayer, and “ancestral powers”, “sacred medicines” and “spirit food”, and many other unsubstantiated conceptions about the nature of humanity, the earth, and the universe as a whole.  The bushmen of the Kalahari, for example, believe that antelope “literally” present themselves to be killed; shamans travel “beyond the milky way” and see things that are invisible to the spiritually challenged; and “enlightened” Buddhists are able to discover “the science of the mind” through meditating in a cave for seven years.

The major source of “evidence” that Davis provides to support the importance of this “ancient wisdom” for today is a confusion of cultural and biological diversity.  Absurd statements are made to support this conflation, including his assertion that every language is an “ancient rain forest of the mind” and the assimilation of even one culture is similar to “dropping a bomb on the Louvre”.  It is also assumed that arguments for cultural evolution must rely on notions of racial superiority, even though the racial basis of culture was rejected by cultural evolutionists even before the 1950s.  What Davis fails to address is how cultural diversity differs from genetic diversity.  Genetic diversity is needed because the biological basis of species remains relatively static, and therefore genetic diversity protects species from environmental shocks; some strains of rice, for example, will be able to withstand drought, and therefore diversity of this foodstuff is necessary for human survival.

This circumstance, however, does not apply to cultural diversity.  Davis assumes that maintaining the wide variety of “world views” that are associated with different cultures is important to human survival, but many of these conceptualizations of the world are not supported by evidence.  If we need to base our interaction with the environment on what is actually true to aid our future survival, how will we be able to act decisively in the face of contradictory opinions?  Either human beings migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago (as Davis himself asserts), or different people were created by their vision of “Mother Earth” or “Father Sky”.  To accept both viewpoints equally as “wisdom” is to paralyze our capacity as a species to understand our common history and act in cooperation to protect our future survival.

Besides his erroneous conflation of cultural and biological diversity, the other major source of support for Davis’ assertions about the importance of “ancient wisdom” come from his own politically motivated observations.  The two most significant instances concern his statements about the amazonian understanding of the pharmacological properties of plants and the navigation skills of ancient polynesian peoples.  According to Davis, he “witnessed dazzling examples of pharmacological wizardry” in the Amazon, and that polynesian navigators do not need instruments in their boats to find islands thousands of miles away.  Davis maintains that these navigators are able to achieve similar navigational feats as European sailors because of their exceptional memories and intuition; these navigators use the “needle of the compass that was the sky” and orient their vessels with the “feel of the water”.

Davis’ observations, however, should be regarded with skepticism.  The claims about the polynesian navigators are almost surely apocryphal (Davis notes, for example, that thick clouds thwarted a navigator until he envisioned the island in his mind and the sun came out).  It is also important to note that the pharmacological knowledge of another group, the Penan, was created by Davis and others by implanting these ideas in the interview process.  This is revealed by J. Peter Brosius who conducted interviews with the Penan ten years before Wade Davis arrived on the scene, but uncovered no indigenous pharmacological knowledge at that time.  After Davis and other athropologists and environmentalists talked to the Panan, however, Brosius discovered that the Penan began to assert that they did have this knowledge.  As Brosius points out, Davis and others created “a kind of ethnographic hall of mirrors” whereby they brought knowledge obtained from elsewhere to the Penan “who then repeat it back to [others] who take it as an exemplar of the depth of indigenous knowledge”.  Brosius surmises that this came out of ”the myriad conversations that have occurred between Penan and the environmentalists who have visited them.  Penan take note of the Euro-American gaze on medicinal plants and turn it back to them as commentary”.  J. Peter Brosius, “Engangered Forest, Engandered People: Environmentalist Representations of Indigenous Knowledge”, in Roy Ellen et al. (ed), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000), p. 307.

This is the title of a full page ad in The Globe and Mail on November 7, 2009.  The ad is promoting the integration of children with Down syndrome into regular schools.  It is noted that “when all students learn together, diversity is valued, personal growth and citizenship is enhanced and equity experienced”.  It then goes on to promote the existence of Down syndrome in society more generally: “celebrate the birth of a child with Down syndrome.  It’s better for everyone!  That’s the kind of world we want all of our children to inherit”.  The Canadian Down Syndrome Society (http://www.cdss.ca), which sponsored the ad along with TD Waterhouse, has a vision of “a proud Canada, where ALL are welcome, we embrace diversity and we value everyone’s genes equally” and a mission “to ensure equitable opportunities for all Canadians with Down syndrome.  This means, to make sure all Canadians with Down syndrome have the right supports to give them the same opportunities as everyone else”.  It asserts that people with Down syndrome are “unique” and even states that that they “are going to post-secondary schools, working and getting married”.

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society appears to be intent on conflating two goals so as to disguise the enormous problems of providing “equal opportunities” to people with Down syndrome.  The first is the indisputable goal of treating those with Down syndrome respectfully, and ensuring that they have a high quality of life.  The second, appears to suggest that people with Down syndrome should be able to participate in society just like everyone else.  Down syndrome, it is implied, is not a mental disability, but constitutes a “community” that makes Canada “more diverse”.  We are even told that people with Down syndrome are “going to post-secondary schools” – a strange circumstance when one considers that ”all individuals with Down syndrome have some degree of mental retardation” and therefore “learn more slowly and have difficulties with complex reasoning and judgment” (http://downsyndrome.about.com).

The underlying message is that women who are carrying a foetus with Down syndrome should not abort it since to do so is to exhibit the pernicious attitude of “not valu[ing] everyone’s genes equally”.  The Canadian Down Syndrome Society, in fact, argues the following: “we believe that the widespread use of genetic screening for the purpose of identification and termination of fetuses with Down syndrome may adversely affect the quality of life for all persons with Down syndrome and threatens the diversity and vitality that people with Down syndrome and other disabilities currently contribute to many Canadian communities”.  But it should be recognized that people with Down syndrome are mentally disabled, and also have a host of other health problems, including heart defects and gastrointenstinal difficulties.  Intensive medical care and life-long supervision is usually required, which places a great burden on parents and society as a whole.  These problems should be recognized for what they are, and not hidden with euphemisms such “unique”, “community” and “diversity”.

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society is an organization that has existed since 1987, and it appears to have established itself as an integral part of the Disability Industry.  It has a board of ten parents of children with Down syndrome and two adults with Down syndrome.  It  also has an Executive Director, a Public Relations Manager, an Advocacy Leadership Manager, a Development Associate, a Marketing and Communications Manager, a Finance Manager, and a Membership Coordinator.  Although all these people assert that those with Down syndrome should have a “voice”, it is they that have, for financial or ideological reasons, become the mouthpieces for a group that obviously does not have the mental capacity to speak for itself.