Offended by Offence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting book was recently published by Alex Cameron, entitled Power Without Law, but today was the first time that I had heard about it  - ”N.S. Mi’kmaq urge removal of ‘unacceptable’ lawyer, CBC News, November 2, 2009, www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/11/02/ns-treaty-book-complaint.html.  The book is available from the publisher, McGill-Queen’s University Press (http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=2417), as well as www.amazon.ca.

The book promises to be a fascinating read because Cameron represented the Nova Scotia government in the legal battles prompted by the Marshall decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that that aboriginal people had a right to fish commercially.  Cameron evidently believes that the decision provided “a false beacon to native peoples”, as well as being “constitutionally unsound”.  He also argues that the decision exacerbated conflict and brought violence to formerly peaceful communities.  Furthermore, the book reveals the ubiquitous presence of the Aboriginal Industry, which negotiated many agreements worth hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of the Marshall decision.

Because of Cameron’s book, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs is demanding that he be removed from the position of representing Nova Scotia in constitutional cases involving the Mi’kmaq.   Membertou Chief Terry Paul has stated that “there’s no way we can see where the process would be fair and objective, where he has these very strong views”.  But Cameron is not a judge in the proceedings; he would be putting forward arguments on behalf of the Nova Scotia government.  Should the lawyers for the Mi’kmaq also be prevented from presenting a case that would be favourable to them?  It will be interesting to see if the provincial government caves into this political pressure.

It will also be interesting to see how the conflict in Nova Scotia parallels the cases of Caledonia and Ipperwash.  Was the conflict and violence that occurred due to the problems of trying to incorporate tribal forms of politics into a national political system?

In Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, there is an article entitled “Natives drop out of talks with B.C., Ottawa”, by J.P. Squire (November 27, 2009, p. A11).  In the article, it is noted that the Westbank First Nation “has dropped out of treaty negotiations with the provincial and federal governments, warning other bands may follow in their footsteps”.  For people not familiar with the infamous B.C. Treaty Process, it began in 1993.  As of January 2007, if involved 57 claimant groups, with only a few agreements being signed (the nature of this legal boondoggle is discussed in more detail in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry on pages 85-87).

The article is notable for a number of reasons.  First of all, it notes that “provincial and federal governments have spent more than $1-billion in negotiations”, and that most of this has been squandered.  Secondly, the bands are pulling out of the process and are going to pursue their demands through the courts instead – an even more expensive strategy.  Sophie Pierre, the chief commissioner of the organization that heads the process, for example, notes that “the recent Chilcotin case…took 339 court days and cost more than $30-million…”.   Finally, what is wanted by Robert Louie, the chief of the Westbank First Nation, and presumably other bands, is “an unconditional, absolute and unfettered declaration of aboriginal title over our land”.

Such demands are based on the erroneous idea that aboriginal groups are “nations”, and thus should have sovereignty over their lands.  But aboriginal groups are very small, and even with substantial resource rents, can never become “self-determining” like actual nations such as Quebec.  Because aboriginal groups will always be inextricably intertwined with the Canadian economic and political systems, the Crown will never provide them with “absolute and unfettered…aboriginal title”.   Because these lands abut against areas – both aboriginal and non-aboriginal – there must be some overarching authority – either a provincial or federal government – to make binding decisions upon the entire population.

Although classical liberal commentators have remarked about the destructiveness of this circumstance for liberal democracy, it should be stressed that these legalistic, and unresolvable, arguments are extremely harmful for aboriginal people.  Instead of the money being spent on much needed social programs, they are going into the pockets of lawyers, consultants, linguists, anthropologists, and so on – all the professionals who have the “expertise” to pursue land claims.  In addition, aboriginal people have been sold the false hope of “national self-determination” and “sovereignty” and will become increasingly resentful as this dream remains forever unrealized. 

There needs to be an honest discussion of how to resolve the conflicts between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, so that there can be an effective response to the legitimate grievances of the native population.  The land claims route will never do this, as its intent is to keep the processes going rather than to address the underlying causes of aboriginal dependency and social dysfunction.