September 26, 1997

In this issue:

• Becoming number one -- in Aboriginal programming
• Calgary Declaration and the dilemma of respectful recognition

The University of Alberta leads Canadian universities in developing Aboriginal programming.

If this headline appeared in one of Canada's daily newspapers, what would have happened to make it a reality? Most likely, what happened was total commitment from both the University community and the corporate sector.

We've started on that road. Syncrude Canada Ltd. has made a major five-year financial contribution to encourage recruitment and retention of Native students in the fields of engineering, medicine and business. In the wake of government cuts to post-secondary education, the corporate community has realized it is necessary to provide financial assistance to develop graduates with the necessary academic skills and training to meet corporate and Aboriginal community objectives. This is the first time a large corporation has acted to increase recruitment and retention of Aboriginal people in professional training at the university level.

It is hoped that the Syncrude initiative will encourage more corporations to support development of a broad range of Aboriginal programming within a university structure. The challenge facing us will be to develop a model that will achieve both national and international distinction. As we move into the new millennium, corporations will increase global activity in indigenous territories. They will need to increasingly work with Native groups to set a new standard of business practice.

The other step in making the headline come true lies here at the University.

The U of A has already achieved some national and international recognition for its efforts at increasing the retention rate of Native students. At the second annual conference on the Retention in Education for Today's American Indian Nations held at the University of Arizona, the 1996/97 Transition Year Program was recognized for having the highest retention rate of any program-70 per cent. As a result, Native Student Services was asked to sit on an international committee that will direct research of models for increasing student retention. While the Office of Native Student Services worked directly with students, this success would not have been possible had it not been for those faculties who gave their full support.

But we need to do more. We need Native faculty, staff, and students as well as the non-Native sector to evaluate how best to implement the existing Aboriginal Student Policy because an Employment Equity Policy cannot stand alone. Certainly, faculty renewal should encourage the hiring of Aboriginal scholars; however, Education Equity must be a necessary consideration in the development of a comprehensive Aboriginal recruitment strategy and supported by all faculties.

Individuals need to examine their opinions of Aboriginal issues to dispel misconceptions and fears about cultural awareness and sensitivity. They need not be viewed as the bogeymen endangering academic freedom. Often times cultural sensitivity is as simple as granting an extension or exam rewrite because an

Aboriginal student had to go home to attend a funeral even though the deceased was not a family member.

In Native communities, we are required by custom to honor those who have passed on. It is the right thing to do. It ensures community preservation and the individual's credibility as a member of the community. Native politics dictates that preservation of the community is based on collective rights superseding those of the individual. Furthermore, cultural values such as sharing and caring are as evident today as they were when Europeans first arrived on this continent. The Native people welcomed the newcomers and assisted them through the rigors of the harsh Canadian winters. In our communities, we stop what we are doing to see to the needs of others, even when we are facing our own difficulties.

These issues of cultural differences need to be understood by faculty and staff if the retention rate for Aboriginal students is to be improved. It is neither possible nor desirable to change customs that have been with a people for centuries.

Courses that include the Aboriginal worldview are also needed. Not only would they attract Aboriginal students but Aboriginal faculty, effectively adding a diverse perspective to the knowledge base of this institution.

The Aboriginal Student Policy states:

"... the issue of access and support for Aboriginal students requires special concern because of the differences which political, historical and socio-economic circumstances have created. Certain accommodations have been made and must continue to be made in order to afford equality to those for whom opportunities for a university education have not existed in the past."

Native people will know equality when there is no longer a need for Aboriginal policy statements or Employment Equity Plans to make room for participation. With the assistance of initiatives such as the Syncrude Partnership, and the help of faculty and staff across campus, it will be Aboriginal students and their communities who will support and encourage others to follow.

O my beloved country! Why is it so difficult to recognize our differences? Why is it so difficult to respect our diversity? Why is it so difficult to accept who we are?

One decade ago, at Meech Lake, 10 premiers and one prime minister agreed that the Canadian constitution would be amended to recognize that "Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society." Further, it was declared that "the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada." This was more than a simple statement of fact. It was a respectful expression of recognition.

The resulting debacle is well known. Some Canadians wanted similar recognition. Others feared Quebec might gain unwarranted powers. Many refused to believe Quebec was more distinct than any other province and, in any case, it was claimed, no one should get special treatment. The proffered recognition was withheld, the welcoming hand withdrawn. Quebecers reacted with hurt and disbelief. Support for independence soared to its highest levels ever.

Five years later, at Charlottetown, after widespread consultation, Canadian leaders tackled the question again. This time, however, they decided to make massive changes, overhauling and modernizing the constitution. It was also proposed that "Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition." Unfortunately, many Canadians found the unwieldy package of compromises to be offensive. It was defeated.

Now, this month, nine premiers have met in Calgary and tried, once more, to untie the Gordian knot. They have valiantly addressed, yet again, the perennial issue of recognition, and their modest seven-point declaration proclaims that "the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well-being of Canada." The formulation sounds very familiar, but this time "unique" has been substituted for the dreaded "distinct."

Why do we have such difficulty recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and French-Canadians as a people? The tortuous wording of the Calgary declaration reveals that this latest recognition of Quebec's uniqueness was a painful process. Like men in torment, the premiers repeatedly chant, no less than four times, the strength-restoring mantra "diversity." As in, for example: "Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion" that is unrivalled. Thus convinced and fortified, they are finally able to acknowledge Quebec's unique character.

Then, as if to minimize the effect, and to exorcise their recognition, they obsessively reiterate their commitment to equality. Again, no less than four times. As in, for example: "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status." Equality is a laudable principle. Yet, when used by the English-speaking premiers, it comes out sounding: "Forget uniqueness, we are really all the same." Diversity and distinctness are trivialized; equality and identity are glorified. Ten diverse but equal provinces? Some 85 per cent of Canada's French-speakers live in Quebec; some 96 per cent of Canada's English-speakers live outside Quebec. Le Quebec n'est pas une province comme les autres.

Some Canadians, both English-speaking and French-speaking, are convinced that Quebec's secession would resolve the Canadian dilemma. Peace at last! But life is rarely that simple. Even without Quebec, Canada would still be a multinational state. French-speakers would then number "only" one million persons, and five per cent of the population; but they would continue to be Canada's largest minority. Switzerland has given constitutional recognition to an Italian-speaking minority that constitutes only five per cent of its citizenry; and Belgium to a German-speaking minority of one per cent. Should we not do as much? And, what of Canada's native peoples? Although small in number, their claim is no less justified. Nor would an independent Quebec be spared this same dilemma of recognition: its borders also contain important national minorities.

Why is respectful recognition so difficult? Many Canadians, instinctively, almost unconsciously, seek a country peopled by a single nation-speaking the same language, sharing the same culture, embracing the same ideology. They are not opposed to diversity as long as it is limited to ethnic food, heritage festivals, and strange-sounding names. Albertans know about this. In 1892, the Territorial legislative assembly imposed English as the sole language of instruction; all other languages, with minor exceptions, were banished from the schools. This situation continued in Alberta, relatively unchanged, until 1968. Frederick Haultain justified the one-language policy, in education, government and justice, as necessary for reasons of "economy" and "equality." Most legislators were more frank: they admitted that the policy was aimed at creating "one nationality." When the province of Alberta was created in 1905, its government adhered to the same policy. Indeed, the legislative assembly subsequently passed more than 300 legislative provisions relating to language use, and the great majority of these imposed the use of English. Is this the same province that, under Premier Getty, so vociferously condemned all forms of language legislation, especially when adopted by other governments?

Yet, in spite of this, Alberta has also provided a powerful example of the true meaning of respectful recognition. A 1993 amendment to the School Act allowed for the establishment of French-language school boards and co-ordinating councils. The new school boards, first elected in 1994, are now responsible for the governance of the province's French-language schools. When sincere, respectful recognition is not empty symbolism, it leads inevitably to positive actions. Respect grants responsibility. Respect promotes diversity. Respect supports autonomy.

Folio front page

Office of Public Affairs

University of Alberta