J. Paul Grayson’s review of Jeffrey Cormier’s 2004 book, The Canadianization Movement: Emergence, Survival and Success, (Bulletin, December 2005) points to some weaknesses which concern us.

Cormier’s study contains much important information, especially relating to the discussion of Canadianization within the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association (CSAA). It would be regrettable, however, if his analysis were considered to be a complete or adequate account. For a detailed criticism of Cormier’s work, one could read Canadianization and the Disease of Social Science, available at www.vivelecanada.ca.

Several points Grayson made need emphasizing. He points to “an over reliance on a limited number of sources.” Indeed, Cormier says little about the fact that the movement — in its directly educational dimension — was supported significantly by student organizations and their newspapers, which published much on the subject.

In addition, six organizations, founded well after the launching of the movement, contributed to the ongoing pressure for reform: the Waffle Movement in the NDP, the Committee for an Independent Canada, the Confederation of Canadian Unions, the Writers’ Union of Canada, the Symons Commission on Canadian Studies (To Know Ourselves) and two government inquiries — one conducted in Alberta (the Moir Report) and one in Ontario (Report of the Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism). Cormier pays insufficient attention to these sources.

Even more important, he seems to have overlooked information in Canadian university undergraduate calendars as a way of describing the work of hundreds of university teachers in many departments across Canada. They perceived a lack of Canadian content in their curricula and laboured quietly and independently throughout the 1970s to add it to their respective programs and courses.

Grayson questions the evidence for Cormier’s suggestion that lobbying by CSAA brought about a change in federal immigration policy. Without detracting from the excellent work of the association, we believe Grayson’s question is a fair one. CSAA entered the fray after four years of struggle that had already resulted in better advertising practices, more Canadian course offerings, an increase in Canadian appointments and considerably heightened public awareness.

We lobbied government frequently in the 1970s. For instance, Antonio Gualtieri and Mathews met Manpower and Immigration Minister Otto Lang to discuss the issue. A small group in Lang’s department spent months, in regular contact with Mathews and others, shaping policy ideas for several ministers who succeeded Lang. After taking up his portfolio, Lloyd Axworthy wrote to Mathews in acknowledgement of his work. Cormier did not consult us on the matter of federal policy; nor, obviously, did he consult Axworthy.

Finally, Grayson points to the animosity and retribution experienced by some sociologists and anthropologists who supported Canadianization. Grayson suggests “the blood and guts of the Canadianization movement” are lost if this hostility is not taken into account. Nor was antagonism towards, and discrimination against, supporters of the movement restricted to social scientists.

At the first Carleton University meeting (Dec. 13, 1968) at which we presented our motions for reform, history colleague Blair Neatby supported a procedural motion asking that our motions about Canadian citizenship be ruled out-of-order for being in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Although this motion was defeated (and rightly so) it carried with it a threat of possible prosecution. As recently as 2002, Neatby coauthored an inaccurate and distorted account of the debate at Carleton in Creating Carleton: The Shaping of a University, pp. 161 and 227.

In the months following our meeting, we were variously called xenophobic, jackbooted and anti-American, among other epithets that came our way.

When English professor Anthony Raspa of Loyola College wrote an article on “Le colonialisme américain dans les universités anglophones” (Le Devoir, Oct. 17, 1968), his departmental colleagues passed a motion asking the college to terminate his contract.

Cormier attributes aggressiveness, entrepreneurship, fierce determination and even self-aggrandizement almost solely to one or the other of us — rarely to our sometimes intemperate critics. It was precisely because of this kind of animosity that we called our book — a dossier of items both for and against Canadianization — The Struggle (not the Movement) for Canadian Universities (New Press, 1969).

There is a complex and fascinating story to be told about the Canadianization movement. Cormier’s book is an important contribution to this narrative, but, in our view, it covers only part of the struggle and not always in depth.

Jim Steele
Ottawa

Robin Mathews
Vancouver