Context matters. I was reminded of this fact as I sat down to write my first column as CAUT president. My term began at the closing of CAUT’s 80th Council meeting in May. And, as with every Council, our first afternoon together was given over to a scene-setting panel discussion. This year’s topic was “Indigenizing the Academy” and featured three speakers with expertise in the area: Marie Battiste, from the University of Saskatchewan, University of Calgary’s Jacqueline Ottmann, and Rainey Gaywish of Algoma University. It was an engaging discussion that touched on a range of issues connected to the declared intentions of both the federal government and Universities Canada to offer forms of redress for the historical barriers faced by Indigenous peoples.
The political context for this discussion has changed substantively over the past decade. When the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) in 2007, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government opposed its adoption. Harper’s decision followed on the heels of his earlier rejection of the previous Liberal government’s 2005 Kelowna Accord, which promised to inject close to $5 billion over 10 years for education and social welfare programs for Indigenous people.
Only 12 days after our Council panel discussion on Indigenization, Canada’s new Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett received a standing ovation at the UN when she announced Canada was removing its objector status and was now supporting the declaration “without qualification.” Times have certainly changed.
In the wake of the DRIP and the 2015 release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report university administrations across Canada have declared their support for the concept of Indigenizing the academy. Most prominently, Universities Canada, the voice of university administrators at 97 institutions across the country, released its 13 principles of Indigenous education in June 2015. The document notes that Indigenous students are underrepresented in higher education institutions and commits the organization to “close this education gap.”
Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government has fully endorsed the DRIP, which, among other things, declares Indigenous people “have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination” to be provided “when possible” in their own language. This significantly raises expectations regarding state commitments on this file. It’s important to note, however, that Universities Canada’s document fails to mention either the TRC or DRIP reports. It has one reference to reconciliation in its preamble in which it declares that post-secondary education “offers great potential for reconciliation and renewed relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.” It then adds that “Canada needs more university graduates to meet labour market demands” and that “Indigenous people can help meet this demand.” Is this the latest iteration of what Paul Willis called “learning to labour”?
Universities Canada’s interest in supporting labour market demand reminds me of how this evolving political context intersects with a more entrenched political economy that we sometimes refer to as utilitarian managerialism. Article 17 of the UN Declaration states that Indigenous people “have the right to enjoy fully all rights established under applicable international and domestic labour law.” It then adds that they have a “right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour.” These are rights enjoyed by autonomous Indigenous people, not as potential objects of demand in the labour market.
The strategic plans of most Canadian universities continue to reflect the policies of the “managed university,” with an emphasis on austerity budgets, and the micro-management of faculty through the use of metrics and other forms of “audit culture.” And many university administrations continue to celebrate entrepreneurialism over the scholarly pursuit of basic research in the public interest. As Rainey Gaywish told us during Council’s panel discussion, achieving Indigenization within the “managed University” will be a challenge in the context of rampant austerity.
Indigenization of the academy begins with the recognition that Indigenous people have suffered historical wrongs that require redress. But it will also require, as Dr. Gaywish argues, that Aboriginal academic staff enjoy the same rights and freedoms that are being challenged by neo-liberal policies currently embraced by many university administrations in Canada. That means, in addition to a commitment to “communication and collaboration” with the Indigenous community, Indigenization of the academy must also involve a robust defense of academic freedom, a respect for collegial governance and a rejection of precarious labour. In this way, says Dr. Gaywish, Indigenization will be at the core of the academy, and not its periphery.