University of Winnipeg approves mandatory Indigenous course for all students

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the biggest problem might be in finding enough instructors for such a course. Sad to see a cornerstone of Western thought and the Enlightenment fall into obscurity, like learning to play the violin.

Granted, I graduated from high school over a decade ago but I don't think it would be that difficult because any high school class would necessarily be a thousand-foot view.

If we're talking about mandating the course in universities, at least the ones I know of, a majority of the people teaching Phil 100 would be perfectly qualified to do this.

[polak]

I'm sure this was said but this is dumb.

Students PAY for university courses. Adding mandatory courses that have zero value to the eventual degree is downright idiotic. At least with electives you get to choose what interests and suits your eventual goal post graduation.

I'd be fuming if I was a student at UoW.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by adc

Seems like a basic finance course would have a lot more benefit although probably something else that should be taught at the high school level.

I remember the liberal arts requirements at my university and for the most part people tried to find the easiest courses they could, cruised through them with little thought and moved back to what interested them. Obviously there were some that used them as they were designed to get a broader range of education.

I guess the argument would be "if it changes one persons mind" it will be worth it but my guess is for the most part people will do the minimum to get through and not really care much about the subject matter.

I would prefer a general Canadian History course be used instead as I don't think Indian history is more important than the countries history overall.

Agree with everything you said, mainly the last part. Would much prefer a general Canadian history class.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm sure this was said but this is dumb.

Students PAY for university courses. Adding mandatory courses that have zero value to the eventual degree is downright idiotic. At least with electives you get to choose what interests and suits your eventual goal post graduation.

It has been pointed out a few times already, but universities have always done this. Students have always been required to take courses unrelated to their degree.

You apparently think this practice is "dumb". Fair enough. Was it dumb before this announcement by the UofW, or is it just dumb now?

Originally Posted by polak

I'd be fuming if I was a student at UoW.

I'm sure you read the article, (and the direct quote in the OP) but just in case you didn't, this doesn't apply to current students. It applies to students who start next fall. There shouldn't be much fuming.

Anyway, I have to wonder if the subject matter is the reason this is drawing criticism. We rarely pay much attention to what goes on in the ivory towers, but people have pretty strong feelings about this. Would there be a thread here if the UofW suddenly made it a requirement for students to take an economics course? I'm going to answer my own question: No.

But make 'em take a course on local culture and history, and here we are.

[polak]

Yes having gone to university, I'm aware that they have mandatory classes. English classes and electives are a lot different than this. Forcing students to take a complete fluff course so that the school can feel better about itself is really dumb in my books.

The subject matter absolutely matters in this sort of discussion. You use economics as an example, well depends on what level of economics you are talking about. Basic personal finance? Yes I'm sure a lot of people would be fine with that. Forcing art students to take high level Micro Economics? I think people would be calling that dumb as well.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

Agree with everything you said, mainly the last part. Would much prefer a general Canadian history class.

You mean like you do almost every year of K-12?

[adc]

I didn't go to school in Canada for Jr. High but in elementary and high school I didn't get taught about Canadian history.

Outside of talking a bit about Canada in WW2.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes having gone to university, I'm aware that they have mandatory classes. English classes and electives are a lot different than this. Forcing students to take a complete fluff course so that the school can feel better about itself is really dumb in my books.

The subject matter absolutely matters in this sort of discussion. You use economics as an example, well depends on what level of economics you are talking about. Basic personal finance? Yes I'm sure a lot of people would be fine with that. Forcing art students to take high level Micro Economics? I think people would be calling that dumb as well.

Why would it be a fluff course. My read of the article is that just an indigo ions studies course is required. This means you would have plenty to choose from in order to find something interesting. I would hope the individual colleges would add courses to meet these requirements that are relevant.

[Cole436]

I agree with many posters that this should be a mandatory course in high school. The lack of aboriginal education in the school sector is appalling. The fact that I didn't learn about the residential school system until I chose to take an aboriginal sociology class in my second year of university which is completely unacceptable in my eyes.

Good on the idea, but it needs to be done at the high school level.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by adc

I didn't go to school in Canada for Jr. High but in elementary and high school I didn't get taught about Canadian history.

Outside of talking a bit about Canada in WW2.

Seriously? I have forgotten more about the damned railroad than I ever really needed to know in the first place. Rube is right, general Canadian history is taught throughout K-12 and frankly, is largely not interesting enough to require further inquiry. A general Chinese history course would be more productive - no one ever learns anything about that area in this country.

As for the people saying universities have always mandated certain courses outside a field of specialization, that's true but you're obviously talking about something different. When you require engineers to take two arts courses or Arts majors to take two science courses (Earth and Ocean Studies for the win), you're not actually mandating specific topics, your policy goal there is to just make sure everyone gets at least a SLIGHTLY rounded education. My alma mater didn't care if I took a biology course or a geology course or physics or chemistry, they just wanted me to have at least some information about science.

This is a bit more specific - the goal isn't a well rounded education, it's saying "everyone should have a basic understanding of X". Which isn't a bad goal to have, but why not Y or Z? The reasoning is pretty transparently political, in my view.

High school is the place for making sure that everyone has a thousand-foot view of important topics, and it seems to me that that curriculum could well be adjusted to include more of this information. In undergrad, this makes less sense to me.

As an aside, my graduation requirements actually did end up with me taking a course in aboriginal literature - can't even recall why, or what my other options were to check that box for my degree, but I wouldn't have been in that class if I didn't have to take it.

Also, as an observation, in law school, you have a metric ton of courses that you're mandated to take, especially in 1L. The school basically decides your whole course load for you. No interest in being a litigator? Too bad, you're taking torts... as far as I know, there's no real objection to that practice. And that's CLEARLY a faculty that's designed primarily for practical application after graduating.

[polak]

Yeah, no to more courses on the stupid fur trade.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why would it be a fluff course.

How could a course on native culture/history be anything but fluff?

[driveway]

There is no field of life or work to which the basics of minority studies are not applicable.

Those arguing for Canadian History or basic Philosophy/logic are essentially saying "we don't learn enough about white men, let's learn more about what they've done and how they think. "

Whichever field you go into in Uni will be loaded with this kind of bias, it's entirely good and proper for a school to mandate some tiny modicum of balance to their student's education.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Lol what? Yeah, because rational thinking is race and gender biased. Good lord, talk about a bigotry of low expectations. I think I see what CliffFletcher was talking about.

[driveway]

Which philosophers and thinkers would you put on the syllabus of such a course?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Winnipeg and Manitoba as a whole have some serious racism issues.

Why is it Manitoba have this problem more than the rest of Canada?, where I grew up the Mic-Mac tribes got along fairly well with everyone and in BC/Alberta I think the Cree and Metis get along OK with everyone unless I'm totally missing something?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by driveway

Which philosophers and thinkers would you put on the syllabus of such a course?

Almost certainly Plato's dialogues, most likely Mill and Hume, potentially a couple of Bentham, Locke, Descartes, Kant, Russell and maybe Hobbes.

Are you going to point out that a bunch of them are white European men? Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to point out, when the entire purpose is to talk about ideas, not the people who came up with them. Incidentally, I have basically no background in Eastern philosophy, but there's probably a case to be made for a couple of those giants.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Almost certainly Plato's dialogues, most likely Mill and Hume, potentially a couple of Bentham, Locke, Descartes, Kant, Russell and maybe Hobbes.

Are you going to point out that a bunch of them are white European men? Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to point out, when the entire purpose is to talk about ideas, not the people who came up with them. Incidentally, I have basically no background in Eastern philosophy, but there's probably a case to be made for a couple of those giants.

Right, they are all white men and you consider that irrelevant. Thank you for revealing exactly why minority studies should be a required course to graduate from post-secondary education.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by driveway

Right, they are all white men and you consider that irrelevant. Thank you for revealing exactly why minority studies should be a required course to graduate from post-secondary education.

This is way over the top. Should I not be studying Nikola Tesla because I've already studied the theories of Newton, Norton, Thevenin, Ohm, Faraday, Lenz and many others who've contributed to the physics of electricity? Is there some sort of quota on how many white people it's acceptable to learn from? My belief on diversity is that it comes from people with different ideas, not skin tones.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Almost certainly Plato's dialogues, most likely Mill and Hume, potentially a couple of Bentham, Locke, Descartes, Kant, Russell and maybe Hobbes.

Are you going to point out that a bunch of them are white European men? Because that would be a pretty stupid thing to point out, when the entire purpose is to talk about ideas, not the people who came up with them. Incidentally, I have basically no background in Eastern philosophy, but there's probably a case to be made for a couple of those giants.

I'd point out that these two things are probably not coincidental. Not that I'm disagreeing with you that they were great thinkers, but do you truly think that the exclusion of non-white, male voices in classical philosophy was merit-based?