University of Winnipeg approves mandatory Indigenous course for all students

[getbak]

Originally Posted by T@T

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?

I think it stems from the fact that Manitoba has a very high Aboriginal population relative to its total population.

In the 2011 Census, 14.0% of Canada's Aboriginal population (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) lived in Manitoba. That is the fourth largest Provincial Aboriginal population behind Ontario, BC, and Alberta. However, as a percentage of the Province's total population, Manitoba is first.

Even though Ontario has over 20% of Canada's total Aboriginal population, they make up only 2.4% of Ontario's total population. On the other hand, Manitoba's Aboriginal population makes up 16.7% of the Province's total population.

Only the three Territories have a higher percentage, and Saskatchewan (which has its own problems) is the only other Province whose Aboriginal population is greater than 10% of its total.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2.../tbl02-eng.cfm


In Winnipeg itself, Aboriginal people make up 11.1% of the city's total population. Filipinos are the largest visible minority in Winnipeg, Metis are second and First Nations third.

Compare that to the other major cities in Canada: In Edmonton, the Aboriginal population is 5.3% of the total. In Calgary, it's 2.7%; Vancouver is about 2%; and Toronto is less than 1%.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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?

Yes. You do realize that with a handful of exceptions, women weren't even allowed to study philosophy until quite recently, right? It's not as though the schools these guys went to were anything like modern universities. And that before there was reliable contraception, married women did not have the time for uninterrupted study and writing? Nor, until recently, were they likely to be taken seriously if they did.

Identity Feminist Statement A: Women have historically been denied access to education or the freedom to pursue their own interests and ambitions.

Sadly, this is true.

Identity Feminist Statement B: Why don't we study more classical works written by women (or minorities)?

Uh, because A? You can't study something that wasn't written.

This is why we need foundational courses in reason.

The case could be made for including more Chinese and Muslim thinkers in classical education. However, by the 17th century, the state of intellectual discourse in the civilizations outside the West was moribund, and frankly, there's not much worth learning for a couple hundred years. Philosophers, intellectuals, scientists, and anyone else rocking the boat were suppressed by rulers and religious authorities in those societies.

Also, the notion that just because they were written by white men, these classical works are lacking in diversity, is a fallacy. The most notable thing about the 'Western Canon' is how diverse and disputatious it is. It's hundreds of thinkers disagreeing passionately with one another. For centuries.

And the most absurd thing about modern progressives rejecting the Western Canon is the fact that modern progressivism is itself a product of Western thinking. There's a reason the abolition of slavery, the women's rights movement, and gay rights all happened in Western countries first, and not in China, India, or Egypt.

[driveway]

I would like to point out that at no time did I advocate against a course in foundational Western Philosophy, nor did I reject the "Western Canon," or even argue that a course in rational thinking would not be valuable. The only thing I said against such a class was that a course in Western Philosophy would reinforce already existing biases in the voices being presented to students, though I did say it in a fairly pithy manner.

What I positively argued was that a course in Minority Studies, be it Women's Studies, Indigenous, African-American, general Minority, or whatever is most culturally relevant to the particular institution should be a requirement to graduate.

Corsi then either misunderstood what I was saying, or misapplied the term "Bigotry of Low-Expectations." He seems to be under the impression that I was attributing rational thought only to white thinkers, or claiming that minority students or thinkers couldn't grasp or produce western philosophy, either way, this is not what I was doing.

I then asked which writers would make for a valuable course in this introduction to thinking and every single thinker he chose to name was a white male, the most contemporary of whom was born in 1872.

Does the antiquity or monochromacity of these thinkers render them worthless, or invalidate their ideas, or mean we should eliminate them from intellectual discourse? Obviously not. Claiming that this is what I am arguing is a straw-man.

What it is absolutely revealing of, however, is Corsi's, and to some extent yourself Cliff, views on which type of thinking is valuable.

Both of you present yourselves as highly educated, or at least well-read and thoughtful. Cliff you make the claim that you're conversant enough with Chinese and Muslim scholarship to discount several hundred years worth of intellectual discourse in each of these civilizations, though I somehow doubt you speak or read either Chinese or Arabic; Corsi, in the thread on the Paris attacks, is absolutely lambasting posters for a lack of nuance in their thinking; and yet, you're both rigidly sticking to the notion that the philosophy of white men is the only valuable philosophy a young person can study.

Corsi couldn't even bring himself to do a cursory google search for female philosophers, or philosophers of non-European origin, in order to avoid the insanely obvious rhetorical trap I laid. Not even a token thrown to Ayn Rand, or Laozi's Tao Te Ching, the latter being at the absolute least contemporaneous with Plato and almost certainly older; being one of the two foundational texts for the philosophical, religious, political, and legal traditions of the largest ethnic group in the world, and having in its very first line an almost total refutation of the core principle of western rationality, you, Cliff grant that "a case could be made" for its inclusion and Corsi openly admits total ignorance.

It is this very confident ignorance which is the reason why a course in Minority Studies is absolutely necessary at the post secondary level. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of the 'Western Canon' and it has absolutely everything to do with the rank intellectual dishonesty which comes from the unchallenged experience of privilege.

Construct a course on rational thought where every writer was a member of a disadvantaged class, group, gender, or ethnicity in their own society at the time of composition and you'll have yourself a halfway decent syllabus. You can, and should, include some white male thinkers on this list. How about Dunne, an Irishman living in England, or Wittgenstein, the Austrian Jew who was a schoolmate of Hitler's, or how about someone foundational to Corsi's entire list outside of Plato: Augustine of Hippo, a Roman African?

There is nothing wrong with classical Western thought, indeed it is, as you said, diverse and living, and contentious. But a study of it in isolation, without consideration of other philosophies, and without the deliberate and conscious inclusion of disadvantaged and minority voices is the intellectual equivalent of the All Lives Matter hashtag.

That including these voices is necessary for intellectual and rational honesty and comprehensiveness is something which a foundational course in Minority Studies makes obvious which is exactly why the inclusion of such a course as a requirement to graduate University is an excellent and necessary idea.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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?

I would like to point out that at no time did I advocate against a course in foundational Western Philosophy, nor did I reject the "Western Canon," or even argue that a course in rational thinking would not be valuable. The only thing I said against such a class was that a course in Western Philosophy would reinforce already existing biases in the voices being presented to students, though I did say it in a fairly pithy manner.

CliffFletcher's points aside, it doesn't matter to me whatsoever whose "voices" the ideas come from; this isn't a history class. I don't particularly care about who Kant was or his idiosyncracies; I care about understanding and discussing the categorical imperative and whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense. I did mention Eastern philosophy as a perfectly valid source of curriculum; If there are interesting ideas to discuss in Taoism, cool, let's talk about them; who Laozi was is a different class.

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

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.

This is another good way to put it.

I would add that the notion that we should be skeptical in some way of views because they were put forward by white men, or that they are subject to some sort of bias or other flaw that needs to be corrected for because of the race and sex of their progenitors, is inherently racist and sexist... but more importantly, it's just plain stupid. The concepts are the concepts, they have their own content to be criticized and discussed. The source is immaterial.

Corsi then either misunderstood what I was saying, or misapplied the term "Bigotry of Low-Expectations." He seems to be under the impression that I was attributing rational thought only to white thinkers, or claiming that minority students or thinkers couldn't grasp or produce western philosophy, either way, this is not what I was doing.

That does seem to be what you are doing by suggesting there's some underlying problem with the very idea of a course on philosophy - identifying the concept of reasoned analysis with white men. Anyone can understand and discuss and if thought right, reject these ideas on reasoned ground. The Socratic method is not somehow inherently Greek.

LOL at "avoid the rhetorical trap". I saw what you were doing, it was clear, and because I fundamentally disagree with your premise I did not bother to "avoid" this trap. Ayn Rand?! You've got to be kidding me; that does not belong in a philosophy course - if you're really interested in reading Atlas Shrugged, go for it, but no one takes that facile junk seriously in philosophy departments; the only time it's included in a curriculum is as provocative counterpoint in a Phil 100 class. Yet you're happy to include it merely because the author was female. This causes you no pause, at all?

Construct a course on rational thought where every writer was a member of a disadvantaged class, group, gender, or ethnicity in their own society at the time of composition and you'll have yourself a halfway decent syllabus

I'm just going to stop here; I fundamentally am completely opposed to your entire outlook on this subject for reasons I hope I've made clear. If you operate from the basis that ideas have inherent merit based on the race or gender or background of the person who authored the book we're not really speaking on the same plane. None of that matters except to the extent it informs and is reflected in the ideas they've come up with. Screw identity politics, we're now into identity-based-merit in academia... I can't even.

EDIT: I do want to clarify something. Rube made a point in another thread on a similar topic about looking for minority voices on issues that affect minorities - the point was, if I'm not misstating it, that by virtue of their experience they may have diverse and different and potentially interesting / poignant things to say on the topic that one doesn't get without listening to those particular people. That is fine. Again, background factors are relevant to the extent that they inform the content of what the speaker is saying. They do not contain inherent value.

No one should care at all about a diversity in the voices that are saying things. What matters is what those people are saying.

[WhiteTiger]

The way I look at this is that one of the surest ways to not get someone to care about something is to force them to do it. If you want to offer a Minorities or Indigenous Studies course and include it in the list of electives to choose from, great, go for it. Probably a good idea. But to require a(ny) specific non-Major related course...not such a good idea.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If you operate from the basis that ideas have inherent merit based on the race or gender or background of the person who authored the book we're not really speaking on the same plane.

Dude, you missed the whole goddamned point. The point is not that ideas have merit based on the speaker and never once did I claim they did (though I think I can make a good case for at least one situation when they absolutely do, which would open the door to others).

You actually said it yourself right here:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

None of that matters except to the extent it informs and is reflected in the ideas they've come up with.

This is the point of Minority Studies. It gives you the tools and understanding to be able to identify and critically analyze the extent to which a person's cultural and perceptual biases have informed and are reflected in their thinking and actions. That is why it is important, and that is its primary function.

Can you not at least agree this is something worth teaching?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by driveway

Dude, you missed the whole goddamned point. The point is not that ideas have merit based on the speaker and never once did I claim they did (though I think I can make a good case for at least one situation when they absolutely do, which would open the door to others).

Again, I'm quoting you here.

Construct a course on rational thought where every writer was a member of a disadvantaged class, group, gender, or ethnicity in their own society at the time of composition and you'll have yourself a halfway decent syllabus

Right there, you've done precisely what you just said you never once did. In light of that, if I'm confused about your thesis, then we both are.

This is the point of Minority Studies. It gives you the tools and understanding to be able to identify and critically analyze the extent to which a person's cultural and perceptual biases have informed and are reflected in their thinking and actions. That is why it is important, and that is its primary function.

Can you not at least agree this is something worth teaching?

I believe that this is worth teaching, in the same way that cognitive behavioural therapy is worth leaning - to identify biases that arise out of the imperfect evolution of the human brain and how to avoid them. Minority studies also has a history component, and that's obviously worth learning too.

However, as a matter of philosophy, treating this as important is clear ad hominem. If a person's cultural and perceptual biases have informed and are reflected in that person's ideas, the ideas may have some flaw in them that wants addressing. Again, though, that would require critique of the idea, not the person.

Your whole approach appears to put the cart before the horse. If Bob provides you with a standard argument, "X, and if X then Y, so Y", the response is not, "No, Bob, you're a privileged white male from a wealthy East coast family who studied at an ivy league college. Your biases inform your arguments, which should be taken with a grain of salt". It may be, "No, Bob; not X. The reason you may believe X is because of your background, and reflecting on that may help you to prevent future reasoning errors; but regardless, X is incorrect." Then we have a discussion about whether, in fact, X, or whether despite not X, still Y, etc.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right there, you've done precisely what you just said you never once did. In light of that, if I'm confused about your thesis, then we both are.

I see the mistake I made. I was not trying to imply that the ideas would be better, merely that the course would be better.

However, as a matter of philosophy, treating this as important is clear ad hominem. If a person's cultural and perceptual biases have informed and are reflected in that person's ideas, the ideas may have some flaw in them that wants addressing. Again, though, that would require critique of the idea, not the person.

This is too reductionist. It's not an ad hominem to critique the culture from which the flaws arise, which is what minority studies is built to do.

Also, when the entirety of your discursive catalogue comes from a single culture, or cultural tradition, it absolutely leads to 'blind spots.' This is the problem with a syllabus for a rational/critical thinking class which is entirely drawn from a single broad culture, and it would most likely colour your conversation with Bob, as, if you're working from similar backgrounds, you're going to have similar reasons to believe X.

It is not about the quality of ideas, it's about developing the ability to be critical of them, which is I think what we both are advocating. Having taking a handful of undergrad philosophy and a significant amount of undergrad minority studies, I can tell you from personal experience that minority studies is flat-out better for developing critical thinking skills.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think this idea isn't a bad one, but its poorly executed, it should really be injected into high school curriculum.

University is really about finding your own way in academics, having a forced upon class that effects your GPA is dumb. And if its a no mark course, then most students aren't going.

They're busy enough with homework and papers and other things, why add an unnecessary workload.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think this idea isn't a bad one, but its poorly executed, it should really be injected into high school curriculum.

I think it would be great in High School, and really should start being introduced at an even younger age, but I think the level of discourse that's capable of being had at the University level makes it valuable.

[CliffFletcher]

So to be clear - is everyone who is against this class being mandatory also against the existing mandatory courses at Canadian universities? I know when I went to U of C and Mount Royal, an Introduction to English Composition course was mandatory for all first-year students, regardless of programs of study. Should we scrap those?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So to be clear - is everyone who is against this class being mandatory also against the existing mandatory courses at Canadian universities? I know when I went to U of C and Mount Royal, an Introduction to English Composition course was mandatory for all first-year students, regardless of programs of study. Should we scrap those?

It's not that way anymore, at least at U of C it's not.

Every single program at uni requires good reading and writing though, maybe a handful require Indigenous studies knowledge. It would probably be worthwhile for people in social sciences or education.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by driveway

I see the mistake I made. I was not trying to imply that the ideas would be better, merely that the course would be better.

Well, I'm perfectly willing to accept that possibility. If there is a good reason to think that a section on Taoism, for example, that is effective, helpful and geared towards rational, critical thinking, absolutely no reason not to include that. If including modal logic in the syllabus helps, also no reason not to include it.

Start with this premise: the ultimate "Goal" of a base-level philosophy course is to encourage modes of rational thought.

I'd say Plato is probably essential just because the dialogues are so self-contained and relatively easy to teach, I'm not ruling anything out, provided the content of that thing serves the Goal.

The Goal is, to reiterate, not to ensure diversity of "voices"; that diversity can only serve the Goal.

This is too reductionist. It's not an ad hominem to critique the culture from which the flaws arise, which is what minority studies is built to do.

It's essentially the same fallacy. A critique of the culture from which reasoning flaws arise is good context, but the reasoning is either flawed or it isn't.

Also, when the entirety of your discursive catalogue comes from a single culture, or cultural tradition, it absolutely leads to 'blind spots.' This is the problem with a syllabus for a rational/critical thinking class which is entirely drawn from a single broad culture, and it would most likely colour your conversation with Bob, as, if you're working from similar backgrounds, you're going to have similar reasons to believe X.

At the end of the day, when it comes to Bob, me, you or anyone else, regardless of our ethnicity, culture, experience, personality quirks, neurological problems, or anything else about us... X, or not X.

It is not about the quality of ideas, it's about developing the ability to be critical of them, which is I think what we both are advocating.

This is, as noted, the Goal. However, the quality of ideas is pretty inextricable from the ability to be critical of them. A proposition in modus ponens is consistent; a proposition that affirms the consequent isn't and being able to identify good or bad reasoning depends on seeing the difference.

Having taking a handful of undergrad philosophy and a significant amount of undergrad minority studies, I can tell you from personal experience that minority studies is flat-out better for developing critical thinking skills.

I disagree with this. Obviously the effectiveness of a course in developing critical thinking skills depends upon a bunch of factors, most importantly the learner. At which point, we're into a discussion about pedagogy and what's most effective to get across to our target audience what we're hoping to get across to them.

I mean, even here, to use your own methodology, consider what biases you may have developed by taking a lot of minority studies (which you were undoubtedly more interested in, I assume) and a handful of philosophy classes. Could your ostensible preference for the former lead you to think it's more useful, because you were more engaged in those classes? Did you get deeper into the subject area, and as a result, get a more fulsome sense of what it imparts? Did you have better professors in minority studies, leading you to take more courses but also leading you to get more out of them? Are you simply geared towards a certain way of thinking that lends itself to one subject area rather than the other?

As you've identified, all of these questions may well be worth asking. But none impacts upon whether your central thesis, that "minority studies is flat-out better for developing critical thinking skills" is true or false.

X or not X.

[peter12]

The term critical thinking skills is redundant. All thinking is critical, regardless of the insight.

I appreciate any discussion that regards philosophy as an essential aspect of an undergraduate education. For me, I think a revival of a liberal arts curriculum as a core component of every student's undergraduate would be a great thing. That is, literature, philosophy, language, and mathematics.

The question as to what is philosophy is difficult given the fugacious nature of pure thought. However, a relatively straight-forward survey course of the Great Minds is not entirely difficult. Indeed, such a course is often a core component of most degrees in the Arts. Western philosophy itself is not exactly a coherent body of work. Certainly not one that has to be overly diversified. Plato was not exactly a "Western" philosopher. Greece at the time was more Asian than European - not to mention that Athens was the heart of a Mediterranean Empire. If you have understood the Republic, you will know that one of the central themes is proper political governance in a time of chaos and rapid change.

Augustine was speaking for a universal Christendom, one far more diverse than we immediately assume.

It goes on.

What we really mean when we say "Western" philosophy is the core embodiment of the Enlightenment - Descartes, Bacon, Machiavelli, and Hobbes.

You can study these three broad groups, and then, if you want, add in the Romantics and German Idealists. You would have plenty of perspective, and enough trouble untangling their different claims, and counterclaims. That is liberal education.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by driveway

Also, when the entirety of your discursive catalogue comes from a single culture, or cultural tradition, it absolutely leads to 'blind spots.' This is the problem with a syllabus for a rational/critical thinking class which is entirely drawn from a single broad culture, and it would most likely colour your conversation with Bob, as, if you're working from similar backgrounds, you're going to have similar reasons to believe X.

But this is what makes the Western intellectual tradition so rich and enduring - during the classical age and again in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the intellectual field was fiercely contested. Ideas were proposed, championed, challenged, and competed with alternatives. There isn't a single great idea in the Western tradition that wasn't challenged by an alternative, often diametrically opposed, theory within that tradition.

While other civilizations had their day in the sun, by the 17th century intellectual and scientific development outside the West had declined into a moribund state. In the Islamic world this was due to religion increasingly stiffling thought (Taqi ad-Din's observatory in Istanbul was destroyed in 1580), and after Zheng He's final voyage in 1433, Chinese emperors forbade further explorations of discovery and turned inwards. Despite its head start, China made no important discoveries or innovations for centuries, in an era when European thinkers were laying the foundations for virtually all modern science and philosophy.

I'd hazard an assumption that the curriculum of modern Chinese universities is heavily weighted towards 'dead white European males' as well, because those are the ideas and innovations that form the foundation of the modern scientific, economic, and political world (communism itself being a Western idea).

Nobody is suggesting we shouldn't study Confucius, or recognize the contribution Arabic mathematics have made to our knowledge. And in the arts, Arabic and Chinese poetry is sadly neglected in the English-speaking world. But as Corsi says, they should be studied and acknowledged on their own merits, not as representative of Oriental or Arabic thinking. And yes, let's recognize the place in history of Hypatia of Alexandria. But her being a woman should have no bearing on the merit of her mathematical and philosophical work (which we have little detailed knowledge of in the first place).

[polak]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It's not that way anymore, at least at U of C it's not.

Every single program at uni requires good reading and writing though, maybe a handful require Indigenous studies knowledge. It would probably be worthwhile for people in social sciences or education.

This.

The mandatory english course is less about teaching english and more about teaching freshmen what is expected of them in University.

[Weitz]

I think this is poorly implemented due to essentially how most people tackle university.

I took engineering in University and I know if this was a course I had to take, my friends and I would take turns going to class, share notes, I would write whatever paper or what ever would be required, get my grade, and forget everything from the class.

Not because of the course material, but because it has nothing to do with my degree and is only a grade I need to graduate. Much like the English class, and a couple electives I had to take these were simply means to an end.

As others have noted I think it is better served in k-12 schooling.

[peter12]

If there is to be some sort of mandatory indigenous knowledge course, then students should be required to read from the other side of the fence - ie. Tom Flanagan or Frances Widdowson. Otherwise, this is just classic indoctrination, and that is the last thing the University needs at this point.

[icecube]

Yeah, no. Tom Flanagan is a friggin moron and a redneck and no academics outside the UofC would think twice of having his readings in their course outlines unless it was to tear him a new one. Not surprised you endorse him at all, peter12.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by icecube

Yeah, no. Tom Flanagan is a friggin moron and a redneck and no academics outside the UofC would think twice of having his readings in their course outlines unless it was to tear him a new one. Not surprised you endorse him at all, peter12.

So you haven't read any of his stuff? What an ironic corroboration! I never said that I endorsed him. Only that students should be required to read a critical account of indigenous governance, and history as it is currently accepted.

Also, they should throw in "The Invented Indian" by James Clifton.