Acknowledgements were given to various individuals upon conclusion of the meeting. The Team Leaders were acknowledged for their hard work in building up regional teams and focussing on individual Schools. Dorothy Moore, Chair of the Management Committee and Chair of the Race, Ethnic and Cultural Committee, was acknowledged for her leadership in overseeing the project. Finally, JoAnne Zamparo, National Co-ordinator, was acknowledged for bringing a national community development approach to the work.
Canadian Schools of Social Work were surveyed and the results were reported by the committee in 1993. These results indicated the necessity for additional training and/or teaching methods within each of the schools. Social work practitioners, educators, researchers, and administrators need teaching methods responsive to cultural learning differences, training in cross-cultural social work practice methods, and training on racism and the appropriate use of materials. It is important to understand one's own cultural blindness and examine the cultural parameters of one's knowledge base. The current funded project by Heritage Canada outlines two phases of the project. Phase One (Developmental Phase) provides for five regional teams in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces, and British Columbia. A part-time bilingual co-ordinator was given some salary for release of time and some funding for research assistance for faculty team leaders in each of the five regions. There were also expenses for travel, teleconferences, telephone calls, and faxes within the region.
Phase Two (Implementation Phase) requires a new application based on the description contained in the original application for approximately $76,000 from Heritage Canada. The management of this project was decided by this committee and the CASSW Board of Director at its June 1997 meeting. A project management committee was established consisting of Dorothy Moore, Max Saulis, and Mary Ann Murphy. The committee would select a co-ordinator to join the project management committee and maintain responsibility for the project. It was also agreed by the Board of Directors that for Quebec's regional team, this project would be referred to RUFUTS by Michel Bougeorn, the representative on the Board of Directors, so that Quebec Schools could shape their portion of the project to meet their needs. In fact they decided to work like the other four regions as part of the overall project.
The work of the team leaders is important. The goal of each leader was to determine the needs of their region and then the resources required to advance the agenda of Anti-racism, Anti- oppression and diversity education. Each region dealt with this process differently. This special session is the first, as well as significant, opportunity to integrate the work of each region. The team leaders have taken on a demanding responsibility with very little support. Since so much of the work is process, sometimes its importance is overlooked. In essence, they are doing the administrative work of moving this agenda along. The establishment of these five regional teams was the only way CASSW could effectively address this issue within each of the Schools across Canada. The report also documents, over a two year period, a process of addressing Anti-racist education at the institutional level. The team leaders are currently creating a national model that reflects regional differences in addressing this issue. Moreover, it is important to remember that CASSW is taking on this project at a time of severe cutbacks and institutional restructuring, including the loss of senior faculty to early retirement and the merging of Schools of Social Work with other Departments and Schools. It is a challenging time for post-secondary education and a time of opportunity to advance this issue in the education of students and faculty. However, it is necessary to be cautious that this issue does not become marginalized in the hierarchy of priorities that face Social Work Schools. It is a complicated issue that requires openness, continued discussion and debate.
Four of the Team Leaders (Quebec is absent) were given the opportunity to report activities within their regions. Quebec's activities were reported by Michel Andre. It is an opportunity for them to speak to each other and reflect on the differences and similarities of their experiences. One possible weakness of this project is that Team Leaders have been working separately in their own regions without the opportunity to integrate the project nationally.
The British Columbia model is a flexible, individualistic, decentralized, and informal approach. It is evolutionary, organic, a coalition model, an empowerment model. What does this mean? All of the team members appointed by the Deans or Directors have been communicating by telephone, fax, e-mail, and teleconference, as well as subgroup and full group meetings. So far there has been one subgroup meeting in Kamloops and almost a full group meeting in Kelowna. A lot of the work is being done within individual Schools, with each using its own approach to identify their needs and available resources.
It may be difficult to think about regional needs in conjunction with those of individual Schools because the needs of some Schools may differ from those of the region. The needs of a School in British Columbia may be the same as a School in the Atlantic region. There is a meeting on June 24th to consider the needs and priorities in BC and the possibility of identifying them. These needs, however, may not necessarily be regional but rather the particular needs of Schools. Schools are at different stages of this process and they are attempting to become as competent as possible in this area. This model is evident not only in BC, but nationally as well. We have a structure and process that is well-supported by the management team and the work of the Co- ordinator, JoAnne Zamparo. This project exists in an environment of limited resources, an environment of overloaded people working diligently on the periphery, but not directly responsible. There is high commitment and enthusiasm in respect to both the regional and national structure, but time and space are limited. Many involved are having difficulty giving this work the attention it deserves because there have been so many emergencies and exigencies in terms of their daily tasks and commitments. What are we really looking at when we address this issue? Is it something that we do on the side and if not, how should it be done? If we are going to do this effectively, what do we need to do in terms of structure, process and strategy? I am not blaming anyone but rather making a comment and observation about what we need to do. Another part of this context is the focus of the project. I feel as a Team Leader there might be some confusion about the focus. Are we talking about Anti-racism or diversity? Are they connected and if so, HOW? How much diversity can we cope with? How much can we deal with? Is there a true respect, acknowledgement and valuing of diversity and are we facing that issue? Students raise all kinds of questions around it, so how much and to what degree can we really acknowledge, respect and value this issue.
Let's consider the process rather than the model. It was helpful for all team members to get together and share what was happening at particular Schools. Talking with other colleagues created a sense of support and encouragement for one's activities, as well as the School's activities towards changes in policy or curriculum. Learning from each other is both inspiring and exciting. As Team Leader, I had a sense of what people were doing, in that they were already on task doing research. Daniel Lai and Trish Archibald are two examples of this commitment. Daniel Lai surveyed students of colour for experiences with racism and using the findings of that research, brought the issue to the attention of the President. Trish Archibald did some excellent work in her particular course. She used a class of students to discuss how they saw the school and institution as a whole in terms of valuing and acknowledging diversity. They discussed this issue in terms of faculty and student profiles, the curriculum, as well as interactions and relationships among and between people at different segments and sectors of the School. This work demonstrates what needs to be done. Although the process is happening within individual Schools, these results are a product of the Task Force and the ongoing work of the committee. This project addresses the problem of getting regional needs and resources identified and working together. It is bringing people together to share in an interesting and rewarding process. It is necessary to strengthen and support each other throughout this process.
There are no formal policies dealing with Anti-racism or Anti-oppression in any of the Schools. There is also wide variation of existing policies on equity admissions, harassment and mission statements. There may be phrases within the mission statements dealing with diversity or Anti- racism, but there is no formal declaration in policy. Often where policy does exist, there is an inability to translate it into procedures and practices. There is a need to create a healthy, respectful, and caring environment for faculty, staff and students with or without policy. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be happening. We have to move from tokenism to the declaration of this issue in policy, procedure and practice. Some Schools have been able to move forward, in that there are clusters of commitment and support for policy and practices. However, this is generally not the norm. Even when policies and practices do exist, Anti-racism, Anti- oppression, and diversity always seems to be on the periphery, simply an addition to the policy. It is not a wholistic approach, rather it is segmented and in pieces. We behave in faculty meetings, in committee meetings, in various processes and structures at the School, as though there is a full range of policies and procedures to follow. This, however, is not the case.
The questionnaire used was one developed with the Team Leaders across Canada and it was given to the contact people in different regions. They took the questionnaire and adapted it to their region to obtain the necessary information. As a result, the process of gathering information from each of the three regions was inconsistent. Some individuals simply answered the questionnaire and discussed it with other key people in their university. Manitoba had focus group meetings and consultations with the community, students, and faculty, while Alberta looked at field instruction. The results varied but the overall content was acceptable. The questionnaire was long, but we still used it for the final report, However, there were some limitations and we questioned parts of its utility.
We decided to have a regional meeting in Winnipeg to discuss each of the three reports and combine them into one report for the Prairie Region. We tried to make the process as democratic, egalitarian, and colleague-oriented as possible. It is definitely costly to have a face to face meeting. However, the discussion that ensued and the personal networks and contacts that developed were important. We encourage periodic regional meetings with rotating locations and they should be built into any future funding. Each region involved key people and senior administration. In order to maintain continued support, it was essential our Deans and Directors were familiar with the project. Our ability to analyze the information was limited by the timing of the questionnaire and the length of time available to us. We did not have time for discussion that such a qualitative study warrants. There was a gap in the data gathering because the term was ending and as a result, Manitoba was the only region able to get student input. Students are key to curriculum content and development, as well as their experience in our faculties. There was also the challenge of keeping those off-campus involved in the project. One of the requests was to send our research assistant to the Schools to get a sense of the what was happening. This could be done through the organization of focus group meetings with key people, allowing the opportunity for an in-depth discussion. Part of our report is shallow and it could have been a lot deeper.
We have developed the momentum and CASSW need to provide leadership to make sure it continues until our objectives have been met. The initial enthusiasm tends to diminish, so there needs to be a commitment to sustain it through various forms of communication, such as e-mail. Another resource issue which needs to be considered is the continued employment of our research assistant, Tracey Lavoie. She is the key person who pulls all the information together and ensures everyone gets the same messages. Tracey needs to be paid and should not be exploited. There should be a consistency of people in the region. Someone needs to be appointed as the contact person responsible for gathering and disseminating information and ensuring all activities are moving forward. The CASSW is an umbrella organization for all Schools and it should assume this role. This could formalize the process and solicit support from senior administration, who then recognize the tasks of faculty and staff, allowing them the space to perform these tasks and receive credit.
There are distinctive features in the Prairie Region. First, there is a provincial mandate to provide social work programs at the University of Calgary (Edmonton and Lethbridge), University of Regina, and University of Manitoba. There are no other programs except for the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College. Second, there is a high Aboriginal population in some communities, with many initiatives directed towards this group of people. Two of the three regions use sessional instructors for short-term input of content, curriculum and teaching methods. It would be nice to have these people in tenure track positions. Saskatchewan uses elders in the delivery of their program and they find it very effective and very useful. Third, the University of Manitoba has had a framework in place for six years, a standing committee of Social Work that facilitates the discussion of diversity issues- the Affirmative Action Education and Equity Committee. It consists of members of the community, students, and faculty and it meets once a month, reporting to the Faculty Council. It is an active committee with a formal structure, recognized by the entire faculty, supported with workload credit for the faculty Chair of the committee. Suddenly there is faculty support on all other committees to help campaign for a curriculum, content, new courses, and to some extent, recruitment and hiring.
The resources and needs identified in the Prairie region were reported by Tracey Lavoie. One of the key items identified included training opportunities for faculty. There is a need for curriculum experts, both external and internal, to help develop courses specifically around diversity issues. In addition to input from external consultants, the ongoing training, development, and continued support of those within the faculty is essential for the sharing of information and tools to both identify and teach diversity issues. Other key items identified in the region include teaching and learning methods, administrative support, the evaluation of courses including those by students using various testing methods, and operational policies and mission statements congruent with the code of ethics. It is important to recruit students and staff that reflect our population, as well as directly involving students and the community in the process. Meetings were held with various stakeholders in Manitoba and other Schools to keep those involved aware of this ongoing process. Final key items are the continued support of CASSW in dealing with this issue and the granting of research opportunities within regional Schools and all others across the CASSW to help people develop skills and information. One of the things high on the Wish List was the concept of developing mobile teaching packages within the region to be shared through Schools and CASSW. One example is a mobile library of information that someone in the Schools, Region, or CASSW could update. Students, faculty, and the community could help develop it.
Once team members were contacted, an email distribution list was set up and there was a conference call to discuss the project. We discussed what we hoped to capture in this particular report, as well as concerns about the survey, intent of the project, and language. A Team meeting was held after the conference call. Members from Carleton, McMaster, Laurier, and Ryerson were able to attend and the discussion mainly focussed on the survey and the language used. It was necessary for team members to share an understanding of the terms used on the questionnaire including diversity, race, and oppression. The Team decided not to broaden the focus to a general discussion of diversity, but rather look specifically at Anti-racism in the Social Work education program. Each of the School representatives was responsible for engaging faculty in the process of collecting information. As a result, the project and survey were interpreted and adopted in different and unique ways. The representatives were asked to discuss the survey, determine some of the underlying struggles that exist for faculty and students, and put their research into a report.
In some Schools where no forum previously existed for discussing issues of Anti-racism, there was resistence to this work. It is important to identify these issues. Resistance was acknowledged in terms of the timing of the project, not necessarily the content of the project. It was the end of the year and a difficult time to catch students and faculty. Also, the project followed closely on an accreditation process for many schools where people had previously met to discuss these issues. It was difficult to get people together again so the questionnaire was left in their mailboxes. The results indicated questions regarding the pedagogical issues of how Anti-racism issues are presented in the classroom and how conflicts are handled when they arise. Issues related to policies and mission statements were discussed. All Schools recognized the effects of oppression, resulting in the broader heading of diversity including race and racism as significant social categories. The mission statement in one School, for example, "was redesigned to reflect on those larger determinants of the distribution of power and resources which creates social inequity such as those related to class, gender, and race and their significance". Some Schools have formed committees. In one School there is a Race Equity committee person, while another School has a Student of Colour Caucus. All of these constituents sent in reports. Another School has a centre which is, "an approach to a comprehensive change strategy". Many Schools have recently undergone curriculum reviews and people were reflecting on the design and approach of community collaborative consultations to include issues of oppression and diversity.
The next issue concerned faculty and staff representation. A common theme and problem expressed by many Schools was that their faculty was not representative. This is a problem that was slow to remedy. In one School there was a major recent hiring and the committee sought assistance from the Equity Office to ensure a wider pool of candidates. Their efforts, however, were unsuccessful. Other Schools are undergoing hiring freezes and only consider diversity and representation with regards to Aboriginal peoples. Over a two year period, one institution had four available positions and hired four white people. The status quo continued to be maintained because there was no discussion for a commitment to hire candidates that represent the population. This year an effort has been made towards equity hiring to ensure the next hiring will increase the racial diversity of the School. It was difficult because the process itself had its own problems and history. The team worked with human resource officers to look at language because language relates to various categories including gender. The result of these discussions was a more systematic process of hiring. Our field department consists of two racial minority staff. Some students at another School reported that the student body appears to be diverse, but this diversity is not represented within the faculty. Some of the questions that students raised are quoted as follows: Is this School being hypocritical? What are the measures being used to ensure and assess qualified candidates? With what lens are files being reviewed? Are there discussions around faculty pride to hiring so that there is an understanding and a commitment to ensure representation and diversity among faculty?
Another issue raised concerned admission recruitment. Each of the Schools want to ensure that new students reflect the student body. Some consulted census data, statistics and representatives from different populations. Some universities followed specific guidelines, all of which will be included in the report. There was a lot of discussion in terms of course work and academic issues, including additions and revisions to the curriculum and changes in the different Schools.
Various groups of students met and sent in reports with their comments. They commented on problems with some of the key texts. They provided the names of the texts, which are being used in many of the Schools. Another concern was a lack of diversity among guest speakers. Too many of the guest speakers are white. They commented on faculty and classroom issues as well. Critical issues include faculty knowledge and comfort level when teaching anti-racism, the social location of the teacher, avoidance of the issue in the classroom, and the promotion of stereotypes. One School did a comprehensive survey providing information and comments from the field. The CARE Group (the Committee on Anti-Racist Education) surveyed field instructors and reported their findings. They recommend continuing discussion and increasing sensitivity on differences between cultural and racial sensitivity, as well as how to manage practice issues that involve race.
There were also interesting reports concerning international placements. Students report experiences of culture shock, cognitive dissonance, and liberation, all of which are thought to encourage an Anti-racist curriculum. Very rarely are these exchanges reciprocal because although we place students in different countries, we seldom bring them back here. This can be critiqued and seen as the continuing form of professional imperialism discussed by Midgley.
The material gathered by the Team highlights three significant areas: language, pedagogy, and personal accountability. Language is important as it relates to our project focus. In Ontario, we decided to focus on Anti-racism and not broaden the discussion. However, this narrow focus created some problems. One School reported that faculty were frustrated by the emphasis on Anti-racism. Others were curious about our choice and expressed a wish to discuss Anti- oppressive content and pedagogy in the future. Anti-oppressive issues seem to be accepted more for discussion in the classroom. Everyone experiences anti-oppression at some point, regardless of race, gender, class, or ethnicity. However, one needs to be cautious when moving from race to a more generalized discussion of oppression. Race is a construct which carries a complicated history of volatility, a degree of emotion that too often results in it being lost from the agenda. Students felt that a forum on Anti-racism became a black versus white simplification in the classroom. They felt that whites were responsible for the negative experiences of blacks and that everyone else, including blacks, were somehow outside of this practice or responsibility.
"Another crucial discussion that we have not begun in any adequate way concerns the presence of Anti-Semitism within a discussion of Anti-racism". This was brought to our attention by one School and for the purpose of this project, we recognize the need to clarify how we understand race. Are we thinking in terms phenotypical characteristics such as skin colour? Are we thinking historically and contextually of how subjects are racialized? Jewish people, Muslims, and Arabs are still racialized and it is important to discuss further the inclusion Anti-Semitism, Anti-Muslim sentiment, and Anti-Arab sentiment in our understanding of racism. Another response expressed frustration when the emphasis on race took on the notion of the liberal individual prominent in the profession's school of ethics. One comment stated, "I do not like race held in the forefront anymore than any other single defining factor that might be categorized and then divide people into subgroups. Any practice that respects the intrinsic worth and dignity of all human beings would also be Anti-racist". We have to be careful. When a white person wishes to speak of race but of more general notions of oppression, we have to wonder about the social position of that person.
Pedagogy and issues of representation within the classroom are also important. Giroux discusses pedagogy and the needs to highlight issues of power in a dual sense. "Not only does power have to be made central to understanding the discourse of difference from the perspective of history and socially constructed forms of domination but also from the perspective of how teachers can use power through politics of authority which provides them with a basis for reading differences critically." This refers to the issue of authority in the classroom and how students are interrogated when issues of race are discussed. What do we do when critical incidents occur and how do we use those teachable moments? How can faculty deal with this issue responsibly? All of these issues were discussed throughout the process.
The third item highlighted is personal accountability. Many differences exist among schools with regards to class representation. Faculty shared some of these differences. One person, while in a faculty meeting discussing issues for this project, shared the struggles of teaching two sections of the same course. It is the same course with the same materials, but the day class of students were extremely quiet and less representative of the population. The teacher found that the evening class was more representative of the population and, as a result, had a different culture and different approach to the issues. She needed to create a forum where the silent voices of minority students would be heard. This is one example of the issues facing some faculty. How can the voices of minority and other marginalized students be heard and encouraged when the class is not representative?
What are the outcomes of this discussion? What are we looking for in this challenge of promoting Anti-racist pedagogy practice? What is the challenge for social work today? What do we gain by having equity hiring? All revisions are tied to what we think students need to know and what we think social workers do in their practices. Have we clarified these things? What is the profession about? Is there a sense of what we are hoping for? These are all questions that emerged. When students leave, what do we hope they will know and how will they think? At one School the team commented that this is the first time pedagogical practices in areas of race were discussed. It is the first time that just pedagogy was addressed. It was a free flowing conversation and people want to continue this process. There was also the notion of academic freedom, mentioned in one of the reports. To quote from a paper which I received, "universities guarantee academic freedom and individual faculty members have the right to determine what they teach in the classroom. It is essential for faculties which are advancing the diversity agenda to respect the academic freedom of their colleagues. In professional Schools such as social work, however, there are external processes impacting on curriculum such as accreditation by professional bodies. Certain knowledge and value orientations are considered fundamental by the social work professional community and faculties are expected to cover those contents. The need to balance academic freedom with responsibility to provide a curriculum that is sensitive and responsive to the realities of societies has been articulated." Some Schools have encouraged faculty to participate voluntarily in the advancement of Anti-racist and multicultural issues. However, how can one consider a construct of academic freedom and voluntariness while at the same time, struggle with language and meaning, pedagogical practices, challenges in the classroom, and a resistence to discussion of race?
Can these changes be effected? Do we need a monitoring process? Should Schools construct pedagogy groups? Should these be enforced to ensure that an agenda is set and followed? When cognitive dissonance and distress are the results of introducing content on Anti-racism, what are the implication of faculty comfort and ability to teach successfully? What are the criteria for faculty to engage in Anti-racist discourse? What follow-up efforts are required to assist students and faculty through this change process? What are the implications of not addressing belief systems, identity, and self concept issues related to issues of racism and oppression in the social work curriculum? Some members of the committee will expand on the information gathered, as well as a recommendation from one school in particular. The committee of Anti-racist Education formed out of an elective course back in 1991 and they have used this project to evaluate their work from the last six years. They look forward to participating in this project. There is now momentum within the Schools and there is a process in place. It is essential we discuss ways of carrying on the agenda and sustaining it.
There is no educational plan to train faculty on cultural issues. They invite faculty to develop courses and address cultural issues according to their expertise. They have had some success because there are programs with Inuit and Aboriginal people who are prominent in their community. There are, however, no clear policies regarding the recruitment of personnel to teach cultural issues. Since 1981, the changes in educational policies were stated very clearly and the number one issue was hiring more female educators. In English Schools the important issue was hiring more Jewish educators. There are no policies regarding the admission and recruitment of students from different cultures. They are open, but there is no clear policy.
Finally, the Quebec report comments on a number of issues. There are no specific support systems in existence for students of different cultures in the program. The program content of many courses addresses minority and ethnic issues. There are many field practicums available in the multicultural environment of Montreal. Their resource inventory conveys an openness to cultural diversity. Schools have developed instruments, which they would like to have in French. The annotated bibliography received was mainly in French. Very little research has been done in Quebec on Anti-Semitism. The focus at this point seems to be on social oppression and the oppression of women. The courses they teach on intercultural issues are very well attended. Seminars have been organized on these issues and they have established international links mainly with Africa and Costa Rica. They have established success in their cultural diversity courses without CASSW directives to include cultural dimension in their courses.
Each of the Schools gathered information differently. The director in one School used the questionnaire to gather information. In two of the Schools the contact persons had discussions with the groups of faculty, passing on the information to the Team Leader. In the Maritime School, research assistants interviewed faculty members individually, creating a safe environment where they felt they could speak freely. We want to have more group discussions within the Schools as well as within the region. Each of the Schools are engaged in this work at very different levels. Some are just beginning by developing policies, procedures and practices, while others have been involved in the process much longer. There have been many challenges and they are learning what works and what does not work.
The Atlantic Region has many different cultural groups, all with very different needs. Some of the Schools have targeted admissions to focus specifically on the target group in their area. In Moncton, where there is one Francophone group, the University of Moncton and their School are specifically targeting Acadian students. Memorial University has been working with Inuit students. The Maritime School has had an affirmative action program for 25 years. Its target groups are Aboriginal, African Nova Scotian, and Acadian students. St. Thomas tends to focus on First Nations and English speaking Acadian students.
The questionnaire and its challenges were frequently discussed. One of the issues discussed concerned Canadian content. How do you reconcile this and the frustration it causes to students? Some of the Acadian students said they just don't expect it anymore because their issues do not get a voice. People discussed the need for training field instructors in Anti-racism work. Students, especially students of colour, go to outside agencies where they are expected to educate the field instructors. They are paying tuition to learn not educate their instructors. Students are discussing this issue in the classroom. Some of the Schools commented on the need to create more diversity in terms of the field instructors and agencies. This is a concern in terms of accreditation standards. What agencies get accredited as credible field agencies? Some Schools maintain policies where supervisors must have a Masters in Social Work (MSW) Degree. Many marginalized communities and ethnic-specific agencies have very qualified people, without their MSW Degree, who are excellent field instructors. These are the important issues we need to consider.
Funding for research among our diverse stakeholders is an extremely important issue. How do people get funding and how can the CASSW be supportive of funding initiatives? The focus of the questionnaire was mainly on diversity and people were unsure of how to deal with this intersecting nature of oppression. How do we maintain the central focus of the project? How can we use Anti-racism as a building block for maintaining our focus? Faculty recruitment and retention from diverse communities is another issue. Institutional climates must be considered. This includes the reasons why people stay at a particular school, as well as their feelings that their work is valued as an integral part of the organization. It is not enough to simply get people into these institutions. How do we recruit students? If excellent recruitment mechanisms exist, how do we retain students? How do we provide them with a rich educational experience? People are struggling to answer these questions and they want to learn more. There was a need expressed for learning better teaching practices. How do you teach Anti-racism? How do you teach Anti- oppression work? There are individuals teaching these issues from a position of marginalization and it is difficult to do so without further marginalizing themselves. There is a need to create a network of people, particularly in the smaller regions with either one School or one person of colour on faculty. This can be an isolating experience, so how do people connect with others who are doing this work, particularly in larger centres? There is a need to reflect on and analyse the work that they are doing, but there is no time. How can they create time in their agendas? How can we make this an integral part of what is happening at faculty meetings within our Schools?
There is a lack of support initiatives for students. Students are being recruited, but it is difficult to retain them. One reason for this difficulty is funding. Students are stressed out due to finances. They do not have enough money and as a result, some are working two or three jobs. How do you do that? They are tormented because they are not maintaining a high enough GPA and if there GPA is not high enough they will not get into graduate school. Many boast about the number of students they have recruited and feel their job is now complete. However, the reality of these students lives is often lost or ignored.
The need to develop more Canadian content was previously discussed. More research into this area needs to be written and published. There also needs to be greater understanding of the complexities of the dominant culture. We need to interrogate whiteness. We need to interrogate what it means to be thinking and working from that dominant paradigm. Anti-racism work tends to interrogate people of colour, but what does it mean to interrogate whiteness? Another question raised was the issue of moving forward. How do you move forward with this work when you feel you have done a lot and more than most, but the constituencies say you have not done enough? You have not moved fast enough. What do you do when you have these competing challenges? How do you move forward in a way that people benefit, without losing sight of the issues? This has been a struggle. One individual stated, "to date the CASSW Schools have dealt with race at superficial level". There is a real need to move beyond this level, but it can be difficult to do so. It was suggested that CASSW do a pilot action research project to examine this issue.
Finally, course content is uneven. When race issues are discussed, it may only be for one day. Some courses have a stronger content of race issues because there is a lot of diversity within the School. I personally have been down-graded in evaluations because I have had too much content. There needs to be an awareness of the issues related to promotion and tenure. There is also the issue of adequate resources. When people talked about resources there were certainly an abundance, including students. Students themselves bring a richness to the learning environment, but it can be tiring and exhausting for them. They are not paying tuition to do this. It is a competing challenge to reconcile the diversity and value we want with the needs of students. It can be oppressive for students who are always expected to be the spokesperson for their communities. It becomes additionally difficult when they are only one in the school.
It is important to examine who is actually qualified to teach Anti-racist social work and who should teach it. How can we move it from an area of expertise to, "all that I should know about and be able to deal with"? One must be careful and not reproduce the view that race and issues of race are seen only as applying to people of colour, Aboriginal people, First Nations, French Canadians, Quebecois, or any individuals with different ethnicity. We have to find out where people stand concerning these issues and start the process at that point. This means focussing on issues of identity.
All individuals are all racialized in one way or another and this racialization needs to be examined. If you are part of the dominant group or majority you can afford to say that you are not racialized and that race only refers to someone else. However, this is not true because even dominant people use a concept of race within their social relationships. When Wanda says we have to interrogate whiteness, she is absolutely right. Whiteness as a category is meaningless because it is also diverse. Terms like white and black are used at one level to abstract knowledge and while certain dynamics apply to all who fit into these categories, one must also acknowledge that these categories are heterogeneous. The experience of race of an English Canadian will be very different from an Italian Canadian, French Canadian, or Nova Scotian Black Canadian. Identities are fluid and multiple because one is not only identified on the basis of race. One can be identified on the basis of class, gender, disability or age. There must be an acknowledgement of the importance of a particular social division, but also a recognition that experiences of oppression are based on a variety of factors. These factors must be separated in order to examine, address, and consider the different ways social conditions interact and intersect with each other.
The content of what we teach is affected by the realization that we live in a world of duality. We are all a lot of things and we want to be part of many more. It is essential that one deals with the whole person, including emotions. We feel in our emotions, possibly feeling accepted, rejected, or confused, and these feelings affect how one relates to issues of race. We also need to consider intellectual content. This combination needs to be converted into practice in the field and in our interactions with each other. Practice needs to be about social encounters and social interactions.
Several key areas mentioned in the regional reports need to be addressed. The process that initiated the project in all regions is very important. All regions effectively explained their attempts to encourage everyone to belong, participate, and gain ownership in the process. This approach is crucial according to my experiences in the UK. Individuals brought on board must feel able to raise the questions, issues, ambiguities, certainties and uncertainties facing them. One must establish a process and environment where all involved can place their trust and feel comfortable. Trust is really important because without it, people are not going to say what they really think. This environment respects the experiences of staff from ethnic minority groupings, making them feel as if they own and control the process. It is also crucial for student interaction. An agenda needs to be set and worked out within the institution. However, feedback from the regions indicates the problem of a lack of time. Individuals, regardless of their race, ethnicity, class, or age, need time and space to examine their feelings and emotions. The courses offered in Canadian schools are longer than those in the UK, where we have two years to teach social work students an enormous agenda. We can not do it, so we start off with "the notion of stones weighing us down to begin with". We have to think creatively. How can we find time to allow students and staff the opportunity to develop their own personal agenda? This requires self-examination, examining who they are and what they stand for, in order to feel comfortable sharing with others in a safe environment. My own experience in the UK involves starting a 12 hour course of personal agenda setting. It was reduced to two hours, but the same amount of work had to be completed. One has to be creative to accomplish this task.
Another key area discussed was the availability of resources. Students are a valuable resource, but we must be careful not to misuse them and or see them as experts able to do our jobs. The Atlantic Region provided an effective commentary on this issue and I agree with Wanda's comments. Students are a valuable resource because they have knowledge and information to share with each other. It establishes a framework where they can actually teach each other and faculty in a non-exploitative way. This is important when lack of time is an issue. This framework is evident with staff and faculty as well. When I began my position as the Director of Sheffield School I was the only woman on staff, with colleagues who were scared to face a feminist, Anti- racist woman. They questioned how they would meet all of the hurdles I was going to place in front of them. I made mistakes, sometimes being sexist or racist. It is important to acknowledge your mistakes and agree to work together.
A series of sessions were set up to focus on practical problems that people wanted to solve. Everyone was committed to Anti-racism, Anti-sexism, and all other "Antis" in their practice, but were unsure of how to implement it in their teaching. Resources were short, but there was some funding to bring in consultants. Let's start off with a consultant due to the power differential. Members of the group all worked together and it included the faculty and director. We began to develop our policies and my course will be submitted along with all others for scrutiny. In terms of the Anti-Racist Training and Materials Project, the model you are following is extremely good with excellent ideas, but some of it may be seen as discrete, with each member working on their own or within a course. In the UK, we decided that the discrete model was not for us, rather we wanted a permeation model. We wanted the process to infuse all activities within the School, whether you were the director or the secretary. An external consultant helped us to identify the areas in our own specific work where one needed to look at the issue of race and how it impacted on our activities. We established small groups which were able to facilitate themselves. We also established a staff group to analyze Anti-oppressive practice, focussing each meeting on different social divisions. People were teaching different things and consistently changing the focus of meetings helped us to identify how one could cross all the other social divisions. The end result was a matrix of where everyone started from and where they are now. To deal with this, we selected literature at the forefront of the field and critiqued it for both it positive and negative bits. How does this relate to what we are teaching in our classes? How does it relate to the relationships between staff and students, staff and staff, staff and the field, the communities, and the university?
I was quite naive about the university and as a result, made a lot of mistakes bringing the community and the university together. I thought everyone was interested in Anti-racist initiatives. I began by asking the Black Communities Forum on Social Work Education to join the decision-making body of the department, with their representatives attending the departmental meetings. However, the Black communities wanted to attend meetings at any time, so they wanted an open forum without elected representatives. I proposed this to my colleagues who said it was not possible. The meetings operate on a consensus basis and they feared they could be outnumbered. This emphasized that I did not adequately prepare my colleagues to deal with their fears. They saw the community as a powerful entity ready to criticize them. It took three years to do this. When representatives from the Black communities finally took part in the process, they were nothing like the threatening people my colleagues had imagined. They were wonderful colleagues who helped us a lot and we learned a lot from them.
It is important that all emotions, fears, and mistakes are discussed and people work for this knowledge. They must feel that they need it, rather than having it imposed on them. If it is imposed on them, academic freedom can become an issue. The attack on "Paper 30" in the UK was due to the imposition of a curriculum framework. "Paper 30" stated, "Britain was endemically racist and we needed to address this in our curriculum". Some individuals, not committed to the process, saw this statement as a challenge to academic freedom. My reply to this challenge was "We are always being asked - it is part of the laws of the land - we can't simply say anything we want to say or do anything we want to do. There are protocol of behaviour and we are mindful of these". Why is this any different in relation to race and racism? One must address the fears of individuals who are frightened they will be labelled a racist. If you are white or part of the dominant group there is nothing more frightening than being labelled a racist. Some people take its meaning in a biological sense feeling there is nothing they can do about it. They forget that race is a socially constructed category with different meanings for everyone. According to my experience in the UK, people from the dominant culture always want to externalize race as something out there. It is part of the process I call the othering, the other or others. The fear that they will be labelled racist and can not change is an immutable category, one that must be addressed in order to get colleagues moving.
The Team Leaders spoke primarily about committed colleagues who got involved and were full of energy and enthusiasm. It is important to work with these individuals. However, there are other colleagues you must work with, the group that is indifferent and confused, willing to try but not knowing what to do. In the UK, when the confused group tried to teach Anti-racist social work, they really made a mess of it, making it even more difficult for the committed people to get some issues back on the agenda. There is also a group of resisters and one has to deal with this group differently. One must acknowledge these groups exist and deal with them. If not, they will deal with you and the consequences are such that occurred with "Paper 30" in 1993. We thought we had much more time before the backlash set in and we were wrong. So be prepared for this to happen because it will. There are a lot of committed people and one must work with them because they are the people who can initiate change. However, you also have to work with the other groups as well. You can not do everything yourselves.
Another important issue to consider is how to draw others into the process and the kinds of support networks one can build. It is important to draw on the expertise of others, such as people working on temporary contracts, but sometimes it is useful to allow outside consultants to help with the process. If someone in a position of authority is resisting what you are trying to do, it may be beneficial to bring in an outsider to deal with this person and their issues. The individual may feel less threatened by a person from the outside. As social workers we are always striving for personal change. Everyone needs to go through this process, even though they resist and may not be able to change. They must have the opportunity to try. This process is about respecting other people even if, at the end of the day, we have to agree that we differ and will not be allies in this process.
The regional reports said little about organizations and one must consider organizational change on several levels. Policy was discussed and it is extremely important. Policies are often used as tools to shift people who's only interest is to oppose what you are doing. Policy creates a legitimacy so although you may not be able to change that person's views, it stops them from damaging what you are trying to do. Another level of organizational change concerns organizational practices, such as working conditions, relationships with students, and the use of resources. Finally, it is extremely important to consider organizational culture. I was working with a government body in the UK on what they call the equal opportunities, dealing with the two dimensions of race and gender. Numerous policies and practices were developed and this process brought some black people into an area of work where they had never been before. All was well and it seemed as though the situation would work, but when I went back to monitor the situation about three months later, most of them had gone. Some of the black people experienced racial harassment so, since they did not have to stay, they decided to leave. The same thing happened to women who moved into men's areas. Obviously, we had done something wrong. First, we discovered we did not have any examples of white men going into black men's areas such as the foundries, so we could not compare the situation of black men going into white men's areas. Second, the women who went into men's areas were not welcomed and were subjected to all sorts of sexual harassment, whereas the men who went to the women's areas were welcomed, told how things worked, and soon telling the women what to do.
This example demonstrates how organizational culture affects how people are received, how we relate to them, and the norms that exist in our culture. These issues need to be dealt with as a specific focus of change. The Anti-Racist Training and Materials Project has done a lot in some areas, but there are other areas that need to be examined as well. One needs to look at the entire picture and process to deal with the whole person and the total organization, institution and society. We are trying to change a small part of the world when in fact it is society as a whole that actually feeds into race and racism. One must be mindful that somehow we have to articulate that broader level of social change into what we are doing in the universities.
Many of the reports discussed students feeling challenged, overwhelmed and very dissatisfied. According to my experience in the UK, the negative feedback from students was usually concerned with race and gender. Age did not seem to get such negative feedback, possibly because the students were younger. It was suggested to those in positions of authority that they examine their recommendations for promotion and look at the student feedback. Why are student comments so negative? They were negative because real learning took place and people were challenged. It made them frightened and worried and years later, I now know why. Those of you in this room who are directors really have to be very careful as to how you assess the comments you receive, although it can be quite difficult. It is easy for someone who is an entertainer to receive good comments, but I am always suspicious of those people when I am wearing my director's hat. I usually consider the meaning of comments and how they fit into the contents of courses. Most directors, however, do not usually consider these factors. Most of us take it for granted that these things are happening out there and very seldom engage with our colleagues on what are they are doing and how they are teaching. The UK is going to introduce a system making those involved discuss the issues, but I think this is actually the wrong way to deal with them.
To work within a permeation model one must begin where people are at and then look at everything, including their relationship with the field. Often this relationship is ignored. Faculty and staff are expected to do their own thing, but still get the training. We just send our students to these schools and either forget them or go for periodic visits to observe their progress. It was discovered that within various universities in the UK there are 101 different courses representing different responses to "Paper 30". I am going to discuss my course as I had more control and influence on it. Southampton has also done similar work, but I am less aware of the history. We discussed our program with the Director of Social Services, Chief Probation Officers and Directors of Voluntary Organizations, discussing how to make this an issue for them and for us. We attempted to get funding for a consultant to work with them, in addition to us working with them as well. We were able to come together to examine the teaching curriculum and a practice curriculum was developed looking at the matrix of social divisions which I previously discussed. Our field supervisors (called practice teachers in the UK) and academic staff developed and taught a curriculum together.
At Warwick, there were six hours dedicated to student teaching. We have seven or eight hour days, so six hours is quite a lot. At Sheffield, a practitioner had to allocate at least 50% of the time to supporting these students. The CCTESW supported this process by stating that in order to teach students one had to be an accredited practice teacher or an approved agency. This gave us the space and opportunity to discuss the development of an Anti-racist, Anti-oppressive working environment and the policies and practices necessary for this environment. Unfortunately, since I left Sheffield and due to opposition, many of these initiatives have fallen apart. It briefly worked well because practice teachers were supported by their academic colleagues and there were regular discussions, monitoring, and feedback sessions with superiors. I met regularly with the director of the course, Chief Probation Officers, and the Director of Social Services and their training officers. Support is essential and one needs to consider support for both staff and students. It was necessary to develop quite a few systems to support students. One cannot simply recruit them and then forget about them. It is necessary to develop a mechanism to support students both academically and in the field. We discovered this with our Black students who, for a long time were lacking adequate support. It took time to get approval because we did not have the necessary resources to pay people to provide this support. Unfortunately, this situation is probably repeated with many other groups of students entering our profession.
I am interested in the struggle of dealing with Anti-racism and Anti-oppression issues. We have just begun to examine and focus on Anti-oppression in the curriculum, but we are still committed to the Anti-racism project. I am interested in feedback and advice on how to focus on both issues at the same time. One suggestion is to move towards an Anti-oppression focus, but deal with Anti-racism first. I am looking for advice because when you examine the issue of oppression, one notices that all experiences are not the same. This issue is a huge part of our team effort and work, being discussed in conference calls and subsequent meetings. What are we actually talking about here? What is the entry point? The entry point for this project is race. Race is often pushed to the side when other oppressions are discussed. It holds a particular type of volatility, a particular kind of historical complexity and discomfort that is somehow lost unless named as the entry point. The team recognized the importance of race while, at the same time, recognizing different oppressions and how they intersect. I believe they need each other to work together, but they also work separately in particular ways. Certain ones have a particular saliency and real material consequences, while others do not. For the purposes of this project we were very concerned about holding onto race as the entry point.
Another way of focussing on both issues is to examine how oppressive a project can be. My own view relates to Lena Dominelli's discussion of fluidity and ownership. Individual Schools should follow their own process and decide where it is they want to go. It is not really all that complicated. The task is difficult, but I do not think we need anyone telling us what to do, as was suggested by the Quebec representative. I am resistant to look for a universal framework as to where the project should go. I believe, both as a faculty member and a person, that Schools need to own this process, its content, and agenda. We should not be asking for advice here, but rather asking questions within our faculties and communities. It is beautiful and exciting to be in an environment where we are all struggling because it is a starting point.
It is necessary to consider theory when examining what we are trying to do with this project. We are trying to bring about change to promote, develop, sustain, and support our initiatives and while doing so, we are involving all of the theories discussed within the project and process. We must be aware of this while doing the work. We know, as social workers, there will be setbacks, backlashes, and conflicts. How do we deal with these conflicts within our own faculties and communities? Unfortunately, nothing will happen with this project unless people make it happen. People will not focus on Anti-racism without being forced in that direction. One problem is that without someone in a position of power guiding the process, issues can easily get sidetracked. In addition to the commitment, there needs to be people willing to do the work. One of the struggles facing social workers is that we do not possess the understanding to critically examine race as a knowledge base in social work. There are only a few writers we can refer to and as a result, it becomes necessary to go beyond social work literature to understand the construction of race. Many practitioners, however, tend not to do this. They hang on to the traditional tenets of the profession and continue to work through these issues from there. It is necessary to continue and encourage the development of this knowledge in social work. We need to develop an understanding of critical race theory within the social work literature, but since we are so busy doing the work, there is no time to do this. It is essential that we create time and space for the development of these issues and this is where the project may be able to help. The BC Team agreed, recognizing that it would be helpful to give those who are doing the work time to develop it as well, rather than waiting on others to develop it. We need to develop the work ourselves and there are people here who can do it. While the material we use is always chapter 11 in some book or an article, it is really the whole text that should be focussing on the issues. The problem is a lack of time. People are now asking for the time and space to develop resources, not necessarily individually but in teams. We need Heritage Canada or other interested individuals to contribute, to help us do this.
We have a very active Anti-racism committee and although most of its members are people of colour, there are some who are not. They graduated from our program and felt that we were woefully lacking in Anti-racist content. They have been actively involved in the process for approximately five years, developing the work and getting it to Narda Razack. They surveyed field instructors, present students and course outlines. Activity at the national level and meeting with Narda gives the project an infusion of energy. Another way to energize the project is, as Lena Dominelli suggested, to bring in a community from outside the university such as the Black community or in our case, First Nations. I attended one of the faculty meetings and there was discussion about changing organizations. As I sat and listened, I remembered I was the only minority person in my class for four years and when issues of minority were raised, everyone looked at me. Sometimes you do not feel like speaking because you do not want to identify with the issue being discussed. I simply kept to myself. What should be the main focus of a profession, of a School of Social Work? We are supposed to promote change, positive changes in human behaviour, growth, and development, but we are struggling with this. As I listen to all of these people and observe the facts and knowledge that exist, I do not see the growth happening as it should.
Some people became very defensive when a minority student came into our faculty because she and one other person examined our course outlines. They immediately thought we were not doing a good job. She has experienced racism both in school and as a graduate and she shared these experiences with us. Eventually, people became less defensive and tried to understand her point of view.
While the discussion regarding issues of theory is quite interesting and intriguing, many resist examining issues of race because they tend to personalize the process. This resistance can create stumbling blocks which then keep us from moving forward. To what extent can we concentrate on overcoming the issue of fear? We need to be able to acknowledge this issue, but also move forward and take the next step. We have to acknowledge that we make mistakes and we do not know it all.
I want to address the issue of Anti-racism. The profession of social work is stagnant and a majority of social workers are quite comfortable with their lifestyles. Change is a frightening concept. Our students represent that comfortable lifestyle in their expectations to obtain the same lifestyle. Moving away from issues of Anti-racism and calling it diversity creates too many different types and forms of oppression. It dilutes the issues by moving us away from confrontation about policies at the macro level, moving us into being nicer, and therefore, moving us away from issues such as racism, sexism and heterosexism. There were nice people in the time of slavery, but they were still slave owners. The issues of Anti-racism force us to become more confrontational and this is frightening for people who do not like conflict and people who fear being thought of as part of the problem. These people are nice, good hearted, caring people who treat everyone the same. We have to take on a greater challenge and to do so, we need greater support from the national organization. However, although those of us involved keep it as a high priority, competing priorities exist within our jobs. If we continue to dilute the issues as diversity and promote simply acceptance or tolerance, we will never develop a really inclusive society.
Lena Dominelli brought attention to a personal issue. The notion of fear, including its adverse implications and the systemic notion of what it becomes, is a critical starting point. It exists on both personal and systemic levels. There exists, from an ideological perspective, a new liberal view, a notion that keeps the foundation of social work in a holding pattern. This notion has been discussed since 1991 and fear is having an adverse impact. The change that needs to happen is not happening. There are issues of resources and time to consider, but the agenda still needs to move forward in one area. It needs to move beyond the starting point by understanding the framework of race and then, by beginning to discuss and understand the issues. Instead of diluting issues of race, we can actually using race as a framework to integrate concepts of other oppressions. We must centre on race, otherwise we will unintentionally minimize race, its issues, and other oppressions as well. We must deal with the fear so a discussion about the concept of race is possible. Social work text books and literature discuss culture, representation, otherness, and difference. However, we as social workers have a great deal to do because with the exception of Mullaly, who wrote a section on difference in Structural Social Work, most of us do not yet understand these concepts, including the notion of otherness in the classroom. Do we understand what that means in terms of theory and practice. Do we understand the multiplicity of dimensions to difference? In Canada, we pioneered issues of systemic discrimination, but have failed to write about them. The work started in 1984 through the Bella Commission. There was much said about systemic discrimination and how to deal with systemic practices, yet it is not being replicated. We have the prerequisite skills and knowledge in Canada to deal with these issues. We need to start talking and understanding how fear has been so systematized because it is preventing us from engaging in Anti-racist practice.
Have any of the Schools represented here had some success addressing this issue of fear and resistence? If so, could we hear about some of those processes? It may provide strategic suggestions for others on how they might deal with this issue. I also wish to discuss the Affirmative Action Education Equity Initiative that started in 1992. This initiative began with a committee examining the composition of our satellite programs which were diverse, as well as our main campus programs which were mainly white and mainstream. The committee recommended that some faculty time be allocated to diversifying the campus and in order to do this, they set up another committee.
Lena Dominelli talked about this process. You make mistakes and incredible conflict exists with regards to the mandate of the committee and how much change it should incorporate. We decided to use a community development approach by bringing together the smaller communities that existed within our larger community. These included aboriginal people, people with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, and visible minorities. Communities became involved, advisory committees were established, and students who were members of these communities were given positions as research assistants. However, this issue of involving communities and bringing them into the conversation was problematic because faculty members were slow to take this process seriously. We were originally a sub-committee of the Masters of Social Work (MSW) Program Committee, but we fought to become a standing committee of the Faculty Council. The turning point was the occurrence of one on one conversations with faculty, the surveying of students about their experiences, and the ongoing discussions of community members. Our communities were very diverse with very different agendas. The committee, as well as community members, needed to hear all of these agendas.
The committee's first outcome was to change admission policies both in the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Masters of Social Work (MSW) programs. The affirmative action committee involved all stakeholders, including students, faculty, and community members. However, we did not want to be called the affirmative action committee anymore, but rather the educational equity committee. Our faculty were extremely supportive and without their support, we would have been unable to obtain the necessary resources. However, there were still some people being resistant and indifferent and this was discussed at a faculty council meeting. The meeting demonstrated how people were really beginning to understand the process and they were more supportive of the earlier name of the committee. There was an incredible discussion about the name change and they were concerned that a change from affirmative action to educational equity would minimize the importance of the committee and its initiatives. The process has been slow, but we were able to obtain support from Canadian Heritage to hire a co-ordinator. Also, we were able to mobilize the community through intensive and extensive community consultations within a participation action research framework established by three community members. The result was a set of recommendations the committee could implement. One recommendation was to recruit people for the faculty. Process was again slow as discussion continued regarding issues such as who was governing our faculty, what was this governance all about, and how do we involve the community. We now have a community representative of the affirmative action committee on all standing committees. We were respectful of involving constituents in the process and we had funding to do it. This took six years and we still have a long way to go. There are now more communities wanting to become involved including gay and lesbian communities and disabilities communities. We are looking for ways to involve gay and lesbian communities and we received funding to look at the disabilities communities. However, this additional focus caused us to lose some of our momentum. It is a difficult process to balance the work with the various stages of each community.