By: Eden Wondmeneh
As a first-year student in social sciences, the bulk of my tutorial grade is determined by my participation in discussions. For someone who would rather be restricted to eating at Centro than be forced to speak in public, tutorials are not my ideal environment.
As the fall semester progressed, I noticed that some of these discussions supported learning while others were downright problematic. Speaking to other students in social sciences, specifically students of colour, it was clear that teaching assistants, who greatly influenced whether tutorial discussions were the former or the latter, were overwhelmingly white.
The lack of diversity in TAs is often juxtaposed with a somewhat diverse student group — where students of colour bond over the shared discomfort or hilarity of the awkwardness that settles across the room anytime a ‘hot topic’ like white privilege is brought up.
Discussions about race are often excluded from acceptable topics in an environment that claims to encourage academic discourse, especially when initiated by a person of colour: a fact that aided in my decision to stay relatively quiet in tutorials.
Regardless of their intentions, these TAs are in a position of power where they facilitate discussions about systems of oppression that they themselves benefit from and resultantly teach students through this narrow-privileged lens. If topics of race are not dismissed after a moment of awkward silence, they always seem condescending; what qualifies non-POC TAs to lead these discussions?
I have a friend whose TA explained how common sense differs between cultures using a blatantly racist analogy of African children never having seen a stove thus not knowing that it is unsafe to touch. When called out for their ignorance, the TA’s response was some variation of, “I’m not racist”.
The Teaching in an Accessible and Inclusive Community section of McMaster University’s 2013 TA guide shows that the diversity and inclusion issue in tutorial sessions is much worse than it appears. The university is aware of the power imbalances that are inherent to the limited diversity amongst TAs — they just aren’t doing anything about it.
Despite their ability to recognize that acknowledgment of systemic racism is not enough to let them off the hook, they boldly state that McMaster staff and faculty work “against often invisible systems of privilege and oppression,” without giving TAs any guidance in how to further this effort within their own tutorials. In fact, the guidebook makes it clear that it is naïve to believe that even a well-intentioned TA could use any tips provided to create an equitable space within their tutorials.
To be clear, I don’t think that TAs are intentionally leading their tutorials to isolate students of colour and validate the dominant privileged narrative that exists within our society. I do believe though that the hiring process for TAs is flawed, as it works directly against McMaster’s “fight against invisible systems of privilege and oppression”.
There should be a great number of Black TAs who are able to lead tutorials with a different perspective, engage with Black students and have important conversations about race when the course calls for it.
Aside from increasing the diversity amongst TAs, there should be mandatory anti-oppression workshops and training. It is unrealistic to hope that TAs will suddenly diversify, but it is not unrealistic to hope that current TAs have an understanding of their bias and are able to react to being called out productively — not through cries of, “I am not racist”.
For myself to feel comfortable to contribute freely within these tutorials, I need there to be measures in place for the inevitable awkwardness that ensues when race is discussed and a guarantee that Black children won't be used in racist examples.
We don't live within a vacuum. To create the “inclusive and accessible learning environment” that McMaster desires, TAs need to reflect this inclusivity and accessibility students are meant to find.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Maryanne Oketch
One of the reasons I chose to enrol at McMaster University was for the diversity that the school claimed to offer. Coming from a predominantly white secondary school, I was excited to attend a new school. I was hopeful that I would make connections within my program and maybe gain a support system consisting of people that could relate to the experience of being Black in academia.
When I entered the integrated science program in 2016, I was disheartened to realize that in my year of entry, I was the only student in my program that was Black, alongside two other individuals with mixed backgrounds. Within the week, this dropped to two, as one person switched out. Within the month, it then became clear that the two of us were not just the only Black students in our year, but in the whole four-year program.
This lack of Black peers created a feeling that I had to be the best of the best, and when I couldn’t reach that goal, I would withdraw rather than reaching out. This caused damage to my grades, reputation and relationships with my peers.
It is a well-known fact that there is a disparity between the Black population and our representation in higher education. This gap can be seen more in supplementary-based programs that McMaster offers, and my experience unfortunately is not an isolated one.
Multiple students from different programs stated that the lack of Black students in their programs made them feel like there were few people who could relate to the struggles that come with being Black.
There was also another complexity that I did not consider — the fact that there are more Black women in academia than Black men. One health sciences student, upon realizing that they were the only Black man in their whole year, experienced feelings of isolation.
In addition, a justice, political philosophy and law student was the only Black man in their program, and though he is friends with Black women, he notes that it is not fully the same.
Regrettably, the issues that stem from the lack of diversity do not just have interpersonal effects, but also affect the learning experience. A student in the arts and science program said that there were times when a professor or student would ask a question that pertained to race, and the question would seem pointed at them, the only Black student in their year.
This student can also recall a moment when a professor made a comment about how some students may be used to hearing racist jokes, and then locked eyes with them, creating an uncomfortable situation.
Another former arts and science student had a class where a classmate attempted to defend slavery, and a professor who taught a class about oppression but refused to use the term “racism”. The student states that they never felt challenged by the program, and felt that they had to do the challenging rather than their instructors. This was due, they say, to the structure and instruction of the program being catered to their affluent white peers and not to them.
The catering of programs does not seem limited to just arts and science but can also be seen in McMaster Engineering Society programs. A student within the program switched out after one semester due to the lack of actual inquiry in the program, but a focus on the marks received.
When a peer in their program stated that "the disadvantaged [in Hamilton] aren't doing enough for the more privileged to help them," the professor did not immediately shut down this false and insensitive statement, but instead was complacent. In addition, the structure of the program encouraged students to repeat the same statistics because that is what is needed for a good grade, and not because the students wished to learn more about societal issues.
If multiple Black students in different years and different programs are saying the same thing, there needs to be some sort of change to support these students when they are in the program. I am not suggesting these programs change their selection process, because this lack of diversity is a systemic issue, and I do not have the knowledge to provide suitable solutions to help mitigate the effects.
Regardless, if McMaster strives for diversity and does not have the necessary structure to support the diverse students that they already have, then their efforts are just a baseless claim to obtain more money from a diverse group of students.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
If you’re an avid reader of the Silhouette, then you’d know our annual rendition of Sex and the Steel City, much like the paper itself, has evolved quite a bit over the past couple of years.
Putting together this year’s sex-positive publication meant embracing the diverse ideas around sexuality, love and health. It’s about creating a non-judgemental space where experiences can be shared, identities are expressed and art can be enjoyed.
Through Sex and the Steel City we were also able to explore Hamilton’s history, challenge the issues our communities’ face and open eyes to future possibilities with passion and dedication.
Every word and visual in this issue is also a reflection of the privileged position we, as a publication, are in to unapologetically express ourselves. A position that has been continuously denied to people historically and as of late.
For this reason our cover includes re-creations of stills from the recently discovered film Something Good - Negro Kiss. Directed by William Selig in 1898, the film depicts the earliest on-screen kiss between two Black stage entertainers and challenges the racist caricature prevalent in popular culture. In the 29-second silent film, Saint Suttle and Gertie Brown convey undeniable expression of love, pleasure and happiness.
[Best_Wordpress_Gallery id="218" gal_title="Something Good - Nego Kiss"]
We hope to continue the conversation around barriers that continue to marginalize identities today while also celebrating everything good they have to share.
Sex and the Steel City is a hopeful expression that love will prevail.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
I’m doing an independent study this semester, and if you have come within 50 feet of me this past month I’ve probably already told you all about it (whether you wanted to hear about it or not). It is on “memory,” which may seem a little odd to anyone not studying history. Memory is usually rather straightforward — things happened, we know about them, we remember them. Luckily for my research project, it is much more complicated than that.
My choice of thesis resulted in a conversation with an unwitting acquaintance. While I had my captive audience — literally captive, they were forced to wait at a bus stop with me — the conversation took an interesting twist. “How can we judge Birth of a Nation?” they asked. “It was a product of its time.” For those who haven’t heard of Birth of a Nation, it is the first feature film ever. While movies preceding it were around 15 minutes long, Birth of a Nation is an astonishing two hours. It pioneered cinematic techniques that we now take entirely for granted. It was the highest grossing film until Gone with the Wind in 1939. It also facilitated the refounding of the Ku Klux Klan. The film is racist in the extreme. Using blackface to depict the rape of white women and the takeover of the “civilized” South by its Black population is undoubtedly repulsive, but did my unwitting companion have a point? How can we with modern hindsight judge the past with our modern standards?
Dismissing something as the work of yesterday’s racists ignores the impact that it still has on us today.
One month into my independent study, I’m here to tell you it is not as complicated as you might think. Firstly, we have to do away with the assumption that we can ever look back at history objectively. No matter what we do, we are never going to be able to use some sort of magical machine that will instantaneously remove all of our modern biases and experiences. We are human and thus inherently biased; the best we can do is to recognize that. If we can never be fully objective, then defending historical documents or figures as a product “of their time” is a position in and of itself and it is not necessarily one to be proud of. The argument is almost exclusively used as a way of justifying past behavior instead of understanding it. It is also a way of steering a conversation away from exploring impact. For example, Birth of a Nation was not a negligible piece of cinema. Claiming to be historical documentation, it sparked huge amounts of deadly racist violence and developed prejudices that still haunt us today.
Dismissing something as the work of yesterday’s racists ignores the impact that it still has on us today. It portrays modern times as all around “better” than the past, but history is not so simple. Progress is not linear; we go through periods of backlash all the time, sometimes due to media just like Birth of a Nation. To say that oppression was acceptable in the past is to claim that we have somehow transcended it in order to look back and judge it.
To assume something is “of its time” is to also disregard the hard work of people in that period who were trying to enact change. There is never global consensus on anything. In a sample of 20 you are going to find dramatically different answers to the benign question of best pizza topic, let alone something as contentious as racism. Claiming something is the product of its environment is to paint that entire period with one racist brush, and completely ignore activism and diversity.
I am not claiming that we should do away with historical context (and I would be a very bad history student if I did), but we need to accept the fact that we can appreciate things from the past without endorsing them. Call it whatever you want, maybe your “problematic fave”, but at least admit that there is — and was — a very real problem. Sure, D.W. Griffith was handy with a camera, but I am not going to praise his cinematography without recognizing the impact that it had. We should be using historical context as a means of understanding past actions, not excusing them.
Photo Credit: Indiana U News
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
