You may or may not have noticed a story in the National Post over the weekend relating to a scholar at the University of British Columbia named Lorna June McCue, who has brought a human rights tribunal case against UBC for denying her tenure. The basics of the story are that UBC didn’t think she’d produced enough – or indeed, any – peer-reviewed research to be awarded tenure in the Faculty of Law; Ms. McCue argues that since she adheres to an indigenous oral tradition (she is also a hereditary chief of the Ned’u’ten at Lake Babine, a few hundred kilometres northeast of Vancouver), she needs to be judged by a different standard.
Actually, Ms. Mcue brought the case in the fall of 2012; UBC moved to have it dismissed; the hearing last week was on the motion to dismiss, which failed. So now, 39 months later, the hearing can proceed (justice in Canada, Ladies and Gentlemen! A big round of applause!). Anyways, I have a feeling this story is going to run and run (and not just because of the glacial pace of the legal system), so I thought I would get some thoughts in early on this.
A couple of obvious points:
The spread of the university around the world, mainly in the 19th century, eliminated a lot of different types of knowledge preservation/communication traditions. They basically wiped out the academy tradition in East Asia, and did a serious number on the madrassas of the Indian subcontinent and the middle-east (though as we have seen, these are making a comeback in recent years in some fairly unfortunate ways). And though universities do exhibit a lot of differences around the world in terms of finance and management, and to some extent around mission, there is no question that due to the strengths of the disciplines it houses, it has had some extraordinarily isomorphic effects on the way we think and talk about knowledge. So it’s not crazy for non-western cultures to once in awhile say: look, there are other ways to construct and transmit knowledge, and we’d like a bit of space for them. Maoris have done this successfully with their Wānanga, or Maori Polytechnics as they’re sometimes called. Why not in Canada?
And there’s nothing immutable about the need for research as a professor. Hell, 40 years ago in the humanities, research certainly wasn’t a hard pre-requisite for tenure; even today in the newer professional schools (I’m thinking journalism, specifically), people often get a pass on publication if they are sufficiently distinguished prior to arriving at the university. Different strokes, etc.
But of course, all that said, the fact is that accommodation for different knowledge paradigms is the kind of thing you work out with your employer before you start the tenure process, not afterwards. It’s not as though McCue’s views render her incapable of writing; the university hired her on the basis of her 1998 L.L.M. dissertation, which was a good 250 pages long, and presumably expected they’d get more work of similar quality. And yes, it’s probably a good idea to have and fund institutions that more fully value Aboriginal ways of knowing, and are prepared to take a broader view of what scholarship means (the relevant tenure criteria at First Nations University, for instance, is “consistently high achievement in research and scholarship useful to First Nations’ communities”). But even if it is located on unceded Musqueam land, UBC ain’t that institution.
I have a hard time imagining this will go anywhere, but Human Rights cases are funny things. Keep an eye on this case, anyway.
Tweet this post
I just recently completed a research paper for an MEd class on the concept of Can Native Studies still be Native? There are three points that I think are foundational to Alex’s blog.
The first is that tenure is peer driven. In this case, as many cases of “othered” Academics who are their peers. As an Aboriginal person I would not consider myself a peer of Lorna June McCue. I hold a number of credentials but none of which are hereditary chief of a First Nation. Peers are not easily found at that level in Aboriginal culture. Combine that with an LLM well that has unicorn status there and most likely there are very few in Canada let a lone at one institution that really are her peers.
Second, is access. Until the 1960’s Aboriginal could be enfranchised, stripped of all Aboriginal rights and identity, if they attended university. We are some of the first generations to have access to higher education and have not had the opportunity to participate in the “socialization” within the academe walls.
Thirdly and finally, She has resisted becoming a member of the Aboriginal elite. Blair Stonechild writes that Native studies, and can be argued all Aboriginal PSE grads, are socialized to fit into the Dominate society. They become the exception and are trained in a manner that makes them an elite with little to no connection back to their community. It seems that Ms. McCue in fact was able to operate in both worlds. The personal costs that comes with that are enormous and should be respected.
I am a big fan of studying Aboriginal Education in PSE in Canada please hit me up if you would like to chat @markjsolomon on twitter
Very good piece. I think this is an entry into a much bigger conversation about what constitutes scholarship and what ‘counts’ as evidence of good scholarship. I always find it interesting that universities (and research funding agencies) natter on about ‘being engaged’ and doing ‘community relevant’ research but then look at the results of that kind of research as not worthy of being rewarded by tenure or promotion.
In the kind of work I’ve been involved in for most of my career I have been interested in two things — getting research into the hands of policy makers so that it can inform their decision making and doing research with communities in a manner where they are engaged in the research process from conception to execution to dissemination. Neither policy makers nor communities tend to read ‘high impact journal’ articles. So what I and my colleagues produce is often quite different — policy papers with plain language explanations of the research and recommendations for action that understand the constraints and possibilities that confront policy makers and ‘tool kits’ for communities that can be used and adapted for them to deal with issues through their own processes. Yes, we publish in academic journals, but not to the extent that others might because our efforts are focused elsewhere.
I have spent a good part of my career arguing that what I do counts as scholarship and though it doesn’t appear in high impact journals it actually has a high impact on the thinking of policy makers and the lives of those communities with which we have worked. Building that case and gathering that evidence can be onerous, but so far the University of Regina has accepted that this kind of work ‘counts’.
It seems to me that in this case, if UBC hired this person with the expectation that she would, in some way, be a bridge between First Nations communities and the academy then they should have expected that this would require her to behave and work in a way that would be different from more traditional academics. As such the metrics of her success should have been different. If we want the academy to be different and to have a different relationship with the communities it serves than in the past then we have change how we measure our success as scholars.
I find it particularly troubling that UBC seems to have a cookie cutter, one size fits all approach to what it looks for in granting tenure. Even in a single faculty like an Arts Faculty you would have disciplinary differences that would necessitate different standards of successful scholarship even within a more traditional framework. Economists do their research differently from Political Scientists and from Psychologists.
Hopefully the UBC case will open up a serious discussion about how we accommodate not only those who may come from very different knowledge traditions (which strikes me as a key element of any strategy of reconciliation with First Nations) but also for those who, at the university’s insistence and that of the tri-council funders, have been asked to do their research differently.
Giving “special” treatment/consideration is a slippery slope; human nature, being what it is, often takes unfair/improper advantage, of that type of specially provided “handicap”.
Given that, the majority…, are required to “jump through exacting hoops” – are held to, significantly, more rigid and demanding standards… and that, assuming the current standards, have merit and aren’t just subjective, arbitrary power-tripping… how is it, in any way, “right or fair” to the peers that do accept and meet the professional requirements… to allow another, SIGNIFICANTLY, easier way of doing things… just because, they have a certain type of genes…
Not only is there an inappropriate feeling of entitlement fostered; but, also, there is a degrade… a watering-down of the profession, in general; and, a lesser standard, becomes the new norm.
I can think of no other current professional association, that could or would benefit, front implementing the above mentioned “special treatment”. Try projecting it hypothetically… i.e. professional sports teams, or specialized medicine – would you want a brain surgeon that was held to a lesser standard?
It is my understanding that anyone, is allowed to apply to UBC: whether, it’s as a student or for a faculty position; but, some, are given special consideration, i.e. discretionary admissions…
Quickly perusing the available info… seems like the elite of first nations members, i.e. chiefs children, are the lucky ones having a profession handcrafted specifically for them… The university makes sure the “chosen-one” makes his/or her way into the profession; including, providing extra help and holding the students, to a different/lesser standard.
What potential client, deserves substandard, ineffective, expensive legal representation, when there’s important legal issues, to be resolved?
As I mentioned earlier, unless the standards are irrelevant… they should be maintained; and, even improved upon… not watered down.
Sy
An addendum to my previous comments:
I’ve personally required legal representation, in the past. I don’t mind going into a fight.; but, not with my hands tied…
When you’re forced into legal proceedings, even if you’re the complainant, and the system you’re forced to use, basically, operates like Vegas, with a house-wins approach – deep-pocketed respondent(s)(government) set the playing field…
and you have to rely on Legal aid…
The lawyer that legal aid provided for me ,said, right off the bat, “you’re up against deep pockets… the best legal representation money can buy; and you’re getting bargin-basement representation… Not too difficult, to see how this will turn out, under those circumstances; basically, you’re hands are tied behind your back and your opponents gets to wail away at you…
There should an enforced minimum standard, for so-called legal professional(lawyers). The legal system is designed to favor the money players… and to stop, the less-lucrative, dead, in their tracks. Spuriously professing a level playing field and knowing full-well that the type of legal representation, the opposition will receive(bottom-of-the-barrel, unmotivated, ineffective, often over-worked/burnt-out defeatist…) will get the job done(a pseudo valiant try, but, as expected/planned for… losing the case…) Deep pockets goes home happy.
Legal matters – often have very serious consequences, at stake; and, if justice has any baring… on the matter(s); then, it should be mandatory, to ensure a level playing field…
There is absolutely no place, for sub-standard legal representation! Hence, active law students must possess, the full compliment of legal skills required, to rightfully get the job done.
Anything, that even slightly effects a future lawyer’s ability to perform their duties, should be barred; including, the discretionary lowering of standards…
Sy
I have deliberately stayed away from commenting, too much, on Aboriginal issues; to me, that’s not relevant to the issues of educating and training future legal professionals.
What’s important is that the higher learning institutions define, and then teach, the genuine skills required, to fully qualify students, in the field of law. Law is a “dead-serious” occupation; there is no room for any type of sidetracking issues; including, catering to special interest groups…
What is important… is providing a client(s) with the best-possible legal representation. That’s it; and, If you can’t do that, then you should not be in the business…
BTW, I’m assuming that one of the main reasons for tenure… is to pass on, ongoing, knowledge/expertise, in a given field.
There’s seems to be an abundance of current, reliable/proven techniques, available. Word-of-mouth… might not be the most realistic/effective mode of delivery; just like – using old-school fire starting techniques…
Personally, I think the so-called professor in question… is just plain lazy(old school) and trying to take advantage of a ridiculous erroneous trend…
Trump should be her boss; get back to work, or you’re fired! Simple but effective.
Sy
What was the outcome… of this human rights complaint?
It’s not hard to understand, where this type of entitled thinking comes from. Apparently, the so-called liberals/democrats/left… feel just-as deserving, of special treatment. When things don’t go their way… whinning , tantrums, accusations of racist… often becomes the “entitled’s” course–of-action.