UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Women of colour talk back : towards a critical race feminist practice of service-learning Verjee, Begum 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-105828.pdf [ 17.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055647.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055647-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055647-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055647-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055647-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055647-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055647-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055647-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055647.ris

Full Text

Women of Colour Talk Back: Towards a Critical Race Feminist Practice of Service-Learning by BEGUM VERJEE B.Sc., McMaster University, 1977 M.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Educational Studies (Educational Leadership and Policy) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 2005 © Begum Verjee, 2005 Abstract The University of British Columbia (UBC) is exploring ways in which to develop and implement service-learning. This study explores the development of service-learning from a critical race feminist perspective. Service-earning is a form of experiential education. It is a strategy or pedagogy where students learn and develop through service experiences which are designed to meet identified community issues, and are collaboratively organized between academic institutions and communities. Critical race feminism, as an epistemology, sets out to understand how society organizes itself along intersections of race, gender, class and all forms of social hierarchies. Critical race feminist theory utilizes counter-storytelling to legitimize the voices and experiences of women of colour, drawing on these knowledges toward the larger goal of eradicating all forms of social oppression. The central question for this study is this: how can U B C develop partnerships with individuals and communities of colour that would support and enhance the well-being of such communities, in a service-learning context, when the institution remains a site of white, male and class-based structures, discourses and practices? Through counter-storytelling, women of colour students, staff, faculty and non-university community members relay their perceptions and experiences at and with U B C . Their perceptions and experiences of systemic exclusion form the basis for the development of a service-learning model from a critical race feminist perspective in this thesis. The implementation of such a model would foster the development of respectful and mutually beneficial partnerships with individuals and communities of colour. This model calls for institutional accountability through institutional transformation from within, through the development of a Centre for Anti-Oppression Education, Training and Development, and the simultaneous creation of an Office for Critical Community Service-Learning outside the Point Grey campus. According to this study, such development must be founded on critical race feminist principles of education for transformative citizenship. These critical race feminist principles would encourage a transformative project for education through an emphasis on the development of respectful relationships across social hierarchies, and a commitment to co-creating and sustaining just communities in search for a more humane and equitable world. ii Table of Contents Abstract '• i i Lis t o f Figures • • v ' ' Acknowledgments v i i i Dedication : •• ix C H A P T E R O N E : I N T R O D U C T I O N . 1 BACKGROUND: • i PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4 LOCATING MYSELF 5 CONTEXTUALIZING THE RESEARCH : 9 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY . 1 1 SYSTEMIC LIMITATIONS 11 OUTLINE OF THESIS .....12 C H A P T E R T W O : C R I T I C A L R A C E T H E O R Y ,14 BEGINNINGS .' 14 CRITICAL R A C E THEORY TODAY 18 Capitalism..... J § Power 20 Identity • 21 CRITICAL R A C E THEORY IN EDUCATION 21 CRITICAL RACE FEMINISM 22 CRITICAL WHITE STUDIES 24 ANTI-RACISM EDUCATION 25 S U M M A R Y . . . . ; 26 C H A P T E R T H R E E : S E R V I C E - L E A R N I N G 27 S ERVICE LEARNING 27 Charity or Status-quo Paradigm • 30 Transformational or Social Justice Paradigm 34 i i i EDUCATION FOR CITIZENSHIP : '. 37 The History of Citizenship in Canada 38 Historical Context of Education for Citizenship 41 Education for Citizenship Today 46 A Critical Race Feminist Approach to Education for Citizenship -.51 Critical Race Feminist Approach to Service-Learning , ....52 INSTITUTIONALIZING SERVICE-LEARNING : : 53 Institutional Transformation • 55 Faculty ...57 Students • 57 Institutional - Community Partnerships • 58 Designing Partnerships • 58 Building Collaborative Partnerships 60 Sustaining Partnerships... • 61 C H A P T E R F O U R : R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H 64 SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH APPROACH : 64 CRITICAL R A C E THEORY AS EPISTEMOLOGY 66 C RITICAL RACE THEORY AS M ETHODOLOGY • • 6 8 Insider-Outsider Research 70 Counter-Storytelling 72 Myths of Race-Based Methodologies • 73 S ELECTION OF STUDY P ARTICIPANTS • 74 R ESEARCH DESIGN 75 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 76 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY -78 C H A P T E R F I V E : E X P E R I E N C E S A N D P E R C E P T I O N S O F W O M E N O F C O L O U R A T A N D W I T H U B C 80 DEMOGRAPHICS 80 IDENTITIES... • • 81 Women of Colour. ; 82 Feminist.. •• $4 Sexuality .....85 Settler 86 Resisting Whiteness : 86 Identity and Accent 87 EXPERIENCES AT OR WITH U B C : 88 Visible, yet Invisible • 91 'Othering' and Subordination.. 91 The Surveillance of 'Othered' Bodies 94 Oppression and Backlash 95 Oppression as Trauma 96 iv Lack of Institutional Awareness of Systemic Inequities in Higher Education 97 Education as a Vehicle for Nation-building 98 Lack of Commitment to Curriculum and Pedagogical Transformation .....99 Low Representation of Racialized Faculty 102 Low Representation of Racialized Staff in Management and Senior Management • 104 Internationalization and Racialization 107 Barriers to Anti-Oppression Education 109 Lack of Commitment to Institutionalizing Diversity 111 Mainstreaming 1 12 Resistance to Authentic Inclusion 113 Diversity as Celebratory Events 1 14 Lack of Mentoring 115 Native Informant and Tokenism 116 Internalized Oppression 117 Lack of Institutional Supports for Communities of Colour 119 C H A P T E R SIX: S E R V I C E - L E A R N I N G A N D E D U C A T I O N F O R C I T I Z E N S H I P 125 S ERVICE-LEARNING 125 UBC's Interest in Service-Learning 126 Terminology: Service-Learning /30 EDUCATION FOR CITIZENSHIP 134 Terminology: Education for Citizenship 135 Education for Citizenship as Charity 139 Deconstructing Citizenship 141 Education for Transformative Citizenship • 144 Challenging Colonial Histories and Dismantling Mythology 145 Charity as Exploitation 147 The Relationality of Domination and Oppression 150 Locating Oneself and Sharing Power for Social Transformation 153 Caring for Social Transformation 154 Commitment to Co-Creating and Sustaining Just Communities 156 CRITICAL COMMUNITY SERVICE-LEARNING ..157 Opportunities : 158 Dissolving Hierarchical Boundaries..... 159 Becoming Al l ies • 159 Acknowledging Different Sites of Knowledge 160 Linking Education to Communities for Justice 161 Validating Students of Colour 162 Challenges 163 Resistance to Transformative Paradigms : 164 Maintaining Power Over 165 Time and Budget Constraints 166 Institutional-Corporate Interests 167 C H A P T E R S E V E N : I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z I N G C R I T I C A L C O M M U N I T Y S E R V I C E - L E A R N I N G A T U B C 169 INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR CRITICAL COMMUNITY S ERVICE-LEARNING .169 Institutional Citizenship 170 Principles of Education for Transformative Citizenship : ..172 CENTRE FOR ANTI-OPPRESSION EDUCATION, T RAINING AND DEVELOPMENT AT U B C • 174 Leadership 176 Ensuring Employment Equity for Faculty and Staff of Colour 178 Curriculum and Pedagogical Transformation 183 Access and Equity for Racialized Students 188 Anti-Oppression Education and Training 191 Aligning Systems and Practices for Authentic Inclusion 194 OFFICE FOR CRITICAL COMMUNITY SERVICE-LEARNING AT U B C 198 Budget and Resources ; ; 199 Respectful and Accessible Space 200 Building Relationships across Social Hierarchies 202 Community-Centered Agenda 207 Preparing the Institution for Critical Community Service-Learning 211 Sustainable Critical Community Service-Learning Placements 215 Collaborative Teaching, Assessment and Evaluation 217 Advisory Committee 220 C H A P T E R E I G H T : S U M M A R Y , R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S 223 S U M M A R Y OF THE STUDY.... -.223 RECOMMENDATIONS: INSTITUTIONALIZING CRITICAL COMMUNITY SERVICE-LEARNING AT U B C . . . 228 Centre for Anti-Oppression Education, Training and Development at UBC 228 Office for Critical Community Service-Learning at UBC 231 IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY 236 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 239 FINAL WORDS , 240 R E F E R E N C E S 242 A P P E N D I C E S 254 Appendix i : C a l l for Volunteers 255 Appendix i i : Interview Consent Form 256 Appendix i i i : Interview Schedule • 258 List of Figures Figure 1. Critical race feminist principles of education for transformative citizenship 173 Figure 2. Centre for Anti-Oppression Education, Training and Development: Theory and practice in search of the common good 176 Figure 3. Office for Critical Community Service-Learning: Principal activities for collaboration between communities and institution 199 vii Acknowledgments M y first acknowledgements go to my children: my daughter Soriah Begum Kanji and my son Zulfikar Abdul Kanji. It is for you, your children, and for all the generations to come that I commit to social justice practice. It is my hope that we wil l one day live in a just and equitable world. I must also acknowledge Ameen Kanji for being a constant support to our children. Second, my mother, Gulbanoo Verjee (nee Rajabali Velshi Keshavjee) and my late father Abdul Sultan Nazarali Madatali Suleman Verjee, I am deeply grateful to you for your constant love, support, encouragement and for having instilled a sense of caring for bettering this world at a young age. To my brother Mohamed Shah Verjee, thank you for believing in me. To Jade Musat Kanj i , my constant companion throughout the process of writing this thesis, rest in peace. To Nellie Verjee who has become my constant companion, I thank you for your unconditional love. To my committee members, Shauna Butterwick, Ashok Mathur and Tom Sork, I am forever grateful for your time, generosity, kindness, compassion and support. I am grateful to Sunera Thobani for introducing me to critical race theory. To Graham Smith and Gloria Onyeoziri, as U B C examiners, thank you for validating this study in all its scope. To Cecille DePass, as external examiner, thank you for acknowleding the significance of this study. To Shamas Nanji, thank you for your love, generosity and guidance. You have been a constant from lives before. M y heartfelt gratitude and appreciation go to the following: to Shairose Hirji for being the sister I never had; to Ada Wong, for being the caring person that you are; to Indy Batth, Yvonne Brown and Parker Johnson for sharing your strength, wisdom and courage with me, and for pulling me through some trying times; to Sue Brown, Maura Da Cruz, Victor Glickman, Kathryn Pedersen, Deborah Prieur, Jennifer Rodrigues, Vanita Sabhrawal, Ann Vanderbijl, Charlene Wee and Paul Wong for being allies and friends; to Mia Amir, Veronica Fynn, Lisa Lafreniere, Brenda Ogembo and Amina Rai for your committed energy to anti-racism and social justice. It is young women like you who will continue to carry the torch. To all the A M S groups at U B C engaged in social justice practice, keep up the challenging work. To the EdD naught-naught cohort, all my extended family, friends and colleagues, thank you for being part of this incredible journey. viii Dedication I dedicate this thesis to the fourteen women who participated on this study. I am truly honoured to have had all of you partner with me throughout this process. I have been humbled to witness part of your journeys and privileged in putting your experiences onto paper. Your spirits have accompanied me throughout this process, kept me strong, kept me nourished, kept me sane, kept me focused, and kept me hopeful. To my sisters in the struggle: Aggie and Aisabee Anna and Bobbie Clara and Karina Maya and Minou Quibbo and Ranjit Soma and Toni Xara and Zaira. Thank You! CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The University of British Columbia (UBC) is exploring ways in which to develop and implement service-learning, which involves developing partnerships with disenfranchised poor communities in Vancouver. Such communities are primarily comprised of Aboriginal people, people of colour, women and people with disabilities. The purpose of this research is to develop a critical race feminist model of service-learning for U B C , one that would support and enhance the well-being of individuals and communities of colour. Background Parents, educators, policy developers, administrators, government and community organizations are demanding that higher education in North America reconsider its mission to only prepare students for careers; increasingly, there is a growing demand for the preparation of students for responsible life-long citizenship (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; An executive summary of the citizenship education policy study, 1997; McGregor, 2002). Many universities are exploring ways to become engaged with local and global communities, and currently, many use service-learning to educate students for 'citizenship' and 'civic learning.' This form of engagement also assists in the revival of these communities and involves collaborative social problem-solving (Battistoni, 2002). A national service-learning movement has taken the educational community in the United States by storm over the last thirty years; such a movement is just beginning in Canada. In her address to the 2002 Killam Annual Lecture, Dr. Martha Piper (2002), president of The University of British Columbia (UBC), speaks of the importance of preparing students for citizenship and building a civil society that fosters an innovative economy that is tolerant, culturally diverse and humane. Defined by Dr. Piper (2002), civil society is: ... a vigorous citizenry engaged in the culture and politics of a free society. In this definition, the key agent of influence and change is neither the government nor the corporation, but rather the individual, acting alone or with others to strengthen civil life. In turn, how individuals think about themselves and others, the values they espouse and enact, become the essential features of a civil society, (p. 4) Dr. Piper speaks of the importance of developing citizenship amongst students, noting that it is individual citizens who will be the key agents involved in enhancing democracy and promoting 1 positive social change. Institutional leaders, educators and policy developers endorse such thinking and are beginning to conceptualize education for citizenship and civic responsibility (or civic learning) in higher education. Questions surrounding how we teach students about civic and social responsibility are surfacing. How do we do this within a classroom setting? Active participation in a democracy cannot be taught passively in the classroom. What has been shown to effectively foster citizenship and civic responsibility is volunteering in communities, in order to gain a greater sensitivity for the concerns of humanity (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Carpenter & Jacobs, 1994; O'Grady, 2000). Preparing students for citizenship and civic learning involves bridging the gap between what students learn in higher education and the application of that knowledge outside the academic context. In addition, educational institutions are also searching for ways to address civic disengagement of youth (Battistoni, 2002). Service-learning is a strategy that ideally addresses these concerns. Through service-learning programs, students tend to come away with a better and sometimes more critical understanding of their own communities and their roles as citizens in working for change (Battistoni, 2002). Service-learning bridges academic learning and applied learning in community settings; praxis and theory are linked in meaningful ways to meet identified community concerns (Rochelle, Turpin & Elias, 2000). Service-learning is a form of experiential learning. It is a strategy or pedagogical tool where students learn and develop through service experiences linked to their academic programs. Both academic institutions and communities share in the collaborative organization of these service experiences, which engage with identified community issues (Eyler & Giles, 1999; O'Grady, 2000). Eyler and Giles (1999) view citizenship education as caring for the disadvantaged, and collaborative problem-solving for social change. McGregor (2002) views citizenship as the ongoing contributions of citizens in solving community problems. Citizenship, therefore, involves making informed choices and decisions, taking action individually and collectively for the purpose of improving life for oneself and others. Citizenship generally entails rights and responsibilities; this is true for both civic and political engagement. It also includes a range of participatory activities, such as voluntary work and personal or collective engagement with local and global communities in order to address social concerns. Such engagement works to address and positively affect the well-being of those communities, and fosters human rights in order to eliminate human suffering (Andrzejewski & Alesssio, 1999; Education for citizenship, 2001; An executive summary of the citizenship education policy study, 1997). According to Howard (2001), civic engagement and learning is a form of "learning that contributes to student preparation for community or public involvement in a diverse democratic 2 society" (p. 37). This involves strengthening students' sense of giving back, developing their social responsibility, preparing them for active citizenship, and encouraging them to engage in collaborative social problem-solving. Within the context of service-learning, education for citizenship provides students with opportunities for caring and contributing to the well-being of their communities. This, in turn, promotes civic learning and engagement. Working in higher education in the US, Bringle and Hatcher (1996) have developed a model for implementing and institutionalizing service-learning, based on 44 institutions that participated in a Campus Compact Project on mtegrating service-learning with academic study. This Comprehensive Action Plan for Service Learning (CAPSL) identifies four constituencies that need to be included in any program or office for service-learning: institution, faculty, students and community. According to Bringle and Hatcher (1996), planning "needs to include self-assessment on the following items: (a) where the institution is and where it is going; (b) the institutional, student, and faculty culture, climate, and values; and (c) the resources and obstacles for developing service-learning in the institution" (p. 225). Broadly constructed, this involves: • surveying institutional resources and climate • surveying faculty involved with currently offered service-learning courses • surveying students involved in service-learning, and their attitudes towards service and service-learning • surveying existing university/community partnerships Higher education institutions exploring the development and implementation of service-learning would, therefore, benefit from conducting a preliminary self-assessment. For this thesis, I have used a similar model for conducting research in order to develop a model for service-learning at U B C . Using qualitative methods, I interviewed individuals from each of the four constituencies -students, institutional staff, faculty and non-university community members, specifically recruiting women of colour1 who experience race,2 gender and class inequities. I have documented their 1 The term 'people of colour' implies a notion of resistance, to fighting sexist-racism and white privilege. Aboriginal or Black people in Canada do not necessarily identify as people of colour (Bannerji, 2000). Razack (1999) states that the use of this term describes the politics of domination and subordination; the physicality of the encounter between the powerful and powerless, between white and racialized (non-white) peoples. The term 'people of colour' also speaks to the forging of an oppositional/coalitional anti-imperialist political conscientization (Bannerji, 2000). The federal government uses the term 'visible minority' for demographic purposes. This term, however, is considered by many people of colour to be demeaning as it forces them to accept a 'white settler' definition, and therefore undermines their ability to define themselves, particularly in terms of racial subordination (DePass and Qureshi, 2002). 2 The social effects of'race,' despite the concept's lack of scientific basis, and the social practice of racism, categorizes Indigenous peoples and people of colour as 'other' (Dei, 1996). This 'othering' of racialized groups is pathologized in specifically negative ways based on biological determinism of the White race as biologically superior to others (Dei et al., 2004). 3 perceptions and experiences at and with U B C in order to develop a social justice,3 or more specifically, a critical race feminist model for service-learning. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The purpose of this research study is to develop a critical race feminist perspective, a social justice orientation, on service-learning and education for citizenship at U B C . Women of colour-U B C staff, faculty, students and non-university community members - have offered counter-stories about their experiences with, and at, U B C . These narratives or counter-stories, as methodology, are key to establishing a social justice approach to education for citizenship and service-learning. Stories or narratives told by dominant groups that are white, male and elite are generally legitimized in the academy and society. Such narratives provide individuals from dominant groups with a shared sense of identity within society and its institutions. These identities and life experiences are also reflected by dominant structures and practices in the academy, and are viewed as mainstream, natural, and widely accepted as the 'truth.' Such reflections of 'truth' can determine and limit who gets to speak and who gets heard. Counter-stories are narratives of marginalized persons who experience social oppression. Such stories are often not legitimized in the academy and in society. Such counter-stories speak against the 'truth,' including those dominant narratives of meritocracy, neutrality, fairness and colour-blindness. These counter-stories move against normative dominant voices and perspectives, and in doing so, usually disturb and subvert the reality and mindset of these dominant perspectives. These voices are crucially important as they voice the experiences of the oppressed on the margins (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). By utilizing counter-storytelling, this project draws explicitly on the lived experiences of women of colour, thereby illuminating the intersectionality of race, gender and class oppressions in and with the academy. These counter-stories explore some key elements for developing institutional partnerships with communities of colour that would support and enhance the well-being of such individuals and communities. The central questions for this study are: • What perspectives and experiences do women of colour have at and with U B C , and how can these inform the development of a critical race feminist approach to service-learning and education for citizenship at UBC? 3 Social justice is defined as "the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression. Any aspect of social organization and practice relevant to domination and oppression is in principle subject to evaluation by ideals of justice" (Young, 1990, p. 15). 4 • Building on these investigations, what are the key elements of a critical race feminist model of service-learning and partnership for supporting the well-being of individuals and communities of colour? How can such a model be implemented at U B C ? A Brown and Black Paper is being written to accompany this thesis. I also plan to publish this research so that it is available as a text for the purposes of informing and supporting the development of university service-learning initiatives from a social justice perspective across North American institutions of higher education. Locating Myself I locate myself as a woman of colour who experiences sexist-racism in society and within the academy. As the first woman of color ever to be employed in the 70+ year history of the Women Students' Office (WSO) at U B C , I became acutely aware of my own isolation, fragmentation and lack of belonging in the academy. As I searched for an explanation for this, I noticed women students of color that I met, individually and in groups, spoke of similar feelings of pain, depression and lack of connectedness to self and to others. I also met with women staff and faculty at events and conferences who spoke similarly. It was what the students disclosed that particularly bothered me. They spoke about the lack of representation and role models in the curriculum and at the institution. They spoke of wanting more from education - one that would reflect and resonate with their own histories and lived experiences. In addition, they wanted to be intellectually stimulated, emotionally and spiritually fulfilled. Higher education was, for the most part, not engaging them in meaningful ways. It was because of what I was experiencing, and what I was hearing, that I felt compelled to continue working with and supporting marginalized4 individuals and groups in the academy. It is serendipitous that my practice as a counsellor/advisor with the Women Students' Office, and more recently as a diversity advisor with Access and Diversity, Student Development and Services, involves working with marginalized groups,5 particularly women. Much of my work in program planning and development involves creating counter-hegemonic6 spaces of support and self-validation, in addition to fostering critical thinking and strategies for social transformation. I also seek ways to utilize my power and privilege to forge solidarities with other individuals and 4 Marginalization is viewed as a form of oppression where certain groups of people are excluded from useful participation in social life, and can thus be subjected to severe material deprivation and even extinction (Young, 1990). 5 Groups are a special kind of collectivity that may involve the differentiation of people according to cultural and social groups such as women and men, age groups, racial and ethnic groups, religious groups and so on (Young, 1990). 6 Counter-hegemonic spaces are paces that allow people on the margins of society to problematize their marginality by interrogating hegemony and the delegitimation of their knowledges and experiences (hooks, 2003). 5 groups within the institution for the purposes of challenging hegemony7 and working collectively for social transformation. Such programs have included the Women of Colour Mentoring program, the Committee for an Inclusive Campus Community (CICC), the Equity Ambassadors program (in collaboration with the Equity Office), and the Inter-Community Dialogues program, as well as numerous seminars and workshops developed and delivered for the purposes of social and cultural transformation. I first came across critical race theory (CRT) when I attended the Canadian Critical Race Conference at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto in 2002. Attending this conference was an uplifting experience, for I was immersed in dialogue about systemic racism8 and the exclusion of racialized9 individuals and groups in the academy and society. In addition, for the first time, I came into contact with community activists and academic scholars engaged in dialogue and inquiry about racism. As I sat listening to these people, I began to realize that in all the years I had spent at U B C , I had intuitively developed a social justice practice based on an examination and transformation of gender, race and class hierarchies. This conference was life-affirming for me. Critical-consciousness10 paradigms of education, specifically critical race theory and anti-racist feminist11 education, guide my practice. Both theories stem from social justice principles which set out to understand how society organizes itself along race, gender and class lines and oppressive hierarchies (Dei, 1996; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001)- where oppression12 is reinforced ' Hegemony refers to that dominance and authority of certain states or dimensions or markers over others (Minh-ha, 1989). " Racism, as defined by Lorde (1984) is "The belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance, manifest and implied" (p.124). Dei et al. (2004) state that our societies now distance themselves from viewing racism as biologically determined in favour of belief systems based upon domination and oppression supported by social and cultural rationalizations for discrimination. 9 Racialized groups come to be viewed by the white dominant group as 'other,' people who are perceived as inferior, lack ability and are uncivilized because they do not belong to the 'white' culture, and therefore cannot succeed in society (Loury, 2002). As people, we are all raced. Skin colour is a visual marker of difference, which frames racialized people as 'other.' There are privileges and entitlements that are accrued to people from the white race, while the 'other' or non-whites, experience non-entitlements and disadvantages (Dei et al., 2004). In addition, Razack (199b) suggests that narratives by whites about racialized bodies are often characterized by a form of benevolence, seeing them as requiring salvation by more civilized Europeans. For the purposes of this study, racialization refers to disadvantages experienced by people of colour because of their skin colour, i.e. non-white people. 1 0 Critical consciousness refers to an understanding that political, economic and social forces disadvantage and marginalize certain individuals and groups in society (Rhoads and Black, 1995). 1 1 Anti-racism education calls for putting power relations at the centre of the discourse on race and social difference (Dei, 1996). My practice engages an anti-racist feminism, which affirms the centrality of race, gender and class, and targets all forms of social oppression. 1 2 Oppression refers to the disadvantage and injustice some people suffer because of everyday discriminatory practices (Young, 1990). Oppression is a term used "to emphasize the pervasive nature of social inequality woven throughout social institutions as well as embedded within individual consciousness" (Bell, 1997, p. 4). Social oppression exists when one group, knowingly or unconsciously, exploits another social group for its benefit (Hardiman and Jackson, 1997). 6 through the disempowerment and exclusion of groups by dominant or privileged groups. Both theories also have an activist dimension. CRT looks at transforming the relationship between race, racism and power, and has three important implications (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Sleeter, 2002): • It proposes that because racism is so entrenched in society, it is seen as 'normal,' the ordinary way that society does business. • Eurocentric epistemologies and dominant ideologies of meritocracy, objectivity, neutrality and colour blindness are challenged. • Counter-storytelling is utilized as a methodological and pedagogical tool in legitimizing members within oppressed groups to speak about oppression. Critical race feminist theory (CRFT), as a category of critical race theory, puts power relations at the centre of the discourse on the intersectionality13 of gender, race and class, and uses counter-storytelling as a methodological tool. By centering the voices of women of colour, it legitimizes them to speak about their multiple identities and intersectional experiences of oppression. Closely linked to CRT is anti-racism education, which interrogates both structural barriers and social practices for systemic change. Theoretical discussions in both these paradigms are grounded in the lived realities and experiences of oppressed peoples, more specifically, racialized peoples. As I continued with this social justice practice, I became interested in finding ways in which to legitimize this practice within the academy. One way I did this was by writing about my practice in higher education publications. I also enrolled in the doctoral program in Educational Leadership and Policy (EdD) 1 4 at U B C , which provides advanced preparation for educational practitioners with leadership responsibilities "to engage in scholarly discourse about understanding, critiquing and improving practice in educational settings." At this time, I was centrally involved in discussions around the development of service-learning at U B C , and was interested in exploring and writing about this as part of my research for the doctoral program from a social justice perspective. I was also curious about the experiences of women of colour in the academy, and I began to see that my personal experiences did not stand apart from the experiences of racialized women in the academy. I saw our collective pain and loneliness as the result of structural dimensions within the academy, which are set up to exclude and marginalize. The methodology of CRFT as a vehicle of investigation spoke directly to me. It is also an epistemology that calls for a critique and 1 3 Intersectionality involves the examination of race, sex, class, sexual orientation and other forms of oppression, and how their combinations play out in various settings (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001). ' 4 Program Overview, Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Policy, University of British Columbia, May, 1999. 7 transformation of institutional hegemony, both necessary for a liberatory praxis. Only this wil l allow for the full participation of women of colour in the academy and in society. I was definitely interested in using this as my conceptual framework. I have, therefore, taken this opportunity, through the EdD program, to design a research project that has allowed me to bring a critical perspective to this study, based on my practice with women of colour in the academy. As U B C is exploring the development of service-learning, I wondered how this institution would develop partnerships with disenfranchised communities for the purposes of enhancing those communities. For these reasons, I am taking a 'critical' approach to my research, one that includes a critique of hegemonic discourses and practices. I believe that the voices of the marginalized, specifically women of colour at the academy, are central to this exploration. U B C has been exploring ways to develop service-learning programs, which would involve partnerships with disenfranchised local communities in Vancouver. I wondered, based on my experiences and on the experiences of the women of colour I spoke with, how U B C was going to form these partnerships with racialized communities when the institution itself was perpetuating systemic injustices that maintained hegemonic discourses and practices. In other words, how were we going to form service-learning partnerships that would enhance the well-being of the individuals and groups in these disenfranchised communities when we were not doing such a good job of maintaining the well-being of racialized individuals and groups within the academy? How would we, as institutional members, collaborate with disadvantaged communities through service-learning for the purposes of meeting identified community issues and eliminating human suffering? How would we do this within the context of the everyday sexism, racism, classism that exists within the institution itself? In addition, how could we do this at an institution where social justice practice is not central to its mandate, but relegated to the margins? The current political economy of higher education in Canada continues to reinforce notions of profit, individual enterprise and competition. With rising tuition costs, it is the poor and the disadvantaged who will be less likely to access education. In addition, education remains largely a site of white, elite, heterosexist, male and able-bodied privilege (Dei et al., 2004; hooks, 2003). Hence, disenfranchised communities within and outside the institution view educational institutions with skepticism. Institutions of higher education often promote knowledges that reinforce existing structures of domination. How then can such an institution demonstrate respect and build trusting relationships with disenfranchised communities facing race, gender and class inequities? Dr. Piper (2002) suggests that we cannot achieve the ideal of citizenship and of a "civil society until we possess the kind of deep, extensive knowledge born of research that would enable 8 us to better understand ourselves, identify our values, define the problems, apply the solutions, and construct the prosperous and humane society we all seem to aspire to" (p. 8). This is the intention behind this research - to explore how institutions of higher learning that continue to support and reinforce social hierarchies of inequity, can develop partnerships with disadvantaged communities within the context of service-learning. Contextualizing the Research There are a number of academic departments at U B C already involved in academic service-learning. Some of these are located in the Faculty of Arts, specifically in Women's Studies, English and Psychology, which are run independently of each other. The Women's Studies program, for instance, offers a practicum course, which organizes placements in women's organizations and links academic study to feminist practice in these organizations. Students, through the Community Health Initiative by University Students (CHIUS) in the departments of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing, Social Work, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy and others at U B C offer voluntary services in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (DTES) through organized student community service. The Learning Exchange at U B C also offers volunteer opportunities to students who wish to work with community organizations in Vancouver's DTES. This latter initiative is not an academic service-learning program, but more co-curricular based, as it offers alternative spring-break programs for interested students wishing to volunteer with schools and organizations in Vancouver's DTES. In addition, a Canadian Association for Service-Learning has been created, of which U B C is a part. U B C ' s Trek 2010: White paper (2004) speaks to the development of service-learning; Looking into the future (2004) speaks about preparing students at U B C for global citizenship by educating them to understand that we all live in an interdependent yet unequal world. Research indicates that academic course work alone has little impact on the development of citizenship. The practice of citizenship has to be both inside and outside the classroom (Eyler & Giles, 1999; O'Grady, 2000). Nieto, in her foreword to Integrating Service Learning and Multicultural Education in Colleges and Universities, states that service-learning is a vehicle that offers students opportunities to provide 'service' in impoverished and disadvantaged communities comprised primarily of Black and Brown peoples, hooks (2000b) states that it is women of all races, and racialized people of both genders who are located in the ranks of the poor in North America. In other words, class is gendered and racialized. 9 In British Columbia, Indigenous or Aboriginal people,15 people of colour, women, and people with disabilities are the groups that predominantly experience poverty16 {British Columbia moves back on women's equality, 2003). New immigrants17 also experience systemic discrimination. Since the people who bear the burden of disadvantage are disproportionately racialized and gendered, O'Grady (2000) suggests that an analysis of power and power relations needs to be rigorous in service-learning in order to help students move beyond notions of celebrating cultures and acts of kindness. O'Grady (2000) emphasizes instead the need to understand the larger issues of social justice and inequities, in order to identify possibilities for social and systemic change. From a social justice perspective, this would involve understanding civic responsibility in a pluralistic, but unequal society. Without these theoretical underpinnings, service-learning could easily reproduce oppressive outcomes by perpetuating racist, sexist, or classist assumptions about the'other.' 1 8 There is a vast amount of literature on service-learning, and most of it is dominated by the charity or status-quo paradigm - the mainstream model for the development of this pedagogy. It teaches students to care for the disadvantaged and address the symptoms of oppression, such as poverty and homelessness (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Carpenter & Jacobs, 1994; Roschelle et al., 2000). Some literature on service-learning does speak to the necessity of engaging critical pedagogy that would teach students to think critically about what it means to live in a democratic society characterized by race, gender and class stratification. In other words, students are taught to investigate, address and remedy the root causes (the structural barriers) as well as the symptoms of oppression (Daigre, 2000; Maybach, 1996; Marullo & Edwards, 2000; Wade, 2001). I have not yet found any literature or studies conducted on service-learning utilizing critical race (CRT) or critical race feminist theory (CRFT). It is my belief that teaching for citizenship within the context of service-learning from such a social justice perspective will identify real possibilities for social and systemic change, both within the institution and in society. U B C is beginning to build relationships with impoverished and disadvantaged communities, particularly in 1 5 The term Indigenous or Aboriginal refers to original inhabitants of a land where the people have a long-standing relationship - deep, spiritual and sustained connections and identities with those places (Dei, 2000). Aboriginal peoples of Canada are the original inhabitants of this land, and uphold their inherent right to self-government and self-determination (Monture-Angus, 1995). 1 6 Coyne (2002) suggests that such poverty cannot be blamed on a single factor. It is a result of a history of systemic discrimination and economic marginalization. In fact, Vancouver's Downtown Eastside Strathcona is one of the most impoverished communities in Canada. 1 7 While not all immigrants to North America are people of colour, there continues to be a great influx of immigrants of colour since the 1970s. Immigration policies that were in place before the mid-1970s restricted the entry of immigrants of colour (Joshee, 2002). 1 8 'Othering' is a colonizing process of objectification. Dominant groups construct 'others' as less than, inferior, indolent and immoral. Ogbu (1997) adds that, as a social construction, 'others' tend to be perceived by dominant groups as biologically, linguistically, culturally and intellectually inferior. Freire (1970, 1999) suggests that the reason why the oppressed as 'other' are viewed as savages, natives, violent, barbaric, wicked or ferocious and not oppressed, is because such perception justifies their subordination. 10 Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. This research project is intended to inform the development of service-learning at U B C , particularly with racialized communities, by illuminating the 'voices of colour' speaking about oppression and structural marginalization at and with U B C . After all, as Paulo Freire (1970,1993) says, who better than the oppressed to legitimately speak about oppression, and therefore, social change. It is only with this understanding that authentic and genuinely trusting relationships can be formed across social hierarchies. Significance of the Study First, and most centrally, this study makes visible the lived experiences of women of colour at and with U B C . Very little has been documented about women of colour at this institution, or any institution of higher education for that matter. It is about time such voices are legitimized and honoured in the academy and society. It is because of such delegitimization that I devote three chapters to making such 'voices' visible. This study, in utilizing critical race feminist theory, also adds to enormous amounts of existing research which speaks to the long-standing and continuing inequities in higher education and in our society. This study brings a critical race feminist orientation to the conceptualization of service-learning and education for citizenship at U B C . Such a social justice orientation is currently lacking in the scholarship around service-learning. In doing so, this study addresses the larger systemic issues of social injustice in Canada, and in Canadian institutions of higher education. Racism, sexism and classism are deeply embedded in Canada's political, social and economic systems. The formation of Canada as a nation continues to be realized through dominant educational ideologies, that support cultural, political, social and economic inequities. This study, therefore, speaks of the need for institutional transformation, not only to remedy inequities from within, but also to prepare the institution for engagement with the larger issues of social injustice. This study provides a framework necessary to develop and implement service-learning in ways that could support and enhance the well-being of individuals and communities of colour. In so doing, the study contributes to social justice research. The study also outlines several critical race feminist principles for institutional engagement with individuals and communities of colour, both within and outside its borders. Systemic Limitations Although the work conducted by critical race practitioners may be highly valuable, such research may be marginalized and not given the recognition it deserves by mainstream academe 11 (Vargas, 2003). People in power tend to ignore the importance of such research, prevent such research from being legitimized in the academy, deny the validity of such research, and also find ways to erase such research. There will be many spaces within the academy in which this research will be discredited. There will also be spaces of inclusion in which this research will be embraced. These latter spaces are ones that create hope for change. So why do we, as social justice researchers, engage in such research? Despite the difficulties and often soul-destroying characteristics of institutional hegemony, social justice practitioners often conduct such research to validate and legitimize their own experiences. Many practitioners use this medium to legitimize the experiences of marginalized individuals and groups. They also do so because of their concern for the collective good of their communities, and their desire for equity and social transformation. How should social justice research practitioners then proceed ethically in what sometimes are hostile academic environments? How do critical practitioners deal with the systemic limitations of this type of research? How do they continue to actively participate in social transformation against such forces? These are vitally important questions in the larger educational conversation about systemic oppression and social change. As Bannerji (1995) states, we, as researchers, cannot be satisfied with simply writing about the world in which we live. We have to end the oppressive conditions and social organizations (not of our own making), which give rise to our experiences. As educational scholars, we have a responsibility to raise these questions, write about these experiences, and find ways to create change. This is our moral responsibility because we strive for a more humane and equitable world for others and ourselves. Outline of Thesis As an outline of this thesis, Chapter One provides the reader with some background and context to this research. Chapter Two outlines the origins of critical race theory in the US and Canada, and speaks to the evolution of critical race theory in education and the emergence of the critical race feminist movement. Chapter Three provides a comprehensive overview of service-learning, including exploration of both charity-based and social justice-based programs, and the historical evolution of education for citizenship in Canada. This chapter provides a conceptual foundation for a critical race feminist approach to education for citizenship and, therefore, service-learning. Chapter Four provides a discussion of critical race theory as epistemology and methodology. It discusses race-based methodologies and the use of counter-storytelling for social change. Chapters Five to Seven are analyses of the interviews. Chapter Five highlights the 12 perceptions and experiences of women of colour students, staff, faculty and non-university community members at and with U B C . These perceptions and experiences lay the foundation for the development of a model for service-learning from a critical race feminist perspective. Chapter Six provides a critical race feminist understanding of education for citizenship and service-learning. Chapter Seven speaks to the necessity of institutional transformation and explores the development of critical community service-learning at U B C . Such development is underpinned by critical race feminist principles of education for transformative citizenship, which is developed from chapter six. The last chapter summarizes the findings, explores implications for policy and future research, and concludes with a series of recommendations. 13 CHAPTER TWO: CRITICAL RACE THEORY This chapter discusses the begirinings of critical race theory (CRT) through to the present, and provides a comprehensive review of CRT - its beginnings in law and its emergence as a site of scholarly inquiry in US, and more recently, in Canada. This chapter also discusses the emergence of the critical race feminist theory (CRFT) movement - the conceptual framework utilized for this study. Critical white studies also support CRT, which this chapter also reviews. Critical white sutides is a parallel line of scholarly inquiry in which 'whiteness' is examined as a social organizing principle that maintains hegemony. And last, anti-racism education is briefly discussed, along with its relationship to CRT as a form of social justice education. Beginnings In 1977 a group of left-leaning white male professors within the legal academy formed critical legal studies (CLS). These academics began to critique the tenets of legal liberalism, such as neutrality, objectivity and individual rights. CLS was a multifaceted theoretical movement wherein its practitioners suggested that legal discourse maintained and legitimized unequal relationships and, therefore, the social status quo (Aylward, 1999). CLS attracted American and Canadian scholars of colour because it challenged the objectivity of law that oppressed people of colour. Critical race theory (CRT), then, emerged as an analytical framework to address social injustice and racial oppression within the context of law (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). At the heart of CRT was a critique of racism in law; this critique was based on the premise that legal discourse had not taken into account the social reality of race and racism, and further suggested that law supported and reproduced racism. Proponents of CRT paid attention to people of colour by placing racial questions on the legal agenda which had not been placed there before, and which had not recognized how historical racism was legitimized by law (Aylward, 1999). In fact, critical race scholars, such as Derek Bell, went so far as to say that racism was and still is an integral, permanent and even indestructible component of our society. The LatCrit (Critical Latino Studies) and Critical Asian American Legal Studies movements, along with critical race feminism and critical queer 14 theory, then emerged from this line of critique, calling for critical race theory to be inclusive and accountable to these particular groups (Parker, 2003). According to Delgado and Stefancic (2001), "the critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationships among race, racism and power" (p. 2). At the heart of CRT is the thesis that the social reality of race and racism has been ignored, and that dominant systems and practices continue to both promote and re-produce racism (Aylward, 1999; Dei, Karumanchery & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004). After all, "Racism is real - and in that reality, there are real material consequences" (Dei et al., 2004, p. 102). Practitioners of CRT point out that racism is not the result of individual pathology, but an ideological set of practices and discourses that seeks to economically marginalize people of colour through the process of racialization (Darder & Torres, 2004). In addition, CRT attempts to understand oppressive structures and hierarchies in society in order to foster individual and societal transformation (Tierney, 1993). CRT, therefore, also explores strategies and counter-practices for dismantling the hegemonic structures that give rise to its consequences (Darder & Torres, 2004). CRT has now disseminated to education, and is giving rise to theoretical, conceptual, methodological and pedagogical strategies that seek to account for the role of race and racism in education. Further, like anti-racism education, it has an activist component, with the goal of dismantling and eliminating racism and all forms of subordination19 and oppression (Matsuda, 1991; Sleeter, 2002). The CRT movement began in Canada in the 1980s and followed along the same theoretical lines as in the US. Indigenous scholars and scholars of colour began to articulate their dissatisfaction with legal discourses that did not include analyses of race and racism in the political and legal structures of society (Aylward, 1999; Monture-Angus, 1995). Carol Aylward, a Canadian scholar, suggests that unlike the US, where most people would acknowledge that racism exists, many Canadian people deny the very existence of racism. Canadians generally wish to portray Canada as a country of racial and cultural tolerance in an effort to maintain a Canadian identity as multicultural. After all, Canada was the first nation ever to implement a Multicultural Act in celebration of the diversity of all its peoples. Through the 1960s and 1970s, Canada's liberal policy on immigration brought many people of colour into the country in expectation of capitalist industrial growth (Bannerji, 2000). The issues raised by these immigrants were primarily around legal discrimination in the practice of immigration and family reunification, and job discrimination by Canadian employers. The Canadian Subordination refers to structural phenomena that immobilizes, delegitimizes and diminishes groups (Young, 1990). 15 government's move towards a multiculturalism policy was directed more at appeasing the discontented and fearful white Canadians than the discriminated 'others' as new immigrants. Questions of social justice and discrimination were rearranged into issues of tolerance for cultural diversity through the implementation of this policy. As Bedard (2000) suggests, multiculturalism was put into place to relieve white anxiety and guilt about their colonial past. Multiculturalism became an effective mechanism to manage and preserve racialized class divisions (Darder & Torres, 2004). The Canadian multicultural policy tended to hide questions of discrimination and racism, and seemed to imply that i f racism existed, it was merely the action of a few misguided individuals. This positioned racism at the individual level, and ignored the way it functioned systemically in everyday society. This denial of everyday racism resulted in the creation of a so-called tolerant society (Jiwani, 1999). In this understanding, racism was not seen and continued not to be connected to the larger systems that distributed jobs, power and wealth (Lopez, 2003). Bannerji (2000) points out that this strategy does not recognize or legitimize the power relations and unequal relationships inherent in our society. As Senator Oliver (2004) points out, i f Canada is viewed as an extremely tolerant country, then why do people of colour continue to experience discrimination? And i f racism is not a problem, then why are people of colour grossly under-represented in employment within our social and political institutions? Senator Oliver (2004) notes that there is also a glass ceiling, or job ceiling, that prevents the advancement of people of colour into managerial positions across institutions in society. CRT scholars believe that race, as an analytical tool, can deepen the analysis of educational barriers for people of colour, as well as illuminate how these people resist and overcome these barriers. In general, CRT addresses three key practices of oppression (Aylward, 1999; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, 2001; Gotanda, 2000; Lopez, 2003; Matsuda, 1991; Parker, 2003; Sleeter, 2002): • First, it proposes that racism is a normal fact of life, the way that society does business everyday. As such, racist ideologies and assumptions are ingrained within structures and systems so as to be almost unrecognizable. Racism has assumed normality and thus invisibility in our daily lives, which is why people fail to see it. • Second, it challenges Eurocentric epistemologies as the normative standard by grounding itself in systems of knowledge that offer tools for dismantling these ideologies. CRT challenges liberalist views of individual rights, fairness, meritocracy and equal opportunity, objectivity and race-neutrality or colour-blindness. The latter ideology is based on the liberal notion that all individuals 16 have the potential and freedom in society to contract with each other. It also suggests that everyone can attain material wealth i f they work hard. Critical race theorists argue that these are not just unattainable ideals and a blatant form of discrimination, but that these claims of neutrality are actually harmful to racialized peoples. They drive racism underground and camouflage the self-interest, power and privilege of dominant groups in society. In addition, a colour-blind constitution supports the supremacy of white interests and denies systemic racial subordination. Again, this belies the power and impact of racism as it exists today. Critical race theorists, therefore, ground their research in systems of knowledge that stand in contrast to dominant ideologies by illuminating 'othered' shared historical and experiential knowledges. • Third, it utilizes counter-storytelling as a methodological and pedagogical tool to legitimize stories of oppression by members of oppressed groups, specifically, stories of race and racism, and to shatter the dominant ideological mindset. CRT draws explicitly on the lived experiences of people of colour by including such methods as storytelling, family history, biographies, parables, testimonies, chronicles, and narratives. The 'voice of colour' thesis holds that oppressed groups can talk "back to messages, scripts, and stereotypes that are embedded in the minds of one's fellow citizens, and, indeed, the national psyche" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 28). These stories are seldom told nor legitimized in the academy or society. They are consciously, or unconsciously ignored or downplayed because they do not fit socially accepted notions of truth and reality. In CRT, counter-storytelling is viewed as legitimate, appropriate and critical to understanding, analyzing and teaching about racial discrimination, and is an important method for recognizing the embodied and experiential knowledges of people of colour. Sleeter (2002) writes of challenges to CRT, which include charges of essentialism in personal stories and narratives. Critics argue that CRT is an essentialist paradigm rooted in identity politics based on race, and, therefore, does not take into account the myriad encounters that shape individual experiences. However, critical race scholars argue against an analysis based solely on race. "Although race is fore-fronted in CRT, it is viewed as a fluid and dynamic concept and as one of the many components that are woven together to form one's positionality in a shifting set of relationships" (Sleeter, 2002, p. 21). CRT acknowledges the ways in which race intersects with 17 gender, class, and other elements of identity. It is not essentialist, as a myriad of experiences are unveiled through counter-storytelling. Second, critics of CRT scholars question the objectivity of stories and narratives. These critiques question CRT's call for alternate ways of knowing and understanding by raising doubt about the capacity of subjective knowledges to be able to make valid claims on truth - historically felt to be possible only through objectivity. However, CRT scholars such as Sleeter (2002) take a counter-stance, stating that CRT critics refuse to acknowledge Eurocentrism as a dominant mindset in research. At issue here is the question of what counts as truth and who gets to decide. Critical race theorists use counter-storytelling as a way of challenging unequal power relationships, in particular, racial oppression and the status quo, by analyzing the myths, presuppositions and truths of the dominant culture that render people of colour one-down and invisible. Starting from the premise that dominant culture constructs its social reality in ways that promote its own self-interest, these scholars set out to construct a different reality. By writing and speaking against these constructions, critical race theorists hope to contribute to a better, fairer and more equitable world (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000). Critical Race Theory Today Contemporary discourses on critical race today address issues of capitalism, power and identity, as described below (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Capitalism The US economy has advanced rapidly since the 1980s, but Indigenous communities, communities of colour and immigrants within this economy have fallen behind. We can say the same is true for Canada. It is primarily the white, male and elite who have benefited from neo-liberalism and capitalism. Critical race scholars have put their minds to combating liberal, capitalist notions of colour-blindness, meritocracy, universality and neutrality by challenging these notions (Dei, 1996; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Monture-Angus, 1995). Their critique of the notion of meritocracy includes the argument that merit is far from the neutral principle it purports to be. Critics, for example, challenge the idea of standardized testing and demonstrate that tests are coachable, and can, therefore, reward those from higher socio-economic levels. A second dimension of capitalism that is criticized involves the distribution of material benefits in society. Racism, sexism and classism certainly advantage the material security of many white men and the elite in society, but at the same time, support a culture of poverty amongst women 18 and the racialized (Banks, 2001; Dei, 1996). Since women of all races and racialized people are primarily located in the ranks of the poor, class is, therefore, gendered and racialized, clearly illuminating the economic inequities faced by these marginalized groups (hooks, 2000b; Stefancic, 2001). Other critical race theorists analyze the distribution of environmental dangers and biohazards. This movement critiques 'internal colonialism,' where installations such as toxic waste sites, radioactive tailings, and sewage treatment plants are disproportionately placed in Indigenous communities and communities of colour. Corporate spokespersons defend these actions by saying they go to the best markets, which provide the best financial arrangements. Civi l rights activists take the stand that i f these corporations take advantage of a community's financial vulnerability, they are engaging in predatory racism. From an international perspective, Williams (1995) states that Western countries engage in 'environmental racism' when they profit from dumping toxic waste in the southern hemisphere, such as in African countries. A third dimension of capitalism within critical race analysis is globalization. Some theorists link disadvantaged situations for local communities of colour with workers in 'third or majority world' countries and, therefore, suggest that both must be addressed together. Sweatshops and other exploitative conditions in overseas factories generally affect poor, colonized people of colour, primarily women and children. Critical race theorists point out that "the reason these wages are low and the new jobs attractive is that US and European colonialism have robbed the former colonies of their natural wealth, suppressed the development of local leaders, and conspired with right-wing dictators to keep the people poor and disorganized" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 111). In the same light, local communities of colour in North America suffer at the hands of very similar forces, and as such, their fates are inextricably linked with their international counterparts. Immigration law is the final area of capitalism targeted within critical race analyses. The US tolerates and sometimes abets repressive regimes, often in countries whose wealth it, and other colonial powers, plunder. People from these countries, primarily people of colour, flee poverty, harsh treatment and repression and want to immigrate to North America and Europe, where immigration policies limit entrance (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). These very people, when granted entrance, are then made to feel forever grateful and obliged to their new country of immigration with no acknowledgement of the West's complicity in the economic and political processes that produce migrants and refugees, particularly people of colour from the South (Razack, 1999a). 19 Power Another set of issues within critical race theory revolves around addressing racism in the criminal justice system; increasing voting and political representation; combating hate speech and striving for the recognition of language rights (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Some critical race theorists argue that the disproportionate criminalization of Indigenous people and people of colour is, in part, due to the way crime is defined. Acts such as marketing defective products like automobiles, are not considered crimes. However, things that young people of colour do, such as congregating on street corners smoking and drinking, high speed cruising in cars, or scrawling graffiti in public places, are highly policed. According to Delgado and Stefancic (2001), white-collar crime such as embezzlement, consumer fraud, bribery, insider trading and price fixing, amongst others, causes more property loss than all street crime combined. Yet 'racialized' street crimes are made out to be a threat to North American society (Jiwani, 1998). Other theorists address racial profiling that penalizes law-abiding people of colour, and alienates youths of colour. Some legal practitioners urge juries to lessen sentences for young people of colour if the jury believes that the police system, for example, is racist, or that the young people in question would be of more use in the community than behind bars. Imprisonment leads to disenfranchisement20 under US law, depriving felons of the right to vote, even after serving their time. The final issue within the context of power is hate speech21 and language. According to Delgado and Stefancic (2001), courts in the US afford relief for victims of hate speech. Some theorists suggest criminalization is an answer to those perpetuating hate speech, as hate speech contributes to social images and the social construction of the 'other' as deviant and dangerous. Critical race theorists have been tackling some of the most common policy objections to hate speech regulation. Another speech-related issue concerns the rights of non-Anglo speakers to use their native languages in the workplace, in schools, government offices, etc. Critical race theorists' point out that language is an essential part of culture and identity, and to enforce English-only statutes by repressing the use of other languages is a violation of the US First Amendment and a continued form of colonialism. 2 0 Disenfranchisement is defined as the taking away of citizenship rights, including the right to vote (Gage Canadian Dictionary, 1983). 2 1 Hate speech includes the rain of insults, epithets, and name calling that many people of colour face on a daily basis (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001). 20 Identity According to Delgado and Stefancic (2001), there are two broad schools of critical race scholarship. One school, the 'real world' school, writes about issues such as globalization, human rights, race, poverty, immigration and the criminal justice system. These writers are more apt to be academic theorists as well as activists. They set out to understand, analyze, critique and change conditions that impact communities of colour. This group engages in both theorizing and political activism to achieve social and racial justice (Tate, 1997). Another school of theorists, known as discourse analysts, focus on systems of ideas and categories that construct racism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). These theorists emphasize issues and are likely to examine the role of ideas, thoughts and unconscious discrimination. The lines between the two schools of thought are not rigid, but overlap. The real world scholars are usually impatient with the discourse analysts as the latter spend most of their energies in constructing arguments in support of their theories. The discourse analysts justify this by suggesting that the chains of racism are usually mental and suggest that liberation wil l unlikely occur unless these demeaning patterns of thought, speech and behaviour are thrown out and replaced with new concepts. Despite these differences, CRT remains a dynamic force hi the US, and in the Canadian legal and cultural landscapes. More recently, scholars have discussed relations of theorists and practitioners inside critical race theory itself. For example, the emergence of critical race feminism stems from such discussions. These discussions center on the exclusion of women of colour from the CRT movement, which is predominantly populated by male academics. Another discussion is focused on whether LatCrit is essentially Catholic, and i f so, how this may affect gay or lesbian Latinos whose lifestyles remain marginalized by the Catholic Church. Discussions emerging from the critical asian american and critical queer theories have led to 'break-out' movements similar to that of critical race feminism. Critical Race Theory in Education CRT remains new as a topic of scholarly inquiry in education (Tate, 1997) with a limited amount of research utilizing it as an analytical framework. CRT theorizing in education is the second wave or second generation of critical race studies (Vargas, 2003). The connection between CRT and education provides a race-based interdisciplinary theoretical framework for analyzing the study of education, laws, policies and administrative procedures that have a detrimental impact on racialized students in education (Parker, 2003). Critical race theory in education could lead the way 21 to understanding how racism also affects the practice of education. The future of C R T depends on educators exploring its possible connections to racism in schools and universities and with communities of colour (Sleeter, 2002). This requires a personal understanding of these experiences, from a lived or 'voices of colour' perspective, followed by the social transformation of such institutions. The use of CRT in educational research is appealing for several reasons. It encourages researchers to problematize dominant ideological rules that support notions of neutrality, meritocracy and colour-blindness in education. It is also useful as a platform to name and interpret the realities of oppressed people that have not been understood using other methodologies. As a methodological tool it speaks to social transformation and change by challenging dominant conceptions of truth, fair-play and justice (Carter, 2003). CRT plays an important role in legal circles but it has yet to make significant inroads in areas of education, such as educational administration, politics of education and policy studies (Lopez, 2003). Power and influence largely remain in the dominion of white, middle-class men, and the vast majority of marginalized groups do not participate in these kinds of political and educational activities. CRT has, therefore, yet to establish a hold within education because of these structural limitations. Critical Race Feminism In her introduction to Critical Race Feminism: A Reader, Wing (1997) states that critical race feminism is not yet an organized or distinct movement. It has grown out of the relatively young CRT movement, which has predominantly been theorized by male academics, where the experiences of women of colour have been mostly excluded. The CRT movement has presented perspectives on people of colour that have assumed that the experiences of women of colour are the same as those of men of colour. Historically within hegemonic feminism, gender oppression is at the centre of analysis (Aylward, 1999). Feminism was initially viewed as the 'white women's movement' because it was based on the binary gender division male/female alone. However, gender discrimination is only one of the systemic barriers that women face. Women of colour, for instance, have long understood that race, one's culture, gender or class could also be factors in denying access to resources (Sandoval, 2000). According to Lorde (1984), the women's movement ignored differences of race, sexual preference, class, ability and age, leading to a worldview that presented homogeneity of experience. This denied women of colour entry into the mainstream women's movement. In other words, the 22 women's movement did not 'race' patriarchy, by overlooking the fact that social oppression affected women of colour differently. The women's movement had shortcomings, as white women ignored their own privilege of 'whiteness' and defined the term 'women' based in terms of their own experiences. Harris (2000) explains that this gender essentialism developed because of the notion that there was such a thing as 'women's experience,' which could be described independently of other dimensions of experience and identity, such as race, class, and sexual orientation. By excluding the experiences of non-white women, they left wholly unexamined the realities of women of colour (Razack, 1999b). Within the white liberal women's movement, women of colour became the 'other,' sometimes not seen at all. Issues of race, class and sexual orientation were ignored, or footnoted in books or relegated to the margins (Harris, 2000; Thornhill, 1995b). The claim to 'sisterhood'2 2 by white women, in fact, did not exist. Thornhill (1995b) suggests that racism and, therefore, the exclusion of women of colour from the white women's movement, undermined and weakened their collective power. Feminist essentialism paved the way for critical race feminism to appear (Crenshaw, 1995). Critical race feminists initially targeted legal discourse because mainstream white liberal feminism failed to deal with women's realities of racism and classism in particular. Critical race feminism challenged the multidimensional power relationships shaped by white supremacy,23 capitalism and patriarchy. It went on to represent racialized women not as victims to be saved, but as actors and agents of change (Luther, Whitmore & Moreau, 2001). Critical race feminism thus initially emerged in response to recognition of the oppressive impact of law, education and public policy that marginalized the lives of women of colour. Critical race feminists are anti-essentialist,24 calling for a broader and deeper understanding of the lives of women, particularly women of colour, based on the nature of their multiple and intersecting identities. Critical race feminism extends beyond the existing writings by well-known women of colour. This thesis is just one example of the many other studies currently being undertaken to document and analyze the wide variety of perspectives and experiences of women of colour. 2 2 Collins (1991b) suggests that sisterhood generally refers to supportive feelings of loyalty and attachment to other women stemming from shared experiences of oppression. 2 3 White supremacy is an ideological system of race-based biases that North American society is based upon. Just as both women and men are socialized into patriarchy, white people and people of colour are also socialized by white supremacy through education, media and popular culture (hooks, 2003). 2 4 The concept of essentialism describes the idea that there is one authentic experience that captures the experience of all within a group, e.g. that there is one authentic female experience that speaks for all women (Romany, 1997). 23 Critical White Studies Only recently has the primary characteristic used to assign privilege2 5 been subject to scrutiny through the study of 'whiteness5 2 6 as a social organizing principle. Lopez (2000) reminds us that, from the earliest years in North America, being a white person was a condition of citizenship. Courts constructed the category of 'white' in a two-step process. First, courts constructed the bounds of 'whiteness' by deciding on a case-by-case basis who was not white. The second step in the construction of whiteness more directly contributed to the development of the white character as 'superior.' Those who were non-white were regarded as 'other.' Bedard (2000) suggests that through histories of colonialism and imperialism, white people came to define and know the 'other' through negative racialized imageries. These became institutionalized as oppressive practices over time. The media, as well as government policies and practices, reinforced the xenophobic attitudes of the 'other' in the early 1900s to keep Canada a white man's country (Grace & Helms, 1998). Whiteness has held, and continues to hold political, economic and social power. Whiteness remains the centre of discourse in education (Bedard, 2000). It is a construct that is considered to be natural, an unmarked racial category, but also an inherently superior category, one that goes unseen, and, as such, is taken as normal. As 'whiteness' is normed, those with white privilege gain the power to define 'difference,' and then relegate those who are 'different' to the margins (Bannerji, 1994; Dei et al., 2004). 'Whiteness' brings unearned privileges to those who own it. This mythical construct stands at the centre of racial inequality in North America (Lopez, 2000). White skin colour is infused with meaning and markers of privilege where white people do not have to think about how race positions them as dominant in society. The North-American world view is thus framed through the "racelessness of White skin" (Dei et al., 2004, p. 84). It is because of such privileges that Lopez (2000) states that white people are more deeply implicated in preserving the racialized social status quo. This is because "whiteness remains the centre and retains its control through 'othering,' a process that demeans the efforts of others" (Tyson, 2003, p. 22). White privilege is continuously asserted through sites of dominance, with claims to white innocence and the denial of systemic oppression serving as a mechanism of racism. Dei et al. (2004) states "We recognize that the creation of an open and equal-opportunity system with effective and positive social outcomes for all groups requires the disrupting and rupturing of 2 5 Privilege is defined as "a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class or caste" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, cited in Wildman and Davis, 2000). 2 6 Whiteness, according to Lopez (2000), is a social construct, a function of what people believe, that is tied to our colonial history. 24 the dominance of Whiteness and White racism... anything short of this goal will only serve the status quo" (p. 82). As a white woman, Mcintosh (1992) articulates precisely what white privilege provides for her. "White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurance, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear and blank checks" (p. 33). Mcintosh identifies 46 conditions available to her as a white person that her African-American co-workers, friends and acquaintances cannot count on. Some of these include the normalizing effects associated with having one's race widely and positively represented in the media; the security of knowing that one's race will not hinder or prevent access to resources such as law, medical and social services; skin colour privilege means never having to experience the daily physical and mental suffering intrinsic to a racialized existence. Her description of these unearned privileges provide insights into the advantages that most white people tend to experience in social contexts. It is the work of scholars such as Mcintosh, that has led to the development of critical white studies. Critical white studies acknowledge these freedoms and advantages, and critical white scholars take responsibility for the fact that the white privilege they enjoy may contribute to systemic marginalization of racialized 'others.' Critical white studies, therefore, examines whiteness and its privileges, and interrogates the silence, denial and fear that surrounds issues of racism and privilege. Critical white studies scholars call for in-depth analyses of how oppression is constructed through whiteness, including how white people access power and deny such power to 'others,' thereby oppressing the racialized 'other' (Dei et al., 2004). Anti-Racism Education According to Bell (1997), the goal for social justice education involves ensuring the full and equal participation of all individuals and groups in society. Such a vision ensures the equitable distribution of resources in addition to ensuring that all members are physically and psychologically safe from harm. Young (1990) defines social justice as "the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression" (p. 15). She states that social justice should not only focus on the redistribution of goods and resources, but it should also focus on the structural dimensions that give rise to such asymmetrical distributions. Therefore, social justice education examines all dimensions of domination and oppression, including the collusion of systems, rules, practices and relationships that maintain the hegemonic status quo. Anti-racism education is a form of social justice education that addresses the social and political inequities in Euro/Canadian/American contexts (Dei, 1996). Like CRT, anti-racism 25 education centres its discourse on race and actively challenges Euro-centered privilege. It recognizes that hegemonic systems construct a powerful narrative in which racialized bodies represent inferiority, deviance and criminality, as well as many other harmful stereotypes. Anti-racism education also centres race and its intersectionality with class, gender and sexuality, termed 'integrative anti-racism,' through the analysis of intersecting oppressions. Anti-racism, like CRT, recognizes that people are treated unequally based on the racialization of their bodies (Dei, 2000b), and that such constructions are systemically produced and reproduced. Anti-racism education is "an action-oriented strategy for institutional, systemic change to address racism and the interlocking systems of oppression" (Dei, 1996, p. 25). Its educational agenda is to rupture the status quo through social and personal commitment to political activism. In this sense, the identities of anti-racist educators are more in line with 'real world' scholars and CRT activists. Anti-racism activists use their power and privilege to challenge and rupture dominant systems and practices of oppression that lead to the marginality of racialized individuals and groups. At its core, anti-racism education questions the role that the state and societal institutions play in producing and reproducing inequalities (Calliste, 2000) — "It acknowledges that Canada is a capitalist, racist and patriarchal society and that universities, as state-regulated and state-funded institutions, are structured to perpetuate those relations" (p. 145). Anti-racism education, therefore, acknowledges that education is a site of social inequities. Anti-racism education, like CRT, challenges the myths of meritocracy and equal rights by critically examining the structural and systemic barriers to self and group actualization (Dei, 1996). Like CRT, anti-racism education fosters an educational agenda for social change. CRT, on the other hand, addresses social justice within law, and more recently education, and utilizes counter-narratives as methodology to critically examine the every day lived oppression of people of colour. CRT is also committed to being inclusive and accountable to the diverse individuals and groups it theorizes about, including the subjects of critical race feminism, critical queer theory, and LatCrit studies and others. Summary This chapter provided a comprehensive overview of critical race theory - its beginnings in law, both in the US and Canada, and more recently in education. It remains a new site of scholarly inquiry in education. This chapter also discussed some limitations of CRT and the emergence of movements within CRT, such as critical race feminism. This study utilizes critical race feminism as its conceptual framework in exploring ideologies of education for citizenship, and uses it as a foundation for developing a model for service-learning at U B C . 26 CHAPTER THREE: SERVICE-LEARNING This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the literature on service-learning and education for citizenship. Several definitions of service-learning are provided to highlight some common themes. Two main paradigms of service-learning are explored: the status-quo or charity-based paradigm, and the social justice or transformative paradigm. The charity-based model fosters the development of citizenship skills through caring for the disadvantaged to help alleviate some of the distress or symptoms of oppression. The transformative model fosters the development of citizenship skills through caring for the disadvantaged by actively challenging and transforming institutional structures and practices, i.e. the root causes, as well as the symptoms of oppression. This chapter concludes by offering a critical race feminist perspective of education for citizenship and, therefore, service-learning. Service Learning The term 'service' primarily speaks to contributions in, and to, the community. Such contributions improve the quality of life for an individual, group, neighbourhood or community. There are other terms also used to describe this work of service - public work, community development, social capital and community action (Howard, 2001). Colleges and universities are significantly expanding service-learning opportunities in the US (Kahne, Westheimer & Rogers, 2000; Kelly & Wolf-Wendel, 2000), and this movement is just catching on in Canada. Members of the Southern Regional Education Board in Oak Ridge, Tennessee coined the term service-learning in 1969. The philosophy of service-learning, a form of experiential education, is informed by the works of John Dewey, Jean Piaget and David Kolb, with reinforcement from Paulo Freire, in combining action and reflection in the work necessary to better the lives of all people through social change (O'Grady, 2000). Student participation in community service through service-learning is both a resource to enhance the quality of life in communities, as well as a resource to stimulate student's academic and civic learning through education (Howard, 2001). According to several authors (Belbas, Gorak & Shumer, 1993; Eyler & Giles, 1999) there are many definitions of service-learning. Because of this, no one definition of service-learning satisfies everyone. The US federally legislated National Service Act of 1993 (as quoted in O'Grady, 27 2000, p. 7; Belbas et al.,1993; Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, 2002; National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, 2005) includes the following key elements in their definition of service-learning: 1. Students learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully-organized service placements that meet actual community needs, and that are coordinated collaboratively by educational institutions and community. 2. Service-learning is integrated into the students' academic curriculum and provides structured time for a student to think, talk, or write about what he/she did and saw during the actual service activity. 3. Service-learning provides students with opportunities to use newly acquired skills and knowledge in real-life situations in their own communities. 4. Service-learning enhances what is taught in school by extending students' learning beyond the curriculum and into the community, which helps foster the development of a sense of caring for others, specifically the disadvantaged. Bringle and Hatcher (1996) view service-learning as "a credit-bearing educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility" (p. 222) Eyler and Giles (1999) state that "service-learning should include a balance between service to the community and academic learning and that the hyphen in the phrase symbolizes the central role of reflection in the process of learning through community experience" (p. 4). The authors go on to state, "any program that attempts to link academic study with service can be characterized as service-learning; non course-based programs that include a reflective component and learning goals may also be included under this broad umbrella" (p. 5). According to O'Grady (2000), most definitions highlight four common themes often mentioned in service-learning - (a) institutional collaboration with community, (b) the importance of reflection, (c) active learning and (d) the development of a sense of caring. From a social justice perspective, two additional themes are included - (e) promoting a sense of civic responsibility among students and (f) collaboration with community with the aim of ameliorating social problems or oppression, causes and symptoms. However, service-learning must comply both with academic programs and with community-based agencies in defining what learning is relevant and important. As Howard (2001) suggests, "the service must be relevant to the community and to the content of 28 the academic course, meaningful to the community and to the students, and developed and formulated with the community" (p. 23). Service-learning is, therefore, seen as a marriage between academic learning and collaboration with community to meet identified community issues. This is different from volunteerism where the focus is on providing service to an agency or agencies, and includes any activity that the agency needs. Service-learning is also different from cooperative learning or internship. Such programs provide work experience for the student, usually skill-based, within the context of professional education, and is sometimes compensated with money. Generally, cooperative learning internships do not identify the development of civic learning as a learning outcome. These internships emphasize student goals more than community goals, while service-learning is equally attentive to both community and student agendas. Service-learning involves a reciprocal relationship between the attainment of academic knowledge and content, and community-based experiential learning. Educational institutions and non-profit community agencies organize such partnerships. Service reinforces and strengthens the learning, and learning subsequently strengthens the service through meeting identified community concerns (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Howard, 2001; O'Grady, 2000; Prentice & Garcia, 2000). In this way service-learning can be a potent civic educator when it accompanies proper preparation and adequate academic reflection (Battistoni, 2002): Academic service-learning (Howard, 2001) distinguishes itself from community-based service, student community service, co-curricular and other service-learning models, which are also experientially based programs. Student-community service is ordinarily accomplished by a student organization volunteering at local schools, without an involvement in the learning agenda. Academic service-learning and co-curricular service-learning make intentional efforts to engage students in planned and purposeful learning related to their service experiences. However, co-curricular service-learning usually involves alternative spring-break programs, and has the goal of raising students' consciousness and providing familiarity with issues related to various communities. Academic service-learning, on the other hand, involves student community engagement, which integrates the academic program with service experiences for developing both academic and civic learning. This involves course-based learning, community service and reflection (McGregor, 2002). Although much of the language describing service-learning appears politically neutral, O'Grady (2000) suggests that service-learning is as politically laden as any other educational approach. In much of the literature on service-learning there is an absence of an analysis of power which, in itself, indicates a particular ideology behind the notion of service in education, often reflecting a missionary philosophy to education. This philosophy promotes caring for others or 29 doing something for the less advantaged, based on the concept of charity. As important as this is, that is, caring and helping the disadvantaged, these types of programs do little to promote active participation in challenging and undoing the stratification of power that produces social inequalities and, therefore, disadvantage (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). There is a growing popularity of service-learning in higher education. The growing value of this strategy holds much promise for renewing higher education and community development locally and globally. O'Grady (2000) suggests that the key here is to maintain the focus on collaboration with community for the purposes of community development, and social problem-solving through the identification of community issues, along with the other key components such as reflective activities and the integration of the service with curriculum. Service-learning programs generally fall within two broad paradigms - the status-quo paradigm, and the social justice paradigm (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Much of the efforts around service-learning are promoted on grounds that such programs will support citizenship development in students who, in turn, will contribute to a solid foundation for democracy. The vast majority of service-learning initiatives in the US emphasize volunteerism and charity, but do not teach about social movements, do not analyze the political, social and economic structures that produce inequities, and do not actively promote systemic change (Kahne, Westheimer & Rogers, 2000). Charity or Status-quo Paradigm The focus of the majority of research on the effectiveness of service-learning projects has been on the growth of the student, with specific attention to their personal, social and learning outcomes (Kahne et al., 2000). This paradigm teaches students how to be responsible members of society by providing services to the community, and by caring for people by addressing the 'needs' or symptoms of oppression (Maybach, 1996). Kelly and Wolf-Wendel (2000), Kahne et al. (2000) and others suggest that such programs aimed at 'doing for' community are more aligned with charity than social change. Such charity-based programs are also the most supported form of service-learning in the US (Kahne & Westheimer, 2001; Wade, 2002). The assumption behind this paradigm is that students engaged in community projects help people ' in need,' and 'do for community' while enhancing their own learning as it relates to academic objectives, with an emphasis on the student as 'server' and community recipient as 'served.' It has been suggested that one of the greatest benefits of service-learning is that students have the opportunity to learn in ways that are parallel to the learning that they will do throughout their adult lives in the workplace and community. Service-learning is known to contribute to greater 30 self-knowledge, spiritual growth and other rewards. It also increases a sense of personal efficacy and self-confidence in students, and seems to result in an increased desire to include service to others in one's career plans (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Prentice & Garcia, 2000). Students involved in service-learning report that working with community and fellow students brings about an appreciation of different cultures, an increase in tolerance towards others and the reduction of stereotyping. Students also report a greater sense of civic responsibility and citizenship, and often identify a desire to help those who are disadvantaged (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Eyler, Giles, Stenson and Gray (2001) summarize service-learning research over the past several years. This summary,27 which includes an extensive bibliography, reports the following: (a) the effects of service-learning on students and the effects of particular program characteristics on students; (b) the impact of service-learning on faculty; (c) the impact of service-learning on colleges and universities; and (d) the impact of service-learning on communities. The summaries are reported below and are complemented with additional findings from the Executive summary: How service learning affects students (2000). This latter study collected data from 22,236 college undergraduates attending baccalaureate-granting colleges and universities in the US. A) Impact of service-learning on students: 1. Personal outcomes: • Positive effect on students' personal development such as sense of personal efficacy, personal identity, spiritual growth, moral development, and personal values. • Positive effect on interpersonal development and the ability to work well with others, enhancing leadership and communication skills. 2. Social outcomes: • Positive effect on reducing prejudice and stereotypes, and facilitating cultural understanding, appreciation of diversity and getting along with others. • Positive effect on the students' sense of social responsibility and citizenship skills in wanting to help the disadvantaged, and an increased awareness of the world. 3. Learning outcomes: • Positive impact on students' academic learning such as problem-solving, analysis and cognitive development, critical tMnking skills, and, especially, writing skills. • Impact on students' academic learning as measured by grades or GPA is mixed. 2 7 At a Glance is a report supported by the National Service-Learning Clearing-house based in the US. This Clearing-house supports the development of service-learning from K-12 and higher education by assisting with materials, references, referrals and information. 31 • Positive impact on students' degree of interest in the subject matter. • Improves students' ability to apply what they have learned in the real world. 4. Career Development: • Contributes to career development in a service field. • Ongoing plans to participate in service to others after college/university. 5. Relationship with Institution: • Reports of stronger student/faculty relationships than those who are not involved in service-learning. • Improves student satisfaction with college/university. • Students engaged in service-learning are more likely to graduate. B) Impact Of service-learning on faculty: • Satisfaction with quality of student learning. • Greater commitment to community-based research. • Increasingly integrate service-learning into courses. • Encourages faculty to be innovative and creative in their teaching. • Lack of resources act as barriers to providing service-learning. C) Impact of service-learning on the institution: • Colleges and Universities report increasing institutional commitment to service-learning as pedagogy. • Service-learning increases student retention. • Institutions report enhanced community collaborations and partnerships. • Contributes to an institution's outreach efforts to communities. • Sharing of resources by contributing thousands of hours of service to people in need, non-profit agencies, private sector companies, non-governmental and governmental agencies. D) Impact of service-learning on communities: • Community satisfaction with student participation. • Service-learning providing useful service in communities. • Communities report enhanced university relations. • Service-learning helps with community education. Overall, as indicated above, a small amount of research has explored the impact of service-learning programs on communities. However, little attention has been paid to the role that communities play in enacting the goals of service-learning programs. Kelly and Wolf-Wendel (2000) suggest that i f service-learning is to meet its goals of improving student learning, addressing community issues and preparing students for civic involvement, it is critical for service-learning educators and developers to pay closer attention to the role of communities in this endeavour. 32 The status-quo paradigm of service-learning embraces the charity model. This model does have an effect on the development of citizenship skills. Students generally experience a detached sense of beneficence for the community by helping alleviate some of the distress, or doing something for the less advantaged (Marullo & Edwards, 2000; Sleeter, 2000) as well as learning to appreciate diversity. Even though this model does engage in identifying and meeting immediate community concerns, it reinforces the idea that a disadvantaged or subordinate group or culture requires 'fixing;' that such groups have something to learn; and that the academy can step in to help address identified problems. The emphasis on helping is a paternalistic one that maintains superiority and 'power over.' It does not address the systemic factors that create the 'need for help' (Kahne & Westheimer, 2000). The charity paradigm of service-learning, therefore, promotes a view of citizenship that involves the transfer or reallocation of resources such as money, food, shelter, knowledge, labor, time, etc. to individuals or groups who have fewer resources. Food is donated, shelters constructed, urban community gardens built, re-cycling programs developed, and neighbourhood playgrounds are designed for children living in poverty. Such activities allow students to make a difference as a part of learning in the academy. They become better citizens by making a difference in the lives of others while they advance their academic and career goals (McGregor, 2002). Charity-based programs, however, are less likely to actively engage students in challenging and transforming the systems and practices that create the 'problem of poverty' (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Such charity approaches to education for citizenship are supported by neo-liberal notions of caring for and helping those disadvantaged, through service (Varlotta, 1997). As important as these actions are, such ideologies do not aim to reduce systemic inequities, or the subordination and oppression of marginalized people. If students, through this charity-based paradigm, serve the homeless and enjoy the rewards of volunteering, but do not study the various causes of homelessness, what lessons are they learning? Kahne and Westheimer (2000) suggest that charity and volunteerism will always be an important support for our society and for humanity. They argue that it is not sufficient, however, as it does little to shift the systems that maintain such power relationships. In doing so, the service-learning movement may become yet another anemic application of a potentially-powerful strategy for social transformation (Claus & Ogden, 2001). They state, "It [service-learning] also has the potential to become a transformative social movement, but this will only be realized if we view it as such" (p. 69). Ogden (2001a) suggests that to focus on the act of service itself is to miss the point, because it does little to promote active participation in social and political change. 33 Eby (1998) states that educators, students, administrators, faculty and community agencies widely praise service-learning as they believe it is a strategy capable of reviving communities and restoring human relevance to the academy. Limitations to service-learning have surfaced, with criticism implied by such labels as McService, quick fix service, and happy-meal community service. Community agencies are beginning to raise significant questions about the benefits of service-learning to communities - particularly pointing to the need for a social justice framework which is missing in much of the work around service-learning (O'Grady, 2000). It is also crucial that service-learning educators and developers consider more closely the role that communities want to play in the development of programs to ensure that such programs actually identify and meet socially based issues. Kelly and Wolf-Wendel (2000) conducted an extensive review of the literature and found a lack of attention to community perspectives on service-learning programs. Jones (2003) also suggests that research on service-learning has largely focused on smdent-learning outcomes, with little attention given to community agency perspectives. Often the intent of service-learning is to meet the needs of students and the academy. The needs of community agencies often come last (Eby, 1998). In addition, many programs look at service-learning as a way for higher education 'to do for' communities as opposed 'to do with' communities. Taking this first view of service-learning in itself renders invisible the possible contributions that communities could make to the development of such programs. The authors suggest that i f service-learning were to truly involve higher education in real-world problem-solving, then communities must be an integral and active partner in these efforts. Transformational or Social Justice Paradigm Maybach (1996) suggests that few service-learning initiatives focus on the needs of community, and few build programs around a model of accountability and social justice. Fraser (1989) also suggests that 'needs' interpretation is politically contested in that it is usually people in the dominant groups that get to interpret such 'needs' in their own interests, which work to . maintain 'power over,' and continue to disadvantage subordinate groups. So, while service-learning programs may meet the 'needs' of institutional and student goals, such outcomes may limit service-learning's power to effect broad-based societal changes from the perspectives of the disadvantaged themselves (Wade, 2001). The social justice paradigm is one that embraces a service ethic emphasizing a scholarship of engagement and collaboration to address both the symptoms as well as the root causes of 34 disadvantage (Marullo & Edwards, 2000; O'Grady, 2000; Rosenberger, 2000; Sleeter, 2000). This paradigm, grounded in a critical pedagogy, teaches students how to responsibly investigate what the individuals in a community define their concerns to be (thus removing the provider/recipient role). Such programs foster 'doing with' community as opposed to 'doing for' community (Kahne et al., 2000; Kelly & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). Students learn how to be involved in service in a mutually empowering and collaborative relationship, how to care with and about people, how to address and ameliorate the root causes of oppression, and how to actively participate in social and political transformation (Daigre, 2000; Maybach, 1996; Marullo & Edwards; Wade, 2001). The social justice paradigm differs from a charity-based model focused only on addressing symptoms of oppression, which according to Freire (1970, 1999), is oppressive in itself because this does little to substantially alter the structures that maintain oppressive conditions. Responding to human 'needs' is important, but i f the social policies that create such 'needs' are not understood, addressed and challenged from the perspectives of the disadvantaged, the status quo remains, and little changes to transform the lives of the disadvantaged (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; 2000; Marullo & Edwards, 2000; O'Grady, 2000). In addition, Wade (2001) suggests, "While meeting individual needs in the community is an important aspect of effective citizenship, democracy depends on citizens' willingness and ability to examine current social problems, evaluate how they have developed over time and consider new directions in creating a better society" (p. 1). Many proponents for the transformative paradigm, therefore, speak to the necessity of societal transformation. This transformative vision is what Freire (1970, 1999) describes as 'true generosity;' fighting to destroy the causes that nourish 'false charity,' and dismantling the colonial and patriarchal structures and relationships that give rise to disadvantage. Freire (1970, 1999) describes true generosity as: Pedagogy which begins with the egoistic interests of the oppressors (an egoism cloaked in false generosity of paternalism) and makes of the oppressed the objects of its humanitarianism, itself maintains and embodies oppression, (p. 36) True generosity, he suggests, should address the symptoms as well as the root causes of oppression. To fully understand the root causes, the voices of the individuals in the community must be heard and responded to, and partnerships need to be formed through 'working with' in order to achieve collaborative social transformation (Daigre, 2000; Maybach, 1996; Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Again, Freire (1970,1999) states: Who are better than the oppressed to understand the terrible significance of an oppressed society? Who suffers the effects of oppression more than the oppressed? Who can better understand the need for liberation? They wil l not gain this liberation by . 3 5 change but through praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for it. (p. 27) A social justice approach to service-learning conceptualized through a pedagogy of the oppressed is one that mutually collaborates with the oppressed in the struggle to regain the oppressed's humanity. This paradigm requires equal input from both partners, the institutions and communities, with the disenfranchised cornmunities playing a vital role in planning how the oppression is to be eliminated (Daigre, 2000; Maybach, 1996; Ogden, 2001). This social justice paradigm politicizes students to become active participants in a more just society (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Marullo & Edwards, 2000). O'Grady (2000) states that the ability to coexist in community is at the heart of our survival as a democracy. She argues that we need to find ways for people with different perspectives to make collaborative decisions, form a sense of connectedness, and engage in a joint struggle for social justice. Few writers articulate service-learning from an anti-oppression approach. Much service-learning discussion emphasizes reducing prejudice, appreciating diversity and getting along with others. Ogden (2001) emphasizes the importance of a transformative paradigm of service-learning: Service for the individual edification and self-esteem is shallow. To transcend this, service learning must move into considerations of the bigger picture, taking action in world that is interconnected. This means not simply treating someone's hunger by feeding him or her but respecting his or her humanity and considering what we all share. It means considering the root of the hunger and always thinking about why we are engaged in service, what brought us here and where we hope to go. (p. 192) Transformative paradigms of service-learning require an activist dimension. Charity or direct service-based programs do have a positive impact, but are limited in scope. Transformative programs can achieve long-term and lasting social change. Such programs foster civic participation that challenge and actively works for social transformation. As such, transformative programs are more difficult to establish. The transformative paradigm of service-learning is, therefore, both a method of inquiry and a mode of political action for social change (Williams, 2002). Such programs help identify root causes of social problems and promote collaborative efforts in 'doing with' communities, in order to ameliorate social disadvantage (Kahne et al., 2000). Charity-based programs view communities as having 'needs,' whereas transformative based programs view communities as equal partners involved in addressing social problems and identifying solutions (Kelly & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). Both charity- and transformative-based programs are founded on ideological conceptions of education for citizenship. It is the type of 'citizenship' that universities hope to foster that determine 36 which paradigm of service-learning is developed. Educational institutions must, therefore, first explore what types of citizenship they wish to foster among students. This ideology of education for citizenship then becomes the foundational basis for developing service-learning programs. The next section of the literature review explores the development of education for citizenship in Canada. Education for Citizenship In the West, the concept of'citizen' evolved from ancient Greece and Rome. Citizens, as members of those societies, played a central part in building a civil society by sharing and participating in the operation of common affairs. They did this primarily by voting and shaping how they were governed. The establishment of voluntary organizations, private clubs, scientific and literary societies enabled the citizens to express their views and shape their society (Holford, 2001; Sears, 1996). In the West, British theorist Marshall (Marshall & Bottomore, 1950, 1992) was influential in forming modern conceptions of citizenship. He defined citizenship as "a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community" (cited in Yuval-Davis, 1997, p. 5). Marshall put forth three elements or values of citizenship that constitute benefits for a common good in a civil society (Marshall & Bottomore, 1950, 1992, p. 8): . • The political dimension - referring to the right to participate in government by having the right to vote, or participate as a candidate in local or national elections. • The civil dimension - comprising the rights to individual freedom: liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property, the right to conclude contracts, and the right to justice. • The social dimension - ranging from the right to economic welfare and security to the right to share in the social heritage and life according to the standards of society. According to Marshall (Marshall & Bottomore, 1950, 1992), civil rights were in place for all citizens in the West by the end of the eighteenth century; political rights included 'a l l ' the adult population by the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Social rights, as the latest phase in citizenship evolution, have been in continuous evolvement over the last 250 years. Kymlicka (1996) suggests that Marshall's conception of the social dimension was based on concern about the exclusion of the working class, and on concern for their socio-economic standing. It was the hope that individual citizens would eventually have equal status, equal rights and duties (Yuval-Davis, 37 1997), and since then, Western democracies have been the envy of many nations. Bottomore (Marshall & Bottomore, 1950,1992) points out, however, that Marshall's concept of citizenship was gender and race blind, lacking a social justice analysis of the rights of citizenship for 'a l l ' persons. In reality, democratic rights of full participation have not been made available to all North Americans. According to Strong-Boag (2002), for example, only relatively few North Americans have had the experience of full citizenship - notably men, European in origin, middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied, etc. Aboriginal people, women, the racialized, the poor, gays and lesbians, the disabled, etc. or the majority of people within such these nation-states, have been excluded from full citizenship. This is what Razack (1999a) terms 'internal border control,' a nation-state mechanism, which excludes people from citizenry. However, such marginalization of historically disenfranchised groups are often viewed as isolated cases, and not seen as a result of the lack of commitment by an entire nation to fulfill the values and tenets of democracy (Darling-Hammond & Ancess, 1996). The History of Citizenship in Canada Canada became an independent country in 1867. So much of early Canadian history has been defined by a desire to create a national identity parallel to that of the British Empire (Joshee, 2002) as the dominant culture.28 In fact, Canada inherited the two greatest colonial empires, the British and the French (Jiwani, 1998). Razack (1999a; 2000) and Bannerji (1995; 2000) refers to this Canadian national identity as a 'white settler society,'2 9 upholding Anglo-European culture as the universal, hegemonic basis for nation state formation. In fact, immigration policies were grounded on the principle of a 'White Canada' (Grace & Helms, 1998; Jiwani, 1998; Thornhill, 1995), where European settlers became the 'original' inhabitants and, therefore, the most entitled to the fruits of citizenship (Razack, 2002). In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Canada saw legislation that limited access to the rights and privileges of citizenship for certain groups of people. The institution of slavery lasted in Canada for close to two hundred years. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1883 (Aylward, 1999). It was in 1917 that some women obtained the right to vote, primarily the wives, sisters and daughters of the Canadian military. In 1919, enfranchisement extended to white women in Canada 2 8 According to Nieto (2000), "Culture consists of the values, traditions, social and political relationships, and worldviews created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound together by a common history, geographic location, language, social class, and/or religion" p. 139. Tanaka (2003) simplifies this by saying that culture refers to shared meanings. 2 9 According to Razack (2002), a 'white settler society' is one established by Europeans on non-European land through the dispossession and extermination of Indigenous peoples by the conquering Europeans. White settler societies then continue to be structured by a racial hierarchy. 38 (Ungerleider, 1992). Men of Chinese origin were disfranchised in 1885, and in the early 1900s men of South Asian and Japanese origin were added to the list of those who could not vote. Citizens of colour could not participate in the public sector because one had to be on the voters' list to hold public office (Joshee, 1992). Rights of citizenship were granted to people of Asian ancestry only after the Second World War. By 1920 it was also clear, according to government records, that the project of assimilation and integration of Aboriginal people into Canadian society had failed. The Canadian nation aimed for the transformation of Indigenous society by imposing its Anglo-European system of government, law and education on Aboriginal people (Nicholas, 1996). This process of assimilation destroyed many Aboriginal cultures and communities. When assimilation and integration into 'white society' did not happen, a new citizenship act in 1961 conferred blanket citizenship on all Aboriginal people without their consent, and without the requirement of enfranchisement. In addition, in 1969 the Canadian government proposed to extinguish all of its 'Indian' treaties (Kymlicka, 1996). A l l these forms of legislation, which limited access to the rights and privileges of citizenship, were created for the many 'minorities' of the country. Kymlicka (1996, p. 17) categorizes minorities within culturally pluralistic nation-states, such as Canada, into national30 and poly ethnic31. These minorities become incorporated into mainstream political communities through colonization and voluntary migration: • The colonization of previously self-governing peoples, such as the Aboriginal and French in Canada, was accomplished when they became identified as national minorities. May (1998) reminds us that Aboriginal peoples were historically colonized against their will , and Nicholas (1996) adds that while some Aboriginal people have accepted the idea of citizenship today, most consider themselves belonging first to their land, and then to their own nations. Aboriginal people have generally resisted becoming citizens of Canada. In addition, the two founding peoples are generally claimed to be the Anglophones and Francophones, which does not include Aboriginal peoples (Bannerji, 2000). There exists, therefore, a racialized inequitable structure of national minority 3 U The term 'national minority' refers to the assimilation of previously self-governing, territorially concentrated peoples, such as Indigenous peoples, into a larger state, while these people desire to maintain themselves as distinct societies and autonomous in self-government (Kymlicka, 1996, p. 27). Canada consists of more than one nation (Aboriginal, Enlgish, and French), and is considered a multination-state. 3 1 The term 'polyethnic minority' refers to individual and familial immigration of ethnic groups, who assimilate but do not separate and strive for self-government from the nation-state. These polyethnic groups seek to modify institutions and laws of the mainstream English and French speaking societies of Canada to make them more accommodating and inclusive (Kymlicka, 1996, p. 30). Canada is both multinational and polyethnic. 39 citizenship in Canada that Aboriginal peoples are further subjected to (Razack, 1999b). • The voluntary migration of individuals and families from distinct ethnic groups,32 (non-white people) is also part of this incorporation process. More recently immigration into Canada has primarily been comprised of people of colour. Razack (2000) reminds us that it is the people of European origin, of the dominant culture, who see themselves as the country's original citizens, and as the ones who are responsible for its development. Monture-Angus (1995) states that the notion of two founding nations forming Canada obliterates Aboriginal peoples, their histories and relationship to the development of this state. Aboriginal peoples and people of colour whose labour and exploitation built this country are 'white washed' into oblivion. Because of this and other factors, most Canadians would deny the existence of widespread racism since the historical policies and practices of exclusion remain hidden, thereby enabling support and reinforcement of racial discrimination (Aylward, 1999; Calliste, 2000; Dei, 1996; Monture-Angus). As Razack (1999b) states, most Canadians do not consider Canada implicated in racist policies and practices: In the Canadian context, the imperialist as savior of Third World peoples is an important construct in nation-building. Canadians define themselves as unimplicated in the genocide of Native peoples or the enslavement of African peoples, a position of innocence that is especially appealing because it enables Canadians to imagine themselves as distinct from Americans, (p. 89) The institutionalization of systemic discrimination began to surface when Canada signed the United Nations' Charter in 1948, and Canada began to lay the foundations for multiculturalism.33 In 1971, Canada adopted a federal multicultural policy, which seemed to be the answer to national unity, international understanding and ethno-cultural survival. In practice, however, multiculturalism in Canada encourages celebration of folk-dancing and ethno-cultural cuisine, making invisible the inequities experienced by polyethnic minorities (Thornhill, 1999). Multicultural policies and programs have not examined the social, political, economic and historical factors that construct and frame racism (Dei et al., 2004). While there is support for the principles of multiculturalism in Canada today, this exists alongside assimilationist and racist attitudes and the continued 3 2 Razack (1999b) points out that Canada is depicted as a haven for immigrants fleeing poverty, war and exploitation, a place where opportunities abound. She adds that what is often absent from this narrative is any acknowledgement of the West's complicity in the economic and political processes that produce migrants and refugees, particularly people of colour from the South. 3 3 Multiculturalism began in the late 1960s and 1970s with increasing immigration of people of colour from non-Christian countries. Most group differentiated policies have arisen under the multiculturalism umbrella aimed at accommodating these disadvantaged groups into Canadian society (Kymlicka, 1996). 40 institutionalization of systemic racism (Dei, 1996; Joshee, 2002). More and more polyethnic minorities are demanding that systemic discrimination be addressed.34 Canada prides itself for its history of human rights protection and for encouraging the inclusion of diverse groups into the fabric of society. In reality, however, widespread material inequality, and gender and race stratification characterize the socio-political landscape. This view of inequitable citizenship is rarely addressed (Yuval-Davis, 1997). Monture-Angus (1995) suggests that it is possible to create a constitution which respects the true nature of Canadian identity, that is "not only about two founding peoples, but also about the original peoples and more recently, a commitment to multiculturalism" (p. 160). Attempts to address inequities, however, are often viewed as threats to democracy because they are viewed as mechanisms to dismantle and take over, rather than as a celebration of its core commitment (Darling-Hammond & Ancess, 1996). Historical Context of Education for Citizenship Nation-states such as Canada and the US exercise political and legal jurisdiction over its citizens (May, 1998). One of the main objectives of nation-states is to create good citizens, and it is generally the education system that carries this responsibility (Sears, 1996; Nicholas, 1996). There is a wealth of literature on educating citizens for democratic life, but the bulk of this literature does not address the depth and scope of the marginalization of disenfranchised groups. Citizenship education has been, and continues to be, elitist or class dominated, and blind to gender and race domination. Citizenship education has historically embraced an assimilationist ideology, aimed at educating students to fit into an Anglo-Saxon Christian (Adams, 1988; Banks, 2002) and male (Bernard-Powers, 1996) conception of the 'good citizen.' According to Joshee (2002), citizenship education has been part of the educational agenda, driven by the on-going task of nation-building and often based on universalist and imperialist values. One of the early aims of citizenship education was to eradicate diverse cultures and languages of people. Many Aboriginal people, because of this assimilationist ideology, lost their cultures, languages, and identities, and many have had their communities destroyed. Residential schools were put into place to do just this - to 'create' Aboriginal children as 'white citizens' and, therefore, useful members of society, and to 3 4 In his report to the Canadian federal government, Doudou Diene writes that racialized minorities are less concerned today about programs designed to recognize them and offer spaces to host cultural activities. They are more concerned about eliminating racial discrimination that prevents them from participating fully in Canadian society (Commission on Human Rights, 2004). Strong-Boag (2002) adds that a sense of alienation lies at the heart of Canadian society as a pluralistic one. When individuals and communities do not recognize themselves in public institutions as participants in democracy, they are likely to feel that such societies are not their societies. 41 eliminate Aboriginal cultures (Barman, 1995; Battiste, 2000; Chrisjohn & Young, 1997; Milloy, 1999; Monture-Angus, 1995). Educators utilized the civilization-savagism model through schooling to hasten the evolutionary process of citizenship, and to eliminate tribal sovereignty (Adams, 1988). As a result of the Canadian residential school legacy, Indigenous peoples today have the highest rates of impoverishment, incarceration, suicide, family violence and breakdown, and substance abuse (Barman, 1995; Chrisjohn & Young, 1997; Monture-Angus, 1995). In addition, they experience some of the highest rates of chronic disease, disability, infant mortality rates, unemployment, and the lowest educational achievement (Andersen & Kirkham, 1998; Allison & Vining, 1999). These normal reactions to conditions of prolonged oppression manifest in an inverted pyramid of social, economic and political marginalization (Chrisjohn & Young, 1997) and widespread social and psychological upheaval (Battiste, 1998). Educators such as Monture-Angus (1995) and Joshee (2002) assert that the Canadian State continues to maintain a colonial relationship with Aboriginal people through the renunciation of inherent Aboriginal status and rights. Kymlicka (1996) further states that while government policies towards Aboriginal peoples have run the gamut of genocide, segregation and assimilation, "the one constant is that governments have never genuinely recognized Aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with cultures different from, but not inferior to, their own" (p. 22). In fact, DePass and Qureshi (2002) state that the majority of Aboriginal people view citizenship as a form of subordination within the nation-state which has resulted in their deculturation, alienation and dependence. The harsh socioeconomic realities that have followed the uprooting of Aboriginal peoples, and the continued denial of Aboriginal sovereignty by the Canadian government's refusal to honour treaties and resolve land claims, continue to maintain profound injustices (Razack, 1999b). This historical disregard for land rights reflects persistent discrimination against Aboriginal peoples (Commission on Human Rights, 2004). Prior to the 1960s, immigrants to Canada were generally expected to shed their distinct heritage and assimilate into existing cultural norms, those of Anglo-Europeans. The Canadian government viewed the idea of nation-building through the inclusion of polyethnic immigration as untenable. Through identity eradication, assimilation was viewed as essential for political stability (Kymlicka, 1996; Nieto, 2000). In addition, students' identities such as race, social class and language were devalued as 'inadequate and negative' in the academic environment because they were not of the Anglo culture (Nieto, 2000). Immigrants to Canada had the choice of assimilating into two dominant cultures. English and French language imperialism in Canada was, therefore, enacted and maintained through immigration and naturalization requirements (MacKay, 1993). Two of the major goals of education, before federal multicultural policies were put into place, were to 42 eradicate polyethnic groups of their ethnic traits, and to force them to acquire Anglo-Saxon values and behavior. In the 1970s, under pressure from polyethnic groups, Canada rejected the assimilationist model and adopted a more tolerant and pluralistic policy, which encouraged immigrants to maintain aspects of their cultural heritage (Kymlicka, 1996). The federal government established 'Cultural Enrichment Programs' to encourage the learning and retention of heritage languages. The government initiated these programs in response to the changing demographics and 'ethnic demands' that spoke of the importance of linking language to the development of cultural identity. Polyethnic minorities also advocated for language maintenance to promote the overall cognitive development amongst 'ethnic' students, strengthen community and family ties, and maintain a sense of well-being. In addition, the Canadian government saw heritage languages as a national resource with respect to the nations' economic and diplomatic role globally (Cummins, 1994; Kymlicka, 1996). This was not the case for Indigenous languages. The government eliminated the support for heritage language programs in the 1990s as part of fiscal restraint policies. The lack of support in educational policy today for linguistic pluralism, and the continuity of education's purpose to assimilate Aboriginal students, students of colour and immigrant children into existing social structures, continues to reflect a view of education for nation-building (Nieto, 2000; Olneck, 1995). In addition, by tying bilingualism and biculturalism to the federal social fabric, and by legitimizing the racialized construct of Canadian-ness as 'white,' the colonial conditions for restricted access and opportunity to Canadian political and economic life is maintained. Only two languages and the dominant culture of 'whiteness' are seen to effectively represent the nation-state. Other languages and cultures are not to be tolerated within the nation-state but to be contained within the private domain (May, 1998). Doudou Diene (Canadian Commission on Human Rights, 2004) states that this 'colonial mentality' of British and French superiority still exists. The adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 led educators to use this document as a basis for discussions on both democratic citizenship and social justice in Canada (Joshee, 2002), including freedoms, justice, due process, dissent, the rule of law, diversity, equality and loyalty. Anti-racism and social justice approaches in education developed at this time. During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of school boards across Canada developed policies on anti-racist education. This was, however, short-lived and demands by polyethnic groups for ethnic revival were viewed as divisive and unfeasible (Kymlicka, 1996). Education for nation-building, or citizenship education, has therefore been regulated and realized by the underpinnings of imperialism and colonialism (Adams, 1988; Joshee, 2002; 43 Nicholas, 1996; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Education has primarily been supported and reinforced by scholarly disciplines and scientific paradigms that continue to promote imperialist discourses through the myriad representations and ideological constructions of the 'other' (Bannerji, 2000; Dei, 1996; hooks, 1994; Nieto, 2000; Razack, 1999; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). The organization of school knowledge and hidden curriculum, and the representation of difference in the portrayal of unequal relationships support a white, patriarchal, elitist system of values (Dei et al., 2004). This cultural chasm continues to reinforce 'whites' as civilized, and Indigenous peoples and peoples of colour as 'other,' as 'savages and barbaric' (Adams, 1988). This cognitive imperialism35 or cultural racism (Battiste, 2000) has had serious implications for all students, but, in particular, for racialized students. These students are demoralized and stripped of their spirit to participate because "they often find the school culture alien, hostile and self-defeating" (Banks, 2002, p. 2). They are often assigned to transitional classes, failed, and then accused of lacking motivation, attention and academic ability (Battiste, 2000). Many children also learn that what occurs in school is irrelevant to their lives (Nieto, 2000). This social stratification, supported by classism, sexism, and racism, still operates as a major barrier to educational access for marginalized groups (James & Manette, 2000; Nieto, 2000). Yet, education is a precondition to most forms of employment, and, therefore, income (Monture-Angus, 1995). Today, even though many racialized people have acquired the skills, language and culture of the dominant mainstream, society still denies them structural inclusion and full participation. As DePass and Qureshi (2002) state, racialized people leam to believe in the promises of full citizenship and membership within Canadian society, but this is in dissonance with the daily realities of their lives. Systemic barriers function to prevent the respect for, and upward mobility of racialized people in society (Dei et a l , 2004). As Razack (1999) and Bannerji (1995) point out, the lower echelons of the labour market are highly racialized and gendered in Canada. Systemic exclusion is embedded, supported and reinforced by our educational, political and social institutions (Aylward, 1999; Banks, 2002; Dei, 1996; Nieto, 2000; Razack, 1999b). Institutionalized discrimination manifests itself in significant gaps in incomes (Reitz, 1998), lack of access to education and employment, physical violence and incarceration. Imperialist discourses of superiority also crystallize the thoughts, actions and behaviours of citizens, leading to discriminatory or prejudicial assumptions and behaviors in every-day practices (Ng, 1993). The continued denial of access to employment and the erection of job ceiling barriers within institutions and organizations serve as obstacles to political, social and economic equity for racialized peoples, 3 5 Cognitive imperialism is a form of cognitive manipulation that disclaims 'othered' knowledge bases and values (Battiste, 2000), thereby denying certain people their languages and cultures by maintaining legitimacy of only two languages, cultures and world views. 44 and provide evidence that systemic racism is deeply entrenched (DePass & Qureshi, 1995; Senator Oliver, 2004). DePass and Qureshi (2002) frame the experience of racialized people precisely. They state: Within a narrow exclusionary perspective, citizenship becomes a prize to be guarded. Accordingly, the doors and gates to Club Canada, as well as the fences and boundary lines around Club Canada, present visible and invisible barricades that appear quite formidable to most people of colour. Once one is within Club Canada, an exclusive perspective means that full rights of citizenship, and the opportunities to partake of the social and economic goodies on the table in the dining room are jealously guarded. Either intentionally or unintentionally, some of us may be classified, ranked, and then granted somewhat more prescribed and limited rights and privileges in Club Canada. Some people of colour may be admitted into the house but relegated to eat in the kitchen. We are not allowed to sit at the table and eat in the dining room with relatives and guests. We suspect that some of us may be allowed into the dining room but primarily in the limited capacities of caterers, servers, maids, nurses, and cleaners, (p. 183) Citizenship, therefore, continues to racialize unequal membership within Canada as a 'white' nation by excluding Aboriginal peoples and peoples of colour (including immigrants) from full citizenship. DePass and Qureshi (1995; 2002) add that full citizenship and acceptance are granted relatively more graciously by the nation-state to immigrants and their descendants from European countries, and more reluctantly to immigrants and descendants of peoples from countries of the southern hemisphere, who are predominantly racialized. In other words, citizenship does not necessarily bring social, political and economic equity for people of colour even though it may grant residency in Canada. As Bannerji (2000) claims, the state ascribes agency to those who are seen as legitimate and full citizens and constructs 'others' as peripheral. "There is in this process an element of racialized ethnicization, which whitens North Americans of European origins and blackens or darkens their 'others' by the same stroke" (p. 6). Dei et al. (2004) agree by stating there is an implicit assumption that 'whiteness' continues to underlie who is really Canadian. It is because of a response to these systemic disadvantages that special legal or constitutional measures, above and beyond the common rights of citizenship, extend to certain groups through group-specific rights (Kymlicka, 1996, p. 27). These include: 1) The right to self-government and self-determination for Aboriginal peoples in controlling health, education, law and resource development. May (1998) adds that by virtue of this right, Aboriginal peoples are free to determine their political status and direct their economic, social, cultural and educational development. 2) Polyethnic rights through the development of anti-racist policies as part of Canada's multicultural policy, including public funding for ethnic associations, 45 magazines, festivals, and for the provision of immigrant language education in schools. 3) Special representation rights particularly in legislatures, which are dominated by middle-class, able-bodied, white men, to be more inclusive of racialized peoples, women, the poor, the disabled, and people with different sexual preferences. Kymlicka (1996) goes on to state that group-specific rights (or differentiated citizenship36) have always been a legitimate component of the liberal tradition. These are meant to challenge the assimilation process by reforming public institutions to become more accommodating and less discriminatory. However, as group-specific rights have escalated, the state's support for public reform has diminished - which Kymlicka (1996) calls benign-neglect. Education for Citizenship Today Education for citizenship today favors an agenda that supports the promotion of social responsibility by preparing students for responsible citizenship, including global citizenship. Reports that support this resurgence in citizenship education (South Hall Exchange, 2001; Looking into the future, 2004; Wall, Denis, Mol l , Marita, Froese-Germain & Bernie, 2000, cited in Joshee, 2002, p. 22) ask that policy makers, researchers and educators explore the meaning of active citizenship in Canada as a country that is ethnically, linguistically and geographically diverse, and open to the influences of the world. The majority of Canadians also agree that the role of public education is to provide a well-balanced education in preparing students for citizenship (Wall et al., 2000, cited in Joshee, 2002, p. 22). The Citizen's Forum, commissioned in Canada, list seven values of citizenship (cited in Kymlicka, 1996, p. 187): 1) a belief in equality and fairness 2) a belief in consultation and dialogue 3) the importance of accommodation and tolerance 4) support for diversity 5) compassion and generosity 6) attachment to the natural environment 7) commitment to freedom, peace, and non-violence 3 6 Differentiated citizenship is viewed as the adoption of group-specific, self-government and polyethnic rights (Kymlicka, 1996). 46 Several other policy documents, national and international, speak similarly (e.g. Education for Citizenship, 2005; An executive summary of the citizenship education policy study, 1997; Wall et al., 2000, cited in Joshee, 2002, p. 26). The National Council for Social Studies (cited in National Service Resource Center, 2004) suggests a few additional characteristics of citizenship, such as: 1) accepting responsibility for the well-being of oneself, one's family and the community 2) acquiring knowledge of the people, history and traditions that have shaped their local communities, the nation and the world 3) seeking information from varied sources and perspectives to develop informed opinions and creative solutions 4) asking meaningful questions and analyzing/evaluating information and ideas, and using effective decision-making and problem-solving skills in public and private life 5) actively participating in civic and community life Yet, none of these documents give an in-depth analysis as to how students are to go about developing these competencies. McGregor (2002), however, categorizes these elements of citizenship education into three main areas: the civil, political and social. The civil refers to community involvement, learning about and caring for the disadvantaged through service. The political refers to using these learnings in making informed decisions and taking action through political participation locally, nationally and/or internationally. The social refers to developing socially and morally responsible behaviours at work, play and home that reflect the values of citizenship. When educators ask college students to identify citizenship skills they have learned through education, students generally speak of voting, obeying the law and paying taxes (Andrzejweski & Alessio, 1999). So while the development of citizenship and civic responsibility are highlighted within educational policies, it seems that many students, and educators for that matter, seldom describe the development of citizenship as part of their learning (Smith, 1994), and students are failing to make the connection between citizenship, politics and human rights (Westeimer & Kahne, 2000). The 1990s ushered in an era of neo-liberalism (Joshee, 2002) with a mandate to cut spending and eliminate government deficits, and with multicultural and social programs first to be cut while group-specific demands for rights escalated. The renewal and interest in citizenship education in Canada at present is due to an interest in social cohesion and not in restoring funding or reinstating dismantled equity programs (Bernard, 1999). Jenson (1998) suggests that this focus 47 on social cohesion is a response to the consequences of neo-liberal policies and programs aimed at increasing social solidarity and restoring faith in the institutions of the Canadian government. Since liberal justice requires a sense of common purpose and mutual solidarity, social cohesion is seen as a process of developing a community of compassion, shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada (Bernard, 1999). Tanaka (2003) suggests that this new attention on the need for social cohesion seeks to promote social order by returning to a Eurocentric focus of education at the expense of national and polyethnic minorities. It is noteworthy that group-differentiated rights have often been feared and seen as undermining this sense of shared civic identity. DePass and Qureshi (1995) claim that gatekeepers and representatives of the Euro/Anglo social strata tend to view people of colour as not being able to fit in, and i f they do, they are seen as a threat to the nation's identity and its social and economic stability. Henry, Tator, Mattis and Rees (1995) suggest that the gatekeepers, in defending these views, construct a history of nationalism which ignores or erases the impact of colonization and conquest, and produces a history that suggests Canada has evolved as a tolerant society, which in fact is under threat by 'aliens - the racialized minorities.' The way to develop a shared civic identity is to have a common (or undifferentiated) citizenship (Kymlicka, 1996). Hebert and Wilkinson (2002) suggest that the state's desire for social cohesion is a challenge in a pluralistic society. They further argue that citizenship should recognize and include the contributions of diverse individuals and groups in developing a democratic state. Calls for social cohesion through common citizenship that prescribes compassion and return to basic values, in a multination-state such as Canada, would in fact support the culture of the 'white' majority. This 'assimilated' notion of citizenship would contribute to exclusive perspectives of citizenship (DePass & Qureshi, 1995) and maintain democratic racism (Henry et al., 1995). Common citizenship as depoliticized, with a lack of attention to social justice, is one of the major challenges presented in this new lens to social solidarity (Joshee, 2002). It is no coincidence that this renewed interest in citizenship education has coincided with cuts to social programs - not so benign a neglect. This new direction of citizenship education is aimed at the mobilization of individual citizens (Yuval-Davis, 1977) to take on the responsibility for the state in addressing the 'needs' of the disadvantaged. Bernard (1999) agrees that in eliminating or reducing the state's role in addressing systemic inequities, the responsibility for social programs and the welfare of communities falls onto the members of that society, specifically on citizens. Citizenship then stops being part of a political discourse focused on addressing the structural barriers to full participation and, instead, becomes voluntary involvement fueled by appeals to community for assistance. Inequality thus takes on a charity framework rather than a social justice 48 one and becomes the responsibility of individuals and volunteer groups. "With social problems defined as requiring charitable attention, citizens must develop shared values, mutual trust, and the willingness to care for those less fortunate. The development of these characteristics, then, would become the focus of citizenship education" (Joshee, 2002, p. 23). Monture-Angus (1995) describes this as the missionary philosophy to education, one that has led to devastating consequences for Aboriginal people and people of colour. The push for group-specific rights by Aboriginal peoples and peoples of colour, and the corresponding dismantling of group-specific and equity programs, along with the nation-state's call to individual citizens and volunteer groups to care for those disadvantaged, might thus operate as a new form of colonialism. The State, through 'benign neglect,' willfully neglects its responsibility of social citizenship for disadvantaged or marginalized citizens, in particular racialized and poor peoples, by replacing social programs and transferring this responsibility onto its advantaged and elite citizens as personally responsible citizens. Many people within marginalized groups already take on the responsibility of caring for their disadvantaged members. This notion of the personally responsible citizen is aligned with the politics of the right, which directs the character education movement. This movement promotes community service and emphasizes an individualist notion of citizenship - someone that votes, has a good job, pays taxes, obeys the law, and provides service or gives to charity. Merging altruism with citizenship, good citizens perform community service as charity (Kahne et al., 2000; Kahne & Westheimer, 2001). This approach represents the 'colonial' concept of the good citizen (Schudson, cited in Westheimer & Kahne, 2002). According to Varlotta (1997) this is part of the liberal rhetoric of citizenship and democracy which still operates by supporting and reinforcing sexism, racism and classism. This orientation to citizenship in promoting the personally responsible framework, disadvantages national and polyethnic minorities who no longer have the structural mechanisms to address their historical and continued oppression. These changes are creating a new national culture, and as Razack (2000) reminds us, the power to block these emerging counter-narratives is very important to the maintenance of imperialism. Many have expressed grave concerns regarding this depoliticized view of education for citizenship. First, a society that depends on volunteers to address the needs of the disadvantaged does not view social welfare rights as a basic citizenship right of its members (Joshee, 2002). Second, as Funiciello (1993) states, establishing 'institutionalized begging sites' by handing such privilege to volunteers and their organizations, is never a solution - people lack the normal means of access, in particular, income. Charitable organizations then spend time and effort on obtaining money from the nation-state to run these places, which shifts focus away from 'helping the poor' 49 and towards sustaining the institution. So the organizations' very survival depends upon the existence of poor people. The poor and disadvantaged, therefore, get to support the employment of the privileged. Third, as stated previously, the 'benign neglect' of a state's responsibilities in asking individual citizens to care for the less fortunate could very well be a morphing into the colonial agenda. Funiciello (1993) claims that the underbelly of this ideology of 'caring for those less fortunate' is racist, sexist and classist, as the disadvantaged are usually women, Aboriginal people, people of colour and immigrants who are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poor. People who volunteer through charitable organizations, on the other hand, are usually the elite or 'pillars of society' (Sears, 1996), who, by reason of birth or wealth, see themselves especially 'fit' for the business of rule. As Razack (1999) has pointed out, the elite or white citizenry see themselves as the country's original and true citizens and, therefore, legitimize themselves for the business of developing the nation-state. Such a parallel may also be drawn with regard to the development of service-learning in higher education. The charity paradigm of service-learning involves the participation of active, personally responsible students as citizens, who are economically successful (middle-class) in a capitalistic society, led by educators who are usually white and male, fulfilling her/his citizenship duties (Yval-Davis, 1997). The 'white' national psyche of the nation-state, and therefore education, depends on a view of racialized bodies as degenerate and uncultured (Razack, 1999a). In addition, the 'elite' is usually loyal to the state, intolerant of political extremism and 'those' seen as deviating from social norms, such as criminals. In this worldview, welfare recipients and poor people, who are primarily gendered and racialized, are considered inferior, dirty and uncivilized; the more 'advanced' and 'civilized' people can thus reconfirm their own superiority through helping those less advanced. Racism, sexism and classism rely on such assumptions. Razack (1999b) also points out that this narrative, the white people as savior, is centuries old. The ideological constructions of racialized people as 'other' continues to support and reinforce imperialism, capitalism and patriarchy. The framing of citizenship education as a reliance on an altruistic form of 'giving something back' to communities or to 'those less fortunate' sets up an ideology, which maintains hegemonic relations. These particular points of view within education, along with the political agenda for social cohesion, seems to serve these very ideologies in maintaining and reproducing a gendered and racialized stratification. So what would a critical race feminist approach to education for citizenship entail? 50 A Critical Race Feminist Approach to Education for Citizenship In Canada, national minorities, particularly Aboriginal peoples, have resisted attempts to impose common citizenship on them. The demand by polyethnic minorities for representation and equal opportunity has been based on the need to address systemic discrimination and achieve inclusion. "The common rights of citizenship, originally defined by and for white, able-bodied, Christian men, cannot accommodate the special needs of these groups. Instead, a fully integrative citizenship must take these differences into account" (Kymlicka, 1996, p. 181). Imposing common citizenship onto minorities is likely to increase conflict. "If anything, attempts to subordinate these separate identities to a common identity have backfired, since they are perceived by minorities as threats to their very existence, and have therefore resulted in even greater indifference or resentment (Whitaker 1992, as cited in Kymlicka, 1996, p. 185). This new lens on citizenship education which would promote a sense of solidarity and shared values for the common good will likely continue to promote racial and national injustice. From a critical race feminist perspective, promoting a sense of solidarity and common purpose in a multination-state will involve politicizing citizenship through inclusion rather than subordination and exclusion of national and polyethnic identities. It is clear that the charity framework and depoliticization of citizenship, combined with cognitive imperialism in education, in preparing students for responsible citizenship along humanitarian and charitable lines is critically tied to colonial relations in maintaining the social status quo and the subordination of racialized peoples. If people are all equally human, with some simply not as intelligent, hardworking or advanced as others, then no one need take responsibility for inequality. The 'civilized' can confirm their superiority through helping those disadvantaged (Razack, 1999b). Adams (1988) reminds us that the colonization and assimilation of Indigenous peoples was commissioned as a humanitarian effort to solve the 'Indian problem.' In other words, the colonizers, in determining what the disadvantaged 'needed,' perpetuated genocide. As O'Grady (2000) suggests, without the theoretical underpinnings provided by an anti-racist and anti-colonial analysis, citizenship education can perpetuate racist, sexist and classist assumptions about the 'other'and "reinforce a colonialist mentality of superiority" (p. 12). Aboriginal people in particular have highlighted the limits of democracy and the colonial underpinnings of nation-state formation (May, 1998). Education has long been a means of oppression for Aboriginal people and people of colour through nation-state formation (Monture-Angus, 1995). A critical race feminist conception of education for citizenship would argue that schools are a mechanism of cultural, social, political and economic distributions acting to reproduce unequal social relationships and support an elitist, Eurocentric, male-dominated, political, social and economic structures (Aylward, 1999; Banks, 2002; Dei, 1996; Kymlicka, 1996; Nieto, 2000; 51 Razack, 1999b). By politicizing education for citizenship, justice oriented citizens need to critically assess and challenge these systems and structures that maintain the status-quo. Nation-states must re-imagine themselves along more plural and inclusive lines. In this approach, education for citizenship requires that individuals collectively work to evaluate, critique, challenge, change and create public institutions in order to promote social justice (Westheimer & Kahne, 2000). Wade (2001) suggests that a socially just society is one where all members have their basic needs met. In addition, all individuals would be physically and psychologically safe and secure, and able to develop their full potential so that they could all interact democratically with others. From a critical race perspective, education for citizenship provides a vision of education in transforming society. Such a perspective would challenge the continued universality of imperialist values and colonial relations embedded within our public institutions, which continue to maintain and secure a racial hierarchy of inequity (Razack, 2000). With this ideology and understanding, a critical race feminist approach to service-learning can be developed. Critical Race Feminist Approach to Service-Learning Rosenberger (2000) asks, "To what extent does service learning contribute to the creation of a more just and equitable society?" (p. 24). It would seem that the charity or status-quo paradigm of service-learning, in supporting and maintaining colonial relations of power, would likely sustain hegemonic systems and practices, and perpetuate economic injustices based on race, class and gender. As O'Grady (2000) suggests, it is imperative that an analysis of structural politics in education be rigorous in order for policy developers, educators and students to strive for social change. Without these underpinnings, service-learning programs may foster an attitude of paternalism on the part of the institution as 'server' and one of dependence on the part of those 'being served.' These programs may also enhance student's feelings of self-worth and 'feeling good' for contributing to society, but contribute little to understandings of systemic inequities and social injustice. "Responding to individual human needs is important, but i f the social policies that create these needs is not also understood and addressed, then the cycle of dependence remains" (O'Grady, 2000, p. 13). A critical race feminist approach to service-learning and education for citizenship can potentially serve as a vehicle for systemic change within education and society at large. This conceptualization is more likely to encourage students to actively engage in the political process of social transformation. Educational conversations within this context would critically explore 52 citizenship within a democratic but unequal society in order to transform such social structures. From a critical race feminist perspective, as Rosenberger (2000) suggests, education for citizenship would entail recognizing the difference between beliefs and actions that dominate and oppress people, and actions that liberate and transform society. This calls for a problematization of the existing reality of social injustice, where this reality, rather than oppressed people, becomes the object of analysis, and where people are all called upon to support transformation of this reality. Service-learning from this perspective requires that education teach about the systemic nature of social inequality, including its sources, histories and manifestations in order to redress injustices (Densmore, 2000). Claus and Ogden (2001) summarize this by saying that a critical perspective to service-learning is closely linked to changing the world, rather than adapting to it. Service-learning, from a critical race feminist perspective, would provide a compelling approach for social transformation. As part of a larger political change strategy, this would involve a process of politicization that would put entire communities, both individual and institutional, on the path to becoming active agents of social change, and would be an investment in our future. Institutionalizing Service-Learning As a reflection of Canadian society and all its institutions, education generally continues to remain a vehicle of oppression in reinforcing systemic discrimination (Aylward, 1999; Banks, 2002; Dei, 1996; Dei et al., 2004; Monture-Angus, 1995, Razack, 1999b). In addition, the mistrust between institutions and locally-based communities stem from histories of exploitation (Campus Compact, 2000). Institutional 'research' is also inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism. Research institutions have been a site of struggle between the interests and ways of dominant knowledges and the interests and ways of resisting of the 'Other' (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Enos and Morton (2003) also suggest that institutional partnerships with disenfranchised communities are based on views that perceive communities as the domain of problems, and institutions as the domain of solutions. A l l of these conditions exasperate mistrust between communities and educational institutions. How then does U B C and other institutions of higher education build partnerships with disadvantaged communities based on these histories, social hierarchies and sites of differential knowledges? Before any planning can occur, institutional leadership must set the stage and change the agenda through the institutional vision and mission (Cox, 2001; Maurrasse, 2001). Once accomplished, institutions of higher education can set the processes in place to fulfill this mission through organizational goals and strategies. Much of the literature on institutionalizing service-learning suggests that the primary agenda should be one of creating mutually beneficial and .53 respectful partnerships. According to the Comphrensive Action Plan for Service Learning model (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996) this would require listening to the communities with which an institution wishes to partner. From a CRFT perspective, this would involve including and legitimizing the experiences and histories of people of colour in the development of such partnerships. The creation of these authentic partnerships would likely require institutional transformation in working across social hierarchies, and the inclusion of 'othered' sites of knowledges. According to Jacoby (2003), given the elitist, conflict-driven and competitive culture at colleges and universities, authentic partnerships with communities will likely not occur unless institutional leadership addresses these historical power differentials. Why are institutions of higher education embracing an engagement agenda? Defined by Holland (2001), "The engaged institution is committed to direct interaction with external constituencies and communities through the mutually-beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, expertise, resources and information" (p. 24). Holland and Ramaley (2001) suggest several reasons for engagement through partnerships - to strengthen the democratic way of life; to encourage students to become involved in the public life of their communities and become responsible citizens; to practice and model good civic responsibility; to commit to engagement as a tool for campus transformation; to address economic and community development challenges to societal problems; to revive the communities surrounding post secondary institutions; and to increase the regional relevance of the institution. Embracing an engagement agenda would also require an institution to initiate transformation from within by improving the fit between the components of the organization and communities to be partnered with, and by fundamentally re-defining its identity, values and mission. Mohanty (1997) suggests that any collaboration across social hierarchies must involve a critique of hegemony. A social justice or CRFT approach to institutionalizing service-learning, therefore, must entail a critique and transformation of hegemonic structures and practices so that authentic partnerships with disenfranchised communities can be developed. These are the types of partnerships that would enable colleges and universities to meet their goals for student learning and development while also creating outstanding partnerships to address and solve local, national and global concerns. If goals of service-learning include reviving communities through citizenship education, transforming society to eliminate oppression, and enhancing the well-being of marginalized peoples, we must develop ways of challenging and transforming hegemony. Monture-Angus (1995) suggests that structural and systemic change is the only way in which meaningful and substantive long-term change can be secured. Social change agents must also understand how oppressive 54 relationships operate and sustain themselves through continued constructions of the 'other.' This understanding can only be obtained from those who experience the oppression, by listening to the oppressed (Freire, 1970, 1993). With that understanding begins the work of re-organizing institutions for the transformation necessary to begin collaborative work with racialized communities. Institutional Transformation The Comphrensive Action Plan for Service Learning (CAPSL) (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996) proposes that a small group of key individuals (adrninistrators, faculty, students, staff and community members) with interest and motivation in the development of service-learning be included in the initial planning stage for institutional self-assessment on: (a) where the institution is and where it is going; (b) the institutional, student, and faculty culture, climate and values; and (c) the resources and obstacles for developing service-learning. This study has begun to address this form of assessment from a critical race feminist perspective. Bringle and Hatcher (1996) suggest that faculty champions must be found, that is, those already involved in service-learning programs, to share their experiences and strategies for program development. A strategic plan for implementing service-learning can then be developed, along with institutional commitments such as budget, office space and the hiring of personnel, with the identification of a person to assume leadership and administrative responsibility for initiating and establishing programs. The integration of service-learning into the general education of the institution is the goal. In addition, an office for service-learning should involve itself in program evaluation and institutional outcomes, and publish results in professional journals. Administratively then, "evidence that service-learning is institutionalized would include having service and service-learning as explicit parts of the institution's mission, long-range plans, institutional assessment, and hard-line budget allocations" (p. 227). In short, institutions must develop the infrastructure including a centralized space, policies, procedures, staff and budget, that would build the capacity to initiate, respond to and evaluate, in collaboration with the respective communities, service-learning programs and partnerships. Bringle and Hatcher (1996) also suggest promoting a common understanding of what constitutes service-learning through brochures, news releases, faculty workshops and presentations. Highlighting a prototype course at the institution to model a service-learning course and its curriculum can support these educational activities. Instructors, students and community members involved with this course 55 can serve as advocates of service-learning to speak about the programs and identify how course components, such as reflection and evaluation, can be structured. There are a number of challenges, however, for institutional transformation. There often are substantial differences in the cultures and even operating procedures of institutions and communities, differences such as race, class and educational backgrounds (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Institutions may have to rethink some fundamental issues, such as how and what knowledge is created, what role faculty might have, how curriculum should be designed to foster civic responsibility, and how to be more effectively involved with communities for the purposes of social change (Ramaley, 2001; Alter & Book, 2001). Engagement, however, must take into consideration the histories of exclusion that inform contemporary social relations and hierarchies, as such norms are embedded within the culture of the institutions themselves. However, Campbell (2003) argues that most institutions of higher education in Canada lack a concrete commitment to diversity and inclusion. In addition, Cox (2001) states that institutional transformation with regards to integrating social diversity is often strongly resisted because it may be perceived as a threat to the hegemonic social structure, creating barriers to institutional transformation. Marullo and Edwards (2000), Bishops (1994) and Dei (1996) agree that institutional elites who benefit from the status quo have a self-interest in opposing such transformational initiatives, and have the resources to back them. This in itself would make such a task extremely difficult. The literature on institutionalizing service-learning does not speak to such issues. Cultural diversity training might be necessary in order to shift institutional norms. However, even though there has been a great deal of work done on this type of training in organizations, returns on its effectiveness are not encouraging and such training has failed to produce any lasting impact. Cox (2001) suggests that institutional cultures are often toxic because the histories and contemporary realities of oppression shape power relations, making the reality of diversity unsustainable. Razack (1999b) adds that the inadequacy of the 'cultural diversity' or 'cultural differences approach' to training is not so much that they are wrong, for culturally specific practices must be taken into account, but that the emphasis on cultural diversity too often descends to a superficial reading of differences that makes power relations invisible and keeps dominant cultural norms in place. Additionally, and more importantly, the idea that cultural diversity is to be acquired and practiced by dominant groups through training and education also replaces any concrete attempts to diversify institutions through the employment of disadvantaged individuals. Theories about cultural diversity are also developed and facilitated mostly by white theorists and practitioners. A l l of these factors, in addition to resistance, make institutional transformation a challenge. The long-term preparedness of higher education to develop lasting partnerships with 56 disenfranchised communities is dependent upon its ability to change internally (Maurrasse, 2001). This would require transformation along many fronts, and again, much of this is not covered in the literature. Faculty Since service-learning is course-driven, the involvement of faculty is crucial; A n office for service-learning would involve itself in getting faculty interested and providing support to initiate programs and make curriculum changes involving experiential learning activities (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Marullo and Edwards (2000) and Tierney (1999) suggest that the key to institutional transformation is to call on those interested and already involved with service-learning to speak about the benefits. More importantly, faculty for service-learning from a social justice approach must rigorously be sought out, i f long-term sustainable commitment to social change is ever to be realized. For service-learning to be institutionalized, institutional barriers that faculty face must be addressed. Such barriers include the additional workloads created by developing service-learning courses, and the lack of tangible supports and compensation (Battiste, 2002). Institutions of higher education are not often designed to support community-based involvement and, as such, do not reward 'service' (Maurrasse, 2001). In addition, research dominates faculty climate as the primary measure of performance (Holland, 2001). Therefore, in order to institutionalize service-learning, not only should service be part of the institution mission, faculty also need these service components legitimized as central academic and scholarly enterprises. The literature does speak to some strategies for enticing faculty involvement. Supports for faculty might include providing teaching assistants, creating advisory groups, and granting special privileges such as release time and conference opportunities. Outreach or community-based research and service might be referenced in faculty promotion and tenure guidelines to demonstrate support. Commitment to engagement can also be demonstrated by supporting interdisciplinary research-based work with communities (Holland, 2001). Students Service programs have been shown to build a greater sense of community on campus (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Students usually involve themselves in voluntary services and organizations across campuses, and students may also be actively involved with their communities 57 independent of their campuses. Students may also be involved in service-learning programs developed by faculty, which may be institutionalized for instance, by meeting degree requirements. Academic credit related to service activities increases its attractiveness to students, particularly for commuter students. The nature of the student climate, culture and attitudes with regards to service activities are also important to know for the development of service-learning. It is also valuable to have students involved in planning, by participaing as members of an advisory committee, planning course activities, and assisting in the development of campus wide support (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). As students become more familiar with these programs, they can assume leadership roles as student assistants for courses, become site coordinators, and participate in program evaluations. Recognition of student involvement is also important, and might include internal or external publicity, scholarships that reward service, and co-curricular transcripts that summarize service or service-learning experiences that are typically not recorded on university transcripts (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Institutional - Community Partnerships Jones (2003) suggests that mutually beneficial institutional partnerships with communities through service-learning must enable smdent-learning objectives to be realized while advancing community agency goals and activities. Most of the literature on institutional partnerships with communities for the purposes of establishing service-learning programs is written from institutional points of view. Some of these include Campus Compact (2000), Holland (2001), Jacoby (2003) and Ramaley (2001), which speak of three critical components to building mutually beneficial partnerships: designing the partnerships; building collaborative relationships; and sustaining partnerships over time. Designing Partnerships According to Bringle and Hatcher (1996) "universities must provide strong leadership, articulate clear goals, and maintain supportive institutional policies to develop these partnerships" (p. 234). These authors outline three characteristics for effective institutional-community partnerships: (a) mutually beneficial interaction between the institution and community, (b) interactions guided by institutional choice and strategy, and (c) interactions designed to be of value and importance to both partners. 58 How are communities defined? Campus Compact (2000) suggests that communities are 'geographic' as well as 'of interest,' in that groups of people may unite because of a common location or connect with each other intellectually, professionally, or politically. The definition of community used in this research is from Campus Compact (2000) where "community refers primarily to me immediate neighbors of the college or university - schools, religious institutions, small businesses, big businesses, and community-based organizations. Partnerships are the result of collaborative efforts between these organizations and the university or college cornmunity" (p. 3). Eyler and Giles (1999), Battistoni (2002) and Marullo and Edwards (2000) all emphasize the importance of developing mutually beneficial institutional partnerships with communities. Communities are, therefore, seen as vital in guiding such service activities (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). It is crucial that service-learning partnerships be developed and formulated with the community. The charity-based paradigm of service-learning that emphasizes 'service to' or 'service for' community is usually viewed by communities as disempowering and paternalistic. This, in addition to the 'lab' approach where communities are treated as subjects of study, as well as the histories of exploitative institutional research projects conducted on communities, has resulted in mistreatment of communities and, consequently, mistrust on the part of communities (Maurrasse, 2001; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Service with communities, in which the community representatives and faculty co-develop what the students will do in the community, is, therefore, a principle of good practice (Howard, 2001), where communities and their residents are respected for their knowledges, experiences and wisdom. This requires the campus acting as a good 'institutional citizen,' where the institution approaches the community, or vice versa, as a partner in education rather than just a placement site where clients are to be served. "Partnership underscores mutual interdependence and helps create an understanding of community- not as those with problems but as the group to which we all belong" (Battistoni, 2002, p. 54). For these reasons, social justice paradigms of service-learning, where partnerships are designed around 'doing with,' are empowering to both communities and institutions. University and community partnerships must be based on mutual collaboration. However, universities must also understand that community organizations are already burdened with heavy workloads and demands on their time. Developing partnerships with communities would have to take this into account. In addition, providing orientation to the communities and the specific organizations with which students will be placed, as well as co-developing desired learning outcomes and inviting community-based organizations to play a teaching and evaluation role, must all be negotiated together. Logistical issues such as transportation for students, scheduling placements and liability risks also have to be addressed (Battistoni, 2002). Truly mutual collaborative relationships might involve joint strategic planning, curriculum development and co-teaching mechanisms. Building Collaborative Partnerships Campus Compact (2000) has identified benchmarks for the three critical components in building partnerships. These partnerships "strive to meet the needs of a community, as defined by the community, that are of high quality and sustained involvement, that involve presidents, students, faculty, staff and community members. In such partnerships and individuals can leam and practice civic skills" (p. 2). In addition, all involved in the partnership should expect to be changed by the experience of engagement.37 Service-learning relationships are, therefore, formed through collaborative and authentic conversations between members of institutions and communities that create a common vision in addressing community issues, and that strengthen both environments when resources and skills are pooled for each other's benefit. Partnerships require time to build and maintain, requiring personal and emotional investment. Building relationships are initially more process-oriented than task-oriented, thus requiring time and running the risk of being viewed as unproductive or touchy-feely (Langseth, 2000). This in itself may prevent relationships from forming. However, taking the time necessary, strong relationships can be built, underpinned by "trust and mutual respect; equal voice; shared responsibilities; risks and rewards; forums to support frequent and open communication; clear lines of accountability; shared vision; and mutual interest" (Campus Compact, 2000, p. 6). In this paradigm, institutional and community partnerships are co-creators, co-owners and co-evaluators of their joint efforts (Langseth, 2000) in which service-learning programs are developed around 'doing with' communities. Marullo and Edwards (2000) suggest that in order to build collaborative relationships based on trust and equality, institutions would be required to relinquish some control to their community partners, and to ensure that the concerns of the communities are given highest priority. Langseth (2000), however, suggests that when institutions embark on building relationships with communities for the purposes of service-learning, their lack of attention to power differentials and to the institutionalized Eurocentric values often creates harm and distrust. Jones (2003) adds that i f 3 7 Engagement, as defined by the literature, is reciprocal, requiring the creation of a shared agenda, and must be beneficial to all partners (Campus Compact, 2000; Alter & Books, 2001; Ramaley, 2001). 60 these power relationships are not acknowledged, these partnerships will likely replicate social inequities. Institutions, therefore, need to invest energy in exploring the histories, social relations and conditions that structure groups unequally. There is, again, very little in the literature that speaks to partnerships from this perspective. Most, i f not all, educational institutions are organized according to a competitive model rather than a cooperative one. Campus Compact (2000) suggests that for "partnerships to succeed, an organizational model that places independent thought as its locus may need to be replaced with one that highlights relationships" (p. 13). There are some advantages for communities in partnering with institutions: institutions usually have available a wealth of economic and physical resources such as purchasing power, employment opportunities, lecture and conference spaces, and athletic facilities. Institutions can offer communities access to these institutional resources. Universities also have links to other public institutions such as government and hospitals, thereby augmenting possibilities of collaboration. Communities also possess a wealth of resources. They possess leadership and contacts with other communities who can lend credibility to the work of an institution in building collaborations for service-learning. Community groups may also be experts in regional issues, often knowing how to navigate racial, gender and class differences within communities, and often have staff that speak in many different languages (Campus Compact, 2000). Sustaining Partnerships One of the challenges with institutional-community partnerships is the academic arrangement of three or four semesters in an academic year, and the high turnover of students which may not be conducive to the more continuous kind of relations and level of service communities require. In addition, having community staff members engage in research or in co-teaching elements of service-learning programs might be seen as a diversion from the very high demands of their jobs (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Other issues, such as the lack of rewards, recognition and incentives for communities in such collaborations require addressing. A l l of these factors have to be discussed during the planning stages, and continuously addressed, if partnerships are to be sustained. Partnerships also require evaluation on the following: the impact on the participating groups, particularly the community, the products of a partnership, and the processes by which work is accomplished. Evaluation works best when integrated into daily operations and when it becomes a tool to improve the partnerships, guide future work and modify existing practices (Campus Compact, 2000). Institutional staff should develop effective means for gathering regular feedback from students in order to meet academic objectives. Regular community feedback about the nature 61 of these partnerships should also be sought (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Assessing the impact that teaching and service-learning programs have on students, particularly the student as citizen, is also essential (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Marullo and Edwards (2000) suggest that all educational institutions that support community service should have advisory boards. These advisory groups should be comprised of students, staff, faculty and members from community groups. They could monitor these partnerships and guard against inappropriate dependency, power differences in decision-making, and exploitation (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Last, affirmation or celebration of partnerships including public presentations of the partnerships, publication of articles and celebrations of successes and outcomes of service-learning programs are also viewed as important in sustaining these partnerships (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Community-Campus Partnerships for Health 3 8 (CCPH) (as quoted in Jacoby, 2003, p. 14) has developed partnership principles, which neatly summarize some of the major key elements in designing, building and sustaining partnerships between academic institutions and communities. These principles are: • Agreed upon mission, goals, and measurable outcomes. • Develop mutual trust, respect, genuineness and commitment. • Build on identified strengths and assets, and also areas that need improvement. • Balance power among partners where resources are shared. • Establish clear, open and accessible communication where the priority is to listen, develop a common language, and clarifying the meaning of terms. • Establish roles, norms and processes with input from all of the partners. • Ensure feedback to, among and from all stakeholders in the partnerships with the goal of improving the partnership and outcomes. • Share the credit for the partnership's accomplishments. • Take time to develop partnerships. Maurrasse (2001) states that the recent community-building movement involving educational institutional engagement with communities has emerged as a promising approach to societal transformation and economic equity. This approach involves communities and their residents, institutions and their staff and students working collectively to solve social problems and enrich lives. Kelly and Wolf-Wendel (2000) offer five additional recommendations for the 3 8 CCPH is a non-profit organization in the US whose mission is to foster partnerships between communities and educational institutions that serve to improve health professionals education, civic responsibilities, and the overall health of communities (Jacoby, 2003). 62 development of such partnerships from a community-centered approach: connecting through commonalties; blurring of boundaries between institutions and community organizations; considering the positionality, history and power relations of all involved in service-learning relationships; encouraging reciprocal assessment; rethinking service missions to include and reward service; and developing genuine community partnerships (p. 774-776). Institutionalizing service-learning from a critical race feminist perspective, must first be founded upon recognition of the historical relations of social inequities, and must attend to the power differentials between institutions and community organizations. Second, hegemonic structures and practices must be transformed in order to develop accountable, respectful and authentic partnerships; otherwise these power relationships are likely to replicate social inequities with racialized communities. Developing mutually beneficial and respectful service-learning partnerships necessitates institutional accountability in dismantling hierarchical divides, and an authentic commitment to community enhancement and sustainability, both within institutions, and with partnering communities. 63 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH APPROACH This chapter provides a discussion of the importance of social justice research to education. Social justice research is about disrupting hegemonic research methods in order to make oppressed subjects the centre of knowledge production. By doing so, inequities are made visible, addressed and remedied. Critical race theory is introduced as epistemology and methodology, and, also introduces critical race feminist theory as the conceptual framework for this study. This chapter then reviews the participant selection process, and outlines the methods for data collection and analysis. Chapter Four concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the study, and makes some recommendations for future research. Social Justice Research Approach Historically, the critique of qualitative research came from those who were quantitatively oriented, alleging that qualitative inquiry was not pure science and, thus, unable to verify truth statements (Anfara, Brown & Mangione, 2002). Mainstream quantitative research, as a dominant form of inquiry, was said to remain value-free, impartial and objective. Dei et al. (2004) suggests that claims to such neutrality secured authority and validity, claims which social-science theorists have objected to more recently (Harding, 1991). The latter theorists claim that mainstream research is known not to be bias-free or neutral, as it is centered upon Eurocentrism as the dominant form of inquiry. These dominant value-laden paradigms and knowledge systems become institutionalized within mainstream popular culture, political, social and educational systems while simultaneously claiming objectivity and neutrality. Such mainstream research is based on unconscious value-judgments, interpretations, and biases in describing what is observed, and these pervade the entire research endeavour (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000). For Harding (1991), objectivism, with its conception of value-free, impartial and dispassionate research, has primarily eliminated investigation into the interests and social values of the marginalized. Furthermore, marginalized people often do not get opportunities to conduct research, and if they do, their knowledges and findings are not taken seriously since they are often not considered competent. Marginalization of, and exclusion from the research agenda has included 64 many groups, including working-class individuals as researchers, women, people of colour, religious and sexual minorities (Collins, 1991b). In doing so, research paradigms have tended to support, reinforce and benefit from areas of investigation that privilege the experiences of mainstream individuals and communities (Banks, 1994). Aylward (1999) suggests that changing the world requires breaking away from the mental chains of dominant knowledge forms, claims to truth and universality by clearing the way for the creation of 'othered' knowledges. Griffiths (1998) suggests that there is a fence in social-science research that protects mainstream-knowledge production and claims to universality. She states that knowledge is inextricably connected to power structures in society - knowledge acquires its meaning from the political position of the 'knowers.' As social justice researchers, we must ask questions about knowledge forms that establish certain forms of research as the 'truth.' Whose values are these, and whom does it benefit? The neutrality of such mainstream social-science research has been challenged by postmodernism, by women's studies and ethnic studies movements of the 1960s and 1970s (Banks, 1994), and the challenges have occurred by decentering Eurocentric, male, heterosexist and elite knowledge paradigms (Harding, 1991). These social justice movements, marginal from the experiences and subject positions of the mainstream, take account of the experiences and subjectivity of 'others.' According to Pillow (2003), approaching theory and research as though they are gender-less or race-less perpetuates a reproduction of Eurocentric and male privilege, reinforcing its own assumed neutrality. Harding (1991) labels this form of research as 'weak objectivity' in producing truth claims viewed as objective, without a critical examination of the position of the 'knowers' and their relationship to the power structures in society. Griffiths (1998) suggests that social justice research should be openly and explicitly about naming values and the political position of the researchers. She goes on to argue that social justice research needs to 'take sides' in order to improve educational research. Three principles guide social justice research (Griffiths, p. 12): • There is no right or wrong answer in social justice research. It concerns processes, not outcomes. It is characterized by constant change, evolution and adjustment, and lays no claim to objectivity or neutrality. • Each individual is a valuable and recognized as part of the community as a whole. The good of the individual has implications for the good of the community. Educational research for social justice is about personal and political good, about improvement, about human betterment. 65 • As people create themselves in community, they also create themselves against sections of those communities as persons with gender, race, social class, sexuality and disabilities. This draws attention to the importance of structural injustice. Educational research for social justice depends on an examination of these structures and a search for the re-distribution of goods. Critical Race Theory as Epistemology The demand of proof of the breadth and depth of social oppression usually originates in spaces of resistance, which contest dominant knowledge paradigms. Critical race theory (CRT) is one such epistemology39 of social justice research in which 'othered' knowledge forms are produced and legitimized. Carter (2003) calls it an 'epistemology of specificity.' This is a body of knowledge and perspectives that re-thinks the oppressed subjectivity of racialized peoples in North American contexts (Dei et al., 2004). The methodology is also the rationale for the way in which a researcher retrieves such knowledge. For Pillow (2003) race-based methodologies like CRT offer an epistemological shift - a change in how we come to believe such knowledge and how we use it in our daily lives. The shift raises questions that are central to educational research - e.g. what counts as knowledge, what is the purpose of research, and who can be a 'knower.' Romany (1997) suggests that subjective epistemology offers an alternative vision to liberal notions of objectivity by highlighting the centrality of the political, economic and cultural history in which the oppressed subject is born. Such locations and experiences are usually delegitirnized within the academy. In this 'canonical' literature, people of colour have always been spoken for through dominant observations and interpretations of their experiences (Williams, 1995). We are made to believe that such stories, told by those in power and therefore legitimate, are universal. Such dominant knowledges make claim to universal truth and principles. In addition, Lawrence (1995) states that stories told within dominant discourses have systematically excluded people of colour. Matsuda (1995) states that people who have experienced discrimination must be the voices to which we listen. These would be grassroots researchers and educators who are able to relate theory to the concrete experiences of oppression -the epistemology of subjectivity. Lawrence (1995) writes that, as racialized academics, we must learn to trust our own senses, feelings and experiences and give them authority. Such knowledges lay no claim to neutrality. He advocates for racialized scholars to assume the position of subject in order to speak from the lived 3 9 CRT epistemology is a new way of seeing and producing knowledge. Methodology is the lens that is used to produce this knowledge, and methods are the different ways of data collection (Pillow, 2003). 66 experience of oppression. Collins (1990) has done just this in theorizing Black feminist thought. This is knowledge that is created in rejection Of, and opposition to, the claimed universality of standard European academic knowledge. At the core of Black feminist thought lie theories created by the experiences of Black women. CRT follows the same lines. It is an epistemology that positions the experiences of people of colour at its centre. It offers counter-stories from the lived experiences of people of colour that serve to critique the values and assumptions of our social and political organizations. Through counter-storytelling the oppressed take back and honour their narratives. Razack (1999b) states that education for social change is not about acquiring new information. It is about disrupting the hegemonic ways of seeing, in which oppressed subjects make themselves dominant. CRT explores alternatives to discriminatory rules, policies and practices, and offers solutions to ameliorate conditions of disadvantage (Aylward, 1999). It focuses on the marginalized positions of racialized people in an oppressive society that supports the educational inequality for racialized students. This critical gaze is necessary for a liberatory praxis (Dei et al., 2004). CRT argues that the past makes a difference and one cannot ignore the history of exclusion. The past is instrumental in informing unequal relations today and must be taken into consideration to remedy injustice (Parker, 2003). In addressing research issues, qualitative studies in education defines CRT as a framework that is "a set of basic perspectives, methods and pedagogy - that seeks to identify, analyze and transform those structural, cultural and interpersonal aspects of education that maintain the subordination of students of colour" (Parker, 2003, p. 152). CRT is, hence, a movement in education that makes the study of race its central enterprise, with critical race feminist theory (CRFT) making the intersectionality of race, gender and class its central enterprise. The thesis central to CRFT is that sexism, racism and classism are much more than just isolated instances of overt discrimination. Rather, such systemic exclusion is structural, embedded within institutions, manifested through policies, practices and rules that claim to be neutral, but that systemically disadvantage and subordinate women of colour. CRT and CRFT share assumptions that are different from dominant ones. Those with power and privilege (generally white, male and the elite) run the social system. The system, in turn, supports such privileges and systemic discrimination is the result. In a larger political and economic context, many of the 'problems' that people of colour experience, specifically women of colour, have to do with lack of access to economic and political resources and opportunities, rather than a lack of ability or motivat