Ontario has a fascinating and troubling history when it comes to schooling. From the assimilative practices of the First Nations residential schools, to the establishment of a Negro Separate School act, Ontario has struggled with many different ways to handle the diverse nature of its population.
This diversity has taken on many forms, some of which seem counterintuitive. That the Irish immigrants in 1850’s were considered “untaught and idle pauper” immigrants might seem surprising to someone who considers diversity a matter of Black and White, but historically, groups such as the Irish, Rumanians, Greeks, Italians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Russians, Blacks, Women, First Nations, and people with disabilities have all suffered some form of inequitable treatment by the education system. As the descendant of a family that came to Canada during the Great Potato Famine, I find it almost amazing that they would have to put up with discrimination. The racism and injustice in the American South is so well documented, the stories are so familiar that it is, is some ways, not difficult to imagine. That Toronto used to have “No Irish” signs in certain establishments, and job advertisements that said “Irish need not apply” is somewhat more difficult to assimilate. To me, discrimination is something that “Others” have to deal with, but the history of the Ontario school system has had many, many “Others.” The Ontario government is working to replace the more divisive policies of the past, with inclusive, and more importantly, active considerations of difference and diversity. Recent policy leads me to believe that we as a society are on the right track, much as a person moving though the different stages of Racial Identity Development.
In reading this article, I was struck by the similarities between the five historical responses, that is, suppressing differences, insisting on differences, denying differences, inviting differences and critiquing difference, and the states of the Racial Identity Development as detailed in “Talking about Race, Teaching about Racism.” Although it is not a specific, exacting match up, the similarities between the levels was very striking. In comparing the personal, individual ideas of the R.I.D. to the sociological history of diversity in Ontario, it would be foolish to attempt to anthropomorphise society, and insert comparatively simplistic ideas to society as a whole. However, the similarities found in the final stage of both processes, autonomy and critiquing difference are perhaps the most strong, and I find it very encouraging that the Ontario government is working to establish this as the level school boards should be working at. The autonomy stage of the R.I.D. emphasises that Antiracist behaviour and attitudes will be more consistently expressed, and a person will be open to new information and thinking about racial and cultural variables. The Critiquing Difference stage of Ontario emphasizes antiracist education with a focus on how racial difference is produced in the school. This goes beyond the festival-esque celebrations of the Denying Difference stage, and replaces it with an active, focused examination of the issues. This examination will help both students and society in producing positive, well-delineated identities.
I hope that the Ontario government will continue actively working on these policies, and not become complacent. The establishment of policies is a great step in the right direction, but it should not be assumed that there are no longer any problems with diversity in Ontario classrooms. We must all be aware, and do what we can to ensure equity in our schools.
