Assimilation, Pluralism, and ‘Cultural Navigation’: Multiculturalism in Canadian
Schools
Hiren Mistry is a Toronto educator and author whose activist and research interests
focus on pluralism in education.
Arguably, Canadian public high-schools are giant cultural-laboratories: Canada’s
multicultural future is tested, experimented with, and reproduced here. Teachers,
administrators and pedagogical gurus are the proverbial lab-technicians of this cultural
experiment. The ‘test subjects’ are the students who fill Canadian classroom from all over
the globe. The formula? This is where opinions differ in the lab. A larger, more
historically established camp advocate a policy of assimilation, while a smaller, growing
camp assert a policy of pluralism. A world of difference separates these two paradigms. I
would equally argue that the failure or success of our nation is also caught up in the
differences between these two approaches to dealing with multiculturalism in our
schools. After all, what is tested and reproduced in our schools will leave a mark on the
future of Canada. We would therefore do well to examine our choices carefully before we
experiment any further.
Assimilation is the paradigm of choice amongst a significant number of established and
therefore powerful educators in this country. They argue that participation in Canadian
public life should foster a sense common national heritage, regardless of where one
emigrates from. For these educators, this Nationalist ethic is first fostered in the
classroom; hence their belief that the celebration of ‘traditional’ Canadian values should
be given priority in the curricular, as well as extracurricular life of our schools. Flag Day,
Remembrance Day, and Thanksgiving for instance should be given precedence over
school wide celebrations of Ramadan, or the establishment of Multicultural councils.
Assemblies and curriculum in support of Black History, or Asian Heritage Month would
be seen as equally distracting. While advocates of assimilation would agree that cultural
diversity is a fact of Canadian life, they would be quick to point out that Canadian
students, and their families, have all the freedom to celebrate and practice their cultural
ancestry in the privacy of their own homes. However, they believe it is the moral duty of
all Canadians to separate their public, and private cultural obligations.
For assimilationists, their argument for the promotion of common Canadian values and
identity underlies a not-so-implicit fear of difference. For one, they believe a focus on
cultural diversity in schools will weaken Canada’s already fragile identity. Secondly, they
claim that by encouraging students to explore the cultural ancestry of their peers, or even
themselves, schools will culturally ghettoize. Rather than learning how to get along, they
believe students would end of becoming more self-interested, racist, and prone to
establishing gangs and instigating violence. As an extension to this argument, they claim
that in a world of increasing international tension between competing cultural and
religious groups, nationalist conflicts and historical vendettas would be played out in the
halls of Canadian high-schools.
While I do not doubt that the above concerns are very real in the minds of those educators
advocating a Multicultural policy of assimilation, I hesitate to take their alarm too
seriously. Their arguments for assimilation—and against pluralism-- are founded equally
on their fear of change (and the loss of cultural hegemony) , as well on a naive
understanding of culture. The consequences of their blind-spots are too critical to ignore,
for all Canadians.
Advocates of a Pluralist approach to multiculturalism envision an environment where the
global connections of Canadian students are actively engaged, and thoroughly integrated
into all facets of curricular and extracurricular school life. Their argument is, quite
simply, that the cultural composition of Canada has irreversibly changed. If a casual
look at a typical urban classroom won’t silence doubters, then the 2001 Canadian census
stats would quickly put any doubts to rest. In the 1990s, 73% of all new immigrants
settled in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, of which nearly 77% were of South Asian,
African, South American and Chinese descent.1 More significantly, immigrants from
these regions grew by over 24% from 1991 to 2001 all across Canada, and there is no
sign that this is a receding trend. Pluralists therefore see it as the obligation of the
education system to prepare students for the future, rather than enchant them with
outdated notions of cultural homogeneity. Assimilation might have been a possible
response (though, still morally questionable) to multiculturalism when ethnic-minorities
in fact lived up (or rather, down) to this demographic classification. However, in urban
communities, such as in Brampton, where more than 40% of the population is of nonEuropean and non-American descent, assimilation is no longer a viable option. New
immigrants do not leave their ancestral customs and beliefs at the border when they enter
Canada, or Canadian schools. Indeed, they take their culture with them and import it into
their Canadian lives: publicly and privately. Unless Canadian students, therefore, know
how to interact with their multicultural peers in public space, we need to be concerned
about the outcome of their ignorance once their lives move beyond the classroom.
Pluralists , however, do not advocate an ‘either-or’ scenario of cultural loyalties. Why
can’t the nationalist heritage of Canada be fostered at the same time as the multicultural
heritages of our students? We are cognitively equipped to deal with such cultural
diversity, for our brains are no more necessarily mono-cultural as they are mono-lingual.
Just as one with the requisite exposure to a second language gains enough competence to
become bilingual, it also follows that those who gain exposure to and competence in
more than one culture will become moderately, if not successfully bi-cultural. “Having
such a capacity is no more a threat to one’s personal integrity than bi-lingualism is a
cause for brain damage”.2 There is no need for Canada’s national heritage to be at odds
with the ancestral cultures of Canadian students. They needn’t cancel each other out. All
that is required is exposure to, and engagement with culture.
Cf. “Canada 2nd to Australia in foreign-born residents: census”, Tue, 21 Jan 2003,
(http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/21/census_immigrants030121)
2 Roger Ballard, “Race, Culture and Ethnicity”, CASAS Occasional Papers, University of Manchester, 2002. pg. 25.
1
The consequences for not engaging in this bold, yet practical experiment are manifold.
If Canadian schools continue to respond to the presence of diversity through assimilation,
they will see their worst fears come true. Students who do not see their world views
recognized in their school environment will seek other ways, outside of the school
environment, to reinforce their personal and cultural integrity. This is doubly reinforced
when ESL students, in particular, find little academic success after receiving minimal
language training before mainstreaming to regular academic courses. The polarization
between cultural groups, and the mainstream of Canadian schools—and the fallout of
ignorance, fear, and prejudice-- has a source closer to home than most Canadian
educators would like to think.
However, all is not ‘doom and gloom’. The choice is clear. If Canadian educators take
seriously the challenge to foster the ‘cultural intelligence’ of their students, and adopt a
pluralist pedagogy to prepare them to engage the multicultural world beyond their
classroom walls, Canada can proudly live up to its reputation for being a global model of
multiculturalism. If not, the seeds of ignorance, fear, and bigotry-- which purveyors of
multiculturalism most wish to avoid-- will be most certainly be sown. And, unfortunately,
Canadian educators will have only themselves to blame.