By: Eden Wondmeneh
As a first-year student in social sciences, the bulk of my tutorial grade is determined by my participation in discussions. For someone who would rather be restricted to eating at Centro than be forced to speak in public, tutorials are not my ideal environment.
As the fall semester progressed, I noticed that some of these discussions supported learning while others were downright problematic. Speaking to other students in social sciences, specifically students of colour, it was clear that teaching assistants, who greatly influenced whether tutorial discussions were the former or the latter, were overwhelmingly white.
The lack of diversity in TAs is often juxtaposed with a somewhat diverse student group — where students of colour bond over the shared discomfort or hilarity of the awkwardness that settles across the room anytime a ‘hot topic’ like white privilege is brought up.
Discussions about race are often excluded from acceptable topics in an environment that claims to encourage academic discourse, especially when initiated by a person of colour: a fact that aided in my decision to stay relatively quiet in tutorials.
Regardless of their intentions, these TAs are in a position of power where they facilitate discussions about systems of oppression that they themselves benefit from and resultantly teach students through this narrow-privileged lens. If topics of race are not dismissed after a moment of awkward silence, they always seem condescending; what qualifies non-POC TAs to lead these discussions?
I have a friend whose TA explained how common sense differs between cultures using a blatantly racist analogy of African children never having seen a stove thus not knowing that it is unsafe to touch. When called out for their ignorance, the TA’s response was some variation of, “I’m not racist”.
The Teaching in an Accessible and Inclusive Community section of McMaster University’s 2013 TA guide shows that the diversity and inclusion issue in tutorial sessions is much worse than it appears. The university is aware of the power imbalances that are inherent to the limited diversity amongst TAs — they just aren’t doing anything about it.
Despite their ability to recognize that acknowledgment of systemic racism is not enough to let them off the hook, they boldly state that McMaster staff and faculty work “against often invisible systems of privilege and oppression,” without giving TAs any guidance in how to further this effort within their own tutorials. In fact, the guidebook makes it clear that it is naïve to believe that even a well-intentioned TA could use any tips provided to create an equitable space within their tutorials.
To be clear, I don’t think that TAs are intentionally leading their tutorials to isolate students of colour and validate the dominant privileged narrative that exists within our society. I do believe though that the hiring process for TAs is flawed, as it works directly against McMaster’s “fight against invisible systems of privilege and oppression”.
There should be a great number of Black TAs who are able to lead tutorials with a different perspective, engage with Black students and have important conversations about race when the course calls for it.
Aside from increasing the diversity amongst TAs, there should be mandatory anti-oppression workshops and training. It is unrealistic to hope that TAs will suddenly diversify, but it is not unrealistic to hope that current TAs have an understanding of their bias and are able to react to being called out productively — not through cries of, “I am not racist”.
For myself to feel comfortable to contribute freely within these tutorials, I need there to be measures in place for the inevitable awkwardness that ensues when race is discussed and a guarantee that Black children won't be used in racist examples.
We don't live within a vacuum. To create the “inclusive and accessible learning environment” that McMaster desires, TAs need to reflect this inclusivity and accessibility students are meant to find.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Ryan Sparrow
So, the other day I ventured to the Phoenix - the Grad students’ pub at McMaster for those who are unfamiliar - with some friends of mine.
Someone who I had just recently met joined us. This self-identified educator seemed to have good values, but when actually speaking to him, he wanted to show just how much more intelligent he was by saying something incredibly simple in the most jargon-ridden and inaccessible way possible.
Now, I am not new to reading dense political theory laden with terms and concepts that may be a bit inaccessible and take some specific knowledge within a field to understand, but this fellow started using terms and concepts in a way I didn’t understand.
So I asked this fellow, which up until this point I considered a nice person, to tell me what he meant in ‘laymen’s’ terms.
His response was, “I’m not going to dumb down what I am trying to say.” This is a pretty big contrast from his “to ending all oppression” cheer he gave when we got our pints.
I’m sure all of us have encountered some of this elitist language being thrown around. In our course packs, peer-reviewed journals, and academic books, some of the academics throw in as many big words (i.e. jargon-laden language which is only meant for academics to understand) as possible just to appear like they have something relevant to say.
Academics, who state their quest to ending oppression, should not be stuck up. They should learn how to relay a message in a way that the people, victims of the said oppression, can understand. Otherwise they are just being oppressive.
In the struggle to fight oppression, language itself is a battleground. It’s not just what you say, but how you say it, and who you say it to, which matters.
If you are using language that only a privileged minority of the population can understand, you are, I’m afraid, excluding a wide range of people.
If you only plan on writing in a way that only those who belong to the Ivory Tower can understand, it is important to mention that they are predominately not poor folk from marginalized backgrounds. I’m afraid that you, in this act, are reproducing privilege and excluding working people from the conversation.
And yes, sometimes it is not 100 per cent possible to avoid the use of big words, as there are concepts that do require a big word or pre-understood concept to discuss more in-depth on a topic.
So, this is not to say we should not use “big words” or “academic-speak,” but much like salt, use it only when necessary. When you use a “big word” please for the sake of democratic and accessible language, explain it if at all possible.
I get it; you want appear smart to impress someone. Some do this by using “big words” and advance concepts to show how intelligent they think they are. But I will go on record and say it - if you cannot explain it, you look ridiculous.
If you refuse to, you look like an elitist jerk. You can appear twice as smart by following the KISS principle, i.e., “keep it simple, stupid”.
If you truly want to help end oppression, keep in mind that one big part of it is to broaden the conversation so everyone has an ability to participate, listen, learn and speak. It’s all part of ending oppression.
