Aren't alternative programs and outreach schools for specific cultural groups a form of segregation? I have heard this question posed explicitly several times in the last few years, but I hear it implied or even assumed far more often. It is an accusation that stings, because for many years I have identified myself as a strong advocate for educational inclusion. The term "segregation," with it's connotations of discrimination and bias against diversity, is the antithesis of my beliefs as an educator. And yet the students in my small Mennonite Outreach school are in a building separate (segregated?) from the public high school in our rural community. Is this not a contradiction?
I have spent a lot of time researching, pondering and discussing this issue, and I could probably write a book about it. This blog is not that book. My intentions here are more modest; I just wish to share a few key ideas that rarely get mentioned in those discussions. It seems to me that some important considerations are too often being missed. I hope to show how these considerations have shifted my thinking away from a perspective of segregation vs inclusion towards one of assimilation vs diversity. It may take a few posts to get there, however.
- - - - - -
One key component missing from the discussion has been a full appreciation of the significance of cultural heritage as a form of inheritance. I see how important it is, for example, for the Low German Mennonite families in my school pass on their language, their faith, and their traditions. Most of them seem to value this cultural inheritance well above wealth, social status, or educational attainment. They know that their forebears sacrificed a great deal and endured multiple migrations to preserve that heritage, and they feel a strong duty to communicate that inheritance to their children.
At the same time, I see how challenging it is for them to maintain their heritage in the face of the social and economic pressures that they encounter when they move to Canada. In Preserving Cultural Heritage in the Context of Migratory Livelihoods, Luann Good Gingrich describes and analyzes these challenges in great detail. She explains how language, education, and work are the primary tools of inheritance in traditional cultures and religions, but how it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for them to use these tools for that purpose in their new context. The necessary act of migration, which helped preserve the cultural heritage in the past, now threatens to spoil the inheritance. This double-bind which the immigrant families experience is distressing and confusing and results in divisions within families, churches and communities. Some will end up rejecting this inheritance altogether and separating from their communities. Others try to hold on to some aspects of their heritage while adopting other, sometimes conflicting, practices. Still others will try to maintain the heritage as fully as possible, even if it ends up resulting in severe hardship and isolation. None of these paths is easy, and each one comes with internal as well as external conflict.
It is easy for those of us who do not experience that conflict to misinterpret the actions and motivations of those who do. One prime example is when we ask "Why are they so reluctant to send their kids to school?" We can be tempted to respond out of hurt or rejection, assuming that the issue is primarily about our practices or beliefs that offend them. We can get overly focused on whether or not to allow Halloween celebrations or books about dinosaurs, or whether to require students to change clothes for gym class. This focus can lead us to feelings of resentment that lurk behind questions such as, "How far do we need to go to accommodate for them?" and "Why do they get special treatment when others don't?" At other times we may respond with criticism and judgment, such as when we complain about students who take off religious holidays that they don't understand or when we accuse the parents of hypocrisy for allowing their children to party with other Mennonite teens while rejecting public schools for fear of the "corrupting" influence of the non-Mennonites.
In each of these cases, we make assumptions that miss the point. It never was about us or about their rejection of us. Instead, it was about the challenges and contradictions that these families face in trying to preserve and pass on their valued inheritance when the old tools of inheritance are either no longer available to them or are no longer effective.
In the meantime, it is necessary to recognize that the false assumptions we make interfere with our ability to respond with empathy and respect for the families who face this dilemma. Without that empathy and respect, we can not expect to be trusted. And without that relationship of respect and trust, we can not expect Low German Mennonite families to participate fully in the public education system. This, it seems to me, is the context that must be considered for any meaningful conversation about segregation vs inclusion of Mennonite students.
This is not the only consideration, however, in in future posts I will address a few other key points.
- - - - - -
Good Gingrich, L. (2014), Preserving Cultural Heritage in the Context of Migratory Livelihoods. International Migration, 52: 1–20. doi: 10.1111/imig.12066
No comments:
Post a Comment