ArticlePDF Available


We are unequivocally in favor of much, much, more space opening up for Aboriginal peoples and Indigenous ways of knowing and being in academic (and myriad other) spaces. We are worried, however, about a current lack of published critical engagement with policies and practices that appear, superficially, to support inclusivity and diversity of Indigenous peoples in academic institutions. We argue that, principally because such policies are inherently designed to serve settler-colonial subjects and powers, many inclusivity and diversity policies instead leave fundamentally unchanged an ongoing colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples, their epistemologies, and their ontologies. Indeed, we contend that individual Aboriginal peoples are suffering at deeply embodied levels as universities and other institutions rush to demonstrate well-intended “decolonizing” agendas. Drawing from examples in British Columbia, this paper provides a critical intervention into a rapidly ascending, and deeply institutionalized, dominance of policies and practices that claim to promote and open spaces for Indigenous peoples and perspectives within academic institutions. We draw from critical race theorists, including Sara Ahmed, and in our conclusion offer suggestions that aim to destabilize and trouble the good intentions of neo-colonial policies.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Download by: [UNBC Univ of Northern British Columbia] Date: 01 September 2016, At: 14:08
Settler Colonial Studies
ISSN: 2201-473X (Print) 1838-0743 (Online) Journal homepage:
Troubling good intentions
Sarah de Leeuw, Margo Greenwood & Nicole Lindsay
To cite this article: Sarah de Leeuw, Margo Greenwood & Nicole Lindsay (2013) Troubling good
intentions, Settler Colonial Studies, 3:3-4, 381-394, DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2013.810694
To link to this article:
Published online: 13 Sep 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 329
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Troubling good intentions
Sarah de Leeuw
*, Margo Greenwood
and Nicole Lindsay
Northern Medical Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada;
First Nations Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada;
National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, University of Northern British Columbia,
Prince George, BC, Canada
We are unequivocally in favor of much, much, more space opening up for Aboriginal peoples
and Indigenous ways of knowing and being in academic (and myriad other) spaces. We are
worried, however, about a current lack of published critical engagement with policies and
practices that appear, supercially, to support inclusivity and diversity of Indigenous peoples
in academic institutions. We argue that, principally because such policies are inherently
designed to serve settler-colonial subjects and powers, many inclusivity and diversity
policies instead leave fundamentally unchanged an ongoing colonial relationship with
Indigenous peoples, their epistemologies, and their ontologies. Indeed, we contend that
individual Aboriginal peoples are suffering at deeply embodied levels as universities and
other institutions rush to demonstrate well-intended decolonizingagendas. Drawing from
examples in British Columbia, this paper provides a critical intervention into a rapidly
ascending, and deeply institutionalized, dominance of policies and practices that claim to
promote and open spaces for Indigenous peoples and perspectives within academic
institutions. We draw from critical race theorists, including Sara Ahmed, and in our
conclusion offer suggestions that aim to destabilize and trouble the good intentions of neo-
colonial policies.
If there is one phrase that those of us who labor in institutions of higher education hear altogether
too often, it is some derivation of Im exhausted. Ask almost anyone wandering the hallowed
halls of an ivory tower how they are doing and they will likely say something along the lines of
Im tiredor I have too much to door Im feeling really overworkedor Things are
In this paper, however, we contend that some people because of markedly different struc-
tural and material forces than the ones experienced by the majority of people who teach and
research within academic institutions are more exhausted, arguably more exploited, than
others. Although we acknowledge that the neoliberal dynamics of the present moment including
the increased demands for productivity, decreased resources, diminished job security, and (impor-
tantly for this paper) an institutional focus on consumer-driven service and optics of social
accountability and responsibility affect all academic workers, our purpose is to emphasize
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email:
Settler Colonial Studies, 2013
Vol. 3, Nos. 34, 381394,
that the university (like many other contemporary institutions) works not just in neoliberal ways,
but also and importantly in neocolonial ways.
As we explore in this paper, policies and languages of post-secondary institutions are increas-
ingly asserting aspirations toward greater inclusion of Indigenous people. Specically, we argue
that Indigeneity is garnering unprecedented focus and attention within spaces of post-secondary
education institutions from a new settler-colonial subject working through ostensibly decoloniz-
ing processes and policies. We then suggest these good intentions present a set of deep colonizing
(unintended) consequences that obscure ongoing relations of inequity and conquest. Indeed, at the
heart of this paper is a question about whether or not contemporary universities, and by extension
other institutions that are fundamentally both products of capitalist modernity and imbedded in
and central to colonial projects, can ever be radically transformed so as to further anti-colonial
or Indigenous world-views. We also argue that, within this context of ongoing (and normalized)
institutional neocolonialism, the Indigenous people who have relatively recently begun to be
recruited into and hired by academic institutions experience unique and historically situated
forms of institutional marginalization directly linked to expectations about their Indigeneity.
This paper is a critical intervention into what we see and name as an escalation of structural
good intentionstoward Indigenous peoples and Indigeneity in post-secondary institutions. In
many ways it might best be understood as a dispatch from the front lines
it is informed by
what we witness (and live) as, rst, an increased discussion about the failures of academic insti-
tutions to materially decolonize in ways that match decolonizing policies, rhetoric, and language
but, second, a lack of critically written and published scholarship in academic or research journals
about what is increasingly a commonsensical and experiential reality.
Indeed, and without a great
deal of documented pushback, there exists a small body of literature asserting that Indigenizing
postcolonial universities in Canada is a radical practice that ought to be taken up with gusto in
efforts to ensure socially just ways of knowing and being.
While we cautiously agree, we aim
to highlight how the good intentions of inclusion policies focused on Indigenous academics
and students, if left untroubled, risk perpetuating and masking the very inequities they purport
to ameliorate. We frame our discussion rst by drawing from the insights of critical anti-racist
feminisms on macro and micro-relations of power.
Institutional whiteness and colonial good intentions
In the introduction to her study about the universitys diversity policies, Ahmed notes the need to
focus critically on well-intentioned institutional efforts aimed at correcting deep historical injus-
tices in order to examine how power can be redone at the moment it is imagined as undone.
This insight is the basis for an important line of critique by critical feminism and anti-racism scho-
lars. As we and others have written elsewhere, twenty-rst-century colonial (especially White)
settler subjects have, in contexts of anti-racist social movements,
increasingly been called to
struggle with charges of racism or entrenched positionalities of power. Acknowledging the con-
textual differences in much postcolonial and critical anti-racist feminist theory, we argue that
those thinking through issues of Indigeneity and decolonization have much to learn from these
In an article describing the moral and emotional regulation of antiracism and feminist orga-
nizing, Srivastava notes that White feminists tend to be deeply and emotionally attached to an
image of themselves as inherently good and inherently againstracism because of their sense
of being oppressed themselves: their good intentions and desires to be notracist are privileged.
Their subjectivity is historically informed as Srivastava and other scholars
have pointed out, by
colonial and contemporary representations of virtue, honesty, and benevolence [that] have been a
historical foundation of whiteness, bourgeois respectability, and femininity.
382 S. de Leeuw et al.
We extend Srivastavas observations. Just as an overly strong investment in being notracist
undermines the capacity of White members of anti-racist social movements to meaningfully
respond to charges of racism within their organizations,
equally powerful sentiments are at
work in decolonizing contexts. Thus, if they mask the ongoing colonial relationships entrenched
in neoliberal and neocolonial institutions, subjective investments in notbeing a settler colonist
of the ilk of those in the past risks undermining the capacity of those White and/or settler colonial
subjects that still benet from colonial institutions to be critical of the limitations of institutiona-
lized efforts to reverse historical inequities.
As (self)consciousness about whiteness, racism, and colonialism becomes more widespread,
especially among White and settler colonial subjects and especially in institutionally embedded
ways, Ahmed
argues that a new subject has emerged. She/he is anxiously and emotionally
invested in a virtuous and morally good critical stance with respect to whiteness and racism
and, we would add, settler colonialism. In such a context, the very act of naming oneself as
engaged in decolonizing, equalizing, liberatory forms of practice and policy is, potentially and
simultaneously, an act of opening oneself to the risk of failing to meet these aims. We wonder,
then, what space might exist for these admissions and for subsequent change, particularly
because it remains the case that within institutions, relationships and alliances will always
take place in situations of asymmetry of power.
Indeed, relationships and engagements that
are produced within institutions seeking to expand spaces of Indigeneity necessarily rely on a
prior ethnographic investment in what the [relationship] provides that is, access to the stranger
Thus, members of Indigenous communities who enter universities in the twenty-rst
century must necessarily be rst constructed as other,asstrange, so that this strangeness can
be overcome both in the efforts of opening institutions to Indigeneity and, crucially, in the pro-
duction of policies and practices about Indigenous peoples and their/our ways of knowing and
Un/making colonial histories: good intentions and the new settler-colonial subject
Colonialism in British Columbia and Canada has a well-documented history which does not need
repetition here. One consistent feature of settler colonialism that we do want to highlight,
however, is that settler colonists in BC and beyond have historically avoided casting themselves
as explicitly doing wrong. In other words, as we and many others have observed, historical and
contemporary settler colonists have frequently constructed and enacted elaborate justications for
their activities, framing colonial activities as goodand at least partly altruistically inclined
toward Indigenous peoples.
Throughout the history of settler-colonial/Indigenous contact in
British Columbia and across Canada, ideas about the best interests of Indigenous people
usually turned on settler-colonial assessments about Indigenous savagery, about the inevitability
of peoples constructed as endangered and primitive simply dying off, and about moral impera-
tives to save uncivilized ungodly souls. These ideas manifested concretely in a variety of colonial
policies and practices. Missionaries established churches across Indian Territoryand actively
recruited heathen lost soulsfor transformation.
Indian Reserves mapped people in and out
of the province and are now spaces that continue to spatially demarcate racialized Indigenous
peoples in unique and particular ways.
Health policies and practices translated into a coloniza-
tion of bodies.
And in perhaps one of the most destructive colonial policies ever devised, the
government removed children from their families and communities and placed them in (fre-
quently deeply abusive) Indian residential schools that operated across the province for over
100 years in an efforts to de-Indigenize First Nations children.
Strong evidence, however, suggests that many involved in these colonial projects even the
residential schooling project, which has now gained wide and mainstream acceptance as one of
Settler Colonial Studies 383
colonialisms most egregious national crimes
understood themselves to be acting in the best
interests of Indigenous peoples.
Indeed, the impulse to improve and help Indigenous peoples is
remarkably immune to critique at the time of its unfolding.
As Tania Murray Li argues, the con-
struction of non-Indigenous governments and other agencies as helping, protecting, and benevo-
lent forces aiming to improveand transform Indigenous peoples for their own goodis not
only a crucial colonial strategy with remarkable tenacity, it also offers a means for colonizers
to distance themselves from more obviously coercive, violent, or colonial ideas, actions, and
The rhetoric about colonial projects has shifted recently. In the twenty-rst century, settler
colonialism is neither taken for granted nor neutral: it is certainly not something upon which
uncritical praise is bestowed, nor is it something left unproblematized. In the settler-colonial pol-
itical sphere, problematizing colonialism relies heavily either on underscoring it as something that
good people and places have nothing to do with or as something that, because it once did great
damage, makes it incumbent upon those in the present to unpack in order that it be progressed
beyond. Very recently, for instance, and in what was seen at the time to bespeak Canadas prai-
seworthy presence in the world, the countrys Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, proudly claimed
that Canada was a country with no history of colonialism a clearly erroneous statement that was
quickly debunked.
However erroneous, though, Harpers statement reveals a very real anxiety
and impulse to re-write history in a way that distances oneself and ones nation from the bad
legacy of colonialism the (albeit imaginary) Canadian absence of which was framed by
Harper as a marker of national civility, a cause for international admiration.
Paradoxically, shortly before issuing this statement, Harper offered a formal apology for resi-
dential schooling in Canada. While never uttering the word colonialismin the apology, he
nevertheless carefully outlined how the project was a sad legacy in Canadas historyfrom
which twenty-rst-century citizens should move forward into a bright new future. A salient com-
ponent of the message, one touted as among the most historically signicant national addresses in
several decades concerning the treatment of Indigenous peoples, is its distancing of present from
past and the entrenchment of colonial violence as something with no place in the contemporary. In
the apology, Harper stated, the policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has
no place in our country.
In its insistence that policies of assimilation are things of the past, with
no place in the present and something which ALL (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) Canadians
must move forward into a strong and healthy future, Harpers apology obscures ongoing settler
colonialism and reinforces an imagined separation of past from present and future. What
becomes impossible through these kinds of rhetorical constructions is the ability to articulate a
settler-colonial present as the seamless continuation of processes that have unfolded for centu-
What shifts, in this time of apologies for past colonial grievances, are the orientations of
settler-colonial subjects to long-standing projects of colonization and appropriation of resources.
In sum, non-Indigenous British Columbians and other Canadians are increasingly being called
upon to acknowledge and account for colonialisms impact on Indigenous peoples on multiple
levels: health, education, resource management and land title, among others. We argue that this
unique moment in which many settler-colonial subjects are cognizant of (literally) existing
on unstable, unceded ground and are increasingly aware of having to account for their/our posi-
tionality is producing a new and very particular kind of settler-colonial subjectivity. Institution-
ally, as we explore in more detail below, this is manifesting in new kinds of policies and practices
ostensibly aimed toward addressing and ameliorating past wrongs. We argue, however, that these
policies and practices demand critical attention because they function to obscure ongoing harms
and injustices of colonial practice, subverting the very good intentions they purport to represent.
Although this paradoxical inversion of good intentions manifests in a wide variety of ways across
384 S. de Leeuw et al.
many contexts, we locate our current investigation of the troubling outcomes of good intentions in
the twenty-rst-century post-secondary academic institution.
Un/making colonial institutions: deep colonizing and the neocolonial inclusive university
A crucial feature of contemporary settler-colonial societies located in what was once known as the
New Worldis the impossibility of settler decolonization in the true sense of that word. Indeed,
as Carol Pateman writes:
The process of decolonization and national self-determination that began after the Second World War
has swept away all but tiny remnants of the colonies of the European powers, but the Native peoples of
the two New Worlds, living within the boundaries of the states constructed from the plantations of
settlers, have never been seen as candidates for sovereignty.
Increasingly, however, the ideaof decolonization as a laudable and good aim is on the rise
decolonization is thus turned into a metaphor, a set of languages and empty signiers that
allows settlers to equivocate the contradictions inherent in their need to maintain control over
land and resources while symbolically attesting to decolonial desires.
This ongoing settler colo-
nialism has been naturalized over time, changing appearances without changing the structural
dynamics of power and advantage that characterize settler-colonial/Indigenous relationships.
It is in this context of a structurally limited decolonization in which decolonizing policies are
based not on Indigenous sovereignty but rather on a set of good intentionspurporting to ame-
liorate some of the harmful legacies of historical, past colonialisms that Veracini invokes
Deborah Bird Roses (1996) concept of deep colonizingto explain the propensity for such pol-
icies to further entrench colonial relations of inequality.
Deep colonizing refers to the ways in
which colonizing dynamics are embedded in decolonizing institutions or practices, thus rendering
impossible any sort of actual decolonization of institutions such as universities. Rose (1996),
writing about the erasure of women in land claim processes in Australia in a post-colonial era,
argues that colonial practices are not only still with us, but more problematically, their embedd-
edness in de- or post-colonizing institutions or policies serves to conceal and naturalize them. We
Given the ways in which deep colonization is naturalized in postor decolonizing con-
texts, there is a powerful necessity to critically interrogate and untangle the colonizing elements
or aspects of these well-meaningpractices. Rose writes: if the colonizing practices are not sep-
arated analytically from decolonizing institutions, conquest will continue. And if it continues in
this form it will be wearing a mask of benign, or even radical, decolonization, which will make it
far more difcult to challenge at all levels
Part of the reason this is so is precisely because, as
Veracini (2011) points out, a settler colonial formation is primarily aimed at producing the con-
ditions of its own supercession”–and thus instead of proclaiming its permanence (as historical
colonial formations once did), it announces its passing.
We suggest that we are in the midst of such a moment one inextricably bound up in a
relationship of continuity with historical settler colonialism in which non-Indigenous subjects,
and by extension the institutions they/we inhabit, are making efforts to decolonize, to refute colo-
nialism while still existing within and expanding it. To illustrate the implications of deep coloniz-
ing effects of well-intentioned policies, we turn to a close inquiry of university policies premised
on principles of decolonization and the desire to increase the inclusion of Indigenous scholars. We
suggest that these policies are being produced and deployed within a historical moment during
which rightly, we think there exist growing efforts to move away from or beyond postcolonial
theories, the result of which is that not quite as productively, we think discussions and
Settler Colonial Studies 385
languages about anti-colonialism and decolonizationhave, if not become hegemonic, at least
become normalized.
We open this discussion with the observation that heightened concern about rates of post-sec-
ondary participation and completion for Indigenous peoples is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Disparities in educational attainment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples have
been generations in the making.
Further, we note that as a result of the remarkably small
pool of Indigenous academics and the upsurge of efforts to increase the numbers of Indigenous
students making their way into and progressing through post-secondary education systems,
many Indigenous faculty experience extraordinary, specic, and unique demands for supervision
and support of Indigenous students and related university service (representation on committees,
participation in initiatives, consultation, etc.). Finally, we frame our discussion with the recog-
nition that universities in contemporary British Columbia, like universities in settler colonial geo-
graphies around the world, exist in a neocolonial present that cannot fully, if ever, actually be
decolonized as such. Thus, following Sara Ahmeds observation that the creation of diversity pol-
icies can frequently stand in and replace any real action on changing institutional structures limit-
ing diversity,
we raise questions about the extent to which gestures toward decolonization
through inclusivity and diversity policies explicitly targeting Indigenous populations might be
understood as further legitimizing colonial power precisely because these policies allow insti-
tutions to cultivate a culture of doing the right thingwhile avoiding fundamental shifts in power
imbalances between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples or the systems within which we
Exactly how many Indigenous faculty are experiencing what degree of additional pressures
over and above the ordinary demands of an academic career is difcult to determine. Nor can
we accurately quantify, by extension, the numbers of aspiring faculty that might be kept in
unstable, impermanent or marginal academic employment precisely because of these tensions.
What we can say, from personal experiences and because it is a small community of Indigenous
peoples who work as faculty at British Columbian universities, is that many Indigenous faculty
feel pulled across multiple and conicting worlds. Most notably, there is often a pull between
what might, albeit somewhat simplistically, be classied dichotomously as institution/community,
profession/home, scholarly/colloquial, imagined/real, evidenced/felt and, perhaps most compli-
cated, expected/lived. Given the small numbers of faculty, it seems relevant to note that,
between us, we know of (or have experienced) at least half a dozen failed attempts for Indigenous
faculty to achieve tenure and promotion in their rst attempt and at least two cases of Indigenous
faculty leaving an institution because they can no longer handle nor meet institutional expec-
tations. And while, conversationally and in our daily lives, we hear much about the realities of
Indigenous faculty members working in a climate increasingly focused on anti-colonial or deco-
lonizing agendas, there remains little in the way of published research to document or contextua-
lize their/our experiences.
Our impressions are validated by the small amount of data that does exist on the numbers of
Indigenous academics currently working at Canadian post-secondary institutions and on the con-
ditions of their academic work. The Canadian Association of University Teachers, in its 2011
2012 Almanac of Post-Secondary Education, reports that 1% of Canadian university teachers
identied as Indigenous (as opposed to 3.8% of the general Canadian population
). And although
it does not cite statistical gures, a report prepared for the Association of Universities and Col-
leges of Canada in 2006 notes that there are few Aboriginal people employed at universities,
even fewer are faculty members and fewer still hold high prole administrative positions.
The report recommends hiring of Indigenous faculty as a priority for Canadian universities and
colleges, observing at the same time the challenges of doing so based on the small pool of qua-
lied candidates available to ll faculty positions.
386 S. de Leeuw et al.
In order to get a clearer sense of how BC universities are addressing the twin challenges of
increasing both recruitment and retention of Indigenous students and faculty, we undertook a
search of individual university websites, supplemented where possible by telephone inquiries.
In all, we searched the websites of nine British Columbia universities, nding a range of policies
and reports focused on Indigenous post-secondary issues. At one end of the scale, generally occu-
pied by the larger universities, we found well-developed and detailed policies and service plans
aimed to increase recruitment and retention of Indigenous students and faculty. At the other end of
the scale, generally occupied by smaller and/or newer universities, we found very little publicly
available information on either numbers of Indigenous students and faculty or on strategies to
increase these numbers. We focus the following discussion on the former group and, for
reasons of privacy, have chosen to anonymize our discussion.
All three of BCsmajoruniversities (i.e. the largest and longest-standing universities) have
some version of an Aboriginal Service Planor Aboriginal Strategic Plan(ASP) and/or desig-
nated ofces or divisions focused on Indigenous issues. Two of the three universities considered
here had strategic plans specically focused on Aboriginal education publicly available on their
websites. One was released in 2007 and one in 2009. The third university did not have a publicly
available ASP, but its 2010 institution-wide service plan did have language around the need to
increase numbers of Indigenous students graduating from the institution, as well as the importance
of supporting Indigenous students and building relationships with communities. In all three docu-
ments, the imperative to both recruit and retain increased numbers of Indigenous students was
central to policies and recommendations. For example, one ASP pointed out that although a
target for enrollment of 1000 Indigenous students had been set for the year 2000, as of 2008
only half of that enrollment target had been met. Further, the document highlighted that although
Indigenous students in BC account for 10% of school enrollments, only 1% of the institutions
students in 2008 was identied as Indigenous. For graduate degrees, participation rates were
reported to be even lower: between 2005 and 2007, only half of 1% of post-degree graduates
identied as Indigenous. These statistics are very similar to those reported by other universities.
Each of the three universities examined acknowledged the importance of Indigenous faculty
in ensuring success for Indigenous students, with one ASP singling out the presence of Indigen-
ous faculty as the most powerful predictor of educational quality for First Nations students.
Despite this, however, the numbers of Indigenous faculty members employed by these institutions
are still remarkably small, ranging from just over to just under 1% in each of the three institutions
surveyed. One administrator we spoke to pointed out that part of the challenge in reporting
numbers of Indigenous students and faculty is that individuals chose to self-identify or not,
and thus numbers might not be entirely accurate. He cited as an example a case in which a
long-standing faculty member came forward as Métis at a time when Indigenous faculty at the
university numbered only 10, raising the number of Indigenous faculty by 10% without the uni-
versity having to do any hiring! Such anecdotes underscore, perhaps, the enormous impact that a
single individual can have in a context where the numbers of Indigenous faculty are so small a
situation that, this administrator pointed out, has signicantly improved in recent years.
Another ASP acknowledged both the importance of attracting leading Aboriginal scholars
and administrators and other experts to [the universitys] ranks, as well as the unique challenges
faced by those individuals who routinely face legitimate demands for student mentoring, com-
munity involvement, and university service that are substantially greater than those facing their
peers. This ASP goes on to state that: For Aboriginal scholars and others in related elds to
be successful, and for the university to be successful in attracting and retaining them and devel-
oping its programs, those circumstances should be adequately and equitably addressed.
Those circumstancesare precisely what we aim to highlight and interrogate here namely,
the demands bearing down on Indigenous academics working in the context of universities that
Settler Colonial Studies 387
not only have built policies around pursuing and recruiting them into its ranks, but also have a
strong vested interest in identifying, accounting for, making visible, and deploying their presence
in order to carry out the good work of improving educational equity for Indigenous peoples. The
implication of these circumstances, we argue, is that certain individuals are called upon to
perform their Indigeneity over and above the standard performative demands of an academic
career, wherein the value of ones career (and by extension, ones employability) is assessed
according to standards of scholarship that privilege certain types of scholarly achievements
(peer reviewed, single-authored publications in high-ranking journals, large grants and other
accolades). Perhaps it is in front of a tenure committee that the deep colonizing elements of
the post-colonial university become most evident as a continued form of conquest, despite the
fact that these dynamics operate in a very real everyday sense on the exhausted bodies that
inhabit academic spaces.
The tensions outlined above have not gone unnoticed in the policies we reviewed. In all three
institutions, promotion and tenure procedures were highlighted as an area for policy review, and
in all three cases, initiatives to do so were in various early stages of development, with committees
struck, discussions underway, and reports in progress. However, movement of these issues
appears to be progressing remarkably slowly, given the fact that these stated good intentions to
review workload, promotion and tenure emerged in policy documents ve years ago in two
cases, and seven years ago in the third. One has to wonder: what is taking so long? And are inten-
tions having any material, on-the-ground outcomes?
The reality remains, and is generally acknowledged by the institutions themselves, that rep-
resentation of Indigenous peoples at any faculty ranking is abysmally low, but at higher rankings
(full tenure) and in administration positions, it is even lower. The faculty and administrators we
spoke to about this issue agree that heightened demands on the time and energy of Indigenous
faculty is a contributing factor, noting that while teaching load and publication pressures exist
for faculty across the board, many Indigenous faculty come under increased pressure in terms
of service commitments. This is particularly the case when numbers of Indigenous faculty
members are small and demands are high for Indigenous representation in university-level com-
mittees and initiatives, and these heightened demands may be exacerbated where individuals are
also called on to participate in and support community initiatives, or to act in a connective
capacity to provide linkages between the university and community.
One administrator we spoke to pointed out that death by a thousand committeesis only
part of the problem. While many individuals chose to take on an extra level of mentoring or
service, others do not. Rather than making assumptions about Indigenous scholarly workload,
another administrator and faculty member argued that it is important for faculties and institutions
to better understand and value forms of scholarship undertaken by Indigenous academics
including types of research which may not fall within standard timelines or forms generally
expected for promotion and tenure. Student supervision, university and non-university service
commitments, community engagement and a wider scope of publications should also be con-
sidered in tenure review. In short, tenure review processes must take into account a broader spec-
trum of research activities and outputs. One internal report on this issue we reviewed outlined a
rationale for rethinking promotion and tenure policies based on increased recognition of the
value of civic and community engaged scholarship, teaching and service. Recommendations pre-
sented in this document highlight the need for promotion and tenure committees to consider a
broader scope of scholarship which includes a balance of peer and non-peer reviewed publi-
cations and research outputs, values interdisciplinarity, recognizes differences in timelines for
community-engaged research, and places more value on teaching, professional service and com-
munity outreach.
388 S. de Leeuw et al.
Power undone and redone: on troubling good intentions
Our examination of these uniquely historically situated policies, reports and conversations reveals
a set of deep colonizing tensions in post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. These pol-
icies have emerged in a time and place in which settler-colonial institutions are attempting to ame-
liorate the effects of historical injustices and inequities, while at the same time, the policies and the
institutions for which they speakcontinue to exist within a multitude of colonial moments and
spaces both present and past. They are also producing new spaces and moments for the future.
Clearly the last decade has seen an exponential growth in policies and rhetorics aimed at
making institutions of higher learning more welcoming and inclusive of Indigenous peoples
and Indigenous ways of knowing and being. There are consequently more people to administer
and think about those policies and rhetorics. As we mention at the outset of this paper, we
fully support any and all efforts to meaningfully open new spaces for Indigenous peoples in insti-
tutions of higher learning. We also know that institutional change is a slow, difcult process and,
further, that partial or surface-level reforms at best do little more than pay lip service to the types
of deep transformation that are so very necessary to any decolonizing process, and at worst, can
justify inaction and obscure ongoing colonization.
In an efforts to unpack this question, we interject here with some personal anecdotes about
living within spaces of good intentions. These anecdotes are anchored in experiences of academic
institutions and interactions with other Indigenous peoples trying to survive within them. In our
experience, to be Indigenous in the academy is to NEVER be neutral with reference to being a
colonial subject. Conversely, the positionality of being a settler colonist, which we acknowledge
takes multiple and differently racialized forms imbued with hierarchies of power, is rarely made
visible in the same way and is almost always naturalized.
The Indigenous scholars that we know
(or are) live the outcome of this constant visibility: to be seen, understood, and (re)constructed as
being Indigenous often translates into being asked to speak from that position, a position which
the academy is eager to understand, acknowledge, and (very importantly) harness.
For example, Indigenous scholars we know (or are) are frequently asked to offer guest lectures
on topics that touch on Indigeneity because classes are eager to have (to witness) Indigenous
people give voice and body to what might otherwise be construed by students as abstractions.
Indigenous scholars are called to sit on numerous committees where, again, the physical, material
presence of Indigenous peoples is seen to be advantageous. They/we are encouraged to work with
other Indigenous scholars in order to promote and support Indigenous diversity in academic insti-
tutions, and are positioned as the Indigenous faceof institutions. Indeed, in British Columbias
largest post-secondary institution, photos of Indigenous scholars (promoted precisely as such) are
a key web presence of the university unsurprisingly, no such visibility is offered to (or thrust
upon) settler-colonial subjects specically as beingsettler colonists.
We also know that, because of the limited number of qualied Indigenous scholars available
to take up faculty positions (read: PhDs with strong scholarly track records based on Western stan-
dards of academic value), many junior Indigenous scholars, without a PhD in hand, are being
recruited by post-secondary institutions. We know of too many of them who have accepted pos-
itions but, because of their increased workloads linked specically with being Indigenous, do not
complete their PhDs and, consequently, never achieve tenure. Many leave their positions and,
when we have spoken with them, mention having felt like a tokenpresence whose usefulness
from an institutional perspective had simply expired. We also know of too many who, when
writing expressly for high-impact factor peer-reviewed journals (of the kind highly valued by
tenure committees) about the dissatisfying experiences of being Indigenous in the academy,
have had their articles rejected because the topic, according to editors and reviewers, is old
hat,unoriginal,ornot academic. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, we have witnessed
Settler Colonial Studies 389
(and experienced) the remarkable personal stresses including health challenges related to over-
work and stress, marriage and/or partnership failure, and feelings of alienation from family and
other (often non-academic) Indigenous communities and peoples too often suffered by those
Indigenous scholars who are considered highly successful according to the optics and measure-
ment criteria of universities.
In sum, there remains a series of tensions and troubles for Indigenous scholars (and other Indi-
genous subjects) within spaces rife with good intentions. This leads us to believe that good inten-
tions desperately require troubling in great part because they are, in turn, so troubling to
Indigenous subjects within institutions. Specically, we suggest that the intentions of settler colo-
nists those good intentions that are being institutionalized through policy and thus ascending to
new positions of power require a great deal more serious critical attention than they are currently
receiving. Without a groundswell of published critical documentation pushing back against good
intentions, there is little to no chance for anything remotely resembling decolonized academic
spaces no matter how much language and policy is produced about the subject.
As well-intended policies gather strength and acceptance within post-secondary institutions
that remain relatively devoid of Indigenous subjects, we propose that in line with Ahmeds
thoughts about collaborative ethnography, difference and distance can be (and often are) re-
inscribed through acts that purport to celebrate and validate subjects who, in reality, occupy differ-
ent positionalities:
to simply redene the informant[read Indigenous subject] as an equal partnerwould work to
conceal the power relations which still allow the gathering together of the ethnographic document.
In other words, the narrative of overcoming relations of authorisation in traditional ethnography con-
stitutes another form of authorisation . So it remains the ethnographer who is praised for giving up
her or his authority.
What Ahmed provokes us to consider here, vis-à-vis the growing body of well-intentioned pol-
icies proliferating within post-secondary institutions, is that the very act of authoring policies and
agendas in this time of decolonizing languages risks reinforcing the distance between subjects
precisely by naming or gesturing toward that distance as overcome(able). While we support
the aspiration to challenge the hierarchical dimensions of all institutions, Ahmed reminds us of
the necessity to remain alert to the ways in which subjects (in our case Indigenous and non-Indi-
genous subjects) come to occupy conventional, power-laden positionalities. The very act, we
suggest, of advancing a model of co-production of institutional space and shared interests may
reinscribe and reify difference, differences which in fact bear down disproportionately on Indi-
genous peoples, again obscuring any chance of decolonizing academic institutions. To this
extent, then, the othernessof Indigenous peoples is actually reinforced through decolonizing
discourses of policies and institutional mandates in which Indigenous peoples are rst produced
as different and distant, in order to begin attempts to overcome that distance and difference.
Conclusions: occupying occupied spaces
What possible solutions might exist to the challenges outlined in this article? First and foremost,
we ask that our suggestions be understood as contingent. We have no denitive answers which,
unto itself, we see as a caveat that must always bracket any and all discussions about decolonizing
or anti-colonial work, particularly in the academy. Decolonization and anti-colonial work, like the
colonization and colonial work with which it is necessarily in constant dialog and reference, is
always shifting, oating, incomplete, unstable, and contradictory. What requires acknowledging,
in other words, is that any efforts to decolonize spaces and times that are premised upon the idea
390 S. de Leeuw et al.
or goal of some type of completion, some kind of closure, or some certainty that purports to afford
anyone involved an opportunity to move onwards or forwards, is an effort that is destined to fail.
Unsettling settler colonialism can never be instrumental, nor can it be nished.
In other words, colonialism, and especially settler colonialism in territories that remain occu-
pied, is still and always has been incomplete and ongoing and likewise, decolonizing and/or
anti-colonial work must also always be conceptualized as incomplete and ongoing. Although
we do not by any means propose that policies aimed to correct institutionalized inequities are
fully unnecessary or not useful, we suspect the very nature of a policy, an inscription of a narra-
tive/directive or a concretizing of what is (and is not) advisable or appropriate as anti-colonial
work, is antithetical to the possibility of real change. Paradoxically, then, any kind of change is
likely to come in great part from acknowledging the fundamental impossibility of itself and by
pushing back on the limits of possibility. This is difcult for both individuals and institutions,
grounded as they are in concepts of growth and oriented at least supercially to some imagined
other, different, better, future time and space. And yet, as Sara Ahmed notes,
it is the very idea of
overcoming that which we have all inherited (settler colonialism), of relegating the past to a realm
of the somehow disappeared, which serves most potently to re-entrench it. Furthermore, and again
somewhat antithetical to the directions we have charted in this paper as currently existing in post-
secondary institutions (and we suspect in spaces beyond those institutions), it may well not be
Indigenous peoples and Indigeneity that need to be made more visible through policies and prac-
tices (translating into more scrutiny and thus more demand on Indigenous subjects) but, instead,
the naturalized, hegemonic, and remarkably invisible nature of settler-colonial power that requires
illuminating and then destabilizing.
We also want to be clear that our thoughts in this paper, while mobile (e.g. transportable
without being, wholesale, transferable), are not meant to be generalizable or reproducible.
Again, we suggest that this caveat is equally applicable to all efforts in post-secondary and
other institutional settings that are concerned with anti-colonial work: the work is always geo-
graphically and temporally specic and, since both time and place are always shifting and in a
process of construction and deconstruction, so too must be the policies and practices that
unfold in and through them. We are NOTsaying here that policies aimed at decolonization or pol-
icies anchored in goodintentions should cease to exist. Rather, we want to suggest that good
intentions must always be critically destabilized in part through acknowledging their historic ante-
cedents and genealogical lineages. Good intentions are not good simply by virtue of positioning
themselves as such, and when good intentions manifest as institutional policies or practices it is
incumbent upon anyone interested in meaningfully destabilizing normative settler colonialism to
actively push back against those policies and practices. Indeed, only if it withstands or shifts in
response to critical pressure might a policy or practice be understood as doing the work that it
announces or evokes as being done by its presence, by its being.
Colonialism always was, and is right now, uncomfortable particularly so for colonized sub-
jects, but also for settler-colonial subjects. Unsettling colonialism, and indeed troubling good
intentions, must similarly never be comfortable. It is, we suggest, at the very moment when some-
thing ascends to a position of normative comfortableness that it most desperately needs troubling.
It is exactly at the moment when we, especially those of us who are settler colonists, feel good
about having reached a place of comfort and stabilization about unsettling colonialism that we
should be feeling most troubled. Indeed, in the very act of seeking to decolonize academic insti-
tutions that exist within an ever-present settler colonial geography, it might be that decolonization
is fundamentally rendered impossible and that something new and different must be imagined.
We recognize that most spaces, especially institutional and post-secondary educational
spaces, remain lacking in Indigenous peoples, presences, and voices and that many people,
both Indigenous and non-Indigenous would like that to change. We count ourselves among
Settler Colonial Studies 391
them. We are not convinced, however, that this lack can be addressed by simply increasing the
numbers of Indigenous peoples and their/our ways of knowing and being in spaces and insti-
tutions that remain fundamentally unchanged, nor by Indigenous peoples simply being positioned
as more visible subjects for non-Indigenous subjects to engage with and draw from within those
spaces and institutions. It may be that academic institutions will never be spaces of and for Indi-
genous peoples and knowledges. Indeed, academic institutions may always be sites of normative
settler colonial power. And yet, drawing on Gibson-Graham,
we suggest that even the remotest
possibility of achieving new insights into decolonizing relationships especially but not exclu-
sively in post-secondary institutions can only be achieved when settler colonists become
more visible, exactly and precisely as non-Indigenous settler colonists whose presences must
never be naturalized and who instead understand their/our practices and selves as a becoming
of something yet to be dened(99). In other words, at the very moment that a relationship
becomes dened by or attached to the idea of decolonization or policies that purport to do
anti-colonial work, the ability to critically reect upon that work can slip away. We insist,
then, that dismantling colonial work must never be comfortable, must never reach a place of
stasis and, crucially, must never be allowed to be untroubled.
1. Weare three women who live in northern British Columbia, two of us non-Indigenous and one of us
Cree, who work as professors and/or researchers at the University of Northern British Columbia.
Margo specializes in Aboriginal early childhood development and has worked in multiple venues
and at multiple scales on questions of Indigenous peopleshealth in Canada. She is the Scientic
Director of the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health and is an Associate Professor
with cross-appointments in Education and First Nations Studies at the University of Northern
British Columbia. Sarah is a human geographer whose research program addresses colonialism and
Indigenous people. She is an Assistant Professor in the Northern Medical Program at the University
of Northern British Columbia, the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Northern British Columbia
and an Afliate Associate Professor with the School of Community and Public Health at University of
British Colombia. She is a Research Associate with the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal
Health. Nicole is a PhD candidate in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University. Her
research is focused on discourses of neoliberal development, colonialism and resource extraction,
and she is also a Research Associate with the National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.
2. Sincere thanks to Patrick Wolfe for assistance with ways to articulate precisely how this paper inter-
venes into existing bodies of knowledge. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful
feedback and suggestions.
3. For notable and important published exceptions, see Patrick Wolfe, Against the Intentional Fallacy:
Legocentrism and Continuity in the Rhetoric of Indian Dispossession,American Indian Culture
and Research Journal 36, no. 1 (2012): 146; Elina Hill, A Critique of the Call to Always Indigenize,
Peninsula : A journal of Relational Politics 2, no. 1 (2012).
4. Len Findlay, Always Indigenize!: The Radical Humanities in the Postcolonial Canadian University,
ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature 31, nos. 12 (2000): 30826.
5. Sarah Ahmed, On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life (Durham: Duke Univer-
sity Press, 2012).
6. Sara Ahmed, Declaration of Whiteness: The Non-Performativity of Anti-Racism,Borderlands
E-Journal 3, no. 2 (2004),
(accessed September 7, 2012); Richard Dyer, White (New York: Routledge, 1997); Sarah de Leeuw,
Margo Greenwood, and Emilie Cameron, Deviant Constructions: How Governments Preserve Colo-
nial Narratives of Addictions and Poor Mental Health to Intervene into the Lives of Indigenous Chil-
dren and Families in Canada,International Journal of Mental Health and Addictions 8, no. 2 (2010):
7. See A.L. Stoler, Race and the Education of Desire: FoucaultsHistory of Sexualityand the Colonial
Order of Things (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995); Dyer, White.
8. Sarita Srivastava, Youre Calling Me a Racist? The Moral and Emotional Regulation of Antiracism
and Feminism,Signs: Journal of Women and Culture 31, no. 1 (2005): 30.
392 S. de Leeuw et al.
9. Srivastava, Youre Calling me a Racist?
10. Ahmed, Declaration of Whiteness; Ahmed, On Being Included.
11. Sara Ahmed, Who Knows? Knowing Strangers and Strangeness,Australian Feminist Studies 15,
no. 31 (2000): 58.
12. Ibid., 57.
13. de Leeuw, Greenwood, and Cameron, Deviant Constructions; Anne M. Stoler, Tense and Tender
Ties: The Politics of Comparison in North American History and (Post) Colonial Studies,The
Journal of American History 88, no. 3 (2001): 82965.
14. Vincent McNally, Lords Distant Vineyard: A History of the Oblates and the Catholic Community in
British Columbia (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2000); Brett Christophers, Positioning the
Missionary: John Booth Good and the Conuence of Cultures in Nineteenth-Century British Columbia
(Vancouver: UBC Press, 1998).
15. de Leeuw, S., S. Maurice, T. Holyk, M. Greenwood, and W. Adam, With Reserves: The Geographies
of Colonialism and First Nations Health in Northern-Interior British Columbia,The Annals of the
American Association of Geographers 102, no. 5 (2012): 90411. Special edition on health.
16. Mary-Ellen Kelm, Colonizing Bodies:Aboriginal Health and Healing in British Columbia, 1900
1950 (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 1999).
17. Sarah de Leeuw, Intimate Colonialisms: The Material and Experienced Places of British Columbias
Residential Schools,Canadian Geographer 51, no. 3 (2007): 33959; Sherene Razack, When Place
Becomes Race: Introduction,inRace, Space and the Law: Unmapping a White Settler Society, ed.
Sherene Razack (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2002), 121.
18. See John S. Milloy, A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential Schooling
System, 18791986 (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1999).
19. James R. Miller, Shingwauks Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1997); James R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White
Relations in Canada, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001).
20. de Leeuw, Greenwood, and Cameron, Deviant Constructions.
21. Tania M. Li, The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics
(Durham: Duke University Press, 2007).
22. Stephen Hui, Shawn Atleo Criticizes Stephen Harper over No History of ColonialismRemark,, October 2, 2009,
stephen-harper-over-no-history-colonialism-remark (accessed September 5, 2012).
23. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Harper Offers Full Apology on Behalf of Canadians for the Indian
Residential Schools System,Prime Minister of Canada, June 11, 2008,
media.asp?id=2149 (accessed September 5, 2012); Marv Waterstone and Sarah de Leeuw, A Sorry
State: Apology Excepted,Human Geography, A New Radical Journal 3, no. 3 (2010): 128.
24. Sarah de Leeuw, Alice Through the Looking Glass: Emotion, Personal Connection, and Reading
Colonial Archives along the Grain,Journal of Historical Geography 38, no. 3 (2012): 27381.
25. Carole Pateman, The Settler Contract,inContract and Domination, ed. Carole Pateman and Charles
Mills (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007), 73.
26. Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, Decolonization is not a metaphor,Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 140.
27. Lorenzo Veracini, Isopolitics, Deep Colonizing, Settler Colonialism, Interventions: International
Journal of Postcolonial Studies 13, no. 2 (2011): 17189; Deborah B. Rose (1996) in Lorenzo Veracini,
Isopolitics, Deep Colonizing, Settler Colonialism,Interventions: International Journal of Postcolo-
nial Studies 13, no. 2 (2011): 17189.
28. Ibid.
29. Veracini, Isopolitics.
30. See, for example, Mary Gilmartin and Lawrence D. Berg, Locating postcolonialism,AREA 39, no. 1
(2007): 1204; Wendy Shaw, Decolonizing Geographies of Whiteness,Antipode 38, no. 4 (2006):
85169; W.S. Shaw, R.D.K. Herman, and G.R Dobbs, Encountering Indigeneity: Re-Imaging and
Decolonizing Geography,Geograska Annaler Series B: Human Geography 88, no. 3 (2006):
31. See, for example, Keith James, There are Doorways in these Huts: An Empirical Study of Educational
Programs, Native Canadian Student Needs, and Institutional Effectiveness in British Columbia and
Ontario, Canada,Journal of Native American Education 40, no. 3 (2001): 2435.
32. Ahmed, On Being Included.
Settler Colonial Studies 393
33. Statistics Canada, Canadians in Context Aboriginal Population,
4r@-eng.jsp?iid=36 (accessed February 28, 2013).
34. David Holmes, Redressing the Balance: Canadian University Programs in Support of Aboriginal Stu-
dents. Report prepared for the Associations of Universities and Colleges of Canada (Ottawa: Associ-
ation of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2006),
programs_aboriginal_students_e.pdf (accessed September 5, 2012).
35. See Scott L. Morgensen, Spaces between Us: Queer Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Decoloniza-
tion (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011) and Audrey Kobayashi and Sarah de Leeuw,
Colonialism and the Tensioned Landscapes of Indigeneity,inThe Handbook of Social Geography,
ed. Susan J. Smith, Rachel Pain, Sallie A. Marston, and John P. Jones III (London: Sage, 2010),
36. Ahmed, Who knows?, 56.
37. Ibid., 183.
38. Gibson-Graham, J.K., A Postcapitalist Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006).
394 S. de Leeuw et al.
... Nursing has a strong ethic of social justice; however, when it is understood from neoliberal and multiculturalist ideologies it can create an "us and them" binary of understanding difference (de Leeuw et al., 2013). Many nursing textbooks and pedagogies remain imbued with essentialist assumptions of culture (Milton, 2016). ...
... If we focus the process of reconciliation on the decolonization of our practice and institutions, we risk remaining stuck in the type of thinking that has enabled those colonial relations of power to exist in the first place (Smith, 2020). The paradox of self-focused decolonizing work has been pointed out by many authors including de Leeuw et al. (2013) who argues that "new kinds of policies and practices ostensibly aimed toward addressing and ameliorating past wrongs... function to obscure ongoing harms and injustices of colonial practice, subverting the very good intentions they purport to represent" (p. 384). ...
... Segueing with APC, many universities and colleges have begun to recognize in course syllabi, official reports/documents, and webpages that the land on which their courses are taught and institutions are founded are traditional territories belonging to specific Indigenous tribes (Wilkes et al., 2017). While an important step forward in advancing the conversation, this conjures the risk of DC becoming a "metaphor" (Daigle, 2019;De Leeuw et al., 2013;Tuck and Yang, 2012), for wherever discourse (commitment to Indigenous well-being and reconciliation) is decoupled from commensurate levels/modes of action ((re)administering land), DC is reduced to a mere tool to placate colonizer guilt while ultimately maintaining the status quo (Coulthard, 2010). ...
Full-text available
The subject of (de)colonization in the academy has witnessed an upsurge in attention over the past two decades across the social sciences and the Global North-South divide. This article critically examines central themes that have guided the conceptualization of decolonization thus far and foregrounds the convergences that decolonization shares with the epistemology of qualitative research methodology and pedagogy. In so doing, this article articulates the objective of reconciliation and demonstrates the ways in which reconciliation has been and can be enacted in the academy, limning the themes of (a) attention to physical context; (b) inclusion of Indigenous voices; (c) and decolonization of Indigenous and non-Indigenous minds. This article argues for better aligning the epistemology and conduct of qualitative research with Indigenous values—and concludes by calling for attention to Indigenous intersectionality and calling against a growing trend of decontextualizing decolonization.
... The heart of Sara Ahmed's arguments relevant to our discussion of 79 equity and equityrelated documents across eight school boards in southwestern Ontario coalesce between two poignant critiques: that these policies have been implemented with the purpose of protecting the institution and its image rather than genuinely seeking to challenge structures of inequity, and demonstrating how declarations of commitment to equity ultimately function as "non-performatives" that "do not bring into effect that which they name" (Ahmed, 2006, p. 119). Although policies may convince the institution that they are "doing good" (Ahmed, 2012, p. 71), it is necessary to "trouble good intentions" in an effort to ensure that institutions are held accountable for effectively practicing that which they name (de Leeuw, Greenwood, & Lindsay, 2013). ...
Full-text available
Institutions of higher education across Ontario are increasingly expressing their commitments to diversity and inclusion through the development of various initiatives, including the implementation of policies that elucidate institutional promises of equity. Few studies have examined such policy efforts in Canadian higher education, but we suggest that insights into school board policies can help to inform a critical analysis of equity policies in universities. This paper is part of a larger project that investigates the enactment of Ontario’s equity and inclusive education strategy across all school boards in the province. In 2009, the Ontario government mandated all 72 school boards to develop a policy on equity and inclusive education. Drawing on theories of critical policy analysis, this paper provides an analysis of the policies drafted by eight school boards in southwestern Ontario during 2019-2020. Our analysis suggests that these policies largely follow verbatim transcriptions of the Ontario Ministry of Education’s equity policy, and fail to construct localized policies that include procedures, enactment strategies, and evaluation methods that respond to existing challenges within each local context. Drawing on the work of Sara Ahmed (2012), and based on our review of policy documents, our analysis suggests that equity policies function to protect the institution and its image rather than challenging institutional inequities. Ultimately, we argue that these policies are “non-performative” and fail to address systemic inequities in the education system. The implications of this for higher education will be discussed.
... In this attempt, however, there is a risk that I will create a damage-centred narrative (cf: Tuck, 2009 (Brown & Strega, 2015;Castleden et al., 2012;Gaudry, 2015;Kirby et al., 2017;Ochocka & Janzen, 2014;Strand et al., 2003;Whetung & Wakefield, 2019), I am able to make sense of my own challenges in research through the reflexive work on community-based, participatory action, and other forms of community-engaged research (Gallagher, 2018;Johnston, 2018;Kennelly, 2018;Kepkiewicz et al., 2019;Tuck & Del Vecchio, 2018). These reflections, along with other critiques (de Leeuw et al., 2012(de Leeuw et al., , 2013 & Simpson, 2016;Cruikshank, 2005;Todd, 2018) but also draw on examples from the Global South -many of which are articulated by non-Indigenous anthropologists (Blaser, 2009;de la Cadena, 2010;Escobar, 2018;Verran, 2013;Viveiros de Castro, 2013). I take seriously the intervention from Dakota scholar Kim Tallbear (2012) who responds the burgeoning attention to human/nonhuman relations at the time: "the academy is now being infiltrated by non-Indigenous voices articulating the idea that life/not life is too binary and restrictive" (para. ...
Most food systems challenges in the Northwest Territories(NWT), including extractivism, climate change, and restrictive policies, are bound to processes of settler colonialism. Researchers working in northern contexts typically recognize the disruptive role colonialism had in shaping foodways, but often fail to contend with the ongoing realities of colonial forces and the role research has in upholding them. This thesis is situated in tensions I encountered in two research engagements working to support “local” food systems in the NWT: a community-academic partnership through FLEdGE Research and a traditional research project supported through a Mitacs fellowship. My aspirations to develop these engagements into a community-based participatory research (CBPR) thesis project brought me to the realization that settler colonialism had been insufficiently attended to. This thesis is the result of a reflexive analysis of my engagements as a southern-based settler researcher working in the North. It involves critically revisiting my preliminary fieldwork, interviews and observations, as well as literatures read, and writings formulated throughout my journey as a graduate student. It argues that southern-based researchers must attend to the ways our research reinforces harmful colonial narratives about the North and actively work to disrupt colonial continuities.
... Although Nipissing University (like all Canadian universities on both ceded and unceded land) still has a long way to go to repair the violence of settler colonialism in academic knowledge production, it is easier to begin this type of work when there are already support networks and resources in place at the institutions involved. 19 Despite being part of a university that has prioritized ''indigenizing the academy,'' (MacDonald, 2016) community-focused research governance structures remain under-developed (De Leeuw et al., 2013). A major aim of the partnership, therefore, is to explore options for research protocol that amplifies ''working in relationship'' and sharing knowledge ''in a good way.'' ...
Full-text available
In this paper, we reflect on an emerging community-based partnership rooted in place-based reparative research. Braiding knowledges (Atalay, 2012) from Nbisiing Anishinaabeg communities, northern Ontario universities, and multi-scalar museums, the partnership focuses on repatriation, reparative environmental histories, and action-based research in the context of settler colonialism and climate change. We reflect on ongoing projects that attempt to put Anishinaabe gikendaasowin (knowledge) into action alongside historical geographical research. We discuss how the partnership resonates with community geography values of relationship, collaboration, equity, and reciprocity, and urge non-Indigenous geographers to acknowledge how Indigenous knowledges and approaches have shaped these ideas long before geography became a discipline. We contend that historical geographers have a deeper role to play in community geography scholarship, citing examples of two projects related to (1) repatriation of Anishinaabeg cultural heritage and (2) storymapping through historical Geographic Information Systems (HGIS). However, we argue, geographers must continue to acknowledge their own positionality in a discipline that was built through settler colonial violence and knowledge production. Finally, we reflect on the role of academic institutions in facilitating First Nation-university-museum partnerships through access to funding, space, and databases, while addressing the challenges of relying on institutional support for reparatory and decolonizing projects.
... Hawaiian well-being and health are linked to overarching systems, infrastructure, and environments that western frameworks of health often overlook (Greenwood, de Leeuw, Lindsay & Reading, 2015). Health researchers can ignore and minimize how historic and ongoing colonialism have embedded deleterious impacts on Hawaiian well-being, health, and longevity (DeLeeuw, Greenwood & Lindsay, 2013). The next several subsections are within an Indigenous Social Determinants of Health framework, discussing various aspects of life on Kauaʻi that result from colonial occupation and how these situations potentially impact the Hawaiian community. ...
... These gifts have shaped the Awareness project as well as our on-going efforts to share the project and its findings in ways that support the decolonization of education in Canada. The process is necessarily fraught and complex, as intention and goodwill do not in themselves constitute the ground or endpoint of decolonization (Ahmed, 2005;de Leeuw, Greenwood & Lindsay, 2013). We have found, though, that the task of finding language to share knowledge in non-violent ways requires the best of everyone involved: humility, openness, generosity, humour, and vision of what we want to move towards. ...
Full-text available
This article argues that decolonizing educational research begins in attention to inherited colonial thinking and ways of being. Working with over 250 Indigenous educators, staff, students, faculty and administrators associated with 10 partner universities in Ontario, Canada, we co-designed a questionnaire assessing how Ontario post-secondary students are learning to think about colonialism and its relationship to Indigenous peoples and Canadian society. Situating ourselves as researchers and as participants, we theorize the questionnaire’s and our own methodological transformation through the lens of recent literature on epistemologies of ignorance, discussing humour, the relationship between language and imagination, and assumptions we held that presented significant opportunities to shift how we relate. In doing so we argue the social importance of attending to the limits of knowledge and the entrenchment of those limits in historically conditioned and socially sanctioned axes of dominance. We attest both to the depths of colonial misrecognition and to the power of Indigenous knowledge and ways of being to shift social worlds.
This article examines the collection activities of Paul Dyck (1917–2016), a collector of Native North American Plains objects. Paul Dyck’s extensive archive is employed to explore networks of collectors and their practices, spanning the entirety of the United States in the mid-twentieth century. Weaving ethnographic material conducted with private collectors and heirs alongside Dyck’s correspondence, Dyck’s activities are situated within the history of anthropological thought, a discourse on the nature of settler colonial practices of collection, and U.S. settler identity formation. The article draws on these insights to introduce settler materiality, a new theoretical term and definition with relevance for anthropologists, Native American and Indigenous Studies scholars, historians, and settlercolonial theorists interested in the way material culture functions in settler colonial societies.
Objectives: Indigenous peoples are the first peoples of what is now called Canada. Canadians have benefitted from their largesse and contributions in a myriad of ways that remain unacknowledged. Indeed, ongoing colonization and systemic anti-Indigenous racism in all quarters of our society have had heinous impacts on their health and well-being. Despite this reality and multiple calls for redress, Indigenous health is still missing from the Core Competencies for Public Health in Canada, having obvious implications for public health training programs and subsequent practice. Our objective in this paper is to critically explore the reasons behind institutional apathy for reconciliation in Indigenous health. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 19 leaders in Canadian Graduate Public Health Programs (CGPHPs) at 15 universities to explore the extent to which CGPHPs engage with Canada's 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action to address Indigenous health. We used thematic discourse analysis to illuminate the landscape and make recommendations. Results: Participants agree that Indigenous health is important, but our data reveal an uneven landscape for addressing the Calls to Action. Curriculum was limited though we noted modest positive change. On the whole, the non-Indigenous (white) professoriate still needs to educate themselves while not all see the need to do so. Many deflected responsibility. Yet anecdotally, there is desire among CGPHP students who are already unsettling themselves to see such competency in their training. Conclusion: It is a settler evasion to claim lack of expertise, to express a desire to limit the burden on Indigenous academics, and to stand on the sidelines of institutional inertia. Our findings are a call to CGPHPs to do better.
Issue addressed Little is known about the complex relationships between Australian Indigenous people’s use of social media and ‘health‐seeking’—seeking help for issues related to health and wellbeing. This paper has emerged from a broader sociological research project focusing on the help‐seeking and help‐giving practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on social media, specifically aiming to unlock its potential to create vital and creative connections between help‐seekers and help‐givers. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 52 Indigenous Facebook users from five sites across Australia. Results The use of grounded theory and Indigenous‐centred methodologies for analysis showed clearly that users draw on the connections made possible through Facebook to health‐seek. We identify five primary health‐seeking strategies that differ in form, purpose and directness: soliciting health‐related information, gaining emotional support, producing social health‐seeking collectives, engaging in motivational and ‘eudaimonic’ content, and connecting with formal health sources. Conclusion While far from being a panacea to health disparities, these findings show that Facebook does provide unique opportunities for many Indigenous help‐seekers and help‐givers in times of need. So what? Social media offers pathways for health‐seeking both beyond and outside the dominant western biomedical models of public health promotion. These already‐existing pathways should be considered by people working on social media public health promotion campaigns for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Full-text available
Our goal in this article is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization. Decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life; it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. The easy adoption of decolonizing discourse by educational advocacy and scholarship, evidenced by the increasing number of calls to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or, “decolonize student thinking”, turns decolonization into a metaphor. As important as their goals may be, social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches that decenter settler perspectives have objectives that may be incommensurable with decolonization. Because settler colonialism is built upon an entangled triad structure of settler-native-slave, the decolonial desires of white, non-white, immigrant, postcolonial, and oppressed people, can similarly be entangled in resettlement, reoccupation, and reinhabitation that actually further settler colonialism. The metaphorization of decolonization makes possible a set of evasions, or “settler moves to innocence”, that problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity. In this article, we analyze multiple settler moves towards innocence in order to forward “an ethic of incommensurability” that recognizes what is distinct and what is sovereign for project(s) of decolonization in relation to human and civil rights based social justice projects. We also point to unsettling themes within transnational/Third World decolonizations, abolition, and critical space-place pedagogies, which challenge the coalescence of social justice endeavors, making room for more meaningful potential alliances.
Hegemony is a preferred mode of governance. Because it relies more heavily on consent than on coercion, it tends to produce a more willing, and less resistant, citizenry. By its nature, hegemony depends crucially upon a widely shared, common-sensical view that elites are acting in the interests of those being governed, and this common sense underpins the legitimacy and authority of those in power. Failure to maintain such legitimacy can produce moments of severe crisis in governance, and such threats must be avoided or ameliorated. Typically, this kind of boundary work takes place “behind the scenes.” There are moments, however, when these efforts at state maintenance become visible, and might be investigated to reveal mechanisms that could be turned to progressive ends. We contend that official, state apologies offer one such avenue for investigation, and we offer our substantiation for this claim in the paper below.
What does diversity do? What are we doing when we use the language of diversity? Sara Ahmed offers an account of the diversity world based on interviews with diversity practitioners in higher education, as well as her own experience of doing diversity work. Diversity is an ordinary, even unremarkable, feature of institutional life. Yet diversity practitioners often experience institutions as resistant to their work, as captured through their use of the metaphor of the "brick wall." On Being Included offers an explanation of this apparent paradox. It explores the gap between symbolic commitments to diversity and the experience of those who embody diversity. Commitments to diversity are understood as "non-performatives" that do not bring about what they name. The book provides an account of institutional whiteness and shows how racism can be obscured by the institutionalization of diversity. Diversity is used as evidence that institutions do not have a problem with racism. On Being Included offers a critique of what happens when diversity is offered as a solution. It also shows how diversity workers generate knowledge of institutions in attempting to transform them.
With the growing strength of minority voices in recent decades has come much impassioned discussion of residential schools, the institutions where attendance by Native children was compulsory as recently as the 1960s. Former students have come forward in increasing numbers to describe the psychological and physical abuse they suffered in these schools, and many view the system as an experiment in cultural genocide. In this first comprehensive history of these institutions, J.R. Miller explores the motives of all three agents in the story. He looks at the separate experiences and agendas of the government officials who authorized the schools, the missionaries who taught in them, and the students who attended them. Starting with the foundations of residential schooling in seventeenth-century New France, Miller traces the modern version of the institution that was created in the 1880s, and, finally, describes the phasing-out of the schools in the 1960s. He looks at instruction, work and recreation, care and abuse, and the growing resistance to the system on the part of students and their families. Based on extensive interviews as well as archival research, Miller's history is particularly rich in Native accounts of the school system. This book is an absolute first in its comprehensive treatment of this subject. J.R. Miller has written a new chapter in the history of relations between indigenous and immigrant peoples in Canada. Co-winner of the 1996 Saskatchewan Book Award for nonfiction. Winner of the 1996 John Wesley Dafoe Foundation competition for Distinguished Writing by Canadians Named an 'Outstanding Book on the subject of human rights in North America' by the Gustavus Myer Center for the Study of Human Rights in North America.
This essay contributes to interdisciplinary reflection on settler colonialism and decolonization by proposing an analysis of two characteristic traits of the ‘settler colonial situation’: isopolitics and deep colonizing. The first section outlines isopolitical relations as an alternative possibility to sustained colonial domination on the one hand, and internationally recognized independence within an international system of formally independent polities on the other. The second section concentrates on deep colonizing, a notion that upsets traditional amelioristic narratives emphasizing progressive processes culminating in the acquisition of social and political rights for colonized and formerly colonized peoples. Appraising concomitantly an isopolitical imaginary that persists in the present and the dynamics of deep colonizing, and, more generally, focusing on the (im)possibility of decolonization in settler colonial settings, can help reframing received narratives of decolonization.