Right time right place: Mandating Indigenous course content in Canadian higher education


Jonathan Kauenhowen, University of Toronto

Policy interventions in Canadian institutions of higher education related to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action have taken various forms, ranging from structural to the symbolic. In this research, I conduct a case study analysis of a noteworthy example, a university-wide mandatory Indigenous content requirement (ICR) policy at a small undergraduate institution in western Canada. This study is informed by lessons from the sociology of higher education, social movements, and organizations, and seeks to contribute to the literature on diversity and Indigenization policy in Canadian higher education. Drawing upon a discourse analysis of policy documents, grey literature, and senate meeting notes, as well as interviews with faculty, administrators, and students, I examine the organizational features and social environment that enabled this initiative. I also discuss the students’ role throughout this process; both as the driving force behind the proposal, and its principal target. While the research is ongoing, several key themes emerged from the analysis to this point. First, this student driven ICR policy initiative was the beneficiary of a highly receptive administration. Student groups brought forward the proposal as the university was undergoing a change in leadership, dovetailing with one of the pillars of the new administration’s strategic directions plan. Moreover, student leaders and organizers reported a lack of interest over the previous decade when pitching similar policy proposals. Despite enthusiastic support for this policy on the part of the incoming administration, the rollout was complicated by its ambitious timeline. The most daunting challenge to the policy’s success was not public hostility or students bristling at the mandate to complete an Indigenous content course, as initial reactions on social media might have suggested. Instead, the challenge lay with the speed at which this policy was proposed, accepted, and implemented. Over the course of several months, the university had to produce enough course offerings to meet the demand of a brand new, university wide requirement without the requisite infrastructure in place to ensure a smooth rollout. Despite the myriad issues that arose, a determined effort by the university president alongside faculty from two departments allowed them to adapt to deficiencies in relatively short order. Finally, the potential for certain students to become adversarial and disrupt the classroom setting was always a concern for faculty. Based on my conversations with students and faculty, however, no-one reported such an experience. This does not mean that this issue never emerged in any classroom setting, but merely that among my participants, hostility towards Indigenous people or curricular content did not feature in their experience of teaching or taking an ICR. To the contrary, students reported positive learning experiences that filled in gaps of knowledge about their local history and challenged stereotypes and misinformation they were exposed to in their high schools and communities.

This paper will be presented at the following session: