MPHIL IN ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY,

TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN

In association with

THE HIGHER EDUCATION EQUALITY UNIT

WORKING AND TEACHING IN A MULTICULTURAL

UNIVERSITY

Proceedings of a workshop held in Trinity College Dublin, 16 November 2002

Editor: Ronit Lentin

Dublin, 2003

2

CONTENTS Preface and acknowledgements 3 Welcome address: Dr Sheila Greene, Senior Lecturer, TCD 4 Introduction: ‘Intercultural’ education for the university of tomorrow? 6 Ronit Lentin, MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies, Department of Sociology, TCD How does student number 20 understand multiculturalism? 22 Sanjay Sharma, School of Cultural and Innovation Studies, University of East London The UK experience Emmanuell Kusemamuriwo, Policy Adviser, Ethnicity & Cultural Diversity, Equality Challenge Unit, UK I. TCD AS A MULTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THE CHALLENGES Cultural diversity and the Faculty of Health Sciences Nicholas Kennedy, Department of Clinical Medicine, TCD 27 Approximating an ideal? Raj Chari, Department of Political Science, TCD 34 Pluralist agendas ‘old’ and ‘new’: The challenges for Trinity College Dublin Andrew Finlay, Department of Sociology, TCD 36 The university, multiculturalism and nursing Damien Brennan, School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, TCD 39 International student affairs – challenges in a changing world Catherine Williams, International Student Affairs, TCD 41 II. INTERCULTURALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CHALLENGES FOR IRELAND Opening remarks Niall Crowley, Director, Equality Authority 46 Interculturalism and diversity in higher education in Ireland Mike FitzGibbon, Higher Education Equality Unit 48 Towards a multi-cultural campus? An ICOS perspective on some questions and issues Wendy Cox, Irish Council for International Students (ICOS) 51 Devising an ethnic monitoring system for Ireland in the 21st century Margaret Flanagan, Education and Management Analysis, Registry, DCU 56

III. STUDENT PANEL Trinity: a multicultural campus – fact or myth? Antra Bhargava, International Students' Liaison Officer, Students' Union, TCD 68 My free movement - Finland to Ireland Kristiina Kojamo, BESS, TCD 70 The need to globalise education Chinedu Onyejelem, MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies, TCD 71 An Irish student’s experience of international student life in Finland Bernadette Ni Chaiside, Sociology and Social Policy, TCD 74

3

4

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea of organising this workshop arose out of classroom interaction in the MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies of which I am the coordinator. Bringing together students from diverse countries and cultures and enabling them to meet their intellectual, but also personal goals pose many challenges. We were not always successful in defusing the tensions among ethnically diverse students and various solutions have been proposed, including running intercultural workshops before the beginning of the academic year, and holding facilitated meetings to resolve specific tensions. We did none of these, and as we muddled along, I tried to implement various radical pedagogical approaches, assisting myself and students to ‘assume (that) critical skills are always relevant, rather than being situationally determined…. (and) that students will actually use these critical skills for liberatory purposes’ (Sharma, this volume). Running the workshop was one way of bringing together TCD staff and students, as well as educationalists from other universities to start speaking about the issues involved. Not everything said made easy listening, but we were all certainly challenged and I hope this collection is the beginning of a long road towards shaping our third level institutions as increasingly multicultural.

The workshop would not have taken place without the association of the now-defunct Higher Education Equality Unit and its director Jacqui O’Riordan. My sincere thanks to Jacqui and Mike FitzGibbon of the HEEU for this association and for part funding the workshop. Regrettably, the Higher Education Authority disbanded the HEEU one week after the workshop. Luckily, we were able to launch the HEEU report Creating an Intercultural Campus on the day – we thank the Minister for Education and Science, Noel Dempsey TD, for launching the report.

Special thanks to Dr Sheila Greene, Senior Lecturer TCD for opening the workshop, and to her and to Professor Jane Grimson, TCD’s Vice-Provost, for staying and listening to what the contributors had to say. Thanks to all the contributors, and in particular to Antra Bhargava, International Students Liaison Officer with the Students Union, for her tireless support in organising the student panel, to the keynote speaker Dr Sanjay Sharma of the School of Cultural and Innovation Studies, University of East London, the guest speaker Emmanuell Kusemamuriwo, Policy Adviser, Ethnicity and Cultural Diversity, Equality Challenge Unit, for sharing with us the UK experience, and to Niall Crowley, Director of the Equality Authority, Anastasia Crickley, Chair of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, and Professor Robert Holton, head of the Department of Sociology TCD, for chairing the sessions. Ronit Lentin Ethnic and Racial Studies Department of Sociology, TCD

5

WELCOME ADDRESS Sheila Greene, Senior Lecturer, TCD I am very pleased to welcome you here this morning on behalf of Trinity College to what promises to be a very important conference for those involved in higher education in Ireland.

I would like to congratulate the organisers of the conference - Dr Ronit Lentin from TCD and Jackie O Riordan from the Higher Education Equality Unit – on this initiative.

Although many of you who will speak today have a deep understanding of issues to do with racial and ethnic difference, I feel that in Ireland and in the Irish third level institutions we are just at the beginning of a journey, which I hope will eventually lead to greater understanding and better practice.

When Ronit Lentin and her colleagues proposed the introduction here in Trinity of an MPhil in Racial and Ethnic Studies in the mid 1990s, not that long ago, questions were asked about the need for such a course in Ireland, which was still seen by many at that time as a racially and ethnically homogeneous society, and its capacity to attract enough students. Of course that was not true, as members of the Traveller and Jewish communities could attest. Furthermore, Ireland has long been riven with social divisions, divisions that are about religion, class and gender. The Centre has, by the way, achieved a great deal and such questions about its relevance seem quite extraordinary today.

The mid 1990s saw a turn in the tide of emigration so that Ireland has in the succeeding years experienced an excess of immigration over emigration. Many of the new immigrants have been asylum seekers who have felt compelled to leave their homes to travel to this very different country. The response to their arrival has generally been less than positive, which challenges us all ask why and to do something to change both attitudes and policies.

The focus today is on the university so I will spend a few minutes on that topic and talk about this university. When I was a student here in the 1960s Trinity was a very different place to what it is today – less than 4,000 students whereas today there are over 15,000. But it was similar in social mix, that is by far the majority of students were middle-class. It is shameful that not much change has occurred in that regard. At that time there were far more students from the North and from the UK. The relative decrease of students from the North in particular is regrettable I think. There was a small number of students from other countries but there were very few non-white people. Nonetheless there was certainly more of an international mix in the universities than in the country at large. If you saw a person of colour on the streets of Dublin the assumption was that he – and it was nearly always he – was a student at one of the medical schools.

Trinity did have more international students than the other universities for a variety of reasons, but that is not saying much.

Today the number of nationalities represented in Trinity is remarkable – 70 in all in this year’s intake of undergraduate students. Last year’s figures on the composition of the total student body inform us that 84 per cent of students were from the Republic of Ireland, 4 per cent from Northern Ireland, 7 per cent from the EU, 3 per cent from North America and 2 per cent from elsewhere, so you can see that, although the spread of countries of origin is great, the numbers are not. Although TCD has today, as in the past, more international students than the other third level institutions in the State.

The other side of the coin relates to the representation of students from ethnic minorities who are either Irish or living in Ireland. Just as our representation in terms of class is poor, our representation in terms of ethnicity is also – very few people from the Traveller Community, for example, reach third level.

Last year we had 18 students with refugee status in Trinity. Students who have refugee status or who have been granted humanitarian leave to stay in Ireland and who have been resident in the EU for three years are accepted as EU students and the Admissions Office has done its best to assist these students in relation to establishing their status and sorting out their position in relation to fees.

But having students from a range of diverse cultures on campus is not enough. The College’s current policy, as outlined in a document to Council and Board on the size and composition of the

6

student body in February 2002 and in the forthcoming strategic plan is to increase the national and cultural diversity of the student body.

Part of the social and ethical responsibility of the university to open its doors to all people of ability. Also I have no doubt that the learning experience of all students and staff is enhanced by the challenge, stimulation and enjoyment of getting to know people from cultural backgrounds other than their own.

To reiterate, being culturally mixed is not enough. Just as, as a nation, our attitudes and practices have to change, so too in the universities we must change attitudes and practices so as to enable students from all backgrounds and identifications to truly flourish. We may have to change what we teach and how we teach. We may have to introduce more and different support structures and practices. This is a challenge to the universities which should not be underestimated because it will require some painful questioning of assumptions and some equally painful, in these very tough times economically, re-allocation of resources.

We in Trinity have a long way to go on this journey. I expect to learn a lot today and I have no doubt that the book by the Higher Education Equality unit Creating an intercultural Campus which is to be launched by the Minister for Education and Science later today will be a great aid and stimulus to all of us as we try to move towards the goal of creating a university environment which is both diverse and intercultural in the full meaning of that term.

7

‘INTERCULTURAL’ EDUCATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TOMORROW?

Ronit Lentin MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies Department of Sociology, TCD

The university is modelled on a European system that promoted not so much a mono-ethnic culture as, in conformity with the longer history of state-formation, a universalist culture which, though mediated through national differentiations, is assumed to supersede local or ethnic values or knowledge… The disciplinary as well as the curricular structure of the university is profoundly ‘Western’ and conforms in all respects to the West’s notion of modernity, academic objectivity, relevance, and hierarchy of bodies of knowledge… the terms ‘Western’, ‘European’, and ‘white’ all designate in fact not merely another ethnicity, equivalent to that of racialised minorities, but a principle fundamentally antagonistic to the social formations it has designated differentially as ‘ethnic’ (Lloyd, 1998: 20-1). The value of the black teacher as anti-racist gesture derives from the understanding gained from experience – knowing about being a victim is what qualifies you for this pedagogical project … however much I want to be everybody’s sweet dream of equal opportunities, monster seems like a much more accurate description of what I do (Bhattacharyya, 2000: 483).

Introduction On the Monday after the ‘Working and teaching in a multicultural university’ workshop, held in Trinity College Dublin on 16 November 2002, a racist notice was posted on the MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies notice board. It had all the usual racist inscriptions, hand drawn in black on a list of second year Sociology students (with the only name which sounded ‘non-Irish’ highlighted): swastikas and Nazi eagles, KKK signs, ‘Blood and Honour’, ‘White power’, ‘88’ (standing for ‘Heil Hitler’), ’14 words’ (standing for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”, a slogan regularly used on White Power websites). It also included more explicit references to the ‘specificities of Irish racism’ (c.f. McVeigh, 1992): ‘every nigger makes his livin’ off the old welfare’, and a drawing of a Black person with a bubble out of his mouth saying ‘I even get a free car’ – denoting racist Irish prejudices against refugees and asylum seekers who, supposedly, ‘sponge’ and ‘scrounge’ on Ireland’s supposedly ‘generous’ welfare system. To complete the picture, the notice also had a homophobic reminder that ‘social research is gay’. The notice served as a reminder of the racism outside the university’s door, although it was most probably posted by a student. As course coordinator of the MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies, I have notified the Gardai and all concerned, from the TCD Provost downwards. Although the responses were all sympathetic, the perpetrator has not been found. Significantly, the absence of a transparent mechanism to deal with the specificities of racist harassment on campus, and the absence of a College equality officer, were made glaring by this incident as will be discussed later. The debates around multiculturalism are symptomatic of a more profound educational and social crisis. As the Irish American scholar David Lloyd (1998) reminds us, the crisis of the university in the US has manifested in terms of the debate around Western culture and multiculturalism, rather than in relation to the universities’ increasing subordination to the needs of the state’s military-industrial and corporate complexes. A similar crisis is manifest in Ireland, with predictions of a diminishing student body and the imminent re-introduction of student fees in the face of the economic decline of the Irish economy and with it, Irish universities. 1

8

Thinking the university at a time of multiculturalism, Lloyd posits the paradox of the Western university system on the brink of turning ‘multicultural’. A radical version of ‘multiculturalism,’ according to Lloyd, can interrupt the functioning of the university, and by extension modern political subjectivity. The university’s function of producing citizens, rather than merely trained professionals, ‘determines the limits of any multicultural intervention but also produces a continually destabilising excess of multicultural projects’ (Lloyd, 1998: 16). Lloyd cites Lisa Lowe’s exploration of the paradox of institutionalising ethnic studies within Western universities: ‘on the one hand, institutionalisation provides a material base within the university for a transformative critique of traditional disciplines and their traditional separations; yet on the other hand, the institutionalisation of any field or curricula which established orthodox objects and methods submits in part to the demands of the university and its educative function in socialising subjects into the state’ (Lowe, 1994). The very concept of a multicultural university is misleading, since it assumes that there are universities that do not need to be multicultural. We really need to be talking about a ‘university that caters for a student (and staff) population that is not only multicultural, but also multilingual and multiracial’(Arora, 1995: 31). Standing on the brink of multiculturality, and in view of Irish society becoming increasingly diverse, Irish universities – much in need of recruiting a different type of student, mature, disadvantaged, ‘non national’ (once called ‘foreign’ or ‘overseas’) – are beginning, belatedly, to think the university in a time of multiculturalism. While the Higher Education Equality Unit’s report, Creating an Intercultural Campus (HEEU, 2002) goes some way towards challenging ‘assumptions about attitudes to, and currently inherent misrepresentations and misconstructions of the “other”’, and provides higher education institutions with tools that facilitate the process of ‘creating a welcoming, safe, productive and enabling environment for members of all ethnic groups’, it stops short at exploring the paradoxical role of the university as both potentially transformatory and yet ultimately institutionalising the ‘socialising (of) subjects into the state’. In order to open a debate about a multicultural Irish university for tomorrow, this paper explores some of the terms used as the tools of this emerging debate, particularly ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘interculturalism’. I then present a brief analysis of multiculturalism Irish style, and its role in the education system, and some proposals regarding the multicultural university of tomorrow, including some observations about Trinity College as a potentially multicultural campus. Multiculturalism, interculturalism and anti-racism, the terms used for envisioning a plural society and education system, need unpacking when we envision the Irish university of tomorrow. ‘Interculturalism’, offered as an alternative to ‘multiculturalism’ in the Irish context, is being politically used to mean, according to the pundits of our budding ‘race relations industry’, a supposed parity of cultures, rather than the dominance of one ‘majority’ culture over a host of ‘smaller’, ‘minority’ cultures. Despite lip service commitment to diversity and to ‘ethnic and racial’ equality, we are a long way from a truly ‘multicultural’ society, or university, itself perhaps a contradiction in terms, as Lloyd suggests. The continual use of ‘ethnic’ and ‘racial’ categories, and ‘ethnic, racial and cultural equality’ is indeed a symptom of the malaise, rather than part of the solution. As Kenan Malik (1998) argues, the notion of ‘difference’ is at the heart not of an anti-racist, but of a racist agenda, and the creation of a multicultural society comes at the expense of an equal one. Equality is seen as good for ‘us’ but not necessarily for ‘them’, and racial theory, attempting to explain the gulf between an abstract attachment to equality and the reality of social inequality, assumes, according to Malik, that inequality is natural.

Unpacking multi/ interculturalism

Multiculturalism and interculturalism (I do not see a fundamental political difference between the two terms, since interculturalism does not seem to contribute to destabilising the power base from which the ‘race relations industry’ operates) have become much bandied-about terms in debates on ethnic inclusion in contemporary Ireland. In what follows I aim to unpack these slippery terms. Multiculturalism

9

If we define a multicultural society as a society characterised by cultural pluralism – as the USA or post-war Britain, which, ideally, celebrates cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity, and may be contrasted with assimilationist tendencies which have been assumed in many studies of ‘race’, ethnicity and immigration – we can see that the emphasis on celebrating cultural diversity, which often stops with sharing foods, music and customs from many cultures, might be useful in order to introduce people to other cultures, but is not a substitute for a politics of anti-racism, since it often leaves the pernicious issue of multi-racisms out of the picture.

Multiculturalism is best understood as a set of political policy responses to what is being perceived as the ‘problems’ of cultural or ethnic diversity. Central to multicultural politics is the recognition of cultural difference, which, as proposed by Charles Taylor (1994: 81) is ‘undergirded by the premise that the withholding of recognition can be a form of oppression’.

In the educational system multiculturalist policies may translate into the teaching of history and literature and into positive discrimination in hiring policies, which often lead to accusations of ‘political correctness’. The argument that political correctness, according to which women and members of racialised minorities are supposedly positively discriminated in academic hiring practices, is, however, negated by the reality. According to figures from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (1993, cited in Christian, 2000: 466), only 2.5% of all US professors were black, only 2.3% of all PhDs awarded in all academic disciplines in the US were awarded to blacks, roughly half of the 19,000 black professors teach in black colleges, and only 0.6% of all full professors were black women.

In Britain multiculturalism has been primarily developed in order to accommodate the resettlement of immigrants from the former colonies. The debate about multiculturalism is between those who want to construct the national collectivity as unproblematically homogeneous and assimilatory (‘those who want to settle here should become like us’) and those who call for ethnic pluralism and the preservation of the original cultures of ethnic minorities. Regardless if the conservation of cultures leads to the reification and essentialisation of those cultures, the debate is never about minority cultures, but always about Western cultural homogeneity.

On one side of the multiculturalism debate stand opponents of multiculturalism (invoking an ‘Anglomorphic society’ in Australia, or the European origin and the primacy of European cultural heritage in the USA, or the need to preserve and celebrate ‘Irish culture’ in Ireland). On the other side stand supporters of multiculturalism, but they too do not assume a society in which all cultures have the same legitimacy. In states where multiculturalism is the official policy, such as Sweden, Canada, Australia, or Britain, there are still cultural customs (such as polygamy, or using drugs) which are considered illegal and illegitimate, giving priority to majority cultural customs. Conversely, cultural relativism is invoked, according to which the state closes its eyes to harmful practices (such as female genital mutilation –FGM, but often also violence against women among racialised communities), arguing that because ‘this is their culture’ the state and its agents cannot intervene, even when immigrants themselves decry such practices as a breach of human rights (see, e.g., Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1993; Mohanty, 1991).

Multicultural policies always involve contradictions between collective and individual rights, though the state has a responsibility to cater for both. Multiculturalist policies often ignore questions of power relations because they deal with representatives of minority communities, who do not necessarily represent intra-community interests, such the interests of women, young people, gay people, disabled people etc. Policy makers often assume that all members of minority communities are equally committed to ‘the culture’ (e.g. that all Muslims are equally committed to religiosity or all Jews are equally committed to orthodoxy, which can determine what type of schools will be state-funded) and that all members speak with a unified ethnic or ‘racial’ voice. In assuming a multiplicity of cultures – which are seen as ‘given’, ‘already there’, and fixed, rather than fluid, shifting and changing – multiculturalist policies often encourage customs which are most traditional and distanced from the majority culture, as the voice of the community. State liberalism often colludes with leaders who are often male, religious and rarely elected, who claim to represent the ‘true’ essence of their culture and religion and who often control women, young people and sexual ‘deviants’. Multiculturalism does not really allow for marginal or subversive counter-narratives within communities, because it wishes to deal with univocal ethnic minorities. The most crucial problem is

10

how ‘the community’ is being represented and by whom? For example, who are the representatives sitting on local councils and other public bodies, if any, and how they are selected to represent the community, and by whom? The main critique of multiculturalism as a political and ideological approach is the ways in which it conceptualises ‘the community’ as based on a reified, and ‘fixed’ culture. This appeal to ‘culture’, which obscures the divisions and exclusions within communities, contributes to the strengthening of majoritarian ideologies of, say, ‘Englishness’, or ‘Irishness’, which are unquestionably racist, discriminatory, and invariably sexist. Despite the need to redefine ‘the community’ and ‘culture,’ those involved in constructing ‘community politics’ in terms of a politics of equal opportunities (which offers jobs and opportunities to many people hitherto denied them) have created a politics of fragmentation (for a fuller discussion, see Lentin, 2002).

For the French sociologist Michel Wieviorka (1998) the crux is the contradiction between individual and group identities. Wieviorka argues that the challenge to multiculturalism is to find a way to enable all individual subjects, not only those affiliated to stable groups, to express themselves as autonomous subjects, to make their own choices and to communicate better with others. Multiculturalism has to be conveyed in practical terms to avoid the pitfalls of abstract universalism, which denies cultural difference, and has to relate to issues such as mother tongue versus host country language, and representation as ‘lived experience’ rather than as ‘authenticity’ (for a discussion of ‘lived experience’ and ‘strategic in/visibility’, see Goldberg, 1997).

Wieviorka says that as far as policies take on board collective identities, multiculturalism is an appropriate political response. But, because it is too often based on representation of cultural difference as static, multiculturalism is more a risk than an appropriate response. We need to go beyond multiculturalism to create a space for cultural invention and subjectivity, to create a post-ethnic society, where minority viewpoints can be heard and debated calmly in a democratic approach to ‘culture’.

Kenan Malik (1998) argues that, since multicultural policies were developed as a response to the persistence of inequalities, despite the rhetoric of assimilation, integration and equality, celebrating ‘difference’ denotes the failure of the movement for equality. The US was re-invented as a multicultural society, but in reality it is a product of the exclusion of African Americans. Finally, Phil Cohen reminds us that:

The multicultural illusion is that dominant and subordinate can somehow swap places and learn how the other half lives, whilst leaving the structures of power intact. As if power relations could be magically suspended through the direct exchange of experience, and ideology dissolve into the thin air of face-to-face communication (Phil Cohen, 1988: 13).

Interculturalism While realising that interculturalism is based on notions of culture as fixed, David Denby suggests that ‘we can go beyond cultural determination, developing greater openness to the world-view of other cultures’. Denby isolates three components of intercultural communication: being sensitive to other cultures presupposes an awareness of one’s own situatedness, and relativises one’s own culture; centring cultural adaptation (as opposed to cultural assimilation), so that interculturalism adds to the repertoire rather than substitutes one culture for another; and learning how to engage in dynamic communication with individuals from other cultures (Denby, 2002: 11). In Tanya Ward’s report for the Dublin City and County Dublin Vocational Education Committees (VECs) (2002), interculturalism, particularly in adult education, is defined as ‘creating an enabling environment’. Ward adapts Dadzie (1999) to propose that the critical features of an intercultural strategy would include:

1. A commitment to race equality in the organisation’s mission statement, translated into different languages.

2. Adherence to the values and spirit of the policy is part of a mutual contract with learners and staff.

3. Race equality/anti-discrimination policy objectives in all strategic planning exercises. 4. A well-publicised grievance procedure translated into various languages.

11

5. Encourage learners and representatives from local, black, migrant and ethnic minority communities and a diversity of backgrounds to participate in policy development and implementation.

6. Monitor the effectiveness of the policy by analysing the number, progress and achievements of black/ethnic minority learners, including exam grades, post-course destinations and any complaints about racial harassment or abuse.

7. Employ ethnic minority workers who have knowledge of the relevant communities to act as advocates.

8. Employ ethnic minorities to work in your organisation. 9. Have posters and images of ethnic minorities in your building (Ward, 2002: 11, adapted

from Dadzie, 1999: 190). US and British multiculturalism has been devised as a result of the realisation that the ‘melting pot’ doesn’t melt and that ethnic and racial divisions are reproduced from generation to generation. Multiculturalism (or interculturalism) – even if it does not admit it - constructs society as composed of a hegemonic white majority with small un-meltable ethnic minorities who have ‘their own cultures’ which have to be understood and accepted but basically left alone so that society can have harmonious relations. Stuart Hall (2000) has categorised multicultural politics into:

• Conservative multiculturalism insists on the assimilation of difference into the traditions and customs of the majority.

• Liberal multiculturalism seeks to integrate the different cultural groups as fast as possible into the ‘mainstream’ provided by a universal individual citizenship, tolerating – only in private – certain particularistic cultural practices.

• Pluralist multiculturalism formally enfranchises the differences between groups along cultural lines and accords different group rights to different communities within a communal political order.

• Commercial multiculturalism assumes that if the diversity of individuals from different communities is recognised in the marketplace, then the problems of cultural difference will be (dis)solved through private consumption, without any need for a redistribution of power and resources.

• Corporate multiculturalism (public or private) seeks to ‘manage’ minority cultural differences in the interests of the centre.

• Critical or ‘revolutionary’ multiculturalism foregrounds power, privilege, the hierarchy of oppressions and the movements of resistance. It seeks to be ‘insurgent, polyvocal, heteroglossial and anti-foundational (Hall, 2000: 210).

MULTI/INTERCULTURAL POLITICS IN IRELAND In today’s Ireland we are seeing the gradual emergence of various forms of multicultural policies, all, I would suggest, stemming from a basic ‘politics of recognition’. Following Hall, the politics of multiculturalism in Ireland can be analysed as having five main components:

• The first – which falls within conservative, or municipal multiculturalism – is spearheaded by public sector bodies such as the National Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI), the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission, as well as the government’s KNOW RACISM National Anti-racism Awareness Programme. Thus a veritable Irish-style ‘race relations industry’ is being constructed, while at the same time the government, which funds the above organisations, is implementing strict immigration and asylum controls. This brings about a shift in antiracism discourse and practice: when the state declares itself committed to antiracism (even as it continues to racialise immigrant and Traveller populations through draconian immigration and asylum policies and anti-trespass legislation), it leave little room for resistance by indigenous or immigrant antiracism

12

initiatives. However, top-down initiatives inadvertently clear new spaces for bottom-up racialised ethnic groups to begin to form their own agendas.

• The second component – falling within liberal, or arguably critical (revolutionary) multiculturalism – is ‘majority’ Irish grassroots antiracism organisations, most of them under-funded and under-supported, who concentrate on opposing the government’s immigration and asylum policies, and finding it increasingly difficult to do their work in an atmosphere of municipal (as well as corporate) multiculturalism which, imposing an integrationist agenda, tends to deny the experiences of racialised sections of Irish society.

• The third component – falling within pluralist multiculturalism, but also within the ambit of ‘identity politics’ – is made up of organisations of the racialised (with the exception of Traveller organisations, the longest established and most politicised groupings, working in partnership with settled people, a partnership which, according to Robbie McVeigh [2002] often means ‘Traveller organisations headed by settled people’), who mostly focus on constructing new diasporic spaces, with limited support from state programmes, which tacitly favour the ‘identity politics’ approach, which seems least threatening to the status quo. Is ‘identity politics’ useful in terms of political organisation? For some, identity politics is separatist, individualistic and inward looking, and tends to replace political action, which aims at social change. For others, strategic identity politics is indispensable (see Spivak, 1995, on ‘strategic essentialism’). ‘Identity politics’ is the opposite of broad alliances and platforms whose political action emanates from ‘unity in diversity’ based on a variety of diverse identities (for a discussion see Yuval-Davis, 1997). However such broad alliance building has not really been successful in Ireland, despite the work of the Platform Against Racism, active in the wake of the 1997 European Year Against Racism, currently seemingly subsumed by the NCCRI.

• The fourth component – falling loosely within pluralist, or liberal multiculturalism – has emerged in community development projects and local communities, and focuses on supporting refugees and immigrants on the one hand, and on cultural and social activities on the other.

• Finally, we are also beginning to see the emergence of commercial and corporate multiculturalism. This aspect of multiculturalism includes the media, but also the advertising industry, marketing for an increasingly multi-ethnic Ireland. Here we must include the universities, whose interest in promoting a multicultural atmosphere must be linked to the economic need to increase their student base in view of a predicted fall in the numbers of school leavers, and continue to attract ‘non national’ students, who pay high ‘non-EU’ fees (Oliver, 2002: 3). 2

Nascent multiculturalism in Ireland must be theorised as the outcome of what Charles Taylor

(1994) defined the ‘politics of recognition’ supposedly demanded by ‘minority and subaltern groups’. Criticising Taylor’s universalism, the British sociologist Barnor Hesse reminds us that until the advent of the Black Power and the women’s and gay liberation movements, discourses of equality for all citizens initially excluded everyone but white Americans, since the principle of universalism and equal dignity was formed in articulation with European racism and white masculinity. Taylor’s theory, Hesse argues, poses the question of ‘whose recognition is sought and what is involved in the power to confer recognition and value’ (Hesse, 1999: 212). Instead of a politics of recognition, Hesse posits a politics of interrogation, a subversive circumvention of western culture, a recognition of the impact of racism and racial harassment, and an interrogation of the whiteness of the nation.

In the Irish context, this implies the need for an interrogation of Irishness as dominant, racialising and oppressive, despite the history of anti-Irish racism and in the light of the racialisation of Irishness itself (see McVeigh, 1992; 1996; McVeigh and Lentin, 2002). It also means the subversive inscription of racialised spaces in white, settled Ireland, by, among others, Travellers, African and Asian people, asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants, and antiracism activists.

However, antiracism – and this refers to the educational system as much as to other structures – should not merely mean top-down initiatives, welcome as these are. Nor should it mean merely the

13

introduction of anti-racism training programmes, which often risk invoking either ‘white guilt’, or a sense of ‘we are trained now, we are no longer racist’, or positive hiring policies, but rather a set of complex understandings of the interface of racism, multiculturalism and inequalities.

Though the term ‘interculturalism’ first appeared in the Irish context in the Report on the Task Force on the Travelling Community (1995), it has not been given the same degree of consideration, consultation and negotiation as the term ‘equality’. According to Tanya Ward, ‘there is no common intercultural government strategy for the public and private sector’, even though the term has been in wide use since the 1997 European Year Against Racism. ‘Interculturalism’ was defined by the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI) as ‘acceptance not only of the principles of equality of rights, values and abilities but also the development of policies to promote interaction, collaboration and exchange with people of different cultures, ethnicity or religion living in the same territory’ (Monshengwo, 2001: 6). Furthermore, it has been argued, rather optimistically, (e.g. Longley, 2001; Denby, 2002) that interculturalism is more productive than ‘parity of esteem’ which, ‘(Longley) says, can lead to a situation where each (or every) identified group becomes isolated within a static definition of its own identity, whereas interculturalism places an emphasis on the dynamic which exists between groups, the ways in which they can learn from each other through dialogue and reciprocity’ (Denby, 2002: 10-1).

However, none of these definitions makes an explicit commitment to deconstruct power relations between majority, or host populations, and minority, or migrant populations. Nor does interculturalism seem to take seriously racial harassment or discrimination experienced by racialised minority or migrant populations.

Working towards equality in the workplace, with special reference to minority ethnic workers including members of the Travelling community, the Equality Authority’s survey of the infrastructure of equality found that while 56 per cent of all the organisations surveyed appointed a staff member to deal with equality, only 18 per cent had written policy specifically related to the discrimination ground of ‘race’ (an even smaller number, 11 per cent, singled out the Traveller community for specific mention in such written policies). Overall, four in every five organisations reported that they had not taken any specific action (apart from a general written policy) to promote equality and/or avoid discrimination on the grounds of ‘race’. Just one in ten organisations claims to have organised anti-racist training for staff, although both public and private organisations employ other nationalities as well as Irish (the private sector employs seven times more ‘non-national’ workers than the public sector) (Equality Authority, 2002).

MULTI/INTERCULTURALISM AND ANTI RACISM IN EDUCATION

Multiculturalism and anti-racism are the two main ideological and political responses to the previous liberal belief, still prevalent in Ireland, that racism is caused by the ‘strangeness’ of newly-arrived immigrants, and that with acculturation and the eventual assimilation of immigrants, or their children, the problem will disappear. In recent times, the intercultural approach to education seems to be gaining ground. Ward cites the White Paper on Adult Education (DES, 2000), which defines interculturalism as:

…. the need to frame educational policy and practice in the context of serving a diverse population as opposed to a uniform one, and the development of curricula, materials, training and in-service, modes of assessment and delivery methods which accept such diversity as the norm. This refers not only to combating racism and encouraging participation of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in education, but also to a recognition that many minority groups such as Travellers, people with disabilities, older adults, participants in disadvantaged areas may have distinct needs and cultural patterns which must be respected and reflected in an educational context. It also envisages a more active role by adult educators in the promotion of Irish language and culture (DES, 2000: 13).

The White Paper takes diversity as the norm yet acknowledges the special needs of specific, often marginalized, groups, which, it proposes, ‘should be able to influence and shape policy’. It does

14

not, however, revisit racism which, Ward insists, must be central to intercultural policies (Ward, 2002: 11).

In Britain (in view, for instance, of reports of the continuing under-achievement of Afro Caribbean boys in British schools), much of the multiculturalism debate has revolved around education where several approaches were tried, assimilation, integration, multiculturalism and anti-racism. Both assimilation and integration assume: (1) that both the majority community and the minority communities are homogeneous, when in fact they are far from it, and (2) that there is a need to assimilate, or integrate minority communities into what is still seen as a hegemonic, dominant, majority community and culture. The assimilationist approach has been criticised in relation to the education of Travellers in Ireland by, among others, the late John O’Connell (2002), and Maírin Kenny (1997).

While both the assimilationist and the integrationist approaches have failed, the multiculturalist approach developed curricula in which different ethnic cultures (or selective versions of them) were taught so that students could be ‘proud’ of their heritage and respect other ethnic minority cultures. Anti-racism education, on the other hand, did not stress cultural diversity, but rather centred on questions of disadvantage and discrimination. Anti-racism education favoured recruiting more black teachers and taking out racist elements from majority curricula. But this approach tended to be rather moralistic and simplistic. Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1993: 158-60) cite Ali Rattansi’s criticism of both multiculturalism and anti-racism in education:

None of the anti-racist analyses… display an awareness of contradictions, inconsistencies and ambivalences… their conception of racist ideologies and racist subjects or individuals is not more sophisticated than that of multiculturalists (Rattansi, 1992: 32).

New educational approaches which developed in the 1980s in Britain included, on the one hand, greater separatism, particularly along religious lines. On the other, inspired by a cultural studies approach, Phil Cohen (1988) developed a methodology which tackled racist commonsense notions of the children about themselves and others and aims to construct complex notions of race, sex, ethnicity, age, in education and society. TOWARDS A RADICAL (MULTICULTURAL) PEDAGOGY

Like feminist scholarship, black scholarship

is not the mere production of knowledge about a certain subject. It is a political praxis which counters and resists the totalising imperative of age-old ‘legitimate’ and ‘scientific’ bodies of knowledge (Mohanty, 1991, cited in Christian, 2000). Coining the term ‘minority discourse’ to theorise the position of members of racialised

minorities in white societies and universities, David Lloyd and Abdul JanMohammed argue that a theory of minority discourse reinterprets cultural ‘differences that have always been read as symptoms of inadequacy’. However, critics of minority discourse are often moulded according to the majority culture’s education system and operate within it, and are therefore in danger of reproducing the dominant ideology. Rejecting the essentialising of ethnicity (or gender), but also the celebration of diversity for its own sake, minority discourse should opt instead for a ‘common political basis of a minority struggle’ (JanMohammed and Lloyd, 1990: 16).

One approach to multicultural education is the anti-racist strategy of hiring minority faculty who, among other things, might serve as role models for students of colour. But it is not without its contradictions. Gargi Bhattacharyya (2000: 478-89) articulates the paradoxes involved in being a black teacher in a white university in an article titled, after Fanon, ‘Black skins/white boards’. Looking at both the system and the role of the black academic within it, Bhattarcharyya reminds us that liberal education runs the risk of believing we are teaching people to lead better lives, while at the same time working within the education system which is, above all, an arm of the state, and by implication, the economy. Black academics operate within a higher education system which ‘desires and requires a certain amount of this conspicuously staged blackness’, inadvertently becoming the ‘visible symptom which illuminates the whole hidden structure of “race”’. Participating in education when marked by outsiderness may limit your ability to teach. The difficulty, she cited Patricia

15

Williams as saying (1991), is how to think of the teacher as at once ‘Ms Marginal-Minority and Dr Academic/Institutional Power’. In other words, while being a victim may prepare you for the pedagogical project, ‘the confusion caused by the oxymoron of black female teacher might not be immediately educational’. The markedly ‘marginal’ academic might too easy fall into the confessional mode, and balancing this with an academic life which ‘operates by everyone mimicking the symptoms of an authority’ is not an easy feat. Ultimately, radical pedagogy, Bhattarchayya suggests, consists, among other things, of the black teacher embodying the text of blackness only against the background of a normative whiteness.

I share Bhattacharyya’s articulation of ‘teaching as a monster’, having always embodied a political Jewishness, representing ‘minority discourse’ in a majoritarian classroom, with all the heterogeneities and contradictions involved. Embodying the text of otherness, the only option for the black, non Christian, or non settled teacher in a white, Christian, settled Irish university is to teach as a monster, ‘to display yourself as an unworkable anomaly’ as the only way of ‘being honest about the limitations of education and the contradictions which can’t be resolved for us in this time and place’ (Bhattacharyya, 2000: 487).

Radical pedagogy implies, among other things, making room for that ‘monster’ ‘race’ lady, even as Western universities claim their liberal education has done everything to ensure equal opportunities and access: they do not quite know what she is supposed to do, for them it is enough for her to just be, although just being quickly becomes spectacle.

Radical pedagogy means not only listening to victim stories of ‘race’ ladies, be they faculty or students: ‘don’t listen if you hope to be moved by my honesty (who says I am not a liar?)’ (Bhattacharyya, 2000: 488). It also means changing the liberal premise from which we are working, teaching a little about class, a little about gender, a little about refugees, a little about Travellers, and even less about ‘race’ – the latter only, I would argue, because we are being challenged by Ireland’s changing ethnic landscape, a change which also carries with it, let’s be honest, new funding opportunities (just as in the 1980s and early 1990s poverty carried a substantial funding basket, so the late 1990s and early 2000s are offering funding in refugee and immigration studies).

According to Tanya Ward (personal communication), the university sector can learn a lot from the adult education sector which has been working with radical pedagogy since the 1970s. In particular, Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972) has had a huge impact. His argument about developing the learner’s critical thinking to address social inequalities and oppression is central to the adult education field (see Ward, 2002, for a discussion of radical pedagogy in adult education).

SOME PROPOSALS TOWARDS CREATING A MULTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY The HEEU’s report, Creating an Intercultural Campus, aims to challenge inherent misconceptions of ‘the other’, explore our handling of difference and diversity in light of the Unit’s aspiration to equity and equality. Sadly, this workshop has marked the HEEU’s swan song – it ceased to exist on 23 November 2002, due to HEA funding cuts. The report aims to provide third level institutions in Ireland with a set of tools to facilitate the process of creating a welcoming, safe, productive and enabling environment for members of all ethnic groups, highlighting the benefits that institutions can reap through implementing its policy recommendations in terms of student admission and staff recruitment, curriculum design and student assessment, student services and the monitoring of ethnic participation, and the prevention of racial harassment.

Ireland is being promoted as an international education centre and Irish universities derive significant income from international students. According to the IEBI ‘International students in Ireland, current status and future trends’ report (2002), in 2001-2 there were 10,815 international students in Ireland (of whom 27% came from EU member states), bringing a total income of €80.6m to higher education institutions, plus another €86.5m spent on accommodation and other living expenses. These figures include only international students who are here for a full course, and omit thousands of Erasmus/Socrates students from the EU and beyond, or language school students. Nor do these figures include a wider group of international students such as refugees and other members of ethnic minorities who have residency and citizenship rights in Ireland (Wendy Cox, email communication, 11/11/02). I would argue that not enough is being done for these students both by the

16

education system and in Irish society, where many of them experience discrimination and racism, despite constituting a significant economic sector.

Despite efforts to internationalise education in Ireland, and despite moves towards interculturalism in the educational system, Irish students have rather negative views on ‘non-nationals’. A survey carried out by MORI for the Union of Students in Ireland, it was found that almost 40% of third-level students believe non-nationals abuse the social welfare system and more than 20% believe that non-nationals are more likely to be involved in criminality than the general public. While respondents had clear ideas about what needed to be done to promote greater integration – 73% favoured teaching mutual acceptance and respect in schools, and 55% wanted to see a promotion of different lifestyles and cultures in college – they were clearly not very tolerant of ethnic differences: 39% said they would find it difficult if a sibling married a member of the Travelling community, and 41% had no friends among minority ethnic groups (Oliver, 2003: 6). My aim here is not to replicate the HEEU’s recommendations, but rather to flag some proposals for a multicultural university for debate. My proposals refer also, but not only, to Trinity College.

1. Think global, act local

In ‘The crisis of the Western University’ (1995), Phil Cohen argues that thinking globally includes the hidden curriculum and invisible pedagogies (including teaching styles – lectures, seminars, assessments, and university rituals, including degree ceremonies). This means that universities impart universalist forms of knowledge, based on a Christian, Eurocentric tradition, which draw dividing lines between those who have access to ‘higher’ forms of knowledge or reason and the mass of people whose education was confined to the ‘low’ vernacular. This claim to universalist knowledge asserts a cultural hegemony within each nation and it also means that knowledge of an imaginary geography, history and philology of Classical antiquity stresses its uniquely Aryan or European origin, overlooking the African-Asiatic roots of much science and scholarship. Finally, it means insularity and conservatism in establishing modern classical cannons which aim to rival the ancients. In recognition of the global movement of students from ‘developing’ countries into European universities (this relates increasingly to Irish universities), universities promote sciences and business studies and other vocational courses, for which they can charge high fees, but which do not necessarily mean redefining either modes or contents of the knowledge imparted. It is old style universities (typified in Ireland by Trinity College) which have high prestige among students from foreign countries, formerly excluded from the kinds of knowledge associated with the success of Western capitalism, who now want to get their hands on its cultural capital.

Cohen proposes that his university, the University of East London, located in the intersection of the cultural geographies of the old and new East End of London, which has a high proportion of Asian and Afro Caribbean students, as occupying a highly racialised place, which is reflected at the level of student culture, where antagonisms between White and Black students, between Asian and African, Jews and Muslims interrupt one another to create complex patterns of affinity and enmity (Cohen, 1995), and thus acts locally to counteract the growing pressures of globalisation, evident, among other areas, also in the educational sphere.

The challenge, according to Cohen, is to move away from the dichotomy between ancient universities and ‘new universities’ to create a third type of university which ‘starts from a nuanced critique of shared Eurocentric foundations, and debates the form and contents of an alternative multicultural approach’. This would involve conserving what is best in European traditions and drawing on what is most relevant in non-European traditions of science, philosophy and arts.

2. ‘Racial’ equality begins here In the absence of figures of – for want of another term – ‘non national’ faculty in Irish universities, it is hard to speak of ‘race’ discrimination, or equality. Gerard Boucher (1998) studied the experiences of racism of 48 international students, but not of Ireland’s own racialised student body. While some

17

exercises of ethnic monitoring have been put in place (see Margaret Flanagan, this volume, in relation to Dublin City University), Trinity College does not collate information about ‘non national’ or ‘ethnic minority’ staff and students, in the mistaken belief that Ireland’s equality legislation prevents recruiters from asking questions about national or ethnic origin. The only thing the Staff Office could tell me when I was researching this paper was that 80-100 staff members out of a workforce of some 2,000 needed work permits. According to the Staff Office, Trinity College is acting at the advice of its lawyers in not asking candidates to fill in information about their age, place of birth or ethnicity. However, according to the Director of the Equality Authority (personal communication, 4 November 2002), while asking questions about ethnicity or age in a discriminatory manner during job interviews is illegal, engaging in a voluntary ethnic or national origin monitoring exercise is not.

Nor are students asked about their ethnic origin, although they must provide their date and place of birth and are asked to voluntarily provide information about their religion at registration, the assumption being that, armed with this information, the chaplaincy service would be able to provide appropriate religious services, Thus, as in the Constitution of Ireland, ethnic difference is articulated as religious difference. While asking ethnic questions as part of census taking is arguably a mechanism of surveillance and control (for a discussion of the census as a control mechanism, see Anderson, 1983; Foucault, 1991), without information about the national/ethnic composition of the student and staff bodies, it is not easy to put in place measures supporting diversity and equality. Conducting ethnic monitoring exercises, in society and in the university, must be clear about its envisaged usage and is only justified if it aims to provide better and more focused services to, and in consultation with, members of racialised groups.

The TCD Equalities Committee’s Section 36 Report to the HEA (July 2002) includes only scant information about ethnic and racial minorities. Section 6.3 refers to Trinity College’s ‘pro-active and positive programme to support participation of international students in College’. According to the International Students Affairs Office, in 2002-3 there were 897 non EU students in TCD, of whom 256 are postgraduates. 328 students have come from the US, and the rest from 39 other countries (see appendix A). In addition there were 420 non Irish students in postgraduate courses and 768 in undergraduate courses. While TCD stresses the welcome it gives to students ‘from among the refugee and asylum seeking groups in Irish society’, section 12.1 tells you only of specific initiatives taken either by campus companies or by special research projects. These are: Integrate Ireland Language and Training, a College campus company programme, which ‘seeks to empower people of other cultures and languages to achieve a place in Irish society’; and the Refugees Integration Project, a project run by the Centre for Research in IT in Education. Both hardly constitute an across-the-board welcome for asylum seekers, who are prevented by Department of Justice regulations to undertake education courses, or employment, until and unless they are granted refugee status. Students granted refugee status applying for college places report having to supply the Admission Office with documentation proving their citizenship status, and often complain of lack of clarity regarding the documents required, and a suspicious atmosphere regarding their citizenship status. A major source of complaints is the requirement that international students – who pay high non-EU fees – register with the Garda Immigration Office, which in the past meant lengthy queuing. The registration process has now been amended, but arranging on-campus registration would have helped making this process less painful. According to Richard Sheehy, one of TCD’s Roman Catholic chaplains, ‘there is no accurate way of discovering the actual figures for the religious affiliation of students attending Trinity College, as the university chooses not to record such information in any formal way’. In an email communication (14 November 2002), he outlined the TCD chaplaincy provisions:

There is a desk at registration where students may voluntarily declare their religious affiliation, and the names and addresses of those who declare their affiliation with any of the four main Christian traditions are passed on to the relevant chaplain. However, since many students do not choose to register their religious affiliation/status, it is impossible to get an accurate profile of the student body.

18

What can be said in a general way is that other than the four main Christian churches, the largest minority religious group represented in College are the Muslim students. This is true at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. There are small minorities of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh students, and a small minority of students who are described as ‘other religion’. While the College Chaplains are all representatives of the four main Christian denominations in Ireland, we offer a service of welcome, hospitality and availability to students of all religious faiths and of none. We frequently put students of other faith traditions in touch with faith communities or places of worship in Dublin for their particular faith tradition. Our website (www.tcd.ie/chaplaincy) also provides information on religious communities and services in the Dublin area. In recent years we have enjoyed connections with both the Jewish Students Society and the Muslim Students Society in College and have collaborated with them in organising a ‘Festival of Faiths’ as part of TCD's Multicultural Week in Hilary Term. A Prayer Room is provided for the use of Muslim students in Goldsmith Hall. Other than this, I am not aware of any formal provision which College makes for students of non-Christian faith traditions.

There is plenty of anecdotal information about racial harassment of staff and students, although it usually goes unreported. I am aware of no specifically targeted measures to tackle such harassment, despite general provisions for preventing sexual harassment and bullying. At present, the only address for complaints regarding all cases of harassment is TCD’s Equalities Committee, as TCD has not appointed an equality officer despite the college’s declared access and equality policy. The lack of transparent procedures to deal with racism on campus became apparent to me when the racist notice mentioned above was posted on our notice board. 3 According to Lloyd (1998: 24), ‘the (classroom) exchange of multiple perspectives is always regulated by the “perspectivelessness” located in the teacher as disinterested subject’. Gargi Bhattacharyya, on the other hand, argues that black teachers ‘often derive educational mileage from being a representative of their race’ yet that their position as black teachers, who are at once anomalous boundary-pushers and typical examples, ‘can be made sense of only against a background of normative whiteness’ (2000: 478). The experiences of both racialised students and racialised teachers can be problematic in a liberal university, pretending equality of opportunity for all students and faculty without providing them with specifically targeted processes to articulate and deal with issues raised by their embodiment as challengers of the Western, white, Christian, settled Irish university norm. In addition, in some ethnically mixed classes – I had such classes in the MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies, which from its inception attracted ethnically and nationally diverse student bodies – tensions in relation to hierarchies of racialisation and the lack of mutual understanding of each other’s experiences can lead to serious interruptions in processes of teaching and learning, yet TCD provides us with no specifically targeted training to help students and teachers deal with such issues. 3. Compensatory education? According to Reena Bhavnani (1995), one of the contradictions of ‘race’ equality initiatives is its link with ‘doing something’ for Black students or Black staff, whether it is special training, mentoring schemes, or particular courses geared to Black students such as South Asian Studies or African Studies. Many of these approaches become forms of ‘compensatory education’ which implicitly relies on a deficit model of racialised people. Racialised people again become problematised, and measures are introduced to increase their confidence, enable them to make the right connections or give them information about their origins and histories, while ‘whiteness’ remains the unchallenged norm. ‘White’ students (and staff) continue to believe that ‘race’ initiatives have nothing to do with them and are meant only for racialised students (and staff). Thus racialised staff may be put in charge of ‘race’ initiatives; or conversely, ‘race’ issues are taught from a majoritarian point of view, perpetuating the divide and the top-down approach to anti-racism. Gearing multicultural policies to

19

racialised students takes attention away from the diversity of society, and the design and delivery of the curriculum remain unchallenged and the institution remains ‘race’-less.

Changing the liberal premise and creating a radical pedagogy means overhauling the curricula, beyond a sprinkling of ‘ethnic and racial studies’ as a self-funding, under-staffed programme, or a course here and a course there dealing with, wait for it, the challenges to Ireland, and to globalised world order, of increasing migration (with all the attended ‘security’ and ‘terrorism’ risks). It means introducing undergraduate degrees in inter-hyphen-cultural studies, Traveller studies, Islamic studies etc, and attempting to staff them with as many ‘race’ ladies as possible, having applied positive discrimination hiring and recruitment strategies for both postgraduate students and faculty to staff such courses.

Radical pedagogy also means shifting the research agenda away from ‘researching from above’ and ‘researching the other’. Katrina Goldstone (2000) cautions us to question our motivation about writing the story of the minority, the emergent, the migrant, the ‘other’. Rosaleen McDonagh (2000), a Traveller and recent graduate of the MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies – the first Traveller in Ireland to graduate from an academic Masters programme – writes about research from the point of view of the researched, reminding us that ‘academics usually belong to a dominant culture which does not value nomadic ethnic groups other than for their usefulness in particular areas of research… researchers do not believe that they perpetuate racism’ (McDonagh, 2000: 238). 4. Re-defining multi-culture Following Bhavnani (1995), I would like to propose several strategic building blocks for a multicultural university in Ireland:

• Redefining culture – for example not reducing ‘culture’ to religion (celebrating various religious holidays, for example), or ‘race’, or immigration status.

• Taking on board Ireland’s existing diversity, rather than defining ethnic diversity as a ‘new problem’ resulting from the immigration of a few thousand people since the early 1990s.

• Understanding that much of the ethnicisation of Irishness as we are witnessing it at present, is less ‘identity politics’, which often means separatism, and homogenisation, and more ‘strategic essentialism’, a response to living as an endangered minority in a multi-racist society and education system.

• Reconfiguring racism as the problem of the university, not of racialised staff or students, and introducing positive and well-publicised measures and procedures to tackle racism and racial harassment (separate from general anti-bullying procedures).

• Challenging notions of Irish national purity and ethnic absolutism as well as racism at all levels of teaching, curriculum structuring, student and staff recruitment and training. This should mean reforming curricula, as well as staff recruitment and student admission policies. This may include conducting ethnic monitoring exercises in order to be able to provide meaningful services to both staff and students, although such monitoring has to be mindful as to its aims and usages.

• Redefining multiculturalism in the light of changing ethnic identities away from the view which treats ‘white’, Christian and settled as homogeneous, and racialised cultures as fixed and unchanging, a view which does not challenge existing power structures in the university and in society.

1 The idea behind this measure, according to Tanya Ward (personal communication), is to invest the extra money in the working classes and make the middle classes pay for it. 2 In 2002-3, overseas student fees in arts and commerce/business are highest in TCD, at €10,309 (UCD €9,920, DCU €6,874, UL €10,225); fees are higher for medicine, dentistry and physiotherapy (€20,316 for both TCD and UCD) (Oliver, 2002: 3). The issue of EU student fees in the Republic is being discussed with the Department of Education and Science working on a number of proposals which would most probably put an end to free third level education. 3 According to an email communication from Ruth Torode of the Department of Social Studies who chairs a College committee which deals with bullying and sexual harassment (12/2/03), ‘the committee cannot extend

20

its formal remit (to racism, RL) - that's for college to do – but I can raise the issue in the Equalities Committee, of which I am a member and to which the harassment contact people are accountable... Meantime, we deal with any issues of harassment, sexual harassment or bullying that staff or student bring to us and that includes racial harassment, though I don't think we've had any cases yet. As you know, the contact people provide informal advice and support, try to check that people are OK and safe, help them to problem solve, and explain how they could make a formal complaint if they wanted to. If people wish and it seems useful, we do some informal mediation. In practice, not so many choose to make formal complaints even though we wish they did, because they are more concerned with surviving right now. It's also important that the people to whom formal complaints are made know how to deal with them properly. The Staff Office offers some training and help awith this, though recently I don't think they have been focussing on the issue, because of staffing changes etc… It was agreed a long time ago that an Equalities Officer should be appointed, but nothing has happened and it seems unlikely in the present economic climate. But the HEA requires a periodic self-assessment by colleges on their implementation of equality measures, and it would help to rasie the issue of racial harassment, so that this has to be addressed in the next assessment’.

21

References: Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso. Anthias, Floya and Nira Yuval-Davis. 1993. Racialised Boundaries:Race, Gender, Colour and Class

and the Anti-racist Struggle. London: Routledge. Arora, Ranjit. 1995. ‘Experiences of ethnic minority students in higher education’, in Phil Cohen (ed.)

For a Multicultural University, Working Paper no. 3, London: New Ethnicities Unit, University of East London.

Bhattacharyya, Gargi. 2000. ‘Black skins/white boards: Learning to be the “race” lady in British higher education’, in John Solomos and Les Back (eds.) Theories of Race and Racism. London: Routledge.

Bhavnani, Reena. 1995. ‘”Race” equality policies in higher education: The need for a new starting point,’ in Phil Cohen (ed.) For a Multicultural University, Working Paper no. 3, London: New Ethnicities Unit, University of East London.

Boucher, Gerard. 1998. The Irish are Frindly, But… A Report on Racism and International Students in Ireland. Dublin: ICOS.

Christian, Barbara. 2000. ‘Black feminism and the academy,’ in John Solomos and Les Back (eds.) Theories of Race and Racism. London: Routledge.

Cohen, Phil. 1988. ‘Perversions of inheritance: studies in the making of multi-racist Britain,’ in Phil Cohen and H. Baines (eds.) Multi-Racist Britain. London : Macmillan.

Cohen, Phil. 1995. ‘The crisis of the Western university’, in Phil Cohen (ed.) For a Multicultural University, Working Paper no. 3, London: New Ethnicities Unit, University of East London.

Dadzie, S. 1999. Adult Education in Multi-ethnic Europe, NIACE: Leicester. Denby, David. 2002. ‘Citizenship education : Introducatory remarks’, in Maeve Connolly, Debbie

Ging and Jackie Malcolm (eds.) Report on the Forum on Media and Interculturalism, Dublin : Dublin City University.

Department of Education and Science. 2000. White Paper on Adult Education: Learning for Life, Government Stationary Office.

Equality Authority, The. 2002. Towards a Workplace Equality Infrastructure. Dublin : The Equality Authority, Work Against Racism. Survey conducted by Millward Brown IMS.

Equalities Committee. 2002. Section 36 Report to the HEA. Access and Equality Policies and their Implementations. Dublin : TCD Equalities Committee.

Freire, Paolo. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin: New York. Michel Foucault. 1991. ‘Governmentality’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds.)

The Foucault Effect. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Goldberg, David T. 1997. ‘In/Visibility and Super/Vision: Fanon and racial formation’, in Racial

Subjects: Writing on Race in America. London: Routledge. Goldstone, Katrina. 2000. ‘”Rewriting you”: Researching and writing about ethnic minorities,’ in

Malcolm MacLaghlan and Michael O’Connell (eds.) Cultivating Pluralism: Psychological, Social and Cultural Perspectives on a Changing Ireland. Dublin: Oaktree Press.

Hall, Stuart. 2000. ‘Conclusion: The multi-cultural question’, in Barnor Hesse (ed.) Un/settled Multiculturalism: Diasporas, Entanglements, Transruptions, London: Zed Books.

Hesse, Barnor. 1999. ‘It’s your world: Discrepant M/multiculturalism’, in Phil Cohen (ed.) New Ethnicities, Old Racisms, London: Zed Books.

IEBI. 2002. International Students in Ireland: Current Status and Future Trends, IEBI Report 2002. Dublin: Education Ireland.

JanMohammed, Abdul R. and David Lloyd (eds.) 1990. The Nature and Context of Minority Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kenny, Maírin. 1997. The Routes of Resistance: Travellers and Second Level Schooling. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lentin, Ronit. 2002. ‘Antiracist responses to the racialisation of Irishness: Disavowed multiculturalism and its discontents’, in Ronit Lentin and Robbie McVeigh (eds.) Racism and Anti-racism in Ireland. Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications.

22

Lloyd, David. 1998. ‘Foundations of diversity: Thinking the university in a time of multiculturalism’, in John C. Rowe (ed.) ‘Culture’ and the Problem of the Disciplines. New York: Columbia University Press.

Longley, Edna. 2001. ‘Multiculturalism and Northern Ireland: Making differences fruitful’, in Edna Longley and Declan Kiberd, Multi-Culturalism: The View from the Two Irelands, Cork: Cork University Press, in association with the Centre for Cross-border Studies, Armagh.

Lowe, Lisa. 1994. ‘Canon, institutionalisation, identity: Contradictions for Asian American Studies’, in David Palumbo-Liu (ed.) Revisions of the Ethnic Canon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Malik, Kenan. 1998. ‘The perils of pluralism,’ Index on Censorship, issue 397. http://www.indexoncensorship.org./issue397/malik.htm

McDonagh, Rosaleen. 2000. ‘Talking back’, in Anne Byrne and Ronit Lentin (eds.) (Re)searching Women: Feminist Research Methodologies in the Social Sciences in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

McVeigh, Robbie and Ronit Lentin. 2002. ‘Situated racisms: A theoretical introduction’, in Ronit Lentin and Robbie McVeigh (eds.) Racism and Anti-racism in Ireland. Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications.

McVeigh, Robbie. 1992. 'The Specificity of Irish Racism.' Race and Class, Vol. 33, Number 4. McVeigh, Robbie. 1996. The Racialisation of Irishness: Racism and Anti-racism in Ireland. Belfast:

CRD. McVeigh, Robbie. 2002. ‘Is there an Irish anti-racism? Building an anti-racist Ireland’, in Ronit Lentin

and Robbie McVeigh (eds.) Racism and Anti-racism in Ireland. Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications.

Mohanty, Chandra T. 1991. ‘Under western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses', in C. T. Mohanty, A Russo and L Torres, Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, Bloomington: Indiana UP

Monshengwo, Kensika. 2001. Guidelines on Anti-racism and Intercultural Training, NCCRI: Dublin. O’Connell, John. 2002. 'Travellers in Ireland: An examination of discrimination and racism’, in Ronit

Lentin and Robbie McVeigh (eds.) Racism and Anti-racism in Ireland. Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications.

Oliver, Emmet. 2002. ‘Non-EU students in protest over high fees’, The Irish Times, 18 November 2002: 3.

Oliver, Emmet. 2003. ‘USI survey shows negative views on non-nationals’, The Irish Times, 29 January 2003: 6.

Rattansi, Ali. 1992. ‘Changing the subject? Racism, culture and education’, in A. Rattansi and K. Reedar (ed.) Radicalism in Education. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Report on the Task Force on the Travelling Community. 1995. Dublin: Stationary Office. Spivak, Gayatri C. 1995. ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ in Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffith and Helen Tiffin

(eds.) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. London: Routledge. Taylor, Charles. 1994. ‘The politics of recognition’, in David T. Goldberg (ed.) Multiculturalism: A

Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. The Journals of Blacks in Higher Education. 1993. Vol. 1/1, pp. 23-5. Ward, Tanya. 2002. Asylum Seekers in Adult Education: A Study of Language and Literacy Needs.

Dublin: City of Dublin VEC County Dublin VEC Wieviorka, Michel. 1998. ‘Is multiculturalism the solution?’ Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 21, no. 5:

881-910. Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1997. Gender and Nation. London: Sage.

23

HOW DOES STUDENT NUMBER 20 UNDERSTAND MULTICULTURALISM? Dr Sanjay Sharma School of Cultural and Innovation Studies, University of East London Judith Williamson1 makes a rather cheap, early 1980s joke of comparing pedagogy with sex – ‘we all do it, but don’t talk about it’. With the proliferation of contemporary discourses about sex, Williamson’s joke shouldn’t work anymore. Yet her original claim about the lack of critical discussion about pedagogy, I’m afraid, still rings true. There is a continuing difficulty with exploring pedagogy because it remains contingent upon a range of factors: governmental policies, institutional conditions in Higher Education (HE), disciplinary formations, assessment practices, classroom dynamics, lecturer and student subjectivities. The practice of a multicultural/anti-racist pedagogy remains a challenge. Furthermore, there has been a curious silence over pedagogy, even in my own field of cultural studies. With all its zeal for a student-centred, liberatory educational practices, there has been relatively little British work in the area of analysing multicultural HE teaching.2

I want to explore some of these issues by reflecting on my own teaching in the department of Cultural Studies, at the University of East London. UEL is certainly unique in Britain, because it’s one of first universities to have over half of its the student body from black/minority ethnic backgrounds. Although, it’s interesting to note that UEL has only recently began to promote itself as a “multicultural university”. It now appears that my institution is on a mission to address issues of racism and multiculturalism. (And the recent changes to British Race Relations legislation for public bodies has been undoubtedly influential).

When issues of racial equality in HE are raised, teaching and learning gets a mention, though pedagogy is rarely the key concern. Perhaps it’s considered as superstructural in relation to the supposedly more fundamental and pressing issues of staffing or student recruitment practices. I would maintain that in the HE sector, there has been a limited interrogation of the curriculum in relation to questions of institutional racism. Moreover, discussions of a multicultural curriculum and pedagogy have been historically confined to discourses of schooling in Britain – a response to the increasing presence of black/minority pupils from the 1960s. But there still hasn’t been an equivalent debate about multiculturalism in the HE sector. It’s possible to highlight at least two reasons for this situation. Firstly, the ‘hidden curriculum’ and the ‘invisible pedagogies’ operating are difficult to tackle because of academic autonomy (lecturers can be incredibly rigid and defensive about what they teach). And secondly, there has traditionally been a white university academic staff and student population. Questions of racial/cultural difference have been at best, marginal to everyday educational concerns and activities.

However, with increasing pressures to expand and diversify our student base, especially from working class communities, the presence of black/minority ethnic students is becoming a reality for some HE institutions. In my own department, the existence of an ethnically diverse student body, in addition to the commitment of a handful of staff, have brought some multicultural issues on to the educational agenda. While the disciplinary and theoretical imperatives for a non-Eurocentric, globalised curriculum have been crucial for recent developments in teaching, it’s evident that the intellectual arguments have not been the driving force for legitimating multicultural concerns.

When the discussion of the curriculum does take place in relation to discourses of institutional racism, it’s often reduced to issues of content and disciplinarity, essentially ‘what we teach’. This issue raises questions such as, ‘what kinds of non-Eurocentric ideas and bodies of knowledge are presented to our students?’ or the more anxious one, ‘are there enough black writers on the reading list?’ While these concerns are important, they’re often structured in a manner which delimits and excludes the praxis of pedagogy - how we teach. (I will return to pedagogic relationship between the ‘what’ and the ‘how’).

A key contention is that a blueprint of a radical multicultural teaching practice does not exist. Such a universal practice reveals a desire to contain difference, rather than explore its possibilities and

24

aporias for pedagogy. My aim is more modest, and is centred around trying to identify what’s at stake in thinking through a multicultural praxis. The problem of context One starting point for developing any kind of pedagogic practice is the need to consider the site-specific nature of teaching, or to put it more simply, the problem of context. At a structural level, it can range from the crisis of under-funding in universities to the diversity of the student body, as well as the incessant pressure to publish. The current institutional context of ‘crisis management’ has tended to marginalise pedagogy as a politico-intellectual activity in itself. 3 More urgently, rather than innovating new kinds of approaches, current working conditions (particularly in the post-1992 ‘new’ Universities in Britain) make it difficult to even continue teaching familiar materials.

The recognition of cultural difference nevertheless does become a concern when the actual bodies of black students enter into lecture theatres and seminar rooms. Although, after this recognition – whether it’s because of student bodies or intellectual concerns – the actual practice of pedagogy remains a ‘repressed’ issue. It would be comforting to believe that a radical multicultural practice obligates academics to confront questions of Eurocentrism and normative whiteness, to rethink curriculum content, forms of assessment, and reflect upon their own authority and subjectivities. But maybe the only thing to be certain of when teaching in a multicultural context, is how little is actually known about the heterogeneity of the student body… or rather, how little should be assumed about them. This is a crucial point of departure, and not about disingenuously admitting a liberal ignorance. Such a standpoint acknowledges the multiplicity of unknowable racial, ethnic and cultural differences in a pedagogic situation, and operates beyond the ethnicities of students. These cultural differences can defy the reductive logic of identity, and are forms of ‘otherness’ which cannot be simply represented or contained by their knowablity.

Many committed academics still subscribe to the idea that a radical teaching practice makes a difference in the lives of some students. However much pedagogy is a contingent activity, there is still a belief that it has a capacity to ‘empower’ students in some way or another. It offers the possibility that students can acquire critical discourses and reflexive ways of thinking about the world, enabling them to experience the world differently, which possibly goes towards its social transformation. Nevertheless, as Williamson pointed out, when teaching too closely from this kind of politicised perspective, students can quickly learn to reproduce such emancipatory desires of the radical lecturer. Moreover, Phil Cohen’s 4 work highlights that even at the level of schooling, some pupils soon recognise the narrative of anti-racist teaching. They are able to pre-empt the teacher’s argument: ‘I know sir, it was racism that dun it’. More often than not, there’s a discourse of political correctness regulating discussions of race/ethnicity in HE seminars and assessments, and students soon become aware of negotiating and resisting its boundaries. Although this is often a complex negotiation and not always clear cut.

How is it possible to know when a multicultural pedagogy has been successful? When students are able to demonstrate that ‘racialised’ identities are socially constructed? When they are able to regurgitate back the anti-essentialist mantra of race, class and gender in their coursework? For those of us involved in humanities or social sciences teaching, it comes as no surprise when students appear to convince themselves that there is a political line to follow, a theoretical orthodoxy to reproduce. Nevertheless, there are occasionally a few surprises. For example, the following extract has been taken from an assignment of a level one student (studying an ‘Identity, difference and “race”’ module at UEL):

I don’t know why, the black people continue with the problems of hundreds of years ago, with huge chips on their shoulders. Having attended the lectures and read the readings, it is still not apparent to me, just what the underlying issues are, apart from being very emotional and why they are continued, but I am not black. On first encounter, it appears that this student hasn’t grasped some core elements and

historical arguments of the module. She displays a contempt towards the subject matter of racialised differences. Perhaps her response could be down to an inability to understand the teaching on the

25

module (a case of faulty cognition), coupled perhaps with inadequate teaching. Alternatively, maybe it was an honest structure of feeling from a white student who didn’t care, or know how to play the assessment game of pleasing a (black) lecturer. Then again, her own response could be to do with an entrenched and alienated racialised subjectivity, which would be difficult to alter or challenge in any situation. She seems to admit that her own ‘white’ identity was inadequate for properly understanding and engaging with the subject of racism.

It’s rather futile to try and pinpoint the specific reasons for this student’s response as they are no doubt manifold and over-determined by a host of ideological and discursive practices operating both inside and outside the classroom situation. Nevertheless, such a student response does begin to highlight the difficulties of teaching about racial and cultural difference. Moreover, it points to the urgency of addressing what a multicultural/anti-racist pedagogy does with a white student. 5 It would be naï ve to believe that teaching them to respect and tolerate differences of others, and embrace hybridity would simply lead to an adoption of non-racist subjectivity. Rather, it involves developing an approach which does not denounce ‘whiteness’. The problem of multiculturalism One of the key difficulties of developing a multicultural pedagogy is that we don’t know enough about either of these terms; and conjoining them only seems to intensify this problem. Multiculturalism remains a contested and politically problematic concept. Nevertheless, for those familiar with the British educational debates, the stand-off between liberal multiculturalists and neo-marxist anti-racists seems to no longer apply. 6 The encounter with cultural difference has become a compelling question for most societies today. There is now the possibility of a more critical return to the question of multiculturalism, even if the liberal perspective retains its hegemony in national and educational debates.

As Barnor Hesse 7 has argued, western forms of multiculturalism cannot be separated from the ‘irreducible racialised political antagonisms’ of national formation. To put it another way, cultural differences aren’t congruent with the national space nor can they be contained by it; yet the nation is dependent on these disavowed differences for its own constitution. As Hesse points out, this is the ‘paradox of multiculturalism’.

Such a paradox means that multiculturalism can’t be reduced to the consensual unity of a shared culture (or those happy smiling faces of Benetton). In contrast, multiculturalism inhabits the entangled terrain of antagonistic, discordant and disruptive cultural encounters and exchanges. To try and therefore practice a critical multicultural pedagogy would mean the risk of antagonistic exchanges in the seminar, the risk of incommensurable points of view and knowledges being expressed, and the risk of the teacher’s authority and epistemological frameworks coming under scrutiny and being challenged. The upshot is that in such a pedagogic situation, we simply can’t know the whole story. The problem of pedagogy What is in need of discussion is the politics of pedagogy itself. Moreover, its praxis continues to be seriously under-theorised. Most importantly, to collapse the question of the pedagogical with curriculum content can no longer be countenanced. Many committed academics would agree that radical pedagogies don’t aim to teach students what to think, but how to think (critically, reflexively etc.). But as David Lusted 8 queried, is it possible to neatly disentangle these two activities, the ‘what’ and ‘how’? Offering students a set of critical tools and teaching them to think as, say, a post-structuralist, or a neo-Darwinist, or an empirical rationalist or a Buddhist, cannot be divorced from what they may end up thinking. Likewise, what we teach cannot be separated from how we teach it. This means that focusing on the content of the curriculum is a myopic goal for contemporary HE multicultural initiatives. It requires some effort, but it’s not an impossible task to ‘add ‘multicultural elements to a curriculum (the token ‘one lecture’, or the ‘stir and mix’ approach). And while questions of disciplinarity are deeply political, in practice they are too easily reduced to instrumental curricula concerns these days.

The worst kind of multicultural teaching is one that parades cultural differences of ethnicised others, and fails to deconstruct a normative whiteness and Eurocentrism against which these

26

differences are judged. Most attempts at introducing ‘multicultural’ materials and content into the curriculum, in one way or another, are marked by ethnic or racial difference. It appears that a university curriculum becomes ‘multicultural’ when it includes ethnic otherness. The problem with such a liberal approach is that knowledge and the representation of cultural difference is structured by a logic of identity which is unable to fully encounter the differences of the ‘other’. That is, the moment racialised minorities encounter Western modes of representation and discourse, they become othered. Their differences or alterity can never be fully represented (compare this with the argument Edward Said advances about the discourse of Orientalism). Therefore, it’s not possible to simply include or represent, say, ‘Chinese culture’ in a curriculum outside of pre-existing racialised knowledges and orientalised stereotypes of Chinese otherness. It begs the following question: if pedagogy is about the production of knowledge and identities, what are its limits in relation to racial otherness if it can only work within hegemonic frameworks of representation in making the ‘other’ the ‘same’? Tactical pedagogy If what we teach cannot be separated from how we teach, it points to, as argued by Stuart Hall, 9 that there are no ‘pedagogies in general’. Or, in this case, there is no universal type of multicultural pedagogy. Such an understanding has considerable implications, especially in relation to the rapid movement towards packaging the curriculum for an educational marketplace that is being determined by rationally defined ‘learning outcomes’.

In opposition, pedagogy needs to be considered as both a site-specific and tactical activity. It’s site-specific because it takes place in particular concrete teaching context. Today, it is becoming a multicultural context in which the unknowable, the unrepresentable is as significant as what we do know or can know. Borrowing from de Certeau, 10 pedagogy needs to be a tactical activity, not only because there isn’t one master narrative of liberation, but what may work in one context may fail in another. Perhaps the principal method for a radical pedagogy is an ‘anti-method’.11

It’s worth briefly identifying four kinds of ‘progressive’ pedagogies, which have been adapted from Lawrence Grossberg. 12 These are more ideal-types, but they do capture some of the current kinds of teaching practices. Firstly, Grossberg identifies ‘hierarchical practice’, essentially a transmissionist pedagogy. The lecturer has the correct knowledge which students need to learn. The racist meanings of images are exposed for example, or the multicultural origins of mathematics are revealed. It assumes rational learners who may be emancipated from their racialised subjectivity. Secondly, there is ‘dialogic practice’. This approach enables silenced or marginalised students to speak. But it doesn’t always acknowledge the conditions which prevent students from speaking. Or that students may not be heard even when they speak. The third approach is labelled as a ‘praxical pedagogy’ by Grossberg. This approach aims to empower students by giving them critical deconstructive skills so they can intervene in their own histories and identity formation. Such a pedagogy assumes these critical skills are always relevant, rather than being situationally determined. It also assumes that students will actually use these critical skills for liberatory purposes. The final progressive pedagogy is one of ‘articulation’. It begins where students ‘are at’ and assumes they are already ideologically and discursively positioned. The challenge is to rearticulate or ‘win over’ students to another set of positions or places. This pedagogy could offer the possibility of white students being articulated to new sites of investment which may connect with racial otherness, outside a relationship of domination. However, there are no guarantees with this pedagogy of ‘risk and possibility’.

There are many other pedagogies available which could be named and characterised. The point is however, that each of these as a mode of classroom knowledge production is predicated on different notions of learning, epistemology and identity formation. In practice, one or more could be deployed at the same time. It’s not the case that one approach is simply superior than another in all situations. Nevertheless, the potential openings and closures of these pedagogies, as well as the conceptual grounds they operate upon, need to be explicated.

If pedagogy is a tactical activity, it means that anyone of these approaches could be used depending on the aims of a teaching encounter. The dilemma is that on occasions, the aims are not always that clear, but this may not necessarily be an obstacle or limit. Moreover, a more ‘open-ended’ pedagogy resists being determined by the demands of rationalistic goals of learning outcomes in an

27

increasingly packaged curricula. Learning outcomes expose the inadequacy or the limits of current teaching practices, because the kinds of multicultural knowledge productions in a teaching situation cannot always be contained by their knowablity. If there is still a belief that ideology works ‘behind the backs’ of students (at least for some of the time), then maybe a multicultural pedagogy works behind the backs of lecturers too. And the notion of success or failure of a pedagogy should now becomes less significant.

A tactical pedagogy of anti-method points to the need to become more experimental and creative in teaching and assessment practices, although these kinds of innovations are not in themselves revolutionary. Nevertheless, as intellectual workers, one of the challenges and demands of teaching in a multicultural university is learning to take more risks. 1 J. Williamson, How does girl number 20 learn about ideology? Screen Education, 40:80-7, 1981. 2 For an exception, see especially the work by Phil Cohen, 'It's racism what dunnit': hidden narratives in theories of racism’, in J. Donald and A. Rattansi (eds) 'Race', culture and difference, London: Sage/Open University, 1992; ‘Tricks of the trade: on teaching arts and 'race' in the classroom’, in D. Buckingham (ed) Teaching Popular Culture: beyond radical pedagogy. London: UCL Press, 1998. 3 A. O’ Shea, ‘A special relationship? Cultural studies, academia and pedagogy’, Cultural Studies, 12 (4):513-527, 1998. 4 Cohen, op. cit., 1992. 5 H. Giroux, Re-writing the discourse of racial identity: towards a pedagogy and politics of whiteness, Harvard Educational Review, 67 (2):285-315, 1997. 6 A. Rattansi, ‘Changing the subject? Racism, culture and education’, in J. Donald and A. Rattansi, op. cit. 7 B. Hesse, ‘It's your world: discrepant M/multiculturalisms’, in P. Cohen (ed) New Ethnicities, Old Racisms? London: Zed Books, 1999. 8 D. Lusted, Why Pedagogy? Screen, 27 (5):2-14, 1986. 9 S. Hall, cited in Lusted, op. cit. 10 See C. Sleeter & P. McLaren, Multicultural education, critical pedagogy and the politics of difference . Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. 11 J. Kincheloe & S. Steinberg, Unauthorized methods: strategies for critical teaching. London: Routledge, 1998. 12 L. Grossberg, ‘Introduction: Bringin' it all back home - pedagogy and cultural studies’, in H. Giroux & P. McLaren (eds) Between borders : pedagogy and the politics of cultural studies. London: Routledge, 1994.

28

I. TCD AS A MULTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY: THE CHALLENGES

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND THE FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Nicholas P. Kennedy Senior Lecturer in Clinical Medicine (Nutrition) Department of Clinical Medicine, TCD Nick.Kennedy@tcd.ie Summary The Irish healthcare environment is changing in parallel with population demographics. The influx of refugees and other immigrants from eastern Europe, Africa and elsewhere has had a palpable effect on the patient population. Staffing shortages in nursing, medicine and surgical posts have led to the recruitment of many non-national healthcare workers. The undergraduate student body, particularly in medicine, has also changed to include more non-EU members. This increase in cultural and ethnic diversity has occurred over a short time-frame and demands a structured approach in equipping our current and future healthcare personnel with the necessary skills to deliver culturally competent care and education. Similar changes have been experienced in other countries over a longer period of time. We need to examine how other health sciences educators have met this challenge, decide what we should do, and implement the necessary changes in our structures and curricula as soon as is practical. Demographic changes in Irish society Ireland has experienced an influx of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in recent times. This has lead to media attention and debate on issues such as xenophobia, racism, attitudes towards refugees, and rights of asylum seekers in Ireland. Longer-standing issues experienced by ethnic minorities on this Island are well known, including the effects of religious differences, most evident in Ulster, and the ongoing difficulties experienced by Travellers. Cultural diversity in the Irish health services The increasing cultural and ethnic diversity in the general population is also reflected in the patient population requiring support from the health services. Consequently, there is an increasing need for cultural and ethnical awareness among healthcare personnel in Ireland. This needs to be promoted and facilitated in undergraduate and postgraduate education for healthcare personnel. Communication with patients who are foreign immigrants can present a challenge for our healthcare workers, even with the assistance of interpreters if these are available (Betancourt and Jacobs, 2000).

In Ireland, there has also been increasing reliance on foreign nationals who come to Ireland for postgraduate medical experience and education, who register temporarily with the Irish Medical Council and practice as junior hospital doctors whilst preparing for postgraduate examinations. Our dependence on workers from abroad has been highlighted by the need to deliberately recruit staff from outside the EU (e.g. India, Pakistan, the Philippines) to fill vacancies in hospitals for medical, surgical and nursing posts within the last few years. In the past year, there have been allegations in the Irish medical press of discrimination against non-nationals in allocating postgraduate training places and in filling posts that are not recognised for higher medical training experience.

The increasingly diverse mixture of culture and ethnicity among patients and healthcare personnel alike means that deliberate efforts need to be made to optimise mutual understanding and

29

effective communication in the healthcare environment (Spector, 1995; Baldonado, 1996; Macklin, 1998) and to avoid cultural generalisations which may reduce quality of care (Carrillo et al., 1999).

At least we have the benefit of being able to learn from the prior experiences of other countries in our efforts to address these issues. Various guidelines for doctors and nurses have been formulated over the last twenty years in the UK (Moffic, 1983), Canada (McNeil, 1990; Lechky, 1992), Australia (Cawte, 1980), New Zealand (Finau, 2000) and the US (Shabazz and Carter, 1992; Rankin and Kappy, 1993; Lewis-Fernandez and Kleinman, 1995; Davidhizar et al., 2000; Andresen, 2001). Trends in the Faculty of Health Sciences Over the last decade, a larger proportion of medical undergraduate students have been recruited from outside the European Union and class sizes have increased. The largest impact was seen as a consequence of a teaching agreement made between the University of Dublin and the International Medical College in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. However, there has also been an increase in numbers of medical students from North America and other non-EU countries, especially those from Commonwealth countries (see Table 1).

English is the main language of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Republic of Ireland and numerous other countries. It is an official language of many of the Commonwealth countries and widely spoken in former British colonies that are not part of the Commonwealth (e.g. Hong Kong).

The majority of the students in the Faculty have English as their first language (estimated at 96%), and the majority who do not are studying medicine or dentistry. (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Distribution of undergraduate students from English-speaking and non-English speaking countries in the Faculty of Health Sciences

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

MED DENT FHS-Med&Dent

FHS

AnglophoneNon-Anglophone

MED, Medicine; DENT, Dentistry; FHS, Faculty of Health Sciences (all courses) Source: TCD admissions office, November 2002

These figures are based on the assumption that individuals from the British Isles, Commonwealth countries, or former British colonies are anglophones and that others are not. None of

30

the administrative offices in College collect information on the language preferences or capabilities of students admitted to College. Table 1. Origins of registered undergraduates in the Faculty of Health Sciences British Isles Commonwealth Other Ireland UK

Australia Botswana Brunei Cameroon Canada Dominican Republic Ghana India Malaysia Mauritius New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan Seychelles Singapore South Africa Sri Lanka Trinidad and Tobago

Afghanistan Arab Rep. of Egypt Bahrain Croatia Greece Hong Kong Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kuwait Norway Philippines Poland Saudi Arabia Spain Sultanate of Oman Switzerland Taiwan Ukraine United Arab Emirates USA

Source: TCD admissions office, November 2002 Similarly, the majority of students in the faculty are European (i.e. EU, 85.9%) and most are Irish (81.7%). However, of the international students (i.e. non-EU) registered in the faculty of health sciences, the greatest number are medical students, some are dental students and a very few are following other courses in the faculty (see Figure 2).

31

Figure 2: Number of undergraduate students from within and outside the European Union (EU)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

MED DENT FHS-Med&Dent

FHS

EUNon-EU

MED, Medicine; DENT, Dentistry; FHS, Faculty of Health Sciences (all courses) Source: TCD admissions office, November 2002

The perception of academic staff and tutors is that that the students from the Far East and Middle East are slower to acculturate and have greater difficulties with language and learning, at least in the earlier years of their degree course. This impression fuels the opinion that better language support is needed for international students who do not have English as their mother tongue. Furthermore, they may also need greater psychosocial support. The Faculty has made some effort in this direction by appointing an international student coordinator (part-time) and by providing an inter-denominational prayer room on College premises at the largest College-affiliated teaching hospital, St James’s Hospital.

In addition to these student welfare issues, there are intercultural differences in students’ social values and attitudes, which are relevant in both the educational and the healthcare environments (see Table 2). Table 2. Some cultural barriers to learning

In the classroom •• IImmppaaiirreedd ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn ((llaanngguuaaggee,, ttaabbooooss)) •• IInnhhiibbiitteedd ppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn iinn ggrroouupp ddiissccuussssiioonnss

In the clinical environment •• IImmppaaiirreedd ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn ((llaanngguuaaggee,, ttaabbooooss)) •• LLiimmiitteedd ccaassee sseelleeccttiioonn ((ggeennddeerr,, ttaabbooooss)) •• DDiiffffeerriinngg aattttiittuuddeess ttoo sseexx,, bbiirrtthh,, ddeeaatthh,, iillllnneessss,, ddeeffoorrmmiittyy,, ddiissaabbiilliittyy,, ssoocciiaall hhiieerraarrcchhyy,, mmoorraallss,,

eettcc…… These differences should be recognised and dealt with in a sensitive manner by academic staff, students and clinicians. There is little or no attempt to achieve this at present through scheduled elements in our curricula. Several groups in other countries recommend that specific modules dealing

32

with multicultural issues should be included in undergraduate curricula in medicine (Fischbach and Hunt, 1999), dentistry (Roding, 1999) and nursing (Williams and Rogers, 1993). Case selections in teaching must also reflect cultural sensitivity and avoid cultural or ethnic bias in order to be consistent with the formal multicultural curriculum (Turbes et al., 2002; Wear, 1997). Despite recommendations to this effect being made, progress in introducing a multicultural curriculum has not been as rapid as hoped in other countries (Flores et al., 2000; Azad et al., 2002; Lum and Korenman, 1994), possibly to due lack of investment in the required infrastructure as well as lack of research into the effectiveness of different approaches taken. Perhaps curriculum planners need to take heed of the opinions of members of cultural minorities (Andresen, 2001) and of students themselves (Kai et al., 2001) in designing appropriate curricular content and delivery methods. Towards improved cultural sensitivity in the Faculty of Health Sciences Now is a good time to make positive changes in our attention to multicultural issues in the Faculty, in view of the multicultural demographic changes in our population and in our student body. In order to make best progress towards this goal, we need to learn from the experiences of health sciences educators in other countries and listen to the needs expressed by our patients, colleagues and students. Debate on this issue should be initiated within the faculty. Goals and policies relating to cultural awareness and sensitivity should be defined. Curricular modules and learning approaches need to be designed which can be delivered within our current financial constraints. More specific suggestions are listed in Table 3 below, directed at College level, Faculty level and curricular level. Although financial and resource constraints may limit the rate at which changes can be made and research can be done, we cannot ignore the increasing need to promote cultural competence among our staff and students in Health Sciences. Table 3. Preliminary suggestions to improve multicultural awareness

Suggestions for College • Ensure that prospective international students receive consistent information from all College

sources • Improve initial support for incoming international students regarding: Accommodation Language Culture (Irish / EU) • Gather information from entrants to help identify predictors of problems to come

Suggestions for Faculty • Faculty Structures EEssttaabblliisshh aa ffoorruumm ffoorr iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall ssttuuddeennttss iinn tthhee ffaaccuullttyy • Communication DDeessiiggnn aa ssttrruuccttuurreedd iinndduuccttiioonn ppaacckkaaggee ttaaiilloorreedd ffoorr hheeaalltthh sscciieenncceess ssttuuddeennttss OOrrggaanniissee iinntteerrddiisscciipplliinnaarryy ddeebbaatteess oonn mmuullttiiccuullttuurraall iissssuueess • Policies DDeeccllaarree aa mmiissssiioonn ooff ccuullttuurraall sseennssiittiivviittyy aanndd ccoommppeetteennccee

PPrroommoottee ppaarriittyy ooff ttrreeaattmmeenntt ffoorr EEUU aanndd nnoonn--EEUU pprree--rreeggiissttrraattiioonn ddooccttoorrss Suggestions for our curricula • Develop an undergraduate sociology module(s) to address multicultural issues in healthcare • Ensure inclusion of case studies with an ethnic or cultural dimension in all core clinical

subjects (general practice, medicine, surgery, OBG, paediatrics, gerontology, psychiatry) • Include multicultural issues in professional ethics modules for all health science courses

33

References Betancourt, J. R. and Jacobs, E. A. (2000). Language barriers to informed consent and confidentiality:

the impact on women's health. J Am Med Womens Assoc, 55(5), 294-5. Spector, R. E. (1995). Cultural concepts of women's health and health-promoting behaviors. J Obstet

Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 24(3), 241-5. Baldonado, A. A. (1996). Transcending the barriers of cultural diversity in health care. J Cult Divers,

3(1), 20-2. Macklin, R. (1998). Ethical relativism in a multicultural society. Kennedy Inst Ethics J, 8(1), 1-22. Carrillo, J. E., Green, A. R. and Betancourt, J. R. (1999). Cross-cultural primary care: a patient-based

approach. Ann Intern Med, 130(10), 829-34. Moffic, H. S. (1983). Sociocultural guidelines for clinicians in multicultural settings. Psychiatr Q,

55(1), 47-54. McNeil, C. (1990). Culture: the impact on health care. J Cancer Educ, 5(1), 13-6. Lechky, O. (1992). Health care system must adapt to meet needs of multicultural society, MDs say.

Cmaj, 146(12), 2210-2. Cawte, J. (1980). Multicultural medicine. Aust Fam Physician, 9(7), 491-5. Finau, S. A. (2000). Communicating health risks in the Pacific: scientific construct and cultural reality.

Asia Pac J Public Health, 12(2), 90-7. Shabazz, C. D. and Carter, J. H. (1992). Multicultural diversity in medicine. J Natl Med Assoc, 84(4),

313-4. Rankin, S. B. and Kappy, M. S. (1993). Developing therapeutic relationships in multicultural settings.

Acad Med, 68(11), 826-7. Lewis-Fernandez, R. and Kleinman, A. (1995). Cultural psychiatry. Theoretical, clinical, and research

issues. Psychiatr Clin North Am, 18(3), 433-48. Davidhizar, R., Bechtel, G. A. and Juratovac, A. L. (2000). Responding to the cultural and spiritual

needs of clients. J Pract Nurs, 50(4), 20-3; quiz 23-6. Andresen, J. (2001). Cultural competence and health care: Japanese, Korean, and Indian patients in the

United States. J Cult Divers, 8(4), 109-21. Fischbach, R. L. and Hunt, M. (1999). Part II. Educating for diversity: a decade of experience (1989-

1999). J Womens Health Gend Based Med, 8(10), 1249-56. Roding, K. (1999). Human sciences in the first semester of the dental undergraduate course at the

Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. Eur J Dent Educ, 3(3), 106-8. Williams, J. and Rogers, S. (1993). The multicultural workplace: preparing preceptors. J Contin Educ

Nurs, 24(3), 101-4. Turbes, S., Krebs, E. and Axtell, S. (2002). The hidden curriculum in multicultural medical education:

the role of case examples. Acad Med, 77(3), 209-16. Wear, D. (1997). Professional development of medical students: problems and promises. Acad Med,

72(12), 1056-62. Flores, G., Gee, D. and Kastner, B. (2000). The teaching of cultural issues in U.S. and Canadian

medical schools. Acad Med, 75(5), 451-5. Azad, N., Power, B., Dollin, J. and Chery, S. (2002). Cultural sensitivity training in Canadian medical

schools. Acad Med, 77(3), 222-8. Lum, C. K. and Korenman, S. G. (1994). Cultural-sensitivity training in U.S. medical schools. Acad

Med, 69(3), 239-41. Kai, J., Bridgewater, R. and Spencer, J. (2001). " 'Just think of TB and Asians', that's all I ever hear":

medical learners' views about training to work in an ethnically diverse society. Med Educ, 35(3), 250-6.

Some web resources • http://www.washington.edu/medicine/education/ma/ • http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/COE.htm • http://www.google.ie/search?q=cache:BqELJbOEhlcC:www.aamc.org/meded/edres/cime/vol1no5

.pdf+Multicultural+medicine+educationand hl=enand ie=UTF-8 • http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/1001/editorials/359.html

34

• http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/nursing/pubs/multi_cultural/3.htmhttp://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2001/Jun8_2001/minority_health.html

• http://www.medicalcrossfire.com/multicultural.html Relevant journals • American Journal of Multicultural Medicine • Journal of Cultural Diversity • Medical Education

35

APPROXIMATING AN IDEAL? TEACHING AND WORKING IN A MULTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

Raj S. Chari Department of Political Science, TCD

In my early years of undergraduate training in political science some twelve years ago in Canada, I had a professor who claimed that I had used words incorrectly in the essay I wrote for him. As I tried to explain that I thought he was mistaken (and, indeed, the words I used were correct) he simply looked at me and said, ‘now, now, don't you worry....I understand fully what it is like to learn English as a second language’. Such a story, regardless of how offensive, may pale in comparison to most stories given by other members of visible minority groups in third level education in the western world. But it does offer a starting point to help us better understand if anything has truly changed: what is it truly like to work and teach in a multicultural university? Does it approximate an ideal? And, if not, what can be done about it?

Admittedly, I am ill equipped as a scholar to provide the necessary data and information to attempt a full response to these questions: I am not a specialist in racial studies but, rather, study comparative politics of industrialised states, with a focus on economic policy-making and deregulation. However, my experience in Ireland does allow me to offer some observations about the state of ‘multiculturalism’ in Trinity College. Yet, from the outset I must make clear my own views of what I understand by ‘multiculturalism’, and perhaps this is more of a normative assessment than anything else. Admittedly, my ideas are somewhat critical. Despite the positive implications of the term by all standards, it can – as has happened in Canada to some extent – serve as a means to pigeon-hole people into categories for which they do not necessarily identify. For example, a kid of first generation Indian immigrants is, in my view, a ‘Canadian’, and not an ‘east-Indian Canadian’. However, when it is expected that people hold on to their ‘cultural’ heritage, it is often assumed that kids of immigrants are ‘different’. Obviously, no multicultural policy itself is responsible for people wanting to ‘compartmentalise’ others; but, if the concept of multiculturalism highlights ‘differences’ instead of ‘similarities’, one may argue that it runs the risk of marginalising people.

With this concern in mind, one may ask what should a policy of multiculturalism at higher-level education entail? One may argue that any policy of multiculturalism to be followed in third level education must be, at the very least, respective of the beliefs, views, ideals, and cultural and racial differences of both students and staff members. Or, to put it another way that I find more compelling, the policy should ensure that there is no discrimination based on race, beliefs, views, and ideals and, when evaluations are made, they should be made solely based on merit.

If we accept this latter definition – that there should be no discrimination based on race, beliefs, views, and ideals – can we state there is truly a multicultural environment for staff in Trinity College in terms of its teaching and work environment?

On the teaching front, College has been largely free – in my experience – of overt racism. To their credit, I have not encountered major problems with the students in Trinity with who I have been in contact. In fact, of all the students I have taught in Canada, Spain and Ireland, the students of Trinity have been some of the brightest, most respectful and receptive to new ideas. One explanation for this may be based on the Socrates programme, which has proved to be an excellent means by which students here have been put in contact with other cultures.

Yet, in terms of a working environment for staff, the situation somewhat contrasts: there may be some reasonable doubt on the idea that College administrative bodies – comprised of lecturers/professor as well as high ranking administrators – are free from discrimination. The evidence used to support this idea comes mostly from informal discussions with other young lecturers in the university who have had various experiences with college administration. In concrete terms there are three main strands where such lecturers believe that there may be hints of discrimination: a) hiring policies, b) promotions and c) selections of fellows. For example, with regard to hiring policies, there is a perception that departments and faculties in Trinity College would generally seek to pay a person of Irish/English background a higher starting salary than those from ‘ethnic’ backgrounds. With regard to promotions, there is also a perception that those who are not necessarily of ‘multicultural

36

background’ will more quickly be promoted than those of multicultural background, even though teaching, research and services to College may be of the same excellent standard. And there is also a perception that it is easier to become a fellow if you are from the right ‘background.’

There is no doubt that these are perceptions and whether or not they are completely valid need to be studied in more depth - in fact, I would suggest that a full study on this theme is a necessity. Nevertheless, oftentimes perceptions are a good indication of reality and the people with whom I have talked about this issue have offered very compelling evidence indeed.

The main point that we can take from these concerns raised by younger lecturers is that without having any real insights into the decision-making processes during, for example, hiring, promotion, and selection of fellows – given that the deliberative processes seem to be generally shrouded with secrecy and lack of transparency – it is definitely hard to say with certainty if objective criteria have been fully used in making these decisions. This is not to amount to an accusation that the College committees, comprised of senior academic and administrative staff, are racist: but it may place reasonable doubt on the objectivity of their decisions, which may in fact be motivated by racial intolerance, or the view that the candidate may be ‘less worthy’ because they do not have roots in Ireland and England. In other words, there has not been a firm demonstration why all of College’s decisions relating to staff can be seen as being objective and based completely on academic performance without being based on intolerance and discrimination.

With this in mind, tougher policies of transparency in the decision making process in College – so as to remove doubts that decisions on staff members working in College are made based on intolerance and discrimination - need to be pursued. There is no doubt that the leaders of this College in high-powered positions give lip-service that College treats its lecturers fairly, regardless of gender, race, religious belief or sexual orientation, while openly embracing policies such as ‘multiculturalism’. However, as above, it is sometimes difficult to see if such words are really put into practise. In order to remedy the confusion, three recommendations must be taken up by College administration:

a) Policies with regard to discrimination must be laid out more clearly and taken more

seriously by all in College who are making decisions, especially those who are making determining decisions in the future of a staff members’ work and their conditions.

b) When decisions affecting staff relating to their job are taken, a more open and transparent process needs to be recorded and available for inspection. This will allow for staff members, in particular, to understand more clearly why a decision was taken. So doing will help erase doubts that the process has been highjacked by racist (or even sexist) motives.

c) Independent bodies outside of College should also regulate such decisions relating to staff. This will force decision-makers to be accountable for their actions and, if need be, dealt with accordingly. So doing will increase the objectivity of decisions and eventually eradicate racist tensions should they exist.

In sum, working and teaching in a multicultural university as is Trinity College has perhaps

come a long way from my experience as an undergraduate in Canada. In fact, one can say that it has been rewarding; but it has also placed new challenges. This paper has attempted to highlight that the rewards, interestingly, are seen in teaching students in Ireland who have, in my experience, been open-minded, sought to extend themselves to learn of other cultures, and offered tolerance and diversity. The challenges, however, are seen in changing the minds of the predominately ‘old-guard’ of Trinity that attempts to set the future course of this university and exercises power over staff members, ultimately protecting their candidates who are representative of the ‘old-guard’ and potentially discriminating against others based on difference of race and gender. Shrouded in a mystery of opaque and ‘less than transparent’ decision making processes that define working environment of staff, the ‘old guard’ has not fully demonstrated that it makes objective decisions that are free from racial intolerance and prejudice. If this university – and the Irish state – seriously wish to approximate an ideal and promote and enhance the multicultural richness of third level education in Ireland, changes have to not only be promised, but also made. Otherwise, it will not be too surprising that the multicultural diversity of the College will eventually disappear.

37

PLURALIST AGENDAS ‘OLD’ AND ‘NEW’: THE CHALLENGES FOR TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN

Andrew Finlay Department of Sociology, TCD

Changes in terminology shouldn’t blind us to the fact that what we now speak of in terms of multiculturalism or interculturalism have long been discussed in Ireland. In the 1970s the key term wasn’t multiculturalism, but pluralism. Individual scholars based at Trinity, have often been, as they are now, at the forefront of these discussions. FSL Lyons while he was Provost here in the 1970s, found time to write an influential book, which defined Ireland’s political problems as being the product of an underlying conflict between four distinct cultural groups: the English, the Anglo-Irish, the native Irish, and the northern Presbyterian (Lyons, 1979). It was a deeply pessimistic book in which cultural diversity is perceived as a cause of conflict. The pessimism was understandable: the 1970s were dark days in Ireland, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Today, Ireland is a much more optimistic place and cultural diversity is something which, rhetorically at least, we are enjoined to embrace and to celebrate. For some influential southern Irish politicians, the pluralist policy agenda that arose from Lyon’s analysis has been completed. 1 They point to the second divorce referendum, the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent alterations to articles 2 and 3 in the Irish Constitution. Northern Protestants and Catholics have reached an accommodation in Northern Ireland, irredentist and sectarian residues have been removed from Southern Irish political life.

Despite these changes the problems associated with cultural diversity refuse to go away. No sooner had the old pluralist agenda been disposed off than another one was opened-up with the arrival of asylum seekers and refugees and the accruing evidence that Ireland, having recently dealt with sectarianism, had yet to deal with racism and xenophobia. Worse, it has become apparent that the issues that the old pluralist agenda sought to address haven’t really gone away. Far from having laid to rest the old issues, the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement present Irish society and Irish universities with new and recurrent challenges.

There was some recognition of this in the university sector. During the 1990s there were several initiatives that aimed to promote contact between third level institutions on both sides of the border. 2 And I well remember receiving a fax from the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities stating that the Department of Education was ‘seeking proposals from Higher Education Institutes for projects or initiatives which would serve as a means of building mutual understanding between people North and South, and more generally between the UK and the Republic of Ireland’. 3

I well-remember this call for proposals because I responded to it with some enthusiasm and was frustrated when my proposals disappeared into the ether with barely a trace. Of course, it may be that my proposals weren’t very good. But, even allowing for this possibility, it seems to me that there was a reluctance in this institution, and perhaps also at the level of government, to follow through on the pluralist rhetoric. I can’t say much about what goes on in the Department of Education or in the Higher Education Authority, but, having worked at Trinity for nearly ten years, I can say a little about the apparent reluctance of this institution.4

In implying that Trinity might have been reluctant to act on the pluralist rhetoric of the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities, I need to be careful or at least more specific. Trinity’s historic role was to train the Protestant or Anglo-Irish ascendancy in Ireland. As is well known there was a time in when Catholics were not permitted to study at Trinity. Even after the College removed all religious tests in 1873 comparatively few Catholics attended; indeed John Charles McQuaid, during his term as Archbishop of Dublin, prohibited members of his church from attending Trinity. He retired in 1972 and around this time, the composition of Trinity changed radically: alongside a growth in the number of Catholics, there was a dramatic fall-off in the numbers of English and Northern Ireland students – something which probably had more to do with the onset of the Troubles and perhaps the closure of Trinity’s base in the North at Magee College than anything else.

During this transitional moment in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Trinity had a potentially radical cultural mix of staff and students, and it is a time remembered fondly by sixty-eighters. 5 Given Trinity’s awkward history as colonial university in a postcolonial state, the transition was a

38

progressive one. And today the College Calendar – the authoritative source on the College’s aims and regulations – boasts about the diversity of its staff and students. But, looking at the language used in the Calendar, it is a specific sort of diversity that it boasts about.

In the year 2001-2, the College Calendar states that its full-time undergraduate intake was ‘90 per cent Irish’ and, in making its claim to diversity, the Calendar expresses the hope that the proportion of ‘non-Irish students’ would remain above 10 per cent of annual admissions (University of Dublin, 2001-2, C5). 6 What the Calendar does not mention is that in the same year Trinity attracted 590 undergraduate students from counties in Northern Ireland. This is only about 4 per cent of the total undergraduate population, and, as such is perhaps not worthy of note in the Calendar. But the smallness of the numbers conceals a larger truth: Trinity has a capacity to attract more Northern Irish students than any other southern Irish University. According to the figures for 2000-2001, Trinity attracts nearly three times more northern students than UCD which, with 201, is second to Trinity. 7 In the context of the Good Friday Agreement and the new dispensation in Ireland, Trinity could make a virtue of its ability to attract students from Northern Ireland. 8 And yet it doesn’t do so. Nor has it, in my experience, made much effort to encourage more Northern Ireland students to attend.

The College celebrates its ability to attract ‘non-Irish’ students, and this is as it should be, but, to judge from the College Calendar, there seems to be a self-serving assumption that Irish students are, themselves, homogeneous. This assumption is damaging in more ways than one. For example, how often does one hear a ‘Dub’ accent in the corridors? But we’re not here to talk about class, and I want to emphasise the consequences of the assumption that Ireland is culturally homogenous. For this is an assumption that masks a reluctance to celebrate the reality that Trinity has a unique potential among Irish universities to create a College community that includes all the varieties of Irishness alongside staff and students from the rest of the world.

Given Trinity’s awkward history, this reluctance is understandable, but this historical context makes it all the more important that advocates of what I have called the new pluralist agenda are mindful of the enduring relevance of the old pluralist agenda in Ireland, and that, in urging Trinity to embrace its potential as a multicultural university, we forge links between the two agendas and make common cause. 9

This is a long term project, in the meantime, as a modest, practical first step, we could look again at the language used in the College Calendar.

1 Personal communication 11/10/02. 2 In March 1998, The chairperson of the NI Higher education council and the chairperson of the Republic’s Higher Education Authority addressed the second Standing Conference for North/South Co-operation in Further and Higher Education, a body which first came together in 1996. And there is the Conference of University Rectors in Ireland (aka Conference of Heads of Irish Universities) which was formed in 1992 ‘to build on the existing relationships between the Universities in Ireland… (North and South)’ (CRI – Background, no date), and, which, was for a time was quite active in attempting to promote specifically cross-border initiatives. The CRI articulated a feeling that ‘Universities on the island of Ireland have a major role to play in generating dialogue not only among themselves but also between Universities and the wider community.’ (CRI – Background, no date). 3 CRI Fax, dated 12/02/98 4 My experience would suggest that the emphasis of the Government turned less on efforts to increase mutual understanding or on encouraging contact between staff and students from both parts of Ireland than on the promotion of cross-border initiatives that had a technocratic, pragmatic flavour. The emphasis seems to be on promoting research linkages and professional training that might inform the institutions – North/South and East/West that have been set-up under the Good Friday Agreement. It is perhaps significant that while the 1995 White Paper on Education (1995) urges cooperation between third level institutions north and south, the Skilbeck report (2001) makes no such mention. 5 Among the new generation of Catholics who studied at Trinity in the 1970s was Declan Kiberd, now a leading literary critic and supporter of the Good Friday Agreement. Kiberd remembers the mingling of students from diverse cultural backgrounds at Trinity with some fondness: ‘when I was a student in the early 70s, many Northern unionists came to Trinity. I think the southern universities should all mount a campaign now, encouraging the children of Northern Ireland families, irrespective of their background, to study in the universities of the Republic. We have large numbers of junior-year-abroad Americans and Erasmus/Socrates students from the continent. It would be crazy if we were taking people from all over the English-speaking and

39

non-English-speaking world and not trying to have people from the North of Ireland. Equally, I think students from the Republic should go north. That is happening. There is quite a number of students at the University of Ulster who have come up to it from Dublin’ (Jouvert, 1999, 4,1) 6 A History of Trinity College, in University of Dublin Calendar, 2001-2002, C5 7 Figures provided by the Higher Education Authority. 8 Let me illustrate this with an anecdote. Following my father’s death, I’ve been clearing the family home in Belfast with a view to selling it. Before putting it on the market, I employed a cleaning firm. They sent out a team of three cleaners – two women and one man. These cleaners were employed significantly below the minimum wage, and were understandably less than enthusiastic about their work, particularly the man. He drank a lot of tea and repeatedly engaged me in conversation. I realised that what he was doing was attempting to suss-out my religion. This is a process known in the sociological literature as ‘Telling’. My family home is in a loyalist area and the cleaner was also from a loyalist area, but I think he was puzzled by the fact that my car had a southern registration plate. In response to his persistent questioning, I eventually told him that I lived in Dublin, but added that I worked at Trinity. It was my impression from previous encounters that this piece of information made my working in Dublin less estranging. In any case, the cleaner nodded, finished his tea and did another bit of cleaning. Twenty minutes later he came back with a fresh cup of tea and commented, ‘Trinity – that’s the Church of Ireland place’. Of course this is a potentially damaging misperception, and it is not one that the University should encourage. And yet, the fact that Trinity is still perceived in this way suggests that it has a capacity to attract potential students from among marginal groups that might not contemplate attending any other third level institution in the Republic. 9At time of writing, I haven’t read the report of the Higher Education Equality Unit’s report that is to be launched at the workshop, but, I am told by one of the contributors that it contains no reference to cross-border issues, though there is some discussion of the work of Students’ unions on both side of the border and the Unit has had contact with people working in kindred projects in Northern Ireland (personal communication 5.11.02). Looking at earlier documents, The HEEU Advisory Group has defined its concern as being ‘with members of numerically smaller groups – who experience disadvantage on the basis of colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or citizenship status – in relation to other numerically larger groups. Among the groups we are concerned with are: Travellers, refugees and asylum seekers, Black-Irish, members of ethnic minorities resident in Ireland, African and Asian students and international students from ethnic minority groups.’ There is a concern with how racism and discrimination impact on access, with the possibility that students from minority groups ‘may find their experience and background is not fully recognised or validated by the dominant ethos and structures of the institution. There is also recognition that the issues faced by people from minority groups is mediated through additional factors like gender, class, financial status, disability, sexuality (HEEU Advisory Group, Minority Groups in Higher Education in Ireland, Draft Document 5, no date: pp2).

References:

HEEU Advisory Group, (no date) Minority Groups in Higher Education in Ireland, Draft Document 5.

Lyons F S L (1979) Culture and Anarchy in Ireland 1890-1939, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sailer S S (1999) ‘Translating Tradition: An Interview with Declan Kiberd’, Jouvert, 4, 1. Skilbeck M (2001) The University Challenged. A Review of International Trends and Issues with

Particular Reference to Ireland. Dublin: The Higher Education Authority. University of Dublin (2001-2). ‘A history of Trinity College’, Dublin: University of Dublin Calendar

2001-2, C5. White Paper on Education, Ireland (1995) Charting Our Education Future. Dublin: Stationery Office.

40

THE UNIVERSITY, MULTICULTURALISM AND NURSING Damien Brennan School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, TCD

This paper begins with an outline of some approaches that the School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies at Trinity College is adopting in endeavoring to contribute to the development of a multicultural environment within the College. Secondly, it looks at some challenges nursing in Ireland is currently facing within the university and practice settings. I conclude by addressing what I consider to be the central challenge to Trinity College in the context of multiculturalism.

This year saw the launch of the new four year degree programme at the School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies at Trinity College Dublin. In four years time this degree programme will cater for 1000 undergraduate students, with an approximate intake and graduation of 250 students per year and will also continue to offer a full and active post-graduate programme. This development provided an opportunity for a substantial reconsideration of the undergraduate curriculum in nursing. For the first time, trans-cultural issues and inter-culturalism are included as subjects which students must study. Trans-cultural nursing is named as a subject area within the new degree curriculum and, more importantly, it is also increasingly made implicit within the approach to all aspects of nursing care being taught on the nursing degree programme.

Drawing on nursing theory, students are educated to approach nursing without the initial assumption that the person in their care comes from a narrowly constructed homogenous Irish population, that of being Christian, white, heterosexual, English speaking and non-nomadic. While a central aspect of nursing has always been care for the individual, this care has traditionally been delivered with an initial assumption of sameness. Consequently, difference was problematised, managed, and then cared for in a professional manner. Within the new nursing curriculum, it is the assumption of sameness that is problematised. It is anticipated that this problematisation of sameness will lead to a greater understanding amongst nursing graduates of the diversity that now exists (and has always existed) within Irish society. This recognition of diversity will enhance the appropriateness and quality of care nursing graduates deliver to patients.

However, a number of challenges have yet to be faced and overcome. The assumption of sameness did not only exist in the context of the client group subject to nursing care, it also existed in the public expectations of nurses and student nurses in Ireland. This view is now being challenged with nurse graduates being recruited to Ireland from many parts of the world, and students enrolling to nursing studies from a variety of cultural backgrounds. It is the responsibility of both Trinity College and the School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies to ensure that explicit and appropriate policy, procedure and resources are put in place and are made accessible to support all students in the multicultural setting.

In the context of multiculturalism, a central challenge within nursing in Ireland is racism. A significant proportion of undergraduate nurse education takes place in health care and practice settings. Racism can be encountered in these settings by the student nurses and nurse graduates, with some patients holding racist views, which manifest in their dissatisfaction in being cared for by nurses who come from outside Ireland, or who are from Ireland and are not ‘white’. Increasingly, hospitals are adopting a zero tolerance approach to racism; however, this has not yet been made explicit in policy. Racism in the practice setting presents a particular challenge to nurses in endeavouring to an maintain unconditional positive regard towards the patient while simultaneously challenging the patient’s racist views or behaviour.

Racism within the profession of nursing itself must also be considered. While unions and professional bodies in Ireland have been active in combating racism, these bodies also represent their members’ interests. This includes the maintenance of maximum occupational opportunities for its current members. This dynamic can lead to a reluctance on the part of some nurses to embrace the opportunities that are presented in working alongside nurses from other parts of the world. Overt racism towards patients from within the profession of nursing has not been reported to date in Ireland. However, the continued development of multiculturalism within nursing practice, nurse management and nurse education, coupled with the full application of the Code of Professional Conduct (An Bord

41

Altranais, 1988), is required to ensure that racism does not manifest within this caring profession. A re-development of the code of conduct and the development of policy within the practice setting, with particular reference to fostering multiculturalism and combating racism, now appears timely.

These issues – the assumption of sameness in the context of patient care; the mono-cultural perception of Irish student nurses and nurse graduates; and racism in the health care and practice setting – provide the challenges for nursing and university-based nurse education in Ireland to become multicultural. The realisation of multiculturalism requires recognition of diversity at all levels and in all settings, and also the representation of this diversity at all levels and in all settings. By all levels, I refer to the various grades of nurses and nurse educators, from student, to director of nursing and university lecturer. By all settings I refer to the university, the practice setting, and also in the context of policy planning and management. There is a collective responsibility to ensure that this happens, and is seen to happen, at all levels and occupational grades within nursing, nurse management and university based nurse education. This will provide the environment where nurse theory can be conceptualised in a multicultural context, nursing education and practice can be delivered by a multicultural staff, and a multicultural population can benefit from appropriate nursing care.

Nursing now joins many other disciplines, which together constitute an aspect of the university setting at Trinity College. In the context of multiculturalism and the university, the views of John Henry Newman are worth considering. The university, as envisaged by Newman, is greater than the buildings, and the teachers and students. The university is the knowledge and genius gained from harnessing the talents of a diversity of people, from a diversity of geographical locations, and a diversity of cultural backgrounds, who apply their talents to a spectrum of subjects at the same institution. In The Idea of A University, Newman proposed:

If I were asked to describe as briefly ... as I could what a University was, I should draw my answer from its ancient designation of the Stadium General, or “School of Universal Learning”. This description implies the assemblage of strangers from all parts in one spot; from all parts; else how will you find professors and students for every department of knowledge? And in one spot; else how can there be any school at all, … it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting of teachers and learners from every quarter (Newman, 1854).

This milieu ensures a diverse and complex exchange of meaning, insight and knowledge, which stimulates new understandings of our world – past, present and future. It is this spectrum of perspectives that provide the context in which collective and individual creativity and genius can emerge. In the absence of this diversity of interaction, we are left with a building where information is simply passed from teacher to student, a purely technical and stagnant process of knowledge transfer.

This session of the workshop is entitled “TCD as a multicultural university, the challenges”. I believe the challenges posed should not be pursued solely on principles of equality or justice. The central challenge is to Trinity College itself and is to ensure the continued development as an institution made up of many people, from a spectrum of locations and cultural backgrounds, or cease to be a university. I propose that a true University cannot exist in the absence of multiculturalism. References: An Bord Altranais (The Nursing Board). 1988. The Code of Professional Conduct for each Nurse and

Midwife. Dublin: An Bord Altranais Newman, John Henry. 1854. The Idea of A University. Dublin.

42

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT AFFAIRS – CHALLENGES IN A CHANGING WORLD Catherine Williams International Student Affairs, TCD The Office of International Student Affairs (ISA) at Trinity College has overall responsibility for the registration, academic progress and welfare of the many visiting students in all faculties. Our experience in exchange programmes, in study abroad programmes and in meeting the requirements of individual students is extensive and of long standing. While European and North American students represent our main groups of visitors, our contacts continue to increase worldwide, extending to Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Visiting students take courses offered also to our full-time home students and have, if anything, an even more flexible range of options based on their particular individual needs and interests. The visiting students are as well integrated into the full range of activities in Trinity and have access to academic and leisure facilities in much the same way as for any other student.

Why Trinity? So why do international students come to Trinity? There are many reasons for an international student to spend some time away from their home university in the first place: it may be a required part of their programme of studies; there may be a particular speciality that they wish to follow up; or, they may just need a change and a chance to expand their horizons.

Our students come from over 70 countries around the world. To these students, Trinity offers credible choices in response to their needs. Students select Trinity because of Trinity's historical standing as a 400 year old ‘old-world’ university campus with a world reputation in research and education. Further, being an English speaking College in an exciting young capital adds to the appeal, especially as the majority of our international students are under the age of 25. Finally, while word-of-mouth among students is important, prospective visiting students become aware of Trinity through our network of contacts developed through collaborative research.

What does the Office of International Student Affairs do? In Trinity College, ISA is a small office looking after a large international student body, helping each international student to fulfil their particular interests while visiting Trinity College. Three main areas of activity illustrate the scope of what ISA does:

• Managing Socrates/Erasmus and other exchange programmes • Providing orientation for visiting students • And dealing with the many challenges faced by visiting students.

Managing Socrates/Erasmus and other exchange programmes. ISA is responsible both for the recruitment of differing groups of students, and also for the management of the Socrates/Erasmus and other exchange programmes. These programmes involve not just incoming visiting students, but also outbound Trinity students visiting partner institutions throughout Europe. Trinity College students go out to over 30 countries, ranking Trinity 11th out of over 160 institutions in the British Isles in terms of numbers sent out as part of the Socrates/Erasmus exchange programme. In this respect, Trinity is an active participant in a successful European initiative. In 1987, the European Commission began supporting a programme for European students to facilitate university students’ mobility among European universities. The programme was named after the cosmopolitan scholar Erasmus. The programme became very popular among European students. Thanks to the introduction of the new Europe-wide programme, university students had better opportunities to spend a study period abroad at a partner higher education institution in another European country. Currently, an average of 100,000 university students pack their bags every year and spend up to 12 months in one of the 1800+ European higher education institutions located in 30 participating countries. During the academic year 2002/03, about 110,000 students are expected to embark on the "Erasmus

43

experience", bringing the number of students to have spent part of their training abroad, since 1987, to over a million. This year, the EU celebrated the 1 millionth Erasmus Student. The student representing Ireland at this event was a Trinity Graduate, shown in the photograph below with the EU President. He was chosen on the basis of his Erasmus experience and the effect this had on the choices he made when he graduated.

1,000,000 ERASMUS STUDENTS CELEBRATION

Brussels 24-10-2002

Erasmus hits the million!

Providing orientation for visiting students. “Tosach maith, leath na hoibre” (‘a good start is half the work’) describes well the objective behind the ISA orientation programme for visiting students. ISA holds two special orientation sessions for international students on their arrival. These sessions are illustrated in the figure below.

The first special orientation session is delivered by College officers, and includes briefings on the library, sport facilities, security/safety, health, and

counselling services. The students are introduced to these facilities with tours of the sports hall and the library.

In the afternoon of the same day, ISA delivers the second of the special orientation sessions. This is sharply focused on the personal well being of the international student and their integration into life in Trinity. Issues such as cultural orientation, the Student Union’s buddy system, and the college tutor/coordinator system are discussed. Some practical issues such as how to register as a student in College, how to get a student ID and how to register with the Garda Immigration Bureau for non-EU students are also covered. The orientation process is completed with a welcome reception in the old Dining Hall of the College where there is an opportunity for students to meet with Socrates coordinators, college tutors and other college officers.

44

Orientation I•Library

•Sport facilities•Security/safety

•Health•Counselling

•Societies

Orientation 2•Cultural orientation

•College Tutor/coordinator•SU Buddy system

•Practical issues•Welcome Reception

ISA runs special orientation sessions to help incoming international students settle

into a new cultureo o ~

At another level, orientation continues throughout Freshers week, when all of the many Student Societies in Trinity are canvassing in Front Square for new members. This colourful ‘market place’ gives the newly arrived international students the perfect opportunity to see which societies match their interests. The message is clear: get involved and join up some of the college societies. Dealing with the challenges. At ISA, we deal with all sorts of 'human' issues- and here we face many challenges! We do much more than organise the students’ education! Many international students are away from home for the first time and may feel a little lonely, emotionally isolated and even scared. They call into the office and ask about very practical things such as buying groceries, or bed linen or mobile phones - questions that have no academic relevance! We try to become for them an 'island of reliability' in what is for them very uncertain world.

There are many other areas where we may face different kinds of challenges. To give a few examples:

Education: visiting students’ educational systems at home are changing all the time – here at Trinity our system is changing too. What this means for us in ISA is that we must continue to maintain alignment of our system with theirs and communicate that alignment clearly to the students. Culture: some cultures retain their differences in new contexts; in certain cases, some sub groups do not interact with each other. What this means for us in ISA is that it becomes more difficult to anticipate problems before they arise and to deal with them when they do. Personal safety: our world is not becoming any safer. What this means for ISA is that we must try ensure that the students are aware of their need to be alert, and of how they can keep their belongings safe.

These challenges will not go away! Conclusion Trinity has a long history of international students who bring considerable academic, cultural, social and personal benefits to College. The Office of International Student Affairs provides critical links both between Trinity and the networked universities and also between Trinity and our visiting and

45

outbound students. The future of education will continue to lie with universities networked together rather the stand-alone university we have known from the Middle Ages. ISA looks forward to playing a part in that future. ********************************************************************* For further information please contact:

International Student Affairs University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin 2, Ireland Telephone: (01) 608 3150/2011/2683. Fax: (01) 6771698 email: isa.office@tcd.ie Web: www.tcd.ie/ISA.

46

II. INTERCULTURALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CHALLENGES FOR IRELAND

INTERCULTURALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION, THE CHALLENGES FOR IRELAND, OPENING REMARKS Niall Crowley, Directror, Equality Authority Thank you for the opportunity to chair this session. The involvement of the Equality Authority is very appropriate given our mandate under the Equal Status Act which makes specific reference to educational institutions. It is also timely as we have just completed a joint initiative with the social partners focusing on addressing racism and the potential for racism in the workplace. This year’s Anti-Racist Workplace Week had a particular focus on migrant workers and the very difficult and inequitable situations many of these workers encounter in Ireland.

When we look to interculturalism in higher education we need to have a particular focus on the current situation and experience of students and potential students and of employees and potential employees from Black and minority ethnic groups including Travellers. Intercultural approaches are however developed in a context of other differences - differences of gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, religion and socio-economic status. Interculturalism in higher education will need to factor in this wider diversity within Black and minority ethnic groups.

A holistic perspective is demanded of our pursuit of interculturalism. Interculturalism has cultural, economic and political dimensions. All of these are interlinked and need to be pursued simultaneously. Intercultural education institutions:

• Acknowledge and accord value to cultural diversity as well as taking account and making provision for the practical implications of cultural diversity.

• Realise a capacity to benefit and secure outcomes for all including Black and minority ethnic students and employees.

• Ensure decision making processes include the participation of Black and minority ethnic people as well as assessing the impact of policies and practices, at design stage, on Black and minority ethnic employees and students.

Highlighting students and employees within these different dimensions is to highlight the need

to ensure intercultural approaches within the full spectrum of roles played by higher education institutions. Foremost among these are the roles of employer and service provider. However other roles must not be forgotten. These include roles played in:

• contributing to the value base of our society. • developing knowledge and insights for society. • resourcing a cultural base for society.

These less tangible roles highlight the dual challenge to higher education institutions in relation to interculturalism. There is the challenge to change that is internal to the institution. Then there is the challenge to change such that the institutions can be a resource to and an advocate for an intercultural society.

The Equality Authority hopes to makes its contribution to the meeting of these challenges. We have a broad mandate to combat discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity in the areas covered by the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act. This mandate covers nine grounds including grounds of race and membership of the Traveller community.

Our work involves both enforcement and development. Casework features prominently in our enforcement role and should be an important tool for challenging racism. Our developmental role seeks to contribute to equality strategies that prevent racism, realise equality outcomes and that

47

accommodate cultural diversity. The field of education is only beginning to be opened up under the Equal Status Act. However it is already clear that it will be a growing priority in our work.

Vision, energy and initiative will be required in achieving intercultural higher education. Change will be demanded of policy makers, of those who hold power within institutions and of all involved in higher education. The presentations that follow should be an important resource in shaping and informing this change.

48

INTERCULTURALISM AND DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN IRELAND Mike FitzGibbon Introduction What follows is a very brief overview of some of the main themes that intersect the areas of higher education and interculturalism. It does not attempt to be comprehensive, rather to provide a flavour of some of the issues that need to be addressed in the pursuit of equality and equity on-campus. 1

How is Ireland embracing multiculturalism / interculturalism? It makes sense to initially explore the situatedness of higher education institutions, that is, to look first at where Ireland stands as a country, in terms of interculturalism. Barriers to interculturalism include our struggle with identity, in terms of what is ‘Irish’ and ‘Irishness’. Irish culture is often seen as a static, the ‘comely maidens’ –type perspectives of what our culture is. Within modern Ireland, we are seeing the propagation of immigrant ‘myths’: the ‘they’re taking our jobs’ myth; the ‘they’re taking our women’ myth; the ‘they’re spreading disease’ myth or the ‘they’re screwing our social welfare systems’ myth, to name but a few. These myths are frequently lent credibility by their treatment in the media. We also have the targeting of some of our communities, such as Travellers or asylum-seekers by politicians for political gain. For example, two politicians in Cork, one Fianna Fail, the other ex-Labour, competed for the anti-asylum-seeking ticket in Cork in the last election. This received mild condemnation by fellow-members of Fianna Fail. The real political response could be seen in the support of the Finance Minister, as the leading act at the fund-raising dinner for this candidate in the middle of this disgraceful abuse of his position.

There is an institutional and social tainting of ‘otherness’. As an example, in a conversation recently with an Irish student with an obviously non-native-Irish name, she spoke of how people on the other end of a phone changed their tone when they heard what her surname was. This happened, for example, when she phoned the Gardaí to report problems.

Within Irish society, much depends on cohesive or consensual processes. These processes make it more difficult to question inequities, or to bring forward the point of view of the ‘other’, as these are ‘outside’ of the ‘consensus’.

There are facets of our society and history that should act as intercultural enablers. There are, for example, immigrant realities that have made major contributions to our society, which we seem to ignore, or at least not promote. For example, there have been huge economic contributions of immigrant industries such as Waterford Crystal or Belleek. Also, the development of Irish music has benefited greatly from cross-fertilising with other musics. Traditional Irish music also benefited greatly from the Travelling community, who maintained much of our traditions at times when it was unfashionable. The most obvious of these is our tradition of uilleann-pipe music, whose survival can be greatly, if not solely, attributed to the Travelling community.

It is good to look at how the ethnic majority in Irish society has acted towards Travellers, in particular with regard to education. Our recent past has seen approaches within first- and second-level systems have been assimilationist, exclusive, (by which is meant excluding) or both. The curricula reflect nothing of Traveller or other cultures. We have created educative processes that are bounded and constrained by mainstream structures.

Interculturalism, and indeed antiracism, should have its foundation in a broader equality policy. This is true for national policy, as much as for policies of education institutions. Instead, we have created manifestly inequitable and unjust policies for asylum-seekers in Ireland, which would seem to be based, as enunciated by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, on a premise of a presumption of ‘bogusness’. There is an ill-found presumption of an immigration inflow that Ireland wouldn’t be able to cope with, if our immigration policies are in some way viewed as ‘more flexible or liberal’ than our European neighbours. If this were the case, then given that if our processes are now less favourable than our European neighbours, surely we should be now seeing such uncontrollable inflows in some of our neighbouring countries?

49

Those who do apply for asylum are prevented from earning a living, sometimes for many years. We also prevent them from entering higher education. The implementation of direct provision removed from parents their right to provide food and clothing for their children. Such parents are not allowed to cook for their children. In short, our policies cruelly infantilise asylum-seeking parents.

Do Irish education structures promote interculturalism? So within this Irish context, where are Irish universities coming from? It is important to understand where Universities are coming from, in order to address the shortcomings that these origins impose on institutions. Universities are currently inherently middle-class institutions, with all the preconceptions that ‘middle-class’ –ness carries with it. Within universities, there is an underlying assumption of a ‘promoting’ or ‘encouraging’ background for all students, i.e. that those entering the institution are being encouraged to be there. This may not be the case. In particular, it may not be the case for women from some ethnic backgrounds. There are assumptions of access to basic facilities, such as study facilities, which is not a reality for many students.

On the positive side, the Universities Act requires that each university have an equality policy, and the act promotes the establishment of access officers. The Commission on Points System recommend that institutions should reflect the composition of their communities – this should have implications for intercultural policies in higher education. It is the work of the National Qualifications Authority to facilitate access, transfer and progression –it is hoped that this will remove barriers that are currently in place for non-Irish, in particular non-European students. The HEA Targeted Initiative Funding has supported the funding of access officers in many institutions. However, research initiatives excluded projects addressing asylum-seeker issues. Within universities, there are now Equality Officers. It should be borne in mind that many are focused on staff, not on students. There are also several outreach and other equality initiatives within third-level institutions – the HEEU logged more than 450 such initiatives, and more recently, five that were specific to ethnic minorities within third-level. The Students Unions in Ireland have been very proactive in addressing equality issues - for example, they recently performed the first survey to investigate attitudes among students to racism and interculturalism. DCU and the HEEU have collaborated on an ethnic monitoring exercise, which will be detailed in a different paper at this event.

So where are we? What are the realities within higher education regarding interculturalism? It is suggested here that as a country, and as institutions, we have not yet integrated interculturalism or for that matter equality or equity, into our being. Indeed, gender statistics bear this out. The number of female professors in Irish universities, as logged by the Higher Education Authority, is 5.68%. A even more interesting statistic was presented by Prof. Áine Hyland at a recent conference on gender in higher education, held in NUIG. A history of women professors in UCD was detailed, which demonstrated that at the early part of the last century, there were three professors. While the number of professors in UCD has trebled in the last hundred years, the number of women professors remained at three or less.

Traveller participation rates in higher education have been consistently low. For example, there were five Traveller students higher education in 1998. One statistic suggests that this rose to 20 in 1999; however, in is not known how many of these are mainstream students – it is expected that it was a minority.

The government has persistently excluded asylum-seekers from higher education. The Conference of Heads of Irish Universities (CHIU), in their submission to the National Antiracism Plan have asked that this be changed. However, the fee-mechanisms,(free-fees and ‘commercial’ fee-rates, which mitigate against refugees in particular. What hinders the delivery of an equitable third-level system, specifically with regard to ethnicity?

Some things that hinder the delivery of an equitable intercultural environment There is a lack of understanding of the benefits the creation of an intercultural environment brings with it:

50

• Contributions from other cultures to ours have been, and will invariably be positive, whether this be in academia or agriculture or whatever.

• Economically, we increase our potential customers/beneficiaries, broaden our markets. • Becoming an intercultural organisation requires that we change, and become a changing

organisation. Our institutions become changing and adapting bodies. It is in the nature of interculturalist body that it is itself continuously changing. There are misconceptions of the meanings of equality and equity. Institutions would seem to

confuse equality of treatment with equity of treatment. The pervading idea seems to be that there must be a ‘sameness of treatment’ for all students, and that to do otherwise would be to give advantage to some student(s). This may result, for example, in a student finding that there is an emphasis on delivery in terms of the mastery of the English language, rather than on the content. Many, if not most, of our education processes, and schemes of measurement are based on equality of treatment, rather than equitable treatment. This conception is based on the idea that there is a level-playing-field for all to begin with, which is rarely if ever the case. Assessment schemes that are equitable require far greater effort, at least initially, on the part of the education-givers.

There are also institutional barriers to equality of opportunity, such as institutional racism, which exist throughout our higher education institutions. While it is difficult for institutions to admit to such barriers, there is plenty of evidence to support their existence. For example, the accent or speed of delivery of a lecturer may make it nigh on impossible for a student to understand, unless their first language is English. While such behaviours may seem innocuous to those on whom they have no effect, they continuously impact on others, and can result in very high levels of frustration and stress.

How do we begin to address this? While Ireland has begun to provide a legislative basis for, the proposal here is that while legislation is necessary to ensure the delivery of an equitable institutions, but from what has been stated above, it is not sufficient.

If third-level institutions are serious about promoting interculturalism and removing racisms, they must begin by recognising the existence of barriers to equality and then systematically dismantling them. The seriousness with which an institution addresses this is reflected in the amount of resources (human, time, financial, capital and other) that an institution, and the body of all institutions, dedicate to this.

And while recognising our difference in situation from other countries, in that we are an ex-colony, are experiencing net immigration for the first time in more than a century etc., we should learn from the successes and failures of other countries. Some telling facts have emerged from recent studies in Britain (Modood and Shiner– for example). Their research suggests that while overall ethnic minority participation in higher education has increased, it has done so in a very marked way. New institutions are seen to have disproportionately higher numbers of members of ethnic minorities than the older establishment. This has obvious implications for these minorities in terms of the types of institutions that they will get work in afterwards

Access to higher education must be viewed not as entry though some gateway, but rather as a continuum. Access to education is not simply about entry, though this would seem currently to be the focus of much effort. Access is about entry, about equity of treatment within the institution, about providing every student and staff member with an equity of opportunity to enter, progress through and out of the institution. Such a conception of access may require differences in delivery, in support and in assessment, due to the differences of needs of staff and students. When addressing the needs of staff and students, in terms of gender, background, age or disability, equivalent attention must be paid to the needs the ethnic identity of the individual. In striving to create such an access space, we must involve all communities, majority and minority ethnic, in our setting up of processes, procedures, policies and codes of practice. We must know that we are progressing or failing through comprehensively monitoring our efforts. And through this, we must create a positive climate throughout our institutions for attitudinal change.

51

TOWARDS A MULTI-CULTURAL CAMPUS? AN ICOS PERSPECTIVE ON SOME QUESTIONS AND ISSUES Wendy Cox, Director Irish Council for International Students (ICOS) The Irish Council for International Students welcomes today’s conference as an important development in relation to international education in Ireland. We congratulate Dr. Ronit Lentin and Trinity College Dublin for organising it, and for providing an opportunity to introduce our organisation and its work, which for many years has been working towards the ideal of the multi-cultural campus in Ireland. 2

The Irish Council for International Students (also known as ICOS) is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation working at national level, set up by Irish universities and others in 1970 to ‘promote the welfare of international students in Ireland’.

Its members are around fifty representatives of third level institutions and other interested bodies across the country, whose professional roles usually involve liaison between international students and their host institutions. They may work in recruiting, admissions, or student services, or they may be staff of the International Offices set up in the universities in the early years of the ERASMUS programme, and more recently in Institutes of Technology and independent sector colleges. Together these individuals, all of whom share a concern for the overall welfare of international students, form a network which has great potential for influence and for supporting progress towards more inclusive and truly multicultural or international campuses in Ireland.

A small staff supports this Council network, and carries out most of the work of the organisation, which has three main strands: § Providing advice and information to international students and those who advise them, and

organising training workshops for third level staff; § Managing, in partnership with the government’s Department of Foreign Affairs, the Ireland Aid

Fellowship Programme, which brings between 100 and 150 mature students from Africa and Asia each year to study in Irish higher education institutions. This responsibility gives ICOS staff specific ‘hands on’ experience and insights into the realities and issues facing international students;

§ Promoting good policy and practice in the recruitment and support of international students, by means such as research, publications, seminars and conferences.

All of this has been taking place for several years now against the background of the steadily growing numbers and significance of international students within the Irish higher education scene. Because ICOS is fundamentally student-focused, the organisation has always been eager to undertake or to support initiatives which improve the quality of students’ overall experience in Ireland, in ways going beyond purely academic or professional training.

Thus, work against racism has been a continuing strand of activity from the start, and is exemplified in the report The Irish Are Friendly But… based on a survey conducted in 1997 for ICOS by Gerard Boucher, a TCD researcher (Boucher, 1998). This was published with the intention of stimulating debate and action in third level colleges at a time when there was considerable denial of the realities facing many international students, and their potential impact on campus life. It was noteworthy that three-quarters of those interviewed in this survey reported some personal experience of discrimination or racism, and the figure for the ‘non-white’ students was a shocking 90 per cent. The fact that most of these instances occurred off-campus made it, in ICOS’s view, all the more urgent for colleges to work on the strengthening and maintaining of their own more welcoming institutional environments, for example by making progress on explicit equality and anti-racism policies and procedures.

Intercultural and cross-cultural training for staff of third level colleges and others has been regularly offered by ICOS, along with information-based workshops covering topics such as immigration regulations or evaluation of services for an international student clientele.

ICOS also tries to respond to broad national and institutional developments from the students’ perspective, as in its recent seminar on the educational and cultural challenges facing the growing numbers of Chinese students recruited into Irish higher education (following a dramatic increase in

52

numbers in the English language schools) in the context of the new national ‘Asia strategy’ (Cox and Cameron, 2002).

*

Have we seen such a thing as a ‘multi-cultural university’ come into being in Ireland? Unfortunately, although there are some hopeful signs, it would be hard to maintain that this has yet been achieved. We all have our own ideas as to what it might look like, and my preferred vision of it would certainly focus on the quality of human relationships that are fostered within the institution, and would see the campus as an ideal space in which to promote tolerance and understanding. There would be an institution-wide ethos of genuine equality and inclusivity, expressed in the curriculum and teaching/learning methods, formal and informal social activity, student services provision and the whole day-to-day life of the campus.

What do we see at present? From ICOS’s perspective we can see a set of overlapping discourses focused on the campus and the student experience, many driven by larger frameworks (such as EU social policy or the new emphasis on higher education as a tool for establishing Europe as the globally pre-eminent knowledge-based economy) and represented by different structures within institutions. There are the discourses of equality and of access, each with its network of specific Equality and Access Officers, and there is the discourse of anti-racism and inter-culturalism, which lacks that kind of institutionalisation, but finds a home in some academic departments in the humanities, especially those with connections to the NGO or community development sectors.

We can see that linkages are frequently weak between these elements, and even more so between them and the people and the thinking and planning most directly concerned with international students. Here a different discourse holds sway with those who make the decisions on recruitment, teaching and support of these students: a discourse of ‘internationalisation’. It is often rather vaguely defined, and tends to be concerned with external, structural matters: participation in international research programmes; participation in the EU-funded SOCRATES programme; responding to the “Bologna Process” for harmonising degree structures and credit mechanisms to enhance student mobility; and of course the recruiting of high fee-paying non-EU students which is effectively demanded by current government funding policy.

This discourse has its institutional manifestations in the International Offices and their staff, but it is fair to say that these people are not generally viewed by their institutions as in any way involved in processes of change, or as agents of a desirable multi-culturalism, or as contributing to international or home students’ personal and social development. Rather, they are thought of (and their career paths suggest this) as systems people, effective administrators and managers, who are friendly and welcoming of course, but whose primary role is to keep the international aspects of the institution running smoothly alongside, rather than at the heart of, the main business of the university. We can also see that, although much excellent work is done by them on a day-to-day basis in advising and supporting individual international students, and a huge amount of inter-cultural knowledge and experience is being acquired in the process, the potential value of this is usually underestimated. It is not treated as an important resource for policy-making, nor is it utilised and developed for the benefit of the whole institution.

In fact, to date, international activity in relation to international student recruitment – apart from a long tradition of postgraduate researchers in the older colleges - seems to have been understood at management level primarily as a way to respond to economic imperatives and to position the institution strongly in a global “market-place”. Statements of the academic and cultural benefits to be derived from a more diverse student body do occur in official statements alongside the economic rationale, but usually lack any specificity and seem to assume – against a good deal of evidence - that these positive outcomes will arise of their own accord from the mere presence of international students in lecture-rooms and laboratories, without further investment of time and energy on the part of the institution.

In relation to broader policy considerations, it is clear that the current recruiting of “economic fee” students from countries such as China and India - where high-level Irish educational “trade missions” have featured in 2001 and 2002 respectively - as well as from non-EU Norway, is determined more by the availability of reliable student “markets” in those countries, rather than any

53

strategy for achieving balance and diversity in the ultimate make-up of a multi-cultural academic community. (Worth pondering in the debates about fees and funding is the contrast between the promotion of “access” to Irish higher education for those of disadvantaged Irish backgrounds, and the exclusion from it of all but the socio-economic élites of the world beyond Europe!)

Interestingly, all of this recruiting activity, though encouraged and indirectly supported by government, has been taking place in a national policy vacuum, since there is as yet no explicit, comprehensive government policy on international education in Ireland, which might offer its own perspective on the value of multi-cultural campuses in Ireland, what these might consist of, and the resources to be devoted to creating them. 3

As for the way in which international students themselves are viewed by their institutions, here we can often identify a framework which would, from an ethnic studies or anti-racism perspective, certainly be classed as an “assimilation” model. This involves seeing them as having deficits (of academic knowledge, language skills or cultural experience) or problems arising from their difference from the mainstream, which can be rectified in various ways (orientation courses, language backup, study skills training) so they become as close as possible to the “norm” which is the home student or qualified professional. We have hardly begun to turn that around and ask, “How can Irish institutions fully utilise all the resources, knowledge and energies that these students bring, for our own benefit as well as theirs?”

* What do the students themselves have to say? Over the last three years, ICOS has hosted an annual International Student Forum, at which third-level students from many different countries can share their views and experiences. The Forum aims to facilitate the expression of the students’ main concerns and issues, and to encourage them to become pro-active within their own institutions. Many of the themes which have recurred give food for thought to anyone concerned with working towards a multi-cultural campus.

Forum participants are often very articulate and self-confident individuals, yet each year they have spoken of a frustrating feeling of marginalisation, a sense of being treated as temporary or peripheral, which arises from the texture of day-to-day experience for even the long-term and full-course international students. Students emphasise their wish to contribute fully to the life of the campus community, outlining what they have to offer - including helping us see ourselves more clearly through dialogue with those who are different from us - but say this is rarely possible. And, despite their significant financial contribution, they sense that, in both overt and subtle ways, most institutions are designed and run for home students. Among the issues they have highlighted are the following: § Student services – catering and health care for example – are less than fully responsive to cultural

diversity; § An inadequate supply of safe, affordable accommodation constitutes a major problem; § The quality of most institutions’ advance information – especially academic course information –

for intending international students is poor (comparisons are frequently made with the UK or US); § Curricula, teaching styles and learning models frequently remain stubbornly Hiberno/Euro-centric,

while academic staff can be insensitive to difference, and necessary English language support services patchy and expensive;

§ There are few if any avenues for their cultural self-expression other than “international suppers” etc which few Irish students attend;

§ Opportunities to develop social relationships with Irish students may be lacking or problematic (the predominance of the “pub culture”);

§ International students have no rights of representation on the decision-making structures of their institutions, and often lack access to clear and transparent complaint or grievance procedures;

§ Students’ unions have until recently largely ignored their existence (even when, in larger institutions, they form around 10% of the student body). It is interesting that one of the many positive ideas arising from these discussions was that of an

“international day” on campus, led by the President and senior staff , when colleges could acknowledge and celebrate the many ways in which the international dimension and the international students themselves contribute to the life of the whole institution. The point is that what they called for

54

was a day of special events involving everyone - not an optional evening activity organised by the International Office - when for once the international students would be at the centre, not the periphery, of campus life.

*

These students described from their own experience many of the serious obstacles and challenges facing institutions which decide to develop a truly international ethos and practice. I conclude with the suggestion that possibly the best and most realistic way to bring about effective change would be, instead of working against the current culture and style of internationalisation, to work from within official and institutional frames of thinking towards the realisation of the ideal multi-cultural campus. First, in relation to the economic necessity of recruiting non-EU students, we could stress the fact that since international students are consumers, they will go wherever they find best value for money. Ireland, while attractive in some obvious ways, has to contend with a number of disadvantages as a study destination, including slow immigration procedures, accommodation problems in our cities, a new level of explicit xenophobia and racism on our streets, and the sheer cost of living. So it makes sound long-term economic sense for colleges to look carefully at the quality and competitiveness of their “product” over the next few years, which will necessarily involve making academic and other services more responsive and appropriate to a diverse and multi-cultural student community.

Second, when a more thorough-going internationalisation of the university is resisted on the grounds of diverting scarce resources away from more deserving home students, it can be countered by arguing for the potential benefits to Irish students, both in narrow career terms and as future world citizens. Irish colleges could emulate the stance of many U.S. universities, which highlight the importance of students acquiring “global competencies” in order to function effectively in many different cultural contexts. Seen in this light, the costs of better integrating and utilising the presence of our international students (and faculty), and of re-thinking curricula and teaching/learning styles, become strategic investments for enhancing Ireland’s future position internationally.

Thirdly, academics and administrators alike could consider the possibilities offered by the concept of “internationalisation at home” within the EU’s SOCRATES programme, which refers to the provision of an international experience for the vast majority of students in higher education who do not go abroad to study. In fact, the Irish higher education sector has an opportunity in the next month or two to express its views via the Department of Education on the future of the European Programmes, so we could lobby for more funding for appropriate activities in third level colleges within this framework, which could include both staff development and the promotion of the involvement of international students at many levels of institutional life.

All of these strategies will enhance the possibilities for our international students to become full members of their Irish academic communities, to be treated as well as they deserve as consumers of higher education services, and to have the opportunity of making the academic and social contributions that many want to make. Our institutions, and all of our students, can only stand to benefit from these developments. 1 Note: Relevant references and bibliography are available in the HEEU publication, ‘Creating an Intercultural Campus. 2 Martina Flavin of Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, threw interesting light on international students’ disappointment at lack of access to “Irish culture” and friendship with home students in a research paper published in 2000 in ICOS Occasional Papers I. (Dublin: Irish Council for International Students) 3 At the time of writing, a consultancy firm is working on behalf of the Higher Education Authority (HEA) to gather views and information from a wide variety of interested parties, which is intended to provide a framework for national policy-making .

55

References: Boucher, Gerard W. 1998. The Irish are Friendly, but…a Report on Racism and International

Students in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Council for International Students. Cox, W. and Cameron, D. (eds.) 2002. Chinese Students in Ireland: New Opportunities, New Needs,

New Challenges. Dublin: Irish Council for International Students.

56

DEVISING AN ETHNIC MONITORING SYSTEM FOR IRELAND IN THE 21ST CENTURY Margaret O’Flanagan Education and Management Analysis, Registry Dublin City University Introduction Ireland’s population is rapidly becoming more ethnically diverse. This increasing diversity is now part of the permanent population as well as transient visiting population. In addition to the diversity brought by new immigrants and visitors there are of course many Irish nationals who are members of minority ethnic groups already existing in Ireland for decades and even centuries past. And yet, while many recognise racism within Irish society, we have no way to adequately quantify minority populations and thereby monitor/assess how Irish society and structures treat them.

The problem is not unique to minority ethnic populations, we don’t identify and monitor people on the basis of their sexual orientation either, or on whether they are former prisoners or affected by a host of other situations that might impact their capacity to participate fully in Irish society. When it comes to assessing participation, access and outcome in Irish society from the perspective of equality monitoring, these populations are quantitatively invisible, making it very hard to build a case for necessary supports or even social change to ensure equality.

While there are obvious problems with recording an individual’s ethnicity, including the fact that it is currently not legal in Ireland to record ethnicity against a person’s identity, it is nevertheless essential to gather information on the experiences of groups within the population likely to be affected by discrimination. Quantitative information is basic to the production of evidence and information to identify and remedy inequalities or problems experienced by individuals because they are members of a specific minority group.

This paper will describe this as yet incomplete ‘Devising an Ethnic Monitoring System’ project, beginning with Background and methodology and then Summaries of the findings for the three years over which the project has operated thus far. These will be followed by Conclusions and proposals for the next steps in achieving an effective and accurate system to support equality monitoring on the basis of ethnicity. Background and Methodology The Education and Management Analysis Office in DCU and the Higher Education Equality Unit (HEEU) initiated a joint project in 2000 to develop and pilot a system to accurately classify the major ethnic minorities in Ireland for equality monitoring purposes. The project followed in a paper presented by Margaret O’Flanagan of DCU at the HEEU’s ‘Challenges and Opportunities’ conference entitled ‘Shaping up for Monitoring’ which outlined how the Universities should be responding to the Universities Act and the imminent Equal Status Act by introducing effective monitoring mechanisms. The project has been run solely by DCU since 2001.

In many ways the diversity of University populations in terms of students and staff make them ideal initial case studies for the development of a system that could be used nationally in a very broad range of institutions. Existing or new ethnic minorities with very limited access to third level education are obviously likely to be excluded but it is intended that these groups can be covered with additional research.

In the Academic years 2000/01, 2001/02 and 2002/03 DCU has carried out a survey of a sample of students at September registration. In the first year of the study, students were asked to self-define their ethnicity and give some other profile information to identify core characteristics on which to base a new monitoring system. In the subsequent two years respondents were asked to complete forms with ethnic classifications categorised into ‘tick box’ questions. Respondents were asked to identify if the categories given were acceptable or required changes.

There were 1,497 returns in the first year of the study, 3,140 in the second year and 2,913 in the third year. In the first year of the study only first year students were actively targeted. In the

57

subsequent two years undergraduate and postgraduate students at different stages of their programme were included, with a specific emphasis on students registering on programmes attracting higher numbers of non-national students than others.

The datasets on which this paper is based are therefore not suitable for assessment as entire populations or as being in any way representative of entire populations, nor are they comparable from year to year. The sampling method used in this study was not designed to gather quantitative data but rather to get as much diversity in the respondent group as possible, the primary objective of the study being to develop acceptable language and an accurate and flexible classification system for recording ethnic identity, not to undertake a census.

This objective, to develop an accurate and flexible classification system employing suitable language, reflects the need to devise a new monitoring system suitable for Ireland’s unique situation at this time. Ireland’s history and pattern of economic development make the well-developed systems used elsewhere inappropriate for adaptation to Ireland in the 21st century. Ireland’s population has become more diverse at a time when Europe, and particularly Eastern Europe has seen huge political and social fragmentation. Emerging minority populations in Ireland are quite different to those that have grown in the UK, the US, Australia and other Central, Northern and Western European countries. Summary - The 2000/2001 survey No suggested categories for classification were included in the first year of the study. Respondents were simply asked to define their ethnicity in their own words, based on some brief examples of how this might be done (see form in Appendix One). As the project was intended to continue in subsequent years, with the additional unrealised plan of carrying out the survey in other institutions, different questionnaires were envisaged. This first questionnaire gathered self-defined classifications in the respondents’ own language and with their own perspectives on, and understanding of, ethnicity. The data gathered in this manner in the first year was intended for use in defining a classification system to be piloted in the second year.

The 2000/01 survey brought some unsurprising results. The majority of respondents defined their ethnicity in terms of nationality and skin colour (72%), this may in part be caused by the phrasing of the sample definitions given. Religion was also a significant factor. This, however, is predominantly driven by the preponderance of white Irish Roman Catholics in the respondent group. However, within that group there were some interesting trends in terms of respondents’ interpretation of exactly what constitutes ethnicity. Some Irish respondents included their regional or county identity within their ethnic identity and single individuals included gender, sexual orientation, age and class. Those methods employed by more than 1% of respondents are shown in the following table. Method of defining Ethnicity N %

Nationality & Skin colour 1014 71.61%

Nationality alone 204 14.41%

Nationality & Religion 39 2.75%

Nationality & Skin colour & Religion 30 2.12%

Religion alone 23 1.62%

The comments made by respondents provided a significant insight into their understanding of ethnicity, and their attitude to difference. Some comments were supportive and enthusiastic, indicating an interest in, and understanding of, increasing diversity. Comments on the survey itself included: • “Brilliant” • “Excellent idea” • “Good idea. More education in schools would help” • “Hope the information is used to benefit others and in a positive way” • “I'm glad someone is looking into this” • “Very worthwhile and most necessary”.

58

There were also concerned comments either finding the exercise offensive or regarding it as actively promoting racism: • “Why do you want to know? This just highlights racial differences” • “I don't know exactly what the purpose of this survey was but I am very happy to tell you that it

has brought back angering thoughts about the way the conservatives in our country think.” • “Quite silly” • “Promotes segregation”. Other comments displayed a level of prejudice: • “Completely ridiculous - ought to encourage and educate own people before introducing more” • “Having lots of different ethnic groups will cause even more divisions but I guess it's just in our

nature to be racist”. Finally, in relation to the project itself, one respondent appeared to feel that there isn’t really an issue anymore;

“I'm sure all official forms include the ethnic minorities and I don't think it's a problem” while another displayed an opposing, well evolved, position;

“only people whose ethnicity is made an issue are sure of what it is. I would class myself as female before Irish but if I was Black you can be damn sure that's what people would think of first.”

This final comment was one of the most interesting, encapsulating as it does a key issue impacting on ethnic identity and racism, the fact that one’s ethnicity, while making one the ‘same’ or part of the ‘norm’ in one place, can make one very ‘different’ and an outsider in another. Summary - The 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 Surveys Based on the primary methods of self-identifying ethnicity in the 2000/01 survey, with particular emphasis on those used by non white Irish Roman Catholics since that group was so well represented, sets of categories were developed. These were then refined into individual sets of classifications, based on the most commonly used in the self-classification in 2000/01. The same form was used for the 2001/02 and 2002/03 surveys. The questions in the survey (see Appendix Two) included:

• Gender • Age Group • Citizenship • Country of Birth • Country of Permanent Residence • Country/Region of Origin (Self, Parentage or Ancestry) • Religious group • Physical Characteristics • Traditional/Cultural Community Identity • Comments

Country/Region of Origin

In both years the vast majority of respondents gave Ireland or the EU as their Country/Region of origin. In 2001/02 7% of respondents said this method of self-identification was either ‘Not relevant’ or gave no answer to the question at all. That figure dropped to 5.6% in 2002/03. Otherwise there were no major problems with the categories used in this section. They were: Country/Region of Origin (Self, Parentage or Ancestry) that you identify with:

59

Not relevant � Africa (Central & Southern) � India �Ireland � Africa (North) � Asia (Other) �Northern Ireland � America (North) � Oceania (Aust./NZ ) �EU � America (Central & South) � Mixed heritage �Europe (non-EU) � China � Other � ‘Mixed Heritage’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Even with the categories given, respondents were inclined to use the ‘Other’ option to clarify definitions, including cases where they were easily situated within one of the major groupings e.g. choosing ‘Oceania’ and specifying ‘New Zealand’. Even in populations where this facet of ethnic identity may not act as a trigger for discrimination, individuals are clearly sensitive about the accuracy of the description of this element of their identity, underlining the fact that very brief or blunt instruments will not work effectively for ethnic monitoring purposes. Conversely, those who identified their country or region of origin as the EU include 24 who had the option to choose Ireland.

Overall, the questions catered well to the breadth of responses and there were no critical comments made about this question in either survey. No additional categories, beyond national level refinements, were indicated. Less than 3% and 6% respectively (per year) of respondents ticked ‘Not Relevant’ in response to this question suggesting that the geographical element of ethnic identity must be included in any effective classification system. Religious group More respondents felt religion was not relevant than those who felt country or region of origin was not relevant to their ethnic identity. In 2002/03 over 16% of respondents said religion was ‘Not Relevant’ to their Ethnic Identity. This may include a significant proportion of respondents not practising a religion but who may have been brought up within a specific religious culture.

There were 5 specific religious options given in the questionnaire, plus three subdivisions of ‘Christian’ (see below). The number of religious groups rose to 19 with additions from the ‘Other’ category in 2002/03, excluding ‘Jedi’ which was the choice of one respondent. Religious group you identify with, if relevant: Not relevant � Jewish � Mixed �Christian (Roman Catholic) � Moslem � Other �Christian (Protestant) � Hindu � Christian (Other) � Sikh � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ In 2002/03 the categories added under ‘Other’ with more than one respondent included: Atheist (n=7, 0.24%) Agnostic (n=4, 0.14%) Christian Orthodox (n=4, 0.14%) No religious group (n=4, 0.14%) There were two specific requests to include Atheist and Agnostic in future systems. Classifications included within the six specific religious groups listed in the survey with very low response rates include Hindu and Sikh. One respondent stated that this question was unethical and did not answer it.

On this basis, while the ‘Mixed’ and ‘Other’ questions should be maintained to identify emerging populations or changes in preferred language, adjustments should be made to the list of

60

religious groups offered in the question. Atheist, Agnostic, No religion and Christian (Orthodox) should be included and ‘Other’ responses monitored to indicate new groups for inclusion. Physical Characteristics In 2001/02 12% of respondents felt Physical Characteristics (notably skin colour) were not relevant to their ethnic identity. This dropped to 11% in 2002/03. While the ‘Not relevant’ group probably includes individuals of different backgrounds, given the respondent profiles in general, it is likely that the vast majority of those stating that physical characteristics are not relevant are white. The proportion of respondents simply not answering the question is lower than is the case for other questions posed in this survey at 1.3% in 2001/02 and 0.2% in 2002/03. Apart from ‘Not relevant’ the options given were; • Black • White • Asian • Other In the case of this question, the ‘Other’ option was barely used at all, and when it was used, actual specification of ‘Other’ was low.

Based on these responses, this question is important to the definition of ethnicity (based on the low number of ‘Not Relevant’ responses) and the options Black, White and Asian suffice as long as the ‘Other’ option is allowed, though it is not much used. This may well prove to be different for other populations, this question in particular needs to be piloted on other populations. Space to elaborate, if desired, on the three primary groups should also be maintained. Physical Characteristics 01/02 % 02/03 % White 2648 84.33% 2517 86.41% Not relevant 373 11.88% 314 10.78% Asian 53 1.69% 53 1.82% Not Stated 41 1.31% 5 0.17% Black 13 0.41% 6 0.21% Other Unspecified 9 0.29% 14 0.48% Other Specified 3 0.10% 4 0.14% Total 3140 100.00% 2913 100.00% Traditional/Cultural Community Identity This final method of classification was added primarily to cater for identification of indigenous minority communities, most notably the Irish Travelling Community, but also to identify members of the Roma or Gypsy communities living in Ireland. There were few categories offered but there was space to identify mixed identities or to define new categories under this heading. Formulating this part of the questionnaire proved to be very difficult. In particular, identifying what groups to include beyond ‘Traveller’ and ‘Roma/Gypsy’ was hard. Most of all it was difficult to find a term that would adequately describe this facet of ethnic identity in a broad population. Traditional / Cultural Community Identity Not relevant � Roma / Gypsy � Other �Traveller � Mixed � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:_______________________________________________________

61

The responses to this question threw up the failure to allow for a ‘characteristic’ that explicitly includes identities such as ‘Arab’. While this question does allow for the clear identification of members of minority communities in Ireland such as Traveller, and Roma, it clearly does not prompt, except in the case of four individuals in 2002/03, respondents who live in the mainstream settled communities to identify themselves as such. However, the failure to actually offer ‘Settled’ as a characteristic in the questionnaire is likely to have influenced this result very strongly. Traditional/Cultural Community Identity 01/02 % 02/03 % Not relevant 2992 95.29% 2680 92.13% Not Stated 29 0.92% 65 2.23% Mixed Unspecified 43 1.37% 2 0.07% Other Unspecified 45 1.43% 95 3.27% Roma/Gypsy 9 0.29% 6 0.21% Traveller 11 0.35% 10 0.34% Other (Way of life – farming/ Island living/Gaeltacht) 1 0.03% 1 0.00% Other Arab 2 0.06% 3 0.10% Other Settled 0 0.00% 4 0.14% Unsure 0 0.00% 1 0.03% Mixed (Specified and not relevant to this question)) 1 0.03% 33 1.13% Other - Class based 0 0.00% 1 0.03% Other (National/ Regional/ Locality) 6 0.19% 8 0.28% Other (Religious based) 1 0.03% 1 0.03% In relation to the other three core characteristics used to identify ethnic identity (Country or Region of Origin, Religion and Physical Characteristics), there were combined levels of non-response or responses of ‘Not relevant’ of between 6% (Country or Region of Origin, 02/03) and 13% (Physical Characteristics, 01/02). In the case of Traditional/Cultural Community Identity in 02/03 this leaps to 94%. Taking out those who simply didn’t answer the question (2.2%) 92% of respondents state that this characteristic is not relevant to their ethnic identity. Harking back to the comment made in the 2000/2001 survey,

‘only people whose ethnicity is made an issue are sure of what it is. I would class myself as female before Irish but if I was Black you can be damn sure that's what people would think of first’.

As this specific question was included in an attempt to address the situation of Ireland’s largest indigenous ethnic minority, the Travelling Community, one must wonder if the same logic applies here. Do those who are from traditionally mainstream communities, in this case the settled population, do not see that as part of their ethnicity because they are in the majority and conform to the ‘norm’? However, this could also be seen as a flaw in the questionnaire as indicated previously. Future versions of the survey should include ’Settled’ as an option as well as Not Relevant so that this result can be clarified. N ticking 'Not relevant' for characteristics 02/03 N % Country/Region of Origin 80 2.75% Religious group you identify with 484 16.62% Physical Characteristics 314 10.78% Traditional/Cultural Community Identity 2680 92.00% Conclusions and Proposals

62

The four-strand approach to defining ethnic identity, while somewhat cumbersome, has been well received by respondents and serves effectively to allow for changing populations and complex identities. The survey needs to be undertaken again with new and different populations with some changes to the questionnaire.

With regard to Country/Region of origin, while the options given were adequate, some changes might help to make the form more inclusive overall and to give it a greater lifespan in terms of it being usable for longer without major changes. This question is designed for use in conjunction with questions on nationality and citizenship thereby serving to indicate where individuals’ nationality and national identity are different or mixed. Country/Region of Origin (Self, Parentage or Ancestry) that you identify with: Not relevant � Africa (North) � Asia – (North) � Ireland � Africa

(Central) � Asia – (Central) �

Northern Ireland � Africa (South) � Asia – (South-East)

�

EU � Africa (Other) � Asia - (Other) � Europe (Eastern non-EU)

� America (North)

� Oceania (Aust./NZ )

�

Europe (Other non-EU)

� America (Central)

� Mixed heritage �

America (South)

� Other �

America (Other)

�

‘Mixed Heritage’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ The Religious Group question must be expanded to include Agnostic, Atheist, No Religion and Christian Orthodox. As with the other questions, options for ‘Mixed’ and ‘Other’ identities are important to permit individuals to identify themselves in a way they are comfortable with, and to identify emerging populations. Religious group you identify with, if relevant:

Not relevant � Christian (Roman Catholic) � Hindu �Agnostic � Christian (Protestant) � Jewish �Atheist � Christian (Orthodox) � Moslem �No Religion � Christian (Other) � Sikh � Mixed � Other �

‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ No major changes are suggested for the Physical Characteristics section, other than that it be included with a ‘Mixed’ option while maintaining the ‘Other’ category to identify emerging sub-populations. This section of the questionnaire, more than any other, needs to be piloted on populations beyond DCU and the Universities in general. Physical Characteristics (incl. Skin colour): This set of categories has been kept short to gain as much information in the written space on how people self define.

63

Not relevant � White � Other � Black � Asian � Mixed � ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ The Traditional/Cultural Identify section needs to be expanded, and carefully. It should be used to cater for identities not included in the other three ‘characteristic’ groups. However, care should be taken so that it does not become a mess of disparate types of identities as it’s merit would be lost. ‘Arab’ should be included as a characteristic in this group at this stage at least. ‘Settled’ should also be included as a characteristic. Traditional / Cultural Community Identity Not relevant � Traveller � Arab �Settled � Roma / Gypsy � Mixed � Other � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ As Ireland, Europe and the rest of the world change politically and socially, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity will alter as political power blocks shift and different waves of immigration occur while communities form an evolve. Because of this, no classification system designed for equality monitoring can be seen to be static and simply used continuously without review. Methods must be found to make monitoring systems comparable over time, while allowing classification systems to be adjusted, expanded and reconstructed. In this way effective equality monitoring on the basis of ethnicity can take place. As systems evolve and new classifications are developed, the people they describe must be consulted to ensure that the terminology used is respectful and intelligible to them. The project will continue using the following set of questions as the first step in the next phase.

64

Gender: Male � Female � Other (please state):_________________ � Age Group: =<18 � 19-22 � 23-30 �

31-40 � 41-50 � 51-65 �� 66+ � Citizenship: ���� Irish � Other EU ���� Other (please state):_______________ � Country of Birth: Rep. of Ireland � N. Ireland �

Other: (please state):___________________________ �

Country of Permanent Residence: Rep. of Ireland � N. Ireland �

Other: (please state):___________________________��� Country/Region of Origin (Self, Parentage or Ancestry) that you identify with: Not relevant � Africa (North) � Asia – (North) � Ireland � Africa

(Central) � Asia – (Central) �

Northern Ireland � Africa (South) � Asia – (South-East)

�

EU � Africa (Other) � Asia - (Other) � Europe (Eastern non-EU)

� America (North)

� Oceania (Aust./NZ )

�

Europe (Other non-EU)

� America (Central)

� Mixed heritage �

America (South)

� Other �

America (Other)

�

‘Mixed Heritage’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Religious group you identify with, if relevant: Not relevant � Christian (Roman Catholic) � Hindu �Agnostic � Christian (Protestant) � Jewish �Atheist � Christian (Orthodox) � Moslem �No Religion � Christian (Other) � Sikh � Mixed � Other �

‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Physical Characteristics (incl. Skin colour): This set of categories has been kept short to gain as much information in the written space on how people self define. Not relevant � White � Other � Black � Asian � Mixed � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Traditional / Cultural Community Identity Not relevant � Traveller � Arab �Settled � Roma / Gypsy � Mixed � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________

65

If the questions on this form do not allow you to adequately describe your ethnic identity, please add any additional information here: If you have any comments about this form or the project, please give them here:

66

Appendix One – Questionnaire September 2000 Pilot Project to develop a system to record Ethnicity in Ireland in 2000.

DCU Registry and the Higher Education Equality Unit. Most questions have a comment line and box. If the categories given do not cover your identity, please use these spaces to give details. EVEN IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS,

PLEASE ANSWER Q.3: ETHNICITY. 1: Gender: Male � Female � Other (please state):________________ � 2: Age Group: =<18 � 19-22 � 23-30 �

31-40 � 41-50 � 51-65 �� 66+ � 3: Ethnicity: Please use the space below to describe your ethnicity in your own words. Examples of possible words and phrases include ‘White Irish’, ‘Irish Traveller’, ‘Black Irish’, ‘Indian Moslem’ or ‘mixed heritage British Jewish and Pakistani’. __________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

4: Official Forms: Please indicate what categories you would like to see included on official forms seeking to identify ethnicity. You are welcome to refer to ethnicities and identities other than your own: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

5: Citizenship: ����Irish � Other (please specify):_________________ ����None � �

6: Country of Birth: Rep. of Ireland � Other: (please specify):___________________ �

7: If your Base Country (main residence) is not Ireland, please state what country/region is

_____________________________________ or None (displaced) �

8: If your Country of Birth is not Ireland and your Base Country is Ireland, please state the age at which you moved to Ireland:_________________years 9. If you have any comments on this form or this project please make them here: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this form

67

Appendix Two – Questionnaire September 2001 & 2002 Pilot Project for the development of a classification system recording Ethnic Origin.

Gender: Male � Female � Other (please state):_________________ � Age Group: =<18 � 19-22 � 23-30 �

31-40 � 41-50 � 51-65 �� 66+ � Citizenship: ����Irish �Other EU ����Other (please state):_______________ � Country of Birth: Rep. of Ireland � N. Ireland �

Other: (please state):___________________________ �

Country of Permanent Residence: Rep. of Ireland � N. Ireland �

Other: (please state):___________________________��� Country/Region of Origin (Self, Parentage or Ancestry) that you identify with: Not relevant � Africa (Central & Southern) � India �Ireland � Africa (North) � Asia (Other) �Northern Ireland � America (North) � Oceania (Aust./NZ ) �EU � America (Central & South) � Mixed heritage �Europe (non-EU) � China � Other � ‘Mixed Heritage’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Religious group you identify with, if relevant: Not relevant � Jewish � Mixed �Christian (Roman Catholic) � Moslem � Other �Christian (Protestant) � Hindu � Christian (Other) � Sikh � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Physical Characteristics (incl. Skin colour): This set of categories has been kept short to gain as much information in the written space on how people self define. Not relevant � White � Other � Black � Asian � ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ Traditional / Cultural Community Identity Not relevant � Roma / Gypsy � Other �Traveller � Mixed � ‘Mixed’ Details:______________________________________________________ ‘Other’ Details:______________________________________________________________ If the questions on this form do not allow you to adequately describe your ethnic identity, please add any additional information here: If you have any comments about this form or the project, please give them here:

68

III. STUDENT PANEL

TRINITY: A MULTICULTURAL CAMPUS – FACT OR MYTH? Antra Bhargava, International Students Liaison Officer, Students Union, TCD It has been reported that recently that the Provost has expressed a wish to increase the level of International students (read as non-EU nationals) in Trinity college to 15 per cent. On the face of the statement it is an encouragement to the concept of multiculturalism. Bringing people from different parts of the world into Trinity and fostering relations between them and the Irish students to create a ‘United Colours of Trinity’ theme is very inspiring. Imagine a Buttery café where the afternoon Special could include Indian ‘dhal’ on a Monday and Canadian ‘pancakes with maple syrup’ on a Friday. Culinary paradise you think? Well, think again. The harsh reality of mashed potatoes day after day after day may seems to come to your mind.

The fact of the matter is that the barriers to multiculturalism on campus are tremendous. The greatest problem is that all formal structures in place only serve to enhance these barriers and any true multicultural interaction is informal. What that statement means is best demonstrated through an example. Take the requirement of international students to register with the Gardai after arrival and college-registration. Till this year that involved spending all night camping outside the official buildings in Harcourt Street. I think it can be said with certainty that the average Irish student would not have to spend eight hours on a freezing pavement sober. This is one time where being alcohol-free is a distinct disadvantage as you can feel every ice-cold gale go through your flesh and strike your bones. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how formalities make international students suffer. Suffering causes alienation and is the most basic barrier to complete integration with a society that is responsible for the suffering – complete and comfortable integration being my definition of multicultural interaction. An example of how informal interactions lead to reduced suffering and thereby lower the barriers to multiculturalism is the way that some of the staff in college will go out of their way to solve a problem for a student. The operative words here are ‘out of their way’. Some of the issues they have had to deal with are surely not within their job description and even just considering how small their staff size is relative to the target student population I feel they deserve all the praise that can be given to them. I have personally been greatly impressed with the patience and kindness of the staff of the International Students Affairs Office. Considering how often I am in there I am surprised that I have never once been there at a ‘bad time’! International students have two levels of needs. One is basic – the kind that every student feels. These are needs of proper accommodation, information as to affordable food and dealing with academic obstacles. However there are special needs that international students have which need to be taken on board by college. For example a guide to Irish weatherproof clothing (if such a thing exists). More seriously though, they need help with the language, the variety of Irish accents and terminology like ‘craic’. They also need help with the various aspects of registration with local authorities etc and with meeting new people. You can bring a horse to the water and it will know how to drink, but if you bring an international student to Trinity s/he does not necessarily, by default, become or feel like a ‘Trinner’. If I concentrate just for a moment on the international students within the medical faculty I could compile a list a mile long of possible complaints. The level of fees that they pay, over €20,000 this year, is in no way proportional to the facilities that they can avail of. They have no student lounge to relax, to even eat or mingle with other students on a social level. Photocopying, required labels, lack of sufficient books and academic materials…. I could go on. Lack of infrastructure is one major concern. It is indeed unfortunate that these very students pay for the construction of the Health Science facilities where they themselves are denied adequate comforts. It is unethical for a college to make students pay for the college’s shortcomings and for infrastructure that they will probably never be able

69

to avail of. Furthermore, if you take college’s track record with responding to student needs – issues like the on-campus gym and student centre- it has been described to me as ‘simply ridiculous’. To overcome some of these problems the Students Union organised the International Students’ Orientation Programme as a pilot venture this year. We brought together a current Irish student with a new international student and let them use that introduction as a first step to integration. We held a training session in college to give the ‘volunteering’ students some idea of the magnitude of potential problems that they may be asked to help with. According to the feedback I have received so far, it has been a phenomenal success. The Provost’s Fund contributed generously so that we even managed to pay the volunteers for their time. However, I hope to see this develop on more non-financial lines in the future. To end off the programme I also intend to organise a social event at the end of this month for all those involved. This will give me as an organiser some concrete manner of obtaining feedback. It will also give the students a chance to meet other people involved in the programme and hopefully encourage budding friendships. On that positive note we shall revisit the issue of international student fees. That is one issue that needs to be dealt with quickly and efficiently. The idea of charging non-EU students exorbitant sums like €20,000 for one year in college may be ‘unethical’ or of ‘dubious legality’. The Irish judiciary, and the international community have long revered the concept of proportionality and non-discrimination. Why then are we standing by and allowing such blatant abuse of these cardinal principles? Students that pay these fees get neither proportionally higher access to facilities nor a support system to make up for the lack of necessary facilities. They pay these fees merely because they are American, Chinese, Canadian, Indian, Pakistani or Russian i.e. because of where they were born. As if that means they have a sign that says ‘Born to be Ripped Off’ on their heads. That is, simply put – unfair. When I came to Trinity College as a Fresher I missed Freshers’ Week due to health problems in my family. I came alone and found it very hard to break into the cliques that had already formed one week into college life. A girl named Darya, from Russia, arrived even later than I did. Maybe it was seeing her sitting alone that brought back the familiar feeling of isolation or maybe we were compatible personalities; whatever the reason, we became inseparable friends. We went clubbing together, burnt the midnight oil together and even danced on the streets on our first St. Patrick’s Day together. She never came back after the summer. People still come up and ask me what happened to her. Till recently I had no answer. Just a few months ago I found out that when fees increased for second year, at the same time she had a family crisis, and could not afford to come back. I have not heard from her. Why should I have to lose a friend because, due to some strange reason the authorities do not see fit to allow International students access to the Hardship Fund? Why? There are many issues with fees. Not only that they are so high but that they increase at a rate of 8 per cent a year and nowhere is it mentioned in the materials sent out to international students during ‘recruitment’ that this is likely. The prospectus terms it an ‘economic fee’ and an ‘annual fee’. There is no definition of what is an ‘economic fee’ or an indication that the simple English translation of the words ‘annual fee’ do not apply here. To me, an ‘annual fee’ indicates that there is a particular sum of money mentioned in the table which needs to be paid each year. Not that there are different sums of money that differ by over €1,000 that must be paid annually. Other related issues are that there is no provision for international students to pay the fees in two or more instalments. If one were to do so, one would have to pay added interest on top of the thousands of euros of ‘economic fees’. There are no means-based or merit-based scholarships for international undergraduate students, or a system of loans that a student can avail of. Till the USI and myself got working on the issue, non-EU students did not even have the right to work in this jurisdiction. Now they are allowed to work part-time during term and full time during the holidays. If Trinity is to maintain its reputation as a centre for learning excellence, it must hear these concerns and deal with them soon. These are real concerns of real people. As real as you and me. Until these voices are heard there can be no true integration. There can be no real understanding and there can definitely be no multicultural Trinity campus. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a myth. Making it a factual reality is everyone’s job.

70

MY FREE MOVEMENT: FROM FINLAND TO IRELAND Kristiina Kojamo BESS, TCD My name is Kristiina Kojamo and I am from Finland so I am not exactly an international student but an EU student. That means that I do not pay any fees at the moment, apart from the standard registration fee. I stand on the same line with all the Irish students here. I will be spending the following four years studying Business, Economic and Social Studies.

Within the EU there is free movement of people which means that people can move freely from one EU country to another to study, work or just travel. No special permission is needed, no visas, nothing. For me moving here required as much paper work as moving from my home town Hameenlinna in Finland to our capital Helsinki. Just fill in one form to secure your mail to be delivered to the correct address. Easy. And when I came over I went to the local Garda station, just to be sure, and asked a Garda whether I need a residence permit or not. His reply was: ‘No, of course not. We are all the same people now’. But are we really?

Europe is rather small geographically and countries have more or less evolved together under similar conditions. We fought the same wars, had the same ideologies. Yet most of the time remained individual countries with individual needs. But what truly differentiates the countries is the people. Europe has a brilliant cultural diversity that hopefully will not be melted together. Each country is unique. So officially we are the same people but in reality quite different from each other.

This is why moving from country to country might not be as easy as one would think. Mentally it can be incredibly hard. I came here with the expectation that life would not differ very much from life in Finland. After all, Finland is only three and a half hours from here by plane, just around the corner. But life itself does differ a great deal.

Different country, different customs, different religion. Everything is different. And adapting to everything that is different might not be so easy. And that is something that gave me a shock. I did not think I would need to try and adapt to a whole new culture but I do. At first I was angry. “I want to go back to where I belong. It is all so strange in here”, I thought. I did not think it would be like this. But now when I think of it again, I think that being able to live in two different cultures is great. It is an advantage, a privilege and something to be proud of.

Also, being a foreign student gives me a great chance to get to know other foreign students who have come here to study and live – some for several years like me. Each day I walk around the campus and hear different languages being spoken: some of which I can not even recognize, some of which are familiar, like Finnish or Swedish, and hearing them makes me feel better instantly. With other foreign students I can share experiences of being abroad: small talk about the charming Irish weather is always a good start. But I also need my Irish friends. They are the reason I came in here in the first place. And I could not stay here without them. Everyone has a meaning for me.

So even if we Finns, Irishmen and all the rest are the same EU people, we are still unique peoples and individuals. And we should hold on to that because that is what makes free movement such an exciting opportunity.

71

THE NEED TO GLOBALISE EDUCATION Chinedu Onyejelem MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies, TCD Introduction I will attempt to give an insight into the experiences of minority ethnic groups – regarded as ‘others’ - in accessing third level education in Ireland. I will also try to make a case for their inclusion as I feel that this issue is of particular importance as we work towards building Trinity College as a multicultural university. Multiculturalism strives on equality The Economist (November 2, 2002), making a hard case for a multicultural society writes that: “It is the mix of colours and cultures that gives such exuberance to New York and London.”

As this cannot be said of Dublin and indeed Ireland, in my view, there is therefore nothing to support Trinity College as being a multicultural university, unless you define a multicultural university as a place where students from all over the world study without their well being actually taken into consideration. I say this simply because there can be no real mix of colours and cultures where there is no equality. Equality in the sense of equal access of all persons– irrespective of their colour and nationality - to education in Trinity College.

As it is the case presently, those regarded as the ‘other’ (I mean non-EU nationals, naturalised Irish and people with Refugee Status) have serious difficulties accessing education in Trinity College. The same cannot be said of Irish people. The difficulties arise when it comes to securing admission and payment of fees. The highest cost of acquiring education in Trinity College are borne by foreign students simply because they are considered as the ‘other’ in the society. Harmonising college fees In 2001/2002 annual fee for non-EU students of MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies was €10,511 while EU students paid €4,395. This is completely unfair to a section of students that already have a lot to cope with. Also many non-EU students end up staying back and contributing to the building of the country where they studied.

Regarding the enormous fee which they pay, it can rightly be said that this huge financial contribution goes a long way in sustaining the college. Although the college is yet to acknowledge this, one is bound to agree with The Economist (November 2, 2002:7) that: “When it comes to student visas, there are incentives to cheat not only for would-be immigrants but for educational institutions too. The incentive for educational bodies of all sorts is that foreign students provide welcome tuition fees and, for universities, cut-price teaching help.’

But if we see education in the words of Edward Agulanna (1998: 84) as ‘an instrument of development… a weapon of offence and defence’, there is no harm in harmonising the cost of acquiring education by people – especially from developing countries - whose ambition is to make the world – be it Ireland, America, Nigeria or South Africa - a better place to live in.

In support of this, Metro Eireann (March 2002: 15) reports that reviewing and making non-EU school fees affordable to Africans will go a long way to help in the development of the continent.

While discussing with one non-Irish nationals studying in a Dublin college (other than Trinity College) recently I was amazed to find out what goes on in some other colleges. As a foreign student, he said he was asked to pay about €8,000 for a full -time one-year course. Constrained by finance, he enrolled part-time for the same course. He was not charged non-EU fees so he paid €700 per annum. By the time he completes the course in two years time he would have paid about €1,400 in fee. This means a savings of €6,600. It will be interesting to find out if this system exists in Trinity College.

I believe that the policy for two types of fees – EU and non-EU - for students who are expected to compete equally for academic positions in Trinity College is a recipe for exclusion and

72

discrimination. It creates the ‘other’ and therefore should be reviewed with a view to scrapping it completely. The need to review entry procedure According to the European Convention for the Protection of Human and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950 Article 2, Protocol 1), ‘No person shall be denied the right to education.’ Yet the way members of minority ethnic groups are admitted into the college does not portray the college as a place that celebrates cross-cultural understanding and cooperation. For instance, sometime ago this college wrote an EU applicant (he is Irish by naturalization) informing him that before his offer can be issued, and as he has clearly been employed in Ireland since 1999, copies of tax returns or proof of payment of tax were required by return.

The said applicant submitted original copies of his P45, P60, pay slips and revenue related documents to the admissions office. Unfortunately the college authorities returned to seek more documentation because in their view, there was no evidence that the applicant had paid ‘enough tax.’

Although this was at last settled with the applicant being admitted into the college, the authorities clearly became involved in a means test. To me it was totally wrong. I am yet to read any Trinity College brochure which states that certain sum of money must be paid to the Revenue Commissioners as an evidence of tax payment in order to qualify for EU fee payment.

This treatment can be seen in the light of the college regarding the student as the ‘other’ who should pay non-EU fee. With the exception of the word ‘Irish’ which the student filled in the nationality column of the admission form, his name and supporting documentation for the admission were foreign.

With the above and similar issues which revolve around the admission of foreign nationals, naturalized Irish and people with Refugee Status, I would therefore say that every member of minority ethnic group here who decides to acquire higher education be it in Trinity College or elsewhere first rests his cheek on his palm. Shaaban Saleh Farsi (1973: 41) What significance is Irish education? No one talks about third level education through the English language today without mentioning Ireland as one of the top countries with highest standard. The implication of this has been a continued drift of people to many Irish colleges, including mushroom ones in the country to acquire higher education. But what would an Irish certificate mean to these people? Where could it lead them? For some, it is a ticket to a better job and a better life. To others it is simply to satisfy an urge. It will be important to give these people the opportunity to achieve their ambition. Globalise education Whatever the reason for acquiring higher education, the fact remains that there is great potential in equal opportunity education, especially where globalisation is a pride. Metro Eireann (November 2002: 17) writes: ‘Globalisation has some positive sides, including the Internet.’

I would therefore say that if the use of the Internet is advantageous to mankind, encouraging easy access for every one to education in Trinity College or elsewhere in one way or another flows back to us. Conclusion In recognising the various contributions of non-EU students in Trinity College, John I. Saeed in the University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin Postgraduate Prospectus (2002: 2) writes: ‘We are pleased that postgraduate students come here in significant numbers from outside of Ireland – over 50 countries are represented in our postgraduate student body – particularly those in Europe, America, and Asia. We aim to increase this internationalisation considerably in the next few years. I therefore particularly encourage all well-qualified applicants from whatever region of the world they come from to apply here.’

73

In that regard it will be a welcome development for the college to properly include these students when they arrive. That would mean the much-expected equality sought by minority ethnic groups in the society. Perhaps in support of the above, The Parish of the Travelling People (2000:146), writes that, ‘to treat everyone equally is not to give everyone the same but to suit each one equally well…’

However, as it stands one can’t accept that Trinity College would in any case near being classified as a multicultural university, unless the barriers that exclude minority ethnic groups from exercising their right to education are removed.

Orla Egan (1997: 75) says: ‘Equal levels of engagement with both formal and informal process of entry are vital in order that minority ethnic groups do not face uneven barriers to entry.’

What every student – Irish or non-Irish national, black or white deserves most is inclusion, kindness and support and above all equal treatment and opportunity. References: Agulanna, Edward. 1998. The Mbaiseness of Mbaise. Owerri: I-O Publishers Egan, Orla (ed.). 1997. Minority Ethnic Groups in Higher Education. Cork: Higher Education

Equality Unit European Convention for the Protection of Human and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950

Article 2, Protocol 1) Metro Eireann, March 2002 Onyejelem, Chinedu. 2002. ‘Racism is Euro Target’ Metro Eireann November 2002 Saeed, John I. 2002: 2. University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin Postgraduate Prospectus. Sheehan, Erica. 2000. Travellers Citizens of Ireland. Dublin: Parish of the Travelling People Saleh, Shaaban. 1973. Farsi Swahili Idioms. Nairobi: Kenyan Literature Bureau. The Economist, 2 November, 2002

74

AN IRISH STUDENT’S EXPERIENCE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT LIFE IN FINLAND Bernadette Ni Chaiside Sociology and Social Policy, TCD The topic of this paper will be a short introduction to my major dissertation in Sociology: "How relevant are theories of multiculturality to the experiences of third level students studying on Erasmus / Socrates exchange programmes within the European Union?" I will be briefly touching on subjects such as definitions of culture, multi - and interculturality and how relevant they are in understanding and evaluating international student’s experiences from a sociological perspective. With reference to my own experience as an exchange student, I will, very briefly, look at aspects of integration into the host university and society and map out what methodological research I will use while studying this topic.

What happens that is new in interaction if we persist in regarding the other person as alien and distant…and if we defensively take ourselves as the norm…or if we are content just to rub shoulders? Cultural encounters do not need to be avoided if they can take place within a relationship of equals, without patronising sentimentality, and questions can be asked, for instance about our own cultural references and associations …if no one feels threatened with losing their identity or having to fit in with the one being foisted on them, it will doubtless be possible to work our way through surprising complexities inherent in encounters procedures and life education which do not ignore differences and which start to build interculturalality (Noël, 1991) This statement may sound like a classical ideal of what should be and how things ought to be

in a multicultural Europe and in a European university. However this ideal does exist within an ‘imagined culture’ which becomes a reality for many people on Socrates programmes in Europe.

Some of the students here, including myself, will express enthusiasm for exchange programmes, such as Socrates / Erasmus and the opportunity that we have been given by the European community and our universities to study and live abroad. However what most of us will or have experienced when we are overseas is something that I call ‘an international student culture’.

In this international student life no social boundaries exist, there is a mere disregard for any conflicts which may arise from religion, gender, national or class differentiation. What is created is a mix of foreign nations represented by third level students who form a peer youth culture which is accepting of all nations without tension. The idea that so many nationalities can live harmoniously together with no conflict is what I believe is multiculturalism. A society which values all nations and cultures, and which language, religion and morals are kept private and not a form or excuse for prejudice or bias. And where a value system is created from scratch and is considerate of all national or cultural characteristics and traits.

This ideal of multi cultures existing peacefully together can be seen in any international student’s society pub evening all over Europe, where there is a meeting of different cultures and nations.

All aspects of third level education, both in academia and in social settings, are increasingly becoming more influenced by international developments from all over the globe. Rising European mobility can be characterised by the postmodernist concept of globalisation. A way in which to define globalisation is in terms of recognised ‘otherness’. Therefore it seems that nowadays cultural differences cannot be defined antithetically as either catalysts or deterrents to globalisation. It is their recognition that is essential to globalisation. This international student culture which is created so naturally among third level students in recognising and accepting other cultures for what they are, is what politicians and policy makers should be researching and valuing as a form of developing our globalised European community.

What I am interested in here is how this society and culture creates itself and why? Before I can begin to answer this question I would like to look at the inter-cultural exchange between ‘international students’ and their host students and the relationship that exists between this international student culture and the host culture. Unfortunately this picture is not so rosy.

75

With reference to the title of my dissertation ‘How relevant are theories of multiculturality to experiences of third level students studying on exchange programmes within the European Union?’ I will reflect on my own experiences of Socrates and international student life as well as some pilot survey research I have done in my host university in Finland. I do believe that issues of multiculturalism should be and can be related to third level education and are crucial in understanding the issues which arise on student exchange programmes in Europe, in the context of student-teacher and student-student relationships. As well as looking at theories and practices of multiculturalism in social policy and in the field of education I will also be adapting some theories of migration and the idea of host / minority groups to students living and studying on exchange programmes in foreign countries.

I will also look at whether, if any, do comparisons arise between students’ experiences of studying in same language host countries or foreign language host countries and whether this affects the integration process of these students into the host society. For example is there a difference between the experiences of an Irish student living, studying and working in France through the French language or an Irish student studying in an international university through English in Finland or Sweden. 1

But first to explain my own familiarity of multicultural living and experiences of being an Irish student on Socrates exchange in Finland.

My experience as a Socrates student in the University of Turku, Finland, made me think and reflect. For one of the first times in my life I became conscious of the idea of culture, of Irish culture and European culture and what that meant to me as a citizen of Ireland and Europe. Having only ever really thought before of culture as something objective such as language, arts, religion and institutions, I began to realise that culture is not only an objective reality expressed in visible characteristics but it constitutes in a more subjective reality in all of us. Although in theoretical terms I had always known that culture inevitably determines our way of thinking, feeling and acting and in this sense provides a shared understanding and constitutes daily and social life. Nonetheless, to be completely honest, I had never related theory to my own social reality, that is until my experience as an exchange and international student.

On arriving in Finland my ordinary and normal status as ‘just another student’ in Ireland changed to being something unique and different, something surprisingly interesting to everyone, to being an ‘international student’. Suddenly I was ‘out of the ordinary’ and I appealed to everyone not just because of who I was but for the reason of where I came from and for my distinctly cultural characteristics whether it be the way I dress or speak, I was different and fascinating.

Interestingly, all of us students who were different came together and created our own collective and cultural identity of ‘being different’ and ‘otherness’. This group diversely set up by different nationalities and cultures became peers, colleagues and friends. This natural ‘coming together’ of cultures is probably most unnatural except in ideal terms. Used in a collective sense, cultural identity refers to the collective self awareness that a given group embodies and reflects. Our self awareness as a diverse and mixed group is what I believe gives an international student group a sense of community and collectivity. The response we had to our being thrown together was to build a social structure and culture in which everyone belonged, in that we were all in the same boat and that we existed as peers in a situation that seems so impossible in the real world. This imagined culture was real for me and many other students for ten months of my life. It was our ‘otherness’ against each other and within Finnish society that allowed us to create an imagined culture. It was this otherness that made me identify issues of multiculturalism and integration. Something specific that struck and shocked me while studying abroad was the difficulty that many migrants must face integration into their host society. This is how I felt in Finland.

Before going to study in Finland, I always considered myself a very international person. I am someone who loves to travel, to learn a new language and to meet new, fresh and different people. I thought that by choosing the Socrates exchange programme I would meet like minded people who I could travel Scandinavia with and visit in their foreign homes. My expectations were right; I did meet likeminded French, Italian, Spanish Russian, American, Canadian, Asian and African students. Everyone wanted to have a good time, to visit places we had never seen and learn new and exciting things.

76

After the initial excitement of these fresh people and places I began to realise that the diverse mix of nations I had made as friends did not include one friend although there were many acquaintances, of students from my host society, Finland and the university I was studying in. I actually didn’t even know my Finnish next door neighbours name. This realisation struck me and yet although having a profound effect on my idea of integration and the possibilities to integrate successfully in a host society it had little influence on my actions to develop any relationship with Finnish people. A typical stereotype of Finnish people had been confirmed; they were unfriendly, silent and private. And to be honest I wasn’t bothered making friends with them because they obviously didn’t want to be my friend. As childish and immature as this may sound, this is how I felt and it was not just my sentiments alone because other Socrates student I met had the same realisation and uncaring attitude. Apart from stereotype probably being the main reason for blocking us to advancing any sort of relationship with Finnish students, one thing that did stop us all from making that extra step was the perfect little closed ‘memberships only’ society and culture that we had created ourselves. We had formed our own classified nation with boundaries and borders; we created an ‘other culture’ within Finland. This culture existed as ‘international students’ and was promoted and encouraged not by us alone but by the university, the students union and local businesses and companies which promoted international students pub evenings, food and restaurant discounts etc. We lived in and created our own kind of paradise. A paradise of multi cultures living harmoniously together and yet separate from everything which is reality; and this is the ideal, the multiculturalism ideal?

Due in part to the vast definitions of culture, it becomes difficult to define multiculturalism without looking at aspects of biculturalism and interculturalism.

Culture and multiculturalism are attractive and persuasive notions and ones which are very popular in modern literature. The issue of multiculturalism often deals with teacher training in elementary and secondary schools for an intercultural understanding of education, notably in the context of migration. As I have already said, for the purpose of this research I will adapt theories of multicultural education and migration as a social process to the experiences of third level students on exchange programmes in Europe. Multiculturalism is a notion which suggests a human being whose identifications and loyalties transcend the borders of nationalism and whose commitments are pinned to a larger vision of the global communities (Adler, 1977). In reference to the theory of multiculturalism, what is a multicultural person? He or she embodies attributes and characteristics that can create him/her as a catalyst between different cultures, that modernisation and globalised economic development has made, today, very necessary.

As exchange students we should say that the Socrates students are an example of ‘internationalists’; willing to co-operate with other countries; whose essential identity is inclusive of different life patterns and who have come to grips with a multiplicity of realities. We are, as learners, bringing our experiences, beliefs, and knowledge together to understand the different situations that we have come from and are now collectively part of, in a global framework. So, the constructivist principles are connected to individuals’ social setting. As is culture, our identity is defined in two ways, firstly as objective: our life histories, social roles and the construction of them, as well as our cultural identities; and secondly as subjective: in which we have a self-image, our own evaluation of self and others etc. Therefore as international students, our identity is formed through committing the roles that we have learnt to our self image, whether this is a multiplicity of roles or less, we become multicultured within a multi cultural society in which we express a profound understanding of the cultural values of the recipient society and other societies, respect for our own and others’ values, the appreciation of diversity and tolerance of ‘otherness’. From this perspective, interculturality can be used to analyse aspects of multiculturalism.

In a general statement interculturality refers to the interaction or communication which happens between two or more cultures. To state things more clearly; multicultural societies would not exist without interculturalism.

Therefore, our international student society may be a perfect example of multiculturality, in that it is a society which is characterised by cultural pluralism and a celebration of cultural variety. However in the context of it existing within another society and culture, in this example, Finland, then progress needs to be made in the direction of interculturality processes.

77

It is not only enough for ‘other’ cultures to be recognised, to cross the border but it is rather a matter of getting educated in otherness and inter cultural communication.

When my time in Finland was coming to its end and all the people who became my family and best friends were leaving I promised myself one thing, that I would never close myself from other cultures and that everyone deserves to be listened to no matter what they have to say, where they’re from, what language they speak and what colour their skin is. So with this philosophy and resolution I returned to Ireland and to Trinity. Missing my international student life I promised myself I would do everything I could to join the Erasmus and Socrates fun in Ireland. I enrolled with international student societies, I became a mentor and tour guide for incoming Socrates students in the sociology department and I sought out foreign accents and faces around college. After the initial reactions of ‘oh you’re Irish why do you want to spend time with us foreigners?’, for the first two weeks back in Ireland I succeeded in being every international student’s best friend. However, responsibilities to classes, assignments, family and Irish friends got the better of me and I started to drift away from the international student life that I thought would compensate for the end of ten months in Finland that I loved so much.

Had I become a silent and private stereotypical Finnish person? Or, despite buddy and mentor programmes and international student’s nights, was I my old boring self again and not an international student anymore?

As ashamed as I am about failing as the multicultural person and ideal international student that I hoped to be, I know it is not all my fault. There are boundaries and borders set up, by host students and by international students, that hinder their successful intercultural communication. What these boundaries are and how we can overcome them, I don’t know. This task, I feel, is not only down to the individual but to the institutions that are encouraging multiculturalism, in this instance the university; which wants to promote multicultural living. Facilities need to be readily available within university social settings and timetabling to enable these borders to break down. It is not merely enough to allow the students union to develop an international students society or to create a post for an international students officer.

At this moment I do not want to go into details about racism or prejudice, although these issues do need to be addressed, but I would like to bring our attention to the interaction between native and non native students and the amenities and services within our university that adequately promote this.

Creating a multicultural university is not only about increasing college places available to non native students, or pumping more money into exchange programmes, although these are crucial factors. Developmental education between university staff and students needs to be addressed in accordance with issues of multiculturality and intercultural living. The key element in multiculturality is ‘together’, we can go on living in parallel worlds and cultures but learning from each other and communicating in a multicultural setup such as the university are crucial for the successful expansion of our globalised community.

In conclusion I do believe that these concerns can be addressed very simply, by opening our eyes and paying attention to the diversity around us. In recognition of this diversity we can build relationships that will break down barriers on both sides of the cultural interaction and maybe then can we fulfil the ideal of integrated multicultural living. References: Adler, P ‘ Reflections on Multiculturalism’ 1977 De Smet, Noël. ‘Quel interculturel?’, Bruxelles, 1991 1 I plan to carry out in-depth interviews with a population sample of Irish students who studied on exchange programmes in Europe in the year 2001-2002. I have chosen in-depth interviews as part of a qualitative process in order to gain a deeper insight to people’s attitudes and feelings towards their experiences abroad. I will also take a comparative approach through adopting a form of quantitative research in the collection and analyses of data. I will analyses quantitative surveys carried out by the European Union by returning Socrates students. The aim of quantitative research in this context is to produce factual data up against my own data from which generalisations, often of characteristics of the society or community as a whole, can be made. In these surveys I will select similar themes that arise from my in depth interviews and comparing these with each other and some

78

social and academic theory and other research data, I will be reinforcing and strengthening some generalisations of international student communities.