colonial mind in post-secondary education, The

McGill Journal of Education, Spring 2002 by Paticia J Vickers

3. The academy and the colonial mind

Paulo Freire (1995) defines the beliefs and behaviours that exist within the dominant education system as oppressive. Education, a component of society that we all encounter and one in which society's values are perpetuated, is a vehicle where change and transformation can occur and then have an impact on the governing bodies of society such as law, politics, business, and social interaction. In pursuit of identifying and supporting an educational system that respects cultural diversity, it is necessary to examine how the colonial mind functions in the academy.

Freire (1995) identifies conventional education as a banking concept where the teacher possesses supreme authority and knowledge and the student is an empty vessel waiting to be filled with knowledge by the teacher, where the teacher gives and the student receives. This relationship between educator and student is evident in the general implementation of courses at the college and university level. For example, my eldest son is registered in a Canadian university department of engineering. He explained his frustration with one course where he understood the goal of a particular lesson but, based on his experience with computers, he suggested an alternative method of reaching that goal. His suggestion was refused on the grounds that the course outline designated specific methods for accomplishing the goals and these methods did not include his suggestion. Perhaps the instructor was unfamiliar with the alternative method my son was suggesting and was not willing to disclose his lack of knowledge, or perhaps the instructor was simply not willing to accept alternative methods. Whatever the reason, the rigid format of the teacher being the supreme authority is oftentimes presented in unconscious and conscious ways and is typical of the superior/ inferior relationship that dominates university relationships. Freire (1995) suggests that in this relationship both the student and the teacher are oppressed. The teacher is not encouraged to disclose his or her lack of knowledge in different areas, because a lack of knowledge would seem to weaken the credibility of authority in this particular system. The teacher is then conditioned into a position of being the authority on the subject and therefore restricted in his or her relationship with the student. For example, the teacher loses credibility if he or she discusses lack of knowledge in an area of subject expertise, and is therefore restricted in how he or she discusses the subject matter.

Attitudes of superiority/inferiority are not limited to the professor/student relationship. These dynamics also occur between faculty members where, for example, one professor may have instructed a specific course for a number of years and then be unable to go on with it. The temporary instructor is often expected to continue presenting the class with the same focus as the full-time instructor rather than redesigning the course in a way that is congruent with the substitute's beliefs and strengths. Tensions also exist where faculty members do not openly support each other's particular interests as instructors but sometimes openly criticize colleagues, even implying that their colleagues use inferior teaching methods. This adversarial behaviour unconsciously conforms to the superior /inferior relationship dynamic characteristic of an oppressive system.