Canadianization or the Canadianization movement refers partly to a campaign launched in Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, in 1968 by Robin Mathews and James Steele. The purpose of the campaign was to ensure that Carleton, as an employer, treated Canadian citizens equitably and that Canadians would remain or become at least a two-thirds majority of the teaching staff. Although Carleton was the particular institution addressed in the recommendations of Mathews and Steele, they were concerned about fairness for Canadian scholars in the hiring practices of all Canadian universities and about a lack of Canadian content in many courses.
Although their recommendations were rejected at Carleton, concern about Canadianization was widespread. Eventually, all universities in Canada were required by the Canadian government to follow employment practices that were more fair for Canadians, and the number and percentage of courses with Canadian content in Canadian universities increased remarkably.
The problem of Canadianization was the subject of a three-volume report prepared by the Commission on Canadian Studies chaired by Professor T.H.B. Symons (formerly President of Trent University). Between 1960 and 1980, many other cultural organizations "Canadianized" in one way or another. The movement has remained a subject of discussion in recent years, and the term "Canadianization" has been applied, often retrospectively, to analogous or similar movements.
The meeting at Carleton and five motions "Canadianization" or the "Canadianization Movement" began when two Carleton professors circulated recommendations in a memorandum addressed to all members of the Carleton University Academic Staff Association (C.U.A.S.A.)."Memorandum to C.U.A.S.A. on de-Canadianization … ." in The Struggle for Canadian Universities: A Dossier eds. Robin Mathews and James Steele (Toronto: New Press, 1969), 15–20. This document noted there was strong evidence that Canadian citizens were becoming a rapidly diminishing proportion of the faculties of arts and science in Canadian Universities and requested a meeting of C.U.A.S.A. to discuss five remedial motions.Struggle. 19–20. Mathews and Steele first asked the university to ensure that, in hiring new professors, Canadian citizens would eventually form a two-thirds majority of faculty. Because this motion had no time limit, its recommendation was for a goal not a quota.See also "The Problem: a Statement by the Editors." Struggle. 7. The second motion recommended that, before the appointment of a non-Canadian, a vacancy be well advertised in Canada. The other three asked that Canadian citizenship be made a necessary qualification for all future appointments to administrative positions, that Carleton keep a record of the citizenship of faculty, and that the Canadian Association of University Teachers (C.A.U.T.) gather information about the citizenship-composition of Canadian universities and "consider the formulation of a national policy with respect to this matter." Adoption of these measures was intended to assure the place of Canadians as faculty members at Carleton University.
Reasons for the motions
Mathews and Steele argued that during the decade of the 1960s, Canadians had become an ever smaller proportion of faculty in Canadian universities. In 1961, census data indicated that the proportion of Canadians on faculty was about 75%. By 1967–68, there were strong indications that the proportion of Canadians in faculties of arts and science in some 15 universities had fallen to 49%.Struggle. 15–21; "Statistics, Numbers, Estimates [Correspondence between A.E. Safarian and James Steele]." in Struggle. 85–106" They noted in their Memorandum and in a later introductory chapter to their book that this decline in the proportion of Canadians had occurred in a national context of conditions that threatened Canada's sovereignty."The Problem." in Struggle. 1–11 Canada's status as a branch-plant economy had been described in the report of the Task Force on Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Investment headed by Professor Mel Watkins. Senator Grattan O'Leary had described the extent to which Canadian communication media had become inundated with American content. The two professors argued that the national allegiances of faculty members could affect scholarly priorities—a matter subsequently well discussed in relation to Political Science by two students at York University and the University of Toronto, James MacKinnon and David Brown."Political Science in the Canadian University, 1969" in Struggle. 151–162. In later statements, Mathews and Steele observed that Canadian materials were often neglected in university departments employing few Canadian faculty."The Universities: Takeover of the Mind." in Close the 49th Parallel etc: The Americanization of Canada ed. Ian Lumsden (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1970), 171–177; Robin Mathews. "Americanization of the Universities." in The Star-Spangled Beaver. 24 Canadians Look South. ed. John H. Redekop (Toronto: Peter Martin Associates, 1971). 55–69.
They likewise explained that many university positions in Canada were being filled without advertising in Canada. Instead, informal networks were frequently used to recruit scholars from outside the country. Yet Canadians were often prevented from competing in those same foreign jurisdictions because of exclusionary regulations and practices favoring the nationals of those countries. The two professors argued that their motions would help to level the playing field while providing ample space for the hiring of foreign applicants. They suggested that, if hiring practices were fair for Canadians, Canadian candidates would often be successful.Struggle. 2, 65; see also "History: A statement by Professor J. Laurence Black." in Struggle. 175–177.
Mathews and Steele recommended that university administrators be citizens of Canada for two reasons. This qualification would help to ensure that administrators, who are concerned with the logistics of scholarship, would be familiar with the needs and aspirations of the Canadian community. It would also guarantee that when administrators exercise regulatory, judicial, financial, and disciplinary powers they would have the civil qualification of at least a voter. Steele observed that making this civil status a requirement would also be in accordance with a recommendation of a former Ontario Chief Justice, James Chalmers McRuer."Article ... in the Toronto Daily Star, June 18, 1969." in Struggle. 64–67.
Reception of the motions at Carleton
The memorandum and motions presented by the two men were greeted with general hostility at the C.U.A.S.A. meeting. Many colleagues argued that because scholarship, science, and learning are international and because some members of faculty were non-Canadian, the motions were anti-academic and offensive. The two proponents were accordingly described as racist, anti-American, immoral, and more. One colleague even attempted to present a motion to refer Mathews and Steele to the Ontario Human Rights Commission with the suggestion they should be criminally charged. Yet two of the few people who supported the motions were non-Canadians who understood the problem being addressed. The meeting ended with a vote to change and amend the recommendations in order to destroy their intention. The original motions were defeated by votes of 135 to five and even, in one case, by 138 to 2."Extract form the minutes of the C.U.A.S.A. general meeting, December 11, 1969." Struggle. 35–36.
Concern elsewhere
It later became evident that scholars in Canada in disciplines ranging from Chemistry to History to Zoology were concerned about the Canadianization problem but had not expressed their thoughts publicly."Letters and Statements (written by scholars in a variety of disciplines)." Struggle. 165–179. At Carleton, the proposals were strongly supported by Professor Antonio Gualtieri, a member of Carleton's Department of Religion."Academic Objectivity and the de-Canadianization of the University." in Struggle. 57–60. See also his letters in Struggle. 127,129. Even before the Carleton meeting, Professor Anthony Raspa discussed the problem publicly in Le Devoir.Anthony Raspa. "Le Colonialisme Amèricain dans les Universités Anglophone," Le Devoir Thursday, October 17, 1968, p.4. The negative response he elicited from colleagues was an early indication of the strong emotions it could arouse. Raspa, then a member of the English Department of Loyola College (now part of Concordia), had to contend with one "violent" colleague, with several others who signed a petition stating he "imperil[ed] the reputation of the College," with a chair who asked the college senate to investigate and possibly censure him, and with a President who informed him by letter—later retracted—that his teaching contract would not be renewed.For a record of these events, see C.A.U.T. Papers. Library and Archives Canada, MG28 I 208, Vol. 127. After completing his contract at Loyola, Professor Raspa, a distinguished Renaissance scholar, taught for many years at Dalhousie University, at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi and at Laval University. Between 1969 and 1972, Mathews and/or Steele spoke widely on the subject of Canadianization at teach-ins and/or special meetings, participating as guest speakers, individually or together, at many universities and colleges and occasionally at teacher conventions. (Institutions where they spoke included the following: the University of Victoria, the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, Calgary University, the University of Alberta, the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Manitoba, the University of Toronto, York University, Queen's University, Seneca College, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, McGill University, Bishop's University, Dawson College, Marianopolis College, Sir George Williams University, the University of New Brunswick, Mount Allison University, Dalhousie University, and Memorial University.) They also did radio, television, and print media interviews across the country so that the public could become aware of the problem.Robin Mathews Papers. Library and Archives Canada: MG31 D 190 [Vols/Boxes] 18–35; Jeffrey J. Cormier. The Canadianization Movement: Emergence, Survival, and Success (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 2004), 35–39; "Canadianization Movement Papers: 1965–1985 [deposited by Jeffrey Cormier]." King's University College, University of Western Ontario.
In addition to these public communications, Mathews corresponded privately with members of nearly all the institutions mentioned above as well as with members of a dozen other colleges and/or organizations. His correspondents included students, faculty members, chairs, and presidents; and his letters were about hiring practices and/or curricular matters.For a record of this correspondence, see the Mathews Papers. Library and Archives Canada: MG31 D 190 18–35. Many scholars wrote to Mathews and Steele requesting detailed information about the meeting at Carleton.Mathews and Steele. "The Problem." Struggle. 9–10 Others, in letters and other publications, described a lack of employment opportunities for Canadians and lamented a lack of interest in Canadian matters in certain departments."Letters and Statements." Struggle. 165–181. After Mathews and Steele received so many requests for the information that the correspondence was becoming unmanageable, they edited The Struggle for Canadian Universities: A Dossier. As well as being a record of events at Carleton, it included a selection of correspondence and many related publications. In the age of the mimeograph machine, the purpose of the book was to meet numerous requests for information and to facilitate a process of reform.Mathews and Steele. "The Problem." Struggle. 1–11.
Changes in hiring practices and curriculum