Rethinking cultural competency courses
They need to focus on meaningful discussions about systemic discrimination and on solutions.
In recent years, controversy has erupted in response to law societies across Canada mandating cultural competency courses. Most notably, the Law Society of Alberta underwent a broad membership vote to remove ”The Path,” an online educational program on the history, legal and contemporary realities of First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada.
Critics of the course have described it as lacking “substantive legal” components. Proponents say it is crucial in fulfilling the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Actions. While law society members voted to keep the Path, disagreement remains regarding the effectiveness and necessity of cultural competency courses as a part of professional licensing.
And yet, they are a necessary and integral part of legal training for all practitioners. As alarming statistics, studies, and reports illustrate, Indigenous people consistently face over-policing for minor offences and under-policing when they are victims of serious offences; they are less likely to benefit from plea-bargaining and more likely to plead guilty when criminally charged; they face longer sentences and are disproportionately denied bail due to systemic factors; and they face further discrimination in the application of risk assessment tools due to these systemic factors. In addition, Indigenous people are at a significantly higher risk of being killed by police officers. Clearly this is an issue that must be taken seriously.
With polarization at an all-time high, critics are quick to dismiss cultural competency courses as mere pandering to political leanings and ideologies. But a wide body of literature from other professions speaks to their effectiveness. A recent study of discrimination in healthcare specific to B.C. found widespread stereotyping, racism and discrimination towards Indigenous people. One systematic review analyzing the effectiveness of cultural competency training found “excellent evidence” that these courses improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills, leading to subsequent improved patient satisfaction among the 34 studies reviewed. Of note, the study examined the impact on Indigenous people, and included Latinos, African Americans and Asians.
Even so, according to legal academic Dr. Pooja Parmar, writing for the Canadian Bar Review, they remain unable to serve the needs of Indigenous communities. She argues that workshops and programs are opportunities for meaningful conversations that aim to challenge the way the law perpetuates this discrimination. The courses, in her view, are “piecemeal”, and though well-intentioned, fail to capture the entirety of the issue, and fail to serve the goals of Reconcilaition. Dr. Parmar’s arguments encapsulate much of how I feel about these courses.
A radical rethinking
In any initiative aiming to solve a problem, the first steps are to provide knowledge and awareness to the issue. The Path succeeds to some extent in this regard. However, there are a range of other measures that can be incorporated to ensure that a cultural competency course translates into meaningful and significant results. It could improve opportunities for discourse, transition to in-person delivery and draw from experts from a variety of disciplines, much as the course, Kwayeskastasowin, offered at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Law does.
Kwayeskastasowin means “setting things right” in Cree. The course draws upon various Indigenous practices and traditions for its course content and asks students to engage with the content in a sharing circle environment, where they are challenged in a low-risk, academic environment to wrestle with their thoughts and opinions, and reconcile that with that of Indigenous traditions to draw creative solutions to problems. Collegial discussion and fruitful engagement is crucial to internalizing learning, as opposed to the plug and chug nature of most courses, where the information learned is quickly lost after the final exam is turned in.
The Columbia Centre for Teaching and Learning notes that discussion based learning can be “eye-opening, dynamic, and generative”. This was certainly the case during my coursework in Kwayeskastasowin. The opportunity to engage with my classmates – particularly in law school where students come from such a broad range of individual and academic backgrounds – encouraged me to engage more meaningfully with lessons that went beyond the walls of the classroom, allowing me toi make connections to my personal experiences, and the broader machinations of society at large.
Tokenism—where efforts to address social issues are largely perfunctory or symbolic in nature—is abundant in today's political climate, with the focus shifting from meaningful reform to the avoidance of public scrutiny. While there are good faith attempts to bring Indigenous issues to the forefront, there is also a parallel incentive to simply do anything to avoid the public's wrath.
It’s the kind of approach that will sideline participants who feel the courses are simply an attempt to pander. Coupled with a heavy-handed suspension for failure to comply, the course becomes a chore, rather than a meaningful opportunity to learn, connect, and apply the materials in practice. Law societies must undertake to reframe these courses in a manner that does not alienate a large swath of their members..
The legal profession tends to attract individuals inclined to critical thinking and challenging orthodoxies. Incorporating a variety of academic disciplines into the course, such as sound sociological and scientific data, and inviting experts in their respective areas to speak on these topics would add weight to the course and assuage fears of tokenism.
Shifting the delivery of the course in-person would enable meaningful discussions of the material. Sharing experiences is critical for drawing parallels from the course to practice and personal life.
Most importantly, the course must focus on systemic discrimination against Indigenous peoples. It must frame these issues as problems desperately in need of solutions. After all, lawyers are, at their core, problem solvers. They just need the right tools for the task at hand.
