Transcript Lec 5.Promoting Ethnic Cohesion by Prof. LF

by
Professor Laksiri Fernando
• The main objective of the University Development
Grants (UDG), as it is explained in the “Guidelines
for Proposal Preparation”, is “to strengthen the
economic and social relevance of university
programmes.”
• There are four proposed activity areas to achieve
this objective and
• the purpose of the activity for the “promotion of
ethnic cohesion among students and staff” is to
address the “social relevance of university
programmes.”
Objectives of the ethnic cohesion activity could be
considered mainly three fold:
• To maintain and promote ethnic harmony within
the university (student & staff)
• To produce graduates who would promote and
contribute to ethnic harmony in the country
• To contribute to ethnic harmony in the country as
an academic community in policy terms
• ‘Ethnic cohesion’ is another name for ethnic
harmony in a more positive and a constructive
manner.
• Ethnic cohesion entails two main components:
(1) visibility of boundaries
(2) level of interaction.
• There are two kinds of activity that universities
could conduct to promote ethnic cohesion:
 intra-university
 inter-university.
• For universities with multi-ethnic composition, the
best would be to concentrate on intra-university
activities.
• For universities with largely mono-ethnic
composition, the best would be to go for interuniversity (cross-university) activities to achieve
the same objective.
• The necessary or desirable activities under ethnic
cohesion should be worked out by individual
universities.
• They should first assess the exact problems of
ethnic cohesion both within the particular
university and in relation to the larger society.
• It is advisable to involve both students and staff in
this process, however, keeping it in mind not to get
distracted by incidental or ephemeral issues.
• There can be three models where ethnic
groups exist within a university context.
• These can be named as
(1) cohesive
(2) neutral
(3) non-cohesive.
• These three can also be understood as
cooperative, neutral and non-cooperative.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Visibility of boundaries is low in terms of language,
dress or practices.
Medium of instruction is the same (English) for all
students.
Multi-ethnic class room is the norm.
Teachers are from different ethnicities but not vocal
of their identity.
Level of interaction is high in class, outside, in terms
of friendships and extracurricular activities.
Students eat together and live together in hostels or
boarding places.
Cohesion among staff is reflected in joint research and
papers by multi-ethnic groups.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ethnic boundaries are visible but moderate in terms of
language, dress and practices.
Students may be physically separated by the medium of
instruction.
Multi-ethnic class is rare unless consciously organized.
Bi-lingual teaching may be available but rare.
Students interact with teachers across ethnic barriers
but with effort.
There is no tension.
Different ethnic groups exist side by side.
Staff interacts across boundaries but keep close
friendships within respective groups.
Joint research or papers are rare.
• Ethnic boundaries are clearly visible in respect of
language, dress and practices.
• Students are formed into clear ethnic groups.
• Even if there are common classes, the students
immediately separate themselves into their own
enclaves.
• Non-cohesive situation could exist irrespective of
common medium of instruction.
• Often there are instigators to exacerbate mistrust
and misunderstanding.
• The teachers may be helpless or unconcerned.
• There can be divisions among the teachers
themselves.
• The existence of different configurations of ethnic
cohesion (harmony) will be the outcome of several
factors.
• The country situation at large might be the key
factor.
• The end of the war in this sense is an opportunity
or a golden opportunity to promote ethnic
cohesion in a sustainable manner.
• But the same factor or the way the war ended
might also be an obstacle.
Problems
• There can be some suspicions about the intensions
of the program.
• Those may come from the minority community or
the majority community.
• These may have to be alleviated if the program has
to be an unqualified success.
• As the Sinhalese are the overwhelming majority in
a large number of universities, except in the North
and the East, some of the friendship initiatives
should come from them towards the other ethnic
communities.
• This should work the other way round in the
North and the East.
Necessary Approach
• The second requirement is the most ‘scientific’
approach that the program has to adopt.
• The activities under ethnic cohesion have to
address some key questions obstructing the
cohesion.
• Peripheral activities to the issue however much
they are attractive in academic terms or dear to
respective academics might not reap results.
• What activities could you initiate?
• Of course it is up to you to decide, given the
specific situation,
• but the following are some general
guidelines on possible activities.
•
Knowledge factor is the most important in ethnic harmony
and cooperation.
•
This means knowledge about different ethnic/religious
cultures and languages.
•
This could be done through
(1) teaching/learning
(2) educational material
(3) seminars and workshops
(4) joint projects/activity.
• A best method to bring necessary knowledge to the
undergraduates is to introduce a formalized ‘Course Unit in
Multiculturalism’ at the first year foundation level in a multiethnic classroom setting followed by other activities in
succeeding levels and years.
• A most important need of the project activity would
be its sustainability.
• A mechanism could be designed and implemented as
a sub-project activity to achieve this objective.
• For example, the setting up of a Sinhala / Tamil/
Muslim Brotherhood/Sisterhood Cultural Centre
could be such a mechanism.
• The title is given here in the most flexible manner to
select alternative naming. It could simply be
“Multicultural Centre” or “Sinhala/Tamil/Muslim
Brotherhood” or any other.
• In implementing the present project and
allocation, what I am suggesting is mainly
the creation of a Centre and Certification
on Multiculturalism. The latter is in
addition to a Foundation Course.
• If any university goes for the Centre, obviously
budgeting for Works and Goods may take an
immediate priority.
• But the allocation for Consultancies and Other
Services are also important because it is through
these budget lines that the exact multicultural
educational programs could be implemented.
• These could entail
1. teaching/learning
2. production of educational material
3. seminars and workshops
4. joint projects/activity.
Teaching/Learning
Foundation
Course
Educational Material
Multicultural
Centre
Certification
Course
Seminars/Workshops
Joint Projects/
Activities
• Ethnic cohesion in the universities and the
country is important. I would have preferred
a better allocation (more than 5-10 percent)
for this activity under UDG given its critical
importance.
Thank You
for Your Attention !