May 28, 2009, Curriculum Conundrum
Posted on 6/4/2009
Reporting from Rwanda
Dispatch #2
May 28, 2009
By Samuel Totten
Upon my arrival in Kigali Sunday evening (May 23rd), I was met by my colleague, Justine Mbazi, a researcher with the Centre for Conflict Management (CCM) at the National University of Rwanda (NUR). As we left the airport, she explained that during my time in Rwanda I would be working out of the office of The Commission for the Fight Against Genocide, which is located in the Kigali suburb of Remera. Quite conveniently, it is directly across from the hotel where I'd be staying, the Hotel Beau Sejour.
Early Monday morning, my assistant and colleague, Mr. Rafiki Ubaldo, and I entered our office where we were effusively greeted by the rest of the CCM staff involved in the implementation of the master's degree in genocide studies. A junior researcher at CCM, Mr. Ernest Mutwarasibo, kindly said, "We are so glad you are back with us. We have anxiously awaited your arrival."
Photo by Rafiki Ubaldo, PGEF
Samuel Totten and Rafiki Ubaldo are working in this building, the headquarters of the Commission for the Fight Against Genocide. In addition to working on the genocide studies program, the two men also founded a scholarship fund for survivors of genocide. More information is available at Post Genocide Education Fund.
The warm glow from the kind welcome, though, began to cool when hints started being dropped that the NUR Senate validation of the original curriculum I developed had resulted in some deletions and additions of courses.* Although I was assured that the changes were "minor," I immediately requested copies of both the original curriculum I designed and the "revised" curriculum so that I could compare and contrast them.
Significant Differences
Within minutes of my going over the two curricular programs, it was evident that the original curriculum, which I had spent months developing and finalizing, in conjunction with CCM staff while I was in Rwanda on my Fulbright last year, had been gutted. More specifically, six key courses had been deleted and replaced by six new courses, all of which had a Rwandan focus. Essentially, the CCM staff chose, for various reasons, to move from a global focus (in both senses of the word – all encompassing and worldwide) to one that was, for lack of a better term, Rwanda-centric.
I immediately informed both the director of CCM, Dr. Paul Rutayarise and the junior researcher, Ernest Mutwarasibo, the latter of whom had been tasked with making changes in the curriculum (even though he only has a bachelor's degree in history and is not well versed in the broader field of genocide studies) of my concerns, cum alarm. Once again, they, claimed, but this time almost vociferously, that no significant changes had been made in the curriculum, and that "it is basically the same curriculum with just minor changes here and there."
My response went straight to the heart of the matter: "The changes are, in fact, highly significant. So much so that what you are now proposing is a mere shadow of what I created." When their denials became even shriller, I suggested that I take the time to highlight the changes on the copies of the original curriculum in order to provide a visual of the actual changes.
"Once I highlight the changes we can then go through the two curriculums page by page to see if we can come to a consensus as to whether the changes are insignificant or significant." Begrudgingly, the two gentlemen agreed to the process. Thus, a meeting was set for later in the week, Thursday, May, 27, to discuss the status of the curricular program.
During the aforementioned exchange, which was quite brief, both Rutayarise and Mutwaraisbo asserted repeatedly, "We based our revisions on external reviews. We have them, and we can show you them to you."
I agreed that it would be useful to receive copies of such.
External Review
I asked them who the external reviewers were and where they were located. I did so for I had been informed by the NUR Director of Quality Control, Dr. Roger Sapsford, that he planned to send the curricular program out to three external reviewers across the globe. In fact, he had asked me for the names of potential reviewers from which he said he would choose three. Rutayarise said he could not remember all of the names, but that he knew, for a fact, that Dr. Alex Hinton at Rutgers University, who was one of the individuals whose names I had suggested as a potential reviewer, had submitted a review.**
Just prior to Thursday's meeting, Rafiki had a lengthy conversation with Ernest about the curriculum. Rafiki, a survivor of the 1994 Rwandan genocide himself, explained how and why the changes that he, Ernest, had made in the curriculum were, in fact, drastic and counterproductive to offering a solid course of study. Rafiki also impressed upon him that the changes were so drastic that they virtually undercut the need, let alone the value, of bringing in highly acclaimed international experts on genocide to help teach the curriculum. (Bringing in such experts was a major goal of CCM and NUR.)
Rafiki continued by asserting that, if the heavy focus on Rwanda was retained in each of the courses to the exclusion of a more global approach, then many, if not most, scholars of genocide studies would likely look askance at the curriculum and thus not be interested in taking part in its implementation. Then, asking Ernest why such dramatic changes were made, Ernest replied, "I'm just a junior researcher! I was told by my superior to make the changes and I did what I was told."
In the interim, I wrote an e-mail to Dr. Alex Hinton, director of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at Rutgers University, to ask about his review of the curriculum. He replied that he had not received a copy of the curriculum from NUR. He said it was his opinion that the curriculum should not focus so heavily on Rwanda that it appears to be a program more about Rwanda than the entire field of genocide studies.
Program Negotiation
At the outset of the meeting on Thursday with Rutayarise, Mutwaraisbo, Ubaldo and Justine, I said, "I've now meticulously gone through both curriculums at least three times, and I can tell you, definitively, that the curriculum you are proposing we follow is no longer the cutting edge curriculum that it was when I presented it to NUR. It is almost totally bereft of two major components – prevention and intervention – both of which make the curriculum something more – in fact, much more – than simply a master's whose focus is the study of the history of genocide. The exact purpose of the original curriculum was to provide the students in the program with the knowledge and skills to work in organizations whose aims are the prevention and intervention of genocide or, at the least, with a solid understanding of such issues and a foundation with which they could pursue their own research and or pursue doctoral studies."
The director countered that the current program was strong and that there was no need to be dismissive of that which was added (at least, I thought, we're making some progress as he is now admitting that new courses had been added to the curriculum). I countered that "As the curriculum now stands, I cannot endorse it. Furthermore, I could not, in good conscience, ask scholars from around the world to come to Rwanda to teach in such a program. Finally, while I will certainly honor my promise to teach the first course of the program while here in Rwanda this summer, I must say that if the current program moves forward as is then I do not plan to return to Rwanda to work on it."
The director heatedly told me, "I do not see such comments as serving the program well. In fact, we are supposed to be working as collaborators and I see such words as counter to collaboration."
I stated that I was simply informing him of my position. In doing so, I said: "Look, I have repeatedly stated that when I wrote this curriculum I was doing so on the behalf of all Rwandans and I was giving it to Rwanda as a gift. That is, I was not charging a penny for it and I was not attaching any strings to the gift. I stand by those words and that position. However, the curriculum you now have in hand is not the one I created based on my expertise in the field of genocide studies. If you and NUR wish to move forward with your curriculum then you shall do so. I will not, of course, attempt to prevent you from doing so. However, if you desire my involvement then I cannot stand by and agree to move forward with what I perceive as a substandard curricular program. I realize that you do not need me to move forward with what you have, and that is fine. If we sever professional ties, we can still be friends and I will certainly wish you and the program all the success in the world. I just cannot, in good conscience, endorse it or ask my colleagues across the globe to take part in it. Nothing, though, precludes you from contacting them on your own in order to ask them to assist you and the program in any way that you wish."
Ultimately, we spent the next two hours comparing and contrasting the courses in both curriculums. The discussion, at times, was heated, but always civil. The Rwandans convinced me that certain courses that they added were essential if the course was to be well-received in Rwanda, and I convinced the Rwandans that certain courses that had been deleted were essential if the master's was going to be considered a cutting edge program. So, for example, I agreed to abide by the Rwandan's deletion of "Genocide from Antiquity through the 19th Century," but suggested that we amend the course titled "Genocide in the 20th and 21st Centuries" to "Genocide in the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries." I noted that this would at least allow us to provide students with an overview, even if brief, of the U.S. genocides of various Native American groups, the genocides perpetrated in Canada against indigenous groups, and the ill treatment of the Aboriginals in Australia. We reached an easy consensus on amending the course.
Next, the Rwandans argued that it was essential that a separate course be taught on the Rwandan genocide. I had not included such a course in the program due to the fact that a comparative course on genocide was going to be taught that would have included a focus, at least in part, on the Rwandan genocide. But convinced by my Rwandan colleagues, I readily agreed to such an addition to the curriculum. I did not voice my concern that such a course would only truly be valuable if taught objectively, especially in regard to how the Tutsi mistreated the Hutu in the colonial and post-colonial period. I simply thought that it was not the proper time and place to raise such an issue.
The Rwandans agreed with me that one of their new courses, "Media and Genocide" (whose sole focus was the Rwandan media and how it incited genocide in 1994) was too narrow and should be expanded in order to address other genocides such as the Holocaust and Srebrencia, where use of the media by the perpetrators played a significant role in demonizing the victims and goading the general population to ostracize and discriminate against, if not outright harm, the victim groups. The Rwandans readily agreed to such a change.
It was also agreed by all of us that the Rwandans' collapsing of the original six courses about various facets and complexities of the prevention and intervention of genocide into a single course was a serious mistake and that such courses had to be reinstituted into the curriculum. This agreement resulted from a lengthy discussion and explanation by me in regard to the unique differences between prevention and intervention and why it was significant to include such issues as the following in a clear and overt manner: the impact of the imposition of sanctions on human rights violators; the differences between and amongst (as well as the varied contributions) made by peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building; and the reasons some interventions were relatively successful (e.g., Kosovo), though not entirely legal, while others were abysmal failures (most notably the one in Rwanda).
Moving Forward
The meeting ended with the director of CCM asking me to make all of the revisions we had agreed to, and to highlight them by using the tracking mechanism on the computer so he could easily ascertain what had been changed and how. I readily agreed to handle that task.
It was agreed that once I make the changes and they are finalized by CCM and NUR, I should set up meetings with the two Rwandan Ministers of Education (Minister Daphrose Gahakwa and Minister Theoeste Mutsindsyaka), the Secretary General of the Commission for the Fight Against Genocide (Commissioner Muyco), and the Advisor to Rwandan President Paul Kagame (Dr. Alfred Ndahrio) in order to discuss our progress vis-à-vis the implementation of the new master's degree in genocide studies.
All-in-all, it was a positive meeting with seemingly positive outcomes. I say "seemingly" for one never knows whether the agreements settled upon will see the light of day. Nonetheless, at least we are talking, had come to a consensus, and agree that, in the end, the program itself is vastly more important than ourselves. We all walked away friends, and that is good news in light of how the meeting began.
* When developing the curriculum for the master's degree in genocide studies (which took place between spring of 2006 and the summer of 2008), I suggested to the then-director of CCM that we establish a curriculum team to design the curriculum. I explained that such a team should, ideally, be comprised of the main stakeholders in the curriculum and those who have expertise in various facts of genocide and curriculum development. I was informed by the director that if we took such an approach then the genocide curriculum might not ever see the light of day. He said it would likely result in infighting and acrimony between and amongst various factions and that the very idea of such a program might die a quick death. I shared with him that, while that was certainly a possibility, without integral and constant input into the development of the curriculum then both individuals and departments (e.g., history, political science, sociology, psychology, etc.) could perceive it as a top-down curriculum and resent the lack of an opportunity for providing input. Ultimately, the director of CCM pushed me to develop the curriculum, and then promised that he would be sure to circulate it amongst key parties in order to get feedback and support for the program. I knew such an approach was counterproductive but it was also a fact that I was a guest of CCM and had little to no sway with any argument that I made.
** Interestingly, two months ago, during the course of the validation period at NUR, I received an e-mail from Roger Sapsford asking me if I would be interested in serving as an external reviewer. My response was as follows: "Since I am the individual who developed the curriculum, I don't think it would be wise for me to serve as a reviewer as I certainly have a biased perspective; that is, I believe I have developed a cutting-edge curriculum. So, it would be more appropriate, I think, to have outsiders review the curriculum in that they are much more likely to provide a more objective evaluation than I could."
We want to hear from you. Please e-mail comments and feedback to Heidi Stambuck at stambuck@uark.edu.