June 4, 2009, Presidential Consultation
Posted on 6/16/2009
Photo by Rafiki Ubaldo, PGEF
Hope was the theme of this year's commemoration of the Rwandan genocide that took place in 1994. Purple textiles such as the ones pictured here were draped on many buildings in the capital city of Kigali. University of Arkansas professor Samuel Totten is teaching in a new master's degree program in genocide studies at the National University of Rwanda in Kigali. Totten and Rafiki Ubaldo also founded a scholarship fund for survivors of genocide. More information is available at Post Genocide Education Fund.
Reporting from Rwanda
Dispatch #5
June 4, 2009
By Samuel Totten
It is not every day that a researcher or outsider has ready access to inner corridors of power within the country in which he or she is either conducting research and/or serving as a consultant. The fact that I had just that here in Rwanda speaks to the seriousness with which the development of the new master's degree in genocide studies is taken here. Despite the headaches that drove me to seek the personal assistance of one of Rwandan President Paul Kagame's main advisers, Alfred Ndahiro, I must say it was not a little fascinating to enter the inner sanctum of power here in Rwanda and to spend some three hours on the presidential grounds with the adviser trying to sort matters out. Before discussing the aforementioned meeting with the presidential adviser, I wish to present the issues that led up to the request for the meeting.
Late Wednesday afternoon, June 3rd, Rafiki Ubaldo (my assistant, a survivor of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and a former journalist in Rwanda who now resides in Sweden) and I launched into revising the master's degree curriculum of genocide studies. (See Dispatch #2 for a discussion about how the original curriculum I had developed had been gutted by staff of the Centre for Conflict Management and then passed off as the original.) We were intent on doing our utmost to incorporate those courses that the CCM staff wanted to see in the curriculum (mainly courses dealing with various facets of the Rwandan genocide) while retaining as much as possible of the original curriculum that I had developed over the past four years.
However, as soon as we began going over all of the suggestions/desires of the CCM staff, it was evident that the entire course of study would have to be extended to three years (which was not an option) or each course within the program would have to be limited to such a short amount of face-to-face time between instructors and students that it would result in a total watering down of the curricular program, as no one had kept track of the courses to be added, dropped and combined.
As we began the tedious task of going through both versions of the curriculum yet again, we found our mood turning foul. The latter was largely due to the fact that not only had we both been extremely pleased with the original document, we both felt that we were now engaged in developing, largely against our will, a compromise (and compromised) document. Concomitantly, we both felt that no matter what we came up with it was not going to totally satisfy the CCM staff. So, in a very real way, we felt as if we were beating our heads against the proverbial wall knowing, in advance, that we were likely facing yet another drawn-out battle over the curriculum. In a very real sense, we were beginning to feel very much like Sisyphus.
The more we tried to focus, the more bitter our talk became about being blindsided, forced into developing a curriculum we knew would be much weaker than the original one, and engaged in work we felt had been completed which, in turn, was interfering with the many other tasks in front of us, e.g., securing external resources for the master's degree in genocide studies, developing the online course of study so that others in Africa could pursue a master's degree in genocide studies, developing the genocide studies library, obtaining Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with universities in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, et al.
Giving ourselves a pep talk, we agreed that we would persevere and complete the revision of the curriculum but also ask for a meeting with presidential adviser Ndahiro; Paul Rutayisire, the director of CCM; Justine Mbabazi, the coordinator of the master's degree program; and Ernest Mutwarasibo, the CCM junior researcher involved in the curriculum project.
Ndahiro, who had been tasked by President Kagame with monitoring the progress of the development of the master's degree program in genocide studies, had proved invaluable in moving the project along. More specifically, working diligently behind the scenes, he gently but persistently helped to unleash the curriculum from snags it was caught on and/or over and around barriers blocking its progress.
That very evening, we called Dr. Ndahiro and asked for a meeting of the principles involved in the curriculum project. He suggested, however, that we, Totten and Ubaldo, meet with him first, privately. Once we met, he said, we could decide if there was a need for an additional meeting. We readily agreed to that, thanked him, and said we would see him, as he suggested, at 3 p.m. at the Presidential Offices in Kigali.
Summary of Program
In preparation for the meeting, Rafiki and I developed a short statement titled "Finalization of the Master's Degree in Genocide Studies." It stated the following:
Finalizing the Master's Degree in Genocide Curriculum
Desired Focus of the Curriculum?
What, exactly, is the desired focus of the curriculum? What is the rationale for such? And, who shall decide what that focus is? Currently, there seems to be three different foci:
- A solid overview of the field of genocide studies.
- A curriculum more focused on the Rwandan genocide and/or the examination of the issue of genocide through the lens of Rwandan history.
- A study that melds key components from genocide studies and peace and conflict studies).
The exact focus, and the rationale for such, will determine the FINAL VERSION of the curriculum.
The Newly Revised Curriculum by Totten, Based on Input by CCM Staff, Is Radically Different from the Curriculum Recently Validated by the National University of Rwanda (NUR) and Thus Merits Revalidation by NUR
Essentially, this means that the latest iteration of the curriculum must, if good faith and professionalism is adhered to, go back through the validation process at NUR. This is true for numerous reasons: new courses have been added, some courses have been collapsed into single courses, some courses have been deleted, and the overall number of courses in the curriculum is now greater than what was OK'd by NUR, meaning that more courses need to be taught and, just significantly, that the number of face-to-face contact hours for each course must be reconfigured.
The Number of Face-to-Face Contact Hours for Each Course: A MAJOR CONCERN
As a result of major changes in the original curriculum by Paul Rutayisire and Ernest Mutwarasibo, the number of face-to-face contact hours between professor and students has radically changed. Now, some courses require 10 face-to-face contact hours (meaning, the actual time that a professor will meet with his/her students in the classroom), while others require, variously, 20, 30 and 40. Ideally, each course should be allocated 25 to 30 face-to-face hours as anything less than 25 makes it difficult for the professor to address all of the key issues he/she may wish to address, let allow for an in-depth study. Allocating more than 30 hours for a course automatically results in subtracting hours from another course in order to meet NUR's maximum number of hours per master's degree.
Critical Need for External Review
There is a critical need for an external review of ALL THREE ITIERATIONS OF THE CURRICULUM that have been designed thus far (i.e., the original one designed by Totten, the curriculum revised by Paul Rutaisarise and Ernest Mutwarasibo, and the last version of the curriculum designed by Totten and Ubaldo). Only in this way will the National University of Rwanda obtain the unvarnished truth regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each (as well as the one that is most likely to lead to providing students in the master's degree program with the best educational program possible).
In this regard, it is strongly suggested that ALL THREE CURRICULAR PROGRAMS be sent out to at least five internationally recognized scholars across the globe in order to ask them do the following:
- Delineate the strengths, weaknesses and gaps of each curriculum (if any).
- Note which curricular program, if any, they believe should be the curriculum implemented for use by the Master's Degree in Genocide Studies at NUR, and why.
- Note which curricular program, if any, should not be implemented by NUR, and why.
Ideally, scholars in various disciplines (e.g., history, political science, psychology, literature, sociology) and from different parts of the world (e.g., the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, South America) should be asked to serve as external reviewers. In this way, hopefully, the reviews will benefit from diverse points of view.
Final Validation
Once the final curriculum is selected and revised according to the external reviews, it should go through the NUR validation process one final time, and then be sent on to the Rwandan Parliament to be validated by the body.
Meeting with President's Adviser
Friday afternoon of June 5th saw Rafki and me entering the grounds of the Presidential Offices, which are located in a well-manicured, leafy section of Kigali. We were met at one of the gates of the huge walled-in compound by two heavily armed guards, one with a semiautomatic weapon that looked as if it could take out a herd of elephants with no trouble, and asked who we were and what we needed.
Once we were let into the grounds, one of the soldiers called ahead to announce our presence and then pointed us toward a building across a large parking lot. Inside the office, Rafiki and I were asked to sign in, noting name, affiliation, date of visit, purpose of visit, and the official with whom we were to meet, and then we placed our possessions on an X-ray scanner and stepped through a metal detector. On the other side of the metal detector, we were greeted by the bright smile and friendly handshake of Dr. Alfred Ndahiro, a tall, portly man in his 50s.
On the way to his office, I couldn't help from commenting on how gorgeous the grounds were. It was like a combination of a beautiful park, private country club and gated community in which everything is just so, well-manicured lawns, and ablaze with beautiful flowerbeds and flowering trees. Offices were tucked away here and there, around and down gently sloping hills and curves. Huge birds flew overhead thoroughly enjoying themselves in the park-like setting.
Once we were in the spacious office of Dr. Ndahiro and seated on comfortable leather couches, I attempted to get down to business. Dr. Ndahiro, however said, "Why don't we go someplace a little more comfortable, where we can have a drink." We agreed, and as we set off in a different direction than we had come in, Ndahiro explained that the presidential grounds consisted of acres and acres and that the actual presidential office and palace were set quite deeply in the heart of the grounds. Shortly, we came to a beautiful open-air patio/bar/restaurant with a natural wood verandah and gleaming marble floor, fronted by a long, deep swimming pool.
A white-coated waiter stepped up and asked us what we wished, and Dr. Ndahiro said, "Please let the gentlemen know what is available."
The waiter said, "Fanta, Coca Cola, water, coffee, tea…"
"And what else?" Ndahiro said, smiling.
"Beer, wine and …"
Not wishing to mix pleasure with business as it were, I asked for a bottle of water. Rafiki followed suit. Visibly disappointed, Ndahiro said he wouldn't have anything.
"So tell me, Sam, how are things going with the master's?" Ndahiro asked.
"Well, I hate to focus on the negative right away, Dr.," I said, "but there's been a major setback and that is exactly why we needed to speak with you. And we sincerely thank you for taking the time and concern to do so."
"The boss (President Kagame) has tasked me with monitoring this project as it is something he and the government are very interested in seeing become a reality so it is my pleasure to meet with you," Ndahiro replied.
"The problem is," I said, launching into specifics, "that during the period of validation both the rationale of the curriculum and the actual courses of the curriculum were changed, radically. At this point, despite inquires to CCM staff, we have no idea any longer what the rationale is for the master's degree. Until we know that, it is virtually impossible to complete the revision of the curriculum."
Rafiki and I then provided Ndahiro with specifics in regard to the various discussions and meetings we had had with CCM staff the past two weeks and the upshot of such.
Ndahiro calmly listened to what we had to say, asked penetrating questions, and, in the end, said, "As I understand it, I think we need to meet with CCM staff, and soon, in order to have the staff explain why they altered the rationale and changed the courses, what they perceive as the rationale for the master's, and to convey to them that the concept of prevention is essential. … I will contact Paul [Rutayisire] Monday and ask for the meeting. If you don't hear back from me by 1 p.m. Monday, please call me."
As we concluded the meeting, Ndahiro said, "So, shall we have a drink? A glass of wine or beer?"
"I could go for a beer," I said.
"Me too," Rafiki said.
"Great!" Ndahiro said, as he signaled to the waiter. "I feel like a nice glass of wine."
We want to hear from you. Please e-mail comments and feedback to Heidi Stambuck at stambuck@uark.edu.