The Multicultural Classroom:
Roles and Responsibilities of Educators

Wayne Nightingale

The main focus of the Supreme Court decision is, as Dr. Kinsella stated, mostly part of the afternoon program. I was asked to deal with the more non-legal aspects, but there are always some legal aspects. I will be dealing with the roles and responsibilities of educators in the multicultural classroom, and others will deal with the more legal implications of the decision, although I will be dealing in part with some of the statements in the Supreme Court decision.

The fundamental role and responsibility of educators with respect to the multicultural classroom is the same as it is for any classroom. For teachers, that role is stipulated in Section 70(1) of the Schools Act which requires that every teacher shall diligently and faithfully teach according to the act and the terms of the teacher's employment. If the Schools Act is without bias, prejudice or intolerance and the teacher concentrates on teaching in accordance with the Act, the basic role and responsibility will be fulfilled.

It is important to focus, however, on the requirement that teachers are to teach. What do they teach? Teachers teach children. They teach various subjects and grade levels. But by what they say and how they conduct themselves at all times, they also teach attitudes, habits, morals and values and they must avoid any conduct or activity that infringes the rights of children protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Act.

In order to fulfil the role of teacher of children, the learning environment in the classroom must be such that the children, the parents, the employer and the public maintain their respect, trust and confidence in the school system and in teachers. A teacher is always a teacher, during or outside school hours, and if what they are teaching or how they are conducting themselves at anytime seriously disrupts the delicate balance required to maintain a proper teaching-learning environment in the classroom or interferes with the ability of the school district to effectively administer the school system, they may not be allowed to continue as teachers.

Regulation 84-51 under the Schools Act stipulates in Section 37(1) that a teacher shall maintain a deportment becoming his position as an educator of the young. Although this statement is rather limited in terms of defining the teacher's role in the multicultural classroom, the general impact of the regulation is clear. The regulation does not say that a teacher only has to maintain his or her deportment as an educator of the young during school hours. The responsibility of the government in general and the Department of Education in particular with respect to the multicultural classroom is to ensure that proper legislation, regulations, and guidelines, free from bias, prejudice and intolerance, are in place so that when a teacher implements his or her responsibility under Section 70 of the Act, the result will not interfere with the human rights of students.

Supreme Court Decision:

Although most teachers understand generally the limits of their conduct as teachers during and outside school hours, the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Moncton School Board is the first decision of that court which comments widely on these limits.

1) Off Duty Conduct:

With respect to off duty conduct, the court comments on page 27 as follows:

Teachers are inextricably linked to the integrity of the school system. Teachers occupy positions of trust and confidence, and exert considerable influence over their students as a result of their position. The conduct of a teacher bears directly upon the community's perception of the ability of the teacher to fulfil such a position of trust and influence, and upon the community's confidence in the public system as a whole.

On page 28 and 29, the Supreme Court states:

By their conduct, teachers as "medium" must be perceived to uphold the values, beliefs and knowledge sought to be transmitted by the school system. The conduct of a teacher is evaluated on the basis of his or her position, rather than whether the conduct occurs within the classroom or beyond. Teachers are seen by the community to be the medium for the educational message and because of the community position they must occupy, they are not able to "choose which hat they will wear on what occasion", teachers do not necessarily check their teaching hats at the school yard gate and may be perceived to be wearing their teaching hats even off duty.

It is on the basis of the position of trust and influence that we hold the teacher to high standards on and off duty, and it is an erosion of these standards that may lead to a loss in the community of confidence in the public school system. I do not wish to be understood as advocating an approach that subjects the entire lives of teachers to inordinate scrutiny on the basis of more onerous moral standards of behaviour. This could lead to a substantial invasion of privacy rights and fundamental freedoms of teachers. However, where a "poisoned" environment within the school system is traceable to the off duty conduct of a teacher that is likely to produce a corresponding loss of confidence in the teacher and the system as a whole, then the off duty conduct of the teacher is relevant.

2) Freedom of Expression:

The Supreme Court of Canada supports very strongly the right of individuals to freedom of expression, subject to the reasonable limits as stipulated in Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court, however, concludes that if a teacher exercises his or her freedom of expression so as to seriously undermine the rights and responsibilities of School Districts to maintain a positive learning environment, that teacher may not be allowed to continue as a teacher. The following quote from the Human Rights Commissioner's Report was singled out for attention in the Supreme Court decision at page 25 as follows:

In the case of the teacher who has proclaimed the discriminatory views publicly, the effect may adversely impact on the school community. It may raise fears and concerns of potential misconduct by the teacher in the classroom and, more importantly, it may be seen as a signal that others view these prejudicial views as acceptable. It may lead to a loss of dignity and self-esteem by those the school community belonging to the minority group against whom the teacher is prejudiced.

The act does not prohibit a person from thinking or holding prejudicial views. The Act, however, may affect the right of that person to be a teacher when those views are publicly expressed in a manner that impacts on the school community or if those views influence the treatment of students in the classroom by the teacher.

3) Freedom of religion:

The respondent teacher, in this case, claimed that he was exercising his Charter right to freedom of conscience and religion. The Supreme Court declared however at page 41:

Indeed the Court has affirmed that freedom of religion ensures that every individual must be free to hold and to manifest without state interference those beliefs and opinions dictated by one's conscience. This freedom is not unlimited, however, and is restricted by the right of others to hold and to manifest beliefs and opinions of their own, and to be free from injury from the exercise of the freedom of religion of others. Freedom of religion is subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

In other words, a teacher may practice his or her own religion without interference; however, if that practice interferes with the rights of others to practice their religion, that teacher is in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Act. Note the following quote also from the Supreme Court decision at page 53:

In relation to freedom of religion, any religious belief that denigrates and defames the religious beliefs of others erodes the very basis of the guarantee in S. 2(a) - a basis that guarantees that every individual is free to hold and manifest the beliefs dictated by one's conscience. The respondent's religious views serve to deny Jews respect for dignity and equality said to be among the fundamental guiding values of a Court undertaking a S. 1 analysis.

Guidelines For Teachers:

The current Schools Act is being rewritten and no doubt the regulations under that Act will also have to be redrafted. In order for teachers to fulfil their role and responsibility in accordance with the Act and Regulations, there has to be considerably more guidance and detail with respect to the multicultural classroom. At the moment, the word multicultural or multiculturalism does not appear in the School Act or the Regulations. The fact is that multiculturalism in the classroom has not been a hot issue. The most recent document on the subject was issued as a Ministerial Statement in 1989. But there has been very little action subsequent to that document, certainly not in recent years by way of workshops, orientations sessions or guidelines assisting teachers in identifying and accommodating cultural issues in the classroom.

The census data indicate that the entire country is in need of additional immigration to maintain appropriate populations levels. The multicultural classroom may not have been a hot issue in recent years, but it will continue to grow in importance as immigration continues and increases. Other provinces are experiencing the impact of increased immigration, especially with respect to language and religion. New Brunswick must begin to prepare itself. The redrafting of the Schools Act and Regulations is an excellent opportunity to give recognition to the needs of educators who will be involved with multicultural classroom issues in the future.

As I have stated, the current Act and Regulations are virtually silent on the issue and. although teachers are required to conduct themselves at all times in a manner appropriate for educators of the young. There are no details as to how to adjust to various cultural situations which might develop in the classroom. For example, where is it written what teachers are to do if complaints are received regarding Christmas and Easter pageants? These activities have no meaning to non-Christians. What about the wearing of turbans and the carrying of kirpans (small daggers) by Sikhs?

I note that Section 37(4) and (5) of Regulation 84-51 under the Schools Act permits teachers to open and close daily exercises of the school. By reading a portion of the scripture or offering the Lord's Prayer, as long as no pupil is compelled to be present against the wish of his parent or guardian. However, a 1988 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that, despite the fact that students could be exempted from the prescribed religious exercises, such exemption did not alleviate the discrimination but singled out those students whose religious beliefs were other than Christian. The Appeal Court stated:

The peer pressure and the classroom norms to which children are acutely sensitive, in our opinion, are real and pervasive and operate to compel members of religious minorities to perform the majority religious practices... The requirement that pupils attend religious exercises, unless exempt, compels students and parents to make a religious statement.

It is clear that not all students follow a Christian faith and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that such students are not forced to participate in religious exercises and helps to ensure that they are not stigmatized for their beliefs.

There also appears to be a problem with the application of a part of Section 37(1) of Regulation 84-51 of the Schools Act. This section requires that the teacher has exemplified in the conduct of the pupils throughout the school the principles of Christian morality. In paragraph (b) of that section, teachers are to give instruction to the pupils concerning moral acts and habits. The reference to Christian morality may be in contravention of the Charter and the Human Rights Act, and the requirement to give instruction concerning moral acts does not give the teacher very much information as to what he or she is to do, especially as the classroom situation becomes more and more multicultural.

The Department of Education recently circulated a new policy which protects pupils from misconduct by adults. The policy is excellent in many respects. In the context of this conference, it is useful to point out that the policy is aimed at protecting pupils from, among other things, discrimination within and outside the school setting. Abusive behaviour is defined to include any form of discrimination under the Human Rights Act. A strong message is sent to all persons whose job or role places them in contact with pupils and stipulates that ignorance of acceptable conduct will not be considered an excuse for misconduct. I would like to see the policy amended or a follow-up document prepared which instructs educators on the subject of discrimination, especially since ignorance of acceptable conduct could lead to disciplinary action. If the teacher in a multicultural classroom is unaware of the types of conduct which could be declared discriminatory, there has to be much more information.

Discrimination in a multicultural classroom can also impact on teachers. In a 1982 case in New Brunswick, an adjudicator ruled that a Jewish teacher did not have to be paid his salary while on a religious holiday. However, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a 9-0 decision in a 1985 case that three Jewish teachers in suburban Montreal should have been paid for taking a day off to observe Yom Kippur. The court stated: "If there is to be true equality and fairness in the workplace without regard to religious beliefs, then it follows as the night the day that there must be a duty resting upon an employer to take reasonable steps to accommodate those employees that are adversely affected by the employer rules".

In a 1993 decision, the Supreme Court rules as follows:

Provisions in a collective agreement that have the effect of discriminating against an employee on the basis of protected human right categories such as religion, sex or age will not absolve either a school board or a union from its duty to accommodate. Human rights principles are overriding considerations that apply, notwithstanding the regime that has been bargained by a school board and a union.

This case had to do with rearranging the work schedule of an employee who was a Seventh-Day-Adventist and who, because of his religion, could not work from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. The union refused to accommodate the change in shift for this employee and the employer subsequently dismissed the employee. Both the employer and the union were found to be incorrect.

In conclusion, future classrooms will become more and more multicultural. The role of educators will become even more sensitive and challenging. It is important that all parties are properly educated in order to avoid discrimination.

‹‹ RETURN TO MULTICULTURAL CLASSROOM

© 2007 Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St. Thomas University