Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? Part-2

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 2

By Dr Lazarus Castang:


Continuing from part 1, where the question was left unanswered, I propose, from numerous perspectives, an answer to the question: Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

On the question of majority rule, for the maintenance of social order there must be some sort of political, or military, or numerical majority. Numerically, there are far more professed Christians than homosexuals in the Caribbean society. Heterosexuals are a sexual majority and LGBTs are a sexual minority. A vote for the repeal or retention of Caribbean sodomy laws may result in its retention because of social, cultural and religious norms that do not favour men having sex with men (MSM). So, purely on the basis of a numerical majority rule as to whether homosexuals should influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church, the verdict is on the side of the Caribbean church.

“Should” brings the question of morality into play, while “can” puts the question of ability on the screen. Homosexuals can influence Caribbean public policy through political pressures and funding agencies. But it may still be an uphill battle to overthrow the will of the numerical majority to legislate what homosexuals do as legitimate, normal or normative.

The question of the tyranny of the majority over the minority misses the important distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights. Where there is a conflict of rights in society, one right will be made fundamental and the other less than fundamental. In the Caribbean, there is a right to conscience (religious liberty), but there is no right to homosex. If the distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights is not kept in mind, then it can be indiscriminately argued that Caribbean legislations and religious norms create tyranny of the majority over a minority with crimes of drug addiction, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality, and bestiality.

On the question of a sexual orientation rule, homosexuals may be born with tendencies to homosex, and early in life feel attracted to the same sex. It is an injustice of tremendous proportion to discriminate or legislate against homosexual orientation over which homosexuals have no choice. Moreover, how will evidence of orientation be reliably culled where there is no external evidence of homosexual practice? Therefore, a clear distinction must be maintained between homosexual orientation and the behavioural expression of it. In like manner, a clear distinction must be maintained between pedophilic orientation and the behavioural expression of it.

Legal and moral consistency requires parity of treatment for homosexual and pedosexual behaviour. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church. Analogies between homosexual behaviour and slavery or women issues are not the best analogies. Sexual analogies like incest, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, adultery, polygamy, polyamory, and male polysexuality are the best analogies.

On the question of morality rule, the argument that a “right” to sexual orientation is an automatic right to any sexual behaviour on a sexual continuum is fallacious. Many men have a polysexual orientation, so is it an automatic right for them to sleep with as many consensual adult sex partners in order to be true to their polysexual orientation/identity? Married women will not agree to this, nor will loving, committed gay partners agree to it.

What is considered “normal” is not automatically moral and there is no natural right to homosexual behaviour to make it a fundamental right. Those who call homosexual behaviour a universal human right have not made the case for the rightness, or universality, or humanity of homosex. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
Morality should not be disregarded even if it is alleged or made to stand in the way of economic growth. In fact, widespread economic growth itself presupposes a reduction or stifling of political and moral corruption in society.

On the question of harmful rule, if homosexual behaviour is a victimless crime, then incest and bestiality are victimless crimes that should be decriminalised, legalised and protected. Furthermore, since there is no scientific research showing that pedophilia causes measurable harm to all children in all cases, then, pedophilia should be legislated against on a case by case basis. Harmful rule and victimless crime have been used to give a pass to prostitution. Interestingly, homosexual behaviour is against the natural use of women and against the perpetuity of the human race. Therefore, it is sexist and against our humanity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

On the question of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance rules, these are so-called morally neutral issues that attempt to evade any talk of the morality of homosexual behaviour. We cannot have a society that declares a sexual matter a right by sheer ideological fiat. Nor can we have a society that physically abuses and professionally, or medically, or socially discriminates against homosexual persons because they come out or covertly engage in private, consensual adult homosex.

Above all, we cannot have a society that is morally all-embracing from incest to prostitution to homosexuality to pedophilia to bestiality. How far do we extend the principle of right to sex if sexual satisfaction is a right? A moral society must draw the line. Homosexuals draw the line to include homosex as personally acceptable. The church draws the line to exclude homosex as morally unacceptable but to tolerate homosex, like adultery, fornication, male polysexuality as social immoralities beckoning sincere repentance of heart and reformation of behaviour.

The Caribbean church will not support the legal protection of homosex that criminalises Christianity’s moral stance against homosex. Homosexuality is not a moral equivalent of heterosexuality. The opposite of both homosexuality and heterosexuality is moral purity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

On the question of privacy, consensuality, male-adult, ownership-of-one’s-body, and right-to-choose rule, it works on the individual level with a purely private matter, but is inadequate a rule on the public level. Gay lobby, gay parades, the homosexual movement/community, promotion of gay lifestyle as a normal variant of human sexuality and gays coming out are public, not private matters.

This rule gives free reign to any adult sexual behaviour that crosses gender, species, or blood-relatedness boundaries. It accommodates abortion, prostitution, incest, male polysexual behaviours, bestiality, polygamy, and polyamory. Therefore, such rule is virtually worthless being exclusive only of children and cognitively disabled individuals, but accepting of all other sexual behaviours, whether harmful or not. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

October 02, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?  Part-1 

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church Part-1

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 1

By Dr Lazarus Castang:


Some commentaries on Caribbean News Now have consistently engaged in a common logical leap from universal human rights to men having sex with men. Homosex is often more implicitly than explicitly subsumed under the canopy of universal human rights. The need for sex or sexual satisfaction is universal, human, and a natural right. So, if this is the case, then no government, society, religion, culture, law, or morality should stigmatise or discriminate against adult males having private, consensual sex if it does not harm anyone. So the argument goes, but is the case really as simple and straightforward as this?

Caribbean society includes the homosexual community as well as the church community. From an objective, noncommittal perspective, for homosexuals to influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church or vice-versa constitutes an obvious bias in either direction. To try to divide and conquer by insisting that the church have sex however they want, and homosexuals have sex however they please, solves the problem on the individual level, but not on the collective/societal level.

Some active homosexuals want to be welcomed and affirmed in and by the church, and be celebrated when they come out in society. Some want to be married and hold position in church. Furthermore, they oppose any moral or legal discrimination against their homosexual behaviour by society or the church. In some countries they have or seek laws that criminalise public and Christian moral opposition to homosex, while they decriminalise homosex. They want homosexual behaviour to be upheld in school curriculum as a normal variant of human sexuality and insist on legislation to protect their right to homosex that is assumed to be universal and right.

Homosexuals have private homosex, but seek public recognition and acceptance of their relationships through several avenues like public parades and protests. Privacy is not what they seek, since they have it already. Publicity of their “privacy” that can psychosocially normalize homosex and break down public resistance is the goal. Homosexuals are trying to influence societal norms just like the church. So, to talk of the church as a homophobic or bigoted obstacle to sexual freedom is to try to exclude and mute the influence of the church as an important public moral voice in Caribbean society.

Furthermore, the concept of universal human rights, as some have related it to homosex, does not address how to resolve public conflict of rights in society and in what way homosex is universal and right. In any public conflict of rights, say right to conscience versus sexual orientation right, one right will be made fundamental and the other less than fundamental. Merely using accusatory terms like “disadvantaged groups,” “abuse of minority,” “exclusionary approach” and “tyranny” in context of homosexual cause and the Caribbean church and society only fly on broken wings of emotionalism and appeals to sympathy without good reason.

In certain parts of the US and Canada, opponents of homosex have been fined or imprisoned for publicly opposing homosex, but homosexuals are not fined or imprisoned for publicly berating the church. They call the church bigoted for disapproving and not accommodating homosex, while they reverse bigotry by disapproving and not accommodating opposition to homosex.

In the Caribbean, homosexuals have been physically threatened, or attacked, or killed because of their orientation and behavioural expression or public display or promotion of it. The church community, however, disapproves of both homosex and violence against homosexuals. But it is argued by some gay rights activists that opposition to homosex is a source of social homophobia. The case for such argument has not been made and even if it were true, then, attackers can also use any other reason to attack homosexuals, such as the way they walk, talk, dress, the places they go, or the company they keep, or coming out. With such questionable or farfetched reasoning not only opposition to homosex needs changing. The way some homosexuals walk, talk, dress, the places they go, or the company they keep, or coming out, all these would be sources of homophobia to be changed.

So, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? After all, homosexuals’ bodies, butts, behaviours, brains, buggery, and bugs are theirs, not the church’s, even though some of them may belong to a church. The church should not talk for or over homosexuals, and homosexuals cannot control the church. Therefore, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

If homosex is exclusively a private matter, should it be publicly promoted in any form or fashion, or legally protected, or religiously accepted? Does the church have a right to tell homosexuals not to have homosex? Are laws or sermons against homosex codes for or reinforcements of violent attacks against homosexuals in the Caribbean? As analogies, do laws against incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and drug trafficking mean attack the violators?

There is no link between believing homosex is wrong and acting to wrong homosexuals physically. Physical attackers of homosexuals can use any reason in an effort to justify their nefarious acts, while accusers of the church bypass them to wrongly assign blame to the church. There are unbalanced and uncompassionate people in the church community as well as the homosexual community. So, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex, if there is a right to sex, more than the Caribbean church?

If there is a right to sexual satisfaction, how far do we extend this right to sex and on what basis? A non-discriminatory claim for the recognition of a variety of sexual orientations would have to include orientations toward multiple sex partners (polysexuality), children (pedophilia), blood relatives (incest), animals (bestiality), sadomasochism, voyeurism, necrophilia and so on. Sexual libertinism would be the order of the day in the name of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance.

The separation of church and state does not eliminate the influence of the church on the society or the society on the church. The Caribbean church exists under the jurisdiction of the Caribbean state and in society. Religious and secular people, gay or straight, influence state decisions as members of political parties, government agencies, business enterprises and media corporations and as individual citizens. Efforts to remove church or homosexual influence from the Caribbean state/society are virtually impractical at the corporate level and the individual level. Therefore, one cannot legitimately talk of freedom and at the same time seek to totally erode dialogue, rivalry of influence, and jostling for legal advantage between the church and the homosexual community on the question of the right to sexual satisfaction in the Caribbean.

In a society with a multiplicity of sexual orientations, sexual laws cannot forbid any behavioural expression of sexual orientation and be non-discriminatory at the same time. However, Caribbean diverse society must draw the line somewhere, even when the line may only be drawn in the sand of social shifts and turns. Again, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

September 09, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church Part-2 
 

Political parties: Gangs in disguise?

By Oliver Mills




Over the years, political parties in the Caribbean have been much criticised for lack of focus and action on the pressing issues of society, for not being sensitive to the wider needs of the most vulnerable in Caribbean society, not taking bold and aggressive measures to deal with the inequalities in Caribbean society, and for not seriously attempting to transform the structure and function of the various institutions of government to enable them to deliver on the many promises they make.

Furthermore, political parties in the Caribbean have been seen as elite organisations, which continuously co-opt aspiring and promising individuals into their ranks, exposing them to the benefits of office, and the opportunities connected with it, and so perpetuate the status quo.

In a recent article published in one of the leading Caribbean papers, the writer gives a new twist to the description of political parties, categorising them as gangs, in reference to the way these parties conduct politics in his country. He speaks of the exploitation of his country by the two major political parties for their own benefit, and says that most of the 40,000 or so fatalities since 1970 were because of the criminality attached to, and fomented by these parties. The writer further describes these political parties as having a gangster character.

The question is, are political parties really gangs in disguise? But what really is a gang? A gang usually comprises a leader, and committed followers, with a goal or mission. Their activities are usually geared to meeting their own needs at the expense of the wider society. Gangs prey on the wider society, and compete with each other for turf. Many of them also have symbols which identify their members.

Gangs also have a code of conduct, and if there are any infractions, severe punishment could be meted out to the guilty. They also seek to recruit others to their cause, particularly among the young, and disaffected, looking for an identity, and to be associated with something bigger than themselves. Members of gangs often say that the reason they join is because they feel appreciated and wanted, as well as protected. In many instances as well, before a person becomes a gang member, he or she has to undertake certain acts, testifying to their commitment.

But do political parties fit into this paradigm, or scenario? Indeed, political parties have a leader with committed followers, who are often fanatical to the point of seeing anyone who does not share their political views as the enemy, and assaults, sometimes fatal, are perpetrated against opponents, which is also what a gang does. Parties also have goals and a mission just as gangs do, and their activities are directed at meeting their own needs and, as they often state, those of the country as well. Gangs have no consideration for the needs of the wider society. But many people say that the personal needs of the political party are often disguised as the needs of the country. However, it is often said that gangs also have a constituency, which they look after economically.

Like gangs, political parties also compete for turf and, in some Caribbean countries, one section of a village, or even a street is controlled by one or the other party, and neither party’s supporters can cross this line. Some political parties, like gangs have also set up garrisons, in which their staunch supporters live, and the supporters of the opposite party dare not enter the zone controlled by one or the other party.

Like gangs, political parties also have symbols that represent their particular stances or beliefs. In one Caribbean country, the symbol for one party is the bell, which for them suggests freedom, while the other party has the shell, which represents the most important industry, or element of the economy. The shell also portrays strength and endurance. Other parties in other Caribbean countries use a particular colour, while in a particular country, the three fingers on the left hand, going left from the middle finger, are its symbol. So both political parties and gangs have the same kind of representative icons, which depict who, and what they are.

Political parties, like gangs, also have a code of conduct that governs membership, and the conduct of its members and supporters. We have seen party members, and even ministers of government being expelled for conduct unbecoming of the party, but they are often shuffled off to another post that is not conspicuous, only to reappear in politics later. Gangs could be somewhat more ruthless though. This is why we have gang warfare in cases where one, or some members of a particular gang are suspected of having alliances with the other, or even more extreme, some gang members become fatalities, particularly if they are suspected of being police agents.

In a wider perspective, can it be said that political parties are gangs in disguise? I have just pointed out their similarities. But in a formal sense are gangs and political parties the same? One Caribbean scholar recently described his country and its political system as a gangster state. However, if we look at the origins, philosophy, and reasons why political parties have been formed, we will see that their objectives were noble. They aimed at organising the people into a cohesive force to promote progress, mobilising public opinion around the issues, seeking to create growth and development in the country, and organising the resources of the country, so that the majority receives some benefit.

Political parties also help to maintain a balance of power, and prevent dictatorship in government. If we do not like the policies of a government, they can be changed through the use of the ballot. Despite this, though, political trickery, gerrymandering and deception are often employed to maintain a particular party in office over long periods in some countries. Gang leaders are often eliminated either through internal rivalry, in street battles with other gangs, or by the forces of the state.

It could be said in one sense, then, that the activities of some political parties resemble those of a gang, while others stick to the noble purpose and philosophy from which they originated, and continue to sustain themselves.

April 16, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Turks and Caicos politics in a Caribbean context

By Oliver Mills



Local historians in the Turks and Caicos contend that these islands were the first to be discovered in the Caribbean region, although this is contested by others. However, Caribbean historians have maintained that the real value to Europeans of the West Indies was their mineral wealth, agricultural products, employment for Europeans, and as a training ground for their navies. Nothing is mentioned about the value of the islands to their own people, the local inhabitants.

Indeed, the local inhabitants were highly civilised, particularly the Mayans and Aztecs, while the Caribs and Arawaks on the other hand, who lived communally under a system of governance that suited their needs and circumstances at the time, were regarded by the Europeans as primitive. The latter sought to use the tribal chiefs against each other to maintain a divide and rule policy. This meant that, instead of confronting a common threat, the local inhabitants fought against themselves, urged on by outsiders, who benefitted from this local rivalry which they initiated.

The Turks and Caicos were important for their salt product, cotton, as a training area for sailors and their warships and, initially because of our many islands and cays, as a hide out for pirates, buccaneers, and smugglers. Later in this century we became military bases to maintain surveillance of Castro’s Cuba, and to listen to and track Russian submarines.

A prominent historian of Caribbean affairs describes the background to the contemporary challenges the Caribbean faces today. He states that the society was based on masters and slaves, and this made impossible any spirit of mutual trust between the two sides. The phrase that emerged from this situation was, ‘the worse you behave to a Negro, the better he behaves to you.’ Even now, we still say this about each other.

This perception of these two categories of master and slave later translated into divisions between those with money and resources, and those who had only their labour to offer. From here, developed the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital. And although later, as Caribbean society became more sophisticated through the development of science and technology, a managerial versus a technologically skilled class developed, with knowledge replacing capital as the important factor in workplace relationships.

This historian further states that a further characteristic of Caribbean society was the parochialism of its governing climate of opinion. Any opinions that differed from, or contested the way things were being done, were discouraged. The idea behind this was to maintain the political and social dominance of one group of persons who differed from the local inhabitants in social status, colour and interest.

The type of governance that existed, particularly in those islands with British influence, was Crown Colony government, or direct rule, where a governor and officials from the metropole were the main players, assisted by selected locals regarded as prominent members of the community. This same type of governance exists in the Turks and Caicos today. In the early colonial period, it was based on the contrived assumption that people who were culturally different had no real conception of how to govern themselves, or conduct their affairs in a civilised way. They therefore needed persons of a different and superior cultural orientation to ‘help’ them to become more civilised. To hold their hand and gently lead them, until they were deemed ready and fit to govern themselves.`

This historian rounds out his description of Caribbean society’s background by noting that the European mind failed to apply the idea of equality to subject Caribbean people. The fact is that, in many instances, this perception still remains of people of other races. In the Caribbean, we have absorbed these prejudices, and use them against our own to determine class and social status. People with a fair complexion are still preferred to those with darker skins, and the many races we have still discriminate against each other in various subtle and open ways. We have not as yet, in our Caribbean, despite chatter at various conferences, come to accept each other, trust each other, or see each other in an open-minded way, without race, class, island of origin, or even religion, playing a significant part with respect to how we perceive each other.

In the Caribbean’s quest for ever increasing control over its political affairs, leading to independence for some islands, again, the dominant power insisted that certain steps or stages be gone through, as if locals had to take examinations at different levels of difficulty. Crown Colony government was followed by more political representation through the extension of the vote. Through agitation, internal self-government came about with either a Chief Minister or Premier, based on the intensity of the agitation. This was then followed by independence. But at each stage, it was the colonial power that responded to challenges made on it. It was the local leaders who formed political organisations that over time contested the existing system, and got it to be changed to a more democratic system, representative of the majority.

This is where the Turks and Caicos is today, with demands for the reinstatement of the 2006 constitution, that many insist has nothing wrong with it. Some feel the newly considered constitution is meant to restrict the power of the elected representatives, and the newly proposed electoral system is designed to emasculate the political parties, and give further authority to the function of Governor as an institution.

What is often forgotten, or not realised, is the fact that the 2006 constitution can in many ways be regarded as really an independence constitution. The office of Premier had enormous power, and many international missions were undertaken by the elected government, although it was the UK government that was responsible for foreign affairs. The then Premier gave audience to many heads of state, and a minister of government had some responsibilities for national security. The UK government on a whole, allowed the Turks and Caicos to exercise authority in many areas, which could only be seen in an independent territory. Under the 2006 constitution, therefore, the islands could be described as really being independent where governance in the strict sense is concerned. Ministers exercised certain levels of authority to negotiate abroad on behalf of the country, met with their counterparts abroad, and entered into agreements after the proposals had gone through the cabinet process.

The independent Caribbean territories basically followed this same process. It appears, though, that the Turks and Caicos, although coming a little late on the scene, caught up quickly with these countries, even surpassing them in economic development, and becoming their equal in the level of political awareness and consciousness. As a matter of fact, our first Premier was even invited to an economic event in Jamaica to share ideas on how his country was able to achieve the level of economic growth it did. One of our Chief Ministers under the PDM government even attended important functions abroad, on an equal footing with other heads of state. Although not formally an independent country, the Turks and Caicos enjoyed equality of status with the other independent Caribbean countries. No other Caribbean country received this recognition when they were at the political stage the Turks and Caicos was at.

We all know the political story of what happened to the Turks and Caicos political system, and the accompanying economic challenges we now face. Many feel that the introduction of current revenue measures, and those impending, will result in further economic decline, and a further lowering of the standard of living in the islands, as well as discouraging foreign investment. Some feel that our economic progress began with the introduction of political parties that took various initiatives that secured agreements for growth and development to take place. Others feel that jealousy is responsible for the state the country is in now, and that there is no independent objective means of knowing what the real state of the economy is.

There is a segment of the population that also feels that whatever resources we have are not being used in a way significantly beneficial to the inhabitants, and that a new class of ‘others’ is calling the shots, and enjoying a certain lifestyle, while local people are mere spectators in their own country. If this is so, is this moral? Others feel that it is the Turks and Caicos political class and their associates that are responsible for the developments that led to where we currently are.

But there is also a view which is convinced that the profile of the Turks and Caicos as a country with people of colour who developed and managed a successful economy, and brought advantages not previously enjoyed to almost every island and its inhabitants, went against the previously held view of people of colour being unable to manage their political and economic institutions successfully, being always dependent on handouts from others, because they were lazy, carefree, and a bunch of freeloaders, incapable of anything serious or worthy of note. Certain activities therefore had to be initiated to restore the islands to the status it was felt they should really have, as a territory with people of colour as its majority, with a selected few of ‘others’ who feel themselves entitled, by virtue of their alleged cultural sophistication, to lead these people of colour into the light.

In the context of the wider Caribbean, then, it can be seen, that basically, the Turks and Caicos followed the same political and economic course, had the same historical elites that exercised power and authority over their destiny, and experienced the same condescending attitudes exhibited by these elites. The demonstrations for the restoration of democracy here were also carried out by other Caribbean territories in their quest for autonomy, and our politicians, although living in a more enlightened age, still behave in a way reminiscent of those Caribbean politicians at our stage of political development.

The independent countries got their way. Will the Turks and Caicos, through its party system, and other political groups achieve its objectives and soon join these territories as a fully sovereign and independent country?

March 16, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Education is taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken in the Caribbean

Education: Equal opportunity provider or Kentucky Fried oriented?
By Oliver Mills


In our Caribbean society, commentaries and reports on educational issues seem to constantly appear in our various daily papers, sometimes competing with politics. Recently in one country, there was a commentary on the way a particular ministry of education was treating high school principals. In another, there was the issue of the importance of technical and vocational education being offered more broadly in high schools. Yet in another, there was a discussion about the inadequate performance of students in the grade achievement test leading to entry in various high schools.

All of these episodes point more starkly to the real role education should play in equipping individuals with knowledge and competencies to enable them to play a positive role in the development of their societies. But in undertaking this role, the important question can be posed. Is education an equal opportunity provider, or is it Kentucky Fried oriented? The latter description will be explained later.

In connection with the question of the role of education, a recent article published in the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, the writer states that education is charged with the task of equalising and expanding the opportunities of individuals in terms of the jobs they might have access to, and the material resources they can hope to enjoy, and their role as citizens. Does education really perform this function?

At one level it could be said that education does perform the above mentioned function. In the majority of instances, in the Caribbean, education fosters social mobility, in terms of widening the middle class because of the skills and competencies it equips those benefitting from it with.

It further opens opportunities and equalises the social structure since through it the educated person gains access to the higher echelons of society, where critical decisions are made. Education also enables many to enter the professions, politics, and to do serious research, which results in an enhancement of the lives of Caribbean people.

The educated person therefore gains access to greater material and financial resources, which he or she would be denied otherwise. Furthermore, education results in committed citizens with positive values who contribute to the welfare of their societies, and promote moral and ethical values that create trustworthiness among members of the society at large.

But is it as straightforward as it is presented here? There are some of us who seriously question whether education performs the tasks it is alleged it does. Many others think that some educated persons neither think nor act as if they have been exposed to education. And even if this is not the case, their dispositions and performance appraisal do not reflect the capabilities education should have provided.

Why is it, for example in the Caribbean, that many of our countries still experience unsatisfactory economic growth and development, even though we have various types and levels of educational institutions, which almost make education an industry, and an appreciable number of graduates from these institutions. Why can’t they get our institutions and industries to perform more efficiently? Is not this what education is all about? Why is it that skills and knowledge do not seem to match productivity in the Caribbean?

It is precisely because of these factors that some Caribbean observers are saying that although education is an opportunity provider in some sense, the opportunities do not reflect the necessary results expected both for the individual and for society. They also say in a most frightening way, that what we really have in the Caribbean is education taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken. More clearly, that it is Kentucky Fried oriented. This means that those exposed to education swallow it, barely digest it, and then through the exits it goes. It does not ever become an integral part of the individual and his being so that his or her behaviour could be transformed for the better.

In a wider sense, education, seen as being Kentucky Fried oriented, means that the ingredients of education, prepared by the lecturer, which include knowledge and skills, are fed to students in the classroom. The students ingest it, without giving the time and concentration to really savour it. They therefore swallow it, without understanding what they have been exposed to, and without giving the necessary attention to chewing it, so that it is experienced in a deep way. They then barely digest it, so that it does not become a part of their understanding. It is then expunged, without having any significant impact on the individual or the environment.

This is why many persons in their critique of education feel that some educated persons do not act as if they have been exposed to knowledge at a high level, which should make a difference for them, and to them. They do not see the education received by some individuals as related or connected to new behaviours, or contributing to national development. It is therefore of the Kentucky Fried variety, where it is swallowed, barely digested, and then goes the way of the exit.

Many students often complain also, that whenever they attend lectures, they are not given the opportunity to question, or come up with a different perspective or interpretation of what the lecturer gives. They fear that if they do, they would be penalised by being given an unsatisfactory grade. They therefore reproduce in their essays and exams what the lecturer gave them in class. Students therefore, in order to get a grade that will enable them to get a good degree, or which would put them on the path to apply for higher studies, go along with what is given to them. The more you can accurately give the lecturer’s viewpoint, the higher the grade you get. There is no alternative view, no questioning, no quoting of additional sources, because what the lecturer says is almost sacred, hence the Kentucky Fried orientation of education.

This strategy is also responsible for the fact that when students graduate and are on the job, they find it difficult to think innovatively. Even here, they fear that their manager at the workplace would penalise them, if they seem too bright, and they may even be accused of not fitting in with the team. This is because the manager has himself, or herself received the same kind of Kentucky Fried education as the employee. The vicious circle therefore continues.

This Kentucky Fried way of doing things also applies to politics. The political party has a certain line, given by either its leader, or an executive group. If there is any questioning of the ideology, a member could either be disciplined or expelled, for not being part of the dominant value system, which follows the Kentucky Fried method of doing things.

Since the Kentucky Fried strategy discourages independent thinking, it is prone to mistakes in judgment and in the implementation of policies, because other voices are censored, and only the voice of the dominant ideology is allowed.

This means that even in a general sense, if Caribbean countries undertake basically the same education project aimed at transforming their systems, it would not achieve its objectives, since it would be riddled with defects that could have been exposed had there been a fair dialogue concerning consequences and other possible paradigms for consideration. The Kentucky Fried phenomenon in education therefore hinders critical thinking, discourages alternatives, and freezes the education process. Mistakes and bad strategies therefore persist.

Education also, as an opportunity provider, if in fact this is really the case, can be seen as a contradiction. The question is opportunity provider for whom? What sector of society? Is it the sector that has always dominated decision making and co-opted others, in order to maintain its power and influence? Is education then the equal opportunity provider for the selected few, and not for the many? Despite the expansion of educational opportunities in the Caribbean, is it not the case that the top positions are held by the ‘old boys network’? And that in terms of gender equality, are not male managers more prevalent and dominant than female managers? This is despite the fact that females may be greater in numbers, but the male manager or leader possesses the resources and social capital which enable them to maintain their professional grip on the system. Where then is the equal opportunity?

From the arguments above, it could therefore be said that education, in the strict theoretical sense, is an equal opportunity provider, but not in its practical, everyday operation. Here, complexities and contradictions abound. What is most clear, however, is that the Kentucky Fried model dominates, controls, and shapes the educational process. This is because, despite the fact that education is meant to liberate and encourage critical thinking, there is a dominant philosophy which inhibits this.

This philosophy also promotes a situation throughout the Caribbean, where the Kentucky Fried paradigm operates by preparing knowledge with certain ingredients, feeding it to its clients, who then swallow it, barely digest it, and it then percolates through a predetermined exit, which neither benefits the individual nor society in any way that is significant, or positive.

February 17, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

University of the West Indies (UWI) and PhDs

UWI and PhDs
By Oliver Mills

It was reported in the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper of October 14, 2010, that professor Paget Henry of Brown University in the United States, who is Antiguan born, stated that it is critical for the UWI to graduate more PhDs to teach students at degree granting colleges that are emerging throughout the Caribbean.

The professor stated that the areas should be Caribbean history, sociology, political science, economics, literature and the arts. He added that this self knowledge could only come from artists and scholars trained at the UWI.

But what is the professor really suggesting? Is he intimating that these emerging degree granting institutions lack sufficiently well qualified lecturers in these areas? Again, is he saying that a masters degree or a post graduate specialist diploma are insufficient to teach at the level of these degree granting institutions? Or, is he stating that the UWI needs to, and is not graduating sufficient PhD students, and therefore needs to increase the completion and graduation rates of PhD students?

On the surface, this suggestion appears quite straight forward, but on close examination it is highly complex, as well as quite revealing concerning not only what is being done, but what should be done. It also implies that the degree granting institutions have sufficient persons with masters degrees, but what is now badly needed is more people with PhD qualifications. This is far from being the case, since many degree granting institutions do not have every staff member with a masters qualification, even though many may be working towards achieving this credential.

The further factor is that many degree granting institutions in the Caribbean only offer first degrees. Very few offer masters qualifications, unless it is done in collaboration with institutions within or outside the Caribbean. So what seems to be initially required, is to improve the quality of the first degree, so that it articulates with the higher requirements of other institutions abroad, particularly for persons pursuing higher studies. This is very important, since many students from some Caribbean institutions who go to schools in the United States, often have to either repeat the first degree, do make up courses, or spend an additional year, and score a particular grade, before they are accepted into the programme of their choice, even if their first degree is in the particular area.

I know personally of a Caribbean student who went to a North American institution with an upper second class honours degree in library science, but was told that her course concentration was insufficient to gain direct entry. She had to do a number of undergraduate courses over the period of a year, before her first degree was recognized as equivalent to that offered by this institution. The issue seemed to be that since the first degree in the Caribbean took three years, the degree at the foreign institution was a four year programme. After completing the additional year, the Caribbean student was allowed to enter the masters programme in library science. It means that some Caribbean institutions have to examine their first degrees in terms of equivalency with that of other institutions. We live in a global society that is highly competitive and connected, and so we need our institutions to offer qualifications that are accepted globally, and not just in the island where they are, or in the region.

There are also cases where Caribbean students with masters degrees who have applied to certain North American institutions to doctoral work in the area of their masters, were required by the institution they had applied to, to redo their masters programme, because it was not regarded as being at the level acceptable by that institution. Even in a certain European university, students with a first degree from their home institution who applied to do a masters programme were told they had first to do a post graduate diploma in the area with a “B” average, before they could be accepted, and those with masters who wanted to do a doctorate were told they had to do either the M.Phil. first, or do one year of this programme, and present an acceptable research paper of a particular quality, before being considered for a doctoral programme.

The whole issue here, is that before we can talk of graduating more PhDs, we in the Caribbean have first to critically and systematically look at our first degree and masters programmes in terms of global equivalency, so that when our students apply abroad to other institutions, they would not have to spend additional time and money repeating what they thought they already had in the bag. Degree granting colleges in the Caribbean therefore need to buck up, and look not only at the commercial aspect of their programmes, but their international currency. An important feature of their programmes should be what the student, after pursuing a course of studies is capable of doing. Does the programme fit appropriately with the job market and requirement of the wider society? And, does the programme ensure that the student would have acquired entrepreneurial knowledge and skills to not only qualify for a job, but to create and innovate new products and services to the benefit of the economy and society?

When the professor used the term ‘graduating more PhDs’ it gives the impression of the UWI being a factory, which churns out products, where, irrespective of quality control, still come out with certain defects, such as the student not being equipped with the right match of performance skills, along with not being educated with respect to how to transfer knowledge fit for purpose. It is not simply a matter of graduating more PhDs, but giving students a quality education reflected in a PhD. This means that supervisors of students must be highly credentialed, and must have published widely in local, regional and international journals. It also means that the work produced must be either highly original, or there is a creative reinterpretation of work already in the market, providing a new and different perspective, which not only adds further weight to the area, but gives it a new and transformative applicability. It is not a rehash, or a commentary.

Furthermore, when professor Henry says that the areas should be Caribbean history, the social sciences, literature and the arts, and adds that self-knowledge could only come from artists and scholars trained at the UWI, he misses the point and purpose of education completely. Education aims at a transfiguration of the human personality through the quality of the subject areas. It seeks to create thinkers, open-mindedness, and a cultured and humane people. What the professor does not say is how these areas would meet the criteria just suggested. He seems to be saying that more PhDs should be awarded in these areas. But why these, as opposed to others? Is this a reflection of his bias for these areas? Of the PhDs awarded in these areas, how have they helped the Caribbean economy and society? Have they given the emerging degree granting institutions further status and pull, with respect to students’ interest and competence? What about management studies? How many persons who have already done a PhD in any of the areas mentioned by the professor, have opted to work at these institutions?

When the professor further mentions that self-knowledge can only come from artists and scholars trained at the UWI, he fails to realize that self-knowledge is personal, based on the interactions of the individual with society, how he or she interprets these, and the responses that are given. You do not acquire self-knowledge from others. It is an individual, psychological thing that emerges from our transactions within the environment and not from entities external to us who bestow it on us. Artists and scholars can provide insights, based on their own analysis, but they cannot infuse self-knowledge into us. Self-knowledge is authentic to us. To also say these have to be trained at the UWI, is the ultimate fallacy. Any genuine institution anywhere which exposes us to the best that has be thought and taught, qualifies to facilitate the development of our intuitions, but not award us self-knowledge as the professor seems to think.

I am sure after further reflection, the professor would enhance his perspective on the issues he has promulgated, and arrive at a conclusion that is more rational, informed, and objective.

October 21, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International