Read on Twitter
Where universities are getting TRC implementation wrong is their therapeutic approach ("we need to teach our students to empathize with Indigenous peoples' histories, etc.") while it is really a call for substantive intervention.
The therapeutic approach fails to address their own systems, believing that content and faces will change the orientation of a program/faculty/university. It believes that Indigenous success in its system (often with no barriers removed) = success in TRC implementation.
When in reality, that success is founded upon the resilience of students. The therapeutic approach requires Indig students/staff to use their energy on changing the orientation towards substance. Institutions cannot tell the difference, as this struggle feels like progress.
I have been in conversations within law faculties about the obligations of the law profession to the TRC. Some believe their obligation is to create an environment of empathy towards Indigenous people. While laudable (and needed), this is where the convo ends.
We would never say this about specific areas of law, that the goal of law school is to create empathy with the defence lawyer or the field of corporate governance. The goal is to teach competency in engaging in those areas.
I know people may get touchy when they see stuff like this. There is no sub-tweeting going on here. This is really just a common thing talked among Indigenous people (meaning a common challenge across the board). And people's individual work towards equality is noticed.
And a final addition. Empathy and healing is good work. It is really valuable. It makes a difference. And we should feel good about the work we do. My concern is that it is tied to peoples' own choices and abilities, and when they leave, so does the work.
