I wrote this paper for my sociology class as it depicts Canada’s current treatment of its international student population. I used two different authors to express and solidify my thoughts regarding Canada’s “conditional” multicultural framework and how it is constantly creating barriers for international students and immigrants.
Introduction
Canada has long since been a popular destination for international students. With top-flite universities and booming industries attractive to undergraduates and graduates, a solid proportion of the Canadian economy has been built with the hard work of international students. However, in recent years, the support systems for housing, mental & physical health, and other aspects of international student life have increasingly failed to meet the needs of the students they serve. This is resulting in adverse effects on these students. With the economic reliance put on these students and the lack of attention given to their well-being, Canada is hurting the ideologies they have built around multiculturalism and the acceptance of diversity.
Himani Bannerji uses the discourse around multiculturalism as a way to point out the unfair treatment given to the “racialized others” or the “visible minorities” to keep Canada’s sovereignty as a “white nation”. The negligence of support systems for international students despite Canada’s ever-growing economic reliance on them highlights the contradictions in the country’s multicultural framework. This paper will analyze the Canadian government’s neglect of international students using Bannerji’s critique on multiculturalism and Killian Crawford’s exploration of the contemporary conditions faced by such students as frameworks. I will argue that the system surrounding international students, specifically those from South Asia, reinforces the idea of “conditional cultural acceptance”, which in turn reinforces the image of Canada as a “white nation.”
Economic reliance vs negligence
Throughout history, Canada has faced many challenges in securing proper funding for its post-secondary institutions. Many times, mature students (people who went back to university/college later on in life), as said by Killian Crawford in his article, “Higher Ed in Canada Is a Story of Demographic Change”, “were a godsend to colleges and universities imbued with a culture of endless growth but now facing serious spending cuts — mature students filled a lot of seats, and they were highly motivated to learn”[1]. Despite their financial contributions to post-secondary institutions, these mature students could not fulfill the needs of Canadian universities at a sustainable level. To bridge the gap, Canada started to attract more international students, with the promise of rewarding professional lives built on the education they would receive. Crawford reports that “international students were few in number in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but they soon became a core presence across post-secondary schools”[2]. Once Canada realized how valuable international students were, they started to recruit more and more by hosting educational fairs across Asia.
Crawford reports that “the revenue they brought in helped pay for programs for Canadian students that government funding could not provide”[3]. But while international students were contributing to the growth of Canadian universities, the universities did not provide them with suitable resources. Despite the hundreds of thousands of students from India and South Asian countries (41% recorded in 2023), several feel a lack of infrastructural support for their mental health, housing, and basic safety needs[4]. The failure to establish adequate support systems also highlights a deeper systemic issue within Canadian governance: racialized groups, visible minorities, or foreign others including international students — whatever you may perceive them as, are only conditionally integrated into Canadian society to serve economic, cultural, or self-righteous growth and ambitions.
Himani Bannerji in her article “On the Dark Side of the Nation: Politics of Multiculturalism and the State of ‘Canada’” critiques this very idea of “conditional acceptance to cultural diversity”. While Bannerji does not touch base on the treatment and neglect faced by international students in Canada specifically, she does highlight how visible minorities or racialized others can be denied easy access to opportunities and rights that they quite literally had to “buy themselves” into. Of additional concern for Canada is that Indian media has reported extensively on the conditions faced by Indian & South Asian students in Canada. The result has been not only a rising level of concern for the health of students but also worsened the already strained relationship between the two nations. Crawford states “the recent political flare-up over the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar is only making matters worse by attacks on Canada — for example, the Hindustan Times recently ran a scare headline suggesting Justin Trudeau would “target Hindus” in Canada”[5]. This has further strained Canada’s reputation overseas and increases the vulnerability for Indian and South Asian students.
Racialization and marginalization of South Asian students
Bannerji’s critique of multiculturalism mainly focuses on immigrants and the visible minorities, while also directly aligning with Crawford’s points on increasing marginalization of South Asian international students. Bannerji dissects the double standards within the so-called multicultural Canadian society, and how it constructs reductive terms to identify the collective immigrant identity. Early on in her article, she states “with the growth of the state we grew too, both in numbers and protest, and became a substantial voting population in Canada. We demanded some genuine reforms, some changes — some among us even demanded the end of racist capitalism — and instead, we got “multiculturalism””[6]. She goes on to say that “officially constructed identities came into being and we had new names — immigrant, visible minority, new Canadian and ethnic”[7]. These points slowly but surely imply the marginalization of these people of color and express the true roots behind the establishment of what we consider to be multiculturalism in Canada today.
Her critique also emphasizes the need for the government to address the reasons behind these reductive titles being given to these groups and outlines the need for these so-called differences to be diminished. She states, “the term visible minorities is a great example: one is instantly struck by reductive character, in which peoples from many histories, languages, cultures and politics are reduced to a distilled abstraction”[8]. The very existence of these terms marginalizes immigrants, other people of color and by extension, international students in Canada. Her idea of a “distilled abstraction” gives way to historical ideologies that have been excluded and diminished, such as Indigenous cultures and practices in Canadian post-secondary institutions. While these institutions and the Canadian government have made efforts of reconciliation for their discriminatory and unjust actions towards Indigenous people, they are simultaneously repeating history by giving the same treatment to immigrants, visible minorities, and international students. However, while their efforts at reconciliation may be persistent, some believe that they are only superficial, symbolic gestures maintained only to uphold the “conditional aspects of multiculturalism” in Canadian society.
Bannerji’s critique of multiculturalism also involves the categorization of these “visible minorities” as a way to further marginalize them from the dominant “whiteness” displayed in Canadian society. She states that “Functional, invested with a legal social status, these terms capture the “difference” from “Canada/English/French Canada” and often signify a newness of arrival into Canada”[9]. This just highlights these individuals and provides a framework that allows them to be viewed as outsiders or others in society. She goes on to say that “they are identifying devices, like a badge, and they identify those who hold no legitimate or possessive relationship to Canada”[10]. The concept of these reductive categorizations as badges highlights the systemic level of the neglect of international students. If these students are not viewed as part of Canadian society, they cannot hope to actualize that in the future. Moreover, the categorization of “visible minorities” and by extension, international students, as “identifying devices” like a badge, or displaying them while only upholding their differences to Canadian culture solidifies the lack of cultural acceptance in Canada’s multicultural framework. Furthermore, it creates an unwelcoming space for these individuals which makes it hard for them to find employment opportunities, and affordable housing, and disrupts their learning environment while causing harm to their mental well-being.
Comparative analysis between both articles
To further solidify our understanding of the Canadian government’s lack of support and ongoing neglect of South Asian and Indian international students, we can perform a comparative analysis between both authors and their work. Both authors do a good job of explaining where Canada has fallen short with its policies and treatment of racialized groups and visible minorities. However, while Bannerji expresses an interesting critique of multiculturalism and the socially constructed discourse that surrounds it, she fails to show the entire picture. She mainly talks about the experiences of immigrants, refugees, and other visible minorities, without acknowledging the other segments of the demographic. Her examples are not fully representative of the Canadian population at large, and thus her critique cannot be universally applied to analyze the different experiences of these various groups.
Crawford, however, uses examples that represent the Canadian population as it has progressed over the past few years expressing Canada’s increasing economic reliance on its international student population. Moreover, we can see that Crawford explains how much Canada relies on its international student population, especially its Indian & South Asian students, by using facts and active statistics about how financially beneficial they are to Canadian post-secondary institutions. An example of this is Crawford stating “losing international students has implications for more than a few cash-strapped schools. According to the Canadian Bureau for International Education, 70 % of international students plan to apply for a postgraduate work permit, and 57 percent plan to apply for permanent residence in Canada” [11]. This example gives clear stats on why these students are beneficial to Canada while simultaneously displaying how the Canadian government is benefiting from their presence. Crawford essentially bridges the gap left by Bannerji in her extensive critique of Canadian society’s willingness to be unaccepting of non-white cultures without economic or symbolic benefits.
Bannerji and Crawford both critique the idea of exploitation of these individuals — international students and visible minorities — for Canadian society’s economic gain. However, Bannerji focuses more on how some government policies and regulations use multiculturalism to sustain racial differences, maintaining Canada’s reputation as a predominantly white nation whereas Crawford focuses on their outcomes. She states that “from the days of indenture to the present when the Ministry of “Manpower” has been transformed into that of “Human Resources,” decisions about who should come into Canada to do what work, definitions of skill and accreditation, licensing and certification, have been influenced by “race” and ethnicity”[12]. This truly speaks to the essence of what Canada considers a “diverse” and “multicultural” society and shows how the nation’s rules, regulations, and values change from individual to individual. It speaks volumes to the Canadian government and society’s conditional acceptance of people of color and their sense of belonging, marginalizing all individuals into a category like “visible minority” or “racialized others” to segregate them from their identity.
Comparatively, Crawford takes these points and ideologies and analyzes their outcomes in relation to Canada’s international student population, more specifically, students of Indian & South Asian origin. He states, “by 2020, international students made up 17 % of Canada’s student population but contributed 43.5 % of post-secondary tuition fees”[13]. He goes on to give an example of U of T’s international student stats: “the University of Toronto has 25,000 international students, whose tuition provides a solid $1 billion towards the university’s $3.12-billion budget”[14]. While this is only one example, international students alone contribute a third of the University of Toronto’s budget. However, adding on to these expenses, Crawford states that “the federal government has capped student visas for undergraduates, and all students must prove they have at least $20,635 to support themselves in addition to paying for their tuition”[15]. This further marginalizes these students by placing a larger financial burden onto their shoulders making it even more difficult for those who are from less affluent backgrounds to access post-secondary education and defining opportunities in Canada. By referring to these statistics, Crawford helps us understand how substantial the economic reliance on international students really is and aligns his critiques with Bannerji’s analysis of exclusionary and discriminatory government policies and regulations.
Conclusion
After analyzing these different perspectives, it’s evident that the Canadian government and our society see’s international students, specifically South Asian students, through a conditional paradigm. This paradigm has a chance to be positive and promote the idea of support towards these individuals and help them establish their own identities in Canada. However, based on the ongoing treatment of these individuals, the paradigm is more negative, which has swayed public perception. Bannerji points out how conditional acceptance of multiculturalism and differences can create an atmosphere of hatred and alienation. She states ““difference” read through “race”, then, produces a threat of racist violence. The creation of a “minority” rather than of full-fledged adult citizens – the existence of levels of citizenship – adds a structural/legal dimension to this violence”[16]. The categorization and marginalization of these individuals just to be able to accept them into society has more negatives than it has positives. Through Bannerji’s critique, it is evident that Canadian society and its multicultural framework needs an immediate revamp. Furthermore, by changing our perceptions towards diversity and multiculturalism, we can provide these students with what they came for: a sense of belonging. The Canadian government should create policies requiring post-secondary institutions to include housing costs in tuition fees for international students which can lessen the burden of looking for affordable housing.
Additionally, through Crawford’s analysis, we can assess what changes need to be made to create a more welcoming atmosphere for these students. Institutions that rely mostly on international student fees to uphold their budgets should include free programs where these students can seek access to counseling on how to settle down in their new homes. Collectively, we can make sure policies are in place to provide international students with extra financial aid as they have a higher financial burden on them. This will slowly alter Canadian society to end the usage of marginalizing terms and racially identifying badges that reduce the identity of these individuals. And in turn, this will create a new, unconditionally accepting multicultural framework, which will lead to a more unified and cohesive society.
Bibliography
Bannerji, Himani. “On the Dark Side of the Nation: Politics of Multiculturalism and the State of ‘Canada.’” Journal of Canadian Studies 31, no. 3 (August 1996): 103–28. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.31.3.103.
Kilian, Crawford. “Higher Ed in Canada Is a Story of Demographic Change.” The Tyee, October 24, 2024. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/25/Higher-Ed-CanadaDemographicChange/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial.
[1] Kilian, Crawford. “Higher Ed in Canada Is a Story of Demographic Change.” The Tyee, October 24, 2024. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/25/Higher-Ed-CanadaDemographicChange/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial (pg. 4).
[2] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 5
[3] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 5.
[4] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 3.
[5] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 6.
[6] Bannerji, Himani. “On the Dark Side of the Nation: Politics of Multiculturalism and the State of ‘Canada.’” Journal of Canadian Studies 31, no. 3 (August 1996): 103–28. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.31.3.103 (pg. 105).
[7] Bannerji, On the Dark Side of the Nation, pg. 105.
[8] Bannerji, On the Dark Side of the Nation, pg. 119.
[9] Bannerji, On the Dark Side of the Nation, pg. 119.
[10] Bannerji, On the Dark Side of the Nation, pg. 119.
[11] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 6.
[12] Bannerji, On the Dark Side of the Nation, pg. 121.
[13] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 5.
[14] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg. 5.
[15] Crawford, Higher Ed in Canada, pg.5.
[16] Bannerji, On the Dark Side of the Nation, pg. 123.