‘Teaching Peace in our Schools’

The program might be called Nuclear Awareness but the theme is peace, and apparently it is causing some parents in North York to see red.

In December of ’83 a coalition of parents, teachers, church representatives and school board trustees began to draft a course outline on nuclear issues.

According to Anne Adelson, community representative for the nuclear awareness task force, their aim was to design a “…balanced curriculum. We don’t want to exchange one form of telling kids THIS is the solution with another one. What we want is to develop critical thinking, to give students enough information so that they can make their own decision. But the fact is that we feel, or the common thread is that all of us feel a sense of urgency and that there are important decisions to be made because we are living in the age of nuclear weapons where our survival is threatened.
“

For the past 2 ½ years, the North York Board of Education has seen this proposal develop through the appropriate administrative channels. Community response has been sought and last month the task force presented a modified White Paper for consideration. “We changed the names a bit,” Adelson says, “but basically the original proposal is not ver different to what the White Paper is now. We took this proposal to the teacher’s federation and student councils and all of them endorsed it.” She believes that the election of new trustees in November of ’85 has slowed the decision-making process because the new trustees have not had sufficient time to review the issues.

Through out June, the school board and the community were presented with many informed and compassionate views on the teaching of peace or Nuclear Awareness in our schools.

Andrew Pakula, a psychologist and North York resident, urged the board to accept the proposed nuclear awareness program stating that, “…peace education is the new kind of thinking that mankind needs to survive.”

According to Pakula, “existing nuclear arsenals yield the equivalent of five tons of TNT for each and every person on earth… and yet there is so much resistance to the idea of judiciously offering our children a balanced view of the realities of the nuclear age… I don’t mean a political view - for this issue transcends politics.”

Other concerned parents and residents of North York shared this sense of urgency and threat to their survival but held a different viewpoint.

David Hunter, a member of the Canadian Coalition for Peace Through Strength Inc., passionately opposed this White Paper calling it “…a nuclear weapons disarmament curriculum hiding behind the harmless sounding title – Nuclear Awareness.”

North York resident Pat Grieve presented the board with the signatures of 65 families in North York and stated, “These parents do not want nuclear disarmament.” Grieve also warned the trustees that “nuclear awareness is a surprise package” and reminded them of the Keegstra incident. “We don’t want fanatics of any persuasion,” she said. (Mr. James Keegstra was a figure on the far-right of Canadian politics and a former public school teacher. In 1984, Keegstra was charged and convicted of hate speech in part for denying the existence of the Jewish holocaust. The conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal but re-instated by the Supreme Court. *)

Rick Ross, another concerned parent, asked the board to “educate and don’t indoctrinate our students.” He re-affirmed the trustees’ realization that a nuclear program is a “politically sensitive and emotional issue.” Ross also questioned the implication advanced by the “so-called peace movement that if you’re not in a peace group, then you’re a war monger and I’m not,” he assured the committee.

After a week of deliberation, the trustees’ responses were just as thoughtfully and passionately presented.

Some trustees acknowledged their fear of political issues in the schools, peace groups in general and the disarmament approach to peace. Nuclear awareness was termed a “specialist course,” a “popular issue” and was unanimously regarded as emotive and politically sensitive. They also confirmed that the nuclear issue is already throughout the school curriculum.

Guidelines on the issue from the Ministry of Education have already been received for the Grades 9 and 10 history courses and the world politics course for Grades 11 and 12. the North York board is about to receive guidelines for their high school science courses.

Why then, should a separate program called Nuclear Awareness be adopted?

It was suggested that one course, carefully planned, might be better to monitor and control. There was even the suggestion that specific teachers might be chosen to prepare and offer such a course.

Trustee Rene Gordon confirmed that nuclear issues are being taught in the classrooms right now. She acknowledged the high standards of professionalism among the teachers, but warned that some feel a moral obligation to impart their beliefs, “because their’s is really the way – and the truth – and the light, and that frightens me, and I’m not sure how you can control that.”

This prompted a few trustees to consider a nuclear program if only to establish guidelines, academic consistency and control.
Trustee Mae Waese suggested to the board that it has the opportunity now to assist with these ministry guidelines and she reminded the other trustees that, “we have been most fortunate in the leadership that our staff has shown… in developing curriculum that has often been picked up by the ministry (of education) and a very good example is the holocaust program.”

Waese also mentioned the Parents Against Drugs program as a difficult and complex issue that the board took on. “But I think, “she said, “if we start pulling books out of the schools and topics out of the schools and don’t touch any dangerous, sensitive issue, we will in fact be, I think, hurting our young people instead of helping.”

However, Trustee Dan Hicks maintained throughout all the proceedings that the community and ratepayers were strongly opposed to any program of this nature in the schools.

Trustee Shelley Stillman concurred and added, “I’m concerned that if the curriculum is introduced at the high-school level, it will trickle down through the grades. I agree with Trustee (Tony) Marzilli and Trustee (Ralph) Belfry that we have to teach our students the basics… and we know those aren’t good enough… When they’re mature, when their reasoning skills are developed, when they’ve got the solid background that is our mandate to give them, then they’re ready to discuss international conflict resolution.”

A final effort was made by guest speaker, Dr. Wilson Head, a semi-retired professor of social work at York University and a human rights’ activist to support the nuclear-awareness program. “Children today,” he said “ought to know the prospects, the benefits and the dangers of nuclear technology whether it is used for the production of power or whether it is used for the production of weapons… We as a society tend to bury our heads in the sand and almost pretend if this issue’s not discussed it will go away. It won’t go away. It won’t go away any more that sex education went away… We have to face the issue. We have to get our heads out of the sand and face the fact that we’re talking about the issues of human survival – an issue which transcends every other issue in our society.”

Following 2 ½ years of study and tree weeks of debate, the board defeated the motion to accept a Nuclear Awareness program in the schools. The issue cannot be brought before the board again for another year.