Vipond's Making a Global City suggests an answer to vexing national discussions around the meaning of multiculturalism, the definition of citizenship and the significance of integration. Tracing the history of one Toronto public school between 1920 and 1990, Vipond comes to appreciate the way moderate multiculturalism—in which Canada's historical and cultural legacies are adapted to the demands and visions of newcomers—has been debated and fostered. He argues that framing integration and citizenship through a vision of moderate multiculturalism, guided by liberal values, is a good way forward.
The book follows a linear history of the Clinton school through three general periods which Vipond calls Jewish (1920–1952), European (1950–1965) and Global (1975–1990). Vipond carefully considers the demographic changes that propelled discussions around religion, culture and integration for each period. Incredibly, Vipond had access to a treasure trove of data—a complete set of student registration cards from 1920 to 1990—that the school has preserved. Additionally, he set about conducting approximately 75 interviews with former students, teachers and administrators. The material is rich and multifaceted and makes for a good read.
The author traces key developments, such as the 1944 Drew Regulations, which made Christianity a compulsory subject in public schools, the 1965 Hall-Dennis Commission, which introduced multiculturalism into the classroom, and the various Toronto Board of Education Reports throughout the mid-1970s and early 1980s that pushed egalitarianism and extra-curricular and curricular language schools. Throughout, Vipond argues that the push and pull of difference—how this affects policy and what is taught in the classroom—needs to be thoughtfully negotiated by guarding, crossing and choosing cultural norms. The last concept—choosing—is one that the author develops but does not fully explore. His point, however, is not lost: multiculturalism is not a superficial, Anglo-conforming concept. Multiculturalism can be lived in ways that pay homage to the cultural-political history of Canada while making room for the ideas of new citizens.
Vipond suggests at various points throughout the book that this understanding of multiculturalism contrasts sharply with that of the Harper government. He refers in particular to the act passed in parliament in July 2015 that prohibits barbaric practices, as well as the “tip line” that was to be established had Harper been re-elected, in addition to the question of a Muslim woman wearing the face veil during citizenship ceremonies. Vipond pushes back against this last, problematic application of multiculturalism because his idea of multiculturalism takes seriously varied manifestations of cultural and religious practices. He states, “In the absence of some compelling justification…and in the presence of some less intrusive alternative…..there is no good reason to prohibit a Muslim woman from covering her face at a citizenship ceremony. Even if many non-Muslims and even Muslims find this practice offensive or degrading, at the end of the day it is her decision, not mine or yours” (191, italics mine).
This stance makes sense in the context of his overall argument which calls for an ambitious type of multiculturalism, a multiculturalism seeded with more than tolerance (tolerance plus?), one that demands government intervention. But what does “tolerance plus” mean? Respect? Equality? Perhaps Vipond is arguing for deep equality, described by Lori Beaman as a process (more than a value) that captures respect, recognition of similarity, and acceptance of difference (“Deep equality as an alternative to accommodation and tolerance,” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 27 (2), 89–11: 96). Deep equality is seen in the everyday interactions like the ones Vipond takes up in his book.
If this is what the author intends, then he exposes an undercurrent that needs to be more openly parsed in his work. He elaborates on the question of a woman's face veil: “One may need to summon up every ounce of self-restraint to allow her to act as she will, but that is what the commitment to liberalism in general, and to freedom of religion in particular, requires. The central Canadian ideals are individualism and freedom of religion; they take precedence over other concerns” (191). Given his point above that veiling is a personal choice that not every Muslim woman makes, it struck me as strangely excessive that the author would emphasize that in the case of the veil, one must summon “every ounce of self-restraint” to allow this practice to continue.
This phraseology around the veil is striking and problematic. It is striking because it renders the face veil somehow different from other forms of self-expression. It is also shockingly paternalistic. It is problematic—or perhaps insightful—because it demonstrates how much work there remains to be done. If multiculturalism is to foster liberty for all, then it must take equality—true, deep, respectful equality—seriously. Vipond's emphasis on the manner of self-restraint one needs to sanction one form of religious manifestation over another belies the tolerance he inscribes into the liberal approach to multiculturalism and the equality it demands.
Making a Global City is a good read that comes at an important time. As Canada looks forward to the next 150 years, what will be our record of welcoming and integrating new citizens and their diverse world perspectives and life practices? Based on the experiences of one Toronto school community, Vipond persuasively shows how Canadians of all stripes have come together over decades to adapt, adjust, integrate and challenge diversity in meaningful and peaceful ways. It is a history that gives hope for the future.
