Misguided attempt at sensitivity

EDITORIAL: WHAT OTHERS THINK

It would be easier to laugh at the Toronto District School Board for banning the word “chief” from its job titles if the decision hadn’t trivialized the biggest issue facing Canada today.

That issue is reconciling the country’s Indigenous peoples with its non-native population.

Across this land, governments at all levels as well as ordinary citizens are working hard to set right historic wrongs committed against First Nation and Inuit Canadians.

The goal is justice and respect for all.

The Toronto board — the biggest school board in Canada — obviously thinks chucking the word “chief” into the trash bin demonstrates its sensitivity to Indigenous peoples.

Scrapping the word, board officials believe in their muddled thinking, will play a small but real role in addressing Indigenous concerns.

This, of course, is pure codswallop.

Begin with the fact that the board’s spokesperson, Ryan Bird, is unaware of any native person complaining about the use of “chief” in titles such as chief technology officer or chief planning officer.

No problem was reported. No offence voiced. But the board acted anyway. Exactly why remains puzzling. The word “chief” has many different, though related, legitimate meanings. None expresses disrespect for aboriginal people.

The word itself comes from the Latin word “caput,” which means “head.” It entered the English language from Old French centuries ago — and long before the first English-speaking people set foot on North, Central or South America.

While board officials lamely argued the word is imprecise and deserves to be discarded, that’s patently wrong.

Everyone knows the chief justice of the Supreme Court is this country’s top judge. Everyone knows the chief executive officer of General Motors is the company’s corporate leader.

And to our knowledge, only the Toronto board has ever argued this use of the word “chief” is pejorative to Indigenous Canadians.

Yes, the word has been used sarcastically on occasion to refer to a native person. Surely, such an illegitimate use of the word is increasingly rare and no justification for refusing to say “chief” in an entirely reasonable context.

We wonder what the Toronto board will do if Perry Bellegarde, one of Canada’s most prominent First Nation activists, visits one of its schools.

Bellegarde is national chief for the Assembly of First Nations, a national advocacy organization.

Like countless other First Nation leaders, he’s proud to be known by the title of “chief.” Would the board introduce him as a “manager?”

On one level, of course, the board’s new rule seems silly yet ultimately inconsequential. We disagree. Because the thinking behind the decision to ban the word “chief” is so convoluted, it confuses and trivializes the truly important discussions about how Canada can achieve reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

This name game won’t address native poverty, increase native life expectancies or build better schools on reserves. It will cause a lot of otherwise well-meaning Canadians to roll their eyes and think of something else.

The Toronto board needs to hire a chief in critical thinking.