A Discomforting Narrative: Toppling Statues and the Defenestration of Comparative Education

• In Event: Is Comparative and International Education Imperialist, Racist, and Patriarchal?

Proposal

This paper focuses on the critiques that Robin Shields and Julia Paulson (2024) have leveled against my edited book, North American scholars of comparative education: Examining the work and influence of notable 20th century comparativists (2020) and my article, “Sundry reflections on the 65th anniversary of the Comparative and International Education Society” (2021). In focusing on their criticisms, the paper makes a careful assessment of the integrity and persuasiveness of their argument and the validity of their case for de-colonizing the field.

The paper will make the case that Shields and Paulson’s characterizations of (author's) work are not justified. First off, they describe (authors) book as among comparative education works that dismiss “the discussion of racism in the history of the field” (p. 2). Yet, as I will argue, in that book, Liping Bu’s chapter on Paul Monroe, one of the field’s “lionized” figures, points to me as having revealed the collaboration of Monroe with the racist Nazi, Alfred Bäumler, in their editorship of the International Education Review (Bu 2020, p.30) in the 1930s. Is pointing out racism racist?

The paper will also argue that, despite Shields and Paulson’s claims of carefully studying the book, they seem to have missed its engagement with many of the subjects they consider important. For example, Vandra Masemann, in her chapter on Gail Kelly, describes one of Kelly’s major interests as the history of colonial education and another major interest as women’s education. Were Kelly still alive, she would probably not take kindly to Shield and Paulson’s description of her as benefitting from “racist, patriarchal and geographically unequal global systems.”

Considering my “Sundry reflections” article, Shields and Paulson write, “While not explicitly stated by (Author 3), his argument resembles some responses to the critical history of American liberalism and its foundational myths … (Author's) work lacks a rigorous theorization of history, power and counter-histories …” Thus, they accuse me of under-theorization of history, power, and foundational myths. This paper will make the case that their critique ignores a lifetime of historical research in which (author) does exactly the opposite, including my discovery of the mechanism by which a government uses schools to indoctrinate children in Indigenous, marginalized communities (Author 3, 1971); my investigation of a Peruvian military government’s campaign to shape the consciousness of its peasant population (1982); my studies of the U.S. government’s imposition of American ideology in Puerto Rican schools (1968) and in Cuban schools (1987) after the Spanish-American War; and my research on shaping education under the ambiguities of national transformation in St. Lucia (Author 3, 1997). These are all examples of my scholarship on racism and colonialism.

The paper will end by asking whether Shields and Paulson know how to fairly assess academic work and whether they are rather more focused on inventing arguments to support an ahistorical and ad hominem case for a problem that is has long ceased to exist.

Author

• Erwin H. Epstein, Loyola University Chicago