The Radio-Canada article “Teaching French in hostile terrain at the time of Bill 961 caused a stir on social media. It was the scornful comments about French-speaking Quebecers in particular that shocked readers the most. A French teacher reported in particular that “the most insidious thing is to have to fight against this tenacious prejudice that Quebecers are racist, xenophobic, withdrawn into themselves”.
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
Whether on issues of systemic racism, secularism or here language, it is the moral posture of Anglophones, supposedly frankly superior to that of Francophones, which shines through. A John Abbott professor rightly said that they “are persuaded to be morally more virtuous than French-speaking Quebecers”.
Quebecers know this haughty gaze. Yesterday, it was by relying on Anglo-Saxon supremacism that French-Canadian culture was delegitimized; today, it is through progressivism “open to the world”. In short, each time, we gargle with the values of the time to look down on Quebecers.
For harmless diversity
Yet, come to think of it, these accusations of closure to the other actually apply to John Abbott’s students and professors. The article reports the words of a professor who, without really speaking the language of Molière, celebrates the French fact in Quebec. He even mentions “pretty girls” from Quebec “who kindly helped him practice a bit”.
Beyond this comment that can be described as “uncle”, the professor illustrates here a very particular state of mind. We love diversity. We love French. It is even found exotic when spoken by a “pretty Quebecer”.
But as soon as this diversity takes up too much space, as soon as it wishes to persist not in the manner of a folkloric residue, but rather in the manner of a normal French culture, there, we accuse this diversity of betraying the ideal of diversity. It is, to say the least, paradoxical.
A simulated love for French
One can also doubt the sincerity of this alleged celebration of the French fact, because it is the establishment of three French courses in CEGEP that causes this epidermal reaction among Anglophones.
Presenting himself as spokesperson for Anglophone colleges, John Halpin, the general manager of John Abbott, explained that “Anglophone colleges want to increase their students’ French skills, but not at the expense of their success.”
The idea is that the addition of three French courses could harm the famous R score of the students. This is obviously false. As with any course, it will take work and study to get good results. There is no reason to think that French lessons would be any different.
However, let’s not be demagogic. There is no doubt that many Anglophones will be happy to perfect their mastery of French at CEGEP. That said, this desire to improve one’s French without getting tired in classes seems to carry over in English-speaking circles.
All this is a logic of magical thinking that cannot work in the real world. Moreover, when such fallacious arguments are presented to justify the exemption of French courses, it is because in reality one finds that its mastery is highly optional.