Silencing Voices: Indigenous day schools and the education section of the 1958 Hawthorn report for British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1954, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration commissioned anthropologist Harry Hawthorn to investigate problems faced by Indigenous people in British Columbia. This article focuses on Hawthorn’s report, The Indians of British Columbia (1958) and compares its recommendations with the original source questionnaire responses found at the University of British Columbia’s Archives and Special Collections. The responses examined, collected near the peak of day school enrollment in British Columbia, offer new insights directly from educators about their perspectives on the problems faced by Indigenous children attending day schools, and more broadly Indigenous communities as a whole. Key changes apparent in the questionnaire responses and 1958 report showcase the absence of Indigenous voices in any of the questionnaires and a lack of interest from educators in the communities, though such interest is claimed in the report. Both the questionnaires and Hawthorn’s resulting report recommend a consistent antithetical juxtaposition of Indigenous versus western, the discouragement of family ties, and the limitation of formal education to school-aged children. Such findings work to balance Hawthorn’s status as an advocate of Indigenous rights with the damaging realities indicated through and supported by his report. Through this analysis, we aim to further understandings of the impact of day schools on communities in British Columbia, and to view kinship within a reality of resilience and survival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".