Abstract

Tolerance, peace and social cohesion are the most significant and substantial values of society. In the scenario of Pakistan, the existence of above-mentioned values are prominently correlated with each other.  The aim of this study was to assess the need of training program to counter the negative effects regarding the existing level of tolerance, peace and social cohesion among university students. Population of this study was consisted of Government College University Faisalabad. A questionnaire was used to collect the quantitative. 280 students were selected by using purposive sampling technique. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistical test were applied to assess the difference between their opinions.  The findings of study demonstrated low level of tolerance, peace and social cohesion among university students and identified various factors affecting low level of tolerance, peace and social cohesion among university students.

Key Words

Tolerance, Peace, Social Cohesion

Review of Related Literature

The highly educated people are considered higher among intolerants? It is observed that these educated people are not successful to gain knowledge although they have been to school and instigated by such forces that were beyond the domination of rationale. But we come to its conclusion rationally, the line of logic in our examination call of a dissimilar arguments.(Gaasholt & Togeby, 1995).

The United Nation Culture of peace declaration has a wide scope while creating awareness about tolerance and unity, they have realized the need of elimination of all kind of intolerance and discrimination in all forms and manifestation like color, race, sex, language, political and other opinion, property, disability, birth, others status, ethnic, national and social origin (Christie & Dawes, 2001). In USA, due to color sex, origin, disability and ethnicity thousands of crimes occur because of hate (Hodge & Wolfer, 2008). In current scenario, prejudice and biasness are considered as unlucky dilemma of mankind (Khan, 2011). It has been investigated in different researches that gender, race, other religion, ethnicity are prejudiced to other race, religion and gender. (Dunlop et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2001; Prutzman & Johnson, 1997)(Brehm, 1998; Engberg, 2004; Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000; Klein et al., 1994)(Christie & Dawes, 2001). While keeping in mind, all the conclusions that have been derived from these investigations. Factors like ethnicity, disability, religion and gender have been opted for this particular study.

Infusion of tolerance, peace and positive behavior modification is fundamental element to measure quality education. Affective domain of learning deals with the behavior modification towards positive attitude. Basic purpose of education is not only provision of skilled person but also needed to put the positive values for development of personality, so they can perform their responsibilities as beneficial citizens of society (Nock & Mendes, 2008). Promotion of peaceful environment is viewed by many scholars such as (Adams, 2000; Adesina & Odejobi, 2011; Bar-Tal, 2002; A. Burns, 2009; Dryden-Peterson, 2015) following the new concept of peace with new trends of establishing nonviolent environment such as injustice, inflation, inequality, unemployment, violence, health problems and discriminatory economics beyond the concept of absence of war related to peaceful environment.

Feeling of fear and insecurity are not allowed people to go worship places, educational institutions, public places and public gatherings. Pakistan has been facing humiliation due to becoming a cause of spreading harm by international powers. So it is the need of hour to develop a training program for infusion tolerance in Pakistan. Despite the focus on defining social cohesion it is most essential to develop a training program for infusion social cohesion in Pakistan, it should be viewed as phenomenon of untidiness which may work to keep the institutions (Lodico et al., 2010).

Research Methodology

Population

The population of the study was consisted of head of department and students of Government College University Faisalabad.

 

Sample and Sampling Technique

Two hundred and eighty (280) students from Government College University Faisalabad were selected by using random sampling technique.

 

Instrumentation

A questionnaire in order to collect quantitative data from students was used. The indicator of tolerance has five sub indicators; gender caste, rival ship language and social status. The indicator of peace has also five sub indicators; religion, religious sect, discrimination, ethnic hatred, religious extremism. The indicator of social cohesion has seven sub indicators; diversity, recognition, belongingness, trust, violence, torture, unemployment and harassment. The total statements’ in the instrument was 78 which measured the level of tolerance, peace and lack of social cohesion among the students.

 

Reliability of Research Instrument

The reliability of the instruments for students was ensured through statistical analysis Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability index for students indicated that scale was reliable to collect the data from the respondents.

Table 1. Reliability regarding Quantitative Instrument  

Category	Number of items	Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha
Overall reliability	78	0.876

The above table shows that the scale has 78 items and overall reliability index of the scale is .87 which establishes that scale is appropriate and reliable to collect the data on the present population.

Findings and Conclusions

The data was collected for need assessment of training program for students through personal visits.

The researcher distributed 280 questionnaires among the students of 14 departments to collect data in which 263 students responded, the return rate of students was 90 percent of total questionnaires.

Table 2. The Mean and Standard Deviation of Factors affecting Tolerance

Tests	Gender	Caste	Rival ship	Language	Social Status
Mean	3.3202	2.1422	3.2719	2.9521	3.2243
Std. D.	.77490	.65406	.69204	.61878	.74781

Cumulative Mean    3.0046          Std.        .45797

The mean and standard deviation values are presented in table 2. The variable of gender has (Mean = 3.3202, sd = .77490). The variable of caste has (Mean = 2.1422, sd = .65406). The variable of rival ship has (Mean = 3.3202, sd = .77490). The variable of religious extremism has (Mean = 3.2719, sd = .69204). The variable of language (Mean = 2.9521, sd = .61878). The variable of social status (Mean = 3.2243, sd = .74781).

Table 3. The Mean and Standard Deviation of Factors Affecting Peace

Tests	Religion	Religious Sect	Discrimination	Ethnic	Extremism
Mean	3.6337	3.7022	3.2269	3.0675	3.4715
Std. Deviation	.89940	.99298	.99643	.80667	.64965

Cumulative Mean         3.4144             Std. Deviation     .41822

The mean and standard deviation values are presented in table 6. The variable of religion has (Mean = 3.6337, sd = .89940). The variable of religious sect has (Mean = 3.7022, sd = .99298). The variable of discrimination has (Mean = 3.2269, sd = .99643). The variable of ethnic has (Mean = 3.0675, sd = .80667). The variable of extremism has (Mean = 3.4715, sd = .64965)

Tests		Recognition	Belongingness	Trust	Freedom
Mean	3.5456	3.6337	3.0675	3.8327	3.6464
Std. D.	.80123	.90401	.92153	.73954	.90401

 Table 4. The Mean and Standard Deviation of Factors affecting Social Cohesion

The mean and standard deviation values are presented in table 4. The variable of diversity has (Mean = 3.5456, sd = .80123). The variable of recognition has (Mean = 3.6337, sd = .90401). The variable of belongingness has (Mean = 3.0675, sd = .92153). The variable of trust has (Mean = 3.8327, sd = .73954). The variable of freedom has (Mean = 3.6464, sd = .90401).

Tests		Violence	Torture	Unemployment	Harassment
Mean	3.5456	3.4766	3.6683	3.7022	3.2269
Std. D.	.80123	.92153	.70709	.99298	.99643

 Table 5.           The Mean and Standard Deviation of Factors affecting Social Cohesion

The mean and standard deviation values are presented in table 5. The variable of diversity has (Mean = 3.5456, sd = .80123).The variable of violence has (Mean = 3.4766, sd = .92153). The variable of torture has (Mean = 3.6683, sd = .70709). The variable of unemployment has (Mean = 3.7022, sd = .99298). The variable of harassment has (Mean = 3.2269, sd = .99643.

Table 6. Comparison of Gender about the Tolerance

	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	sig
Tolerance	Male	134	3.0496	.46578	1.630	.104
	Female	129	2.9579	.44671

*p>0.05

The above table explored the difference in gender of students regarding the tolerance. It revealed that there existed no statistically significant difference between male and female students’ opinions with respect to tolerance.  The overall mean achievement score of male students (M = 3.0496, SD = .46578) and female students (M = 2.9579, SD = .44671, t = 1.630, p>0.05).

Table 7. Comparison of Gender about the Peace

	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	T	sig
Peace	Male	134	3.3614	.03240	2.110	.36*
	Female	129	3.4695	.03995

*p>0.05

According to table 7, there explored the difference among gender of students regarding the peace. It revealed that there exists a statistically significant difference between male and female students’ opinions with respect to peace.  The overall mean achievement score of male students (M = 3.3614, SD = .03240) and female students (M = 3.4695, SD = .03995, t(261) = 2.110, p<0.05). Male students were found to have greater conscious of peace than that of female students.

Table 8. Comparison of Gender about the Social Cohesion

	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	sig
Social Cohesion	Male	134	3.4151	.03953	3.319	.001*
	Female	129	3.6225	.04864

*p<0.01

According to table 8, there explored the difference among gender of students regarding the social cohesion. It revealed that there exists a statistically significant difference between male and female students’ opinions with respect to social cohesion.  The overall mean achievement score of male students (M = 3.4151, SD = .03953) and female students (M = 3.6225, SD = .04864, t(261) = 3.319, p<0.01). Male students were found to have greater conscious of social cohesion than that of female students. Study indicated that students of Government College University Faisalabad were found intolerant regarding gender issues in university environment. Respondents thought that spending on women education was wastage of time. Teachers give more attention to female students. University students have less knowledge about gender discrimination.

Study revealed that majority of respondents thought that women should not be financially independent. They did not support the women employment. Study demonstrated that tolerant behaviour of respondents was found regarding issues related to caste system. Majority of respondents did not prefer the people on the basis of caste. They did not like identification of caste and establish their friendship on the basis of caste. Study also showed the trust of respondents for the people of other castes. Respondents did not support same caste marriage.

Study expressed that majority of respondents were found intolerant regarding the issues related to rival ship. Respondents of study were found possessive about their relation. They were highly concerned about unhealthy competition with peers, negativity of thoughts that people got annoyed from their success and felt jealousy with their success were also observed. Study pointed out that students of Government College University were found tolerant regarding language issues. It was observed that according to their perception language was just a tool for communication. Majority of respondents did not support language groups and encourage establishing groups on the basis of language.  Majority of respondents were found intolerant in their behaviour regarding issues of social status. Study observed attraction towards the people of higher status. Respondents were found giving more respect by higher social status. They were found hesitant to trust the people of low social status.

Majority of respondents were not found peaceful regarding issues related to religion. They paid no respect to other religions and thought that people of other religions affected their beliefs. They did not support allocating quota to minorities but religious freedom in university environment were supported by them. It was admitted that issues related to religious sects became the cause of conflict and absence of peace among university students. Majority of respondents avoided discussion about different sects. They thought that these kinds of discussions created confusions they expressed that they had less knowledge about various sects but all sects and religious beliefs should be respected by others.

Discrimination about gender, social status ethnic and religious groups were also observed as a major cause of conflict and absence of peace. It was observed that women were easily snubbed and they missed jobs due to discrimination but they exaggerated their problems and got special favour in many places. Majority of respondents also thought that discrimination should be eliminated from university environment.

Ethnic hatred was also observed as a factor affecting absence of peace. Study indicated that majority of respondents had loved their identity of provincialism, Bloch concept of honour was admirable by them they were felt proud to be Punjabi. Respondents also preferred the people on the basis of ethnic groups and they did not like to marry out of their tribe.

Study indicated that religious extremism was observed as a factor affecting peaceful environment in university. It was noted that majority of respondents liked to make their connections on the basis of their religious beliefs. They thought that only their religious beliefs were right but they admitted the right of religious freedom and showed their willingness to participate in other religious get together.

It was observed that majority of respondents did not like diverse culture and their behaviour regarding diversity became the cause of low social cohesion in university but respondents were found developing their relations with the students of different ethnic groups. Sensor of recognition was found as a factor affecting low level of social cohesion among university students. Majority of respondents did not feel easy to express their individuality. They thought that their opinion was not appreciated by other people but they felt confident when people recognized their strength. Deprivation from the need of belongingness among university students were found as a cause of low level of social cohesion. Rejections from peers make students strangers in university. Majority of respondents did not consider themselves as main stream of society.

Trust among students was found as a major factor of high social cohesion among university students. Students revealed that mistrust between peers lead towards conflicts and it created intolerance among university students. Study expressed that freedom of speech enhanced the level of social cohesion and restriction of peace created problems of incoherent society. Majority of respondents thought that their opinion was not respected by others. Respondents were encouraged for diverse views but they did not enjoy equal freedom of speech in university.

Physical abuse was found common in university. Respondents were found afraid to threaten by some violent group and they felt degraded when some groups interrupted them. Majority of respondents could not avoid themselves from conflict by some groups. They became victim of torture and incidence of torture created unrest among university students unemployment were found as major indicator of low social cohesion. Youth was found inclined to social evils due to unemployment. It created social disorder in society and youth was found involving undesirable activities due to unemployment.  Study indicated that students give unwelcome sexual gesture to others in university as well as they did not feel themselves safe in university and they became target of sexual harassment.

Discussion & Recommendations

Capacity to tolerate the existence of adverse opinions, contentment, social harmony and consistency of society has been referred towards tolerance, peace and social cohesion. In fusion of these values among people is the symbol of sustainable development of country. Present study revealed that tolerance, peace and social cohesion have strongly correlated among each other. (R. Burns, 2008) also revealed in his findings that peace can be infused through tolerance. Moreover, present study concluded to pervade these values through education and proper training program. Researchers assessed its entire need in university students and later on developed a comprehensive training program for the purpose to inject above mentioned values through education. The findings of this study were consistent with the findings of UNESCO, (Reardon, 1994) which concluded that tolerance is not growing practice, its developmental process which is not found in human nature but a product that can be proceeded through teaching and learning process. The results of the study disclosed major causes of intolerant behaviour. Similar factors were explored by UNESCO (Reardon, 1994). Present study brought the light on the major components of social cohesion. Those are also explored by Organization of Economics Culture and Development.  Strain of this study was to develop positive values among university students through learning process. This strive was also recommended by European Council, pedagogical efforts to promote positive traits through education have been quite impressive. The study have following recommendations on the basis of above results and discussions

1. A subject should be introduced in curriculum on developing tolerance, peace and social cohesion at BS and MS level in universities. 

2. University administration with the collaboration of Higher Education Department must organize seminars and workshops to create awareness regarding factors affecting tolerance, peace and social cohesion.

3. University teachers should be properly trained for the provision of equal treatment with respect of gender.

4. University teachers should create the environment of healthy competition in class room setting, and try to escape students to become the victim of jealousy.

5. States, media, educationist and religious scholars should perform their influensive roles on sensitive issues related to religion. Students should be learned to pay respect to every religion.

6. Discussion on religious beliefs with less knowledge caused confusions and conflicts. Such discussions should be banned in university environment. 

7. Seminars and workshops should be arranged to develop interfaith harmony.

8. Cooperative environment should be provided by university administration and teachers to enhance the sense of belongingness in students. So that students don’t consider their self like strangers in university environment. Physical and verbal abuse should be controlled by strict policies, and students should be secure from physical and mental torture.

References

• Adams, A. T. (2000). The status of school discipline and violence. The annals of the American Academy of political and social science, 567(1), 140-156.
• Adesina, A., & Odejobi, C. (2011). Peace Dilemma in Nigeria: A Case for a Peace Education Programme for Elementary School Children. JPE/eJournal of Education Policy.
• Afdal, G. (2006). Tolerance and curriculum: Conceptions of tolerance in the multicultural unitary Norwegian compulsory school: Waxmann.
• Assembly, G. (2006). Elimination of allforms of intolerance, discrimination and defamation Based on religion or belief., 61st session of the General Assembly.
• Bar-Tal, D. (2002). The elusive nature of peace education. Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world, 27-36.
• Bennett, J. W. (2017). The ecological transition: cultural anthropology and human adaptation: Routledge.
• Blumberg, R. L. (2008). Gender bias in textbooks: a hidden obstacle on the road to gender equality in education. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report.
• Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input.
• Brehm, C. J. (1998). Stereotypes, Tolerance, and the Classroom.
• Bryan, A., & Vavrus, F. (2005). The promise and peril of education: the teaching of in/tolerance in an era of globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(2), 183-202.
• Burns, A. (2009). Action research in second language teacher education. The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education, 289-297.
• Burns, R. (2008). Comparative and international education and peace education. 2008 Encyclopedia of Peace Education.
• Christie, D. J., & Dawes, A. (2001). Tolerance and solidarity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7(2), 131.
• Correspondent, T. N. s. S. (2008). Students protest torture of teacher, Dawn. Retrieved from
• Correspondent, T. N. s. S. (2016). Teacher's 'kidnapping': GCUF expels two girl students, Dawn. Retrieved from
• Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209, 240.
• Dryden-Peterson, S. (2015). The educational experiences of refugee children in countries of first asylum: Migration Policy Institute Washington, DC.
• Dunlop, D. D., Manheim, L. M., Song, J., & Chang, R. W. (2002). Gender and ethnic/racial disparities in health care utilization among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological sciences and social sciences, 57(4), S221-S233.