In response to class last night, I enjoyed our discussion and was excited that multiple perspectives arose that we could learn from. I was surprised about how I personally acted and internally responded to the event. After the first class, I thought ... OK ... bring it on, I am an open person! When we started to have discussions last night, I instead kept on thinking how I thought my point was correct and how I was going to express myself in the hopes of getting ... oh yes ... we agree from everyone in the classroom! I know that sounds kind of silly, but I realize that I kept thinking more about my point and how to restate it so everyone understood rather than thinking about how others interpreted the readings and perhaps what ideas lead them to have these thoughts. I am looking forward to our next class and my personal goal of continuing to have my own opinions but to also be continuing the process of stating my ideas with not so much a background of ... this is what I think ... but more of ... this is my perspective and I arose to this perspective because of this train of thought etc.
Ok, looking forward to all of your comments ... and p.s. I don't know why there is no picture of me next to the followers ... I loaded it but I tend to be a little technologically slow sometimes.
Since we started class I can't stop thinking about my privilege and positionality as I am out and about. Going through the drive through last night I was thinking about our discussion and I was served by both an African American man and Hispanic man. We all have the notion that if you don't go to college you end up working the drive through. This made me wonder, are they there by choice or environment or both? For the first time I also thought, did their TEACHERS' BIASES play a role in where they are today?
Despite their pasts, I also realized that those guys were also just people like you or I. I think as educated folk we often have "educated privilege," whether we have white privilege or not. I think this is even more important than our race because since we are being educated on social justice, doesn't that give us even more responsibility to society? It makes me feel guilty for all the times that I have driven through the drive through without the common courtesy of a smile because I somehow subconciously thought I was better.
I think the biggest thing I got out of the Sotomayor article was that we all have biases. The important thing is how we deal with them. I think I harped a little bit too much last night on us not knowing whether or not she would be a good justice because of the media's obsession with her race. Sure, I still think it's lame that the media hops around content because they want derisive racial comments for viewership, but I think the point of focus for Blog 2 should be about bias and privilege.
Also, for those interested in my position on the justice system--I'm not against affirmative action in education, but affirmative action on a bench is completely different. I get that a collective whole would seem to be more objective, but the way our justice system works, I just don't think we can hope that piece by piece we'll eventually get it balanced. Some presidents get to appoint 2 justices in their term, some none. Those cookie crumbles just don't fall fair, so we have to look at each justice and say is this person interpreting things the way I would like? Or we could change the whole appointment system, but that's a discussion for another class...
Honestly, I didn't speak up much yesterday because I was pretty tired, and I didn't have a whole lot to talk about for each article. In Sotomayor's article, the previously discussed quote rubbed me the wrong way as well. I think it's a crossing of expectations that made it a controversial subject. My expectations of a judge is to attempt to be unbiased, try to make decisions for the betterment of society as a whole, and try to uphold laws fairly and consistently. Her words seemed to say that she doesn't think it's possible to be unbiased, and therefore doesn't necessarily try to be unbiased. It's more like she is balancing instead of balanced, and my perspective is that she should be balanced (or unbiased). I'm not sure that she would uphold laws fairly, that she would treat a white male the same as a latino woman of exactly the same situation.
As far as the communication of the subjects were concerned, a lot of people spoke more in absolutes (someone in that position needs to __) instead of in more open-minded language (i feel ___ or i think he/she may have meant___). The language made it very black and white, creating division in the classroom. People seemed to try to figure out Sotomayor instead of figuring out themselves, why they thought that way, what could be taken from the article, etc. I was also surprised that people got caught up in grammatical errors and styles of the writing instead of focusing on content. Writing ability and knowledge aren't directly related to each other; there are people with great ideas who are not great at expressing them, but it shouldn't discount ideas that are made.
From Dr. Greenfield email I think that maybe we did not grasp the full measure of the exercise. After reading the articles I found it difficult to separate my personal from the societal paradigm. Our class is predominately white and privileged so I find myself saying quit acting white. It is a difficult task. Maybe some of the push back we see in society plays on what the media, for the past twenty years, drumming the political correctness view. As in Shelby Steele book “White Guilt” I have been made to feel that I must apologize for my whiteness, therefore when I hear the wise Latina statement and replace that line with “a wise white man” I know that would certainly pass for racism. But I feel that we must understand that the way we perceived (white privileged) influences how we are received by others and in the class room we must be aware of that.
Coming from a background where women, especially ones who are not interested in math and science, are viewed as mainly housekeepers and child bearers, I thoroughly enjoyed the Sotomayor article. Although in reading the article I did stop at "the line" and think it was a bit out of place, I thought her overall sentiments were rich, complex, and fresh. When she was describing her position on impartiality, she also mentioned that ignoring our differences as men/women, minority/majority, etc., could actually do a disservice to the law and society. Though I do think, as a judge, she should be held to a higher standard in interpreting the law as impartial as possible (as well as the phrases she uses), she also tried to explain her background and why it is difficult to reconcile certain issues as a woman and Latina who sees things a little differently than a white woman, or African American man or whoever. It is because of experience as someone in a specific positionality that we can interpret and look at things differently.
In class I did not get to express these sentiments because one, I get nervous about saying things and it not coming out the way I had planned in my head, and two, I felt as if there was no real opportunity to change the subject. While it is important as a class to be able to discuss topics fervently (while sometimes not reaching a conclusion) I think it is also important to remember why there are only five people out of 20 or so talking. I know I am an internal processor. I need to have a second to come up with a way to formulate my opinion before I say it. Sometimes there is not much room for this, but I guess I am writing this so that people can know a little about where I am coming from.
I’m a scientist with an engineering-based brain so the ‘touchy feely’ discussion aspect of the class is very difficult for me to grasp. I haven’t taken a liberal arts based class since high school, so discussions in this class are a bit of a stretch for me. When it comes to voicing my opinion, I’m more familiar in voicing my professional opinion on a project than I am expressing my personal opinion. I’m decently comfortable discussing in a small group, but when it comes to the larger class discussions I feel a little out of place and am afraid of coming off too conservatively. I’m plenty comfortable having my professional opinion challenged, but when it comes to a personal opinion that I base my experiences off of, I find it difficult to take judgment (I realize this is something I am just going to have to get over). Class has certainly made me think about my positionality. As a southern, half jewish, heterosexual, white, professional scientist female, I’ve been thrust into a variety of situations, be it as the majority or the minority. We all have some part of us that’s been oppressed and we’ve all had some part of us that’s been the oppressor. These situations of course lead us to our biases but at the same time should lead us to better understand multiple perspectives. I understood where Sotomayor was coming from when she said she couldn’t rid herself of her biases in her judgment in the court but as an educator it won’t be my job to judge the children. I think it will be plenty possible as a teacher to remain impartial and to provide the same education and expectations to each one of my students no matter what their background. In the end we need to remember that we will/should be providing some of the only impartial experiences our students will ever have.
I agree with Kate that we hold our judges in a higher accord than others and I am sure that being an educator we will be held at a higher standard as well. It is good to see and hear this now so that we can temper our teaching with those that we teach. We all have bias it is who we are. We however should acknowledge them so that we can reach out to a larger audience. I am a second generation Greek. My grandparents came here because they wanted to be American, not Greek-Americans. He would not call himself a Greek-American he said that he was proud to be an American. This gets back to the melting pot vs. salad. We are all Americans and sometimes I think that we have become over sensitive. I know that is coming from someone is White Euro-Centric. I am proud of my heritage but much prouder of being an American. When we take history dissect it with our moral values today we can easily see the wrongs of our past. But that is like Monday morning quarterbacking. It is good to reflect what we did wrong and why so that going forward we do not make the same mistakes. This class is a good instrument for that but it is difficult not to feel guilty when we hear the criticism.
I have a lot to say, and I had a lot to say in that class. It's funny because often I don't and I consider myself more of a reserved, introspective individual. In response to why I maybe responded the way I did: First off, as a white male, I found that comment by Sotomayor offensive. Whether I’m in the majority or not, I’m not sure. Sotomayor is in a position of extreme power with the ability to enact momentous change on our society from the top down. I understand that we are all humans and we have our bias; I will be the first to admit that I do. But as Morgan pointed out her position of partiality is how she interprets the constitution. That is her duty upon assuming the role of a Supreme Court Justice. Whether she was black, white, Hispanic is irrelevant (yes, it offended me that she said “white male,” but let me continue). A wise decision for a Supreme Court Justice should not have basis on race or richness in cultural experience – it is solely about how you interpret the constitution as a living document. From my positionality, I do not feel that it is wrong that her comment, whether harmless or not, frightens me to an extent. I really appreciated the cruise ship analogy, it makes a lot of sense… but how has Sotomayor lived in two worlds anymore than I have? She has seen the position of a white male in her profession and throughout her life, but she hasn’t lived it anymore than I have lived the life of Hispanic in New York. I would NEVER concede that I could make a wiser “better” decision than her. For me this isn’t a question of “white guilt” or privilege, because I accept that White America has and will always have inherent privileges. I hate to get hung up on words, because they are just words but I will not excuse her because she had to work harder (potentially) than a white male would have to attain her position. Perhaps her words were chosen poorly, but it could be a larger issue than that. Surely the system she speaks of is slanted toward the White male, I have no problem with accepting that, and her speech eloquently describes her experiences and how we are lacking in judges that are not White men. That is an issue we must confront head-on in a myriad of creative and different ways. I believe, to some degree, that what she said was PREJUDICE and I don’t want that prejudice translating to a seat on the Supreme Court. For me, her comment exacerbates the problem… Would I feel like this if I was a Hispanic female or came from some other positionality? I hope I would, because I believe people should be held accountable for what they say regardless of ethnicity. My goal for this class and in life is to strive to be a better person and help make the world a better place (Heal the world, Michael Jackson). My goal is to try and understand others positionalities and expand my world view. I want to be challenged, I want to strengthen myself. I do think that someone who has lived a rich, expansive, cultural life will make a different, perhaps wiser decision than someone who hasn’t. So if she was making her point in those terms, then I could agree; however, she chose her words to include “better” and signaled out the white male. How is that in the spirit of our class? Isn’t that what we’re attempting to move past? Dr. Greenfield, in reading your email, I think you underestimated our (at least my) ability to be conscience of our positionality... but this comment drives a wedge into the entirety of her speech. As someone in our small group said: “It sticks out like a sore thumb,” in an otherwise eloquent, well-written speech. As always, we’ll continue to dig deeper, I know I have much more to share
I would like to add that I still have a lot to learn, I'm young... but I'm excited and willing to listen to others. I'm usually not so set in stone on an issue and I realize some of this is me getting hung up with "better" and "white" and "man." However, I feel like this may be one of those situations where my unwillingness to bend very much is valid. I do feel slighted, perhaps a feeling that Sotomayor felt in her career to the top (and one that many white men don't feel).. I just don't see how this comment is good for anyone.
I typed a long response, but it disappeared! Yikes. Maybe it was meant to be saved for class. : ) Quickly though....
My email simply asked everyone to continue doing this self-reflective thinking about the source of our reactions as well as to consider what factors might have shaped our collective conversation. Most importantly, I wanted us to utilize the blog as a place to make these conversations more public so we could learn from one another and better understand perhaps the internal processes and reactions that might be going on with our own students. I truly appreciate the willingness to engage in this very meaningful (but often challenging) work. As you progress through the class, these experiences and encounters will be critical to evaluate. I once read a line from a book that proclaimed, "The process is the content, and the content is the process." I hope that you do (and will continue to) see value in the journey.
I'll save my fun analogy for class.
Here's an interesting piece that might be of interest:
I agree that maybe the larger context of the speech was potentially lost on the class through our debate. It did really show how much of a wedge issue the comment was! (I was acutally unaware that this had blown up in the media). I think that Dreber made an interesting point about wisdom and the capability of a judge to put them in the place of the defendant they face. That is something that a lot of us take for granted, especially me, as a white male. Hopefully I will never be in that situation, but I can rest (more) easily knowing that I will not face the same challenges others in my position might.
What Sotomayor was trying to say was more important than that sentence and I feel I got her message. That comment did seem troubling and somewhat contradictory and antagonistic to her thesis, but after re-reading (and re-reading) I think it is a powerful piece and unfortunate that this became focal point. Perhaps more interesting is the reason(s) behind why it became such an divisive issue..? And a reason why many called for her not to be confirmed.
Anyway, my next post will be focused on our new readings : )
Sotomayor's one controversial line, I feel recieved too much attention. I really thought that the point of the speech was lost (at least temporarily) due to an over-analysis of the word "better". The line definitely stuck out to me when I was reading it, but I didn't get quite as hung up on it as others. I think I understand why some in the class took acception to the wording (I agree with you David the comment was antagonistic and somewhat contradictory), but I'm not sure why it didn't ring as loud for me. I didn't have a big emotional response to it, maybe because I was reading it, not hearing it. I'm sure though that if someone had spoken these words to me right in front of me, it would have stung more.
What stuck out most to me were the staggering numbers (I like numerical stats that back up arguments) listed in the early parts of the speech that layout the vast gender and ethinic inequities in the judicial system. Reading these numbers, for whatever reason made me feel guilty. It has me thinking about what I have done to contribute to injustices such as these. Topics like we cover in class are issues that I have not wrestled with before, so these emotions about these issues are new for me. With more time to contemplate and digest these issues, my feelings will varry.
I agree with several of the posters here, that our SC justices should be held to a very high standard, and that Sotomayor should have used more tact and used different wording for the point she was trying to make. However, slighting white men wasn't the point of her speech, and to me, it is more important to look into the thesis of her argument.
During last week’s class, I noticed that a handful of the same students talked more during the discussions, some of us others may have felt hesitant to speak up due to the strong nature of the opinions being expressed. I, personally, apologize for not voicing more of my options during the discussions. However, since what I wanted to share was in complete objection to the majority of what was being said about, for instance the Sotomayor piece, I chose not “rock the boat.” On more than one occasion, I was compelled to say something but before I could, another comment from one of the few who continued to elaborate their opinions broke the silence.
I noticed that some of us kept using the phrases, “in my opinion” or that’s just my opinion.” I don’t feel this reference was necessary because it was blatantly understood. Continual use of these phrases perhaps only solidified other students’ thoughts that some of us were “stuck” on what we believed and were not “open” to listening to the viewpoints of others.
Although “shut down” moments do occur, they are really opportunities for us to challenge ourselves to see things through “different eyes.” I’m hopeful that as the semester progresses, we’ll develop more effective communication skills to speak about such diverse and critical issues. This will be extremely important because I feel that the topics will get even … DEEPER!
I felt as though I said a few one liners or maybe a few words however I was more posing questions for myself out loud. I was rubbed raw by the "White Privilege" piece by Peggy McIntosh. It was a tough pill to swallow and I'm still not sure I want to swallow parts of it. I think the idea of positionality and really how we define our positionality like Dr. Greenfield challenged in the email is a good place to start. I think to truly educate all students properly, you must truly and sincerely understand their positionality. I think my response is - can we truly understand everyone's positionality? This is a question I am wrestling with. I think that may be the may question I will struggle with during this course. I think that was the basis of Sotomayor's arguement about her being a wise Latina judge. That she may fully grasp a situation experientially thanks to her positionality whereas a white judge (the example she uses) could grasp a different situation more deeply. I feel like the white privilege piece painted being white as an inherently immoral thing not necessary amoral. However, this may be a reaction on a personal level to a collective observation. I think that any type of argument when directed toward a group will not encompass all members of that group be it gender-based, class-based, race-based etc. I don't think race in and of itself can be defined as good or bad but rather is a category for compartmentalization not unlike class or gender. I do think it is what we do with our class, race, gender that makes it what it is. If we are a member of a majority group as pointed out in the reading, we should be more aware of ways we are oppressing a targeted group be it intentionally or unintentionally. If we are in the targeted group, we should be more aware of ways we are oppressed be it intentionally or unintentionally.
I feel like sometimes I need to be a fly on the wall during discussion times and soak up what others are saying and let it saturate for a while before serving up my opinion. I do feel that digging deeper into these issues will make us more responsive and ultimately more sincere and intimate in our teaching and hopefully therefore, reach a bigger audience and bring them an an understanding of a particular subject. History is my passion and an understanding of different parts of history is essential to progress forward into making a more informed and balanced future. Not just a lens of history based on my positionality but based on those of all cultures.
Have to admit that I don't know a lot about Sotomayor, and that may have been a large reason why I participated in the "shut down" that occurred on Tuesday night. I've been reading her wikipedia page for the last 15 minutes (not the most academic source for research, I know, but whatever...) and feel like at least now, I know a little more about her so maybe now I understand her better. And I like her. She's from a working class area of New York City, raised by a single mother and received scholarships to both Princeton and then Yale for law school. Instead of taking a big time corporate or law firm gig right after school, she took a job as an assistant DA in New York City a position she held for five years before succumbing to private practice's allure. Another fact I found interesting was that she ended the 1994 Major League Baseball strike by issuing a preliminary injunction. So what did all of this teach me about Sotomayor? She's tough, hard working, and calculating. When giving a speech like the one we read, she means every word and every phrase is chosen to communicate something or spark discussion. I don't really believe the argument that she let this controversial line slip in a long speech, which was made by some people in class. I wish we had gotten to the third article in class, so I guess I will hold off on talking about that for now. On a less serious note, after I received the email from Dr. Greenfield, I kept thinking "does anyone else wish we had bottles of wine being passed around class?" I feel that after a few glasses, class discussion would become even more interesting, inhibitions would be shed, and people would say what they really feel, right when they feel it.
I wanted to make a comment on Morgan Early's post which I thought a fascinating and very relevant question. Here is the part of her post that struck me:
Since we started class I can't stop thinking about my privilege and positionality as I am out and about. Going through the drive through last night I was thinking about our discussion and I was served by both an African American man and Hispanic man. We all have the notion that if you don't go to college you end up working the drive through. This made me wonder, are they there by choice or environment or both? For the first time I also thought, did their TEACHERS' BIASES play a role in where they are today?
I work at a private school and had a very similar discussion with the guidance counselor the other day. She and I were talking about a specific student who has a lot of behavior issues in the classroom and outside of the classroom. The student's mother came in to discuss the student's behavior and made the comment, "If he (the student) thinks the teacher expects him to act up, then normally he probably will." I think this line speaks volumes to our class and the discussion surrounding our expectations of students. If a student feels underprivileged thanks to race, class, gender, sexuality - then they will probably embrace those feelings and continue in them. Rather than reinforce these expectations, we should challenge them. We need to challenge the student to reach over the expectations a certain oppressive positionality might have and achieve their goals. This particular student who I just mentioned responds well to positive encouragement and one on one time with teachers. This should and must be used in order to help him along in his educational pursuits. Understanding the student and being empathetic to these needs is critical to their well-being and achievement I believe.
Josh (and everyone), I liked the discussion thread that you brought up about the possibility of teacher's playing a role in how students are today (or after graduation). In another course I am taking (579) ... we are talking about learning disabilities and the power in which teachers have over their students. When I say power, I mean that the teachers have the power in this case to shape students futures. Teachers who do not take the time to make transition plans for some learning disabled students and hold them the expectation level of an average learner can sometimes allow the student to slip through the cracks of the academic environment which leads to the student have more issues to face etc as an adult. Of course this is not a definite for every learning disabled student ... but research show that teachers make a difference. Teachers as the positive reinforcement and subtle mentor will almost always promote positive things for the student.
My point is that when I googled diversity in the classroom. (I know ... I can't help it ... I love google!) ... the first links on the page have to do with teachers responsibility to nurture their academic environment in hopes of creating a classroom that is comfortable for all students whether it is gender related, class related, race related etc. It is OUR job to create this environment and it is our job to open our minds in order to create the best environment that we can create. I think that we all know what our personal opinions are ... that is good, we all have an understanding of ourselves. In class ... we need to state where our personal opinions come from, what makes us the way we are. From our first two classes I can say, that I enjoy hearing everyones opinions, but I know it would be great to know the WHY behind them, the WHY behind your personal positionality and your background ... I know that would further allow me to grasp understanding of other people and would continue to help us all push towards an increased ability to understand each other.
I don't even know where to begin on this post as after reading all of the ones I have so much to say. So here I go, please bare with me on the long response... I'll Capitalize the names so if I'm talking to you you can easily find it.
MORGAN - I think pointing out the "educated privilege"is a good point, and something that I, at times, forget about. I think education is a major factor in discrimination and success. Many times people write you off if you lack a college degree or seem like you might. I think this could potentially affect a person more than race or gender.
Stemming off that topic, I find it interesting that you believe in affirmative action in the classroom but not in the courtroom. Do you mind explaining your reasoning behind those thoughts? I personally don't agree with affirmative action, but I do feel that typically if you believe in it in one area you should in another? What makes you hesitate with it in the courtroom?
I'd have to agree with CANDICE about the feel of class discussions. I do feel that people tend to attach to one idea and stick to it. I would love to limit time or discussions on topics so that a variety of things could be discussed. For example moving past a single sentence after there has been a conversation about it. This planning for topic change would also allow other people to get involved and contribute their thoughts.
I'd also like to focus on a recurring feeling I saw appear in posts. The feeling of uneasiness when making statements and explaining thoughts. I think it is important for all of us to remember that thoughts in our heads don't always come out like one thinks they are going to. I feel that diversity classes already put people on edge and to make the classroom a space where students can share openly it is going to be essential to hear people out. Ask for explanation and keep your voices down. No need to make a huge deal about a misspoken statement, and being open to not judge and get angry immediately is important. No one is trying to say anything mean or angering in the classroom so don't automatically interpret the statements made defensively.
DAVID - I'd have to agree with your overall thoughts. I understand where you were coming from. We can't ignore word choice (especially since she had much time to think through this speech) just because we feel like Sotomayor meant something else. But I do direct you to the above statement: No matter what sometimes what you think sounds right and legit is going to come out wrong.
If the class could have gotten past that statement I feel that Sotomayor was saying some very thoughtful comments.
Culture is an integral part of all of us and will inevitably affect every choice or decision we make, you can't argue that point. None of us are impartial, there is no neutrality. I think these are the essential ideas that we should have focused on and talked about. We all would love to be impartial, but is it ever possible to truly be that way?
I am going to put this right out there. I am a feminist, a democrat, and an Episcopalian. I have been a teacher in a bilingual school, and I fully support bilingual education even though politics have trumped statistics in this debate. When Sotomayor was appointed I considered it a victory not only for my country, but a personal victory for my daughters, my mother, and me. I was very disappointed in the words she chose. As intellectual and accomplished as she is, she did not get to this place on her own merit. Woman and some men have been waging a battle for her opportunity to serve for generations. She is not at the end of her own journey; rather she is another step in the fight for equality and opportunity for all people. Her statements were not good for the cause. That said, the article was given to us as a way to see with another person’s perspective. And she did that well. Likewise the story about Joaquin gave us an insight into the minority and youth and their willingness to give up on an education as a way to fit in with their peers. The paper from Toledo was as we all agreed poorly written. It is also sadly out of date. Most of the facts she numbered are no longer true. A lot were not true in 1989. I was there. I remember. In fact I had to buy hair care products for my foster daughter, a beautiful black child with mounds of curls… in 1989. I went to the drug store on the corner in own my very white neighborhood. There were so many products; I could not begin to know what to buy. So she loses a lot of credibility. Because these authors fall short does not mean that the issue falls short.
I agree with a lot of my classmates and despite my own bad associations with double journal entries from a past class, I think returning to the ideas from our double journal may be helpful. I had written down as my 3 main ideas 1) her background described with humor, 2) some very interesting statistics and facts about the past especially regarding women and Latina/o judges and 3) that Sotomayor asserts female judges and Latina judges do make different judgements at times because of their background and the way their experiences color their decisions.
I do think that the 3rd point is the most important of the speech, but we need to broaden our focus to address the whole issue and not one sentence. While sound bites work best for the news, I hope that our class will be far more than a collection of sound bites.
This was part of my reflection on 3) I was very moved by the last portion of Sotomayor's speech. I applaud her for pointing out that a woman's decisions and views on things ARE colored by her experience. To say that if she were equally wise, or intelligent, or any adjective, that she would make the same decisions as a man would detract from her distinctive experiences and identity. I'm impressed by the way she embraces her background as influencing her decisions, but does not allow that to define her.
Personally I noticed that sentence, but I didn't focus on the word better. I was surpised how it upset some of my classmates and had considered it by far my favorite of the reading so I was shocked to hear some others had a completely opposite response. I guess I heard that there had been some controversy about the speech, but all I knew going into reading was that she was a Latina judge named to the court by the Obama administration. It was so worthwhile for me to get to know her as more than just those labels and how she views those labels.
Just to say a little bit more, apparently I was too wordy for the comment length..
If yall remember I think I even said in the first class that I approach some of these issues from the positionality of a female scientist, a woman who needs to now she's receiving a position academically because i earned it, not just because I add to the gender diversity. This speech made me feel like Sontomayor had the background and the convictions to earn her place by her own merit.
In the future I know that I personally need to try to step outside myself periodically during the readings and try to imagine how it would read to someone from a very different background. Sontomayor however makes me feel more secure in the fact that as long as I am compassionate and open to hearing about where others come from, I should embrace the fact that I did and will read articles differently than many of you.
I think we're still focusing a bit too much on what the articles said instead of why we got to our conclusions and why we reacted the way we did. Do you think you were offended by the line in Sotomayor's article/speech because you're white, or because you want her to be fair as a judge? Insert the word "black" instead of "white" into the sentence and see if you maybe have a different reaction, so it's not personally attacking you? If it wasn't a judge, how would you have felt? Which professions do you think it would be okay for? For those of us who didn't feel strongly about the sentence, why do you think that was?
I spoke to my sister after the class and actually reflected with her about it. So I suppose I can just rehash a bit of what we discussed. I felt left out of the discussion because some of the stuff was over my head and then other things were fatiguing to me in that I've heard them over and over and over again. For the latter, I challenge myself to remember that, even though I've heard these things said before, the people saying them are not the same people who said them before. They may have a whole new perspective and new reasons for their opinions.
I'm not entirely sure where my positionality plays into all this. For one reason or another, it was important to my parents that I be aware of injustice in the world, but I never quite matured into a positive change agent. At my worst, I'm confrontational, argumentative, and even petty. So I tend to "shut down" in order to bite my tongue and not make an ass of myself.
During class on Tuesday, I definitely had a shut down moment. I often tend to listen and take it all in. Many people in the class are outspoken, which is great, but I often am more reserved. Maybe one of the reasons I was so quiet was because I honestly was not affected by “the line” as much as other students were. I read and highlighted that line, but took it in a totally different way. I thought the discussion was focused too much on that line and not the whole speech itself. Going back and forth about whether it was right or wrong of her to say “better” took away from the whole point of the speech. I don’t know that much about Sotomayer, so Im not sure if that affected my reactions. I loved the analogy that Dr. Greenfield gave about the boat. Sotomayer has seen it all from the bottom up. What I took away from this article was our experiences shape who we are and how we believe and think. How we grew up and how we were raised shapes the way we see the world. I agree that she is of superiority and needs to be free from bias, but are we every going to have a bias free world? Neutrality is ultimately our goal in the judicial system, so is it possible that we will ever get there? Ever since we started this class I cant stop thinking about my positionality in every situation. My thoughts have definitely changed since starting this class. I think a challenging aspect is to look at the positionality of not just ourselves but others. In my opinion I don’t think Sotomayer was saying that she is better than white males. In her speech she says “I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be mopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding values and needs of people from different groups.” To me that is what she was trying to say when she said “the line.” It’s the bias thing again. We all come from different backgrounds and we need to get rid of the bias so that we can understand others that are “different” than us.
Why did I respond the way I did to Sotomayor’s article? I think in part because what she says resonates with me and my experiences. As an example, I spent four years as a professional sailor (merchant marines not yachts). We were burly and brawny, rarely bathed, cursed up a storm, and wore big knives when we went to the bar. I can sooooo be one of the guys, but I’m female. (As I re-read this, I want to acknowledge that this does not typify male behavior, but it serves to point out that this was not anything close to what would be considered female behavior.) There was a reconciliation that had to happen there. I had to learn to see things through a different lens in order to be successful. As a result, there is no doubt in my mind that I can better relate to certain situations and am more able to see things from perspectives I would have had a hard time accepting without those experiences. Do I know what it’s like to be male? Absolutely not! But I think I have a better sense of what it’s like to be male than a guy who hasn’t spent time in an area dominated by women (like teaching) knows what it’s like to be female. As a result, I have been able to connect with students that others have struggled with. Does it make me a better teacher (comparing with Sotomayor’s comment about judges)? In that case, I think it does. But there were other times when I needed to allow students to connect with other teachers because I couldn’t do it for them. I thought the similarities between Sotomayor’s piece and teaching were astounding and I felt it really reflected my own observations. I breezed right over the sentence – and I completely agree with Jack that it was a purposeful move on her part.
Why did I respond the way I did in class? I remember when Sotomayor was being confirmed and being frustrated then that the media – I can’t even call it news anymore – was spending so much time on that single line of text. I had high hopes that we could discuss the merits of her argument (and the other pieces). In giving the “pro-Sotomayor” side of the argument, I had hoped to be able to pull away from analyzing that single line, even single words in that line, and look at how it fit into the larger argument. I also thought that perhaps if the other side was presented, it might make for a more comfortable space to actually discuss. To be honest, I’m not sure what happened and why other folks didn’t jump in and say they had another take or that they thought. I am truly sorry if my comments in any way played a role in folks’ unwillingness to participate.
I did not participate in the discussion in class on the Sotomayor speech, for several reasons. I tend to like to hear others opinions before inserting my own. I also felt that we were discussing the wrong things, and the "discussion" quickly went from dissecting and analyzing to bantering and debating. As I sat in class Dr. Greenfield's statements from the first day of class were in my head. I want to you admit that you "COULD BE" wrong.
It seemed that instead of us as a collective trying to see what she was saying in her speech and looking at the whole picture of under-representation of minorities and women on the bench, We quickly went into a defensive mode. We couldn't even get to the other points she made such as "By ignoring the differences between men and women of color we do a disservice to law and society, and the diversity of opinions and experiences." "Lack of experience limits a persons ability to understand others experience." We instead focused on her character and of what higher standards she should be held to, without thinking of who we are and our biases. I do not feel as if I can look at ANYTHING completely objectively. Can we EVER make a decision without bringing our own experiences and opinions into it? Human emotion takes over Judge, doctor, teacher...regardless.
I didn't think that by focusing on one point of an overall enlightening speech that we were really doing ourselves a service.
I had an entire response typed out that Blogger I suppose deemed unsuitable and proclaimed "Error!" when I tried to post. So....after taking the afternoon off to dispel frustrations, my response, which I tried to piece back together, is no longer relevant. So, basically, I was not offended by Sotomayor's statement, I had explained several reasons why and also called for others to examine why they were...or were not. Several posts stopped at "I don't know why's" and proceeded to discredit the author instead of trying to see why they were offended. But I see several people are taking this approach now and I applaud you.
I had another point that I managed to salvage that I would like to make, so without further ado: This post is inspired by the statements about biases, the possibility of teacher’s biases in keeping students in their anticipated future roles. One great lesson that I learned living abroad, even for a short time, is that just because people don’t have what I have it is easy to assume that they are less happy, prosperous, etc, than I. Let me expand that statement. Is it possible that we may also have biases about what constitutes a good life, good job, etc. and that not obtaining those goals (which we have been taught are defined in semi-specific terms) you are not performing up to your potential?
In the MacIntosh article, though some of her statements have been deservedly discredited, there was a phrase that struck me as particularly true and one whose truth is often generally overlooked. **Disclaimer: I believe that "taught" here refers to implicit, not explicit teaching...cite Joaquin's Dilemma** She says, “whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, also ideal, so that when we do work to benefit others this is seen as work which will allow 'them' to be like 'us.’" This is a truth I have seen undeniably represented by very well-meaning and caring individuals representing our culture (all of us together here, as Americans) in volunteer work and in my travels abroad.
Teaching English in Thailand, my colleague and I had many thoughtful conversations about “what a shame” that many of our brightest students would not go to college but would work in the markets with their parents, day after day, selling whatever their family’s specialty was. It took a while before I realized that this was no “shame.” The shame was on me and that I was putting my standards on them even in their own country. People working in the markets are content in their work and life….they even have a word for it, “sabaii, sabaii”, most Thai would describe themselves this way, content, whatever type of work they were doing. They had food on the table, a roof over their heads, a family and a community to support and love them. Most market workers actually lived pretty comfortably, yet these are people you might see in a picture of a magazine depicting poverty. Who are we to label them by our standards? Poverty, like success, like everything else, is relative.
So, operating on those biases, do we perpetuate them by thinking that working in a drive-thru or gas station means that you have not prospered in this great world? Though it is not what we envision for ourselves or perhaps our children, or even for our students, it would be a greater service indeed to remove the stigma from such jobs and their participation in our relative definition of success.
Aside: although I have included us all together for my purposes of demonstrating MacIntosh's statement, it can be applied to each minority individually, according to race, gender, class, etc. Are we ALL striving to become the upper-middle-class American, eschewing our individual and unique qualities?
Allison - I definitely think that a lot of people do have those biases. Since I switched from engineering ($50k starting salary) to teaching ($35k starting salary), a lot of people give me strange looks simply because we have different motivators, and money is not a big motivator for me. I think that since that's happened to me, that I am more aware of it, but it still is easy to think that what I consider good (free time, family, being in a safe location, being encouraged, etc) is what other people consider good. I liked your story about Thailand. I never thought of it that way, and it was neat to re-think poverty. A lot of people that are poor in money are often the richest in spirit, family, friends, and happiness.
Oh where do I begin? So many good discussions going on here!
Part I
WHOLE CLASS-Can we please have cards or something that we hold up when we want to talk? I feel like this keeps loud mouths like me from butting in too often and helps us to slow down and process better. I would like to stay on topic better in the future. My apologies for aiding in the encouragement of some tangents.
LEETHANIEL-Totally want to hear your opinion! So sorry that you didn't get heard in class because I think there would have been a well articulated comment there that we all missed. Please share!
DAVID-I think I can safely say that we all understood that your positionality in this discussion was white man. Even though I'm a woman I didn't necessarily like this comment either, and I wondered what you guys were feeling when you read it so thanks for saying that it upset you and clouded your opinion, even momentarily! Words are powerful and we have to become wise enough to take them all in and not just have selective hearing. This is hard for us all. Like others, I think we did harp too much on her writing and did not look at the big idea of the article, and we didn't discuss why we got so upset.
I, however, should have explained my positionality. I know I was upset because I worked for a nonprofit that did lobbying in the NC legislature. I also am a member of the NC State judicial board. Coming from a political background, my motivation was largely focusing on her being a judge, when I realize that the topic of discussion should have really been biases and how we deal with those in different places. It's just that how I handle those biases is different depending on the realm.
ELIZABETH-Affirmative action...big topic. So I used to be against it all together. This is one thing I actually learned in college. It does seem completely unfair to the person in the majority to not get into college because of a minority quota, but we must look at the big picture. The last article talks about how being smart is somehow perceived as being white. I saw this in my own high school, where minority kids who were in my classes had mostly white friends and didn't sit as "the black table," as well called it (I'm being honest here--I was one of "the GPAs"--we all played our role). Anywhoo, my point is in order for minority kids to see that being smart isn't taking away their identity we have to show that there are a sufficient number of highly educated people of their race that they can identify this, so we must accept more minorities into institutions of higher learning in order to compensate for the crap that society has created to begin with, and has continued to feed. We've created a cycle, and affirmative action is a way to break it.
Why not break the judicial cycle with affirmative action? Just let Sotomayor be a judge because she's her race is under-represented and we need a balance there too right? Sounds good, but you have to consider that being a judge is different than being a student. Sending someone to college mostly affects that individual. Placing someone on a bench affects millions. That's where I was getting hung up in class. I think this comes from me caring so much about being an informed voter, that I just get so angry at the media for not giving me all the facts. Of course, I have no control over judicial appts, but when I do vote, maybe I should consider someone's race as a factor in my vote. I never have before...something to ponder...but I will say that at this point, I care more about what that person will do once they are in power.
RODNELLA-You're right. I didn't examine my own biases verbally in the discussion. Thanks for making me aware of that. I think I will try to explain more of the WHY I am saying something.
KATE and ALISON-Love your posts! Who knew a drive thru run would make me think about this, but I was seriously like we all seem to think that's what you do if you fail, but what if they're 10 times happier than me?!?! Like I said before, we're all just human. This is making me re-think some of my goals as a teacher. Instead of thinking, "I'm keeping this kid from working at the drive thru," I should be sayiing, "I'm helping this kid become whatever he/she decides he/she wants to be!" I think this is a good lesson for us all.
In response to Kate- Not having had a strong opinion on the speech, I had really just focused on the fact that she was a woman in a position of power that is traditionally thought of as a male position. Being a woman myself and in a male-centered career (geology), I related to her well. To me, her overall message overshadowed that one sentence.
I did however take an initial offense to the 'white privledge' article. I've always thought of myself and my raising as being very liberal; and as an open-minded caucasion I found it unsettling to hear that some of the experiences that I thought I had deserved and worked so hard for were given to me due to my race.
I had a question for Elizabeth- By affirmative action in the courtroom, what exactly do you mean? I'm not very educated on the subject. When I think of affirmative action I think of it being utilized in admission to higher education as well as in the workplace. I'm just curious.
Rodnella- Thank you for your beautifully written post. You articulated many things for which I have been struggling to find appropriate words. I especially appreciate your comment about how, by becoming defensive, we tend to separate ourselves instead of coming together with our collective goals.
All- I am wondering, though, folks who expressed similar feelings, didn't speak up. Many have written as though there were no voices expressing sympathy for Sotomayor's position, but there were three people I can think of who were and who, at least in my hearing of the discussion, were tying their understanding back to her larger thesis. Clearly, positionality is going to effect not only our take on issues, but also our willingness to hear and acknowledge positions and how we respond.
Morgan- Instead of cards, I think we might want to spend some time thinking about why people like you and I (and the other noisy folk) are quick to jump in, while others do not. I know that I am that way because that is what I was taught to do; by my family, by my teachers, by my other classmates. But by taking a look at why we have been taught to respond in a certain ways that and debunking some of the myths in those teachings, we can become a better moderators of our own behavior, whether we need speak less or more.
I think its funny that the white males in class were the only ones getting really upset, like it was an attack on them for what Sotomayor said. I don't think that was her intention at all, to single out the white men.
I also highly agree with Rodnella. The class was focusing on the wrong things. We weren't focusing ( as no one does) on the issues that are really important, like how she would behave as a judge and what her standpoints were. All we focused on was a bit of her speech that offended a few in the classroom and could have been written better.
I also think it is interesting that we didn't really get a chance to dissect her speech, other that the judging better than a white male part. I think we could have made some really interesting discussions about her main points that there are very few peple of minorities on the bench and that people from different backgrounds are going to make different choices about things, and we will be doing a disservice to say they wouldn't and to not address those differences.
Sorry about the delay in responses but I was having computer problems yesterday. I think it was because I was trying to log into this site from Mozilla. I ended up having to setup a completely new account .. But I’m “good” now! (smile)
ERIN (and any other classmates) – My thoughts on the Sotomayor discussion from last week differed considerably from what majority of the class had to say. I felt that for the most part, those voicing their opinions were suggesting that Sotomayor’s choice of words were…racist.
First, let’s back up…
When Trent Lott said that things would have been better if a southern segregationist had been elected president a half-century earlier…
When Don Imus denigrated in clearly racist terms the championship women's basketball team from Rutgers University…
When actor Michael Richards screamed at black guests in a comedy club, calling them the "n-word" and invoking the threat of lynching…
In all of these cases….…responsible WHITE people from across the ideological spectrum stepped forward to explain that these individuals were not RACIST. The "R" word has become the taboo of the white world. By this I mean that calling someone racist is a taboo, not racism itself.
Sotomayor's speech was, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explored the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge's background, perspective and experience. Unlike so many judges, who by virtue of being white and male, simply assume their impartiality, Sotomayor recognized that all judges are affected by their background and their life experiences.
White judges are also shaped by their background and experiences. They needn't ever speak of it, simply because their whiteness and gender insulates them from the presumption of partiality and bias that is regularly attached to women judges and judges of color when it comes to matters of race and gender. Only a judge who is conscious and fully engaged with the reality of how her experiences may bear on her approach to the facts of a case, or sense of social justice, or vision of constitutional interpretation, should be entrusted to sit on the most influential and powerful court in our nation. Sotomayor rightly suggested that these things matter. She noted in her speech that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." She should know this. She's been a trial judge. None of the other justices who serve with Sotomayor have had that experience.
Sotomayor's speech was one of the most honest and compelling statements about judicial impartiality we're likely to hear from a judge of her stature. It was not racist in the least bit. It is not just irresponsible to make this charge against a sitting federal appeals court judge based on this flimsy record; it is—and here I'll break the taboo—racist to do so.
MORGAN EALY (and anyone else interested)- I do not see why some of us had a “shut-down” moment over a couple lines that perhaps could have been worded differently.
I strongly doubt that Sotomayor meant to degrade white men and have her words interpreted so negatively. I felt that it was clear Sotomayor was merely saying that it’s inevitable that a judge’s personal race-based and gender-based experiences will impact judging, particularly in race and sex discrimination cases. As a result, she said, while such formative experiences can be enriching and contribute to wise decisions, a judge should also be aware of them in order to avoid being wholly dominated by them. She vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”
Those are just my thoughts. But “who” am I??? A lot of speeches could be picked apart….
Morgan: Thank you for speaking up for affirmative action. I like that you pointed out that even though it seems unfair from the stand-point of someone in the majority, it is an issue that needs to be addressed, a cycle that needs to be broken if only by deliberate appointment and acceptance. One point I would like to make however, is that I feel like a lot of people are dismissing Sotomayor's appointment as ONLY being a result of affirmative action. She attended Princeton and then Yale Law. Even if she was accepted to these schools on premise of AA, that does not account for her performance there. I'll accept that she may have been chosen to sit on the USSC because of the different perspective the will be able to provide, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss her qualifications and accomplishments on this premise. RACHEL, I appreciated your comments on the relevance of her experience in your own and also, your points on her article. I wish, too, that we could have discussed some of these in class.
I don't know about you guys, but I think our next class is going to get very interesting with so many regrets of not speaking up--myself included! I'm looking forward to the shakedown!
Has anyone been keeping up with the Wake Co. School Board decision about year-round schools? They were "strongly opposed" to mandating year-round schools and said they would "no longer deny calendar applications based on socio-economic status." I'm not sure in what way they were making this amendment. I'm just curious to what people were thinking about it. It's likely going to affect all of us, hoping to student teach and possibly teach in Wake Co. This has become an issue drenched in diversity statistics and political correctness. I haven't kept up closely and I don't know what all it involves, how deep the issues run, but I'd like to know more. Would be great fodder for class discussion--and relevant to us all.
I am glad people were receptive to the alternate thoughts of success. Morgan, I had hoped you wouldn't take it as a challenge to your aha! moment...it was only an extension. Thanks for your comments : )
I think we will do well to encourage our students to pursue their talents, whatever they may be. I think there is lots of potential to do this with the continuing expansion of technology. There are lots of ways to make education appealing to students with the use of technology, and to better accommodate students with disabilities too. Also I think students are seeing more ways to be successful without the requirement of being "book smart" or adhering to a particular set of goals.
As a teacher I think it is going to be a major goal of mine to not perpetuate the biased hierarchy of education/occupation and let students know that whether they choose to be an engineer, teacher, artist or mechanic they will be equal contributors to society and that they are equally valuable contributions. I have recently been reconsidering my opinions with university vs community colleges. The skills taught in community colleges are essential to a functioning society. In high school, mine and the perceived general sentiment was that community college was for people who couldn't cut it in universities, or for people who were too scared to break out of their small, comfortable worlds. It was no secret that the college prep classes were "higher" than the tech prep. I never thought of it though. I remember being terrified of the thought of not getting into college and at my father's suggestion of going to the local community college. Why is this terrifying? All I knew at that time was I didn't want to be one of "those" people and now I am sitting here thinking, how much money I would have saved, AND I would have a skill...a career path. I love my education and believe it to be invaluable, but I think it is important as future educators to recognize the social bias placed on trade skills and trade schools vs. university education. It was never even mentioned to me to consider community college as a viable option.
I've met so many people, (particularly males for some reason) people who are retired--some from two careers--who still display some form of disappointment that they weren't able to do well in school. Do we only value academic professions? How would America fare without these skilled professions? They need to be recognized as valuable and not just a fall back plan, or something that you do if you can't perform academically. After all, aren't we college grads the most disoriented bunch you ever met?! We have all this knowledge, now what to do with it?? Job searching was a particularly depressing activity for me. I had a friend that went to a mechanic school for 1.5 years, and was making 50,000 at 20 and though he has dirty hands he loves his job. I went to college for 4.5 yrs, graduated, worked 3 part time jobs for a year, taught abroad and am now....back in school! These stories are not told often enough.
KATE: I completely echo your sentiments about money and its impact on how people view the "worthiness" of a vocation. I was the same way, always wanting to be a lawyer and then shifting my position in order to be more of a giver,(such as a teacher, which requires all you have to give).
ALLISON: I also feel the same way as the post right above mine. College students and degree holding graduates seem to be some of the most high and mighty sections of society. I find myself looking down on others who have decided not to attend college and find a skilled profession v. an academic profession (as Allison was describing). Why do I do this? I am no better than anyone, so why would I give myself permission to think I am better? I mean, I graduated from college with acceptable grades, had plenty of extra-curricular activities, and felt as if I did the best I could to give myself an edge over others. Did I find a job right out of college? Nope. I realized with my academic major and minor of choice that I had not learned a "trade" and therefore was illiterate in the types of jobs necessary during this time of economic turmoil. My point is, not only to add a story to Allison's example, but also to demonstrate that college degrees, though helpful, are not necessarily "better" or "worse" than any other option. I will be watching myself more carefully as comments are made about others who may not have had the support, means, or possibility of attending college. Our students need to know their options and be able to fully explore them without being pressured. Although it is necessary to try and push them as far as they can go, it is also important to look at each individual and help them make the best choice for themselves.
I think the point about the value of non-academic careers is a good one. Not from the condescending "the world needs ditch-diggers, too" perspective, but because readin' 'n' writin' aren't the only kind of smarts one can have. I'm good with the books and the words, but I wouldn't trust me to drive a bus or take apart and reassemble a diesel engine. And we sure as hell need people who can do those things and, quite frankly, there are plenty of people who are better at working with their hands and bodies than working with words and abstract ideas. It's all rather Cartesian, denigrating the body and manual skills and elevating the mind as some sort of spiritual substance.
The "knowledge economy" business that has been thrown at the American public in the last generation or two is, at the very least, simplistic if not a dodge to justify the out-migration of blue-collar and now even many white-collar jobs. Somehow, it became much more prestigious to learn how to code in C++ than to be a master electrician. Conveniently, it's a hell of a lot easier to ship the work of a programmer or even a radiologist to a place with lower pay standards than it is to send skilled material work overseas. But by valorizing mental work over physical work, it might be possible to depress the prestige and accompanying cost of such labor.
And, as far as the Sotomayor speech is concerned, it didn't strike me right away when I was reading it, but I'm now quite convinced that she was making the same point DuBois was when he referred to "double consciousness." I'm not 100% convinced I buy that point, but I think it's definitely something worth considering, even if she did go to Cardinal Spellman (and then Princeton and Yale Law, for God's sake) and not some hard-knock public school.
The line in Justice Sotomayor’s speech didn’t bother me. It included so many qualifiers (I would hope that, wise, richness of experience, who hasn’t lived that life) that it wasn’t even controversial; plus, I sincerely doubt she’s going to get drunk with power and start handing down racist decisions.
What actually bothered me was the amount of attention it garnered in the media. At the time, it was evident to me that certain commentators and politicians were trying to frighten people by stoking racial fear (ie., OMG, our black president nominated a Latina woman to the bench and guess what she said!!!!). This tactic is often so successful because we don’t check ourselves and acknowledge our prejudices so we end up getting manipulated by foolish fears without even realizing it.
ALISON, I’m so glad you mentioned Wake County schools! Since I missed the first day, I wasn’t sure if it had already been discussed. The school board underwent a major overhaul in October’s election, and they quickly moved to end the county’s widely celebrated diversity policy. As a graduate of a WCPSS school, it was devastating to me to see our greatest asset (commitment to diversity) tossed out. So it’s kind of weird to be taking a class about school/classroom diversity at this time. I know the things we learn here will still matter, but recent developments have been disaffirming.
KATE OLIVER and others, y’all touched on an interesting idea about being “poor in money” but rich in other things. I see the thread of that conversation and agree with the spirit (cultural relativism and not imposing our own standards on others). But at times, I think we run the risk of romanticizing poverty.
I want to piggyback on LBRUMFI’s post and add more, but he pretty much summed up my sentiments and then some.
BRIDGET - I totally agree with you that the media does tries to manipulate people. Sometimes they make valid points, but as viewers we really need to take responsibility to check things out for ourselves and think for ourselves. I found, looking back to the sentence, that replacing "white man" with "person", I was no longer offended by it, but I feel like singling out a race and gender was pointing fingers and made people upset.
As far as romanticizing poverty, I mean more that we need to acknowledge an individual's goals and help students work towards their goals and dreams, instead of assuming they want to make a lot money or go to a 4-year college, since that is not always the case.
Allison- I enjoyed reading your point in regards to attitudes concerning community colleges and 4-year colleges/univeristies. It amazes me how much of a nose in the air attitude is held in higher education (and I myself have held this attitude). Community colleges offer options to those who cannot afford or do not want to attend a college or university, and they can serve as a good stepping stone for those who do. From high school, I went straight into a 4-year univeristy... I now sometimes wish that I hadn't. My grades would have certainly been better, and I could have saved some major cash. I feared that my friends and certain family members would look down on me if I didn't go to a univeristy right off the bat. I hope that when I get into the classroom, I won't look down on my students that aren't able or do not want to attend a 4-year school.
Bridget- good point bringing up media manipulation. One of my favorite things to do is switch back and forth on television between MSNBC and FOX News.... half the time these stations are more entertaining than informative, and I can't help but laugh. If a certain news topic can help a political group's agenda, then they will latch on to it and spin it however they need, distorting the truth and brainwashing their audience.
In response to Alison's comment about the Wake County Schoool Board: It does seem that instead of these assigned readings we could just as easily be reading the News and Observer. Wake County is locked in a debate that is likely to be viewed historically as significant.
The "positionality" of the news media is that they exist to drive as many viewers to their advertising as possible, so as to charge more for the next round of ads they sell. The Sotomayor story was, in some small way, a real thing, but it became a big kerfuffle for the same reason that stupid weather balloon kid story did, because it could be easily fitted into a narrative of resentful, backlashing ethnic minorities.
In response to Morgan Early's earlier question: She asks,"Did teacher bias play a role in where they are today?" My experience as both teacher and student tells me YES, which is why we as future educators have an oppportunity to, as a greeting card might phrase it," Change the World."
In class last Tuesday, Dr. Greenfield asked us to think about and discuss the 'truths' we learned at home. This week in a science class I was subbing for, I had a opportunity to think about that idea and how that colors our views and actions. There was a girl in this class, over age, and perpetually angry and beligerent. Instead of doing her assignment, she started to comb her hair. I told her to put her brush away. She asked why? Why do you care if I brush my hair? I told her it wasn't polite to comb her hair in public. If she needed to do that, she needed to use the restroom. It was just like brushing her teeth or clipping her nails. She looked at me for the first time without hostility and said," I didn't know that. My mama didn't tell me that." I realized then that something as simple as combing our hair can create a gulf of miscommunication and contribute to our negative bias. In this case both hers and mine. In my upbringing, combing your hair in public was taboo. In hers in was a non issue.
Wow, glad there was some response to the education thing, I was planning to come back on and apologize for getting off topic.
MIKE: I liked your mention of "double consciousness" and I definitely think it makes sense, a very intriguing concept..it's something I had pondered before, but never knew it had been conceptualized...famously, no less. I'm definitely going to check it out.
Also, I think you're definitely right about outsourcing as being a way to champion the type of jobs we're leaving in the US. I read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat" earlier this year, and there was considerable talk of this..only from the corporate side, basically saying that offshoring was simply a tool for making more jobs at the top for Americans (while conveniently increasing the bottom line); that we no longer have to worry ourselves with the menial tasks of work and not waste our intellectual abilities on little things...riiight...(that was my reading at least, from the positionality of someone who does not trust that corporate America has my best interest at heart). The book did provide some interesting insight into how connected things are, and how things are changing though.
BRIDGET, In my post I was focusing more on not falling into the habit of labeling certain jobs as what "know-nothings" do...how is one to feel when they are forced to accept such jobs or when their parents work such jobs? The popular comment from teachers is always, "if you don't pass this test you're going to be asking 'would you like fries with that?' for the rest of your life." And honestly, after graduating from college, I was working all these jobs that you're "supposed" to be able to avoid with a college degree.
And I also often wonder, to what extent does our work define us? Does work just pay the bills and you are who you are, or are you in some way defined by the way you spend all day every day? Anyway, I in no way meant that--I liked the way that Mike put it,-- "the world needs ditch-diggers too," but that we need to be careful about how we try to label people and even jobs.
Alison - As a long-time reader of the New York Times, I gave up on Thomas Friedman years ago. DuBois, however, I heartily recommend, though I haven't read him in a long time. The double consciousness concept owes a lot to Hegel's dialectics, which I was pretty into when I was twenty and even dorkier than I am now. I shall take a look at "The Souls Of Black Folk" before class tomorrow.
I will say that working quality control at a copy store where many of my colleagues were ex-cons and dropouts, which I did for a few months post-BA, was (A) extremelyinteresting and informative from a sociological perspective and (B) kind of fun from a doing physical work perspective. If the compensation hadn't been lousy, I wouldn't have minded sticking with that job for awhile longer. And those convicts weren't dummies. They weren't book-smart, necessarily, but they had lots of information that the college boy had no idea about.
On the comment I made about the media, I am talking about the media in a way (since they choose what to report), but it’s the politicians and the political commentators who actually say the stuff that the media report. First time around with Justice Sotomayor’s line, they got me good with their commentary, and I was concerned and outraged! But then I listened to the line again, took a moment to think about it, and realized I wasted at least a year’s worth of white mock outrage on something that wasn’t outrageous at all. I felt very foolish.
And I totally agree with you guys about valuing and respecting all paths to success/happiness. But I’m not sure how that plays into teaching. As educators, we should encourage students to follow their dreams, and we obviously shouldn’t put down or judge certain occupations, but that’s all a given, isn’t it? I mean, was anybody going to put down a student’s plans to become a certified HVAC technician or be condescending towards a student’s father because he waits tables in a restaurant?
People in some groups are lot less likely to go to college than others, and this disparity is a direct result of disempowering conditions perpetuated by institutions like public schools. And I’m afraid that we end up giving lots of lip service to the humble nobility of certain jobs in order to condone the current arrangement. Yes, if an individual wants to work at a fast food restaurant, that’s great! But when it’s only individuals from the same socioeconomic group making that “choice,” we need to take a look at why that is and consider some ways to empower all students to achieve whatever it is they truly want to achieve.
By the way, my book still hasn’t arrived yet so I may be on some crazy different page than the rest of the class.
There's a distinction to be made between the dignity of the work and whether it might not be advisable to seek further education because it affords the opportunity to make one's material existence a bit easier. There's nothing wrong with running the Fry-o-Lator, but the pay at Bojangles sucks and it's hard to raise a family. The opposite of this is that taking a job in AIG's Financial Products division can be quite lucrative, but there's a good chance you are engaged in non-productive or even actively harmful activities.
Ok so Im now writing this for the second time because the post didn't post the first time.
This situation happened this past Friday as I read aloud to my class. Now, the situation was a lot more in depth when I first typed it, so excuse the shortened explanation.
The book was reading had a number of Spanish words throughout it. I have never taken Spanish, and, hence, had a lot of trouble pronouncing the words and sentences. So I stumbled over them, thus making it ok for students to do the same as long as they tried their best.
As the students started volunteering to read they continued to stumble over the words. I saw one student get progressively more upset as the readings went on. I finally asked her if she would like to read, I quickly learned that she was Hispanic and could pronounce all of the words correctly.
The students began pausing when they read for this one girl to read the Spanish words. The process seemed successful, a sharing of cultures. However, we finally came across one student that became angry when he was unable to read the words. He began yelling about how the words were stupid and pointless. That he was going to skip over them and just continue on without them, This then caused a huge reaction from the Hispanic girl. She began yelling about how he was insulting her and her language. That he had no right to say what he was saying.
I quickly squashed the yelling match and told the students to begin reading silently. I still wonder the best way to deal with this situation. I see that there is a major teaching moment here and I did my best to present it as such, however I wonder what the best approach would be, if there is one. Is there away to make students understand that their words can offend even when they mean nothing by it, without just telling them they are wrong? How do you make students accountable for their actions if they don't understand that what they are saying is wrong?
And B. I thought you were doing a good job allowing the Spanish speaking girl to fill in the difficult words. You were validating her competency, her language, and skill. Also the ensured that she was reading along quietly in her 'second language'. But I have no good response of how to handle the angry one. I will check back to see if anyone else had a good idea.
You raised some excellent questions I grapple with as well. In my experience I have had decent luck looking for an opportunity to talk to the offending student one on one -- lunch was usually a decent time -- and mention that I was surprised by their reaction and wanted to check in. Usually the student would launch right into their story. Sometimes the offending incident brought up issues I didn't know they were grappling with, but I usually let them start by expressing themselves, if for no other reason than to let them be heard. We usually take it from there in an effort to see how their words could be hurtful. In an effort not to single out another student, I try to be very clear that the problem is that their words were hurtful to me. I've had some really interesting conversations with students starting here. Sometimes the two students (or more) can talk it out eventually, but it all depends on the situation, the students, your school, your comfort-level, etc. I am really interested to hear if others have suggestions because this certainly has not always worked and has sometimes made for some upset parents.
KATHERINE, I’m so glad you posted about the hair combing! It raises a real mental challenge for me that I suspect the class can help me with. There are certain norms to which middle-class (largely white) America expects other groups to adhere. The dirty trick is that, while they uphold these rules and norms for others, they simultaneously give themselves a pass; for example, when middle-class teens use unfamiliar slang, it’s often considered a cute choice of words or some “phase,” but in other people, it can be taken as a sign of ignorance, disrespect, or threatening nonconformity.
So, as teachers, how do we traverse that totally unjust reality in our classrooms? For students that truly are isolated and don’t know all the silly rules in place, do we “correct” them as if their behavior is actually incorrect in some way (when it's not)? Do we admit that this is a racist, classist framework set up to put them down, and then ask that they comply with it anyway? This is confusing to me!
Rodnella I completely agree with you. I think we definitely focused on "the line" too much and did not recognize the speech as a whole. I think the speech was powerful and a stand for woman and minorities. Like you said, we all need to continue to think that we could be wrong. As hard as that is to accept, I think our discussions can continue to expand if we remember that.
Kate Your comment about replacing "white" with "black" really struck me. That is something that was never discussed and something I never thought of. It puts it into perspective how certain words can trigger such a powerful response. I definitely dont think we would have had the same reaction if "white" wasnt in that line. I did not feel that strongly about the line because I saw it in a different way. I took it that she was looking from the bottom up, like Dr. Greenfield said. I dont think she was trying to offend white males, but make a point. I feel she should have replaced "better" with a different word, but we are still putting too much attention on that one line and not focusing on the speech as a whole.
ELIZABETH: I really enjoyed your story about reading the "bilingual" book in class, and think it is a very relevant issue for schools in many parts of the US today. It also really reminded me of Dora the Explorer, which I'm sure is for younger kids, but very actively merges English and Spanish throughout the show. I think this is good for both native Spanish and English speakers, but I wonder how a linguist would see it. I'm not even sure if the language on the show is spoken in a grammatically correct manner; it would be interesting to watch an episode with a language arts teacher and a Spanish teacher to see if kids can get any educational value out of the show or if they are just learning bad habits. Maybe instead of broadening their language ability, kids aren't really learning either one. But I would guess that this isn't true. Just the exposure to a new language/foreign ideas has to be a good thing in this case.
A lot of the posts have been whether the Sonia Sotomayor article had racist overtones or not and how we personally feel about it, a time of reflection on how our personal biases affect our views of the world and how the world views us. My initial responses had been that of white guilt. Maybe because consciously or sub-consciously I knew I knew of white privilege. I now want to move beyond that because we all have our biases as she pointed out in her speech. I want to learn how to use my knowledge of postionality and my biases as positive in the class room, how to bridge that gap with all students so that they will perform, participate to the best of their ability. Many of you already have that experience in the class room and I appreciate when I hear of your personal encounters and how you handled them.
Elizabeth - I've been thinking about your story for the past few days. I think it sounded like you handled the situation well, but I'm curious about conversations that occured AFTER the story. Did you have further conversations with the two students who yelled? What about the rest of the class.
I'm excited about class tonight, I hope we'll do a better job of speaking AND listening so that we can learn from a larger variety of perspectives. I know in classes like this I personally struggle sometimes to know when to jump in and when to hold my tongue and let someone else possibly express similar thoughts. When does my perspective contribute to the overall progression of the class? How do YOU decide? I've waited to respond to my classmates to have something insightful to say... but I'm not always sure how to tell what I might say that might connect with someone else.
As a side note, I saw the movie Invictus this week. It's about the national rugby team in South Africa and President Nelson Mandella's interaction with them. I really enjoyed it and hope some of you might as well - I plan on reading more about Mandella after an intersting movie sparked my interest and inspired me.
Being out of town last week, I missed the discussion on Sotomayor's infamous phrase. I did however, have the opportunity to discuss social justice issues and the effect of one's background on perceptions of the world with people whose beliefs differ markedly from my own so I appreciated the advice on exploring who we respond to arguements in particular ways rather than re-emphasizing our points. Therefore, I will touch first on Sotomayor's speech and the commentary I listened to on NPR while she was being considered for Supreme Court Justice, then on the interesting discussion I had with my family.
I find it frightening that the majority of discussion around Sotomayor's qualifications (on NPR) involved her ethnicity rather than her record. I commend her bravery to admit that her background (being 100% American. She was born here, afterall.) will play a role in her judgement. Let's consider this situation for a momment. Have we ever heard a white man talk about how his background will influence his judgement on cases? Would he view the ref's calls in the game tonight against Carolina be the same if he went to State? How would they differ if he went to Clemson? Why should a Latina woman have to explain her background any more than he would? She isn't saying she would favor a Latina in a particular case any more than I would distribute more As to the female students in my class.
The discussion I had with my family demonstrates the continued misconceptions the public has about students at-risk. Growing up poor in rural Hickory, North Carolina to working-class parents, my mother's sisters and brother have a lot of experience being at-risk themselves. Each of my aunts and uncles have had to push forward on limited education and strong self-motivation to achieve their goals. This background propogates the idea that those who work hard will be rewarded for their efforts accordingly. The problem arises when you point out the inherent priviledge my family has had in simply being white. My aunt was livid when I pointed out how the educational system favors certain students, particularly those who value individual effort rather than community support (as is common in European-American communities). Her response to this arguement was in favor of holding everyone to the same standard regardless of background but came out something like this, "I don't care if your dad beat your or your mom walked out on you. You need to sit there and do your math like everyone else." This comment illustrates an important point, which I unfortunately could not offer my aunt due to my emotional response to the thoughtlessness of the delivery of her opinion, which is that students will not all succeed in the same environment, and yes - their backgrounds must be considered. The Eah excercise comes to mind when I argue that students from different backgrounds are being forced into an educational system set up by one ethnicity, of which my mother's family is a part, and may not be the most effective environment for all students. We should absolutely utilize what works for different groups of students not represented in the planning of the original system in the same way that I, as a visual-kinesthetic learner, must incorporate auditory examples in my lessons. Students who are at-risk like the example she gave *should* be treated different; not because we feel sorry for them and want to give them all the answers so they can succeed while other students must work for themselves, but because each students is an individual with individual strengths and individual circumstances. We must recognize, first, how our experiences have shaped how we look at the world. Then, we must consider how others' experiences have shaped their worlds, if for no other reason than to learn how to better reach them. I will not take as much away from a lecture than an activity. My students should be afforded the same opportunity, and that can only be accomplished by me stepping out of the box (i.e. my background/experiences). I can't step out of the box unless I recognize which box I'm in. I think that's the point Sotomayor was trying to make: that she recognized her box.
I had some questions bout the Noguera article that I was interested to hear some other perspectives on, if folks are still reading the blog. I have seen a number of "Joaquin's" in the school I taught in in DC, but it struck me that the majority of kids I thought of were male. I wonder if there is something about our stereotypes about males and females that cause males to react so visibly to their racial awareness. I assume similar dilemmas occur with girls, but I suspect they manifest differently. As a result are we less aware of the difficulty of girls going through similar experiences? Is this racial discordance less of a problem for girls?
Noguera didn't seem to acknowledge the positive effects of the self segregation of students. I thought I was being a good little teacher by mixing my students heterogenously in my US History class, but it backfired completely. Almost the students I was hoping to bolster (the lower performing students, most of whom were also Black) shut down and let the other students do the assignment. When I allowed them to pick their own groups, even though they were more homogeneous, it allowed all the students to own their successes, because they were more likely to participate more fully, and actually helped break down some of the stereotypes because their products didn't tend to reflect the labels the kids carried. I think this got us closer to that "equal status" so that later in the year I could mix groups again and had better success. In short, I think it is still really important for kids to be able to pick their friends and that picking friends because they look like you shouldn't be considered a bad thing. I don't think Noguera is saying that, but I found myself conceptualizing his argument that way while reading.
Erin: I think there is much more of a sense, across ethnic/racial lines, that boys are supposed to be too cool for school, that the way to stand out as a male in our society is by being bigger, stronger, and more athletic. Being good at school comes off as nerdy, wimpy, effete, and effeminate. I don't really have a good grasp of what sort of counter-academic pressures girls contend with, but I know that boys are supposed to be badasses and badasses don't read.
I'm sorry I missed class Tuesday guys, I'm sure it was fun, enlightening, and perhaps difficult. I’m encouraged by the responses, it seems that in many ways we are on the same page – whether we agree or disagree, we’re open to others opinions and opposing viewpoints. Erin that’s an interesting point about the positive aspects of self-segregation… of I guess the goal is that students don’t do it based on class, race, or background but there is some inevitability about it. I’m going to try and think on that a little more. Michael - my experience in school was a little different when it came to the "male experience" but I think you bring up a valid point that seems to have been often discussed in education literature. It seems a lot of the research indicates its less about the attitude of the male population, rather its the structure of our classrooms and school system.. anyway, good thoughts and I'll see everyone next week
Erin - I think that boys and girls deal with issues differently. Boys tend to externalize (if they're mad, they'll fight and get it out of their system and it's really easy to see) whereas girls tend to internalize (if they're mad, they'll hold a grudge for years and it's a lot more subtle), so I think that it might just be more obvious for boys to have a struggle, whereas girls may have attitude problems or just be quiet or shy and give up, basically be more difficult to tell.
It feels kinda funny that we don’t have a blog topic this week but I just wanted to wish everyone a safe and WARM weekend. This week’s class was simply…AMAZING!
And I look forward to what next week has in store. Would all like to post our essays for assignment #1 here? I’ll be the guinea pig (smile)...
Hi! I hope everyone had a chance to enjoy the snow this weekend! I just wanted to hear any thoughts/ comments you guys had about the readings this week - esp the one in Spanglish. As a Spanish major with half of my heart in Mexico and Spain, I loved the article and appreciated that it was written her her native tongue - Spanglish. I imagine it might have been a bit frustrating for those of you who don't speak Spanish considering she didn't translate anything, or maybe you just skimmed over it; but I'd like to hear what you thought.
Hope you have a wonderful rest of the weekend! See you Tues!
What kind of shoddy operation are they running down here that four inches of snow on a Saturday shuts down schools on the Monday and Tuesday? This is pathetic.
I read 16,17 and 1 last week, and don't recall the Spanglish story offhand. What page was that on? Or are you referring to something else? So I'm just a bit nervous now that I missed something. Thanks.
I'm currently watching the youtube videos Dr.Greenfield sent us.
Michael,
You know I hear you. I recall going to school in 2 feet of snow sometimes back in NYC.
In response to class last night, I enjoyed our discussion and was excited that multiple perspectives arose that we could learn from. I was surprised about how I personally acted and internally responded to the event. After the first class, I thought ... OK ... bring it on, I am an open person! When we started to have discussions last night, I instead kept on thinking how I thought my point was correct and how I was going to express myself in the hopes of getting ... oh yes ... we agree from everyone in the classroom! I know that sounds kind of silly, but I realize that I kept thinking more about my point and how to restate it so everyone understood rather than thinking about how others interpreted the readings and perhaps what ideas lead them to have these thoughts. I am looking forward to our next class and my personal goal of continuing to have my own opinions but to also be continuing the process of stating my ideas with not so much a background of ... this is what I think ... but more of ... this is my perspective and I arose to this perspective because of this train of thought etc.
ReplyDeleteOk, looking forward to all of your comments ... and p.s. I don't know why there is no picture of me next to the followers ... I loaded it but I tend to be a little technologically slow sometimes.
Since we started class I can't stop thinking about my privilege and positionality as I am out and about. Going through the drive through last night I was thinking about our discussion and I was served by both an African American man and Hispanic man. We all have the notion that if you don't go to college you end up working the drive through. This made me wonder, are they there by choice or environment or both? For the first time I also thought, did their TEACHERS' BIASES play a role in where they are today?
ReplyDeleteDespite their pasts, I also realized that those guys were also just people like you or I. I think as educated folk we often have "educated privilege," whether we have white privilege or not. I think this is even more important than our race because since we are being educated on social justice, doesn't that give us even more responsibility to society? It makes me feel guilty for all the times that I have driven through the drive through without the common courtesy of a smile because I somehow subconciously thought I was better.
I think the biggest thing I got out of the Sotomayor article was that we all have biases. The important thing is how we deal with them. I think I harped a little bit too much last night on us not knowing whether or not she would be a good justice because of the media's obsession with her race. Sure, I still think it's lame that the media hops around content because they want derisive racial comments for viewership, but I think the point of focus for Blog 2 should be about bias and privilege.
Also, for those interested in my position on the justice system--I'm not against affirmative action in education, but affirmative action on a bench is completely different. I get that a collective whole would seem to be more objective, but the way our justice system works, I just don't think we can hope that piece by piece we'll eventually get it balanced. Some presidents get to appoint 2 justices in their term, some none. Those cookie crumbles just don't fall fair, so we have to look at each justice and say is this person interpreting things the way I would like? Or we could change the whole appointment system, but that's a discussion for another class...
Honestly, I didn't speak up much yesterday because I was pretty tired, and I didn't have a whole lot to talk about for each article. In Sotomayor's article, the previously discussed quote rubbed me the wrong way as well. I think it's a crossing of expectations that made it a controversial subject. My expectations of a judge is to attempt to be unbiased, try to make decisions for the betterment of society as a whole, and try to uphold laws fairly and consistently. Her words seemed to say that she doesn't think it's possible to be unbiased, and therefore doesn't necessarily try to be unbiased. It's more like she is balancing instead of balanced, and my perspective is that she should be balanced (or unbiased). I'm not sure that she would uphold laws fairly, that she would treat a white male the same as a latino woman of exactly the same situation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the communication of the subjects were concerned, a lot of people spoke more in absolutes (someone in that position needs to __) instead of in more open-minded language (i feel ___ or i think he/she may have meant___). The language made it very black and white, creating division in the classroom. People seemed to try to figure out Sotomayor instead of figuring out themselves, why they thought that way, what could be taken from the article, etc. I was also surprised that people got caught up in grammatical errors and styles of the writing instead of focusing on content. Writing ability and knowledge aren't directly related to each other; there are people with great ideas who are not great at expressing them, but it shouldn't discount ideas that are made.
From Dr. Greenfield email I think that maybe we did not grasp the full measure of the exercise. After reading the articles I found it difficult to separate my personal from the societal paradigm. Our class is predominately white and privileged so I find myself saying quit acting white. It is a difficult task. Maybe some of the push back we see in society plays on what the media, for the past twenty years, drumming the political correctness view. As in Shelby Steele book “White Guilt” I have been made to feel that I must apologize for my whiteness, therefore when I hear the wise Latina statement and replace that line with “a wise white man” I know that would certainly pass for racism. But I feel that we must understand that the way we perceived (white privileged) influences how we are received by others and in the class room we must be aware of that.
ReplyDeleteComing from a background where women, especially ones who are not interested in math and science, are viewed as mainly housekeepers and child bearers, I thoroughly enjoyed the Sotomayor article. Although in reading the article I did stop at "the line" and think it was a bit out of place, I thought her overall sentiments were rich, complex, and fresh. When she was describing her position on impartiality, she also mentioned that ignoring our differences as men/women, minority/majority, etc., could actually do a disservice to the law and society. Though I do think, as a judge, she should be held to a higher standard in interpreting the law as impartial as possible (as well as the phrases she uses), she also tried to explain her background and why it is difficult to reconcile certain issues as a woman and Latina who sees things a little differently than a white woman, or African American man or whoever. It is because of experience as someone in a specific positionality that we can interpret and look at things differently.
ReplyDeleteIn class I did not get to express these sentiments because one, I get nervous about saying things and it not coming out the way I had planned in my head, and two, I felt as if there was no real opportunity to change the subject. While it is important as a class to be able to discuss topics fervently (while sometimes not reaching a conclusion) I think it is also important to remember why there are only five people out of 20 or so talking. I know I am an internal processor. I need to have a second to come up with a way to formulate my opinion before I say it. Sometimes there is not much room for this, but I guess I am writing this so that people can know a little about where I am coming from.
I’m a scientist with an engineering-based brain so the ‘touchy feely’ discussion aspect of the class is very difficult for me to grasp. I haven’t taken a liberal arts based class since high school, so discussions in this class are a bit of a stretch for me.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to voicing my opinion, I’m more familiar in voicing my professional opinion on a project than I am expressing my personal opinion. I’m decently comfortable discussing in a small group, but when it comes to the larger class discussions I feel a little out of place and am afraid of coming off too conservatively. I’m plenty comfortable having my professional opinion challenged, but when it comes to a personal opinion that I base my experiences off of, I find it difficult to take judgment (I realize this is something I am just going to have to get over).
Class has certainly made me think about my positionality. As a southern, half jewish, heterosexual, white, professional scientist female, I’ve been thrust into a variety of situations, be it as the majority or the minority. We all have some part of us that’s been oppressed and we’ve all had some part of us that’s been the oppressor. These situations of course lead us to our biases but at the same time should lead us to better understand multiple perspectives. I understood where Sotomayor was coming from when she said she couldn’t rid herself of her biases in her judgment in the court but as an educator it won’t be my job to judge the children. I think it will be plenty possible as a teacher to remain impartial and to provide the same education and expectations to each one of my students no matter what their background. In the end we need to remember that we will/should be providing some of the only impartial experiences our students will ever have.
I agree with Kate that we hold our judges in a higher accord than others and I am sure that being an educator we will be held at a higher standard as well. It is good to see and hear this now so that we can temper our teaching with those that we teach. We all have bias it is who we are. We however should acknowledge them so that we can reach out to a larger audience. I am a second generation Greek. My grandparents came here because they wanted to be American, not Greek-Americans. He would not call himself a Greek-American he said that he was proud to be an American. This gets back to the melting pot vs. salad. We are all Americans and sometimes I think that we have become over sensitive. I know that is coming from someone is White Euro-Centric. I am proud of my heritage but much prouder of being an American. When we take history dissect it with our moral values today we can easily see the wrongs of our past. But that is like Monday morning quarterbacking. It is good to reflect what we did wrong and why so that going forward we do not make the same mistakes. This class is a good instrument for that but it is difficult not to feel guilty when we hear the criticism.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot to say, and I had a lot to say in that class. It's funny because often I don't and I consider myself more of a reserved, introspective individual.
ReplyDeleteIn response to why I maybe responded the way I did: First off, as a white male, I found that comment by Sotomayor offensive. Whether I’m in the majority or not, I’m not sure. Sotomayor is in a position of extreme power with the ability to enact momentous change on our society from the top down. I understand that we are all humans and we have our bias; I will be the first to admit that I do. But as Morgan pointed out her position of partiality is how she interprets the constitution. That is her duty upon assuming the role of a Supreme Court Justice. Whether she was black, white, Hispanic is irrelevant (yes, it offended me that she said “white male,” but let me continue). A wise decision for a Supreme Court Justice should not have basis on race or richness in cultural experience – it is solely about how you interpret the constitution as a living document.
From my positionality, I do not feel that it is wrong that her comment, whether harmless or not, frightens me to an extent. I really appreciated the cruise ship analogy, it makes a lot of sense… but how has Sotomayor lived in two worlds anymore than I have? She has seen the position of a white male in her profession and throughout her life, but she hasn’t lived it anymore than I have lived the life of Hispanic in New York. I would NEVER concede that I could make a wiser “better” decision than her. For me this isn’t a question of “white guilt” or privilege, because I accept that White America has and will always have inherent privileges. I hate to get hung up on words, because they are just words but I will not excuse her because she had to work harder (potentially) than a white male would have to attain her position.
Perhaps her words were chosen poorly, but it could be a larger issue than that. Surely the system she speaks of is slanted toward the White male, I have no problem with accepting that, and her speech eloquently describes her experiences and how we are lacking in judges that are not White men. That is an issue we must confront head-on in a myriad of creative and different ways.
I believe, to some degree, that what she said was PREJUDICE and I don’t want that prejudice translating to a seat on the Supreme Court. For me, her comment exacerbates the problem… Would I feel like this if I was a Hispanic female or came from some other positionality? I hope I would, because I believe people should be held accountable for what they say regardless of ethnicity.
My goal for this class and in life is to strive to be a better person and help make the world a better place (Heal the world, Michael Jackson). My goal is to try and understand others positionalities and expand my world view. I want to be challenged, I want to strengthen myself. I do think that someone who has lived a rich, expansive, cultural life will make a different, perhaps wiser decision than someone who hasn’t. So if she was making her point in those terms, then I could agree; however, she chose her words to include “better” and signaled out the white male. How is that in the spirit of our class? Isn’t that what we’re attempting to move past?
Dr. Greenfield, in reading your email, I think you underestimated our (at least my) ability to be conscience of our positionality... but this comment drives a wedge into the entirety of her speech. As someone in our small group said: “It sticks out like a sore thumb,” in an otherwise eloquent, well-written speech. As always, we’ll continue to dig deeper, I know I have much more to share
I would like to add that I still have a lot to learn, I'm young... but I'm excited and willing to listen to others. I'm usually not so set in stone on an issue and I realize some of this is me getting hung up with "better" and "white" and "man." However, I feel like this may be one of those situations where my unwillingness to bend very much is valid. I do feel slighted, perhaps a feeling that Sotomayor felt in her career to the top (and one that many white men don't feel).. I just don't see how this comment is good for anyone.
ReplyDeleteI typed a long response, but it disappeared! Yikes. Maybe it was meant to be saved for class. : ) Quickly though....
ReplyDeleteMy email simply asked everyone to continue doing this self-reflective thinking about the source of our reactions as well as to consider what factors might have shaped our collective conversation. Most importantly, I wanted us to utilize the blog as a place to make these conversations more public so we could learn from one another and better understand perhaps the internal processes and reactions that might be going on with our own students. I truly appreciate the willingness to engage in this very meaningful (but often challenging) work. As you progress through the class, these experiences and encounters will be critical to evaluate. I once read a line from a book that proclaimed, "The process is the content, and the content is the process." I hope that you do (and will continue to) see value in the journey.
I'll save my fun analogy for class.
Here's an interesting piece that might be of interest:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html
Happy Blogging!
I agree that maybe the larger context of the speech was potentially lost on the class through our debate. It did really show how much of a wedge issue the comment was! (I was acutally unaware that this had blown up in the media). I think that Dreber made an interesting point about wisdom and the capability of a judge to put them in the place of the defendant they face. That is something that a lot of us take for granted, especially me, as a white male. Hopefully I will never be in that situation, but I can rest (more) easily knowing that I will not face the same challenges others in my position might.
ReplyDeleteWhat Sotomayor was trying to say was more important than that sentence and I feel I got her message. That comment did seem troubling and somewhat contradictory and antagonistic to her thesis, but after re-reading (and re-reading) I think it is a powerful piece and unfortunate that this became focal point. Perhaps more interesting is the reason(s) behind why it became such an divisive issue..? And a reason why many called for her not to be confirmed.
Anyway, my next post will be focused on our new readings : )
Thank you Dr. Greenfield
ReplyDeleteI read the link and I think that intellectually I understand.
But I don’t know why I have a gut reaction to the word “better”
Sotomayor's one controversial line, I feel recieved too much attention. I really thought that the point of the speech was lost (at least temporarily) due to an over-analysis of the word "better". The line definitely stuck out to me when I was reading it, but I didn't get quite as hung up on it as others. I think I understand why some in the class took acception to the wording (I agree with you David the comment was antagonistic and somewhat contradictory), but I'm not sure why it didn't ring as loud for me. I didn't have a big emotional response to it, maybe because I was reading it, not hearing it. I'm sure though that if someone had spoken these words to me right in front of me, it would have stung more.
ReplyDeleteWhat stuck out most to me were the staggering numbers (I like numerical stats that back up arguments) listed in the early parts of the speech that layout the vast gender and ethinic inequities in the judicial system. Reading these numbers, for whatever reason made me feel guilty. It has me thinking about what I have done to contribute to injustices such as these. Topics like we cover in class are issues that I have not wrestled with before, so these emotions about these issues are new for me. With more time to contemplate and digest these issues, my feelings will varry.
I agree with several of the posters here, that our SC justices should be held to a very high standard, and that Sotomayor should have used more tact and used different wording for the point she was trying to make. However, slighting white men wasn't the point of her speech, and to me, it is more important to look into the thesis of her argument.
Howdy,
ReplyDeleteDuring last week’s class, I noticed that a handful of the same students talked more during the discussions, some of us others may have felt hesitant to speak up due to the strong nature of the opinions being expressed. I, personally, apologize for not voicing more of my options during the discussions. However, since what I wanted to share was in complete objection to the majority of what was being said about, for instance the Sotomayor piece, I chose not “rock the boat.” On more than one occasion, I was compelled to say something but before I could, another comment from one of the few who continued to elaborate their opinions broke the silence.
I noticed that some of us kept using the phrases, “in my opinion” or that’s just my opinion.” I don’t feel this reference was necessary because it was blatantly understood. Continual use of these phrases perhaps only solidified other students’ thoughts that some of us were “stuck” on what we believed and were not “open” to listening to the viewpoints of others.
Although “shut down” moments do occur, they are really opportunities for us to challenge ourselves to see things through “different eyes.” I’m hopeful that as the semester progresses, we’ll develop more effective communication skills to speak about such diverse and critical issues. This will be extremely important because I feel that the topics will get even … DEEPER!
Hey Folks -
ReplyDeleteI felt as though I said a few one liners or maybe a few words however I was more posing questions for myself out loud. I was rubbed raw by the "White Privilege" piece by Peggy McIntosh. It was a tough pill to swallow and I'm still not sure I want to swallow parts of it. I think the idea of positionality and really how we define our positionality like Dr. Greenfield challenged in the email is a good place to start. I think to truly educate all students properly, you must truly and sincerely understand their positionality. I think my response is - can we truly understand everyone's positionality? This is a question I am wrestling with. I think that may be the may question I will struggle with during this course. I think that was the basis of Sotomayor's arguement about her being a wise Latina judge. That she may fully grasp a situation experientially thanks to her positionality whereas a white judge (the example she uses) could grasp a different situation more deeply. I feel like the white privilege piece painted being white as an inherently immoral thing not necessary amoral. However, this may be a reaction on a personal level to a collective observation. I think that any type of argument when directed toward a group will not encompass all members of that group be it gender-based, class-based, race-based etc. I don't think race in and of itself can be defined as good or bad but rather is a category for compartmentalization not unlike class or gender. I do think it is what we do with our class, race, gender that makes it what it is. If we are a member of a majority group as pointed out in the reading, we should be more aware of ways we are oppressing a targeted group be it intentionally or unintentionally. If we are in the targeted group, we should be more aware of ways we are oppressed be it intentionally or unintentionally.
I feel like sometimes I need to be a fly on the wall during discussion times and soak up what others are saying and let it saturate for a while before serving up my opinion. I do feel that digging deeper into these issues will make us more responsive and ultimately more sincere and intimate in our teaching and hopefully therefore, reach a bigger audience and bring them an an understanding of a particular subject. History is my passion and an understanding of different parts of history is essential to progress forward into making a more informed and balanced future. Not just a lens of history based on my positionality but based on those of all cultures.
Have to admit that I don't know a lot about Sotomayor, and that may have been a large reason why I participated in the "shut down" that occurred on Tuesday night. I've been reading her wikipedia page for the last 15 minutes (not the most academic source for research, I know, but whatever...) and feel like at least now, I know a little more about her so maybe now I understand her better. And I like her. She's from a working class area of New York City, raised by a single mother and received scholarships to both Princeton and then Yale for law school. Instead of taking a big time corporate or law firm gig right after school, she took a job as an assistant DA in New York City a position she held for five years before succumbing to private practice's allure. Another fact I found interesting was that she ended the 1994 Major League Baseball strike by issuing a preliminary injunction. So what did all of this teach me about Sotomayor? She's tough, hard working, and calculating. When giving a speech like the one we read, she means every word and every phrase is chosen to communicate something or spark discussion. I don't really believe the argument that she let this controversial line slip in a long speech, which was made by some people in class.
ReplyDeleteI wish we had gotten to the third article in class, so I guess I will hold off on talking about that for now. On a less serious note, after I received the email from Dr. Greenfield, I kept thinking "does anyone else wish we had bottles of wine being passed around class?" I feel that after a few glasses, class discussion would become even more interesting, inhibitions would be shed, and people would say what they really feel, right when they feel it.
I wanted to make a comment on Morgan Early's post which I thought a fascinating and very relevant question. Here is the part of her post that struck me:
ReplyDeleteSince we started class I can't stop thinking about my privilege and positionality as I am out and about. Going through the drive through last night I was thinking about our discussion and I was served by both an African American man and Hispanic man. We all have the notion that if you don't go to college you end up working the drive through. This made me wonder, are they there by choice or environment or both? For the first time I also thought, did their TEACHERS' BIASES play a role in where they are today?
I work at a private school and had a very similar discussion with the guidance counselor the other day. She and I were talking about a specific student who has a lot of behavior issues in the classroom and outside of the classroom. The student's mother came in to discuss the student's behavior and made the comment, "If he (the student) thinks the teacher expects him to act up, then normally he probably will." I think this line speaks volumes to our class and the discussion surrounding our expectations of students. If a student feels underprivileged thanks to race, class, gender, sexuality - then they will probably embrace those feelings and continue in them. Rather than reinforce these expectations, we should challenge them. We need to challenge the student to reach over the expectations a certain oppressive positionality might have and achieve their goals. This particular student who I just mentioned responds well to positive encouragement and one on one time with teachers. This should and must be used in order to help him along in his educational pursuits. Understanding the student and being empathetic to these needs is critical to their well-being and achievement I believe.
I am curious, Leethanial, what your thoughts are/were, especially if they are/were in complete objection to what the majority of what was being said.
ReplyDeleteJosh (and everyone), I liked the discussion thread that you brought up about the possibility of teacher's playing a role in how students are today (or after graduation). In another course I am taking (579) ... we are talking about learning disabilities and the power in which teachers have over their students. When I say power, I mean that the teachers have the power in this case to shape students futures. Teachers who do not take the time to make transition plans for some learning disabled students and hold them the expectation level of an average learner can sometimes allow the student to slip through the cracks of the academic environment which leads to the student have more issues to face etc as an adult. Of course this is not a definite for every learning disabled student ... but research show that teachers make a difference. Teachers as the positive reinforcement and subtle mentor will almost always promote positive things for the student.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that when I googled diversity in the classroom. (I know ... I can't help it ... I love google!) ... the first links on the page have to do with teachers responsibility to nurture their academic environment in hopes of creating a classroom that is comfortable for all students whether it is gender related, class related, race related etc. It is OUR job to create this environment and it is our job to open our minds in order to create the best environment that we can create. I think that we all know what our personal opinions are ... that is good, we all have an understanding of ourselves. In class ... we need to state where our personal opinions come from, what makes us the way we are. From our first two classes I can say, that I enjoy hearing everyones opinions, but I know it would be great to know the WHY behind them, the WHY behind your personal positionality and your background ... I know that would further allow me to grasp understanding of other people and would continue to help us all push towards an increased ability to understand each other.
I don't even know where to begin on this post as after reading all of the ones I have so much to say. So here I go, please bare with me on the long response... I'll Capitalize the names so if I'm talking to you you can easily find it.
ReplyDeleteMORGAN - I think pointing out the "educated privilege"is a good point, and something that I, at times, forget about. I think education is a major factor in discrimination and success. Many times people write you off if you lack a college degree or seem like you might. I think this could potentially affect a person more than race or gender.
Stemming off that topic, I find it interesting that you believe in affirmative action in the classroom but not in the courtroom. Do you mind explaining your reasoning behind those thoughts? I personally don't agree with affirmative action, but I do feel that typically if you believe in it in one area you should in another? What makes you hesitate with it in the courtroom?
I'd have to agree with CANDICE about the feel of class discussions. I do feel that people tend to attach to one idea and stick to it. I would love to limit time or discussions on topics so that a variety of things could be discussed. For example moving past a single sentence after there has been a conversation about it. This planning for topic change would also allow other people to get involved and contribute their thoughts.
I'd also like to focus on a recurring feeling I saw appear in posts. The feeling of uneasiness when making statements and explaining thoughts. I think it is important for all of us to remember that thoughts in our heads don't always come out like one thinks they are going to. I feel that diversity classes already put people on edge and to make the classroom a space where students can share openly it is going to be essential to hear people out. Ask for explanation and keep your voices down. No need to make a huge deal about a misspoken statement, and being open to not judge and get angry immediately is important. No one is trying to say anything mean or angering in the classroom so don't automatically interpret the statements made defensively.
DAVID - I'd have to agree with your overall thoughts. I understand where you were coming from. We can't ignore word choice (especially since she had much time to think through this speech) just because we feel like Sotomayor meant something else. But I do direct you to the above statement: No matter what sometimes what you think sounds right and legit is going to come out wrong.
If the class could have gotten past that statement I feel that Sotomayor was saying some very thoughtful comments.
Culture is an integral part of all of us and will inevitably affect every choice or decision we make, you can't argue that point. None of us are impartial, there is no neutrality. I think these are the essential ideas that we should have focused on and talked about. We all would love to be impartial, but is it ever possible to truly be that way?
I am going to put this right out there. I am a feminist, a democrat, and an Episcopalian. I have been a teacher in a bilingual school, and I fully support bilingual education even though politics have trumped statistics in this debate. When Sotomayor was appointed I considered it a victory not only for my country, but a personal victory for my daughters, my mother, and me. I was very disappointed in the words she chose. As intellectual and accomplished as she is, she did not get to this place on her own merit. Woman and some men have been waging a battle for her opportunity to serve for generations. She is not at the end of her own journey; rather she is another step in the fight for equality and opportunity for all people. Her statements were not good for the cause. That said, the article was given to us as a way to see with another person’s perspective. And she did that well. Likewise the story about Joaquin gave us an insight into the minority and youth and their willingness to give up on an education as a way to fit in with their peers. The paper from Toledo was as we all agreed poorly written. It is also sadly out of date. Most of the facts she numbered are no longer true. A lot were not true in 1989. I was there. I remember. In fact I had to buy hair care products for my foster daughter, a beautiful black child with mounds of curls… in 1989. I went to the drug store on the corner in own my very white neighborhood. There were so many products; I could not begin to know what to buy. So she loses a lot of credibility. Because these authors fall short does not mean that the issue falls short.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of my classmates and despite my own bad associations with double journal entries from a past class, I think returning to the ideas from our double journal may be helpful. I had written down as my 3 main ideas 1) her background described with humor, 2) some very interesting statistics and facts about the past especially regarding women and Latina/o judges and 3) that Sotomayor asserts female judges and Latina judges do make different judgements at times because of their background and the way their experiences color their decisions.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the 3rd point is the most important of the speech, but we need to broaden our focus to address the whole issue and not one sentence. While sound bites work best for the news, I hope that our class will be far more than a collection of sound bites.
This was part of my reflection on 3)
I was very moved by the last portion of Sotomayor's speech. I applaud her for pointing out that a woman's decisions and views on things ARE colored by her experience. To say that if she were equally wise, or intelligent, or any adjective, that she would make the same decisions as a man would detract from her distinctive experiences and identity. I'm impressed by the way she embraces her background as influencing her decisions, but does not allow that to define her.
Personally I noticed that sentence, but I didn't focus on the word better. I was surpised how it upset some of my classmates and had considered it by far my favorite of the reading so I was shocked to hear some others had a completely opposite response. I guess I heard that there had been some controversy about the speech, but all I knew going into reading was that she was a Latina judge named to the court by the Obama administration. It was so worthwhile for me to get to know her as more than just those labels and how she views those labels.
Just to say a little bit more, apparently I was too wordy for the comment length..
ReplyDeleteIf yall remember I think I even said in the first class that I approach some of these issues from the positionality of a female scientist, a woman who needs to now she's receiving a position academically because i earned it, not just because I add to the gender diversity. This speech made me feel like Sontomayor had the background and the convictions to earn her place by her own merit.
In the future I know that I personally need to try to step outside myself periodically during the readings and try to imagine how it would read to someone from a very different background. Sontomayor however makes me feel more secure in the fact that as long as I am compassionate and open to hearing about where others come from, I should embrace the fact that I did and will read articles differently than many of you.
I think we're still focusing a bit too much on what the articles said instead of why we got to our conclusions and why we reacted the way we did. Do you think you were offended by the line in Sotomayor's article/speech because you're white, or because you want her to be fair as a judge? Insert the word "black" instead of "white" into the sentence and see if you maybe have a different reaction, so it's not personally attacking you? If it wasn't a judge, how would you have felt? Which professions do you think it would be okay for? For those of us who didn't feel strongly about the sentence, why do you think that was?
ReplyDeleteI spoke to my sister after the class and actually reflected with her about it. So I suppose I can just rehash a bit of what we discussed. I felt left out of the discussion because some of the stuff was over my head and then other things were fatiguing to me in that I've heard them over and over and over again. For the latter, I challenge myself to remember that, even though I've heard these things said before, the people saying them are not the same people who said them before. They may have a whole new perspective and new reasons for their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure where my positionality plays into all this. For one reason or another, it was important to my parents that I be aware of injustice in the world, but I never quite matured into a positive change agent. At my worst, I'm confrontational, argumentative, and even petty. So I tend to "shut down" in order to bite my tongue and not make an ass of myself.
During class on Tuesday, I definitely had a shut down moment. I often tend to listen and take it all in. Many people in the class are outspoken, which is great, but I often am more reserved. Maybe one of the reasons I was so quiet was because I honestly was not affected by “the line” as much as other students were. I read and highlighted that line, but took it in a totally different way. I thought the discussion was focused too much on that line and not the whole speech itself. Going back and forth about whether it was right or wrong of her to say “better” took away from the whole point of the speech. I don’t know that much about Sotomayer, so Im not sure if that affected my reactions. I loved the analogy that Dr. Greenfield gave about the boat. Sotomayer has seen it all from the bottom up. What I took away from this article was our experiences shape who we are and how we believe and think. How we grew up and how we were raised shapes the way we see the world. I agree that she is of superiority and needs to be free from bias, but are we every going to have a bias free world? Neutrality is ultimately our goal in the judicial system, so is it possible that we will ever get there?
ReplyDeleteEver since we started this class I cant stop thinking about my positionality in every situation. My thoughts have definitely changed since starting this class. I think a challenging aspect is to look at the positionality of not just ourselves but others. In my opinion I don’t think Sotomayer was saying that she is better than white males. In her speech she says “I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be mopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding values and needs of people from different groups.” To me that is what she was trying to say when she said “the line.” It’s the bias thing again. We all come from different backgrounds and we need to get rid of the bias so that we can understand others that are “different” than us.
Why did I respond the way I did to Sotomayor’s article? I think in part because what she says resonates with me and my experiences. As an example, I spent four years as a professional sailor (merchant marines not yachts). We were burly and brawny, rarely bathed, cursed up a storm, and wore big knives when we went to the bar. I can sooooo be one of the guys, but I’m female. (As I re-read this, I want to acknowledge that this does not typify male behavior, but it serves to point out that this was not anything close to what would be considered female behavior.) There was a reconciliation that had to happen there. I had to learn to see things through a different lens in order to be successful. As a result, there is no doubt in my mind that I can better relate to certain situations and am more able to see things from perspectives I would have had a hard time accepting without those experiences. Do I know what it’s like to be male? Absolutely not! But I think I have a better sense of what it’s like to be male than a guy who hasn’t spent time in an area dominated by women (like teaching) knows what it’s like to be female. As a result, I have been able to connect with students that others have struggled with. Does it make me a better teacher (comparing with Sotomayor’s comment about judges)? In that case, I think it does. But there were other times when I needed to allow students to connect with other teachers because I couldn’t do it for them. I thought the similarities between Sotomayor’s piece and teaching were astounding and I felt it really reflected my own observations. I breezed right over the sentence – and I completely agree with Jack that it was a purposeful move on her part.
ReplyDeleteWhy did I respond the way I did in class? I remember when Sotomayor was being confirmed and being frustrated then that the media – I can’t even call it news anymore – was spending so much time on that single line of text. I had high hopes that we could discuss the merits of her argument (and the other pieces). In giving the “pro-Sotomayor” side of the argument, I had hoped to be able to pull away from analyzing that single line, even single words in that line, and look at how it fit into the larger argument. I also thought that perhaps if the other side was presented, it might make for a more comfortable space to actually discuss. To be honest, I’m not sure what happened and why other folks didn’t jump in and say they had another take or that they thought. I am truly sorry if my comments in any way played a role in folks’ unwillingness to participate.
I did not participate in the discussion in class on the Sotomayor speech, for several reasons. I tend to like to hear others opinions before inserting my own. I also felt that we were discussing the wrong things, and the "discussion" quickly went from dissecting and analyzing to bantering and debating. As I sat in class Dr. Greenfield's statements from the first day of class were in my head. I want to you admit that you "COULD BE" wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed that instead of us as a collective trying to see what she was saying in her speech and looking at the whole picture of under-representation of minorities and women on the bench, We quickly went into a defensive mode. We couldn't even get to the other points she made such as "By ignoring the differences between men and women of color we do a disservice to law and society, and the diversity of opinions and experiences." "Lack of experience limits a persons ability to understand others experience." We instead focused on her character and of what higher standards she should be held to, without thinking of who we are and our biases. I do not feel as if I can look at ANYTHING completely objectively. Can we EVER make a decision without bringing our own experiences and opinions into it? Human emotion takes over Judge, doctor, teacher...regardless.
I didn't think that by focusing on one point of an overall enlightening speech that we were really doing ourselves a service.
I had an entire response typed out that Blogger I suppose deemed unsuitable and proclaimed "Error!" when I tried to post. So....after taking the afternoon off to dispel frustrations, my response, which I tried to piece back together, is no longer relevant. So, basically, I was not offended by Sotomayor's statement, I had explained several reasons why and also called for others to examine why they were...or were not. Several posts stopped at "I don't know why's" and proceeded to discredit the author instead of trying to see why they were offended. But I see several people are taking this approach now and I applaud you.
ReplyDeleteI had another point that I managed to salvage that I would like to make, so without further ado:
This post is inspired by the statements about biases, the possibility of teacher’s biases in keeping students in their anticipated future roles. One great lesson that I learned living abroad, even for a short time, is that just because people don’t have what I have it is easy to assume that they are less happy, prosperous, etc, than I. Let me expand that statement. Is it possible that we may also have biases about what constitutes a good life, good job, etc. and that not obtaining those goals (which we have been taught are defined in semi-specific terms) you are not performing up to your potential?
In the MacIntosh article, though some of her statements have been deservedly discredited, there was a phrase that struck me as particularly true and one whose truth is often generally overlooked. **Disclaimer: I believe that "taught" here refers to implicit, not explicit teaching...cite Joaquin's Dilemma** She says, “whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, also ideal, so that when we do work to benefit others this is seen as work which will allow 'them' to be like 'us.’" This is a truth I have seen undeniably represented by very well-meaning and caring individuals representing our culture (all of us together here, as Americans) in volunteer work and in my travels abroad.
Teaching English in Thailand, my colleague and I had many thoughtful conversations about “what a shame” that many of our brightest students would not go to college but would work in the markets with their parents, day after day, selling whatever their family’s specialty was. It took a while before I realized that this was no “shame.” The shame was on me and that I was putting my standards on them even in their own country. People working in the markets are content in their work and life….they even have a word for it, “sabaii, sabaii”, most Thai would describe themselves this way, content, whatever type of work they were doing. They had food on the table, a roof over their heads, a family and a community to support and love them. Most market workers actually lived pretty comfortably, yet these are people you might see in a picture of a magazine depicting poverty. Who are we to label them by our standards? Poverty, like success, like everything else, is relative.
So, operating on those biases, do we perpetuate them by thinking that working in a drive-thru or gas station means that you have not prospered in this great world? Though it is not what we envision for ourselves or perhaps our children, or even for our students, it would be a greater service indeed to remove the stigma from such jobs and their participation in our relative definition of success.
Aside: although I have included us all together for my purposes of demonstrating MacIntosh's statement, it can be applied to each minority individually, according to race, gender, class, etc. Are we ALL striving to become the upper-middle-class American, eschewing our individual and unique qualities?
Allison - I definitely think that a lot of people do have those biases. Since I switched from engineering ($50k starting salary) to teaching ($35k starting salary), a lot of people give me strange looks simply because we have different motivators, and money is not a big motivator for me. I think that since that's happened to me, that I am more aware of it, but it still is easy to think that what I consider good (free time, family, being in a safe location, being encouraged, etc) is what other people consider good. I liked your story about Thailand. I never thought of it that way, and it was neat to re-think poverty. A lot of people that are poor in money are often the richest in spirit, family, friends, and happiness.
ReplyDeleteOh where do I begin? So many good discussions going on here!
ReplyDeletePart I
WHOLE CLASS-Can we please have cards or something that we hold up when we want to talk? I feel like this keeps loud mouths like me from butting in too often and helps us to slow down and process better. I would like to stay on topic better in the future. My apologies for aiding in the encouragement of some tangents.
LEETHANIEL-Totally want to hear your opinion! So sorry that you didn't get heard in class because I think there would have been a well articulated comment there that we all missed. Please share!
DAVID-I think I can safely say that we all understood that your positionality in this discussion was white man. Even though I'm a woman I didn't necessarily like this comment either, and I wondered what you guys were feeling when you read it so thanks for saying that it upset you and clouded your opinion, even momentarily! Words are powerful and we have to become wise enough to take them all in and not just have selective hearing. This is hard for us all. Like others, I think we did harp too much on her writing and did not look at the big idea of the article, and we didn't discuss why we got so upset.
I, however, should have explained my positionality. I know I was upset because I worked for a nonprofit that did lobbying in the NC legislature. I also am a member of the NC State judicial board. Coming from a political background, my motivation was largely focusing on her being a judge, when I realize that the topic of discussion should have really been biases and how we deal with those in different places. It's just that how I handle those biases is different depending on the realm.
Part II
ReplyDeleteELIZABETH-Affirmative action...big topic. So I used to be against it all together. This is one thing I actually learned in college. It does seem completely unfair to the person in the majority to not get into college because of a minority quota, but we must look at the big picture. The last article talks about how being smart is somehow perceived as being white. I saw this in my own high school, where minority kids who were in my classes had mostly white friends and didn't sit as "the black table," as well called it (I'm being honest here--I was one of "the GPAs"--we all played our role). Anywhoo, my point is in order for minority kids to see that being smart isn't taking away their identity we have to show that there are a sufficient number of highly educated people of their race that they can identify this, so we must accept more minorities into institutions of higher learning in order to compensate for the crap that society has created to begin with, and has continued to feed. We've created a cycle, and affirmative action is a way to break it.
Why not break the judicial cycle with affirmative action? Just let Sotomayor be a judge because she's her race is under-represented and we need a balance there too right? Sounds good, but you have to consider that being a judge is different than being a student. Sending someone to college mostly affects that individual. Placing someone on a bench affects millions. That's where I was getting hung up in class. I think this comes from me caring so much about being an informed voter, that I just get so angry at the media for not giving me all the facts. Of course, I have no control over judicial appts, but when I do vote, maybe I should consider someone's race as a factor in my vote. I never have before...something to ponder...but I will say that at this point, I care more about what that person will do once they are in power.
RODNELLA-You're right. I didn't examine my own biases verbally in the discussion. Thanks for making me aware of that. I think I will try to explain more of the WHY I am saying something.
KATE and ALISON-Love your posts! Who knew a drive thru run would make me think about this, but I was seriously like we all seem to think that's what you do if you fail, but what if they're 10 times happier than me?!?! Like I said before, we're all just human. This is making me re-think some of my goals as a teacher. Instead of thinking, "I'm keeping this kid from working at the drive thru," I should be sayiing, "I'm helping this kid become whatever he/she decides he/she wants to be!" I think this is a good lesson for us all.
In response to Kate-
ReplyDeleteNot having had a strong opinion on the speech, I had really just focused on the fact that she was a woman in a position of power that is traditionally thought of as a male position. Being a woman myself and in a male-centered career (geology), I related to her well. To me, her overall message overshadowed that one sentence.
I did however take an initial offense to the 'white privledge' article. I've always thought of myself and my raising as being very liberal; and as an open-minded caucasion I found it unsettling to hear that some of the experiences that I thought I had deserved and worked so hard for were given to me due to my race.
I had a question for Elizabeth- By affirmative action in the courtroom, what exactly do you mean? I'm not very educated on the subject. When I think of affirmative action I think of it being utilized in admission to higher education as well as in the workplace. I'm just curious.
Rodnella-
ReplyDeleteThank you for your beautifully written post. You articulated many things for which I have been struggling to find appropriate words. I especially appreciate your comment about how, by becoming defensive, we tend to separate ourselves instead of coming together with our collective goals.
All-
I am wondering, though, folks who expressed similar feelings, didn't speak up. Many have written as though there were no voices expressing sympathy for Sotomayor's position, but there were three people I can think of who were and who, at least in my hearing of the discussion, were tying their understanding back to her larger thesis. Clearly, positionality is going to effect not only our take on issues, but also our willingness to hear and acknowledge positions and how we respond.
Morgan-
Instead of cards, I think we might want to spend some time thinking about why people like you and I (and the other noisy folk) are quick to jump in, while others do not. I know that I am that way because that is what I was taught to do; by my family, by my teachers, by my other classmates. But by taking a look at why we have been taught to respond in a certain ways that and debunking some of the myths in those teachings, we can become a better moderators of our own behavior, whether we need speak less or more.
I think its funny that the white males in class were the only ones getting really upset, like it was an attack on them for what Sotomayor said. I don't think that was her intention at all, to single out the white men.
ReplyDeleteI also highly agree with Rodnella. The class was focusing on the wrong things. We weren't focusing ( as no one does) on the issues that are really important, like how she would behave as a judge and what her standpoints were. All we focused on was a bit of her speech that offended a few in the classroom and could have been written better.
I also think it is interesting that we didn't really get a chance to dissect her speech, other that the judging better than a white male part. I think we could have made some really interesting discussions about her main points that there are very few peple of minorities on the bench and that people from different backgrounds are going to make different choices about things, and we will be doing a disservice to say they wouldn't and to not address those differences.
Hey class,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the delay in responses but I was having computer problems yesterday. I think it was because I was trying to log into this site from Mozilla. I ended up having to setup a completely new account .. But I’m “good” now! (smile)
ERIN (and any other classmates) – My thoughts on the Sotomayor discussion from last week differed considerably from what majority of the class had to say. I felt that for the most part, those voicing their opinions were suggesting that Sotomayor’s choice of words were…racist.
First, let’s back up…
When Trent Lott said that things would have been better if a southern segregationist had been elected president a half-century earlier…
When Don Imus denigrated in clearly racist terms the championship women's basketball team from Rutgers University…
When actor Michael Richards screamed at black guests in a comedy club, calling them the "n-word" and invoking the threat of lynching…
In all of these cases….…responsible WHITE people from across the ideological spectrum stepped forward to explain that these individuals were not RACIST. The "R" word has become the taboo of the white world. By this I mean that calling someone racist is a taboo, not racism itself.
Sotomayor's speech was, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explored the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge's background, perspective and experience. Unlike so many judges, who by virtue of being white and male, simply assume their impartiality, Sotomayor recognized that all judges are affected by their background and their life experiences.
White judges are also shaped by their background and experiences. They needn't ever speak of it, simply because their whiteness and gender insulates them from the presumption of partiality and bias that is regularly attached to women judges and judges of color when it comes to matters of race and gender. Only a judge who is conscious and fully engaged with the reality of how her experiences may bear on her approach to the facts of a case, or sense of social justice, or vision of constitutional interpretation, should be entrusted to sit on the most influential and powerful court in our nation.
Sotomayor rightly suggested that these things matter. She noted in her speech that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." She should know this. She's been a trial judge. None of the other justices who serve with Sotomayor have had that experience.
Sotomayor's speech was one of the most honest and compelling statements about judicial impartiality we're likely to hear from a judge of her stature. It was not racist in the least bit. It is not just irresponsible to make this charge against a sitting federal appeals court judge based on this flimsy record; it is—and here I'll break the taboo—racist to do so.
Just something for everyone to THINK about….
MORGAN EALY (and anyone else interested)- I do not see why some of us had a “shut-down” moment over a couple lines that perhaps could have been worded differently.
ReplyDeleteI strongly doubt that Sotomayor meant to degrade white men and have her words interpreted so negatively. I felt that it was clear Sotomayor was merely saying that it’s inevitable that a judge’s personal race-based and gender-based experiences will impact judging, particularly in race and sex discrimination cases. As a result, she said, while such formative experiences can be enriching and contribute to wise decisions, a judge should also be aware of them in order to avoid being wholly dominated by them. She vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”
Those are just my thoughts. But “who” am I??? A lot of speeches could be picked apart….
Morgan:
ReplyDeleteThank you for speaking up for affirmative action. I like that you pointed out that even though it seems unfair from the stand-point of someone in the majority, it is an issue that needs to be addressed, a cycle that needs to be broken if only by deliberate appointment and acceptance. One point I would like to make however, is that I feel like a lot of people are dismissing Sotomayor's appointment as ONLY being a result of affirmative action. She attended Princeton and then Yale Law. Even if she was accepted to these schools on premise of AA, that does not account for her performance there. I'll accept that she may have been chosen to sit on the USSC because of the different perspective the will be able to provide, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss her qualifications and accomplishments on this premise. RACHEL, I appreciated your comments on the relevance of her experience in your own and also, your points on her article. I wish, too, that we could have discussed some of these in class.
I don't know about you guys, but I think our next class is going to get very interesting with so many regrets of not speaking up--myself included! I'm looking forward to the shakedown!
Has anyone been keeping up with the Wake Co. School Board decision about year-round schools? They were "strongly opposed" to mandating year-round schools and said they would "no longer deny calendar applications based on socio-economic status." I'm not sure in what way they were making this amendment. I'm just curious to what people were thinking about it. It's likely going to affect all of us, hoping to student teach and possibly teach in Wake Co. This has become an issue drenched in diversity statistics and political correctness. I haven't kept up closely and I don't know what all it involves, how deep the issues run, but I'd like to know more. Would be great fodder for class discussion--and relevant to us all.
haha...this post limit is killer..
ReplyDeletePart Deuce:
I am glad people were receptive to the alternate thoughts of success. Morgan, I had hoped you wouldn't take it as a challenge to your aha! moment...it was only an extension. Thanks for your comments : )
I think we will do well to encourage our students to pursue their talents, whatever they may be. I think there is lots of potential to do this with the continuing expansion of technology. There are lots of ways to make education appealing to students with the use of technology, and to better accommodate students with disabilities too. Also I think students are seeing more ways to be successful without the requirement of being "book smart" or adhering to a particular set of goals.
As a teacher I think it is going to be a major goal of mine to not perpetuate the biased hierarchy of education/occupation and let students know that whether they choose to be an engineer, teacher, artist or mechanic they will be equal contributors to society and that they are equally valuable contributions. I have recently been reconsidering my opinions with university vs community colleges. The skills taught in community colleges are essential to a functioning society. In high school, mine and the perceived general sentiment was that community college was for people who couldn't cut it in universities, or for people who were too scared to break out of their small, comfortable worlds. It was no secret that the college prep classes were "higher" than the tech prep. I never thought of it though. I remember being terrified of the thought of not getting into college and at my father's suggestion of going to the local community college. Why is this terrifying? All I knew at that time was I didn't want to be one of "those" people and now I am sitting here thinking, how much money I would have saved, AND I would have a skill...a career path. I love my education and believe it to be invaluable, but I think it is important as future educators to recognize the social bias placed on trade skills and trade schools vs. university education. It was never even mentioned to me to consider community college as a viable option.
I've met so many people, (particularly males for some reason) people who are retired--some from two careers--who still display some form of disappointment that they weren't able to do well in school. Do we only value academic professions? How would America fare without these skilled professions? They need to be recognized as valuable and not just a fall back plan, or something that you do if you can't perform academically. After all, aren't we college grads the most disoriented bunch you ever met?! We have all this knowledge, now what to do with it?? Job searching was a particularly depressing activity for me. I had a friend that went to a mechanic school for 1.5 years, and was making 50,000 at 20 and though he has dirty hands he loves his job. I went to college for 4.5 yrs, graduated, worked 3 part time jobs for a year, taught abroad and am now....back in school! These stories are not told often enough.
KATE: I completely echo your sentiments about money and its impact on how people view the "worthiness" of a vocation. I was the same way, always wanting to be a lawyer and then shifting my position in order to be more of a giver,(such as a teacher, which requires all you have to give).
ReplyDeleteALLISON: I also feel the same way as the post right above mine. College students and degree holding graduates seem to be some of the most high and mighty sections of society. I find myself looking down on others who have decided not to attend college and find a skilled profession v. an academic profession (as Allison was describing). Why do I do this? I am no better than anyone, so why would I give myself permission to think I am better? I mean, I graduated from college with acceptable grades, had plenty of extra-curricular activities, and felt as if I did the best I could to give myself an edge over others. Did I find a job right out of college? Nope. I realized with my academic major and minor of choice that I had not learned a "trade" and therefore was illiterate in the types of jobs necessary during this time of economic turmoil. My point is, not only to add a story to Allison's example, but also to demonstrate that college degrees, though helpful, are not necessarily "better" or "worse" than any other option. I will be watching myself more carefully as comments are made about others who may not have had the support, means, or possibility of attending college. Our students need to know their options and be able to fully explore them without being pressured. Although it is necessary to try and push them as far as they can go, it is also important to look at each individual and help them make the best choice for themselves.
I think the point about the value of non-academic careers is a good one. Not from the condescending "the world needs ditch-diggers, too" perspective, but because readin' 'n' writin' aren't the only kind of smarts one can have. I'm good with the books and the words, but I wouldn't trust me to drive a bus or take apart and reassemble a diesel engine. And we sure as hell need people who can do those things and, quite frankly, there are plenty of people who are better at working with their hands and bodies than working with words and abstract ideas. It's all rather Cartesian, denigrating the body and manual skills and elevating the mind as some sort of spiritual substance.
ReplyDeleteThe "knowledge economy" business that has been thrown at the American public in the last generation or two is, at the very least, simplistic if not a dodge to justify the out-migration of blue-collar and now even many white-collar jobs. Somehow, it became much more prestigious to learn how to code in C++ than to be a master electrician. Conveniently, it's a hell of a lot easier to ship the work of a programmer or even a radiologist to a place with lower pay standards than it is to send skilled material work overseas. But by valorizing mental work over physical work, it might be possible to depress the prestige and accompanying cost of such labor.
Yes, I think it's a scam by the Man.
And, as far as the Sotomayor speech is concerned, it didn't strike me right away when I was reading it, but I'm now quite convinced that she was making the same point DuBois was when he referred to "double consciousness." I'm not 100% convinced I buy that point, but I think it's definitely something worth considering, even if she did go to Cardinal Spellman (and then Princeton and Yale Law, for God's sake) and not some hard-knock public school.
ReplyDeleteThe line in Justice Sotomayor’s speech didn’t bother me. It included so many qualifiers (I would hope that, wise, richness of experience, who hasn’t lived that life) that it wasn’t even controversial; plus, I sincerely doubt she’s going to get drunk with power and start handing down racist decisions.
ReplyDeleteWhat actually bothered me was the amount of attention it garnered in the media. At the time, it was evident to me that certain commentators and politicians were trying to frighten people by stoking racial fear (ie., OMG, our black president nominated a Latina woman to the bench and guess what she said!!!!). This tactic is often so successful because we don’t check ourselves and acknowledge our prejudices so we end up getting manipulated by foolish fears without even realizing it.
ALISON, I’m so glad you mentioned Wake County schools! Since I missed the first day, I wasn’t sure if it had already been discussed. The school board underwent a major overhaul in October’s election, and they quickly moved to end the county’s widely celebrated diversity policy. As a graduate of a WCPSS school, it was devastating to me to see our greatest asset (commitment to diversity) tossed out. So it’s kind of weird to be taking a class about school/classroom diversity at this time. I know the things we learn here will still matter, but recent developments have been disaffirming.
KATE OLIVER and others, y’all touched on an interesting idea about being “poor in money” but rich in other things. I see the thread of that conversation and agree with the spirit (cultural relativism and not imposing our own standards on others). But at times, I think we run the risk of romanticizing poverty.
I want to piggyback on LBRUMFI’s post and add more, but he pretty much summed up my sentiments and then some.
FOR EVERYONE - (FYI) "lbrumfi" is Leethaniel Brumfield....
ReplyDeleteBRIDGET - I totally agree with you that the media does tries to manipulate people. Sometimes they make valid points, but as viewers we really need to take responsibility to check things out for ourselves and think for ourselves. I found, looking back to the sentence, that replacing "white man" with "person", I was no longer offended by it, but I feel like singling out a race and gender was pointing fingers and made people upset.
ReplyDeleteAs far as romanticizing poverty, I mean more that we need to acknowledge an individual's goals and help students work towards their goals and dreams, instead of assuming they want to make a lot money or go to a 4-year college, since that is not always the case.
Another great thread.
ReplyDeleteAllison- I enjoyed reading your point in regards to attitudes concerning community colleges and 4-year colleges/univeristies. It amazes me how much of a nose in the air attitude is held in higher education (and I myself have held this attitude). Community colleges offer options to those who cannot afford or do not want to attend a college or university, and they can serve as a good stepping stone for those who do. From high school, I went straight into a 4-year univeristy... I now sometimes wish that I hadn't. My grades would have certainly been better, and I could have saved some major cash. I feared that my friends and certain family members would look down on me if I didn't go to a univeristy right off the bat. I hope that when I get into the classroom, I won't look down on my students that aren't able or do not want to attend a 4-year school.
Bridget- good point bringing up media manipulation. One of my favorite things to do is switch back and forth on television between MSNBC and FOX News.... half the time these stations are more entertaining than informative, and I can't help but laugh. If a certain news topic can help a political group's agenda, then they will latch on to it and spin it however they need, distorting the truth and brainwashing their audience.
In response to Alison's comment about the Wake County Schoool Board: It does seem that instead of these assigned readings we could just as easily be reading the News and Observer. Wake County is locked in a debate that is likely to be viewed historically as significant.
ReplyDeleteThe "positionality" of the news media is that they exist to drive as many viewers to their advertising as possible, so as to charge more for the next round of ads they sell. The Sotomayor story was, in some small way, a real thing, but it became a big kerfuffle for the same reason that stupid weather balloon kid story did, because it could be easily fitted into a narrative of resentful, backlashing ethnic minorities.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Morgan Early's earlier question: She asks,"Did teacher bias play a role in where they are today?" My experience as both teacher and student tells me YES, which is why we as future educators have an oppportunity to, as a greeting card might phrase it," Change the World."
ReplyDeleteIn class last Tuesday, Dr. Greenfield asked us to think about and discuss the 'truths' we learned at home. This week in a science class I was subbing for, I had a opportunity to think about that idea and how that colors our views and actions. There was a girl in this class, over age, and perpetually angry and beligerent. Instead of doing her assignment, she started to comb her hair. I told her to put her brush away. She asked why? Why do you care if I brush my hair? I told her it wasn't polite to comb her hair in public. If she needed to do that, she needed to use the restroom. It was just like brushing her teeth or clipping her nails. She looked at me for the first time without hostility and said," I didn't know that. My mama didn't tell me that." I realized then that something as simple as combing our hair can create a gulf of miscommunication and contribute to our negative bias. In this case both hers and mine. In my upbringing, combing your hair in public was taboo. In hers in was a non issue.
Wow, glad there was some response to the education thing, I was planning to come back on and apologize for getting off topic.
ReplyDeleteMIKE:
I liked your mention of "double consciousness" and I definitely think it makes sense, a very intriguing concept..it's something I had pondered before, but never knew it had been conceptualized...famously, no less. I'm definitely going to check it out.
Also, I think you're definitely right about outsourcing as being a way to champion the type of jobs we're leaving in the US. I read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat" earlier this year, and there was considerable talk of this..only from the corporate side, basically saying that offshoring was simply a tool for making more jobs at the top for Americans (while conveniently increasing the bottom line); that we no longer have to worry ourselves with the menial tasks of work and not waste our intellectual abilities on little things...riiight...(that was my reading at least, from the positionality of someone who does not trust that corporate America has my best interest at heart). The book did provide some interesting insight into how connected things are, and how things are changing though.
BRIDGET,
In my post I was focusing more on not falling into the habit of labeling certain jobs as what "know-nothings" do...how is one to feel when they are forced to accept such jobs or when their parents work such jobs? The popular comment from teachers is always, "if you don't pass this test you're going to be asking 'would you like fries with that?' for the rest of your life." And honestly, after graduating from college, I was working all these jobs that you're "supposed" to be able to avoid with a college degree.
And I also often wonder, to what extent does our work define us? Does work just pay the bills and you are who you are, or are you in some way defined by the way you spend all day every day? Anyway, I in no way meant that--I liked the way that Mike put it,-- "the world needs ditch-diggers too," but that we need to be careful about how we try to label people and even jobs.
Alison - As a long-time reader of the New York Times, I gave up on Thomas Friedman years ago. DuBois, however, I heartily recommend, though I haven't read him in a long time. The double consciousness concept owes a lot to Hegel's dialectics, which I was pretty into when I was twenty and even dorkier than I am now. I shall take a look at "The Souls Of Black Folk" before class tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI will say that working quality control at a copy store where many of my colleagues were ex-cons and dropouts, which I did for a few months post-BA, was (A) extremelyinteresting and informative from a sociological perspective and (B) kind of fun from a doing physical work perspective. If the compensation hadn't been lousy, I wouldn't have minded sticking with that job for awhile longer. And those convicts weren't dummies. They weren't book-smart, necessarily, but they had lots of information that the college boy had no idea about.
ReplyDeleteOn the comment I made about the media, I am talking about the media in a way (since they choose what to report), but it’s the politicians and the political commentators who actually say the stuff that the media report. First time around with Justice Sotomayor’s line, they got me good with their commentary, and I was concerned and outraged! But then I listened to the line again, took a moment to think about it, and realized I wasted at least a year’s worth of white mock outrage on something that wasn’t outrageous at all. I felt very foolish.
ReplyDeleteAnd I totally agree with you guys about valuing and respecting all paths to success/happiness. But I’m not sure how that plays into teaching. As educators, we should encourage students to follow their dreams, and we obviously shouldn’t put down or judge certain occupations, but that’s all a given, isn’t it? I mean, was anybody going to put down a student’s plans to become a certified HVAC technician or be condescending towards a student’s father because he waits tables in a restaurant?
People in some groups are lot less likely to go to college than others, and this disparity is a direct result of disempowering conditions perpetuated by institutions like public schools. And I’m afraid that we end up giving lots of lip service to the humble nobility of certain jobs in order to condone the current arrangement. Yes, if an individual wants to work at a fast food restaurant, that’s great! But when it’s only individuals from the same socioeconomic group making that “choice,” we need to take a look at why that is and consider some ways to empower all students to achieve whatever it is they truly want to achieve.
By the way, my book still hasn’t arrived yet so I may be on some crazy different page than the rest of the class.
There's a distinction to be made between the dignity of the work and whether it might not be advisable to seek further education because it affords the opportunity to make one's material existence a bit easier. There's nothing wrong with running the Fry-o-Lator, but the pay at Bojangles sucks and it's hard to raise a family. The opposite of this is that taking a job in AIG's Financial Products division can be quite lucrative, but there's a good chance you are engaged in non-productive or even actively harmful activities.
ReplyDeleteOk so Im now writing this for the second time because the post didn't post the first time.
ReplyDeleteThis situation happened this past Friday as I read aloud to my class. Now, the situation was a lot more in depth when I first typed it, so excuse the shortened explanation.
The book was reading had a number of Spanish words throughout it. I have never taken Spanish, and, hence, had a lot of trouble pronouncing the words and sentences. So I stumbled over them, thus making it ok for students to do the same as long as they tried their best.
As the students started volunteering to read they continued to stumble over the words. I saw one student get progressively more upset as the readings went on. I finally asked her if she would like to read, I quickly learned that she was Hispanic and could pronounce all of the words correctly.
The students began pausing when they read for this one girl to read the Spanish words. The process seemed successful, a sharing of cultures. However, we finally came across one student that became angry when he was unable to read the words. He began yelling about how the words were stupid and pointless. That he was going to skip over them and just continue on without them, This then caused a huge reaction from the Hispanic girl. She began yelling about how he was insulting her and her language. That he had no right to say what he was saying.
I quickly squashed the yelling match and told the students to begin reading silently. I still wonder the best way to deal with this situation. I see that there is a major teaching moment here and I did my best to present it as such, however I wonder what the best approach would be, if there is one. Is there away to make students understand that their words can offend even when they mean nothing by it, without just telling them they are wrong? How do you make students accountable for their actions if they don't understand that what they are saying is wrong?
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteA. I have had the same frustration posting.
And B. I thought you were doing a good job allowing the Spanish speaking girl to fill in the difficult words. You were validating her competency, her language, and skill. Also the ensured that she was reading along quietly in her 'second language'. But I have no good response of how to handle the angry one. I will check back to see if anyone else had a good idea.
Elizabeth-
ReplyDeleteYou raised some excellent questions I grapple with as well. In my experience I have had decent luck looking for an opportunity to talk to the offending student one on one -- lunch was usually a decent time -- and mention that I was surprised by their reaction and wanted to check in. Usually the student would launch right into their story. Sometimes the offending incident brought up issues I didn't know they were grappling with, but I usually let them start by expressing themselves, if for no other reason than to let them be heard. We usually take it from there in an effort to see how their words could be hurtful. In an effort not to single out another student, I try to be very clear that the problem is that their words were hurtful to me. I've had some really interesting conversations with students starting here. Sometimes the two students (or more) can talk it out eventually, but it all depends on the situation, the students, your school, your comfort-level, etc. I am really interested to hear if others have suggestions because this certainly has not always worked and has sometimes made for some upset parents.
KATHERINE, I’m so glad you posted about the hair combing! It raises a real mental challenge for me that I suspect the class can help me with. There are certain norms to which middle-class (largely white) America expects other groups to adhere. The dirty trick is that, while they uphold these rules and norms for others, they simultaneously give themselves a pass; for example, when middle-class teens use unfamiliar slang, it’s often considered a cute choice of words or some “phase,” but in other people, it can be taken as a sign of ignorance, disrespect, or threatening nonconformity.
ReplyDeleteSo, as teachers, how do we traverse that totally unjust reality in our classrooms? For students that truly are isolated and don’t know all the silly rules in place, do we “correct” them as if their behavior is actually incorrect in some way (when it's not)? Do we admit that this is a racist, classist framework set up to put them down, and then ask that they comply with it anyway? This is confusing to me!
PS. TOMORROW NIGHT IS THE MAIN EVENT! I'M RACING OUT OF CLASS AT 9 PM SHARP!
ReplyDeleteGO PACK!
Rodnella
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I think we definitely focused on "the line" too much and did not recognize the speech as a whole. I think the speech was powerful and a stand for woman and minorities. Like you said, we all need to continue to think that we could be wrong. As hard as that is to accept, I think our discussions can continue to expand if we remember that.
Kate
Your comment about replacing "white" with "black" really struck me. That is something that was never discussed and something I never thought of. It puts it into perspective how certain words can trigger such a powerful response. I definitely dont think we would have had the same reaction if "white" wasnt in that line. I did not feel that strongly about the line because I saw it in a different way. I took it that she was looking from the bottom up, like Dr. Greenfield said. I dont think she was trying to offend white males, but make a point. I feel she should have replaced "better" with a different word, but we are still putting too much attention on that one line and not focusing on the speech as a whole.
ELIZABETH: I really enjoyed your story about reading the "bilingual" book in class, and think it is a very relevant issue for schools in many parts of the US today. It also really reminded me of Dora the Explorer, which I'm sure is for younger kids, but very actively merges English and Spanish throughout the show. I think this is good for both native Spanish and English speakers, but I wonder how a linguist would see it. I'm not even sure if the language on the show is spoken in a grammatically correct manner; it would be interesting to watch an episode with a language arts teacher and a Spanish teacher to see if kids can get any educational value out of the show or if they are just learning bad habits. Maybe instead of broadening their language ability, kids aren't really learning either one. But I would guess that this isn't true. Just the exposure to a new language/foreign ideas has to be a good thing in this case.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the posts have been whether the Sonia Sotomayor article had racist overtones or not and how we personally feel about it, a time of reflection on how our personal biases affect our views of the world and how the world views us. My initial responses had been that of white guilt. Maybe because consciously or sub-consciously I knew I knew of white privilege. I now want to move beyond that because we all have our biases as she pointed out in her speech. I want to learn how to use my knowledge of postionality and my biases as positive in the class room, how to bridge that gap with all students so that they will perform, participate to the best of their ability. Many of you already have that experience in the class room and I appreciate when I hear of your personal encounters and how you handled them.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth - I've been thinking about your story for the past few days. I think it sounded like you handled the situation well, but I'm curious about conversations that occured AFTER the story. Did you have further conversations with the two students who yelled? What about the rest of the class.
ReplyDeleteI'm excited about class tonight, I hope we'll do a better job of speaking AND listening so that we can learn from a larger variety of perspectives. I know in classes like this I personally struggle sometimes to know when to jump in and when to hold my tongue and let someone else possibly express similar thoughts. When does my perspective contribute to the overall progression of the class? How do YOU decide? I've waited to respond to my classmates to have something insightful to say... but I'm not always sure how to tell what I might say that might connect with someone else.
As a side note, I saw the movie Invictus this week. It's about the national rugby team in South Africa and President Nelson Mandella's interaction with them. I really enjoyed it and hope some of you might as well - I plan on reading more about Mandella after an intersting movie sparked my interest and inspired me.
Being out of town last week, I missed the discussion on Sotomayor's infamous phrase. I did however, have the opportunity to discuss social justice issues and the effect of one's background on perceptions of the world with people whose beliefs differ markedly from my own so I appreciated the advice on exploring who we respond to arguements in particular ways rather than re-emphasizing our points. Therefore, I will touch first on Sotomayor's speech and the commentary I listened to on NPR while she was being considered for Supreme Court Justice, then on the interesting discussion I had with my family.
ReplyDeleteI find it frightening that the majority of discussion around Sotomayor's qualifications (on NPR) involved her ethnicity rather than her record. I commend her bravery to admit that her background (being 100% American. She was born here, afterall.) will play a role in her judgement. Let's consider this situation for a momment. Have we ever heard a white man talk about how his background will influence his judgement on cases? Would he view the ref's calls in the game tonight against Carolina be the same if he went to State? How would they differ if he went to Clemson? Why should a Latina woman have to explain her background any more than he would? She isn't saying she would favor a Latina in a particular case any more than I would distribute more As to the female students in my class.
The discussion I had with my family demonstrates the continued misconceptions the public has about students at-risk. Growing up poor in rural Hickory, North Carolina to working-class parents, my mother's sisters and brother have a lot of experience being at-risk themselves. Each of my aunts and uncles have had to push forward on limited education and strong self-motivation to achieve their goals. This background propogates the idea that those who work hard will be rewarded for their efforts accordingly. The problem arises when you point out the inherent priviledge my family has had in simply being white. My aunt was livid when I pointed out how the educational system favors certain students, particularly those who value individual effort rather than community support (as is common in European-American communities). Her response to this arguement was in favor of holding everyone to the same standard regardless of background but came out something like this, "I don't care if your dad beat your or your mom walked out on you. You need to sit there and do your math like everyone else." This comment illustrates an important point, which I unfortunately could not offer my aunt due to my emotional response to the thoughtlessness of the delivery of her opinion, which is that students will not all succeed in the same environment, and yes - their backgrounds must be considered. The Eah excercise comes to mind when I argue that students from different backgrounds are being forced into an educational system set up by one ethnicity, of which my mother's family is a part, and may not be the most effective environment for all students. We should absolutely utilize what works for different groups of students not represented in the planning of the original system in the same way that I, as a visual-kinesthetic learner, must incorporate auditory examples in my lessons. Students who are at-risk like the example she gave *should* be treated different; not because we feel sorry for them and want to give them all the answers so they can succeed while other students must work for themselves, but because each students is an individual with individual strengths and individual circumstances. We must recognize, first, how our experiences have shaped how we look at the world. Then, we must consider how others' experiences have shaped their worlds, if for no other reason than to learn how to better reach them. I will not take as much away from a lecture than an activity. My students should be afforded the same opportunity, and that can only be accomplished by me stepping out of the box (i.e. my background/experiences). I can't step out of the box unless I recognize which box I'm in. I think that's the point Sotomayor was trying to make: that she recognized her box.
ReplyDeleteI had some questions bout the Noguera article that I was interested to hear some other perspectives on, if folks are still reading the blog. I have seen a number of "Joaquin's" in the school I taught in in DC, but it struck me that the majority of kids I thought of were male. I wonder if there is something about our stereotypes about males and females that cause males to react so visibly to their racial awareness. I assume similar dilemmas occur with girls, but I suspect they manifest differently. As a result are we less aware of the difficulty of girls going through similar experiences? Is this racial discordance less of a problem for girls?
ReplyDeleteNoguera didn't seem to acknowledge the positive effects of the self segregation of students. I thought I was being a good little teacher by mixing my students heterogenously in my US History class, but it backfired completely. Almost the students I was hoping to bolster (the lower performing students, most of whom were also Black) shut down and let the other students do the assignment. When I allowed them to pick their own groups, even though they were more homogeneous, it allowed all the students to own their successes, because they were more likely to participate more fully, and actually helped break down some of the stereotypes because their products didn't tend to reflect the labels the kids carried. I think this got us closer to that "equal status" so that later in the year I could mix groups again and had better success. In short, I think it is still really important for kids to be able to pick their friends and that picking friends because they look like you shouldn't be considered a bad thing. I don't think Noguera is saying that, but I found myself conceptualizing his argument that way while reading.
Erin: I think there is much more of a sense, across ethnic/racial lines, that boys are supposed to be too cool for school, that the way to stand out as a male in our society is by being bigger, stronger, and more athletic. Being good at school comes off as nerdy, wimpy, effete, and effeminate. I don't really have a good grasp of what sort of counter-academic pressures girls contend with, but I know that boys are supposed to be badasses and badasses don't read.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I missed class Tuesday guys, I'm sure it was fun, enlightening, and perhaps difficult. I’m encouraged by the responses, it seems that in many ways we are on the same page – whether we agree or disagree, we’re open to others opinions and opposing viewpoints. Erin that’s an interesting point about the positive aspects of self-segregation… of I guess the goal is that students don’t do it based on class, race, or background but there is some inevitability about it. I’m going to try and think on that a little more. Michael - my experience in school was a little different when it came to the "male experience" but I think you bring up a valid point that seems to have been often discussed in education literature. It seems a lot of the research indicates its less about the attitude of the male population, rather its the structure of our classrooms and school system.. anyway, good thoughts and I'll see everyone next week
ReplyDeleteErin - I think that boys and girls deal with issues differently. Boys tend to externalize (if they're mad, they'll fight and get it out of their system and it's really easy to see) whereas girls tend to internalize (if they're mad, they'll hold a grudge for years and it's a lot more subtle), so I think that it might just be more obvious for boys to have a struggle, whereas girls may have attitude problems or just be quiet or shy and give up, basically be more difficult to tell.
ReplyDeleteLeethaniel Brumfield III said....
ReplyDeleteHey everyone,
It feels kinda funny that we don’t have a blog topic this week but I just wanted to wish everyone a safe and WARM weekend. This week’s class was simply…AMAZING!
And I look forward to what next week has in store. Would all like to post our essays for assignment #1 here? I’ll be the guinea pig (smile)...
Take care guys...
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone had a chance to enjoy the snow this weekend!
I just wanted to hear any thoughts/ comments you guys had about the readings this week - esp the one in Spanglish. As a Spanish major with half of my heart in Mexico and Spain, I loved the article and appreciated that it was written her her native tongue - Spanglish. I imagine it might have been a bit frustrating for those of you who don't speak Spanish considering she didn't translate anything, or maybe you just skimmed over it; but I'd like to hear what you thought.
Hope you have a wonderful rest of the weekend! See you Tues!
What kind of shoddy operation are they running down here that four inches of snow on a Saturday shuts down schools on the Monday and Tuesday? This is pathetic.
ReplyDeleteHey Dawn,
ReplyDeleteI read 16,17 and 1 last week, and don't recall the Spanglish story offhand. What page was that on? Or are you referring to something else? So I'm just a bit nervous now that I missed something. Thanks.
I'm currently watching the youtube videos Dr.Greenfield sent us.
Michael,
You know I hear you. I recall going to school in 2 feet of snow sometimes back in NYC.
It's from an article that Dr. Greenfield sent to everyone in an email last week.
ReplyDelete