Sunday, February 23, 2014

The "N" Word

Tonight I joined fellow students, colleagues and professors at the Reynolds School of Journalism (JSchool) to watch an ESPN special report on the "N" word.  Because of who was producing the show, the special looked at the use of the "N" word through an athletic lens.  There were several panelists, including a music artist/actor, current professional football player, sports columnist and more. There were small vignettes with high school teens and legendary sports figures. It was a balanced view with people of differing opinions.

The fact that we have to even have the discussion and question it, tells me there is a problem in using the word.

My personal feeling is that the word was created from a place of hate, used as a means for degradation, and continues to exemplify a level of bigotry and ignorance. I have never used the word and won't. I will teach my kid the history of the word and share with them why we don't say it, and why for our family, it is not okay.

It was interesting to hear arguments for the continued use of the word.

  • It has a new meaning for a new generation.
  • Only Black people should be allowed to say it.
  • The Black community is taking the word back.
  • It is a euphemism for buddy or friend. 
  • It is the only way to communicate and get a message across in some communities.
  • If you say it with an "er" on the end, it means something different than if you say it with an "ga" on the end. 


For each of those arguments I can make a solid, passionate counter argument. None of the arguments I heard this evening in favor of the word's use changed my mind one bit. I was not swayed.

This new generation should be taught their history. Some words may change in connotation but many do not. This word is still used from a place of hate by a group of people to hurt another group of people. When you look the word up in a dictionary, it means ignorant, lazy, insolent, and finally, Black. As in a Black person. Only recently was it updated in online dictionaries to reflect it's offensive nature and bitter history.  If you want to call someone your friend, use a different word.  Out of the hundreds of words for friend, why choose one that carries such pain?

A common theme in the discussion that followed the ESPN piece centered on education. We need to do a better job of educating people and ourselves on our history. We can't rely on an over burdened school system to take the place of oral traditions and experiences passed down through generations and shared at the family dining room table. One student made an excellent point when he said he didn't feel his generation understood the experiences of the previous; having no connection to the pain and injustices of the word allows him and his friends to casually throw it around. Through stories and technology we can make those experiences come to life and be felt for a deeper understanding of why using the "N" word is in-appropriate. No pun in-tended. I did it again.

Humor was brought up by people as a way to deal with the word when used against them.  Examples of Richard Pryor and Kevin Hart were used to show how the Black community embraces and uses the word for our own entertainment and personal gain. In some ways I get that using humor can be a method of dealing with the hurt and avoiding the confrontation. However, I don't agree with the use of the word in anyway. I believe there are other ways to use humor or music to convey those same feelings and achieve the same outcomes.

The NFL will attempt to ban the use of the "N" word in their lockers rooms and on the fields. Players, fans, and staff will not be allowed to use the "N" word.One presenter from the special challenged the interviewer on making the game more civil because to him, there is nothing civil about the game being played on the field.  It is a place where all incivilities can meet. If that is true, then I question the entire sport and value of sportsmanship. Is there a need for a place where people can be their most violent selves? If so, what does that say about mankind?

In certain parts of Europe it is illegal to make anti-semetic remarks or hate speech. You can go to jail or be fined. The Holocaust was so debilitating, that people have taken a stand against any spoken injustice against Jews or in favor of Hitler and hate speech against any group (http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws) . World War II ended in 1945,  only 80 years after the end of the Civil War and nine years before the start of the Civil Rights Movement.  If European nations can recognize the harm in words from a war that lasted several years and resulted in over 10 million deaths, why can't we after 200 hundred years of slavery and another 100 of oppression with over 12 million slaves sent round the world (300,000+  were sent to America) and countless current events (http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/how_many_slaves_came_to_america_fact_vs_fiction.html) acknowledge that words are hurtful and can lead to abhorrent behaviors?

I believe in the first amendment, but I also believe that one person's rights end where another begins (Finch, 1882). I think it will be hard to police, and even harder to implement consistent punishments with the NFL ban. But, I do appreciate the effort and the conversation.


Friday, February 21, 2014

Contemporary Issues Week 4



A University of Richmond Trustee recently got himself in hot water. Part of the 1% club, he was at a secret meeting of high earning and powerful wall street professionals when he made highly inappropriate remarks and gestures about gay people and women (Stripling, 2014).  His name: Paul B. Queally. His crimes: Stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry. Yes, everyone has the right to free speech according to the first amendment (1791).  What people forget is that there are consequences for every action and behavior.

Queally and his wife have contributed over $20 million to the school from their personal bank account (Stripling, 2014). Does that monetary contribution afford them special treatment? I would say yes because the university did not address the action (Stripling, 2014). Instead, the university issued a press release saying they hold true to their values and know their board of trustees do to (Stripling, 2014).

Really?

Queally has yet to apologize for his actions. (Stripling, 2014). His press release boiled down to saying that people who know him, know he isn’t a bad person (Stripling, 2014).

Once again, really??

There is too much to unpack from this article between the trustees actions and comments, the existence of this secret elite society, and the university’s response. Even the title of the article is misleading as the trustee is not “under fire” by anyone who has the power to do anything. Sure, the students are outraged, some faculty might be upset, and I’m sure Queally’s family has been slightly inconvenienced. My guess is that this story will go away with the next signature to grace another check to the university.

The comments section was certainly on fire. My two favorite comments from others who read this article were:

“Folks are missing the forest for the trees. The problem is not with this particular individual or university. The problem is with the 1%-ers who laugh at the rest of society while reaping obscene profits. Last year, 40 hedge fund managers pocketed nearly $17 billion. The joke is on the rest of us. These profiteers do not share the values of a just and diverse society as reflected in their secretive fraternal world.”- early

“I think we all know that if these remarks had been made by a faculty member or an administrator, that person would already be long gone - or, at the very least, on indefinite leave while an investigation is being carried out. Bottom line: make lots of money before making stupid, bigoted remarks. Then you'll have more "totality" as an individual (if by 'totality' you mean $$$)” -22178056

I couldn’t have said it better. So I’ll stop there.  

Retrieved Feb 21, 2014
U. of Richmond Trustee Is Under Fire for Gay Jokes
By Jack Stripling
Men were dressed in leotards, wigs, and gold-sequined skirts, swilling alcohol and laughing at jokes about gay people. It sounds like the sort of scene that, if captured on tape, might get a fraternity kicked off a campus. But it was actually an induction ceremony for a secret society of high-powered financiers, whose members include a prominent University of Richmond trustee.
Paul B. Queally, a board member at Richmond, is in hot water over a recent New York magazine article that features a recording of Mr. Queally telling what some have called homophobic and sexist jokes. The tape was recorded clandestinely by a reporter at a 2012 meeting of Kappa Beta Phi, an underground fraternity for the Wall Street elite.
The release of the tape and accompanying article, "One-Percent Jokes and Plutocrats in Drag: What I Saw When I Crashed a Wall Street Secret Society," presents a real dilemma for the University of Richmond, a private liberal-arts institution that bills itself as a tolerant and open environment for gay and lesbian students and faculty and staff members. (The article was adapted from Kevin Roose’s new book, Young Money: Inside the Hidden World of Wall Street’s Post-Crash Recruits [Grand Central Publishing, 2014].)
Mr. Queally, a private-equity executive, and his wife are among the university's most generous financial supporters. They have given the institution nearly $20-million, and they have been honored in turn. A 33,000-square-foot addition to the Robins School of Business building bears the family’s name, as will a new admissions center.
During his recorded speech at the fraternity event, Mr. Queally made jokes at the expense of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state, and Barney Frank, the former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts who is one of the nation's most prominent gay political figures. The joke about Mr. Frank, which involved a phallic allusion to hot dogs, played on Mr. Frank’s sexual orientation.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank questioned whether it was appropriate for Mr. Queally to serve on Richmond’s board.
"I’ve never heard of the guy, and he does not sound like somebody I miss not knowing," Mr. Frank said.
"He certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of person I’d want to have running a university," he added. "On the other hand, a bigot is a bigot, no matter what his job is."
‘In the Spirit of the Event’
Mr. Queally did not respond to an interview request on Thursday, but he released a statement that has appeared in numerous news articles.
"My brief remarks were in the spirit of the event, but they do not reflect my views or my values," he said. "On reflection I should have said nothing. I understand that people who do not know me or my work may misinterpret what I said. I believe my record in support of education, diversity, and economic advancement defines who I am and what I stand for."
Richmond’s board rector and president have also issued statements espousing their commitments to diversity. What none of them, including Mr. Queally, seem to have done publicly, though, is to condemn the remarks or to overtly apologize for them. That did not sit well with Mr. Frank.
"If they were serious about those sentiments in those statements, they would have expressed their sharp disagreement," Mr. Frank said.
Some Richmond students have also been left wanting by the university’s official statements thus far. Yaz M. Nunez, an officer with a campus organization for gay and lesbian students, said she was particularly unsatisfied with Mr. Queally’s statements.
"He says he doesn’t believe the things he said. That’s because he got caught," said Ms. Nunez, co-facilitator of the Student Alliance for Sexual Diversity. "It’s time the students demand respect and accountability."
Wesley J. Meredith, who is also a co-facilitator of the alliance, said that he was concerned about whether Mr. Queally could genuinely identify with the needs of a diverse student body, given his wealth and the company he appears to keep in a secret society of Wall Street tycoons.
"He's the money-bags guy from Monopoly, essentially," Mr. Meredith said.
A Second Controversy
Questions about Mr. Queally's sensitivity to gay and lesbian issues surfaced again this week, when the university's student newspaper uncovered a comment the trustee had made in a Facebook photo caption. Under a picture of a man in a leaf-print garment, Mr. Queally wrote, "Petey in his fag jacket," The Collegian reported.
Mr. Queally was compelled to issue a second statement when contacted by the student newspaper.
"The lesson I learned is that there is no situation or context, public or private, where it is appropriate to make an ill-considered remark in an unwise attempt at being humorous," he said. "In today’s world there is no place for any remark under any circumstance that implies a lack of tolerance. It is my life’s work in education and support for diversity which defines who I am and what I believe. Those who know me understand this."
Despite an outcry from students and alumni, the university has given no indication that Mr. Queally’s position as a trustee is in jeopardy. The board’s bylaws, however, state that a majority of trustees can remove a member for any action "that may negatively reflect on the university."
Jeffrey B. Trammell, a board member of the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, said that trustees should not make knee-jerk decisions about dismissing a member.
"You don’t just say, My board member made a really offensive, stupid joke about women, and therefore we’re going to kick him off the board," said Mr. Trammell, a former rector of the College of William & Mary’s board. "That’s not the proper way to handle it. The proper way is to look at the totality of the individual."
Mr. Trammell, who describes himself as Virginia’s first openly gay college trustee, found Mr. Queally’s remarks "highly inappropriate." At the same time, he said, board members are entitled to free speech.
"A university does not have the job of policing the words of trustees," Mr. Trammell said.
Edward L. Ayers, president of the University of Richmond and a member of its board, did not respond to an interview request on Thursday. In his only public statement, he told The Collegian that "the board wholeheartedly shares our values and understands the special responsibility trustees have for exemplifying the principles that are so central to our mission."
Mr. Ayers, a prominent scholar of the Civil War, has been outspoken on civil-rights issues. As the president of a college situated in the former capital of the Confederacy, he has criticized Richmond’s tendency to gloss over the brutal history of slavery. On the issue at hand, though, Mr. Ayers has said little.
- See more at: http://0-chronicle.com.innopac.library.unr.edu/article/U-of-Richmond-Trustee-Is/144941/#sthash.89ur8cuu.dpuf

Leveling the Playing Field

Trio Day Reception Conversation:

Monica Conlan works for Upward Bound. She moved here several years ago from Michigan. When asked how trio programs contribute to diversity, Monica responded that she believes everyone should have a chance to be educated and have access to education. Monica believes not everyone does and trio programs are just one way of many to ensure people from under represented groups have a chance at a good education. I asked Monica if she thought trio programs evened the playing field. She was silent for a few beats and we both started laughing and shaking our heads no.

This concept of a “playing field” is not new. Where did that come from? One source says that the first record of it being said with regards to a situation aside from sports came from a 1977 article from the Tyrone Daily Herald (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html)

“Our philosophy is that we have no problem competing with the mutual savings banks of they start from the level playing field.” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html)

This phrase, quoted by John Bolger, a lobbyist for the US Bankers Association, goes back even farther (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html). According to the phrases.org website, a former US secret service member, George Burnham, called it “on the level” in 1872. It meant “meeting a man with honorable intentions” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html).

Today, in this context, Monica and I were using the term in reference to the vast economic and social layers in American society that allow for advancement and the ability to achieve the “American Dream”.  To continue the metaphor, we are all playing a game, running the same race. But, some people start way ahead in the race. Some people aren’t even allowed to enter the race. Others have to prove they have a ticket to the race. Often, the folks that are behind are under-represented groups.


Education may not quite level the field or rules, but it does give access. If more people have access, the diversity of those playing the game increases.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Contemporary Issues Week 3- From Giraffe to Eugenics in 36 comments

A giraffe was euthanized and fed to the lions of a Danish zoo. Three comments into the article I came across this little gem that sparked a chain of predictable vitriol:


"Kara7571 #36 America's no better than Germany.  We have always been a eugenics loving nation of grandiose elitists.  If Germany hadn't followed through on its treaty with the Japanese, we would have never entered WWII.  Just like the Civil War wasn't about slavery, WWII wasn't about anything as noble as defeating evil social policies."


The rest of the article is pasted below. 

What I find interesting about the comment, is that Germany adopted the notion of eugenics from American researchers. It was American research that eventually led to the concentration campus of the Holocaust. (http://hnn.us/article/1796)  I came across a great website of work by students at the University of Vermont who detailed the Eugenics movement by state (http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/). In Nevada, we had a 1911 sterilization law "by means of vasectomy" for "men convicted of child molestation under the age of 10 and rape". It was struck down in 1918 before it was ever used. I find myself completely okay with the law though, because I have two small girls and the thought of them being attacked by anyone....I would "sterilize" them myself. 


However, I completely disagree with the use of eugenics on people with disabilities or people of a race deemed to be inferior. The North Carolina program sterilized over 7,600 people from 1929 to 1974 (http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/north_carolina_woman_who_endured_forced_sterilization_fights_for_reparations.html). The majority of them being Black women labeled "promiscuous" or "unfit" to be a mother, and some as young as 14 years old (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/north-carolina-eugenics-sterilization-victims-offered-funds_n_3657982.html). 

It's a common habit I think, to compartmentalize values and what-if situations. I place a value on human life in one situation, but shift stances when my children are negatively impacted in some way. I'm not saying that's right either, but I would venture to say I am not alone in that practice. 

As for the giraffe in the article, I find myself switching values again. The animal didn't ask to be bred into an over-populated situation. The animal didn't ask to live in captivity. Starting there I am torn. I don't like zoos or circuses. But I do support animal sanctuaries that take care of animals who have been ill-treated or misplaced. We frequent Animal Ark here in Northern Nevada. I do support aquariums like Monterey Bay that do research and have a positive impact on ecosystems. I do support zoos that provide animals with environments closer to their actual homes, provide stimulation and play to keep them active and healthy, and are good stewards of animal husbandry. 

Yet I will never take my girls to the circus. I find them to be unbelievably cruel. I don't support small zoos whose purpose is revenue at the expense of the animals they claim to take care of. Some of these views are from a class I taught at Elmhurst College with the dean. For two years we co-taught a first year seminar on the relationship between animals and people. It was eye-opening and inspiring! We covered multiple topics:

  • Our Connection to dogs, their domestication, breeding, etc.    
  • Religion and animals
  • Hunting
  • Food: How we get it, where it comes, from what different culture deem acceptable for consumption
  • Why frogs are so important to the ecosystem
  • The socio-economic differences and cultural acceptances between horse racing and cock fighting

And anything else you can think of pertaining to animals! Whatever we didn't cover, our students had to create a project with an essay and presentation that delved deeper into a topic we glanced over or didn't touch. We had three service trips during the semester. I loved animals before, but after teaching that class I LOVED animals. My bias has changed. My views on our responsibility to animals have changed. I have changed.

When I read this article, my first thought was that the animal should never have been bred for the zoo's entertainment. My second thought was the zoo did the responsible thing in mercifully killing the animal, then providing food to the other animals. It would be wasteful and potentially illegal to dispose of the giraffe carcass any other way. Whatever thoughts I had after that would never have led me to eugenics without the help of comments by KARA7571.

Zoo Kills 'Unwanted' Giraffe Marius, Feeds Carcass To Lions




Image: Copenhagen Zoo's giraffe MariusKELD NAVNTOFT / EPA, FILE
Copenhagen Zoo's giraffe Marius seen on Feb. 7.
A zoo in Denmark killed a young giraffe with a bolt gun and fed its meat to the lions Sunday, saying the animal was “unwanted.”
Copenhagen Zoo said 18-month-old Marius had been euthanized the giraffe to avoid in-breeding
“When breeding success increases it is sometimes necessary to euthanize,” the Scientific Director Bengt Holst said on the zoo's website, acknowledging the decision has led to a “debate.”

Animal rights campaigners gathered outside the zoo to protest the killing, local media reported.
Marius could not be released into the wild as his attachment to humans would make him easy prey, and no other zoos with the same breeding program had room for him, the zoo said.
After killing Marius, the zoo carried out a public autopsy. Graphic pictures of the carcass were published in Danish media.
A British zoo offered to rehome the giraffe, ITV News reported, while an online petition to save him reached 28,000 signatures.
However, the zoo was undeterred.
“We see this as a positive sign and as insurance that we in the future will have a healthy giraffe population in European zoos,” Holst explained. "The same type of management is used in deer parks where red deer and fallow deer are culled to keep the populations healthy. The most important factor must be that the animals are healthy physically and behaviorally and that they have a good life whilst they are living whether this life is long or short.
"If an animal’s genes are well represented in a population further breeding with that particular animal is unwanted."
It added that the animal was killed with a bolt gun so that its meat could eaten, which would not have been possible if anaesthetic had been used.
The organization Animal Rights Sweden told The Associated Press the case highlighted what they believe zoos do to animals regularly.

"It is no secret that animals are killed when there is no longer space, or if the animals don't have genes that are interesting enough," the organization said in a statement. "The only way to stop this is to not visit zoos."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Reflections #1

Tonight in class there were two things that I'd like to explore a little more. Disney and the Arizona School Superintendent.

Part I
When I was pregnant with my first child, my husband and I talked at length about race. It had always been a part of our conversation. He is Irish, English and Polish. He can track his ancestors to the early 17th century and has been to visit the ruins of a church in Ireland where generations of his family were married. I am Black with my ancestors coming through Goree Island, probably from Senegal. My maiden name is Goree and all my life I was told it was French. As I got older I started believing maybe we originated from the northern parts of Africa that currently are Francophiles. After more research, I discovered Goree Island and the "Door of No Return". Goree comes from the Dutch Goraie, the Dutch actually ran the slave holding settlement for quite some time.

Race, entitlement, privilege, culture, and more have been part of our relationship. As a"white" man who grew up in Detroit and attended an HBCU, he has a different contextual and cultural awareness of the Black experience in America and I believe that is partially why we are able to be in a relationship. He gets me.

Disney was a part of our conversations. Being blessed with two girls we talk often about the portrayal of women, the image of beauty, and society's obsession with perfection in regards to the impact of on our girls and how much to shield them from. He is not a fan of the mysoginistic tones of Disney. I am not a fan of the racism.

Example #1 Celebration http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/hns/cities/DISNEY.html
Celebration was the utopian society Disney created in Florida. It was his ideal community, built by the Disney Development Corporation.  Disney had to level acres of Florida community for Disney world, only to want to recreate what he destroyed in an isolated geographic location. There were to be no people of color in Celebration, FL. The people who lived there were all one people: white. The community was built on Christian ideals with a future dream of expanding to other states in America.

Example #2 The movies.
I really like this author's summation:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_the-9-most-racist-disney-characters.html
Disney's movies often included a savior-type figure who was white. The characters in his films were petite, talented, and poised if they were white. If they were Black or Latino or Asian they reflected the stereotypes. They were slovenly, mis-proportioned, practiced imperfect speech, flawed and rarely, if ever, the stars of the film.

Example #3 Indoctrination
Much like Hitler, http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/themes/indoctrinating-youth/, Disney knew if you could get to the children, you could affect the next generation, shaping them to be who you want them to be. While Disney would not be happy with how his company has changed for the better, he would be very happy with how the foundation he set the course for his company to spread its message to families globally. Disney is an empire. They own ABC, ESPN, Marvel, and more. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/11/09/why-espn-is-the-worlds-most-valuable-media-property-and-worth-40-billion/
They control media; what we watch, who we watch, how we watch it, and when. If Disney were still alive at the reins, there is no doubt in my mind he would have been in complete control over the message being sent through the various media controlled by the company. That message would not have had a multi-cultural feel to it. Just based on the creation of Celebration alone, Disney would love the fact that his company is in a position of power to influence families globally through their pocketbooks and children.

Our girls do watch Disney movies, we've been to Disneyland, and we enjoyed it. But, it's not their only form of entertainment. We don't consume it in mass quantities. We don't buy every Disney movie, doll, dress up clothes, stickers, and toy. And we have conversations about the movies we watch. We temper it as best we can. There is a magical quality and innocence that can't be denied. It can be moderated and limited. And I also believe it's important to take notice and give recognition when a positive change happens. Disney is working towards a more inclusive image and message. Tiana (Princess and the Frog) was not perfect, but it was a start. I feel it's important to remain part of the conversation and show support so more change can occur.

Part II
I was interested in the teachers who testified against the teaching of ethnic studies. Superintendent Horne mentioned them briefly in the Cooper interview. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/12/arizona.ethnic.studies/
He alluded to the teachers being upset by the program, but only cited classroom management and disruptive behavior as issues.  Is it possible that the teachers were not prepared to teach the subject matter, relate to the students, or facilitate a productive discussion and dialogue between the students? And this is why they don't want to teach the program?

My 4.5 year old starts kindergarten next year. Currently we are zoned for Caughlin Ranch. It's a good school based on test scores. They are second in the state. But when you look at demographic data, last year they had no Black students and 23 multi-ethnic students. I commend them for reporting out the multi-ethnic students, as that is not required by Nevada state law. However, in driving around the neighborhood and talking with some of the current parents whose children attend the school, it became clear that we would not fit in. Our family's values are different from the families at Caughlin. We are making a conscious decision to downsize and move into an apartment in a neighborhood where the girls will be zoned for Mt. Rose Elementary. They have a Spanish immersion program and super diverse population of families whose values seem more aligned with ours. It's Reno, so I know we aren't going to find a bustling community 100% supportive of multiculturalism and inclusiveness. However, we can find an environment supportive of it.

The test scores from Mt. Rose are not nearly as high as Caughlin's. I have a theory about that. A good-sized portion of the population of Mt. Rose are not native-English speakers. The standardized tests do not come from a cultural perspective they identify with and the content and context may not be transferable. So of course, there would be low test scores. These students, mostly Hispanic, may or may not be able to read the tests, and are more likely to not have a frame of reference from which to understand the test and conceptualize concepts. So they do poorly on the tests. My theory is not based on any facts, just my own personal observations and experience with standardized tests.

Ergo, it is the responsibility of the teacher to get the student to a place where they can be successful. I would bet the teachers were not taught how to to accomplish that, nor given the support to do so. Connecting that back to Arizona, were the teachers adequately prepared to teach these classes and support the students? Go back one more step to San Fran State Strike. A new program and degree of study was formed, but who was prepared and qualified to teach it?

In thinking about the readings from the Cultural Lit text, if we are supposed to have a foundation that allows us to move forward in everything else, where does that foundation come from? Who determines what that foundation and set of schema are? And if you don't have them, how are you as an educator expected to adequately educate your students?

The text talked about a standardized language benefitting society on pages 75-76. It went into detail on how China suffers from not having a standardized language. The US does not have an official language. Is the book saying we should and if we did we would be a better country? If that is the case, what happens to the students whose native tongue is not the official language of the country? My guess is they fall behind, they don't fully understand concepts, and they get frustrated.

On page 47 of the Hirsch text, he says that "researchers have drawn significant conclusions about the importance of background knowledge for general reading ability." If the students of Mt Rose don't have that general background, then they don't do well in the readings or on the tests. The teachers assume they should have a foundation for understanding, but when that is non-existent, what do the teachers do?

What did the teachers in Arizona do? They spoke out against the ethnic studies program. They could have advocated for better resources and support. The various histories are a part of that background knowledge and should be a part of the foundation. I would argue in doing so, you create better readers if going by Hirsch's book.


Sunday, February 2, 2014

Contemporary Issues- Week 2

Groundhog Day is not just about a groundhog seeing its shadow. Oh no! It is actually about "molesting your cousins and hanging minorities" while accepting the "government's bogus climate change theory" that was predicated by the "leftist whiny liberals". At least those are the sentiments of the folks reading and commenting!

The article itself is about two paragraphs long. Spoiler alert: Phil saw his shadow. We have six more weeks of cold. And I'm not talking about the frozen hearts and bitterness infused within the comments!

http://www.today.com/pets/soon-be-spring-or-much-longer-winter-groundhog-says-2D12039714