Teach Out Reflection

For my teach-out project, I landed on the idea of having a one-on-one conversation with my Dad on the subject of white privilege. The concept surrounding white privilege was something I had an idea of before taking this class, but not a complete understanding. The very same could be said for my dad– he is a very relaxed guy, liberal leaning, but not necessarily someone active in that political space. The only times such sensitive topics such as race and white privilege appear is at the dinner table. My dad is also a teacher, and time and time again has experienced diversity seminars at his school. This is important, since he and I both teach in a very diverse district. However, these seminars, especially those focused on the subject of whiteness, rubbed him the wrong way. At dinner, my dad would complain he didn’t like being targeted for being a “white old man”, and didn’t understand why– he isn’t racist, and in his words did not actively use being white to his advantage. After learning what I’ve learned in this course, I realized that my dad would really benefit from a complete understanding of white privilege. I thought, if I could just talk to him honestly about it, instead of being talked down to in a seminar, maybe that barrier could be broken, and we could have an open discussion on white privilege and what it means.

I chose two materials for this teach out: Alan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, and Difference, and Mellody Hobson’s color brave TED talk. Both share similar ideas on the subject of not being a part of culturally dominant groups. They make it clear that there are dominant groups in the United States, brought to life by social constructs meant to keep white people in power. Important too, was the fact that these materials stress taking ourselves personally out of the equation when discussing it– the issue of white privilege is less about us as individuals, and more so about the groups we belong to. How we as white people obviously benefit from being so– we have to worry far less about being stopped in a store, or being pulled over, or attaining better career paths. Where there is privilege, there is oppression. White privilege has more to do with how we are treated by the people surrounding us than it does ourselves personally. These ideas made a big impact on me when I first learned of them in this class, which is part of why I chose these two materials in particular. I also chose the Mellody Hobson TED talk because I knew this was a video my dad definitely watched in one of his school’s diversity seminars. I wondered if he would have a different perspective on it after the first part of my teach out.

The teach out itself went great. We started with a discussion on what we believed white privilege was. My dad understood that it meant white people had certain advantages they could utilize. He believed that his age group was a target of diversity seminar because the “pendulum was swinging the other way”-- meaning, socially underprivileged groups are finally getting exposure, but with this “extreme” comes unnecessary targeting. My dad reasoned things would eventually even out again, and his group wouldn’t be targeted. Part of what I learned in this class was actually meeting someone at their level. Instead of telling him that he was outright wrong, I instead got to the root of why he was feeling what he was feeling. Once that is exposed, it is possible to break down that understanding bit by bit. From here we talked a little bit about popular media depictions of representation, how every show has a diverse cast now. I reasoned with him that while that may be true, media depictions might not necessarily represent real struggle. If things were truly “evening out”, I don’t think we would still be fighting for LGBTQ rights or fighting against the censorship of history. We also talked about shows that he grew up with, and what they say about white privilege– why was it that the white main character of “All in the Family” was allowed to be a racist bigot? Would the show have been greenlit in the first place if it was instead a black main character?

From here, I brought out the Alan Johnson reading and explained his key ideas– unearned privilege, the nature of obliviously benefitting from white privilege without actively “using” it, the Diversity Wheel. I tried to reason how we would be treated differently if we were a different race, and how this unequal treatment is a result of our own cultural pedagogies benefitting white privilege. He was apt to listen, which was motivating. Finally, we watched Mellody Hobson’s TED talk, which I have mentioned, we have both watched before, but I wanted to see if he would have a new perspective on it after our talk.

Following the teach out, my dad said I did a great job explaining it. He said that I did a better job of it than even the diversity seminars at his school! This fact I wasn’t really surprised by; after experiencing one in my district, it doesn’t help that the people teaching these don’t really care about the subject either. My dad said he had a far more complete understanding of what it meant, and how our privilege leads to another group being oppressed. We talked further about how this info was important, especially teaching in such a diverse school district. He pointed out how much of his school’s faculty was exclusively white, and we talked about what that says about white privilege, and opportunities. At the end of our conversation, he asked me what he could do, if he had no control over being old and white in this current system. I told him to simply talk about it– as Alan Johnson put it, the first step in solving a problem is addressing a problem to begin with. I hope my teach out had a lasting impact on my dad.

Thank you for such a great class! It was really enlightening and refreshing to talk about these subjects in such an open and honest space. I hope everyone has a good rest of their year!

Teach Out Presentation

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fIsxiflFl6f-ntKOUeaRjphBK4OI8PtuZJmyCCyWSis/edit?usp=sharing

Week 10- Eliminating Ableism in Education

Going into this reading, I wasn't sure what to expect. I had heard the terms "ableist" and "ableism" thrown around before, but I didn't really have the context for those words. I understand now this relates to disabilities and how disability is treated in our society. I am certain this reading has more to do with how it is presented in a classroom setting and interpersonally, but I was also thinking about how navigating around a school is a possible issue promoting ableism. In my school alone, there are no ramps or elevators inside the building-- students who have an injured leg have to stay in a single room all day. I know these Rhode Island schools were built many years ago, but the fact that such considerations were not standard or to code, even in the 1950s and 1960s, is honestly mind boggling. It really wasn't that long ago!!

"Ableist Assumptions"

• "Penny was quickly developing the view, held by most disability advocates, that while disability is not a tragedy, society's response to disability can have tragic consequences for those who have disabilities" (p. 2)
• It's clear from this parent's experience that society's expectations of the disabled are not of success, but of failure. If students are placed in this mindset or set against such low standards, how do our systems ever expect them to succeed?
• From this same section, it's clear too that not only does society not offer the same protections to disabled students as regular ones, but any protections that are in place are completely obfuscated. Why did Penny have to learn about laws protecting her child from discriminaiton from a second-hand source? Shouldn't this have been one of the first things presented to Penny by her doctors or local school district?

"Ableism and Schooling"

• "In short, in the eyes of many educators and society, it is preferable for disabled students to do things in the same manner as non-disabled kids" (p. 3)
• Somehow, society both places low expectations on disabled students, while at the same time expecting them to act and perform in the same way as non-disabled students? There should be a greater focus on the strengths of the student, not the so-called "weaknesses". How can we help disabled students succeed in their own way, express themselves in their own way?
• "Both of these dominant stereotypes of disability, "Tiny Tims" and "supercrips," have at their core ableist perspectives, the failure to accept and value disabled people as they are" (p. 4)

"Education of the Deaf"

• "...there is significant history and research to draw on that should guide our efforts to improve education for the deaf" (p. 5)
• Again I see the recurring theme of applying societal, ableist standards onto disabled youth. Oralism was clearly a pushback against the success of sign language and other such programs. To read that the inventor of the telephone--who had a deaf wife-- fighting to BAN sign language is... shocking. There must have been lead in that 1800s water, I swear.
• "...only 30 percent of speech can be read from lip movements" (p. 6)
• I'm glad that ASL became commonplace in the later half of the 1900s. It allows deaf students to succeed in their own way, as opposed to applying our own standards.

"Toward Ending Ableism in Education"

• "As is the case with racism and sexism, progress towards equity is dependent first and foremost on the acknowledgement that ableism exists in schools"
• "Though students with disabilities have individual needs, by and large their education should be based on the same cirriculum as that of nondisabled students"
• The big takeaway I am gaining is that awareness is a large factor in removing ableism, but also having resources to assist disabled students in their goals and education is paramount. There is no one size fits all solution-- each student must be given specialized assistance

Heir argues that ableism projects unrealistic expectations onto students with disabilities. Society's failure to prop up and support individuals who are disabled starts in the schooling systems. The best way to combat and change this mentality is to better specialize education to support the needs of disabled individuals, as well as promoting general diversity among student populations.

Reading this, I was reminded that former president of the US FDR was in a wheelchair. I was shocked to learn that his presence in a wheelchair was totally hidden from the American public until after the fact-- I wonder if he had publically spoken about it, it would have promoted a more inclusive mindset in the American populace. Such struggles could have been normalized and supported... but those were different times. His team may have worried that he wouldn't be taken seriously in a wheelchair.

Week 9 - Literacy With an Attitude

 3/26/2024

"Literacy With An Attitude"-- notes and other thoughts

It's a good thing that we didn't have class today, because I do not feel well haha. I hope my writing for this blog isn't too sloppy.

As I am skimming through this preface, I am reminded of a class I am taking right now on the side-- it is a book club offered to teachers at my school in which we read a book titled "Dispelling Misconceptions about English Language Learners". The book goes into detail the kinds of factors that contribute to misconceptions about ELL students, most specifically in terms of educational literacy. I think there may be a lot of shared thoughts between that reading and "Literacy With An Attitude". Still, I am not sure which direction this particular reading is going, so we will see.

"Over time, political, social, and economic forces have brought us to a place where the working class (and to a surprising degree, the middle class) gets domesticating education education and functional literacy , and the rich get empowering education and powerful literacy"

This is an idea I have thought about occasionally-- in my first months of teaching I felt guilty that I was not offering my kinds substantial teaching material, and subsequently the rest of my school wasn't. Not that the material was necessarily bad, but I think it's just as author Patrick Finn describes; it is an education that is often not born of creativity and and powerful thinking, but rather one that presents things as they are, unchangeable and matter of fact. How does this all tie in to bringing in social and political issues into the classroom? Is the eduation society has cultivated so limited due in part to limiting the discussion of social and political issues, out of fear that it may empower the lower classes?

"Compared to the more affluent schools in this study, there was less discussion of controversial topics such as labor disbutes, civil rights, and women's rights and less attention to the history of these issues"

To silence this kind of discussion is to silence creative thinking-- it ensures authority is unquestionable, and unaccountable for past struggles.

Finn talks about how these lower-class schools are fiercly step by step in their education-- shaped not by creative values, but by industry. Students are to become unquestioning, ideal workers. I get stressed and anxious thinking about this timeless struggle. I feel as though history has always been a story of rich vs poor, a truth obfuscated by years of deception and change in the system of schooling and education. What exactly can be done to stop this struggle? It boggles my mind, because surely discussion is not enough. How does one spur people into action?

"Work rarely called for creativity. There was little serious attention to how students might develop or express their own ideas"

"When students begin school in such different systems, the odds are set for them"

Finn argues that the language of literacy we should integrate into our classrooms should be one of power-- finding ways to learn and generate powerful literacy among working and middle class students. At this point, lower and middle class schools are designed to be as sanetized as possible, focusing on step-by-step procedure, as opposed to upper class schools, which focus on how such solutions to problems can be found creatively and with open discussion. Finn's argument, then, is that creativity and creative thinking is powerful, and the greatest way that we can foster powerful literacy in the lower and middle classes. To foster this creativity, there must be discussion and connection between the material being taught and the daily lives and struggles of students.

Maybe this one is too obvious a reference, but I am reminded of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall Pt. 2". Many people who have misread the lyrics may only see it as an anthem of "we hate school" and "school sucks". The reality is the song is reflective of Roger Waters' (the band leader) time in a post WW2 British schooling system, which shaped and abused children into working class citizens, or "another brick in the wall". Such themes I think are reflective of the same exact struggles plaguing American schooling, where lower to middle class schools rigidly attempt to shape students into ideal workers, as opossed to upper class schools shaping students for ruling at the top.

Week 8 (...or is it week 9?)

 Would like to start this blog post by (again) apologizing for this late post. The last week has been quite hectic, but I'm glad I was able to slot out some time to work on this reading.

After an initial skim of the topics of each of this week's reading materials, it's clear to me there is a clear contrast between the laws put in place to protect LGBTQ youth, and the actual realities found in schools.

The official guidance put in place for Rhode Island Elementary and Secondary Education suggests a staunch stance against descrimination:

"The purpose of this guidance is to... foster an educational environment that is safe and free from descrimination for all students, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression..."

The guidance goes on further to suggest ways that LGBTQ youth can be supported, such as offering gender neutral bathrooms and alternatives, as well as protecting information about a student's orientation if it would endanger their living situation with their parents or caretakers.

The suggestion is a highly inclusive environment for RI LGBTQ youth-- but reality is far away from suggestion. There are laws in place to help protect youth, but whether or not schools follow through on these, and whether or not teachers and staff are aware of these laws, are a completely different story. I can say for certain with experience that I've heard numerous older teachers in my building say things about the LGBTQ movement that are at best microagressions. Teachers and students are not immune to their own prejudices or the prejudices that influence their families, and I think the second reading, "Queering Our Schools", is indicative of this.

I think the start of the reading says it best: "The terrain, in terms of legal rights and public conversation, is shifting rapidly...At the same time, homophobia, mysogyny, and other forms of hatred are alive and well, and even progressive schools and classrooms have a long way to go..."

The editors of "Queering Our Schools" argument statement is that while there are laws in place to protect against descrimination, there are still struggles and hurdles to cross when it comes to creating safe environments for descriminated groups, most especially in classrooms. My question is this: how can we create an environment safe for LGBTQ youth not only in the classroom, but in their homes as well? The addition of the community and families surrounding schools, as well as their own held prejudices, make the matter of making inclusive classrooms extremely diffficult.

"When you invite kids to talk openly and ask questions about gender and sexuality, you have to be ready for whatever happens. It's trickier than geometry"

If there were perhaps a demonstration of a fully functioning, inclusive classroom, or a completely inclusive school, might that open the door for parents and oppossing groups to see things differently? I feel as though a public school is a pillar of a local community, and perhaps focusing on upending a school to be completely inclusive might lead to better things.

How can we create these inclusive settings? "Queering Our Schools" suggests normalizing discussion and the suggestion of LGBTQ themes and struggles. Normalizing discussion and ideas such that they may repeatedly crop up, might challenge preconceptions that teachers, students, and parents hold surrounding inclusivity.

I think this is further supported by the other material for this week's reading, the "Woke Read Aloud" video, featuring a children's book promoting the discussion of different and preferred pronouns. A material such as this-- something that is welcoming and inclusive-- is a great starting point to not only discussion surrounding pronouns, but normalizing the concept in general. I love how the teacher in the video breaks down the concept even further, into something that is completely digestible not only to a child, but their parents as well. Granted, I don't know how many conservative parents would be showing their kids "Woke Read Alouds", but in a classroom setting this would be an excellent opportunity for discussion and normalization.

My final question of discussion is this: how can I create a better inclusive setting in my classroom, to facilitate discusison? I'm specifically a tech ed teacher, and I am trying to think of ways that I could perhaps promote that kind of discussion in some of my lessons.

Again this week, I am stuck thinking of what I could possibly hyper-link or attach as an image to this discussion. I was drawn back to this wonderful game I had played, "Celeste".

The game's story, about a youth's climb up a perilous mountaintop, is actually an alegory for the struggle of trans youth. The character is ambiguously gendered, and various parallels are drawn between their struggle climbing and the struggles of trans youth. "This memorial dedicated to those who perished on the climb" referring to those who had died on their transitioning journey-- deaths that may have been prevented if there were proper support systems and environments for trans youth to thrive in.

Slightly unrelated, but the game's soundtrack is great too. I attached one of my favorite tracks below.

Week 7- Teach Out Proposal

 I had originally written this on the green paper we were handed, I forgot we had to post this to our blogs (oops).

My initial idea was that I wanted to present the teach out to my dad. He's a really nice and sympathetic guy, but he has expressed in the past how he doesn't understand white privilege, or the dynamicism of PC culture. He's not a big fan of the race/cultural seminars at the schools either; not that he doesn't empathize but I don't think he understands the concepts surrounding white privilege, and feels offended for being targeted.

I propose to teach out to my dad, using a number of readings we have gone over so far in this course, including the Colorblind/Colorbrave readings, as well as any other materials touching on white privelege. I want to break down why we as white people are still culpable in white privilege, and how if one group is privileged, there is another group who is not. I am still not sure how I will break it down into something digestible and natural. I don't want it to sound like I'm reading from a script when talking to him.

An individual interview would be the best format to this. Speaking one-on-one with someone is a lot more personal, honest, and vulnerable. There is an opportunity for a better dialogue. That vulnerability that comes with that, I believe, is needed for this subject of teach out.

I am hoping the rest of the class's proposals will help me brainstorm ideas as to how I can format this. I really would like to make him understand fully.

Week 6- "Aria" and "Teaching Multilingual Children"

 2/25/2024

“Aria” and “Teaching Multilingual Children”-- Notes and other thoughts

Going into these readings, I believe this is the first time we’ve had two readings assigned with conflicting viewpoints. I am wondering what side of the spectrum I will fall on after digesting these readings– or perhaps both have something important to say.

In “Aria”, author Richard Rodriguez argues both for and against the assimilation of MLL students into English speaking. Reflecting on his own experience, while switching his primary language spoken at home to English helped him gain confidence in public situations, he found that his home and family life suffered as a result. In his head, English was far more impersonal than speaking to his family in Spanish.

“...they do not realize that while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated into a public society, such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality” (p. 39).

While more comfortable in public environments dominated by English speaking, Richard has lost a personal part of himself and a connection to his Spanish heritage as a result. I think this is indicative of the struggle of MLL students– assimilation makes the act of living in the US far easier, but how much is lost in translation? 

Should English be completely enforced, or should there be something more freeform in the way we speak in school settings? Spanish is quickly becoming a very dominant language in the US; English is dominant culturally, but perhaps it’s only a matter of time before there is far more widespread adoption of Spanish.

On the other side of the spectrum, “Teaching Multilingual Children” author Virginia Collier affirms the importance of both teaching English, while reaffirming the value of differing linguistic and cultural values.

“For younger children, it is recommended that the teacher’s focus be on the message– which is the child’s focus– rather than on the form of the message” (p. 224)

I think this is another quote that is indicative of the struggle of MLL students– such young students are still in the process of learning, and this is further complicated by understanding the language and form in which the information is being delivered. Should the focus, then, be on the learning material itself first before the delivery of the form?

“The critical distinction to maintain is between how children acquire the capacity to converse casually in a second language, and how they learn to become proficient students using a second language. These are two entirely different processes” (p. 225)

Collier further postulates that academic language further complicates things, especially as something that doesn’t come naturally to English speaking students as well.

The two readings are stacked against each other– while Rodriguez notes that he lost a sense of himself in detaching himself from his first language, his progress in English dramatically increased as a result. On the other hand, Collier points out that eliminating the first language completely is ultimately too damaging, and that there must be an understanding of the value of multiple languages and cultures in a single class room.

I think Rodriguez is speaking from a personal point of view, and from what I gather he regrets the elimination of his first language in his home life. I think this only further strengthens Collier’s points. While difficult, it is possible to have it both ways– learning a second language for public use while maintaining important cultural values. I am interested in hearing about what the rest of the class has to say about this.

This isn't exactly the most serious or meaningful clip, but I was reminded of this Family Guy joke that I think points out the use of a second language in a public setting in an absurd way.

Week 5- “Love for Syria- Tackling World Crises with Small Children”

 2/19/2024

“Love for Syria- Tackling World Crises with Small Children” Notes and other thoughts

https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/love-for-syria/

Linked above is the article that I chose from the “Rethinking Schools” website. I stumbled on it after browsing for a half hour or so. On the surface, I was interested in what the article had to say about teaching difficult concepts to young children, like war and conflict. But I was also thinking about how the kids that I teach do not have such a grasp. I have never once heard them talk about any of the emergent conflicts of the past few years, whether it be Ukraine or Palestine. It isn’t technically relevant to them– but I wonder if they would be more attuned to talking about it if such concepts were introduced at a younger age, in an environment where it is safe to experience feelings and thoughts. A lot of American schools seem to skirt around these ideas of war and conflict (I wonder why… maybe America’s responsibility in many of them). In any case, this is why I gravitated towards this particular topic.

In the article, teacher and author Cami Touloukian experiences a moment in which her student-teacher shares her emotions about the conflict in Syria, and the children in the classroom are empathetic to her. This inspires Touloukian to begin developing a lesson discussing the conflict with her 1st and 2nd graders, and questioning the ethics and logic of discussing these topics with children. 

“But I also worried that if I dug too much into the topic of war and refugees, parents in our mostly white, privileged community would be upset”

Again the topic of race and privilege becomes apparent, which I think was inevitable. Those with privilege are not privy to– or perhaps don’t want to think about– the struggles of those who do not have their status or privilege. I question, what kind of parental outcry would you get teaching this to a classroom one day? Would it depend where the school is situated? Would anyone care?

“I couldn’t help but wonder though, was it so bad to feel sadness about what was happening in Syria? After all, it is sad. And perhaps tapping into our feelings is exactly what needs to happen more often at home and at school. If we don’t feel anything, if we are oblivious or numb, then we won’t do anything to make a difference”

This quote resonates with me. It is the argument both FOR and AGAINST teaching war and conflict to young kids. Parents do not want their kids to feel upset or sad, which is understandable. But as Touloukian points out, this pure emotion is exactly what helps develop empathy and understanding. Experiencing that would allow kids to grow, and gain a more mature perspective. Empathy is the thing that is lacking in many kids– eventually gained, but even the middle schoolers I teach often lack empathy and foresight. We would be better off introducing these concepts to younger children– would it fast track this empathy?

“At first, we simply had to create an alternate plan for Madeline, as her mom insisted that she did not want her to be a part of this unit. However, as time passed and feelings calmed, her mom began to develop a better understanding of what we were teaching and Madeline began to join in more”

While most parents were supportive of teaching the topic, one parent created resistance with Touloukian, arguing that the topic of war wasn’t appropriate for children. However, in the emails sent out, it created a positive discussion amongst parents, who shared their support with refugees from the conflict. And I think this experience she’s describing is indicative, how a hotly contested topic opens the door for greater visibility and understanding of the issues. So long as the environment is civil and professional, people are able to talk to each other at a human level, at an empathetic level. So much of the politics and rhetoric of today is so aggressive in its “us vs them” mentality, we forget that there can actually be rational discussion created between opposing parties. I believe this is all the more reason why Touloukian is on to something with this practice– discussion is always good, even if there is disagreement.

“As our unit came to an end, the children asked what they could do to help. Now that they understood a little better, they wanted to give back and they wanted to make a positive impact on the world”

Touloukian argues that teaching concepts of war, conflict, and refugees to small children is incredibly helpful– it promotes an understanding of struggle outside of our own world views, and creates empathy in young children– something that is otherwise somewhat difficult to instill. It promoted her students to take action and talk about it with their peers as well.

I couldn’t agree more with her sentiment– the experiment clearly worked. I think having these discussions, for however much they are emotionally draining or upsetting, is important. It creates empathy and understanding, on top of self awareness. So much of today’s youth lead incredibly incurious lives, accepting things as they are. But I believe teaching that there are unpleasant things in the world, unpleasant things to experience, creates and gives students and kids much needed perspective.

It all reminds me again of the on-going conflict between schools and parents. What the parent believes to be right to teach to their children. As hopeful as this article is, it was written in 2017. In today’s political climate, is it impossible to have these discussions of race, conflict, and strife without severe backlash? How can we change the minds of not only children, but their parents as well?

Week 4- "The Silenced Dialogue"

 2/20/2024

On “The Silenced Dialogue”-- Notes and other thoughts

As I am reading these opening pages, speaking on when black students and teachers tried to discuss the matter of education with their white contemporaries, it dawned on me that I have seen similar behaviors exhibited by my fellow teachers. The stubbornness and know-it-all attitude.

I wrote about it in my blog post last week, when we had a seminar about race in the classroom. The teachers all ignored and scoffed at the materials in the discussion. They believe they know what is best for all– even in spite of the fact that their own personal experiences as white teachers do not reflect the experiences and needs of colored students and teachers. I question what motivates this behavior, exactly? Why is it so hard to accept that the United States is an environment in which many different races and cultures experience the same system in unequal ways? Is it hard to accept there is disparity? And how can they comment on this in a position of privilege? 

It all relates to what we’ve been discussing, about being color-blind, and how being in privileged positions and experiences blinds white people to oppression.

“It becomes futile because they think they know everything about everybody. What you have to say about your life, your children, doesn’t mean anything” (p. 22)

“To provide schooling for everyone’s children that reflects liberal, middle-class values and aspirations is to ensure the maintenance of the status quo, to ensure that power, the culture of power, remains in the hands of those who already have it” (p. 28)

“And I do not advocate that it is the school’s job to attempt to change the homes of poor and nonwhite children to match the homes of those in the culture of power. That may indeed be a form of cultural genocide” (p. 30)

The above quote reminded me, again, of the aforementioned racial seminar at my school. One teacher whom I was sitting next to argued that it is not our jobs to adapt to the culture of immigrant students, but rather immigrants must assimilate with American culture instead. Definitely made the rest of the meeting very awkward, it was a disgusting thing to say. But again, it is relevant to the quote. I question, as educators we hold positions of power over our students, including displaying our culture, but many teachers refuse to acknowledge this position of power. How can we create dialogues that advocate the acceptance of different cultures and ideas? How can we change the minds of our fellow educators?

“We must keep the perspective that people are experts on their own lives” (p. 47)

In “The Silenced Dialogue”, author Lisa Delpit argues that there is a great communication disparity between white teachers and teachers of color– that there is a “silenced dialogue” as a result of privileged white teachers, unable to budge from their positions, and the frustration of colored teachers, who are upset that their peers refuse to listen. Delpit argues that, to acknowledge this silence, there must be an established understanding of “the culture of power”-- how privileged groups hold positions of power in educational institutions, and how these institutions are designed with the privileged culture in mind. Such institutions must be changed and designed to be accommodating to all cultures, including those not in the position of “cultural power”. Delpit also argues that there must be advocacy for both teaching leadership and student empowerment in the classroom.

I am looking forward to the class discussion on this– there are a lot of ideas and materials in this reading that I think are interesting, but I am having trouble digesting it all at once. I think a class discussion to break down all the integral ideas here will further improve my understanding, more specifically with the differing teaching styles and methodologies demonstrated, and how they are reflective of differing cultural attitudes.

The final quote I referenced definitely resonated with me— I wanted to see if there were any pictures or articles relating to it. It seems as though many people share this same line of thinking. We are the experts of our own experiences– we cannot make assumptions of the lives of others based on our own. Those differing experiences must be heard.

Week 3- “Colorblindness is the New Racism” and “Color Blind or Color Brave?”

On “Colorblindness is the New Racism”-- notes and other thoughts

Before reading these– I had some thoughts on color blindness as a concept. If one suggests they are racially colorblind– that is, they claim to treat all races equally– what is this an admission of exactly? As Luna Malbroux pointed out in “The Four I’s of Oppression”, this statement is not relevant to the workings of systemic oppression. I believe that, more than anything, it is only an admission that the individual is not personally responsible for racism, or that they themselves are not racist. It is a passing of blame, of responsibility. It ignores the fact that in spite of this perception, the individual (assuming they’re white, which…they probably are) is still benefiting from the oppressive system, even if they are not conscious of it. 

Likewise, I believe a claim such as colorblindness is more often than not an outright lie– consciously or subconsciously, we register different groups differently than others. Ending racism and oppression is not just about claiming there are no differences between us– it is about accepting differences. That different cultures, different races, different ways of living, are ok, and that it is ok to not conform to a particular norm. Acceptance, I personally believe, is the name of the game here.

Authors Armstrong and Wildman make an interesting point early on– individuals can claim colorblindness, because they themselves do not have to think in terms of racial difference or disparity. These individuals may be thinking of the disadvantages that other races have within the system, but they are unaware of how whites may be benefitting from said system, and how these benefits are unfair.

Again they touch on another concept we have discussed– the multifaceted nature of oppression– how one individual may be oppressed in one way, but benefit from the system in another.

“As long as educators, particularly legal educators, and students fail to question the dynamics of whiteness and privilege in antidiscrimination law, the legal system will reinscribe that privilege and perpetuate discrimination” (p. 65).

“Society purports to prize colorblindness, and that dictate makes it hard to “see race” in public discussion” (p. 66)

“Color insight does not provide a magic wand that dispenses with racism, but it does offer a vocabulary and some significant points of entry for deeper conversations” (p. 76)

Armstrong and Wildman argue that color blindness only serves to obfuscate the role that “whiteness” and other dominant social ideologies play in upholding system oppression. The authors also argue that valuing colorblindness creates a difficult situation in which racial injustice cannot be properly discussed. An incomplete understanding of white privilege only serves to further harm the oppressed, and a failure to discuss racial discrimination only continues to perpetuate it. To further the end of racial injustice, safe environments for discussing race, such as in the classroom, must be created. Color insight over color blindness.

____________________________

On “Colorblind or Colorbrave?” – notes and other thoughts

I have actually watched this one before– it was played at a staff meeting at our school this year. The subject of the meeting was acknowledging racial disparity in the classroom. It was an incredibly awkward experience– a room of middle aged white people just taking the info being dispensed through one ear and out the other. It was strange seeing the absolute stubbornness of my peers, about a topic I thought they would be more sensitive to, teaching in a heavily colored community such as Cranston. Nobody really took it seriously. I had expected more from them, but just as the Colorblindness reading stated, race is an uncomfortable topic that most people opt to tiptoe around. The video was played more or less without context; I wonder if it would have gone better if there was first a level of understanding on how they as white teachers benefited from white privilege, before watching the video.

“Now, race is one of those topics in America that makes people extraordinarily uncomfortable. You bring it up at a dinner party or in a workplace environment, it is literally the conversational equivalent of touching the third rail”

“There was a corporate study that said that, instead of avoid race, smart corporations actually deal with it head on”

“Invite people who don’t look like you, don’t think like you, don’t act like you, don’t come from where you come from, and you might find that they will challenge your assumptions and make you grow as a person”

Melody Hobson argues that rather than being colorblind, we must be color brave– acknowledging differences is the only way to confront systemic oppression. Tackling the problem head on is the only way things can change for the better, rather than skirting around the issue because it makes us uncomfortable.

_________________________________________

I found this cartoon that kind of encapsulates some ideas in these materials– to many individuals, race is not seen as a problem, but that is only because said individuals are not on the receiving end of systemic racial oppression.

Week 2- The Four I's of Oppression

Week 2- 2/4/24 (late, oops) 

On “The Four I’s of Oppression”-- Notes and other thoughts

Luna Malbroux’s discussion on the ideological element is fascinating to me, as she makes a great point that many roots of racism/sexism/etc. are instilled in us by these systems and stereotypes that we grow up alongside. It shapes the way we navigate the world.

Microaggressions are still a concept I am trying to handle. I have heard the term many times, but the way she explained it made sense to me. It is a backhanded compliment in a way. I think most of the time, people do not mean such comments in this way, but it is the way that systems have normalized certain stereotypes and expectations onto others that seep in.

In what other ways might our expectations of other individuals/races influence the way we treat others? A microaggression might emerge from something like a compliment, but what other ways can it appear?

Institutional oppression in my opinion may be the most difficult I of oppression to tackle. At a governing level, so deeply entrenched in laws and the way neighborhoods are divided, how do we as humans try to reverse this, even as upper class citizens and those in power stand to retain these oppressions and societal norms?

Dominant narrative is a societal norm. I would personally like to learn more about this concept. In what ways is our society glorifying certain groups? How much is intentional? Malbroux’s words remind me that social issues and the subject of oppression remain difficult to navigate and comprehend for the average individual.

Internalized oppression– yet another thing shaped by surrounding ideology. It’s a subconscious shaping, but still all too prevalent. When the culture surrounding us is oppressive, it instills in us these same ideologies. I had written earlier that perhaps institutional oppression may be the most difficult to tackle, but I think internalized may take that title.

Conclusion

Malbroux argues that the four I’s of oppression– ideological, interpersonal, institutional, and internalized– are all key elements that uphold systemic and cultural oppression. No one individual element shares the entire blame, but rather each I coalesces to create dominant ideologies and rigid social structures that limit individuals who do not fall in line with American ideologies and dominant narratives.

I am writing this blog a bit late (sorry again Lesley), but our previous class really helped frame what exactly are the dominant social ideologies in the United States (SCWAAMP). So much of American culture, I came to realize, really is framed around an “us vs. them” type scenario– you are with us or one of us, or you aren’t. And this same framework helps fuel much of the four Is discussed by Malbroux– a clear defining line, created by long standing systemic oppression, between what is socially acceptable and what is not. It almost predetermines what people should think and feel, and that’s horrible.

Typing it out, “us vs. them” reminded me of the Pink Floyd song “Us and Them”. The song I think touches on some similar elements discussed– a predetermined way of thinking or acting, decided by those with higher authority over common individuals. How this same system, likewise, encourages us to enforce these norms, and not question them. In the song, soldiers fight a war which they don’t understand who they are fighting, and why. They are only told that they are “other”, they are different. And I think this same line of thinking is exactly what causes systemic oppression to continue cycling.

Week 1- 1/21

On Alan Johnson’s writing– Notes and other thoughts

Beginning

Alan Johnson brought up an interesting first point early on: the “defensive barrier” people have in regards to privilege and discussing privilege. I think for many people, when discussion on privilege touches on their own class and way of life, a defensive reaction is normal. People hear descriptors such as “white privilege” and take it to heart immediately. Most people don’t want to do wrong, and the idea that a harmful race based advantage can exist– especially one manufactured by the race in question– is troubling. But does that defensive reaction come from the idea that one self is not personally responsible for privilege or harm, or the idea that one may be contributing to it by being complicit with the system?

He brings up another interesting point– class is something that can potentially be adjusted or changed, but gender, race, sex orientation is immovable from our identities. Privilege is still a factor to consider even in regards to upper and lower classes.

Middle

“We are not prisoners to some natural order that pits us hopelessly and endlessly against one another. We are prisoners to something, but it’s closer to our own making than we realize” (p.4)

I feel this quote is very strong. As humans we are apparently averse to change, to the new and unfamiliar, but such mental adversity is a creation of our own, shaped by ourselves and the people around us. How much does culture exactly play into this? Not everything unknown or unfamiliar incites fear in humans, after all.

“Privilege is always at someone else’s expense and always exacts a cost” (p. 10)

I didn’t think about this next point that Johnson had brought– to initiate change, people in privileged positions need to be willing to accept that there are things to be changed, and work together with those less privileged to identify how there can be a shift. But because those who are privileged are in a position of comfort, to meet this change there must be a step outside of this comfort zone, something that many people might be unwilling to do. Words like privilege and sexism are directly tied to pain throughout history, and acknowledging it can create pain– a necessary pain to initiate change, but again, something that many are unwilling to experience or accept.

End

“[lower-middle class working white males] lack of class privilege, however, can blind them to the fact that the cultural valuing of whiteness and maleness over color and femaleness gives them an edge in most situations that involve evaluations of credibility or competence” (p. 25-26)

The list of privileges is astonishing to read all at once– especially considering that a list seemingly so comprehensive probably isn’t even a dent in the amount of privileges certain groups hold over others.

“I’m not race privileged because of who I am as a person. Whiteness is privileged in this society, and I have access to that privilege only when people identify me as belonging to the category ‘white.’” (p. 34-35)

An interesting point– privilege is tied to these social categories, but they are not reflective of how individuals feel about other races and social categories.

Conclusion/Summary

Alan Johnson argues that to begin deconstructing privilege and create discussion around it, individuals must accept that these constructs are creations of our culture, and that only through collective action and self reflection can we ever hope to begin discussion and change. Furthermore, Johnson believes that those in privileged positions are the ones that must initiate– even if such individuals may also be in a disadvantageous position in other respects, such as those related to class.

I wasn’t sure of what I should hyperlink for this first blog post. However, the subject of privilege and race-based privilege reminded me of “The Boondocks”, a raunchy Adult Swim comedy. The show centers around a black family who experiences a class shift to a suburban white neighborhood, and the clash of culture and privilege that follows. 

The show is full of commentary and brutal satire on American culture, especially in regards to racial inequality and the African-American experience. In a way, it ties back to Johnson’s writings– while the characters do experience a beneficial class shift, they are still ultimately subject to dealing with white privilege. In this clip, the show heavily satirizes how white privilege can play into interactions.