From the Ground Up

From the Ground up focused on explaining Environmental Racism and its history with and effect on the Environmental Justice Movement. As I read it, I couldn't help but think of the drive to the Reid Center to volunteer with I Have a Dream on Thursdays. It is right behind Mission Hospital and right down the road from the River Arts District. Yet, there isn't anything around the center to let you know it was near such rich areas of town. Inside the building, there are broken chairs, old tables, flaky paint and ceilings, and a beaten up gym floor. From the age of the building and no apparent repairs in the last 20 years, I would venture to guess that the paint is lead-based, and the insulation is made of asbestos. These problems are not faced by students in other community centers in town. There are regulations in place to protect children from these dangers. The regulators just overlook places like the Reid Center because there seems to be no point in condemning one of the only safe places for children in the neighborhood to go to within their families' budget constraints. So it seems that clean, safe environments are also reserved for those with money and status.

While there are numerous stories of other cities with far worse problems than those found at the Reid Center in Asheville; there are probably much worse stories here in Asheville, I am considering the global effect of the rich dumping their trash on the poor. In the film Manufactured Landscapes, we saw how China is collecting all of our harmful waste and recycling it. People spend all day long walking through landfills full of harmful materials to try and find something salvageable. How is it that we can so easily "sell" our trash to a poorer country? I guess it goes back to the question of whether it is the waste facilities that chose the impoverished areas or the impoverished people who are exchanging health problems for a cheaper cost of living. While this seams like a valid option in capitalism, where does the exploitation end. When the impoverished are so desperate that they are willing to sacrifice their health along with the health of others, where does it end? It seems that when America started trying to take care of its environmental racism problems, it started exporting the harmful waste to other countries who were even poorer than our poor and who didn't complain as long as they were getting paid.

While this seems to be an overwhelming problem, developing countries have found a solution. They are moving into "squatter cities" as mentioned in Stewart Brand's TED talk. These slum are a step up from the extreme poverty faced in rural areas even though they encounter greater environmental hazards. In the end, people fighting for their lives from day to day do not really have the time to focus on consequences years or even months in the future. They are flourishing while they have the chance. Hopefully the increase in education and opportunities for those moving to the squatter cities will facilitate a solution for using or getting rid of all the waste that has accumulated.

Marked

What I really found remarkable about Marked by Devah Pager was the historical specifics she gave. I studied Foucault's Panopticon in my Language 120 class, and my interest in the prison system has been piqued ever since then. There has always been a question of whether prison systems should reform prisoners (if they could be reformed) or if the penal system should simply execute (or use some sort of corporeal punishment) against them to get rid of the criminals in society. Throughout history, both ways have been tried and failed in their execution, so there really is no answer as to what to do in regards to "rule-breakers." Since westerners have moved passed the drawing and quartering phase of the 18th century, we have moved toward a more optimistic way of viewing the penal system.

The popular novel and film, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, gives a critical analyses of the method of rehabilitating criminals. Alex, the main character and criminal of the story, falls into the hands of people who are trying to introduce rehabilitation into the prison system through the Ludovico Technique, a form of aversion therapy. Yet, at times, it seemed that the rehabilitation was just as tortuous as the torture common in the 18th century, only it was psychologically tortuous instead of physically. The idea that criminals can be reformed so that they want to live within the norms of society is a relatively new idea. The British (original) version of the story ends with an optimistic view of Alex's therapy where he reforms his ways to become a regular member of society. This is in line with new thinking that it is possible and commendable to give criminals the chance to redeem themselves through therapy and good behavior and be released back into society.

The American version of A Clockwork Orange; however, lacked the final chapter of the book in which Alex changed his ways, ending on a much more pessimistic note where the audience believes that nothing was able to change Alex's evil, criminal mind. Burgess left out the final chapter in the American edition because his editor suggested that it would be better received by Americans if it maintained the moral, if you will, that "criminals are inherently evil and cannot be changed." 

As Pager moves away from the history she provides in the introduction and into the findings of her research, this perception on criminals became more evident to me. While the American Penal System offers many programs (North Carolina's programs) for prisoners to educate themselves (GRE programs, college classes, library access, ect), there forever remains a mark on a felon's record warning future employer's of his/her past crime. I believe that we are putting an strong effort, not to mention a lot of money, into rehabilitating prisoners. What I don't understand is why, if we believe prisoners can be reformed, we allow them to remain "marked" for the rest of their lives. Pager discusses the numerous disadvantages of being a felon released from prison. And as if the discrimination against felons were not already enough to keep a group of people from advancing in society, she noted the significantly higher percentage of black people in prison AND the decrease in likelihood that an employer would hire a black felon over a white one with the same background. It really is astounding how discrimination and racism can play such a huge role in the lives of those who end up in prison. 

It is important that the issue of racism in America (justice system and all) be faced, but I am not going to address it here. The big question I would like to focus on is: do reformed felons deserve the same amount of dignity as citizens who obey the law their entire life?

-I'm going to explore the answer, no, first. Felons do not deserve the same privileges as upstanding citizens because they failed at every day life so much that taxpayers had to provide for them so they would be off of the streets and in a position so they could not harm any law-abiding citizens. With this line of thinking, why should people who commit felonies have access to the hard-earned money of those citizens who do not get caught breaking the law? Why don't we just save the extra money and kill them if they are not fit to interact in society? That seems like the most logical conclusion to this argumentation. We are in a recession and yet still spending millions of taxpayer dollars on people who are innately and unchangeably geared toward criminal acts.

-Now let's say that the answer is yes, reformed felons deserve the same dignity as other citizens. If this is the case, then the logic should point us in a direction to spend the money to rehabilitate criminals, giving them the chance to be mainstreamed into society as productive members. It doesn't make sense; however, to create a status for reformed criminals, such as felon, that follows them everywhere they go and allows for legal discrimination against them. What is our system really saying about fundamental beliefs in reforming criminals? Does its insistence on this life-impeding status of felon show its doubt that criminals can be reformed? Or, perhaps a bit more controversial, does it imply a lack of confidence in the system of rehabilitation? Or maybe the justice system itself?

Seeing that the most common felony in America, with over 1 million offenders in 2009, is a crime that mainly affects oneself (drug abuse violations), I would say that our system has a rather skewed view of what is a major crime (felony) and what is a less serious crime (misdemeanor). I am not in any way saying that drug abuse should not be considered a crime, but rather that it should possibly be looked at as a less severe crime than violent crimes that truly endanger other citizens' lives. Could the money that is currently put into felony rehabilitation for drug abusers be used to assist programs such as halfway houses instead? I believe that many people would go to rehabilitation on their own when they lose their job or hit rock bottom if they had more support outside of prison, where they were not "marked" for the rest of their lives.

To end this more serious blog on a funny note, please enjoy the following clip expressing the comedian Katt Williams' opinion on the ever popular and controversial drug, marijuana. (warning: explicit content)

 

Unequal Childhoods

While reading Unequal Childhoods, I was faced with more than a few nihilistic thoughts. As I continued down my thought pattern, I realized that social class is not everything. I think that there isn't a singular layout for parenting that is good for every person within a society. Successful people come from a number of different parenting styles. One issue I took with this book is its assumption that the there were only two options when it comes to parenting styles. I think that the middle-class parenting style is as seriously flawed as the working-class style. While both have their strengths, a combination of the two seems the most logical to me. Children need many different types of support. Sometimes they need freedom, sometimes security, sometimes challenges, and sometimes discipline. While that is not anywhere near a full list, I think that this video makes a good point about not falling into the trap of protecting your child from every single little thing and relentlessly trying to control their environment. They will never learn independence if parents always direct and protect them.

[SO, this is the point where my entire thought process is going to be completely new. I made the mistake of not saving the work I did all week long, and I am now back to beginning. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches, though. Moving on...]

The following video brings up situations in which the culture a child is raised in can skew Lareau’s results about class’ effect on parenting style. Parents have the choice to raise their children in any parenting style regardless of their economic class. My story is similar to some of the exceptions in this video except that my family is natively American (not Native American, just to be clear). My mother was my primary parent. My father supported what she did, but he was not around very much throughout my youth, especially when it came to doing schoolwork. He was in the military and I only saw him on the weekends, and not even every weekend once I began middle school. Anyway, my mother was one of 10 children in an impoverished family who lived in the metropolitan part of Cleveland, Ohio. Needless to say, she didn't have the best parenting or prospects of upward social mobility. She joined the Marine Corps when she was 18, though, and that is when she truly moved up in social class. I think that the military is one solid way for the working and lower classes to gain upward mobility, especially now that they pay for education for soldiers as well. But that is getting a little off topic. My mother raised me in both a cultivated and a natural growth way. She consistently asked me what I learned in school and helped me with my homework, but she also had me go outside to play with the neighborhood children in the woods. The only extra-curricular activities I participated in were ones offered by the school that didn't cost anything to participate in. I feel like this allowed me to be very well rounded with a fairly equal grasp of both 'intelligence' (from cultivation) and 'smarts' (from natural growth), or at least that was how my father always explained it. 

I think that the children in the video and I are the exception to the rule, though. Our parents were not caught up in the trap of generations of static, unfulfilled social mobility. My father's family was a little better off than my mother's, but neither were of the middle class. The military was what broke the chain for both of them, and therefore for me. Not every family, or even every person, is in that situation, though. Many children grow up in families that don't put any effort into cultivation, or even families who discourage school and education all together. Many people in the rural south still teach their children that there is not point to finish high school unless you want to be a doctor, lawyer or teacher. I encountered one or two of these while I was growing up. It may seem outlandish to think that at this point in our history there are still people who do not see the value of a high school education, but they exist. And, when a child whose parents believe this encounters differing opinions in school, they are usually criticized by their parents, which has a great impact. These parents are not to be confused with those participating in the "unschooling" movement, which is a Montessori-style homeschooling.

The film, Waging a Living, illustrates the difficulty of upward social mobility. The people portrayed in the film had jobs and worked hard, but still lived in poverty without hope of a better life. They did all that they were capable of financially. They believed in the concept of the American Dream, if you work hard, then you will be able to own a home and support your family without difficulty. Waging a Living illustrates that the American Dream is a lot harder to obtain than we are told and speaks to the issues this entails. One problem was that government assistance only helps if one is completely destitute. As soon as one is offered opportunities, the assistance takes away an equal or greater amount. This is unfortunate because there is no incentive to work harder if money is just going to be taken from you. The poor in our country are unable to grasp hold of the American Dream they have been working for their entire lives. It is fairly disheartening and probably the reason for so many 'welfare queens.' 

Lareau’s main point was that class has a large effect upon which parenting style is used within a household. I agree with her that in most cases, that is the largest determiner of success. The higher the social class one is born into, the more opportunities one encounters and profits from. 

Week Seven

While reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I was forced to recognize that this book is designed for a very specific sort of education: education with the express purpose of liberation from oppression. Freire often speaks of equality between teachers and students (problem-posing method) and of the leaders and followers. I believe that this method is excellent for adults, but I was left wondering if this sort of pedagogy would really work in grade school. If anything is going to change in education on a large scale, it has to involve all levels of education.

I guess my first question would have to be:

  Where did we get our current system of education?
--It is clear that our education system is majorly flawed. Teachers, Students, Parents, Government Officials, and more all agree with this statement. Some want to change everything, some want to tweak a few things, and others look to the good old days to see how it looked when "everything was right." What I want to figure out is where we went wrong as well as where we went right.

While our education has been in the process of reform from the moment it began until now, Horace Mann was the first significant player in shaping our education system. He advocated for public education for all people in the face of the rush of immigrants flooding into the country. He was not perfect, and came no where near perfecting education in America, but he got the ball rolling on public education for all. His idea was that public education would be a way to give all of the diverse cultures and peoples flooding into America a common ground.

Many other reformers came after Mann, but I believe that the wrench that was thrown in the system came from reformer Ellwood Cubberly. Cubberly took the power out of the hands of reformers and created the industry-based administration that is still around today for education. I believe this is where education reform went wrong, and no one that followed him truly went back to fix it. John Dewey came close, but he focused too much on the classroom and the teachers without regarding the administration to fix the problem. I am not saying that Dewey did not come up with incredible ideas, but rather that he came up with ideas for the classroom that would be eventually hindered by the administration to the point where they would fail. And, since no one advocating for public education really came after him, traditional public schools have received progressively worse reputations. This is especially true of late in the public vs. charter school debates. One can easily get wrapped up in a "who did what wrong/right" blaming session, but this doesn't really help.

Banking Method: Pouring exactly what oppressor's want
 oppressed to know into their heads without any room
 for contradiction.

What Freire would say is that the education system was flawed from the beginning when it was formed around the banking method of education. Instead of the students coming together to demand more education, one man (Horace Mann, to be specific) thought that everyone needed a standardized education. So, he formed an educational system based upon the what he, a successful member of the "oppressor" group, thought that everyone needed to know in order to succeed. This could never work as a method for liberation for the poor, incoming immigrants because the system was designed so that everyone coming into the country had to conform completely to a society which had no room for them other than menial jobs that kept them in poverty and oppression. Freire supports this analysis when he says:

The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not "marginal," are not men living "outside" society. They have always been "inside" - inside the structure which made them "beings for others." The soluciton is not to "integrate" them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves." (61)

My second question:
Where can we go from here? What are some different options?
--With game shows such as "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" it is no wonder that the American Education System is under such scrutiny. I do not think this show is highlighting that education has gotten better, but rather the common phenomena of children memorizing for tests instead of truly learning material. Students are not taught in such a way that they interact with the new information, thereby making it a part of their knowledge base. But instead, they are taught the skills of memorization and regurgitation along with a few test taking skills. I do not know a single person who calls this way of teaching educational or informative.


It may not be as hard as it seems to find effective ways to educate, though. Nor is it as difficult to find schools in America that educate in this fashion. One of the growing trends in education is self-directed learning. This form of education reflects a lot of the same values as Freire's problem-posing educational approach. One major example of a self-directed learning model is the Montessori Method. The Montessori Method works on the assumption that children are intrinsically motivated to learn already and need a teacher to support their interests and exploration instead of feeding them facts.

 

After viewing this video, I did a bing search to try and find weaknesses with this method of teaching. I was very surprised to find that there wasn't a single link on the first page of results that wasn't completely positive and relavent. Maybe this is a viable template for revamping America's Education System. Some schools in New York are picking up on this method by introducing Student-led Parent-Teacher conferences. They feel that when the students are involved that they take more pride and responsibility for they education.

This method is not confined to grade school and college education, though. The video that follows speaks to how businesses can use the concept of problem-posing education to allow greater productivity in their workforce. Not only is this a great model of education, but it is also a great business model. People do not change so much when the graduate from school to working, and a successful business's goal should always be to have their employees consistently bettering themselves and learning the latest innovations. The world does not stay stagnant, but rather is constantly changing and advancing. It is everyone's duty to work together to make the world a better and more enjoyable place.

Week Six

Beverly Tatum pointed out so many interesting points in Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? that it was difficult to choose what I wanted to put in my blog. I decided to start with black school performance. Tatum discusses the benefits of racial/ethnic grouping in the adolescence section of "Understanding Blackness in a White Context." In her exploration of alternatives to students segregating themselves, she found the desegregation program, METCO (Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity), at work in a Massachusetts middle school (71). It worked by bringing colored students from the same background together with mentors to discuss problems in school both academically and socially, and it was successful in improving the grades of those students. It also helped those colored students interact better with white students and teachers in the classroom environment. Tatum definitively states that this sort of program will not work in all cases, but that it is important for parents of minority children to seek out similar programs that work in their area to provide a peer-group for their child. After reading this, I started to research what sort of programs were out there like METCO. I thought it sounded like such an excellent idea that a lot of people would have picked up on and tried to adapt in their own area. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any programs. There were quite a few article out there on how to set up a learning environment conducive to academic achievement for minorities.

While I was researching to find programs, I found one article on pedagogy and race. Regina A. Bernard-Carreño wrote the article that caught my eye, and changed the direction of my research. Her article, "The Critical Pedagogy of Black Studies," addresses the state of the Black Studies Major at the Ivy League College, City University of New York. It references how minority students (Black and Latino/a) frequently avoid Black Studies classes because of the predominately white professors. She relates that the students feel that white professors are unable to competently teach the material because of the persistent racism and culture that prevent white people from ever knowing what it is like to be a part of the minority. Therefore, white professors teaching Black Studies would be easier on minority students, failing to challenge them. Bernard-Carreño uses this information to support her opinion that more minority professors are needed in prestigious higher education. She also builds her argument upon the fact that minority students in Black Studies classes are usually the source of information for the rest of the class in the usual situation of one or two minority students and the rest of the class, including the professor, being white. When the professor is part of the minority, he/she is the main source of information, leaving all of the students the opportunity to be the receivers of knowledge instead of the bearers.

In my continued search for broader solutions which could apply to all subjects, I encountered the article "Affirmative-Action Programs for Minority Students: Right in Theory, Wrong in Practice" by Charles et al. It discusses both sides of the issue of affirmative action in the admissions process into college. I think it addresses an important issue that is often ignored in the discussion of racism - this being the effect on minorities who supposedly benefit from the affirmative-action system. Oftentimes in college, the minority students who are accepted are aware of the role their race played in that decision, especially when their grades and test scores are below the average of the students admitted into the college. This discrepancy is known to a lot of students and can create a stigma for the minority students. Claude Steele, who coined the term Stereotype Threat to describe it, significantly researched this phenomenon. In his extremely interesting research article "Stereotype Threat and African-American Student Achievement," Steele proves that black students hinder themselves on tests when they feel that there could be a bias against their race. Since African-Americans have been stereotyped as less intelligent by the media, when they took a challenging test that they thought was testing their performance against white students, the performed poorer. Yet when they were unconcerned with their performance being compared to that of white students, they performed equally. This shows how deeply stereotypes affect all people, but it also proves that there are ways to equalize the opportunities for success in standardized tests among black students. It also discredits the assumption that black students who are admitted into college with lower standardized test scores are poorer students than their white counterparts, thereby validating and supporting affirmative action.

Both Tatum and UNC Asheville's guest speaker for Martin Luther King Jr Day, Damali Ayo, brought up the large gap in the Education system in regards to famous minorities who made significant contributions to our society. While there have been movements such as Black History Month and Martin Luther King Jr Day, we still only hear about a select few. Tatum explains, "If young people are exposed to images of African American academic achievement in their early years, they won't have to define school achievement as something for Whites only. They will know that there is a long history of Black intellectual achievement." (65) I think that the curricular gap is still huge in this arena, so I took some time to look for some helpful resources on this subject. Enchanted Learning composed a website filled with mini-biographies of famous African Americans. I especially enjoyed that the timeline reaches back to the 1500s. While I am certain that this website does not have an inclusive list of all famous African Americans, I was pleasantly surprised by how many names were included. Damali Ayo also mentioned the large gap in mainstream knowledge of famous black intellectuals. In an effort to share the education that she received in her household growing up, she created Black History Flash Cards and posted them on her website in an easy to print design. This way the knowledge can be spread to others immediately with the hopes that the school curriculum directors will pick up on the hint and start to diversify our text books. Some places are starting to pick up the slack in this arena, though. I was pleased to find an article dated for this month about a group of students doing projects on modern day famous African Americans. A group of students at Asbury Park High School have set up an exhibit of Black History Month Portraits in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

In conclusion, I truly enjoyed Why Are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?. It is definitely a book I will be revisiting because I know that there are things I missed on this first read-through. It definitely opened my eyes to things I had never thought of before, and I think I have changed for the better because of it.

Cosmopolitanism

We examined values in class this past week with regards to Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Appiah. It seemed to me that the argument focused on the human rights issue of being a Cultural Relativist or an Universalist. I do not believe that I have to chose between these two, and I do not believe that Appiah was trying to make  an argument for or against either one. In introducing this topic in the Introduction, he states "Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring, we neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life. Whatever our obligations are to others (or theirs to us) they often have the right to go their own way. As we'll see, there will be times when these two ideals - universal concern and respect for legitimate difference - clash." He builds on this throughout the book giving examples in order to explore the problems with falling to far to either side, as well as exploring the challenge of finding the middle ground. Cosmopolitanism really opened my eyes up to all of the different aspects of trying to judge the ethics on a global scale. It seems easy to make generalities and blanket statements until you actually apply it to individual circumstances. Appiah challenges the reader to come up with their own path based on their own individual values and past. I truly valued this approach because a single value set that works for everyone just hasn't been discovered yet, and it is not Appiah's goal to provide one. I feel Appiah's goal is to provide a system of thinking in which universal respect for oneself and others (close and far away) is possible without unnecessary harm to any individuals or a sacrifice of each individual's right and responsibility to define his/her values.

Appiah's discussion about the Golden Rule really made me think about how it takes so much more than following the formula to do to others what you would want done if you were in their place to. He gives examples to explain what is truly necessary in order to uphold the Golden Rule. One of them is a seemingly simple situation where a Jehovah's Witness needs a blood transfusion in order to live. The complication is that she doesn't want one because, as a Jehovah's Witness, she believes it is against God's will to take blood that is not her own into her body. The dilema is whether to give the blood transfusion against her will in order to save her life. If you do not believe that it is against God's will to have a blood transfusion and that if you were dying of blood loss that you would like someone to save your life via transfusion, then it is obvious to go against her "incorrect" wishes and save her life (universal concern). But, if you were to think about her position as a choice between dying and going to heaven or living and being condemned to hell with all of the religious connotations therein, then it would be obvious to comply with her wishes and let her pass on (respect of individual difference). Which way one choses to look at it depends on one's individual values. For example, an Atheist who does not respect religious values or fears may be more likely to operate based on the universalism that life is better than death no matter what beliefs an individual may have about the afterlife. While I, as someone who is familiar with and sympathetic towards religious beliefs, would chose to operate based on the universalism that upholding religious beliefs is more important that living at times. The trick is to communicate in order to judge "why" an individual thinks/acts in a different way rather than judge their actions alone.


I believe that everyone is entitled to live based on his/her own values and traditions up until the point where another's freedom is infringed upon because of his/her beliefs. This means that, in a perfect world where everyone's voice is expressed and heard equally, as long as no one get's hurt, anything goes. Unfortunately, the world does not operate this way. Resources are distributed unequally across the world and within each society. For me, the answer is to walk down the middle path of respect for all humans based on the fact that they are alive, knowing that I will make many mistakes along the way. For me, being a cosmopolitan is operating under the assumption that there is reason and goodness in all people and that it is possible to passably understand another's point of view if we are both willing to open that conversation towards understanding. The solution always starts with communication and respect. I use the term, middle path, because of its reference to Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism makes the general point that it isn't good to go too far in anything. Knowing your individual values and how you fit within the two extremes of universalism and cultural relativism. I have spent some time studying the Buddhist religious beliefs and feel that there is a strong parallel between their beliefs and cosmopolitanism as Appiah defines it. One of my favorite aspects of the Buddhist belief system is that one should first start with love and compassion for oneself, then love and compassion for other individuals, and then love and compassion for the collective or group. It is the same process to interact with the world around you in a cosmopolitan way. In the Buddhist sense, love can be understood as respect, and compassion can be understood as acting in such a way that understanding and kindness are apparent. Appiah explained that each individual first needs to discover his/her own values and understand where they came from. Then, building upon self-knowledge, we could spread that attitude of open-minded curiosity and understanding to other individuals and, eventually, to other cultures. I believe that the only way I can be open-minded and tolerant towards other cultures is if I am first comfortable with and accepting of my own values. The Dalai Lama really sums up what I feel is the cosmopolitan attitude and answers the question of where to begin.

"I think that this is the first time I am meeting most of you. But to me, whether it is an old friend or new friend, there’s not much difference anyway, because I always believe we are the same; we are all human beings. Of course, there may be differences in our cultural background or way of life, there may be differences in our faith, or we may be of a different color, but we are human beings, consisting of the human body and the human mind. Our physical structure is the same, and our mind and our emotional nature are also the same. Whenever I meet people, I always have the feeling that I am encountering another human being, just like myself. I find it is much easier to communicate with others on that level. If we emphasize specific characteristics, like I am Tibetan or I am Buddhist, then there are differences. But those things are secondary. If we can leave the differences aside, I think we can easily communicate, exchange ideas, and share experiences."

Dalai Lama

Week Four

While reading Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Appiah, I saw a connection to the topic of human dignity in our class. One of the points I picked up from the book is that there needs to be a balance between our expectations of the world and our beliefs about it. This moderation of seeing everyone as an individual with the right to their own beliefs while also working within the confines of your own beliefs is essential to cultivating the dignity in another human being. If you are rooted so deeply in your own beliefs without being open to the possibility that someone else can have different, but equally as valid, beliefs, then you are essentially telling the other person that they are in the wrong because of how they see the world, which is detrimental to cultivating their dignity. On the other hand, when you try to take the stance that every view and belief in the world is right, then you run into the problem of conflicting values. Appiah spends a great deal of time explaining the comparisons between these two concepts both in his book and in his section of The Examined Life.


Appiah also referenced Immanuel Kant when he was talking about ethics. Kant was a german philosopher during the Enlightenment who advocated for the enlightenment of all individuals so that each person could be his/her own judge. (Kant's Essay) He believed that every individual could become enlightened and that, once everyone was a part of an enlightened society, there would be no need for police. Everyone would get along without issues across the world. Unfortunately, the world is not an enlightened place in the sense Kant was speaking of. So, his utopian and idealistic views cannot really be applied. I think this gets to the point that Appiah is trying to make: The world is full of beliefs and values that clash with one another. Not all people are interested in becoming enlightened and getting along with one another. When a culture believes something is right or wrong, it is very difficult for them to look past that in order to step in someone else's shoes who they consider to be in the wrong. Here is a brief synopsis of Kant's philosophy:

Another point that Appiah brings up is that we are increasingly connected (like it or not) to a wider world than our ancestors ever had to experience. We are interacting with people across the globe that we may never see just to buy a pair of pants or a jacket. Our world has gotten smaller, and so we have had to adapt in order to deal with all the new connections to other people. When there is too much focus on "we think this, and they think that," then wars like World War II occur. I think that the best solution to the dilema Appiah brings up is tolerance within reason. It is possible to respect the beliefs of others throughout the world by taking a step back from the sensitive issues and looking at if it truly causes harm to the basic human rights of others or not. If it causes no harm, then there should be no reason to avoid tolerance. 

Waiting for Superman

New Source 1:        

         The movie, Waiting for Superman, spoke a lot to the problems in the school system today. While following the lives of 5 children, the movie showed the options, albeit hard to achieve options, of children in low-income, segregated schools. One of the education reformers was Geoffrey Canada. His Harlem Children’s Zone school is a great success, but my question is how can it be applied to all of the children in America. I don’t think any children should be disadvantaged in their education. We have public education so that everyone can be educated, so I think that should be a more important issue than it is. I’d like to see a model of education that is affordable and practical. I started researching online how other countries did it, and didn’t find all that much quality information except in an RSA rendition of a TED talk. I found this English view on education reform to be very interesting from a number of different points of view. One of the most interesting parts to me was the reference to standardized testing. We talked a lot in class about the advantages and disadvantages to standardized testing in regards to No Child Left Behind and the new reforms that are coming out. I thought that the reported correspondence between ADHD diagnoses and standardized testing in the YouTube video was interesting. In a way, it is criticizing poor teaching around the world. I agree with the speaker, Sir Ken Robinson, that education should be more than rote memorization and learning of facts. Education should be about knowing how to operate within the society of the world effectively. That should include business and career knowledge, but also knowledge on how to interact socially with others and oneself. There are so many different forms of intelligence and creativity that I feel our current system is limiting. What Sir Ken Robinson advises is a complete rehash of the education system. He wants people to change their minds about the correct way to educate. It shocked me when he drew so many parallels between factories and schools. Yet like both Waiting for Superman and Shame of the Nation, this RSA video does not really give solutions. It just illustrates the problems.

New Source 2: Fixing Teacher Tenure Without a Pass-Fail Grade

         One of the main problems that we discussed in class was tenure for grade school teachers. We focused mainly on the problems with teachers having tenure, and a little on coming up with ideas to fix it. We aren’t the only ones who are thinking about alternative ways to deal with teacher tenure, though. A Time Magazine article, Fixing Teacher Tenure Without a Pass-Fail Grade, from the 27^th of January brings up the same issues. One of their points is that tenure protects both good and bad teachers from poor administrators all too frequently. School administration has been littered with poor management for a while now, and teachers still fear losing their job without good reason despite the effort that the government has been putting into raising the standard for classroom instruction. I think that bad teachers are there, and that there are good administrations that are trying to get rid of them, but I do not feel like it is as common as a lot of people make it out to be. This article referenced “a 2009 report by the New Teacher Project [that] looked at teacher evaluation across the country and found that less than 1% of teachers were rated unsatisfactory.” It is interesting to find that while bad teachers seem to be monopolizing education reform talks, they are not actually that common. This article reported on some new ideas about how states can fix the education system. It said that Florida and a few other states are working towards changing the teacher contract so that it is more similar to other professional contracts in that it does not give a lifetime guaranteed job. I think it is a good idea to get rid of tenure as we know it as long as it is replaced with something else to protect the workers. Still, it is not and should not be too easy to take a teacher’s credentials. I think there needs to be solid proof to verify that the teacher did indeed do something wrong. The problem is that there are so many restrictions that it is virtually impossible to get rid of a bad teacher. These progressive states don’t yet offer a change in the contract so that good behavior may be rewarded and bad behavior punished, but I feel that is what will come next in this process. It may be a small step in comparison with the ideal, but at least it is a solid step in the right direction.

I used some of the techniques I learned in the math tutoring training this Thursday. One student at IHAD did not come home with any written homework, so they gave him an order of operations worksheet. As he was working out loud, I noticed that he did not know the order of operations and I tried to explain it to him. I tried to just give him the Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally mnemonic device, but he was in such a hurry to be done that it didn’t work very well. So, after I allowed him to do it his way, I corrected it by writing out my work like I expected him to do to show him how to avoid mistakes. The great thing about this exercise was that I made mistakes along the way (they weren’t on purpose, but I am so glad that I made them). When I had him walk me through the steps I took, he really seemed to get it, and it was a priceless learning moment for him when he caught my mistakes and knew they were mistakes. I feel like I could use this process again, but maybe I could start the thinking out loud at the beginning. I feel like our time could have been better spent if I had him start off by writing out all of his work and thinking out loud as he went along, but I can try that next time and see.

Week Two

In Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation, he talks a lot about how money, or rather the lack thereof, greatly affects the education of colored children. Because of the shortage of funds, there is also a shortage of resources and teachers, not to mention quality ones. Regardless of how good of a teacher one is, working in such an environment places restraints on the sort of education you can provide. On page 125 he reflects, “In overcrowded urban schools where it is common to find 28 to 30 children in a class, teachers do not often feel they can afford – or are specifically advised that they cannot afford – the luxury of listening to answers which, for lack of obvious, immediate, and literal responsiveness, do not advance the necessary forward march to those objectives that are posted on the wall.” When everything is so dependent upon whether or not students pass a test, teachers just cannot afford to teach their students anything extra. While all grade school teachers feel the pressure of standardized tests, it is even more stressful on those teachers in overcrowded, underfunded urban schools. Not reaching expected growth can actually shut down those schools, giving the children no where to go, and causing the teachers and administrators to have to move somewhere else to get another job.

A more immediate response to the lack of attention children receive about anything other than what the teacher is interested in is that children feel unimportant and like no one cares about them. This state of mind leads to children seeing it as pointless to apply themselves in order impress adults that don’t care. I think everyone has experienced a situation in which we stop caring about the quality of our work when we feel the person we are doing it for doesn’t care. The I Have a Dream (IHAD) foundation works to mediate the effect of both teachers and families that are incapable of listening to and taking the time to give personalized help to the children. They work hard to give tangible rewards to kids, which allows them to see the value behind working hard in school. This personalized attention allows those children who would fall through the cracks to have equal opportunities as the wealthier children. They are praised for expressing themselves and asking questions about topics that interest them. They are rewarded for hard work and taught that it is a good thing to strive diligently in school. The only problem I can see is that there are more children to care for than IHAD has funding for.

Children are also labeled different levels based on their performance in school. I can see how it would be useful to designate students to certain levels, but telling all the students where everyone stands is just negative reinforcement of the students who are in the bottom levels. It also leads to children being made fun of by others and feeling like the risk of failing is too great to attempt to succeed. Any effort should be praised, not criticized. Mistakes are just as important in the learning process as successes. I agree that honor rolls are good motivators for children to succeed. The good thing about them is that you either make it or you don’t, and you are only recognized for success. You are not publically criticized and humiliated for failing something. During the math tutor training, we were taught to accept children for who they are and attack the subject together, so as to make a team between student and teacher with the problem as the opponent. This level labeling inhibits the process of students teaming up with a teacher or fellow classmate who is not in their level to learn something new. I believe that high expectations only work if teachers are willing to give the amount of aid that it will take for every student to achieve those expectations if they apply themselves.  When I went to a Math Talk last year, the professor told us that in his class, he always gave a percentage of the final grade to a “failure grade.” To get a good grade on this, the student would have to write about a failure they experienced each week and how it helped them learn. I thought this was a very exciting concept because I always learn so much from my failures in life. Those are the times when I grow and learn how to adapt to new situations the next time they come around.

Education is not exclusive to the classroom. The community plays a huge roll in the process of a child growing up. Children need roll models and a place to go where they can just have fun, be themselves and be respected as such. Thinking about a whole community raising the children, I remembered a song, “It takes a Whole Village,” my mother used to play all the time when I was a child by a band called “Up With People.” I attached it here for your listening. It talks about how the community gives children different reference points on how to act and than just one adult or place. I think the points the song brings up are still pretty apparent today. The IHAD foundation helps to rectify this by giving children that place of community and roll models they need when they are growing up. I think that bringing in college students to work with and motivate the kids is such a great idea because it shows the kids that it is cool to learn and gives them an actual person to know that has achieved it. With knowing the college students comes knowing some of the faults and mistakes that they made and make yet still succeed. I think that it is always beneficial to know that the people you look up to aren’t perfect. And when they mess up, it is helpful to watch how they go about fixing things. That is why it is so great that the IHAD foundation brings in college students who have what the IHAD kids are striving for.

Week One

            There are many different views on meaning. I think that the search for meaning is an essential part of being human. In the film, Examined Life, Avital Ronell speaks to the difficulties faced in the search of meaning. She talks about the human drive to find meaning and how it places one in a situation to be easily manipulated by dogmatism and nationalism. What she proposes is a question: Does everything need to have a meaning or can we just let things be and come to grips with the spontaneity and randomness of life? She implies that no, not all things need to have meaning. I would say both yes and no. I believe that meaning is a driving force for humans. It makes life livable. It is unfortunate, but true, that organizations (both political and spiritual) manipulate this drive in order to control people. Yet why should exploitation of a human trait devaluate it? I think that the search for meaning is a beautiful and truly human drive that should be appreciated and accepted. While the search is beautiful, I do not believe that meaning is always discoverable. All of the great religions of the world ascribe to some sort of faith system when you really get down to it to explain meaning. Maybe it is the search that is important and not so much the outcome.

            Personally, I believe that life is about how one reacts in the situations one is placed in more so than successes or failures. I think failures are the best and only way to grow despite the popular opinion that failure is weakness. It takes quite a bit of courage to put oneself out there in a confident way, risking failure, and then to admit it when it happens. Like this week for me, I procrastinated over the weekend thinking I would have time to do this blog on Monday, and then I was slammed with other work then and all week so I am posting this a week late. I failed at turning my assignment in on time, but I made a point to schedule out my weeks and weekends better so that it won’t happen again for me. I guess the point I am trying to make is that life’s little lessons (failures) along the way about how to function and flourish within society, as well as connections (successes) with other people, are what I feel the meaning of life is.

            While reading “Shame of the Nation,” the apparent differences between mainly Black and Hispanic schools and White schools were shocking to me. I knew that there used to be a big problem with separate but not equal, but I thought that the busing and integrating of schools in the 70’s took care of that problem. I am sure that Kozol spoke accurately about his experience in the most segregated states in the nation, but I believe that the problem lays more places than just the school system. Where I grew up, the students in my school were mostly white, but that was just because that area of the state isn’t very diverse to begin with. I can’t speak for anyone else who comes from my hometown, but I was raised in a very open household that did not tolerate racism in any way. My mother was raised in Cleveland, Ohio and she saw the horrors of racism growing up. She taught me all my life that everyone is the same and that basing any judgment about someone on something they could not change was wrong. I was never allowed to describe anyone by his/her skin color. I feel that being raised in this way gives me the opportunity to notice what a person is doing or what clothes they are wearing first before their skin color ever registers as an identifying factor. Of course I can see difference in skin color; they just aren’t nearly as important to me.

            I agree with Kozol that, regardless of why, something needs to be done so that all children in America are provided with quality education that is equal to what any other child in America would receive, period. While he was mostly focused on equaling educational experiences for children districts apart, it made me wonder if something could be done to equalize the educational experiences between children cities or states apart. I’ve met so many people who come from a different part of this state or a different state that had so many more opportunities than I did, causing them to be so much more prepared for college. I always thought this was very unfair because it is such a competition to get into college without the added anxiety that even if I took advantage of every opportunity I was offered and excelled at it, somebody who went to school in a wealthier part of the country was a more attractive candidate. I think that “No Child Left Behind” may have been trying to fix this problem, but it is failing miserably. That is another thing that confuses me. I have heard nothing but poor reviews of this program, yet the government still insists on using it for funding as it is without revamping it so that it actually works.

            I watched the talk by Damali Ayo this past Thursday. One thing that struck me was that she recommended that colored people form close bonds with other colored people and that white people form bonds with white people so that they each have someone to talk to about racism. I will say I do not agree with this, but this sort of advice may be one reason why there is still so much segregation. If everyone sticks to their own and trusts that the others will stick with theirs, then how can everyone come together in equality to enjoy our similarities as humans? And since the colored and white areas of town are probably the same as they were before the civil rights movement, it is logical to think that it would take a lot more money to fix the formerly colored only schools than the white ones. Regardless, I believe that the solution is open communication and compassion for one another for no other reason than our common humanity. It is in everyone’s best interest for all of the children to be educated equally because they are the future.