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.