Boler: All Speech Is Not Free
Boler argues two things, first that all speech is not equal and secondly, that it is the obligation of educators to require students to “critically analyze” all speech, including biased and racist hate speech directed at the marginalized groups by those in the dominant culture, or the culture of power.
In his first argument, Boler states that although all Americans are supposedly guaranteed the right of free speech by the Constitution, because of the ideology of the historically entrenched culture of power, all voices do not carry the same value, importance and “weight”. In fact, the marginalized group is deprived of their right to speak at all. His message is that although the words in the Constitution provide freedom of speech to all citizens, the dominant straight, white, Christian, able-bodied, male, property owners carry more weight with their voices, therefore having more power and freedom in our society. His solution to the inequity and disparity of speech in this country, is to adopt an “affirmative action pedagogy” that would acknowledge the voices of the marginalized group even if it means restricting the voices of the dominant culture. As we discussed in class, this is a very controversial issue, but as reparation for the harm done in the past, historically marginalized groups should be given privileges that help level the playing field in the future.
Second, he argues that to accomplish this goa, teachers must make their classrooms vehicles for critical analysis. All speech, including that of the dominant culture should be challenged and speakers held accountable for their statements. By so doing, classrooms become a place to not only teach the dominant culture about its offensive and ignorant belief system, but provide an opportunity for the marginalized culture to acquire “critical agency”, the tools to empower and defend oneself against hate speech and verbal abuse in the future.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Aria 6/9/09
Quote #1: “Because I wrongly imagined that English was intrinsically a public language and Spanish an intrinsically private one, I easily noted the difference between classroom language and the language of my home.”
Aria is describing what I see in my students who compartmentalize their birth language and their adopted language, trying to learn English in the classroom while they maintain their first language in their homes and cultural community. In the beginning of language acquisition, this silent period is the adjustment phase where students ease into the change they must inevitably embrace to be successful in America. As Aria describes his public and private language, he reveals his impending loss of the safety and security of home and culture embodied by his birth language.
Quote #2: “Matching the silence I started hearing in public was a new quiet at home. The family's quiet was partly due to the fact that, as we children learned more and more English, we shared fewer and fewer words with our parents.”
This is the saddest part of American assimilation, an all too familiar story for immigrants, albeit, an inherent factor for most. As many students become more fluent in their second language, their public language, they slowly lose the connection to their families which was nurtured through their common cultural language. Arias is reminding us of how hard it is to maintain allegiance to both languages, begging the question, “Is there any way to keep both languages viable?”
Question#3: “I would have been happier about my public success had I not sometimes recalled what it had been like earlier, when my family had conveyed its intimacy through a set of conveniently private sounds. "
This is a poignant moment in the assimilation of an immigrant into a new country. With melancholy, Aria expresses his loss of intimacy with his first language, the language he shared in the safety and comfort of his home with his family. This was the first language he heard spoken as a baby, the first language that nurtured him and helped to create his identity. However, growth means letting go of ones old identity to build a new identity. In his closing lines, Aria rebuffs the philosophy of bilingualists who say that English language learners lose their identity in the melting pot of America. Instead he believes that although English language learners lose some of their “private individuality”, by acquiring the public language, he/she earns a “public individuality”, which just happens to be the goal of a democratic education.
Quote #1: “Because I wrongly imagined that English was intrinsically a public language and Spanish an intrinsically private one, I easily noted the difference between classroom language and the language of my home.”
Aria is describing what I see in my students who compartmentalize their birth language and their adopted language, trying to learn English in the classroom while they maintain their first language in their homes and cultural community. In the beginning of language acquisition, this silent period is the adjustment phase where students ease into the change they must inevitably embrace to be successful in America. As Aria describes his public and private language, he reveals his impending loss of the safety and security of home and culture embodied by his birth language.
Quote #2: “Matching the silence I started hearing in public was a new quiet at home. The family's quiet was partly due to the fact that, as we children learned more and more English, we shared fewer and fewer words with our parents.”
This is the saddest part of American assimilation, an all too familiar story for immigrants, albeit, an inherent factor for most. As many students become more fluent in their second language, their public language, they slowly lose the connection to their families which was nurtured through their common cultural language. Arias is reminding us of how hard it is to maintain allegiance to both languages, begging the question, “Is there any way to keep both languages viable?”
Question#3: “I would have been happier about my public success had I not sometimes recalled what it had been like earlier, when my family had conveyed its intimacy through a set of conveniently private sounds. "
This is a poignant moment in the assimilation of an immigrant into a new country. With melancholy, Aria expresses his loss of intimacy with his first language, the language he shared in the safety and comfort of his home with his family. This was the first language he heard spoken as a baby, the first language that nurtured him and helped to create his identity. However, growth means letting go of ones old identity to build a new identity. In his closing lines, Aria rebuffs the philosophy of bilingualists who say that English language learners lose their identity in the melting pot of America. Instead he believes that although English language learners lose some of their “private individuality”, by acquiring the public language, he/she earns a “public individuality”, which just happens to be the goal of a democratic education.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Carlson, 1997
Much like other authors we have read this semester, Carlson argues that those with the power in this country, the straight, white males, continue to marginalize the rights of others in the community who are unlike themselves, thus keeping them out of the center of power and on the sidelines. To attain this goal, Carlson's perspective is that gay and lesbian citizens are represented by the culture of power as not normal, having “deviant and pathological” behaviors This maintains the status quo of the privileged. He describes a public school culture as aiding and abetting this disenfranchisement by allowing a lack of discourse in the classroom about the differences and rights of gay people to self expression. As he reminds us, the formation of self is limited in part by the culture in which one lives. Without an honest and open discourse abut the differences and the rights of gay people, neither the gay person, nor the straight person will have the kind of education which leads to a true democratic community.
As he notes, in the last ten years their has been a trend toward “the notion of a community of difference and diversity”, however, he believes that public schools need to take a formative role in creating a dialogue to break the silence that holds back children from forming their identity without the cultural stigmas that prevents them from “becoming somebody” rather than a product of the normalized culture. Without an identification to a gay culture or community, gay young people will have no understanding of themselves in relation to others and their own construction of self. It will always be dictated by the culture of power. Also, without this dialogue, straight children will not be able to see beyond the stigmas created by the culture of power. This, Carlson argues, is the way straight men separate themselves from women and gay men. In a patriarchal society, it is necessary for straight men to view gay men as “feminized men”, akin to women, rather than their equals.
Carlson's “Now What?” is to have a public dialogue with the school districts and the local citizens to create a curriculum that exposes children to information that “clarify differences”. He believes that this dialogue is necessary as part of a multicultural education to protect the rights of minorities, in this case the individual freedom of gay and lesbian people and the creation of a true democratic community with the possibility of building a coalition among the citizens of the country.
Much like other authors we have read this semester, Carlson argues that those with the power in this country, the straight, white males, continue to marginalize the rights of others in the community who are unlike themselves, thus keeping them out of the center of power and on the sidelines. To attain this goal, Carlson's perspective is that gay and lesbian citizens are represented by the culture of power as not normal, having “deviant and pathological” behaviors This maintains the status quo of the privileged. He describes a public school culture as aiding and abetting this disenfranchisement by allowing a lack of discourse in the classroom about the differences and rights of gay people to self expression. As he reminds us, the formation of self is limited in part by the culture in which one lives. Without an honest and open discourse abut the differences and the rights of gay people, neither the gay person, nor the straight person will have the kind of education which leads to a true democratic community.
As he notes, in the last ten years their has been a trend toward “the notion of a community of difference and diversity”, however, he believes that public schools need to take a formative role in creating a dialogue to break the silence that holds back children from forming their identity without the cultural stigmas that prevents them from “becoming somebody” rather than a product of the normalized culture. Without an identification to a gay culture or community, gay young people will have no understanding of themselves in relation to others and their own construction of self. It will always be dictated by the culture of power. Also, without this dialogue, straight children will not be able to see beyond the stigmas created by the culture of power. This, Carlson argues, is the way straight men separate themselves from women and gay men. In a patriarchal society, it is necessary for straight men to view gay men as “feminized men”, akin to women, rather than their equals.
Carlson's “Now What?” is to have a public dialogue with the school districts and the local citizens to create a curriculum that exposes children to information that “clarify differences”. He believes that this dialogue is necessary as part of a multicultural education to protect the rights of minorities, in this case the individual freedom of gay and lesbian people and the creation of a true democratic community with the possibility of building a coalition among the citizens of the country.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Finn Argument
6/3/09 In chapter 2 of Literacy With an Attitude, Finn argues Jean Anyon's observation exceedingly well, that there are four types of educational experiences in American schools, those of the executive elite, the affluent professional, the middle class and the working class. Although the children observed in four schools in northern New Jersey were predominately white and had similar text books, there social class created a “startling difference” in the nature of their educational outcome.
According to Finn, the children in the working class school district were presented with a fact driven curriculum of following step by step directions. Teachers spoke disparagingly about their students, showing a pessimistic view of student potential. The main objective of the teachers appeared to be controlling the students movements and access within the classroom. The children's reaction to this learning environment was, according to Finn, “resistance”. Resistance came in the form of vandalism of school property, classroom disruption, and attention-getting behaviors. The results of these antics seemed to please the perpetrators of the pranks, creating an environment controlled by the students to retaliate for, as Finn calls it, “the mechanical and routine that denies their capacity for creativity and planning”.
Having slightly more optimism for their students, teachers in the middle class schools offered the idea that with hard work there was the “possibility” of success in the middle class working world, that is, good grades, a college education and a good job someday for those who followed the rules and regulations. According to Finn, these are the kinds of jobs, that would not offer an opportunity for creativity and self expression, but would afford them an opportunity to fulfill those needs outside of work. Most of the teachers were much like their students. They were raised and currently lived in the neighborhood of the school they worked in, seemingly connected to their students fulfilling the American dream.
However, students in the affluent professional school were offered what the middle class and working class school students were not afforded, an environment open to pursue “creativity and personal development.” Teachers encouraged free thinking, self expression and an opportunity to discover and make sense of personal experiences. As well as math and science skills, students were taught higher level concepts of economic development and government. Students learned independent thinking instead of following the directive of others. Besides giving the right answers, students trained in higher level thinking can answer the why and the how questions. Although individuality was stressed, humanitarianism was a key theme in the development of these young minds. These children were primed to become more than supporting roles in society, they would play a creative role in science, government and academe, acquiring social power and high incomes.
The pinnacle of educational expectations for American students is the executive elite. Their education, according to Finn, was sophisticated, intellectual and rigorous. Like the affluent professional schools, these students were taught by female teachers who were married to executives and business leaders in powerful positions in society, however, the students were considered a higher status than the teachers. Unlike the working class students, these students were given freedom and positions of control in the classroom. They were being prepared to be future leaders. As such, their social status and the inequities of society were allowed to remain in tact in their mind as the way things have always been, somehow making it right and expected to continue. These students were being prepared to be the brightest and the best, as Finn describes, “excellence.”
When analyzing the disparity in the four educational environments I found a striking resemblance to Bloom's Taxonomy for higher level thinking. As we remember from our education classes, Bloom's Taxonomy offers categories of questions that support deeper thinking as we ask our students questions. The hierarchy of thinking asks questions to ascertain knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. At the lowest level of thinking is knowledge or recall. These are the facts and data answers that the students from the working class schools are being taught to remember. Little more appears to be expected of them than rote memorization. In the hierarchy of expectations the next two levels of thinking are comprehension and application. These levels of thinking are slightly more sophisticated, similar to the middle class environment, because it asks students not just to remember what has been read or heard, but to describe and explain what is meant and use the information to solve problems. The fourth and fifth tier on the Bloom's Taxonomy pyramid are analysis and synthesis, requiring one to use logic and semantics as well as creativity and originality. This could be related to the affluent professional environment as students at this school were given an opportunity for discovery, self expression and creativity. Finally the pinnacle of the pyramid is evaluation, making decisions and supporting view, requiring understanding of values. The students of executive elite were given control over their environment in the classroom and the ability to make decisions about their learning. As these students were expected to plan and teach lessons in the classroom, they were becoming accustomed to being the decision makers for their future position in society.
As Finn described, in England at the advent of the printing press, commoners were prevented from reading by imposing a tax on pamphlets, thus preventing them from thinking about raising their standard of living and their place in the hierarchy of power. The culture of power continue to holds on tightly to the status quo and inequities remain for the working class.
According to Finn, the children in the working class school district were presented with a fact driven curriculum of following step by step directions. Teachers spoke disparagingly about their students, showing a pessimistic view of student potential. The main objective of the teachers appeared to be controlling the students movements and access within the classroom. The children's reaction to this learning environment was, according to Finn, “resistance”. Resistance came in the form of vandalism of school property, classroom disruption, and attention-getting behaviors. The results of these antics seemed to please the perpetrators of the pranks, creating an environment controlled by the students to retaliate for, as Finn calls it, “the mechanical and routine that denies their capacity for creativity and planning”.
Having slightly more optimism for their students, teachers in the middle class schools offered the idea that with hard work there was the “possibility” of success in the middle class working world, that is, good grades, a college education and a good job someday for those who followed the rules and regulations. According to Finn, these are the kinds of jobs, that would not offer an opportunity for creativity and self expression, but would afford them an opportunity to fulfill those needs outside of work. Most of the teachers were much like their students. They were raised and currently lived in the neighborhood of the school they worked in, seemingly connected to their students fulfilling the American dream.
However, students in the affluent professional school were offered what the middle class and working class school students were not afforded, an environment open to pursue “creativity and personal development.” Teachers encouraged free thinking, self expression and an opportunity to discover and make sense of personal experiences. As well as math and science skills, students were taught higher level concepts of economic development and government. Students learned independent thinking instead of following the directive of others. Besides giving the right answers, students trained in higher level thinking can answer the why and the how questions. Although individuality was stressed, humanitarianism was a key theme in the development of these young minds. These children were primed to become more than supporting roles in society, they would play a creative role in science, government and academe, acquiring social power and high incomes.
The pinnacle of educational expectations for American students is the executive elite. Their education, according to Finn, was sophisticated, intellectual and rigorous. Like the affluent professional schools, these students were taught by female teachers who were married to executives and business leaders in powerful positions in society, however, the students were considered a higher status than the teachers. Unlike the working class students, these students were given freedom and positions of control in the classroom. They were being prepared to be future leaders. As such, their social status and the inequities of society were allowed to remain in tact in their mind as the way things have always been, somehow making it right and expected to continue. These students were being prepared to be the brightest and the best, as Finn describes, “excellence.”
When analyzing the disparity in the four educational environments I found a striking resemblance to Bloom's Taxonomy for higher level thinking. As we remember from our education classes, Bloom's Taxonomy offers categories of questions that support deeper thinking as we ask our students questions. The hierarchy of thinking asks questions to ascertain knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. At the lowest level of thinking is knowledge or recall. These are the facts and data answers that the students from the working class schools are being taught to remember. Little more appears to be expected of them than rote memorization. In the hierarchy of expectations the next two levels of thinking are comprehension and application. These levels of thinking are slightly more sophisticated, similar to the middle class environment, because it asks students not just to remember what has been read or heard, but to describe and explain what is meant and use the information to solve problems. The fourth and fifth tier on the Bloom's Taxonomy pyramid are analysis and synthesis, requiring one to use logic and semantics as well as creativity and originality. This could be related to the affluent professional environment as students at this school were given an opportunity for discovery, self expression and creativity. Finally the pinnacle of the pyramid is evaluation, making decisions and supporting view, requiring understanding of values. The students of executive elite were given control over their environment in the classroom and the ability to make decisions about their learning. As these students were expected to plan and teach lessons in the classroom, they were becoming accustomed to being the decision makers for their future position in society.
As Finn described, in England at the advent of the printing press, commoners were prevented from reading by imposing a tax on pamphlets, thus preventing them from thinking about raising their standard of living and their place in the hierarchy of power. The culture of power continue to holds on tightly to the status quo and inequities remain for the working class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
