And now....equity!

Not the financial kind. Equity, Democracy, and Education. AKA Social Justice. We are split into four sections again. H (who has a name that is the start, but not the spelling, of a famous Nike slogan) has been stuck with me in all three sections, poor guy (C&I, Literacies, and Equity).

I am keeping an open mind on the subject, as our section leader seems pretty unshockable. We discussed H.G. Wells Country of the Blind and applied it to the classroom. Is the sighted man who is handicapped by living in a blind society the student entering an alien culture, or the teacher entering an alien classroom? I could brief both ways, but ultimately see Nunez as the teacher who refuses to use all of his power to subject the culture, even though he could (not everyone agreed that he could).

We touched on David Tyack's "Constructing Difference: Historical Reflections on Schooling and Social Diversity, but spent much more time on Barbara Applebaum's Social Justice, Democratic Education and the Silencing of Words that Wound. Really, where do they get these titles?

Applebaum is speaking out in support of Megan Boler's affirmative action pedagogy, which for some reason we weren't assigned.

Boller argues that teachers can and should shut down the students who are members of the dominant culture if they don't express sympathy for oppressed classes.

I recognize that my comment is contentious: do not white, middle-class male students have as much right to share their experiences in the classroom? I think there are justifiable cases where they do not.

(except when they're gay, she says later)

Applebaum agrees with Boller. Actually, what happened is that a white, Christian student of Applebaum's said that she'd have no problem working with homosexuals because she "loved the sinner, even if she hated the sin."

Applebaum, by her own admission, lashed into this student.

Astonished at her brazenness and the confidence with which she spoke, I continued to query her. “As an assistant principal, how would you respond to a gay adolescent in your school who confides to you that he was contemplating suicide? What would you tell a student who asks you whether all gays are abomination in the eyes of God and will go to hell? Would you support the inclusion of books that include discussion of children with same-sexed parents in your First Grade curriculum when you know that the aim of these books is to convey a positive message
about these families to your students?” Rather than respond directly to my questions, my student accused me of trying to silence her and anyone who holds the view that homosexuality is morally wrong. She claimed that she certainly does not discriminate against anyone, nor does she have any hateful feelings against homosexuals. Moreover, she was incensed that schools, in the name of “tolerance”, silence all objections to open homosexuality.

So after the fact, Applebaum realized she might have abused her authority, oh, just a friggin' TAD--even if it was in a good cause, like shutting down this supposedly horrendous bigot who did nothing more than explicitly say that she wouldn't discriminate against gays. But instead of just saying so, she writes an essay agreeing with Boller and spends an essay rationalizing her behavior in the name of affirmative pedagogy.

"Speech that supports and is supported by dominant ideology becomes, at the
moment of its utterance, the reproduction of power."

In short, an opinion can subjugate and subordinate.

The teacher asked us if we agreed. I said "No, of course not."

Someone said, "You don't think opinions can subjugate?"

"Absolutely not--and please, don't let my opinion subjugate anyone here."

I could tell from the body language in the room that some (but not all) of the class disagreed. But we let that all pass by.

At one point, Applebaum tries to analogize her Orthodox Jewishness to homosexuality. The Christian student didn't call her a sinner, because it was less acceptable to be anti-Semitic. P points out how odd it was that, in an article focused on power relationships, she didn't acknowledge that the student might not have called her a sinner because as the teacher, she might have more power.

I agreed, and said "Frankly, that whole analogy was entirely flawed. First, Christians don't think Jews are sinners, do they? Second, if Christians did think Jews were sinners, is that necessarily anti-Semitic? There are any number of better analogies; that one (in my view) was inconclusive."

Several students pointed out that her goal was to show that there were acceptable and unacceptable forms of bigotry, and so it didn't matter if her analogy was apt because her larger point was on target. (Sez you, thinks I.)

A good number of other students argued that her entire determination of who is "powerful" and who isn't is extremely problematic. I was much cheered to see that this was an actual debate, but I fear that all these skeptical opinions may be subjugating the dissenters.

By far the most aggravating aspect of Applebaum's article, by the way, is her open bigotry towards Christians, who she refers to as "religious" people--ironic, given that Applebaum is an Orthodox Jew.

The reasonable religious student can be reasonable but not because he/she no longer relies on biblical authority. Rather, the reasonable religious student is one who is willing to listen and be open to learning and understanding worlds that are different from the one he/she knows to be true. Moreover, the reasonable religious will be honest when they are hiding their homophobia behind religious beliefs. Some of my religious students admit that their fierce opposition to homosexuality is more than a product of religious conviction and may also stem from fear, although not hatred. In addition, reasonable religious students can appreciate the institutional and cultural barriers that gay, lesbian and bisexual people encounter because of the norm of heterosexism.

She means "reasonable Christians", she wants everyone to know she means "reasonable Christians", but she doesn't say "reasonable Christians" because it would lay her bigotry out there in the open.

She doesn't mean all Christians, of course. She means evangelicals. She's just not going to say so.

Anyway, I pointed it out, and the teacher agreed that she was explicitly saying that dominant cultures must be held to standards that oppressed cultures must not.

So presumably, Muslims can be religious bigots in America. Back in the Middle East, though, their teachers should be shutting them down cold and oppressing them in the name of affirmative action pedagogy.

Nutty. And she's got tenure.

Anyway. After that, we had to draw a gingerbread man and label the figure with the goals we think are the purpose of education.

sigh.

Can I ask WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS GINGERBREAD MAN?