The Education Wonks
"We can't help but wonder which of Ohio's high school content-area standards was being addressed when Beall gave her "silent" powerpoint presentation?"
That's exactly what I wondered.
Merry Christmas!
Did it cause debate?
Oh dear. Let's suppose that I am a dedicated toe-sucker, tush fondler or that I feel that no mature adult relationship is proper without a substantial application of S & M. Putting aside the general principal that consenting adults may ethically engage in any truly consensual, non-harmful/criminal sexual practice that they choose (in private), is it legitimate professional practice to discuss these issues in school?
I'll concede that in a high school class where such issues are appropriate (probably not geometry, etc.), one might well discuss such things in general, but when a teacher expresses their own preference for and practice of toe sucking, tush fondling, S & M or lesbianism, I suspect they've stepped over the line. Reasonable people can, of course, debate the proper sanction for such a transgression, but it would appear to be hard to support such admissions as a part of any curriculum.
But being a lesbian (or a gay man) goes far beyond mere sexual practice, you say? It is not only a life style but an ethic, a way of thinking, living and being that transcends sexuality? It's virtually a constitutionally enshrined moral imperative! OK. But I'm pretty fond of being a heterosexual too, and if I discoursed on that preference and/or practice in class, I'd expect sanction as well.
Teachers can, in proper circumstances and in neutral, academic ways, discuss a wide variety of controversial topics, and such proper discusson should be supported and protected by administrators and communities. It would seem, however, judging only by the article, that this young lady crossed a line that we should not cross. Let's not get into the response of the superintendent, or the judge, shall we?
The fact that you lump lesbianism with toe sucking, S&M, and tush fondling means you've missed the point - This is not simply a sexual behavior that tends to creep 'moral' people out. This is who she is, she can't control this part of herself, and she is practically persecuted in this society for it. I don't believe that it's completely out of line to attempt to drive the prejudice out of the new generation, although I do agree that participating in the day of silence is kind of a piss poor way of making your point as a teacher. The best teachers are almost always unorthodox, because they care about, treat, and respect their students as adults, full members of society. At least she respects her kids enough to 'expose' them to her sexual deviancy and expect them to respect her. She should be punished as any teacher who decided that they wouldn't speak for a day would be punished. That's it.
Point of order: The National Day of Silence is not just the day when" all gay persons keep quiet...."
Anyone who is troubled by discrimination against gay people may participate in the National Day of Silence-- I've known many heterosexual people to paticipate.
This was not an action worthy of being fired.
Dear Anthony:
I do believe I addessed the issue you raised in my initial posting. The ultimate point I am raising is that there are a number of personal, or if you wish, private, portions of any teacher's life that should remain outside the realm of student knowledge. Not only do students not need to know such things, they are not a legitimate part of the academic experience, particularly sub-college. And while the teacher involved here may well be, as you say, born a lesbian, this does not affect the validity of my point. She may not be able to control that, but she need not impose it upon her students, whether most might appear to support her or not.
Any teacher who, for any reason, is unable or unwilling to leave their private life at home should be considering another line of work before their compulsion to share forces them into another line of work. And while some good teachers may well be "unorthodox," that lack of orthodoxy must always apply to pedagogy, not to the revelation of personal issues. Children are, after all, our students, not our shrinks or political accolytes. We lead them to the knowledge of how to think, not to a given politico-social truth, however politically correct that truth might be considered to be by some at the moment.
Let me, finally, clarify one other issue: Firing offense? If all she did was to announce that she was a lesbian and proud of it, probably not. Repeated instances and/or graphic descriptions of the lifestyle, if you will? Probably.
I'm always amused when people speak of "keeping your private life private" regarding the gay issue. Do most teachers have pictures of their spouse and kids on their desk? Do most teachers work to build a personal relationship with their students by discussing their activities and interests? Heterosexual people take for granted their ability to talk about their personal life in a casual manner or display pictures of their family. If Gay and Lesbians do it, they are flaunting their "life-style choice" or "sexual deviancy".
Every day, I hear the word Fag or Gay used in the classroom. It is the NUMBER ONE put-down you'll hear (at least here in the Northwest.) We absolutely need to be teaching (and modeling) tolerance and respect for one another. I don't think this teachers choice was appropriate, but I also don't think it is appropriate to refer to Gays and Lesbians as "Sexual Deviants".
"The fact that you lump lesbianism with toe sucking, S&M, and tush fondling means you've missed the point"
No, the only relevant point is that her little presentation was irrelevant to the subject of her class, and for that alone, she should have been fired, and barred from ever teaching again.
It's called math class because you teach math. It's called English class because you teach English. If you want to teach some nonsense like "social justice," then do it in a "social justice" class -- otherwise, it doesn't belong in the classroom.
Ok, so first of all, the sexual deviancy remark was sarcastic- I was making a point.
Second of all, you better teach social justice along with your reading, writing, and arithmetic – who else will? In today’s religiously befuddled society, teachers must lead the way in erasing bigotry, because parents very definitely aren’t. Because there are parents who are willing to sue a school for making a gay penguin children’s book available in the library, you have to be willing to take some of your time to actually educate these kids. And as for the issue of not interrupting their math or english time, explain to me how engaging in relevant discussion is less productive than your normal, everyday distractions? I am well aware of the large discrepancy between what teachers are supposed and are expected to teach, and what they actually end up teaching – and I understand that the teachers aren’t to blame for it, especially in public schools, but you might as well use some of that extra time in a socially productive manner.
I don't think the private lives of teachers are any part of students' business. The announcement reflected poor judgment, not my favorite quality in a teacher.
"you better teach social justice along with your reading, writing, and arithmetic – who else will?"
Parents. And no, keep your political nonsense out of the clasroom. It doesn't have anything to do with education.
Or teach a "social justice" class.
Dear RWP and NYC educator,
Here in Washington we have a law regarding Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying (HIB) in school. It is our job as educators to make sure that school is a "safe" place for ALL students. That means that students should be able to come to school without worrying about being harassed. So, yes it is our job to teach social justice.
I called one parent because her son was calling another student a "Fag". Her response was "Oh, I'm sure he was just kidding around." I asked "What 12 year old boy thinks it's funny to be called a Fag?" I proceeded to tell her it was against school policy and state law.
The district where I did my student teaching took it very seriously and the kids are much kinder to each other. Unfortunately other districts that I substitute teach in aren't so serious about the HIB law.
Lastly, I substitute in 3 districts and I have yet to work in a classroom where pictures of family aren't displayed. You can bet if there is a picture, that the students will ask about it. Which of course leads to that whole "personal life" thing.
I think it is important that students see us as a person with a personal life. Of course we have to be VERY selective in what we chose to share. During my student teaching in an 8th grade class, I did an activity one day during our solar system unit called "My Personal Solar System". I had a great time finding out more about the kids and who and what was important to them. They also LOVED seeing pictures of my then 3 year old son, as well as my high school prom photo (20 years old). Definitely a turning point in my relationship with those kids.
I will not tolerate my students stereotyping gay, white, black or green people. I'm particularly sensitive about this because I grew up with racism all around me, and because my students come from every corner of the globe.
They'll experience enough discrimination without having it in my classroom, and they will get an earful from me, all of them, at the very least, for it. I call homes at the drop of a hat, and in every language they speak, whatever it takes.
Your point about selectivity is well-taken, and I have shown pictures of my daughter to some kids, though not as a class activity. Still, my sexual preferences are simply none of their business. I don't see how they relate to anything we do, or ever will do.
Anthony, I don't "teach" social justice, which is a crap term anyway. It doesn't mean anything. I *model* appropriate behavior.
As far as any harrassment or picking on of gay students, I have a small pink triangle with the word "safe" under it right next to the board in the front of my room. Most non-gay students never even notice it, but you can bet the gay or questioning students do. There's no reason for me to "teach" tolerance--students will pay far more attention to my actions than to my words anyway. So I *act* appropriately. Even the action of posting that small sign lets certain students know that I'll stand up with and for them if they need me to. *Then* we'll have a teachable moment.
And I don't think it's up to teachers to counter what parents are teaching their own children. We might let students know the ramifications of their views within the greater culture of our society, but it's absolutely not our place to teach something counter to the parents, even if we think the parents are absolutely 100% wrong.
Yeah, I wondered when "social justice" would pop up. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is a standard liberal/left term that indicates support for whichever political program the left is in favor of at the time the term is uttered. These days to be socially just usually means one supports higher taxes, income redistribution, campus speech codes, retreat in Iraq, full constutitional rights for terrorists, the destruction of WalMart (apparently the greatest oppressor since Adolf Hitler), and virtually any other left to far left platform plank one can imagine. But that, like much of what has been said here, can be filed under the title "nice to know," rather than the "essential" we need to discuss.
Teach tolerance? Kindness? Stop bullying? Discourage stereotyping? Name calling? Support truth, justice and the American way? Absolutely. But all of this can be done very simply without calling attention to a teacher's (or student's) sexual preference (or essential being, if you must).
In my classroom I display a variety of simple signs. One sums up my behavior expectations. It reads: "Be kind, polite, thoughtful and helpful."
Being intolerant, unkind, bullying, and all the rest is easily covered and discouraged if one follows the behavior expectations outlined on that sign.
When I look around my classroom and see Marion (who happens to be a lesbian), Tim (who happens to be black), Maria (who happens to be hispanic) or Farah (who happens to be Muslim), I see Marion, Tim, Maria and Farah without qualifiers. I expect all of my students to do the same and to follow Martin Luther King's admonition to judge others not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
If we all do that, one need not ever speak of social justice or any of the other hot button terms--that's politics. We simply treat others as we would wish to be treated. That's equality.
Indeed, we have an obligation as teachers to support and teach American values, such as the uniqueness of our nation, the value of true freedom, the necessity of obeying the law, being clean, responsible, trustworthy, and a variety of other simple, time-honored virtues that allow us all to be a part of the social contract. But we can and should do all of this without reference to "social justice," or any buzz phrase from any political ideology. Being polite, kind, reliable and helpful transcend and render insignificant any and all political ideologies.
And in the end, any rational, responsible adult must be able to tell which topics are not appropriate to discuss with students. One's sexuality never is. Never. If a teacher doesn't understand that, or is so committed to "social justice" that they can't restrain themselves, they may very well belong in another line of work.
I know some of you won't like that, but it is the way of things. Rejecting reality and substituting your own has a way of catching up with you.
"That means that students should be able to come to school without worrying about being harassed. So, yes it is our job to teach social justice."
No, the second does not follow from the first, because the two are entirely different issues. The school has no business forcing ACCEPTANCE. Tolerance is entirely different. Nor does the school have any business silencing students who believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Not tolerating bullying is not the same as forcing a liberal social agenda down childrens' throats.
I have no control over what my students or their parents think. They can be as ignorant as they like.
But they will not act on it in my classroom.
“These days to be socially just usually means one supports higher taxes, income redistribution, campus speech codes, retreat in Iraq, full constutitional rights for terrorists, the destruction of WalMart (apparently the greatest oppressor since Adolf Hitler), and virtually any other left to far left platform plank one can imagine.”
Please. Ignore the phrasing, focus on the concept, which certainly does not include anything related to your taxes. Social justice, in its essence, has to do with eliminating the unfairness of society, and I say that with all seriousness. That muslim women are required to provide witnesses that they struggled during a rape for it not to be considered adultery is unfair. That christians in China must live practically underground to practice their religion is unfair. That gays in this country cannot receive the benefits of the state-sanctioned marriage, nor interpret marriage in their own way is unfair. Why must you associate allowing gays the right to live freely in this society, a society that theoretically seperates church and state, a society that theoretically stands for peace, justice, and liberty, with “full constitutional rights for terrorists”?
“Teach tolerance? Kindness? Stop bullying? Discourage stereotyping? Name calling? Support truth, justice and the American way? Absolutely”
Is it at all possible for Americans to view social justice (concept, not the term) as the American way? Does their religious hatred run that deep, truly? Why do we hand-pick the virtues that children are supposed to exemplify? Do we simply choose good, Judeo-Christian values, or do we show through our actions the prejudice we expect them to uphold?
And for those who declare “That’s not my job,” then why did you become a teacher? I'm pretty sure it wasn’t the money.
I've seen presentations/workshop models/lesson plans using personal experiences in classrooms. These include heterosexual relationships of teachers. Children who live in these domestic situations relate well to these lessons. There are different types of familial situations that children live in; it's not the traditional nuclear family at all times. WHen we are aware of differntial learning techniques, I would assume that this would be within learning periphery. Difficult to say that those who are opposed are not resisting already existing 'alternative' lifestyles. My belief is that the more you resist something - the more it persists-thus creating controversy.
Having a right or wrong answer is nt always 'the answer'. A teacher should always understand her/his classroom and be 'complete' with the nuances which would propell her/him to make necessary judgement in sharing knowledge. I believe this teacher knew her classroom, as we all know our classes. I believe she would not have risked her life, job and love of teaching just to 'come out'.
I've seen presentations/workshop models/lesson plans using personal experiences in classrooms. These include heterosexual relationships of teachers. Children who live in these domestic situations relate well to these lessons. There are different types of familial situations that children live in; it's not the traditional nuclear family at all times. WHen we are aware of differntial learning techniques, I would assume that this would be within learning periphery. Difficult to say that those who are opposed are not resisting already existing 'alternative' lifestyles. My belief is that the more you resist something - the more it persists-thus creating controversy.
Having a right or wrong answer is nt always 'the answer'. A teacher should always understand her/his classroom and be 'complete' with the nuances which would propell her/him to make necessary judgement in sharing knowledge. I believe this teacher knew her classroom, as we all know our classes. I believe she would not have risked her life, job and love of teaching just to 'come out'.
Dear Mary:
Interestingly enough, being generally known as homosexual is not, in 2006, likely to put one's life, liberty or career in jeopardy in the overwhelming majority of American schools, or indeed, in most of America. This is, generally speaking, a good thing. There are few school administrators who do not understand that trying to discipline or fire a teacher merely for being lesbian is a losing proposition, not only in terms of legality, but in terms of public relations.
Even though I live and teach in the south, and many of my students call anything they think to be unfair or silly "gay," they all have homosexual friends and there are indeed homosexual teachers. None of these students or teachers suffer.
And I shall make the standard disclaimer: I do indeed have homosexual friends and colleagues. Having been involved in music and theater all of my life (I even took several years of ballet in my younger days), one certainly works with many gays, and anyone who has worked in those fields knows that I am not engaging in stereotyping. We all get along because we see each other as individuals and accept each other on the basis of our character, or lack thereof.
By declining to discuss my sexuality with my students, I resist nothing, except a destructive and narccisistic impulse to expose my angst. This has nothing to do with differences in student learning. If a given student is dealing with personal issues relating to an alternative lifestyle, I'll be glad to discuss it with them--privately, never in class--and will likely refer them to a counselor where such things are best handled. Under no circumstance or pretense, no matter how well intentioned, is it reasonable, professionally justifiable or safe to discuss one's sexuality with one's students.
If we extend your assertion just a little beyond what you've stated, what would, based upon our good intentions and our knowledge of our classes, not be fit to discuss or reveal? What would not be proper for us to advocate?
We must understand that there are indeed limits. We are teachers, in part, so that we may share who and what we are, yes, but within professional limits. Our students do benefit from a good understanding of who we are as people, from understanding that our personal lives are worthy, that our marriages are solid and loving, that we love them and our jobs, and that we love our country, yet there are limits.
But please, feel free to live your convictions. On the first day back after the holiday break, please e-mail the following people: Your principals, your district superintendent and assistants and all of the members of your local school board. Here is the message you will, if you truly live and practice what you advocate here, send:
Dear Colleagues: Because I know my students very well, and because I believe it important to discuss meaningful issues with them, I will, on (fill in date here) discuss, in detail, my sexual orientation and practices with them. I will also invite the (fill in the name of your local news media outlets here) to cover this event. I appreciate your support.
Yours, (your name here)
If you're perfectly willing to do as I've suggested, bless your heart, and please, update your resume--you'll be needing it and soon. If not, perhaps you'd better pay a bit more attention to my admonition that there are limits. I would not, for one moment, hesitate to tell any of my superiors anything I've mentioned here, nor would I fail to practice it in class. How about you?
Anthony, while you're no doubt sincere in what you say, for those of us on the right, your view of so-called social justice is the very radical leftist view that you chastised RightWingProf for pointing out. Stamping out unfairness in society? I doubt that on many things, you and I would agree on what's unfair--and therein lies the problem.
And you assume that anyone's disapproval of homosexuality is religion-based, or at least I infer that from what you wrote. I know plenty of people who are not religious who disapprove of homosexuality. Your comment says much more about your own biases than it does of those of whom you speak.
Why are we addressing our genitals in a government setting with children? Are we nuts? I don't care about orientation. Are you a breeder? A Transgender? Who cares in the government setting?
This is not the area of inquiry or study for adults to lead children through in a government setting.
Just to set the record straight - I DID NOT COME OUT IN MY CLASS! I showed a powerpoint presentation about discrimination toward gay and lesbian students which was aligned with both the school district's course objectives and content standards for the State of Ohio. The author of this particular article did not have correct information and did not check it with me prior to publication. I am a professional and do not think it's appropriate to share my personal life in a classroom. If you read the rest of the article, then you already know the view of the superintendent concerning my integrity and ability.
One more note of clarification - the PowerPoint presentation on discrimination was part of a unit on civil rights including societal prejudice and discrimination against minorities for a senior level Government class.
Jimmie
Dear Jimmie:
As I noted in my first post, my comments were based only on what I read in the original article and the Ed Wonk's commentary. If you are, indeed, the teacher involved, and if you did exactly as you said you did in your posts of the 30th, then Emily Litella's immortal comment "never mind" applies.
However, the commentary provided here was interesting, and hopefully, supportive of those who believe that there are professional standards that we must uphold.
Thanks for the clarification.
"Is it at all possible for Americans to view social justice (concept, not the term) as the American way? Does their religious hatred run that deep, truly?"
Anthony -
Contempt for the concept of social justice requires no religious hatred at all. In fact, all it requires is a hatred of oppression, since social justice, as practiced by the socio-political left, is no more than a form of oppression. It means punishing people for bad thought and rewarding them for good thought, taking from the disfavored and giving it to the favored, and silencing voices that don't agree with the dogma.
I would much rather schools teach this simple idea: Be humble enough to treat every person with kindness and respect, no matter what you think of who they are or how they live.
I know some very good people who live by this, as I try to. None of the people I know who preach social justice are among them.
Quincy, I agree with and respect your desire for the outstanding obligation of every person to be simply to live with humility and respect, however, I must respectfully disagree with your disdain for the active seeking of social justice.
You mention that, "social justice, as practiced by the socio-political left, is no more than a form of oppression." I think that sentiment is entirely unfair. If by social justice you mean the call for equality of treatment among people of all diverse natures, then you must realize that your comment was aimed at a group that arguably includes Ghandi, Teresa, Freidan, Anthony, Douglas, and nearly all of the great civil rights, feminist, etc etc figures. Surely you can't have leveled such a venemous statement at those who have helped the world so much? I agree with you that there are those for whom social justice becomes no more than a word to mask oppressive or hypocritical political actions, but I think it is entirely unfair of you to so bluntly lump all these figures together. I believe that it is not social justice you disagree with, but the misuse thereof, with which I can whole heartedly agree.
That said, I think it is also necessary to realize that the actual exercise of seeking social justice is a tremendously important one. The figures for social justics that I previously mentioned have been massively influential figures, and responsible for ending harsh imperial rules, discrimination against women, blacks, and any number of catagories I have not mentioned. Please realize that while I think your intention may have been right, you CANNOT make the claim you have without directly questioning the process by which so much biggotry and discrimination have been removed from our world, and questioning the right of Indians, women, blacks, etc to have been (at least partially) liberated from the dire circumstances they once knew. Words have power, and we should all be careful and precise when we use them.
"I would much rather schools teach this simple idea: Be humble enough to treat every person with kindness and respect, no matter what you think of who they are or how they live."
When someone in my class calls someone else a fag, there's a problem. In fact, I could give a damn about kindness and respect, because that's not good enough - I would like for somebody to actually get the idea that homosexuality is not wrong, and definitely not a choice, through these idiots' heads. And anyone who says different is either purely religiously motivated, or they've got the whole EWWW, that's Gross! opinion, because I can't see any other reason for 'disapproving of homosexuality'. (
Social justice isn't about placing in-favor and out-of-favor labels on people - it's about recognizing that there's a kid in your class who is insulting another kid, gay or straight, by calling him a fag. And then teaching him why that's wrong.
I'm not advocating any sort of affirmative action 'pick-me-up' for gay kids, that's not what social justice is or should be. Any discriminatory policys are antithetical to my beliefs, but America has issues, and those issues are right in front of your face every single day. Fix em.
OK Anthony, here's how we fix that:
"Bobby, calling people names is unkind and disrespectful. It reflects poorly on you and makes people think less of you. We don't allow that here, and doing it will make your life unnecessarily difficult."
See? Didn't have to mention "social justice" once. This is not an "America" issue, but one of a lack of social graces. Le'ts not elevate simple juvenile stupidity to society-wide class, gender or race warfare.
My point is that calling names is expected, but the simple fact that 'fag' is an insult is the attitude that needs to be addressed. If Bobby calls Alex a poopeyhead, then we don't really get upset, but if Bobby calls Alex the n-word we get tremendously upset, because of the underlying meaning. So you have to address the misunderstanding of homosexuals by Bobby - fag isn't just an insult; it's an insult that means that Bobby thinks gayness is degrading. Social justice is about addressing that attitude, not addressing the kid-like behavior you're gonna see anyway.
Mike-
Anthony does have a good point. Treating the symptoms does not address the issue. The problem is not that a kid using insulting language is terrible in its own right, but that when their vocabulary is one of racial, ethinic, religious, etc degradation, then they are perpetuating trends that have no place in society. If some kid subsituted the N-word in place of "gay" as it is commonly applied in the slang lexicon today, I'm sure you realize that the consequences for that kid would be orders of magnitude greater. This is because it is understood that the oppression that word represents is not something we tolerate. The question is why homosexuals do not deserve the same conscious support as those who were part of the civil rights movement.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the civil rights movement should be taught in schools? If so, do you believe that the womens' rights movement should be taught in schools? If so, do you believe that the gay rights movement should be taught in schools? If so, what then is your primary concern with the event at the focus of this discussion, and if not, please explain to me why you view homosexuals, who have arguably received just as much discrimination as so many other groups which we now consciously make an effor to respect, as undeserving of any sort of respect or attention in this respect. Also, if you believe that the gay rights movement should not be taught in schools, please justify the exclusion of select parts of history.
Finally, I think your critical attitude towards social justice is perhaps a little bit misplaced. Please view my post about two entries above your last comment.
Anthony -
You've demonstrated, quite clearly, why social justice is a backward, oppressive, and downright dangerous ideology. It's not enough for you to teach that insulting someone is wrong, you must stamp out thought with which you do not agree.
In many regards, those who believe in and act on impulses towards "social justice" are no different than the religious zealots they continually insult. They believe there is a single right way to view the world and that those who do not see it must be made to. To wit, take these words from Anthony:
"In fact, I could give a damn about kindness and respect, because that's not good enough - I would like for somebody to actually get the idea that homosexuality is not wrong, and definitely not a choice, through these idiots' heads."
(Full disclosure, I completely agree with Anthony's viewpoint about homosexuals.) He seems to view people who do not see things his way as idiots, the great unwashed masses who've not been enlightened. He sees them as people who must be converted, because such thoughts cannot be allowed to spread among the people of the earth.
On this issue, Anthony, we agree, so I might be tempted to agree with your methods as well. But on other issues, I know we do not agree, and they fall under the banner of social justice as well.
On policy issues like welfare, I've tried to debate social justice types, and the only response I ever get is not to the evidence that welfare debilitates its recipients, but that my view is socially unjust and I am evil for believing it. There was no debate. I was armed with evidence, my opponent was armed with zeal. It was, frankly, quite scary.
Finally, the EdWonks have a story about life coming too close to Orwell's 1984 for some people's comfort with iris scans for kids. Truth be told, if we ever do descend into the nightmare that is 1984, it will be the social justice believers that have taken us there.
If by social justice you mean the call for equality of treatment among people of all diverse natures, then you must realize that your comment was aimed at a group that arguably includes Ghandi, Teresa, Freidan, Anthony, Douglas, and nearly all of the great civil rights, feminist, etc etc figures. Surely you can't have leveled such a venemous statement at those who have helped the world so much?
Evan -
I certainly do not mean social justice to mean "call for equality of treatment among people of all diverse natures", for as I have seen it action, it is no such thing. It is, as decribed above in my comment back to Anthony, a mask to impose a singular, quasi-religious worldview that favors some and disfavors others in the name of righting past wrongs. Its only connection to equality is its stated desire to right past wrongs. However, it is the methods that current-day practitioners use in righting those wrongs that I find reprehensible.
You use the names "Ghandi, Teresa, Freidan, Anthony, Douglass". I've not levelled any sort of insult at them since they have done a great deal of good. The fact that their names have been used and abused by people doing evil in the name of "social justice" is indeed a lamentable one, much in the way that use of Dr. King's legacy by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when calling for special treatment for African Americans is lamentable.
Again, please be clear that when I speak of social justice that I speak of the perversion of equality practiced by people every day, including Anthony above, not the true search for equality that can only be accomplished through individual humility and discipline.
Happy New Year to All!
Quincy, your opinion is that this way of arguing leads to a perversion of equality - fair enough, I suppose, although I'm not entirely sure what context that would be. However, by stating an argument against my methods, you ignore the specific injustice I'm talking about - and I'm calling the 'unwashed masses' idiots in the specific context of this particular issue. I'm sure we could find more issues to agree/disagree about, in which case my social justice could be construed as oppressive, but not in this particular case. To this issue, we are right - I need you to ignore the arrogance of that statement for a second, and pay attention to its sentiment. Homosexuality is not wrong, not a choice, and these people do not understand that. Enlightening them should be a priority, because their misunderstanding and prejudice leads to very real suffering of others (Think Matt Shepherd). That's all there is to it.
Anthony -
Thank you for proving my point. Did I not say that, while I agree with your position, I do not condone your methods? It is too often said that two wrongs do not make a right. In this case, it is quite true.
Attempts at controlling the thoughts of others are always evil and always dangerous, no matter what the end served is. Truth be told, I'd argue that they are most dangerous is when they are in service of a good ideal such as equality, because that can bring them legitimacy.
The true difference between us, though, is why we believe slinging insults at homosexuals is wrong. You seem to believe it is because they are homosexual. I believe it is wrong because they are people. I need to believe no more than that.
Again, I believe something very simple: As a person, I am in no position to treat another person with disrespect or ill-will. It does not matter what that other person is, it just matters that that person is. It also requires a great deal of discipline on my part to do this, even when I am legitimately wronged by someone. It requires me to keep my impulses towards anger and hatred under control, which one could consider the very heart of being a civilized human being.
Social justice, and your interpretation of it, hold that the impulse must be crushed because people can't be trusted not to act on it. This is the wrong means to the right end.
Dear Evan (and Anthony):
OK, I'll bite one last time or this post-riposte will likely go on forever. Is the civil rights movement fit to be taught in the schools? Of course. the women's rights movement? Without question. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. The gay rights movement? Possibly. It depends upon what you mean by that (no, I'm not engaging in Clintonian two letter word parsing), and what you feel should be taught.
Any teacher of history will tell you that, particularly with high stakes mandatory testing being the latest educational fad, there is precious little time to teach anything, and I suspect that the struggle for gay rights would be about 923rd on the list for most teachers of history, unless, of course, they were teaching social justice and/or engineering rather than history.
The primary similarity between the three movements I've mentioned is the effort to ensure that the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is realized for all citizens. Here I'm talking about voting rights, equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in housing and employment, etc.
The problem we run into when we discuss contemporary gay rights--and remember, the teacher who was apparently the topic of this entire dust up has stated on this site that she did not do what the media said she did--is that too many gay rights advocates, gay or not, seem to believe that homosexuals are, by virtue of their homosexuality, a special victim class imbued with a kind of bravery, honor, and absolute moral authority that dare not be questioned. In short, they overdo it. They try, when the legislative process won't support their initiatives, to impose it though sympathetic jurists. This does not help their cause, but gaurantees voter backlash, as we have seen of late in the gay marriage controversy.
Most Americans are fair people. They are not homophobic, but they don't want to see parades where gay folks dress in leather, expose their buns, engage in overt sexual behavior and in general, make ninnies of themselves (yes, I know most gays don't behave like this, but those who do certainly get substantial and favorable press, don't they?). They don't want to see heterosexual folks doing the same thing. Most Americans don't want to see anyone hurt or discriminated against, but too many in the social justice crowd can't see that, and failing to see it, unnecessarily make enemies.
As to attitudes vs. behavior (or symptoms, if you wish), as educators, we have certain limitations. We cannot demand that anyone change their attitude. This is so for many reasons, not the least of which is that the only way we have of assessing whether an attitude has changed is through observing behavior, or asking them if their attitude has changed. If they smile and say "yes," do we believe them or watch them closely to see how they behave? If we're being honest with ourselves, we know that actions do indeed speak much more loudly than words.
We can absolutely demand that our students behave politely, and that they do not use hurtful, abusive language toward others. But in truth, few students who say, "well, that's gay," are thinking that they are making a social statement, that they are using the term in a way specifically intended to hurt those who might be gay, or that they are doing anything insensitive. Such things are primarily habit. We can and should regulate improper habits, which might be symptoms of an underlying attitude or not.
Ultimately, we must treat all with respect and kindness. We should and must demand it of our students. But we cannot impose mind control on them. We do our students no favor when we teach them that they are, for any reason, members of a victim class and that they are so personally weak that they must rely on the government to protect them from the taunts and disfavor of others. We help them when we tell them that they are smart, strong and capable and that they must learn to deal--appropriately--with the taunts and poor behavior of others, and when we show them how to deal with it.
Here I think we must part company, for I believe that mankind is not perfectable, and believing that, based upon millenia of evidence that proves the point, we won't be seeing eye to eye on this issue. It seems to me that when you believe that you have a moral mandate to change people's attitudes, you must believe that people are perfectable, and that enlightened agents of the state, which must have the power to make people not only behave, but think, in the proper ways, must use the coercive power of the state to acheive such laudable ends. If you believe that, beware. If you want the state to have that kind of power, what makes you think that you, and those who think like you, will always be in charge?
Good luck, and please remember that you really can't say anything you want in school. If you can't control that urge, if you are an annointed missionary for social justice, you'd be wise to keep your resume updated, as I've previously suggested.
Quincy-
All of the figures I have mentioned were figures of social justice. You are not attacking social justice, what you are attacking is the malpractice of social justice--political agendas enacted under the mantle of social justice. Can we agree on this? The search for social justice as it is correctly practiced is more akin to the actions of the figures I have mentioned, and whom you said you had no problems with, and you specified your target group of focus as those who "act on impulses towards 'social justice'" which certainly does not include those who try to bring about thought out and meaningful change in our society. Your problem is with misused social justice.
That said, I think it is unfair that you try to identify those you are criticizing entirely with "current-day practitioners." I think that the assumption you seem to be making that there are no more real proponents of social jusice is too much of a simplification. Certainly those you you intend to criticize exist, and many of your criticisms are perfectly within your right to issue, however, let us not be too hasty to generalize. I do not think it helps to elevate the level of our discourse.
The way you described the rhetorical style of the "social justice types" you have debated clearly illustrates this difference. You claim that when you pointed out the logistical failings of welfare, these people went off in some altrusitic rant. This is poorly practiced social justice. However, do you believe that this naive altruism is the ONLY possible way to argue in favor of class equalization and social justice? One could take the stance that the welfare program you are criticizing is perhaps poorly managed, but that welfare as a whole is beneficial, given the branches of welfare that manage orphaned children, people without the means to work for themselves, or even programs which promote and aid self-help through employment. Welfare programs did aid in ending the great depression after all. This would be an argument for maintaining welfare programs, and therefore an argument in favor of social justice, but without the naivite. Again, you are pegging a certain type of person, and all I am saying is that it is wrong to criticize social justice as a whole.
Finally, there is one more thing you said that I would like to address. You argue that the, "search for equality .. can only be accomplished through individual humility and discipline." I think that this sentiment is correct in that each of us should strive for these virtues, however, as a proponent of social justice, and I think a true one, I would argue that simply striving for personal betterment will not fix society's problems. This is where I think the fundamental difference lies between supporters of social justice and those in opposition. I believe that without cooperative action for social betterment, and a focus on the status of soceity as a whole, we will not progress. I can try to be as humble and virtuous as I want, but that does not mean my neighbor harbors the same convictions. Therefore, if my neighbor takes it upon themselves to behave in a manner that demotes homosexuals to second class citizens, I feel that I am obligated to try to bring about a change in how my neighbor behaves. This does not amount to mind control, and I will not force my neighbor to do anything. All I am saying is that it takes dialogue, education, and communication to fully change society, not simply withdrawing to my own life, and believing as you seem to that if I become the best I can be, others will follow suit. Do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing your philosophy, and I respect your right to practice it (and indeed I hold in high regard the values you have said that you strive for) however, I would urge you to consider the ways in which society can exist and change. If you believe that each individual deserves respect, yes respect them yourself, but also realize that there are many who don't--it is your social obligation to help those people attain the respect they deserve, not through mind control, but through social justice as practiced by the revered names of history, and by the reformers that exist even today who are trying to bring about this change.
Mike-
I feel that a lot of what you said has been taken out of context, and somewhat misrepresented. I urge you as one interested in education to read this and make sure that the messages you have transmitted are those you intended, and if I have misunderstood you, please help me to clarify my confusions.
You start out by questioning whether the gay rights movement should be taught in class, saying that there is "there is precious little time to teach anything," with respect to standardized testing and such. Please be clear, I was posing the question from a pedagogical standpoint. Presumably, if gay rights were to be taught, they would become a part of the education curriculum, and so a part of the testing syllabus.
You then go on to state that gays seem to have been made into a "a special victim class imbued with a kind of bravery, honor, and absolute moral authority that dare not be questioned." by their treatment in contemorary culture. Might I remind you that gays are still widely discriminated against? Your perception is one that I believe is somewhat echoed by criticisms of many of the major advancements of civil and womens rights. Please be absolutely certain this is coming across as you mean it to be.
You next made a commend that I'm not sure I follow: "they overdo it. They try, when the legislative process won't support their initiatives, to impose it though sympathetic jurists. This does not help their cause, but gaurantees voter backlash, as we have seen of late in the gay marriage controversy." What illustration can you give of gay rights proponents overdoing it, and appealing to sympathetic jurists with the result of political backlash? Do not use hypotheticals or generalizations: what factual illustrations are there for this? The gay marraige controversey is entirely unrelated it seems to me, as the whole controversey centers around initiatives by state legislatures to put a ban on civil unions. This was the first action--gays did not somehow spark this with objectionable leagal activity.
Again, a statement I am not quite clear on: "Most Americans don't want to see anyone hurt or discriminated against, but too many in the social justice crowd can't see that, and failing to see it, unnecessarily make enemies." It seems to me that you are following in the style of Quincy in being too general in who you are referring to with the "social justice crowd." it is not as though there is some nationally organized "social justice league" that contains all the proponents of social justice. I think you are referring here to a very narrow subset of social justice proponents. Also, are you trying to argue that Americans are generally not in favor of discrimination, but are pushed to it by irritation with those proclaiming social justice? You do realize that the issue at stake is the discrimination against gays by the pervading american social agenda, right? Where do you think discrimination started? The issue here is exactly that many americans are discriminating against homosexuals, and it would be a stretch to say that otherwise benevolent americans were pushed to discrimination only by irritation with social justice.
Now I would also like to raise a question about your opinion of what social justice is. You state that, "We cannot demand that anyone change their attitude." I agree with this sentiment, but I think you would be making a mistake here if you were assuming that social justice is about mass political mind control. As an educator, you should understand that change is only brought about through dialogue. No one has ever been successful in forcing the opinions of a populus to shift. What works is discourse and proper pedagogy.
You also made an interesting comment regarding language: "But in truth, few students who say, "well, that's gay," are thinking that they are making a social statement, that they are using the term in a way specifically intended to hurt those who might be gay, or that they are doing anything insensitive." I agree. Most students who use the term are not intentionally discriminating against anyone, but it is important to realize that the language used propogates the meanings inherent in the words. Sapir Whorf was one of the primary philosophers who argued that by using racist or discriminatory language, we propogate, even unintentionally, the negative biases and concepts that those words arose from. It is important that we strive to understand the impacts of our words.
The final thing you said I think illustrates the root our our disagreements: "It seems to me that when you believe that you have a moral mandate to change people's attitudes, you must believe that people are perfectable, and that enlightened agents of the state, which must have the power to make people not only behave, but think, in the proper ways, must use the coercive power of the state to acheive such laudable ends. If you believe that, beware. If you want the state to have that kind of power, what makes you think that you, and those who think like you, will always be in charge?" You mention a moral mandate to change peoples attitudes. I do not think that a moral mandate to change peoples attitudes is implicit in social justice. I rather believe that the core of social justice is feeling a moral obligaton to start a dialogue, and to try to aid the progress of society towards a point where all parties can be in balance, and no party shall be discriminated against. You speak of coersion, and of increasing state power in very Orwellian terms that I do not think it is at all fair to apply to social justice. I think the source of our disagreement is a fundamental misunderstanding of social justice. Do you believe that social justice is a method of coersion? Because I think the true point of social justice is seeking equality for all through respectable means.
Evan -
Firstly, while we are in general agreement, I dispute that justice can be anything but an individual phenomenon, making the term social justice a misnomer. But let's put semantics aside.
When I say "current practitioners" because to my experience, all of them have fallen into the same bucket of wanting to punish bad thought based on dogma, not logic. (To that end, I must thank you for your even-handed comments on the subject. It's all to rare when debating this subject.)
With regard to the welfare issue, let me just state that my belief is that welfare offered to those who could otherwise make it on their own serves only to debilitate them by eroding their motivations and good judgment, and that offering such welfare to minorities only serves to continue their oppression, not emancipate them from it. (As for welfare programs getting us out of the Great Depression, the truth of the matter is that the severe taxation needed to fund those contributed to the continuation of the depression, not it's end. The private sector was beginning to see a recovery in 1936 that was crushed by significant tax hikes to pay for the second round welfare programs you speak of.)
You say... "If you believe that each individual deserves respect, yes respect them yourself, but also realize that there are many who don't--it is your social obligation to help those people attain the respect they deserve, not through mind control, but through social justice as practiced by the revered names of history, and by the reformers that exist even today who are trying to bring about this change."
Please don't confuse the fact that I try to treat everyone with kindness and respect for the fact that I respect everyone, I do not. In fact, I hold a great many people in disdain for what they do to other people. I do not believe that respecting everyone is either an attainable or desirable goal. I do believe that we are all people and as such I should treat them with respect, despite how I feel.
This is the core of my difference with the ideology of social justice. Social justice deals with people as races, genders, ages, sexual orientations, and handicaps to be equalized. It says that incorrect thought about these must be corrected before justice can be achieved. Therein lies its futility and its impossibility. No matter how hard we try, we cannot regulate the plethora of human prejudices and hatreds. We simply do not have the tools to do so, nor would we ever want to.
I, on the other hand, deal with people as people and behavior as unacceptable or not. This, I believe, is the way to go since it promotes truer equality, "we are all people", and it is possible without violating the sanctity of the individual by making thought wrong.
It also occurred to me that I left a very important statement out of my earlier comments: That each person's right to live his life as he sees fit does not extend beyond himself, and that each of us must be accountable, socially and legally, for how we act towards each other.
Evan, you argue, quite convincingly, for social justice - but two things soften your argument. First, you counter Quincy's statement about the radicalism of some social justice proponents by pointing out the (only) actually effective practitioners of social justice - just because these are the only individuals whose message has been anointed by the populace doesn't mean they are somehow different from all the other proponents of social justice. You place them in a seperate class, when in reality they want/ed exactly what modern practitioners want. MLK was most assuredly attempting to change the minds of America during the civil rights movement, and if the civil rights movement wasn't all about social justice then I don't know what the hell we're talking about. Second, I think we’ve gotten bogged down again in a term, which is acting kind of like a flag on a battlefield in the sense that suddenly a term/flag matters more than the reasons for fighting the battle in the first place. Evan, you treat ‘social justice’ with a reverancy that gives weight and counter balance to Quincy’s irreverancy; the problem, however, is that we need to peel away the distortions and accusations, all the excessive baggage that ‘social justice’ comes equipped with. As I said above, social justice is about removing the unfairness in a society – that’s it. Someone else’s thoughts, opinions, beliefs are their own business only if they do not affect anyone else – social justice is about changing those thoughts, opinions, and beliefs that Do affect others. We are most certiantly attempting to ‘mind control’ them, if by ‘mind control’ we mean alter their opinions. I see nothing shameful about that, and I also don’t believe that they will come to the same conclusions on their own.
Quincy, we need to take a step backwards for a second and analyze your reactions to my suggestions, because I believe that they are born solely of a gut feeling of rebelliousness at my vehemence. You thank Evan for his level-headed comments, which I believe simply take my argument for social justice and remove any conviction for actually acting on it.
“This is the core of my difference with the ideology of social justice. Social justice deals with people as races, genders, ages, sexual orientations, and handicaps to be equalized. It says that incorrect thought about these must be corrected before justice can be achieved. Therein lies its futility and its impossibility. No matter how hard we try, we cannot regulate the plethora of human prejudices and hatreds. We simply do not have the tools to do so, nor would we ever want to.”
This is it! You are the person to make the difference! Do not just give up based on supposed futility; help to end that “plethora of human prejudices and hatreds”, because every student whose mind you change, who would otherwise perpetuate the prejudice, brings us one step closer to ‘liberty and justice for all’. You possess the ‘tools to do so’ as a teacher, and of course we would want to regulate the “plethora of human prejudices and hatreds” – how do you think race relations have changed over the last 100 years?
Treating how people act towards one another is the government’s method of eliminating prejudice, but treating people’s beliefs is society’s method of eliminating prejudice. One can’t back off due to some supposed “sanctity of the individual”, because your beliefs, my beliefs, and your students’ beliefs are not sacred. They are up for debate, up for criticism, and ready for change when convinced of something by something else.
Quincy-
"I dispute that justice can be anything but an individual phenomenon"
On one level, yes, but how does that phenomenon occur? People in isolation with particular values have no impulse to change those values. Justice is an individual phenomenon in that each individual must uphold the pursuit of justice to bring it about, but in order for each individual to uphold that pursuit, they must have some reason to do so. If someone holds an irrational racial predjudice, and no one tell them it is wrong, and they never see the ill effects, how can they know that it must change? Social justice in its truest sense is about creating conditions where people can internalize the virtues of justice and pursue them individually--it is about creating dialogue, opening up forums for communication, exposing the dangers of showing others disrespect. I think that this definition of social justice is one that is not mutually exclusive with your own, but a necessary component. You, I, and everyone should feel obligated to treat eachother with respect, but there will be invariably those who do not feel obligated, and it is because of those people that it is necessary to pursue a societal understanding of what is acceptable, and to create a climate in which those people can internalize those values.
This is not about mind control.
It is an ongoing process, but that does not mean that it is futile and impossibile. No, we cannot "regulate the plethora of human prejudices and hatreds," but we do not have to. This is not about regulation either. This is about the pursuit of mutual respect, and about the belief that all human beings have the capacity for good.
Anthony -
You say the following:
"Treating how people act towards one another is the government’s method of eliminating prejudice, but treating people’s beliefs is society’s method of eliminating prejudice. One can’t back off due to some supposed “sanctity of the individual”, because your beliefs, my beliefs, and your students’ beliefs are not sacred. They are up for debate, up for criticism, and ready for change when convinced of something by something else."
As long as you agree that the dialogue must be voluntary, that's a good start. However, it's your vehemence combined with your (presumed) role as a teacher that scares the hell out of me. As long as you are both vehement and dogmatic in your view of social justice, I truly fear the fact that you have power and influence over young minds, for you could turn them into people who think like you, who deem certain thoughts wrong because they could lead to adverse effects, who punish speech because it could make a certain person of a certain skin color or sexual orientation feel bad.
You say:
"Quincy, we need to take a step backwards for a second and analyze your reactions to my suggestions, because I believe that they are born solely of a gut feeling of rebelliousness at my vehemence."
In this, you miss the entirety of my concern. In you blatant and admitted disregard for individuals in favor of a social goal, I see some of the very worst the human spirit has to offer. You appear to see people, your students, as a means to an end, your so-called social justice. This repulses me. It is the same impulse that has led to the deaths of over 100 million people over the last century in various holocausts, purges, death marches, and gulags. It is an truly fearsome thing, a truly ugly thing, the desire to shape others into perfect little pieces of society.
You probably will not understand why you scare me, because you truly believe you're doing good. That is, quite possibly, the scariest thing of all.
Evan -
You say: "You, I, and everyone should feel obligated to treat each other with respect, but there will be invariably those who do not feel obligated, and it is because of those people that it is necessary to pursue a societal understanding of what is acceptable, and to create a climate in which those people can internalize those values."
The first half of this is eminently reasonable. Those who cause harm to others, no matter the reasoning behind such harm, should be held accountable for it. Simple, fair, equitable.
I must ask you to define what exactly you mean by a "societal understanding of what is acceptable". In my view, it is nothing more than what a collection of individuals believe it is. That still leaves individual hearts and minds to be changed by other individuals. Consensus develops only between individuals, and understanding happens only within individuals.
That said, you will notice that the above is clearly not what Anthony has been suggesting. His suggestion is that equality can happen only after "impure" thought has been eliminated. He admits that this interaction should be voluntary, but, as we get closer to his dream of thought purity, I can only wonder as to what steps will be sanctioned to root out the last impure thoughts. Said more simply, when his vision inevitably turns into an inquisition, what form will it take?
"As long as you are both vehement and dogmatic in your view of social justice, I truly fear the fact that you have power and influence over young minds, for you could turn them into people who think like you, who deem certain thoughts wrong because they could lead to adverse effects, who punish speech because it could make a certain person of a certain skin color or sexual orientation feel bad."
See, I want to turn them into people who think like me - not by mind control, not with dogmatic cultism, but by changing their minds about the issue through debate and dialogue. I deem certain thoughts wrong (and so do you), because they Do lead to adverse effects. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that statement - read it again. However, I don't want to punish speech that makes people feel bad, I want to make the kids see why the speech is wrong in the first place. I suppose the word 'make' is going to land me into trouble regarding mind control again, so just insert whatever phrase you would like meaning To Convince them and Change their Minds. I'm not always right, but if I'm only talking to them, they make up their own minds.
"It is the same impulse that has led to the deaths of over 100 million people over the last century in various holocausts, purges, death marches, and gulags."
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the holocaust had something to do with persecuting people based on prejudicial beliefs. Or something like that.
Oh, and one other thing. I don't see students as a means to the end of social justice. I see social justice as a means to the end of the teacher's job: making students into people, boys into men, girls into women, and young adolescent rebellious transvestites into grown-up, educated, and secure transvestites - all in one piece.
Also, Quincy, if it makes you breathe a little easier, I'm not a teacher. I'm not exactly speaking from personal experience here.
Anthony -
You said, "I'm not always right, but if I'm only talking to them, they make up their own minds."
As long as you do operate on that level, then what you doing is OK by me. (I may have misread your earlier statements to mean you meant something different, if so, I apologize.)
You also say, "Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the holocaust had something to do with persecuting people based on prejudicial beliefs. Or something like that."
The impulse to use (and abuse) individuals to achieve a social goal is a common one among all totalitarian ideologies, and among many social justice advocates I've met (a group I now realize you don't belong to). While the goal may be different, the impulse to place an ideal society, whether the ideal is noble or terrible, above the individuals in it is an ugly one, and one that has led to a lot of needless pain, suffering, and death, including the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis.
(Again, I must apologize for placing you in a group in which you clearly don't belong. In my little corner of the world, the San Francisco Bay Area, many of the people who speak out for justice as you did believe the things I accused you of believing. You, and Evan, taught me that I can't generalize this out to a larger population. Thanks for the lesson.)
Commenting by HaloScan.com
