Archive for 2010

on cheating, standardized testing, and the coming decade

A few iterations of myself ago, I was a college composition and literature instructor. Anyone who’s taught this particular category of courses knows that cheating is an enormous issue: take the ramped-up pressure on young people to set themselves apart from their peers in an era that has seen the highest rate of college enrollment in the history of America; add to that the increasingly fuzzy borders around what counts as ‘plagiarism’ in this mixed up, multimodal, shareable world; and toss in a generation of students who have received little guidance, if any, from adults on navigating issues of plagiarism, copyright, appropriation and sharing of ideas and content.

What you get: students who either don’t know or don’t care about why universities care so much about the ethics of plagiarism.

Here's an image that I completely stole from some website.

But we do our students a deep and lasting injustice by placing the blame solely on their shoulders. One reason students plagiarize is that it’s easy: Writing instructors often distribute the same essay assignments semester after semester; they use essay prompts that are so worn, and so widely used, that even students who honestly intend to just find supporting resources for their essays online may end up having their entire papers mapped out for them. (cf. Is Willy Loman a tragic hero?; Take a position on gay marriage.) If we want our students to leave our classes and universities as independent, creative thinkers, then we need to offer them opportunities to think and write about things other than the stuff that every student in the history of college has already had to slog through.

Here’s the two-pronged approach I started to implement right before I left teaching in favor of gainful employment and health insurance*: I developed writing assignments that a) required students to draft original writing and b) offered a way in to conversations about the difference between ethical appropriation and plagiarism. Here’s one thing I tried: I asked students to draft a creative rewrite of a source text–they could write a prequel, add a scene into the text, or rewrite or extend the ending. Then they were required to analyze how their rewrite changed the story, and in so doing, to demonstrate an understanding of the themes and characters of the text. I only had time to try this once, but if I were to do it again I would also have students think and write about the appropriation / plagiarism issue as it relates to this assignment. I don’t think it’s a perfect assignment by any means, and students who were determined to cheat could still find a way to succeed, but it’s certainly better–and more interesting–than the hackneyed old prompts that end up being so easy to lift from teh Google.

Being more creative instructors doesn’t solve the cheating issue, but it’s certainly better than the strange alternative of simply adding more policing to our learning environments. Did you see that NYTimes article about Caveon, a security program that detects cheating by comparing students’ responses on standardized tests? Apparently, lots of students are using their phones to give each other the answers to test questions. Caveon also mines the internet for sites where students discuss their answers on high-stakes tests like the LSAT. Presumably, it notifies the makers of the test, who then remove the flagged items from the next version.

As you can imagine, this is a lucrative endeavor:

As tests are increasingly important in education — used to determine graduation, graduate school admission and, the latest, merit pay and tenure for teachers — business has been good for Caveon, a company that uses “data forensics” to catch cheats, billing itself as the only independent test security outfit in the country.

Well, at least students find out early what it’s like to live in a country that generally believes that the best defense is a good offense: That catching and punishing wrongdoers will deter others from going down the wrong path. Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory: We’ll keep passing ridiculously harsh drug laws even though they don’t deter people from buying, selling, and using illegal drugs. Our politicians, supported by right-wing pundits, will resist extending unemployment benefits in the worst economic recession we’ve seen since the Great Depression. Why? Because they’ve decided, in direct contradiction of the evidence, that America’s 15 million unemployed adults are lazy bums who just need a swift kick in the ass.

Here's an image I stole of a South Korean student getting scanned for electronics before taking a test.

That’s the world our students are headed for, so they might as well learn the lesson early that it’s a world that prefers punishment over dialogue, short-term fixes instead of enduring solutions, and using bandaids to fix gaping wounds.

Look: students cheat on standardized tests because they know that the stakes are really effing high. They cheat because they don’t see any reason not to–because it’s not clear why ‘authentic’ achievement on a multiple-choice exam is even worth striving for. They cheat because they don’t see any connection between the contents of those tests and the subject areas that matter to them as human beings. They cheat because the tests are stupid but the scores are important.

So instead of fixing a broken system with an overreliance on standardized tests, we just add more cops–this time, in the form of computer programs. Sure, that should work just fine. Just like it worked to add more proctors to testing locations. Just like it worked to collect students’ cellphones before they began the exam. Just like it worked to guard test questions like they were matters of national security.

The low road is easier to walk, but it doesn’t offer much opportunity for scaling mountains. In the coming decade, I would like to see us take the higher road a little more frequently.

*I lived in Massachusetts at the time, was an adjunct instructor and therefore not offered health insurance, and could not afford to purchase state-mandated insurance on an annual income that stayed safely below $20,000–even with the part-time job I worked on top of teaching a full course load every semester. But this is an issue for another post on another day.

Happy Christmas from Zoë, Lily, and me.

Brought to you by Photoshop.

film review: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest

***spoiler alert***

***foul language alert***

If you’re keeping track, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest is the third in a series of mystery novels by the Swedish writer Stieg Larsson. It’s also the third in a series of film adaptations of the novels. I’ve written before about some of the feminist critiques of the books, though I haven’t read the books myself. I have seen all three films; I praised the first, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, for its feminist admiration of its hero, Lisbeth Salander. I took issue with the second, The Girl Who Played with Fire, for what felt like an anti-feminist exploitation of the bodies, desires, and impulses of all of the female characters.

I’m happy to announce that the series has righted itself with The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, a dark, dark courtroom drama that finally allows us entry into the world of the tiny, angry, brilliant, troubled woman whose very existence has been defined by the evil men who surround her.

Allows us entry, but begrudgingly and without a word of welcome. In this film, Lisbeth is the most sullen, defiantly silent, and unyielding we’ve ever seen her, even as the cruel details, the horrible cruelties, of her life are revealed to the world. If you’ve read or seen the first two parts of the series, you know that as a child Lisbeth Salander was committed against her will to a psychiatric hospital, where she was subjected to ‘treatments’ that may or may not have included electroshock therapy, sexual abuse by one or more male doctors, and near complete isolation from other patients. You know that she was declared mentally incompetent upon her eventual release from the hospital and handed off to a series of male guardians who did not always have her ‘care’ in mind. You know that one of her ‘guardians’ raped her, brutally. You know that her father tried, among other things, to have her killed.  This third film opens with Lisbeth unconscious in a hospital bed, recovering from: being buried alive, being brutally beaten to the point of crushed bones by her half brother, and being shot in the head. She’s also under arrest for the attempted murder of her father.

There are people who want to help her, most notably the chivalrous Mikael Blomqvist, the intrepid journalist who in the novels apparently broke Lisbeth’s heart but who in the films seems sort of pathetically in love with her. He risks his life, and the lives of his employees, to secure documents that can exonerate Lisbeth at trial. He pressures his sister, an attorney, to take Lisbeth’s case; she is initially annoyed and frustrated with Lisbeth but comes around to Michael’s way of thinking before the end. There is also a kind male doctor who agrees to smuggle things into Lisbeth’s room and who holds the police at bay for as long as he can while Lisbeth recovers.

To these people, Lisbeth offers not a single grateful word. She refuses to respond to any of the doctor’s gentle and curious inquiries into her life. She refuses to see or speak to Mikael. And she refuses to answer any of her attorney’s questions, even though it appears that she is working against her own best interest by doing so.

Lisbeth is so silent in this film that it’s squirm-inducing. When the psychiatrist who was responsible for most of her childhood’s torture arranges to meet with her, she refuses to speak. At least tell him what an enormous dickfuck he is, you want to yell at the screen, but you know that would be impolite. When brought in to the police station for question, she sits in complete defiance, without answering a single question, until everybody gives up and sends her away. For godsake cooperate with these people, you want to yell, because everyone knows that you’re supposed to cooperate with the authorities.

This is shadow feminism at its finest. The ‘authorities’ you’re supposed to cooperate with have abused, assaulted, and tortured Lisbeth. The men, even the ostensibly kindest ones, who want to ‘help’ her are part of an anti-woman regime that dismantles her, that disempowers her, that determines how fuckable and therefore how worthy of their assistance she is.

We can read Lisbeth’s sullenness and silence as a simple refusal to participate in a system that has literally fucked her up the ass.

It’s a silence that should lead all of us to consider our complicity in social structures designed to work against the best interests of the poor, the nonwhite, the nonmale, the undereducated. My discomfort at Lisbeth’s refusal to answer questions at her official interrogation–that comes from a lifetime of learning how to be a good girl, how to do what the nice men ask of me. Lisbeth’s days of being a good girl are long over, and this film respects her enough to grant her that silence, to love and admire her for it.

This film loves her, but true to form, Lisbeth never offers up her gratitude to the film, its camera, or its viewers. The biggest misstep of the second film in this series was its treatment of Lisbeth and her body as an object of sexual desire. She gets all naked with her girlfriend in front of the camera’s male gaze; she walks around in bathrobes and skimpy outfits for no apparent reason and in a complete mismatch with the story being told. This film’s greatest accomplishment is that it refuses to sexualize our hero in any way that might be recognizable to the general viewing public. There is one scene near the end when Lisbeth is interrupted during a bath; though the filmmakers could’ve snuck some skin in there, we never get a single glimpse of her body and, what’s more, she emerges from the bath looking not steamy and sexy but soaked and disheveled. And here’s the piece de resistance, in the form of Lisbeth’s clothing choice for her trial:

That’s right, motherfuckers. You won’t get a single glimpse of Lisbeth’s body. She’s done with your world and everything it represents to her. We (the poor, the nonwhite, the nonmale, the undereducated) may not have the courage to make such a decision for ourselves, may not have the courage to take that path, but we must respect a film that refuses to let us think that our path is the harder one to take.

QUILTBAG

http://www.farflungquilts.com/hproduct0.html

stands for:

Queer/Questioning
Unisex / Undecided
Intersex
Lesbian
Transgender / Transsexual
Bisexual
Allied / Asexual
Gay / Genderqueer

It’s a term I like an awful lot.

a thought about twins and gender identity

I have a twin sister. We are identical twins, which means: same egg, same sperm, same DNA. She’s in a relationship with a biological male (for ease of discussion, let’s just call him a ‘man’) and appears to love him very much. I haven’t dated a a biological male (a ‘man’) in years and years and I don’t imagine I will ever date one again.

We’re mirror twins, which means that our biologies are organized as if we’re looking at each other in a mirror. I’m left-handed, she’s right-handed. When we were kids, we lost our baby teeth in mirror parallel: I’d lose a bottom left molar; she’d lose a bottom right molar.

It occurred to me this morning that our gender identities and sexual orientations might also reflect this ‘mirror effect.’ After I had this thought, my next thought was ‘if that’s true, then thank christ I got to be the queer one.’ Which means I’m comfortable and happy with my queerness. Which for a long time wasn’t the case.

That is all I wanted to say: That I’m thrilled to be inside of this body, with these feelings, with those impulses, with this set of needs. I hope my sister feels the same.

arrest warrant issued in recent Bloomington anti-semitic vandalism

As I’ve mentioned before, the only daily non-collegiate newspaper in Bloomington, IN, is the Herald-Times. The Herald-Times sticks its news behind a paywall. This is deeply problematic, perhaps even egregiously so. When it seems useful and important, I post full stories from the Herald-Times Online here.

Bloomington has recently been the host to a spate of anti-Semitic vandalism attacks, and today a warrant was issued in relation to at least one of those attacks. When it comes to hate speech, almost nothing is more important than spreading the word about the source of the speech and the community’s reaction to it. In situations like this, a paywalled story is nothing less than shameful for the newspaper and the community.

In the comments section below the story, several readers posted links to online writing by the alleged vandal, Mark Zacharias. These writings are horrifyingly bigoted, and I’m including some of those links below. Be forewarned that you will be appalled.

Full story, paywall-free, below, followed by links to Zacharias’s racist screeds.

Warrant issued for man in IU anti-Semitic vandalism case

By Abby Tonsing 331-4245 | atonsing@heraldt.com
December 14, 2010, last update: 12/14 @ 6:47 pm

The staff directory at Goodbody Hall was vandalized on Nov. 30. H-T file photo

An arrest warrant has been issued for a man Indiana University police say vandalized the Jewish Studies Program Directory at Goodbody Hall on Nov. 30.

Mark Zacharias, 54, of Ellettsville, has been identified by police in the Goodbody Hall vandalism case, according to a news release from IU police chief Keith Cash. A rock was thrown at the staff directory for the Jewish Studies Program in the lobby of Goodbody Hall the morning of Nov. 30.

Zacharias is an IU employee at the Hutton Honors College, serving as a scholarship coordinator.

Matthew Auer, dean of the Hutton Honors College since the fall of 2008, said Zacharias largely enters scholarship activities data in his support staff role. He has worked for the office for a number of years, Auer said.

“We’re naturally upset. We work with Mark. We’re not a huge department,” Auer said Tuesday evening.

“These are allegations and we’ll have to see what’s pieced together by law enforcement,” he continued.

He described Zacharias as “quite solid in a number of ways in the work he does for us,” but said he did not know Zacharias personally outside of work.

The arrest warrant for Zacharias lists a Class D felony charge of institutional criminal mischief, campus police report. According to Indiana criminal code, a Class D felony may carry a six-month to three-year prison sentence and $10,000 in fines.

Cash said Tuesday afternoon that police do not yet have Zacharias in custody. “He may be making arrangements with an attorney to turn himself in,” Cash said. He did not have a time estimate on when Zacharias was expected to be in custody.

Campus police have interviewed Zacharias two times, Cash estimated. Zacharias did not have an attorney present in those interviews with police. Cash could not comment on what Zacharias said in the police interviews or if he admitted to the vandalism to the Jewish Studies Program directory at Goodbody Hall.

“This will be treated like any other instance where an employee is accused of a criminal act. And we’ll immediately review his employment status,” IU spokesman Larry MacIntyre said in a phone interview Tuesday evening. “I don’t know what the decision will be.”

IU employees can, for example, be placed on administrative leave during police investigations.

“I don’t think we’ve made a decision yet on which status he’ll be placed under,” MacIntyre concluded Tuesday evening. “But we do consider this a serious charge.”

Auer said members of the Hutton Honors College had already started working with University Human Resource Services on how to proceed.

The rock-throwing incident at Goodbody Hall is just one of several reports of anti-Semitic vandalism campus and city police have investigated since Nov. 23. Rocks have been thrown through windows twice at the Chabad House, once at the Hillel Center and once at the United Presbyterian Church, where a Jewish group meets. On Nov. 29, eight different Hebrew texts were taken from research collection shelves at IU’s Wells Library, where they were thrown in toilets and urinated on.

IU police are continuing their investigation into the recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism.

Here are some things this guy has said out loud:

Disturbed by bus attack

To the editor:

On Dec. 1, 1955, 42-year-old African-American Rosa Parks became famous for refusing to obey Montgomery, Ala., bus driver James Blake’s order that she give up her seat to a white passenger. Because of this act of civil disobedience, Rosa Parks became an enduring symbol of the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. On Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2007, when 26-year-old white American Sarah Kreager tried to sit down on a Baltimore, Md., city bus, an African-American teenager told her she couldn’t. When she attempted to take another seat, another African-American teenager wouldn’t let her. Finally, Sarah just sat down. She was immediately attacked by nine African-American teenagers, three females and six males. They punched and kicked her and then dragged her off the bus. Her life was saved by the intervention of a woman from a corner house at the intersection of 33rd Street and Chestnut Avenue. Sarah had to be transported to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center.

In 1955, the time had come for an American civil rights movement. In 2007, the time has come for another American civil rights movement.

-MARK ZACHARIAS, Ellettsville

In a comment on a Dec 2008 story, Mark Zacharias wrote:

Black men have been lazy, immoral, spoiled, and irresponsible — and also violent. The black community and our society in general has accomodated and enable this behavior — and it has become increasingly bad over time. Rap and hip hop reflect the values of black males: bling-bling, 9mm pistols, sunglasses, misogyny, sexism, racism, violence and thuggery are all glorified in their “music” (rap and hip hop are not music, they’re nothing but racket) — not to mention wearing their caps sideways and their pants below their rear-ends. Black males don’t want to join our society, they have no desire to become responsible and mature adults and make a contribution. They want to make fast money as drug-dealers, “entertainers”, athletes, etc. They’re not willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work. And so it goes…

Puh.

Rives ftw

I have a little Sunday morning gift for you: Two videos of the spoken-word poet Rives doing his thing.

Read this blog post I found. Read it immediately.

here’s a post from SpiltMilk called Who hears you, when you speak about rape?

I have nothing more to add except to tell you that it’s a brilliant, beautiful post that you should read immediately. The first part is below. Click on the link at the end to read the whole thing.

**Trigger warning for discussion of rape and rape apologism. Please note also that the comments may be triggering.

Here’s the thing.

Julian Assange. Rape charges. Rape apologism. Rape jokes. Rape myths.

A lot of people have written many interesting things about this so I’ll direct you to some of those. (edit: here is another particularly good piece). I’m not going to be so coherent.

I only want to say this: whatever you say about a rape, any rape (or alleged rape, let’s be clear, because I am well aware that Assange may be innocent — or fictional rape, for argument’s sake, because whether the rape actually occurred or not is not relevant to this point) can be heard by others. It can be heard by others who have been raped, or who will one day be raped, or who may have raped someone, or may rape someone one day. And you, when you are speaking or writing or tweeting or commenting on Facebook or blogging or muttering under your damn breath on the train, need to take responsibility for that.

Here’s why.

  • Say you’re watching the news, and the story of Assange’s arrest comes on, and you say to your spouse, or the cat, I don’t care who, pffft, what a CIA conspiracy, there’s no way he’d ever rape anyone and your thirteen year old daughter hears you. What does she learn?
  • Say you’re at the pub, and you say to your colleague, those women just felt pissy when they found out he’d slept with both of them. That’s not called rape, it’s called regret and the woman serving you your beer was raped two weeks ago but has been too afraid to report it because… [click here to read the rest]

someone spewed hate speech all over my car.

On Friday morning, I walked outside and found these things written in the snow on my car:

peace symbol and the word 'AIDS' written in the snow on the hood of my car

This was written on the hood of my car: peace symbol and the word 'AIDS'

(backwards) swastika next to the words 'nig nogs are smelly'

written on the hood of my car: (backwards) swastika next to the words 'nig nogs are smelly'

on the rear window and trunk of my car: the phrase "I ♡ penis" below a drawing of a penis

on the rear window and trunk of my car: the phrase "I ♡ penis" below a drawing of a penis

I don’t believe these were random markings from some drunk undergraduate; I believe I was targeted by one or more people living in my neighborhood. Here’s why:

First, I’m gay. Openly gay. Like really obviously openly gay. And I’ve had the experience of walking down my street and seeing a group of young men sitting in lawn chairs, drinking beer, and very obviously watching me with hostility. I’ve had the experience of knowing, just knowing, they were talking about me. I’ve had this experience more than once in my neighborhood. I’m a normal looking human being (unless you consider being an obviously gay lady ‘abnormal’), and I haven’t done anything that could gain me any enemies, so I can only attribute the hostility to the one thing: the decisive evidence that I look like a lady who might be attracted to ladies.

Second, my car was the only one that had any writing on it at all. If the ‘graffiti artists’ wanted a blank slate, there were plenty of cars with snow on them on my street. If they wanted to, they could have marked up three different cars, one with each hateful utterance and symbol! But no. My car was the only one that was touched. There’s nothing on my car that marks it as the possession of a gay person–not a bumper sticker, not a rainbow, nothing. If it’s true that the graffiti has an antigay message, then whoever wrote it had to have prior knowledge that a gay person owned the car.

Third, though there isn’t a clear antigay message in the graffiti, I believe there’s enough evidence in the three photos to point to an antigay motivation. Here’s what I think happened:

ASSHOLE: Hey, this is that gay bitch’s car. Watch this. draws enormous penis on rear window; steps back to admire work. To friends: She’s gonna love that. has really good idea, writes ‘I penis!’

ASSHOLE’S FRIENDS: Dude!

ASSHOLE: realizes that another thing he knows about gay people is that they have AIDS, writes ‘aids’ on top of car. Looks at friends. I just wrote aids on her car. looks back at car, draws peace symbol to fill up remaining space.

ASSHOLE’S FRIENDS: Oh my god, dude. You’re messed up. laughter.

ASSHOLE: remembers the recent spate of antisemitic attacks in Bloomington, draws swastika on hood. Realizes this is his chance to also say something racist! Lookit this, guys. writes ‘nig nogs are smelly’ on hood. That’ll teach her to stop being all gay in front of me.

I’m pretty sure I’m supposed to feel all intimidated and scared. I’m supposed to be terrified that someone has learned my secret and is announcing to the world that I’m a fag. Ooooooooooooooooo scary!

Here, dude, I’ll just save you the trouble: Yup, I’m a fag. I have lots of friends who are also fags, and they don’t particularly care who knows it. You know why? Because we’re not afraid of ourselves, not anymore. And we want, through our words and actions, to encourage others who haven’t yet come out of the closet to see that it’s okay to be gay and it’s okay for other people to know it.

You know what else? The world’s on my side, asshole. My friends, queer or not, found what you did disgusting and obnoxious and reprehensible. The police took it seriously, filed a full report and added extra patrols in my neighborhood. If your goal was to scare me into silence, your actions had the exact opposite effect.

See you around, kiddo. I’ll be the one shoving my gay all up in your face every time you watch me walk past your house minding my own business. You should maybe thinking about minding yours.