Archive for July, 2011

“when people do fight, they sometimes win…”

rick snyder gtfoYou may have heard about Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s moves to supersede the authority of local governing bodies. Public Act 4, passed this year, gives the state the ability to replace and even dissolve local governing bodies during times of fiscal emergency. It has already been implemented in the city of Benton Harbor, where emergency financial manager (EFM) Joseph Harris has suspended the decision-making authority of  city council members, and in the cities of Pontiac and Flint–as well in as the Detroit Public School system, where EFM Roy Rogers has used his state-given authority to modify union contracts for district employees.

Rachel Maddow explains the problems with this law beautifully:

Three things about Public Act 4 and Rick Snyder:

  1. In the Maddow clip above, writer Naomi Klein says that the “well-kept secret” about political protests is that “when people do fight, they sometimes win…[e]specially if you’re willing to do more than just go to a march once.” Michiganders need to fight to either recall Snyder or make extra sure he’s a one-term governor.
  2. We cannot let the right wing use the current national debt crisis to push through an anti-democratic political agenda. And even as this crisis gets resolved, we cannot let the right wing trick us into agreeing that when the sky is falling, any sort of protection will do.
  3. However: Some people are getting a little fast and loose with terms like “fascism” and “dictatorship.”

While it’s clear to most that Snyder has violated the public trust in his office and trampled on the rights of Michigan’s citizens, he’s not quite a dictator. Here are some dictators for you; typically, they trample on rights through use of force, imprisonment, and terror; and the thing about dictators is that they quite often change laws to ensure their continued reign of power. In Michigan, people are organizing a petition to recall Snyder; if they are successful, a special election will be held during which the people will have a chance to decide whether they want him to go away. Certainly, corporate and right-wing interests will send their lackeys to the polls in force; it is up to the clearer heads to rally the rest of the citizenry into making their opinion count.

As reporter Samantha Power explains, “fascism — unlike Communism, socialism, capitalism or conservatism — is a smear word more often used to brand one’s foes than it is a descriptor used to shed light on them.” In fact, fascism is a political ideology that originated with Benito Mussolini; he explains the ideology in his 1932 Fascist Doctrine. Public Act 4 is certainly in line with at least some of the tenets of Mussolini’s fascism, most notably in his description of the Fascist State as

not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism.

But let’s reserve fascist for the people who are willing to embrace violence, institutionalize oppression, and wage war to stop others from pursuing alternate political agendas. Ok?

In the meantime, Michigan, I’ll be waiting for you to take care of business. I’ll be waiting for you to successfully recall or reject Rick Snyder at the polls.

 

 

gay wedding planning for straight people

Some queers have chosen to boycott opposite-sex marriages in protest of discriminatory laws on who can legally marry in the United States. I agree with writer Charles Purdy that boycotting loved ones’ ceremonies is both selfish and ineffectual. Purdy writes that

using another person’s wedding as a soapbox for your political viewpoints is indeed tacky. It reeks of self-important grandstanding….[B]eing cruel is no way to bring anyone around to you point of view. (After all, that’s what the other side does with their constant slanderous, mean-spirited attacks on gay people as human beings.) We need to be strengthening alliances, not shredding them…. We have to stay engaged in dialogues with our friends and families — not hide in our rooms like sulky teens when we don’t get our way.

For politically engaged/enraged queers, I think the best course of action is to attend the straight wedding you were invited to, and to bring a queer date, and to get your gay on, visibly, publicly, and respectfully–after all, another couple’s wedding is not about you. A visible queer presence at a wedding can, however, get people thinking and talking about marriage equality.

Now: let’s say you’re an engaged opposite-sex couple, planning your legally sanctioned wedding. Let’s say you’re an engaged opposite-sex couple that believes, deeply, that marriage is a right that should not be limited based on bigoted beliefs about sexuality and morality. Here are some suggestions for planning your wedding!

  1. Choose to hold your ceremony in a locale that has legalized gay marriage. In doing this, you get to feel good about sending your wedding costs and your attendees’ tourist dollars to the coffers of a place that’s getting it right on marriage equality, AND you get to tell people “Yeah, we decided to make you all trek out to New York because it’s one of only a few states that’s doing the right thing on marriage equality.”
  2. State your position on marriage equality. I recently attended an opposite-sex wedding in which the officiant began the ceremony with a recognition that not all people–not even all the people in attendance at the wedding–had the rights being exercised by the engaged couple. It was cool like bow ties. (Though not everyone agrees; here’s a gay activist who equates this gesture to a white person joining a whites-only club and making a short statement of support for nonwhites.)
  3. Watch your language. The ceremony itself could crib from this gender-neutral ceremony script I just found, though I don’t see a point in removing all opposite-sex markers from a ceremony. I mean, if you and your partner use opposite-gender pronouns, then there’s no reason to act like it’s otherwise. You might also think about how to phrase your invitations and other wedding-oriented text to embrace a range of gender orientations and couple arrangements.
  4. Consider registering with an organization fighting for marriage equality. Here’s a link to the Human Rights Campaign’s wedding registry, which allows people to make donations in your honor to their efforts to legalize gay marriage.

 

 

 

on snobbery and digital literacy instruction

cross-posted from HASTAC.org

I’ve been thinking lately about Roger Ebert and digital media snobbery.

I found out through my colleague John Jones that Ebert, a blogger and film critic, recently attacked the publication of “easy reader” editions of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. His main concern appears to be that these abridged versions of Gatsby omit the poetic language of the full text:

Fitzgerald’s novel is not about a story. It is about how the story is told. Its poetry, its message, its evocation of Gatsby’s lost American dream, is expressed in Fitzgerald’s style–in the precise words he chose to write what some consider the great American novel. Unless you have read them, you have not read the book at all. You have been imprisoned in an educational system that cheats and insults you by inflicting a barbaric dumbing-down process. You are left with the impression of having read a book, and may never feel you need return for a closer look.

Is Ebert correct? Sure, I guess. You know, Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove is my favorite novel not because of the plot, but because of how the plot is conveyed. Same thing with another favorite, Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude. We pick our favorite books and movies and songs and so on in large part because of a nebulous feature we might call style. Clearly Gatsby is one of Ebert’s favorites, and he wants others to experience the novel like he did and does.

This desire to bequeath to others our magical interaction with a text iis what leads us to force people to watch our favorite TV shows, even though we know they’re just going to get distracted or bored and stop paying attention because they need to check their email or grab some chips from the kitchen or they just got a text from someone they sort of like and they have to figure out how to respond and meanwhile DONNA NOBLE IS ABOUT TO ASK THE DOCTOR THE NAME OF HIS PREVIOUS COMPANION AND HE’S GOING TO SAY IT WITH SUCH TRAGEDY AND PAIN IN HIS VOICE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO KNOW EVERYTHING YOU NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT HOW HE FEELS ABOUT ROSE TYLER AND jeez never mind let’s just watch Parks and Rec instead.

So I’d be on board if Ebert said he wanted others to experience Gatsby and other canonical novels as he did, and left it at that. But no. Ebert takes it a step farther:

I never read a simplified text of a novel in my life, and to the best of my knowledge neither did any other graduates of St. Mary’s Grade School or Urbana High School — not in school, anyway. The first book I read was Huckleberry Finn, and I got through it just fine, encountering hundreds of words I didn’t know.

It’s not snobbery to say “I did things this way and you can too”; it’s snobbery to say “I did things this way and if you don’t do things my way you are not as smart as I am.” The latter seems to be precisely what Ebert wants us to hear in his argument.

(Snobbery, by the way, is also what has led lots of people to embrace the Core Knowledge approach to education.)

I have a touch of technological snobbery. I browbeat people who use Internet Explorer until they switch to Firefox or Chrome. I make fun of friends who live without smartphones, and–in a particularly low moment for me–I once made fun of a family member when she began an online information search at about.com.

That kind of snobbery is annoying but not necessarily dangerous–until it gets codified as an approach to digital literacy education. It’s easy, I think, to fall into the trap of believing one way of understanding social media technologies is the best way of understanding social media technologies. We say we want kids to develop an understanding of the complexities of digital technologies, but we mean that we want them to embrace digital technologies–to love new media like we love new media.

It’s literacy snobbery when we try to teach kids what to think about technology instead of how to think about technology. In this respect, I worry that educators who stand on very different sides of the digital literacy issue embrace a very similar, problematic attitude: I did things this way and if you don’t do things my way you’re not as smart as I am.

I guess I’ll be submitting proposals for the 2012 AERA Annual Meeting

At the end of my last trip to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), I decided I no longer wanted to submit proposals or attend the conference. I had lots of reasons, but here are some of the biggest:

  1. The AERA Annual Meeting embraces mainstream (nonthreatening) research. As researcher and activist Jeff Duncan-Andrade pointed out in a session I attended, AERA offered up Diane Ravitch at its opening plenary session. Ravitch, after 30 years of supporting standardized testing and teacher accountability based on test results, recently reversed course and stood up against standardized assessments. “Which is super,” Duncan-Andrade said, but added that Diane Ravitch should be spending the rest of her career in apology to all the kids whose lives she helped to destroy.
  2. The AERA Annual Meeting does not support dissenting or alternative voices. It’s true that lots of individuals and a handful of sessions introduced radical or controversial theories or ideas, but those were drowned out by the plenaries, featured speakers, and sessions designed to promote the general mainstream of educational research.
  3. The AERA Annual Meeting does not effect or result in any significant, lasting change in education.
  4. The AERA Annual Meeting is expensive. Which wouldn’t be a problem if the membership and attendance fees resulted in any significant, lasting change in education. But it doesn’t.

So. Here we are, a mere 9 days before the submission deadline for AERA 2012, and I’m preparing to submit at least four different proposals, and I’m hoping to have at least one accepted so I can go to Vancouver in mid-April. I haven’t changed my mind about any of the points above. So why in the world am I spending so much time and energy on a conference that goes against everything I believe comprises good educational research?

  1. Someone’s gotta be the chainsaw. I know lots of people who feel like I do about AERA, and some of them have chosen to no longer attend. It’s a good decision, choosing not to participate in the AERA circus, and it means those people can spend their energies in far more awesome ways. But we also need people to work on tearing AERA down, and I’m willing to do my best.
  2. Someone’s gotta bring the heat. If accepted, I promise to introduce dissent, to introduce an alternative perspective in my presentations, in my participation as an audience member, and in my attendance at business meetings for the Divisions and SIGs of which I am a member.
  3. Someone’s gotta bring the challenge. I am planning on organizing a protest against the fees and ineffectuality of AERA. Tentatively, I plan to organize attendees to commit to donating the $70-$205 they would spend on registration fees for the Annual Meeting to one or more local educational initiatives. Attendees could announce their participation in this protest by wearing an armband indicating their refusal to pay the registration fee. Let’s say that just 4% of the estimated 13,000 attendees donate their registration fees. That would result in a pool of at least $70,000 to support local initiatives–a drop in the bucket to some, but a much needed income source for others.

What do you think, dudes? Wanna join me in taking a chainsaw to AERA?