I think that people who say racism no longer exists in American are confusing “racism” with “segregation.” Although segregation of blacks and whites in American has ceased due to several momentous events, racism is still very much present, as Tim Wise explains in his interview regarding his book Between Barack and a Hard Place.
Wise details racism by dividing it into two categories: Racism 1.0 and Racism 2.0. The former is the type of racism most easily recognizable by individuals, where there are absolutely no exceptions and all people of color fit into one category with a set of negative stereotypes, and should be treated as such. The latter is more modern and leads to the belief that racism is no longer an issue in America. Under 2.0, certain people of color, like Obama, are viewed as exceptions to the rule, rendering the false appearance that people of color are treated equally. However, this is extremely selective equality.
The relationship between Brown vs. Board of Education is (along with other events pertaining to the advancement of people of color) according to Wise is that while these events were and are important accomplishments, they by no means represent an end to the fight against racism; they are individual battles that have been won but the fight still remains.
1.“As is commonly the case with new policy initiatives, however, more attention has been focused on moving forward than on asking where we are headed.”
This is an important quote in the article because it clarifies the article’s main point. Often, policies are implemented without the extensive planning that they deserve. An example of this in my grade school district was the Digital Graduation Portfolio. Several times throughout the year, this new graduation requirement was altered because it was not properly planned. Developmental changes for the advancement of a new project are one thing, but frequent unorganized changes are another. Also, no administrator or teacher was able to answer the questions “What is the point of this portfolio?” and “What goal does it attempt to achieve?” This was another indication that it was implemented quickly without planning. Similarly, Kahne and Westheimer write about service learning and how rapidly it is entering our education system without a well-developed, effective service learning strategy.
2.“In Atlanta students simply write a 500-word essay describing their experiences. They never discuss their experiences as part of a course. In fact, many of the major legislative proposals have a minimal reflection component – sometimes for fear that such an orientation would diminish the focus on altruism.”
Christensen would not like this. With these policies, while the students are taking action by volunteering in their community, they are not analyzing or reflecting on their experiences in a meaningful way. Performing an action and writing about it does not reveal the extent of what the student has learned from the project. Meaningful reflection, such as class discussions, enables the power of one’s learning to be shown. Learning should not stop with the project; it should continue with the reflection. Therefore, meaningful reflection allows for a greater degree of learning than writing an essay (which is frustrating to many students). The reflecting process can make or break a project, and in the case of being forced to write about it, will most likely break it.
3.“ ‘In the service of what?’ is a question that inevitably merits the attention of teachers, policy makers, and academicians who take seriously the idea that learning and service reinforce each other and should come together in America’s schools.”
Kahne and Westheimer are not arguing for or against one particular strategy of service learning. Their purpose for writing this article was to emphasize the importance of answering the question “In the service of what?” If we continue to advocate for service learning without answering this question, we could potentially end up with inconsequential strategies for incorporating service learning into the curriculum. Mr. Johnson’s project, for example, yielded a few unsuccessful results, which the two authors mention in this piece. The “So what?” of Kahn and Westheimer’s argument is that those in favor of service learning should come to a realization as to what the most effective service learning method is before implementing it.
This article was confusing to me at first because I was not able to fully distinguish between the “charity” and “change” types of service learning. However, after rereading a few parts, I believe I have developed and understanding. My view is that service learning, if done with a balance of charity and meaningful reflection, could teach students important values and help them change their views, in a positive way, of the people for whom they are providing service. In the article, Kahne and Westheimer describe a music class that went to a school in an area of poverty to perform for the students. The students were Johnsonizing about the school in the poor neighborhood; they feared what they thought they knew about the students who went there. This reminded me of VIPS because I feared going to my Providence school, but for the most part, the rumors I had heard about urban schools were untrue. Anyway, the students in the music class performed a service and learned from it. The initial learning was done at the school in the poor neighborhood, although it continued while they discussed their experience in class. If students are forced to perform community service without meaningful reflection, they are completing the service portion of service learning, but only partially completing the learning portion.
1. 1. “The ‘secret education,’ as Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman dubs it, delivered by children’s books and movies, instructs young people to accept the world as it is portrayed in these social blueprints. And often that world depicts the domination of one sex, one race, one class, or one country over a weaker counterpart.”
This idea of a “secret education” is the central theme of Christensen’s argument about media designed for children. The social stereotypes that many people in society work to change, such as the idea of men being superior to women and whites being superior to blacks, are portrayed multiple times as the norm in such media. Christensen is saying that the foundation for social change is not being planted into the minds of children because the values presented by “Disney-like” storylines.
2. 2. “Children’s cartoons, movies, and literature are perhaps the most influential genre ‘read.’ Young people, unprotected by any intellectual armor, hear or watch these stories again and again, often from the warmth of their mother’s or father’s lap. The messages, or ‘secret education,’ linked with the security of their homes, underscore the power these texts deliver.”
How can we do what Alan Johnson wants us to, that is “Be the change,” if children’s movies don’t advocate change? What Christensen is saying here is that children watch movies and read books differently than older people. When a young child is exposed to media, he is constantly forming new opinions based on what he is reading or watching, perhaps even subconsciously. If he constantly watches movies with his parents that contain white people playing lead roles, and his parents are not defending people of color, he is going to assume that white people have some sort of superiority.
3. 3. ”Instead of assigning the same classroom essays students had written in years before, I asked students to create projects that would move beyond the classroom walls.”
This short quote may not be saying much, but I think it creates an important path to the end of the article, where Christen talks about what her students did to help spread the knowledge of their cartoon and literature analyses. The students here are Johnsoning, they are identifying the problem and trying to change it. We don’t often Johnsonize in our classrooms; we write, reflect, and start the next project. Christensen is showing her students how their writing can spark change, which is beneficial because it DOES spark change, and because it reminds students that what they are learning is useful.
This article was straightforward, easy to read, and relatable. There are magazines, TV shows, and movies dedicated to portraying messages that Christensen finds “uncomfortable.” It’s hard to find a place to start this summary of her article because everything is so true. A movie in which a person of color plays a servant will be viewed by children and adults with remarkably different end results. The impressionability of children while lead them to believe that this servitude is normal for people of color, while an adult [should, at least] realize that the movie is portraying a stereotype, not a “correct” message. Another example of corruption is that if a female child sees a magazine filled with pictures of women with near-perfect physical fitness, she will start to assume that this body type is the only successful body type by which one may attract a partner. In today’s world, we cannot rid society of all forms sexism, racism, and other ideals we do not want our children to believe; however, a crucial step would be to alter children’s media to not portray these stereotypes. If every Disney princess cannot be a woman of color, we would be shifting to another extreme. However, consistently white Disney princesses plant the racist seed in the minds of children.
I was watching the Game Show Network earlier tonight, and saw a commercial for a special celebrity edition of Newlyweds. This episode is special for two reasons... one, because it is a celebrity edition and two, because it features "Mr. Sulu" from Star Trek (The actor's name escapes me, and I really am too lazy to look it up at 1:44 AM) and his husband. This will be the first gay couple to appear on the show.
My first reaction was, "Wow, I'm surprised they allowed a gay couple to be on the show!" Then I realized how this proves that the acceptance of homosexuality by society has increased over the years. Several years ago, even mentioning gayness on TV would have caused a controversy. Of course, there are still many individuals and groups who find homosexuality to be "wrong." However, society has "tapped the glass" enough for a gay couple to appear on a game show that for years has been dedicated to stereotypical man-woman unity.
One most also consider, however, that "Mr. Sulu" is a famous character. Perhaps the producers of Newlyweds allowed him and his husband to appear on the show because of the celebrity status. We do not know if they would have allowed an "ordinary" gay couple to participate.
I just found this interesting and wanted to post about it because it relates to what we have been talking about in class. If gayness can be found all over the media (this case as an example), it should be discussed in schools. Should a child watch this episode of Newlyweds [which of course I would not advocate because of sexual content, but I'm sure some kids have seen it] he or she might automatically assume that the gay marriage is weird, abnormal, or wrong because they have not had the concept explained to them in an unbiased manner at school. At least if a child WERE to have those opinions after having discussed them in school, the opinions would not be based on ignorance.
1.“Finally, I want to distinguish between a homosexual orientation or preference, and gay identity. The former I take to refer to the more-or-less natural direction of one’s sexual desires while the latter refers to the active construction of a gay self identity and visible gay presence within culture-what I am referring to as gayness.”
Carlson’s compartmentalization of “homosexuality” and “gayness” caught my attention because I never thought to separate the terms. He is saying that homosexuality is the physical attraction to persons of the same sex, while gayness is the manifestation of stereotypical gay qualities (mannerisms, voice, dress, etc.) in one’s personality and actions.
2.“Public schools in particular have often promoted such ‘normalizing’ conceptualizations of community that are based on defining a cultural center or ‘norm’ and positions class, gender, race, and sexual Others at the margins.”
In modern times, homosexuality and gayness are undoubtedly a largely influential part of society, but they rarely make it into our curricula. This is because, although gayness is more accepted than it was in the past, it is still ranked in the “abnormal” category in social ladder. Other non-SCWAAMP qualities are discussed in schools, but because of the major controversy that exists over homosexuality and its rightness vs. wrongness, it is left out. This quote reminded me of Delpit because the “normalized” identity of straightness is the standard for the culture of power, and gayness may need to be suppressed in certain situations in order to play by the rules of power, if one so chooses.
3.“Finally, a democratic multicultural education must become a dialogue in which all ‘voices’ are heard and all ‘truths’ are understood as partial and positioned. The object of classroom discourse is thus not so much to achieve consensus on one ‘true’ or ‘objective’ depiction of reality, but rather to clarify differences and agreements…”
In this quote, Carlson is saying that in the classroom, the goal is not to make everyone agree that a particular sexual identity, or race, or gender, is better. The goal is to discuss these issues fairly, thus giving “voice” to them. This quote is one of his answers to the question “Now What?” in the “What? So What? Now What?” model of argument analysis. The ideal education system presents various perspectives fairly, and by leaving homosexuality out of education, we are not currently doing so.
Before I summarize the article, I want to provide you with this video. Carlson is not saying anywhere in his article that people who write curricula believe that homosexuality is a disease. However, I found this video on youtube and it got me thinking about how this view of homosexuality, although this video is from the 1950s, is still prevalent today. Listen to how the homosexual driver is referred to as "sick." Note: I do not advocate hitch-hiking, but you get the point.
The central theme of this article was easy for me to grasp; however, it was one of the more difficult articles we have had to read in terms of unpacking each individual theory. Carlson believes, and I agree, that by essentially ignoring that homosexuality exists, school systems do not present a balanced multicultural curriculum. In popular culture, gayness is portrayed throughout all forms of communication, from books to television to movies. Also, the view of homosexuality by society in general has significantly changed from past generations to now; it is much more accepted, although there are many people who still consider it “wrong.” Thus, sexual identity is an enormous part of society, and leaving it out of the education system causes it to become the elephant in the rooms of today’s schools. For an educational system that desires continuous development and advancement, it is remarkably difficult for alternative families and lifestyles, which are nothing new to society, to present themselves in the curriculum.
