Questions of Race

In answer to the first question, yes, I'm going to focus solely on Chapter 31 in this little blog (and no, not because it's longer, more because I find race more interesting than standardization). Moving right along, the thing I find really interesting in this article is that it focuses on making sure we all know that we're bringing our own cultural biases and predispositions toward race into the classroom. It also mentions how woefully unprepared most teachers are when it comes to the question of race. But I can't help thinking that all of my Curriculum and Instruction classes have at least spent some time talking about race, and some of them seemed to use it as their only criteria of knowledge. This might be the fault of the article's age, or maybe the faculty in question, but I couldn't help but be a little shocked at how some of the scenarios played out (which was good, in a way, as it kept me reading).

Take Derek's exile, for instance. Obviously most of the teachers labeled him as a "problem" rather than a student with some problems. And while I can understand being frustrated with a kid that really doesn't want to listen to you, I really doubt anyone in the classes I've had would make the jump from suspension to expulsion in less than a day, much less label someone (out loud, no less) as "damaged goods". The thing is, we've been trained to deal with things of this nature, and I think we can all relate (at least a little) to a kid who can't manage to fit into someone else's boundaries of good behavior. This became especially noticeable to me after the article listed all of Derek's strengths...my first reaction to his inability to keep his attention on the teacher and his need to lead was to think "Well...put the kid in a group setting more often, and let him use those leadership skills effectively." I realize that this isn't the panacea for Derek's case, but at the same time, all I'm noticing in terms of teacher response is a bunch of authority figures constantly telling this kid that he's wrong (with the obvious exception of Carrie). That's just not going to go well, you know?

As far as dealing with race in the classroom goes, I think, as a prospective English teacher, I've got it fairly easy. If I can work in a book like Octavian Nothing or Native Son (or even Dubliners), it almost begs for a lesson on race as a social construction. One of the great teaching moments I've witnessed recently was when a professor of mine had all the white students in his class raise their hands, and then put them down if they had German, Irish, Scandanavian, or Italian ancestry. He then went on to say that everyone who put their hands down (the vast majority of the class...think something along the lines of 20:1 and you won't be far off), would not have been considered white a mere 100 years ago. I'm not sure if I could get away with that in a high school (or middle school) setting, but I think it's a poignant example of the fluidity that the concept of race carries with it...and I think that's probably one of the most important things we can get across about race in the classroom (but heck, what do I know, I'm a six-foot white male, I obviously just expect my opinions to be heard and respected because of my color, gender, height and [somewhat] deep voice).


Questions for easy discussion:

1. This article takes place in New York City, where there are more stereotypes per capita than there are pigeons. What does this mean for those of us in Milwaukee, a city with admittedly fewer pigeons but plenty of stereotypes to go around?

2. Jervis spends a decent amount of time focusing on Don, and how his power as a white male dominated many discussions. Can Jervis criticize him effectively even though she didn't voice her own (conflicting) opinion to his face? Is she suggesting that it's a bad thing for white males to voice their opinions, since she argues that their expectation of being heard and respected overrides the opinions of others? Shouldn't everyone, including white males, have that expectation?