waiting for superman, part deux

I forgot to mention, there was one thing that I did like about Waiting for Superman - the portrayal of families of color, in a sense, the de-pathologizing of Black families

The Black and Latino families that are portrayed in the news and pop culture feed off of negative stereotypes of welfare queens, crack addicts and absent fathers. The explanation for poor performance in  Black and Latino children usually begins with their families not valuing education. This is so silly since education is so popularly and universally valued. No, Asians and Jewish people do not value education more than any one else. It is not an explanation as to why they do well in school. Nor is it an explanation as to why other students fail.

The families in the film all cared deeply about their children's education, making large sacrifices in order to finance and support their child's learning through additional tutoring or by sending them to private school.

Some reviews have faulted the film with having only shown parents invested in their child's education - which seems problematic to say the least. Instead, the documentary excels in its provision of a counternarrative to the idea of pathological Black families and a culture of poverty.

waiting for (race)

Today, I finally got a chance to see "Waiting for Superman" -- a new documentary that is supposed to highlight the pitfalls of our education system. I had heard negative reviews from my friends who are schoolteachers, but still wanted to see for myself.

One would think that a movie about the problems with education (and a movie that at times historicizes concepts) would mention officially sanctioned racial segregation (then desegregation and then de facto segregation spurred by current policies and court judgments!) and race. Race is not used once. Not one time.

The documentary features five children: a hispanic girl from Los Angeles, a black girl from New York, a hispanic boy from New York, a black boy from D.C. and a white (older) girl from Silicon Valley. (Which thing is not like the other?) All the children expect the white child live in urban poor districts and attending failing schools. The white girl lives in a neighborhood where the average home price is just below 1m and attends a stunningly beautiful all-white school. She wishes to attend a charter school because her test scores are lower than she would like. The narrator mentions how "middle-class" kids suffer too because a small minority of over-performing children make the school averages look better when many of the kids are not where they should be. And, while it is important to realize that America's education problem is far reaching and across the board, it isn't the same across the board. To compare in a way that suggests symmetry between the white wealthy girl and the poor black and brown children is apalling. And, to not mention how race plays a factor in all of this is nothing short of shameful.

All of the children are trying to get into charter schools. The documentary correctly makes the point that if they stay in their failing public schools, most will drop out and all will be grade levels behind where they are supposed to be. Most of them do not win the lottery to get into their preferred charter school. And, the film fails to problematize this.

The documentary also overwhelming points to teachers as the problem, while simultaneously saying that teachers aren't the problem, unions are. Well, folks, what are unions made of? Teachers! The focus on failing teachers, and not failing curriculum, the lack of integration, lack of resources, too short school day, and tracking. 

And in terms of just production, editing, conception, etc. - it doesn't really build much of an argument for anything (well maybe except for the inadequacy of teachers). The long montage of famous, smart people who went to public school? Unnecessary and confusing. The scenes that were cut in of classroom situations from various cartoons, movies, tv shows and 50s instructional videos? Unnecessary and confusing. They brought in a lot of stuff but didn't really delve into it: KIPP schools, Harlem Children's Zone, Michelle Yee, rubber rooms in NYC etc.

All in all, this had the potential of being great in concept, but flatlined in the first few minutes.

"The Mean Girls of Morehouse": Gender at Same-sex Colleges

A recent vibe article entitled "The Mean Girls of Morehouse" focuses on a group (self-named "Plastics") who are current and former students at Morehouse - an all male historically black college in Atlanta, but whom have felt stifled at the overt criticism of their lifestyle. The group often cross-dresses, wears makeup and takes female hormones. And, while I don't agree with Morehouse defining what a man is and what a man is not, I am hesitant to say that these students belong there.

Simply put, women do not belong at Morehouse.

In the same vein, I don't believe men belong at all-women's colleges like Spelman or Barnard, for example. But, let me be a little more specific: I recognize the difference between gender and sex. Gender is self-identification -- do you identify as a man or a woman? Sex is physically identified. So, the Morehouse Plastics are male in terms of sex and what in terms of gender?

“I’ve always been into clothes, shoes, hair and everything,” says Diamond, who was born and raised in Providence, R.I. He says there’s a good chance he’ll transition into a woman at some point. “My mother says I always played dress-up in her clothes, my grandmother’s clothes. I’d even get my brother to do it sometimes. That’s just always been me—pushing the envelope of what I’m supposed to be as a man.”

So does Diamond really consider herself a man? At the question, he groans. “Yes, I refer to myself as a man, you know, to relieve any confusion. Sometimes people don’t understand the whole androgyny thing. There’s always the question: Well, what are you? Yes, I’m a man. I like women’s clothes. And yeah, I’m gay. But I don’t want that to define me. How come people can’t just see me as a person?”

What's problematic is both Diamond and the author can't seem to make up their mind as to Diamond's gender. The author uses both female and male pronouns to describe Diamond; and, Diamond declares himself a man, but add the qualifier ("to relieve any confusion") and talks about eventually transitioning to a woman. 

And, Diamond really doesn't have to choose which gender he/she is... unless he/she has expressly placed himself in an environment in which is predicated upon him being gendered as a man. 

Same-sex colleges are special places designed to help men and women achieve in environments designed to help them thrive. Morehouse is an all-male college. So, unless Diamond truly sees himself as a man, he shouldn't be there. There are plenty of colleges where the questioning of his gendered identity would be more acceptable, but at a same-sex college it becomes contentious. Diamond, if she identifies as a woman, misidentified herself and lied in order to insert herself into the college. If, she entered as a man, then when she decided not to be a man anymore she should have withdrawn or at least consulted with someone at the college. However, if Diamond is resolute in his identity as a male, then he belongs there as much as anyone does.

One last thing, this is not a gay/straight issue. This has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with gender.

pre-professional networking events or why i wanted to rip my eyes out this weekend

so this weekend, i attended a law school fair in new york. basically, it looks a lot like the above picture - where each law school gets a table and students line up to speak to admission representatives. my purpose in going was to try and get a feel for the schools and see if i felt like i would be a good fit. i knew i had to narrow down where i was going to apply unless i wanted to go broke and live off of ramen next fall. fortunately, the fair helped me narrow this list down.

i have a bunch of interests in going to law school but they all are associated with an interest in race, gender and the law. (surprise, surprise - thus the theme of my blog!) i've learned that simply engaging in discussions of race and gender does not guarantee a good time, and trying to do that in an environment where people really aren't feeling your radicalism is probably a guarantee of a bad time. instead, i am looking for a campus full of professors and students who wish to engage in these topics, in addition to professors who are knowledgeable, critical and interested in this work. having come from an all women's college, i also understand the importance of having female professors. (side note: i'm truly surprised that numbers skew slightly in favor of men, that is, more men are in law school than women) so, my stock questions for the admission reps had to do with whether there was a program, institute or classes devoted to critical race theory; what professors were actively engaging in critical race theory and feminist legal theory; and how many professors of color were at the school.

now that i'm at my second job since graduating from college, i have come to truly appreciate the fact that you need to be interviewing the employer/school as much as they are interviewing you. in other words, i came with the expectation that the reps would try to sell their school to me more than any of my efforts to impress them. having been in a work situation that was not a good fit, i want to be very careful that i don't end up at a school that is not a good fit.

anyways those where my goals, and here are some of my observations:

• for the top 20 schools and the nyc schools, there was usually a 15-20 minute wait time. i should've expected this. what i shouldn't have expected (and didn't expect) was waiting behind a girl while she spent 10 minutes asking questions that included, "should recommendations be single or double spaced?" "do you have a preferred font?" and "what kind of margins do you think look the best?" really? REALLY? the worst part of this show was that the admissions rep was actively engaged with her and giving a genuine response to this. that added to the fact they were dismissive of my questions makes me not even want to bother to apply.
• some schools were especially rude. to the point that it makes me feel lukewarm about their school altogether. i asked them how many faculty where faculty of color? They were like "uh, well i dont keep statistics. it's not good, but it's comparable to other elite schools." ....... whereas others were like "that's something we're def. concerned about. we have a good handful, but we really are concentrating on recruiting more."
• one big named school was really standoffish and uninformative. i was concerned about the huge class and feeling like I might feel lost, especially coming from such a small undergrad institution. in response they gave me some textbook answer instead of actually engaging with my question. i was like oh and you just inadvertently answered the question by giving me some stock answer and not even really looking at me. i am just a number, thanks. 
• on the flipside, my alma mater was mad real with me. i admitted that i was frankly a bit unsure if it's a good fit because I want to be in a community where many people are interested in public service, CRT, feminist theory, etc. and they were like well I'm not sure if we would be a perfect fit if those things are important to you but you should try to talk to some of the students to get their perspective. made me want to apply more.

so hopefully a little advice to the younger readers: it's really important that you interview people even when you feel under pressure. you don't want to be stuck in a situation that you don't like. and for those that this post is completely irrelevent for, a question on admissions processes in general - how can we accurately assess what a school/employer is all about, and whether we'd fit into that or not (regardless of rankings)? my undergrad school ended up being a good fit, but i think that was more good luck than a good applying process.  and, finally, a question for myself: why do i simultaneously think rankings are stupid but at the same time want to get into a top 5 school so badly?! ah! 

oh and a final request: do not bring your parents to law school/med school/grad school/job fairs. it is not cool. not cool at all.

lessons from brazil

first off, a huge thank you for those who were able to come to the event i organized on Monday night, "Does Race (Still) Matter? Reconsidering Affirmative Action in the US and Brazil." to be honest, i woke up in the middle of the night the day before tossing and turning and making mental lists because i was so worried i'd fuck it up. luckily enough, it went pretty smoothly and all things considered i was happy with the turnout. i definitely learned things that i didn't know before (like the fact that GWB didn't know that there were Blacks in Brazil... smfh).

if you weren't able to make it, check out our live twitter blog feed. eventually, i'll get some video and flicks up as well.

anyways, i would like to quickly explore the thing that i found the most interesting and thought-provoking. a recent law was passed in Brazil that mandated that Afro-Brazilian history and culture be taught in public schools. this was to combat the otherwise lack of knowledge about Afro-Brazilian culture and to begin to shift from a white-centric history. yo, this is an amazing idea. something that i believe the U.S. should adopt. what would an education that included and celebrated the history and accomplishments of Blacks, Asians and Latino Americans? how would such an education contribute to a shift in public perception, acceptance and call for affirmative action programs specifically and racial power dynamics more generally?

how can we begin to confront our violent history? we learn of the attempted genocide of the Jewish people during the holocaust, but not of the genocide of the indigenous population in america. we learn of the england's mistreatment of us as a colony, but don't learn about either our violent history of colonization or our de facto colonization in Puerto Rico and the Phillipines. how would teaching our bloody history effect the way our children think about power dynamics?

would a history that includes Asian-Americans help to counter the myth of "forever immigrants?" would a history that includes cross-racial coalition building, such as Asian and Latino coalitions in the sugar fields of hawaii, help us to understand the importance of banding together toward a common grievance?  


and, in english, what if we read more books by people of color than by white people? since we will be the majority-minority soon, right? how would a reading of say Zora's "Their Eyes Were Watching God" effect the way in which we understand language, dialect and the hierarchy of it all? 


and, not just a celebration of the history and culture of other races, but what if we began to look at the history of racism and power in the united states throughout the disciplines. for example, learning how statistics was created by eugenicists in order to prove white superiority? or in science exploring how faulty "scientific processes" were used to bolster eugenicist arguments?


i think that we often look at Brazil as being much more behind us on the issue of race, because of the failure to confront it. yet, now that they are confronting it, we are pretending it is no longer an issue (it is!). and, in some ways, they are far outpacing us.

as a side note: my brother was telling me the other day that there are only 2-3 major textbook publishers in the united states that provide the educational materials for the entire country. they are based in texas(? - i think) and are controlled by one curriculum board comprised of mostly white, mostly conservative members. these are the people that control what the entire country learns. we must demand that this be changed by demanding a larger curriculum change within our public schools.  

Event: Does Race (Still) Matter? Reconsidering Affirmative Action in the US and Brazil

The U.S. and Brazil appear to be approaching a temporal crossroad on race and affirmative action. While the myth of racial democracy has loosened its grip in Brazil and opened up unprecedented opportunities for Afro-Brazilians, post-racialism is becoming a powerful force in the US, undermining the future of social inclusion programs.  What can advocates for racial equality in the two countries learn from each other?  How can transnational cooperation between governments and civil society advance racial justice in the two Americas?  Come hear leading voices in the Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial discrimination (“JAPER”) in the US and Brazil.

A panel discussion with:

Daniel Teixeria
Staff Lawyer and Projects Coordinator at the Research Center on Labor Relations and Inequality; former Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Demystifying Racial Democracy in Brazil”

Maria Aparecida Silva Bento
Executive Director of the Research Center on Labor Relations and Inequality; Associate Researcher at the University of Sao Paulo;
“Quantifying Employment Discrimination
in Brazilian Banks”

Clarence Lusane
Professor of Political Science in the School of International Service at American University; Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Afro-Brazilians and the Continuing Struggle for Racial Equality”

Kimberlé Crenshaw
Professor of Law at Columbia & UCLA Law School; former Fulbright Chair for Latin America; Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Framing Joint Action in the Matrix of Colorblindness and Racial Democracy”

Monday, September 27^th, 2010 ∙ 6pm
Columbia Law School ∙ Greene Hall, Room 103
Reception to Follow: Columbia Law School ∙ Case Lounge ∙ 7:30pm

Sponsored by: African American Policy Forum ∙ Institute for Research in African American Studies ∙Center for Brazilian Studies ∙ Latin American Law Students Association

it's midnight and i got nothing

all,

the title of my post says it all. but i'll leave you with a few small thoughts:

- what's wrong with the service industry? or why did i wait 1 hour in bestbuy for them to find the external hard drive that was previously purchased online and arranged for pick up? note: employees in question were shooting the breeze with one another while one of them off-and-on helped my girl and i. am i expecting too much?

- between work, errands, and my commute - where does my leisure time come in? what can america learn from other countries in order to be happier and more efficient at the same time? or is that not possible. they always say the happiest people often come from the poorest countries, why is that? i have all these little activities planned: a cooking group, reading group, cards/dominos nights and a myriad of individual projects that never seem to actually get done.

- my girl brought up a movement for white studies programs, similar to black studies, latino studies and asian studies that would deconstruct whiteness and consider whiteness as something to explore, not something automatically superior. something about that doesn't sit right with me. yes, a class on whiteness, but a whole major/minor? how can you talk about whiteness and not talk about power, heirarchy and the "status quo?" if anyone has any further info or reading, that would be cool. a quick google search didn't elicit much.

- summer seems to be officially over though it doesn't bring the same loathing as it always has. my guess is because the end of summer no longer means the start of school. does this mean i'm growing up?! i really only like the spring/summer cusp and the summer/fall cusp though - so i'm pretty shit out of luck for most of the year. i am looking forward to guilt-free hibernation in the apartment this winter.

and, finally, sorry for the lame post!

leda

Perceived Intelligence

editor's note: this was the post for Tuesday, but somehow my blackberry didn't actually post it. sad face. anyways, enjoy!

So I'm auditing a seminar on colorblindness at the law school I work at. Taught by my boss. Intimidating, no?

So after class was over today, one of the girls mentioned that she wasn't sure she was going to stay in the class because she didn't feel like she belonged - like everyone was operating here and she was operating down there. Now, homegirl was smart and had a lot of both insightful and "let's get real people" comments that I always thoroughly enjoy. Nothing in the content of the class should've made her feel less than, but she did.

And, I did too. Why is that? Why is it so difficult for me to have confidence in the classroom? The classroom - a place where I have always excelled. I'm not sure why exactly, but here are some things I'm considering:

• gender: I feel most comfortable in a group of all women (or mostly women) than a co-ed group. Studies have shown that women's colleges (of which I have attended) generally are places where women tend to succeed in the classroom - where vestiges of patriarchy and male dominated classrooms aren't so common. I know the more co-ed classes that I was in, I felt more reserved as the men in the class often dominated the discussion especially in classes like political science. Yet, I would've hoped that my gendered instincts around whether my opinion mattered would have died and gone away never to return. I do believe I'm more comfortable asserting myself in front of men, but how much does patriarchy rear its angry head in my life still?
• education level: Its just difficult to speak up in a room full of ivy league grad students when I'm simply an employee. Have I come into the seminar from the back door? Will I ever be able to attend some of the illustrious top 10 law schools I have worked in? I vacilate between feeling like I'll never get into law school and feeling like Ima make it for sure. But, what makes some students deserving and others not? What knowledges, abilities and backgrounds are favored and celebrated and which ones are not? Is my opinion any less important because I have yet to be (arbitrarily) chosen? Na, can't be that, but, why then do I still feel like I'm some sort of undercover intruder?
• workplace politics: Simply put, I don't want to look stupid in front of my boss, and I secretly worry that they (my bosses) think I'm smarter than I really am. I know people were shocked when I got my position ("how did she get that? She isn't experienced/intelligent/old enough for that!") - and I guess I was too. 
• age: I realize now how smart I thought I was and how dumb I really was. So, of course I worry that I come off as a know-it-all little kid who doesn't know anything. I think my age gets in the way a lot and I don't get taken as seriously as I want to. How should one measure age? Time that passes, experiences one has or mind set one possesses? Why am I lumped as peers with people who live at home and have never left it, don't work and spend their time bickering with people on social media all day long?

 In the end though, I don't think a man would ever feel this way to the point of dropping out of class. Why have I been socialized to believe my opinion wouldn't stack up and why am I am able to express myself through this medium without getting flushed but not in an academic setting?

Thoughts/comments/disagreements welcome.

Technology and Education

Just a small post on something that I came across today.

I'm a fan of Raw Toast Design - one of the prints hangs prominently in my bedroom! When I received an email from the artist, Jessie, asking for his blog readers to vote for East Side Community High, a school in grave need of an educational grant (and threw in a free print!), I could not refuse. He writes back:

Unfortunately this Kohl's Cares challenge looks like it will largely (maybe entirely) go to the schools that already have substantial budgets in place and were able to market themselves the best (via free iPad incentives, helicopter rides, and paid advertising) with those budget dollars and not the schools that really really need this money. This school can’t even afford new computers for themselves let alone give them away in exchange for votes like many of the leading schools are doing. May the most deserving schools win... and hopefully not only the ones with the biggest advertising budgets. 

This was the first thing I noticed when I went on the Kohl's facebook site.  All the top schools were Jewish private schools who had the technology and spread to create a campaign to win this challenge. Kohl's relies on the larger community to vote for the schools that are most deserving. However, the "larger community" is not the larger community when it doesn't take into consideration the substantial barriers to technology that schools face when they are underfunded and in poor communities (largely of color) who do not have the same access, networking capacity and time to launch large scale campaigns such as the one Jesse describes above.

Who's idea was it to start a campaign that could ostensibly give money to schools who are already well-funded, or at least much more funded than other schools? Did anyone consider the logistically issues that would pop up in such a funding contest. It's just so frustrating when campaigns that are supposed to do good are not thought out. Social media networking is not necessarily the be all end all answer to social issues and problems and how to solve them and how to choose worthiness. What happens is all the underserved students remain underserved.

So, please fellow readers, vote for East Side Community High (and get a print, too!). Check it out here: http://rawtoastdesign.blogspot.com/2010/08/giving-away-my-work-for-free.html