Response to Book Reviews/Semester

Shelby's book review of "Not For Profit: Why Democracy needs the Humanities" got me thinking. I totally agree with the book's premise that the humanities are important to a democracy and are worthwhile disciplines to pursue. Shelby spoke about how people express concern over the fact that she is a philosophy major, because she "wont make any money". Throughout the semester, we have commented on the fact that education- especially college- should not be about job training, but instead about a love for learning. While I love the idea of learning for the sake of learning, it is not realistic in this economy. People who are lucky enough to go to college are hoping it will get them a high paying job in the future because money is so important to survival. The people who can view college as "learning for the sake of learning" are lucky. It must mean that, generally, they do not have to worry about money. I have seen people at MCLA who are so focused on getting their degree as fast as they can and getting a good paying job because they have to be. They can't afford to stay in college forever and just take classes that interest them.
Question: How can we re imagine the world to be a place where people could afford to learn for the sake of learning?

Response to Ed, "Fairness"

Is it more important to present the world as it is, or the world as it could be?

First off, I totally agree with you that we must acknowledge that the world can change, and we can make it more fair. I think the answer to your question is both: we need to present the world as it is, and as how it can be. I think it's really important for teachers to acknowledge unfairness in the world, because students come from all different walks of life and if some of them have experienced unfairness (which I'm sure all of them have at some point) then it should be acknowledged. It makes it easier to identify the problem when other people around you are talking about their experiences; it helps you understand that you are not the only one experiencing inequality. After discussing and reflecting upon inequality with others in a classroom setting, it may be more clear how to make the world better. It is probably hard for teachers-especially if they teach younger students- to be honest about how unfair our world is, but it does not have to be an entirely negative conversation if it is turned into a productive discussion on how to combat unfairness.

Question: How can teachers minimize unfairness that happens in the classroom?

Response to Jessica, "Reading"

Question: What are some of the ways we keep reading a positive experience for children?

Firstly, children should be allowed to read about things that interest them. As you articulated in your post, it is not fun to read material that is assigned to you, rather than chosen by you. To tie this back to our conversation on multiculturalism, children should have many books available to them that reflect their reality. I think children may lose interest in reading because they cannot relate to it. It is necessary to expose children to books about all different types of people, from different points of view, for them to stay interested.
Some children also may not like reading because it is associated with schoolwork and testing. If there were no deadlines that students had to finish reading by, then they might enjoy the reading more. When reading is made to seem like less of a required chore, and more of a chosen activity, and when children are allowed to read material that is interesting to them, then less children will give up on reading.
Question: How can a teacher let students read at their own pace?

Can education be used to prevent prejudice?

Critical pedagogy aims to give students the tools and resources to challenge an oppressive system. While this is extremely worthwhile, I wonder if education can be used to prevent prejudice in its students. In my education, there was very little attention paid to our (the students') differences. In fact, a "we are all the same" rhetoric was very much present. Students are typically taught that they all have the same potential for success. If students were taught about the differences between people, I think they may be more likely to accept people that are not just like them. For example, if you are told your whole life that anybody can achieve success if they work hard enough, and you have never thought critically about this claim, than you may look at an underprivileged who has not achieved success and say "What's wrong with you? You threw away opportunities". The reality is that not everybody in this society has the same opportunities; why don't we tell students the truth about that? Then they would see the underprivileged person who is not successful and feel compassion, not contempt. This could potentially eliminate a lot of prejudice in the world.

Why are we afraid to tell students that the world is not fair?

Response to Kim, "Critical Pedagogy"

Is critical pedagogy trying to lead students to view the world in specific ways or does it encourage them to form their own opinions?

I don't think critical pedagogy is attempting to indoctrinate students. All people accept certain things to be true about the world, and teachers are assigned to teach their students what they believe to be true about the world. Most elementary schools teach that 1+1=2, but we don't accuse them of trying to indoctrinate students into believing that 1+1=2. This is because we trust teachers to teach things that they believe to be true. Of course, some points are more contentious than others. Most of our class came to the conclusion last week that a teacher should not teach creationism in schools just because he or she personally believes it to be true. However, a religious belief is rooted in faith alone, whereas oppression is something people experience in the world. When people have experienced something, they know that it is true. Therefore, I think it is acceptable to teach students how they can be conscious of the power dynamics they exist in and how to challenge them.


Question: What is the distinction between a teacher teaching a relatively benign belief like "1+1=2" and a teacher teaching a controversial belief, such as creationism?

Why Don't We Value Life Experiences as Evidence?

In class, we starting talking a little bit about how, as a society, we generally value scientific facts, logic, and objectivity. While these things are important, we also devalue things like emotion, intuition, and personal experience as evidence. This is interesting, because we have ideas about scientific research being objective, when it often isn't. Scientific research is controlled, funded, and validated by an elite group. Science also changes over time, so it is not always correct. For example, science has been used historically as a way to validate racist ideas (scientific racism). Clearly, this is not objective and non-biased. So why do we put science up on a pedestal? I'm not anti-science, and I'm certainly not suggesting we disregard all of the great things science has to offer us. But there is more to understanding the world than learning facts. For example, we can learn about the world through experiences. These experiences are valuable, and can be used as evidence for knowledge. Sometimes, science ignores certain groups, rendering their experiences extremely valuable, because it is all they have.

My question is the title of this post: why don't we value life experiences as evidence for knowledge?

Response to Kim, "Pedagody and Race"

Thank you for bringing up this topic. This is a common theme I have noticed in social justice circles. For example, second-wave feminism has been criticized for not being inclusive to women of color, lower class women, queer women, etc. I think this happens because it is a privilege to be able to sit around and discuss oppression. Additionally, the language used in these circles can be very inaccessible to most people, especially underprivileged people. This becomes a problem, because something that is supposed to be (and, I think, genuinely is) concerned with liberating an oppressed group isn't even accessible to said group. The faces of human rights movements (such as the civil rights movement, feminist movements, gay rights movement, etc) are typically people who are pretty privileged. People who are underprivileged are probably too busy trying to survive to participate in these movements. They also may not have the language to participate in discussions about these issues because of education inequalities.
I think a way to combat this problem is to make the language we use to discuss these issues more simplistic. I am not suggesting we "dumb down" our ideas though; the ideas are still very complex, and underpriveleged people are very capable of grasping them. However, making the language inaccessible while we talk about them alienates people who deserve to be a part of these discussions.

Question: What are some other ways we can make these movements more accessible to underprivileged people?