Socialism, Capitalism, and the Obama Agenda

Is Democracy Synonymous with Free Market Economy?

The Tea Party Patriots and Republicans have charged Obama with “spreading the wealth”: warning of Socialism. Can he defend his policies to the fans of the free market?
--------
Michael Moore’s newest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, criticizes our American style of free enterprise Capitalism, claiming that it damages the working class. He cites that the recent bailout of Wall Street to help stave off the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression is proof that Capitalism, particularly Crony Capitalism, is a failure.

Moore states that Democracy is not the same as capitalism, and that corporations are decidedly not democratic institutions. He also claims that true democracy is threatened by powerful corporations.

The Tea Party movement, made up of political protesters fed up with what they see as out-of-control government spending, have made a name for themselves by carrying signs that depict President Obama as a Maoist, Communist, Nazi Fascist, and a Socialist, even sometimes portraying him with a Hitler-style moustache.
At the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, opening speaker, Tom Tancredo, blamed the ignorance of immigrants and illiterate poor people for the election of Obama, to whom he referred as a “socialist ideologue”, drawing cheers from the conservative crowd.

With such a vociferous debate about economics and politics, it has been increasingly difficult to discuss the issues affecting our country.

How Socialist is Obama?

In the now famous conversation between then Senator Obama and Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber”, Obama was recorded on film telling him that he was in favor of “spreading the wealth”.

Obama’s actual quote, as recorded by Jake Tapper on ABCnews.com, is that he believed that “if the economy’s good from the bottom up, it’s good for everybody,” and that “right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media cites Obama’s relationship with New Party, an outspoken Socialist political organization, as proof of his Socialist values.
Radosh lists the party agenda of “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity” as equal to Obama’s own agenda.

Dedicated Socialist activist, Billy Wharton, claims in his article in the Washington Post that Obama is decidedly not one of them. He cites as proof Obama’s support of Timothy Geithner, and other appointees who are closely tied to the big banking industries such as Goldman Sachs, and his hesitancy to comprehensively address regulations and financial reform. He also notes Obama’s lack of full support for the single-payer health care system, and even the public option.

Comparisons made by some of Obama to infamous “Socialist” leaders of the past have been at best hyperbolic. Hitler, the champion of the National Socialist Party, redistributed wealth in his society by seizing Jewish assets in a racist campaign that led to Genocide. Stalin established totalitarian Communism by the systematic nationalization of property and the slaughter and exile of the upper class.
Obama’s policies, by comparison, seemed to have the support of the electorate who democratically voted him in on a landslide.

Spreading the Wealth: a Communist Plot?

In an interview with Family Security Matters editors, Joe Wurzelbacher misquoted this statement as intent to “redistribute the wealth”. The difference in syntax in this quote could bet a tipping point for the accusation of Socialism.

Joe Wurzelbacher claimed in this interview that he believes this policy will lead to Socialism in America, and this is troublesome precisely because government handouts to poor people tend to make them expect more, and discourages ambition.

Redistributing wealth in socialist economies often invokes images of Russian or Nazi officials seizing wealth and property from the rich in order to give them to the poor. Income-adjusted taxation, such as the one we have in America, where the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor, are a mild form of redistribution of wealth.

Often the money from taxes goes to improve the standard of living for the poorest population, in the form of welfare or public education. Other publicly funded programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, use taxpayer revenue to support the poorest population and the elderly and disabled in their time of need.

Conservatives like Matt Kibbe have been resisting these policies for years on the basis that the “welfare state” encourages a lack of productivity, and unfettered free market capitalism is the key to American prosperity: a rising tide lifts all boats. This is similar to Reagan’s policy of the “trickle-down economics”, which is based on the premise that an affluent upper class would naturally support a robust middle class.

America is not a true Capitalist nation with a pure free market economy, nor is it on the fast track to Soviet-style Socialism. Since the days of FDR and the “New Deal”, the policy that is credited with helping us recover from the Great Depression, America has been a constant balance of both principles. Capitalists are given limited free-reign to make profits, while at the same time a social safety net has been established to ensure the security of the underclass.

Following the deregulation years of the Bush Administration, it would seem the American population has spoken out with their votes on which way they would like to see the pendulum swing, Tea Party backlash notwithstanding.
---------

Healthy, Happy, and Gay

Healthy, Happy, and Gay: Gay Youth and their Particular Health Issues: An analysis of Gay and Lesbian Youth and the Effects on their Personal Health.

On the subject of growing up gay in an anti-gay world, I speak with some authority. I came out of the closet at the age of seventeen, in a time and place before Ellen, before RuPaul, before the 1993 March on Washington, before I knew of or conceived that another gay person actually existed in the rest of the world. It is a very isolating experience, and led me through some dark corridors of behaviors and situations I would rather have avoided. Now that I am older and have not only found my community, but have studied the topic from an academic and anthropological point of view, I understand now that not only was I not alone, despite my desperate feelings of loneliness, but there were likely several other teens who felt exactly the same way right in my own community. Even today, after Ellen, there are some places and communities where homosexuality is denied, and teens are left alone to feel isolated, and suffer the devastating effects of these emotions on their health and general well-being. Something should be done to reach out to them, the way I was finally reached in college, through support networks and social gatherings and political efforts that gave me the sense of purpose and belonging I missed all throughout my high school years.

Sexuality is one of the main issues in a young person’s life. Teenagers who are coming into adulthood are experiencing sexual urges for the first time in their lives, and each one is struggling to make sense of these feelings and how they fit into their larger perspective of who they are. For heterosexuals, it is relatively easier to come to terms with these issues, as they are regularly addressed through the appropriate means, such as sex education. For homosexual youth, their own issues are largely ignored or condemned by society, and these teens are left to struggle with these feelings of deviance on their own. The results are well-documented if not adequately studied: suicide, HIV infection, depression, anti-social behavior, loneliness, rape or sexual abuse, and drug and alcohol addiction are all common symptoms of adolescents who question their sexuality or display outward signs of homosexuality.

Stressors related to isolation, stigma, and violence may predispose homosexual adolescents to impaired social, emotional, and physical health, resulting in depression and suicide, school problems, substance abuse, running away eating disorders, risky sexual behavior, and illegal conduct. As with all adolescents, the overall goals in the care of homosexual youth are to promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health. A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach is required to address medical, mental health, and psychosocial issues within the context of the adolescents' community and culture. (Stronski Huwiler & Remafedi 1998)

Homosexuality has long been a major issue in the culture wars. Some people believe and insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thereby influenced by culture and society. Others believe that it is an inherited genetic trait and should be treated with no more deference than left-handedness or color-blindness. Whichever of these opinions you favor, the fact is that homosexuality appears in every culture, and in every type of family style, regardless of upbringing or social constructs. Adult homosexuals who have isolated themselves tend to find a community of like-minded individuals and congregate in vocations and recreational activities that encourage acceptance, and so therefore have created a sub-culture of their own. Teenagers, on the other hand, rarely have the opportunity to feel like they are a member of any culture, least of all the one they are brought up in. Minority cultures tend to have less tolerance for homosexuality, and so children of these families tend to fall into the same pattern of isolation as those of the dominant culture.

To date, relatively little research has been conducted regarding gay and lesbian youth, due in part to our culture’s debate regarding the authenticity of some of these claims. Some statistics, however, have been accumulated that demonstrate the adverse effects of homosexuality and its treatment by our culture on those who are very young and dealing with this issue. The following is a collection of statistics from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (as cited on GLSEN 2009):

• 97 % of students in public high schools report regularly hearing homophobic remarks from their peers
• 53% of students report hearing homophobic comments made by school staff
• 80% of prospective teachers report negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian people
• Two-thirds of guidance counselors harbor negative feelings toward gay and lesbian people
• 11.5% of gay and lesbian youth report being physically attacked by family members
• 42% of homeless youth self-identify as gay/lesbian
• Homosexuals are probably the most frequent victims [of hate crimes] in the U.S.
• 45% of gay males and 20% of lesbians report having experienced verbal harassment and/or physical violence as a result of their sexual orientation during high school
• 42% of adolescent lesbians and 34% of adolescent gay males who have suffered physical attack also attempt suicide
• 30% of gay and bisexual adolescent males attempt suicide at least once
• 83% of adolescent lesbians use alcohol, 56% use other drugs, and 11% use crack and/or cocaine
• 68% of adolescent gay males use alcohol, 44% use other drugs
• 53% of students report hearing homophobic comments made by school staff.
The following statistics are from the website, “Creating Safe Schools for Lesbian and Gay Students: A resource guide for school staff.” (Youth Pride, Inc. 1997)
• 28% of gay and lesbian high school students in a national study were seen to have dropped out of school because of harassment resulting from their sexual orientation.
• Approximately 20% of all persons with AIDS are 20-29 years old; given the long latency period between infection and the onset of the disease, many were probably infected as teenagers.

There has always been a debate over statistics concerning homosexuality, but even by the most conservative estimates, there is always a likely chance that one of your students in every class will be gay, bi, or questioning. “Researchers and social scientists suggest that 1 to 3 of every 10 students is either gay or lesbian, or has an immediate family member who is. Thus, between 3 and 9 kids in every class of 30 has had some direct experience with the issues of homosexuality and homophobia.” (Youth Pride, Inc. 1997) One can surmise from these statistics that there is a statistical likelihood that adolescents who identify as homosexuals have a unique vulnerability to certain health problems that their heterosexual counterparts may experience to a lesser degree. It begs the question why hasn’t more been done to counteract this trend?

Sexuality among teenagers and the related health concerns are addressed on the list of health goals on the website “Healthy People 2010” (2009). There is evidence that while all teenagers are in need of projects to address these issues, there would be an added advantage of addressing the singular issues of homosexuality in an effort to provide comprehensive coverage and preventative measures to address the related health concerns. The following is a list of specific health goals that are in some way directly related to the issue of sexual orientation, and would greatly benefit from programs that addressed this issue:

• Increase the proportion of young adults who have received formal instruction before turning age 18 years on reproductive health issues, including all of the following topics: birth control methods, safer sex to prevent HIV, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence.
• Reduce the number of new AIDS cases among adolescent and adult men who have sex with men.
• Increase the proportion of sexually active persons who use condoms.
• Reduce the annual rate of rape or attempted rape.
• Reduce the rate of suicide attempts by adolescents.
• Reduce the proportion of persons engaging in binge drinking of alcoholic beverages.

If a community or school is serious about addressing these issues to prevent undesirable health effects stemming from issues of sexual orientation in young people, they first have to agree as a community to step back from judgment and take a positive approach to gay and lesbian youth and their support. The following is a list of steps that any responsible adult in the community can take on their own to provide a safe school environment for those who are struggling with these issues:

1. Make no assumption about sexuality. If a student has not used a pronoun when discussing a relationship, don't assume one.
2. Have something gay-related visible in your office. A sticker, a poster, a flyer, a brochure, a book, a button…
3. Support, normalize and validate students' feelings about their sexuality. Let them know that you are there for them.
4. Do not advise youth to come out to parents, family and friends as they need to come out at their own safe pace. Studies show as many as 26% of gay youth are forced to leave their home after they tell their parents.
5. Guarantee confidentiality with students. Students need to know their privacy will be respected or they will not be honest about this important issue.
6. Challenge homophobia. As a role model for your students, respond to homophobia immediately and sincerely.
7. Combat heterosexism in your classroom. Include visibly gay and lesbian role models in your classroom.
8. Learn about and refer to community organizations.
9. Encourage school administrators to adopt and enforce anti-discrimination policies for their schools or school systems which include sexual orientation.
10. Provide role models. Gay and straight students benefit from having openly gay teachers, coaches and administration. (Youth Pride, Inc. 1997)

Adolescents should be made aware that they always have avenues of support whenever they have a concern about their sexuality or any of the related health issues. Even though the locations and phone numbers for these hotlines and/or support centers might be readily available online for any young person to find, they should be made overtly aware that they exist, and they should be encouraged to explore and discover the types of resources available to them at all times. An example of a neighborhood safe spot is “The Hillcrest Youth Center”, which is an organization in San Diego that is “committed to providing a safe, affirming space for LGBTQ youth to be proud of who they are and the freedom to discover who they might become.” (2009) There are also hotlines, such as the “GLBT National Youth Talkline” sponsored by the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender) National Help Center. These are both resources that should be introduced to all teenagers, regardless of their perceived sexuality, in case any of them might not be showing signs that they are dealing with some major concerns regarding their own or a friend’s sexual identity.

As a teacher of music, I have a unique opportunity to help provide some positive role models for gay and lesbian students. Information and disclosure about famous homosexuals in music, such as Aaron Copeland, Franz Schubert, and Leonard Bernstein, can have a positive effect on gay and lesbian youth who might not be aware of specific role models. Having role models can provide a source for better self-esteem, as well as the knowledge that despite their adversity, gays and lesbians have been able to make a name for themselves and be successful.

The argument that sexual orientation can be directly linked to unhealthful behaviors is made in the “Journal of Homosexuality, by A. Damien Martin and Emery S. Hetrick, (1988). “Homosexually oriented youth are victims of a society-wide process of stigmatization that has negative social, economic, and emotional effects on its victims.” (ibid, p. 181)Their main point is that the social stigmatization of homosexuals and the resulting isolation can manifest itself in self-destructive behavior like suicide or promiscuity, as well as drawing external damaging influences such as abuse. The first and most immediate effect of social isolation is an internalization of the sexual issues. “Social isolation, with its consequent emotional and social pressure, seems to be of a paramount importance in adolescent promiscuity, especially among gay males…His obsessive concern with his sexual orientation, which results from his fear of disclosure, is transformed into an obsessive concern for sexual behavior.” (ibid, p. 171) Fear is the key emotion found in this equation, and fear of peers and socialization can be a destructive social malady that can result in “…signs of clinical depression—pervasive loss of pleasure, feelings of sadness, change of appetite, sleep disturbance, slowing of thought, lowered self-esteem with increased self-criticism and self-blame, and strongly expressed feelings of guilt and failure.” (ibid, p. 172)

They assert that the problem lies mainly with the professionals who are responsible for the social conditioning of the adolescents, namely, the teachers. “Lack of training, personal attitudes toward homosexuality, and the fear that teachers and other professionals have of addressing the issue, all affect the professional behavior of teachers and others in the educational setting.” (ibid, p. 179) As the above website has established, a positive approach that includes teenagers of all sexual orientations is one in which students of divergent sexuality can thrive and feel better about themselves, and perhaps avoid unhealthy behaviors. “Education and training about sexuality, including information about homosexuality, should be directed toward both homosexually and heterosexually oriented youngsters.” (ibid, p. 178)

Not many people are willing to concede the urgent health concerns that are directly related to sexual orientation, particularly among school aged adolescents. A conservatism that pervades the social and educational policies have been inclined to ignore the problem, lest they appear to be encouraging what they deem to be “immoral” behavior by addressing it openly. Meanwhile, they are simultaneously perpetuating the problem by the very fact that they are ignoring it. Nothing can be done to stop the emergence of gay youth from every diverse sample of the population, but something can and should be done to make sure that their own unique health issues are addressed. These are future citizens whose health and well-being effects us all, and we need to do our part as a community to make sure that they are met with a positive support system and programs that identify and address their unique needs.


References:
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, (2009) retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/home/index.html on November 16, 2009
Martin, A. Damien and Hetrick, Emery S. The Stigmatization of the Gay and Lesbian Adolescent, Journal of Homosexuality, 15: 1, May 1988, 163 — 183
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2009) Healthy People 2010, retrieved from http://www.healthypeople.gov/default.htm on November 16, 2009
Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. (no date) Adolescent homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9742300 on November 16. 2009
Youth Pride, Inc. (1997) Creating Safe Schools for Lesbian and Gay Students:
A resource guide for school staff. Retrieved from http://www.members.tripod.com/~twood/guide.html on November 16, 2009

Critical Pedagogy: Teachers Can Learn to Teach from their Diverse Students, An Analysis of “Whiteness” in the Classroom.

Critical Pedagogy: Teachers Can Learn to Teach from their Diverse Students, An Analysis of “Whiteness” in the Classroom.

“When language is controlled in schools, thought is controlled in the future.” (Wink, 2005) Many of us start out as new teachers thinking, “I know my subject matter, these kids will do it the right way!” We attempt to control every word we utter, and every response we elicit. Somewhere along the way we realize that we are losing the battle with some, if not all, of our students. We try to control them more, hold them faster to the rules and the standards we’ve always known are tried and true, resulting in even more rebellion and lack of enthusiasm from our students. “Conventional pedagogy models that teach us to ‘maintain control and order’ do not allow us to conceptualize success as a somewhat unsettled classroom.” (O’Brien, 2004) We find ourselves in a power struggle, and when the students feel like they have nothing to lose because they have no future anyway, learning does not get done.
Lisa Delpit (2006) lists these rules regarding the dynamics of power in the classroom:

1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms.
2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a “culture of power.”
3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.
4. If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier.
5. Those with power are frequently least aware of—are least willing to acknowledge—its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence. (p. 24)

These dynamics do not always involve cultural diversity, such as in the case of a white teacher teaching a classroom full of black students. But there are lessons inherent in this racial interaction that teachers must learn in order to balance the weight of power back into the hands of the students, where it belongs. “The teacher cannot be the only expert in the classroom. To deny students their own expert knowledge is to disempower them.” (Delpit, 2006)

Regardless of whether you are Black or White, an individual’s political point of view is heavily influenced by their own native culture. It requires a high degree of introspection and reflection to be able to see another individual’s point of view. It requires, additionally, a lengthy and thorough analysis of each opposing points of view in order to reconcile them. And finally, it requires sensitivity, empathy, creativity, and an open mind in order to create an environment where both points of view can be shared without conflict. “Teachers who are not truly self-reflective, teachers who fail to challenge their own cultural notions, assumptions, and biases will recreate oppressive models; this is not necessarily intentional. It is the inexorable influence of white supremacy in an inherently racist culture, and it can be extremely subtle.” (Featherston & Ishibashi, 2004) In the modern, multi-cultural classroom, teachers are the ones who require all of these things in order to provide a safe, stable, learning environment for all students regardless of their cultural heritage and political point of view.

The authors responsible for the materials for this course have demonstrated a deep understanding of all of these elements, and not only specifically define the codes for a multi-cultural discourse, but have given us the tools necessary to implement such a balanced environment. It is through their conversations about race, culture, and other “isms” that I have begun to understand my role as a teacher. I have begun to see clearly the mistakes I have made in the past, where they came from, why I should avoid them, and how I can ensure my success in the future.

Being able to care for your students enough to take the time to understand them, and learn from them how they learn best, this is the essence of critical pedagogy. “Critical pedagogy is a prism that reflects the complexities of the interactions between teaching and learning. It highlights some of the hidden subtleties that might have escaped our view previously. It enables us to see more widely and more deeply. This prism has a tendency to focus on shades of social, cultural, political, and even economic conditions, and it does all of this under the broad view of history.” (Wink, 2005). Teachers can use critical pedagogy as a tool to reach their students, particularly those whose cultural background influences the way they think and behave in a classroom. Critical pedagogy goes beyond the immediate problem of teaching the subject matter to ensuring the success of the students to comprehend your methods of teaching the subject matter, and in the process build character and an appetite for learning.

Educators who wish to see the other side of the race issue need to listen to those who have been in the process of reflecting on their own racism. The studies that show the degree to which racism is instilled not just in our curriculum, but in our interpersonal communications and presentation, are an important tool to view the issue from a non biased perspective:

“Many educators who desire to transform the hierarchies of race, class, gender, and other forms of oppression in their classrooms often focus on altering the content of their curriculum rather than on the process by which that curriculum is developed in the classroom space. Yet developing an inclusive learning experience involves not only decentering whiteness…in course material but also making space for nondominant modes of interaction and behavior as wars of processing that material.” (O’Brien, 2004)

The only drawback in this analysis would be the tendency to fall into a position of defensiveness, from which it would take a lot more empirical evidence to convert a doubting teacher. Several people in the class have asserted that there is in fact, no racism in the classroom, or that they would be doing their students a disservice to address it within the context of the learning environment. This runs exactly counter to the points that these authors are trying to make. “Education is never politically neutral. As a matter of fact, the most potentially subversive act is to teach. Everything from the classroom protocol to seating arrangement and pedagogical style can reinforce or challenge traditional power structures.” (Lippin, 2004) What I have noticed, however, through the course of discussions about these topics, is that the very act of discussing them brings to the surface a lot of previously “hidden” topics. The act of hashing out these debates, complete with emotional reaction and aversion, is the very essence of critical pedagogy.

Silence may be golden, but “naming” is essential to the process of recovery for many students who feel left out of the education process. Naming is the act of calling out racism or any other kind of “ism”. It is a powerful political tool in the effort to battle “silencing”. “Naming takes place when the nondominant group tells the dominant group exactly what the nondominant group thinks and feels about specific social practices.” (Wink, 2005) A teacher who encourages naming, and helps foster a true honest discourse about racial inequality, particularly in education, is one who is working toward creating a safer environment for students to work through these feelings. “Naming, giving students a vocabulary to express personal experiences and feelings, is the first step in honoring difference, and it creates a space for transformation.” (Featherston & Ishibashi, 2004) If the student feels respected, even if they are wrong in their assumptions, they will be more inclined to work harder toward a common ground with the teacher.

In my work as a teacher, I must strive to be sensitive and open minded at all times. I should not be afraid of discourse, particularly about race and culture. These authors have shown me why I have to keep my mind aware of my own “whiteness”, and how I can guard against allowing it to influence my teaching style to the detriment of my diversified student body. I must be open to suggestions and the allowance of student-centered learning to guide the students through the difficult process of learning in a cultural setting they may not be used to, just as I must learn to teach students in a setting that I may not be used to. “Pedagogy is not just about me, teaching. Pedagogy is the process of teaching and learning together. It is fundamentally about human interactions, the joy of playing with new ideas, and the challenge of integrating those ideas in the real world.” (Wink, 2005) I also have learned that multicultural education is not simply a matter of including diverse subject matter into the curriculum, but also has to do with the structure of the curriculum, and of the class itself, and my students’ interaction with me and each other.

Language is the primary element in culture, as language choice is the primary source of cultural dissonance in the classroom. As a teacher, I must choose my words carefully to avoid discounting a student’s culture or belief system. Likewise, I must be sensitive to their own language use and not let it negatively influence my opinions about them. “If teachers hope to avoid negatively stereotyping the language patterns of their students, it is important that they be encouraged to interact with, and willingly learn from, knowledgeable members of their students’ cultural groups.” (Delpit, 2006) It is my duty to become familiar with the language of my students, how it reflects their culture, and show respect for these things.
“[Teachers] should recognize that the linguistic form a student brings to school is intimately connected with loved ones, community, and personal identity. To suggest that this form is “wrong” or, even worse, ignorant, is to suggest that something is wrong with the student and his or her family…Teachers need to support the language that students bring to school, provide them input from an additional code, and give them the opportunity to use the new code in a nonthreatening, real communicative context.” (Delpit, 2006)

It is equally important for me to guard against ignoring the issue of racism in the class. Just because I pretend not to notice it won’t make it go away. In fact, my ignorance of a student’s feelings will tend to make the issue worse, and inflame it to the point of permanently damaging my relationship with not only that student, but any other student who might sympathize with her.

We might imagine we're creating color-blind environments for children, but differences in skin color or hair or weight are like differences in gender—they're plainly visible. Even if no teacher or parent mentions race, kids will use skin color on their own… children extend their shared appearances much further—believing that those who look similar to them enjoy the same things they do. Anything a child doesn't like thus belongs to those who look the least similar to him. (Bronson & Merryman, 2009)

Our traditional methods have thus far failed a large percentage of the minority population, and so we as educators must explore alternatives. Particularly with Black students, it is known that their language use and cultural style reflects a more emotional and expressive content than standard English, and we should learn to recognize the significance of this before we become harsh in our criticism of its usage. “Traditional American schooling could be patterned after a communicative orientation that emphasizes something other than the socioemotional, creating discontinuity between the young African-American child’s manner of interacting and the requisite school manner.” (Kinkade, 1994)

For some time, among members of the linguistics community, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) has been an accepted form of dialect reflecting more than just the traditional idea of a lack of education and “lazy tongue”, but also a much more refined concept of a cultural heritage with language as a unique form of social expression, with its own qualities outside of the “normal” qualifications of the ideal “prestige” language. “Children who speak AAVE are faced with multiple conflicts stemming from numerous factors, including teachers’ negative judgments of a child’s speech, children’s desire to succeed in school, and their sometimes incompatible desire to be accepted by their own peers.” (Bonvillain, 2008) Addressing this disconnect between a student’s “lazy tongue” and their proud cultural heritage can go a long way toward reconciling racism in the classroom.
Otis Grant (2003) makes a clear example of how a teacher can begin to address these issues in the classroom in an effective way. It all comes down to building relationships with your students, and through mutual respect, everyone can begin to break down barriers to learning.

Developing a positive relationship with students in a course must occur on two levels. The first level is to accept the students as a group. The instructor must be aware of group conformance, and plan for those students who cannot adhere to peer pressure. The second level refers to personal interaction between the student and the instructor. Students learn best when they have a good rapport with the instructor. Therefore, the instructor must convey respect for the student, regardless of that student’s philosophical position. Respect does not mean that the instructor must agree with the student; rather, it means that the instructor treats the student as a valued member of the class. When both the instructor and the student exercise mutual respect, discussions will rarely get out of control. If there is a personal attack during a classroom discussion, then the instructor should immediately take the position of the student who is being attacked. It does not matter whether the instructor agrees with the position of the person who is being personally challenged. What is important is that the instructor makes explicit efforts to encourage the free expression of ideas within the classroom. This way, all students are encouraged to participate in classroom discussion with absolute ease. (Grant, 2003)

Reading these works have inspired me to speak more openly about race in the classroom and not to be afraid of a little controversy or emotionally heated debates. If we are to always shy away from these debates out of fear, then the issue will never resolve itself. It takes an active, thinking, heartfelt discussion to analyze the subtle interactions of power and the lessons of powerlessness in the classroom.





References:
Bonvillain, N. (2008). Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning of Messages (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2009). See Baby Discriminate. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1

Delpit, L. (2006) Other People's Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.

Featherston, E. & Ishibashi, J. (2004) Oreos and Bananas: Conversations on Whiteness. In Lea, V. & Helfand, J. (Ed.), Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom. (87-108) New York: Peter Lang.

Grant, O. (2003). Teaching and Learning about Racial Issues in the Modern Classroom. Retrieved from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_1/02_grant.html

Kincade Blake, I. (1994). Language Development and Socialization in Young African-American Children. In Greenfield, P., Cocking, R. (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development. (pp. 167-196) Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates


Lippin, L. (2004) Making Whiteness Visible in the Classroom. In Lea, V. & Helfand, J. (Ed.), Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom. (109-131) New York: Peter Lang.

O’Brien, E. (2004) “I Could Hear You If You Would Just Calm Down”: Challenging Eurocentric Classroom Norms Through Passionate Discussions of Racial Oppression. In Lea, V. & Helfand, J. (Ed.), Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom. (68-86) New York: Peter Lang.

Language and Politics: How Language Use and Reception Influences Minority Status, a Sociological Perspective.

“Aaaaaaowww” said Eliza Doolittle as she sat in the gutter of the wrong side of London. We watched in admiration as Henry Higgins transformed her from a “guttersnipe” to a “Duchess” in mere weeks, concentrating almost entirely on her speech and grammar alone. Is the Cockney dialect she learned from her father the only thing keeping her in that dirty street? Did Professor Higgins give her the gift of a new lifestyle and infinite opportunities simply by teaching her to speak the King’s English?

What can teachers in America learn about the significance of a person’s dialect regarding their class and social standing? We find ourselves in a multicultural society, with many tribes or cliques of people, differentiated by gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, region, religion, and many other factors. Each of us speaks a different language; some of us speaking one from another branch of linguistics, such as Spanish, and some speaking a different dialect of the same language, though sometimes not easily mutually comprehensible. The language or dialect we choose to speak informs others who we are, what tribe we belong to, and where we stand in society.

America is built on the concept of upward mobility; anyone can make something of him or herself if they just try hard enough, yet millions of minorities find themselves stuck in a cycle of poverty or prejudice. The free educational system is set up to eliminate this problem, but until teachers take responsibility for the effects of language on a student’s learning process, it may continue to be an issue.
Sociologists have researched the effects of language on culture, and vice versa. They have come to the conclusion that the differences between languages and dialects, while being partly due to geographic isolation, also have a root in the cultural identities of the people who speak them. While many people may share a common language such as English, the cultures of the people who share that language differs greatly. This shows up in the dialects in the form of less substantial changes in word choice, commonly accepted grammatical errors, syntax, and pronunciation. While wandering abroad, strangers can often identify you by your accent, and upon closer observation, may eventually decipher your economic background and even religious or political affiliations.

How we speak is a direct reflection of our cultural heritage. We are socialized and taught to speak by our parents, who belonged to a specific tribe, and thus taught us in the manner of language used by this tribe. No matter what other languages or dialects we learn, the language our mothers taught us will always be our “mother tongue”, and therefore our parents’ culture, and even their social standing, will always be our “birth culture”. These traits are developmentally difficult to overcome, as anyone who has ever tried to learn a new language or pick up a different accent can testify. Sometimes, effective enculturation can hide birth traits, as in the case of some immigrant populations who have become completely assimilated. This is the process which education sometimes serves to provide, bringing everyone into the “melting pot” that promises a homogenous society in America by using a single example of what they call “Standard English”.

In order to fully understand the role that language has in personal identity, we must first analyze the effects of language on attitudes, power structures, and even cognitive abilities. It is important to start with the assumption that people are not genetically deficient because they speak a nonstandard dialect. Every dialect, regardless of the social standing of the tribe that speaks it, is its own specific variation on a language, based on its own unique principles and guidelines.

What every culture, and therefore every language, shares is a set of rules. Each tribe picks their own rules for their language, and stick by them pretty closely. These rules are learned from our parents and peers, and are difficult to unlearn. Even when faced with the knowledge that some of them may go directly against the accepted rules of the standard language, they are old habits that are hard to break. “All cultures provide rules for appropriate communicative interaction, defining behaviors that should occur, that may occur, and that should not occur in given contexts. These rules are learned through both formal and informal processes of socialization that begin in childhood.” P. 80 (Bonvillain, 2008) A child who speaks a different dialect from her teacher may not realize that what she is used to saying may in fact be a genuine grammatical error. In essence, “children learn a language, the social use of that language, and are socialized to assume a particular identity and roles as members of their group.” (Kinkaid, 1994)

The significance of this fact lies not just with the realization of commonly accepted errors, but a child’s whole concept of self might change as a result of being exposed to several of these contradictions. “Children not only learn to express their ideas about persons, objects, and events when learning language; they also learn how their group uses that knowledge to meet personal and cultural objectives.” (Kinkaid, 1994) Their sense of identity as belonging to their birth tribe might come into questions as they encounter different ways of communicating, particularly if their accustomed way is considered “low” or “substandard” by the very teachers who point out their flaws. This problem is exacerbated when political issues and prejudice are some of the factors involved.

The tribe we grow up with may have several ways of identifying itself; we can identify with our race, class, or any combination of the above mentioned sociological categories. “Variation in ways of speaking stems both from segmentation of the speech community into groups based on class, gender, race, and the like, and from differences in the contexts of speech events.” P. 79 (Bonvillain, 2008) Many of these categories carry with them a political consequence, based on the attitudes of the dominant culture. If you live in a majority White population such as the United States, growing up Black has certain political disadvantages, based on historical and institutional racism. Likewise, only speaking Spanish can provide difficulties in a society that mostly speaks English, and cause frustration among certain members of the majority population who would like to see everyone learn English in order to join our society.

Most of these political differences stem from class issues, those of the rich or middle class versus the poor. Most often, language differences seldom cause problems among the more educated middle and upper classes, which points directly to the class issue as one of the main factors.

“In some cases, our dialect may reflect our ethnic background. Within a particular area, working-class African-Americans can sound different from working-class European-Americans. In the middle class, this distinction is much less reliable. With middle or upper-class speakers, it may be impossible to tell anything about their ethnicity just from their dialect.” (Fought, 2005)

Children of working class parents learn the language of their parents, in addition to their values and beliefs that are firmly rooted in the communicative tradition of that language. When a child grows up learning a certain language, his concept of identity is related to the ideology of his parents and their tribe. Each word choice and accepted grammatical error has a function in demonstrating the speaker’s history and people. “The words we use for concepts do help form our ideologies, attitudes, and behaviors…” which means that “language reflects cultural attitudes and…we unconsciously adopt those attitudes as we learn the language.” P. 428 (Chaika, 1994) In the case of a lower income family, a child’s language may demonstrate the financial status of her parents, and a listener’s attitude toward her may be based on this connection.

Researchers attempt to explain the differences in the language use of students from a poor working class family as it pertains to their communication in the classroom. Some have stated that “low family children are less used to and less skilled at competitive verbal interactions, learn to comply with directives based on appeals to external rules and sanctions, and are less practiced in the kinds of interactions that take place in school settings.” P. 164 (Bonvillain, 2008) This belief attempts to illustrate a difference in the cognitive processes that children from this background may have. It is therefore tempting for some researchers to assume that poor children have inferior intelligence, which has serious sociological significance. If this conclusion is drawn from the assumption that the difference is by nature, then it logically becomes a bias based solely on race or ethnicity, since none would claim that poor white children and rich white children were somehow genetically different.

In the case of gender roles, a case could be made for genetic influence on cognitive ability. What has been discovered, rather, is that gender roles are socially constructed, and the influence of our culture has more to do with our separation than genetics. Upon extensive study of the language differentiation of the genders, it has been found that “…women and men are socialized to express themselves in different ways in accordance with cultural norms that teach and reinforce differentiated gender roles.” (Bonvillain, 2008) How men and women view each other is based on the language that each uses. “Through communicative processes, cultural models of gender are both portrayed and reinforced, contributing to the socialization of females and males into their expected roles and also creating their ideas about themselves and each other.” (Bonvillain, 2008) Communication plays the most important role in not only the socialization of differing male and female gender roles, but in how we perceive the other from our own perspective.

By its very nature, language use and our perception of it leads to prejudice. When someone listens to another person speak with a different language or dialect, they assume that the person speaking has a different belief system. People are by nature very protective of their own belief system as taught to them by their tribe, and are suspicious when they encounter anyone who demonstrates any variance from their own set of beliefs. One researcher suggests that our different language use is evidence in an entirely different way of thinking:

“Because members of difference social classes use different modes of expression, they develop different patterns of thought and, thus, understand their world in different ways.” (Bonvillain, 2008)

According to cultural anthropologists, culture can manifest itself outwardly in many easily recognizable ways. Likewise, linguists understand that “social and economic differences among members of a community are reflected in many aspects of lifestyle, educational and occupational opportunities, and political power…” But in addition to these visible means of identification, language use can contribute to the labeling of people based on preconceived ideas about a person’s culture or class. “These differences, perhaps summarized under the notion of class, have interdependent impacts on linguistic performance as well. Language use both reflects and reinforces class differences.” (Bonvillain, 2008) When people from different classes are in communication, each one gathers information about the other based on their style of communication, and sometimes attaches these generalities to prejudices they may have already had based on their attitudes toward that class.

In the classroom, this prejudice translates into a belief about the way certain children may learn. If a teacher assumes that a child will not learn a certain way because of their background, it may provide a barrier to education. For instance, in the case of Latino children who use Spanish exclusively, teachers have sometimes made the assumption that because they do not speak English, they are necessarily less intelligent than their English speaking counterparts, or that they may not be able to learn the same subject matter as quickly. It has been argued that the “lack of congruence between the cognitive styles of Mexican American children and the expectations of the school environment was offered as an explanation for their failure to achieve in school.” (Lessow-Hurley, 2005) It can be inferred from this that the bias against Spanish speaking students is responsible for the poor performance of Latino children in American schools.

Minority children who struggle in the classroom do so because of a cognitive difference that depends entirely on cultural incompatibility with the mainstream. If a child is used to a way of thinking and learning that was instilled upon him by his tribe, then it would naturally follow that to learn an entirely new way of thinking would be a challenge. This is explained using the example of the cultural mismatch model:

The cultural mismatch model suggests that members of minority groups do not succeed in school because the characteristics of their cultures are incongruent with those of the mainstream group and the school system. This view is supported by the work of researchers who have analyzed learning styles. Culture traits that are part of learning style and that may affect classroom dynamics include cognitive styles, communicative styles, and interaction styles—features that often overlap. (Lessow-Hurley, 2005)


According to some arguments, it would appear that a child’s minority status might account for more than a small amount of responsibility for her difficulty in the classroom, overshadowing factors such as genetic cognitive abilities or cultural contexts that prevent understanding. Racial prejudice might play a significant role in how African Americans, for example, are approached in any discourse, particularly a classroom lesson. John Ogbu (1994) claims that the struggle of African Americans to adapt to the dominant learning style is entirely related to their minority status:
Euro-Americans and African Americans do not differ in intelligence simply because Euro-Americans have a technological culture and African Americans do not. Nor are the two populations different in intelligence only because African Americans practice to some degree the cognitive socialization that can be traced to African origins. Rather, the differences between some minorities such as African Americans and Euro-Americans arise in important part from the status of the minorities qua minorities (i.e., from their minority status and all that it implies.

How we react to an individual’s style of language usage is a reflection of our own bias about that person’s culture. When we make judgments about the way they speak, we are really making judgments about them as an individual, and representing our attitude about their belief system in general. “Fundamentally it is not language in the abstract that is evaluated negatively or positively, but language as it is used by specific segments of the population. Criticizing linguistic variants is actually a mask for the social denigration of speakers.” (Bonvillain, 2008)
The elements of communication between members of two different classes that may lead to judgments being made about one or both speakers has its roots in very minor details, such as word choice or subtle varieties of phrasing. “Alternative ways of phrasing the same goal can also covertly involve different assumptions about individuals’ rights, obligations, and accepted norms of interaction.” (Bonvillain, 2008) If you say, for example, “gimme dat”, versus “please hand me that”, the person you are speaking to will be inclined to make a judgment about your particular class and social standing. This may lead to prejudicial thinking, and eventually steer the course of the conversation, as well as the relationship, based entirely on these assumptions.

On one hand, the insertion of the word “please”, the correct pronunciation of the words “give me”, with the linguistic ability or willingness to pronounce the “th” sound, can indicate which of these speakers are likely to be the more socially powerful and dominant culture, at least in America. One is reminded of the Israelite King who performed ethnic cleansing by killing anyone who could not pronounce the “sh” sound in the Hebrew word for corn. The fact that the English founded the original thirteen colonies and used Africans as slaves does not necessarily mean the definitive superiority of one phrase over the other. Rather, it is just an indication of the power struggle that occurs between the two tribes. “When speakers of different languages come together, the results are determined in large part by the economic and political power of the speakers of each language.” (Eble, 2005)
The use of vernacular language always has its appropriate place, and is used by everyone depending on the scenario. It is used especially among members of a single tribe when communicating amongst themselves, as a show of solidarity with their own people. This would account for the continuation of dialects despite the era of television. “Despite the onslaught of the media, regional, social, and ethnic dialect differences remain strong in America.” (Chaika, 1994) The more minorities feel pressured to conform to the dominant culture, the more they are inclined to resist, and maintain their own distinct cultural flavor, particularly through their language use.

Peer pressure can account for a tremendous amount of pressure to maintain a differentiated language style within a minority population. People who feel oppressed tend to want to bind together in their common identity in order to remain true to their heritage, and sharing a nonstandard dialect is an essential part of this. In this way people can pick and choose which situations demand which particular style of language. For instance, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is spoken frequently among members of the same race, even in the case where one or more of the speakers are capable of speaking the more dominant dialect of the English language. “Features of AAVE occur with greatest frequency in informal contexts when speakers share life experiences, expectations, and values. In contrast, speakers use standard English in situations of formality and social distance.” (Bonvillain, 2008) Whichever form of the language is chosen by the speaker illustrates the context and the goals of the conversation.
In analyzing the use of AAVE and other forms of dialect, it was seen that speakers can even switch back and forth between dialects at will, and that this “…code switching from standard speech to the vernacular was seen to emphasize community membership and create affective and supportive bonds.” (Bonvillain, 2008) These linguistic styles are seen as the device by which speakers establish a common bond, based on their heritage. This may in fact, be the source of such dialects and the means by which they perpetuate under pressure to conform. “Wherever societal distinctions are made among community members, linguistic and stylistic variations arise to reflect and reinforce existing segmentation.” (Bonvillain, 2008)
Elaine Chaika (1994) makes several observations about AAVE that can be surmised based upon the knowledge of African Americans as an oppressed minority and their struggles to respond to this status. She defines it clearly as a dialect based in cultural identification:

“AAVE can be considered an ethnic dialect, as it marks its speakers as belonging to a specific cultural group with a specific history in the American experience…AAVE and hip-hop are ways of African Americans bonding with each other, as well as of showing identity with their forebears who suffered so much.

She also points out that there is sometimes an equal pressure from the fellow members of the minority to avoid any usage of the dominant language, and violators are sometimes seen as “Traitors to the cause.” “There is strong evidence that the ‘in’ group of African American urban youth prefer those who speak AAVE. Those who don’t used to be called ‘lames’, and were treated like outsiders.”

As children become aware of their minority status and all that it implies in terms of their social standing, they may develop some negative ideas about their relationship to the majority. This might perhaps extend to their teachers, who are their first visible encounters with people who regularly insist on their conformity to the dominant:

“Children’s linguistic problems, though, should be seen as resulting from their awareness of teachers’ negative judgments and their ensuing rejection of teachers’ demands. Additionally, the effects of peer pressure can be considerable. Other children often ridicule and reject students who speak standard English and perform well in school. Because most children want to be accepted by their peers, combined with their perception that they will never get teachers’ approval, they frequently rebel against standard norms.” (Bonvillain, 2008)


Family plays an important role in a minority student’s resistance to give up his language in favor of the dominant language. Sometimes, people feel that by sacrificing their language, they are giving up a piece of their own identity, particularly if they no longer are able to speak freely with members of their own immediate family. “When people lose the language of their culture, their family ties can be weakened, and with them often their religious ties as well, and their sense of ethnic identity and community. A shared language strengthens social and familial bonds.” (Chaika, 1994) People begin to feel that their families and kin, members of their tribe, are being cut off from society and from themselves as they become more and more enculturated. “When people lose the language of their traditions, they may also start to disvalue the traditions themselves. When that happens, the old who are seen as the guardians of tradition become disvalued as well.” (Chaika, 1994) In a tradition of tightly knit extended family units, with a strong protectiveness of relatives, this represents a kind of trap, and one that is not willingly entered.
Linguistic solidarity among minorities presents itself most potently when the issue of bilingual education is examined. Latinos make up 14.5 percent of the population of the U.S., (World Directory of Minorities, 2008) and it is safe to say that a vast majority of these people speak Spanish as their first language. Many more immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are coming into the country every day. For people who see this as a threat to their own economic security, due to the lack of low wage jobs available to white Americans, something that is seen as a direct result of this mass immigration, the language barrier provides a hot button issue upon which they can focus the majority of their frustration. One seldom ever hears about people protesting the allowance of highly educated people from other countries who take positions that would have otherwise gone to other educated Americans. This seems to point directly to the fact that the problem is one of ethnic bias, one that is easily attributable to the language difference, in addition to the obvious variations in skin and hair color.

Despite clear research that indicates the usefulness and productivity of bilingual programs in public schools, it is still debated hotly among policy makers, even in the face of evidence that shows the need for extended programs. It is clear by assessing the movement to eliminate bilingual programs from education who is behind this and their motivations why:

Movements to restrict language use reach beyond the education system and are tied into large political and social issues. Language restrictionism in the United States has generally accompanied anti-immigration movements…Opponents of bilingual education commonly hold unrealistic and unsupported notions about how long it takes to learn a language well enough to compete with native speakers in a classroom.” (Lessow-Hurley, 2005)

According to John Ogbu’s typology of the various types of minorities in the U.S., there is only one type susceptible to linguistic pressure; the “Castelike minorities”, who have reached their minority status based on an already predetermined power relationship with the dominant culture. (Lessow-Hurley, 2005) Examples of these are: African Americans who came here originally as slaves and were specifically forbidden from being educated, Mexicans who were either conquered under Manifest Destiny or have immigrated here out of desperate need to escape poverty, and Native Americans who were systematically subjected to genocide and elimination. Autonomous minorities, such as Jews and Mormons, are rarely caught up in battles over language use in the classroom or cognitive ability. Some immigrant minorities, such as Cubans and Asians, who are relatively richer and more educated before they arrive in this country, seldom are the focus of issues regarding minority language policies.

Due to growing sentiments of nationalism and isolationism in the years following World War I, the educational system in America had drastically reduced its accommodation of students whose first language was not English. In the ensuing years during the third wave immigration from countries outside of the typical Arian nations of Europe, such as Asian countries and Latin American countries, there has been a growing hostility toward a public school system that “enables” students to continue learning in their native tongue:

“Proponents of English-only policies are threatened by our multilingualism and insist that language diversity should be discouraged since it leads to national disunity. Analysis of language situations around the world disproves that assertion, indicating that linguistic tolerance is far less likely than linguistic repression to lead to disunity.” (Lessow-Hurley, 2005)

There is a lot of contradictory research out there that can be used by either side of this issue to make their case for or against bilingual education programs. They do cost more money initially for the state that has to create the classes and pay the extra teachers with additional training. Beyond this, the arguments tend to weaken until the only obvious motivation is one based on racial or class prejudice:
…opponents of bilingual education…often characterize it not only as educationally ineffective but also as promoting social fragmentation and divisiveness. Arguments that bilingual education is ineffective focus on interpretations of research that suggest bilingual programs are no better than “sink-or-swim” (submersion) programs and inferior to “structured immersion” programs. (Cummins, 2003)

In the long run, people have made the case that regardless of the method used, the most important factor is the acceptance of the student’s culture, and how this affects their self-esteem and eagerness to take part in their own education. The question should be asked: how much money is being saved by not having to deal with these students after they have been disenfranchised by society for the sin of speaking Spanish, and join a gang instead? We should take into consideration the feelings of the students themselves, when they witness this debate taking place, and they notice the “discourses of educational equity (often pejoratively labeled as ‘liberal’ by neoconservatives) collide with discourses ranging from overtly xenophobic and racist to discourses that are not overtly xenophobic but rather portray themselves as concerned with ‘rationality,’ effectiveness, and cost.” (Cummins, 2003)

Too often the blame is placed on the student, and only for the simple crime of having been born into a minority family. We can blame parents for raising kids speaking Spanish rather than English in the U.S., where English is the dominant language, but how should we expect them to have done so when they had not learned the language themselves?

The same principles are applicable to other dialects as well, such as AAVE. We expect students to speak standard English, and judge them harshly when they cannot meet up to the standards, but it still rests in the educators’ hands to see that they do meet the standards. Until fairly recently, it was the common practice of educators to assume that the reason for deficient language in a minority student was a reflection of their lower capacity for cognition, and they were placed in a tracking system that was virtually guaranteed to continue the cycle.
“When searching for factors to help explain the tendency toward lower educational achievement of many language minority students, educators and policymakers in the past all too often pointed fingers in the direction of the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, suggesting that the students possessed deficiencies that impeded academic success…For example, educators often placed recently arrived language minority students in the lowest curriculum track, thus virtually guaranteeing low achievement levels.” (Ovando, Combs, & Collier, 2006)

If we continue to place children of minorities into remedial classes, or deny them bilingual programs, or just expect them to “sink or swim” in the classroom, are we not contributing to the cycle of poverty and oppression? The labels that we pass on to these children, without realizing the consequences, continues from each generation to the next. “Such judgments are unconsciously woven in with judgments of the quality of the child’s cultural background, and can result in lower expectations of the child’s ability, which will in turn lead to lower achievement by the child.” (Ovando, Combs, & Collier, 2006) By feeding this vicious cycle, we cause the problem to grow worse with each generation.

It was after much media attention given to Oakland in 1996 that the linguists quietly announced that it was, in fact, beneficial to assist African Americans in their acquisition of standard English by first teaching them AAVE, or “Ebonics” as it was known during the controversy:

The variety known as "Ebonics," "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE), and "Vernacular Black English" and by other names is systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties. In fact, all human linguistic systems -- spoken, signed, and written -- are fundamentally regular. The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as "slang," "mutant," "lazy," "defective," "ungrammatical," or "broken English" are incorrect and demeaning. (Linguistic Society of America, 1997)

No one paid much attention to the announcement, perhaps because they were too emotionally involved in the racist and classist aspects of the debate to listen to the scientific evidence that supported the program. Despite all of this support from the researchers who knew empirically the benefits of such a program, it was cancelled.

When I was teaching in a historically black University, I learned a great deal about the students’ attitudes about AAVE and how it was perceived by the general population. While the importance of learning technically correct English for use in scholarly papers was not lost on them, AAVE was habitually used both in and out of the classrooms. The successful students where those who knew how to write with correct grammar, and they were often prone to look down upon those who could not. They referred to such students as “country” or “talking country”. It was never above any student to resort to idiomatic language unique to AAVE when trying to make a point, and as such, the language thrived as a form of expression, where standard English failed to produce.

The difference for them was in how the professor responded. In the cases where the teacher had a tendency toward racism, the students felt that their use of AAVE was unacceptable, and perhaps for this very reason, they continued to use it as much as possible. If the teacher appreciated their language use as the expressive form that they had intended it to be, they were very pleased, and worked harder to please that professor with better English usage the rest of the time. It is, after all, about respect, and if the minority students felt respect from the teacher despite their use of commonly accepted grammatical errors or colorful idioms, or rather because of it, then they felt themselves a more integral part of the educational process. This is how self-generated learning begins, particularly with minority students who have traditionally felt as though they were being looked down upon. One remembers Eliza’s last speech, where she claims that she learned proper English not because of Professor Higgins constant berating and belittling, but rather because of Colonel Pickering’s manner in which he treated her with respect, and “like a real lady.”

Regardless of the pros and cons of specialized educational programs that accommodate minority students who speak a different language or dialect, the main goal of the free education system is to end the cycle of poverty, and increase the opportunities for upward-mobility. If the only students who are effectively taught in the schools are the ones who come from the tribe of middle class, white, English-speaking people, then that tribe is the only one that will benefit from the educational system. More recently, educators have begun realizing the importance of lesson adaption, which is not just beneficial for mainstreaming students with special needs, but might actually play a significant role in changing the political and sociological climate for the better. Despite the debate still being drowned out by thinly veiled arguments based on racist and xenophobic motives, progress is still being made, and with more and more teachers on board with adaptive learning methods, the face of America will not only be more diverse, but smarter and better educated.

Musicians/Magicians

This was always my favorite drill in elementary school. Say "Musicians Are Magicians" five times fast.

Then I'm looking at these batons. There's a long one and a short one. I'm reminded of Mrs. Umbridge in the "Order of the Phoenix", who used a short stubby wand. Then I'm thinking... wand...baton...wand...baton.

I look up the etymology of each word, baton is from the French word "stick" and wand is from the Old Norse word for--you guessed it, "stick".

So how about the music and the spells? How similar are they? Well if you think about the meaning of the word "spell", as a formula or recipe, then it might also be translated as "composition". Ideally, in order for a spell to work, every element must be there and accurate, or it will fail. A similar effect is true in music, when parts are missing or played wrong, the end result is different from the intended vision.

So what is the difference in the overall effect then? Well, a lot depends on your belief system. Most people admit that they don't believe in magic per se, but then when you ask them about miracles in the Bible or the existence of angels they have a much different answer. And then there are the more pragmatic scientists among us who have not a stitch of superstition may also not admit to believing in magic, but once you reach a certain point in understanding the laws of the universe, magic once again becomes apparent. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke.

No one in our modern society knows any magic spells, at least not that they're admiting, and if I know anything about human nature, it is if anyone knows something, they are admiting it. But plent of people know music, and even more people listen to it on a regular basis. To delve into a comparison, one must think about the overall effect of music on a human. There is only really one major effect, and that is mood shift. There are some minor effects, such as information, intellectualization, and meditation. How does this compare with legends of conjuration, transformation, and alteration?

Not at all in any real sense, but in broad terms, altering someone's mood has a mysticism of its own. How else can this be achieved naturally except through music and art? You can witness an event, or hear of one second hand, and the power of it can certainly change our mood and provide us with new information to process, and this can be a shared experience among those around you at the time. You can also artificially transform your mood with drugs and alcohol.

Are musicians the magicians of the modern era? I would like to think of us as a throwback, a remnant. If magic ever really did exist as a discipline, and was perhaps stamped out of existance first by religious fervor and then by the scientific method, then it quite possibly resembled the music of today. Lest we forget those Gregorian Chants, the precursors of modern Western music, whose intention was to conjure the spirit of the Risen Savior within the confines of the church. And don't forget that most common of responses to music, the applause, which stems from the original method to dispel spirits.

Do not read this!

What?? Are you kidding me??? You're actually going to read this after I've told you not to? what are you expecting to see here, deep dark secrets, or inflammatory remarks? Maybe hidden truths about the universe that only I have been able to uncover?

Deep dark secret #1: I don't really have anymore. I came out, I like older men, I'm a bit non-vanilla, just a bit. That's all there is. Boring, huh? Gone are the days when people had to hide who they really are, or bottle up emotions from traumatic events in the past that haunt their sleepless nights. It's a "let-it-all-out" world, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Inflammatory Remark #1: I have plenty of those. Republicans are stupid. Sorry to those of you who are listed as friends of mine who happen to be Republican. If you are Republican because you're rich, than ok, I can see that, they favor the rich, it's a class thing, and I don't blame people for wanting to be rich and hoard all their cash. If you're a republican because you love Jesus, then I've got one thing to say: You're being used. Jesus would have been sick to see Republican's using his name to garner favors for the rich at the expense of the poor. It's just their way of securing large swaths of the bible belt without having to actually do anything for them.

Secret about the universe #1: We are all one, coming from the same singular source. But you probably knew that already. So much for secrets of the universe.