Let's Go Crazy

As we enter the full swing of summer for most educators, I wanted to take some time to reflect on some of the conversations in which I have participated in online and in person this past academic year.  As someone who recently relocated as well as finished his dissertation, this year was a year of changes.  However there were some things that remained constant.

People in this country tend to live in boxes.  Not just the houses they inhabit, but mental boxes in which it is much easier, to simply see things that exist as either or propositions.  Either you are with me or you are against me.  Either you are black, or you are white.  Either you are female, or you are male.  This drives me nuts.

Having grown up in the complex world of Chicago – both in terms of race relations/neighborhood divisions, as well as politics, I tend to view the world from a lens of; “yeah, things are bad, they could be worse, now what?”  In other words, let’s get on with the business of doing the hard work of change and while not dismissing historical, structural and institutional ineptitude, bias, racism, sexism or the like, we need to figure out a way to move forward.  The direction we as human beings should be moving is forward. 

MLK being pelted with Rocks, Cicero, IL 1966

Let me be clear.  That is not to dismiss any of the social justices which occur, it is simply to say, how do we move forward from them?  In too many instances, in the academic arena, in social circles, and on social media, we are too quick to condemn.  Too quick to isolate, and too quick to judge.  In the immortal words of the great 20th century poet, T.A. Shakur  “only God can judge me.”  Further, what is the end result of judgment?  Especially if people are more often wrong than right?

So how does this ethos manifest itself?  There are many who criticize the President’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative as being 1) just for boys, 2) putting the onus on the young men as opposed to the structural inequalities which exists and 3) does not allow for minority community groups to engage in the grant process or contribute to the dialogue.  Let me state the obvious.  If dismantling systems and structures were so easy, we would have accomplished our goals decades, if not centuries ago.

What can we do? 

We can begin by trying to understand that if we are uplifting one group, it does not, and should not mean we are denigrating, denying or dismissing another.  We can do the much needed uplifting of young black males, and help them achieve positive social and academic outcomes.  We can also strive to dismantle the structures which have hampered that progress for decades.  We can highlight the inequities surrounding being black and male in this country, and in many urban education systems, while also helping to advance young women of color (Black, Latino and otherwise) who are struggling with their own issues in those same structures and systems.

In short we can do multiple things at once.

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the doors to society have legally been open for all to walk through.  We all know too well that in the place of concrete doors, there have been erected invisible doors and walls, but too many spend too much time lamenting – “well they’re doing X, I want X too…” rather than saying, “good job, look at them doing their thing, I (we) need to do our thing too.”

Please do not confuse those statements with an oversimplification of structural and institutional inequity.  I get it.  Even those of you who give me the side eye, let me respond again, I get it.

 

Another example is the current discourse surrounding the President and his Education Secretary.  As people prepare to pack up and head to Washington DC for yet another “rally” or “protest march,” people need to understand politics 101.  If you want to achieve meaningful results or get something done, the last thing you need to do is agitate those in power to the point of insult.  Too many so called progressives have not learned the lessons of the past and are treating this Administration as if it were Romney or McCain sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  They’re not.  As such, insulting and name calling out people who you want to do something – e.g. reform education, should not be the normative behavior. We are all adults. We are all professionals. We should be able to have intelligent, engaging conversations, even disagreements, without resorting to simplistic name calling. 

  

So as we embark on this weekend celebrating our Nation’s birthday, let’s remember to treat each other in the way and through the kinds of actions we would like to be treated.  Even if we disagree. 

Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever…A Change That Never Came

As my first post-doc post, I want to throw my hat into the ring regarding the 60^th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka KS (1954).  "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."  Those words spoken by the newly inaugurated Governor Wallace of Alabama in 1963 could not ring more true today.  However, those who are...articulating a false narrative concerning “resegregation” or lamenting that charters or other school reforms equal the “new segregation” are misrepresenting history.

Let me be as explicit as I have ever been about anything…In regards to local public high schools, School segregation NEVER took place.  Let me say that again, school segregation, as intended by Brown NEVER took place in the United States of America.

What did happen?

In the North, and places where there is more than one local high school, we have seen very few instances of positive examples of integration in America.  What occurred is that in areas where school buildings were integrated, much of the population of White students were placed into honors or advanced placement courses and Black and Brown students were placed in remedial courses and vocational education courses.  From the early 1960s until it became a policy non grata, segregation within the school building was primarily done through tracking and other tactical means of keeping “those students” away from their white counterparts. 

Another example of what happened was that in the wake of Brown, especially in the cities with strong ethnic neighborhoods such as Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, white flight occurred.  The feeling was, you want to integrate the school, fine, I’m moving to the suburbs. In response, school districts tried to “force” integration by demanding students be bused from one school to another [see Eyes on the Prize volume 2 regarding South Boston v Roxbury, 1974].  This vain attempt to integrate schools beyond neighborhood boundaries was extremely problematic and even dangerous as the first and second wave of integration took place post-Brown. The resentment from this failed attempt could arguably be considered to still be prevalent today.

Why is this historical recollection important?  It is important, no, essential, because without the knowledge of the historical events which occurred in the wake of the historic Brown decision there is a tendency to fall prey to the false narrative that Brown integrated schools and even worse, that racial “progress” that was made in those years, has dissipated and we are now fraught with segregated schools, some worse than before the momentous decision.

I have argued that the Brown decision did more to integrate every other aspect of American life EXCEPT public education for a long time.  That statement is usually met with disdain or contempt.  But let’s look at the realities of our surroundings.  As long as we cannot force people to live in integrated communities, and as long as cities previously mentioned and others, want to insist on the antiquated notion of “local, neighborhood schools” we are going to be fraught with racial (and class) isolationism. 

Hence scholars and pundits who wish to use the term “resegregation” or segregation do so knowing it is a loaded term filled with visions of women and men spitting, hitting and cursing young Black boys and girls on their way to enter the school house gates.  It is a term which denotes racial animus, and legal and moral acceptance of the purposeful separation of the races.  It is a term which hearkens back to a day when people such as Ruby Bridges and others were constantly under death threats because of their social justice actions.  It is a term which has zero place in the discourse surrounding public education today, except in the context of trying to create hyperbole and misrepresent the current educational landscape. It is also grounded in the notion that segregation has been used as a mechanism of inequality, and that integration should not be the goal in and of itself.  Instead, we should aim towards dismantling the systems which have created racial and class-based inequality in too many areas of this country for decades if not centuries. Thus I cannot see how we, knowing the history, can continue to use this term to describe the current state of public education. 

In his work, Freeden Oeur who focuses on single-sex schools, notes that separation does not always equal segregation.  Further, it seems to me as if it those who insist on using the term to articulate today’s public school backdrop are using the term to incite the public into action.  The question is what action, and at what costs?

The way I see it, it is unfortunate that many progressives are coming from a position in which their implicit bias is that if it is Black (or Brown) it is wrong.  Very rarely is this notion is expressed explicitly , but usually this “truth” hides under the veil of progressive educators and scholars articulating a vision of creating a public school system which is equitable and just.  While these altruistic goals are highly desirable, to achieve them, one does not have to believe that simply by integrating public schools will solve all their ills.  While some research does demonstrate positive effects of school integration, and as one who went to a fairly integrated public school in Cambridge in the mid-1970s, I can attest that there is tremendous cultural and social capital gained from being raised in a diverse population.  In contrast, I also strongly believe that an all-Black, all-male, or all-Latino environment can also achieve positive academic gains for their students.  Thus the question remains whether or not we are arguing the need to dismantle the 2^nd wave or segregation based on race or class?

It is duplicitous and disingenuous to lay the “blame” on charter schools or other schools of choice as being “resegregated” when we should not only look at the racial and socio-economic make-up of the neighborhoods in which they reside, but also their academic outcomes.  Are they graduating their students and sending them to college?  Are they providing them with opportunities to engage in extra-curricular and co-curricular activities that allow them to be exposed to things that are not the “normative” behavior in their neighborhoods?  Are these students allowed to travel both around the country and the globe to see how others live?  In short, are they allowed to break out of the dominant paradigm and low expectations placed upon them because of their race, SES, gender or other bias?  We need to shift this discussion from the pervasive negative, deficit lens to one of a more positive lens. 

In short, the discourse should not focus exclusively on a schools racial disposition (although I do understand that "urban" equals less than in terms of funding), but rather how can we make ALL schools, regardless of their structures economically viable, safe, trustworthy, highly engaging, high expectations based and outcome centers of positive academic and social learning?  

Nino Brown

New Jack City, Warner Bros. 1991

In 1991 the urban classic film New Jack City, Nino Brown (played perfectly by Wesley Snipes), and his right hand man, G-Money, throughout the film repeat the phrase “am I my brother’s keeper.  Yes I am.”  In fact, those are the last words uttered between the two before Nino kills G. 

Fast forward to 2014, the President of the United States is Black and he has revived the phrase “My Brother’s Keeper.”  This time, the aim is not to keeping his “boys” from the neighborhood in line, but rather it is an initiative designed to keep all boys of color in line by being more responsible and compassionate towards one another and for us, as a society, to value boys of color in more positive ways rather than strictly as drug dealers, corner boys, high school dropouts, unemployed, or deadbeat fathers.

whitehouse.gov

While one would think that the premise advanced by the President and his Administration would be seen as beneficial both for the community and from the community, there are those who have been vocally critical, or at the very least, skeptical of the merits of this initiative. 

Last month when the initiative was rolled out, in addition to Magic Johnson, Colin Powell and others Black leaders being in attendance at the White House, the President had a cadre of young black boys from a predominantly all-black high school on the south side of Chicago behind him as he gave his speech.  The optics were one of positivity.  Seeing black boys out of the “context” of expectations, meaning suited up, clean cut standing tall and proud behind the first Black President, was an important visual.  However, where I am conflicted is whether or not we should EXPCECT Black boys and boys of color to “perform race” in multiple ways such as this example, or should the narrative exclusively be relegated to their supposed stereotypical “authentic” urban, hip-hop selves?  In my own experience, it was irrelevant whether or not I was wearing a suit or a sweatshirt, too many cabs from Washington DC to Chicago have passed me by.  Why does this happen?  If adults with a little bit of status (as exemplified by wearing a suit) are seen as “problematic” or “threatening” (let me add not just by white cab drivers, but by a large number of Black immigrant cab drivers too), then how should we as a society view even younger Black male bodies?

Historically we know that Black and Brown bodies have been problematic to the dominant group, and seen systemically and structurally as “inferior.”  Does one initiative by the first Black President change those systems and structures overnight?  Of course not.  Anyone who bought into the false premise of living in a “post-racial” society simply because of the election of Obama is living in a Willy Wonkaish dream world.  

However, as I have repeatedly articulated, how do we flip the script and create a counter-narrative that both honors the historical background, but is not stuck there?

I will not repeat the statistics concerning boys of color the President cited. In citing the statistics in this context, in my opinion, he was not framing the discourse from a deficit perspective. Rather he was framing it from a structural and historical one.  I think this aspect went unnoticed by many of the critics who claim that this initiative is nothing more than talk.  It is not as if a President, of any race by the way, could explicitly come out and say that we are starting this initiative because the United States was founded on and has historically demonstrated institutional, and structural oppression, violent hatred and racial animus.  As a politician, even one with no campaign on the horizon, any President would be cautious about exactly how “honest” he can be.  By stating the obvious narrative of his own history of growing up without a father and citing this issue as one of “national importance,” he is saying implicitly what all the prognosticators, academics and critics would like to see him make explicit.  

Dr. Lewis-McCoy in a piece in Ebony is quoted as saying “creating change is not simply about behavior but also about changing the pervasive unequal systems that ensnare young men of color.”  No doubt Dr. Lewis-McCoy is 100% correct, but is it not possible to change systems and structures AND hearts and minds of the boys of color at the same time?  Is it not possible to both encourage boys of color to be resilient and demonstrate persistence AND teach them about the world as it is – perhaps by articulating examples of our own experiences of navigating through the world as positive black males through highlighting difficulties in being unable to get a loan, being denied housing, tenure or a job simply because we are “too aggressive,” or any number of negative experiences even “successful” black males endure?

Mychal Denzel Smith both in the Nation and on the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC explicitly called the initiative “flawed” and “counterproductive.”  His premise is similar to Dr. Lewis-McCoy’s in that he claims the initiative does not address structural problems, specifically the two examples of stop-and-frisk and mass incarceration.  I believe that any initiative when first launched cannot and should not be so etched in stone that it cannot adapt to legitimate criticisms such as articulated by these two commentators and scholars.  However, I am realistic, or perhaps optimistic enough to know that just like it is difficult to lose weight gained over years of neglect, so too is it difficult to change structures and institutions overnight.

Changing the narrative from a negative to a positive one is never easy.  Oftentimes people see highlighting what is good as disrespecting the history or reality of the negative.  That does not have to be the case.  We can, as Smith says “turn every black and brown boy into a ‘respectable’ citizen” AND advance society by eliminating the historical inequities inflicted upon them.  We, as communities of color cannot succeed alone in changing the narrative.  It will take allies from every walk of life to make change happen.  I believe that the President’s initiative is a step in the right direction. Not the entire marathon, but a much needed, and long delayed step towards positive social change. 

Waiting for Tom Petty

Photo from 20th Century Fox

Having finally watched the film "Won't Back Down" over the long holiday weekend, I have to say that, while it does delve into cliches just a bit, it brought back memories of the my own experiences in the ed reform struggle. What was poignant was how the film tried to present the various sides of the education reform issue through the lens of different individuals.  What was crystal clear is while many unions dismissed this film, and of course their rank and file followed, the one thing we should be able to agree upon is that the venom, animosity, and vitriol pertaining to education reform has reached a nadir.

What I find so confusing and dare I say, hypocritical is that too many people who claim to "want what's best for children" somehow seem to be the ones who mirror their actions.  I remember in 1989 when the book "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum first came out, people were really focused on simplification.  Be kind to one another.  Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. Coincidentally, in 1989 the Berlin Wall also came down thus signaling the beginning of the end of the "Cold War."  Since we as Americans no longer had a common enemy, perhaps we lost our focus concerning the exact points Fulghum was aiming to address.

Put simply, on the micro level in the education reform arena and in the macro level as a country, we have lost our humanity towards one another.  Especially when it comes to those with whom we disagree.

As we exited the "greed is good" anything goes Yuppie era of the 1980s and entered the somewhat progressive 1990s with the election of Bill Clinton (before the scandals), there was a hope that things could change.  We had witnessed history take place on the other side of the globe and for those of us exiting college during this time, we truly believed we could make a significant difference.  A 1960s ethos was building around those of us in our 20s.  For example, a young idealistic woman from Princeton wrote an undergraduate thesis proposing that because of a growing teacher shortage, high achieving college graduates should have a way to enter the classroom to teach in underserved areas of the country.  This idea, as we of course know, ended up changing the face of public education, depending on your perspective, for better or worse.

So where are we now, some 20 plus years later post 9/11/01, or more importantly post 9/12?  Because of various events which have taken place both in this country and internationally, we are living in a cloud of fear. We are in an era in which the simplistic assertion of if you're not "with me, you're against me" is the prevailing mantra.  It is as if we've become a nation filled with Hatfield vs McCoys, Yankees vs Red Sox, or White Sox vs Cubs.  Life is one big game (yes, as I said in an earlier post, sometimes a "zero sum game"), and yes there are "winners" and "losers."  But to think that we have lost our sense of sportsmanship, humanity and common sense is extremely disheartening.

The film "Won't Back Down" is just one of the latest examples of a Hollywood cinematic representation of what is occurring in too many cities in this country when it comes to public policy debates as a whole and educational reform policy specifically.  So what is the "solution?"  Simply put listen more, talk less.  And that includes this blogger.

More complexly, I believe that finding the good in others is not something that is easily achieved.  A coach who has walked the sidelines of both Chicago and LA with much success is in such high demand because he has been able to accomplish this task to the tune of 11 NBA Championships.  If it were easy, every coach would follow suit - especially those who succeed in his mammoth footsteps.

Photo from 20th Century Fox

In public education, regardless of your positions on charters, high-stakes testing, state capitals funding public education (or not), Washington DC (reauthorization of ESEA), Department of Education, Common Core or whatever the issue may be, let's begin to find the humanity in those with whom we seemingly are in opposition.  We must remember, we are all searching as best we can, for "what's good for the children."

Voting While Black

There are several books which are currently on the market which speak to “post-blackness” or articulate a redefinition of “blackness” in this confusing era (see http://tinyurl.com/bvfgkoy).  In my humble opinion, and that of noted Professor and scholar Henry Louis Gates and others, there is no one definition of blackness, nor should there be.  However, the arguments’ surrounding what is and is not blackness and how it relates to the overall political discourse in this country is something that has been troubling me.

The latest example comes from North Carolina.  Amendment One – the measure which sought to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman was approved by the residents of North Carolina overwhelmingly.   What is problematic is not that a state with such historical ties to oppressing human/civil rights is up to their old tricks, but rather what is surprising is who, in part, the culprits are contributing to the denial of rights to a group of American citizens. 

Much in the same manner as in 2008 with California Ballot initiative Proposition 8 – which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, this ballot measure in North Carolina is nothing but solidifying hatred and discrimination into codified law.  That black folk, supposedly religious black folk, supported both of these ballot measures in great numbers is something that I cannot fathom.

Just to give you the numbers, in the same election in which over 90% of the black population voted for Barack Obama for President, 7 in 10 blacks voted yes in favor of Proposition 8 in California.  In Los Angeles County alone, if that number had been reversed, the measure most likely would not have passed.  As it stood, the measure passed 52-47%.  Most recently in North Carolina, Amendment 1 passed with a 2-1 margin of the black vote and an overall percentage of 61-38%.  While the majority of blacks may not have carried Amendment 1 to defeat, they certainly added to its victory.

During the fight for equality in the 1960s there were a host of allies who sought to help the Civil Rights Movement achieve their goals.  Most notably both Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin were two openly gay black men who fought on the front lines of the Civil Rights Movement.  Further, as one recent article noted, everyone who has ever sung in a black church choir knows someone who is gay – either openly or suspected.  What is the most disappointing thing about my own people’s abandonment of civil rights in the name of “religion” or worse, in trying to define “Civil Rights” as only those rights negotiated and fought by and for blacks, is the hypocrisy.  Not only were there black gay leaders, there were whites, women, and other minorities all fighting in the struggle. In the early 20^th century, it was the prevailing wisdom of whites to use a biological determination concerning the need for the separation of races before it was found to be illogical, ill-conceived and downright wrong.  

Another critique of miscegenation was that it was an “abomination” of God that the two races (they never include other groups besides “black” and “white”) shouldn’t mingle, much less procreate or marry.  That some blacks are using the same arguments to deny rights to LGBT couple who want to marry (especially in certain states where the STRAIGHT divorce rate is above 50% but that’s for another day), is completely 180 degrees from everything that the “Movement” stood for.

Let me be clear, certain black folk both in and out of the public arena have continually been outspoken in favor of LGBT rights before Obama’s announcement, including, ironically the Rev. Al Sharpton and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson.   However, there are too few foot soldiers who do not challenge the negative, ignorant assumptions made in barbershops, locker rooms and elsewhere about LGBT folk.  Too few of us who stand for human rights mean it in regards to everyone.  

On a personal note, in much the same way as President Obama, I too came to the epiphany of being open to not just marriage equity – which is somewhat new on the policy/political agenda, but LGBT issues in general.  I was never “against” gays, I just didn’t know anyone nor was I openly exposed to the culture.  Attending a liberal arts college in Los Angeles will change that lack of exposure real quick.  I was confronted with people who I respected, admired and yes even had crushes on who were lesbian or bi.  I was forced to reconcile my dream at the time of being a “Civil Rights” lawyer with my own hypocrisy of not including all rights under that banner.  While I would consider my mother and the rest of my family religious, I would also consider them to be extremely progressive.  Sometimes those two can reconcile themselves, and other times they cannot.  The one thing I can say is that I strongly believe that education and exposure are key.

So how do we educate black folk to both “love the sinner while hating the sin” and keeping their religious convictions (which no one is trying to deny) out of the polling booth?  My initial response is education - education not only in the home, but in the pulpits – which, when it really comes down to it, shouldn’t be in the business of telling us who or what to vote for anyway.   Finally, we need to publicly expand what blackness means.  It does not have to include oppressing other groups in the name of hyper masculinity, religious beliefs or other reasons.  It can include being more understanding that while our struggles for justice and rights are far from over, we will never completely overcome as long as Black folk continue to be the oppressors of other people, many of whom look like them. In order to truly make this a more perfect Union, we need to join with other groups still in their middle stages of their fight for equality.  Together, with as many allies as possible (and we now have a tremendous ally in the White House) we will one day be able to achieve equality.

Welcome Back...

After an arduous six months of teaching and learning I am FINALLY finished with course work and spring semester. I am now finishing up my Dissertation Proposal and look forward to defending it by mid summer.

It's been a long time, I shouldn't have left you...

Now that I am back, I want to briefly revisit the last blog post I wrote way back in December.  It seems as if Education Week has caught onto the idea that teachers need to be more politically astute and aware.  In her article Ms. Van Shura stresses that educators must become political animals (Why Educators Must Become Political Animals).  I too echoed the same sentiment in my last post.  Interesting.

An internet note, I've recently been spending time on the Student's First (the new non-profit education reform group created by Michelle Rhee) Facebook page (Students First FB Page).  While I have never been a 100% supporter of anyone, I do think that much of what Ms. Rhee has done in her quest to create a better educational environment  is on the right course.  I encourage you to check out some of the discussions and even chime in.

Over the course of the next few weeks as we lead up to the SOS March and Call to Action (SOS) I'll be discussing in greater detail some of the topics raised on the SF page, and other ideas that I have been kicking around in my mind since I've started this PhD process.

I look forward to a more regular dialog on this page.  Please, let's remember to be civil.  - Peace