Writing and Counter-Racism

Fear of failure at school can be crippling, especially for ethnic minority students. Research shows it’s all too common for them to fear that their own poor performance will reinforce negative stereotypes. Unfortunately this anxiety only serves to undermine their achievement, thus perpetuating the cycle. Now Geoff Cohen and colleagues have shown a simple psychological intervention based on self-affirmation can help prevent this downward spiral, leading to academic benefits up to two years’ later.

Research Digest Blog, Simple psychological intervention boosts school performance of ethnic minority students

I have mixed feelings about this report– it’s too early to count these chickens, for one thing. I also wonder if it represents a kind of liberal wishful thinking, a hope that a simple, inexpensive solution might be found to a seemingly intractable problem. If it’s so easy, why did it take so long to figure this out?

Then again, perhaps the real problem is that it has taken us– Americans– so long to collectively accept that racism has profound effects that go well beyond anything an individual can correct on his or her own. It seems too obvious but maybe only recently have we really acknowledged that kids need help with racism.

Once we– or some sub-section of the American “we” anyway– accept that racism is real in this sense then we can begin to try to figure out ways to counter it. We have to recognize the disease as a disease, in other words, before we can even begin to imagine treatments. If that’s true, then perhaps this is very good news.

I wonder how well this would work in situations where the anxieties are rooted in class and gender as well as in race. At my school, for example, I meet lots of students whose fears about school seem rooted in socio-economics. I wonder what would change if we tried this sort of intervention…

What We Talk About (When We Don’t Want to Talk About Class)

For years, parents, students, and taxpayers have lamented the spiraling cost of higher education — with too little effect. Between 1982 and 2007, college tuition and fees increased 439 percent, adjusted for inflation, while the median family income only rose 147 percent. Pleas by ACTA and others to cut costs fell on mostly deaf ears.

The recession is now compelling at least some universities to cut back on all the pricy extras that drive up cost and shift the focus back to the fundamental purpose of their institutions: education. In January, ACTA praised the Pennsylvania State Board of Education for approving a proposal to create a “low cost, no frills” bachelor degree. Now comes news of a similar degree at Southern New Hampshire University — a “low-cost airline equivalent,” according to its president — and plans to create a new affordable state university in Arizona with no football team or research programs.

ACTA’s Must Reads, Posted by David Azerrad on May 07, 2009

The ACTA is reliably reactionary, much more interested in the academic trains running on time than in education generally or employment issues. Antonio Gramsci himself would rise up out of his grave if they mentioned the exploitation of graduate students or the commercialization of education.

Yet their concerns are, as the theorists used to say, symptomatic of the anxieties and concerns of our nominal rulers. I am not sure if they represent a cadre of the technical elite or of the financial elite or both but they are ideally positioned to judge the temperature of our ongoing cold (class) war.

So it’s fascinating that they are concerned with the increasing scarcity of the cultural capital represented by traditional liberal arts colleges. I don ‘t think you can attribute this to bourgeois sentimentality. The more bloated these increasingly boutique universities become, the better the chance of some sort of backlash.

The rhetoric of education in the U.S. is democratic; everyone can work hard and get the education of their choice. In fact, only 1/3 of us have college degrees; the percentage who have gone to these elite colleges is much smaller. Yet these schools play a disproportionately important role in our educational self-image.

If these schools become even more inaccessible, and the mass market schools follow by continuing to raise tuition and fees, the U.S. might seem too obviously undemocratic and class ridden. We can’t talk about that, though, can we? So we talk about ‘budget schools’ that might siphon off a bit of that class tension.

The Stupidity of My Local Officials

City of Charleston

NOTICE TO PUBLIC

Termination of Residential Recycling Drop-off Bins

Due to Limited Resources & Availability of Local Recycling Alternatives.

Please contact Local Waste Collectors offering curbside recycling services…

I loaded up my truck with two weeks of recycling the other day and Bear and I headed out to do our civic duty, only to find that the dumpsters were missing. A few years ago the city moved them without much public notice and, with a little digging, I found them again, so I figured it had happened again. This is just part of living in this strangely dysfunctional Midwest town.

When went to my “progressive” city’s website, however, I found that the recycling program had ended. The country goes one way, making at least some small strides towards sanity, and the bozos in my town go in the opposite direction. It makes no sense at all to have these private companies collecting garbage in the first place, and now they’ve cut off public support of recycling.

Here, the market still rules, despite all evidence of its inefficiency and lack of ethics. I’d like to know more about the local businesses who benefit from this change. My guess is that they are either big contributors to our local politicians or closely associated with them in some way or some combination of both. Market ideology always sounds disinterested but is always very much interested.

What Ignorance Looks Like, Part II: Willful Ignorance

This extraordinary consensus was possible, an examination by The New York Times shows, largely because no one involved — not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W. Bush, not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate.

According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.

New York Times, SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI, April 21, 2009

I thought I would write about this in the abstract, starting with my shock that this story hasn’t created an ongoing scandal. Imagine that you went to the doctor and he or she was unsuccessful at treating your disease. That’s upsetting enough. Now imagine that you read an interview with that doctor and he or she says that reading medical journals is a waste of time. That’s a scandal.

So this is doubly freakish and bizarre. We had a government that chose to ignore history; more than that, a set of officials at the highest level who thought that history was unnecessary. It just doesn’t occur to them. Then we have the mainstream media– today busily debating the ‘hundred days’ faux issue– that collectively cannot seem to recognize and criticize basic incompetence.

I am thinking much more concretely this morning, however, because I have been trying to deal with a student who thinks writing about “global warming” is inappropriate. It’s not hard to see where this is coming from: years of silly right wing propaganda suggesting that global warming isn’t real and so on. I disagree but that’s not what is so upsetting.

What is upsetting is that this student has a workable hypothesis– it may be unlikely in the extreme that thousands of scientists and thousands of experiments are wrong, of course, but it is still a hypothesis– that he refuses to examine. One problem, of course, is that he’s too ambitious. Global Warming is a very complicated theory with a lot of different kinds of supporting evidence.

I would not expect him to try to address everything of course or to be systematic in any sense. But he could pick one aspect of global warming, review the evidence, and then conclude with his (now well-informed) opinion on the science. Yet it seems to be that process– a careful review of assumptions– that he, and the Bush administration, finds so loathsome. That’s a scandal.