I don't know anything about the internal culture in NYC education. Also, the New York Post does carve out its niche by being an alternative to the NYTimes, seeking to show with great drama how the NYT-supporting crowd is corrupt and wrong. So it may be that the administrators that were shoved aside deserved it, and those who were put in their spots are better qualified. Yet I have some confidence that the article captures something true. There is not only the general cast of the political and cultural alignment of school administrators in general, and the general cast of NYC political and cultural alignment in general, but the fact that lawsuits are being filed in an environment where those will have to swin very hard upstream. Lastly, there is the choice of language of the factions in the article. If you let people talk long enough, they eventually say what they mean, though they may not realise that.
One of my red-flag warnings is agencies, projects, or organisations naming themselves in high-falutin' ways. If an organisation has "truth" in the title, I translate that as "bias that I can't defend intellectually." That's not an absolute, as no group want to brand itself with a terrible name, but pitching it too high is a bad sign. Legislation that is named the Peace and Justice Act of 2015 is likely to include lots of stuff that some people think is justice or peace, but upon further review mostly means rewards for the right people, combined with injustice and chaos for others. Because the others deserve it, y'know. They don't want you to raise uncomfortable questions, so they structure it so that you have to appear to be against peace and justice.
"Racial reconciliation" usually means "racial division," as one group of white people tries to assert that those other white people are still racist and bad - there is just so much racism still out there in society, in the comments sections by trolls - and you black people should join with us in kicking them, because we are on your side. No, really, we are. We're the goodwhites.
So in this article, there are terms that are better understood as their opposites. "Dominant culture" doesn't mean the dominant culture in the education bureaucracy, where they work. It means what we fantacise the culture outside these doors is, constructed from talking amongst ourselves. To "expect assimilation to the dominant culture" is considered a bad thing in this opposite-speak. Yet the dominant culture in NYC education is exactly what you had better assimilate to, Jack. The shutting down of critical voices by white people is supposed to be evidence of them being "fragile," and "defensive." It's not only that this is a mere technique to not allow others to speak - though that would in itself be contemptible and cowardly - it's just flat crazy. Yes, people are defensive when they are attacked, no surprise there. I see no evidence that white people are more defensive. I'm not sure how one would measure that or study it. It comes from impressions, which are notoriously unreliable in controversial matters. And "fragile?" White people may be guilty of a lot of things in argument, but I think "fragility" has got to be near the bottom. It's just making stuff up to see if you can intimidate others into silence. It's projection. I don't think black people in general are all that fragile, but black educators sure respond to criticism as if they are. Check that. I mean black educational administrators and advocates. I have to keep reminding myself that that only has partial overlap with black teachers. I'm guessing front-line African-American teachers are among the least fragile of our citizens. Maybe that's true of most administrators as well. But the ones who put themselves in the news sure seem fragile to me.
Speaking of cowardly, there is also the idea of "courageous" conversations. Speaking truth to power has an honored history in African-American culture, but it has turned into its own opposite. It now means telling your friends what they want to hear. "Uncomfortable dialogue" means "dialogue that is comfortable for me, you're on your own."
Y'know, I think we're all bozos on this bus.
4 comments:
“Whiteness” is defined as: “The component of each and every one of ourselves that expects assimilation to the dominant culture.”
Socialization is a form of assimilation, isn't it? Each of these educrats is manifesting "whiteness."
Maybe I'm showing an invidious bias, but I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people who redefine terms in ways that make them the arbiters of whether something is evil or not. “Any act that even unwittingly tolerates, accepts or reinforces racially unequal opportunities or outcomes for children to learn and thrive.” Driving to work in the morning "unwittingly tolerates" unequal opportunities.
Can you say "They're lying thru their teeth", boys and girls? Yes, I knew you could.
The White admins got exactly what they deserved. Being White women New Yorkers, they definitely put their weight behind the toxic culture that came up with "toxic Whiteness" and "toxic masculinity".
I hope these admins lose their lawsuit and I hope they are financially ruined in the process. These people should feel the pain of the culture they inflicted on everyone else. Whirlwind, meet the sower.
I'm guessing front-line African-American teachers are among the least fragile of our citizens.
That would be my experience. I worked with several retired military who chose teaching for a second career.Two decades in the military, two decades in the classroom. But when it came to toughness/resilience/unfragile, they had nothing on the woman who had taught for 40 years- nearly all in difficult schools.
Post a Comment