RES 5535: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (summer 2009)

I am going to do my best to stick to the assignment—which is to critique the readings, not a generalized gripe about our educational system spurred by these readings—but before I fulfill this commitment, I must state: I totally agree with Delpit when she writes “The object is not to lower standards or just teach what is interesting to the students, but to find the students’ interest and build an academic program around them.” Amen, sister. Let’s go to the house. In my opinion of limited experience, pacing guides—for one—should be thrown out the window. I’m appalled that any “educator” of educators would insist that a checklist be any teachers’ gauge as to when students are ready to move on to the next subject because they’ve “mastered” or “learned” that skill. Or, for that matter, that the vehicle (textbook, for example) by which the state has chosen from which this child is to accomplish a certain objective will actually “speak” to her. Have mercy! Pacing guides and standardized testing take no cultural roots, individuality, or diversity of any kind into consideration at all; these methods born of madness should make no sense to any teacher (learning coach) that recognizes and understands how students learn for actual understanding. I don’t say this to come down on our local public schools or teachers that don’t have much of a choice. I understand we are smothering under the weight of bureaucracy, but I do believe there are creative ways to get around these stifling standards, and I also appreciate the time and extra effort it takes to make change happen.

Now, the next thing I can’t get off my mind is Michelle Obama claiming that she didn’t know what her peers were talking about when they commented on her talking “like a white girl.” I do not believe this, and I’m trying my best not to be too terribly judgmental as a lay down this judgment. This woman is not that much older than me, so I know the generational lens through which she peers. Granted, we come from different cultural—and probably religious—backgrounds, so I’m sure there’s considerations to be made here. However, I’m just not buying it. Her saying that she didn’t know what they were talking about is like trying to convince someone that it’s cloudy on a clear day, or that George Washington was not the first President of the United States. Ever since I can remember, there’s been a differentiation in the media in race. I’m pointing this out because the media has a huge influence on all of our lives even if we don’t watch TV, listen to the radio, or read magazines or newspapers in our own homes. Guess what? Most everybody else does, and it’s (the mass media) influencing everything from the way we talk to the way we dress and eat. Bottom line: I think The First Lady—with all due respect—is writing the American Public off as a bunch of nimrods if she thinks we’re going to buy this. Furthermore, I don’t appreciate her going into the schools of American children and trying to sell this. Then again, who knows if she really said it? The media generally writes whatever it takes to get a rise out of its consumers. If so in this case, their age-old trick worked on THIS nimrod!

One word to Dowdy: WOW. There were so many incredible nuggets of life and the-meaning-of-it-all in this piece that I just put my Hi-liter down because I found myself shading everything! First of all, the lady has such an incredible command of the English language that it’s not even funny. Luckily, I was able to construct meaning of unknown words from context; otherwise I would have never gotten through this piece for time spent with my nose in Webster’s.

There’s such wisdom in being true to who we are. There’s such vitality in knowing and growing from our history—good and bad. There’s such freedom in the confidence that comes from being affirmed for the roots from whence we came. I could go on and on. I relished every bite of this entree. I admire Dowdy for her honesty and the research and reflection deep into her psyche that it took to come to such conclusions. What a brilliant lady!

I was stunned in thought at the irony in this statement Dowdy used to describe her mother’s insistence on learning the “Queen’s English”: “If we were to continue this outstanding tradition of service in public life, whether political or cultural, we needed to have certain baggage.” BAGGAGE. I can’t think of a more terrible condition in which a public servant could put themselves. If we are to serve effectively—in essence, have the energy to do and care for others—how can we “carry” them and their needs along with our own proverbial U-Haul of baggage that Dowdy’s mother, for example, is insisting she carry?

One statement, however, that didn’t resonate well with me was one of the times she spoke of slavery: “Your job…is to be best at the language that was used to enslave you and your forebears.” I’ve often in my life heard references made to this sort of mindset. Today, some descendants of slaves seem to have offered their wrists up for enslavement just because it seems like the thing to do. I don’t know. Is it a convenient excuse for not trying to better one’s situation? What is it? I really want to know. I’m not being judgmental—just critical if you’ll allow me the difference in the two. I know that there’s some nasty stuff in my ancestral history if I’d take the time to dredge it up. I hope though, that if and when I ever do, I won’t be bound by it. I hope that I would then turn and dig around for legends of golden treasure on which to hang my ancestral hat, you know? I don’t know—that’s just what I’m thinkin’. Maybe I misunderstood what Dowdy meant to say altogether.

Erin Farrington