Lessons learned or relearned

Last week I had some realizations or reminders that I thought I'd share here in the form of a list. At present, they're just floating around in my head, but maybe they'll seem more connected once I finish writing them out in one place. Here we go:

1. Don't try to shove a three-hour training session into a 90-minute class period. No time to really think about concepts introduced or to discuss idea, thoughts, and opinions that come up for the participants. For the record, I realized this as a participant, so I'm making a commitment to avoid making the same mistake as a facilitator in the future. I almost always over plan for a given time frame, and this experience verified that less is definitely more.

2. Culturally responsive pedagogy requires flexibility, sensitivity, and open mindedness. It also requires a willingness to throw out an idea that seemed great at first, but ultimately doesn't meet the goals of the teaching or the needs of the students.

3. I don't drink enough water. Members of my family gave me a hard time about it this weekend. So on Monday I started trying to drink more water. It's tough on my productivity, as I'm at my desk less, but I have to admit that after two days, I already feel like I have more energy. My coffee intake is down, and I'm sleeping better. So far. Could be a placebo effect, but I'm willing to continue the hydration experiment to see what happens.

4. I want to do a better job of providing students with examples of plays by and about people of color. I feel like I've been conscious of this for a number of years now, and I incorporate examples of these plays into my classes whenever I can. However, I think there's more that I can do. Many of my students go on to teach in public schools with racially and ethnically diverse populations, and they need more access to repertoire that reflects their student populations. I feel like this is partly their responsibility to do the research and read plays, but I've learned that they often have no idea where to begin. Either I need to write a new course that deals specifically with repertoire by and about people of color, or I need to find a way to integrate more examples of that repertoire into already existing courses and experiences. The first step is creating a bibliography of texts that I already have on my shelves that I can share with students as a resource. Then I'll move forward from there.

5. The concept of privilege as it relates to social justice work has multiple layers based on personal experiences, the context within which the concept is being explored or discussed, and the rigidity of interpretation. Defining privilege as "unearned advantage" is fine, but that definition needs ample unpacking and space for people to recognize where and when they are privileged and where and when they may not be privileged. Oversimplifying the concept does not help generate more empathy, understanding, or acceptance for the concept.

So there's a theme here, minus the water point. Or maybe that's related as well.  More energy to do work that's really important to me.

A musing about not much...

This musing is about having nothing to muse about.

It's been a long week and it's only Wednesday. Two days of putting my foot in my mouth and feeling off my game. And just wondering how it all fits together. What it all means...

One tough class where I found it hard to make an impact; one inspiring class because of the students and the work they created.

Two meetings where I raised points for discussion and then felt like I got shut down. Then couldn't shake the yucky feeling that stuck to me afterwards.

One 45-minute spin class that made me feel like it was going to be a better day. At least my body seems to be working better than my mouth and brain on some level.

Meetings, meetings, and more meetings. Students, students, and more students.

My clock feels very cleaned. Like spic and span clean. Mr. Clean clean. Almost stingingly so.  Is that a word?  Stingingly? It's what I feel like this evening.

So that's my musing. Nothing really to say except that the tank is empty, and I'm waiting for the filling station to show up on my right so I can pull over and stop running on brain fumes.

When corporations might help instead of hurt

There's so much to say concerning the legislation that passed the North Carolina state legislature last week and was then signed into law by their governor allowing for discrimination against LGBTQ people, particularly as it relates to transgender people using a bathroom that more accurately reflects their gender identity rather than the gender assigned on their birth certificate. Lots of people are talking about it, up in arms about the discrimination against LGBTQ people or afraid of being attacked in bathrooms by someone masquerading as a transgender person. (This second piece I find completely ridiculous, but that's another musing.)

This North Carolina situation is just one example of many pieces of legislation in process or already passed that reflect an important thing to remember: even when the law of the land supposedly protects everyone, people find all sorts of ways to play out the fear that they really feel in their hearts. This has been happening for years to the African American citizens of this country, and we really need to wake up.

The point I take up today is inspired by an article from The New York Times, "Major Companies Press North Carolina on Law Curbing Protections From Bias". I highlight this article because it reveals something very interesting about who may actually have the power to change what happened in North Carolina: Bank of America and other large corporations that have chosen to headquarter themselves in there.

Now there's a lot of yelling from the Left about how corrupt corporate America has become, and I understand the concerns. And some of the most focused yelling is at Hillary Clinton because of the speeches to Wall Street that she hasn't released, "she's in bed with the corporations," etc.  Bernie Sanders is calling for some kind of complete overhaul of the corporate system, and I never quite fully understand how that will work without a complete collapse of the financial system as we know it. But in essence, if we get on the Bernie Train, Bank of America and large corporations might lose all sorts of bargaining power in a situation like the North Carolina legislation. That actually scares me.

As I read Times article this morning, I thought about the compromises that my life has required me to make on any number of decisions, personal and vocational. And often times, I make those compromises in a very strategic way, maybe disagreeing in the direction that I have to lean or the person who gets put on a short list or whatever, but ultimately, I make those compromises to gain power in another kind of way. It's part of operating within the politics of any kind of relationship.

I'm not advocating for being deceptive or disingenuous. But this news article did make me reconsider how judgemental I was being about a politician's ties to corporations. Maybe those ties are strategic, so that when these kinds of situations arise, there are options beyond debate and discourse that can help leverage a positive change. We're seeing how badly divided our representative bodies have become, to the point that the North Carolina Senate Democrats walked out of State Chambers and didn't even register their votes against this legislation which then passed unopposed. Based on party numbers, it would have passed anyway, but there's something disquieting about that kind of action by elected officials.

I shudder to think that a coalition of corporations could do a better job at solving this debacle, but we might just see that happen in North Carolina. Itmay be the only hope we have at this point.

Dear Senator Cruz, do you have a moment?

Dear Senator Cruz:

I know you're really busy running for President and all, but this will be quick. I hope you have time to answer my questions.

I read that given the recent attacks in Brussels you've now called to "patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods" across the United States. I'm sure lots of your fan base agree and think this is a great idea, so I just wanted to ask a few follow up questions:

Did you call for similar patrolling and securing of White, Christian neighborhoods after the school shooting at Sandy Hook? Or the movie theatre shooting in Aurora? Or the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs?

And when you and I were just 23 years old, and two White, radicalized American citizens blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, did you think that the U. S. should be patrolling White, Christian neighborhoods then?

I mean, I'm just curious. Did you feel that way then or is this an "evolving" position, like so many of you and your presidential counterparts on both sides like to tout? For the record, I respect evolving positions when they're genuine, not when they're used to get my vote.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions, particularly since you're so close to God and seem to embrace all the teachings of the Bible. We're in the middle of this Holy Week, commemorating the suffering and death of Christ, and I can't help but think that your call for more patrolling of Muslim neighborhoods reminds me a bit of those times. Makes me think that you'd gladly have handed over Barrabas, just like Pilate did, because you'll do whatever the screaming masses think is right. It's not very Christ-like, Senator Cruz, and for someone who kicked off his campaign at Liberty University, I'd like to think that you have some more Christ-like qualities.

But actually, now that I think about it, you're more of an Old Testament kind of guy, so you like it the way things were. Pre-Christ. Before He came to save the people of the world from themselves. Before "turn the other cheek" and the Golden Rule. You like the "eye for an eye" vengeance part of Christianity, the God who punishes people.

You and a lot of other people seem to like that God. A lot. Me? Not so much. That God doesn't seem so Christ-like to me.

So as you continue to make these calls for Old Testament-type approaches to the world, I'd love for you to answer some of my questions along the way. And here's one final question for your consideration: When are you going to suggest these types of policies for people who might actually deserve them, not just the people that you and your fan base are afraid of?

Looking forward to your responses,

Joe Salvatore

Dear Secretary Clinton, Just some how and why would be great.

I felt pretty clear about my presidential vote until last Friday. I've been a Hillary Clinton supporter for a long time now, and she was my choice. Then she made that inane comment about Nancy Reagan fighting a quiet fight for AIDS, and I got really upset. I'm no learned scholar in this area, but I've read enough and talked to enough people over the years to know that equating the Reagans in any way with helping to fight the AIDS crisis is bad news and just plain wrong. I'm not going to rehash all the reasons why, as far more articulate people have done so.

People tell me not to be surprised. That Hillary is just out for herself, and she'll say and do anything to be President. I resisted that oversimplification of what I believe to be a very complex person in the middle of a complicated and ugly political season. And then I read her apology posted on Medium. Lots of people are citing the apology as a moment of humility and respect and blah, blah, blah. While it's true there's an apology in there, the piece is more about touting her own record on HIV and AIDS and proclaiming what she'll do in the future.

But where's the explanation about how the comment happened in the first place?  I read one person's comment that said that Hillary Clinton was tired and misspoke. No. Unacceptable. Another person cited some published source that said that Nancy Reagan really pushed for a response to the AIDS crisis from inside the White House, that her sphere of influence was greater once her husband had at least acknowledged the existence of the disease. Possible, but I don't know the source. If that's what prompted Secretary Clinton's comments about Nancy Reagan, why no mention of it in her apology?

So how did this happen? Why did it happen? Was Secretary Clinton saying this about Nancy Reagan to try and get some swing voters who have sentimental feelings about the Reagans and the "city on the hill"? Great imagery from Ron, but those times are past. Is Hillary Clinton suffering from amnesia? If so, I'm not sure she should be running for President. And after all the work she claims to have done in the name of the LGBTQ community, can she really not have known that a choice to mythologize Nancy Reagan around this issue would cause an uproar?

I understand we want to say nice things about dead people. I have nothing against saying nice things about the Reagans. I played Ronald Reagan in a mock election in the 7th grade. We won. I've recovered. It's fine. I wish neither of them ill will in the afterlife. But why are we making things up? There were plenty of other nice things that Secretary Clinton could have said about Nancy Reagan that day, yet she chose to say this. Even if it came up on a teleprompter or on notes that she was handed or out of the mouth of someone coaching her before the appearance, she is smart enough and experienced enough to have made a different choice.

Or is she?

That's the question I'm left with, and that's why I'm not so sure about my vote anymore. Sorry Liberal Friends, I feel no Bern whatsoever, nada, zilch, largely because I don't think anything he's proposed will have an iota of traction in the divided nation we live in. Sorry to be pessimistic, but that's the reality. Secretary Clinton has represented the best choice in my mind to step into a terrible situation of a divided Congress and try to do more damage control. That's what she did as Secretary of State, and I think she can do that as President. I love when my Republican friends like to accuse Secretary Clinton of doing nothing as Secretary of State. "What did she accomplish? Name one thing." Uh, she put on an industrial strength diplomatic HazMat Suit and waded her way around the world through the toxicity left behind by eight years of foreign policy debacle and she survived. Unfortunately, she chose to do it with a private email server, so no one remembers the diplomatic HazMat Suit. And yes, as a senator, she voted for the Iraq War. So did a lot of other people. And there were a lot of bystanders waving their American flags when they did it, so I'm tired of hearing that too.

I've tried to be forgiving about the email server and the 225K speeches and the list goes on, but for some reason, Friday really did me in. I know I'm not the only one. It was all over social media, and I tried to read the various comments of people whose opinions I respect from both sides, and then I finally just deleted Facebook from my phone. It's too depressing.

So what do I want from Secretary Clinton? I want what The New York Times Editorial Board asked for today: transparency. I don't want apologies or a list of accomplishments or a list of what's going to happen if I vote for her. I want to hear why she made these choices. Why and how. And not some canned response that was prepped for her. I'd like her to sit down one-on-one with someone and tell the truth. Then I can make a decision about what to do with my vote.

We talk about teacher transparency and vulnerability and how powerful those attributes can be in teachers when we're trying to educate people. Well, maybe they can be Presidential as well.