The shame of quitting Teach for America (intended for corp members)

                     One discussion I think every corp member tries to avoid is the one where they must discuss someone quitting the corp. This can range from someone you barely knew at Institute to one of your closest friends in your new city. People quit Teach for America all the time and as a corp member you probably have made plenty of friends who quit. Unfortunately the culture around quitting Teach for America is still very much one of shame. Whereas in the past I've heard of people openly badmouthing corp members who quit, now there seems to be an implicit shame that is marked upon those who quit. When someone quits, suddenly their lives become a huge question mark. We all discuss them as if we are not sure if they quit or not, when we all pretty much know they left. If they tell us, we discuss their departure in two manners, either vehemently defending them or halfheartedly defending them while insinuating a dash of irresponsibility. What is left is an awkward process where those who quit must divorce themselves from all facets of the corp, be it positive or negative. Eventually, if you're lucky, some of your tfa friends draw a line in the sand, making it clear that they don't care if someone quit. Unfortunately the opposite response is gradually ghosting someone's life until the moment you Facebook unfriend them goes basically unnoticed. Of course this also works in reverse. There are those who took their commitment very seriously and for the first time in their lives  are unable to complete something they set their mind to. The self guilt drives them to abandon all things TFA related, including the people. While some of this emotional messiness is unavoidable, if the culture was a little more open about why people quit and how people can quit without divorcing themselves from the mission, I think it would actually lead to fewer people quitting.
                  First, we need to change the taboo over quitting. Often when people quit it comes as an abrupt decision, even if you knew they were having difficulty for months. That's because it's frowned upon to admit that you're contemplating quitting. Instead you put on the smile and persevere for the kids. But what if corp members were able to openly discuss that they were considering quitting? Then we'd actually know who needs extra support and who is just working through some kinks. Teaching is a difficult and arduous journey, but that does not mean the desire to quit makes someone a lost cause. In fact the desire to quit could be one of the strongest indicators for an immediate intervention. Someone who is about to quit can possibly be at the moment where they are open to taking the most advice. If nothing is working, then sometimes changing everything is all that is left. Any form of communication about quitting should be preferred over the drawn out process of silent contemplation that leads to eventual abrupt resignation.
          To make a conversation about quitting a safe one we need to stop openly shaming people who quit. People who quit can be discussed in a constructive manner. In fact, instead of turning a blind eye it's probably better that people openly digest the departure of a corp member. We can acknowledge all the challenges they faced and how they were and were not supported by TFA, their school, the district, etc. An open forum that focuses on constructive speech, rather than punitive could hold other stakeholders accountable who are often left off the hook for a corp member quitting. Rarely do we ask what could the principal have done or what could the TFA office have done. The onus is typically forced on the corp member themselves. Responsibility won't be completely stripped from the corp member, it will just be contextualized.
      Finally, we need to acknowledge our own judgmental tendencies and try our hardest to disarm them. I am especially guilty of this. I am proud of the time I've spent as a corp member and it frustrates me when people quit for personal opportunity, leaving schools and several classes of children in complete disarray for months. But just because you're time in the corp is enjoyable does not mean everyone else is having the same experience. When someone quits and it is discussed, people need to keep their minds open and more importantly need to empathize with the person quitting. It's not enough to simply critique. For any true healing to occur we must accept that a person can quit for a perfectly legitimate reason and we do not have the authority to judge.
       So to all my friends who have quit TFA, I apologize if you ever felt like I thought less of you for quitting. I honestly find that many of my friends who quit legitimately wanted to continue in their service, but could not. They had to maintain their own personal health, which is always a top priority for an individual.


Side note: While this may clear the air on my feelings towards quitting it does not somehow legitimatize the obnoxious TFA horror stories posted online. I find many of those posts to be fueled by malice and disappointment, often creating a narrative of inept teachers and principals, inept TFA staff, inept parents, and implicitly, inept students.  I urge anyone reading on this topic to get a plethora of viewpoints on the program before making a judgement. There is a lot of good and bad to be had from the program and from the education system in general. 

The intersection between power and free speech

            I'm sick and currently focused on teaching 64 12 year olds how to read and write. But the buzz about Yale and Missouri was enough to get me to write this blogpost. Specifically, the pure stupidity I'm reading from many people who are claiming "political correctness is getting out of hand." They throw their hands in the air and pull the fire alarm, claiming that their first amendment rights are under fire. Ironically enough these first amendment hawks are the ones who encourage censorship of the very free speech they disagree with. Typically if the issue was contained to just subreddit pages filled with entitled white men I'd just ignore it as business as usual. The real fiasco comes when people in a position of power, whose responsibility is to represent all students, favor a dominant narrative over a minority one. That is exactly what happened at Yale.
         The furor at Yale was precipitated by a bunch of emails sent by multi-cultural organizations urging people to be culturally conscientious when choosing their costumes. It basically amounted to a "don't be a dick" message that any reasonably decent person would take in good stride. Unfortunately Yale is full of the churlish and entitled, so students began to whine to the Dean about the emails'seemingly condescending messages. How dare they be told to care about other cultures! Of course instead of just acknowledging that they want the ability to be jerks without facing any repercussions, they fell back to the classic "freedom of speech" scare, arguing that if Sally Preston could not wear her skimpy American indian outfit, then she would be distraught with how her freedom has been severely limited.
        Before we talk about how Erika Christakis' response was a disgusting affirmation of an oppressive narrative that says minority culture does not matter when it inconveniences whites, we must interrogate whether these students were actually being censored. By all stretch of the imagination they were not being censored. Students were merely urged to be mindful of other cultures when choosing costumes. Bias incidents and other culturally responsive policies were not even brought up in the emails. Compared to Yale, the University of Michigan sends out emails that are far more punitive when encouraging people not to wear racially insensitive costumes. So these students really did not like the judgmental tone of the emails. Which is fine. I mean I personally think they all secretly want a carte blanche to be assholes, but there are deluded individuals out there who believe that if they want to dress up as a mariachi performer, then that's well within their right and the close to 34 million Mexicans in the United States just have to deal with it. The point is no one is forcing the students to not to be assholes. They're merely pointing out that if they act like insensitive jerks, then people may very well respond in a not so pleasant way.
      Professors, students and other faculty are allowed to have opinions on this. However, headmasters and other elements of University leadership have a job to protect and support all their students. That is why Erika Christakis' response was so inappropriate. It clearly affirms the argument that there is some justification behind wearing culturally reprehensible costumes. The email caricatures the very serious concerns minority students and other diversity organizations have over recent examples of black face and culturally insensitive costumes that had occurred on Yale's campus in previous years. Instead of the cautionary emails being a response to a prevalent and serious issue on campus, the emails were portrayed as a politically correct overreaction. The message comes loud and clear: your concerns are not that important to us, stop whining. And that's exactly the kind of position a headmaster needs to avoid. If anything it would have been far better for the headmaster and his wife to remain quiet. Instead she decided to affirm a consistent dominant narrative that undermines the concerns of minorities by reducing them to hyperbolic over sensitivity.
    First amendment rights are rarely threatened by the oppressed. When people take displeasure with your opinion they are not limiting your first amendment rights, they are merely utilizing their own. Often it's people with power who take immense displeasure with being questioned. People who cry that their first amendment rights are being denied often just want their opinions to be the only one respected. Minorities are allowed to complain just as long as it doesn't ruin anyone's fun. 

Rantathon!

        I just bought a new laptop so I'm excited to use the keyboard and suddenly on this day a bunch of stuff has got me ticked off, so I thought let me do a rantathon. The basis of a rantathon is I will riff on a variety of topics in varying lengths. Some riffs will be small, others might be really long. It's an organic process that kind of mirrors what it's like to have a conversation with me.


1. People refusing to commit to plans
            I am a bit of a hypocrite with this one because I do this as well, but this generation is the generation of opportunism. We all refuse to make plans because we all are secretly afraid of potentially missing a better opportunity due to prior commitments. In New York City this is even worse because the city has so many options and possibilities, you find that friends never want to make plans because they always want to keep their schedule potentially open for what might come along. You'll hear a slew of maybes, possibly, or the infamous "we'll see." What ends up happening is the friends who like to plan get togethers become frustrated and eventually just shirk their coordinating duties for hamster videos on youtube. The end result is a lot of people who don't go out because everyone is stuck in planning limbo. The solution to this is what I call the 3 strike rule. If someone asks me to go out, I can only keep them in uncertainty in 2 of my 3 conversations. By my third conversation , I either give them a definitive yes or no. Of course nobody wants to do that because they are still delusional enough to believe that they may be missing out on the best night they didn't know they were going to have.

2. Social Justice Extrapolation
        This is when someone in the social justice community takes a form of oppression and extrapolates it onto a seemingly unrelated example. Sometimes this extrapolation ends up being a great thought experiment on the pervasiveness of oppression in our lives. But most of the time it's just a huge ludicrous stretch that does nothing in the way of explaining oppression. While this isn't the worse thing ever, it is annoying. It affirms the caricature of the social justice warrior who moans and complains about everything. And I mean that caricature is also not too bad. Real talk, fuck the haters. But even I find it irksome to read an article that explains to me why pumpkin spice lattes from Starbucks are a form of neo-colonialism.

3. People who make plans last minute
     This is something I don't particularly hate, but I do get frustrated with when I know it's going to inconvenience me. I enjoy spontaneity, I do, but we're adults now (kinda). We have jobs, responsibilities, league of legends to play. Meaning sometimes I don't want you to call me at 10:00 pm telling me to go out, when I already got into my PJs with Doctor Who loading up on my Netflix queue. I want some notice with that kinda shit. And I know sometimes it can't be avoided. Shit happens. Windows of opportunity are magically opened up by circumstance, luck and a little bit of flirting at that party last night with a guy named Jake who you thought was an asshole, but you failed to realize he wasn't just an asshole but an asshole who was also an event coordinator. The point is if you expect to see me, don't make last minute plans the only way you're going to do it because then you probably won't see me at all.

4. People who live in Manhattan or Brooklyn (gentrified parts)
   This ties into my first rant and third rant. The people I find who are notorious about refusing to make plans and who make plans last minute are people who live in Manhattan and Brooklyn. And it makes sense. Both tend to be incredibly close to the city, so often parties, bars and concerts are only a few minutes away for them. This leaves us true New Yorkers (i.e. people from Queens and the Bronx) with ridiculous commutes in order to meet our metropolitan friends. What's obnoxious about them is they're so ignorant to how inconvenient they're carefree attitude is for us Queens and Bronx peeps. This leaves many of us either in a perpetual state of guilt as we struggle to keep up with plans or simply not giving a fuck when people reach out to us.

Note: To my friends who might think "Damn Raymond is writing this about me" I probably am, but I don't honestly feel as vehement as my diction my indicates. It's more of making these blogposts entertaining and kind of funny. I love all of ya'll.

Why I hate management in high need schools

                         Whenever I discuss my teaching experiences with friends or family they are always taken aback by how strict I am with my students. Often they find my tales of strict discipline and at times borderline demoralizing behavior management as a cruel and unproductive technique that I should be disappointed in. The thing is many of these people have very little experience with how things actually function in the classroom and are quick to be judgmental, but also wouldn't want half of the kids in my classes interacting with their kids. First, let me be clear, my students are not bad kids. In fact I'm unsure if there are any actual bad kids. Many of my students come from difficult situations and therefore have rough outlooks on how the world should function. If all your life the people around you kept you in check through emotional and physical violence, then the expectation is going to be that those techniques are what constitutes respect. Enter the middle school teacher who has to manage 36 to 40 students in one classroom for around 3 hours a day. These students expect their teacher to be stern, strict and worst of all a bit scary.

The Charter Exception 
               You will hear charter schools argue that these management styles are not necessary. While it is true that in a Charter style school where expectations and school culture are congruent among all teachers it is possible to manage without being cruel, such a system cannot and will not ever be implemented in a public education setting. Furthermore, Charters have the luxury of kicking out truly insubordinate students, while in public schools those students often bounce around between class and suspension. This leaves many public school teachers feeling alone and unsupported in the classroom. Especially in high needs areas where parent involvement can be a question mark for some students. At a certain point you either crumble and allow chaos reign in your classroom, hoping nothing occurs to get you fired or you decide to make the locus of control centered around you.

The worst kind of tough love
             Once you've accepted that a small population of your students ( I would say around 10 of your students) need highly structured and strict management systems to be successful, you realize you need to impose such draconian measures on the entire class in order to make them work. What I mean is if I'm going to make "no getting up" a classroom rule and a student who you know is often absent minded decides to get up, then it's your prerogative to be incredibly strict and punish that student, regardless of whether they intended to be disruptive. This includes public embarrassment and harsh penalties for a student you know wasn't attempting to be disruptive in any manner. The reason for this is twofold. First, you don't actually know the intention of the student and perhaps the student is testing to see how breaking the rule will be taken (a rarity, but definitely possible) Second, you need to show other students who would also like to attempt to break the rules that there is no discrimination in how punishments are handed out. If a kid gets up, be it a straight A student or a student who is consistently disrespectful, they will receive the same punishment. Such consistency serves as a deterrent for students who aim to be disruptive. They figure if this teacher is going to be a hard ass, I'd rather take my nonsense to another classroom. And there's always another teacher who gets the brunt of the repressive system you implement in your room.

Why first years in high need schools suffer
           Your first year of teaching is demarcated by inconsistency, so it's no surprise many first years struggle with management. Even I struggled tremendously my first year (and I'm starting my second year now so the struggle might still be real). Veteran teachers, who already have rules and procedures in place and can instinctively make a student cry at the drop of the hat if need be, will go in hard and fast in the first couple of months. First years on the other hand tend to rely on taught management systems such as consequence hierarchies and reward systems, both of which aren't pragmatic when you have someone next door playing a game of "random public embarrassment."  To the veteran teacher's defense, they will proceed to engage in this draconian behavior for two months, thus establishing themselves as the locus of control in the classroom. After which they will then be able to be more lax even pleasant if they choose to be. Unfortunately the process of always frown till Christmas takes a toll on the psyche of the teacher, veteran or new. It causes many teachers to develop cynical attitudes as forms of psychological dissonance in order to justify their actions to themselves. As you become more established you can do less. As you become stronger in the school, students instinctively know not to test. But the scars you have to inflict and gain on the road to that level of management are deeper than one might think.

I can't condemn what I also preach
       And even though I am talking about how toxic this process can be, the very same day I might assert my locus of control in the classroom. I have no doubt that as I write this, while my students are taking their writing baselines, one student will decide to do something I find unacceptable. I will decide in that split second if I want to embarrass him or her on the spot to make them a sacrificial lamb for the other students to see. Right now I see a student with his head down in clear defeat due to the fact that he most likely can't even read the writing baseline passage. But he's sleeping in my class and that's straight up unacceptable. He is acting this way because he is frustrated. I'm frustrated that he's gotten to this point. But what do I do? Do I preserve this student's insecurity and emotional tenor in ELA and by doing so risk the respect and obedience of my students. Or do I callously use his insecurity to make him an example of what might happen to any student who decides not to put effort in my class. I've chosen to take a middle road. A general announcement to the class about keeping your head up. But if another kid decides to put their head down, it would be because I let the first student slide. These are the decisions we make in the classroom.

Strict does not need to be disrespectful
     While I am espousing a strict and dictatorial classroom, I am not advocating any form of disparagement or disrespect of your students. I have never called one of my students stupid or incapable due to their academic performance. Nor have I ever mentioned particulars of their academic performance to the class. That is a sacred trust between you and your student and once you've crossed that line you've completely lost any faith a student can have in you as a teacher. You do not need to demean your students in order to get them to listen. Instead you can be honest with them. For example, if a student is acting in a way that's going to earn them a failing mark and detention, then maintain that as your line of defense. I don't need to insult you, I'm just going to remind you about how problematic your situation can become. Some teachers resort to insults and demeaning statements. I think that's unnecessary, but then again I can't knock a teacher who does what they need to do to teach their kids.

Discipline with love
             It's not like students in high needs schools are worse than students from affluent areas. The difference is students from high needs schools have been taught different forms of authority and therefore expect you to mimic many of the authority techniques used by their parents and the adults around them. Detention doesn't sound bad to a kid who's been jumped before. Calling home does not matter if your parents barely have control over you. We need to work to bolster families and remove violence from neighborhoods so that teachers do not have to act like dictators in the classroom. There will always be one or two students who have behavior issues, but when stern warnings and calls home aren't enough to deter bad behavior, then we need to start fixing what's making our kids grow up too quickly. 

Satire doesn't preclude you from being an asshole TW: Fatshaming

                   Time to explain simple literary concepts to the hateful individuals of the internet. Today's lucky winner of being made to look like a complete fool is comedian Nicole Arbour, who defended her "Dear fat people" video as satirical and therefore not meriting the huge criticism it received. What she didn't realize is that satire does not preclude you from all criticism. Satire as defined through a quick google search is"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." Meaning you take a particular issue and you treat it in a ridiculous manner to get a point across. A good example of satire that doesn't merit any criticism is the "defined lines" video which shows women treating men in the same objectifying manner women were treated in the "Blurred Lines" video. That is satire because it takes an aspect of the political issue, the objectification of women, and shows that when the genders are reversed the actions are considered hyperbolic and absurd, strengthening the original argument that the treatment of women in these videos are often demeaning (I spent 5 minutes thinking of a word that encapsulates how I feel and had to settle with ridiculous). People were quick to criticize the video as not practicing what it preached because it showed men in an objectified manner, but that was the point of the commentary!
                On the other hand Nicole Arbour's hateful video gains its impetus by being molded from the "real talk" genre. You know, the comedian who thinks they're saying the horrible thing that everyone was secretly thinking, but nobody was willing to say. Unfortunately for her, many people did not hold her hateful and disgusting thoughts, so what was supposed to come across as a reality check for her audience came across as a hateful diatribe, which is exactly what it was. Its hyperbolic nature does not change that the author's actual beliefs must in some way be rooted in the belief of this hate otherwise the conceit of the joke would be missing. Trust me no one is laughing because of how incredulous her actions and statements are, instead they're laughing because they partially agree with her fat shaming philosophy. But too bad for Ms. Arbour. Not many people are laughing.
             Yet she isn't the only hateful individual who has used the satire shield to prevent themselves from being called out as a disgusting bigot. The Republican party is notorious for making inappropriate jokes and merely writing them off as satirical or hyperbolic. Take any sound bite from Donald Trump and you can confirm this to be true about the Republican party. But why has satire become the venue for hatred? Well haven't you heard? Racism doesn't exist. And since Racism doesn't exist it can only function in an implicit manner. Satire and exaggeration serves as the shield that makes racism/sexism/ableism/etc. implicit and that's why its the literary element of choice for racial bigots. Or sometimes people who pretend they're not racist like another white comedian called Amy Schumer who got a free pass because we all loved her movie Trainwreck so much. But if you want to read about how she fucked up, check this awesome post.

A note on censorship: I personally am against censorship because it is a slippery slope for what is considered hateful and bigoted and what is just an uncomfortable reality. But if a publisher or website such as youtube wants to know if I'd like to see the video get taken down, the answer is a vehement yes. The video is hurtful and harms the self confidence of so many people with weight issues. I myself am obese and can speak to how furious I became listening to the video. But the final decision is with youtube. Do I have to respect it? no, but that's the way it has to be. 

Why Charters are a part of the problem

                  Another day, another article detailing how Charter Schools hurt our overall education system. But I don't want to focus on the specifics of that article. I just want to enumerate why the charter system is intrinsically detrimental to the overall public education system. First, the charter system does not have to be removed. There is a place for Charter Schools in the country. Charter Schools exist so new pedagogy and educational philosophies can be tried outside the public education system. Through this experimentation, public education can possibly pick up useful techniques and advice in order to better themselves. The issue comes when charters expand into huge networks that essentially take the cream of the crop, leaving the most vulnerable students to the public education system. One might think the lottery system in Charters prevents this kind of cherry picking, but with suspension rates at Charters far outpacing that of public schools, it's no surprise that their iron clad management systems are effective at maintaining classroom management. Couple this with several of the famous charter systems being adept at finding private donors, and you have the perfect environment to propagate a myth of charter excellence. The reality is that charters are excellent because they remove students with behavior issues and they have full access to the resources necessary to teach. Of course all Charters are not created equal. Plenty of charters function like public schools and achieve similar, if not worse, results.
                 People might argue that at the end of the day the achievement created by these charters far outweighs any negative externality created by the sprawling charter system. However, there are some institutional downsides. Charters with more money to develop find themselves able to hedge prime locations for their schools, often pushing out potential public schools from being created. The brain drain effect is something that has not been explicitly researched and may be creating a system where teachers in public schools are bombarded with students who need academic assistance. If we're playing the numbers game, the question might be is it worth creating 600 exemplary students or about 800 above average, 100 exemplary, and 300 below average students. Of course those numbers are estimates, but the hypothetical set up is the true question posed by the charter problem. Do charters hurt the public education system enough so that their contribution of exemplary students does not outweigh the unintentional harm done to public education students? If the answer is yes, we need to reform the charter system. If the answer is no, then we need to spend time figuring out a threshold where charters need to be kept at. But the notion of expanding charters without any limits is a foolhardy one. There's an issue when one of my students, who attends what's considered the best public school in her neighborhood, talks about how her mother wishes she had been placed in a charter. Teachers know they're being shortchanged. Students know they're being shortchanged. The only people pretending they're doing no harm are the charter schools themselves. 

Minorities owe nothing to Bernie Sanders

                The Bernie Sanders movement has arrived and it seems to have some staying power in the American political arena. While most politically reserved individuals and know-it-all assholes still believe Sanders-mania will fade when the ballot is real, there are enough individuals who believe in the movement that I felt it was important to address a growing belief that Bernie Sanders is the candidate for most left leaning minorities. And what's there not to believe? Bernie Sanders is routinely cast as an honest straightforward politician who wants to empower the (white) people and spread economic equality across this great nation. Unfortunately many minorities (aside from the Uncle Toms) have heard this script before and we fortunately know better. It isn't the first time a candidate who seems to actually not be a complete racist has come to the fore, promising to help the poor and the needy. What is left unsaid, which also applies to Bernie Sanders, is that these candidates refuse to acknowledge the racist systems of oppression that make so many minority groups (blacks, latinos, native americans, etc.)  underprivileged when these reforms come into place. Unsurprisingly when you look at issues in this country through the lens of socio-economic status, rather than an intersectional lens (i.e. race and socio-economic status), whites tend to benefit more from what ever general policy you put out.
         How does this happen Raymond? Well it's simple, let's say you put a job program to employ Americans. We'll find white applicants are more "qualified" because they'll have higher rates of high school diplomas than their black and latino counterparts. Anyone who knows why this is the case can look at the well documented racist tendencies of school administrations to suspend black and latino students at a far higher rate than white students. This inequality then interacts with the seemingly "equal" policy of a job program, further exacerbating racial inequity. Raymond what about things like lowering rates of federal loans? Or perhaps giving more tax breaks to the poor. Again we have to look at how the racial stratification in a particular socio-economic sense has grown. Whites are in a better position, therefore many of them can utilize these improvements far better than their black and latino counterparts.
        But Raymond, they're all getting the same help, it's fair. That's exactly what many minorities have been trying to point out. It has never been fair. Minorities from the very beginning have entered an unfair game, where it is expected we work much harder and smarter than everyone else in the nation in order to gain some chance at success. The key word in that sentence is chance, meaning many minorities can work very hard and still be unable to achieve any semblance of  financial security, educational achievement, and so on. This is not the same set up for whites. Whites tend to have more resources and more positive biases to help them. So any reform that intends to be an en masse buffer to the poor will really just act as a tidal wave; those who were already elevated will find themselves even more elevated (whites), while those were at the lowest elevation will find themselves lifted, but not as high as those who were initially above them.
      Bernie Sanders doesn't address this. His message has consistently been one focused on socioeconomic inequity. Hidden in his speeches and political message is an old excuse given out by liberals and socialists for decades. "We want to fix racism, but income inequality is more pressing." Or it's slightly more misleading form: "By fixing income equality, we can fix racism." The first statement is at least honest about the second priority minorities have in the politician's heart. The first statement is a poor excuse which begs the question "why not do both?" The two tasks aren't mutually exclusive. Yet Sanders shies away from being explicit on his policy of addressing the institutional barriers that face many minorities. Don't get me wrong, explicit racism is unacceptable in his book, but that's basically true for all democrats. Everyone wants to get rid of the industrial prison complex. Everyone wants to get rid of racially charged police encounters. These are examples of racism that are more explicit and so therefore are easier to get a predominantly white, liberal audience up in arms about. But make a single world about affirmative action and half of that audience will become quiet as they think about their own kids and how they might be affected by such a program. Bernie Sanders isn't out to help minorities. He has hardly addressed the true issues that plague them. And until he and any other candidate addresses these issues, I believe minorities should use their ballot as ammunition for a political gun and aim it straight at their heads, that way they know that any dream of them entering the office can and will be dashed by the swift strike of the pencil on the ballot.
                     

But he made me mad, so I decided to be racist!

               This is a quick and simple post. Racist comments, regardless of how small and indirect are never acceptable forms of lashing out. The real community that needs to learn this is the video gaming community. I remember when I found it hilarious to make women jokes as I killed someone in Halo. Then I grew up and reflected on how much of a little shit I am. Unfortunately we still have a plethora of individuals who think that if someone is a jerk to them, then they have license to use any identity of theirs as potential comeback material. A girl trolls your game? Why does she have an x-box in the kitchen! Someone insults how you play? They're just a stupid illegal, hahahaa! Someone disagrees with your strategy or direction? You should just fucking kill yourself! Now it's not that I don't rage in games. I do. It's something I'm particularly bad at to be honest, so no excuses for me.I'm still  a piece of shit. But I always make sure I have my limits and typically it's refusing to make fun of someone's race, gender, socio economic status and mental health. Especially the suicide comments. I think those are by far the worst. I will tell someone, "god you're terrible." Or " wow you're straight trash." But I always try my hardest not to tell someone to actually hurt themselves. What if they actually do? You have no idea what mental state they're in. So if you're going to be dick, I can't really stop you lest risk being a huge hypocrite, but I will say keep all the extra stuff out of it. Make it about gaming and gaming alone. Or of course we could all stop being dicks and just not rage. But that last comment doesn't excuse or place equal blame on both forms of harassment One is annoying. The other possibly scarring. 

You can't preach love for all exclusively (Trigger Warning: Homophobia, Transphobia, basically talking about the Catholic Church)

                                This is the blogpost I never wanted to write. It's the one that could possibly alienate me from my family and from some of my friends. But just as I get filled with anger as some of my non-minority friends abandon me when I push for the recognition of the difficulties minorities face, I too must face my privilege as a Catholic living in a Christian country. My main issue with the Catholic faith and why I waiver in my support of it, ashamed to call myself Catholic, is that by most primary interpretations of the Bible, the LGBTQ community are labeled sinners. While Christians (Catholics included) rush to preach a gospel of love and acceptance, what many often fail to mention is the underlying belief that those whose sexual orientation are not heterosexual are considered deviant and hellbound. Even by the most liberal interpretation of the bible, which withholds all judgement by God, the bible is clear in its disapproval of anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. Now I know there are other alternative interpretations and I don't want to debate those right now, mostly because I'm not properly informed. I just know that this is a particular facet of my own social justice spectrum that I've struggled with. I grew up in a household where homophobic remarks were normal. While an outright hatred of gays was considered unacceptable, the derision of them was considered appropriate and humorous. Even at school this was considered to be acceptable, especially when connected to the stereotypical effeminate behavior associated with gay men. Gender definitely intersects into this issue and so my experience is a limited one. All I can say is that I cannot in good faith tell someone I love them if a part of me believes that the person that they are is abhorrent. By choosing to remain true to my catholic faith, I am essentially choosing to deny an honest love to many of my friends in the LGBTQ community. This is not a religious choice. It is a moral choice. I choose to tread on the skirts of religiosity in order to maintain what I believe to be the moral imperative and the bedrock commitment I have to my friends. I cannot call anyone out because it is difficult for me to even express how I feel. But do not shed a drop of pity on me because what is far worse is someone holding a core piece of who you are as immoral due to an immutable text. Am I hear to admonish those who are catholic and who claim to be allies? I don't know. I'm not sure if that's my place. I'm not sure if that's right. All I know is that I will not sit by and listen to religious conversation from catholics who claim to support the LGBTQ community, but still consider being apart of the community a sin. The two modes are mutually exclusive and you do a disservice to your friends when you hold both at the same time.

Again I don't believe I deserve any pity. Just like how I show no pity to white people who grapple with white privilege, I don't expect a badge or a pat on the back for writing this. I feel this could start a crucial conversation in the catholic community about a glaring hypocrisy that many of us want to ignore. 

A naive look at oversight in schools

                        People hate the teacher unions enough to suspend common sense. There are around 75,000 teachers currently teaching in NYC public schools. The state is so concerned with the performance of these teachers it forces principals from other schools to evaluate them. This makes no sense. What is the intended outcome of observations? One might assume it's to remove bad teachers, however between the subjective nature of observations and the variable nature of randomly taking three snapshots of someone's classroom, it often falls short of achieving this goal. One might argue it's accountability, however teachers often find ways to game the system (i.e. change their lesson and demeanor specifically for observations) or do not care because of tenure. When I find teachers talking about how they change their entire way of teaching for an observation, I know that that accountability isn't occurring, only bureaucratic appeasement. Why do we keep pursing this? Well, it's because we have an inherent distrust of teachers due to their vilification by many politicians. I'm not here to exonerate teachers. I think teachers are employees, much like any other company, where there are good ones and bad ones. We need to treat teachers similarly to how ethical companies treat their employees.
                         Oversee Principals who will then oversee Teachers  
                         The current system we have for observations is a classic case of micro-managing. We need to trust that the principals in charge of schools are observing their teachers fairly. But how can we trust principals? Well simply put a Principal's success is tied closely to how their teachers perform. So principals have an incentive to keep high performing teachers and get rid of those performing poorly. Even more than a simple hire versus fire dichotomy is the motivation to help coach and support teachers. Principals will realize that their success is tied to their teachers' success and so rather than firing many teachers they will instead choose to support struggling teachers.
                      Of course this then gets tied to the question of how hard it is to fire a teacher. I honestly don't think this is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. The firing process for a teacher exists to protect the teacher from reckless Principals that would use their authority to gain better control over their staff. In this way unions are completely justified in demanding a fair and extensive process that determines whether a principal has attempted to support a teacher in every way they can before firing. While it can be annoying, the reality is that principals have plenty of reasons to fire teachers for things other than performance. Perhaps a personality trait is clashing with the principal and while the teacher is an excellent teacher, he breeds defiance in the staff. Well that's a good reason to fire anyone, but we often forget that's a person's livelihood and it should not be taken away due to a personality clash. Or as I mentioned before, nothing breeds fearful respect of a Principal than a random firing of someone who was doing something menial (perhaps showing up late to Professional Development) in order to wake the rest of the staff up. While these are all probably effective techniques in terms of corralling the troops, the cost of potentially ruining an individual's life is too great. There are plenty of other ways for principals to make you feel miserable at work (I'm not condoning this behavior, I'm merely pointing out that we have no real reason to demand teachers be fired more easily). A magic eraser isn't necessary for motivation.
               Furthermore, the long firing process encourages a mindset of help and nurture rather than alienation and removal. If a Principals knows it can only fire realistically 2 to 3 individuals from their staff, then they're more likely to focus on helping the majority of teachers on their staff succeed, rather than attempt to clean house every single time difficulty occurs. Principals essentially become married to the staff they receive and must deal with what they have. Similar to a baseball manager in the midst of reconstruction, the principal must focus on accentuating the talent that already exists on the staff, while minimizing the deficiencies. For example, if all of your special education teachers are first year teachers, then they may need extensive help writing IEPs (a skill never explicitly taught to you in graduate school). So set up a Professional Development teaching them how to do it. Create documents assisting them through the process. Give them the support they need, but won't ask for. Trust me as a first year teacher I spoke up about everything, but always felt bad doing so.
             Principals should decide pedagogical choices 
              With a shift in oversight from teachers to principals comes the reality that your classroom will in some ways be dictated by your principals, This already happens in many schools, but certain provisions in the current teacher union contract in NYC afford unnecessary rights to teachers. For example, teachers have the right to choose their lesson plan format. This is absolutely unnecessary. The reason this right was demanded was in response to principals who would often demand 4 to 5 pages per lesson plan. That is clearly excessive, but giving full autonomy to a teacher is the other end of the spectrum. It's very easy for me to merely hand my principal a mostly blank piece of paper with my Learning Objective and a copy and pasted description of the 5 main parts of a lesson and it would be acceptable. Principals should be able to hold teachers accountable for proper planning and if there is a reasonable request made by the principal (e.g. have a section detailing possible misunderstandings), teachers should be responsible for doing it. On this count I would side with the principals, simply because their jobs are on the line according to how their teachers perform. If they believe a ridiculous 4 to 5 page lesson plan will bring about success, then they can demand it. Whether it gets done by most teachers or done well by most teachers is another problem, but in the end the buck stops with them. As I noted before in exchange for job security, teachers must be willing to adapt to their principal.
             Included in this adaption is the pedagogical philosophy in the classroom. Meaning principals need to have a degree of control over the pedagogy you employ when teaching. In my school, all teachers are expected to use small group instruction every single day they teach. This means as teachers we do not address the entire class (after the lesson), instead we only teach a small group of students, leaving the rest of the class to complete independent work. For many teachers this sounds like a nightmare, but when an entire school commits to it, the results are splendid. That kind of commitment can be sought by principal. Of course at first it may not give her many fans, but if the pedagogy is successful and people are given the proper support and guidance, then the results will speak for themselves.
            This post may be controversial and considered to be naive and shortsighted, but I wrote this simply from my own observations through my first year of teaching and the knowledge of the documented failures of the current observation process. Stop making teachers nervous about being randomly fired or given low ratings. Let them teach and focus on allowing principals the tools and oversight to produce great teams of excellent teachers. 

Why life after an elite college for a poor kid can suck

                      So you just graduated from your top 50 school fresh with optimism, a degree and tons of debt. Mom already knows your moving in and while it's a bummer, it's only temporary you tell yourself. The job hunt has been real and there's no way your [insert Alma Mater here]'s network will let you down. Then three months pass and you find yourself consistently temping at an office job that pays meh, but isn't so embarrassing that you wouldn't tell your friends about your city office. And one day you'll come home and wonder, " what the fuck did I do wrong? What was I supposed to do to keep this from happening? And more importantly are my friends going through this as well?" Well the answers to the first two questions are long and difficult, but the answer to the final question is quite simple: no. Most of your friends were probably middle-class or well off, meaning many of them are not in your situation. Many of them are doing one of two things: taking a gap year (i.e. an unearned vacation) or dicking around in grad school. Well since taking a gap year definitely costs tons of cash we can cross that off our list of things we'd suggest to our parents. My mother and father would laugh at a suggestion to cap off my 200,000 4 year slumber party with a slightly cheaper 1 year slumber party. So why didn't I pursue option 2? Oh yea, I can't actually pay for the University I attended. Everyone is quick to encourage people to go to college to get their undergraduate degree, but Masters are typically reserved for those who gain acceptance to incredibly competitive programs or to those who have the money. Sure that kid who gets into the master of business administration program at Wharton might not mind taking out debt in order to get a degree that will most likely give him great earning power. But your degree of Social Work at the University of Virginia isn't going to pay the bills or the tuition it cost to get it. Why not pay for it the same way I paid undergrad? Well undergrad left you in debt and jobless, so putting yourself in more debt and remaining jobless is not an option. Also, mom and dad reluctantly helped you through undergrad. Poor parents don't have time for a 22 year old who can't feed himself. But how are all my friends doing it? Simple, they either left college with 0 debt, allowing them to take a one to two year period of time to put themselves in debt or their parents have the money to send them through more schooling. Either way because of their socioeconomic status they'll be afforded far better job prospects later in life, while you will probably languish, your degree becoming more useless with each day passing, ultimately ending with you unhappy, unfulfilled and bitter. But what about when I pay my debt! Oh you mean the 30 to 40k of debt you accrued? You intend to pay that making close to 50k a year in a major city? That will take you 5 to 6 years, so yes you can then attend grad school at the ripe age of 28 to 29, while your friends are all starting families, careers, etc. So how am I supposed to rationalize this, it all seems unfair and I'm tired of this fetal position that you've put me in. Well, you can rationalize it in two ways: first, I should have been smarter so I could earn special benefits such as a scholarship or financial aid for graduate school or I have been plagued by an unfair system that is stacked against me, I must resign myself to my mediocrity. How do you deal with it Raymond? I write sarcastic blogposts with fictional characters talking to me.

On a real note: I'm currently attending grad school. I'm currently working as well. So I guess I took the fuck it, I'll do it live option. But not everyone has this option. Oh and please spare me the story of how your friend got a scholarship. So has all of our friends. If there were enough scholarships for every person accepted to a school, this post wouldn't have been written. I also don't think it's anything you should fall into despair about, there are real options out there, but I just wanted to write something that captures the struggle many poor students find themselves in after college. 

My thoughts on Bernie Sanders, his "liberal" brand, and why I support those black activists

                 So I know Bernie Sanders labels himself as a Democratic Socialist, but that's just a good example of political jargon developed in order to make him electable (in any campaign). In reality, had his media team not spin out this "democratic socialist" label we would consider him a liberal and a pretty far left leaning liberal at that. And hey, I'm cool with that. My political journey has ranged from entering college as a moderate conservative to leaving college as what I'd call a "democratic socialist" (you see it's ok for me to do it because I have nothing to gain from it). And now I kind of find myself with Bernie in that we want to differentiate ourselves, but if we abstract the political field, we're both lumped in a big blotch of liberalism. I'm sure for Bernie, if he weren't running for President, that'd be ok. But for me, personally I find liberalism in its current form to be pretty inept at prioritizing minorities. Now before I get the screams of racist republicans this and tea parties are "colorblind" that, I'm not saying liberals are overtly racist. I'm saying that liberals and liberalism typically supports policies that are for the status quo. Regardless if it's changing the status quo or maintaining it, liberalism serves people as a "whole." But minorities all know that the conglomerate is never truly serving them. American group think has been innately oppressive for so long that it's hard to even tell when we're feeding into it. For example, my friends, so called "social justice warriors", were quick to criticize black protesters for disrupting Sander's speech. I guess the urgency to save black lives can wait for the presidential cycle?
         Elitism reeks in liberalism. So many of my friends thought they knew better than those protesters. Those that spoke (who were not black) for some reason believed they were more qualified than black people at running their own social movement. I remember one time I heavily criticized the divestment movement in my school because I thought their sit in on the CSG meetings was a poor way of getting the public on their side. I found their actions to be annoying and borderline rude. So I decided to be critical on Facebook (yay for digital acitivism!). And one of my friends, who was very involved in the movement, basically called me out for being an oppressive jerk. She was completely right. While I support her and the movement, as a non-arab, the effects of that movement were removed from me. No movie, testimony, sit-in was going to truly affect my life like so many of my peers whose families have suffered. So when the divest movement decided to act as if it were a state of an emergency, I responded to them as if they were overreacting, which makes sense. But that doesn't excuse that we need to have the sense to acknowledge when we may not know. When my friend confronted my foolishness I felt embarrassed. At the time I thought I was pretty down in the Social Justice Crowd. What happened! I forgot that the theory of social justice and its actual exhibition in our lives are two completely different things.
        Ooops, this is supposed to be a post about Bernie Sanders! Well, the reason I decided to take this long tangent is because I understand and sympathize with minorities who don't trust any politician who hasn't explicitly made their campaign about them. I think it's about time we make politicians prove they're down before we give up our vote. And what better way than to potentially stake your presidential bid on making a radically profound statement on race. People want to harp about how Bernie Sanders has been fighting for Civil Rights for decades, but these same people are quick to ignore how he was complicit in a brand of liberalism that has always put minorities second and other issues first. When minorities demand that they be taken seriously and refuse to be patronized with afterthought considerations or token policy, we are viewed as being greedy and petulant. I'm not saying Bernie Sanders hasn't done everything in his power to help minorities. I'm saying that candidates who are dedicated to helping minorities don't earn their way by name dropping Martin Luther King. Bernie Sanders seems committed to helping minorities, but we're in an election cycle right now and why support someone who has race has one of his #3 or #4 issue, when we could demand that we be treated as #1. This is how political lobbying works. This is how social movements work. If we strip the civil rights movement of a lot of its romanticized notions, a lot of it was mobilizing people to pester everyday bystanders into action.
             When I see liberals such as Bernie Sanders come to the fore, I begin to grow annoyed at so many people who had claimed to be committed to something higher than an individual, but abandoned those values in order to protect a politician. Which is exactly what he is. This isn't cynicism, it's pragmatism. Bernie Sanders, if he wants to be a successful president, is not going to fulfill many of his promises. Bernie Sanders will concede issues once he enters office. He may accomplish a lot of good too and it's not like his inability to get legislation passed will be any different from other candidates who are far leaning in the spectrum. I'm just suspicious and because I'm suspicious, I'm slightly critical, but for many that's considered to be liberal sacrilege. I guess I'm not a liberal after all.
        Was it shitty that activists hijacked his speech? Sure, to you it probably was. Is everyone capable of using someone else's platform in order to further their own agenda, even if it's the agenda of a particular group of people. No, I'm sure some people aren't. But are people of color, specifically black people, still dying due to ingrained racism in this country, especially in our policing institutions, yes they are. I can't believe I'm going to agree with Donald Trump in this post, but the time for political correctness is over. Activist and those who support the movement will do what ever it takes protect black lives. I respect that. My life isn't on the line. So instead of criticizing it, I think I'll shut up. Plenty of my friends should probably do the same. Oh yea, and that's why I don't click the heels of my boots when I see Bernie Sanders. I don't trust him. I don't trust any of them. I won't be swept away. I'll wait till election day and compare the merits of every candidate. 

Fuck Chivalry. Yay High standards!

                  If I have to read another chivalry is dead article I'm going to puke. Chivalry is a sexist concept, can we just be honest about that. The notion that men have to go through a ridiculous prescription of actions and responsibilities in order to properly court a girl puts all agency and control in the man leaving the woman to be a passive recipient. And God forbid if she decides to reject a "chivalrous" gentleman, then she is ostracized, being labeled as"stuck up." That sounds shitty for both parties. Yet, I still hear a chorus of articles chiming about how "dates aren't a thing anymore" or "men don't want to define relationships." Yes, those are negative aspects of our current dating culture, but is your solution really an archaic notion of gender roles? What's worse is we're moving from getting down on chivalry to getting down on women being realistic. An article on how "women should be more high maintenance" irked me as the examples given were really just proving the point of "women should have basic expectations for dating and romance." The article cites a man inviting a woman over his place for a first date as an avoidable occurrence if a woman chooses to be "high maintenance." Actually that's pretty avoidable if you just have basic standards for dating.

does this scream romance to you?

          I'm tired of backwards expectations for dating. I think women should be able to have considerable say in what dates are and how they should go. I think men, while certainly obliged to pay for a first date because they are the ones who typically ask for them, should not feel threatened if a girl decides to ask them out. You know what's an attractive characteristic? Confidence. I think chivalry and all of its tenets should not all be obligatory. Holding the door, helping someone over a puddle, pulling out someone's chair, these are obligatory due to common courtesy, not because of some invisible "guy code." Buying someone roses, complimenting what someone wears, even at times paying for dinner, these are not actions that are obligatory, they're earned based on how someone piques another's interest. As I said in my last post, being a little selfish is actually healthy when initially dating. 

        The final aspect of chivalry I despise is the need to protect a "woman's honor." By chiming in before allowing a woman to speak for herself you are essentially treating her like a child. I'm not going to ignore the clear physical and violent dimension these types of exchanges take. You can be just as supportive by standing right by a woman as she deals with an altercation herself. Your presence and clear physical disposition is enough to let another man know that violence will not be tolerated. However, how the altercation should be handled is completely up to the woman. Of course intervene when someone is feeling overwhelmed, but again this is not because of chivalry, it's because that's what people do when they see other people in similar circumstances. 

      I have not been on many dates, but for the ones I have been on, I acted in a way that was going to make me happy, while also being respectful to the person I was dating. Instead of stressing over ridiculous notions of whether the date was done proper, I focused on getting to know the person I was meeting. That's what dating culture should be about. That's what people should be pushing for. Stop it with the chivalry crap. It ain't cute. 

How to never feel like you're friendzoned

                 Gentlemen (and women can take this advice too) the easiest way to keep yourself from getting in the friendzone is by never walking into it. What I mean is if someone tells you they just want to be friends and you clearly don't want to be friends, then don't. While it sounds ridiculous and a major jerk move, it saves everyone a lot of grief. First, it will keep you from feeling like you've been taken advantage of, regardless of the fact that the other person was very clear about not wanting anything romantic. Also, it will allow the other person to move on to someone who is not acting as an emotional crutch for them. It's not good when someone is acting in a capacity that normal friends would not act in. So if you just met a girl and you really want a relationship, but she does not feel the same, then just walk away amicably.
               A warning though, do not use friendship as a guilt tool. Meaning if you spend a good amount of time with someone and the relationship doesn't work out or the other person realizes you are not what they wanted, that is not an excuse to break things indefinitely. Of course you need to take time away from the person you cared about and some break ups are irreparable, but if you know things weren't working and friendship has been developed between you two, then by all means when you've rid yourself of your emotions become friends. In short, be selfish when it comes to affairs of the heart, but don't be a complete jerk to the people who have invested their time with you. 

The myth of the impartial educated white person

                                 Impartiality is the crux of academics. College leaves you feeling empowered to decipher between rampant opinion and cold hard fact. Even when dealing with the subjective territory of opinion, college makes you feel well equipped to be the rational voice of reason amidst a sea of bigots and zealots. Unfortunately these same individuals graduate from universities believing that because of their one African studies class and that one time they went to a multi-cultural food festival, they are now equipped to speak about cultural topics unrelated to them. This is especially prominent in white liberals, who believe "I'm not a racist individual, there is no way I'd misrepresent this issue." Furthermore, there exists a need for a "two-sided story", which implicitly creates a narrative that often supports agent identities. Suddenly what we find is that "truth" can only be dispensed from "calm" and "rational" individuals (who typically happen to be white). Minorities who candidly complain are quickly labeled as angry and irrational. The narrative is always "racism is bad, but..." Minorities are tired of the exceptions, we want our narrative of oppression to first be heard without a devil's advocate.
                       One might not care about the emotional and psychology needs of minorities. Regardless, the normative venues of information and framing of information make it so that racial biases exist in the resources we use to discuss many of these issues. Where Israel has thousands to spend on a reeducation campaign about Palestine, outside institutions often have to speak in lieu of the Palestinians. Where detailed statistics chronicling the academic failures of ELLs exist, we find no alternative searching for what ELLs excel at (hint: maybe it has do with Spanish?). The point is we're all swimming in the water, we're all taking in the smog and it has tainted our knowledge as well. Acknowledging this normative prison is an important first step to dispelling the notion of impartiality.
             What's worse is often we make decisions based on these "impartial" voices. A good example is when prominent University of Michigan Professor Victor Lieberman decided to do a small lecture during a University of Michigan student government hearing on the decision to divest from companies that support Israeli military operations. His intentions, while good, were ultimately biased and appropriately criticized by one of his own Graduate Student Instructors who helps him with the course. He responded back in turn, claiming that his lecture is the purpose of historical academia and academia as a whole. He claims that the issue with the critique is that it prevents the realization of "truth", which essentially makes the efforts of all humanities pointless. The reality is that while there is definitely value in attempting an impartial analysis of incredibly political and controversial topics, there is no way to learn from these exercises any definitive and all encompassing "truth," When someone like Professor Lieberman enters that arena and gives his opinion as a "voice of reason" or as an "unbiased observer", it subordinates the target identity and creates a narrative that legitimizes the agent identity for many of the reasons listened in the previous paragraph.
            This is not a call to remain at a stand still. Important decisions need to be made and our delegates cannot make these decisions uninformed. Having hearings where both sides get to speak unadulterated can help our representatives decide for themselves what is "truth" and what is "reason." Also, it gives our delegates the impetus to search out the voices of Professor Lieberman in their intended settings: academia. The end result may be the same, but at least we know we can remove our delegates. When we vote, we decide what is reason and truth to us. When we discuss difficult topics acknowledging our own biases is the first step to truth. But far too many white liberals believe their degree entitles them to a transcendent view on issues not germane to them. And when minorities speak vociferously, we are still viewed as irrational and uneducated. It is time we stopped listening to the white liberal about minority issues and asked minorities to speak with a promise not to play devil's advocate immediately (or often times in mid sentence) after they are done speaking.
             
                          

Inside Out and why flashbacks sometimes suck

                             Inside Out has a lot going for it. The concept is clever and interesting. The cast is stellar and it's Pixar so you figure it has to be good. But with the fame and reputation of Pixar comes high standards, and Inside Out unfortunately doesn't meet those standards. What I think really hurt Inside Out was their over reliance on flashbacks to provide a lot of story telling background that's supposed to incur an emotional reaction later in the movie.
SPOILER ALERT DON'T READ ANY FURTHER!!!!!

A perfect example how this telling not showing aspect is the character Bing Bong. Her entire relationship with Bing Bong is discussed via reminiscing with Joy and a brief flashback. This makes his eventual demise sad, but not heart wrenching. One might argue that the vagueness is intentional in order to allow us to project our own memories of an imaginary friend, but the odd specificity of bing bong and his magic wagon makes it difficult to do that.
                I feel the entire time the movie wants us to project ourselves into the characters, but everything seems too particular. Hockey is too particular a sport. Minnesota is too particular of a state. Riley and being goofball is too particular of a character trait. We can't pretend we're Riley or that Riley is us. Instead we just sympathize rather than empathize. And that's the main issue, sympathy is cheap. Empathy is where true emotional gravitas exists.
                My friend described Inside Out as meh and I unfortunately have to agree. Not horrible movie by any means, but definitely disappointing given Pixar's previous work. 

Room for debate: My thoughts on particular issues in education

                       I'm writing this post in the hopes to encourage constructive debate on the various topics. Furthermore, this post serves as an organizing document for my own personal use to go back to and revise. I think education is a multi-faceted subject and there are only a few topics I can discuss with some authority, so if you feel I miss something essential, feel free to bring it up in the comments.



1. Charter school movement:
               I think the charter school movement overall has hurt the state of public education in this country. Now before you think of me as just another union talking head, please hear me out. I think there's a place for charter schools in our current education system. I just feel there's something fishy about the fact that charter schools are pretty much exclusively placed in low-income areas. Charter schools, as I imagine them, are essentially test labs for new pedagogy. Some pedagogy needs a whole school approach to test it and what better way than to allow informed and consenting adults place their kids in charters. Unfortunately, we've used charter schools as reform schools. We consider them to be the silver bullet in education. Charter chains such as Success Academy and Uncommon have created a brand of education they believe can be mass produced and replicated on a large scale. The reality of their success is created through huge disparities in funding and borderline illegal financial practices, revealing that often the silver bullet in education is funding. Couple that with behavioral management systems that are often totalitarian and unfair and you end up supporting a school system that drains money for public schools, while also causing irreparable damage to our kids. Now let's not believe that all charters are created equal. Some charters function with similar funding levels as public schools and lo and behold, they often perform similarly.

2. Special Education:
             Special Education is currently in an abysmal state. The ICT movement which has integrated many special education students into general education settings have simply made it so that special education teachers no longer need to be special education teachers anymore. Instead the push is for differentiation for all students, but students with special needs frankly do actually have intensive academic needs that need special attention. The ICT classroom sometimes functions well, but often it just creates a classroom with two teachers functioning as general ed teachers. Differentiation becomes difficult and borderline impossible because SPED teachers are expected to share Gen Ed teacher duties. This practice is unrealistic and unfair for SPED teachers. The decline of the 12:1:1 was greeted with open arms, but really all it has done is created a strict dichotomy between the least restrictive environment and the most restrictive. Many students have been referred to a special school district for intensive learning deficiencies just because the school they attend refuses to have a 12:1:1 section.

3. The solution to our public education system:
         There is no silver bullet for fixing the education system, but one place to start is classroom sizes. Regardless of reform, classrooms are still packed to the brim with students. The trend in many poor neighborhoods show that classroom sizes are growing. Naysayers like Bill Gates and company will argue that classroom size is not an issue, but the research clearly states otherwise. A recent study done by the University of Texas showed large class sizes had a negative effect on overall student performance. The study itself ironically used classroom sizes that would be considered ideal in New York City (23-25 students). If we believe the quality derived from making classroom sizes smaller follows a diminishing returns logic, then our students stand to benefit tremendously in our overcrowded schools.

4. Voucher system:
           Hahahahaha... let's be serious.



5. Workshop model versus inquiry based learning:
      There is a new fad in math pedagogy and it's called inquiry based learning (or discovery learning). It suggests that instead of explicitly teaching concepts in math, students should be encouraged to discover and figure out problems on their own without any prior knowledge given by the teacher. Of course scaffolding can be provided, but the notion of not explicitly telling kids how to go about solving mathematical problems is interesting. Furthermore, this method of teaching runs counter to the workshop model which begins with direct instruction from the teacher and eventually ends with autonomous work by the student. As for which pedagogy is better, I believe most pedagogy have a time and place in learning. Some concepts in math better lend themselves to discovery (e.g. instead of teaching someone inverse operation, letting them naturally figure out the process can be rewarding). Other concepts requires explicit directions in order to do them properly. Also, standardized tests make discovery learning problematic because exams might have expected answer formats that are far more easier to relay through a workshop model.

6. Teach For America:
    I have a lot of mixed feelings about Teach For America. First, I think the organization is confused as to what its actual goal is. It claims that it intends to close the achievement gap and provide quality education for everyone, but in actuality all it does is put in a cadre of grossly under prepared teachers in some of the most difficult teaching positions in existence. Teach For America couples this with very limited support throughout the school year and a culture that encourages stepping stone mentalities. What I mean is not many TFA corp members stay in education and the ones who do don't typically stay in the trenches. Furthermore, TFA's strong ties with charter schools is also troubling simply because the charter movement is hurting their main mission (providing great schools for all children). The real mission for TFA is to get people interested in education and to create an influx of excellent teachers. I think TFA succeeds in the first portion, all corp members I know, including those who quit mid year, have a deep passion for education that was at least given some perspective through their time in TFA. The second goal on the other hand they fail miserably at and using the rest of the nation as a benchmark is not a fair assessment either, since first year teachers in general are being tossed into classrooms grossly under prepared.

Why consent is not a cup of tea.

                      If you haven't watched the consent as a cup of tea metaphor video, then go watch it and come back to read this post. I despise the consent as a cup of tea metaphor becomes it is the continuation of an unsettling trend I've seen in many discussions around sexuality and consent. Often people feel there is so much ambiguity around what consent is and what healthy sex looks like that we as a community need to come up with a way to simplify many of the concepts we created to talk about sex. The issue is sex can often be complicated. Sex means a lot of different things for a lot of different people and while the "cup of tea" metaphor might seem like an apt introduction to the concept of consent, it actually inhibits one from deeply considering the importance of consent and the act of sex in general. Furthermore, when we consider the audience for this video, we realize it's actually just pandering to a group of (mainly men) men who try to find grey areas within definitions of sex in order to continue acting like pigs. "But we were both drunk they," say! "She didn't say she did not want it," they exclaim! Buddies, buddies, remember the cup of tea analogy? What we really need to say to these individuals is a conversation similar to the one had in this comic strip. Misogynistic men don't need hand holding, they just need some real talk.
                People might rail back claiming that the video wasn't "that big of a deal", but it cheapens the way we discuss these issues. Different people have different levels of comfortableness with sex and sex as an action is something we have differing opinions on. Tea is a beverage. Sex is something that can be incredibly passionate and often involves a degree of emotional and physical vulnerability. Tea comes hot and cold. Sex can often proceed months of build up or can be a spur of the moment endeavor for an individual, leading to huge differences on the importance and significance of sex for individuals. Tea sometimes requires hot water. Sex is something people often do exclusively and sometimes can be shared with multiple partners, regardless the rate of engagement differs significantly according to person. I can get tea at home or I can walk four blocks up to the diner and have tea served there. If someone tells me they want sex and at the moment we are about to have it, they have second thoughts, I won't become disgruntled as I understand it's an incredibly personal act. If you ask for a cup of tea and I make it for you and you don't drink it, I'm going to be peeved.
          So yea, can we stop it with the simplistic explanations for what is honestly something that we should be giving some degree of thought to. Also, if you don't understand that you need to make sure someone is ok with sex before having it, then you're an inconsiderate ass. I doubt the video is going to make any difference. So I say more sex and less tea! Or at least more discussion about sex and I guess tea itself can remain, just stay out of our metaphors, though I guess it's better than the getting a cup of coffee euphemism. Ok maybe instead of saying you got a cup of coffee, you can say you got a cup of tea?

Legend of Korra: the long wait till the avatar finally does something

      I was so excited for the 4th season of Legend of Korra. I thought that the series (and Korra) was going through a period of maturation as it geared up for a new world riddled with political turmoil and strife. But Korra's journey from her disability and traumatic experience was devoid of deep meaning. Symbolically it was confusing as Korra did not overcome the disability by herself or with the help of a sage character (two to be exact), or through the love and acceptance of her friends. Instead she sought out the source of the disability, an evil source, and in a few moments of dialogue resolved all the issues with him. It just didn't make sense. I believe that had an entire episode been devoted to a spiritual awakening that stood in for the acceptance of her disability not as a hurdle to be overcame, but as a piece of her to be acknowledged and adjusted for, then I would not have been disappointed. But the show doesn't seem to be making any commentary. Instead it just felt like they needed her better and Zaheer was the only deus ex machina left. Even if they were going to go through the trouble of making her better, it has now been two episodes and Korra is MIA in terms of definitive action. She is on the sidelines while others are making moves. The Avatar should be integral to the process, it should never feel as if everyone else is more significant than the avatar, and yet I feel like Korra isn't even necessary. I'm sure the show will come up with some reason to make her necessary (cue the super weapon that can't be stopped), but for two episodes, I honestly cared more about Toph and Bolin than I did about Korra. I'm going to organize my thoughts a bit more. I don't have time to organize this into a well sculpted essay, so a list will have to do.

1. Characters- Characters in Korra never complete their character arcs. The show has developed some amazing characters: Korra, Bolin, Janorra, Kai, etc. But the show hasn't leveraged the character arcs in this current season. We need to see characters change, but it feels as if the only character who has significantly changed was Korra. All other characters have pretty much remained static. A great example of this is Bolin. Bolin foolishly joins Kuevera thinking he is contributing to the greater good and eventually turns his back on his friends and family in devotion to this facade. When the facade comes tumbling down he takes it lightly. Sure he shows remorse, but it's as if he disassociated himself with the tragedy. The work camps and reeducation camps described in the show are reminiscent to Japanese internment and the Holocaust, yet Bolin absolves himself of direct responsibility. It would have been nice to see him become frustrated and a tad consumed with guilt. Then his friends and his eventual resolution with Opal could help him forgive himself for the atrocities he accidentally supported. Also, why is it that Kai has basically been MIA for the majority of this season? The budding romance between Janorra and Kai is an important tool to be used. Their naivety and youth reminds us of the old avatar squad and could have easily been juxtaposed with Korra's group to make an interesting meta commentary of the differences between the two shows. Instead Kai, who in my opinion has developed nicely in the previous season, is completely missing and Janorra is still just as prominent. Also, the drama between Bei Fong, her sister and Toph was good, but lacked the emotional depth to be compelling. That episode where she forgives Toph felt unrealistic. One act of remorse is not enough to mend years of neglect.

2. Universe Logic- In every great fantasy series there is a logic that the universe follows which allows fantastical things to be significant and meaningful to us. In star wars, the metaphorical significance of light saber fights as a method of expressing personal discord was evident in the original series. In the original avatar the spirit world as a source of wisdom, but also mystique and danger. This trope of a wise yet dangerous spirit world was logic put into place. But with the convergence of the spirit world and human world there is massive confusion. First, why was the spirit world ever merged? This question is never answered. Second, why did the airbenders get their powers through this convergence? You can suspend disbelief for it, but why do so when you can construct a logic to explain the phenomenon, while also developing a more believable universe for your audience. You see the spirit world in the human world, but not the human world in the spirit world. Why is that the case? Also, with all the past avatar's dead is there any way to get them back? If there is anything the show needs to deus ex machina it is that. The process of looking back on past lives was symbolically powerful in the first series. To lose that is to lose  a powerful moment in the show. As the show continues we see the spirits unwilling to engage in the human conflict. Why? What possibly could be this holier than thou attitude the spirits have. That's the issue the spirits and humans in the Legend of Wan arc did not merely act holier than thou, but instead acted with genuine distrust. The spirits in the old avatar and in the first two seasons of the new have consistently acted holier than thou. Interactions or discussions about the spirit world also had this holier than thou feel. You can't add a religiosity to a show and then dismiss its religious element when it is convenient. Even arguing the difference between spirituality and religiosity is moot. We revere the spiritual world because it's a source of wisdom, therefore the convergence of the human and spirit world just seems disrespectful and more analogous to a tower of babel type tale.

3. Political banter- the political undertones of the show are too broad. Of course you want to use a political archetype as the basis of your show to draw audiences in and provide a bedrock for narrative complexity, but eventually this must be nuanced. Kuevera is a general, but what does she do that makes her so fearsome? She has labor camps. Show them. I want to see the plight. She steals resources. Show that. You need to be able to see why Kuevera is that big of a threat. Instead the show took their favorite "let's turn the main baddie into a raving lunatic approach." The ending of season 3 was so great because you knew Zaheer wasn't just some raving lunatic. He had a logic behind his actions and there were even times where we could take a second and sympathize with his loss. Also, I felt like Korra was thematically taking on flawed views of government. Amon- Racist dictatorship, Unalaq- Monarchy/Theocracy, Zaheer- Anarchy, and Kuevera- military dictatorship. But the way they dispose these governments are essentially the same. The leaders end up being psychologically disposed. Desperation does not always breed such rash judgement. For example, Kuevera killing her fiance seemed to make very little sense. Why did she press so quickly when she could have easily waited sent a team to extract him out? Sure, she might view him as an asset, but he was a very strong asset as he was the one who constructed the super weapon. She had the full advantage and it wasn't like he was disloyal. 

Transformative teaching is sustainable teaching

                   A month into my first year of teaching, I talked to a veteran teacher who also taught my students for English. I told him about the horror stories TFA teachers have to deal with, describing one instance where a corp member had a chair thrown at them, but returned the next day with their head held high. What I expected was a nod of approval and possibly an affirmation of how tough the job can be. Instead the veteran teacher looked at me with an incredulous look. He asked me if what I was saying was true and I confirmed it, surprised by his reluctance to believe it. I followed it up by saying, " well that's part of the job." He then responded in a candid manner that opened my eyes to the true wonder of teaching. He told me "there needs to be an alternative to having a chair thrown at me."
        Teaching is supposed to be a selfless job. This perception is taken to the extreme, often recreated through compelling narratives of a single teacher who gives up their days, nights, lunches, bathroom breaks, their brother's wedding and their own physical safety in the hopes to compel their kids to academic success. This all or nothing attitude is glorified in the rank and file of Teach For America. Michelle Rhee, the famous education reformer and former corp member, described her first year as horrible experience and instead spent her entire summer working to get her kids to succeed. What is not given much thought is the fact that she was only able to keep this practice up for two years, after which she left her job to work in the field of education as a reformer. Is Michelle Rhee's story really what we should be striving for? Is it fair to our teachers to ask them to burn themselves out in order to teach our kids?
     When the veteran teacher candidly spoke about having standards for his work space, it was the first time a teacher had spoken about their profession with their own mental and physical health in mind. The entire time I saw the profession as a selfless endeavor people took on themselves until they couldn't muster the energy to do it any longer. Now I realize we need to stop promoting an unsustainable standard for teachers. Teachers are not only entitled to work hard, but they are also entitled to maintain their health while doing so. Over testing, high stakes evaluation systems, and ineffective administrations all contribute to a system that makes the teaching profession poisonous for mental health. Charters are not exempt from this poison, often seeing high turn over rates due to unrealistic expectations and unhealthy hours.
    It is national teacher appreciation week and I don't want you to appreciate me. I want you all to appreciate veteran teachers who have stood past the initial 5 years to devote their lives to a craft that is incredibly difficult and often over taxing. When cheering your favorite teacher on why not also show your support by saying no to many of the policies that cause them undue stress? Why not support for reform that does not punish teachers. Why not push for smaller class sizes? At the very least we can support a narrative that no longer glorifies an unsustainable model of teaching. Teachers need an alternative to having to burn themselves out in order to teach their kids. It's our job to push law makers to find that alternative. 

When confidence became stupidity

           This is going to be a short blog. When did confidence become an indicator of stupidity? I feel in the "age of introverts", we find that the extroverted bunch,who are typically quick to open their mouths for the slightest infraction, are portrayed as obnoxious and stupid. They are made out to be akin to an abrasive frat boy who won't shut up in his introduction to philosophy course even though he clearly did none of the reading. But just as introverts (and the whole introvert vs extrovert dichotomy is annoying and false, but whatevs pop culture) use silence and deep introspection as a way of digesting material, extroverts use social engagement and out loud thinking in order to form their opinions. I am the guy who will talk about a movie the minute the credits start rolling and then have a completely different opinion an hour or two later. The discussion I initially have helps me digest and reflect on the content of the art. In this same vein, when I write on my blog I do so confidently, leaving myself with little wiggle room in terms of backtracking. I've seen articles and critics be essentially lambasted for speaking in what amounts to absolutes. Sometimes absolutes are fun to talk in. We all know they aren't true and exceptions exist, but when I say if you enjoyed episode 2 of Star Wars then we can never be friends, I strongly believe that statement might be true (seriously, even I will have the power to keep people from caring). This runty rant (alliteration!) was brought about by the criticism surrounding Moviebob. His reviews are poignant and in your face, often taking the form of intense criticism that is typically hard to verify or falsify. His work is thought provoking, but is rarely apologetic about its critical framework. People take that as "him thinking he's smarter than he is." But it's called having a persona in your writing. Nobody wants to believe you if you write a post talking about how you may be right in a field that's subjective to begin with. So yea, I write as if I'm right. I acknowledge inconsistencies and possible areas of confusion where I can't explain myself completely, but if you want me and anyone else who is unabashedly confident in their work to begin "toning it down" in order to appear pensive, then you're going to be waiting for a long time. 

Cutting People off and Being there

                             One fad I remember from college was the "radical" notion of self love. Self love essentially asked us to free ourselves from the expectations of society and the people around us and instead begin to love ourselves unconditionally, regardless of our flaws. A component of self love was removing toxic individuals from your life. Basically we needed to identify the people in our lives that drained us or made us feel less of ourselves and swiftly cut them off in order to achieve a state of happiness. This nonchalant action of removing someone from your life always left a sour taste in my mouth. I pride myself on being someone who cares too much and I've held onto people far too long and sure it hurt, but it also allowed me to keep other people in my life who I would have otherwise removed. Cutting someone off is always my last resort because the action itself is painful. The myth of a clean break from a poisonous person reflected an underlying pretension and selfishness I always felt when listening to the doctrine of "self love" in college.
                        A recent article I read brought up this grey area in self love doctrine by viewing how it interacts with mental illness. The article itself mentions mental illness and how it is often described as a "negative" state. Many will engage with their friends who have mental illness in this manner and quickly label them as negative. And according to the doctrine of self love, if someone is draining you then that's ground to cut them off. If I could be candid without a horde of criticism (hell I don't care if you criticize me), mental illness is draining. It's draining not only for those who suffer it, but also for those close to them. So if you have a friend who suffers from a mental illness you should expect to feel some of the effects from it. Not that you deserve any pity.
                    Let's have some real talk for a bit, this blogpost will be very informal for the sake of being honest about how I feel on this matter. I had a friend in high school who suffered from a mental illness. We were friends for about three years and as the years went on our relationship become more and more strained. Part of this was due to the illness, but it also had to do with normal high school drama and stress. I was quick to call her negative, but I stood by her believing that only the lowest form of a person abandons their friends. At a certain point me and few other close friends of hers decided enough was enough. We couldn't handle the emotional toll she took on us anymore and so one by one we decided to cut her out of our lives. At the time we came up with excuses and threw the blame on her. But now that I can look back, the reality is we couldn't handle her mental illness. It was too much for us and we weren't strong enough. Well I don't want to speak for everyone else, so let me me take that back and clarify that I was not strong enough. It was difficult cutting her out of my life and though I put on a strong face pretending she was irrelevant at the point I decided she wasn't in my life, the reality (aptly shown by the fact that I'm writing about her several years later) was that I lost someone close to me. "Negative people", mental illness or not, are people who we can become close with. Sometimes we're the negative people in another person's life and they have to make the choice of whether they can handle us or not. In the end I can't absolve myself by hiding behind the shield of self love. I made a choice to remove my friend from my life. It was a choice that I have no doubt hurt both of us.
              I believe we need to love ourselves, but we cannot become self absorbed. The moment we believe our happiness always trumps everyone else's happiness is when self love has gone too far. Good friendship is punctuated by sacrifice and compromise. And sometimes friendships don't work out. When you do decide to cut the individual off, do so with a heavy heart and don't feel foolish for having lingering thoughts about them. You can grieve the loss of a friend even if you were the one that decided to end the friendship. As for friends with mental illness, if you absolutely cannot handle the toll it might take you can always end your friendship, but you'll have to live with that decision. It isn't a question of who is right or wrong at that point. Honestly it's finding the resolution that makes both people happy.