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.