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.