Why most of the criticism levied against TFA is done to maintain the status quo

By Raymond Arroyo, Senior, University of Michigan, New York City Public School Student, Accepted TFA member NYC 2014

disclaimer: This is my personal blog and I do not speak for the Corps in any capacity. My opinions are only my own.

                Many people have a lot of valid criticisms of Teach For America. Many of these students are being implanted into neighborhoods they have basically no experience with (true in some sense). These students are just using it as resume padding (moot point in my opinion, but nonetheless true in some cases). And that many of these kids are just idealist who don't actually understand the gravity of the situation they are entering (very true). But among the most invalid criticisms are these two: TFA corps members are unprepared to teach and TFA corps members are taking jobs from actual teachers. The former is invalid because plenty of studies have shown that TFA corps members either do better than normal first year teachers (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/Education/TFA_snapshot_9_2013.pdf) or do just as well (http://educationnext.org/what-you-should-know-about-tfa-and-the-value-of-experience-2/). So when people discuss how unprepared TFA corps members are, they are making a factually untrue statement. The fact of the matter is TFA corps members are being placed in the toughest schools with the students who need the most help. If someone expects teachers from even the best programs to do exceptionally well in these districts, then perhaps they are the naive one. Secondly, the claim that TFA corps members take the jobs of experienced teachers is partially false. It takes two to tango and the schools need to first get rid of veteran teachers for TFA corps members to "take their positions". Many argue TFA corps come at a cheaper price tag, thus explaining why schools are dumping veterans for TFA corp members. But this is an overly pessimistic view of the system, which doesn't even assign blame to TFA, it assigns blame to administrators. A perhaps more realistic picture is that budgets are being cut drastically due to the slow recovery, causing schools the need to dump veteran teachers who come at a higher price tag. To insinuate that schools simply want to save a buck is overly pessimistic. These schools might have to save a buck. The reason they are taking TFA members over young teachers is because TFA members are out performing these young teachers and are cheaper. 

          So now that I've disarmed some of the harshest criticism let's look at the purpose of TFA. It integrates very successful students from top universities into the education system. The idea is that most of these students are going to end up in other sectors: business, law, policy, engineering, etc., that determine many of the policy decisions and technologies afforded to education. However the massive disconnect between those in power and those working "in the trenches" was wide. Thus TFA provides a bridge, allowing a student who would normally just enter a lucrative job at wall street a chance to see how difficult things really are. The result is hopefully a life changing experience that turns the student into a TFA alum who is devoted to the fight for education equality. This trend doesn't mean that students just resume pad and then leave. Many TFA members stay on as teachers, many of the becoming administrators and opening up their own schools. 

        The valid criticism. Aside from ad hominems (i.e. TFA members are idealistic) there is some actual constructive criticism to be made about the program. First, TFA seems to be very focused on test based success, which some could argue maintains a system of standardizing testing that is outdated and ineffective. Furthermore, the culture gap is a real thing that can be argued to gentrify and culturally invade spaces for people of color and low SES. Also, the large partnership with charter schools also sends a jaded message, but charter schools like TFA are typically criticized with what I dub as "status quo maintenance". This sort of criticism will only argue against change and refuses to admit glaring issues with the status quo first. This approach makes no sense because policy changes take time for reform to get it right (e.g. the ACA), especially if policy changes are largely achieving their main goal such as programs like TFA. 

     In the end the criticism doesn't hold much water for grounds of boycotting the program similar to what this haughty Harvard student suggested in this biased article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandra-korn/why-i-said-no-to-teach-for-america_b_4151764.html. There are definitely changes that should be made to prevent TFA teachers from "replacing" veteran teachers, but that cannot come from the program itself, but from the government who needs to stop cutting budgets. Furthermore, we can see a trend in new policy and reform being resisted in almost all history. It doesn't surprise me that there is such harsh criticism being levied against TFA because TFA is actually trying to be bold. TFA rejects the culture of poverty and inserts a strong belief that kids can be taught and their recruits can teach them. A TFA member enters expecting to fight a war for their students and many of them do so successfully. I can't say anything for certain about my experience that's upcoming with TFA, but I do know I refuse to give up and to accept that my students can't learn till the very last day of the year. People might think this is arrogant talk but as someone who went through the public education system in NYC (which is where I will be teaching at), I think I have pretty good handle on how difficult and how bad things can get in schools.

Questions that should be asked about the status quo:
Why are veteran teachers who outperform all incoming teachers being dumped?
Why are TFA members outperforming incoming teachers with formal training?

Why when you think about it, you realize Elysium is idiotic

I hate lists, but I know most people won't read things unless it is a list, so to stoop down to the average medium of choice for college students, I decided to list this off.

1. Appropriation- There's a fine line between careful political allusion and out right appropriation. Elysium is the latter. Honestly, if anyone could say Matt Damon didn't look out of place, speaking spanish, living in a predominantly latina/black/people of color neighborhood, while also claiming the very same plight as the people around him, then you are buying into the color blind future the movie wants you to believe in. Also, the hot button they are clearly pushing on is "illegal" immigration, which is an issue predominantly faced by latinos. The main love interest is Latina. The best friend is Latino. In fact everyone in Matt Damon's world, who's on his side seems not to be white, so why on earth is Matt Damon white? And when I say white I don't simply mean skin color, I'm also asking why you couldn't get a light skin Latino to play the role. I mean if you're gonna white wash the cast that's the the least you can do. Some of you might be up in arms, crying out "why does it matter if he is Latino or not". Welp because immigration laws and policy in the United States is a very real issue for many Latinos. To see it shamelessly thrown into a movie for a predominantly non-Latino audience is kind of a jerk move. Also, if he doesn't seem out of place, then I think you might believe society is colorblind too.

Two clearly Latino men discussing the deets with Matt Damon

2. Technology Dues ex Machina hurts more than helps- 

The entire time the movie explains the disparity via cool technology and asshole robots. I mean there's even a machine that changes your atomic structure to cure cancer. The efficacy of these machines are astounding. They can comprehend verbal orders, carry out complex tasks and are physically and intelligently smarter. So if this is the case, then why do we see this?

Instead of having robots make robots, we'll just have humans do it for low wages

Honestly if technology is so advanced, then why don't they just have machines do most labor. Especially for something as technical as machine building. Yet you see Matt Damon work in the factory as if it were an assembly line... you know a rote action that could be easily taught to a machine. We could even have some human supervisors (oops I meant white human supervisors, because that's all we see in the movie). Did they expect me to believe that a society that has cured cancer and pretty much lives in complete lackadaisical bliss can't come up with a way to compensate for their poorer citizens? This is never addressed. The movie seems to just want you to believe that this is the new normal and if it isn't happening today, then it will soon. The issue is the technology doesn't align with the policy. 

3. We'll give you a bad white character, but we need to distinguish him- Did you notice that the main bad guy has a bit of an accent (unsure if it is Irish or Scottish, but I guarantee you it doesn't sound English. This just continues the racial stratification. You have the latino/people of color community at the bottom rung of importance. Then you have the clearly ethinically distinguished baddie enter into the fray. With Matt Damon as the White anglo saxon savior to save the day. 

Verdict: Elysium is fun to watch, but if you're sensitive to this kind of stuff, you might think it's a bit dumb. 

The badge of inferiority known as Affirmative Action

                  Affirmative action is the tool of much of society to undermine the achievements of many minority students on campus. Often times when a minority is successful or if their presence is even acknowledged in an institution of higher learning, people can't help but bring up affirmative action. It's funny because people say minorities would stop being tokenized if affirmative action didn't exist. While I find that to be unlikely, my rebuttal to that is "why does the minority need to be tokenized in the first place." Implicit in the statement that minorities wouldn't be tokenized if affirmative action didn't exist is that every minority didn't earn their way into the University. You can even make this a weaker statement, but at the very least for their rationale to be solid you must think a considerable amount of minorities or at least a simple majority of minorities got into their institutions (we can assume minorities in top institutions, if that makes the conversation more amicable towards naysayers) because of their race/gender. This is an unfair assumption. Regardless of what your opinion of affirmative action is, it does not give anyone the right to decide which minorities deserve to be at an institution and which don't. To even engage in that kind of behavior is despicable.
                But Affirmative action is being employed in a more subtle way. It's being used to hijack conversations concerning minorities. This can be seen in the #BBUM thread, where articles concerning the twitter trend are riddled with affirmative action debates. These debates are not the message of #BBUM, but when we discuss only affirmative action on their pages (which is what tends to happen when affirmative action is brought up) a multitude of experiences are lost due to the selfish tendencies of a few individuals. Why is affirmative action the favorite talking point of many white and asian students? The discussion of affirmative action typically reinforces notions of white superiority and asian superiority over other groups such as black and latino students. Constantly the message that is given is that blacks and latinos are lazy individuals, who don't work hard enough, which is why they don't get into top universities. It is masked behind fake good intentions such as arguing that getting rid of affirmative action would help black students, it won't (as evidenced by current statistics of black enrollment here at the University). People will claim it will end the tokenizing of minorities. Unfortunately they don't realize that minorities aren't tokenized by affirmative action, but by people. People assume minorities couldn't get into their universities without the help of affirmative action and treat the program as poison that taints even the brightest of minorities. Instead people could stop passing judgement all together and only judge minorities based on the merit of their actions, but that is a foreign concept for individuals who want to feel like they've been cheated in the world.
        I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss affirmative action. I'm just saying that we need to stop bringing up affirmative action where it is not warranted. If a student of color brings up affirmative action in a value based framework (i.e. affirmative action is good or bad), then feel free to engage in a conversation about your thoughts. If you want to discuss affirmative action on your personal site or publication, go ahead, knock yourself out. But if affirmative action is mentioned in passing or as a historical context for some larger point, then you only serve to make the conversation about you when you decide to prattle on about affirmative action. Minorities don't have time to argue affirmative action every time someone decides they want to discuss it. Some minorities don't even care about the program. The point is that when people bring up affirmative action in contexts that have very little to do with it (or where affirmative action is one of many points being discussed) they typically only do so to degrade the minority they are talking to or to make the conversation about their needs, rather than the minority's needs. It's selfish and childish. Please stop. 

White allies exist

            BBUM# is trending and race conversations are beginning to bud everywhere. The response from many non-black students: feelings of isolation, rejection and unfair criticism. Regardless, there are some non-black students, specifically white (other non-black allies exist, this post just speaks specifically to white allyhood), who have respected and listened to what black students on campus are saying. However, this has brought back murmurs concerning the genuine nature of white allies. In the minds of many minorities, white allies are fraudulent and unable to ever be there for minority students. These murmurs need to stop.
           I cannot speak for all minorities. Hell, I can't speak for all Latinos. All I know is that I don't see an end game in an isolationist mentality. I don't see a possible world where we excise the White in our life. Nor do I ever want to see that kind of world. White can be a beautiful shade and while that goes without saying (White typically is considered to be beautiful), to think that we don't lose anything meaningful by denying white experiences in our lives is a bit short sighted in my opinion. The opportunity cost is high when we allow the majority of the unchecked white privilege flood into our lives, but our allies don't do that. Our allies are mindful of their privilege and work hard to learn more each and everyday, just as we work hard to learn each and everyday. Our allies understand the distance, but don't let the distance prevent them from engaging with us holistically. Our allies don't only see black, but aren't color blind. Our allies sing with us, dance with us, cherish us, live with us, love us. We are apart of their lives and they are apart of our community. They aren't Latino to be sure, but they aren't complete strangers. If you wish to take the route of nationalistic hubris, where you section yourself away from constructions of whiteness in general and as a result regrettably disassociate yourself with many white allies, then that's your prerogative. But I believe that to fight inequality and to build a better society we should make no compromises. This means my white friends won't be necessary causalities in my struggle against oppression.  

A Minority politic and the rejection of Neo-liberalist co-option

                       The term minority is a problematic one because it typically refers to all who aren't white male heterosexual, Protestant. However minority in the way I'm going to employ it, is going to refer only to racial differences. So a minority in the sense of this article is essentially only someone who isn't white. White is another term that's problematic because white can mean a whole host of things. Perhaps we can designate according to skin color or using heritage. For the matter of this article I will not construct some prerequisite. If you don't consider yourself white, then that's good enough for me. I feel that most minorities don't openly state they are white because it's a falsehood. White culture and white people don't have ties to them, except for that of the oppressor. Forcing them to take on that identity for the sake of their skin color would be inappropriate.
                     But the term minority even in a racial sense is a problematic term. Minorities do not coalesce well politically, making the "minority agenda" a complete fantasy in terms of actual political capital. Instead we often operate within our own particular racial groups (i.e. latinos, blacks, asians, etc). These political groups have an easier time realizing policy goals and demands, then the blanket bloc "minority". I am here to suggest a few things that will make the minority coalition much more tangible and also to warn minorities about the threat of white Neo-liberalist co-option.
                     Neo-liberalist go under many names. Typically they'll regard themselves as "bi-partisans" or even try to approach minorities through an age group such as "millennials". Neo-liberalist are the bastion of moderate politics, which will never recognize true racial difference. The Neo-liberalist agenda is one that subordinates the minority, especially people of color, for the sake of compromises that in the end help whites disproportionately more. The Neo-liberalist only acts in tandem with the minority when it benefits them, which is why their policy goals typically have huge economic pay-offs attached to them. I'm not asking to reject the policy goals of the Neo-liberalist. Instead I'm asking for a rejection of their coalition as one that we can be apart of. We cannot ever share with their political coalition because they are blind to how their coalition is still dictated by white leaders and white voices. Furthermore, no amount of token minority leaders within the group will change the fact that normative policy goals are oriented with whites in mind. It's not that they are brainwashed into believing a white normalcy is normal, it's that we are all brainwashed into believing that white normalcy is normal.
                    When we reject the white normative framework, we become self aware of how we were being duped and are allowed to make policy that is truly in our own best interest. But as I stated before, minorities don't coalesce. This is because most coalitions work within an affirmative framework. Most coalitions work within the context of what they want, not what they don't want. Latino's typically emphasize immigration legislation, while African Americans argue for structural changes concerning their neighborhoods. In an affirmative framework we have different policy goals, which leads us to not realize any particular policy suggestions as a minority bloc. However, if we move to a negative framework, then it becomes possible for us to collude and make unilateral demands. This comes via a "if it happens to them, then it can happen to me rationale". Policies like stop and frisk are damaging because they unfairly target minorities, specifically people of color. Once this is allowed, then the bar for what is unacceptable is moved and can easily move further. While I'm not suggesting that we will return to the days of Jim Crow, where cops had the social backing to call out people of color with loud voices (now they just do it with whispers and ambiguous language), I am suggesting that the problem will only become more pervasive. We can agree that disproportionate application of laws are also bad (e.g. drug sentencing laws). These are all issues as minorities we can put our foot down and make demands to end.
                 Our racial coalitions will compete from time to time (e.g. affirmative action is typically supported by African Americans and Latinos, but not by some Asians). That's fine. The political process is supposed to be one of competition. However, we cannot allow competition be the wedge for a Neo-liberalist co-option. A Neo-liberalist agenda would probably take the policy goals of a certain group and herald it as their own in order to break the impermeable minority bloc. For example, making affirmative action so that it's based completely on income. This will seem like it will take away stigma from Asians, when in actuality it will only serve to allow poor whites to be allowed into University at a much higher rate. The Neo-liberalist bloc isn't a conniving bloc that aims to hurt minority goals. If that's the characterization you're getting then you fail to recognize that the normative policy goals of white culture are inherently at odds with that of people of color. They are inherently appropriating and subordinating.
              Minority blocs will serve us well in the coming years as the political capital of the country shifts from a white majority to a minority majority. It's time we create a political group sophisticated enough to represent our goals, while not accidentally undermining our own goals by supporting a white Neo-liberalist agenda. Our individual coalitions can bicker and compete, but not at the expense of our group as a whole. Until we've dismantled the normative white super structure, the minority voter must be vigilant and cast their ballet only when they have a clear shot at equality.
                  

Repair don't Reclaim

               The Oatmeal recently posted this article http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day , which encourages people to stop celebrating Christopher Columbus and instead celebrate Bartolome de las Casas  during Columbus Day. Bartolome was similar to Columbus in the sense that both were white European explorers, who exploited natives for resources and labor, but Bartolome in an act of guilt and true disgust, turned a new leaf and fought for natives' rights and against rampant imperialism. The rationale given by the Oatmeal is pretty simple. Columbus was a jerk and this guy wasn't and he did good things for natives, so why not replace Columbus with him? Well it seems the Oatmeal didn't ask the question "how does this help repair relations with indigenous people?" While it's nice that  Bartolome served as an activist for indigenous people's rights and he should definitely receive praise for his actions, replacing Columbus with him only replaces one White European male with another.In this seemingly appropriate re-patronizing, the indigenous person is silenced yet again. The indigenous person is instead given this liaison, who only serves to make Western culture feel good again. The unspoken rationale behind this is "well Columbus was a jerk, but not everyone was a jerk."  It leaves the gate open for rationalizing the imperialistic tendencies of Western society as positives, rather than leaving the floor open for critique. What I'm advocating for is not a "I hate Christopher Columbus day", that would be inappropriate as well for the same reason Bartolome day was inappropriate, it ignores indigenous people. Instead using this day to focus on indigenous peoples' (specifically from the Caribbean, which are the ones typically forgotten when one uses the catch all phrase Native Americans) and their culture and how they were unfortunately oppressed is a much better use of time than to continue to think about White European men, an activity we have been forced to do for 12 years of our lives in history class. 

Must I bite my tongue forever?

             Overt racism isn't dead, it's sleeping. And whenever an intelligent and determined minority asserts themselves into the public sphere, overt racism is brought back as the final defense against an inevitable turning of the tables. My English Professor at the University of Michigan told us that the two amendments we should be most grateful for are the 13th and 14th amendment because soon the majority group in the country will change and those amendments are the only thing protecting and guaranteeing rights when those changes come about. Well the change is coming and though some of the white community is welcoming it with open arms, there are plenty who find themselves "tired of the talk" and are gathering up their chutzpah for a showdown they will most likely lose. This showdown will be fought with words. We are going to shoot up white neighborhoods with ballots as bullets and people are going to decry the massacre. They will claim that we only vote for ourselves. They will argue that our political savvy is lacking. They will deny most of our candidates and find even more overt ways of blocking us from the vote. They will fail.
              One might think, I'm a white ally, why does it seem as if you don't want me around. Well my friend you are wanted. You have been our vanguard for centuries and I can only hope that minorities who eventually come into power retain a sense of humility that allows us to realize when our own bias may affect us. However, this antagonistic tone isn't one of all out war. It is a calculated reconfiguration of the superstructure of race that has plagued this country. It is more complicated than us vs them, but for the sake of the battle that's how the lines are going to be drawn.
             To be clear I'm not advocating for actual violence against any group. I'm merely pointing out that as power is transferred, we are going to face a class of people who struggle to come to terms with their own mortality. While financially we cannot pry wealth from the hands of the elite (which is predominantly white), we can at least assert our own political capital in meaningful ways. And just to be clear when I say pry wealth, I don't mean a hand out. I mean winning out in the free market without all of the legislation that makes them untouchable. I'm talking a return to a freer market. The trust busters will come riding back in, but this time they will speak Spanish and Ebonics.
           This might make you feel uncomfortable. This might even make minorities feel uncomfortable. I honestly don't care because I'm done with negotiating when I can't even make it to the dinner table. We need to be at equal footing to make fair demands. This is what you call leverage and minorities still have very little of it. We have been fed a philosophy of tolerance and docility that the dominant group isn't even following. Why should we follow it? There is no moral high ground in exploitation.
           Also, this isn't a vindictive struggle. I can honestly care less about getting back at my oppressors. Instead I just want to live a good life. I want my kids to walk around badge-less. And when I turn on the TV I want to see a rainbow in the rows of congress. The law will protect me and cops won't harass me. My mother won't be questioned at the border when she says her son goes to the University of Michigan. These are things I want. They are bold and pernicious, I know. So I have decided I'm just going to take.