Fake minority ( unfinished)

I'm  a fucking imposter waiting in your corner store bodega

The repeated lingo makes people think I'm frontin 

shit, sometimes I have to do a double take when I look at the mirror 

I bump to two-pac after my phantom of the opera album finishes 

Hardcore motherfucker, I don't even use tweezers when taking out a splinter 

Ya'll talk about Drakes new album release, 

I talk about the next chapter of one piece being released

Manga mother fucker, I ain't into that cartoonish shit. 

I'm so fake I feel uncomfortable when people call me the n-word. 

Still when shit pops off, I'll be the first one to square up

I wash dudes like I do dishes, 

begin all hyped and shit and then give up once I get to a stain I can't handle

I knew people who were in gangs. 

When I say knew, I'm talking a friend of a friend, that's only two degrees of separation. 

I still buy honey buns with my sandwich at work, reliving my middle school diet in my 20s. 

But it's not snails, it's escargot. And I traded Hershey for Nutella. 

I give dab all awkward and shit. Not knowing where to put my other arm, turning the entire ordeal into a "we're just friends hug" 

I'm as white as the driven snow. That's Langston so it makes it hood. 

Still every single day I find myself switching within my code switch. 

Constantly oscillating how hood I need to be. Because when I'm with my white friends I'm docile

and when I'm with my friends from the ave I'm savage. 

I guess I'm just fake. But if I chose to do me, like people always tell me to do 

I'd get outrages reactions like that time my friend was shocked when I told him I was jumped in middle school.

Or how about the time my friend told me I was too white to chill in Jamaica even though I'm full Puerto Rican. 

I don't speak Spanish, another strike against me. 

And even when people like the same shit as me they don't trust my earnestness. 

What you know about Salvador Dali? 

When could you have been exposed to getting light? 

I lean on the side of improper. 

However I find it easier to pretend to be educated than to pretend to be hood. 

I don't like platanos or what ever cultural dish you expect me to like.
I love mayo in my sandwiches.
I love hot sauce on my pizza.
And if I'm having a movie night you know I'm either watching Ferris Bueller's or Friday.
I'm a nerd but I have to keep that shit quiet.
Sometimes I'll drop references in my speech, test the waters before I start geeking out.
You might say that's just all nerds though.
But minorities get it worse because when we're outed as a nerd, we're stripped of our other identity.

Democrats don't need solidarity in the primaries

                              Before I get into why a certain defense of Hillary Clinton is wrong, let me address the idiots out there first. You implying that Hillary is stupid, the devil, incapable, etc. is counter productive and sexist. There are plenty of you out there so the fact that Clinton supporters are up in arms is not surprising or unwarranted. In fact, you are the primary reason that meaningful discussion over the differences between the two candidates can never happen. Congratulations jerks. But now let's move on to what this post is about.
                              The internet has launched its counterattack against the recent wave of criticism against Hillary and some of it is poignant. However, one old, overused defense is being utilized as a proverbial white flag between the two camps. The "Republicans are the enemy" defense is an example of a scare tactic. The notion that we should not heavily criticize either candidate because both of them differ significantly with the Republican party is not valid. Our current political spectrum may make us see the world like this:

Conservatives<----R--------------------------------------------------------------H---S-->Liberals

But we can easily view Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on a different political spectrum that allows us to see how truly far apart these two are:

Socialism <------S-------------------------------------H---------------------------------------------> Capitalism

Since we're not viewing Sanders and Hillary in the context of the outlandish conservative beliefs held by Republicans, we can see that Hillary and Sanders actually differ quite a bit. Enough to think that Hillary Clinton would be detrimental to society as a president. I wouldn't go that far as I feel if you have an issue with Hillary, then you need to have an issue with Obama ( and some people did). But I certainly believe that there's a significant difference between the two. So stop it with the solidarity talk. Of course ad hominems and other low blows shouldn't take place, but harshly criticizing the Hillary campaign for their flaws and differences is exactly what should be done. Sanders supporters have nothing to apologize for and owe nothing to the Democratic party in  the way of solidarity.

Why I'm reluctantly supporting Bernie Sanders

                 Anyone who has talked politics with me knows I am not an avid Bernie Sanders fan. He seems like yet another white male candidate who is trying to be down with the cause a little too much, while backing out whenever it's time to discuss real shit. Of course people cry about how he can't be too outrageous, lest he waste his political capital on minorities rather than usher in his new socialist agenda! Still Bernie is promising to do things I frankly think would be revolutionary. I honestly believe he will go after big banking in a way Hillary and the rest of the career politicians won't. In my mind, Bernie Sanders is a means to an end. Minorities need the dismantlement of the capitalist system in order to make any true progress and Bernie is preaching that. Hillary Clinton isn't a bad candidate by any means, but she does have some glaring flaws that make me unwilling to vote for her, regardless of it being a primary or a general election. Her war hawk attitude, which has been on display during her extensive career as a senator, really concerns someone like me who had to watch his father go to war for no particular reason. She's also far too tied up in Wall Street to make any meaningful change. At best she'll be Barack Obama 2.0. I'm not saying I'd pick a Republican over her, but if Bernie were to run independently, I'd seriously consider voting for him. Gone are the days of logical voter behavior. The political science major in me wants to point out in a snarky manner that our individual votes "don't matter", so we should all just stay home. But votes mean more than just electoral outcomes. They're a method to express our own political identity and in some way allows us to interact with our fellow countrymen and women. It's out duty to vote not because we're selfish, but because we want our input accounted for. That sounds like sappy nonsense, but it lets me sleep at night. So the verdict is in with me. Bernie is my guy and honestly I think all blacks and latinos should vote Bernie. He is the only candidate seriously considering dismantling the capitalist system that's oppressing us. He isn't the best advocate, but he is a far better advocate than Hillary. We don't need special considerations. We need structural change that removes the institutional bias that oppresses us. Removing our nepotism ridden capitalist system (the irony of capitalism is it's supposed to remove nepotism, but meh we know that's not happening) will be the first step to that.

Side note: I've seen some passionate outrage from liberals who believe Hillary is being mistreated by other liberals because she's a woman. I think there may be some truth in that. However, the notion that all criticism towards Hillary is unwarranted is equally ridiculous. The recent spread of Bernie vs Hillary meme, when done properly, highlights how Hillary's responses come off as calculated and superficial, while Bernie has legitimate opinions on the topic. Unfortunately that very meme has be co-opted as a way to make Hilary seem uninformed, a notion that's absolutely ridiculous. Let's not forget Hillary is probably the most experienced and knowledgeable candidate running.

Other side note: I honestly don't think Bernie Sanders' success is contingent on him winning the presidency. I believe his message of socialism and changing basic unfair tenets of American society need to permeate through the house of representatives and the senate. I'm not talking about liberals. Liberals are the ilk of Hillary and co. I'm talking socialist who believe the collective needs to be taken care of at the expense of the individual from time to time. Yep, I'm a bleeding commie. 

Special Education Teachers can do their jobs, they're just not able to

              I remember the first time a veteran teacher told me a student will never get it. I didn't understand what that meant. As a Special Education teacher I thought my job was to help the kids who didn't get it eventually get it. It never crossed my mind that there could be a class of students who were hopeless. But as the year went on and my low kids stood low, I felt for a second maybe the veteran teachers were right. Maybe these kids were actually hopeless and could not possibly learn the content at the current level we were at. I mean I had a student who could hardly divide, let alone determine ratios. Perhaps I was just a new teacher in way over their head. Now that it's my second year I realize I was completely wrong.
             As a requirement for my graduate school program, I tutored a 7th grader twice a week for a total of 2 hours. The student I chose happened to be one of my "hopeless" students from last year. At first I was uneasy choosing her as my focus student, remembering the behavior outburst and her lack of meaningful progress fresh from the year before. Furthermore, our focus subject, math, was something she was seemingly abysmal at since she presented the inability to divide even simple one digit dividends and divisors. What could I possibly accomplish with her? Then in a matter of two months she proceeded to become proficient at long division solving problems with dividends of up to 3 to 4 digits with divisors up to 2 digits. In two months I became a teacher for the first time and she "got it."
            One might chalk this up to the individual attention she received, but I can confidently say that aside from the first few sessions, the rest of her progress was purely auto-pilot. Through comprehensive assessment and observation, I was able to determine the conceptual breakdown in her math. From there I implemented a series of strategies to help her become proficient at division. Once she became adept at utilizing the strategies on her own it was smooth sailing. Dividing became second nature for her and she was successful weeks after being taught how to do it. I can confidently say my student can divide, a skill that's invaluable in math and life. I achieved in a matter of 10 to 12 hours, what I could not achieve in an entire year. That is ridiculous.
            Special Education teachers in an ICT setting are often given far more than the state mandated percentage of special education students. Classes can sometimes be comprised of a 50/50 split of general education to special education students, making it impossible for a special education teacher to develop the strategies needed to help special education students access content appropriate to them. Furthermore, the push to mainstream students have led special education reformers to champion ICT classrooms. In schools like mine which have no other alternative settings, students who cannot handle ICT classrooms are thrown in them anyways. These students are at times worse than their overcrowding counterparts as they require constant attention that a special education teacher in an ICT classroom cannot give. If a student is 3 to four years behind in content, ICT is definitely an option for them. But a student at a 1st or 2nd grade reading level, exhibiting a specified reading disability should not be in an ICT classroom without some form of supplement. Yet those are the kind of students in our classrooms and those students cannot succeed in the setting. The result is a Sophie's choice dilemma where a special educator either abandons this particular student, often resulting in that student acting out in protest to this abandonment, or shirking their responsibilities to her other students in exchange for this student.
           The solution to this problem will never come from the department of education itself. The institutions around the country are concerned with their bottom line and view special education as a problem to be dealt with instead of an essential component of their mission. The solution must come from informed parents and informed special education litigators. At every IEP meeting there should be a special education advocate. Special Education advocates are people who are well versed in the rights and protections afforded to parents, who are going through the IEP process. They will come to meetings and be able to challenge the often stonewalled nature of the IEP team. Schools and school psychiatrists are typically on the same team when it comes to recommending services. Since they need special education students they will often collude to make it seem their course of action is the only course of action that should be taken. If some of my parents were just a little more informed, they would be able to hold me and in turn my administration more accountable. Of course the blame isn't with my school, but with the administration that straps schools tight for resources when it comes to special education. They will continue tossing IEP student after IEP student to a school, regardless of whether that school can service them or not. Administrations are taught to deal and that's exactly what they do. If I leave teaching, I will definitely find some way to get involved in advocating for parents because this process needs to stop. I want to find a solution that makes schools and parents happy. 

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.