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.