oh my my

BSU is working through/on/over and then some on a bill which would, according to the Arbiter, designate "a week in October as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer, (GLBTQ) week."

Can you imagine the type of "discussion" this proposed bill is producing? If not, do follow the link above and see for yourself. I find it interesting that this reminds me of the campaign against "special rights" for gays/lesbians. Do you remember this? Do you remember how that brilliant couching of GLBT human rights as "special rights" made people both supporting and opposing gay rights question the legitimacy of what really should be seen as humanizing initiatives. EQUAL rights not special rights. Human rights. The issue with this bill is that it addresses the issue of visibility. People who identify "openly" as GLBTQ still in this state and many others risk losing their jobs AND as the lovely threads linked above show, are still subject to ridiculously stupid stereotypes based purely on their sexual preference. It is always amazing to me just how much a power language has to manipulate or rather, how easily language is manipulated to parrot a belief system as fact rather than question the logic behind the argument. The problem with saying that "those people" shouldn't have recognition, a week to celebrate the "diversity" the University and the community are supposedly trying to promote and the initiative to recognize the contribution of the GLBTQ community in Idaho is in those two words: "THOSE PEOPLE."

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the bill which is why I've remained silent up until now on the issue. My reservation on it is only this...will such a week serve to humanize or to further dehumanize and marginalize? I do not know. I want to think it could serve as huge opportunity for people to see one another as people, rather than labels but at the same time, I don't feel that I know enough about the bill to really comment on it. It saddens me to see many of the responses. I'm going to try and find out more about it and post updates here when I can. Until then, peace.

Discussing Racism with Children

My son and I had a very interesting talk on racism last night. I was trying to explain the difference between race and racism to him and he said, "Well I understand that all of the kids who are the same stick together, like the two Korean kids in my class. Is that what you mean?" I was like wow, how do I approach this in a way that really creates understanding and opens up communication on racism in a way that encourages him to see what is captured in terms such as "privilege" and "hegemony" and yes, even racism? What does it mean that "all the kids who are the same" stick together? Do they? Do all the poor kids and rich kids stick together? What about those kids who don't fit into easy brackets of self-identification? He also brought up a very interesting theory he has...he said that he thinks these two Korean kids are simply "naturally" better at math and science because video games come from "Asian" countries primarily.

So, I thought it wise and timely that he and I learn more about race, culture, ethnicity and diversity together. One idea I have is to take him to a film that BSU/Diverse Perspectives in Film, is featuring Tuesday: Race is the place...which according to the flyer, addresses: How do American artists address our nation's most pressing social issue? Using spoken, sung, and chanted word, African American, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native American authors, performance artists, poets and singers explore the pain, frustration and humor of racism in America.

This description made me curious: IS racism the "most pressing social issue?" I mean, can you really address this one issue without having to look at class, without having to look at gender and without including (especially inAmerica) all of those people who are not Christian, English-speaking or heterosexual? I know I harp on this but I think that such a statement really should make you question. I think it will be a great film just to witness how artists and activists are responding to racism and I really am hoping that it helps my son and I to better be able to discuss the reality beyond perceptions of whiteness and what that entails. Suggestions as to books or other films that might be helpful are very welcome. ~peace~

Politics of Silence and Visibility

This letter ran yesterday in the Arbiter

"The idea President Bush hates black Americans is ridiculous"

You have got to be kidding me. First off, you deserve no credit for the port-a-potties being brought in. Are you so dense that you believe that you were the one that thought of that first? If President Bush is so against Black Americans, please tell me why Condoleezza Rice works next to him? Or are you going to claim he does that for show? Of course our soldiers need to have guns, 10,000 dense ignorant people are not leaving. They need to protect themselves. It's sad that you are an American (at least I am assuming) and you can't thank the troops for exposing himself or herself to disease, or being killed! Give me a break! If people are breaking into businesses and stealing IPODS and TV's something has to be done. People can't think that they can get away with this! The troops are there to help; President Bush has to make difficult decisions while you complain. So I suggest that you do your research before putting your opinion out there for all to see. You give future journalists a bad name! I am going into journalism and I am offended by your ignorance.
Jessica Bruton
Boise, ID


This is my response:

Jennifer Edwards
Boise, Idaho
Major: Interdisciplinary Studies

I am writing to address the very passionate argument Jessica Bruton made in her letter to editor titled, "The idea President Bush hates black Americans is ridiculous." Notice I said address, rather than engage in what could easily become a written ego peeing contest, which is quite boring, and well, useless. First, I'd like clarification. Please explain to me, who the "10,000 dense, ignorant people" are exactly and how Condoleeza Rice's presence in the White House is automatically and unquestionably indicative of an administration's racial equality?
I do not see the connections and I would love for you to help me understand. Also, please explain to me how questioning political decisions, policies and government officials automatically and unquestionably renders one offensive or inept as a journalist?

I did not see the piece critiqued, nor did I find enough evidence in your response to support the points that made you "sad" that someone making these statements is an American. It would be wonderful if we could actually discuss such discrepancies in opinion, not in blanket statements, arguments and posturing, but as critical thinkers and concerned, educated citizens. It troubles me to see someone I think to be very bright, using an emotional argument to silence criticism. To me, the value of a University education IS the encouragement of critical thinking and NOT to serve as a space for sustaining the view of government as shepherd, to a public of happy, unquestioning sheep.

*****************************************
I rarely ever even read the arbiter yet alone respond to letters to the editor but this particular letter really made me think about the politics of silence and visibility. I did not happen to catch the particular piece that she was responding to and as I stated in my response, I did not feel there was enough evidence in her letter to make me understand her points. Instead, reading this made me think of how easily criticism is silenced. Written off. Discouraged. Yet clearly emotional reactionary pieces such as this are used CONSISTENTLY and treated as irrefutable. Maybe they are. After all, how can you truly disprove one's opinion, if they refuse to either use facts to support their views or refrain from the lapse into blanket statements and circular arguments?

What really, really made me want to respond was where admonished the "journalist" for not having done their research "before putting your opinion out there for all to see." Her entire piece completely BLURS the line between opinion and opinion stated (and assumed) as fact, in the same fascinating fashion that FOX news does. Op-Ed's such as this do NOT invite discussion, they silence. They attempt to render opposition invisible and irrelevant. Opposition is relevant. Dissent is relevant. Critical thinking is relevant and I am beyond tired blanket statements used to silence.

I think I might actually build upon this very thing for one of my three projects...the politics of silence and visibility. In this lovely climate of a perpetual war of words, I think it ideal to arm yourself with the most under appreciated weaponry...the ability to listen, to think and to question, to educate yourself and to challenge that "ignorance" first and foremost in yourself as well as in others. ~peace~

how it ends

This is a poem I wrote about divorce but also about trying to explain to a child how adults can be SO unwilling to negotiate. Some people really must make an enemy or hateful situation out of something rather than see things end peacefully. Some people seem to think that anger is more a normal and "rational" response to frustration than trying to foster love, compassion and understanding. So I wrote this poem after trying to explain to my son about divorce and changes in behavior as adults become less and less friends and more and more strangers bordering on being enemies. I've revised it slightly here. My son calls divorce "Divortion" which I find quite an interesting idea. Sounds more like a process that way, does it not? Divortion? Anyhow, here's the poem.


"how it ends"


adults fight
and buildings fall
years become secondary
to the present
war
and words are shrapnel
bullets
and glass shards
depending upon the amount of time
silence has nurtured
hurt
i can not explain it
to make my child understand
he holds my hands and cries
and i cry with him
couldn't you just say you're sorry?
couldn't you try again?
why do people have to hate?
why does everyone go away
in the end?

Other Voices

I found it quite humbling today to sit in a classroom where the faculty spoke to the students both in English and Spanish, interchangably as if everyone could understand perfectly. I thought it was great because I think those of us who only know English tend to forget just how unsettling it is to others when "we" expect that "they" speak to us a certain way.

Ealier in the semeter, I found myself wincing in a class where the discussion turned to the infamous candy vagina incident that apparently put BSU in the news for something other than football (that in itself should be cause for celebration). Actually I am happy to be a student here, I would just prefer that this University was better known for its academic endeavors and committment to excellence in education rather than sports. Back to candy vaginas...the discussion brought up very interesting points, namely should a woman be reduced to a body part even if the idea is to promote respect for a woman's body? What if a group on campus were to try selling candy penises? I ended up in a history class with many of the tiny group of men in the gender studies class and they were already quickly labeling the professor (that horrid word) "a feminazi" but added that they'd keep the class because they heard she's an easy instructor.

Sometimes I want to bury my head and ignore everything. Then that image from "The Shadow of No Towers" comes back to haunt me: "The Ostrich Party" and words find their way into class readings again...words such as Adrienne Rich's "Claiming an Education" or Audre Lorde's poetry or bell hooks and I am happily reminded that this rather expensive endeavor of trying to grow into something other than a human cog is more about humanity than those in power like to admit. I really do believe that education is critical for an evolution of consciousness and don't we need that? Don't we need that more than anything right now?

The news scares me. I read more and more and I find myself withdrawing more from the lovely debates on right and wrong because these only seem to cloud the issues. I really do think too the day that the press focused more on what the presidential candidate's WIVES were going to wear and how fashionable they were, the notion of critical thinking in relation to politics and certainly the media hit an all time low. I wanted to hide in the corner with the newest book by Seymour Hersh until I was sure that the illusion of dialogue hadn't really fooled anyone. I am interested more now than ever before in creating communities that work to maintain real conversations with those who are more interested in investing in social/global change beyond thinking of it as an idealistic/abstract concept. Sounds nice, but you know, we live in the "real world." It's so ironic how the reality of the "real world" doesn't necessarily connect with many U.S. citizens beyond the borders of their television screens and yet those two words embody a concept that is consistently used to shut people up. To silence. To disillusion. To breed a very convenient apathy.

I would like to hear other people speak for a change. SPEAK for change.
Speak to one another and to truly listen. That's the insight I had from class today. I walked out of there quite happy to have not known the language I was listening to because it made me think of how wonderful it is to be in a space where power and privilege do not go unchallenged, even if they aren't being questioned outright. I can't think of a better place to first challenge power and privilege than in oneself and in one's own thinking.

~peace~

Differences, authority and learning

This is part of an assignment for one class and a challenge in another but I want to put it out here just to see what others think...

What is the difference between a scholar and good student? Also, how can one successfully "challenge" the "hegemony" of the learning process/environment? The second question comes from a perspectives of inquiry class and a professor suggesting from day one that we, challenge the authority in every class from questioning how one might actually accomplish the "learning objectives" in a course in any tangible way, to questioning how one truly knows what they know beyond positivism and dualistic thinking/solutions.

I've seen or heard rather, more than one professor go against the "banking concept of education" in favor of creating a participatory (and more egalitarian) climate for learning. I'm curious though how far that goes if students are unwilling to take control of their education, take responsibility for their own learning and NOT expect to play the role of empty vessel or as this professor likes to say, mindless automaton? Also, can you discount other factors that might influence one's in class participation? How does gender, race, class, religious and even sexual preference contribute to "learning" and even more, to who will view themselves as a "scholar" rather than someone who views higher education as a means to a specific (usually career change based) end. Anyhow, if anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to share.