I first read about this issue from a differnet source. There were a couple quotes in there that didn't quite sit well with me. Most notably the very last one.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2360897/detail.html

FYI - for you lazy bums who won't read TargetPractice's link.

Here's the quote:

Phyllis Yarber Hogan, a member of the Oberlin Black Alliance for Progress, said a white teacher wouldn't be well-suited to teaching students about subjects like slavery.

"When you talk about slavery, students need to understand it is not our fault," she said. "Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be enslaved.

"How do you work through that when the person teaching it is the same type of person who did the enslaving?"

That is the silliest, most bizarre point of view I've seen in a while.

Well, there goes her credibility out the window.

Wow, considering you read this board, that is one hell of a statement.

I didn't define "a while", now did I. ;)

Dola--

That's the silliest, most bizarre point of view I've seen since, "I will come back stronger and more powerful than ever."

Wrong. A few of my ancestors ran several Underground Railroad wayhouses in Central New York where the next stop was Canada. Going back to the 1790 Census, not a single direct ancestor ever owned slaves or had black servants. You condemn me because of my race? How about condeming the many blacks in Africa that profitably ran the "gathering" outfits of future slaves? Or perhaps you conveniently ignore the millions of current black slaves that are being held in bondage by other blacks in Sahara and Sub-Sahara Africa? And you wonder why there are still racial tensions???

and sadly, that is the point of view I'd say most of America holds, which I've been trying to point out. That's the "respect" I talked about. Note that people have glossed over the importance of parents through this long thread. Their the ones in an uproar. Surely SD, you're not blind to the fact that in the South, if a high school hired a white man to teach black history, people in the town would voice their opposition. And same if there were a "white" history class, and a black man was hired to teach that.

And Cam, comments such as these ladies is the distinction I have been trying to make between culture and politics. This seems to deal with how a culture percieves their shared history, and how an "outsider" couldn't understand it. I don't feel that culture stems from politics, but rather politics stems from culture.

Oh so this person is saying that blacks shouldn't teach this course. After all must of the actual enslaving was done by members of waring tribes in Africa to get rid of their enemies. Or perhaps this person is referring to the African-Americans who emigrated to Liberia and virtually enslaved the native populace there.

While I am normally on the side of diversity, for all the resons pointed out in this tread, this sort of PCness makes me so incredibly sad.

So???

No, there would be a racial uproar as soon as the "white history class" was announced. It wouldn't matter who was teaching it.

Dola---

The one word answer was to make a point. Sure they'd complain, but that doesn't make them right. If we're going to cowtow to every whiny complainer in this country, we'll never get anything done.

Easy,

Shouldn't we try and correct a cultural bias that is obviously incorrect?

Yes, but one of the prevailing sentiments these days seems to be 'two wrongs make a right'.

...or what about this? SWMBO's ancestors owned slaves. Plenty of 'em. In Charleston. (True Southerners will understand the significance of this next statement.) Her maiden name is Ravenel. Does that make HER responsible for slavery??? :rolleyes:





Actually, this brings up a rather humorous situation that we have whenever the ridiculous discussion of reparations comes up. Would we have to pay 'em, or get 'em??? ;)

Yeah Cam I'm serious. I generally disagree with those who would want only blacks to direct black plays. Their view is that to drect you need an understanding of the culture and non-blacks can never truly understand what it means to be black. While I agree that I don't know what its like to be raised in Harlem, for example, my range of life experiences is really pretty narrow. I didn't fight in Korea, so does that mean I shouldn't have done my oral history performance? Imagination and research have to play a part.

It's pretty easy to rile you lot up. I don't think this news item is worth the discussion it's warranting here.

I keep saying its not right. But what is going to change by letting a white man teach black history? The people who don't care aren't going to care. The people for it will still be for it. The people against it will still be against it. And don't give me the "race relations" crap, this ins't Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, regardless on how well versed the person may be on the subject. Just save the man and school months of hate mail and bad PTA meetings. They actually had a teacher who taught it before so it shouldn't be a story.

What should be a story is the fact that this came about from what looks like budget cuts. A man could no longer teach in his field b/c to save $$$ they were combining government and econ. Thats teh more newsworthy story, and something the people in the articles should be raising hell about.

Isn't that the point of Affirmative Action? But your against that:p

edit: and this isn't meant as a slam to anyone, but this may have been the most intelligent thing I've posted in this thread. And dammit I was actually planning on staying low for a few weeks and posting dumb stuff for a while (look at my posts yesterday). Stupid 2 am tired posts.

Butter: That's the problem. Some will make it a issue to call attention to it and to perhaps affect change (esp. if this was a local school board agenda item). However, many will just stick their heads in the sand so they can get back to watching a reality show on TV.

My god, and they you two marry???? Think of the children!

1. The important question isn't "what is going to change", but "what is the RIGHT thing to do?"

2. Forcing those who don't like it to deal with it, rather than placating them, would force them to either change their wrong-thinking opinion, or not acquire the knowledge.

I think America has shown they have dificulty acquiring knowledge ;)

But it's not like this is news. How many similar "news" items can you read or see every day, week, month? I'm tired of both sides of this debate, tired of those who feel it necessary to complain every single time they perceive they have been offended, and tired of those who think that everyone should just suck it up. There are real and hurtful instances of bias and racism in this world that need to be fought against, and this particular story is just a big load of crap.

I'll go back to reading my issue of The Economist now. ;)

I think you need more sleep.

Affirmative action rewards someone for the color of their skin. In effect, this IS affirmative action at work.

What I'm for is realizing that having a teacher conduct a course that he's not certified to teach in order to be "culturally sensitive" is wrong. It's wrong to say that a white teacher can't teach black history. It's wrong to say an Asian can't teach Western Civilization.

Segregation is wrong, whether it's self-imposed or not. Racism is wrong, no matter who's on the receiving end. You can't correct a cultural bias by creating another one. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Now go back to bed.

Butter, sorry to have opinions, convictions and to share experiences.

Its nice to see how many people have come out against local control over the past few days!

No, you're actually right. I think that's the first time this month, but hey, good job. :p

Cam,

You said: "Shouldn't we try and correct a cultural bias that is obviously incorrect? "

That is Affirmative Action. The point of AA is to correct any cultural bias that affects the hiring of employees. You already said this is a racial/political issue. I'm not sure how you can argue what you is not the grounds of AA.

That being said. The man is qualified to teach black history, but not government. As I said, the bigger point is the school budget crunch, not this issue.

I think you need to return to bed.

JPhillips, if I understand your post, I think something like this thread serves as an information tool. Some probably had no idea that things like this goes on. So if one feels strongly about either point of view, when something like this comes up in your community, then you would recognize it and perhaps write a letter to the editor, write to your representative or speak up in a school board meeting. If enough people feel the same way, then change can be affected instead of in the hands of a few.

This is why it is important to bring up and discuss any devisive issue, regardless how large or small anyone would think they are.

dola, and uncertified teachers happen everywhere in many different schools. Its not like they're breaking the rules for only this one class. I've known numerous teachers who taught outside of what they studied, while they worked to be certified in that area. Welcome to poor town America.

Wow.

I just have one thought to add to all this - for what it's worth. I think there is a meaningful difference, when dealing with matters of race or anything like it, there's a fundamental difference of defining in terms of "inclusion" and of "exclusion."

To shift gears to something a little less volatile than race in history - how about gender in art? You'll find lots and lots of courses in colleges that focus on the role of women in art history. These are focused classes that discuss people like Mary Cassatt (a fairly minor impressionist who happened to be a woman), Georgia O'Keeffe, Grandma Moses, and a variety of other artists - many of whom are considered by consensus to be lesser figures than contemporary males from their same genre.

For the most part, nobody objects to this. We recognize that there's a role in focusing studies in a broad area onto a specicif subset of that area. You can take a class on the Rococo period, even though nobody considers it to be the greatest period in art history - that's fine. Or, you can focus on women throughout art history - and maybe understand where their contributiosn fit in, and what particular issues they faced in their careers. Fine.

In theory, you could also have an art class focusing on "great men in art history," to the exclusion of any women who would have otherwise have been in a regular curriculum. But - what's the point in an exclusionary approach here? All you do is give a general review of art history (which is 90%+ dominated by men) and skip over a point or two along the way that falls outside the defined scope. Who would bother to do this?



It just seems to me that having a history class that focuses on a particular subset of history or culture makes sense. Maybe it's a focus on the history and culture of the Pacific rim of Asia, maybe it's a class on the history of the African-American culture. Either one makes perfectly good sense to me, from an academic perspective. However, the fact that the African-American study seems to smack of racial issues - we seem to go berserk in treating it with kid gloves, and all the reactionaries look to immediately respond with their mirror-image idea. Why? What's the reason for that?

Does "world history" equal "white history?"

I think there's a valid argument that the typical American version of "world history" may well be biased in favor of focusing on Europe rather than other cultures. I can see why that is so-- the influences from Europe are undeniably the dominant ones in historic and even modern American culture. Not the exclusive ones, but certainly the dominant ones. Is that a fair bias? I don't know... but I can see it's there, I understand why it is, and I can understand why some people might argue that we don't pay due attention to other cultures from Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.


This whole argument gets knotted up pretty easily, as you can see. (I've even lost track of any continuity in this single post)


Back to where I started:

-An "inclusive" class, focusing on one particular area of a subject, seems perfectly fine to me (and most everyone, in most cases)

-An "exclusive" class, focusing on the main area of a subject, to the exclusion of other lesser areas, just comes across as both hurtful and pointless

Easy Mac,

I'll say it again, since you refused to acknowledge what I said. Correcting an incorrect cultural bias by creating another one is wrong. That's affirmative action. Getting rid of racism by putting the shoe on the other foot is wrong.

I have no problem with striving to get rid of racism. What I have a problem with is affirmative action, because it doesn't get rid of any cultural bias. It simply rewards people because of the color of their skin.

I don't know how much clearer I can be on this.

EM, there's a huge difference betweeen this and Affirmative Action. I don't see anywhere in this thread where we are saying that we should mandate a certain number of Black History teachers be white.

There is a very big difference between ALLOWING and MANDATING.

QS, I agree but at the HS level, I do not recall any specialty history courses as one might find in college. Esp. if a HS is small and perhaps underfunded, how can it afford anything but general history topics?

Abcsjrysk: Good point. I don't, though, see a lot of references to "I'll be ready if it happens here". Most people opposed to this believe this district shouldn't be able to do it. If the people in this district are okay with it, isn't that the essence of local control?

I just don't like the mindset of local control=local school boards having the right to make decisions I agree with.

I said the phrase cam used is the purpose behind affirmative action? Can you people not listen anymore?

Cam said about the nedd to let a white guy teach black history:
"Shouldn't we try and correct a cultural bias that is obviously incorrect?"

Affirmative Action: To correct biases that are incorrect. I'm not saying it does that, but this was the point. So that racist employers would not hire only w/in their race. By giving them access to different viewpoints, it would hopefully erase racial biases.

But only in one direction. AA will not prevent a black manager from hiring all blacks.

This is a little different (perhaps just sugar coated?) than "Isn't [a white history class] EVERY history class except African American history."

[quote]

no, you didn't say that was the "purpose" of affirmative action. You said that WAS affirmative action.

I am for the "purpose" behind affirmative action. I am not for affirmative action.

If you want to go back to your first statement, about correcting an incorrect cultural bias being the "point of affirmative action", I'll agree with that statement. But you also accused me of being "against that", and since I'm assuming you wouldn't call me against equality for all, I took it to mean that, as you later said, affirmative action is correcting an incorrect cultural bias. Sorry for the confusion... but when you made your second statement, that's when you stepped in it.

Ding Ding!

Actually, if someone actually wanted to try this, I'm pretty sure it would. Sadly, I think there is a bias among the white community that would say I don't want to work for all those black people anyway.

[quote]Originally posted by CamEdwards

Quote:

no, you didn't say that was the "purpose" of affirmative action. You said that WAS affirmative action. I am for the "purpose" behind affirmative action. I am not for affirmative action. If you want to go back to your first statement, about correcting an incorrect cultural bias being the "point of affirmative action", I'll agree with that statement. But you also accused me of being "against that", and since I'm assuming you wouldn't call me against equality for all, I took it to mean that, as you later said, affirmative action is correcting an incorrect cultural bias. Sorry for the confusion... but when you made your second statement, that's when you stepped in it.

cool, sorry. I need to work on phrasing better. My bad. Carry on with disagreeing now.

Oh, and I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. I think AA now is the worst thing since crustless bread (trust me, thats bad)

My point is not that there's anythign wrong with teaching "general history," and I certainly understand the situation you describe. But I know from my own experience in such a small, poor, public high school that the version of "world history" I received was predominantly centered on the cultures that arose and grew from Europe. Again - I understand why that is so, but I also recognize that this leaves a lot of history from other parts of the world as a relative afterthought. I understand why it happens, but I recognize that it might not yield the best overall education.

I'd say the first 1/3 of world history was about Mesopotamia/Egypt, next 1/3 about Rome/Greece, next 1/3 about Europe and beyond.

But they HAVE a certified teacher to teach both subjects. It's not like they have no choice.

As I mentioned before, a common method for teaching western civilization is to draw a thread from the cradle of civilization to the current age and our nation. Along that common thread you don't happen to find many "people of color" in dominant or influential roles. You also don't see many people from non dominant locations. When a people are not "peaking" they sort of drift out of the thread (unless they are conflicting with current dominant.) Using this method you don't meet many peoples. You don't meet Africans, Afrikaners, Poles, Moghuls, or Guarani's. But does this make our commonly taught history "white history?" I am not inclined to think so. When a people or a person of any race or ethnicity steps into the thread, they are talked about, at least in my HS classes.

I am not saying this method is perfect, but it is a pretty good way to go. Perhaps there is a better method out there.

The classes I have seen that are "world history" are almost the same as "western civ" with a few chapters slipped in about China, Japan, and India. This is certainly not a comprehensive overview of the history of the world and too disjoined IMHO. It has been while since I have seen a HS textbook, so perhaps this has been improved.

Here it is guys :

If one of your parents is black, you know black history by default.

If both of your parents are non-black, you don't know jack about black history.

So therefore...

If one of your parents was not "Native American", you don't know jack about teaching students anything about them.

If one of your parents was not from Eastern Europe, you damn sure better not be trying to teach people about the history of that area.

Or, if you do try to teach it, you can expect people to file complaints against you and not respect you. What kind of logic is this?

"dola, and uncertified teachers happen everywhere in many different schools. Its not like they're breaking the rules for only this one class. I've known numerous teachers who taught outside of what they studied, while they worked to be certified in that area. Welcome to poor town America."

But with this little thing called no child left behind coming to power within educational systems this is no longer ok. The school may have been trying to address this issue. We currently have two teachers in our school who will be out of a job soon because they are teaching classes that they are not fully accredited for. With NCLB these type of situations are supposed to cease, no matter school size, budgetary concers, etc.