I try and bring up how he ruined free in state tuition in the name of hippie bashing when he was California’s governor often, but don’t exactly have the biggest platform.
"Worst of all, these students’ sense of the future is constrained by planning for and then paying down their student loans, often for decades. Economists are waking up to the fact that when young Americans enter the workforce burdened with over a trillion dollars in cumulative debt, they become risk averse, unwilling to move, less able to make major purchases, and slower to become homeowners. Not coincidentally, they don’t feel safe enough to register any major protests against the society that’s done this to them.”
Wait, wait, wait, I have an amazing new idea. How about we fix the American school system.
girls being kept out of the sciences and pushed into the humanities; the humanities being valued less in our society than the sciences; and the humanities and sciences being looked at as stark opposites that couldn’t possibly be enjoyed for the same reasons are all problems that need to in some degree be tackled together
i don’t care if it’s a only a joke, please don’t make comments about how someone’s choice of field of study isn’t going to take them anywhere because it can be a great source of stress and your joke won’t help.
also, destroy the idea that we should only pursue dreams if they are likely to give you status in this capitalist piece-of-shit society.
minimum wage doesn’t even TOUCH a living wage, racism and sexism are alive and well, children are killed in schools on a regular basis, those who make it to college end up with hundreds of thousands in debt, our basic rights are being stripped from us daily, and adults actually believe that SELFIES are the cause for this generation’s demise
If I ever become an English teacher and there is a unit about Dante’s Inferno, I will always start out the unit like:
"WELCOME TO HELL!
I’ll be your guide.”
And act as if Hell is a fucking safari.
Initially, Starbucks said that workers would be able to offset the costs through an upfront scholarship it was providing with Arizona State, but declined to say exactly how much of the cost it was shouldering. The chain estimated the scholarship would average about $6,500 over two years to cover tuition of about $20,000.
Following the announcement, however, Arizona State University President Michael Crow told The Chronicle of Higher Education that Starbucks is not contributing any money toward the scholarship. Instead, Arizona State will essentially charge workers less than the sticker price for online tuition. Much of the remainder would likely be covered by federal aid since most Starbucks workers don’t earn a lot of money.
Workers would pay whatever costs remained out of pocket for the first two years, and Starbucks would bear no costs.
Wow so kudos to Starbucks here! A ton of free positive publicity and absolutely no contribution towards the employees’ tuition. This was basically a scheme to rebrand federal post-secondary aid as generosity from the kindly employer and wow was it effective.
Oh my god
(that’s awful tho)
The Light in Her Eyes (2011)
uncorrectedpersonalitytraits submitted to medievalpoc:
Apologies if you have addressed this in your blog. I did a search and didn’t find evidence of this issue being discussed, so here goes: What do you think of trigger warnings being attached to university and college courses?
I understand the need for sensitivity regarding certain issues, but I also feel that it is a big blow to instructor autonomy and subverts the whole idea of learning. It removes certain major topics of discussion from classrooms like race and sexuality for instance. I am an instructor at a community college in a small Texas town and I already have problems being challenged by some of my more conservative students regarding images of nudity or imagery from non-Christian religions.
I feel these trigger warnings could be used as an excuse to avoid any kind of hot button topic and remove any challenging material from college courses. I guess I’m asking you because I am fascinated by your blog and think highly of your opinion. If you choose to answer this question I thank you for your time in advance. Hell, thanks for your time not in advance for simply reading this.
I assume you’re asking this in good faith, but I am seriously concerned by your idea of what “trigger warning” means, which does not describe what a trigger warning actually is at all. Neither does this article that you probably just read. For the most part, I’m going to address the ideas expressed in the article I just linked to, because they are extremely misleading, and honestly harmful.
Trigger warnings add information, they do not remove it.
What you are describing is…definitely not a trigger warning.
To give you an idea of what you have just said to me, the same idea re-worded is:
“They need to stop rating films ‘R’ because that means no one can see them.”
Another way: “We can’t put ingredients on labels or no one will ever buy food.”
The word “trigger” in the phrase “trigger warning” is specifically meant to describe PTSD triggers. All a trigger warning does is describe content that will follow it. A lot of shows have little blurbs that say something like, “this segment contains graphic content, viewer discretion is advised”. Your TV doesn’t shut off automatically! All it does is give you a chance to turn it off if you choose to.
The idea that the word warning is a synonym for prohibited is ridiculous, but it seems like that’s becoming a more and more pervasive idea. The article I linked to above also seems to be confusing something that’s under the purview of disability services with general classroom curricula for everyone.
Someone with PTSD should be allowed an alternate assignment when and if a certain assignment deals with content that is triggering. Because everyone is different, these triggers can be simple or rather complex. That’s an accommodation for a disability. It doesn’t mean “this book and all topics related to it are banned forever from the classroom”. But then again, making something totally reasonable sound completely unreasonable sells articles to online rags.
What boggles my mind is the idea that a trigger warning means that entire curricula are banned, somehow. How does a warning for racial violence, sexual assault, or a hate crime described in detail amount to “banning the topic of race” in a classroom? Gee, I wonder who is most likely to experience racism-related PTSD? I also wonder if there isn’t a strong undercurrent of “since when do “WE” have to consider the feelings or experiences of people of color, women, and/or disabled people in a classroom? OutRAaaagous!” to all of this, to be perfectly honest.
I’ve seen this before, and the whole argument reeks of entitlement. It’s just another version of “This doesn’t affect me so I don’t know why we’re paying attention to it; not only that, but I’m angry that we are.”
As the article above mentions, people think that the idea of a content warning was “invented” by social media, but that’s absurd. The backlash is coming from the fact that because of social media, a lot of people who are NOT affected by issues like PTSD are learning about these concepts for the first time, and not surprisingly, are completely misunderstanding pretty much everything. Sometimes on purpose, because they honestly do not give a crap, and are inexplicably enraged that anyone else is allowed to give a crap.
More than a million military veterans are taking postsecondary courses in the United States, and that number is growing. They already struggle with myriad challenges in these endeavors, and many more will stop taking classes than will earn degrees:
Many veterans face an array of challenges in making the transition to college life.
Some are medical. Fisher, who heard the screams of a soldier burning to death and had a buddy die in his arms, participates in group therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. He also has some hearing loss.
"It’s hard for me to be around so many people," he said. "I don’t like it. It makes me feel very uncomfortable."
Should we be subjecting our returning soldiers to graphic images and sounds in war films or detailed descriptions in texts? Is this how we treat our disabled veterans? As is mentioned above, many have come home with multiple disabilities. Is allowing them the choice of what classes to take somehow asking too much of us, now?
"Being challenged" by bigoted students who don’t want to learn about religions other than their own has literally nothing whatsoever to do with trigger warnings. I’d be a lot more worried in Texas about these people’s parents actually making laws that prevent you from teaching about religions other than Christianity. That’s censorship and politics influencing education. Pretending that “you have to learn about all religions because that’s the topic in class today” is the same as “bombarding an assault survivor or veteran with graphic, violent content with absolutely NO warning or chance to control what they are being exposed to” is pretty disgusting.
The whole article reads like backlash to feminism in the 1960’s. It’s outdated, entitled, and massively misrepresents what is actually going on: students are demanding to have a more active role in choosing classes based on their individual needs. It’s no different than wanting to know what something IS before you buy it-and considering the tuition hikes in recent years, it’s the least they can do.
I wrote the original Rutgers oped column that helped kick off this discussion
medievalpoc you explained this beautifully, and if I could go back and rewrite my article, I would stress what you just wrote. PEOPLE DON’T GET IT, it’s been 3 months and I’ve been interviewed with the BBC and Huff Post about why I want to bring this into the classroom, and people just. don’t. get. it.
They think it’s censorship. They think we’re “too sensitive.” They think it’s “good” to be shocked. It’s always the same thing - the erasure of students with PTSD (especially vets and sexual assault victims), silencing students with PTSD, and thrusting the conversation into something that never discusses PTSD. It’s ONLY being discussed by ableminded individuals, and it’s ONLY being criticized in relation to ableminded individuals.
I’m so sick of this conversation. I’m glad I haven’t gotten any more interviews. Nobody fucking understands this concept; it’s not our fault, it’s because they don’t want to open their eyes and realize that students in the classroom are suffering and people exist in the world with PTSD.
It’s sadly the same old song and dance: reframing this as if allowing for the existence of one group of people can only possibly come at the expense of “everyone else”.
The idea that ADDING information is somehow “censorship” is so absurd I can’t even fathom it. The tone of these articles, which is more or less “catering the to extreme minority at the expense of the majority” is also blatant, over-the-top misinformation.
An estimated 7.8 percent of Americans will experience PTSD at some point in their lives, with women (10.4%) twice as likely as men (5%) to develop PTSD. About 3.6 percent of U.S. adults aged 18 to 54 (5.2 million people) have PTSD during the course of a given year. This represents a small portion of those who have experienced at least one traumatic event; 60.7% of men and 51.2% of women reported at least one traumatic event.
You can just look at these google results and see knee-jerk, reactionary hyperbole about “political correctness” which has become the go-to dog whistle for anyone who wants to write an article about how angry they are they can’t just be openly bigoted anymore without someone SAYING something:
According to Momoko Price and Lawrence Berg, this is really just a smear tactic meant to obscure the issue:
“What [they]’re calling the ‘PC movement’ I would call a social movement by marginalised people and the people who support them,” he said. “[A moveme nt] to use language that ’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”
For us, the term ‘politically correct’ survived the 90s, but the term ‘human rights backlash’ did not. Will Hutton, former editor-in-chief for the UK publication the Observer , described in his column how the term ‘PC’ was never really a political stance at all, contrary to popular belief. It was actually perceived by many as a right-wing tactic to dismiss—or backlash against—left-leaning social change. Mock the trivial aspects of human rights politics, like its changing language, and you’ll succeed in obscuring the issue altogether.
And that’s the problem with false dichotomies. Trying to incite backlash against this by claiming something is being “taken away” is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The whole thing is a straw man, because no one is censoring ANYTHING. The implication that this is meant to be some kind of dodge for students who “don’t feel like” learning is an outrage.
Trigger warnings are not good educational/institutional practice, they don’t protect people, and they are a pretend-substitute for robust mental health services on campus and a comprehensive policy to deal with sexual violence on campus: read and discuss.
I am so enraged right now I can’t even articulate it. And the worst part is, I can’t tell if they’re posting this statement/article as a way to encourage discussion of the topic, or as their own viewpoint!
Just…wow. From the Women’s and Gender Studies Department: “trigger warnings don’t protect people”. I just…..okay. *facepalm*
My 7 year old son was shot down by his 1st grade teacher
The american public education system in a nutshell tho
My third grade teacher actually had a conversation with my mom that I was reading to well and told her to stop having me read at home
My first grade teacher said that it was problematic that I was reading ahead of the rest of the kids in my grade and asked my parents to stop letting me read Harry Potter.
My fourth grade teacher thought it was wrong for my dad to be teaching me complex math because it fascinated me.
My elementary school music teacher hated the way my piano teacher taught me, and how I was more advanced than many of her students, and so told me, in front of my peers and my mother, that I was not good enough to participate in the state solo festival. She would not give me the form. We had to procure it from the district instead. She also hated how I excelled at reading and playing music for the recorder, and so she refused to give me my “belts” (colored beads to signify our level) and humiliated me in front of the class repeatedly.
My eighth grade algebra teacher used to fail me on take home tests because I didn’t solve problems exactly the way she showed us in class; I used methods that we had learned for other types of problems that also applied to these. She took points off my tests because I didn’t bring a calculator even though I got 100% without it, because I was able to do it by hand. I had to call my father, who is an engineer, down to the school to shout her down and give me back my A in the class.
My 10th grade Spanish teacher yelled at me in front of the class numerous times because she didn’t like the way I took notes; she thought that since I didn’t write every word off the slide, I wasn’t getting it all down. I had to explain to her that people who have taken advanced courses, like AP or IB classes, know that in a fast-paced learning environment you need to take quick shorthand notes that contain the necessary information rather than wasting time writing every word. She almost gave me detention.
My 11th grade English teacher gave me a poor mark on my first short essay because she believed that I was looking up unnecessarily complex words in a thesaurus to try and get better marks. The phrases in question: “laced with expletives” and “bombarded”. She wouldn’t hear any defense from me.
My 11th grade history teacher failed me on an essay about the 1950s because I misread the prompt. Except the prompt wasn’t words; it was a political cartoon. One of the figures was clearly president Eisenhower, but the other I couldn’t place. My teacher would not tell us who it was. I labelled him as the governor of Little Rock Arkansas during the integration period, and wrote an essay about that subject. My teacher said that no, it was Joseph McCarthy, and that there was a small picture of the man in our textbook and therefore I should have recognized him instantly. Half the class, apparently, did not.
The American school system is not here to educate us or to encourage us to learn; it’s here to keep us in line and silent. It’s here to keep us from deviating and being our own people and forming our own ideas. Don’t let it win.
Today, my fifteen year old sister who wears pants under her skirts was stopped by her principal and told that her skirt was ‘inappropriate for school’ and that she should save dressing like that for ‘weekend parties.’ My sister came home and made these posters, printed lots of copies of and plans to post them around her school. I have never been so proud. Dress codes are perpetuating rape culture and oppressive objectification towards women.
This is a problem in my little sisters school as well:(