Monday, September 17, 2012

Is this new "racism" even worth being ashamed of?

By now, most people have heard about Portland, Ore. school principal Verenice Gutierrez's comments about the racially divisive nature of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Here they are in the original newspaper article:

Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.

“What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.

“Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.”

This expanded version of racism is watered-down to the point of being meaningless. Instead of malice and assumptions about a person based on their race, this new "racism" is a virtually-harmless array of minor faux pas based on unfamiliarity with cultural nuances.

I can remember a few years ago racism was being redefined as "power plus privilege," which was a heavy-handed way to excuse non-white racists. It was as if there was no English word for racial hatred from minority members. Now we're seeing more diversity in high-profile racists, such as the actions of Latinos openly called racist.

Victim-mongers are twisting the concept of privilege to say that merely not knowing every minor differences they have with every obscure cultural on earth is "racist."

I'm sure Gutierrez gets a pass on this because of her Mexican heritage, but if you're going to look for nano-racism at that threshold, you don't get to say "Hispanic." The preferred term is "Latino" and her choice of words is a lot closer to being offensive than mentioning a sandwich.

Sandwiches are known all over the world, including in Southern and Central America, and shielding immigrant students from knowledge of basic American culture does them a disservice.

The worst part is that Gutierrez wasn't born this ignorant; she had to train for it. Her school district spent more than $500,000 paying a bogus consulting firm called Pacific Education Group to teach school officials ways to invent problems in the search for racism.

I figured Brietbart.com was being disingenuous when it said these consultants claim that white privilege in the school system is the primary cause of the black achievement gap, and not poverty, violence, broken families or lousy schools, but it was right there as the motto on the front of the web site.

At Pacific Educational Group we believe Systemic Racism is the most devastating factor contributing to the diminished capacity of all children, especially black children, to achieve at the highest levels, and contributes to the fracturing of the communities that nurture and support them.

They also seem to be a two-trick pony operation, as their seminar page only lists Latinos and Somalis - the two groups from Gutierrez's example - as their area of focus.

Picture this: A grade school teacher gives the class a word problem about how many sandwiches someone will have left over if they start with five and eat two but the conversation quickly turns to what exactly counts as a sandwich and students share their experiences with tortas and pites. Everyone spends the afternoon learning about the evils of cultural assumptions and the math lesson is abandoned in search of curing society's ills.

Maybe that's why Gutierrez's school performs in the bottom 15 percent of the state.

17 comments:

  1. I am absolutely serious when I contend you have a reading disability. You go from saying that Pacific Educational Group teaches that "white privilege in the school system is the primary cause of the black achievement gap, and not poverty, violence, broken families or lousy schools" to a quote that says nothing like that. Their mission statement (which is not a motto, incidentally) says they believe "Systematic Racism" is a major cause of problems in education. Notice that they do not exclude racism that exists outside the school system. You, however, did make that exclusion; you looked at a statement that spoke of systematic racism and you made it solely about racism in schools. But hey, feel free to show us which part of that quote says that "poverty, violence, broken families or lousy schools" are not included in the phrase "Systematic Racism". Heck, maybe you could poke around to see how the consultant group even defines that part of its statement. I know investigative research isn't your strong suit, but I'd like to see you give it a shot at least once in your career.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you're going to throw stones about reading comprehension, you should at least be able to understand the quote in question.

    It said "...is the most devastating factor" plain as day and you summed it up as "a major cause of problems."

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Please stop running away. Are you going to tell everyone which part of the quote says "poverty, violence, broken families or lousy schools" are not included in the phrase "Systematic Racism"?

    2. I merely described the mission statement in different words. "Major cause" and "most devastating factor" are not mutually exclusive terms. If you feel otherwise, please explain to us, for instance, why the planes hitting the WTC towers were the most devastating factors in the collapse of said towers while simultaneously not being a major cause of their destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't feel bad Hawkins! He's like ol' Mittens! Nobody backs Mittens into a corner (and gets a solid answer, at least)!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did you delete my comment requesting that you explain the quote, Hartwell, or did it simply not post?

    At any rate, I would still like an explanation of the quote. I do not see how it speaks specifically to any school systems, nor is it clear why you believe it excludes "poverty, violence, broken families or lousy schools" as causes of underachievement amongst particular demographics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you've seen the Highlander movies, you will know the phrase "there can only be one." If you haven't, please skip Highlander 2 as it just ruins the first one with a needless backstory.

    If you describe one thing as the biggest cause, you are saying it is the biggest cause, which means other causes must have lesser influence. I hope that clarifies everything for you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let me tell you how I will address this. First, I will talk about your rebuttal to my particular phrasing. Second, I will ask you to once again defend your interpretation of the quoted mission statement.

    The mission statement said "Systematic Racism" was the most devastating factor in certain demographic groups doing poorly in school. I said "Systematic Racism" was a major cause in certain demographic groups doing poorly in school, according to the mission statement. My phrasing does not mean, content, or otherwise imply that "other causes must have less influence". Again, please describe how the planes hitting the towers on 9/11 were the most devastating factor in the collapses while not also being major causes. If you can tell me that in a way which makes any sense whatsoever, I will never post on your blog again.

    Now, please stop running away from the primary issue: Why do you believe "poverty, violence, broken families or lousy schools" are excluded from the term "Systematic Racism" or any other part of the mission statement you quoted?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again, just to speed things along: My phrasing is not mutually exclusive with the mission statement phrasing. If it is, you need to explain my analogy or otherwise show why "major cause" cannot also mean "biggest cause".

    Furthermore, you still need to explain how your interpretation of the quote jibes with what it actually says.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Furthermore, Michael Hawkins will DESTROY YOUR CAREER if you continue DECEIVING US!

    Or has he already managed to do that? Oh wait, saw all those journalism awards on your Facebook page the other day, guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And thanks, Michael Hartwell, for allowing brave dissenters like Hawkins to freely post. When I tried to defend myself from an odd post on his (HIGHLY TRAFFICKED!) site which consisted of calling me stupid in various ways, I was almost immediately banned for "clogging up the comments". But I see you continue to allow him here even when he clogs up YOUR comments. Kudos to you.

    (Hawkins also would have banned me for the two posts in a row, apparently)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Haha, thanks Mark. I figured answering his question three times was enough, but apparently he wants to hear it again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. At what point did you explain how "Systematic Racism" excluded your list of causes of underachievement?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see you nitpicking my post over my substitution of "major cause" for "most devastating factor". I still do not see where you have once answered my question about how "Systematic Racism" excluded your list of causes of underachievement, much less three times.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your habit of demanding new answers to questions because you don't like the original answer only sprung up because you wanted to nitpick one minor detail of the post, and you wouldn't have had to ask if you had read things all the way through.

    Words mean things. The statement on the group's website said something is the number one cause. If you don't like that, take it up with them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 2 posts in a row AGAIN, Hawkins. And after you berated me as biliously as possible for my own transgression. Are the rules of Internet etiquette even applicable to you? Will you ban yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Words mean things. The statement on the group's website said something is the number one cause. If you don't like that, take it up with them."

    So, wait. That was your answer? I thought you were just nitpicking some unrelated minutiae. And, in fact, you were. You just apparently were not aware.

    At any rate, this has nothing to do with me not liking your answer. The fact is, you haven't answered anything. All you did was talk about my word substitution. So let's review again:

    The group said "Systemic Racism is the most devastating factor contributing to the diminished capacity of all children, especially black children, to achieve at the highest levels..."

    You said the consultants were claiming "that white privilege in the school system is the primary cause of the black achievement gap, AND NOT POVERTY, VIOLENCE, BROKEN FAMILIES OR LOUSY SCHOOLS..."

    My problem is with the part I have emphasized. At no point have you even thought about explaining how "Systematic Racism" excludes 1)poverty, 2)violence, 3)broken families, or 4)lousy schools.

    But perhaps I see where the misunderstanding is here. Do you believe that "Systematic Racism" and "white privilege" are interchangeable terms? Furthermore, do you think this group rejects the notion that poverty, violence, broken families, and/or lousy schools are not connected to white privilege?

    ReplyDelete