1. Robert is an eighth grade student who often dresses and acts in a traditionally “feminine” manner. One day, Robert wears a skirt and blouse to school. His teacher sends him to the principal’s office with a request that Robert be sent home to change his clothes.
Did the teacher take the right action? Why or why not?
The teacher did not take the right action. It is up to the teacher to set an example towards dealing with students who are still figuring out their gender identity. By sending Robert to the principal's office, the teacher is showing that what he did was wrong, essentially telling the other students that there is something wrong with Robert.
What kinds of questions, if any, should the Principal ask Robert?
I believe the Principal should ask questions in a non-accusing tone, such as why he felt better in feminine clothing, if only to determine how Robert feels about his gender identity. If Robert feels uncomfortable talking about it, I think it would be better not to push it. Also, I think it should be determined if Robert's parents know about his trangenderness, and whether they are comfortable with it, or if they would punish him, adding to the discrimination he already encounters.
Should Robert’s parent(s) or guardian(s) be called? If so, when?
I think that if Robert's parents know and are supportive of Robert's questions, they should be called to discuss how to better accommodate Robert at school. If all a phone call would do would be to make things worse, I would say that a phone call would not be advisable.
What kind(s) of referrals to resources could the Principal or another school employee give to Robert?
The school should put Robert into contact with a GSA, or a group that would allow him to feel less alone in his quest for gender identity. Also, it would be helpful for someone to come into the school to talk to the staff about how to successfully deal with students with Gender Identity questions.
What, if anything, should Robert’s classmates be told?
As I said above, I think it would be good to have someone come in and talk to the students about what it is like to be Queer Gendered. It might make things less confusing for the students, and be a place for them to ask questions.
2.Cameron identifies as transgender and would like to use the boy’s restroom at his school. He presents as male and uses male pronouns. When he tries to use the boy’s restroom, he is often harassed and taunted in the facility and school staff and students always tell him to use the girl’s restroom. Fed-up with the harassment, he asks the principal for a gender-neutral bathroom.
How should the principal address Cameron’s situation in a way that is confidential and respectful of Cameron?
I think that a gender-neutral bathroom would be a good idea. The Principal could propose a gender neutral bathroom for the school, not stating specifically that it is for transgender students.
What can teachers and administrators do to ensure his safety, while respecting him as a transgender student?
Teachers and administrators should emphasize that Cameron is to be referred to as a boy, and that harassment will not be tolerated. Gender neutral bathrooms would also help the situation immensely, as Cameron would not be harassed for going in the wrong bathroom.
How can Cameron be supported mentally and emotionally in a way that affirms his gender identity?
If it is made clear that Cameron is to be referred to in masculine pronouns, as well as requiring that staff and students to learn about what it is to be transgender, Cameron's life would probably become a little easier.
What should the principal do to train staff about their obligations to protect transgender students from harassment and discrimination?
Someone who is well versed in Transgender and Queergender identities should come to the school to teach the staff how to be supportive and protective of transgendered students.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
GWN- The Whiteness of Educational Policy Making
How should whiteness be broached within an institutional context by those who may not be in a position of power?
I believe that discourse is the best way to broach the topic of whiteness in an institutional context. Those without power are not able to make changes in government/ institutional policy, so the only thing to do is bring the concept of whiteness and its privileges to the front of people's minds. In no way to I mean to protest or demonstrate, to decry the lack of foresight on the part of our institutions, but merely to help white friends and colleagues question the seemingly obvious status quo of white supremacy.
How should Whites be made aware of, and become engaged in, the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism?
Whites need to understand the inherent privilege and dominance that comes from being White in our white dominant society. This is a hard topic to bridge with most white people, as no one wants to be seen as a racist, and most white people are not individually racist. It's difficult then, for white people to understand that all of their experiences embody an inherent racism. How can this be done? I think a good way would be Carr's example, in which he tells people to imagine a room full of black people. "How would you like it if you were the only White with 11 Black people around the boardroom-table, and every time you spoke the others would smile and whisper to each other that this is the White perspective?" (Carr 229) Imagining this scenario made it easier for me to understand where non-whites are coming from. Also, to become engaged with the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism, whites have to come to the understanding that there is racism, albeit institutional, and the fact that we are racist doesn't make us evil. Racism will never disappear as long as it is ignored, which is the knee-jerk response of so many institutions in Canada.
I believe that discourse is the best way to broach the topic of whiteness in an institutional context. Those without power are not able to make changes in government/ institutional policy, so the only thing to do is bring the concept of whiteness and its privileges to the front of people's minds. In no way to I mean to protest or demonstrate, to decry the lack of foresight on the part of our institutions, but merely to help white friends and colleagues question the seemingly obvious status quo of white supremacy.
How should Whites be made aware of, and become engaged in, the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism?
Whites need to understand the inherent privilege and dominance that comes from being White in our white dominant society. This is a hard topic to bridge with most white people, as no one wants to be seen as a racist, and most white people are not individually racist. It's difficult then, for white people to understand that all of their experiences embody an inherent racism. How can this be done? I think a good way would be Carr's example, in which he tells people to imagine a room full of black people. "How would you like it if you were the only White with 11 Black people around the boardroom-table, and every time you spoke the others would smile and whisper to each other that this is the White perspective?" (Carr 229) Imagining this scenario made it easier for me to understand where non-whites are coming from. Also, to become engaged with the conceptualization and application of race and anti-racism, whites have to come to the understanding that there is racism, albeit institutional, and the fact that we are racist doesn't make us evil. Racism will never disappear as long as it is ignored, which is the knee-jerk response of so many institutions in Canada.
GWN- A group that plays together stays together?
1.How does the framework of interlocking oppressions reframe issues of girl violence? How does this theoretical lens also challenge the saliency of class to explain the scenario between the groups of young women?
People are subjected to many forms of oppression. Whether it be race, gender, class or even age, these oppressions are not cut and dry, and people experience oppression in different amounts. The "framework of interlocking oppressions" factors strongly in determining who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed. In the case of girl violence, all women, white and coloured, can be said to be oppressed by our patriarchal society. It is then difficult for white girls to also see themselves as oppressors in other situations. These frames of oppression also make it hard for society to see these girls as oppressors, as they're generally viewed as victims. We then come to the conclusions that there is no oppression, or that it is not the white girls' fault, as they are victims, and how can a victim victimize someone else?
Also, the different frameworks of oppression that come in to play when dealing with girl violence make it difficult to point out one area of oppression as the cause of problems. As Charania writes, "...systems of oppression come into existence in and through one another so that class exploitation could not be accomplished without gender and racial hierarchies." (213) That schools can ignore racial oppression and focus solely on the class divisions is irresponsible, and continues to lend to the idea of White society's disownership of racism.
2.What kind of anti-racist pedagogical interventions might emerge from a more critical reading of the incidents between these groups of young women?
If these instances of violence were seen as societally influenced, and less as individual misunderstandings, different approaches to intervention would emerge. The group of white students need to understand their role, unwittingly or not, as oppressors, and their power and privilege they hold. Only once their whiteness is shown to them would they be able to begin to understand the differences in their experiences compared to their black, working-class peers. Schools seem to be aimed at instilling society's ideas of White privilege in young students, which makes the acknowledgment of whiteness in educational settings that much more important.
People are subjected to many forms of oppression. Whether it be race, gender, class or even age, these oppressions are not cut and dry, and people experience oppression in different amounts. The "framework of interlocking oppressions" factors strongly in determining who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed. In the case of girl violence, all women, white and coloured, can be said to be oppressed by our patriarchal society. It is then difficult for white girls to also see themselves as oppressors in other situations. These frames of oppression also make it hard for society to see these girls as oppressors, as they're generally viewed as victims. We then come to the conclusions that there is no oppression, or that it is not the white girls' fault, as they are victims, and how can a victim victimize someone else?
Also, the different frameworks of oppression that come in to play when dealing with girl violence make it difficult to point out one area of oppression as the cause of problems. As Charania writes, "...systems of oppression come into existence in and through one another so that class exploitation could not be accomplished without gender and racial hierarchies." (213) That schools can ignore racial oppression and focus solely on the class divisions is irresponsible, and continues to lend to the idea of White society's disownership of racism.
2.What kind of anti-racist pedagogical interventions might emerge from a more critical reading of the incidents between these groups of young women?
If these instances of violence were seen as societally influenced, and less as individual misunderstandings, different approaches to intervention would emerge. The group of white students need to understand their role, unwittingly or not, as oppressors, and their power and privilege they hold. Only once their whiteness is shown to them would they be able to begin to understand the differences in their experiences compared to their black, working-class peers. Schools seem to be aimed at instilling society's ideas of White privilege in young students, which makes the acknowledgment of whiteness in educational settings that much more important.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Chapter 10- Great White North?
How is the Holocaust taken up in the curriculum? How does teaching about the Holocaust compare to teaching about Israel? About Palestinians and the Middle East? About other Genocides?
My only experience "learning" about the Holocaust in school was in my grade 10 Canadian History course. We spent three periods watching "Schindler's List". It had to be explained to my teacher that the "snow" falling in Auschwitz was not actual snow, but ashes from the cremated bodies. Obviously, she was not very knowledgeable on the subject. Other than that, the topic of the Holocaust, or Genocide, was never bridged. Instead, I have had to do my own reading and research on the topic. My general feeling is that the Holocaust is thought of as an independent, historical event. Few books that I have read on the subject relate it to anything but the Second World War, even though the correlation between the Holocaust and other Genocides such as Rwanda are very clear. Also, much more attention is given to the Holocaust than to teachings about Israel, Palestine or the Middle East.
Why is this?
Although Judaism is prominent in the Middle East, and is an important factor in Israel/Palestinian conflicts, most Jewish people living in Canada, unlike the Middle East, are White. Jewish communities in Canada relate more, and have a closer personal history to the Holocaust, than in the conflicts affecting non-white Jews in other parts of the world. White society in general is more concerned with itself than any other ethnic group, but it's interesting to see, when it comes to important watersheds in Jewish history, that most Canadian Jews put more importance in their ethnicity (White) than in their religion. This aspect of Whiteness also lends to the comparatively small amount of attention paid to the Rwandan Genocide. As White people are concerned with themselves, it makes sense that our society would find the Holocaust more pertinent and worthy of attention than a Genocide that does not affect White Canada personally. More attention to these conflicts should be payed, but it is not until our society realizes that we have to make a conscious effort that anything will be done.
My only experience "learning" about the Holocaust in school was in my grade 10 Canadian History course. We spent three periods watching "Schindler's List". It had to be explained to my teacher that the "snow" falling in Auschwitz was not actual snow, but ashes from the cremated bodies. Obviously, she was not very knowledgeable on the subject. Other than that, the topic of the Holocaust, or Genocide, was never bridged. Instead, I have had to do my own reading and research on the topic. My general feeling is that the Holocaust is thought of as an independent, historical event. Few books that I have read on the subject relate it to anything but the Second World War, even though the correlation between the Holocaust and other Genocides such as Rwanda are very clear. Also, much more attention is given to the Holocaust than to teachings about Israel, Palestine or the Middle East.
Why is this?
Although Judaism is prominent in the Middle East, and is an important factor in Israel/Palestinian conflicts, most Jewish people living in Canada, unlike the Middle East, are White. Jewish communities in Canada relate more, and have a closer personal history to the Holocaust, than in the conflicts affecting non-white Jews in other parts of the world. White society in general is more concerned with itself than any other ethnic group, but it's interesting to see, when it comes to important watersheds in Jewish history, that most Canadian Jews put more importance in their ethnicity (White) than in their religion. This aspect of Whiteness also lends to the comparatively small amount of attention paid to the Rwandan Genocide. As White people are concerned with themselves, it makes sense that our society would find the Holocaust more pertinent and worthy of attention than a Genocide that does not affect White Canada personally. More attention to these conflicts should be payed, but it is not until our society realizes that we have to make a conscious effort that anything will be done.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)