New Class Idea: The Ambiguous Hero

I’ve been captivated, almost forever, with the ambiguous hero; the good guy who does bad things (and, conversely, the bad guy who does good things) and what role he plays in our psyche and, in a larger sense, in our culture.

A friend of mine wants to teach a summer class with film, and we were talking about this idea over dinner the other day.  I haven’t been able to let it go, and here’s what I’ve come up with.  I’m going to need some help zeroing in on the specifics – the assignments, the competencies and objectives, that kind of thing -  but here’s what I’ve got for materials so far:

The Dark Knight: the second of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy – this is the one with Heath Ledger as the Joker.  Christian Bale’s Batman is the perfect example, I think, of the ambiguous hero.

A Dry White Season:  This is based on a novel written by a white South African who gets involved in the anti-apartheid movement after someone he knows personally dies in police custody.

Gandhi:  You know this story, and I keep coming back to it as a conversation about civil disobedience and the question of how resistance is characterized on the different “sides” of the debate in question

Gone Baby Gone:  PLEASE tell me you’ve seen this movie!  It’s about a kidnapping, and centers around HUGE issues of “right” and “wrong” and where the law clashes with morality

Harry Potter:  I want to investigate Snape.  The idea of the double agent is always an interesting one.  I’m not sure which film I’d use, though; likely the last one.

Iron Jawed Angels: Another civil disobedience film – this one focuses on women’s suffrage and the outrages that some women suffered at the hands of law enforcement.

Milk:  About Harvey Milk and the early struggle for GLBTQ rights and recognition

Mississippi Burning:  This remains one of my MOST favorite films, mostly because of Gene Hackman’s REALLY complex character.  This scene alone is worth the film:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlzaBi_QxPw

The Negotiator:  This is the story of a cop who takes hostages in order to reveal corruption in his department – a good guy doing a bad thing for a good reason.

Leon, the Professional:  A hit man who adopts his 12 year old neighbor after her family is killed by a corrupt cop (played terrifyingly by Gary Oldman).  He’s a good guy who does bad things, and we have to reconcile his work with his personality.

Schindler’s List:  You know this one, too, I’m sure.  I think that Schindler started out as a bad guy doing a good thing (though for selfish reasons) and evolved into a good guy.

Shawshank Redemption:  Andy as a wrongly convicted man who becomes a criminal in prison, but who never gives up his humanity.

Tsotsi:  I haven’t seen this one in a LONG time, so I’m not sure if I’m remembering it correctly, but I think it’s about a boy who steals a car and discovers that he’s also stolen a baby.  The film tells the story of what he does after he realizes he’s got a tough choice to make.

Unforgiven:  This is a Clint Eastwood western.  Eastwood is a retired gunslinger who gets called back into the life of crime for reasons that he thinks are honorable.  His character is a tough one to suss out, and the film really makes the viewer work for the payoff (plus, it stars Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, which makes it that much better).

I was also thinking that I would have the kids read Bel Canto (which asks the “terrorist or freedom fighter” question) and, if they’re given permission from their parents, to look at a couple of episodes of Dexter (a serial killer in a Showtime series who only murders murderers who get away from the legal system).

I think there’s a lot of richness to be mined in this “good guy doing bad things / bad guy doing good things” question, I just need to think about it a bit more before it takes on any kind of substance that resembles a for-credit class.

What do you think?

Wordy Wednesday: A Shot of Hope

For a long time now, I’ve been worried that I was never going to be back in the classroom.  After all that happened to me at CHS, I was feeling pretty burned; for all that the place was pretty laid-back and permissive, I still managed to get into trouble, so it stands to reason that it’s highly unlikely I’m going to find someplace where my enthusiasm, passion, and ethics won’t be a liability.

I met Jay for coffee this afternoon.  He’s a teacher at a different charter school (and a hell of a photographer; hit that link and go on over and click around.  Leave some feedback; he’s looking for some interaction), and the parent of one of my former students.  We’d been tangentially in touch since before I was dismissed from CHS; he and I clicked when we first met, he was very supportive of my efforts to kick his recalcitrant daughter in the ass, and we share a very similar perspective on politics, spirituality, and the underlying purpose (and ethics) of education.  Anyway, I left a comment on his blog about a particularly stunning portrait he’d posted of Sweet Pea, and a few emails later, we’d set up a coffee date.

I left that hour feeling much better about where I am professionally.  He told me a lot of things I really needed to hear (though, let’s be clear, I don’t think for a second that he said them because they were what I needed to hear; he’s not like that at all).  He confirmed for me a couple of things that I deeply suspected but really didn’t want to admit (I’m over that now, by the way; I’m done telling myself stories to try to make it hurt less).  He told me that not only should I go back to teaching, but that I very likely had to; we share a proclivity of spirit that compels us to work with young people, and he recognizes in me the same drive that moves him to do the work that he does.  He essentially told me that I wasn’t going to be happy doing anything else – that I could do other work, certainly, but that I would never be as fulfilled as I will be teaching.  I don’t think he’s wrong.

Jay also offered me a glimmer of hope that there may well be a place for me in a classroom.  I’m going to chase down a couple of contacts tomorrow (and send out a couple of resumes, as well) and see what becomes of it.  While I’m not going to force myself into a situation where I have to change who I am to fit in with the culture so much that I don’t recognize myself anymore, neither am I going to give up entirely on the idea of being a teacher.  The truth is that I miss the kids too much to abandon the work, and I love who I am while I’m doing it.

Onward.

Quick Hit: DONE!

The Paper is finally, final-draft done.

Including the citations, it’s nearly 40 pages.  It’s printing as I write this.

I am proud of it; I think it’s well done and I expect that it will be positively received by my professor.

I’m looking forward to a little down-brain time.

First Draft Friday

I love alliteration!

SO!  The first draft of The Paper is done!  It clocks in at 22 pages (plus 5 pages of sources), the conclusion is pathetic, and I still have to go back through and cite some sections, but it is a complete draft.

Who wants to read it?  Email me at mrschili at comcast dot net and I’ll send you a copy.  Be forewarned; I want good, constructive feedback on this bad boy; if you’re going to read this (and I’ll be very grateful if you do), I’m going to ask that you be clear and specific about what I need to do to make it better.

My goal is to have it in front of my professor in second-draft form sometime early to mid next week (I’m aiming for Wednesday, but since she hasn’t given me a deadline, I’ve got some flexibility).  The final is due on the 15th (my deadline, not hers; I think she gave me through the 18th, but I’d rather put it to bed sooner rather than later).

Quick Hit: Vindication

I attended a seminar yesterday on the Constitution and the ways in which the document continues to change and evolve as society does.  It was a fascinating day – much more so than I imagined it would be – and I’m eager to sign up for the rest of the programs in the series.

One of the panels featured a lawyer who does extensive work with issues of privacy.  After her session, I made my way to the front of the lecture hall to try to get a moment or two with her, which she graciously offered me.  I quickly told her to story about what happened to me at CHS last year, giving her a thumbnail sketch of the proverbial ‘facts of the case,’ but stopping just short of the fact that I was let go at the end of it all.

Her very clear and unhesitating diagnosis of the situation was that a school representative, working with the express permission of a parent, has the right to disclose personal information of a medical nature about said parent’s minor child.  It seems that  HIPA has a clause that allows for the release of information by the subject party or the subject party’s legal representative – in this case, a parent – and, in the absence of a clear school policy forbidding such disclosure (which there wasn’t), there is absolutely no wrongdoing if said school representative gives information about a student to the school community.

The attorney literally gasped when I told her that I’d been let go as a consequence of the story I told her.  She went on to tell me that I absolutely had actionable cause (which I’m not going to pursue) and that this never should have happened.

I said the things that I said that day with the express permission of Sweet Pea’s parents (and Sweet Pea concurred when she was well again and I was catching her up on what was going on at CHS).  I knew what I was doing was right when I was doing it, but I walked away from the conversation yesterday feeling incredibly vindicated.

I… I Just… I Have No Words

I received this email from a student in the class I’m taking.  I present it to you completely unedited:

yeahh i can deff meet up this thursday after 6 if that works for everyone else so we can just get it done?? and lets come prepared with facts and current events. I have already started doing some thing but not a whole lot. Also i do not have the current version of ferg so i only have stuff from ore on our topic so bring that book if any of you guys have it!!

Please bear in mind when reading this that this young woman is a SENIOR IN COLLEGE.  Let that sink in for a second; she’s a SENIOR.  It kind of makes one wonder how she managed to get that far, doesn’t it?  It also makes me wonder where she expects to go from here.

I am both sorry for the professor (who’s going to have to read this girl’s paper and many, many like it) and SO glad that I’m taking the class as an independent study.

Quick Hit: The Thesis Paper

SO!  I met with the professor of my class and we’ve decided that I’m going to work the course as an independent study, which is a HUGE relief for me, but is also a hard right turn into a LOT more work.

I have proposed to write a thesis paper (longer than a term paper, shorter than a dissertation) in which I investigate the place of LGBTQ rights in the current election cycle.  I’m interested in looking not only at national politics – the Presidential election and DOMA – but also at some down-ticket races and state ballot initiatives (Maine is taking the issue up on their ballots in November).

I spent today going through some of the library’s databases looking for places to start.  Mr. Chili has printed a PDF for me (I have the feeling he’ll be doing that a lot; the printer in his office is much spiffier than mine and can print on two sides all by itself), and I’ve downloaded a couple of articles that should at least kick my ball down the proverbial hill.

Anyone have any suggestions on where I should focus?  I’m starting with a history of DOMA (which will take me to Hawaii, though – sadly – not literally) and working my way to the President’s interview a few months ago where he came out publicly in favor of equal rights.  From there, I’m not sure where, exactly, to go.

Quick Hit: Going it Alone

I had a conversation with my professor this afternoon, and we decided that it would probably be best for me to take this class as an independent study.

The distance between me and my classmates in terms of age, life experience, and general knowledge is so great that I won’t be getting anything useful out of the course.  I’ve got at least 20 years on all of them, I’m the only one who’s worked, I’m the only one who’s married or has children (and, not for nothing, I’m the only one (at least in my reading group) who has half a frickin’ clue about what’s going on in the class.  Oh, and I also seem to be the only one who can get through a sentence without saying “like” 17 times.  I’m not kidding.)  At one point during the last class meeting, one of my reading group said, “WOW!  We’re, like, so lucky to, like, have you in OUR group!  Your explanations are, like, really, really good!”  And, yes; that’s a direct quote.  I’m really not interested in a) teaching the class to my small group-mates or b) being used as the “smart kid” for all the group work (and there’s a lot of it).  Getting out of the class and working on my own is definitely a priority for me.

The professor usually sets graduate students working together, but since I’m the only graduate student taking this class, she suggested to me that we can work out a course of study where I put together a graduate-level plan for the course material and work independently.  Guess what I’ll be doing this weekend?

I think it’s a capital idea.  I was starting to get really worried about what I was going to do for another 12 weeks in that environment.

Watch this space.

Reading Response Essay #2

In Ore chapter 2, the author discusses ethnicity as an option. Seriously consider and answer the
 question she poses in her first sentence, “What does it mean to talk about ethnicity as an option for an individual?” (p 29). Consider the ethnicities you claim. When, if at all, are these ethnicities (or ethnicity) a choice? When are they not? What influences when these ethnicities are and are not chosen? Give an example to illustrate your points.

In her essay, Optional Ethnicities: For Whites Only?, Mary Waters posits the notion that, for a great many Whites, claiming an ethnicity is a choice.  The notion that “ethnicity  is primarily a social phenomenon, not a biological one” (30) means that those individuals who are sufficiently removed from the immigrant experience – and those whose physical appearance or attributes are such that society does not automatically assign them a label – are able to designate for themselves which ethnicity, if any, they choose to adopt.

As (primarily Caucasian) immigrant families experience more and more generations in one place (here, we’re assuming the United States), the link to an ethnic identity grows ever more remote (30).  Further, the prevalence of mixed ancestry, which becomes more common as families grow farther from the immigrant experience, offers many people “the option of which ethnicity to identify with” (31).  This willingness to identify an ethnicity – and to purposefully choose to adopt an ethnic identity for both personal lives and the public record – is made more accessible by the options for such designations on official documents (such as the census) and the perception that the adoption of an ethnic identity does not carry with it a stigma, but rather a positive means of identifying oneself against a “vanilla” (34) identification as an “unhyphenated American.”

The tendency to remain a “hyphenated American” seems to be a strong one, however, and is reinforced in a number of our social and political institutions.  My own ancestry is relatively uncomplicated – I come from several lines of essentially undiluted and recently arrived Scots – but I am also disassociated from my biological family, so I do not have any emotional or social ties to them.  As a consequence, I have no particular stake in finding and documenting my ancestry, but I’m finding that, as a regular part of my daughters’ school experience, questions of family history are pretty common.  Once a year since they entered the 5th grade, one or both of my children has come home with some variant on the “family tree” assignment; in fact, my sophomore just finished another genealogy assignment last night.  Because we all “look” like Anglo-Saxons – red-haired, fair-skinned – the narrative we tell about our family’s history is an easy one for others to accept.

The idea of outward appearance is an important one when we’re constructing ethnicity, both for ourselves and as a means of identifying/categorizing others.  Because our genetics conspired to produce living versions of Disney’s Brave heroine, my husband and I don’t have to help our children navigate through the complexities of constructing an ethnic identity; people are willing to accept without question their claim to Anglo-Scots heritage.  For those whose appearance is more ambiguous, however, the idea of self-directed choice in ethnic identification becomes more problematic.  In their essay, Racial Formations, Omi and Winant observed that, “[b]y the end of the seventeenth century, Africans whose specific identity was Ibo, Yoruba, Fulani, etc., were rendered “black” by an ideology of exploitation based on racial logic – the establishment and maintenance of a ‘color line’” (24).  Disregarding the distinctions of tribe by a dominant culture is a means of stripping individuals of a facet of identity.  Taken a step further, reducing identity to the lowest social denominator was perpetuated in this country by the “one drop rule” which determined the racial identity of an individual based on what Marvin Harris called the principle of “hypo-descent.”  “Americans [have been socially programmed] to believe that anyone who is known to have had a Negro ancestor is a Negro.”   He goes on to say that this “rule” for constructing the social identity of others is intended “to keep biological facts from intruding into our collective racist fantasies” (21).

Waters claims that those who have the option of choosing an ethnic identity do so for several reasons.  First, having a symbolic identity “combines individuality with feelings of community” (34).  People reported that choosing an ethnicity helped them to feel “special” and distinct from the “bland” identity of “American,” which is often commonly thought of as a political, rather than an ethnic, identity.  Adopting an ethnic identity also allows the individual to pick and choose those characteristics of the ethnicity they wish to identify with.  Finally, “the option of being able to not claim any ethnic identity” exists for those of White, European background where it does not for people of color.

Reading Response Essay #1

I’m going to admit to being a little nervous about this.

The assignment says, in part (I’ve left out the insignificant details),  “each student will maintain a weekly reading response journal that is based on the reading response questions that are posted on BlackBoard… Students should respond using examples from the readings to illustrate your points.  The format of the response should include the following: 1) date and response question, 2) discussion and response of the question using at least two examples from the assigned readings to illustrate points, 3) response and discussion of the question based on your personal opinion/experience, and 4) demonstrated critical analysis of the question and integration of the assigned readings into your opinion/experience.

Since I’m still not sure about what the expectations are for written assignments beyond what I’ve got there, I’m not sure that I’ve met them. Regardless, here’s what I’ve come up with for the first attempt.  Critique the hell out of it, wouldja?

 

Reading Response Question
September 1, 2012

In reading #1, Diana Gittins asks “what is a family and is it universal?”  Based on all of the Ferguson readings for 9/7/12, how would you answer Gittins’ questions?  Finally, define traditional notions of “the family” and discuss why we cling to traditional notions of family if, in reality, they represent such a small percentage of families today in the US?

The readings from Ferguson make clear that the notion of “family” is, at best, nearly impossible to define.  While it is true that every culture has an expression of “family,” no single, coherent definition can be applied to the structure that can be expected to encompass every permutation of family; there are simply too many factors to consider that make the composition a universal definition impossible.

The “traditional” notion of family, at least in this country and at this moment in time, is a heteronormative, male-dominated structure consisting of a bread-winning father, a caretaker mother, and the natural children of that couple’s state- and church-sanctioned marital union.  Seen from the outside, it could be argued that my family is the white, Western archetype; my husband (though not always the primary decision-maker) is currently the primary breadwinner; I left my job teaching high school to pursue a post-graduate certificate and, as a consequence, am only working part-time.  We were legally wed in a church, though neither of us subscribes to an organized faith.  Our two daughters were conceived and borne in wedlock.  For all intents and purposes, my husband and I are representative of the “perfect” middle class American family.

There are a number of ways in which the day-to-day of our family differs, though, from what I understand the “conservative” narrative concerning families should be.  Our division of labor isn’t based on traditional gender roles; though it’s true that my husband mows the lawn and snow-blows the driveway, he does those things not because I’m not able to or because he thinks I can’t, but rather because he’s the only one of us who can finesse those machines to do his bidding.  He is just as likely as I am to do dishes or run a few loads of laundry.  I see to the care and keeping of the vehicles and often execute home repairs myself.  We saw – and continue to see – equally to both the emotional and physical care of our children; we each bathed and diapered the babies, we each help with homework, we each provide for the varying needs of our growing children (in fact, my husband is the one who cares for the girls when they’re vomiting; I simply haven’t the stomach for that kind of sickness).  Decisions about household expenses are shared between us, as are the continuing demands of parenting teenage daughters.  While there’s a lot about our family that looks “traditional,” there is much about our relationships that deviate from that idea (at least, as I understand the current conservative narrative).

Ours is a unique situation, though, and there are as many expressions of family as there are individuals who make them.  Considering the components of race, class, sexual orientation, educational level, profession, and physical surroundings and the effect that these influences have on the ways in which domestic arrangements are made and maintained, one needs also to take into account the impacts of faith, “traditional” definitions, social expectations, and governmental policies on the ways in which we arrange ourselves into family units.

My sister and her wife are an excellent example of a family that finds itself outside the sanctioned definition of “family,” though admittedly that definition is changing.  I find it interesting that even those who are accepting of their union as a marriage will still ask them when they plan to have children (and the more bold will ask how they plan to have them); the expectations placed on even non-traditional families to adhere to a socially acceptable pattern of behavior is pervasive.

In her article, Gittins makes the argument that while we may think we have a working definition of “family,” the reality of the various lives that people lead renders that definition unworkable.  She argues that the standards for behavior change with time and situation, that any number of forces affect the customs and social acceptability of certain practices, and that marriage and family customs have been fluid throughout human history.  To try to apply one rigid definition of family leaves out all but a wrenchingly narrow representation of people and, further, denigrates and marginalizes nearly everyone.

As to the claim that we cling to a narrow definition of family despite evidence that so few people actually live in conditions that would be recognized as meeting that definition, I’m not entirely certain that we do.  As our nation becomes more diverse, as children grow up in a more accepting and tolerant environment, and as culture and customs continue to evolve – however slowly that may be happening – so, too, do our definitions of “normal” change and adapt.  My husband and I are raising our daughters to both accept and understand that there are a number of different ways to express love and care, and that no one way is the “right” way.

I understand, because I am reasonably conscious and attentive to the political environment, that there are an alarming number of people who do cling desperately to a codified and proscribed definition of family, and who are at best deeply suspicious of and, at worst, outright hostile to people whose practices do not meet with that standard.  My thinking is that these people are either afraid of losing their privileged position as members of sanctioned institutions – and whatever control or influence that position grants them, whether real or perceived – or they are operating under the mistaken belief that allowing other ways of being to be officially condoned and recognized will somehow threaten their own rights to live as they please.  Sadly, I do know of people who genuinely believe that the acceptance of homosexual marriage will, in fact, threaten hetero marriage, and it seems that no amount of logic or placating will allay their fears.  Fortunately, these are not fears that I or my family share.