Tag Archives: politics


The fall school term starts next week. That means I’m getting ready to apologize to my students. That’s right. I begin every course by laying out the class procedures, and that includes an apology on behalf of my colleagues, most of whom would never apologize themselves, nor even accept that they have something to apologize for. But many of them should. They are in a very esteemed, important position, and they abuse it, to the students’ detriment.

I spent this past week in assorted faculty meetings and workshops. I’ve been to some real doozies. I actually ended up walking out of one discussion session that purported to debate the merits of open-book vs. closed-book exams. I’m totally open-book. For me the whole point is to apply what you have learned, and to effectively use the resources available. As one of my students once put it, the world is open book. But I certainly want to hear other perspectives, so I went.

I was dismayed to discover that pretty much everyone else in attendance was from the psych department, and they were earnestly engaged in drawing up clinical support for continuing to use closed-book exams that could be done on scantrons. I was also appalled to realize just how utterly closed they were to any other position. I kept trying to make the case for the way open-book fosters critical thinking, until one attendee, who had up until that point contributed nothing to the discussion, accused me of being obstinate. I pointed out that I wasn’t making things personal and asked if he could do the same. He responded by saying I was refusing to “get it,” while others nodded in agreement. The moderator just sat there. I realized I would get nothing more out of the discussion and left. Not, I confess, before directing a very personal comment in his direction.

It would be easy for me to dismiss this as laziness on teachers’ parts. As an English teacher, I chose my job, and that means taking home stacks of essays and devoting hours of time to reading them (one of the things that has made it extremely hard for me to read non-critically, for pleasure). But it’s galling to realize there are other teachers getting paid the same as I do for little more than delivering canned lectures to a big hall full of students, and then three times a semester offering the same multiple-guess test that takes ten minutes to run through the scoring machine. Then they congratulate themselves on a full day’s work. At the end of one semester, as I sat facing one of several piles of papers that would occupy the weekend, one teacher stood feeding scantrons through the machine while another came up behind him, waiting his turn. He remarked to the first guy, “It never stops, does it?” It took all of my self-control to not shout, “It hasn’t even started for you!”

But it’s not mere laziness. In the exam workshop, the frequent argument for closed book was that it increased retention. Again, they were relying on psychological studies. But they had no interest in explaining why retention of facts was actually so important. It made me sad. They see learning as being synonymous with memorization. They had deaf ears to my observation that most of their GE students had no interest in psychology and weren’t going to pursue it as a career, and making them memorize dry facts wasn’t going to change that; if anything it would have the opposite effect.

They didn’t understand that. They, like many teachers, couldn’t comprehend how everyone wasn’t as fascinated by their subject as they themselves were. And, of course, they also fell back on the old conceit that, even if you aren’t interested, these facts are the most important facts in the world and everybody should know them.

There’s an arrogance to my profession, and, in truth, when it gets to that point, I suppose I’m glad they just want the students to memorize facts; it’s better than what other teachers do. I attended a workshop on “sexism in the classroom,” where I noted that everything we offer in the classroom comes down to differing interpretations of the material. Several history teachers shook their heads smugly at each other and one of them said, in the most condescending tone imaginable, “Well, that might be true in English class, but in History we deal with facts.” I wanted to point out that the real study of history isn’t about facts, but the interpretation of facts. In the words of Woody Allen, “If the Nazis had won, people would understand the history of WWII very differently.” I listened to them then go on about how they saw the primary purpose of their classes as being to correct all the historical misinformation the students have learned over the years, due to the erroneous, fallacious ways it used to be taught. I wanted to say, “And I’m sure it was taught by teachers every bit as confident in their ‘facts,’ as you are in yours.” But I didn’t. What would be the point?

These are the teachers I have to apologize for. The ones who agree with me that it’s all about critical thinking, but have confused critical thinking with “right thinking.” The ones who are certain that, if you have all the facts, you will inevitably form the same opinions they have, and, if you don’t, it’s because someone hasn’t explained it to you sufficiently.

People accuse higher education of being a “hotbed of liberal indoctrination.” Guess what, they’re right. I consider myself a knee-jerk moderate, and I cringe at how proudly some of my colleagues would actually embrace that role. I once heard a fellow English teacher tell another, “I couldn’t possibly give a passing grade to an essay that advocated such-and-so position.” Really? Then find another job, because you’re grading their writing, not their opinions.

I know a number of science teachers who make it clear that, no matter what class they teach, they really make it about advocating for “ecological stewardship,” or whatever the current buzzword name is, and encourage their students to get rid of their SUVs and drive hybrids instead. What, do you have a stake in Tesla? I’m all for environmental responsibility, but not when the course subject doesn’t warrant it.

I once passed a classroom near the end of semester where I heard a teacher saying to her students, “I know many of you hate my guts. But I also know that, as a result of this class, two of you have joined the National Organization for Women. That makes it all worthwhile.” Seriously? Alienating a large number of students in order to get a couple to join your pet political cause? Horrific.

I’ve known sociology and political science teachers who require students to participate in a political protest rally. Required. I wonder if they would get credit for joining an anti-abortion protest in front of Planned Parenthood. Raise your hand if you think the answer is, “Hell no!”

I’m self-aware enough to realize that I am not above advocating. All teachers have their pet issues, and I consider myself very fortunate that one of mine happens to be individual expression. I make it central to my heavily discussion-based classes. I tell my students I know they have had classes where they quickly learned that the objective was to figure out the teacher’s pet issue and parrot it back, and, if they didn’t agree, to keep their heads down and try to survive. Many of them nod, having experienced this more than once. I tell them there’s nothing that can be done about that, but my class is different.

I tell them that, if they have an opinion they know others will not like to hear, it’s their duty to express it, so we can consider it. I make it clear that if their opinion is full of crap, we will explain that to them, in very clear terms. But that’s not to belittle them, but to make them strengthen their arguments, to think critically about what they believe. I tell them to never be afraid of their opinions, and in my class to have the confidence to disagree with each other. And with me. I tell them I love being disagreed with (good thing, too, because it happens a lot). It’s nice to hear another spin on something I believe, something I can use to strengthen my own argument, but just having my opinions bounced back is narcissistic. It’s much more interesting to hear other views.

I love to jump into the fray. Alas, that’s usually when it goes sour, because people tend to take being disagreed with personally. They can’t separate their opinions from their identity. That’s the mission I have. I want the students to see that holding a particular opinion doesn’t make you a bad person. Or a good one.

I like to think it works. I’ve had multiple students tell me they didn’t like English class until mine, that they actually looked forward to class, and finding out new ideas. For many of them, it’s the first time they really listened to what others think, and realized there may be validity to it. It’s the first time they ever really thought about why they believe what they believe. And for a tragic majority, my class is the first time they ever felt anyone was interested in their opinions, or that they were worth writing about.

They’ve been indoctrinated all right. Indoctrinated to sit silent, take notes and just regurgitate “facts” and proscribed opinions. That doesn’t teach them to think for themselves. It does the opposite. I can only assume many of my fellow teachers have themselves never thought critically about what they do, or else they’d be saddened by the results. I hope.

Not that I think I’m likely to change things. My arguments fall on deaf ears, even among my colleagues who claim to be about being open to other ideas. It’s tragic. They see their mission being to challenge, undermine and subvert their students’ biases. But if anyone challenges their own biases, look out! They will vent their full wrath on any student with the temerity to do so.

But I’m not afraid to try. As I tell my students, you rarely ever change people’s minds. But if you can get them to say, “Damn it, now I have to consider this!” that’s success. It’s often the best you can hope for. It’s how we learn and grow.

That’s why I’m sad that people rarely see fit to comment on any of my articles here. I want to start a conversation. Even if you disagree. Even if you call me a sexist jerk. Say something. My students participate. There are days where the conversation is so vibrant, and so many hands are raised, that I have to assign numbers and encourage them to write down what they want to say so they don’t forget before I get to them. “Write it down!” becomes a catch-phrase. I never discourage anyone from speaking up, but I tend to favor calling on the ones who don’t as much. I don’t want the loud ones to talk less, I want the quiet ones to talk more. And sometimes there are no quiet ones. Those are the days I love my job. And in my advanced class, I eventually even bow out and sit down, and let the students themselves take over the class and lead the discussion. It’s exhilarating.

I’m not out to make them think the way I do, to indoctrinate them. And yet, I am making them think the way I do: critically, with an open mind. I want you to do that too. Please, join the conversation.


Filed under Uncategorized

Anti-Social Media

I have sent my manuscript off to a publisher.  I’m taking advantage of what’s called an “open door,” where they accept unagented manuscripts.  The period for submission was on the scale of some six months, so they are, no doubt, dealing with a huge number of submissions, meaning the odds against them giving mine more than a glance are very long.  So be it.  That reflects the odds against getting published in general.

The waiting stage, I’ve been warned, can be upwards of a year, so the question now is what to do in the meantime.  I have been pointed to a couple of other publishers who are also accepting submissions.  Each has its own requirements for submission, which is why some people are suggesting I do not pursue any more of these, and instead turn my energies into trying to find an agent.  But this, too, is complex, and it turns out that, while there are many arguments in favor of using an agent, there are just as many reasons why not to.

But I am particularly intrigued by one of the submission requirements of the publisher I have already sent to.  They very specifically asked for information on my social media outlets.  Including, presumably, this website.  Hmm.  That could be interesting.  I’ve been famously down on the current state of YA publishing, and my chances of breaking into it, and I have to wonder what they will make of that.  But then the question really is why they want to see this at all.  The answer they provide is simple.  They want to see the degree to which I am able to promote myself on-line.  Because, as it happens, that’s what I will be expected to do.

I have mixed feelings about this.  I’m a lousy self-promoter.  That’s one of the main reasons that I am pursuing traditional publication and have rejected the idea of self-publishing.  I won’t get into the whole issue of whether people who self-publish can really call themselves “published authors,” but I do know that the amount of work they have to put in getting their material out in the public eye is substantial.  I, frankly, do not want to do that.  I’m not very good at it, and I’d rather have it handled by someone who is.

I’m reminded of a college friend who got himself hired by a company in the 1990s that had a really innovative plan.  This was during the height of the so-called dot-com bubble, when numerous internet start-ups were springing up, making money off of little more than simply being on the internet.  Most of them failed, of course, when they realized you have to actually offer a product or service.  But the company my friend got on the ground floor of was different.  They weren’t an internet company.  They were a personnel service for those various dot-coms.  These start-ups were being run by “visionaries” who had neither the skills nor patience to actually run a company, so this operation provided that, handling hiring, payroll, benefits, all the stuff that you actually have to do with a business that employs people.  This left the dot-com founders free to focus on their ideas.  Brilliant.

That’s what publishers and agents provide for writers.  That’s what I need.  I don’t want to be a businessman or promoter.  I’d rather leave that to someone else so I can focus on, you know, writing.  That’s how it’s always been.  Until the self-publishing revolution.  That’s actually made it harder on the rest of us.  Suddenly the book deals don’t go to great writers of great books.  They go to the ones with connections and the unfailing ability to present themselves.

These are the ones who have mastered the internet, who have popular blogs (as opposed to mine, where I will be lucky if this article is read by five people), and who are artists at using social media to brand themselves.  I’m not good at that either.

But then, I’m not sure I want to be.  Different people approach social media in different ways.  Some use it to sell themselves, so to speak, others use it to stay in touch with friends and family (it’s literally the only way to communicate with my sister-in-law).  Some share their personal doings, on the assumption that their child’s latest bath is as fascinating to the rest of us as it is to them.  Some (like me) post amusing quotes and cartoons and links to items of interest (such as this article).  And some use it to express their views on whatever issues grind their gears.

This is also not new on the internet.  Political/moral arguments go back to the early days of Usenet.  But social media has made it much more accessible.  And more of a minefield.  Political rhetoric on the internet runs across the spectrum, but I confess that, from where I’m sitting, much more of it seems to be coming from the right these days.  And much of it is infused with such a degree of intolerance and outright anger bordering on rage as to make it disturbing.

I was subject to this recently, having posted my thoughts on a friend’s profile in response to her latest condemnation of something or other.  I was well-aware that this person had very strong conservative views, and an unabashed hatred of all things liberal.  Many of this person’s friends were similarly inclined, and when I expressed my own slightly-left-of-moderate responses I was frequently subject to a shocking degree of personal invective.  Okay, don’t go in the water if you don’t want to get wet.  I can handle it.  But I was unprepared that an innocuous comment on what appeared to be a discussion about the merits of a movie musical would generate a nasty, screaming phone call.  And this from someone who once accused me of throwing a “hissy-fit” over something  I don’t even recall any more.

I confess, I can get that way, which is why I’ve tried to scale back.  I know how it goes.  Something about posting your thoughts in a public forum brings out a very dark side of people.  It can quickly escalate as people on both sides of the argument find it increasingly important to save face in front of the presumed audience of readers who are hanging on every posting.  Forget the reality that most of them have already moved on to something else, and in any case are much less interested in reading your views than in posting their own, which, of course, really are of great importance to huge numbers of people.  On line, we are all solipsistic narcissists. 

It’s just like being back in high school, where you were convinced everyone was staring at you and couldn’t grasp that they were actually busy worrying that everyone was staring at them.  This mindset brings out the immature teen in many of us.  There’s an old internet formula: a+a=a.  Meaning, anonymity+audience=asshole.  Deprived of the immediate social cues of face-to-face communication, people forget the basics of civility and let loose.

It annoys me when someone is rude on the internet, but then others defend it by saying, “He’s not like that in real life.”  Okay, which is a lie?  I suspect the former.  Nothing reveals a person’s true character so much as what he does when he thinks no one can see him.  I, for one, try to be honest.  I’m just as much a jerk in real life as I am on-line.  What you see is what you get.  I’m also irritated about how capricious and arbitrary the “standards” are, how someone can feel free to go on at length about how the President should be in prison for trying to “destroy the country,” yet I have to be careful lest I offend someone by posting a cute picture of someone’s backside.

And that’s why I’m worried about the idea that I will have to market and promote myself.  I want my book to speak for itself.  Because if I speak for it, I suspect people aren’t going to want to hang around.  As my tiny number of social media friends and the miniscule traffic to this website can attest, people are definitely not hanging on my every word.  I’m actually fine about that.  Except when it come to my book.  Which is why I want a publisher to get it out there for me.

And I also want a pony.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized