NCGE 2009

Blog post from NCGE 2009

Test

Test

November 17, 2008

I could relate to what Hehir describes as the differential treatment of people with disabilities as either people who should be pitied or as "supercrips" (to use his language). There have been many times when I have met people for the first time and told them about my blindness and they have responded with "I am so sorry", as if my disability were some kind of terminal illness. Other times the response has been the opposite. The other person has reacted as if I am somehow extraordinary because I have "overcome" my blindness to get a college education. Both types of reactions are examples of ableism because they fail to recognize the person with a disability for who they truly are, as someone with the same hopes and dreams (and faults and problems) as everyone else. If you really thought about it, being a Hispanic or African American male in the U.S. (especially in certain areas of the country), or being poor, is in many ways a disability, and yet no one would say "I'm sorry" upon meeting a person from one of those backgrounds for the first time (but for some reason it is ok to do this with people who have low vision or have other disabilities that may not be readily apparent).

As I read what Hehir had to say about language and people who are deaf or blind, I kept coming back to Lisa Delpit's idea of the culture of power. I agree with Hehir that deaf and blind students should be involved as much as possible in the decisions that affect their lives. This includes being able to choose the form of communication that is the most efficient and/or comfortable for them, whether it be Braille for a blind person or signing for a deaf person. As a bilingual person who had to learn English the hard way through complete immersion (almost losing the ability to speak my mother tongue in the process), I think I understand the importance of language for reinforcing a person's identity and self-esteem. You can't say that you value someone as a person while denying them the most natural of acts, that of self-expression.

At the same time, I think it is important to learn as many ways to communicate as possible because it will result in increased access to the mainstream culture in which blind and deaf people have to function on a daily basis. I think it is possible to look at language among people with disabilities using the same lens Lisa Delpit used when she looked at language among students of color. Yes, the use of their natural, authentic language may help students of color feel that they and their culture are accepted and appreciated, but it may also keep them from learning the standard forms that they need to fully participate in the culture that is in power. In much the same way, relying exclusively on Braille or signing may keep students who are blind or deaf from participating fully in society. What happens if a blind person wants to read a book that is not yet printed in Braille (and it usually takes some time for books to become available in that format), or if a sign interpreter is not available for a deaf person? In those situations the reliance on one form of communication would be a detriment. I would argue for the development of multiple means of communication as a way to achieve the dual goal of recognizing the person with a disability and their right to self-expression while at the same time giving that person improved access to the mainstream culture.

I think it is important to recognize that while Braille is a very efficient method of communication for the blind, there have been many advances in audio technologies over the past few years that make them a viable alternative. As someone who is interested in podcasting, I have seen firsthand how this technology can be used to deliver information to blind people in a way that is more natural and authentic (using real human voices rather than synthesized speech). The use of improved speech readers has also made it easier for people with visual impairments to access the Web (where much of life seems to take place these days). Improved technology has converged with changing attitudes to make the Web a valuable tool for people with visual impairments and other disabilities. The change in attitudes has come about as a result of many web developers realizing that creating accessible web sites does not just benefit people with disabilities, but everyone who uses the web (it results in faster loading pages, easier to maintain code, and so on). Web accessibility is based on many of the same principles as universal design for learning, which Hehir advocates. It seems that practices and policies do not get implemented or supported until there is some kind of appeal to the self-interest of the able-bodied sectors of society, and universal design is a subtle way to appeal to that self-interest to bring about change in a way that addresses the needs of people with disabiltiies.

November 10, 2008

One of the ideas that stuck with me from last night's conversation with Dr. James Gallagher was that of the short-term orientation of democratic systems and their inability to create infrastructures to solve long-term problems. This idea resonated with me because I had just watched a video from Jared Diamond in which he talks about what causes civilizations to decline. In his video, Diamond lists five characteristics of declining civilizations using the example of the Greenland Norse for illustration. The factors leading to decline include:

1. human impact on the environment: people destroying the resources on which they depend.
2. climate change.
   
3. relations with friendly neighbor societies which prop up the society.
4. relations with hostile societies.
5. values that prevent them from solving their environmental problems.

Diamond then goes on to say that an important factor in causing decline is the self-interest of the ruling elite. He states that a society can go into decline when there is a conflict of interest between the short-term interests of decision makers and the long-term interests of the society as a whole, especially if the elite can insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. This is how he explains Enron and other cases of corporate greed and self-interest (and how we could explain the current financial crisis).

Another important factor for causing decline, according to Diamond, are the values of a society. Some values may be good in most circumstances, but they may be bad in others. In the case of the Norse, their strong religious and cultural ties held them together for four centuries, but made it difficult for them to learn from the Innuit in order to survive in Greenland. I wonder if the same might not be true of our society, to get back to Dr. Gallagher's point about democracy. While our democratic practices and ideals are an important element of what keeps our society together, it may in the long run be detrimental for our survival if it prevents us from creating long term infrastructure because things change every time there is an election.

November 3rd, 2008

The statement Tristan made in class last Wednesday, that for the first time in his life he felt he could honestly tell his kids that they can be anything they want to be and not feel like it is a lie, summarized for me what this election has been all about. In trying to make sense of what happened last Tuesday, I looked to the radical humanist perspective presented in the readings. The radical humanist perspective focuses on using immanent critique to bring awareness to contradictions between ideals and practice and in this country for most of its history there has been a sharp contrast between what the constitutiion says and what has been true for millions of African Americans. Barack Obama's election to the highest office in the land signals a change in this reality. Now, there is no ceiling on what an African American can achieve in this country. It also opens the way for the first woman president, the first Hispanic-American president, and so on.

My only concern with this change in the politics of this country is that there are other contradictions that still remain and that may now be swept under the surface until the next election. For example, in the celebration of Obama's win a lot of people ignored the fact that in California a vote took place to take away the rights of gay couples who have had the right to marry for some time. The idea of one group achieving greater rights while another has their rights taken away points to the continuing contradictions in our society. This is more surprising in light of a report I recently heard on NPR that stated that one of the groups with the strongest support for proposition 8 in California were African Americans. It saddens me that despite all of the good things that happened this week, Americans are still looking at rights as something that can be applied on a group by group basis rather than as an abstract concept that just exists as part of natural law.

In terms of the challenges that will be faced by the president-elect, one important one will be how to get a bureaucracy that is used to working as a machine bureaucracy to accept that a more adhocratic approach may be needed to solve the current economic crisis. A reason for the need to adopt a more adhocratoc approach is that currently there is a decoupling (to use the language introduced in the readings) between economic and political power. While political power is national in scope and involves the competition of various groups for access to limited resources in the form of government funds, economic power is global in scope and complex in its organization as the result of the influence of multinational corporations.

October 28th, 2008

Growing up, I received a Catholic school education that was very much about rote learning. As a child, I learned that I had a really good memory for facts and so I used that to my advantage to do well in school. Later on, when I came to the U.S., the education I received at a public school in Queens, New York was very similar in that it was also based around rote learning. It was not until I was accepted to a Quaker boarding school and spent three years there that my habits of thinking were changed substantially.

At Westtown, it was no longer sufficient to mirror back a set of facts I had learned from the book. Most of our assessments involved essays where we were required to provide a solid line of reasoning. I had a hard time adjusting to both the academic and social demands of a new school where I was one of a few minority and working class students. I also brought with me many defficiencies, specifically in my writing, that made working at the same level as the other students at Westtown difficult. As Delpit states, I did not come to boarding school with the same social capital as my fellow classmates because my single parent mom was too busy working a factory job to provide me with the attention that I would need to overcome the mediocre education I was receiving at my elementary school.

I was fortunate to find a teacher who understood what Delpit was referring to when she talks about educating minority students so that they have access to the codes of power and succeed academically. Rather than being easy on me, this teacher raised the expectations and demanded more from me. Whenever I would resort to speaking back the way I did back home with my friends, he would take the time to correct me (and he did this in both English and Spanish--he happened to be a Spanish teacher, which is how we became friends). The important thing is that he did this in a way that did not make me feel devalued, but rather in a way that made me feel like I had an ally who was on my side and wanted me to succeed. The important thing is that I saw how much this teacher cared about me in other situations and so I knew that when he was correcting me it came from a position of genuine interest in my success and well being. I was lucky to experience the same thing in college. I found professors who were not easy on me and I generally found the Hispanic professors to be the toughest of all. I think they understood, from their own experiences, that to succeed in a selective academic environment as a Hispanic or Latino person, I would have to understand the way people in that culture of power speak, write and think.

While I continued to grow intellectually over the years, I don't think there was a major change in my way of thinking. I still saw learning as the acquisition of more knowledge and skills. I think much of this came from the fact that I grew up mostly alone and I am a child of divorce. Books became my escape as a child and I learned early on to trust their authority. I think the major event in helping me to break free of the habits of mind that I learned as a child has been the fact that I am losing my vision. The belief that I had in objective reality (and the possibility of there being some kind of absolute truth to discover) is now shaken by the fact that at times my senses "lie" to me. With retinitis pigmentosa, objects appear in front of me unexpectedly as they move from my blind spot and come into focus in my remaining field of vision. It seems like these objects, which were not there a minute ago, suddenly appear out of nowhere. When your vision is lying to you, the belief in some kind of objective reality that we can know through empirical observation is much harder to accept. I think the fact that I am losing my vision, instead of restricting me, has actually liberated me from old ways of thinking and my belief in objectivity. I am now more willing to accept that everything is based on your perspective, from the way you think to the power you hold, to the choices you make. My lack of vision has in fact allowed me to see more. I can see how things may be different than they appear depending on where I stand, sometimes literally.

October 20th, 2008

The reading for this week presented several ways to understand what one believes about knowledge. On the one hand there was a division between a microscopic level, which is based at the level of the individual, and a macroscopic level, which is based at a more global level of society or the context in which one lives. To add another dimension, knowledge was also classified as either subjective or objective. When I tried to place myself into one of the cells in the matrix, I found it to be quite a challenge. What I found is that I don't really fall into any one of the cells.

At the microscopic and objective level (functionalism) I believe that a truly objective understanding of reality is not possible because it is shaped as much by our experiences, emotional states, and deeply ingrained biases we carry around with us. However, I don't fall into the microscopic and subjective (interpretivism) category either. I think when enough people agree on a specific knowledge and they act on it, it in fact becomes objective. The question of whether we can truly know it or not at that point becomes irrelevant. Based on the fact that an action took place based on it, I think that knowledge exists independently of the knower, even if in an abstract and roughly defined way.

At the macroscopic level, I have always been focused on exploring the power relationships in the society that I live in (placing me more in the radical structuralist camp). This preference for exploring the power relationships was definitly shaped by the fact that most of my family members were persecuted by the dictatorships that ruled the Dominican Republic. Listening to their experiences has made me sensitive to how power can be abused and arbitrarily applied, so I have always been aware of power relationships, especially since I live as a minority student within a majority society. At the same time, I believe power needs some kind of mechanism to continue to perpetuate itself and this is where culture comes in, especially in the form of values. Power relationships do not exist in a vacuum but need certain societal norms to either continue to exist or to be disrupted. This would put me in the radical humanist camp.

As for the relationship between the two levels (macroscopic and microscopic) I agree with Skrtic that there is a tension between the two, but I disagree with the order in which he has them showing in his chart. Whereas he emphasizes the importance of order at the microscopic level and that of conflict at the macroscopic level, I tend to see this a little differently. I see the macroscopic level of the power relations in society and the existing culture as the elements that reinforce order and continuity, and the microscopic level of the individual and choice as the catalysts for change that break that continuity through action.

As you can see, I could make a rationalization for any of the four categories set out by Skrtic in our reading. However, rather than a series of boxes, I would use a Venn diagram to show how all of these perspectives compete within my intellectual identity. This Venn diagram would not be static, but it would be constantly in motion, with the center of it, where each of the different categories intersects, moving in one of four directions depending on which interpretation of reality is receiving the most attention. The way this diagram reshapes itself continously represents the tensions that exist between the different interpretations in my mind. Rather than hoping that the motion ceases and one category becomes dominant, I would rather continue to have a more unsettled and dynamic understanding of knowledge. I believe it creates a richer live because it leaves openings for new and unexpected understandings to enter into my identity. This makes for a more exciting life.