Just do your (art)work!

This week’s readings came at just the right time for me. I needed some validation and bucking up.

My students’ final assignment is to create a work of art — collage, photographic series, painting, song, sculpture. It can be anything, but it needs to represent work, labor, or the working class and connect with one or more of the themes we wrestled with this semester. They are also required to write an artist statement justifying their decisions and do a short oral presentation to the class. To me, this is a fun project. It has some restrictions in terms of themes, but it wide open to genres and interpretations. What’s not to love?

Unfortunately, I have a small contingency of students who are not enthusiastic. On Thursday, I asked them what their level of discomfort with the project was on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the most awesome ever. It’s a 1.5. They’d rather write a research paper. I almost gave in. Instead I ended up giving a spiel about the importance of humanities to foster critical thinking, yadda, yadda. I followed that up by mentioning the need for creative thinkers to solve problems in fields like engineering and science. I even heard myself say, “If you’re struggling with it, it’s probably good for your brain.” I LITERALLY just embodied my mother.

Needless to say, I found this week’s readings validating, but I have a few takeaways for future semesters:

  1. Dan Edelstein uses the word innovation. I should use that. Innovative thinking is a phrase that likely carries more meaning and weight to science-types than creative thinking.
  2. I need to be more transparent with students throughout the semester about the value of art, literature, film and music. I often expect students — as we talk about constructed narratives, social change, and the arts — to come to an understanding about how the arts shapes our lives in real and important ways. I need to be explicit.*

*Full disclosure: I said the phrase “Let me be explicit …” in class last week and they snickered at me. Then I made them look up the definition of the word on their phones. Then we talked about why it has come to mean graphic or offensive. This is an example of why I am not the cool one. So uncool.

  1. I need to stop thinking about the loftier reasons for humanities’ importance (citizenship! Empathy for others!) and learn to better justify it, like Edelstein says, in terms of professional success. I believe in the arts and in their importance. I should be ready to fight for them.

professionals are still human beings

In all levels of school (elementary school, middle school, high school, and college), I was under a false illusion that my teachers and professors were perfect, flawless human beings with shiny, glimmer-y lives who had never made a mistake throughout their entire lives. These people made their professions look so easy and they impressed me […]

Teaching for the 21st Century – Connecting the Dots

Creativity and creation lead to student learning and outcomes. However current educational systems tend to impede these essential components to successful and fun learning.  Awareness of ways in which students meaningfully learn is not enough. Educators must apply strategies within/outside of the classroom in order to facilitate student learning that fosters the critical thinking skills needed to solve real world, complex issues.

Creating better learning systems starts with practice. Will it be enough if educational changes are not broadly made?  These readings helped to frame concepts and issues that we have been discussing in GEDI 2018 throughout the semester. As informed educators we must become activists for changing policies that are in favor of creativity and creation rather than memorization and dissemination. Without policy changes our minor, individual efforts are unlikely to be enough to make a structural difference. However, policies and social environments take a long time to change and successes at the individual and interpersonal (among peers) levels are equally important. Ultimately utilizing tools available to us in order to evolve as educators or coaches is a critical component for future success in order to combat the inevitable discouragement of failure.

Thus, I am excited although realistic with regard to the challenges and benefits to applying student-centered learning outcomes within future classrooms.

Week 14 — Connecting the Dots

As we race toward the end of the semester, please take some time to reflect on the readings for our final unit (week 14). The articles by Parker Palmer and Dan Edelstein are especially relevant, and if you are only going to read two more things for this class, please, please, please let these be the pieces you choose. Think about how you will connect the dots from this course and your broader curriculum to become the “New Professional” Parker Palmer invokes here:

The word “professional” originally meant someone who makes a “profession of faith” in the midst of a disheartening world. That root meaning became diminished as the centuries rolled by, and today it has all but disappeared. “Professional” now means someone who possesses knowledge and techniques too esoteric for the laity to understand, whose education is proudly proclaimed to be “value free.”

The notion of a “new professional” revives the root meaning of the word. This person can say, “In the midst of the powerful force-field of institutional life, where so much conspires to compromise the core values of my work, I have found firm ground on which to stand—the ground of personal and professional identity and integrity—and from which I can call myself, my colleagues, and my profession back to our true mission.”

Thank you all for sharing this semester with me and for your collective efforts to explore what teaching means in the changing landscape of the 21st-century higher education.  I look forward to reading your final set of posts.

Image: CC0 Public Domain

Is Racial Equality Unconstitutional?

Here is a rough draft of a book review I recently completed. I hope you all enjoy.

Is Racial Equality Unconstitutional?


Mark Golub, Is Racial Equality Unconstitutional. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018: 232 pp. Hardback, $65.00. ISBN: 9780190683603.


Review by: Patrick Salmons, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia


Race is a primary factor in the United States short legal, political, and social history. It is race that has found its way into the minds of citizens, influencing and shaping their thoughts and beliefs through the cracking of a gavel in a courtroom. Mark Golub reflects on these challenges in his work, Is Racial Equality Unconstitutional?, as he traces the argument of “colorblind constitutionalism” back to Justice Harlan’s famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to current debates on affirmative action. This leads to a furthered discussion of the many Supreme Court cases that emphasize a hierarchy of racial non-existence, where a protection of whiteness pervades as the illicit mechanism of the Supreme Court’s decision making, rather than an equal racial society, under the problematic color-blind doctrine.

Golub’s six chapters provide insight into the constitutional maneuvers made by the Court in Plessy that transitions to Brown v. Board of Education (1954). He structures his argument to demonstrate a description of American politics and social relations as “marked by near-universal acceptance of antiracist norms…structured by relationships of racial domination and subordination” (Golub 2018, x). Golub is interested in upending the debates of “color-blind constitutionalism” and “color-conscious constitutionalism”. Where color-blindness is essentially a forgetfulness of the draconian laws of the past, and creates racial hierarchy that color-conscious policy aims to eliminate with a confrontation of “historical and present racial injustices” (Golub 2018, 5). The worry for Golub, and readers as well, is that color-conscious policy actually has not taken into account color-blind doctrine as race-conscious due to the prohibition against racial classifications. The goal then for Golub is to demonstrate a need for racial awareness in the face of racial hierarchy in order to transform it (Golub 2018, 6). As Golub states on page 24, “My concern with color-blind constitutionalism is not that it prevents the adoption of necessary or valuable race-conscious remedies for existing inequality, but that it mobilizes its own form of white identity politics, which then is mistaken for an absence of race” (Golub 2018). This work is intriguing because it engages with race not just at a social level, but at a political and legal one. This work situates itself nicely in between race theory and legal jurisprudence, in an attempt to rid of the redemption narratives told by courts and advocates of color-blind and color-conscious, Golub wants to position his argument away from this dichotomy in order to have a discussion of “race that moves beyond color-blindness and color-consciousness” rhetoric (Golub 2018, 27). How he does such a thing is the feat of this work, by enabling discussions of Justice Harlan’s famous dissent in Plessy, “Our Constitution is color-blind”, to further engrain the color-blind logic today, in hopes of demonstrating that these principles of America’s redeemed and redeemable past only further racial supremacy “in the form of enforceable white rights” (Golub 2018, 168). Thus, racial equality is not a constitutional problem, but rather it should be the premise of what a constitution should be. In order to do such a thing we need “a decisive break from them (American values), and a re-founding upon principles of racial democracy” (Golub 2018, 168, my addition).

His work nicely situates this plea as an ongoing escape from the requiem of slavery and Jim Crow, away from debates of color-blind and color-conscious constitutionalism. A work that wrestles with legal jurisprudence, racial transcendence, national redemption throughout six chapters in both a legally and social manner. Chapter one illustrates the problems of color-blind constitutionalism and sets up the argument for the rest of the book. Focusing primarily on policies engaged in group disadvantage under color-blind legal code through the lenses of three understandings: anti-classification, antidiscrimination, and anti-subordination (Golub 2018, 7).  Through this Golub argues that liberals view equal protection as anti-discriminatory, placing race-consciousness as its prime belief, where harm is done by the injuries done by racial classification. Anti-classification is the conservative mantra that argues that race should not be acknowledged, this leads to practitioners of critical race theory (CRT) explain why these general prohibitions “against discriminatory treatment on the basis of race- even if it were rigorously enforced- will fail to confront the kinds of subordinating racial practices typical of our society”(Golub 2018, 12). Thus, the first chapter is an indication of color-blind constitutionalism as a protection of white rights as opposed to minority rights. Race is prohibited, and whiteness is the legal precedent that is enforced legitimately making “racial equality to be seen as a violation of white rights” (Golub 2018, 20).  The concern with color-blind constitutionalism is that it advances this as an absence of race, and a normative framework of law formulated by whiteness.

Chapter two identifies the problematic legal structure of redemption narratives within color-blind constitutionalism, ultimately leading to a discussion of society becoming less conscious about race even through adopting a racial-conscious approach. This is in part due to the structure of redemption in law as appealing to a transcendence beyond race. The impossibility lies in the legal doctrine of color-blindness, as “what supplies much of color-blindness’s appeal, is the belief that government classifications by race will introduce or intensify racial consciousness, thus undermining the redemptive dream of moving “beyond” race”( Golub 2018, 58). Moreover, the narrative authored by Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson assures that colorblind doctrine makes its impact by not discussing race. The counterintuitive nature of this discussion is what becomes alarming for the reader, as one begins to grapple with the process of how policy is created and whether the constitution is flawed by this resistance to protect minorities and protect white rights. Racial priority is only given to white citizens according to Golub, is this not inherently racist? Golub suggests we must move on from Plessy, Brown, and other decisions that adhere to these colorblind tendencies. Chapter three situates itself within the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in an attempt to illuminate how powerful law is at producing racial institutions while at the same time demonstrating the racial indeterminacy evident in the case. The discussion of Plessy, the man, is of concern as well. As illustrated, Plessy was more about passing as white, as opposed to gaining a legal recognition of racial discrimination, race was treated as a property, and whiteness was the only acceptable property (Golub 2018, 77).  Plessy was able to define how the law constituted race, “but also the case informs contemporary thinking about racialized identity and legal rights” (Golub 2018, 93).

This leads to chapter four and Golub’s discussion of the slow transition, legally, of southern white supremacy to resist integration. Ultimately, this chapter supplies more evidence of color-blind constitutionalism creating the very principles the court labored to avoid. Brown v. Board was done in a manner that promoted white hierarchy and a support of white rights in terms of segregation and color-blind doctrine. Again, Golub demonstrates his theoretical legal knowledge by demonstrating how the Court used the law to establish “white political interests as enforceable legal rights” through conservative leanings and non-identifiable discrimination. Chapter five provides the insight into today’s legal climate. Golub argues that throughout history race has been forgotten, and affirmative action provides a deviation from race-neutral color-blindness. Thus, affirmative action provides evidence that color-blind constitutionalism is racially conscious. But also, through the Civil Rights Cases, judicial liberalism holds affirmative action to be necessary in a racially inequitable society. This is necessary however, it leads to one of the more poignant revelations of the book, in which affirmative action does dismiss the “underlying  narrative of “special favorites” and “mere citizens”” issued by former Justice Bradley (Golub 2018, 133). Consequently, while affirmative action critics are met with the fact that “special protections” are necessary, there is a failure to develop a counterpoint to the claims of reverse-discrimination which creates a formidable, if not insurmountable, white judicial solitude (Golub 2018, 133).  Through numerous court cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, all provide chilling evidence of Justice Harlan’s famous dissent. Race-neutral is the new manifestation of the Court, dismissing color-blindness as a failure rather than racial dominance. Moreover, recent court decisions have moved away from equality per se to a more nuanced protection of white rights under these color-conscious policies. The question the reader is moved to confront, is whether this racial equality is constitutional? This poignant chapter reveals the troubling, conservative, and suspect nature of judicial precedent in the Court, while also critiquing those who support affirmative action and racial conscious doctrine.

Golub provides a legal, and theoretically, rich argument that operates like a kaleidoscope, where the foundations are aligned in a symmetrical outline of white hierarchical structures. Golub’s work deserves to be read in this era, as it outlines an everlasting problem that is always in the background of Court rulings and leanings of the Justice’s. Is Racial Equality Unconstitutional? is a brilliant thought-provoking book that thoughtfully engages with landmark Supreme Court cases, as well as post- Civil Rights cases. This very detailed case analysis provides the reader with a pondering reflection of our country and our whiteness. This book is ideal for those interested in critical race theory, civil law, constitutional law, political science, American history, and judicial history. Ultimately, this book is a must for those interested in current domestic problems in the United States and would provide a graduate class with riveting discussions of legal perceptions and domination through white legal immunity. How fitting are the last lines of this work which call to “end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country, and change the history of the world” (Golub 2018, quoting James Baldwin, 168).



Critical Pedagogy

This week the topic of conversation focused on critical pedagogy. My reading was an expert from Paulo Feire’s book, Philosophy of Education, chapter 2, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. His writing in this chapter focused on movement away from the banking concept of education and towards a more liberated classroom. The idea essentially being that the professor relinquishes the complete control over the course and allows for students to teach each other and the professor. It recognizes that the students have a wealth of insight and perspective to offer as opposed to the idea that they are “empty vessels… the be filled with the contents of the [professor’s] narration”.

Thinking back on my own education, I realized that the professors whom I’ve had that bought into the banking concept were often the most boring. Even if the concept the professor covered was quite interesting, the approach was dry and tended to stamp the enjoyment out of it.

I also realized that my freshman/sophomore college had courses which were actively structured towards a critical pedagogy approach. They called them inquiry-based courses.

“Also called Ways of Inquiry, INQ, or simply Q courses, these classes help sharpen your critical thinking and problem-solving skills. In INQ courses, you’ll learn to understand and question the ways in which knowledge is pursued. And you’ll develop abilities that transcend disciplines, honing skills in reading critically, communicating effectively and pursuing knowledge independently…. INQ courses will stimulate your intellectual curiosity and independent thinking—and many have service components.”

At the time, I signed up for them because they were a course requirement or because it was over a topic that I had an interest pursuing. Recently, I went back to my college transcript to see if there was any correlation between the classes I felt I learned the most from and the critical pedagogy structure. All but two of those classes fit into that category. One of the things I liked about those courses was that I felt like I had a voice. Participation was encouraged and expected.

To be fair, there were a couple of courses which fell into that category and were not enjoyable. One being a statistics course with rather ambiguous problem sets that my friends and I somehow muddled through. However, overall, those courses were a highlight of freshman and sophomore education. They helped me to think rather than memorize, and the time spent in the class was more meaningful. I also felt more compelled to show up because I felt valued by the professor.