Grad 5114 / GEDI Fall 17
This week’s topic is difficult. I imagine that, inevitably, at some point in our teaching careers we will find some form of discrimination in the classroom. When that time comes, we, as instructors, have an important role to play. The thought makes me nervous – I’m not confrontational by nature, but I know very well that certain situations will require leadership from the instructor. I don’t tolerate discrimination, but would it be too easy to simply kick someone out of class? How can I create a meaningful learning experience out of an unfortunate situation?
I liked what Arao and Clemens1 said – that perhaps what we need are “brave spaces” rather than “safe spaces.” Out of all people in the class, the instructor cannot opt out of difficult conversations no matter how uncomfortable these might be. I would like to set the precedent that social injustice issues hold just as much, if not more importance then the class material itself, and would be willing to dedicate class time to facilitate discussions. I hope to send a message of positivity rather than one of passivity and complicity2.
I think my nervousness largely stems from inexperience – still have much to learn about leadership and handling difficult situations. What are some of your unfortunate classroom experiences dealing with discrimination? How did you handle them?
[1] Arao, B. and Clemens, K. (2013). “From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces a New Way to Frame Dialogue around Diversity and Social Justice.” The Art of Effective Facilitation. 135-150.
[2] The Heinemann Podcast: “Dismantling Racism in Education”
Of all the metaphors I have heard attempting to describe institutional racism, there is one that has always stuck out in my mind: Racism is like riding a bike on the highway. It is not necessarily that the cars are out to get you, or actively trying to push you off the road. It is simply that the infrastructure was not designed for bicycles. It was designed for cars- and just by using the roads as they were meant to be used, the cars impose on the bike riders and make it very difficult (not to mention incredibly stressful) to arrive safely at their destination.
The main idea here is that not all whites or other majorities are pro-actively racist. Very few actually are, and these are the ones that are easiest to notice and dismiss. It is the mass majority driving unassumingly down the road of privilege that is most dangerous. They do not feel racist, and often they even embrace diversity, but just by being born with the keys in their hand and taking their right of way they perpetuate racial and ethnic inequality.
The solution requires an active donation of privilege. Driving slower (maybe even below the speed limit) or waiting before passing a bike to make sure there is enough room on the shoulder are merely modest beginnings. Maybe you could drive a little less and make use of other modes of transportation. Better yet- give your car to your poorest neighbor and get a bicycle. See what the ride is like from the other side.
This is what Christine Labuski is getting at with the “gender studies perspective” she asks her classes to take and her “Universal Precautions” (UPs) approach. Developing sincere empathy for another person or group’s experience/condition, and assuming that everyone you talk to could be a member of that group, is crucial. While some conditions (like sexual orientation or infection) are not immediately obvious, race nearly always is. As Shankar Vedantam argues in “The Hidden Brain”, we must be more aware of the subconscious judgments we associate with race, all the stereotypes and preconditioned behaviors instilled in us through constant societal cues. We must work even harder to combat our racist “autopilot” reactions by treating everyone with a level of open and equal respect.
Our schools, just like our roads and our society, are designed for the majority. It is not that you cannot make it through the educational system as a minority, but it is often much more difficult to do so. The odds are stacked against you. While children from racial majorities coast through with the support and the resources they need to succeed always readily accessible- minorities can often struggle. The minority student has to significantly outperform his or her majority competition even to be considered. I have friends who have changed their ethnic sounding names and noticed significantly higher rates of acceptance for interviews and applications. The difficulties of cultural and linguistic fluency compound these challenges, especially for immigrant children.
At the end of the day it will be on us as educators to design our classrooms as havens of equal opportunity. But in order to do so we must proactively seek to see through our own prejudices and preconceptions as well as those imposed upon us by the institutions we are a part of. We must proactively strive to provide any curious, motivated student an opportunity to thrive and to learn. It will ultimately be our duty as teachers to make sure the road to educational success is designed for all types of students, regardless of race or background or the vehicle they use to get to class. (I leave it to the civil engineer majority of our class to make sure our roads are more bike friendly for those who wish to commute by bike).
The twin notions of uncertainty and limits of knowledge can be difficult to negotiate in and outside of the classroom. Yet we are constantly doing so, regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. While each of us deals with these on our own terms, some of the Week 8 authors prompted reflection on the ways I negotiate uncertainty and limits of knowledge.
I can relate Shankar Vedantam’s humbleness after writing the text on the “hidden brain”. Yet whereas he seems to view this as somewhat of a negative realization – “much less certain about myself,” I relish opportunities that humble my thinking or situations that highlight the limits of my knowledge, because, in effect, these offer the richest opportunities to revisit and confront assumptions, as well as to embrace and manage – not necessarily to overcome – uncertainty.
One of my most recent examples of this in action was as a participant in an architectural history field school this past summer. I was the only member from the social sciences (with little to no technical expertise) on an 11-member team comprised of architects, architectural historians, an urban planner, a structural engineer, and preservationists. We learned about building preservation and restoration, and were tasked with building investigations and analyses in a few structures in central and southern Virginia. I developed a love-hate relationship with all of my colleagues, because I showered them with both “how” and “why” questions. I had them walk me through their processes with respect to specific preservation interventions, structural analysis, or how they thought of the wider contexts of their interventions. It was a kind of ethnographic engagement with their respective practices. Yet I also posed questions that challenged the very premises of their work: “How do you think about the wider implications of your interventions in urban space?” “What is your responsibility to structures and to inhabitants within and around it?” “Do you, as a preservationist or architect, have a part in gentrification?” We had plenty of lively debates and discussions – many of which continue via email today – that challenged each of us (myself included) to carefully consider our agency and role with surrounding environments and fellow inhabitants.
This example brings Phillips’ notion of “informational diversity” – convergence of divergent perspectives to tackle a problem – and Vedantam’s “hidden brain” into sharper focus. My role on the team and the limits of my knowledge was front and center in my engagements with the team. I came from a completely different angle on the work and a completely different way of thinking about structures and urban space (based on experience and through the role of human engagement), and introduced a degree of uncertainty into all of our efforts, but our shared willingness to leverage experience and knowledge proved invaluable. Moreover, this experience helped me to better grasp some of the economic, professional, and political pressures each negotiate in their work, while I like to think – and I believe many would agree – that my questions and contributions in casual discussions over coffee, in the field, or in the classroom recentered the uncertainty of complexity that all-too-often fell to the wayside due to the imperatives of their respective practices. In this way, the limits of our knowledge served as invitations to move beyond our assumptions.
These limits of knowledge correspond to the uncertainty that pervades facilitating what are cast as “uncomfortable” conversations in the Arao and Clemens and Labuski pieces. The “brave spaces” and “universal precaution” approaches set the frameworks and guidelines for discussion, but leave the specificity of the content open to student participation.
The combination of these pieces suggest that the recognition of “informational diversity” or “hidden brains” help us to admit the limits of our knowledge, whereas the “brave spaces” and “universal precautions” enable us to better manage the uncertainties that emerge from these very limits.
My research group is part of VTSuN: The Virginia Tech Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology. In this institution, we have faculties and students from Geoscience, Chemical Engineering, Material Science, Environmental Engineering, et al. It is great to have people from different research background get together to seek some corporation and share instruments and ideas. For examples, the material science people could focus on the synthesis of materials with great performance and we environmental guys could use the materials to solve some environmental related problems. The topic we both focused on is nanotechnology. VTSuN held seminar and group talking regularly and I found it very helpful and inspired.
In a broad way, my project is also part of VT IGEP. The Graduate School is supporting Interdisciplinary Graduate Education Programs (IGEP) to promote and sustain interdisciplinary graduate education and research at Virginia Tech. VTSuN is a related program of IGEP. Some other projects like Regenerative Medicine, Translational Plant Science and Water INTERface are also involved. I used to take an IGEP class and we discussed a lot about interdisciplinary study and people in the class were from various majors. We wrote a proposal as assignment in this class and the three people in my small group were from totally different research field. It’s a great opportunity to learn something from other major. And we came up with one project which was related to the researches about all of us. During the group meeting of my research group, we were always talking about things which we were all familiar. But in the IGEP meeting, everything is so new and fresh. I really enjoyed the diversity of topics and stories.
Sometimes I prefer have a discussion with a person who has different point view from yours more interesting than with those who always agree with you. By debating, great ideas were always generated. People from different research background would form a discussion like this and produce some interesting things. Last week when I reviewed Jonathan’s syllabus about writing from research. This is a very unfamiliar topic for me and I still find some very useful information. Like as a graduate student, I can still enroll class which is focused on research writing. That will help me improve my writing skills. I suppose interdisciplinary learning would become more popular in the future since cooperation makes us stronger.
I learned a lot from the readings and talks for this week’s class.
And I think that fact is a sad and telling on my part.
I grew up in the Deep South, in the 60s. I lived in Alabama when George Wallace governed the state. Race played an important role in my upbringing. I knew words like the “white schools/churches/neighborhoods” and the “black schools/churches/neighborhoods,” “the black help” etc. (The movie The Help reminded me very much of the life I had in the Deep South growing up.) I knew the country club was where everyone went…because there were no African Americans. I heard classmates engage in very disturbing talk about African Americans – talk that we did not have in our home. There was no overt racism in our home. During this time, my father even stood up to the board of his church and announced African Americans would be welcome. None came, but the “higher-ups” did come and back up my father.
Overt racism, maybe not, but as I grew older, I would catch myself thinking in certain ways, just like Shankar Vedantim brought to our attention, almost hidden in my brain somewhere. I decided to address these problems and resolved that the best thing to do was to not see race at all, to see everyone the same, to fight back against my “hidden brain’s wiring,” so to speak. The readings for this week challenged that naïve assumption.
Interesting enough, the thing that really caught my attention was during the Heinemann podcast when one of the speakers talked about not ever hearing shampoo or haircare commercials that addressed her specific hair. The underlying culture that perpetuates racism is pervasive and insidious. It helps create and perpetuate stereotypes that create stereotype threats for our students, as Claude Steele talks about. (I actually watched a youtube video of Dr. Steele talking about his work instead of the readings. The youtube video is here: Claude Steele on youtube.)His research shows these threats impede student performance, but also that these threats can be addressed, at least to some degree.
Which comes back to: What do I do with all this? After reading the readings, I honestly feel ill prepared to address inclusivity issues in my classroom, which is a feeling I don’t especially like. I like, and can incorporate, and have incorporated, role-play into my class, especially on gender issues. And I noticed that this was one of the things Professor Labuski does. I can do this in terms of racism through world history as well, but it just seems like I should do more…. For example, Dr. Steele’s work shows that the way I frame assignments can be important for student success – this is a tremendous responsibility.
I guess, in the end, I feel a bit frustrated and challenged in ways that are good… so maybe that is a starting point.
Inclusive pedagogy is a learner-centered approach where everyone who is eager to learn gets equal attention from the teacher. In the inclusive setting, every student feels welcome although their physical, mental, and cognitive skills are different. Keeping the class size small is probably the easiest way to foster inclusive teaching and learning. Small class size helps the teacher to have an eye on individual student’s need. It also helps students to be more interactive in the class compared to a big classroom. Small classrooms encourage students to discuss issues, personal views, comparing and contrasting views with others.
There are few techniques that a teacher can follow to include a class in learning more effectively. For example, finding out the students cultural and educational background beforehand to plan carefully for the class. This could be done by conducting a short questionnaire survey in the beginning of the semester focusing on the competence of the students in that course, on some specific topics, and so on. A teacher can help students to be prepared beforehand by providing reading materials before the class and providing some questions as food for thoughts. Students can go through it before the class and make them prepared for the discussion in the class. Arranging brainstorming sessions at the beginning of the class on the topics that were taught in the previous class may help the students to clear any confusion on that topic.
One of the issues with small group learning is that some students could be very reluctant to speaking or participating in conversation. This could be because of many reasons including the background of the students and their competence in the language used in a specific class. For example, international students often fail to participate because they find it difficult to form the idea in a complete sentence or they fail to find the appropriate words. Another reason of reluctance in participation is the culture of that individual student. For example, in some culture, asking questions by a student is not common. Rather they prefer to answer when the teacher asks a question. These issues if overlooked by a teacher, can create a serious issue or hinder inclusive leaning style even if the classroom is small.
“Instead of providing something different or additional for children who experience difficulties in their learning, inclusive pedagogy seeks to extend what is ordinarily available to everybody.”
Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K., 2011. Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813-828.
Dear Diary,
I have been tasked with writing a blog post around the topic of inclusive pedagogy. This is a difficult task Diary. Diary, you have seen my thoughts on inclusive work and the things I try to do each week to include everyone in everything. From ensuring that every one’s voice is heard in staff meetings, to actively challenging students when they have not considered all perspectives in a particular incident. Diary, this is tiring, this is hard, and I sometimes wonder why I do this?
Yes Diary, that last sentence is my faithful friend, doubt and fear (DAF) talking. DAF is one of the most loyal friends I have Diary (but you are the most loyal Diary). See, unlike confidence and certainty, DAF will always be there, whenever I need them or not. DAF often present all the negativity about inclusive work and why we shouldn’t do it. DAF often tells me that the world doesn’t care about creating safe spaces, brave spaces, or any space where all students can be their authentic selves without having to hide any part of their identities. DAF also remind me that for every inclusive action I make, there are three more exclusive (and oppressive) actions being done by someone within a 3.14 mile radius of me. One time, DAF told me that solving racism is as easy as pie. Can you see why I don’t wary of DAF and their presence in my life? And do you know what the worst part about this Diary, this is not an exhaustive list! DAF are always reminding me about the difficulties of inclusive work and pedagogies. And yet, I persist.
I persist even when people assume me to be an expert on diversity because I happen to be the only minority in the room. Dismantling racism in education mentioned this idea and this resonated with me as I have had a similar experience. By no means am I an expert on diversity, but I am an educator that wants to create environments where we can all learn.
I persist even when students are experiencing or acting out micro-aggressions, without being aware of them. As difficult as it may be to a participant or observer of a participant, as much as I am able to, I will try to make it a teachable moment
I persist even when VT’s POC are not being honored. Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee that students or the general public will adhere to these community guidelines. What I can do, when able, is to speak up when I have a platform
I persist because of the oppressive systems that plague our reality and that I am entrenched in
But most importantly, I persist, because I must. As a future professor, I must be held to higher standards of inclusive practice. I must be aware of the students I am teaching and the various life experiences they are living with. I must recognize that my identity, and I formulate it in the classroom, will affect how my students learn, and if they will learn. Just like my student’s identities are important, so is mine, and I need to be aware of that.
Diary, that is why I persist, even when DAF are nagging at me, I must persist. I must persist because as educators, we need to catch up with the students we teach. Students today are learning in a different environment with students from different backgrounds. Can I really be a future professor if I ignore the complex student identities in my classroom? And show any awareness, respect or recognition of that?
Diary, I have realized that teaching is hard. The way I teach might favor students of a different background than others. I might not realize this but it does. Some students will benefit from the way I speak. Some students will benefit from my values of respect and ideas on what a good student looks like. These have been influenced by the teachers and professors who taught me, and the various identities and cultures they showed me in the classroom. I can’t predict who will be in my classroom and how best to include everyone. What I can do, is be aware of my biases (because we all have them) and teach in a way that allows everyone to be successful.
Hello readers, my apologies for leaving you alone last week, I had the intention to write but it never materialized. I went into autopilot mode, without being mindful about it, and time just kept going. In Shankar Vedantam words: that’s when the problem arises, when our unconscious self takes charge but we are not aware of it (“The Hidden Brain” thinking for us). I could share with you how I ended up in autopilot mode, but that is a story for another moment. Instead, I would like for you to remain with your mind wide open while I attempt to explain why I believe we should erase, destroy, disappear, etc. two very dangerous words: DIVERSITY and INCLUSION.
If you have read my posts before, you might think I am joking, based on my typical sarcastic tone, but NO, I AM NOT. I firmly believe that words such as DIVERSITY and INCLUSION, as well as MINORITY, UNDERREPRESENTED, and similar words that speak of differences and discrimination should be erased from our conscience, from our vocabulary. This might sound controversial, but here is my reasoning for this proposition. All these words have the unattended consequence of “stating, highlighting” the existence of DIFFERENCES, instead of recognizing and giving value to the existence of IDENTITY. I know that for some it might seem a simple matter of interpretation, a matter of linguistics, but words are powerful, as Professor Christine Labuski succeeded to highlight in the description of the Universal Precautions project1. She discussed the great impact that talking about “us” instead of “them” has on discussion of sensitive topics, and the benefit of thinking that the person sitting on your side might have gone through that hard topic situation (e.g. abortion, racism, rape, transgender). When you put yourself in someone else’s shoes, you are more mindful about the words you use, you are likely to look at a problem from different angles, from another perspective.
Another problem that I have with the words DIVERSITY and INCLUSION, not with the intention of promoting diversity and inclusion. Is that now you see them almost everywhere, and seems like all organizations need to emphasize that they promote an INCLUSIVE environment, even if in reality they don’t. But hey, it looks good to advertise it. “Corporations spend billions of dollars to attract and manage diversity both internally and externally, yet they still face discrimination lawsuits, and the leadership ranks of the business world remain predominantly white and male”2.
Let’s go back to the previous idea of recognizing the existence of differences versus identities. Probably this is not the best moment to introduce this question but, what do you think of when you read: “we need to promote diversity and inclusion”. It might be my personality, but to me it brings negativity, I directly associate this phrase with the need to overcome differences between us, instead of valuing what each can bring to the table. Why do we have to highlight that there are differences between us? I acknowledge the importance of recognizing that not everyone is equal, each person is unique in multiple senses. Should we talk more about developing OPEN ACCESS environments instead of promoting DIVERSE and INCLUSIVE environments? Perhaps “open access” is not the best term either, but from my perspective it partially removes the focus around highlighting the differences. The later a word which I admit to associate with negativity and discrimination, a perspective you might not have. But then again, the same word could have a completely DIFFERENT meaning and context, highlighting once again that the problem seems to be in: not being open to other perspectives.
Diversity and inclusion/inclusive, bring the same negative effect that terms like minority and underrepresented create for me. The later speak of someone else being superior, even if that might not be the purpose. That is why I don’t consider myself a minority, nor part of an underrepresented group, I consider myself a human.
Following my thought process in this post might not have been as direct as I wished. But I hope you forgive me. At the end, probably I didn’t succeed to explain why I consider DIVERSITY and INCLUSION to be dangerous words, and perhaps my writing was more on the lines of a “confuse the masses and you will be king” speech type. But I hope your mind continues to be wide open, to be prepared to carefully listen and read what others have to said, and not going into autopilot mode, ignoring mode, as soon as you hear ideas coming from other perspectives.
You see, at the end, it is not a matter of erasing DIVERSITY and INCLUSION (the words) and replace them with another term, it is a matter of acknowledging the importance of perspectives and what body language, written words, spoken words, etc. could mean to someone else. How messengers can impact the message being delivered. How we should give always our best, no matter who is in front. How there is always more than one story to be told. If you haven’t heard to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie TED talk, please do so: “The Danger of a Single Story”.
Let’s keep learning. Let’s keep educating. Let’s keep moving forward. Let’s keep asking WHY. Let’s continue to be more mindful. Let’s forget about A, B, C, D, E and F (the grades, not the letters) … easier said than done. Let’s focus on making sure to help each other out. Let’s create successful teams. Let’s remember that we are unique, and the only single common element among us, but the most important one, is that we are HUMANS.
Carlos F. Mantilla P.
It’s regrettable, I think that when science discusses cultural or ethnic diversity in our society, that it does so through the lens of “value”. What is diversity worth to us? The question rarely seems to be what does diversity do for us as humans or how can it enrich our lives? How can it make us better people more fully aware of ourselves and our place in this world? But rather, science tends to be co-opted into asking how much can diversity produce? What is its economic value? How can someone (or some corporation) leverage diversity for its benefit?
We have a sickness in our society and the root cause isn’t racism or sexism or any other -ism. These things are the symptoms of the trouble. Instead, the trouble lies in our collective norms that allow these types of things — things that we cannot accept as inherent in ourselves — to be placed onto others. Psychology might call this behavior negative projection. Sociology may call it otherization. Whatever name it goes by in your area of interest, it does seem to be something that is here to stay as a part of the human psyche — something that the wisdom of religious and philosophical thinkers have been warning us about for thousands of years:
The fact that, as a society, we tend to find trouble with racism and sexism (to name only two) is a profound reflection on the values that we tacitly normalize and promote — the things that are hard to understand that we’re engaging in because most everyone else does also. In the desert, every mound of sand looks the same.
