The first four paragraphs outline what happened (some of it alleged at this point) but from paragraph five on it gets interesting discussing the polarization of race and culture in American schools and education programs.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Thoughts...?
I saw this news article about students wearing shirts with an American flag on them. It's unclear what was said or done by the students but what are your initial thoughts?
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Film Festival Link- Current Event by Laura Macias
reelwork.org has a lot of great films about racism, class/environmental exploitation, and other issues we have discussed in class, if you click on the archives tab you'll find resources for all the films they've included in their festivals, I just saw "A Convenient Truth: Urban Solutions from Curitiba, Brazil" and I think it's a good complimentary film for the topic of the impact of environmental feminists on creating sustainable cities(the topic of one of my projects) :)
Enjoy!
-Laura
Enjoy!
-Laura
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Maggie's Discussion Question
Happy Cinco de Mayo! See you all in class today =)
In the articles “The Power of No” in the Feminist Teacher Anthology and the article by Fonow and Marty on “Lesbian Panels in the Women’s Studies Classroom,” the authors discuss strategies for opening up the classroom to share personal stories and experiences through a panel or in a class circle.
Fonow and Marty use a constructionist approach to open students’ minds to the root of homophobia. To what extent would it be valuable to use this same approach in a “No Circle” to explore the roots of violence against women? What type of pedagogical strategy would be most effective?
In the articles “The Power of No” in the Feminist Teacher Anthology and the article by Fonow and Marty on “Lesbian Panels in the Women’s Studies Classroom,” the authors discuss strategies for opening up the classroom to share personal stories and experiences through a panel or in a class circle.
Fonow and Marty use a constructionist approach to open students’ minds to the root of homophobia. To what extent would it be valuable to use this same approach in a “No Circle” to explore the roots of violence against women? What type of pedagogical strategy would be most effective?
5/5- Question about encating "the personal is political in the classroon"
The reading that struck me the most this week was "Dangerous Responses" by Michelle Cox and Katerine E. Tirabassi. When Sara arrived to her dorm hall drunk, she was approached by a sophomore who had sex with her and later two other college students that did the same. The reaction by the students was saddening. The article brought me back to a personal incident. I was very shocked that many students did not believe Sara had been raped because she was drunk(did they think it was consentual?). Alesha Durfa's "Teaching Sensitive Issues" addresses ways to discuss difficult issues. She indicates that students come from many different backgrounds and not everyone will share the teachers point of view. I sympathised with one of the instructors in "Dangerous Responses" that could not get her students to agree on rape in her terms. Even her best attempts could not change the student's mind about Sara's own blame. When presenting a subject that you have a very strong opinion about, how do you interject without sounding too biased or disappointed in the students that do not share your point of view? Sometimes the goals of teaching a feminist classroom contradict each other. When upholding views about social inequality is trumped by wanting to empower students to give their point of view(even if that view is racist, sexist and just plain wrong)...would you chose student empowerment over upholding views of social justice?
Current Event: Border Issues
I found this today in the San Diego News on Sign on San Diego. It's great news to hear that our city leaders oppose the immigration law in Arizona.
Here's the Article below:
San Diego council opposes Arizona law
Immigration measure is ‘un-American,’ Gloria says
By Craig Gustafson, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Originally published May 3, 2010 at 5:18 p.m., updated May 3, 2010 at 11:16 p.m.
SAN DIEGO — With references to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews and the struggle for civil rights in this country, San Diego’s leaders said they felt compelled to formally oppose the new immigration law passed in Arizona.
The symbolic gesture, which urges Arizona lawmakers to repeal the law, won City Council approval Monday on a 7-1 vote, with Councilman Carl DeMaio voting against the resolution.
The law makes it a crime to be in the state without legal status and requires local police to question people suspected of being in the country illegally.
Proponents of the law say it is necessary because of the federal government’s failure to curb the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants across the border. Opponents say it will lead to racial profiling and harassment.
Councilman Todd Gloria said the law is “fundamentally un-American.”
“Those who do not speak out often come to regret their silence in time,” he said. “Today, this council, through this resolution, will make clear that we will not stand by and watch the erosion of freedom in our own backyard.”
The council’s resolution states that the Arizona law encourages racial profiling and violates the U.S. Constitution.
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, who supports the law, said the resolution’s language shows that city officials never actually read the law.
“It’s just astonishing how quickly elected officials would jump off the cliff on this thing,” he said. “The facts don’t matter here, it’s all political posturing.”
DeMaio voted against the resolution because he said it needed to include clarifications that Arizona passed a subsequent bill that made several changes to the original law, such as specifically prohibiting racial profiling. In addition, he wanted to add language urging the federal government to take immediate action to secure the nation’s borders.
“We need to speak from a position of principle and a position of fact as well as a position of balance,” DeMaio said.
Councilman Tony Young refused to add DeMaio’s language to his original motion to approve the resolution.
“I won’t do it because … the legislation is flawed from its beginning,” he said.
The audience, which included dozens of people who spoke against the law, responded with loud applause. There were no public speakers in opposition.
The resolution will be forwarded to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.
Craig Gustafson: (619) 293-1399; craig.gustafson@uniontrib.com
Craig Gustafson: (619) 293-1399; craig.gustafson@uniontrib.com
Here's the Article below:
San Diego council opposes Arizona law
Immigration measure is ‘un-American,’ Gloria says
By Craig Gustafson, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Originally published May 3, 2010 at 5:18 p.m., updated May 3, 2010 at 11:16 p.m.
SAN DIEGO — With references to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews and the struggle for civil rights in this country, San Diego’s leaders said they felt compelled to formally oppose the new immigration law passed in Arizona.
The symbolic gesture, which urges Arizona lawmakers to repeal the law, won City Council approval Monday on a 7-1 vote, with Councilman Carl DeMaio voting against the resolution.
The law makes it a crime to be in the state without legal status and requires local police to question people suspected of being in the country illegally.
Proponents of the law say it is necessary because of the federal government’s failure to curb the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants across the border. Opponents say it will lead to racial profiling and harassment.
Councilman Todd Gloria said the law is “fundamentally un-American.”
“Those who do not speak out often come to regret their silence in time,” he said. “Today, this council, through this resolution, will make clear that we will not stand by and watch the erosion of freedom in our own backyard.”
The council’s resolution states that the Arizona law encourages racial profiling and violates the U.S. Constitution.
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, who supports the law, said the resolution’s language shows that city officials never actually read the law.
“It’s just astonishing how quickly elected officials would jump off the cliff on this thing,” he said. “The facts don’t matter here, it’s all political posturing.”
DeMaio voted against the resolution because he said it needed to include clarifications that Arizona passed a subsequent bill that made several changes to the original law, such as specifically prohibiting racial profiling. In addition, he wanted to add language urging the federal government to take immediate action to secure the nation’s borders.
“We need to speak from a position of principle and a position of fact as well as a position of balance,” DeMaio said.
Councilman Tony Young refused to add DeMaio’s language to his original motion to approve the resolution.
“I won’t do it because … the legislation is flawed from its beginning,” he said.
The audience, which included dozens of people who spoke against the law, responded with loud applause. There were no public speakers in opposition.
The resolution will be forwarded to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.
Craig Gustafson: (619) 293-1399; craig.gustafson@uniontrib.com
Craig Gustafson: (619) 293-1399; craig.gustafson@uniontrib.com
Current Event (5/5)_Irina
Calif. Senate OKs Bill Responding To Richmond Rape
RICHMOND (CBS 5 / AP) ―
[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Police cars sit parked outside Richmond High School on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009, in Richmond, Calif.
AP
Close
numSlides of totalImages
Related Stories
* Bill Prompted By Richmond Gang Rape Moves Forward
(3/24/2010)
* 7th Richmond Gang Rape Suspect Pleads Not Guilty
(2/4/2010)
* Richmond Gang-Rape Accuser Recants Story
(1/18/2010)
* 7th Suspect Charged In Richmond Gang Rape
(1/22/2010)
Witnesses to the murder, rape or lewd acts victimizing a child under 18 would be required to notify police, under a bill approved by the state Senate.
The bill was written in response to the alleged gang rape of a 16-year-old girl outside of a Richmond High School homecoming dance in October. Seven males have been charged in the case, and investigators say as many as 20 people watched without reporting the crime.
The bill by Democratic Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco amends current law, which requires reporting such crimes against victims age 14 and under.
A violation would be a misdemeanor punishable with a $1,500 fine or six months in jail, the same as under the current law.
SB840, passed Monday on a 29-0 vote, without debate. It now goes to the Assembly.
It's interesting to me (and problematic) that this bill involves amending the currently law which requires report to authorities for a minor age 14 and under. Now the law will be to report witnessing a crime against a person under 18. But what about crimes committed against a person over 18?
This law does little to prevent future gang rapes but at least the law should protect all possible victims, not just a portion of them. What do you guys think?
RICHMOND (CBS 5 / AP) ―
[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Police cars sit parked outside Richmond High School on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009, in Richmond, Calif.
AP
Close
numSlides of totalImages
Related Stories
* Bill Prompted By Richmond Gang Rape Moves Forward
(3/24/2010)
* 7th Richmond Gang Rape Suspect Pleads Not Guilty
(2/4/2010)
* Richmond Gang-Rape Accuser Recants Story
(1/18/2010)
* 7th Suspect Charged In Richmond Gang Rape
(1/22/2010)
Witnesses to the murder, rape or lewd acts victimizing a child under 18 would be required to notify police, under a bill approved by the state Senate.
The bill was written in response to the alleged gang rape of a 16-year-old girl outside of a Richmond High School homecoming dance in October. Seven males have been charged in the case, and investigators say as many as 20 people watched without reporting the crime.
The bill by Democratic Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco amends current law, which requires reporting such crimes against victims age 14 and under.
A violation would be a misdemeanor punishable with a $1,500 fine or six months in jail, the same as under the current law.
SB840, passed Monday on a 29-0 vote, without debate. It now goes to the Assembly.
It's interesting to me (and problematic) that this bill involves amending the currently law which requires report to authorities for a minor age 14 and under. Now the law will be to report witnessing a crime against a person under 18. But what about crimes committed against a person over 18?
This law does little to prevent future gang rapes but at least the law should protect all possible victims, not just a portion of them. What do you guys think?
5/5 discussion question_irina
In the piece by Michelle Cox and Katherine E. Tirabassi, they bring up the question of whether or not to self-disclose in a classroom. They question: “How do we know when our self-disclosure to a whole class is justified, helpful, and in the best interest of our students and ourselves?” (236). Cox and Tirabassi conclude that choosing not to self-disclose was the best option because it would have moved the focus from the text to the teacher. Considering the statistics on rape, it is likely that some of the students in class had been raped themselves, not just their “friends”. The writers agree with Brenda Daly’s statement, “I have not overcome the powerful taboo against bringing personal (and emotional) issues into the classroom. I fear that, if I become emotional, I might lose my ‘professional’ composure, my authority” (246).
1. By not disclosing their personal experiences, do they reinforce the taboo of brining personal stories into the spotlight? Do they reinforce the misogynist idea that women are too emotional?
a. OR….is not disclosing a better option because it allows the students to focus on the text? Is one more important than the other (the text versus the real life example)?
1. By not disclosing their personal experiences, do they reinforce the taboo of brining personal stories into the spotlight? Do they reinforce the misogynist idea that women are too emotional?
a. OR….is not disclosing a better option because it allows the students to focus on the text? Is one more important than the other (the text versus the real life example)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)