I love the term "cosmetic diversity" that Irizzary used. I listened to the entire, painful meeting. I was amazed by how White diversity trainer and White Fragility author Robyn DiAngelo took up so much space at the meeting, despite not being there. Several of the board members seemed more concerned with adhering to White Fragility speak than having an honest conversation about steps to take to improve the educational experience for their diverse population. Robin, was certainly more concerned with appearing antiracist and following the DiAngelo script than actually talking about the education of children. When she apologized to Irizzary she didn't appear to take to heart what Irizzary was actually saying. It seemed like a "cosmetic" apology.
Honestly, I thought her apology was even worse and more sinister than that. Mr. Irizzary says repeatedly that he's not interested in her apology, he's interested in other more important things, but she aggressively (while speaking over him) "apologizes" to him anyway. The apology itself was aggressive and silencing, and yet another excuse for her to talk about how enlightened she was. The whole ideology is so messed up, it reminds me of Munchhausen a little bit.
Yes, very true. What I find unnerving about the DiAngelo "language", which several of the board members kept on referring to and discussing the need for everyone to "learn the language", is that it centers their supposedly anti-racist awakening much more than listening to BIPOC around them and coming up with concrete solutions. They absolutely limited the scope of the meeting to impress a phantom DiAngelo. Irizzary seemed to be the only one interested in discussing education and helping children.
I've listened to Mr. Irizarriys impassioned and impressive speech a few times. One sentence in particular stuck out to me.
"You’re comfortable in your unbridled capitalist world, and you don’t want to teach latinos and blacks fractions and decimals and how not to get ensnared in mortgages that are adjustable rate."
It might sound excessive but I felt tears begin to come to my eyes when I heard him say that, and it really crystallizes what's at stake here. Should public schools teach kids, *all* kids whether "gifted" or not, the valuable skills that will help them succeed and make them less vulnerable to smooth talking mortgage lenders with smiling faces, ten dollar words, and incomprehensible contracts? Or should public schools mire children race essentialist rhetoric which is *designed* to make them anxious and feel like they're doomed to fail (and if they *don't* fail like they're doing something wrong)?
I would like to ask Mr. Irrizary (and anyone else with any knowledge) how he/they feels about the science and math pedagogy in his/their public school system. I bring this up because I have strongly suspected for a while now that science and math pedagogy, *especially* for younger students, is still stuck in the dark ages of lists of problems and incomprehensible equations, full of symbols that have *no explanation,* taught in a way that a grown adult would have trouble paying attention to let alone a young person.
I strongly feel terrible pedagogy, in particular for science and math, is one of the most insidious forms of classist gatekeeping that there is. I think that YouTube, Khan Academy, and places like Brilliant.com are showing us incontrovertibly that there are better ways, *gameified* ways of teaching people these essential subjects. But I'm childless and have zero practical experience with the modern public school system, so I'd like to get other's take on this.
I'm an educator. I think the new k-5 math is excellent and really helps kids understand numeracy versus just memorizing facts. Schools need lots of games/ manipulatives/ laminated materials/current curriculum materials/ access to computers and online platforms/ lab materials to really teach math and science so this is a cost. I wonder if most NYC elementary schools have these materials. It is wonderful to speak about pedagogy, which is really what I Irizzary wanted to do and the other board members didn't want to do. Making good educational choices requires a lot of work that is not sexy, like evaluating data, researching other programs/ trainings/ workshops and and evaluating budgets. I thought Irizzary made a great point about the after school support that wealthier children receive that many children do not have access to.
Agree, data is great! The new-ish k-5 math is a lot to explain but involves making sure kids aren't just memorizing steps and math facts, that they understand patterns in numbers and what a number and a process means. For example, the number 831 can be abstract to kids but if you look at it as 8 hundreds, 3 tens and 1 one, with three dimensional props that bring the numbers to life, it helps.
I agree that financial education should be part of the basic HS curriculum, but these types of quotes make me suspect that it may do more harm than good. In my opinion, you aren't really doing kids favors by telling them to never take out an adjustable rate mortgage or get a credit card (which is oversimplified at best, and in many cases flat out bad advice), but that's what the public school curriculum would be likely to consist of.
The thing that bothered me most was the hypocrisy. The men being attacked were, from what I could tell, the only people who were leading truly diverse lives. And yet the others felt like they had the higher ground because they'd read a book. I've since seen a video in which Tom's Black friend tells the board that they had no right to tell her how she should feel about her friend bouncing her nephew on his knee. (Are we allowed to say FFS on here? I understand if it's too close to starting down the ad hominem road).
so, I had to look that up as I failed acronyms (and, apparently, spelling as I had to post twice) and based on my research FFS is probably not allowed, but I did like the post.
One thing that's interesting about the accusation that Edward isn't a real voice because he's not towing the line, is the fact that there are actual token voices out there that give this accusation an air of legitimacy. For example, someone like Candace Owens has no original thoughts. She just spews whatever far right talking points she's given. She even at one point mused that Hitler would have been fine if he just focused on Germany rather than persuing his agenda globally. She truly is just a token black female voice for the far right. Her existence makes it easier to target and person of color and invalidate their views as "token." Candace Owens and people like her are probably even more useful to far left populists than she is to far right ones.
Not only do they not want blacks and Latinos to be taught fractions and decimals, I wonder if these woke white activists born into 2nd and 3rd generation wealth want to really bother with the hard work of learning themselves. This lady couldn't even articulate the argument in the White Fragility book she was trying to make. She doesn't need to worry about getting stuck in an adjustable rate mortgage, her daddy's accountant would make sure of that. What could be more threatening to such a person than a poor person of color who really wants to learn? The emotions that would evoke would probably be similar to the ones of the dog walker in New York that called the cops on the bird watcher she felt "threatened" by.
"I wonder if these woke white activists born into 2nd and 3rd generation wealth want to really bother with the hard work of learning themselves." They don't, see their aversion to standardized testing. Subjective measures of achievement favor those who already have social or political power, always.
A bit of feedback: I got completely lost in the intricacies of the New York public school system, so I think a lot of the point of the podcast went over my head. Are these neighborhood schools? What is a stream school, or was it screen school? What are these entrance exams? Additionally, I don’t think the podcast addressed the title - why did that woman freak out about the white man and the brown baby?
I'll second that. I wasn't completely sure what the board was voting on for most of the episode, and it felt like I was jumping in halfway through a conversation. The episode itself was interesting, but I was missing some context. Does anyone have a link to additional information?
Thanks for the feedback! I agree that there was some confusing background. Was trying not to get too much into the weeds but it probably led to some open questions.
Benjamin Boyce interviewed Tom Wrocklage (the board member with the baby on his lap) the other day on his podcast. It's available on YouTube. I listened to the interview and I felt it gave me a better sense of the context. Hope that helps!
Mr. Irrizary‘s impassioned speech was heartbreaking in a lot of ways. Having clawed his way to where he is, his struggles are now invisible and are being overshadowed by yet another privileged white person making the conversation all about her. “I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate...and that hurts me...”.
Still, I can’t help but think that the biggest indicator that all reason has been lost is that the contretemps appears to have been ignited by someone holding a child. During a meeting about the education of children. Kind of missing the point there.
I’ll say something that is probably unpopular. There was way too much living in the past going on in that room. Neither Mr. Irrizary’s painful experience nor Ms. Broshi’s manufactured angst about the last 40 years is really the point. The presence of that child and all of his potentiality should have kept everyone focused firmly on the present educational challenges and the future world those children will create.
I have not read “White Fragility,” though I had been planning on doing so until I read an interview of Ms. DiAngelo. It strikes me as incredibly sinister BS. Much to say, and I am sure it has all been said here, but bottom line, I suspect its purpose is to enable people of color by disabling white people with shame. We are supposed to understand ourselves above all as being crippled by our “whiteness”—marked through and through by “white culture” (?)—a view placing one’s race above all, as Dylan Roof does. (I consider his first mistake was to place supreme importance on his own “whiteness,” rather than seeing himself as an individual human among humans, each of whom is equal in value). I will stop there, except to say that Ms. Di Angelo is one of the reasons I am here.—Michelle
The point around shifting people's focus towards wall papering over real issues - i.e. poor education of important skills that can help lower income children succeed - with "anti-racism" programs and policies concerns me greatly. But it also resonates with me, and I think it could resonate with a large voter base, and I also think this critique has not been properly and strongly leveled against the "anti-racist" segregationists. It's an opening, and we need to exploit it to the full extent - for those low income children and families.
We've spent years placing people in buckets, if I may, a "minority" bucket, a "normal" bucket, a "disadvantaged" bucket, a "special ed" bucket etc, etc. the system as designed, only works if you keep those buckets in place and keep them full. The money to keep schools systems afloat, depend on those buckets to get government funding, local, state and federal funds are all determined by those "buckets" and the apparent success rate of the system. If you fall into one of those buckets it will take extreme luck and a lot of hard work to get out of it. you have been classified by the system and future choices are limited. I was put in a bucket, just based on the success or lack of, of my two older siblings. It took beating my grade 10 teachers at chess and taking over the chess club to change that.
Another thought that Izzarry touched on reminded me of something I wrote a few weeks back on another forum, "we spent 50 years teaching "tolerance" with almost nothing to show for it. It is such a low bar. Maybe the time would have been better spent teaching respect."
change the dynamic, set a new goal and stop with programs that continue to separate us.
Can you say more on your second paragraph? I'm curious why you believe tolerance and respect are mutually exclusive? Or am I reading too much into your statement? To the contrary, I see a lot of positive gain from tolerance over the past 50 years. My personal opinion is that tolerance is, or can be, a difficult bar for most people and requires higher reasoning to overcome inevitable bias. Respect is fluid and can be superficial, deeply held, or somewhere in between and is much more feeling based.
(corrected post ) The way I look at it now is "tolerance is the capacity to endure something. You don't try to understand it. You endure it. Respect on the other hand is earned. respect for differences, respect for culture, respect for achievements.
We were never taught to "tolerate" women in the work place, we were never taught to "tolerate" our parents. The expectation was we would respect them. Yet, during desegregation the bar was set at tolerance, which seemed to say, "you don't have to like it, we don't either, just tolerate for now" it seemed at the outset no one expected acceptance or respect, and that was/ is, in my opinion a mistake.
Why respect and not tolerance and why it is such a low bar. I watched the Arbery execution and was absolutely stunned. we traveled back in time 200 years. It was like they were on a hunt, hunting game, only the game in this case was a human being. You don’t hunt people you respect.
I then watched the Floyd killing, and the most startling elements were, first, it happened, second, no one stopped it. The third, the Image of the cops face, his expression. that will stay forever. To him this was all ok and it seemed to say "look at me, I've tolerated this long enough and I'm done with that"
I have a lot of respect for my ancestors that somehow managed to move from Europe to North America. To clear land and survive. I know it took a lot of strength, a lot of resolve to make the trip and to survive the hardships. What African American ancestors survived is far more.
To learn respect, maybe we need to learn some history. Learn how the slaves actually arrived in the US. "slave ships" doesn't do it justice. How about , 5-6 levels, separated by boards. All boards are removed to load people. they are stripped down, forced to lay on the boards, "spooning" until that level is full. Then the boards are put back and the next level is filled, then the next ...Think about a 6 week voyage like that and what it took to survive if you were so unfortunate not to be on the top layer. I don't think it takes a lot to respect the people that somehow managed to survive that trip. and after all that , you were sold. 155 years after the civil war, and 50 years after the civil rights movement, Black Americans are still fighting for respect.
and lastly, since I mentioned history (apologies I wander sometimes,)
Another jarring example. somewhat related. A Fox News anchor last year when Trump wanted to abandon NATO. Her comment " Why do we even need Nato, it's only costing us money" That comment displays a stunning lack of knowledge of world history and the role the US played after the Second World War, where another minority was nearly wiped out. 6 million people exterminated. but we don't need NATO. ...and that is where we are today.
and finally, Elizabeth Renzetti wrote an article on the current protests. She mentions a memorial to the Holocaust in Germany. On the memorial it says (my paraphrase), "and yet no one protested"
I love the term "cosmetic diversity" that Irizzary used. I listened to the entire, painful meeting. I was amazed by how White diversity trainer and White Fragility author Robyn DiAngelo took up so much space at the meeting, despite not being there. Several of the board members seemed more concerned with adhering to White Fragility speak than having an honest conversation about steps to take to improve the educational experience for their diverse population. Robin, was certainly more concerned with appearing antiracist and following the DiAngelo script than actually talking about the education of children. When she apologized to Irizzary she didn't appear to take to heart what Irizzary was actually saying. It seemed like a "cosmetic" apology.
Honestly, I thought her apology was even worse and more sinister than that. Mr. Irizzary says repeatedly that he's not interested in her apology, he's interested in other more important things, but she aggressively (while speaking over him) "apologizes" to him anyway. The apology itself was aggressive and silencing, and yet another excuse for her to talk about how enlightened she was. The whole ideology is so messed up, it reminds me of Munchhausen a little bit.
Yes, very true. What I find unnerving about the DiAngelo "language", which several of the board members kept on referring to and discussing the need for everyone to "learn the language", is that it centers their supposedly anti-racist awakening much more than listening to BIPOC around them and coming up with concrete solutions. They absolutely limited the scope of the meeting to impress a phantom DiAngelo. Irizzary seemed to be the only one interested in discussing education and helping children.
I just love this discussion section so much. A serious, thoughtful exchange of ideas. Y'all are making my day!
I've listened to Mr. Irizarriys impassioned and impressive speech a few times. One sentence in particular stuck out to me.
"You’re comfortable in your unbridled capitalist world, and you don’t want to teach latinos and blacks fractions and decimals and how not to get ensnared in mortgages that are adjustable rate."
It might sound excessive but I felt tears begin to come to my eyes when I heard him say that, and it really crystallizes what's at stake here. Should public schools teach kids, *all* kids whether "gifted" or not, the valuable skills that will help them succeed and make them less vulnerable to smooth talking mortgage lenders with smiling faces, ten dollar words, and incomprehensible contracts? Or should public schools mire children race essentialist rhetoric which is *designed* to make them anxious and feel like they're doomed to fail (and if they *don't* fail like they're doing something wrong)?
I would like to ask Mr. Irrizary (and anyone else with any knowledge) how he/they feels about the science and math pedagogy in his/their public school system. I bring this up because I have strongly suspected for a while now that science and math pedagogy, *especially* for younger students, is still stuck in the dark ages of lists of problems and incomprehensible equations, full of symbols that have *no explanation,* taught in a way that a grown adult would have trouble paying attention to let alone a young person.
I strongly feel terrible pedagogy, in particular for science and math, is one of the most insidious forms of classist gatekeeping that there is. I think that YouTube, Khan Academy, and places like Brilliant.com are showing us incontrovertibly that there are better ways, *gameified* ways of teaching people these essential subjects. But I'm childless and have zero practical experience with the modern public school system, so I'd like to get other's take on this.
The speech was just amazing, for all the reasons you adduce.
I'm an educator. I think the new k-5 math is excellent and really helps kids understand numeracy versus just memorizing facts. Schools need lots of games/ manipulatives/ laminated materials/current curriculum materials/ access to computers and online platforms/ lab materials to really teach math and science so this is a cost. I wonder if most NYC elementary schools have these materials. It is wonderful to speak about pedagogy, which is really what I Irizzary wanted to do and the other board members didn't want to do. Making good educational choices requires a lot of work that is not sexy, like evaluating data, researching other programs/ trainings/ workshops and and evaluating budgets. I thought Irizzary made a great point about the after school support that wealthier children receive that many children do not have access to.
When you say "the new k-5 math", is there an example you can point me towards? I'm incredibly curious about this.
Also, who says evaluating data isn't sexy? :P
Agree, data is great! The new-ish k-5 math is a lot to explain but involves making sure kids aren't just memorizing steps and math facts, that they understand patterns in numbers and what a number and a process means. For example, the number 831 can be abstract to kids but if you look at it as 8 hundreds, 3 tens and 1 one, with three dimensional props that bring the numbers to life, it helps.
I agree that financial education should be part of the basic HS curriculum, but these types of quotes make me suspect that it may do more harm than good. In my opinion, you aren't really doing kids favors by telling them to never take out an adjustable rate mortgage or get a credit card (which is oversimplified at best, and in many cases flat out bad advice), but that's what the public school curriculum would be likely to consist of.
The thing that bothered me most was the hypocrisy. The men being attacked were, from what I could tell, the only people who were leading truly diverse lives. And yet the others felt like they had the higher ground because they'd read a book. I've since seen a video in which Tom's Black friend tells the board that they had no right to tell her how she should feel about her friend bouncing her nephew on his knee. (Are we allowed to say FFS on here? I understand if it's too close to starting down the ad hominem road).
Reading a book and talking the talk is a lot easier than letting go of the mic. I liked Irizzary's point that this is all about keeping power.
so, I had to look that up as I failed acronyms (and, apparently, spelling as I had to post twice) and based on my research FFS is probably not allowed, but I did like the post.
Thanks. I think you must be right about that. I don’t see an edit function. If I figure out how, I’ll edit it out.
Thanks for introducing us to Edward.
He's quite something, isn't he?
One thing that's interesting about the accusation that Edward isn't a real voice because he's not towing the line, is the fact that there are actual token voices out there that give this accusation an air of legitimacy. For example, someone like Candace Owens has no original thoughts. She just spews whatever far right talking points she's given. She even at one point mused that Hitler would have been fine if he just focused on Germany rather than persuing his agenda globally. She truly is just a token black female voice for the far right. Her existence makes it easier to target and person of color and invalidate their views as "token." Candace Owens and people like her are probably even more useful to far left populists than she is to far right ones.
Not only do they not want blacks and Latinos to be taught fractions and decimals, I wonder if these woke white activists born into 2nd and 3rd generation wealth want to really bother with the hard work of learning themselves. This lady couldn't even articulate the argument in the White Fragility book she was trying to make. She doesn't need to worry about getting stuck in an adjustable rate mortgage, her daddy's accountant would make sure of that. What could be more threatening to such a person than a poor person of color who really wants to learn? The emotions that would evoke would probably be similar to the ones of the dog walker in New York that called the cops on the bird watcher she felt "threatened" by.
"I wonder if these woke white activists born into 2nd and 3rd generation wealth want to really bother with the hard work of learning themselves." They don't, see their aversion to standardized testing. Subjective measures of achievement favor those who already have social or political power, always.
A bit of feedback: I got completely lost in the intricacies of the New York public school system, so I think a lot of the point of the podcast went over my head. Are these neighborhood schools? What is a stream school, or was it screen school? What are these entrance exams? Additionally, I don’t think the podcast addressed the title - why did that woman freak out about the white man and the brown baby?
I'll second that. I wasn't completely sure what the board was voting on for most of the episode, and it felt like I was jumping in halfway through a conversation. The episode itself was interesting, but I was missing some context. Does anyone have a link to additional information?
Thanks for the feedback! I agree that there was some confusing background. Was trying not to get too much into the weeds but it probably led to some open questions.
Benjamin Boyce interviewed Tom Wrocklage (the board member with the baby on his lap) the other day on his podcast. It's available on YouTube. I listened to the interview and I felt it gave me a better sense of the context. Hope that helps!
Great interview
Thanks, that helped!
Mr. Irrizary‘s impassioned speech was heartbreaking in a lot of ways. Having clawed his way to where he is, his struggles are now invisible and are being overshadowed by yet another privileged white person making the conversation all about her. “I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate...and that hurts me...”.
Still, I can’t help but think that the biggest indicator that all reason has been lost is that the contretemps appears to have been ignited by someone holding a child. During a meeting about the education of children. Kind of missing the point there.
I’ll say something that is probably unpopular. There was way too much living in the past going on in that room. Neither Mr. Irrizary’s painful experience nor Ms. Broshi’s manufactured angst about the last 40 years is really the point. The presence of that child and all of his potentiality should have kept everyone focused firmly on the present educational challenges and the future world those children will create.
I have not read “White Fragility,” though I had been planning on doing so until I read an interview of Ms. DiAngelo. It strikes me as incredibly sinister BS. Much to say, and I am sure it has all been said here, but bottom line, I suspect its purpose is to enable people of color by disabling white people with shame. We are supposed to understand ourselves above all as being crippled by our “whiteness”—marked through and through by “white culture” (?)—a view placing one’s race above all, as Dylan Roof does. (I consider his first mistake was to place supreme importance on his own “whiteness,” rather than seeing himself as an individual human among humans, each of whom is equal in value). I will stop there, except to say that Ms. Di Angelo is one of the reasons I am here.—Michelle
Great conversation, thank you.
The point around shifting people's focus towards wall papering over real issues - i.e. poor education of important skills that can help lower income children succeed - with "anti-racism" programs and policies concerns me greatly. But it also resonates with me, and I think it could resonate with a large voter base, and I also think this critique has not been properly and strongly leveled against the "anti-racist" segregationists. It's an opening, and we need to exploit it to the full extent - for those low income children and families.
Two thoughts here
We've spent years placing people in buckets, if I may, a "minority" bucket, a "normal" bucket, a "disadvantaged" bucket, a "special ed" bucket etc, etc. the system as designed, only works if you keep those buckets in place and keep them full. The money to keep schools systems afloat, depend on those buckets to get government funding, local, state and federal funds are all determined by those "buckets" and the apparent success rate of the system. If you fall into one of those buckets it will take extreme luck and a lot of hard work to get out of it. you have been classified by the system and future choices are limited. I was put in a bucket, just based on the success or lack of, of my two older siblings. It took beating my grade 10 teachers at chess and taking over the chess club to change that.
Another thought that Izzarry touched on reminded me of something I wrote a few weeks back on another forum, "we spent 50 years teaching "tolerance" with almost nothing to show for it. It is such a low bar. Maybe the time would have been better spent teaching respect."
change the dynamic, set a new goal and stop with programs that continue to separate us.
Can you say more on your second paragraph? I'm curious why you believe tolerance and respect are mutually exclusive? Or am I reading too much into your statement? To the contrary, I see a lot of positive gain from tolerance over the past 50 years. My personal opinion is that tolerance is, or can be, a difficult bar for most people and requires higher reasoning to overcome inevitable bias. Respect is fluid and can be superficial, deeply held, or somewhere in between and is much more feeling based.
(corrected post ) The way I look at it now is "tolerance is the capacity to endure something. You don't try to understand it. You endure it. Respect on the other hand is earned. respect for differences, respect for culture, respect for achievements.
We were never taught to "tolerate" women in the work place, we were never taught to "tolerate" our parents. The expectation was we would respect them. Yet, during desegregation the bar was set at tolerance, which seemed to say, "you don't have to like it, we don't either, just tolerate for now" it seemed at the outset no one expected acceptance or respect, and that was/ is, in my opinion a mistake.
Why respect and not tolerance and why it is such a low bar. I watched the Arbery execution and was absolutely stunned. we traveled back in time 200 years. It was like they were on a hunt, hunting game, only the game in this case was a human being. You don’t hunt people you respect.
I then watched the Floyd killing, and the most startling elements were, first, it happened, second, no one stopped it. The third, the Image of the cops face, his expression. that will stay forever. To him this was all ok and it seemed to say "look at me, I've tolerated this long enough and I'm done with that"
I have a lot of respect for my ancestors that somehow managed to move from Europe to North America. To clear land and survive. I know it took a lot of strength, a lot of resolve to make the trip and to survive the hardships. What African American ancestors survived is far more.
To learn respect, maybe we need to learn some history. Learn how the slaves actually arrived in the US. "slave ships" doesn't do it justice. How about , 5-6 levels, separated by boards. All boards are removed to load people. they are stripped down, forced to lay on the boards, "spooning" until that level is full. Then the boards are put back and the next level is filled, then the next ...Think about a 6 week voyage like that and what it took to survive if you were so unfortunate not to be on the top layer. I don't think it takes a lot to respect the people that somehow managed to survive that trip. and after all that , you were sold. 155 years after the civil war, and 50 years after the civil rights movement, Black Americans are still fighting for respect.
and lastly, since I mentioned history (apologies I wander sometimes,)
Another jarring example. somewhat related. A Fox News anchor last year when Trump wanted to abandon NATO. Her comment " Why do we even need Nato, it's only costing us money" That comment displays a stunning lack of knowledge of world history and the role the US played after the Second World War, where another minority was nearly wiped out. 6 million people exterminated. but we don't need NATO. ...and that is where we are today.
and finally, Elizabeth Renzetti wrote an article on the current protests. She mentions a memorial to the Holocaust in Germany. On the memorial it says (my paraphrase), "and yet no one protested"
Great talk! Can't wait for more