What, to you, are racist actions?

[Carol in Cal.]

It's hard to know why anyone would bring up 'reverse racism' more than once. 

 

It's not something about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. That's for something like whether you enjoy the films of Wes Anderson or think they are baloney.

Well, first of all, as I mentioned upthread, I don't use that term.

But I do think it's just as racist to discriminate against a dominant group than a non-dominant group, and I don't think that believing that makes me racist.  And, yes, I do think that that is something that people can agree to disagree on. 

[Pam in CT]

re anger, and its role viz the moral arc of the universe bending toward justice

 

When it gets personal and accusations/insults are thrown around, or when the assertion is made that anyone who doesn't accept this is racist.  And it always seems to end up there.

For example, upthread:

"I notice that you bring up 'reverse racism'  every time we discuss racism, which leads me to believe that you do not, in fact, wish to be educated/ change your views about racism. I infer that this is because you don't have a problem with racism, which would indicate to me that you are yourself a racist."

 

That can ONLY harm the efforts to turn this around.  I know that when people are riled up it is harder to stay calm in discussion, but throwing around accusations like that, that are not true, only gets other people's backs up.  Actually, even if the accusation were true, which sometimes, unfortunately, it is, this is an ineffective way of dealing with it.  It's like rolling a bowling ball through a ping pong match--inappropriate, and destructive, and counterproductive....

I hear you.

 

I don't know if you've ventured into the Politics group -- I don't think I've "seen" you over there yet (all are welcome!) --  but we had a give-and-take a week or so ago that touched on Anger and its dynamics, positive and negative, in effecting change.  And I've been mulling on that conversation ever since.

 

As an empirical observation, I agree with you that Anger can sometimes backfire, and evoke defensiveness on the part of more-or-less sympathizers.  And -- as I expressed in the Politics thread last week -- I am also, as a matter of personal disposition, pretty conflict-avoidant.  Together those factors often drive me, as one of the posters over there observed, to try to "package" certain issues in as conciliatory terms as I'm able to find, in an effort to make them a bit easier on the ears.

 

But... even as I do that almost reflexively... I'm acutely conscious of the reality that pretty much every movement towards a better world since humans moved out of caves has been fueled in large measure by Anger -- anger against feudalism and slavery, against child labor, against workers locked into firetrap factories, against rodents ground up into our sausages, against false labeling on our food.

 

There is a place for Anger... Anger is a healthy and necessary part of the process of progress... even though it does, also, evoke defensive backlash... that's also part of the push-pull... and I guess that to the extent I'm able to glimpse my own little role in the larger work, part of it is, I think, to step back sometimes and try to make space for it.  

 

 

 

 

(And sometimes the dynamic runs the other direction, too... but this thread is about Racism specifically, and I am white; and I believe in the effects of power and history.  On the specific dimension of race, I try pretty hard to listen rather than preach my own opinions on tactics.  There are other dimensions on which I have more standing.)

 

 

[ebunny]

I'd like to discuss the role education (as in formal education- schooling) plays in establishing and reinforcing the status quo wrt institutional racism,  social racial discrimination.

Some countries have historically denied education to the most powerless to 'keep them in their place'.

 

What are your thoughts and experiences?

 

[Tanaqui]

Disagreeing with your redefinition, one that is by an estimate upthread only 15 years old, and which is not generally accepted is neither equivocating nor lying.  You have no right to throw such incendiary and insulting language around.  Making controversial assertions is making controversial assertions.  It is not proving anything, despite repeating them over and over.  And using this as the basis for making personal attacks is unacceptable.

 

1. I said that it was AT LEAST 15 years old, because that's when I first encountered it. I was 15 years old at the time. My political vocabulary was just developing. I have no idea how old this usage is.

 

2. It IS lying to claim that we're saying whole groups of people are racist (your definition, which means "racial bigot"). You might not like the common sociological definition, but you know perfectly well that we're not saying what you would mean if you used the word. That's like getting upset at an old-fashioned book that calls children "gay" because "they're too young to know anything about sex yet". You know darn well that's not what we mean, and you know darn well that the sociological definition of "racism" can't be applied to individual people anyway, and if you claim that your definition IS what we mean when you know better then you are lying. Period.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

There is a place for Anger... Anger is a healthy and necessary part of the process of progress... even though it does, also, evoke defensive backlash... that's also part of the push-pull... and I guess that to the extent I'm able to glimpse my own little role in the larger work, part of it is, I think, to step back sometimes and try to make space for it.  

 

 

 

 

I ran across this article yesterday, and I tend to agree with the good Rabbi about anger.

 

I find myself thinking more and more as I get older about what is effective.  I know for sure I'm a lot more effective when I can picture, articulate, and focus on what I'm for rather than what I'm against, and I think that that is true for most people.  

 

I think sometimes people need righteous wrath to galvanize them into action though; it's not like politics or activism should be passionless--far from it!

 

Anyway, here is the article.

 

http://www.rabbisacks.org/beyond-politics-anger-daily-telegraph/#.WC22fJBBT9A.facebook

A good quote from it is:  "Therein lies the danger because anger is a mood, not a strategy, and it can make things worse not better. Anger never solves problems, it merely inflames them."

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

2. It IS lying to claim that we're saying whole groups of people are racist (your definition, which means "racial bigot"). You might not like the common sociological definition, but you know perfectly well that we're not saying what you would mean if you used the word. That's like getting upset at an old-fashioned book that calls children "gay" because "they're too young to know anything about sex yet". You know darn well that's not what we mean, and you know darn well that the sociological definition of "racism" can't be applied to individual people anyway, and if you claim that your definition IS what we mean when you know better then you are lying. Period.

I don't have any idea what you mean here.  And you obviously have no idea what I mean.

 

What I do know is that I quoted a specific example from the thread of someone saying that anyone who disagrees about an aspect of this 'must be racist'.  You have not dealt with that, and it contradicts your contention above.

 

And I also know that you have not dealt with the substance of what I have said on any level.

 

And frankly, accusing me of lying is just another one of your attempts to shut me up.  That's pretty low.  

[zaichiki]

I have an example of racism to share.

 

An acquaintance who is Christian, lived her whole life in the south, and tries very hard to help people as much as possible all of the time -- she volunteers her time to lots of organizations, would be nothing but nice to everyone no matter what "color" they are, etc. -- is racist.

 

Sometimes the way she talks absolutely boils my blood. This is one of several reasons she has remained an acquaintance and is not a friend.

 

Here are a couple of examples.

1. She was talking about a person she saw on a particular day, on the street walking with a child, and she included "black" in the description of the person. (irrelevant to the conversation)

2. Another day she was talking about a person she saw on the train giving up a seat for another person and included "Mexican" in the description even though it had no bearing on any part of the story.  How she knew this "brown" person was Mexican and not Puerto Rican, Dominican, etc. is beyond me, and yet another arrow pointing to her racism. (In our conversations, if the person is white, no mention of color or nationality is made.)  

3. One day she was describing a group of children and noted that they were nearly all Asian. And I was wondering why that fact was pertinent. From our discussion, though, it was a distinction that was obviously important to her.

 

These examples show that "color" is very important to her... sort of like if I were to comment every time I saw someone with blue eyes... if I had to mention that fact... or constantly insert physical descriptions of people when descriptions were not relevant... it goes to show that this is something she feels needs to be pointed out. And it really gets under my skin.

 

Because she feels to be, by her actions and her effort, a good person, I assume this is subconscious and perhaps a product of her childhood/environment. I wonder if she even notices it. I wonder if she would react negatively if I called her on it.   Eh... she is also very wrapped up in a girl's/woman's body size... and other stuff... Just haven't chosen to put my energy into bringing all of this up. Keeping my distance is just easier.

 

[ebunny]

Ad hominem arguments are not constructive and will likely get this thread deleted or locked.

 

ETA: Edited the rest of my post out. I don't see a point in engaging in a certain topic

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ebunny

[SarahW]

Ad hominem arguments are not constructive and will likely get this thread deleted or locked.

 

For those posters (you know who you are) who claim 'anti-white' bias, here is an insightful article that focuses on this issue. I'm quoting directly from the article as I know the posters who are vociferously defending the position of 'anti-white'ism' are unlikely to read the article.

 

 

I don't believe there is any systematic anti-white racism. But that doesn't mean that race can't be used against whites.

 

Personal example - during my youth and my stint as a manager at McDonald's I had enormous issues with one lady who just wasn't good at her job. She was rude to customers. She didn't bother to make sure she packed orders correctly. She spent more time chatting and joking with co-workers than actually doing her tasks. I tried talking to her over and over. Other managers did too. She finally left in a huff one day, accusing me and the other managers of being racist. That we were picking on her because we were white and she was black. It was absurd, we had tons of black workers, we didn't have a problem with most of them. We'd fired white workers for doing what she did. But she turned it into a race issue. And it was incredibly hurtful to me.

 

In the wake of the election, there's been a slew of articles and blog post trying to grapple with the rural white poor and why they supported Trump so heavily. So much hand-wringing and worthless theories and poor rhetoric, I roll my eyes at most of them. But there was an article I read which had a good line about how the rural poor feel invisible because they're white. That is true. So many well-funded national charities get cooked up in the coastal cities and are designed for the black urban poor. Fine, those charities are great. But when was the last time you heard of a celebrity hosting a fancy fundraiser for an anti-drug, job training, art-and-chess in schools, Kindergarten to Ivy, charity in Appalachia?

 

Sure, even the poorest kid has an institutional advantage because of the color of his skin. But it doesn't do him an ounce of good if he isn't a part of those institutions anyways. Honestly, if I had to choose, I'd choose being a black kid in the Bronx over being a white kid in southern WV. Right now, the black kid in the Bronx simply has more opportunities to succeed.

 

Saying that there's anti-white racism is stupid, sure, on the technical level. But when everyone around you is a drug addict, you can't afford good food, and your kid dies because there's no accessible healthcare, and no one seems to give a flying eff about it because there's this thing called "white privilege" you're bound to try to come up with a way to explain it. It might not be right, but if it makes sense out of your world, then there it is.

[SKL]

There is also a phenomenon of white or other privileged people shutting down those who have a different opinion from the thought police.  I'm not giving it a name lest I be accused of lying.  It doesn't change what racism is or isn't, but it does prevent productive conversations and discourage good people from working together on good goals.

[Pam in CT]

I ran across this article yesterday, and I tend to agree with the good Rabbi about anger.

 

I find myself thinking more and more as I get older about what is effective.  I know for sure I'm a lot more effective when I can picture, articulate, and focus on what I'm for rather than what I'm against, and I think that that is true for most people.  

 

I think sometimes people need righteous wrath to galvanize them into action though; it's not like politics or activism should be passionless--far from it!

 

Anyway, here is the article.

 

http://www.rabbisacks.org/beyond-politics-anger-daily-telegraph/#.WC22fJBBT9A.facebook

A good quote from it is:  "Therein lies the danger because anger is a mood, not a strategy, and it can make things worse not better. Anger never solves problems, it merely inflames them."

 

:001_wub: I count Rabbi Sacks among my life teachers.

 

I am running out the door, but will come back to reflect...

[Paige]

In my local area we have a lot of meetup groups. I see those whose creators have white profile pictures gain more members more quickly than those created by POC. Those created by white people have diverse members and those created by POC tend to have less diverse groups- the POC are joining the white leaders' groups, but the reverse doesn't happen much. I think that is indicative of racism-it's the only hypothesis I can come up with for what I've been seeing. I've been observing the pattern since I first noticed and it's pretty reliable and consistent. I think racism is often subtle like that, especially in liberal areas. FWIW, I'm not a member of many groups, but I get the alerts when new ones are formed and like to see if my trend continues. These are for groups like book clubs, moms' groups, social groups, political groups, etc. and nobody uses key words that indicate they are racially exclusive or based. 

[Scarlett]

I have an example of racism to share.

 

An acquaintance who is Christian, lived her whole life in the south, and tries very hard to help people as much as possible all of the time -- she volunteers her time to lots of organizations, would be nothing but nice to everyone no matter what "color" they are, etc. -- is racist.

 

Sometimes the way she talks absolutely boils my blood. This is one of several reasons she has remained an acquaintance and is not a friend.

 

Here are a couple of examples.

1. She was talking about a person she saw on a particular day, on the street walking with a child, and she included "black" in the description of the person. (irrelevant to the conversation)

2. Another day she was talking about a person she saw on the train giving up a seat for another person and included "Mexican" in the description even though it had no bearing on any part of the story. How she knew this "brown" person was Mexican and not Puerto Rican, Dominican, etc. is beyond me, and yet another arrow pointing to her racism. (In our conversations, if the person is white, no mention of color or nationality is made.)

3. One day she was describing a group of children and noted that they were nearly all Asian. And I was wondering why that fact was pertinent. From our discussion, though, it was a distinction that was obviously important to her.

 

These examples show that "color" is very important to her... sort of like if I were to comment every time I saw someone with blue eyes... if I had to mention that fact... or constantly insert physical descriptions of people when descriptions were not relevant... it goes to show that this is something she feels needs to be pointed out. And it really gets under my skin.

 

Because she feels to be, by her actions and her effort, a good person, I assume this is subconscious and perhaps a product of her childhood/environment. I wonder if she even notices it. I wonder if she would react negatively if I called her on it. Eh... she is also very wrapped up in a girl's/woman's body size... and other stuff... Just haven't chosen to put my energy into bringing all of this up. Keeping my distance is just easier.

Did she grow up in a non diverse area?

 

I can see myself doing that. In fact I have consciously stopped myself from describing with race description when it isnt relevant. I figure it is a throw back to my days of being surrounded by all white people. In fact my ds16 called me on it just the other day. The more I tried to explain why I identified the person in the way I did the more ridiculous it sounded. I was proud my son noticed it.

 

You should call your acquaintance on it. Maybe she could become a friend. Just asked what being Asian or whatever had to do with that story.

[Pam in CT]

re ubiquitous white imagery equated with goodness, humor, Anger and transmutation:

 

But along the lines of "white" being equated with "good," there is an old video of Muhammad Ali talking about how he questioned this as a kid.  He is very entertaining and on point.  :)  It's one of the reasons he converted to Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtxfTEyJZg4

SKL, I didn't have time until this morning to watch this.  Thank you for sharing it.

 

 

In addition to the considerable insights he brings to the conversation on the substance -- the ubiquity of examples of "white" images and language being associated with "goodness" -- his quite funny delivery also brought home to me the potential of humor to act as another vehicle for effectively communicating difficult content.

 

There's little doubt in my mind that Muhammad Ali carried Anger along his way (including, specifically, race-related Anger, as in the restaurant episode he relates in the video).  The man after all made a living, beating other people up.

 

Had he described those same insights about white imagery and language, and relayed that same restaurant episode, in Angry Black Man mode, he would I think have been less "hear-able" to many people, particularly white people.  His substance is rendered immensely more digestible because of the humor.  

 

(It also helps considerably, of course, that we are now listening to him at a distance, across time, and can feel comfortably sanguine that incidents like that restaurant episode are Squarely In The Past and Would Never Happen Today.)

 

 

But as Ali relayed in the story, he himself attributed the narrative transformation of his own life story to his encounter with Elijah Muhammad and Nation of Islam (and, while this is not in the clip, also Malcom X) -- all of whom were at the time seen, certainly by many whites and even by black leaders such as MLK, as conveying more Anger than was "constructive."  Ali responded to pretty Angry messaging; the clarion call that pulled him to his life's work was expressed in Angry language.

 

And then in the doing of his life's work he did this remarkable... transmutation magic... where the physical Anger of his body got channeled into legendary athletic prowess and the psychological Anger of his racially based encounters got channeled into enduring moral leadership...

 

... including, as in your clip, humor.  A spoonful of which helps the message go down.

 

 

But... I guess this is what I'm struggling this month to understand better... Anger was an essential part of the journey along his way.  

 

 

 

 

 

eta typo

Edited November 18, 2016 by Pam in CT

[SKL]

While I don't use the skin color descriptor when I talk about people, I am not sure that (by itself) makes a person racist.  I don't do that because I've seen others called on it, and also I grew up in a community where it was understood to potentially offend.  In fact, I've erred on the side of avoiding mention of skin color when that would have made things a lot easier.  My black friend was like, "you mean the black lady?"

 

Acknowledging that a person is different is not the same as saying they are less-than.  They often do go together though.

 

Sometimes people point out other-ness to indicate their own tolerance for others.  Example:  for years, it was trendy to say "my awesome gay friend" when neither awesomeness nor sexual orientation was relevant to the conversation.  I personally find that usage self-serving, but I don't think it's on the same level as racism.

[SKL]

re ubiquitous white imagery equated with goodness, humor, Anger and transmutation:

 

SKL, I didn't have time until this morning to watch this.  Thank you for sharing it.

 

 

In addition to the considerable insights he brings to the conversation on the substance -- the ubiquity of examples of "white" images and language being associated with "goodness" -- his quite funny delivery also brought home to me the potential of humor to act as another vehicle for effectively communicating difficult content.

 

There's little doubt in my mind that Muhammad Ali carried Anger along his way (including, specifically, race-related Anger, as in the restaurant episode he relates in the video).  The man after all made a living, beating other people up.

 

Had he described those same insights about white imagery and language, and relayed that same restaurant episode, in Angry Black Man mode, he would I think have been less "hear-able" to many people, particularly white people.  His substance is rendered immensely more digestible because of the humor.  

 

(It also helps considerably, of course, that we are now listening to him at a distance, across time, and can feel comfortably sanguine that incidents like that restaurant episode are Squarely In The Past and Would Never Happen Today.)

 

 

But as Ali relayed in the story, he himself attributed the narrative transformation of his own life story to his encounter with Elijah Muhammad and Nation of Islam (and, while this is not in the clip, also Malcom X) -- all of whom were at the time seen, certainly by many whites and even by black leaders such as MLK, as conveying more Anger than was "constructive."  Ali responded to pretty Angry messaging; the clarion call that pulled him to his life's work was expressed in Angry language.

 

And then in the doing of his life's work he did this remarkable... transmutation magic... where the physical Anger of his body got channeled into legendary athletic prowess and the psychological Anger of his racially based encounters got channeled into enduring moral leadership...

 

... including, as in your clip, humor.  A spoonful of which helps the message go down.

 

 

But... I guess this is what I'm struggling this month to understand better... Anger was an essential part of the journey along his way.  

 

 

 

 

 

eta typo

 

This is why Muhammad Ali is pretty much my favorite person ever.  He is very real, he experienced things nobody should, but he was able to channel negative things to the betterment of himself and others.  However, this took a long time and the path was not always pleasant at all.  He had an amazing amount of courage as well as poise.  This is just one of several amazing videos that show this.

 

As for the "angry" messages from the black Muslim movement - I agree that they were super unpopular and shocking to most Americans at the time.  But in my mature cynicism, I can only wonder how much of the negative stuff was made up or blown up or cut-and-pasted-into-something-else by the press.  The fact is that the Christian church, by allowing or promoting blatant racism at least in the "south," missed a huge opportunity and lost many black people to Islam, for better or worse (depending on how you view Islam and Christianity).  It has an interesting message that still resonates today.  Don't take your base for granted.  All humans deserve to be treated with equal dignity, with equal importance.

[Scarlett]

That was an amazing clip.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Sometimes the way she talks absolutely boils my blood. This is one of several reasons she has remained an acquaintance and is not a friend.

 

 

I've seen this, too.  It's so unusual to me that it's really jarring.  I wonder whether there are places where it is common?  I haven't spent a whole lot of time in the South.

[Pam in CT]

re Rabbi Sacks, responsibilities,  roles and "righteous wrath"

 

I ran across this article yesterday, and I tend to agree with the good Rabbi about anger.

 

I find myself thinking more and more as I get older about what is effective.  I know for sure I'm a lot more effective when I can picture, articulate, and focus on what I'm for rather than what I'm against, and I think that that is true for most people.  

 

I think sometimes people need righteous wrath to galvanize them into action though; it's not like politics or activism should be passionless--far from it!

 

Anyway, here is the article.

 

http://www.rabbisacks.org/beyond-politics-anger-daily-telegraph/#.WC22fJBBT9A.facebook

A good quote from it is:  "Therein lies the danger because anger is a mood, not a strategy, and it can make things worse not better. Anger never solves problems, it merely inflames them."

 

 

I really, really, really :001_wub:  Rabbi Sacks (long the Chief Rabbi in the UK and true thought leader on Judaism in modernity and interfaith issues; last year did a visiting scholarship at NYU where my daughter is attending so I had a little, and she had a fantastic, opportunity to see him up close and personal; and a very prolific writer).

 

The theme of ethical responsibility pervades his life's work, and that Big Picture context is central to any one slice of it.  In this worldview-rocking book, he opens with a frame of the Cain and Abel story, and argues that the whole of the Hebrew Bible can be read as an extended exposition in answer to the question, Am I my brother's keeper?

 

The answer the Torah and Bible thereafter resoundingly illustrate for us, according to Rabbi Sacks, is yes.  Yes, you are.  You are responsible for his life, you are responsible for his whereabouts, you are responsible for his well-being.  When we finally manage collectively to get this right, then, only then, will we be acting in alignment with the Divine.  (This discussion he did on the weekly parasha, Torah reading, provides another short glimpse at this basic orientation.)

 

And that outward-focused ethical imperative, that absolute insistence that we are responsible for one another's well-being, weaves throughout all his work.  

 

 

You raise the construct of "righteous wrath," which (though it may have somewhat different associations in Jewish v Christian traditions) has both fueled the power behind, and equally important has provided a useful vocabulary for expressing, many struggles for greater human dignity and justice over the ages.  Rabbi Sacks speaks both from, and through, that tradition.

 

And... I am struggling here, both to formulate my thoughts and also to put language on them, so forgive my inefficiency in getting around to anything resembling any kind of point, lol... Anger is very much part of that tradition too.  Anger -- from God, at God, between the First Couple, between the First Sons, at the fallen world in Noah's time, at the stiff-necked disobeying hubris in the time of Babel-- Anger (and resentment and finger-pointing and Other-blaming) characterize the mood and propel the narrative action throughout the founding stories from which Rabbi Sacks derives his worldview. 

 

That worldview, and his own life's work, represents an integration of that absolute imperative that we are one another's keepers (an imperative, BTW, that has at times placed him in some tension with traditional Judaism's insular tendencies), and an equally deeply rooted Jewish idea that we each have different roles to play within that imperative.  

 

The role that he himself has staked out, and to my mind fulfills admirably, entails a lot of straddling -- of tradition and modernity, of Judaism and other faith communities, faith and science, identity groups and politics, spiritual and secular frameworks of understanding the world.

 

And he binds that worldview and that identification of his own role together with this concept of hope, which he speaks to in the article you linked.  He speaks often, in many contexts, about hope; and he definitely does not use the term to describe a sunny, glass is half full! Look how far we've come! optimism... and it certainly does not start by glossing over, or denying, the hurt and pain and -- he's a tactful and tactical man, he dials it back both to pretty up the communication package and also to steer clear of nihilism, which he both rejects and fears -- Anger.  

 

Hope in his thinking has to start with a clear-eyed recognition and acceptance of where we actually are... from the article you linked

 

There is only one viable alternative. It is not a return to the status quo. It is bigger than traditional divisions between the parties. It is the creation of a new politics of hope.

 

Hope is not optimism. It begins with a candid acknowledgment on all sides of how bad things actually are.

 

 

And Anger is undeniably part of where we actually are.  Four decades of pretending we already lived in a Colorblind society didn't get the job done.  Four decades of insisting racism was only personal didn't get the job done.  Four decades of insisting we were all long past that only delivered us to... where we are now.  Anger is now an open part of our landscape; there is no stuffing it back into Pandora's box.

 

The only way out is through.

 

 

So while I wholeheartedly agree with your point that getting through to somewhere better than a descent into nihilism and violence will require working out what we're working FOR rather than merely whacking back at what we're AGAINST... I'm coming (inefficiently) around to a recognition that hearing, and making space for, and acknowledging Anger is a necessary part of that process.

 

There are no shortcuts.  

 

Part of the reason MLK's tactics looked "constructive" to white people was the comparison between his, and other alternatives at the time (Elijah Muhammad, Malcom X, Black Panthers etc).   Had there not been those other models of Anger out there, MLK would very possibly have been received like, say, Colin Kaepernick is today.  Which is to say: at some level, with some segments of society, any expression at all will evoke backlash and fury and accusations of "unconstructive tactics."  

 

So at some level, everyone who cares has just to plunge in and figure out what role we each can play.  For me, I'm coming around to thinking that my dispositional instinct of trying to defuse Anger is not just not possible as a practical matter, but is also, ironically perhaps given this thread, not necessarily constructive as a tactical one. 

 

 

 

 

Carol dear, thank you for triggering all this percolation... I'll be turning these ideas over for a while.  I am shortly off to a meeting in NY, and will thereafter dial back my Interweb until tomorrow night so I won't be back until then... but please know I am thinking of you and all you've stirred up here.

[Carol in Cal.]

I thought of another one, and it's really awful.

 

My husband and I are not bigtime landlords but we own one rental house.

One time when it was vacant we got it all fixed up and advertised it for rent.  A bunch of people called us.  We told all of them our requirements, that we do a credit check that they have to pay for, and fill out an application.  We had an open house, and people came and took applications.  We also showed the house individually and gave out applications that way.  

 

So the second family to look at the house was African American.  They called to say that they wanted to apply, and wanted to know where to drop off the credit check funds.  We gave them our address and then didn't hear from them for a while.  It turned out that they had come by, they said later, to drop off cash for the credit check, but since we were not home and don't have a secure mailbox, they didn't feel comfortable leaving it.  No one had EVER paid us in cash for anything, so this possibility had not even crossed my mind.  (They had not left a note or the application, so we didn't know.)  It's not unusual for prospective renters to change their minds so we really didn't think anything of this.  In the meantime, the first family to look at the house decided on another one, but the third one picked ours, applied, got us the money, and passed the credit check and references and income requirements, so we offered them the house.   

 

THEN we heard from the second one, and crap, I felt so bad, because I knew that they would wonder whether or maybe even conclude that we had picked the third one over them because of their race, and I really wanted to allay that, but couldn't figure out how to do it without making things even worse.

 

So I called up a friend of ours who has a fourplex, another very small landlord, LOL, and asked him about how he might talk about it.  And he (amazingly) assumed that of course we wouldn't want to rent to Black people, and counselled that we should say that the house was already rented, to avoid this.  I told him about 4 different ways that we had no objection to renting to Black people, and that I was trying to figure out how to make that clear without causing a big mess, since we had already offered the house to someone else who fulfilled the requirements first; but he just couldn't believe it.  He kept saying stuff like, "Well, of course you don't want to rent to them.  That's just bad business."  I was stunned.  

 

Guys, this is what African Americans deal with all the dang time.  It's illegal, and wrong, and yet it happens, even in blue state California. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

So many well-funded national charities get cooked up in the coastal cities and are designed for the black urban poor. Fine, those charities are great. But when was the last time you heard of a celebrity hosting a fancy fundraiser for an anti-drug, job training, art-and-chess in schools, Kindergarten to Ivy, charity in Appalachia?

 

Sure, even the poorest kid has an institutional advantage because of the color of his skin. But it doesn't do him an ounce of good if he isn't a part of those institutions anyways.

A few thoughts:

 

1. When people start charities they tend to be addressing a need that they either experienced or were moved by in some way. And in the case of domestic charity they tend to act locally. People aren't coming into places like Harlem from the outside to start charities that serve the kids there...the impetus largely comes from there. More people in the cities means more start up charities and more access to foundations that work in their local area. If there are more non-profits working in coastal areas, that is a function of both population and location.

 

2. There ARE charities working in Appalachia, some effective, some less effective. My favorite examples are the ones providing dental and medical care and I have donated to them even though my family is a generation or three removed from the region. Many of these efforts are in part funded by entertainers who hail from the region. Don't assume they don't exist- they are there and they have a compelling case for funding.

 

3. When national news specials play on TV about poor families, far more viewers donate to the white children portrayed than the black children portrayed. After a big story about homeless families in and around Orlando (Florida being the family and child homelessness capital of the country), free college tuition and lots of money poured in for the white kids and just a fraction of that money and no college tuition offers for the black kids. This is a pattern that repeats itself.

 

4. One of the oldest and only tuition free colleges, Berea, exists primarily to provide college education to people from Appalachia, especially those who wish to stay and invest in the region. There are also many other programs for educational access for people in all or parts of Appalachia. Robinson Scholars is one, but there are others.

 

As a kid who grew up poor and white I can not begin to stress how many times being white has helped me educationally or professionally. I have a brother who is black, grew up just as poor and I saw the stark contrasts upclose and personal. Starting with me being funneled without testing at times into "gifted" programs and my parents having to fight to prevent them from placing my brother without testing into special ed or lower level classes or even special education. And continuing on into adulthood.

 

Do not underestimate the much steeper curve for climbing out of poverty when one is also at a disadvantage due to racism.

[Carol in Cal.]

re Rabbi Sacks, responsibilities,  roles and "righteous wrath"

 

 

 

I really, really, really :001_wub:  Rabbi Sacks (long the Chief Rabbi in the UK and true thought leader on Judaism in modernity and interfaith issues; last year did a visiting scholarship at NYU where my daughter is attending so I had a little, and she had a fantastic, opportunity to see him up close and personal; and a very prolific writer).

 

The theme of ethical responsibility pervades his life's work, and that Big Picture context is central to any one slice of it.  In this worldview-rocking book, he opens with a frame of the Cain and Abel story, and argues that the whole of the Hebrew Bible can be read as an extended exposition in answer to the question, Am I my brother's keeper?

 

The answer the Torah and Bible thereafter resoundingly illustrate for us, according to Rabbi Sacks, is yes.  Yes, you are.  You are responsible for his life, you are responsible for his whereabouts, you are responsible for his well-being.  When we finally manage collectively to get this right, then, only then, will we be acting in alignment with the Divine.  (This discussion he did on the weekly parasha, Torah reading, provides another short glimpse at this basic orientation.)

 

And that outward-focused ethical imperative, that absolute insistence that we are responsible for one another's well-being, weaves throughout all his work.  

 

 

You raise the construct of "righteous wrath," which (though it may have somewhat different associations in Jewish v Christian traditions) has both fueled the power behind, and equally important has provided a useful vocabulary for expressing, many struggles for greater human dignity and justice over the ages.  Rabbi Sacks speaks both from, and through, that tradition.

 

And... I am struggling here, both to formulate my thoughts and also to put language on them, so forgive my inefficiency in getting around to anything resembling any kind of point, lol... Anger is very much part of that tradition too.  Anger -- from God, at God, between the First Couple, between the First Sons, at the fallen world in Noah's time, at the stiff-necked disobeying hubris in the time of Babel-- Anger (and resentment and finger-pointing and Other-blaming) characterize the mood and propel the narrative action throughout the founding stories from which Rabbi Sacks derives his worldview. 

 

That worldview, and his own life's work, represents an integration of that absolute imperative that we are one another's keepers (an imperative, BTW, that has at times placed him in some tension with traditional Judaism's insular tendencies), and an equally deeply rooted Jewish idea that we each have different roles to play within that imperative.  

 

The role that he himself has staked out, and to my mind fulfills admirably, entails a lot of straddling -- of tradition and modernity, of Judaism and other faith communities, faith and science, identity groups and politics, spiritual and secular frameworks of understanding the world.

 

And he binds that worldview and that identification of his own role together with this concept of hope, which he speaks to in the article you linked.  He speaks often, in many contexts, about hope; and he definitely does not use the term to describe a sunny, glass is half full! Look how far we've come! optimism... and it certainly does not start by glossing over, or denying, the hurt and pain and -- he's a tactful and tactical man, he dials it back both to pretty up the communication package and also to steer clear of nihilism, which he both rejects and fears -- Anger.  

 

Hope in his thinking has to start with a clear-eyed recognition and acceptance of where we actually are... from the article you linked

 

 

And Anger is undeniably part of where we actually are.  Four decades of pretending we already lived in a Colorblind society didn't get the job done.  Four decades of insisting racism was only personal didn't get the job done.  Four decades of insisting we were all long past that only delivered us to... where we are now.  Anger is now an open part of our landscape; there is no stuffing it back into Pandora's box.

 

The only way out is through.

 

 

So while I wholeheartedly agree with your point that getting through to somewhere better than a descent into nihilism and violence will require working out what we're working FOR rather than merely whacking back at what we're AGAINST... I'm coming (inefficiently) around to a recognition that hearing, and making space for, and acknowledging Anger is a necessary part of that process.

 

There are no shortcuts.  

 

Part of the reason MLK's tactics looked "constructive" to white people was the comparison between his, and other alternatives at the time (Elijah Muhammad, Malcom X, Black Panthers etc).   Had there not been those other models of Anger out there, MLK would very possibly have been received like, say, Colin Kaepernick is today.  Which is to say: at some level, with some segments of society, any expression at all will evoke backlash and fury and accusations of "unconstructive tactics."

 

So at some level, everyone who cares has just to plunge in and figure out what role we each can play.  For me, I'm coming around to thinking that my dispositional instinct of trying to defuse Anger is not just not possible as a practical matter, but is also, ironically perhaps given this thread, not necessarily constructive as a tactical one. 

 

 

 

 

Carol dear, thank you for triggering all this percolation... I'll be turning these ideas over for a while.  I am shortly off to a meeting in NY, and will thereafter dial back my Interweb until tomorrow night so I won't be back until then... but please know I am thinking of you and all you've stirred up here.

Lots of great stuff here, thank you.  I had not been familiar with Rabbi Sacks, but it sounds like I should remedy that!

 

I agree with you entirely about MLK and Malcolm X.  

 

I'll be mulling the rest over, over a period of time.  Thank you!

[hornblower]

2. There ARE charities working in Appalachia, some effective, some less effective. My favorite examples are the ones providing dental and medical care and I have donated to them even though my family is a generation or three removed from the region. Many of these efforts are in part funded by entertainers who hail from the region. Don't assume they don't exist- they are there and they have a compelling case for funding.

 

 

Just wanted to point out the Clinton Global Initiative has been funding several projects in Appalachia. Housing, education etc. 

 

[Greta]

Did she grow up in a non diverse area?

 

I can see myself doing that. In fact I have consciously stopped myself from describing with race description when it isnt relevant. I figure it is a throw back to my days of being surrounded by all white people. In fact my ds16 called me on it just the other day. The more I tried to explain why I identified the person in the way I did the more ridiculous it sounded. I was proud my son noticed it.

 

You should call your acquaintance on it. Maybe she could become a friend. Just asked what being Asian or whatever had to do with that story.

 

 

:iagree:   She honestly might not realize she's doing it.  I grew up in a small, non-diverse town in Oklahoma, and this was exactly how people there talked.  I really believe that for the most part, people were not conscious of it, or aware of how it could come across.  I'm not saying it isn't wrong -- in fact, I think it's a product of an unspoken assumption that being white is sort of the "default setting" and therefore otherness gets noted.  So I'm not defending the practice.  But I'm saying when you've grown up around it, it's very easy to fall into that habit without ever stopping to think about why you do it.  I never noticed it or thought about it until I went to college and was around a bigger variety of people with regard to race, religion, etc.  It wasn't until then that I consciously thought about it for the first time and decided, "I'm going to try not to do that."

Edited November 18, 2016 by Greta

[Scarlett]

:iagree:   She honestly might not realize she's doing it.  I grew up in a small, non-diverse town in Oklahoma, and this was exactly how people there talked.  I really believe that for the most part, people were not conscious of it, or aware of how it could come across.  I'm not saying it isn't wrong -- in fact, I think it's a product of a sort of assumption that being white is sort of the "default setting" and therefore otherness gets noted.  So I'm not defending the practice.  But I'm saying when you've grown up around it, it's very easy to fall into that habit without ever stopping to think about why you do it.  I never noticed it or thought about it until I went to college and was around a bigger variety of people with regard to race, religion, etc.  It wasn't until then that I consciously thought about it for the first time and decided, "I'm going to try not to do that."

 

 

Ha.  That was my ds's exact words to me....'default setting'.

[Greta]

Ha.  That was my ds's exact words to me....'default setting'.

 

 

Oh, how funny!   :001_smile:

[bolt.]

Is it racist if I, as a college professor, suggest to students that they use a peer proof reader if their work has clear English as a second language issues? Is it racist if I specifically suggest that they seek a 'native English speaker' as a proof reader? Are there better ways to deal with that issue?

[Sneezyone]

Is it racist if I, as a college professor, suggest to students that they use a peer proof reader if their work has clear English as a second language issues? Is it racist if I specifically suggest that they seek a 'native English speaker' as a proof reader? Are there better ways to deal with that issue?

 

Any student having issues with grammar, usage and mechanics should be referred to whatever campus resources are available for tutoring and writing support. That issue is not confined to non-native English speakers. There are plenty of native speakers who need help. If you were only referring non-native speakers and not all students with similar issues, that would be objectionable.

[SKL]

Re the language issues - I remember a hearing-impaired classmate getting offended when the speech teacher suggested speech therapy (or whatever the then-common terminology was).  It was well-meant but obviously not well-received.  I'm not sure who would be considered in the wrong on that one today.  (This was 30 years ago.)

[hornblower]

Is it racist if I, as a college professor, suggest to students that they use a peer proof reader if their work has clear English as a second language issues? Is it racist if I specifically suggest that they seek a 'native English speaker' as a proof reader? Are there better ways to deal with that issue?

 

 

English is not my first language. I've also worked as a writer & editor in English. 

 

IMO, the correct way to handle it is to mark as objectively as you can (side rant - I detest MLA for that reason. If you don't use MLA & have a title page with name you can have a TA flip all the front pages & read a clean copy without knowing WHO wrote it. MLA is obnoxious about reminding you that it was BrzÄ™czyszczykiewicz who wrote it...) 

 

If there are problems with grammar, style, idiom use - just say that.  Leave it to the student to seek help where they wish. It's not like they don't know that English is not their first language and that it's hard. 

 

Inform the whole class of any tutoring or essay review options at your school. Dd's college offers a free peer editing service. 

[regentrude]

Is it racist if I, as a college professor, suggest to students that they use a peer proof reader if their work has clear English as a second language issues? Is it racist if I specifically suggest that they seek a 'native English speaker' as a proof reader? Are there better ways to deal with that issue?

 

It is not racist to suggest that students get a proof reader - but telling them to find a native speaker is not helpful.

 

As a college professor, I would direct the student to the college's writing center or refer her to a writing tutor who has been trained to assist other students with their writing. This person does not need to be a native speaker to have this ability; he or she needs to have solid mastery of the language, which is not the same thing. Most of our students who would benefit from some editing help were born in this country into families where only English is spoken. OTOH, English is my second foreign language, but, if I may say so myself, my command of the language is far better than that of many native speakers.

 

ETA: All students should be informed about the available resources on campus. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by regentrude

[bolt.]

As a small college, we do not have the kinds of campus resources most of you reccomend. Academic coaching is available, but it's not usually what I reccomend to a strong student whose writing issues don't require any more help than a second set of eyes.

 

My usual advice (given individually, usually written) is just to get a friend to look over your work, and then do the same for them in return. I give that advice to all students for whom I think it's the best solution, including, but not limited to those who show ESL related writing challenges.

 

The problem is that frequently (as cliques go) ESL students tend to seek another ESL student when given this advice -- and so it doesn't work. Is there any phrase that might work?

[SKL]

"Somebody with strong English skills"?

[bolt.]

"Somebody with strong English skills"?

There are the words I've been looking for! (Thanks)

[MercyA]

Well, born and raised in the south and I didn't know until I was well into my 30s that it was offensive to call a black child climbing on anything a monkey.  

 

I admit that my husband also had to explain this to me when I was in my 30's. I was uneducated about racism and unaware that this particular insult was even a thing. :(  

 

I appreciate this conversation. Thanks to you all for hanging in there.

[Jenny in Florida]

While I don't use the skin color descriptor when I talk about people, I am not sure that (by itself) makes a person racist.  I don't do that because I've seen others called on it, and also I grew up in a community where it was understood to potentially offend.  In fact, I've erred on the side of avoiding mention of skin color when that would have made things a lot easier.  My black friend was like, "you mean the black lady?"

 

There is a massive difference between:

 

"So, which one of the women singing in the choir is your friend?"

"The black lady in the third row."

 

And:

 

"I went to the bank today, and the black teller at the window helped me."

 

In one case, the skin color descriptor is being used in a neutral way, for a useful purpose, in the same way I might tell someone my kid is the tall one in the green shirt.

 

In the other, it is not serving any purpose other than to signal the speaker's preoccupation with the issue.

 

(My grandmother did this kind of thing all the time, by the way. It drove me nuts even 20 years ago.)

Edited November 19, 2016 by Jenny in Florida

[Tanaqui]

There is a massive difference between:

 

"So, which one of the women singing in the choir is your friend?"

"The black lady in the third row."

 

And:

 

"I went to the bank today, and the black teller at the window helped me."

 

Or, worse: "Be careful, I heard some black guy mugged somebody here last week" (but if the mugger in question is white, race isn't mentioned at all).

 

[Jenny in Florida]

Or, worse: "Be careful, I heard some black guy mugged somebody here last week" (but if the mugger in question is white, race isn't mentioned at all).

 

Exactly.

 

A co-worker of mine back in the mid-80s did her master's thesis on those kind of discrepencies in news media. So, again, it's not like this is some newfangled idea.

[LucyStoner]

A few thoughts:

 

1. When people start charities they tend to be addressing a need that they either experienced or were moved by in some way. And in the case of domestic charity they tend to act locally. People aren't coming into places like Harlem from the outside to start charities that serve the kids there...the impetus largely comes from there. More people in the cities means more start up charities and more access to foundations that work in their local area. If there are more non-profits working in coastal areas, that is a function of both population and location.

 

2. There ARE charities working in Appalachia, some effective, some less effective. My favorite examples are the ones providing dental and medical care and I have donated to them even though my family is a generation or three removed from the region. Many of these efforts are in part funded by entertainers who hail from the region. Don't assume they don't exist- they are there and they have a compelling case for funding.

 

3. When national news specials play on TV about poor families, far more viewers donate to the white children portrayed than the black children portrayed. After a big story about homeless families in and around Orlando (Florida being the family and child homelessness capital of the country), free college tuition and lots of money poured in for the white kids and just a fraction of that money and no college tuition offers for the black kids. This is a pattern that repeats itself.

 

4. One of the oldest and only tuition free colleges, Berea, exists primarily to provide college education to people from Appalachia, especially those who wish to stay and invest in the region. There are also many other programs for educational access for people in all or parts of Appalachia. Robinson Scholars is one, but there are others.

 

As a kid who grew up poor and white I can not begin to stress how many times being white has helped me educationally or professionally. I have a brother who is black, grew up just as poor and I saw the stark contrasts upclose and personal. Starting with me being funneled without testing at times into "gifted" programs and my parents having to fight to prevent them from placing my brother without testing into special ed or lower level classes or even special education. And continuing on into adulthood.

 

Do not underestimate the much steeper curve for climbing out of poverty when one is also at a disadvantage due to racism.

Tacking onto my own post here, I would also add that racial discrimination against minorities is common in the charitable sector. I observed it as a child receiving services and I observed it and tried to stop it where I could as an adult who has exclusively worked in the charitable sector. I've read research on the topic as well- who gets seen first, how well they are treated, who gets turned away. While there are charities that defy this pattern, honestly I don't think most do. Charities are staffed by people and those people bring their biases with them.

 

I literally have taken a volunteer who was charge of screening for scholarships to task for declining every.single.applicant with an East African name. I've seen people pick through gift tree tags looking for white sounding names. I've heard a foundation manager acknowledge that she was less likely to give to charities in certain areas. Never have I seen this favor any minority group over white people. This is one reason why I believe it is easier to get out of poverty when you are white or can pass as white.

[zaichiki]

Did she grow up in a non diverse area?

 

I can see myself doing that. In fact I have consciously stopped myself from describing with race description when it isnt relevant. I figure it is a throw back to my days of being surrounded by all white people. In fact my ds16 called me on it just the other day. The more I tried to explain why I identified the person in the way I did the more ridiculous it sounded. I was proud my son noticed it.

 

You should call your acquaintance on it. Maybe she could become a friend. Just asked what being Asian or whatever had to do with that story.

I suspect she did grow up in a non-diverse area... but she hasn't continued to live that way.

 

Well, I can call her on it, but I'm not sure I can keep my emotions out of it, so I'd better not. I don't think we can be friends: there are other things she says and does that make me uncomfortable (focus on women's weight, outer beauty, and over-the-top pride in her kids, etc.).  That's okay, though - we don't have to be friends with everyone.  I will choose to be friendly without being friends.

 

My main point was that I can see she really does try to be good to people (individually) even though it is clear to me that she is racist.

[Rosie_0801]

Re the language issues - I remember a hearing-impaired classmate getting offended when the speech teacher suggested speech therapy (or whatever the then-common terminology was).  It was well-meant but obviously not well-received.  I'm not sure who would be considered in the wrong on that one today.  (This was 30 years ago.)

 

 

Never has the production of clearer speech improved that person's ability to hear, thus advising a hard of hearing student to improve their speech is synonymous for "make life easier for us hearing people."

[SKL]

Never has the production of clearer speech improved that person's ability to hear, thus advising a hard of hearing student to improve their speech is synonymous for "make life easier for us hearing people."

I don't think it's a bad suggestion for a young person hoping to have a successful career.  I have a brilliant nephew (college student) who has a speech problem that I'm sure will affect his employability.  I think someone should suggest speech therapy to him.  I don't think it's my place, since we're not super close and I'm not in the position of advisor to him.  But if his speech prof did so, I would personally think he was in the right.  Seems better than "I knew he was going to have a problem getting a job, but it wouldn't be PC for me to give advice about it."

[Sneezyone]

I don't think it's a bad suggestion for a young person hoping to have a successful career.  I have a brilliant nephew (college student) who has a speech problem that I'm sure will affect his employability.  I think someone should suggest speech therapy to him.  I don't think it's my place, since we're not super close and I'm not in the position of advisor to him.  But if his speech prof did so, I would personally think he was in the right.  Seems better than "I knew he was going to have a problem getting a job, but it wouldn't be PC for me to give advice about it."

 

Discrimination against individuals with disabilities is against the law. If the impairment. Unless the individual is seeking a job that requires a great deal of public speaking (and even then reasonable accommodations are available) the speech impediment should be irrelevant. 

[SKL]

Discrimination against individuals with disabilities is against the law. If the impairment. Unless the individual is seeking a job that requires a great deal of public speaking (and even then reasonable accommodations are available) the speech impediment should be irrelevant. 

 

Communication is very relevant to most jobs that a college student would aspire to.

 

Yes, a person who cannot speak clearly can theoretically get accommodations, but that takes work on the part of the student / employee and is not a perfect solution, even if employers follow all the laws and aren't a$$holes.  If speech therapy would help, I don't see how it hurts to suggest it - particularly if you're a speech teacher.  How many people have you heard people say "I wish I'd known that could have helped me when I was younger"?

 

Of course it isn't only at work that speech matters.  How about being able to place an order at a restaurant and so many other day-to-day things?  Given a choice, you'd rather be able to speak clearly.  If that isn't a choice, then yes, there are other workable solutions.

[hornblower]

Do you really think that a person with a disability is not aware of how it impacts their life???

 

It's their choice what treatments or interventions they pursue.

[SKL]

Do you really think that a person with a disability is not aware of how it impacts their life???

 

It's their choice what treatments or interventions they pursue.

 

Of course it's their choice.  But how are they going to be aware of options if nobody is allowed to make a suggestion?  In the case of the hearing impaired student mentioned above, she had been under the impression that her speech was quite clear.  How would she know otherwise if nobody told her?  Isn't it better to hear it from the speech teacher early in college, than at some later point after opportunities have been lost?

Edited November 21, 2016 by SKL

[Paige]

 In the case of the hearing impaired student mentioned above, she had been under the impression that her speech was quite clear.  How would she know otherwise if nobody told her?  

 

Yeah, my son has hearing loss and is completely unaware of when he's mispronouncing something or when he hasn't heard something correctly or at all. His brain doesn't think, "I didn't hear that." It makes up something he thinks is logical to hear and convinces him that it is true. He appreciates being told when he is saying something wrong.

 

My aunt who is completely deaf, however, would not benefit from or appreciate being told she's saying something wrong. She's an adult who knows her weaknesses and has had plenty of years to work on it and is already doing her best. 

[hornblower]

Of course it's their choice.  But how are they going to be aware of options if nobody is allowed to make a suggestion?  In the case of the hearing impaired student mentioned above, she had been under the impression that her speech was quite clear.  How would she know otherwise if nobody told her?  Isn't it better to hear it from the speech teacher early in college, than at some later point after opportunities have been lost?

 

Are you really suggesting she's never noticed that people sometimes don't understand her?  And it's offensive to assume she doesn't know what treatment options are available to her. As a hearing impaired person, odds are overwhelming that she knows way more than anyone else around her both about her disability and about treatments. 

 

Plus you're assuming she hasn't been in speech therapy. For all everyone knows she's been in speech therapy for hours every day for years and now someone is just happily pointing out "hey, that's not quite good enough yet! You're not blending in well enough!" 

 

If a student approaches someone privately and says, I'm looking for advice on how to approach a certain problem, then it's ok to explore various possibilities. A disabilities counselor would be aware of the issues &  first of all would say, what have you tried? And then can respectfully inquire "how did this type of therapy go? Do you feel done with it? Have you thought about this new type of ------ there?" Those are conversations people have in the context of a helping/guidance relationship. 

 

You said originally " I'm not sure who would be considered in the wrong on that one today. "  We're telling you the answer. The teacher is wrong. 

[Dmmetler]

I can tell you that by college, I had been in speech therapy for over 13 years, and had had years of training to improve intelligibility, because by about middle school it was obvious those sounds were not going to remediate, so let's work on improving everything else. I wouldn't have been offended by a professor suggesting speech therapy, but I would have been a bit annoyed because if he/she had read my 504 plan, it would have been obvious that there was a known, diagnosed disability there and that we were doing the best we could.

[SKL]

Are you really suggesting she's never noticed that people sometimes don't understand her?  And it's offensive to assume she doesn't know what treatment options are available to her. As a hearing impaired person, odds are overwhelming that she knows way more than anyone else around her both about her disability and about treatments. 

 

Plus you're assuming she hasn't been in speech therapy. For all everyone knows she's been in speech therapy for hours every day for years and now someone is just happily pointing out "hey, that's not quite good enough yet! You're not blending in well enough!" 

 

If a student approaches someone privately and says, I'm looking for advice on how to approach a certain problem, then it's ok to explore various possibilities. A disabilities counselor would be aware of the issues &  first of all would say, what have you tried? And then can respectfully inquire "how did this type of therapy go? Do you feel done with it? Have you thought about this new type of ------ there?" Those are conversations people have in the context of a helping/guidance relationship. 

 

You said originally " I'm not sure who would be considered in the wrong on that one today. "  We're telling you the answer. The teacher is wrong. 

 

I hear your opinion.  I think it's sad though that a professional with tons of on-point knowledge is not allowed to make a suggestion to a young student who may or may not be aware of different possibilities.

 

Of course now we have the internet, which allows us to find lots of information without another human involved.  Still not everyone finds the help they need on the internet.

 

I guess it's interesting how different people draw the line between "I care enough to tell you" and "I care too much to tell you."