Stereotypes and memes and racism, oh my! [split thread]

[violet_crown]

It's acceptable for any medium of 'humor' to play into racist undertones.

We have free speech in this country, so you can play on what pleases you. No one's here to play thought police.

(Which reminds me: [MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION], I forgot to mention that I had read what you posted about the Human Right's Commission formed in response to the "Being White in Philly" article. Absolutely absurd, utterly counterproductive, and played into divisive urges in the minority community that exemplify race baiting just as surely as anything. I thought your outrage was justified despite feeling the article was indeed flawed. So much more could have come of a conversation between equals than the cheap bit of pandering that actually resulted.)

Anyways. Race is complicated. There are certainly instances when being able to acknowledge the stereotypes can be acceptable, or even constructive. What was at issue earlier in the thread is that it's obnoxious to deny or rationalize away the presence of those undertones when they are plainly there to the one subject to the racism.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Would have responded earlier, but had a power outage and wasn't so into typing out what I knew would be a long post on my phone.

I think you have mistaken resignation for acceptance. Again, if you are outside of the system, you cannot even begin to fathom how to begin to change it.

Acceptance is a necessary condition of resignation.

How I feel about that acceptance, shouldn't distort the fact that I'm a conservative and arguing that there are barriers to entry for non-whites that deserve reasoned study.

When someone you are negotiating with moves toward your position, you don't berate them for not being happy about ceding ground.

Well, there's a reason for that when, starting with the originally two-tiered Social Security schema finagled by southern Democrats with the explicit[/i[ purpose of keeping out African Americans, there is a long history of the relationship between racism and manipulating the access minorities have to welfare. There's also scads of statistical evidence that points to the correlation between racial prejudice and the feeling that welfare should either be more tightly monitored or done away with altogether. If there's an intuitive skepticism of Republicans or Conservatives when you begin to discuss these programs it is both well-founded and rooted in a more profound distrust of the basic motives of the kinds of people that would espouse such a worldview. Your party wants to start dicking around with the social safety net, then you'll need to up your credibility when it comes to race.

What you don't understand is that fundamentally, Republicans arguing in good faith (which is certainly not all of them) for entitlement reform, want the programs to work better and more efficiently.

It would help if you guys could retreat from the "any change to this (broken) system is unacceptable" rhetoric.

You're reminding me of the no tax pledge.

Certainly there are historic factors, that reasonably make those dependent on social programs wary of discussion of reform, but that wariness and the reactionary stance it catalyzes serves to kill any possibility of a robust debate on the subject.

We can keep medicare the way it is for about 10 years before the whole house of cards starts to fall apart. Are those 10 years of easy living worth the collapse of the economy?

To argue against welfare, healthcare and entitlement reform is to argue against math.

And I would counter that the ability to understand one's supposedly "personal" worldview as reality is the very definition of privilege. Most minorities and women have to contend with what DuBois coined a "double consciousness": understanding their world not just from the vantage of their own experience and culture, but through the internalized experience of living in a society where the rules, values and norms are set by whites. Blacks that only understand their own culture are doomed to fail. Period. Just as surely as a perfectly intelligent young woman whose name is Shenaynay, speaks nothing but ebonics, and grew up in the inner city of Detroit doesn't stand much of a chance of ever leaving that inner city community. Unless she manages to change Shenaynay to Sharon, get some speech lessons, and otherwise assimilate herself to "mainstream" culture even if she does leave, she's not going very far.

I already stated that the role of the white man played, and to a declining extent still plays, a disproportionately large role in determining the national narrative.

Mainstream culture has more than a hint of whiteness, but we founded the country and have been the majority demographic share holders for several centuries.

If that bothers you, I would suggest moving.

In this instance, if the mountain will not come to Muhammad, Muhammad must come to the mountain. I see no reason why mainstream America (read the private sector) needs to loosen its hiring practices to let in sha nay nay, who will more than likely leave a less than sterling taste in the mouth of any customer she deals with. Luckily the public sector will welcome sha nay nay with open arms, and make those trips to the DMV so pleasant for the rest of us.

If she is unwilling to take the steps necessary to fit into the private sector, I fail to see why the private sector should be obligated to cater to she nay nay.

Or to Tammy-lynn from the trailer park for that matter.

Both white trash, and ghetto black cultures could use a little mainstreaming. And I'm of the opinion that incorporating more mainstream influence into those cultures will not betray the identities of those in them.

Or more specifically, that incorporating that mainstream influence would serve to marginalize the most pernicious and self defeating aspects of those respective cultures as they currently exist.

Asking a communications company to allow employees without more than a rudimentary understanding of English is a disservice to the customers, whereas asking She nay nay or Tammy-lynn to jettison the less socially acceptable aspects of their culture will pay continual benefits over their working lives.

I don't really buy the whole line of the War on White Men argumentation, because, you know what? For every 1 purely negative portrayal of white men, there are at least 10 positive ones. You don't have to work that hard to find examples of white male political leaders, white male CEOs, white male humanitarians, white male religious leaders, white male film directors, white male visual artist or poets. White men don't have to wait for one month a year to expect their history or their contributions to the world to be acknowledged. So, forgive me, but I just don't care that the occasional black comedian does a stupid "Black people drive like this, but white people drive like this" joke, because at the end of the day we know who's paying his paycheck and who owns the network his special is airing on.

There are more white people generally, so absent all other considerations, this phenomenon would occur whether there was a war on white men or not.

We are very well represented generally, but whiteness itself is never discussed in any manner shape or form anywhere.

Everyone expects there to be white men to play roles, so they do. The race of the people involved never factors into the debate.

Whiteness just is not discussed in positive terms in the media, pretty much ever. The men you refer to additionally serve more as role models to men generally than they do the white men specifically.

It's as if we don't get to have a special culture of our own. Yes I understand that the American story thus far has been painted in pale tones, but we are not allowed (in the increasingly diversified country we live in) to carve out a cultural space of our own relative to all the other gender or ethnic groups out there.

Having a seat at the table requires us to be allowed enough space to delineate and discuss white culture publicly.

The fact of the matter is that even in the case of negative portrayals, the portrayal is complex and focuses on the humanity of the subject rather than some overlaid stereotype. Just think of the character portrayed in your avatar. I haven't watched Mad Men, but nothing I've heard about Don Draper makes him sound like an out and out good guy to me. That makes him no less intricately depicted and in fact only more human.

Don Draper has some stiff competition from the likes of, Buckwild, Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo.

Sure Don is a complex depiction, but I don't find Omar Little's depiction any less complex.

I was not trying to be offensive, and am the first to acknowledge that the world is a difficult place for everyone. For my own understanding, however, I'm hoping you could describe to me what systemic obstacles white men face in addition to the basic assumed difficulty of just living life? And having described those additional difficulties I'm curious as to whether you'd be willing to trade places with me and assume mine? And if not (assuming no more objection than an innate amour de soi) why?

I'm not the person to ask, given the fact that the economic strata one is borne into has much more to do with obstacles than does race.

And no I would not trade places with you, but that has to do with the economic strata point I just made.

I will acknowledge that there have been tremendous gains in the past 100 years. But there are a couple of things that come to mind.

The first is that things aren't so equal that we can just wrap things up and go home now. For either minorities or women. I'm not satisfied with the way things are, and don't think that the progressive policies that have brought us to this point should be moderated until both groups hold a stake in society proportionate to their presence. That's what a democracy is, isn't it?

Will the war ever be finished? Or like the global war on terror, will it run endlessly regardless of the strength of the opposition?

The second point is that you can't in one breath lament the "cultural acceptance" of minorities towards the obstacles that block their path into the system while at the same time advocate the dismantling of the programs and policies that allow them to overcome those obstacles. I mean, you must see the contradiction in those viewpoints.

I'm not arguing that we should do away with those programs.

I'm arguing that they should be reformed to run more effectively with a less entrenched bureaucracy.

We're not coming to take your gov't check away anymore than you are arguing to take away (all) our guns.

I didn't understand what you were saying here.

I was disagreeing with your contention that white men are all born with a golden ticket, that is denied to any but them.

I don't see how a middle class Asian man faces a harder road through life than does a White man.

The fact that you could move your hands to type such a thing just leaves me utterly flabbergasted. How do you not feel anything but at home in a world that revolves around white American men and their preferences? Of course you are envied for that, and of course you are hated for that.

No one's going to pity you for your collective circumstances. Individually? Maybe. Of course there are some white men who are having a rough time of it, and it would be awful to turn around and rub privilege in their face. But for the rest? To me, it would honestly be like if the two athletes that were just convicted in Stubenville asked the victim for an apology for ruining their futures as aspiring, young scholar-athletes.

My point is that minorities shouldn't have to "owe" you anything at this point, and you shouldn't feel entitled to anymore than the great deal you already have in order to want to work for progress. I mean, I can't even conceive of what more we could give without unburdening ourselves totally of our dignity, which some of us admittedly have. I mean, just think of how ridiculous it would sound for Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie to have held press conferences before opening their foundations to make general statements about how the minorities and the poor really needed to be nicer to them before they started helping them out. It'd be like...what?

If you feel entitled to more respect at this point as a white man, then you'll have to earn it, I'm afraid. You'll have to give respect in order to get respect. And as far as these things go, at least in the black community, we're tremendously generous with our acceptance of white folks who show an even basic understanding of our experience and where we're coming from. Bill Clinton is a great example. Clinton was obviously someone who was comfortable with African- Americans and appreciated our culture, and we called him the first black president for it. It genuinely takes so little, which is why it's so confusing and hurtful as to why that understanding can't be shown.

It's empathy I ask for not respect.

Firstly, its there for the taking, but no one will give it to you. The onus is on you to be the change you want to see in the world.

Secondly, I would argue that Hispanics, and Asians and pretty much all other minorities have assimilated without nearly the difficulty.

What constitutes a basic understanding?

I've already accepted the existence of of barriers to entry, understand the implications of the historically oppressed nature of black culture etc.

What is this next level of understanding I need to have?

I understand the "struggle" I just don't think being preoccupied with it gets you anywhere.

This has devolved fairly quickly.

We need our social net, but it needs reform to remain solvent.

Blacks face barriers to entry that are greater than those that whites face, and in some ways are institutional in nature.

If you're waiting for me to go to Africa and build a school, or sing kumbaya for the NAACP, or some other symbolic action then you're gonna have a long wait on your hands.

Railing against mainstream culture will get you nowhere.

Fighting against the game is pointless, learn the rules and beat the other players.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

There are more white people generally, so absent all other considerations, this phenomenon would occur whether there was a war on white men or not.

We are very well represented generally, but whiteness itself is never discussed in any manner shape or form anywhere.

Everyone expects there to be white men to play roles, so they do. The race of the people involved never factors into the debate.

Whiteness just is not discussed in positive terms in the media, pretty much ever. The men you refer to additionally serve more as role models to men generally than they do the white men specifically.

It's as if we don't get to have a special culture of our own. Yes I understand that the American story thus far has been painted in pale tones, but we are not allowed (in the increasingly diversified country we live in) to carve out a cultural space of our own relative to all the other gender or ethnic groups out there.

Having a seat at the table requires us to be allowed enough space to delineate and discuss white culture publicly.

That's actually the result of white privilege. There is no disctinction for whites because they are assumed to be the default human being. A white man represents all men while a black men only gets to represent black men.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That's actually the result of white privilege. There is no disctinction for whites because they are assumed to be the default human being. A white man represents all men while a black men only gets to represent black men.

If by white privilege you mean the fact that the US was founded and originally populated mostly by white people.

I don't want to be the default, I would prefer to have my niche.

 

[violet_crown]

[MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION],

I was hoping before responding to your post you might be able to share your own idea of how racial politics can improve, and what you feel both sides ought to contribute to make things work. I'm also interested in what your vision for remedying the problems with the existing welfare system might be, and what connection--if any--do you see between the two issues. It was not my intention to "devolve" the discussion into a one-sided affair, so your input would be valued on these points.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

As far as welfare is concerned, I want to limit benefits to those within 130% of the federally designated poverty level, basically means test welfare.

This would not apply to the disabled who would still qualify up to 200% of the poverty level.

We also need to strengthen our prosecution of fraud, and double dipping.

Reforming welfare would go a long way towards eradicating the resentment white America feels come tax time.

More importantly I think school reform, with the introduction of value added metrics for the evaluation of teachers, in addition to allowing charter schools everywhere, and a host of other reforms I'm not well versed enough in the topic to explain. Basically we need to get rid of policies that benefit teachers job security at the expense of student outcomes.

I think true education reform is the most important step to take in alleviating the continuing cycle of poverty within the Black community.

More specifically, would like to see the double standard that allowed Mayor Nutter his outburst to recede.

From our end, we have no incentive to engage in the debate as it stands now. We are best served by staying quiet and being hypersensitive.

We need to change our drug prohibition stance. My mind is political, and thinks in terms of policy, sorry if I'm not able to provide more cultural fixes.

But if we could end the drug war, reform education and entitlements, then we would have a much stronger platform from which to conduct a public debate on race.

 

[violet_crown]

We need to change our drug prohibition stance. My mind is political, and thinks in terms of policy, sorry if I'm not able to provide more cultural fixes.

Policy is inextricable from the social context. If you've identified a solution, then you probably have some idea of the problem and how it detracts from some normative idea of the social order. The questions that I asked were my attempt to gain insight on how you feel that people of different races should relate to each other ideally, and what is preventing us from that place. I'm in total agreement with you that increasing economic opportunity and access, getting rid of disproportionate incarceration rates, and minimizing dependence on social safety nets would radically change conditions for much of the black community. But what is your end goal with these policies? What state of things do you as a conservative seek that makes those things the correct fixes?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Policy is inextricable from the social context. If you've identified a solution, then you probably have some idea of the problem and how it detracts from some normative idea of the social order. The questions that I asked were my attempt to gain insight on how you feel that people of different races should relate to each other ideally, and what is preventing us from that place. I'm in total agreement with you that increasing economic opportunity and access, getting rid of disproportionate incarceration rates, and minimizing dependence on social safety nets would radically change conditions for much of the black community. But what is your end goal with these policies? What state of things do you as a conservative seek that makes those things the correct fixes?

We (as in 8w9's) don't make it easy now do we...

The end goal is to improve America, but regarding equality the goal is to create the conditions where blacks can enjoy the agency they deserve and share in the social mobility enjoyed by the rest of America.

That way its in their hands to be everything they can be.

As far as relating to each other, I would like to enjoy the latitude to speak about race as freely as non whites.

A large part of welfare reform would be insuring that regardless of how poor one was, there was always an incentive to earn more, as opposed to the current system where the benefits are often more valuable than earning more.

 

[Coriolis]

If by white privilege you mean the fact that the US was founded and originally populated mostly by white people.

I don't want to be the default, I would prefer to have my niche.

The many descendents of native Americans would disagree with this "fact".

Your niche is whatever your background is. Unless you are native American, your ancestors originally came from somewhere else. Where was that? I don't see anyone celebrating being white except the KKK and neo-Nazis. But I see lots of people celebrating various European heritages, without offending anyone at all.

As far as welfare is concerned, I want to limit benefits to those within 130% of the federally designated poverty level, basically means test welfare.

This would not apply to the disabled who would still qualify up to 200% of the poverty level.

We also need to strengthen our prosecution of fraud, and double dipping.

Reforming welfare would go a long way towards eradicating the resentment white America feels come tax time.

I have known my share of white folks on welfare, and there is plenty of resentment to go around. The problem with everything in this list is it is one-size-fits-all, while people's problems are not. The goal is to get people working (and paying taxes), not freeloading (and using up tax revenues). Better to figure out what is keeping that from happening: skills don't match available jobs; no transportation; no child/elder care; disqualified by criminal record; need to move but can't afford it; earnings insufficient to pay bills; disability or medical issue, etc. Addressing these issues would put many more people back to work, leaving mainly those too disabled to work at all, and a hard core of truly recalcitrant folks who are determined to game the system. The problem with denying them benefits, however, is that it is generally their children who will suffer.

The key to welfare/medicare/etc reform is it has to actually *reform* (that is, improve) the outcomes, not just look better on paper.

More importantly I think school reform, with the introduction of value added metrics for the evaluation of teachers, in addition to allowing charter schools everywhere, and a host of other reforms I'm not well versed enough in the topic to explain. Basically we need to get rid of policies that benefit teachers job security at the expense of student outcomes.

I am sufficiently well-versed in the topic to assure you that this is red herring. The problem isn't teacher tenure or evaluation, it is the focus throughout education on process rather than outcome; put otherwise, the means justify the ends. Stop making teachers (and students and everyone else) slaves to standardized tests, burdensome administrivia, spurious credentialing, political correctness, and one-size-fits-all educational policies, and let them do what it takes to get the class they have in front of them to learn what they need to learn. (Yes, I realize this begs a very big question, but I'll defer that for now.)

Charter schools can in theory provide more latitude, but too often are little more than experiments at the expense of the students, and have too little accountability for performance. They are also even more likely than public schools to reflect the socioeconomic status of the immediate vicinity, meaning that a charter school in a wealthy neighborhood will be a boon, while one in a poor neighborhood is just a warehouse.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The many descendents of native Americans would disagree with this "fact".

I was talking about the country, not the land.

An obvious distinction.

I have known my share of white folks on welfare, and there is plenty of resentment to go around. The problem with everything in this list is it is one-size-fits-all, while people's problems are not. The goal is to get people working (and paying taxes), not freeloading (and using up tax revenues). Better to figure out what is keeping that from happening: skills don't match available jobs; no transportation; no child/elder care; disqualified by criminal record; need to move but can't afford it; earnings insufficient to pay bills; disability or medical issue, etc. Addressing these issues would put many more people back to work, leaving mainly those too disabled to work at all, and a hard core of truly recalcitrant folks who are determined to game the system. The problem with denying them benefits, however, is that it is generally their children who will suffer.

Whats keeping that from happening is the lack of robust economic growth, which last time I checked you had no plan for.

Those recalcitrant folks get should get nothing. A system that doesn't pursue welfare fraud against such folks implicitly sanction's their actions.

The key to welfare/medicare/etc reform is it has to actually *reform* (that is, improve) the outcomes, not just look better on paper.

Fucking duh.

I am sufficiently well-versed in the topic to assure you that this is red herring. The problem isn't teacher tenure or evaluation, it is the focus throughout education on process rather than outcome; put otherwise, the means justify the ends. Stop making teachers (and students and everyone else) slaves to standardized tests, burdensome administrivia, spurious credentialing, political correctness, and one-size-fits-all educational policies, and let them do what it takes to get the class they have in front of them to learn what they need to learn. (Yes, I realize this begs a very big question, but I'll defer that for now.)

Charter schools can in theory provide more latitude, but too often are little more than experiments at the expense of the students, and have too little accountability for performance. They are also even more likely than public schools to reflect the socioeconomic status of the immediate vicinity, meaning that a charter school in a wealthy neighborhood will be a boon, while one in a poor neighborhood is just a warehouse.

You have a sufficiently vested interest in protecting teachers regardless of the outcome, which was made readily apparent in the thread regarding the Chicago Teachers strike.

Your time is coming once we get to education, which given the state of our public schools should be soon.

 

[Kalach]

Vote 1 Rex. I did.

 

[Entropic]

Well, @Wid-up rex asked me my thoughts about this subject so I just copy it all from the VMs I sent her (poor inbox):

Nevermind, reading through the thread (yes, I am doing my homework and I'm reading all the posts) the meme was posted and even though I'm not even from the USA so I'm that deeply familiar with the racial structure from more than what I've learned through my studies; I'm inclined to agree. It's racist or has strong racist undertones. The problem is the entire presentation of the meme which is ultimately quite tasteless. Not only is Will Smith appearing to grimace or in other words, making a "funny" face which relates back to the idea of blacks being lazy and ultimately lesiure-seeking; the photoshopped cigar in his mouth further emphasizes and stereotypes this image of the poor southern working class black man with a cigar in his mouth, something even Disney is guilty of in the cartoon they did about Santa Claus and his factory at the North Pole (remember the toy of a black man smoking a cigar and is trying to entertain Santa and the rest of the toys?) which is toppled with the "punch line" that is not only syntaxically incorrect, the spelling is clearly referencing the southern accent strongly associated with working class black people. Not because the southern accent itself is stereotype, but having an accent at all is strongly related to class and people of the working class, especially men, actually tend to emphasize their accent whereas females who strive to improve their social mobility tend to drop theirs for example. There have been studies of that done about that in Sweden and I would find it strange if the same is not true for all cultures as it has to do with how we as humans shape our identities. This is for example why you see children to first- and second genereation immigrants with middle or even higher social status still speak with an accent, especially among friends even though there is no need. This phenomenon has also been studied in Sweden and how Swedish migrants still speak with an accent as a way to emphasize their immigrant identity.

Because our speaking patterns are a part of our identity and represent the groups we associate with, insuniating that Will Smith is speaking in a southern accent despite him coming from Philadelphia and he does not speak with a southern accent in the film, suggests that whoever made the meme certainly projected racial stereotypes onto Smith for simply being a black man despite being neither working class or southern. It is however not a parody since it does not attempt to subvert the power relations between race as the black man meme does which was also linked in the thread. Instead it just wallows in them. White man privilege yes. It's only funny because "the nigger is put in his place", as someone put it. The power relation and the natural order between races are restored. Will Smith's power within white society as a respectable person despite being black is removed by likening him to the southern working class black man and there are people who get off on enforcing their sense of privilege.

Addendum (in reaction to the meme she posted which is this one)

The version of the meme you posted is actually not AS bad and at first glance I did think it was remotely funny because the way the text is presented with the American flag being reflected in it is quite clever (I'm a GFX artist myself so I can appreciate these things from an artistic POV also), although I think the "earf" could have been dropped in favor of "earth" and the message would still be the same without losing much of what I think this variant of the meme makes it funny because it's clearly so exaggerated it becomes ridiculous. It's playing off the stereotype more with the American flag thing just like for example female Asian adoptees (citing a study I read a couple of years ago) might adopt an exaggerated geisha-like attitude towards their body and sex as a way to subvert the stereotype projected that Asian females are promiscuous, sexually viable and so on. So it's not just that they are viable, they are TOO viable. It becomes a parody and it thus subverts the stereotype since it makes us realize that the stereotype is unrealistic.

The other meme variant I saw with the text in white on a black background below the image though? No, that was just tasteless. One can however still argue that even this variant plays off the whole "gangsta nigga" stereotype which is what makes it work by trying to depict Will Smith more as badass (I think this impression is much stronger because of the text with the American flag on top), because Will Smith is actually representing USA, he's defending USA as a patriot. However, the question becomes, would the effect be the same if we'd replace Will Smith with a popular action movie actor from the 80s (that this variant of the meme arguably draws more from) such as Sylvester Stallone? Perhaps if the variant was done more similar to Chuck Norris memes that in some ways aren't that different. Clearly playing off masculinity roles but nevertheless; why would a black man be seen as more inherently badass if he's depicted as a "gangsta nigga" than simply being a regular action hero without the racial stereotype attached?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I am sufficiently well-versed in the topic to assure you that this is red herring. The problem isn't teacher tenure or evaluation, it is the focus throughout education on process rather than outcome; put otherwise, the means justify the ends. Stop making teachers (and students and everyone else) slaves to standardized tests, burdensome administrivia, spurious credentialing, political correctness, and one-size-fits-all educational policies, and let them do what it takes to get the class they have in front of them to learn what they need to learn. (Yes, I realize this begs a very big question, but I'll defer that for now.)

Charter schools can in theory provide more latitude, but too often are little more than experiments at the expense of the students, and have too little accountability for performance. They are also even more likely than public schools to reflect the socioeconomic status of the immediate vicinity, meaning that a charter school in a wealthy neighborhood will be a boon, while one in a poor neighborhood is just a warehouse.

Avoiding a Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Quality


And from the New York Times:

U.S. Students Still Lag Globally in Math and Science, Tests Show

The tests, which are designed by the International Study Center at Boston College in collaboration with government education officials and academic researchers in participating countries, are administered to a random selection of demographically representative students across the world.

Fourth graders in 57 countries or education systems took the math and science tests, while 56 countries or education systems administered the tests to eighth graders. (Education systems include American states or regions like Hong Kong in China or Northern Ireland in Britain.) In reading, 53 countries and education systems participated.

Hong Kong and Russia had the highest average test scores in fourth-grade reading, with American students ranking sixth. Students in Florida, one of the states to break out results separately, achieved a higher average score than students in the nation over all.

Students in Finland, which is often held up as a model education system for its teacher preparation and its relative absence of high-stakes testing, outperformed American students on all the exams. But students in countries with intense testing cultures also exceeded American students. “Some of the high-performing math and science countries have extremely rigorous testing regimes,” Mr. Buckley said.

 

[Mal12345]

I disagree. It's making me pop like sixteen ladyboners for charity.

I'll need an example of that.

 

[Coriolis]

I was talking about the country, not the land.

An obvious distinction.

Obvious, and ethnocentrically presumptive. In any case, the two are inseparable, as even the founding fathers acknowledged. Pretending nothing of importance occurred in "the land" before the U.S. was established denies a significant part of our history.

Whats keeping that from happening is the lack of robust economic growth, which last time I checked you had no plan for.

Last time I checked, "trickle-down economics" didn't work for anyone except the few on top. It's not my personal job to create economic growth for the nation. If you, however, (or anyone else) want people to take conservative ideas on how to fix welfare and medicare seriously, the burden of proof is on them (you) to show how they will actually correct the problems without creating worse ones.

Those recalcitrant folks get should get nothing. A system that doesn't pursue welfare fraud against such folks implicitly sanction's their actions.

We should at least put them in jail. Then they can have rudimentary shelter, food, and medical care. Perhaps some counseling and job training, too.

You have a sufficiently vested interest in protecting teachers regardless of the outcome, which was made readily apparent in the thread regarding the Chicago Teachers strike.

Your time is coming once we get to education, which given the state of our public schools should be soon.

Not sure what this last is supposed to mean, but I actually have no more vested an interest in protecting teachers than anyone else. As a school volunteer for many years, though, I see firsthand the constraints on teachers, students, and parents that tie everyone's hands, preventing them from using their creativity to help kids learn in ways that translate directly to success as an adult. The stupidity of many of the things schools and everyone in them are required to do is mind-boggling. What we need to get rid of is red tape/bureaucracy, arbitrary standards, overemphasis on standardized testing, and archaic schedules. If you really want to reform teaching as a profession, we need to get rid of the ridiculous licensing and education requirements that keep too many talented people out of the field to begin with, and force those who do go in to focus too much time and effort on useless classes at the expense of subject area knowledge. I see the effects of this firsthand also, in the limited ability of far too many teachers in STEM fields (and resulting poor preparation in high school graduates).

As for your linked article,

Students in Finland, which is often held up as a model education system for its teacher preparation and its relative absence of high-stakes testing, outperformed American students on all the exams. But students in countries with intense testing cultures also exceeded American students. “Some of the high-performing math and science countries have extremely rigorous testing regimes,” Mr. Buckley said.

It doesn't specify whether the Finnish students outperformed those in the "rigorous testing" nations. In some years, the Finns came out first, at least in certain grades. In any case, it seems like the Finnish model would be cheaper to implement, since rigorous standardized testing is expensive, especially if one expects the test actually to mean something.

 

[Hive]

The problem is the entire presentation of the meme which is ultimately quite tasteless. Not only is Will Smith appearing to grimace or in other words, making a "funny" face which relates back to the idea of blacks being lazy and ultimately lesiure-seeking; the photoshopped cigar in his mouth further emphasizes and stereotypes this image of the poor southern working class black man with a cigar in his mouth

I disagree. I don't think it's a "funny face" meant to perpetuate a racial stereotype. To me it looks like they chose that particular picture because it's Will Smith looking all tough, with the photoshopped cigar to further portray the badass action hero trope (compare it with this picture for example). What makes it funny is that he messes up the pronounciation because of the cigar, which is meant to make him look tough and macho but instead makes the whole thing comical. I would have actually found the meme funnier if it featured someone like Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone, because they are even more stereotypical badass action heroes.

While I'm not arguing the meme couldn't have racial overtones, I think this particular conclusion was pretty farfetched.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

As for your linked article,

It doesn't specify whether the Finnish students outperformed those in the "rigorous testing" nations. In some years, the Finns came out first, at least in certain grades. In any case, it seems like the Finnish model would be cheaper to implement, since rigorous standardized testing is expensive, especially if one expects the test actually to mean something.

The most salient point from the article is that the Finnish model is the one out of all the others that doesn't test teachers.

Given the fact the we aren't nearly the social democracy that Finland is, I don't see our system reformed without the use of hard student data in evaluations.

You can try to push the Finnish model all you want, but the preponderance of other systems at the top of the educational distribution implies that other models are equally (or even more than equally) effective.

Hopefully the era of "drive by" evaluations by principles is coming to an end.

The students should come first.

 

[Nicodemus]

I disagree. I don't think it's a "funny face" meant to perpetuate a racial stereotype. To me it looks like they chose that particular picture because it's Will Smith looking all tough, with the photoshopped cigar to further portray the badass action hero trope (compare it with this picture for example). What makes it funny is that he messes up the pronounciation because of the cigar, which is meant to make him look tough and macho but instead makes the whole thing comical. I would have actually found the meme funnier if it featured someone like Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone, because they are even more stereotypical badass action heroes.

While I'm not arguing the meme couldn't have racial overtones, I think this particular conclusion was pretty farfetched.

I was too lazy to type it, but that's what I think, too.

 

[Kalach]

The students should come first.

This is how candidates lose presidential debates.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Last time I checked, "trickle-down economics" didn't work for anyone except the few on top. It's not my personal job to create economic growth for the nation. If you, however, (or anyone else) want people to take conservative ideas on how to fix welfare and medicare seriously, the burden of proof is on them (you) to show how they will actually correct the problems without creating worse ones.

I don't think I've ever used the term "trickle down" on this site.

More specifically, exactly the kinds of growth in spending we see in Sen. Murray's new budget have been and are linked directly to our current budget issues.

The onus is actually on you to show how more of the same as far as gov't spending does not imperil our solvency.

We should at least put them in jail. Then they can have rudimentary shelter, food, and medical care. Perhaps some counseling and job training, too.

Well these people aren't a danger to others just the tax payer.

I say just bar them from ever collecting the kind of welfare they defrauded.

Prison isn't day care.

Not sure what this last is supposed to mean, but I actually have no more vested an interest in protecting teachers than anyone else. As a school volunteer for many years, though, I see firsthand the constraints on teachers, students, and parents that tie everyone's hands, preventing them from using their creativity to help kids learn in ways that translate directly to success as an adult. The stupidity of many of the things schools and everyone in them are required to do is mind-boggling. What we need to get rid of is red tape/bureaucracy, arbitrary standards, overemphasis on standardized testing, and archaic schedules. If you really want to reform teaching as a profession, we need to get rid of the ridiculous licensing and education requirements that keep too many talented people out of the field to begin with, and force those who do go in to focus too much time and effort on useless classes at the expense of subject area knowledge. I see the effects of this firsthand also, in the limited ability of far too many teachers in STEM fields (and resulting poor preparation in high school graduates).

It means that the days of ridiculously byzantine and restrictive teaching contracts are coming to a close.

Parental involvement and socioeconomic background play a role, but not one which can't fairly easily be kept from creating statistical noise in the evaluations.

As long as we get several years to track student performance individually to create a baseline of performance to work from that takes into consideration the home and socioeconomic conditions for the student, I see no reasons to worry about including student performance in teacher evaluations.

Unless that is, that you want to contend that teaching in the US is so different as to preclude us from needing these evaluations despite the fact that nearly all other countries substantively evaluate their teachers, and that every other profession on the planet has to submit to performance reviews.