Week 11

This week we discussed Michael Gecan's Going Public which gave numerous accounts of his public participation. Gecan emphasizes the importance of forming personal relationships and building a community voice in order to be heard by the government. An example of one of his actions is he went to a supermarket with others and inspected the food, most of which was moldy and out of date, and requested that the owner fixes the foods' standards. This confrontation and persistence led to the change that Gecan and his community wanted. Do you guys have any examples of times when you speaking up led to a positive change? Have you ever used Gecan's tactics?

Week 10

This week we discussed the Portrait of Our Generation and talked about what we know about our generation. What we know is we are: tolerant socially, environmentally conscious, like big businesses, like big governments, involved with technology, value the balance between ethics and profit, believes government has role to play, pro-intervention but anti-war, more democrats and independents, involved in celeb culture. Our conclusion is that we have the skills and resources to make change, but we need to use them to be politically useful. I feel like our generation has so much passion about so many important issues, we just need to use this passion to make change. Do you guys think that our generation is able to make change?

Week 11

This week we talked about "Citizen Revisited" and observed the questions "what makes a good citizen?" and "are there responsibilities and obligations of only rights and choices?" I think that as citizens we have obligations to vote and be politically engaged. I am not a citizen (I am a permanent resident) so I am unable to vote, but I do stay politically engaged and try my best to keep up with current events. We compared a classic republican to classic liberal. A classical republican believes in the freedom to rule/govern, and a classical liberal believes in protection of the law and freedom from interference. Do you guys agree that the government should be involved heavily with the people or just allow them to do their own thing?

Week 9

Yesterday, we discussed "Rebooting American Politics." We talked about the role technology has in attaining knowledge. Technology makes knowledge acquisition easier, but there is also a "digital divide"because there are certain people that use the internet for political knowledge more than others (typically, younger people use the internet for political purposes than older people). I think that it is great that it is so easy to keep up to date with politics through phones, which we generally carry with us anywhere. Personally, I get CNN updates to my phone, which is a really easy way to keep up to date with everything going on. What do you guys think about technology taking over the realm of political knowledge?

Week 8

This week we discussed "Avoiding Politics." The question presented was: "How does the context for political action or inaction get created in everyday life?" The groups observed in "Avoiding Politics" address this question-- excuses not to participate include that people would rather address issues "closer to home." This is because people like to tackle problems that they can actually change. By taking on larger issues, people begin to feel more helpless and overwhelmed. I think this kind of apathy takes on a  very individualistic stance; people only consider their own capabilities and neglect the change that a group effort can make. If instead of only addressing issues that can be changed locally, people decided to work together to change larger, more intimidating issues, then I think more would be achieved. It was also interesting to read about The Buffalos and their complete neglect towards politics. They carefully avoid all kinds of political discussion and instead stick to raunchy jokes and meaningless banter. What does this kind of apathy demonstrate? Deva also stated that there is a "pessimism of inevitability" which I found really interesting. So many people perceive things to be inevitable and then do not act on them, which is a pessimistic view. Instead, people should do everything in their power to address an issue in order to avoid the apathy that is conducted from the misconception of inevitability.

Week 7

The data from this Thursday's reading was really interesting. I don't think any of us were surprised from how most Americans our age answered those survey questions. In fact, I thought it was pretty funny. Do you think you would have answered them similarly? What would have been different? Also, in assessing our generation, I wonder how we got here. What are some of the contributing factors to this generation's lack of accountability and abundance of entitlement? What does that mean for the direction of our future political life?

Most of those results held true for me, but my number one goal in life is definitely not to be rich or famous, and I am certainly not pro-business. But the rest of it - my heroes are people I'm close to, I'm pretty optimistic of the future, I have piercings and dye my hair, I'm totally more left than my grandpa - I completely identify with. All of this reminds me of a particular TIME magazine article...

Week 6 Discussion

Hey, are either of you confused about what we were going over in regards to chapter 7 of The Unheavenly Chorus? I understood the general idea of how one's political participation may be directly and indirectly influenced intergenerationally, but I got lost when we started referring to intergenerational impact and privilege not being 'helpful' in explaining or relating to it?...

Week 5 Discussion

Milly Robinson
October 7th, 2013

This weeks reading was Chapters 4 and 5 from Defacing Power. The power and structure of North End Elementary school and Fair View Elementary School's 4th Grade classes were examined. At North End, the students were disciplined to follow rules without understanding why the rule was put in place. The students had to obey all authority without question, and were punished if they rebelled. Tasks as simple as waiting in lunch line were infiltrated with strict standards. In comparison, at Fair View, a much higher socioeconomic town, the students were given rules and it was explained  why these rules were important. They even got to establish their own rules. This sense of empowering the students and giving them voice was in stark contrast to the ways of North End, and I favored this style much more. However, as we delved deeper into discussion, Fair View's system of normalization was perhaps not the most effective way to educate the students. By establishing the students on similar levels as the authority figures, the students will not be able to understand structure. In North End, however, the students more authoritarian system, although it is controlling, teaches them obedience and accountability. How do you think that these systems compare in terms of effectiveness? Do you think that there is a medium where the two styles could combine effectively?

Week 4 Discussion

9/28/13, 6:52 PM

By Milly Robinson

This weeks reading discussed how social status impacts how much politics and civics is taught in schools. The study showed that those in lower-income areas are generally not taught politics in school and therefore are much less likely to be politically active. In higher income areas, however, not only are politics more focused in school, but they are more likely to be influenced by their family’s political conversation and participation. Those in higher income families were shown to be more politically active; they write more to their representatives, they contribute more money, and they vote more. These trends are extremely troubling. Like we have discussed in previous weeks, if young people are uninformed on political matters, they are less likely to be politically active when they are eligible to vote. So if these lower income students aren’t being taught about politics in school, they are less likely to vote. This means that majority of the people are not represented in the voting process. This was one of the concepts in class that we discussed, and the example of the gun debate was explained. Even though majority of people oppose guns in America, the minority is much “louder” in terms of advocating for gun rights. Even though a large percentage of youth in America come from low-income families, they are not given the means to speak out politically against these conditions in order to evoke change. This reading and discussion really opened my eyes to the reality of political engagement in youth. It is often perceived that this generation simply doesn’t care for politics, but in reality many people just aren’t given the proper education to really understand it enough to get involved.

9/30/13, 10:19 AM

By Jeffrey Lau

Having read both assignments last week, the two chapters from The Unheavenly Chorus and the CIRCLE studies summary, I feel a bit overwhelmed. To truly practice democracy is complicated, and there seems to be many factors to take into account, and as someone aspiring to be a community organizer, I’m asking myself again, “How the hell am I going to take all these into account, and still contribute to making change?!”.

Learning that those with lower income are likely not to exercise their political voice, I am disheartened at the growing gaps between groups with lower income and groups with higher income within the past many decades, as explained in chapter 3 of The Unheavenly Chorus. And the truth about those with lower income in other countries being better off than those in the U.S.? I’m not completely surprised, but that fact still tugs at my heart because I know of many immigrants who leave their countries to come over to the U.S., believing in the American Dream and making more than enough income to support their families, only to really be stuck in limbo as there is clearly very, very little chance for upward mobility. I feel like the U.S. markets itself so well in other countries, and its seems like its really just a trap to get others to immigrate over only to bust them if they’re undocumented. Does someone or something benefit from busting undocumented immigrants?

Then there’s the aspect of ‘true freedom’ to uphold in regards to voting. If we were to mandate our citizens to vote, would it not eliminate their freedom to not do so? And if we were to get these normally inactive citizens to vote without information, would it not lead to uncertain governance? I think that these are questions or issues chapter 4 of The Unheavenly Chorus brings up that needs to truly be addressed in order to create a working democracy. Like I had mentioned earlier, there are so many things to consider that it’s discouraging to work towards such a goal.

Regarding the CIRCLE study, I am further convinced that we live in a highly conservative society since looking at the the studies showing that students’ race, academic track, and socioeconomic statuses are determinants of the civic learning opportunities available for them at school. To summarize, those at the top stay on top and those at the bottom stay at the bottom, right? I mean, isn’t education supposed to be an opportunity for individuals to achieve upward mobility?!

Although I am not surprised, again, it hurts to know those of color, taking standard classes, and with lower incomes are less likely to have these civic learning opportunities. People, as stated in Is Voting for Young People? by Mark Wattenberg, are more likely to stay politically engaged and civically involved throughout their lifetime if they start young. If young people, especially those most affected, do not have gateways for them to be more civically and politically engaged, it is likely that we have lost them for eternity as contributors. The CIRCLE study basically implicates that through our schools, we are already barring youth from marginalized communities from upward mobility, and that is not okay in the least.

9/30/13, 5:40 PM

by Diya Mchahwar

What struck me the most in last week’s readings was a small pinch from the CIRCLE study that seemed to summarize it best: Poor students and students of color experienced lessened “expectations for achievement, access to subject matter/critical learning opportunities, instructional strategies, and resources (including teachers.)” This resonated with me because, as Jeff said, we know that education as well as many aspects of life, are rougher on communities of color and low SES, but what is often overlooked is the material taught throughout public schools in the United States. In my own opinion, even if the playing field is “leveled out,” how useful are those days spent in the back of a classroom? Are the tools they’re given the skills they need to survive? Are there teachers and administration of color and culture? Are the textbooks telling a complete history? Are students being treated as individuals with individual experiences? We all know the answer to these questions, and many more that are being swept under the rug. Again, this principle of equality arises. Does treating people equally mean treating them the same? What does fairness demand?

The end of the CIRCLE study suggested a few policy changes: 1. professional & curriculum development, 2. distribute activities, 3. avoid narrow curriculum, and 4. civic tests. I don’t necessarily agree with all of these possible solutions (I’m looking at you, civic tests) but I think they’ve got a lot of merit it to them. Let’s start out with professional and curriculum development. For a better learning dynamic, as well as an overall better sensitivity to the power dynamics of the class, teachers should be trained to teach for the needs of individuals and how to treat students with an understanding of privilege and oppression. This creates an open climate, which in the CIRCLE study was discussed as a way to increase civic engagement. Why would a student participate, let alone try to learn, if they felt unwelcome and uncomfortable in school? In addition to an open climate, the training could entail how to create simulations, service learning projects, building community solving skills, and allow students to interact with civic role models. Professional and curriculum development is essential to bridging the gaps for poor and students of color.

Avoid narrow curriculum. This is something I’ve considered my entire educational career. First of all, federally mandating only Euro-centric history (and only covering Anglo-Saxon literature in English class) in itself is oppressive; that’s more than enough reason to teach all peoples history and discuss current events that don’t appear in mainstream media. But from an educational perspective, how can school be interesting if it literally has nothing to do with you? If a student cannot connect to the material that’s being taught and discussed, how could they possibly participate? For poor students, for students of color, for queer students, for international students - what little is said about their history and current status is only full of absurd and dehumanizing stereotypes. If a way to increase civic engagement is through studying issues students care about, then it must start with an inclusive curriculum. A narrow curriculum in itself is the root of the problem.

My argument against civic tests is the same argument I have against any and all standardized tests; civic tests would not measure civic engagement just as SATs and ACTs don’t measure ability nor intelligence. The world would be a lot better place if there were a lot less tests.

Milly and Jeffrey, I really enjoyed what you had to say. Looking forward to class tomorrow!