Public & Private Writing on New Plantations

Priscilla

See 2008 South Carolina State Museum Exhibit

My graduate advisor, Suzanne Carothers, is one of the most thoughtful pedagogues that I know, someone who thinks about the education of pre-school and elementary black children in strikingly alternative and radical ways.  In a recent conversation, she reminded me that black children’s role on slave plantations was to take care of white children close in age group.  Until that conversation, I had not thought of the wide-ranging ramifications of this.  It immediately triggered the countless histories and narratives I have read of African American adults explaining how they learned to read and write in slavery via the required chores they had to perform as children: carry  white children’s books for them to school; stand outside the schoolroom and wait for white children to finish school and carry their things home; stand in attention while white children learned or played, eagerly awaiting a command from them.  We know from the archives that black children used these moments to eavesdrop on school lessons, learn the alphabet, and trick white kids in disseminating the information white children had learned.   We have not talked enough though about what this relationship between white children and black children as learners meant for the epistemological construction of plantation life.  What is most interesting to me is the way in which Carothers marks this relationship as central to classrooms today: black children are still always expected to teach and help white children understand race or African American lives.  In my teaching context, I am talking about those moments in the college classroom where the issue of race or black history comes up and all the white people in the classroom turn to look at the one (or two or three) black student(s) in the room.  Or, there is the moment where a certain theory or issue comes up that is so obviously racialized, but it is up to that one (or two or three) black student(s) in the room to point it out, not the teacher’s role, and the room (or digital interface), of course, just goes dead silent. This seems like a story every black college graduate I know can tell and you can read about this kind of psychic warfare in countless educational accounts of black students’ experiences in schools.  I don’t think, however, we are often inclined to call and link these experiences of black students to slavery in the way Carothers has for me: these kind of moments in classrooms are simply the vestige of a plantation economy of knowledge and learning in the context of white dominance. That kind of framework pushes me to think about race and classrooms in a whole different way and question how, when, and where white children are made dominant.

842d548028

Slave Children on Board the “Daphne”

I would like to hold myself accountable to offering black students something different from this “plantation economy of knowledge and learning in the context of white dominance.”   What this means concretely, for instance, right now is that in the first three weeks of my current class, my students do print-based writing (there is an informal writing assignment due each class) that they can email or hand in to ONLY me.  They are not posting their stuff online anywhere for the class or the world to read.  I need to see, hear, encounter their racial ideologies first and take them on.  I need to see who and what I am working with first.  I especially need to see the work we will need to do as a classroom before we can educate people outside of our classroom.  It is a seeming contradiction that so much, if not ALL, of my class depends on digital spaces; yet my students are not writing in the same open, digital spaces that contains the class materials (not yet).   To put it most simply: NO STUDENT in my class will be waxing on online with anti-black comments.  I am thinking here about my first semester teaching graduate classes where white male graduate students wrote quite freely in their weekly seminar papers about how lazy black people are and how slutty black women are.  I deal with that quite readily and willingly on my own, and pretty regularly (and have been able to count on white faculty not noticing or caring).  In my second year as an assistant professor, I encountered a white male student who had text-messaged sexually vile statements to the women of color in one of his classes where students were required to put their numbers on a class-distributed phone list.  When I reported his behavior, it was clear to me that I alone— the only untenured member of the department of the time— had to work with the women to file a complaint and would have to deal with the student alone in my own class in a way that would make sure he didn’t pass my class and, therefore, lose his position in the program— a program that certified teachers to work in urban high schools.  Like I said, I KNOW I am alone on all of this but I am also very clear: such students will not unleash racial violence and distribute their texts online in digitized classroom-discussion boards or in public online spaces as part of the work that happens in my class.  Not. On. My. Watch.  From my perspective, teachers need to be held accountable for such digital texts when white men such as the ones I described go online with this stuff. It is not the job of black students in the class to challenge them, to help them, to push them, all of which, as Carothers helped me to see, is a kind of ongoing plantation logic and relationship system.   Despite the liberalism that would say everyone is speaking their own minds, it is not a democracy when black people are being dehumanized.  I am not talking about the alternative liberal universe either where we don’t talk about race at all (hence, no one noticing the ideas of white male students I am talking about except me).  What I am talking about here is a kind of AfroDigital consciousness that works against these public spaces when the violence of racism is fully alive in classrooms.  No teacher’s classroom and no teacher’s assignment are ever innocent!

My class this semester always enrolls a large number of black female students, probably more than any other class on the campus (I learned yesterday that mine is the only class about black women).  I will not expose them to students who espouse anti-black/anti-black-woman diatribes on class digital, discussion boards. I know the damage that does given how many students of color come to me to talk about exactly such experiences in their other classes (I won’t even tell you how many white students have dropped my classes, no matter the subject, after the first day seeing me and seeing my syllabus).  Black women get enough of this kind of hostility elsewhere; they don’t need more of it in my classroom too.  As we move through the semester, I strategically choose when and where students will go public with their writing—whether with the class or with the wider digital universe.  I think this is especially relevant given a kind of liberalist mantra in my field about the general goodness of all, real audiences when students write digital texts.  I ain’t tryna hear that.  I experience writing and audience in very different ways.

I want to see teachers (and in my field, this means mostly white teachers) held accountable for the epistemological violence their students inflict on black bodies.  I am not suggesting that it is the fault of teachers when their students espouse racism but when they do that espousing within a public assignment that is teacher-required, then teachers need to be held accountable.   In fact, I think it is a crucial aspect of an AfroDigital pedagogy to further this kind of accountability.  It ain’t democratic to let students say and do racism; but we can surely ensure democracy by checking them and their teachers on it.  An AfroDigital pedagogy  does not comfort and take care of white children on our newest plantations in ways that maintain racialized hierarchies.  It must achieve the opposite.

White Flight, Unspeakable Violence, and Continued Grieving (Sandy Hook School Shootings)

Like most people right now, I have had a knot in my stomach since last Friday when Adam Lanza, a 20-year old white male, shot and killed twenty small children at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut along with the six adults who tried to shield them.  It seems that some of those children had as many as 11 bullets ripped into their tiny bodies.  National grief, horror, and mourning are deeply palpable.  If I feel like the wind gets knocked out of me every time I hear about the murder of these children and witness more funeral preparations, then the grief of the families and this nearby town must be unspeakable.

Screen Shot 2012-12-17 at 1.10.36 PMWhat is also palpable for me right now is the mainstream void of social analysis of the violence that our social organization inflicts.  Maybe, it is too soon.  Or maybe, we are still unable to really look at who we are and what we have created and so hide behind bourgeois sentimentalism.  E.M. Monroe’s blog posting at “Miles Away” came at just the right time for me.  Monroe reminds us of the history of violence against children with a photo of Sarah Collins, the one survivor who was in the bathroom when the bomb exploded and killed “4 Little Girls” at the 16th Street Baptist Church on Sunday, September 15, 1963 as the children were preparing for “Youth Day” services.  Schools were not closed afterwards and every black child of the era was forced to emotionally and psychologically move on as if nothing had happened to their peers.  Monroe tells us— even reminding us about Christopher Paul Curtis’s wonderful children’s novel, The Watsons Go to Birmingham, 1963  that we have cultural and historical precedents that can guide us for how we must both heal and confront the world which we have created.  With the incessant cries that The Root recently chronicled of white people mourning their loss of power and voice in a social climate where a black man can now be president TWICE, the violence that we have now witnessed will only continue and compliment the violence that we have always allowed.

I can’t help but think about my own days teaching in New York City.  When I began teaching in 1993, bars on windows and full body metal detectors were quite normative.  When I taught junior high school in the Bronx, 11 and 12 year old children, I was required to always keep my classroom door shut and locked from the inside so that no one could enter without a master key.  Strangely, this was not done for the protection and safety of those children, young (and tiny) as they were; this was done based on a criminalization of those children, based on the violent marking of their very being as subhuman.  1980s and 1990s white flight into Newtown (and many other, new towns neighboring it), with entities like the FHA over-investing in their livelihood (while divesting in the brown and black city spaces where I taught), actually helped create the very conditions that I describe during my teaching.  These conditions merely replicated histories of places like Harlem in the 1920s, then the Black Mecca. When Black migrants from the Caribbean and Southern United States settled into New York City/Harlem, whites lobbied the politicians, bankers, and real estate agents to restrict them to designated black neighborhoods and schools only.  The cycle only continues given the huge losses brown and black peoples faced at the housing market crash and recession. If we see these kinds of divestments in people’s minds, bodies, and safety, then we can better understand exactly the kind of social violence we live in.  Violence has always been around us; Newtown was never exempt, safe, or innocent. And children and schools have always been caught right in the middle.  As “Sweet Honey in the Rock” proclaim here, it doesn’t matter where you’re living:

As simple as it may sound, we have never valued children’s lives.  Valuing only white children and not black and brown children IS violence.   Until we can realize this and act toward a new system, we can’t expect a social environment that will manifest real justice and protection for any children.

“The Cypher is Forever” (Fall Semester Ends…)

Da_Brat-stunning_thumb_585x795This fall semester is now officially over: the last individual meetings are happening now; the final projects are due today; and Jack just stopped by with his Finals-Week-Full-Beard in Full Effect!   (You know the semester is over when your students talk about going back home to sleep and shave.)

Like I have said before in this forum, this is my first time teaching the class, African American Literacies and Education.  Together, with the use of Jigsaw Reading assignments and literature circles (see course introduction and syllabus), we have discussed more than a 100 texts related to histories and polemics of race, black cultures, people of African descent, and literacy.  When I walk out into the library, I see laptops and stacks of those texts everywhere and students so focused, they don’t notice me walk past.  Yes, the end is here!

For lack of a better way to say it, the students in this class were always “good sports.” Whatever pedagogical concoction I had going for the week, they smiled and tried it out.  My favorite experiment of the semester was the chart-making we did during the week that we read and discussed Adam Banks’s book, Digital Griots.  Writing on the walls via charts and colorful markers tends to always make its way somehow into my classrooms.  On this day, I wanted us to really unpack what Banks was defining and theorizing as the intersection of digital/griotic traditions, African American rhetoric, and multimedia composing in the 21st century.   Equally important, I wanted an initial, full and equal discussion representing every single person/voice in the room.   Instead of having oral conversations, we had visual/charted conversations to jumpstart the discussions of the evening.  What I liked most was the verbal creativity students spit on the walls and the shower of words, images, and symbols we had created in relation to and with African American rhetoric, right there in the classroom.

In three different areas of the classrooms, I taped (very large) charts to the walls.  Each corner had a different discursive function, a different sentence for each student in the class to finish on the chart itself, and each student was expected to rotate the room and add their sentence “tag” somewhere in each corner.  Now my students might find me overly sentimental here when I say their writing/tags were HOTTT, so maybe their verbal gangsterism can speak for itself.  The bullets below are a sampling of how it went down collectively with my sentence starters (in yellow) and their collective finish-closers (in bulleted italics):

The African American Deejay is central as a cultural figure/icon and metaphor because…

  • s/he is a constructivist, archivist, and figure who provides access to people who were never supposed to receive the message in the first place!
  • s/he blends cuts for listening and feeling to give us history, technology, purpose, commitment AND tools of persuasion.
  • she molds space, takes it, interprets it and brings all that into the future for her people.
  • she re-sparks the interest in and for her people.
  • s(he) brings a different lifestyle to the world, representing those that live it, keeping it current and liquid, while bonding it to its people.
  • the digital griot moves past just deejaying and makes it a form of pedagogy that links Black language to the people as a new technology.
  • they make the co-existence of “the contradictory, overlapping, open, closed, and fluctuating systems of exchange” into art.
  • she creates direction and guidance for new thinking and social unity.
  • they rock the party and set the mood.
  • they are a living symbol of what African American literacies do.
  • they reactivate black participation.
  • it’s in the mix that the story gets told… and the sequence determines how the crowd moves to it.
  • he/she studies the people’s passions, reconfigures their perspectives and their experiences and motivates them to mobilize/move.

Putting this concept of a digital griot, into words, basically taking a book and reducing it into a sentence or a 1-hour discussion was not so easy so I was hoping this collective showers of words pasted to the walls in the room would add the necessary dimensionality.  Here is how that looked (my sentence starter is in yellow and students’ collective finish-closers are in bulleted italics).

Digital Griots are…

  • the spaces and spacemakers that have a humanistic, individualistic, communal approach to knowledge, knowing, and writing.
  • activists with a digital groove.
  • the manipulators of technology where the keeping of history is maintained for positive sociocultural recognition, change, and advancement.
  • ethically responsible, constantly searching, provocative seers.
  • modern-day perpetuators of oral tradition, storytelling, and time-binding.
  • interactive archivists.
  • my uninhibited space-makers who let us exist without judgment in real and protected ways.
  • liberatory Lil’ Jon.
  • the new school transmitters of new Black narratives.
  • the modern-day storytellers who bring “back in the day” into the right now.

And of course, there was my favorite corner: the re-mix of the SAT analogy! Yes, we can re-mix that too!  (My sentence starter is in yellow and students’ collective finish-closers are in bulleted italics).

The African American Deejay/Digital Griot is to the multimedia age what _________ is to ___________:

  • collard greens are to cornbread: always integrated and soul/body-sustaining.
  • parents are to children: conception and birth.
  • grandparents are to parents are to children: past, present, AND future.
  • head chef/big mama is to the kitchen.
  • red bottoms are to stilettos.
  • new kicks are to my favorite dress.
  • Jazz is to America.
  • voice is to words.
  • the pastor is to the church community.
  • Marvin Gaye is to Taleb Kweli.
  • Nikki Giovanni is to Jill Scott.
  • line break is to poetry.

In many ways, this was the kind of intellectual and political energy that students were pushing themselves to write and think into all semester as I read their response papers each week.   This sampling of my students’ writings on the classroom walls encapsulates the semester quite well for me.

I am thinking now about conversations that I had with two students, Cassandra and Ancy, in my office this week, namely that African American Literacies, Black Language, right living, just schooling, and racial equality are not just the subject of study: it’s how we must remember; it’s how we must remember to live and act and fight.

I opened the semester talking in my syllabus how I once missed the mark (i.e., my artwork/essay showcasing da Brat) with my high school students to fully examine and center African American Literacies as a practice and lived theory.  As to whether or not I hit it right this time, well, I will need more time and space to reflect on THAT.  All I know right now is this semester’s focus on African American literacies and education came with an important message about what that work means: Lateef’s reminder in class a few weeks back that… the cypher is forever.

So to: Ancy, Cassandra, Dan, Dani, Daniel, Fedaling, Jack, Jeanette, Jenn, Lateef, Laura, Nancy, Nick, Princess, Regina, Rory, Sammantha, Stephanie, and Torrie… much love and gratitude to you all for sharing a classroom space with me this semester!

Remembering Baba Asa Hilliard/Revising Race & Composition Studies

Since the early dawn (and, maybe, well before then), I have been revising an article about assessment that focuses on racially subordinated students of color.  My original version was only partially received (if that) and so I was offered pages of suggestions for revision and re-submission of the piece.  Though many of the suggestions were problematic, the revisions that really moved me rested on me going back to reread what I had learned from Baba Asa as a high school teacher and, for that, I am grateful and newly inspired.  That inspiration was probably what prompted me to write the letter that I did to the editor.

I took the suggestions offered to me by one reviewer and incorporated those that matched my politics and, well, discarded all of the rest, offering the editor an explanation for why.  I am indebted to Jaime Mejía for challenging me to articulate to editors how and why my political perspectives diverge before I simply write white folk off and then go and submit my work to journals that have an anti-racism platform.   Jaime seems to believe in my voice and ideas and wants me to inject that everywhere.  Regardless of what happens with this journal, I do feel good about following Jaime’s advice and stating my piece/peace.  As stank as this might be, I am going to share that letter to the editor openly here (without, of course, naming the journal— I ain’t that stank) and list the Hilliard texts that have carried me through the morning and afternoon today.

Hilliard, Asa G. (1990). Back to Binet: The case against the use of IQ tests in the schools. Contemporary Education. 61, 4, 184-9.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1995). Either a paradigm shift or no mental measurement: The Non-science and non-sense of the bell curve. Psych Discourse. 76, 10, 620.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1984). IQ testing as the emperor’s new clothes: a Critique of bias in mental testing,” in C. Reynolds, ed. Perspectives on Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Plenum.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1989). Kemetic (Egyptian) historical revision: Implications for cross cultural evaluation and research in education.” Evaluation Practice 10, 2, 7-23.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1988). Misunderstanding and testing intelligence,” in John Goodlad and Pamela Keating, eds. Access to Knowledge. New York: The College Board, 145-157.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1998). The Standards movement: Quality control or decoy? Rethinking Schools: An Urban Educational Journal Online, 12, 4.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1987). Testing African American students.” Special Issue of the Negro Education Review. 38, 2 and 3 (Republished 1995, by Chicago: Third World Press.)
Hilliard, Asa G. (1975). The Strengths and weaknesses of cognitive tests for young children.” in J. D Andrews, ed. One Child Indivisible. Washington: DC: National Foundation for the Education of Young Children.
Hilliard, Asa G. (1994). What Good is this thing called intelligence and why bother to measure it? Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 4, 430-444.

So here is my letter….hopefully, this letter will make sense though the article that it references is not part of this post.  In writing this letter, like I said, I really see what it means to have behind the-scenes conversations that force in our perspectives.  Here is my first attempt at doing so (I removed the list at the end of the revision letter that details the line changes I made):

Dear _____ (name removed),

Thank you for this thoughtful review.  It was very helpful in re-framing my thinking.  Some of the points I agreed with, some of them I found quite divergent of my own politics and experiences with race, education and language (and most radical educators of color, for that matter).  I thought I would re-submit my revised text, though it may not be what you are looking for, before I submitted the piece elsewhere.  Here are my responses:

I certainly believe the issues of Black English and code-meshing are absolutely critical and central to my own work.  However, those issues are not the focus of this text.  I removed many sentences from my text that deploy Black English such as: …they ain’t kids no more; …the principal and her cronies were not down; I removed the words fool-ass and fool-ass mess (though this is arguably not a central feature of Black English; instead, I refer to the individual in question as a white woman to make my claims of racism sharper and less politically polite than simply calling her a fool since she was more than just that).  I left a few Black English phrases in my text like: “those ain’t my people or my allies.”  I want the weight of belonging to an alternative teaching tradition than what white, bourgeois culture offers to carry the moment and so I allow my language to do that in the hopes that there will be readers outside of the white bourgeoisie who will also connect to me and that tradition.  I include this point in a footnote.

More to the point maybe is that a few sentences that minimally deploy Black English can’t really qualify this as a text that fully deploys the code-meshing that Young and Canagarajah are theorizing or the practices of translingualism or cross-language relations that Horner and Lu advocate.  While these theories as they relate to assessment are vital, my essay certainly cannot be the standard for that kind of writing— it’s just not good enough to be that kind of writing.  I am concerned here because if my writing seems to enact code-meshing, then we have so far to go in dismantling Anglo-English linguistic imperialism that the horizon is nowhere in sight.  I am also really clear here that a real understanding of what “Black English” is (terminology which no one hardly even uses anymore) is critically missing from this reviewer’s discussion.  I also find it a bit colonial to ask for a rationale for using my “code-meshing” as if any one register can carry the narratives of people of color— THAT’S MY POINT. If I have to say it, this is not the audience who should be teaching people of color in the 21st century! PERIOD!  This seems to privilege white readers— who do we assume needs this meta-overview of one’s language use? Are your white or standard authors required to offer a meta-narrative of their language use?  I certainly haven’t noticed this in your journal.

It is only a few instances of mainly vocabulary that can be called “Black English” in my text. Because the few markers that I did use were so noticeable as to warrant such attention (a page-long discussion by the reviewer), I have removed those vocabulary words for the sake of clarity.   I, however, did not remove my subject-driven racial analyses as a person of color in a white university system that has had little success in retaining racially subjugated communities— students or teachers. This means that many readers might regard my narrative style as an African Americanized one but that is not an argument anyone should make since it could not possibly result in anything other than claims of essentialism: there is no one, quintessential African American style, quite obviously.   I also did not belabor the opening narrative more than a few, added paragraphs for clarity— readers will simply need to do some extra work here and not expect to be spoon-fed simply because I use narrative in spaces that do not value it as an academic form.

For my own part, in terms of research on code-meshing, I simply don’t have a dog in that race. Because I am referencing work that I did in the early 90s as part of a progressive school reform movement, it obviously wasn’t theories related to code-meshing that shaped what we did in those CES schools (this should be clear in the ways that I included discussions about Baba Asa Hilliard).  In terms of my “blended/bended” writing style, I root that in my work as a black feminist teacher and researcher— also work I have done since I first read Patricia Hill Collins in the 90s.  I think it is up to the scholars who focus on work in code-meshing to show how what they are doing is new in terms of critical literacy, anti-racist pedagogy, and culturally valid assessment.  Like I said, I don’t have a dog in that race (I haven’t needed to) and the work that I have been doing isn’t rooted in code-meshing paradigms.  All of this really points to my larger argument: namely that we have no real or progressive connection to educators of color who have offered dynamic classrooms to students of color for decades now without needing the rather esoteric conversations that mostly white compositionists imagine to be central. Frankly, I found the revision requests related to code-meshing to be incredibly reductive and wholly problematic in ways that will require me to write a whole other article.

I was inspired by the reviewer’s reminder that I see assessment as a practice that can maintain literacy as white property.  I think this is brilliant.  However, I did not explicitly examine that here because of space restraints (I never used those words).  To fully engage that concept means that I would have to go back to early canonical works in CRT (critical race theory), particularly Cheryl Harris’s work, otherwise I would run the risk of merely co-opting CRT tropes.  I didn’t want to do that and couldn’t find a way or space to incorporate whiteness as property here.  That kind of work merely makes CRT a commodity vs. the theoretical force and social justice foundation that it is. You simply cannot reference whiteness as property outside of or without CRT.  This should actually be standard policy for this journal and all others!

Based on the reviewers’ request to address literacy as a white property and issues of code-meshing, I did, however, insert what I think is critical information about Nateca’s expression “well, if you was listenin” to the white woman in the audience who questioned all of the students’ competence. I treat Nateca’s language as African American rhetoric, however, a crucial issue for what really interests me with writing assessment— the erasure of ethnic rhetorical competency.  Here is what I said about Nateca:

I offer this narrative about Nateca because it shows how this assessment landscape offered the possibility for African American rhetoric (signifyin, tonal semantics, directness, call-and-response, verbal markers of African American Language) to critique and shift the political discourse of that space while simultaneously garnering the very animated support of a large, working class community of color (this room was filled with at least 70 bodies).  In sum, Nateca shifted the gaze of assessment from white to black.

That should clarify my point as succinctly as I can make it.

 

And with that… I submitted the letter, uploaded the new, revised essay, and decided upon a next journal where I will submit this piece once the editor makes her final decision (I assume she will not budge from the reviewer’s suggestions and I will, indeed, look elsewhere for a publication venue)!