Copyright 2006 by Rules |
I am a ravenous Pac-Man when itcomes to education. Instead of gobbling up arcade dots, I devour community college(CC) credits and spit them into some anonymous education database, never tomake their way into a transcript. This is because I have no need for records; Iearned my college degrees years ago. Although community collegesbenefit society with their low cost learning and convenient locations, myexperiences with them punctuate a less-than-flattering stereotype. For example,CC teachers often have a “no goof-off left behind” philosophy in which theytreat pupils like mental deadbeats regardless of their aptitude or commitmentto college. There is also a tendency amongCC teachers to focus on grades and classroom conduct and to put forth rulesthat encourage uniformity. These practices bruise efforts to master the subjectmatter, and hamper creativity and personal responsibility. They groom studentsto be obedient workers and followers rather than executives and leaders insociety. No doubt there exist maverick CCinstructors who operate outside of this paradigm, but unfortunately myeducational path has not yet zigged or zagged with theirs. I feel qualified to analyzethese issues due to my surfeit of school experiences. I studied at sixfour-year universities, including the University of Southern California (USC)and Oxford University in England, and I have taken dozens of courses at threeLos Angeles area community colleges in statistics, real estate, screenwriting,typing, philosophy and physical education, to name a few. This semester I am enrolled in acommunity college film production class, and the teacher has informed thecamera savvy students that they should lose some of their savvy in order tomake it fair for the less advanced. This blatant example of lowest commondenominator learning reminds me of an article by Andy Monfried aboutshowerheads at his gym. Monfried told management how one showerhead in themen’s dressing room was superior to the others; he requested the water flow ofthe inferior ones be improved. Rather than bring the deficient ones up to ahigher standard, management disabled the one with the good flow. The high-flow students in myclass have been asked to disable themselves. Those who own quality cameras musttoss them aside in favor of substandard ones, and lighting equipment isforbidden because it is not clear all students have access to it. Our finalproject—a one-minute movie—should not be too professional, according to theinstructor. Another point; there is atendency for CC teachers to be obsessed with grades, tests and attendancerather than course content. My film teacher is such a repeat offender in thisarea that I have devised my own version of hangman to track the extent of herneurosis. Every time she mentions grades or exams, I add a body part to apen-drawn hangman in my notebook. By my calculation, she has been noosed 42times. Class attendance is an integralpart of my film teacher’s obsession. All students are required to sign intwice: once at the start of her class and again at the end, and two absencesmeans a failing grade for the semester. I suppose members of the proletariatneed to learn how to comply with a time clock, to practice being tame andmindless workers, to experience what it feels like to receive a demerit or getfired. My teacher’s message is clear whether she realizes it or not: we can’thave CC students thinking they can be executives or controlling their ownschedule. Last semester, I took a tennisclass and encountered another attendance-related absurdity. My teacher said allstudents must sit quietly in the gym for two hours on rainy days or suffer alower grade. My classmates did not seem too bothered; I flat-out refused. In addition to lowest commondenominator learning and the flawed tendency to focus on grades, tests andattendance, there is one final trend I find at community colleges. Teachersoften go overboard in an effort to control students’ behavior in theclassroom. I call this the “nun withthe ruler” syndrome. He didn’t look like a nun, butmy basic computer skills teacher would reprimand students who touched theircomputer keyboard before they were told to do so. If he’d owned a ruler, he’dsurely be a serial whacker. He also exhibited paranoia about cheating. Hethought every student was itching to glance at someone else’s paper, so he’d pacethe room with an eagle eye.Five years ago, I convinced my62-year-old husband Charles to take this computer class with me. We satside-by-side, and the “nun” got the impression Charles was cheating. Charlesresented being treated like a child, so he defiantly refused to study andreceived low marks on tests. Whenever he got an answer right, the teacherassumed he’d stolen it from my paper. In addition, Charles kept touching hiskeyboard during class and getting admonished for it. This made him seem like atroublemaker. What the instructor didn’t knowwas that Charles had a law degree from Oxford University and was an EnglishBarrister, California attorney and Judge Pro Tem. He had no reason to cheat inan entry-level computer class. One day, Charles said, “I needto leave class early. I have to be in court.”The teacher shook his head in acondescending manner--assuming Charles to be a criminal in addition to anunderperforming bum—and asked, “Now, what did you do, Charles?” We told him he was sitting as ajudge. It was hilarious, but at the same time, disturbing to know that abrilliant man who had excelled at Oxford—where showing up for class was neverrequired--could barely survive the oppressive regime of a community collegedespot. Research shows that communitycollege students are as much as 31% more likely than similar four-year collegestudents to drop plans to obtain a bachelor’s degree after two years of highereducation. The CC students in the study initially had the same grades, abilitiesand academic motivation as the four-year students. They were similar withrespect to race, class, gender and age, and did not have greaterresponsibilities at work or home. The findings suggest that there is somethinginherent about community college that makes students lose interest ineducation. Although CC campuses have a lesscollegiate feel—a factor that surely disadvantages students—treatment in theclassroom is also a likely factor. Teachers should not coddlestudents, drown them in rules or stifle creativity. They should not obsess overgrades and attendance, but rather encourage initiative, trust, freedom andpersonal responsibility. They should replace true-false tests with essays, andfocus on big picture learning with the assumption that their students willbecome managers, business owners, industry leaders and high earners. Forty-six percent of allundergraduates are enrolled in the 1200 community colleges in the UnitedStates, so there’s a lot at stake. I suggest we relegate the community collegestereotype to the same fate as the stick figured man in my film productionnotebook. 11:28 AM in Education | Permalink | Comments (2) Stephen Colbert Smokes Out Political Ickiness 
I’m no slacker when it comes topolitics, but I almost fell off my balance ball when I saw Carol Fowler, thechair of the South Carolina Democratic party, tell Stephen Colbert that herlittle committee of 16 didn’t think he was “quite ready to be president.” Ihate to be the Col-bearer of bad news, but in case you haven’t heard, theyvoted to keep him off the ballot. The funnyman had failed theparty’s “viable candidate” test despite the fact that one poll showed himstatistically tied with Joe Biden and ahead of Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardsonand Mike Gravel; and another gave him 13% of the vote in a three-way race withHillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Until that moment, I had no ideathat a few political party elites could decide subjectively who was viable andvote to scrap the others before America could have its say. Could anot-so-sweet 16 reject Hillary Clinton willy-nilly if they believed a femalehad no chance? Is this a backstage glimpse of democracy in action? Shouldn’tlegitimacy require objective standards? Fowler’s words felt like fowlplay (that’s southern for chicken ordure) and no doubt ticked off millions ofyoung people who had crept out from behind “down with politics” placards tovote for the first time. The sentiment is expressed best on Youtube with thelyrics: “Get even, vote Stephen… Show them you’re disgusted…. The system’sbusted….Stick it to the man.” In the end, did “the man” (akathe establishment) stick it to Colbert and his fans, or did “the man” punctureits own fantastically undemocratic balloon? I say the balloon has lost its air;there will be backlash for refusing to lend Mr. Popularity a “members only”jacket. For example, there are those who have now vowed to deep six bothparties, grinning, “Take that closed-door Dems. And take that backroomRepublicans, who treated John McCain in a similarly unacceptable fashion duringthe 2000 New York presidential primary.” By shutting the door on Colbert’scandidacy, some argue the political establishment has revealed its true colorsare not red, white and blue. Instead, they secretly salute the flag ofmonopoly, manipulation, disenfranchisement and hypocrisy. Ralph Nader would agree. He hasno love for the Republican or Democratic Party. In fact, the consumer advocatehas recently filed a lawsuit against the Dems for conspiring to intimidate anduse other underhanded tactics to prevent him from the 2004 presidency. Nader’sattorney says it was a “shameful anti-democratic process by a party that claimsto be a democratic party.” The two parties are privateorganizations with the legal right to choose their candidates however theywish. They can evaluate party loyalty, use ideological litmus tests, weighcampaign nest eggs, cave to daddy’s political connections or allow a committeeof 16 to call shots “out” even when the masses would rule them in bounds. Muckraker Colbert has shed alight on this irksome game. It is particularly unappetizing because the twoparties have a quasi-public reality to them. They are like public utilitycompanies in that they get all the business all the time: a candidate haslittle chance of winning--especially the presidency--unless he or she isaffiliated with one of the two giants. In addition, the parties simulatenonprofits, saying they exist to benefit the public good. Have you ever heard aDemocrat or Republican admit it’s all about increasing party power andachieving a monopoly; and well, curses to the little people? The South Carolina Democratsblundered big time. The assured media coverage of the state and of theirparty—not to mention the voters who would have been brought into thesystem--would have made it all worthwhile in the end. Plus there is the educationfactor. 1.3 million Colbert Report viewers got an entertaining dose ofCivics 101 night after night, including information on campaign finance laws,political action committees and Democratic Party “hoop jumping.” It isconceivable they were shedding a few layers of a well-entrenched apathy at eachsitting. As a native-born Georgia girl, Ionce dreamt of crushing the triangular state to the north. But I completelylost the urge because Colbert made South Carolina seem downright warm andfuzzy. Now that Colbert’s been rejected, I associate the state with a bunch ofOld Guard fuddy duddies. Is that really the reputation South Carolina wants, inaddition, of course, to its inferior peach status?Colbert’s fake campaign wasarguably less phony than those of competitors because the comedian was honestabout the politics-as-usual hustle. Plus the entertaining Everyman offeredIndependents a place to hang their hats with hope that a mountain of headgearcould eventually transform the two parties into relatively harmlessmolehills. According to the book IndependentNation, 40 percent of American voters (and 44 percent of those between ages18 and 29) in 2000 called themselves Independents, and the number has beengrowing steadily for some time. How has the two-party grip become an immovableobject when so many people have jumped overboard or never climbed onto theboat? Maybe Colbert and his campaignsoldiers should seize the helm, starting The-Party’s-Over Party and giving itone platform: to end the two-party stranglehold. It might be the only way tofoist the “good ole boys” from their threadbare captain’s chair. The time has come to endpolitical ickiness, folks. 10:15 PM in Current Events, Politics, Social Issues | Permalink | Comments (2) SB 1818: The Devil’s in the Density Bonus Details 
SB 1818, California’s density bonus law is misguided. Thesituation is exacerbated by the LA City Council’s proposal for localimplementation, which increases density bonuses to 35%, well beyond that mandatedby state law. The City Council should refuse to comply with SB 1818. After all,they disregarded the wishes of the US Government by proclaiming LA a sanctuarycity and by recently reaffirming Special Order 40. If they can ignore federallaw regarding illegal immigration, why can’t they ignore a bad state law onhousing? SB 1818 will hurt those it purports to help. It will put“below market rate” buyers in property prisons where they can lose their downpayment and equity. It will hurt market-rate buyers who have to compensate forthe low, fixed HOA fees of their neighbors. It will lead to housing stockdecreases and an unnecessary decimation of zoning laws. It will mean anonslaught of infrastructure problems. The “housing affordability crisis” is a myth. Today, aperson can buy a condo in the San Fernando Valley for $82,000 and a house for$299,000; and prices are on the decline. Apartment rents start at $525 permonth. A five-bedroom house in Valley Glen goes for as little as $1600 permonth. Paternalistic housing laws are unnecessary and destructive.The Los Angeles City Council should find ways to encourage developers to buildmarket-rate units in areas where new units will be naturally affordable.Public-private partnerships between government and real estate industryprofessionals should be explored as an avenue for increasinghomeownership. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky was the first to criticizethe Los Angeles proposal in a letter to Mayor Villaraigosa. These are mycomments, which were forwarded to the Mayor and City Council in October 2007. 09:49 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) Gnomes, Smiley Faces and the LA Gay Debate 
I was one of the 250 people invited to attend the televisedLOGO / HRC Democratic debate in Los Angeles, which focused on lesbian, gaybisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. From my second row seat, I spent a gooddeal of time bobbing around the head of a husky Department of Homeland Securityofficer in order to get a view of the stage. He told me that he had a mission:to protect Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I don’t think “pissing meoff ” was part of that mission, but I could be wrong. There was one benefit to my seat: witty gay men surroundedme and editorialized on every issue. Like smart, lovable gnomes, they guardedthe gay agenda. They opined when they thought a candidate had fumbled oradvanced the ball, and revealed the show’s behind-the-scenes happenings. Thisincluded details about how half the crew had volunteered without pay to helpwith the production—putting in hundreds of hours—simply because they werethrilled the presidential hopefuls were addressing the LGBT community. I got the skinny on Bill Richardson’s aim to get skinny; theNew Mexico Governor had asked that no snacks be placed in his dressing room. Hedidn’t want to be tempted off of his diet. One gnome said to me, “If he can betempted by Chex Mix, can we trust him when corporate campaign checks get tossedinto the mix?” I couldn’t quite grasp the connection. Sitting in the audience were Arianna Huffington, DoogieHauser’s Neil Patrick Harris, and California Assemblyman Mike Feuer. LACity Councilmember Bill Rosendahl rushed to his seat and apologized for histardiness, explaining how he’d been backstage coaching his candidate,Congressman Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats were questioned in the order they RSVP’d forthe event; Obama was first, and Clinton was last. I could not help but thinkClinton had planned it that way, as part of an “I’m experienced, unlike myopponent” strategy to get the last word. I could just hear her practicing infront of the mirror: I refuse to meet with leaders of rogue nations. I refuseto RSVP until after my rogue, I mean, esteemed competitors have done so… Obama—following the “separate but equal” line anddiscounting the importance of the word “marriage”--argued that the rightsafforded married couples should be given to the LGBT community. He describedhimself as a “supporter… of a strong version (of civil union);”a platform thatdid not produce smiley faces in the crowd because they felt the word “marriage”was central to true equality. I felt Obama’s biggest error was to suggest gayissues and homophobia are less important than inner city jobs, but theinterviewers threw him a towel and let him walk. The second victim tossed into the ring was Senator JohnEdwards--the “barbers union” and “scissors lobby” favorite—who also shied awayfrom supporting same-sex marriage. Edwards blurted out, “it’s not true” inresponse to a rumor that he was uncomfortable around gay people. I heard myneighboring gnome mumble, “Thank goodness for that, Senator. Cause it lookslike we’ve got you surrounded.” Theaudience was tightly wrapped in a U around the stage.Governor Bill Richardson made the most pronounced blunder ofthe evening when he said that being gay was based on choice rather than geneticfactors, a comment that surely came from a deprivation of brain food, mostnotably Chex Mix. Following the debate, his campaign sent an emergency email tothe press, reversing his position. Richardson—who also refused to support gay marriage--poundedthe line, “I’ll do what’s achievable,” so many times that those around mewondered if yanking him off the stage would be achievable. Senator Clinton—who wore a festive coral jacket--was notimmune from the innocent “candidate bashing” game. One gnome said, “she’sdressed like one of us,” and another mused, “I almost wore the same outfit.”Like Obama, Edwards and Richardson, Clinton did not support the LGBT thresholdissue: gay marriage; and like her opponents, she could not explain why. Shemerely called it a “personal position.” Clinton’s greatest stumble came whenshe said the LGBT community’s fight for equality “has not been a long termstruggle yet,” implying that a group needs to suffer for a prescribed number ofyears before a politician takes notice. Could this argument be applied to the2008 election? Is there a particular junior Senator from New York who has notstruggled long enough in politics to be taken seriously as a candidate forPresident? Former Senator Mike Gravel, the candidate I affectionatelycall the “grumpy outsider,” was not so grumpy that night, nor was he an outsider.The crowd loved it when he tossed his support to same-sex marriage, andpredicted “five years from now, the marriage issue will be a non-issue.” At first the gnome to my left said Gravel’s shoes were notup to par, “I am judging all candidates on their shoes and this one fails. Thisis a gay forum. He should know better.” However, after Gravel proved himself to be an advocate forLGBT issues, the gnome altered his harsh position on footwear, ” I’ve changedmy mind. I like what he said, so I’ve decided his shoes are ok.” I’m sureGravel is relieved. Congressman Dennis Kucinich strolled into the room as if hewas the reigning champion of the LGBT agenda and gave his unwavering support tosame-sex marriage. Like a cross between Tarzan and a Vermont Teddy Bear, heradiated a cuddly and caring confidence while beating on his chest that “thefederal government (should) be the agent for change” and that as president, hewould be a true leader, always taking a stand on principle. The panelists gushedover him, saying, “They told me not to fawn over you” and “you’re so evolvedfor a member of Congress.” My gnomes were all smiley faces and applause.I feel Kucinich won the debate due to his sincerity andpassion for the issues, while Gravel earned second place.The gay debate was about the LGBT community “arriving” andformally entering the hallowed political halls. The gay debate was about funand making tasteless jokes at the poor candidates’ expense. The gay debate wasabout moving towards a necessary equality. And there’s absolutely nothing the matter with that._____________This article appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News on August 16, 2007. 09:04 AM in Current Events, Politics, Social Issues | Permalink | Comments (1) Confessions of an Adopted Child 
I was born in the backseat of anOldsmobile. My mother was in labor for 15 minutes, not long enough for myfather to drive us to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. I popped out duringthe Drifters’ song “There Goes My Baby;” and moments later, there I went. Inthe emergency room parking lot, I was whisked away by a nurse, complying with apre-arranged adoption pact and who was under the assumption—as were mostadoption “experts” in 1960--that cutting ties should be done in an abrupt andswift fashion like pulling off an old Band-Aid. I would never see my naturalparents again. At least that’s what everyone thought. My adoptive family always hadthe appropriate number of cars, boats, housekeepers and country club parties;they were skilled at complying with “old money” standards. Those who had “newmoney”--such as show business folk or overnight get-rich schemers--werenaturally inferior to us, or so I was told. By adopting me, my parents were ontrack for procuring a suitable number of children for a respectable family:two. My brother was adopted a couple of years later. To the neighbors, everythinglooked primed and painted, but I was well acquainted with the wood filler andindustrious termites beneath the surface. Partly, my negativity stemmed from aperception that I was an outsider with an entirely different value system. Idid not qualify as the black sheep of the family for only one reason: sheeptend to be followers. I was more like the independent, black cat, who went myown way. From grade school to highschool, my classmates regularly criticized me for supporting the civil rightsmovement, for rejecting communism conspiracy theories, for failing to beenamored with all Republican candidates, and for not accepting Jesus as myRedeemer, despite the fact that I attended religious services six days aweek. It galled my friends when Ilusted over the flashy, sequined evening gowns that the “new money” movie starswould wear to the latest premiere. Then I’d show up at the school dance wearingone and watch the whispers percolate throughout the room. I felt ideologically out ofplace regardless of whether I was at home, school or the local mall andwondered why. Many studies point to a connection between biology and criminalbehavior, but what about biology in relation to simple, run-of-the-millbeliefs? Could a person have a genetic predisposition towards particular moralvalues and favored activities? Could “nature” make a person more likely to supportuniversal healthcare, gay marriage, educational vouchers or the National RifleAssociation? Could DNA be a factor in a person’s distaste for vintageautomobiles or her attraction to sports? The answer seems to be yes.British and Australian researchers determined that twins who are reared apartthink similarly on subjects ranging from sex, religion, politics, divorce,apartheid and tough-mindedness; and twin research at the University ofMinnesota confirmed the finding. “Nurture” has little influence on a child’spersonality. In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker makes the case that asmuch as 70% of the variation between individuals, in areas such as politicalleanings, personal philosophy, intelligence and personality, are derived fromgenes. According to the WashingtonMonthly, a study conducted by Bruce Sacerdote found that biology ratherthan environment correlates with income. He learned that “being raised (as anadoptee) in a high-earning family doesn’t seem to have much effect (on theincome of the child when she grows up), while being born (as a natural child)to a high-earning family does.” Did this mean I might have to give up thosebig-ticket gowns and go from being “old money” to “no money?” Adult children often seek outtheir natural parents in order to address health concerns, such as to determinewhether cancer or heart disease runs in the family; but I wondered if it couldhelp a person better understand herself? I aimed to find out and started thesearch for my natural parents at the age of 25. The process was jammed withroadblocks. Adoption records were closed; in other words, I was not supposed togain access to names or identifying information. Although the bulk of mydetective work took place by phone from my home in Los Angeles, at one point Itraveled to the Atlanta adoption agency that had placed me and persuaded anemployee to divulge the names of my mother and father. When I was told “Wilson,” Ianticipated a needle-in-the-haystack search and realized I had not even arrivedat the farm. Today, there are two and a half million listings on Google with myfather’s exact first and last name. As I sleuthed after data, Ipicked up helpers along the way. Amiable strangers in Georgia, Maryland andVirginia—most of who lived in residences that were once occupied by my motheror father--volunteered to devote investigative hours and legwork to my pressingmission. I made calls. They made calls. In the end, I found my father’s formercollege and got his contact number from alumni records. I located my mother viaa Baltimore school that had employed my grandmother. I learned one parent is auniversity professor and author, and the other works for the U.S. Government inWashington D.C. They gave me up for adoption because they were in graduateschool and did not plan to stay together. They didn’t. In the end, I found parents—aswell as aunts, cousins and a grandmother—who have values and interests akin tomy own. They study philosophy, are environmental advocates, teach aerobics,have similar taste in art and suffer from the migraine headaches that haveplagued me since I was a child. My mother’s religious pathdetoured in the same way as mine. We were both raised Christian, then attendeda Unitarian church for a while, and eventually converted to Reform Judaism. Although my natural family isrich in heart, their pockets are not totally bare; so genetically speaking, itlooks like I may be able to feed my “frock habit” for a few more years. The ongoing connection with mykin has taught me why I am the way I am, and why I am unlike those who raisedme. I appreciate my adoptive parents’ efforts, but have learned that one cannever have too many parents. 12:11 AM in Social Issues | Permalink | Comments (1) Next » _qoptions = { tags:"typepad.core" }; _qacct="p-fcYWUmj5YbYKM"; quantserve();
| --BEGIN VALIDATION CODE-- A eCxD iBhQpFqP kHcHhBcHaRjC wGs IkUoIbSgO dXhZyB mU l OpB xZeEjXb AjIpW yBjMrDqWuFdR lEpDtKpY xZhDkRnHiF tW sIcHnPcKqUxJsLdO mYqZaCnAvVkFmGhRiB iMwZtSo PoWgQpC lWrXg GlOrVsHa GsKqOzEcLoSeQnVxOgWoLaI zZsTkWiHsVoMkLjQlTbChLyV yXjDf Z hohositeX2006 --END VALIDATION CODE-- |
