Seems that a teacher at a charter school in L.A. wanted her seventh graders to present a poem about Emmett Till during a Black History Month assembly. She was prevented from doing so, however, and when she protested she and another teacher who supported her were fired.
Now the school said the presentation was too graphic for an assembly which includes kids as young as kindergarteners, which seems fair enough. They also said that the poem wasn’t in keeping with the celebratory tone of the overall assembly. This seems less defensible.
But the school’s administration also said that Emmett Till’s whistling at a white woman could be considered sexual harrassment, and therefore wasn’t something they wanted to honor. The school’s principal was reported as describing Till’s actions as rude - ironic reminders of how bigots in Money, Mississippi described his actions when Till was beaten to death, a fan tied to his neck and his body thrown into the river.
The thing is, even if you accept the school’s interpretation of Till’s whistle as sexual harassment (a rather ahistorical interpretation, i think), the incident can still be used to teach about racism, and also that violence is never an appropriate response to speech or other forms of free expression.
I think one of the most troubling parts is this quote from the school’s Executive Director:
That’s right, sugar-coat it for them. Wouldn’t want the little darlings to get any reality along with their schooling.
I think there’s some validity to the argument that maybe the young children in the lowest grades might not be an appropriate audience for a description of a brutal murder, but i’m sure most kids see worse depictions of violence on TV every day.
"Our whole goal is how do we get these kids to not look at all of the bad things that could happen to them and instead focus on the process of how do we become the next surgeon or the next politician,’’ said Celerity co-founder and Executive Director Vielka McFarlane. "We don’t want to focus on how the history of the country has been checkered but on how do we dress for success, walk proud and celebrate all the accomplishments we’ve made.’’
That’s from an educator, kiddies.
Even a super atomic-powered-rolleyes smilie is grossly inadequate to the task of reacting to stupidity of this extent.
Right, but the EEOC is concerned specifically with employment situations. There are also broader definitions of sexual harassment (often not specifically legal definitions) that don’t involve a workplace environment. I think that the level of comments and gestures that some women are subjected to on the street qualifies. Some of the personal stories of street harassment on this site are, IMO, very troubling.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, because i tend to agree with the OP. As i suggested earlier, even if we accept the school’s definition of sexual harassment, it doesn’t change the heinous nature of Till’s murder.
Being groped on the street is sexual harassment, that happened to me in India, where it is euphemistically known as “Eve teasing”, and you know what, I lived. A whistle barely registers on my radar.
Sure, keep the graphic violence away from the tiny kiddies, but to pretend it didn’t happen, thats is just stupid.
For some reason, I saw Mr. Moto’s name and my mind instantly connected to children writing a poem about R. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder of the American Spectator magazine. At first I thought, wait a minute, he’s not black… and it does seem out of line for a teacher to direct students to write a poem about a political commentator!
Well I for one don’t think the story of Emmet Till is fitting for a celebratory program. Emmet Till was a victim, not a hero. The program sounds like it was intended to honor famous black Americans who did uplifting things. Whistling at a white woman and getting slain for it probably did not jibe with the rest of the program.
What’s so egregious about this position? Black people catch a lot of flak for supposedly wallowing in a “victimization culture” so I’m rather surprised that McFarlane’s view is getting the rolley-eye treatment here. If the program was intended to showcase achievement and accomplishment, focusing on examples of how the “white man did us wrong” takes away from that. I don’t think the admistrators have a problem with Emmet Till being taught at all. They just probably feel he was not a fitting addition to the program.
As far as the sexual harrassment thing, yeah that’s stupid to call it that. But think of it this way. Emmet Till became a martyr for cat-calling. That act, while harmless and normal and perfectly mundane in a walking-past-a-bunch-of-construction-workers sense, doesn’t have the same profoundity as being martyred for having sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and leading freedom marches to procure voting rights. So even if the program was intended to showcase past discrimination and oppression, Emmet Till would probably not be the best example to show to little kids.
In short, everyone has the right to vote and not face racial discrimination at a restaurant. But does everyone have the right to whistle at a woman? Don’t know about all that.
Just on the basis of the article, I don’t think the teachers should have been fired. But its possible there’s more story there that we aren’t seeing.
I said off the bat that there were valid reasons for not teaching about Till at that place and time. However, dismissing him and his place in the civil rights struggle because of a wolf whistle is insane.
Because it’s possible to both “celebrate…accomplishments” and understand “how the history of the country has been checkered.”
History is, by its very nature, a rather messy and complex business, and the responsible teaching of history requires that we neither sugarcoat the bad stuff nor forget the good. I’m not saying that anyone should wallow in “victimization culture,” but acknowledging historical inequities does not require that anyone do this. In fact, telling the story of black accomplishments in America, in my opinion, involves also telling the story of the very real barriers and hardships they have negotiated in achieving those accomplishments.
Complexity and contingency are integral to understanding history, and we do our kids a disservice when we adopt unreflective celebratory teleologies that encourage hubris and pride rather than intellectual understanding.
I think the administrators knew what kind of program they wanted to put on. If they wanted to just talk just about achievement, I think that’s perfectly fine. I see no problem with leaving some things for the classroom and putting other things on center stage. I can easily imagine why a Emmet Till poem juxtaposed with other, more motivational type of displays would be a problem for the program coordinators. Emmett Till became an important symbol in the civil rights movement solely because of his victimization, and not because of the self-sacrifice, dedication, and courage befitting other civil rights heroes. I have a feeling these latter things are what the school wanted to focus on.
History needs to be taught, sure, but we’re talking about a school assembly. Emmet Till, in addition to others, belongs in the curriculum. But a Black History program doesn’t have to teach everything. The school had a theme for this program and felt that Till didn’t belong in it. There’s no need to infer that this means they don’t believe he should be taught or acknowledged at all.
Without knowing what was actually on the program, none of us are in the position to say if this message wasn’t conveyed. But I can’t say that Emmett Till’s story is the best way of bringing this point home to little kids. “Black folks used to be killed for trying to vote.” Yes. “Black folks used to be denied the opportunity to go to college.” Yes. “Black folks used to be butchered for whistling at white women.” Ehh, not so effective when your audience is 5 years old.
With all due respect, I think it takes more hubris and pride to say that a school is wrong for deciding what can and can not belong in a Black History Celebration program, especially when those reasons are far from unreasonable. When you only have an hour or two to work with, plus a lot of little kids with short attention spans, there’s only so much complexity you can play with. In terms of getting the most bang for your buck, Till comes up short.
Like I said, firing the teachers sounds extreme. But I see no problem with the school’s decision to leave Till out of the program.
I think our whole difference of opinion probably turns on the last sentence here.
If the school administrator’s desire for celebrating accomplishments, and ignoring the “checkered” past, was referring only to the particular assembly in question, then i agree with most of what you say. If that attitude extends to the classroom in any way, shape, or form, then i stand by my argument.
I think posters in this thread were quick to assume that it does, but the article makes no mention of the school’s teaching policies and I don’t think there is any reason to believe that the kids aren’t getting a more comprehensive view of the Civil Rights movement in their age-appropriate history classes.
I can actually go along with the administration on not reading that poem at that event. (It is an arguable case, but I think each side can defend their position.) On the other hand, I suspect that the firings are simply an example of little power-mad administrators fearing anything that appears to “threaten” their little fiefdoms. The teachers do not appear to have gone out and organized some big protests. The kids wanted to protest the decision and wrote letters and the teachers each co-signed one. (It is possible, of course, that the social studies teacher told the kids abut writing letters as a way to give them an appropriate outlet for their disappointment, but I saw no evidence presented by the administration that the teachers were deliberately sabotaging the good order and discipline of the school.)
I’ve read about his killing. It seems like his harrassment went beyond just whistling and inlcude unwanted, physical contact while conducting verbal harassment of a sexual nature. Even if it was 2007, such bad behaviour could certainly lead to a beating by even a non-racist husband/boyfriend/father.
There are good examples of senseless, racist violence from that time period. A murder of a person that committed battery and was a wanton sexual harrasser, isn’t one. The prominence of Till’s case cheapens those and cheapens those that use it as prime example of wrongdoing from that time period.
Actually, there are conflicting stories about what Till did or didn’t do. The boys who were with him said it was only verbal; the whites claimed that there was physical assault. You’ll have to forgive me if i don’t take their word for it.
You realize, i assume, that Till was 14 years old, and that his murder wasn’t committed in the heat of the moment, but days later in cold and calculating revenge.
You’re a fucking moron, with no sense of proportion or of what constitutes justice, if you think that the Till case isn’t a good example of racist violence.
It’s also interesting that you seem to be accepting as a given the allegations of physical contact, when that has never been proven.
