Anonymous wrote:I'd have to diagree with you on this one, can you really teach literature and critical thinking on any book even when the book is not really literature? How about vocabulary, style, or the ideas and contents developed in said work. How about reading a work simply because it got ingrained in the cultural fabric of society and it keeps being referenced over and over (even in NCIS SVU lol).

Wait a second... you said theater of the absurd earlier....

You can, yes. I happen to know, because that's what I was trained to do. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about it though, because this has been 27 pages of hilarity, and I would like for it to continue. The laypeople should keep talking.

I'd have to diagree with you on this one, can you really teach literature and critical thinking on any book even when the book is not really literature? How about vocabulary, style, or the ideas and contents developed in said work. How about reading a work simply because it got ingrained in the cultural fabric of society and it keeps being referenced over and over (even in NCIS SVU lol).

Wait a second... you said theater of the absurd earlier....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the whole thread. People claiming Shakespeare is "racist." People freaking out at the suggestion that Biblical motifs and stories are appropriate to teach as literature. People making incoherent arguments repeatedly misspelling "canon." People suggesting we read White Fragility in English Lit. It's all ... ugh.

It's all pointing to an incredibly narrow view of he goal of education. But at least for me, it's opening my eyes to what DCPS middle and high schoolers are (not) learning in their curriculum. The idea that English literature should focus only on the legacy of US racism is terrifying.

Lady Cannon is just someone that mindlessly repeats what she heard within her social circle, twitter or faceboook, but these are not just a minority of fringe isolated extremists. Think about where these ideas originate and who is adopting and propagating them. These ideas find their cultural home in universities and their political home in the Democratic party. And it's not only Shakespeare, read the California math framework if you can stomach it, and it's not just the education.

Unfortunately it is about narrowing the curriculum that is being taught. The quote from the English Department at the University of Chicago was to state that for that academic year all English PhD students are required to focus their academics on Black Studies. Where’s the diversity in this?

What do you think students graduating from that department will teach at your child’s high school? Shakespeare? That’s akin to perpetuating white supremacy, as Lady Cannon suggested, albeit in a much less refined form.

Do you think an English PhD candidate might have already read and studied a diverse sampling of material over their lives to contrast to that one academic year?

Sure they would have sampled a diverse work, but you don’t find it odd at all?

In past decades, whole classes of students were admitted who worked on the canon of dead white men. So us white people don't get ONE SINGLE class of Chicago lit PhDs and that's a problem?

So the PhD's are given to us white people? No, the problem is the narowing on what passes on as acceptable scholarship.

Okay you don't understand how this is a broadening. There will be like 20 more scholars who focus on AA literature on the job market in 7 years. Apparently that is too much for you.

You are the one who is not understanding. I want people to be able to chose the topic of their PhD themselves as they always had and I think it's wrong for the English Department at a university to refer to English as an instrument of oppression.

It's a good thing there are other schools and other years. And yeah, you're totally more knowledgeable about the social position of English literature than a bunch of faculty from Chicago. Why don't you go tell them? I'm sure they'd love to hear the opinion of a lady with a BA in business or something.

FYI, MIT Physics PhD.

Okay, so really, really unqualified to talk about literature. I'm going to pretend that you totally do have a very real physics PhD from MIT. Given that, you should be even more aware of extent of your expertise. Being the hardest thing you could think up at the moment really doesn't equate to knowledge about literature.

I just wanted to correct the claim of "BA in business or something". What makes you qualified to talk about literature?

A degree in English literature, specialization in dramatic literature with focuses on both Shakespeare and theater of the absurd. A graduate degree in English education. Eight years of teaching experience.

Then please, tell us what you thought about the thread. I bet it must have all been quite entertaining to you, huh? Especially the part about studying white fragility alongside Shakespeare in English literature class.

Yeah, it's been pretty amusing. If you want my very honest opinion? This is all a big pissing contest, which is what happens anytime anyone talks about Shakespeare. I mean, did any of you pay attention to the first few pages where the Shakespeare defenders were suddenly using awkward antiquated language? It's the most cliché thing to happen in a Shakespeare conversation with laypeople.

I don't honestly believe that most people commenting really have strong feelings about whether or not Shakespeare should be in the curriculum. Shakespeare has so much cultural cachet that people often feel a need to defend him as something well beyond what the experts and critics say.

I love Shakespeare, obviously, but my opinion is that the purpose of literature education in schools is to promote critical thinking, which can be done with nearly any book, including Kendi's. The people who actually study literature tend to become a lot less snobbish about it than what you see here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there is not one single university that is going to turn away students because they didn't read shakespeare in high school. nobody in admissions knows or cares what you read.

College admissions is not the purpose of studying Shakespeare.

Sir or Madam, thank you!

Anonymous wrote:there is not one single university that is going to turn away students because they didn't read shakespeare in high school. nobody in admissions knows or cares what you read.

College admissions is not the purpose of studying Shakespeare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the whole thread. People claiming Shakespeare is "racist." People freaking out at the suggestion that Biblical motifs and stories are appropriate to teach as literature. People making incoherent arguments repeatedly misspelling "canon." People suggesting we read White Fragility in English Lit. It's all ... ugh.

It's all pointing to an incredibly narrow view of he goal of education. But at least for me, it's opening my eyes to what DCPS middle and high schoolers are (not) learning in their curriculum. The idea that English literature should focus only on the legacy of US racism is terrifying.

Lady Cannon is just someone that mindlessly repeats what she heard within her social circle, twitter or faceboook, but these are not just a minority of fringe isolated extremists. Think about where these ideas originate and who is adopting and propagating them. These ideas find their cultural home in universities and their political home in the Democratic party. And it's not only Shakespeare, read the California math framework if you can stomach it, and it's not just the education.

Unfortunately it is about narrowing the curriculum that is being taught. The quote from the English Department at the University of Chicago was to state that for that academic year all English PhD students are required to focus their academics on Black Studies. Where’s the diversity in this?

What do you think students graduating from that department will teach at your child’s high school? Shakespeare? That’s akin to perpetuating white supremacy, as Lady Cannon suggested, albeit in a much less refined form.

Do you think an English PhD candidate might have already read and studied a diverse sampling of material over their lives to contrast to that one academic year?

Sure they would have sampled a diverse work, but you don’t find it odd at all?

In past decades, whole classes of students were admitted who worked on the canon of dead white men. So us white people don't get ONE SINGLE class of Chicago lit PhDs and that's a problem?

So the PhD's are given to us white people? No, the problem is the narowing on what passes on as acceptable scholarship.

Okay you don't understand how this is a broadening. There will be like 20 more scholars who focus on AA literature on the job market in 7 years. Apparently that is too much for you.

You are the one who is not understanding. I want people to be able to chose the topic of their PhD themselves as they always had and I think it's wrong for the English Department at a university to refer to English as an instrument of oppression.

It's a good thing there are other schools and other years. And yeah, you're totally more knowledgeable about the social position of English literature than a bunch of faculty from Chicago. Why don't you go tell them? I'm sure they'd love to hear the opinion of a lady with a BA in business or something.

FYI, MIT Physics PhD.

Okay, so really, really unqualified to talk about literature. I'm going to pretend that you totally do have a very real physics PhD from MIT. Given that, you should be even more aware of extent of your expertise. Being the hardest thing you could think up at the moment really doesn't equate to knowledge about literature.

I just wanted to correct the claim of "BA in business or something". What makes you qualified to talk about literature?

A degree in English literature, specialization in dramatic literature with focuses on both Shakespeare and theater of the absurd. A graduate degree in English education. Eight years of teaching experience.

BTW theater og the absurd is close to me, Dada and Ionescu... good times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the whole thread. People claiming Shakespeare is "racist." People freaking out at the suggestion that Biblical motifs and stories are appropriate to teach as literature. People making incoherent arguments repeatedly misspelling "canon." People suggesting we read White Fragility in English Lit. It's all ... ugh.

It's all pointing to an incredibly narrow view of he goal of education. But at least for me, it's opening my eyes to what DCPS middle and high schoolers are (not) learning in their curriculum. The idea that English literature should focus only on the legacy of US racism is terrifying.

Lady Cannon is just someone that mindlessly repeats what she heard within her social circle, twitter or faceboook, but these are not just a minority of fringe isolated extremists. Think about where these ideas originate and who is adopting and propagating them. These ideas find their cultural home in universities and their political home in the Democratic party. And it's not only Shakespeare, read the California math framework if you can stomach it, and it's not just the education.

Unfortunately it is about narrowing the curriculum that is being taught. The quote from the English Department at the University of Chicago was to state that for that academic year all English PhD students are required to focus their academics on Black Studies. Where’s the diversity in this?

What do you think students graduating from that department will teach at your child’s high school? Shakespeare? That’s akin to perpetuating white supremacy, as Lady Cannon suggested, albeit in a much less refined form.

Do you think an English PhD candidate might have already read and studied a diverse sampling of material over their lives to contrast to that one academic year?

Sure they would have sampled a diverse work, but you don’t find it odd at all?

In past decades, whole classes of students were admitted who worked on the canon of dead white men. So us white people don't get ONE SINGLE class of Chicago lit PhDs and that's a problem?

So the PhD's are given to us white people? No, the problem is the narowing on what passes on as acceptable scholarship.

Okay you don't understand how this is a broadening. There will be like 20 more scholars who focus on AA literature on the job market in 7 years. Apparently that is too much for you.

You are the one who is not understanding. I want people to be able to chose the topic of their PhD themselves as they always had and I think it's wrong for the English Department at a university to refer to English as an instrument of oppression.

It's a good thing there are other schools and other years. And yeah, you're totally more knowledgeable about the social position of English literature than a bunch of faculty from Chicago. Why don't you go tell them? I'm sure they'd love to hear the opinion of a lady with a BA in business or something.

FYI, MIT Physics PhD.

Okay, so really, really unqualified to talk about literature. I'm going to pretend that you totally do have a very real physics PhD from MIT. Given that, you should be even more aware of extent of your expertise. Being the hardest thing you could think up at the moment really doesn't equate to knowledge about literature.

I just wanted to correct the claim of "BA in business or something". What makes you qualified to talk about literature?

A degree in English literature, specialization in dramatic literature with focuses on both Shakespeare and theater of the absurd. A graduate degree in English education. Eight years of teaching experience.

Then please, tell us what you thought about the thread. I bet it must have all been quite entertaining to you, huh? Especially the part about studying white fragility alongside Shakespeare in English literature class.

15k

Anonymous wrote:So yeah even in the early 2000s and a google search shows still “discussing”

Public school affects everyone

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4490224

Of course public school policy affects everyone. This is the gist of the entire discussion on the thread. Are you happy with what it is now? I'm not. I think that watever $15k a year is used to educate my child is not used properly and efficiently.

I'm for reforming the public education system. My choice would be a $15 voucher parents could use at any school they find fit for their child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the whole thread. People claiming Shakespeare is "racist." People freaking out at the suggestion that Biblical motifs and stories are appropriate to teach as literature. People making incoherent arguments repeatedly misspelling "canon." People suggesting we read White Fragility in English Lit. It's all ... ugh.

It's all pointing to an incredibly narrow view of he goal of education. But at least for me, it's opening my eyes to what DCPS middle and high schoolers are (not) learning in their curriculum. The idea that English literature should focus only on the legacy of US racism is terrifying.

Lady Cannon is just someone that mindlessly repeats what she heard within her social circle, twitter or faceboook, but these are not just a minority of fringe isolated extremists. Think about where these ideas originate and who is adopting and propagating them. These ideas find their cultural home in universities and their political home in the Democratic party. And it's not only Shakespeare, read the California math framework if you can stomach it, and it's not just the education.

Unfortunately it is about narrowing the curriculum that is being taught. The quote from the English Department at the University of Chicago was to state that for that academic year all English PhD students are required to focus their academics on Black Studies. Where’s the diversity in this?

What do you think students graduating from that department will teach at your child’s high school? Shakespeare? That’s akin to perpetuating white supremacy, as Lady Cannon suggested, albeit in a much less refined form.

Do you think an English PhD candidate might have already read and studied a diverse sampling of material over their lives to contrast to that one academic year?

Sure they would have sampled a diverse work, but you don’t find it odd at all?

In past decades, whole classes of students were admitted who worked on the canon of dead white men. So us white people don't get ONE SINGLE class of Chicago lit PhDs and that's a problem?

So the PhD's are given to us white people? No, the problem is the narowing on what passes on as acceptable scholarship.

Okay you don't understand how this is a broadening. There will be like 20 more scholars who focus on AA literature on the job market in 7 years. Apparently that is too much for you.

You are the one who is not understanding. I want people to be able to chose the topic of their PhD themselves as they always had and I think it's wrong for the English Department at a university to refer to English as an instrument of oppression.

It's a good thing there are other schools and other years. And yeah, you're totally more knowledgeable about the social position of English literature than a bunch of faculty from Chicago. Why don't you go tell them? I'm sure they'd love to hear the opinion of a lady with a BA in business or something.

FYI, MIT Physics PhD.

Okay, so really, really unqualified to talk about literature. I'm going to pretend that you totally do have a very real physics PhD from MIT. Given that, you should be even more aware of extent of your expertise. Being the hardest thing you could think up at the moment really doesn't equate to knowledge about literature.

+1

And probably not qualified to talk about physics education either. Just because you do it doesn’t mean you understand what it took to make your education.

So many scientists who moan they never use algebra or calculus.

You are just being silly now.

Mostly I haven't been commenting here on the debate, because it's all pretty funny, but I did have to poke you, in particular.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the whole thread. People claiming Shakespeare is "racist." People freaking out at the suggestion that Biblical motifs and stories are appropriate to teach as literature. People making incoherent arguments repeatedly misspelling "canon." People suggesting we read White Fragility in English Lit. It's all ... ugh.

It's all pointing to an incredibly narrow view of he goal of education. But at least for me, it's opening my eyes to what DCPS middle and high schoolers are (not) learning in their curriculum. The idea that English literature should focus only on the legacy of US racism is terrifying.

Lady Cannon is just someone that mindlessly repeats what she heard within her social circle, twitter or faceboook, but these are not just a minority of fringe isolated extremists. Think about where these ideas originate and who is adopting and propagating them. These ideas find their cultural home in universities and their political home in the Democratic party. And it's not only Shakespeare, read the California math framework if you can stomach it, and it's not just the education.

Unfortunately it is about narrowing the curriculum that is being taught. The quote from the English Department at the University of Chicago was to state that for that academic year all English PhD students are required to focus their academics on Black Studies. Where’s the diversity in this?

What do you think students graduating from that department will teach at your child’s high school? Shakespeare? That’s akin to perpetuating white supremacy, as Lady Cannon suggested, albeit in a much less refined form.

Do you think an English PhD candidate might have already read and studied a diverse sampling of material over their lives to contrast to that one academic year?

Sure they would have sampled a diverse work, but you don’t find it odd at all?

In past decades, whole classes of students were admitted who worked on the canon of dead white men. So us white people don't get ONE SINGLE class of Chicago lit PhDs and that's a problem?

So the PhD's are given to us white people? No, the problem is the narowing on what passes on as acceptable scholarship.

Okay you don't understand how this is a broadening. There will be like 20 more scholars who focus on AA literature on the job market in 7 years. Apparently that is too much for you.

You are the one who is not understanding. I want people to be able to chose the topic of their PhD themselves as they always had and I think it's wrong for the English Department at a university to refer to English as an instrument of oppression.

It's a good thing there are other schools and other years. And yeah, you're totally more knowledgeable about the social position of English literature than a bunch of faculty from Chicago. Why don't you go tell them? I'm sure they'd love to hear the opinion of a lady with a BA in business or something.

FYI, MIT Physics PhD.

Okay, so really, really unqualified to talk about literature. I'm going to pretend that you totally do have a very real physics PhD from MIT. Given that, you should be even more aware of extent of your expertise. Being the hardest thing you could think up at the moment really doesn't equate to knowledge about literature.

I just wanted to correct the claim of "BA in business or something". What makes you qualified to talk about literature?

A degree in English literature, specialization in dramatic literature with focuses on both Shakespeare and theater of the absurd. A graduate degree in English education. Eight years of teaching experience.

there is not one single university that is going to turn away students because they didn't read shakespeare in high school. nobody in admissions knows or cares what you read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the whole thread. People claiming Shakespeare is "racist." People freaking out at the suggestion that Biblical motifs and stories are appropriate to teach as literature. People making incoherent arguments repeatedly misspelling "canon." People suggesting we read White Fragility in English Lit. It's all ... ugh.

It's all pointing to an incredibly narrow view of he goal of education. But at least for me, it's opening my eyes to what DCPS middle and high schoolers are (not) learning in their curriculum. The idea that English literature should focus only on the legacy of US racism is terrifying.

Lady Cannon is just someone that mindlessly repeats what she heard within her social circle, twitter or faceboook, but these are not just a minority of fringe isolated extremists. Think about where these ideas originate and who is adopting and propagating them. These ideas find their cultural home in universities and their political home in the Democratic party. And it's not only Shakespeare, read the California math framework if you can stomach it, and it's not just the education.

Unfortunately it is about narrowing the curriculum that is being taught. The quote from the English Department at the University of Chicago was to state that for that academic year all English PhD students are required to focus their academics on Black Studies. Where’s the diversity in this?

What do you think students graduating from that department will teach at your child’s high school? Shakespeare? That’s akin to perpetuating white supremacy, as Lady Cannon suggested, albeit in a much less refined form.

Do you think an English PhD candidate might have already read and studied a diverse sampling of material over their lives to contrast to that one academic year?

Sure they would have sampled a diverse work, but you don’t find it odd at all?

In past decades, whole classes of students were admitted who worked on the canon of dead white men. So us white people don't get ONE SINGLE class of Chicago lit PhDs and that's a problem?

So the PhD's are given to us white people? No, the problem is the narowing on what passes on as acceptable scholarship.

Okay you don't understand how this is a broadening. There will be like 20 more scholars who focus on AA literature on the job market in 7 years. Apparently that is too much for you.

You are the one who is not understanding. I want people to be able to chose the topic of their PhD themselves as they always had and I think it's wrong for the English Department at a university to refer to English as an instrument of oppression.

It's a good thing there are other schools and other years. And yeah, you're totally more knowledgeable about the social position of English literature than a bunch of faculty from Chicago. Why don't you go tell them? I'm sure they'd love to hear the opinion of a lady with a BA in business or something.

FYI, MIT Physics PhD.

Okay, so really, really unqualified to talk about literature. I'm going to pretend that you totally do have a very real physics PhD from MIT. Given that, you should be even more aware of extent of your expertise. Being the hardest thing you could think up at the moment really doesn't equate to knowledge about literature.

I just wanted to correct the claim of "BA in business or something". What makes you qualified to talk about literature?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are anti-intellectual because they say "read things besides the 300 pages of written work by a dead early modern writer." This is the argument of an 'intellectual?'

Whats up with you re-casting my supposed position in some silly phrase put in quotes? I said earlier, you don't do it well. You could answer with a more substantial argument.

More than one person is mocking you.

You are doing a good job of mocking yourself.