Alex Green IV

I would argue that the single most utilized and, therefore, important sense that humans possess is sight/vision. People say, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Of course, that is true to an extent. What one sees (even without touching, tasting, smelling, or hearing) can establish a narrative. I marvel at people who are blind like Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Helen Keller who have made history without the gift of sight. Even Governor David A. Patterson of NY is blind in one eye and has made history as the first black governor of NY. I don’t know what I would do without being able to see. I dislike having to wear corrective lenses (eyeglasses) but I always tell myself…it could be worse. I don’t know if I would be resilient and talented enough to survive without seeing. Perhaps, I would rely on my ability to hear. That, I would posit, is the second most important sense. One of the reasons that Helen Keller is, in fact, an extraordinarily talented person was her unparalleled ability to accomplish feats like graduating from college (as she was the first deafblind person to do it according to Wikipedia) and write books. She lived up to a calling and, perhaps, her responsibility to live up to her potential. It seems that those of us that must overcome obstacles to prevail understand the power of humanity, the importance of taking responsibility, and the necessity of critical thinking. Most people (who are not deaf or blind…or deafblind) take the fact that we can see, hear, and even smell, taste, and touch for granted. We take them for granted by not living up to our potential to critically analyze information before digesting it and coming to our own conclusions. How often do people take things on face value? I saw it, I heard it…and, perhaps, I’ve heard other people say it or I know other people that see it so it must be true/right. Wrong! It seems like a basic concept not to draw conclusions based on a breadth as opposed to a depth of information but so many people are either unable or unwilling to discipline themselves to look beyond, ask questions, toss around ideas, and imagine the unimaginable that it is astounding. It is the misuse of one’s senses by not thinking critically that I argue is the definition of a stereotype. There are exceptions to every rule and sometimes the exception is more important than the rule.

So, why in a school that is comprised of ostensible critical thinkers and communicators of information/understanding that there are students who are still so undisciplined that they fall into the trap of stereotyping? I mean, perhaps, I am setting the bar too high because almost everyone stereotypes. Certainly presidential candidate John McCain did by using “Joe the Plumber” as a quintessential American. It’s unclear what McCain really meant by Joe the Plumber; however, it’s a safe assumption that this title stood for a White, lower middle-class, male who lives in a rural or, perhaps, suburban environment. This is, in fact, a stereotype loaded with hackneyed beliefs and “traditional” views that are largely based on bigotry and stereotypes. I do not believe that John McCain’s or Barack Obama’s tossing around “Joe the Plumber” had malicious intent or intentionally reflected bias. Nevertheless, good intentions don’t always lead to benevolent results or change reality. Regardless of the intent to humanize America by mentioning an average Joe in “Joe the Plumber” –it was a stereotype. A stereotype that could be considered dangerous in an election that many say is the most important election of our time and when Americans (many who don’t fit “Joe the Plumber”) will be going to the polls to vote for the presidential ticket that will bring some much needed changes to this country and abroad. What more, this election is so unique and, perhaps, the most important election of our time because there is no everyman. Instead, this election is about a lot of different people coming together for the good of the country. In fact, one of the candidate’s is different when compared to all of the other president’s in the 200 plus year history of the country. Obama’s candidacy and reasonable chance of winning is the breaking of a barrier and, ironically, is the antithesis of McCain’s “Joe the Plumber.” One could say that using “Joe the Plumber” is somewhat short-sighted and exclusionary because he does not represent the melting pot that so many describe as America. McCain may have illustrated why he is behind the times by holding onto such historical disenfranchisement of minorities in casting “Joe the Plumber” as the default for America.

I digressed…now back to the point. It was disappointing but not surprising that a classmate appeared to show insensitivity and bias in her discourse on “Joe the Plumber.” I am still unsure of the point that she was making…but in referencing “Joe the Plumber,” she through in “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider.” One could say that she was pointing out the ridiculousness of stereotypes…but that was not clear. What was clear is that her comment created a tense environment for about 5 seconds after she said it. For some reason, the words “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” hit the air and fell like a ton of bricks on everyone’s conscious. Of course, curious eyes rotated in my direction as I am the only Black student in the class so my reaction was anticipated as if I had the lead role in a play. I didn’t say anything because I was trying not to stop what would have become a chain of stereotypes. I am Black and male so I should be angry and say something, perhaps, that shows aggression especially because it has to do with race. Also, I should be the only one in a class full of people that cares enough to speak on this issue. Really? I believe in community critique, discussion, and even contracts meaning that there is a mutual understanding of what standards of respect, sensitivity, and courtesy will be upheld. It is each person’s responsibility to speak out when a member of our microcosm of population (in the CUNY J-School) says or does something that may be questionable or does not live up to this social contract. Perhaps, I was the only one that thought that this student’s comment was questionable. Again, so stereotypical! Or maybe the argument of what is tactful and what is distasteful is a slippery slope argument. Haven’t we all said things in jest that could be considered inappropriate? Yes, this is true. I am not suggesting censorship nor do I believe that someone should be afraid to openly and honestly express his/her thoughts. I also don’t believe that people should be de-constructively criticized or shunned because of their beliefs or thoughts. However, I do believe that in a school where we understand the power of words and that we believe in stretching boundaries by healthy community discourse that when an issue comes up…that seems to at least resonate with a few based on facial expressions, eye contact, and an awkward silence that permeated the classroom, something should be said. What is said doesn’t have to be combative or confrontational…it could have simply been: ‘What do you mean by “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider?”‘ The issue isn’t the expression itself, it’s the fact that it seemed gratuitous which made it somewhat dubious.

I’ve discussed this issue with a few students already and I’ve heard a common argument that I believe may have some truth but, again, doesn’t quite live up to the standard of what we call ourselves…journalists. So, there is the argument that most hair braiders that I have heard of or know are Black. No…perhaps I am giving the argument too much specificity. Even if someone sees two or three hair braiders through a shop window in a predominantly Black neighborhood…suddenly most hair braiders are Black. Just like most people on welfare must be Black, most rappers are Black, and Blacks as a whole are more gifted and talented in basketball and football than other sports. While these generalizations are based on some observation, they are in no way conclusive as they are not based on in-depth research. In a school where we learn how to research…in fact, one of our classes is called Craft of Research where we spend countless hours learning how to quote, source, and utilize databases for independent fact-checking and research, of all people–journalism students as a whole should not be resorting to generalizations and stereotypes. I think by journalistic standards that this is lazy and, perhaps, unprofessional. I’m not suggesting that in order to say anything…one must spout off statistics and demonstrate encyclopedic knowledge with appropriate sourcing for every topic. However, since these issues seem to recur over and over again so much so that they become stereotypes, why doesn’t someone do the research? If you are one that believes “most this” and “most that” and are, furthermore, preoccupied with trends (either actual or perceived)…find them! I admit that I haven’t done this research. Understanding that I haven’t done the research, I am careful not to talk in generalities and make stereotypes because I realize my ignorance. If I want to say something that may reflect a perceived trend or pattern…I usually insert words like “appears to,” “seems as though,” etc. Just the insertion of those words can, to an extent, free someone from the danger of blanket categorizations.

I cannot have a complete discussion on this issue of stereotyping without giving a little more analysis to the stereotype itself. Why does it seem as though, “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” must have been talking about Blacks. Couldn’t there be a White Shaniqua who braids hair? Of course. However, the combination of Shaniqua which, undoubtedly, pokes fun at some of the names that the majority of America categorize as Black and the profession of “hair-braiding,” another categorization because the only people that either braid their hair or have hair braiding shops must be Black (judged by cursory observance of some people who may walk into Black neighborhoods and see a preponderance of barber shops, beauty salons, and hair-braiding shops) makes this a targeted and insensitive stereotype.

I still play around with the notion that this stereotype may have been okay in a casual one-on-one discussion or even group discussion in the privacy of one’s home and the fact that it was said in a classroom setting made it inappropriate. I don’t believe that people should walk on eggshells but I do believe that there should be a level of tact observed in community environments. The most obvious reason is that when you start making stereotypes about race, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, etc…you start hitting on different aspects of identity. I don’t think that anyone should be singled out in uncomfortable ways just for the sake of it. It’s not just the fact that this stereotype seemed to target Blacks that it is wrong…it’s that it made identity an issue in a way that seemed unnecessary. There will be those that say that everyone has their turn when it comes to issues like this…but once again, I don’t believe that argument holds water. Just because you’re of another identity and at some point you’ve had some aspect of your identity stereotyped–does not mean that it’s desirable particularly in certain environments like college classrooms. I understand that most of us have our biases and stereotype people, places, and even things. However, there needs to be at least a vague notion of relevance and, perhaps, even necessity for a stereotype not to raise concern.

Although I took “Joe the Plumber” to be a White man…Obama and McCain did not even go as far in this stereotype as this student did with “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider.” At first glance, Joe seems much more like an everyman in terms of race than Shaniqua. I do not believe that McCain and Obama were referring to race. Maybe I am stereotyping though to say that Joe seems much more like an everyman than Shaniqua. Whatever the case, I believe that the addition of race into the equation does not prove a point. What is the point? “Joe the Plumber” was supposed to represent the average American struggling through tough economic times. Who or what does “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” represent? The student who made the comparison didn’t seem to make this corollary. I’ll answer for her though. “Shaniqua the Hair-Braider” may represent one of the many disenfranchised minorities in this country. Even if she’s not disenfranchised (or even minority)…because to say so may be suggesting that hair braiding is not an admirable profession or that people only do it when they are kept out of the mainstream which is again—a generalization/stereotype, stereotyping (and maybe even poking fun at) someone because of their name, profession, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, origin, socio-economic status is part of the change from the status quo that I believe Obama may achieve. A Black president is certainly not a stereotype.

From the moment that most children are old enough to know what school is, they are encouraged to go and told of the great things that will come from being a good student. Slogans from ad campaigns and public service announcements like “Stay in school, it’s the rule” or showing how cool it is to be in school have permeated television programming for years. Celebrities (some of which have not gone to college but are relatively rich and famous) are often targeted to encourage youngsters to stay in school with promises of a brighter future. It has become cliché to espouse the merits of getting an education and to coerce those who think that school is not for them to go to school. There is a belief that an educated populous gets us closer to an ideal society. While this belief is accepted, just what education means is not clearly defined and how one qualifies or quantifies education is undetermined. There isn’t a mathematical formula that computes the return on investment from education.

Furthermore, the word education that most use so freely does not have a singular meaning. Is education going to school and/or getting a degree from an academic institution?  Can one be educated without attending an academic institution? Or…up to what level does one need formal education before they are considered educated? Is it high school, college, post-college? But this conversation on levels of education by no means begins to delve into the complexity of the matter.

There is one other consideration that may help frame a discussion on this topic. As there are infinite variables that can affect the access to knowledge like socio-economic status, birthplace, and family background, it is virtually impossible to establish a level playing field. In fact, the allocation of resources that seem second nature like textbooks, competent instructors, computers, notebooks and pens/pencils, athletic facilities, etc. remain unequal. One can list the reasons why these inequities still exist, but these rationalizes don’t mitigate the reality that many youngsters face who are trying to get an education. Simple knowledge of a problem without a solution is not good enough. Of course, there is no one solution.

If education is so important that it is imbued within American societal discourse, why is it such a  broken system? There seems to be a lot of pontification but very little substantive action. For a while, someone pays attention to a problem but as schooling seems to run like a constant machine with no pause/stop button—it’s almost as if important discussion about the problems that face the educational system become background noise with the next school year. While this discussion intends to be an analysis of the cost vs. benefit of post-grad work, this analysis is inadequate without surveying the educational system in its entirety. This conversation does not purport to be a thorough case study of the American educational system but rather to highlight a few key points that are impossible to ignore.

These key points are what some use to champion the argument for charter schools. Proponents of charter schools say that they offer students the opportunity to receive a quality education regardless of where they live and to create healthy competition—a hallmark feature of a capitalist society. Many believe that charter schools hasten the demise of already ailing public schools and that more must be done to fix a broken system instead of skirting the issue. Despite one’s perspective, the truth is that there are serious and vast problems that permeate the educational system and that stop-gap measures to improve student, teacher, and school performance have been ineffective. The fundamental fallacy of demanding performance which is based on outcomes from high-stakes testing carrying the threat of punitive measures for underperformance is that schools are not given the resources to excel. Is it just to hold a person or institution accountable for failure when the ingredients for success were unavailable?

Too many remedial changes come after the fact. After the educational system has failed to reach a majority of students from kindergarten through high school, these students are expected to aspire for college and beyond. It’s illogical to expect that students who have been neglected throughout their formative years to have the same goals and aspirations as those whose academic curiosity has been nourished. Moreover, it’s doubtful that these youngsters will be able to perform at a level required for higher education. This, as well as a host of others, provide the impetus for programs that encourage underrepresented and underprivileged persons to enter college and, in some cases, reserves spots for such applicants. The pros and cons of such programs that are designed to atone for past inequities is a lengthy discussion of its own. However, the fact that such programs exist is an acknowledge that there are extreme imbalances in access, opportunity, allocation of resources, and level of success.

Even if one somehow bypasses or excels despite the numerous pitfalls that are in the educational system…the ills aren’t over. Ok, so one is lucky enough to excel in high school and go to college. This is where the guarantees stop to some extent because the American philosophy is that all people are entitled to an education from preschool through graduation from high school. After that, the entitlement is over but the necessity remains. Most agree on the importance of getting an undergraduate college education. Why is something that has become so integral to the success of the average person engulfed within the capitalist paradigm of America? A capitalist paradigm that, simply put, the bottom line which is a calculation of earnings, expenditures, and profits (the quintessential business model) is foremost. In college, school becomes a business. Tuition and room/board costs are often too expensive for both college students and their parents. Financial aid is a reality for many college students. Depending on the school and the amount that the student and his/her parents are able to pay, a student’s debt after undergraduate work can be well in excess of $100,000. It’s believed that such exorbitant debt for education is an investment in one’s future. If one uses the same capitalist mindset that has made education so expensive, doesn’t it seem that $100,000 in debt in unwise regardless of what it’s for?

It’s even more damning when one talks about post-undergraduate work. The costs continue to mount for degrees that don’t always mean a difference in pay. In fact, one degree in particular (the Masters) seems to have infinite forms as there are Masters degrees in a mind-boggling variety of specialties with more being created by the day. As there are so many different degrees with as many different qualifications, is there a standard on which these programs can be measured? What more, are there enough jobs to that require such distinct specializations to utilize such Masters work? Even if one finds a job that utilizes the expertise that one gains from an advanced degree program, is the pay scale so much different for someone with a Masters degree as compared to someone without one? These are all important questions that arise when one makes difficult and life-changing discussions about education. So many times after asking these questions, the answers are unsatisfactory and as puzzling as the questions themselves. As Masters programs are so diverse and non-standardized and in a seemingly infinite number of disciplines, it comes as no surprise that some of them come with caveats that they are not “end-point” degrees. Supposedly, this means that the degree offers more specialized knowledge but does not provide the qualifications for a specific job or position. It does not mean that one’s pay scale will change or that one will be more marketable career wise. Yet, do these same admissions counselors and academicians say that the program is at a discounted rate or that somehow the extreme financial burden of such programs that often costs 10s of thousands of dollars will be allayed? No such luck, these same programs that don’t make one more marketable in the job market and don’t offer specialization towards a particular job cost the same or more than degrees that do provide more job marketability. Students that pursue these Masters programs compound their undergraduate debt by twofold in half the time to earn the same or a little bit. It doesn’t take a Masters in Mathematics to know that these numbers don’t stack up in favor of the student.

And beyond the Masters degree, things don’t look too much better. There are a growing number of degrees besides the Ph.D., M.D., and J.D. Despite the kind of doctorate that one has, it still seems that even these degrees aren’t once they once were and even they don’t pay dividends that match the resource expenditure in terms of the outlay of cash and time needed to get these degrees. The medical field that was once thought to be a panacea has quickly become more of a war with managed health care and mounds of paperwork than a focus on caregiving. PhDs are often saddled with jobs in the educational field that basically teach students how to one day be the professor. It’s a very circular concept to think that the professor would be teach a student how to one day be the professor because the only kind of job that the student will be able to get is that of the professor. Does this provide for a dynamic job market? And, last but not least, lawyers…jurists who often earn little money unless they get a high profile case. Many lawyers are constantly in search of that big break and unless they get it—they remain poor. Furthermore, there are a multitude of jobs in which lawyers find themselves that have little to do with their training. Often people say that law hones argumentative, cognitive, and reasoning skills. Is it necessary to get a law degree to learn how to think effectively?

Of course, there are people that have never seen a college classroom that are on the Forbes 500 list of billionaires. This is definitely a kick in the gut to those who are in college “to get a good job.” What it seems to come down to is not the college degree but the level of luck, ingenuity, and creativity that one is able to display in how successful he/she becomes. Let’s not forget that college may be one way but definitely not the only way or even the best way to be successful. As with so many things, success and accomplishment cannot be bought or manufactured, it comes from within. There is no magic formula that governs it. It can neither be given nor taken away by any one person or entity and though it means different things to different people, once one attains a certain amount of it…further discussion is moot. Perhaps, that’s why it is so coveted!