I'll admit it - watching the final episode of the new season of "Orange is the New Black" made me tear up.
*Spoiler alert* If you haven't seen the season 2 ending yet but are planning to, look away!
Miss Rosa decides that she's not going to spend her final cancerous days dying behind bars, throws caution to the wind, steals the prison transport van and blasts through a locked gate, causing a gaggle of protesting nuns to jump out of the way. (That's another story.) She turns on the radio, and Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't fear the reaper is playing." The final scenes flash back to her as a much younger woman. Her younger self -- played by the dark-haired beauty Stephanie Andujar -- is shown laughing as she speeds away from what was likely a bank robbery. The sound of police sirens pursuing her is heard. She laughs. She's beautiful. She doesn't fear the reaper, or the police.
Outlaw women are fascinating. France Winddance Twine touches on the gun molls of the 1930's in her 2013 book, Girls with Guns (Routledge). Remember Bonnie Parker of Bonnie & Clyde fame? Yup, she was one. There were others, too -- the romantic, sexual, criminal partners of outlaw men. More recently (1991), Thelma and Louise elected to drive their car off a cliff into the Grand Canyon rather than turn themselves in and face the consequences for shooting a man. (A rapist.)
All the characters in "Orange" are outlaws in a way. They all broke the law, some more violently than others. What the series does is show these women's vulnerability as well as their misdeeds. They lived outside boundaries and hurt others, but they get hurt too. Miss Rosa is dying of cancer. Nicky is tough, but still feels the pull of her heroin addictions. Suzanne "Crazy Eyes" Warren beats up another inmate (Red) viciously, but as the audience and other characters clearly notice, she's badly manipulated by Vee. This is the paradox of the woman outlaw. Tough, but never beyond getting hurt.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Maroon 5's Portrayal of Stalking in "Animals" Video is Inaccurate
The rock band Maroon 5 has been in the news lately for its depiction of stalking in the video for the song "Animals". Disturbing. Misogynistic. Sickening. Non-artistic and pandering for shock value. These are some of the negative comments that have been lobbed at the band for the video. Oh, and gross. All that fake blood. And raw meat. Did I mention gross?
If you haven't seen the video, you can find it easily enough on Youtube.
I'm a fan of the song, if not the video. It IS gross. My main quibble with the video for this blog post, however, is that the video gives a fictionalized portrayal of stalking. There's nothing sexy whatsoever about stalking. While celebrity stalkers make headlines on occasion, most stalking is by deranged individuals against former intimate partners. Most victims are female; nationally, about 1 in 12 women are stalked during their lifetime. About a third of women killed by a former intimate partner were stalked by that partner before their murder.
Stalking victims have reason to be afraid for their lives, and/or that their stalker will harm them physically, emotionally and financially. Recommended safety tips for victims include reporting the crime, getting a restraining order, changing one's phone number to an unlisted number, changing locks to one's home, changing routes to work, moving out of town, keeping evidence and records of restraining order violations, and on and on and on. (Nothing sexy about completely upending one's life and living in constant fear, Maroon 5.) Sometimes even these measures don't help. One tragic example that comes to mind is the case of Peggy Klinke, who was stalked and ultimately murdered by her stalker. Peggy went underground, moving across country and - she thought - leaving no trace of her new wearabouts. Still, her stalker hired a private detective, found her, and ultimately murdered her while she was on the phone with 911. Peggy did everything right, and still the justice system couldn't protect her. Nothing sexy about that.
Stalking. Not sexy. The "Animals" video is gross, and wrong, wrong, wrong.
If you haven't seen the video, you can find it easily enough on Youtube.
I'm a fan of the song, if not the video. It IS gross. My main quibble with the video for this blog post, however, is that the video gives a fictionalized portrayal of stalking. There's nothing sexy whatsoever about stalking. While celebrity stalkers make headlines on occasion, most stalking is by deranged individuals against former intimate partners. Most victims are female; nationally, about 1 in 12 women are stalked during their lifetime. About a third of women killed by a former intimate partner were stalked by that partner before their murder.
Stalking victims have reason to be afraid for their lives, and/or that their stalker will harm them physically, emotionally and financially. Recommended safety tips for victims include reporting the crime, getting a restraining order, changing one's phone number to an unlisted number, changing locks to one's home, changing routes to work, moving out of town, keeping evidence and records of restraining order violations, and on and on and on. (Nothing sexy about completely upending one's life and living in constant fear, Maroon 5.) Sometimes even these measures don't help. One tragic example that comes to mind is the case of Peggy Klinke, who was stalked and ultimately murdered by her stalker. Peggy went underground, moving across country and - she thought - leaving no trace of her new wearabouts. Still, her stalker hired a private detective, found her, and ultimately murdered her while she was on the phone with 911. Peggy did everything right, and still the justice system couldn't protect her. Nothing sexy about that.
Stalking. Not sexy. The "Animals" video is gross, and wrong, wrong, wrong.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Why Messing with Teacher Tenure Won't Magically Transform Education
This post isn't specifically related to criminal justice (CJ), but it's a topical issue right now. It's CJ-related in a roundabout way, in that I'm a CJ professor, and this pertains to the teaching profession more broadly. It's my blog, and I can blog if I want to... blog if I want to...
So I'm driving home from work recently, listening to NJ101.5 talk radio. The subject of November teacher convention week is being discussed, specifically how the DJ thinks it's outrageous that some school districts will shut school down for a full week so their teachers can (allegedly) attend the NJEA teacher convention. I'll admit that my knowledge of what happens at the annual convention is sketchy since I've never attended or looked into the details. When my daughter attended public elementary school, her school would shut down for two or three days so teachers could attend. I'm familiar with industry conferences in general, since there are a number of them in my field. (In fact, next week I head to the fall American Society of Criminology conference.) I always figured that teachers, if they went to the NJEA conference, would attend workshops on things like technology in the classroom (clickers! smart boards!) and new pedagogical approaches. I mainly thought about the NJEA conference in terms of how my husband and I would juggle childcare coverage and work during those days.
Anyhow, the predictable parade of callers chime in, including one fellow who said he was a teacher and that most of the teachers he knows don't go to the conference. Or if they go to the city where the conference is held (Atlantic City this year), they'll go to the beach, drink, hang out with friends, etc. 'We teachers have a pretty sweet gig. We get summers off, plenty of days off, after a short probationary period we get employment for life.' The DJ made affirmative noises. I could imagine his head nodding in agreement.
Oh, those bad, lazy teachers. That seems to be the vibe coming from courts and politicians - NJ Governor Christie - these days. Time Magazine recently ran the article, "The war on teacher tenure." In the article, a California school superintendent is quoted as explaining what would improve education in his district as "Give me control over my workforce." In other words, get rid of tenure so I can fire those bad apple, lazy teachers. Indeed, examples of bad teacher behavior are mentioned in the article: verbally abusing students, sleeping during class.
I can speak to this issue - eliminating tenure - as both a tenured professor of higher education, and as a parent. My daughter, "M", is currently in 8th grade. After attending private preschool and kindergarten, she attended four years of public elementary school in our town, before switching to private school where she'll continue through high school. I'm a product of public education, as is my sister. My mother was moderately horrified when I initially told her we were thinking of switching her granddaughter to private school. In the end, it has worked out well.
So why did we switch? Did we have concerns about the quality of education our daughter got at public school? Yes. Did this have anything to do with the quality of teaching? No.
At public school, M had 2 tenured teachers and 2 untenured (or tenure track) teachers. For the past four years, she's had year-to-year contract teachers since at private school (at least at hers), there is no tenure. (There may be tenure at other private schools. I suspect not, but haven't looked into it.) In my opinion, tenured/untenured/year-to-year contract teachers - there's no difference in the quality of education the teachers have delivered. Based on my experience as a parent, good teachers are good, regardless of their employment status.
M has two teachers right now whom she really likes: her English and History teachers. Her English teacher is great because she has a terrific, upbeat personality and likes children. She brings great enthusiasm to the teaching of Shakespeare and other literature. She gives plenty of writing assignments and lots of prompt, detailed feedback on writing quality. Important but tedious things are also covered, like grammar. M has had this teacher for two years in English, and she'll be more well-read and a better writer for it. M's history teacher is a bit more like a drill sergeant, but she's also very funny. She has a no-nonsense approach to teaching, keeps the class in line with strict rules and good humor, and gives clear-cut assignments. She stresses note-taking. She grades tests quickly so the kids have early feedback on their progress. She also likes children.
By contrast, another of M's teachers is less effective, in my opinion. I'll omit the subject matter, but M has also had him/her for two years. What makes this teacher not as good as the English and History teachers? S/he talks lectures too quickly, laughs at kids when they ask questions about something they don't understand, won't clarify points of confusion ('Maybe you'd understand better if you participated more' or 'Didn't you watch the video links I sent home?'), makes subject matter unnecessarily confusing, and plays favorites with kids. Other parents feel as I do. This teacher has an obnoxious personality.
I'm certain that if tenure were an option at M's current school, all three teachers - English, History, and Bad Teacher - would obtain it. As it is, they've survived the annual renewal process for a number of years. The school principal clearly feels like he has control over his workforce, and he keeps them on.
So what makes the overall quality of education better, in my humble opinion, at M's private school? Class size, and better curricula. (Teacher personality -- good or bad -- is a constant at public and private schools.) In M's current English class, there are plenty of writing assignments about classic literature, lots of feedback and rewrites of writing assignments, and attention to grammar. What was the approach to writing at M's public elementary school? Her fourth grade teacher told me that the school principal told her, "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!" That's a curriculum?? Frenetic, panic-driven writing? Write about what? What about the issue of kids being at different levels of ability and literacy? What about kids for whom English is a second language, and the fact that there were 29 kids in the class? "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!"
That was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me for public education in our town.
Those pushing to eliminate tenure may succeed in the long run, granting school principals and district superintendents much more control over their workforce. They can whip those lazy teachers into shape - or else! Afterwards, I suspect the innovators will still be left with the nagging question of how to improve public K-12 education. What will be done about class size? What will be done about curricula? What's the best way to teach math, anyways? (Why don't we know this yet?) What about kids living and attending school in really poor communities, whose lives at home are filled with lots of background noise and chaos? How can control be gained over that?
So I'm driving home from work recently, listening to NJ101.5 talk radio. The subject of November teacher convention week is being discussed, specifically how the DJ thinks it's outrageous that some school districts will shut school down for a full week so their teachers can (allegedly) attend the NJEA teacher convention. I'll admit that my knowledge of what happens at the annual convention is sketchy since I've never attended or looked into the details. When my daughter attended public elementary school, her school would shut down for two or three days so teachers could attend. I'm familiar with industry conferences in general, since there are a number of them in my field. (In fact, next week I head to the fall American Society of Criminology conference.) I always figured that teachers, if they went to the NJEA conference, would attend workshops on things like technology in the classroom (clickers! smart boards!) and new pedagogical approaches. I mainly thought about the NJEA conference in terms of how my husband and I would juggle childcare coverage and work during those days.
Anyhow, the predictable parade of callers chime in, including one fellow who said he was a teacher and that most of the teachers he knows don't go to the conference. Or if they go to the city where the conference is held (Atlantic City this year), they'll go to the beach, drink, hang out with friends, etc. 'We teachers have a pretty sweet gig. We get summers off, plenty of days off, after a short probationary period we get employment for life.' The DJ made affirmative noises. I could imagine his head nodding in agreement.
Oh, those bad, lazy teachers. That seems to be the vibe coming from courts and politicians - NJ Governor Christie - these days. Time Magazine recently ran the article, "The war on teacher tenure." In the article, a California school superintendent is quoted as explaining what would improve education in his district as "Give me control over my workforce." In other words, get rid of tenure so I can fire those bad apple, lazy teachers. Indeed, examples of bad teacher behavior are mentioned in the article: verbally abusing students, sleeping during class.
I can speak to this issue - eliminating tenure - as both a tenured professor of higher education, and as a parent. My daughter, "M", is currently in 8th grade. After attending private preschool and kindergarten, she attended four years of public elementary school in our town, before switching to private school where she'll continue through high school. I'm a product of public education, as is my sister. My mother was moderately horrified when I initially told her we were thinking of switching her granddaughter to private school. In the end, it has worked out well.
So why did we switch? Did we have concerns about the quality of education our daughter got at public school? Yes. Did this have anything to do with the quality of teaching? No.
At public school, M had 2 tenured teachers and 2 untenured (or tenure track) teachers. For the past four years, she's had year-to-year contract teachers since at private school (at least at hers), there is no tenure. (There may be tenure at other private schools. I suspect not, but haven't looked into it.) In my opinion, tenured/untenured/year-to-year contract teachers - there's no difference in the quality of education the teachers have delivered. Based on my experience as a parent, good teachers are good, regardless of their employment status.
M has two teachers right now whom she really likes: her English and History teachers. Her English teacher is great because she has a terrific, upbeat personality and likes children. She brings great enthusiasm to the teaching of Shakespeare and other literature. She gives plenty of writing assignments and lots of prompt, detailed feedback on writing quality. Important but tedious things are also covered, like grammar. M has had this teacher for two years in English, and she'll be more well-read and a better writer for it. M's history teacher is a bit more like a drill sergeant, but she's also very funny. She has a no-nonsense approach to teaching, keeps the class in line with strict rules and good humor, and gives clear-cut assignments. She stresses note-taking. She grades tests quickly so the kids have early feedback on their progress. She also likes children.
By contrast, another of M's teachers is less effective, in my opinion. I'll omit the subject matter, but M has also had him/her for two years. What makes this teacher not as good as the English and History teachers? S/he talks lectures too quickly, laughs at kids when they ask questions about something they don't understand, won't clarify points of confusion ('Maybe you'd understand better if you participated more' or 'Didn't you watch the video links I sent home?'), makes subject matter unnecessarily confusing, and plays favorites with kids. Other parents feel as I do. This teacher has an obnoxious personality.
I'm certain that if tenure were an option at M's current school, all three teachers - English, History, and Bad Teacher - would obtain it. As it is, they've survived the annual renewal process for a number of years. The school principal clearly feels like he has control over his workforce, and he keeps them on.
So what makes the overall quality of education better, in my humble opinion, at M's private school? Class size, and better curricula. (Teacher personality -- good or bad -- is a constant at public and private schools.) In M's current English class, there are plenty of writing assignments about classic literature, lots of feedback and rewrites of writing assignments, and attention to grammar. What was the approach to writing at M's public elementary school? Her fourth grade teacher told me that the school principal told her, "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!" That's a curriculum?? Frenetic, panic-driven writing? Write about what? What about the issue of kids being at different levels of ability and literacy? What about kids for whom English is a second language, and the fact that there were 29 kids in the class? "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!"
That was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me for public education in our town.
Those pushing to eliminate tenure may succeed in the long run, granting school principals and district superintendents much more control over their workforce. They can whip those lazy teachers into shape - or else! Afterwards, I suspect the innovators will still be left with the nagging question of how to improve public K-12 education. What will be done about class size? What will be done about curricula? What's the best way to teach math, anyways? (Why don't we know this yet?) What about kids living and attending school in really poor communities, whose lives at home are filled with lots of background noise and chaos? How can control be gained over that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)