Notice the invention of "neo-racist" so as to have a side to push against when even mildly critiquing the moral panic coming from his preferred side. "The American sense of reality is dictated by what Americans are trying to avoid." - James Baldwin
Pondisco proudly serves as a fellow member of the Board of Advisors for fairforall.org with Chris Rufo who is the chief propagator of the moral panic which has directly led to people declaring that a book about Ruby Bridges is CRT. Will you see Pondisco criticize Rufo?
No, you will not see Pondisco criticize Rufo because they sup from the same funding trough for their daily bread and internal solidarity trumps intellectual honesty or even clarity every time.
Pondisco would much rather see Chris Rufo succeed than those who promote anti-racist education (what Pondisco calls "neo-racists" in an attempt to claim the high ground for himself) so while he wants to appear reasonable, the underlying reality should be apparent.
The attack on anti-racist education (which is what the anti-CRT stuff is really about) is an astroturfed movement. Rufo is the tip of the spear. Pondisco is the reasonable gloss. They're rowing in the same direction. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/c…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Revealing story on what's up at Penn St. with Black professors whose proportions have not budged in over 20 years. These dynamics are at play most everywhere. washingtonpost.com/education/2021…
An administrator straight up tells a Black faculty member that he believes minority candidates are less likely to be qualified for positions. This is not a pipeline problem. It's a failure to to recognize varieties of excellence problem. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
If you have a structure that is fundamentally hostile to certain groups, you must undo that hostility if you expect to attract more people from that group. Black faculty have been sharing stories of the hostility for years yet the entrenched powers do not listen.
For what it's worth, some additional context about a survey that the viewpoint diversity crowd is crapping themselves over this evening. Took me all of 10 minutes to look a little harder at the data and see how, as always, things are more complicated than they 1st appear.
First, this survey is produced by a NDSU university center that's funded largely by Koch money. There's dozens of these around the country. It's not nefarious, but they have a clear agenda behind their work. ndsu.edu/news/view/deta…
Second regarding that question about how students would respond to "offensive" speech, it's designed to be as vague as possible. There's no definition of what "offensive" is. It's purely in the eye of the beholder. An intentionally bad question.
“Above all, it’s about the futures of the kids, and also the rights of corporations to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they want.” @rpondiscio (probably)
I mean, imagine taking your checks from AEI and asking people to believe you care at all about the future of anyone.
It's interesting to think about the structures of the so-called meritocracy that people like me critique and how they apply to @rpondiscio, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. (AEI).
AEI is considered the most powerful conservative think tank in the country. It is funded by an array of right wing conservatives, most notably David Koch. sourcewatch.org/index.php/Amer…
Among other things AEI advocates against raising the minimum wage, for the tobacco industry, for voter suppression, and most importantly against any efforts to address global warming.
The meritocracy as constructed in this country is already aristocratic. That’s the point of the critique. You’re smart enough to know that, but too beholden to your finders to be honest about it.
*funders. No one is against the idea of "merit," but the whole point of the critique of the meritocracy is that it rewards things other than merit because its structured by those already advantaged by the system.
For example, landing a sweet gig at a conservative think tank, and then jumping to another conservative think tank could be viewed as meritorious, or it could be a consequence of a simple willingness to spew opinions that the funders approve of and further their aims.
Ungrading isn't just a shift in pedagogical practice, it's about bringing a different mindset and set of values to the activity of learning values which are by no means new. Vital perspective here from @Jessiferjessestommel.com/ungrading-an-i…
Seeing work like @Jessifer's here makes me so hopeful that we can make progress in these areas. The vision and promise is so clear and when enacted, it's transformative. There's no going back to the old mindset because it just seems lacking, un-vital.
I can testify that adopting the mindset that underpins ungrading transformed my work and the work of my students and the removal of traditional grading came last in the process!