Thanks @brennacgray for this thoughtful and important addition to the conversation. Critique is at the heart of what we do. I've certainly been disappointed to see attacks on folks' teaching abilities and ethos in response to their legitimate questions. That can't be it, y'all.
https://twitter.com/brennacgray/status/1489650803946123265
I just want folks to think about the good work that's going to be destroyed in service of short-term Twitter points. Please don't tell people who are legit concerned about a clearly questionable entity to "learn how to teach" when they point out those concerns.
I'm rooting for Sean to succeed. But I have serious concerns about CH, some of them drawn from personal experience. Both of these things are true, and I can hold them both together. If we extend Sean the benefit of the doubt, then the CH criticism has to get that benefit, too.
All of us who do this work want the same things. I have some pretty strong opinions on how we get there. They do not mesh with other strongly-held opinions in this community of practice we're all in. But the work is what's important, and I'd hate to see it devalued.
As Freire observed, learning is dialogical. And right now good faith attempts at critical dialogue are being throttled, and I don't like that. Critical Digital Pedagogy is not, and cannot be, a cool-kids club. What we say or write means nothing without a praxis that has integrity
It's hard. Even-especially-when everything seems like it's going to shit and we're all so damned tired. But there's so much good work in this messy but glorious CritDigPed community. Remember why we do it and remember the other humans doing it. As Yung Bleu said, we all we got.
Well shit. That turned into a thread, didn't it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
