When did Social Justice get to be a Bad Thing?

When did social justice get to be a bad thing?

Please deconstruct this for me, a child of the 1950s, who put her hand over her heart and said out loud, every day, in concert with my classmates, that I believed in “liberty and justice for all.” When did we start putting “social justice” in quotes?

Isn’t social justice one of the foundational principles of our great American experiment in governing toward democratic equality, a more perfect union? I live in a small town, what you might call pro-America real America, and taught in a public school for thirty years. I believed in social justice, when it was first explained to me, in kindergarten, as being fair to everyone in our class—and I believe in other educational manifestations of social justice since, from Brown to equitable funding to Title IX to accountability.  I also believe that social justice and a strong capitalistic economy are not mutually exclusive.

In fact—aren’t social justice and equal opportunity intertwined in our political philosophy? Human rights—civil liberties and a good education—followed by the right to enjoy the benefits of your own hard work, no matter who your family is or where you were born? To freely choose a goal of personal enrichment (plumbing, evidently) or a path of public service? Shouldn’t the blessings of liberty be equally available to every American child? Isn’t the nation happier and more secure when everyone has a stake in our economy, a real shot at a good life?

Who are these people who are snarling around suggesting that creating schools and curriculums to address the learning needs of inner city poor kids is some kind of left-wing plot? If I’m not teaching—ultimately—toward social justice, toward improved opportunity for each of my students, then why would I teach at all? I certainly wouldn’t do it for the money.

Sorry.  I have reached Rhetoric Overload—the point at which it feels like I am living in a parallel universe. A bona fide Strange Land. I am genuinely queasy about the level and nature of the national conversation this past week—especially all of the perfectly good language utilized as code for fear and intolerance. Again—when did social justice become muddled up with extremism and destroying the fabric of democracy?

A few scary tidbits, on the social justice front:

In fact, as one of the leaders of a movement for bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms, Mr. Ayers is not a school reformer. He is a school destroyer. Education students signing up for a course Mr. Ayers teaches at UIC, "On Urban Education," can read these exhortations from the course description: "Homelessness, crime, racism, oppression -- we have the resources and knowledge to fight and overcome these things. We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems globally." (Sol Stern, City Journal)

Those last two lines come right out of the “21st century learning” playbook--they could have been written by Jeffrey Sachs.

ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get – an invitation to fraud – and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of “social justice.” (The aptly named JammieWearingFool.)

The campaign also cited two projects the [Annenberg] foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies. "That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans." (Michael Goldfarb, spokesman for McCain, in Politifact.com.)

Obama's vision of hope shines like a rainbow, appealing but just out of reach. McCain's call to freedom and responsibility is less exciting, but you know it works. The Tribune encourages voters to vote what they believe, not what they wish were true. (Tampa Tribune)

And I’m not even going near the crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota suggesting that now might be a dandy time for a congressional witch hunt.

Sigh. Has it been this bad in other election years? Not for a long, long time.

That last quote, from the Tampa Tribune, I find particularly depressing, as a teacher. When you have your local newspaper urging you to aim low—informing you that hope for a better country is out of reach—it’s hard to keep your own teacher vision of a good America, the greatest country in the world, full of innovators and mavericks, from getting a little dim. And when you take a perfectly democratic—small d—phrase like “social justice” and start deliberately attaching it to terrorism and radicalism, the light goes out completely.

I’m going to vote for what I wish were true.

Image: Biberta/morguefile

Comments

[J]

Congratulations! Your post has made it in to the Mole Day edition of the Carnival of Education. And you aren't the only one who is disturbed by the current happenings with regard to social justice. You can view the CoE here - http://theinfamousj.livejournal.com/341377.html - once the link goes live on 10/22. I thank you in advance for any plugs that you offer on your blog.

[Margo/Mom]

Nancy:

Thank you for saying it out loud and in public. I have been frightened also by the witch hunt implications of the Barack Obama equals William Ayers equals Social Justice equals Socialism equation. Too much time has been devoted to discussion of whether William Ayers has sufficiently repented and how much time Barack Obama spent with him, and nowhere near enough in understanding exactly what a social justice pedagogy entails. The one thing that I can give to Sol Stern is that he understands--but disagrees.

There is a profound dishonesty about pretending that there is an active fight going on against socialism in this country--and further that socialism equates with terrorism and loss of freedoms. My own belief has been that Franklin Roosevelt turned us away from socialism by providing for the softening of the rough and rugged edges of capitalism and its effects on the downtrodden. Lyndon Johnson provided a boost in the 1960's. But the death knell was tolled by Ronald Reagan in his campaign to "get government off our backs." (which Sarah Palin has lately echoed). It is a very powerful and dangerous idea in a democracy to be mistrustful of the rightfully elected government of the people.

Reagan, and his followers successfully implemented a strategy of convincing the middle class that their interests were more closely aligned to those of the wealthy minority than the disadvantaged at the bottom. Joe the plumber (I just heard that the mean salary for licensed plumber is about $40,000) honestly identifies with those who earn over $250,000--with no notion of how he might actually purchase the plumbing company he works for, or whether a gross of $250,000 would put him into a higher personal income bracket--as well as whether he might be better off.

Those in education who understand exactly where Joe (or presumably Joe jr.) stands in the scheme of things really ought to be providing him with that knowledge. That's not indoctrination--if anything it is indoctrination resistance.

As taxpayers we need to become savvy enough to ask about every tax cut--what was this paying for and how will we do without it? We are graduating young people from college with a load of debt to last them well into their adulthood. As they begin raising children, the cost of child care can equal that of education at a community college. Pensions have largely become a thing of the past and social security is in trouble. Employees pick up increasing shares of health insurance cost and it drives up the cost of every American product (including education).

Every cost that is not funneled through the government is born by individuals--frequently at a higher cost (compare the administrative costs of Medicare/Medicaid to those of private health insurance, for example), and certainly to the greater benefit of those with more.

I came up in the 60's when social justice wasn't viewed as a bad thing. I was fortunate to spend the 70s and eighties doing community work (let's not even talk about how that has been discredited in this campaign) with people who proudly stood up for social justice as it was battered through the administrations of Nixon, Reagan and the first George Bush. I am personally far more surprised that ACORN has been able to hang on as a very grassroots organization (self-supporting through door to door campaigns), than by the fact that some of the folks that they hired to register voters were able to scam them. Nonetheless, to see them red-baited is a scary sight.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Hi, Margo. Welcome to a Strange Land--and thanks for your thoughtful post. I regret deleting your second post, a reasonable question directed to an offensive poster, but I'm sure you understand. I was concerned about maintaining a blog home where people can express divergent opinions without fear of violence--something I was diligent about in my classroom.

You said:

"It is a very powerful and dangerous idea in a democracy to be mistrustful of the rightfully elected government of the people."

There are lots of ways to go with that statement. Do we or don't we have the obligation to be critically mindful of the actions of our elected officials? I think you're saying yes--but that a government also flourishes when most people are satisfied with its outcomes.

As for a social justice curriculum, I would look to my Teacher Leaders Network blogging colleague, Ariel Sacks. Her last blog, on what it really takes to teach well in high-needs schools is a must-read:

http://tinyurl.com/5k6mj5

She's the real expert in teaching for social justice.

Thanks for posting.

[Margo/Mom]

Nancy:

I believe that there is a difference between being critical of the current regime, or government policies and rejecting government out of hand as being "the problem." One is the responsibility of voters, the other is the doorway to anarchy. It is really the simplistic unexamined ideas that underlie the get government out of our way so we can solve our own problems that I find to be dangerous. The relationship between de-regulation and the current financial crisis is an example. But we have teetered on the edge of other crises--bridge collapse, food contamination, preparedness for natural disaster. These are all areas that are affected when we slash away at government simply because it is government and therefore incompetent. It affects public education as I read posts from people who refer sneeringly to "government schools," as if the term "government" is sufficient explanation of their incompetence.

[Nancy Flanagan]

I agree. The strongest argument for good government-- regulating the economy--has just smacked us across the face, not to mention our 401(k)s. These are frightening times, when the most vocal acolytes of the free market and individual responsibility are simultaneously endorsing federalization of the banks.

I am reminded of author James Baldwin's words:

"I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."

[Mary Tedrow]

I clearly remember learning the word tolerance in the fifth grade. I learned the word in a public school. Public Schools live the word. Education has always been the great equalizer and the hope of any nation. Thank you for reminding us what the goal of democracy and education entail: to help all the "tired, poor, the downtrodden."

[J.M. Holland]

I think we put down our right to be right when we put down our ideals.

Perfection is the enemy of progress but I really don't think anyone, especially teachers, is living in a perfect world.

The most recent desperate shot from the right wing.

Barack Obama's ideas are scary.
Excellent points Nancy, as always.

[Matt Johnston]

I would like to take the opportunity in this space to respond to a couple of comments from Margo/Mom, who said:

"As taxpayers we need to become savvy enough to ask about every tax cut--what was this paying for and how will we do without it? We are graduating young people from college with a load of debt to last them well into their adulthood. As they begin raising children, the cost of child care can equal that of education at a community college. Pensions have largely become a thing of the past and social security is in trouble. Employees pick up increasing shares of health insurance cost and it drives up the cost of every American product (including education).

Every cost that is not funneled through the government is born by individuals--frequently at a higher cost (compare the administrative costs of Medicare/Medicaid to those of private health insurance, for example), and certainly to the greater benefit of those with more."

First, allow me to address the latter, and somewhat lesser point. Medicare/Medicaid has an astronomical administrative cost, far in excess of a private health insurance company. There are three reasons for this.

1). A private insurance company is in business to make a profit, thus it must keep administrative costs down in order to make a profit. Medicare/Medicaid--no profit motive, no incentive to keep administrative costs low.

2). A private health insurance company is heavily regulated at the state level, including mandates on what type and how much money must be kept liquid and available to pay claims. Medicare/Medicaid simply ask for more money.

3). Medicare/Medicaid is paid for by everyone, with each person paying a share of the cost whether they use the system or not, but there is not control in place since payment is mandated through the tax system. A private insurer has to collect premiums from its enrollees and must do so on a voluntary basis, meaning those premiums are subject to market forces, i.e. if the premium is too high, they lose business. Medicare doesn't have that problem, so there is no incentive to keep administrative costs down in order to keep premiums down to a marketable level.

But this is not a debate about health care, it is a debate about government and in the current environment, we have come to misunderstand the fundamental nature of our republican democracy form of government. We have become inured to the "government is supposed to help" that we have forgotten that the whole purpose of our Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions is that these are documents (each and every one of them) in which power is ceded to the government, they governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin are not suggesting that we as a nation turn away from government, but rather we need to be asking the tough questions of government, i.e. what are we getting for our tax dollar? Is this a function that government must be doing, should be doing or are we as a society just getting lazy and not doing for ourselves? "Getting government off our backs" is not a statement of hating government, but a statement of questioning whether we have allowed government, an entity of limited and expressly granted powers, to get too big that we now carry too heavy a burden.

If taxpayers are supposed to be savvy about asking about the cost of every tax cut, the converse is not only true, but arguably more so. Every taxpayer should be asking themselves not only, what am I and we as a society getting with this tax increase, but what is the cost to me and society in the short and long term.

Margo and Nancy, I don't think you are advocating that people not question government. However, simply because something has an appealing label (i.e. social justice or a "right") doesn't mean it is a good thing. Ceding too much to government is a greater betrayal of social justice because we forget to ask ourselves, is this really a good thing.

In the end, I will take the rough edges and hard knocks of a society with less government involvement, so long as there is a mechanism, available to everyone, to get greivances redressed.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Well, gosh, Matt. If you didn't like my reflections on the co-opting of the phrase "social justice," you'll really hate the blog I wrote today, on how a full-bore campaign to increase mistrust in government and put more faith in the market led to the economic meltdown.

I know this blog is not about health care--but the thing about your health care ideas is that national health care does work in other countries. The fact that millions of children are without health care in the United States is a national shame.

You think I am confusing social justice, the concept and ideal, with the mandates of government. I believe we can do better in this country--we can serve more people, develop more talent, invest in our country's infrastructure and perhaps even return to the idea of community. That's my definition of social justice--not mandates.

[Powell DeGange]

I am writing to inform you of the boycott against the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego.
On July 10th, 2008, a coalition led by the San Diego labor movement and the LGBT community called for a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt, the host site for AERA's Annual Conference.

Manchester's Hyatt has brought the LGBT community UNITE HERE together to fight for equality for gay and lesbian couples and justice for the workers at his Hyatt hotel. Doug Manchester has a history working against both:

· Equality for lesbian and gay couples. Doug Manchester is one of the leading funders ($125,000) of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that discriminates against LGBT couples. The California LGBT community faces an extremely difficult fight to prevent an outright ban on their civil right to have legal recognition for same sex couples and equal protection for their families. While Hyatt may officially disavow Manchester's contributions to Proposition 8 as a personal choice, the fact remains that their multi-million dollar LGBT marketing efforts must be seen as little more than sheer hypocrisy when the revenue this marketing attracts is then funneled into efforts that bite the hand which feeds them. In such a situation, we always have the ability to choose not to feed them any longer.
· Justice for Manchester Hyatt workers. Manchester's Hyatt allegedly forces housekeepers to clean more rooms than housekeepers at other Hyatt hotels, including the other Hyatt hotel in San Diego. In 2006, housekeepers began lunch hour protests against working conditions in the hotel, saying that their daily room quota had been increased from 17 to 30 rooms per shift! We have no reason to believe that Manchester has made any workload reductions to address these protests. Across the hotel industry, increasing workloads have put a greater strain on housekeepers; work speedups have led to increasing injury rates. According to the Department of Labor, injury rates for hotel workers are 40% higher than the service sector average. Hotel housekeeper injuries are debilitating. Back injuries, housemaids' knee (bursitis), and shoulder pain can lead to permanent disability. Numerous studies have shown that unreasonable workloads are a serious occupational health issue; here are a few facts that highlight the severity of that problem:
In a recent survey of more than 600 hotel housekeepers in the U.S. and Canada, 91% said that they have suffered work-related pain. Of those who reported workplace pain:
_ 77% said their workplace pain interfered with routine activities.
_ Two out of every three workers visited their doctor to deal with workplace pain.
_ 66% took pain medication just to get through their daily quota.
(UNITE HERE survey results)

As stated above, it is also a fact that the California LGBT community faces an extremely difficult fight to prevent an outright ban on their civil right to have legal recognition for same sex couples and equal protection for their families. While Hyatt may officially disavow Manchester's contributions to Proposition 8 as a personal choice, the fact remains that their multi-million dollar LGBT marketing efforts must be seen as little more than sheer hypocrisy when the revenue this marketing attracts is then funneled into efforts that bite the hand which feeds them. In such a situation, we always have the ability to choose not to feed them any longer.

As a customer of the Manchester Grand Hyatt, AERA is caught in the middle of this contentious labor dispute. It is impossible to predict what will happen under these circumstances and the dispute will continue to escalate as will picketing, demonstrations and other actions outside of the hotel. As a large public association, it is imperative that the Conference be moved to a different venue so that it members who will not cross San Diego Labor Council sanctioned picket lines and stand for lgbt equality will be able to attend and the conference will enjoy full participation.
The Educational field and AERA have the ability to do the right thing and not patronize a business that fuels injustice and discrimination within our community. This has been a highly visible dispute and we encourage you to avoid the controversy and meet at an alternate venue. The American Association of Law Schools relocated their Annual Conference in January of 2009 out of the Manchester Grand Hyatt to another property to honor the boycott and not alienate members of their organization that may not be comfortable publicly violating a boycott called by hotel workers, community activists and leadership of the LGBT community. We urge you to stand with all those fighting against discrimination: San Diego's hotel workers, women, immigrants and LGBT community and honor the boycott.

For more information, please see the attached materials or visit the following websites:
http://www.jtdabbagian.com/2008/10/27/national-communication-association-lands-in-the-middle-of-laborgay-rights-dispute-as-members-plan-a-shadow-convention/ - When a group violates a boycott...
www.californiansagainsthate.com (an LGBT organization that is part of the boycott effort; this site includes numerous news articles and other media related to the boycott)
http://www.hotelworkersrising.org/media/Injury_Paper.pdf (a study by the hotel workers union, UNITE HERE, on the occupational health of housekeepers)
http://hotelworkersrising.org/media/HousekeepingFactSheet2.pdf (a fact sheet about hotel housekeepers)
You can also feel free to contact me at anytime

Powell DeGange
UNITE HERE local 30
Boycott Coordinator - Customer Information Committee
510 410 5154

[JinTX]

Late to read and post...but:

Margo Mom wrote:

Those in education who understand exactly where Joe (or presumably Joe jr.) stands in the scheme of things really ought to be providing him with that knowledge. That's not indoctrination--if anything it is indoctrination resistance.

BANG - there you go - THAT is the "elite" mentality Palin was able to hook up and exploit. First, you MUST believe there can only be ONE philosophy held by educators. News flash, MargoMom - we don't all share your point of view. Joe W. tapped into an area which is common for many small business owners. Instead of exploring and addressing those concerns, you brush him off as ignorant. Well YOU are the ignorant one. If you listened to everything he said, he fully represented the concerns many people have as their business grows. They must make a decision to possibly stagnate with existing manpower and equipment, or increase their debt load, hire more staff and "go for broke". The next level of taxation is a very important factor in this decision, especially for smaller businesses with single owners who must consider their OWN future retirement, their kid's education, etc. Any business owner who is earning 100K this year and is NOT thinking about reaching the 200K mark is probably making a lot of poor business decisions. One of the issues Joe raised was the likelihood of the 200K bar being lowered as more social service costs increased. That is a major concern, for all.

Your mindset is indeed elite. (If only Joe were educated by you, he would hold the correct opinion!!!) It is obvious that JOE is more educated on business management than you are, I think YOU should seek some training from a few plumbers.

[Tim Singleton]

Social justice? Since when did being generous with someone else's paycheck at government gunpoint become social justice?

I have my charities I support and, God willing, I will spend my final years working in the homeless burroughs of the Philippines. But I will do it with MY money and not the horribly inefficient government programs here in the States funded at gunpoint confiscation by government goons given to people whose main charity is their job.

Social justice? What a joke.

[Nancy Flanagan]

And a Merry Christmas to you, Tim. Let me know when you head out to the Philippines--the folks at my church will send a donation.

Cheers,
Nancy