"Under Attack..."
In my post from earlier this week about my student, Julie Shiller (I'm using her full name, which I never do, because I want those googling her to find this post along with all the critical ones), whose essay was published in the local paper, the Courant, a few people made comments about how great it is when students make connections between what we do in class and the outside world. That was certainly the goal of this activity. I will admit that I was naive, however. I probably should have warned her about the probable response, like a letter to the editor or two. But even I was not prepared for this.

She did receive criticism posted on the paper's blog. But then there was the talk on Republican radio. And pro-life bloggers. And the over 120 comments slamming her at FreeRepbulic.com. That's enough links for now, and it does not include the university having been called by Christian and Evangelical Christian radio.

She has been slammed for being a woman. And for being twenty. And for being a feminist. And for being a sociology major. And for attending the University of Hartford. These are people who are attacking her, choosing not to engage in her argument with claims or evidence of their own. As someone who teachers argumentation, I choose to ignore these people.

Some are engaging with her argument and disagreeing, which is to be expected. But one of the things that has been bugging me in some of the things I have been reading is how few of those who want to slam her argument have even read the article to which is she responding. The funny thing is that many who read that piece and found it infuriating have expressed praise for what Julie has written, as in this comment or this one. I've also had other people speak to me personally about this very point, that this is the kind of response needed to counter the original article and study.

(Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but I have been really fascinated at the number of men offended by the original article, men who have said they would never want wives with the attitudes of the women featured in that article. In one case, his wife then looked at him and said, "That's why you married me, dear.")

Still, so many criticisms of her do not take the original article into account. Should people read it before they criticize her? Yes and no. It's true that people can respond to Julie's article as a stand-alone piece. But at the same time, I would expect some of the criticisms to acknowledge that they have not read the original piece or that some would seek it out, even if they do so to criticize Julie in a more directed way. At least that would be dealing with her argument and not responding to this word or that one.

Or, as seems to be happening, the sensationalistic title that the Courant put on the piece. That damn title. As a colleague down the hall said, "You read that title, you start reading the essay with a certain attitude. You forget what she's actually saying and don't give her a chance to present her argument as she wants to present it." That's so true and helped me to put things in a certain perspective. No one has had the chance to read her essay as I did. I had read the original story because so many emailed it to me, and other bloggers were writing about it being critical of it in much the same way Julie is in her article (but those are blogs, which are able to be dismissed apparently). Then, I read her essay and was blown away because she was offering criticisms that said what many had been saying in the emails and blog postings. Only she did it with much more clarity and analysis. Hence the reason why those upset and annoyed by the original article have responded well to her.

So, what about her argument itself? While I have criticized how the newspaper presented the idea of selfishness in the title, Julie does use it in her piece. I have already said that I don't think people have the chance to see how Julie builds to that word. But let me say clearly and directly that I don't think it's a bad choice of words in this discussion.

I see Julie offering an ethical argument in this essay. While any parent can legally decide to work or not to work, depending upon their social situation, Julie makes me wonder about the ethical decision. I know many parents--those who are my friends and in my social circle--who are very consciously raising their children to be a part of the community, to take a role in the world around them. I'm not talking about a simplistic view of volunteering, though that's not bad. I'm talking about parents who want their children to learn as much as possible about how to be a part of this world, how to engage with others, how to define fairness and justice and equality, a kind of education that starts at birth.

I was infuriated by the original article because it seemed like many of the women were taking their educational opportunities for granted. They seemed to want to be wives and mothers in isolated contexts, with disregard for how to take part in the world. Education isn't a tool or a path. It's just something that passes the time. I'm not going to get into some of the other argument leveled at the original article about these women taking spots in these schools away from those who do see education as leading to something, but I have heard people go that way. I am also not saying that women have to work to put their education to use. I'm talking about attitude here, about beliefs and the actions to which they lead.

I keep thinking about the recent articles about the restaurant in Chicago asking children to behave and the mothers boycotting those places. And I heard something about restaurants in North Carolina getting flak for wanting to have adults-only sections, though I can't find any links. I consider those acts reflective of selfish parenting, acts coming from parents who have no sense or care of how their kids interact with others. The attitude from them is, "This is my child. Deal with it." To me, that is selfish. And my use of that word here is not that different from Julie's use, in my mind.

I stand by what Julie said in her article not because she wrote it for my class or because she is my student but because I think she is right. I am very, very worried that the women and men in my class are now going to be afraid to speak or publish in a public venue for fear of the national scapegoating Julie is having to face. My students are recognizing that she is being attacked and that people are not dealing with her ideas or claims, but I worry they are afraid of what can happen when a woman speaks her mind in public.

I am terrified that my students are going to feel pushed towards silence. That is the exact opposite of what I push for in all of my classes. Julie has been invited to call into talk shows and respond, but a lot of these places clearly want to attack. I have not offered her this advice yet, but it may be more appropriate to let this go for now. Let people rant and misconstrue her words. She should print out all the attacks and keep track of all that's said, though. Because a day will come when she can write about this experience in another way, when she can use it to her advantage, and to the advantage of all who believe that dialogue is a much more productive way to go about doing things.

And if anyone thinks I am going to stop encouraging my students to seek such publishing opportunities, they are wrong. I want my students to do this more than ever. I can help them think about such moves with more forethought than I helped Julie, but I want more voices out there, more arguments about ideas, more words.

Those who want her and me and the rest of us to shut up? Believe me, you're out of luck.
- posted by Nels @ 9:43 PM | | | Link |