Bigotry in the Classroom

PAGE 3 OF 3

 
Being a 27-year-old German, who is going to be an English and History teacher
 pretty soon, I have
to protest against Federica's opinion that history lessons on the Third Reich
 inundate children
with feelings of guilt and thus produce Neo Nazis. What`s wrong with reading
 Anne Frank`s diary at
a young age? BTW I can`t believe that anyone is made to read it being only 8
 years old...and
there's nothing wrong with reading Jewish writers either. I never felt it to be
 too much, I have
always been fascinated by history and the way it helps you to understand the
 present condition of
the world and *do* something against hate, racism and discrimination against
 people of different
colour, religion or sexual orientation. My history and German  lessons at school
 even encouraged
me  to read on at home.  There might be something wrong with the way how our
 schools teach this
difficult matter, but only in a way that there is not enough information about
 the Holocaust.
Otherwise we would not have 16 year olds setting fire to the homes of Turkish
 people living in
Germany or messing up Jewish graveyards. You have to confront people with cruel
 reality, you can`t
just read about it in the books thinking it doesn`t affect you anymore because
 you are born much
later ("die-Gnade-der- spaeten-Geburt" as  Chancellor Kohl says). Unfortunately
 racism is pretty
much alive and kicking wherever you look. It isn't much of a help blaming other
 countries for their
racism or their school systems thus turning attention away from racism in front
 of your own door.
At this moment we are experiencing a climate of hate in all countries.
 Frederica's argument
implicates that a teacher who is confronted with a Neo Nazi in his or her class
 just gets what he
or she asked for by being a representative of that particular system which in
 the first place
"bombed" kids with information on the Nazis. I am very tired of listening to
 people who always
complain about being exposed to too much information on the Third Reich.
 
Flames welcome!
 
Kerstin Holzgraebe
 kerstin.holzgraebe  @  po.uni-stuttgart.de
American Studies
Modern Languages Department
University of Stuttgart
Germany

 
This list has changed a bit since I last logged on, as I didn't think
we were supposed to have discussions like this, but I will add that I
have seen a lot of antisemitism among students and much of it seems to
be based on pure ignorance.  The sexism isn't: they know better.  I
think the best way of dealing with the kind of antisemitism that
simply thinks the Holocaust is history and history is boring, is
straightforward education.  We have a growing body of exciting WS
courses, and a major is coming soon.  We are now beginning to offer
courses dealing with Judaism, including one on Holocaust literature.
Since we do have a multicultural requirement, although it isn't very
strong, these courses are not just taken by the already converted.
And does anyone have a really good Jewish female Bildungsroman I
can use in my FBR class?  Janet   jpm9243  @  venus.tamu.edu
Please respond privately.

 
Recently, Janet McCann wrote about the "rock and hard place" discussion:
 
> This list has changed a bit since I last logged on, as I didn't think
> we were supposed to have discussions like this....
 
        At the risk of adding further to the list's exceptionally heavy
mail volume, I think I should try to explain why I think this discussion is
appropriate for WMST-L.  The situation Rosie Pegueros described is very
similar to problems that arise involving offensive classroom speech and
behavior directed against all or some women.  Indeed, a number of
respondents have offered suggestions based explicitly on their experiences
with just such situations.  So I do feel that this discussion falls within
the list's focus.
 
        There are, however, a few kinds of responses that should NOT be
sent to the list.  They include brief statements of approval or disapproval
(see User's Guide), as well as messages that criticize one person without
contributing substantively to the discussion.  I am NOT referring to
Kerstin Holzgraebe's response, though I wish she had not ended it with
"flames welcome!"  Flames are NOT welcome on WMST-L.  The list's heavy mail
volume is a constant problem for many subscribers, and flames needlessly
incite heavier volume.  I do not want to see subscribers driven from the
list because of excessive volume, especially volume that contributes more
heat than light.
 
        Once again, thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
 
        Joan Korenman
 
*****************************************************************************
*    Joan Korenman                 Internet: korenman  @  umbc2.umbc.edu        *
*    U. of Md. Baltimore County    Bitnet:   korenman  @  umbc                  *
*    Baltimore, MD 21228-5398                                               *
*                                                                           *
*    The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe  *
*****************************************************************************

 
I am loathe to add yet another message to what has been an extremely long
thread, but I have been extremely disturbed by the tendency of most
posters on the thread to interpret this incident as a conflict between an
individual student and and individual professor.  This was not an act of
an individual student expressing his views, this was a costume required
by a student organization for all of its new members.  The offensive and
threatening messages implied by the costume were not directed at a single
faculty but at every student in the class and at every member of the
university community with whom those students came into contact.  The
primary concern should not be how one professor grades one student but
how the university community responds to the institutionalized practice
of the fraternity.
 
A similar incident occurred when I was in college in 1989.  Several
fraternity brothers made a Jewish pledge wear a Nazi uniform on campus as
part of a "costume day."  Although the pledge claimed he went along with
it voluntarily and only one student actually wore a uniform, most of the
university community responded to it as a community issue.  Several of my
professors devoted entire class sessions to talking about the
implications of such symbolic acts, emphasizing that it was not a
question of the pledge's willingness to participate but of the symbolic
violence enacted upon the community as a whole.  Students and faculty
wore black armbands for a week to protest this action.  The fraternity was
placed on probation and required to organize some kind of cultural
sensitivity workshop.  Although I think the punishment was
ludicrous--asking an organization that has proved its insensitivity to
educate the campus about the issues it is clueless about was pretty
useless, the workshop itself was poorly organized and trivializing--
the discussion raised at the time, and particularly the intelligent
leadership of faculty in addressing the issue was far more valuable.
Seeing professors who I respected visibly shaken, saddened, and outraged
did more to impress upon me the significance of such events than any
"diversity workshop" could have.  With that role model of how faculty at
a relatively conservative institution respond to such issues, I found the
overwhelming advice of WMST-L posters for Rosie to treat this as an issue
between her and her student disturbing.
 
Rosie's most recent post indicates that she did, in fact, handle this as
a public issue and take a firm stance of refusal to countenance the
organization that promoted this behavior.  I just want to congratulate
Rosie on her course of action, which seems to me precisely the strongest
and most effective way of addressing this incident.  I hope her
colleagues and students will follow her lead in taking a stand on this issue.
 
Jennifer Parchesky
jparches  @  acpub.duke.edu
 
"I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet."

 
On Fri, 24 Feb 1995, Federica Vezzani wrote:
 
> A big part of the literature we read is jewish, written by jewish on
> jewish. From third grade up, beginning to study history they beginn to
> "bomb" us mentally with history on the holocaust, on the war, on the lagers
> and so on. Readings such as "Anna Frank's diary" and "Se questo e' un uomo"
> by Primo Levi are imposed on kids 8-9 years old. And all this "culture
> of the consciousness" continues till the end of high school.
> Now I give you my opinion as a student who passed thru this.
> Being 8 years old, movies and documentaries on the lagers got me sick,
> scared, disgusted. They made us kids feel guilty for something we couldn't
> yet understand. I am Italian and now I work in Germany and I found out that
> they do exactly the same here with the kids, with the result to produce
> Neo-nazis ( the weakests of them) or people who are afraid even to
> pronounce the name "Jew" to not be accused to be anti-semitic.
 
Federica and List,
 
I have a German Protestant friend who tells me her generation -
born just postwar - will not forget what happened.  They would
not want not to know.  They would be on Rosie's side in this.
 
I do not think my friend should feel shame.  I think it should
be known that she and others like her feel sorrow.  We have
talked recently about US feminism and the backlash and the
use of 'FemiNazis' - that makes her angry and it makes her
shiver.
 
Recently my Department was visited by a guest of our
Goethe Institut, who is the leading authority on the students
who opposed Hitler and died.  They are to be remembered as
are all who stood out, or who hid Jewish people.  I hope
I would have been one.
 
> (it is actually happening again, but since it regards the muslims is another
> matter).
 
_A Jewish historian I know who writes to combat those who
would downplay the Holocaust (he is Jewish; but I phrased
that badly; he is also an expert in Jewish Studies) writes
of and for others too.  He will not be alone.  Nor,
historically, is he._
 
> methods and times. The Americans are very quick to accuse others of
> anti-semitism, racism, homophobia and so on.
 
And the British?
> I would like to remind you that the United States of America kept racial
> laws till 1966 and that in some States homosexuality is considered still
 felony;
> let's not talk of the KKK and other similar organizations.
 
Too wrongs do not make a right - anyway who fought for
civil rights in the US?
 
> (and not just the youth) need an Education. Your schools teach athletics
> and social stuff (and it stil escapes me the meaning of such studies),
 American
> history (a two hundred years history!!!) and that's it. It is not a
> problem of anti-semitism, it is a problem of general and diffuse ignorance.
 
You have been answered.  But I have no interest in this, so I
will answer.  US education at its best is wonderful.  It varies,
all systems do.  US students are most welcome here, they are
lively and hard working, and I find they want to learn.
(By here I mean the places I have taught.)
 
And I do not mean they do not _know_ anything.
 
I rarely as it happens teach German students.  The last
one I taught - about 5 years back - was extremely
confident and strong.  He and I had a bit of a row in
class as he wanted to say that all Germans had actively
supported Nazism from early on.   When I beat him
down - sort of, as I say he was strong - it was clear
that he knew that was not so.  He had not been
brainwashed. He did not walk in guilt or fear.  I
would call him well-educated.  His "stand" and our row
- we were always on good terms - may have taught the
others something.
It might perhaps teach you that there are Germans who
oppose Nazism _not_ because they have been cowed.
 
Finally Italy is not Germany.  I use the words Fascist
and Nazi with as much care as I can.
----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Evans         - Politics -       jae2  @  unix.york.ac.uk
----------------------------------------------------------

 
In response to the comment that a photo of 15 year old Jacqueline Bouvier
shows her wearing a swastika on her shirt, the swastika is an ancient
symbol not only used by Native Americans.  It is also present in ancient
South Asian cultures, among others;  the cross (+) is a symbol of the earth
and the little legs attached (that form the swastika) represent the earth
running, i.e., rotating.
 
Hang in there, Rosie!
 
Katherine Sherif
SHERIFK  @  medcolpa.edu

 
The Nazi swastika, however, "turns" in the opposite direction of the
Indian (India) swastika, and was thought to be a bad sign by the Indians,
that the Nazis would come to no good end because of their reversing the
swastika.
 
Sincerely, David Merchant
 
Merchant  @  utkvx.utk.edu
SCC Faculty Meeting Representative
School of Information Science
University of Tennessee

 
I am confused by posts that seem to suggest that they do not understand
the issue Professor Pegueros raises regarding how best to deal fairly
with the student who in pledging his fraternity engaged in anti-semitic
activity. I am concerned particularly with some of these replies which,
it seems to me, suggest that this is really a "non" issue and suggest
that the response is "grade as usual" on content and quality.
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems to me to be calling for
"objectivity" and assuming its existence. Yet, while I can't think of
any off the top of my head, I seem to remember reading about studies
that show, despite our desires for objectivity in grading, that various
biases can and do enter into the classroom.  I'm thinking in
particular of some information regarding how girls are often called on
less (so their particiaption may be judged down,) or how some women,
because they tend to make statements in a "less assertive" more "open
ended" manner are may be viewed as less reasoned or informed in the
classroom. Aren't there similar studies of race and gender bias
affecting content of our grading on things as "objective" as papers and
exams?  If this is right than it seems to me that to be concerned
about "objectivity" and "fairness" is always a teacher's duty, given the
context of the very unobjective world in which we live; neither
"objectivity" nor "fairness" are things we can assume we do or assume we
have.  In this vein, I think that to worry about how to treat fairly a
student who has directly harassed you speaks very highly of Professor
Pegueros commitment to educating all her students (including not only
the student doing the harrasing, but other students who may be effected
by the tension in the classroom that results)  and speaks of her
integrity as a teacher of principals.   Am I missing something in these
responses?
 
In this case, blind grading or having another evaluate the student seems
a fair response to written work.  I might add the suggestion of
creating a grading sheet that has a checklist of requirements for
completing any project on it. I use these and they really help me focus
my grading efforts.   Using grade sheets in grading all students can
become a quicker way to give detailed feedback (you simply put + or -
by things done well or missed;  I also circle areas to work for
improvement even if student's meet the assignment criterea.)
Additionally these grade sheets provide a list to
help be sure that only the elements of the assignment are coming into
grading.  Also, they help insure that similar comments are made for all
students experiencing similar problems with the assignement. However,
this still leaves unanswered how to deal with students within the
classroom itself who are either disruptive, disrespectful, hostile, or,
as I see it in the information given in this case, directly harrassing
and threatening.
 
Kensinge  @  polsci.purdue.edu

 
Some replies to Professor Rosa Maria Pegueros request for information
concerning how best to deal fairly with a student who in pledging a
fraternity was asked to engage in anti-semitic practices have wondered
about where free speech enters the issue and are concerned with the
student's speech and the potential unintentionality of the action.  As
I have not seen direct conversations about these two issues, I provide
some of my thoughts below.  Sorry for the length, but the issue is
complex.
 
I think free speech in the classroom is vital, though I see merits in
discussing its limits in current debates over hate speech.  But I also
think there may be a somewhat fuzzy difference in speech and actions
present in this case.  While students' freedom to wear offensive stuff
in the name of free speech does present problems of determining what is
offensive to whom, this event seems to move beyond merely free speech
issues. I think Professor Pegueros' contextualized the issue in a way
that moves the incident from simple offensive speech into willful
action when:  1) she noted that she had discussed a related matter
with the student in private the day before and stated that she made
her position clear to the student at that time; 2) when she described
the escalation in the student's actions despite their discussion
(wearing clear nazi related dress to class); and 3) when she learned
that in fact an institutional structure--the fraternity-- was in place
with a history of such verbal violence.  Doesn't this context make the
issue more complex than merely speech or individual vs. group
responsibility?
 
Also, while the student's actions may indeed be the result of a
relatively ignorant first year student feeling pressured by fraternity
brothers, the action is no less anti-semitic for its unintentionality.
And this student lives in a cultural contexts.  While he may not know or
remember the specific details or meaning of the holocost or Nazi
regime, our culture certainly has sent him enough messages for him to
have picked up that what he was doing would indeed be directly
offensive to specific groups.  His questions to Professor Pegueros
regarding the restructured views of nazi autrocities surely indicate
that he was at least partially aware of this previous to his choice to
wear the dress. Indeed isn't this key to why the dress cannot be
disregarded?
 
And, just as white's need to take responsibility for learning to see our
often unintentional racism, shouldn't those who are not jewish--
in this case the student--be taught to take responsibility and learn to
be held accountable for anti-semitic behaviors even when
unintentional.  It seems to me Professor Pegueros' responses may indeed
help the student see this need for thought before actions, and that
actions have consequences. To ignore the situation would
certainly do nothing to help the student get more information on the
problem with his attire if he is truly ignorant; nor would ignoring the
dress help him fight the fraternity if he really is feeling so
disempowered by it that he came to Professor Pegueros' out of
some intrinsic though unexpressable feeling of cognitive
dissonence; nor would ignoring the dress
make the student face the consequences of his political choices if he
indeed knows and willfully engages in is actions; finally, ignoring the
dress provides no help or support for those jewish (or gay/lesbian, or
gypsy, etc)  students who may feel threatened and silenced by this
student's actions.
 
It seems to me that this indeed puts Professor Pegueros, and any
teacher who faces such harrassment, between a rock and a hard place
within the classroom that is much more complex than  merely free speech
issues.
 
Kensinge  @  polsci.purdue.edu

 
-------------
(My earlier attempt to post this apparently failed because I messed up the
address; my apologies if the original has eventually made it to the list in
the meantime.)
-------------
 
Anne Meade Stockdell's questions about the student exhibiting disruptive,
offensive behavior in her class provide another dimension to the so-called
"free speech" issue which has come up in relation to Rosie's rock and hard
place.
 
My thoughts are most stimulated by Anne's question:  "If I silence her, will
I damage her in the same way women have been damaged for centuries by the
silence imposed upon them?"
 
Before I divulge my thoughts on this, I want to provide some personal
background:  I certainly know what silencing on the basis of gender is,
having experienced it myself under the thumb of a variety of cultural
institutions, as well as in the context of an abusive marriage.  Further,
throughout my years of teaching, I have myself probably gone overboard in
my efforts to create a classroom climate that is non-threatening, nurturing,
and characterized by open-minded and collaborative facilitation rather than
by authoritarian, autocratic control.
 
However, though my own feminism has roots in some postmodern theories as well
as in my personal experiences, I see a grave danger in the confusion of
"free" speech with responsible, appropriate, and ethical speech, and in
the confusion of "silencing" with guidance/education towards responsible,
appropriate, and ethical speech.  Helping to ensure that the entire class has
the non-threatening, non-offensive environment to which it has a right does
not necessarily result in completely silencing someone who threatens or
offends; rather, she or he would hopefully end up learning a more productive
and ethical form of speech.
 
I grant that, depending on who is doing the defining, the definition of
"ethical speech," "non-threatening," and "non-offensive" could be twisted
around to reinforce the status and power of a dominant, oppressive group.
I also recognize that people have been brutally silenced in the interests
of what the dominant group has considered to be "productive" and "ethical."
(Hitler immediately comes to mind here; for a powerful--and chilling--
rhetorical analysis, see S.B. Katz's "The Ethic of Expediency:  Classical
Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust" in _College English_ 54.3, 1992:
255-275.)
 
Nevertheless, even though we may be striving to avoid imposing on our students
what we may recognize to be a positioned perspective (as opposed to a
universal truth), we have the ability to recognize behavior that is obviously
hurting members of the class (especially if that behavior is coming from
someone who identifies herself explicitly or implicitly as a member of a
dominant group, and if that behavior is hurting members of oppressed groups).
And if our goal really is to ensure an open, non-threatening environment for
our students, then we have the responsibility to ethically use the power the
education system gives us to do what we judge is necessary in that particular
instance to protect that environment, and to enable the offender to
understand why and how her/his behavior is hurting others.  Sometimes the
other students themselves can do this via class discussion (although because
of the apparent chemistry among the students in Anne's class, this isn't
working here); sometimes the instructor needs to take the student aside and
explain; sometimes--especially when the instructor herself may be threatened/
endangered--other, stronger, more official/institutional action is necessary.
Maybe this ultimately will result in "silencing"--but in some cases that
silencing may very well end up protecting the offender her/himself from
serious physical, social, or legal repercussions.
 
Clearly, it's not an easy situation; however, it is dangerous to overgeneralizth
e meaning of "silencing,", to generally equate necessary and appropriate
action taken to ensure that everyone in the class has an opportunity to
learn with the action of silencing, and to fear that taking such action
--even when the student is a member of a group that has been silenced--will
necessarily damage her/him.
 
Connie Ostrowski

 
RE: J. McCann's assertion that anti-semitic sentiment appears based on the
proponent's ignorance but that people who are sexist "ought to know better",
I have this to say:
It seems to me that any prejudice is based on one group's perpetuating lies,
myths, unfounded fears of losing power, and ultimately hate, so we can
readily see that the argument falls short.
Ignorance of what?  That Jews don't match up with the antisemite's claims?
"Know better than what?  That girls, women, and people who are not hetero-
sexual are to guaranteed equal rights?
Prejudice is prejudice, and the problem is that the perpetuators of
attitudes and behaviors that discriminate against anyone not like them
leads to pain, denial of rights and opportunities, and death.
Nazis know better than to advocate death to non-Aryans.  Heterosexists
know better than to advocate death and defeat to women, et al.
So, I think it is unfortunate that we consider that there is more than one
basic explanation to any prejudice, since history teaches us that it
ultimately leads to lynching, electric shock "therapy", rape, murder.
and disenfranchisement.
Oh, one more note about the uniforms adopted by the Latino fraternity at
University of Rhode Island:  I had completed some library research on our
main campus in Kingston (where Professor Pegueros teaches), and as I
turned a corner, two uniformed men were marching on the side of the road,
arm bands printed clearly and professionally-scribed to stand out against
their brown uniforms.  This did not seem to be to be a post-adolescent
male's attempt to complete another rite of passage.  It seemed to be a
conscious effort for attention-getting while at the same time it accomplished
a message-sending.  And that message was not that they were ignorant of
their effects.  Resposible communication requires us to know the intent and
effects of our message!  As a Jew, I was scared.  As a pro-feminist, I was
Thank you.s a perso
Stephen D. Grubman-Black
Professor
University of Rhode Island College of Continuing Education
Providence, RI

 
Since this is a women's studies list, I wonder how many of you in your
discussions of the holocaust have introduced women's experiences as women
being persecuted.  I just finished reading a very moving article by
Andrea Dworkin in Ms. -- and recommend it to anyone teaching about the
holocaust.  I think that it is very important for all of us to speak up
when confronted by students who threaten (or appear to threaten) the
majority.  We have gotten so used to protecting minority rights (and
unfortunately Jews are considered to be middle class and white rather
than minority) that we often forget that it was a disaffected "minority"
that started Nazism in the 20-30's in Germany.  It can happen "here" and
it is good that Rosie has raised this issue on this list.
Naomi Graetz

 
 Federica Vezzani's complaints about being bombarded with Holocaust literature
during elementary and secondary school sound strangely similar to the so-called
arguments against multi-culturalism on my campus.  Opponents claim (wrongly)
that including the perspectives of women, people of color, etc. "villainizes"
white males, making white male students feel guilty and ashamed.  Besides
being an inaccurate depiction of what multiculturalism actually is,
this argument neatly overlooks that fact that women and people of color
feel alienated when their story is excluded from the historical record.
 
Also, this may be a result of mistranslation, but Vezzani seems to be
claiming that there is a "Jewish conspiracy" at the heart of the Italian
education system.  This differs little from the argument that
was used to exterminate Jews in the first place.
 
Sorry if this is too far off the topic.
 
--Heather Munro Prescott
History Department
Central Connecticut State University

 
First of all thanks for all your comments to my posting.
I strongly believe that critiques, of whatever kinds they are, help.
I must confess you all that I didn't believe my opinion could provoke so much
ado. It did.
 
I received several e-mails, angry ones, laughing ones, yelling ones.
I replied privately to the ones I considered most interesting.
I also would like to post something else to you all.
 
Let's start for the American school system critique, that seem to have
upset you alot. My critiques were referred to primary and secondary
education. They were based on discussions with American people in the
field of education, teachers, school comittee members, principals,
a senator also. They were based on my personal experience in an
american high school. They were finally based on  data I found in
some articles. I think also Mr Clinton had something concerning
getting school system better into his political campaign, if I am not wrong.
I don't think the American educational standard is good as it should be
in a country that right now is a leader, politically and economically , for
the whole world. I don't say it as a european proud-to-be, I say it worrying,
as a person who loves the US deeply and who thinks the US and the whole
world are gonna pay for this low quality school. I think that the price of
ignorance is very high to pay, I am seeing it now in my own country.
It surprised me alot that my critique on the American school system came
as a news for you, since so many Americans discussed the topic with me several
times before.
 
Second point. Many of you supposed I was anti-semitic. They gave it as a kind
of statement. Well, I am not.
Somebody of you told me that Nazism and Fascism are different matters.
Surely they are, but the racial laws are common to both of them.
I decided to face this topic because as an Italian, I had many
experiences within my family connected to anti-semitism and fascism.
My grandfather was the fascist chief of my town and my uncle was in the
Black Shirts, pretty similar to the Gestapo. The first died. My uncle was
condemned to all-life jail as a criminal of war. He killed many people in
name of fascism and he brought many Jews in the lagers up in Austria and
Bavaria. He is still alive because thanks to an amnesty he has been freed
after 12 years. I found this out when I was 12. They never told me.
The education I received at school , as I already told you, was not given with
appropriate methods, this is my opinion. When I found out I didn't know
what to feel or to think. I couldn't believe that somebody could have done
something like that. To read, learn, watch is not like to hold the hand of
an assassin. I was feeling guilty. I still do. The guilt remains.
Do you know the verse of Horace <Delicta maiores immeritus lues>?
Well, that what it happens to many of us who are not explained that
an hineritance like that must be accepted with consciousness, courage,
culture.
Nobody of you noticed that I was referring to the culture on the
Holocaust as a necessary duty of every civil country. Somebody of you
even accused me to think history boring. My God, history *cannot* be boring, but
the methods of its teaching yes,  boring, improper, early.
I was pointing my finger against the methods, not against the subject.
 
I arrived to accept all this and to understand it thru my Jewish desk mate and
best friend. In High School  I have been called just "The Fascist", because
of my family. She didn't like that and she was the only one to approach me
differently than that. We read the "Mein kampf" together, parts of the
Talmud and we went to Dakau and Mauthausen. It helped. For both. It helped
to give me a different global view on all. I guess that the smell of the
corpses still in the air, the cold wind, the terrible breeze that blows
irremediabely on those places gives  a different consciousness of what
the Holocaust was. But this must be at the right age, at the right time,
in the right way. Otherwise it is dangerous.
 
These are all opinions of mine based on my own experiences, my readings,
my family's past, my sensibility. I always proceed respecting the
rule of the non-possess of the truth. These thoughts come from my mind,
and the thoughts coming from other minds are just welcome, especially
if they are not yelled.
 
My best greetings to all of you,
 
Federica Vezzani
 
 
"Nathless I have been a tree amid the wood
 And many new things understood
 that were rank folly to my head before"
 
 Ezra Pound

 
      An informative article on this subject:
 
                 Irreducible "Human Nature":  Nazi Views on Jews and Women.
                  Gisela Kaplan.  In Challenging Racism & Sexism.  The
                  Feminist Press,New York.
 
                                          Ethel Tobach

 
I have been following this discussion with some interest and commend Joan
for letting it continue.  I would add to the discussion the dimension of
physical safety.  In Rosa's case I think she had every right to feel an
implied, if not an actual, threat from her student's dress and behavior.
I think women have for too long tried to understand and explain away
behavior that is offensive and threatening.  I would place "hate" speech
in this category.  Violence or the threat of violence and intimidation
actually mitigate against free speech and therefore can not be protected
by free speech.
 
In my classroom I have a particular responsibility to maintain an
atmosphere that is safe from threat, intimidation or violence and as some
others might agree that is becoming increasingly difficult.  My standard
for that is subjective and based of the nature of the threat.  There are a
variety of things that I would do in dealing with this - from taking the
student aside and asking them to stop the offensive behavior to asking
the student to leave the class and calling the university police if he
does not leave.  The hardest part of this is to unlearn all the ways I
have been taught to _not_ recognizing threatening behavior by saying
things like it was unintentional.  Unintentional or not it is important for
the student to learn that it is offensive and/or threatening and that I
will not tolerate it.