Tayari's Blog: Bring on The Rainbows and Unicorns

Comment #1, by minaj

Surprisingly, I think that Collins has a point to make, but she blew her own argument by lumping a wide range of books together. From looking at my 17-year-old step-granddaughter's reading list, I wasn't pleased with the overemphasis on what I would consider personal abuse issues - sexual abuse, drugs, alcoholism, suicide, etc. - but these were usually set in upper middle class settings. These were specifically Young Adult books. They did not deal with what I would consider more relevant - societal and historical issues. Back in the Dark Ages when I was in Middle School, we read Dickens, and I certainly didn't feel guilty for not being an orphan looking for more gruel! Your book, Leaving Atlanta, is a great one for young people, although it was set in rainbow-free times. On the other hand, I don't think that middle-schoolers are really going to understand "The Bluest Eye", which was on my step-grand's list. (It is one of the great books, in my opinion, but I read it as an adult.) Unfortunately, I sensed an undertone in Collins' piece of wanting very much to "protect" her child from societal realities like slavery and racism. That sort of attitude is becoming far more prevalent these days and is VERY dangerous for us as a nation. If the only result of reading about societal issues is privilege guilt, teachers and parents are not doing their jobs - teaching their children to be analytical and realistic about the world in which they live.
(And PLEASE don't tell me that the child read what is obviously "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson - one of the all-time great short stories - and no one told her not to take it literally! I may give up on the educational system altogether!)

Comment #2, by Michael Fischer

Somehow I followed the "Acephalous" link and ended up at the "NRO," where some guy named David French writes, in response to Collins's article: "I enjoyed Carol’s post highlighting how the typical college reading assignment seems designed to make students feel “spoiled or privileged.” In fact, professorial contempt for “spoiled or privileged” students is nauseatingly common. Yet this is yet another example of academic blindness. It is tough to imagine a more “privileged” person than a tenured faculty member at a major university. Six figure income. Ten month work year. Absolute job security in the absence of actual fraud or criminal behavior."

I just had to laugh at this. I don't know many English profs-not-named-Harold-freaking-Bloom making six figures, or who don’t have to publish or book or two or three before they get this so-called cush "job security,” which usually starts somewhere around what, 50K for your typical English Asst. Prof?

But back to the topic, these will be the same kids who start bitching when they get into a college classroom and realize that the reading list will contain works that tackle serious issues and themes, which is why I now have a disclaimer on my syllabus: "If you're easily offended by serious subject matter, drop the class. Better yet, if you’re afraid of having your precious world view challenged, consider dropping out of college entirely."

Okay, that last part isn't in my actual disclaimer, but IT is in my "things-I-would-like-to-tell-my-students-that-I-shouldn't-file."

;)

Comment #3, by Judy

I have just one thing to say: Tayari, I feel you, girl! Amen!

Comment #4, by traceyrose

I was thinking about this recently. I remember in my high school, the freshman and sophomore honors English classes read the canon - Beowulf, A Separate Peace (god, i hated this book), Shakespeare, Grendel, etc.
And these classes were the most diverse racially.

The other English classes, which were predominantly black, read Jean Toomer and Toni Cade Bambara--writers I love, who I wasn't exposed to until college.

And I know that's because the rich white parents of those kids sitting in my honors classes wouldn't have considered Toomer or Bambara rigorous work worthy of study by their kids.