Here is an education professor in Kentucky who thinks that I reacted “hysterically” to the Gates-funded galvanic response skin bracelet.
He describes me as a defender of the “status quo” because I have a distrust of people from on high telling teachers how to teach and punishing them when they can’t produce higher test scores every year. Also I do have an attachment to public schools as opposed to handing public dollars over to the private sector. I have this deep-seated preference for helping people when they need help instead of punishing them.
But I ask readers: Do you think that it is “hysterical” to worry about the use of devices to monitor the physiological reactions of students? I happen to think that it is a step towards “brave new world” thinking, this idea that school officials or teachers or government or anyone else has the power to watch us whether we like it or not, even to the point of checking on our bodily responses over which we may not have any control. I just figure that it’s nobody’s business but my own whether I am excited by what I read. Ask me to interpret it, ask me to summarize it, but ask me about how it affected my emotional life or whether it made me perspire. That’s not your business.
But then I’m old fashioned that way. I like the idea of personal privacy. I don’t like the idea of being surveilled by other people, especially without my permission.
P.S. I do not like to refer to gender and I seldom do. But I can’t help but mention that there is a long history of men asserting their superiority by calling women “hysterical.” Why is it that men never are “hysterical,” only women?