Ron Isaac is a retired teacher of English in New York City. He writes:
What a shame that language is such a pliable substance! It’s putty in the hands of folks who control public policy debates, especially about education. And it can be deadly to progress when it’s off the tongues of people who exercise authority unjustly, either enabled by their own title or position or else by their power to purchase the influence of others who are in such position to damage or enrich or simply make things happen.
These people do to phrases and sometimes to popular perceptions what whip-snapping “trainers” do to tigers in a circus. By making them heel, they in effect own these great creatures.
Language is also a great creature. And increasingly it too is being owned by the most formidable of predators: the bold and occasionally ignorant ( most of them know exactly what they are doing, which is why they realize the necessity of describing it differently) people and groups who master language. Not as orators but as slave-drivers. They fiddle with the DNA of word-meanings and do violence to the concepts behind them. They attach subliminal implications that don’t belong there and provide a cozy philosophical base for their biases. And then they deploy these adulterated definitions into the mainstream of parlance and the so-called marketplace of ideas.
As they see it, in a perfect world the marketplace itself would be their property. No trespassing.
They’ve created a new glossary made up of words whose meanings they’ve hijacked. There’s more of them than there are plankton sucked into the megamouth of feeding whale-shark. My favorite is “education reform.”
No thinking person will dispute the premise that education, like most things in life, can and should be improved. And that “reform: what needs to be improved” makes it better. And that it’s desirable to make our schools better so kids can prosper.
Voila!
But most “reformers” who talk that way, whether reactionaries or faux progressives, are talking in code. Very cynical but unfortunately it often gets the dirty job done. The surface message may resonate with an audience what may be clueless to the underlying code.
These “reformers” are actually preaching privatization, trying to seduce educators with flirtatious notions of “professionalism” that erode autonomy in the classroom, expunge retention and tenure rights from the law, set up tricks and trip ropes in licensing, compensation and promotions, and overall peddling the surrender of civil service protections to the absolute and veto-proof prerogative of management.
There are many enlightened managers, no doubt. But that’s not the point. There are many enlightened reformers. But that’s not the point either.
The point is that a certain specie of “reformer” gives lip-service to the grandeur of the teaching vocation, but their fondness for the dignity of the workplace is like the affection of vipers for birds and rabbits.
They know that teachers uphold the value of standards. So using a morbid mutation of the word “standards,” they pursue “standardized testing.” They realize that teachers who feel secure in their dedication and ability as professionals will not only tolerate but will embrace being judged. So in many areas across the country they are conspiring to set up evaluation schemes that superficially appeal to that confidence, but actually offer management the tools of execution that King Henry the Eighth would have envied.
Nowhere is their guilt in the misappropriation of language more venal than when these “reformers” strain to split teachers from their unions by suggesting that the two have contradictory interests.
They spread the lie that teachers’ opportunities for individual growth, recognition and reward are somehow hogtied by their union loyalties. They sharply contrast teacher virtue with union vice. They quote some dumbass research from some curiously-funded “think tank” or foundation to proclaim that if only teachers would free their diligent hides from the ripping talons of the union bird-of-prey, then “right to work” ( note: euphemisms qualify as a form of language abuse) heaven would reign on earth in a loss- of -dues-checkoff heartbeat.
Softening the language they use does not mean that they are soft-selling the demagoguery that inspires it. Some “reformers” use grace and humor as a vessel for murderous animus. With a twinkle of an eye or the winking of artful prose with co-oped words, they may assure vulnerable teachers that they have nothing to fear from disembowelment.
One strategy to get teachers on board requires an incremental approach. “Reformers” may use the ruse of getting on teachers’ “good side” by tantalizing them with the promise of a “seat at the table.” But the presence of their union, though acknowledged, is downplayed. That’s makes sense, since what these ‘reformers” lust for is the demise of rights won for teachers by their unions over the generations.
They won’t choke out institutional memory outright, but they’ll exhaust all tactics to discredit it and make it seem irrelevant going forward.They’ll extend the proverbial “olive branch” now and then or let some crumb of benefit nourish the hopes of teachers here and there. They’re banking on the false trust that teachers and their unions will be content to just “save face.”
But we’re not about “saving face.” We’re about saving language from predators. We’re about daring to call realities by their proper name.
We’re about not falling for false definitions but for standing up to them. We’re about education. We don’t shrink from the attraction of positive challenges.
Real reform, for instance.
Bravo! I just have to add to this: “Some “reformers” use grace and humor as a vessel for murderous animus.” Yes, “grace and humor” make it nearly impossible to argue with them. While teachers are fighting for their lives trying not to get murdered, any strong language or vehement response is tsk, tsked as being unreasonably hostile or “name calling” or other sorts of fainting couch techniques. Thus reinforcing the idea that the “reformers” are the enlightened, sophisticated ones, while those who oppose “reform” are merely reactionary, agressive thugs. The “reformers” have obviously been well-schooled – Oppression 101.
This is the most lucid dissection of how the extreme right has hi-jacked the conversation in all realms of public sector in our society. Thank you!
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
“All politics is applied cognitive science.” George Lakoff http://www.thelittleblueblog.org/
If we are to stop to privateers and advance democracy in the 21st century, it’s important to embrace the latest insights of the brain. Privateers have embraced these insights on humanity to harm us, as you’ve pointed out.
It’s not just about smartness. It’s about who’s morality we will embrace. Democracy’s soul is empathy, which is at a deficit right now. How do we build a surplus?
http://empathysurplus.com/2012/12/15/to-rob-a-country-own-a-bank/
Christmas is not a time or a season, But a state of mind To cherish peace & good will , To be plentious in mercy, Merry Christmas!!!
Yes language is power, and those who control the message have the most. It’s good to know that there are still champions of the English language like Isaac–here’s hoping his words get out there. Excellent piece.
Excellent! Ron Isaac said it best! These “ed reform” people live in glass houses. It is interesting to note that when you relentlessly push back with facts and figures and then personalize your response, bringing to light the personal gains made by the individuals campaigning for these predator organizations how fast they run for cover.
Please excuse the very long posting.
If you follow Gary Rubinstein’s or Anthony Cody’s blog, then you already know that when the glitterati of the edubullies are confronted with their own twisted logic, outrageous claims, made-up facts, double standards, and sometimes even faux outrage [e.g, the absurd criticism over Diane’s posting re the Newtown school staff who died], they almost invariably answer with a deafening silence. With the exception, of course, when they resort to venomous invective.
Silence is often best when considering how best to protect their line of faulty eduproducts. Better to keep their mouths shut and make people wonder than open them and let us know for sure what venal fools they are.
I long ago saw this tactic in action. My first fulltime job out of high school was for an outfit called Western Electric [think communications industry]. One worker at my job site was almost universally disliked by almost all the other workers and supervisors; no mean feat, given the diversity re age, race, political beliefs, stand on the war in Vietnam, veteran status in wars ranging from WWII to Vietnam, etc. For example, he would come in with his daily newspaper and, when finished, shove it into the nearest wastepaper basket, literally proclaiming to anyone within hearing distance [not friends, since he took breaks and ate by himself, unique among my dozens and dozens of coworkers] that he didn’t want anybody taking advantage of him by rereading the newspaper he had shelled out his hard-earned money for.
🙂
On a less humorous note, he walked up to me the day after the Kent State deaths in 1970, blocked my way, leaned into my face with a smirk and say gleefully, “ National Guard, 4; Kent State students, O.” Then walked away, pleased as punch with himself.
😦
You get the picture. How does this relate to the posting? This paragon of wisdom, selflessness and humility had one favorite topic, a one-trick pony if you will, much like the edudeformers. For no reason at all, while in the middle of working, he would suddenly launch in the greatest tragedy of his life: he was forced, FORCED he would say, to pay the equivalent of union dues to the Communications Workers of America, for benefits and wages he could have gotten all on his own due to his [self-proclaimed] stellar work performance and technical brilliance. He had spent years and years building up personal relations with his bosses [unlike the rest of us who were obviously weak individuals who lacked self-confidence]. Unlike us, his bosses appreciated his outstanding abilities, and he could make it on his own, he could take of himself quite nicely, thank you very much!!
In spite of everything, I separated the real person from the idea, reserving final judgment about the pros and cons of union membership until I got older [and more experienced], and had thought the matter through more. As often happens in real life, this self-proclaimed conservative provided the definitive answer on his own most cherished idea.
Management wanted to get rid of him. Before he had a full pension. On trumped-up charges. Rumor had it that they were just sick of him and his [fill in the expletive of your choice] attitude. The very people whose Rheephormy [tip of the hat to Edushyster] and Solomonic judgment and wisdom he had so lauded, were now persecuting him! Literally about to lose his job, in desperation he turned to the one person he openly despised more than anyone else, our union steward, a very hardworking and tough fellow who proudly described himself as a diehard unionist and hillbilly. And of course, as the Rheephormy narrative goes, the union abandoned him in his hour of need because it was too busy protecting the slackers and incompetents?!?!!
😦
Nope. In spite of his own self-destructive behavior the union steward fought tooth and nail for his right to due process, that bane of ArneRhee&Co. And management lost. Completely, End of matter.
Er, not exactly. As most readers and posters to this blog would expect, this fellow didn’t change his act a jot or a tittle. [For those who attended Rheephormy U and feasted on bubble-in tests, please use your dictionaries.] Please understand, everyone at my job site knew [at least in broad outlines] what had happened. Yet he still continued his rants about the union, the only difference being that he found it hard to get to the end of his sentences, and would kind of choke up when he described how unjustly he was being treated by those union thugs. At least when I started working almost everyone else was uncomfortable and a bit upset that he couldn’t seem to turn off the bad manners and foolish talk, but after he was saved by the very people and organization he had maligned the general attitude was to treat him with a sort of gentle pity.
This fellow didn’t know when to shut up. Good. He convinced me that due process and other union protections were and are essential. And he convinced a lot of other people at my job site too because he kept mouthing off in public to everyone he met. That’s why it is so important to get the edubullies on the record. When they are forced to speak up, defend not just their overt but their covert agendas, they are preparing to hoist themselves by their own linguistic petards [for those who don’t understand the reference, please refer above to material in brackets re Rheephormy U].
That is why this blog is so important. They can run but they can’t hide when they expose themselves for what they really are. Just think of the Rhee Herself, backing a passle of gun-pushing folks in the last election, having to explain [if anyone in the media had the guts to actually ask her] what she thinks of her actions in the light of Newtown.
They don’t have answers. They either use silence, choke up in the middle of their sentences, or claim you are unfairly politicizing something or other. Remember, the lexicon of the ‘no excuses’ school of edubullies has every excuse in their world. But they’re not that good at evading responsibility with blogs like this. To paraphrase a wit from the last century, “They run the gamut of excuses from A to B.”
🙂
Many thanks for the lesson in using dictionaries and other reference sources as aids in reading for comprehension. Your generous assessment of your readers’ literacy and erudition almost precludes me from pointing out that the expression is “hoist with one’s own petard.”
Almost.
PS: Do I get extra points for knowing who Dorothy Parker was, and who she was referring to?
Perhaps it was a result of growing up in Motown [the late lamented Detroit], so you can blame it on the public schools I attended, but I learned the saying as “to be hoisted by one’s own petard.”
See, I can blame teachers too.
🙂
But I won’t quibble about prepositions and petards; I will grant you good faith, and concede your point. And if only there were a Rheephormy bubble-in test, you would get a plus mark for knowing I riffed off Dorothy Parker’s comment about Katherine Hepburn: “She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.” That is, a backhanded compliment. [Alert: online sources give slightly different versions of this.] And to state the obvious: I don’t think the members of the ‘no excuses’ school are even modestly adept at coming up with good excuses for their own numerous failings.
On the bright side: if your posting on Diane Ravitch’s blog comes to the attention of the Rheephormistas, perhaps your erudition might earn you an honorary diploma from the Broad Academy and you might be a superintendent next year? Just saying…
🙂
While googling the above Dorothy Parker quote, I came across a classic that should be on the lips of every Rheephormista because it expresses their mentality very well: “The two most beautiful words in the English language are ‘Check enclosed.’”
To conclude in the spirit of the season: inspired by Edushyster’s own gift-giving suggestions, I freely offer three more gems from Dorothy Parker that I found online that ought to come to mind whenever TFA or SF or DFR or the like is brought up: “You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks” and “If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to” and “I don’t know much about being a millionaire but I bet I’d be darling at it.”
Right on! The DEFORMERS are just using SPIN – propaganda. Oooops, not what the politicians and big money want.
Meant the DEFORMERS do not want us to know that propaganda is being used to frighten and punish.
An amazing exposé!
Educators are being caught unaware by the stealthy encroachment of the “reformers”.
Their carefully twisted language is an insidious form of violence, cloaked in syntax and semantics.
Thank you Ron Issac and Diane Ravitch for using language to enlighten and warn us.
Certainly, any post by Ron Issac strikes a chord with me. He is one of the UFT hacks who most fervently sold the 2005 UFT contract to unsuspecting teachers as the best thing since sliced bread. He told us how wonderful it was that we’d be getting a 6% raise (in exchange for the horrendous 37.5 minutes of torture added to the school day–which is 6% more word–certainly not a raise). He was instrumental in telling teachers that we needed the “Open Market” transfer system so that teachers could choose their schools, except that it destroyed seniority transfers and led to the creation of the ATR pool. He was one of the UFT people who told us that we needed “a seat at the table” while he shoved working teachers under the bus and took a job with the UFT in exchange for his loyalty.
So when Mr. Issac bemoans the pliability of language, let’s not forget that he himself is the Michelangelo who twisted the turd that was the 2005 contract into a prize he could sell to credulous teachers who trusted him to tell the truth, and not his self-serving version of it.
But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
+++++
CAESAR: Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’ nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
+++++
a more modern perspective comes from Orwell, in ‘doublethink’ … who lived around the time of a German guy pushing The Big Lie.
rmm.
WOW. I am away for a few days, and I come back to this??????? A piece written by the same guy who supported every (*&^%&& reform and giveback handed to us by his beloved Weingarten. For all of you who think this is such a great piece, you would feel that way if it were written by Michelle Rhee??? For 7 years he was rewarded for his loyalty with a job on the UFT paper. Now he wants to be on “this side” of the argument now that he is retired. I am not buying it. I still remember each and every argument I had with him and other Randi loyalists back in 2005, and Redhog. as he was known then, was amongst the most vicious on his attacks on those of us who warned against voting for the 2005 contract and the consequences it would bring–the worst being our loss of seniority rights when it came to excessing. To seem him being “honored” here based on something he has never believed in. Sickening. (I am glad to see this did not escape those of us who remember, including a post on NYC Educator who also had something to say on his own blog.) I don’t mind if Diane posts differing opinions, but when someone uses this blog to advance himself when deep in my heart I know he did everything in his power to advance himself with Weingarten’s reforms, my heart sinks,