Julian Vasquez Heilig considers the protest against Wendy Kopp’s selection to give the commencement address at Berkeley.
The chancellor of Berkeley responded to protest by saying that the institution does not disinvite controversial speakers.
Heilig points out that the legislature is currently considering a proposal to ban TFA’s inexperienced teachers from schools that enroll low-income students. Berkeley students don’t know that and won’t learn it.
He counters that students should be prepared to consider different views. That’s free speech.
“While I believe it is important that we protect constitutional free speech, I also believe that educational leaders must promote dialogues rather than monologues when discussing controversial topis— this approach allows the power of ideas to prevail. As an educational leader, I have participated in Cambridge-style debates, attend workgroups at the American Enterpise Institute (until they couldn’t handle my free speech) and even participated in a mock trial at the Libertarians Freedom Fest. So for me, it’s malpractice for educational leaders to allow monologues instead of dialogues when there are controversial topics at hand.”
Berkeley will hear Kopp’s self-praise but will not learn why California’s oldest and largest civil rights groups support a bill, AB 221, to exclude TFA from schools that serve their children. Why not a debate?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Right on Julian. Free speech does not guarantee that the speaker gets off Scott free and Berkley has an obligation to make sure that does not happen. To allow Kopp to speak without a counter point point misses a real education opportunity. And isn’t that what Berkley prides itself on after all?
I think we are long past the days of colleges being there to educate and grow/expand the minds of youth. Colleges are all about the money! It’s nothing but a business. Un-Koch the all the college campuses!!!
The Koch-owned public university, George Mason, has hired Kavanaugh to teach (Federalist Society training to serve corporations?). UnKochMyCampus.org has a petition about the conflict of interest for a sitting judge to receive compensation, allegedly linked to the Koch’s. Clarence’s wife got $600,000 from Heritage Foundation (Koch’s) for “work”- the amount wasn’t reported on the judge’s ethics form.
Robert’s court is an ugly joke.
UnKoch is demanding the Kavanaugh contract details.
The majority of commenters are assuming that Kopp will use this opportunity to promote TFA.
I think she is smarter than that. Commencement speeches, by and large, involve positive messages from successful adults who are there to encourage, advise, and maybe even challenge the graduates they are addressing. These are usually upbeat speeches that shy away from personal agrandizement.
I can guarantee that Berkeley will not host a debate or a different point of view. It is an honor to be invited to give a commencement address. I wonder who is writing her speech?
Who’s paying the speaking fee?
My assumption is that there is no fee but I’m not certain. Google and see if she has a lecture agent. Get whatever organization you belong to to call the agent, if there is one, and ask what her fee is.
Linda,
Exactly. And how big is the bribe — I mean fee.
Generally, commencement speakers are not paid, but sometimes they are.
The invitation is for a commencement address. I have never heard of this occasion being devoted to a debate. However, there are some wonderful cases of students protesting commencement speakers, for example standing and turning their backs to the podium, refusing to clap or laugh at intended jokes.
There was some discussion regarding Dr. Heilig’s point around free speech, what it means, and having dialogue around it. The blowback was that there was no place for dialogue at the commencement. That was exactly the point, and UC Berkeley’s argument that Wendy Kopp’s commencement speech was considered free speech and therefore not open to debate, was a cop-out (Kopp-out? Don’t I wish….). All is not lost; word is that some students aren’t too happy about the choice either, and may even exercise their right of protest by not attending commencement.
Better yet, they should attend and turn their back to her when she speaks. That is a better protest than not attending commencement at all and sends a better picture to the college administration.
Amen, LisaM.
We can all protest non-violently. Turning one’s back on the speaker is GOOD.
KOPP-out. Great descriptor for her entire endeavor.
Any chance the Cal grads can be educated about Kopp so that she can be given the Bethune Cookman treatment?
The Bethune Cookman treatment should be given to the Gates Foundation’s president when she appears at public universities.
Better yet, issue no invitation.
Berkeley should allow Kopp to speak and, students that support democracy should use the opportunity to protest her appearance. Students should be upset that the school has invited a propagandist that represents the interests of the oligarchy at their commencement. It is common knowledge that interest in TFA and their fake teachers has declined in recent years. TFA survives on dark money from the 1% that pulls their strings behind the scenes. It is common also common knowledge that their most recent interest has been infiltrate Congress as lobbyists promoting privatization. TFA is an anti-democratic organization that seeks to impose top down privatization on America’s public schools.
It’s probably not possible for me to disagree w/ TFA’s mindset & approach any more than I do. (Am a 35-year union member and career Latin teacher). Still, not inviting a controversial speaker like Kopp doesn’t solve the issues we face. Some how, some way, we’ve got to speak with, not at, each other—and listen. In a twisted way, keeping our friends close and enemies closer might apply here…(?) We do tend to stay in our insular silos.
TFA, similar to Gates and Arnold, have every platform money can buy to spew their message.
No organization should be required to host a person who advocates against its mission. Red Cross wouldn’t invite
someone to its campus to undermine relief efforts.
If the Koch’s, Gates, their representatives, including TFA get on public campuses, students and the community should make it known that they are unwelcome.
Public universities reflect the citizens’ sacrifices. They were built as a quality alternative to legacy admission schools. No oligarchs, nor their minions wanted.
In 2011, I debated Kopp at Aspen Ideas Festival. The audience was totally with her. She spouted corporate drivel. I felt I was trying to wrestle with a bowl of jello. Nobody home.
The deformers aren’t home because they are out thieving community property
The linking of avarice and conceptual thinking illustrates an oxymoron.
I would feel deeply hurt if an anti-public education propagandist was speaking at my graduation, and I would not attend. Shouldn’t a prestigious university instead invite a person who is committed to education and scholarship?
Every time a person like Kopp is invited, that is one less invitation for a good person who cares about education and scholarship. Why not invite a fourth-rate philosophy professor from a basically unknown university? She would be better.
RJ,
You make a good point.
TFA spawns a cadre of people who advocate for privatizing education via vouchers and charters.
It is no friend of public education.
Berkeley is a public institution.
Kopp is not a scholar. The books she has published had a co-author, which in the case of a public figure, means a ghost writer.
Universities sometimes invite an actor or TV personality. Like Judge Judy.
Or a CEO.
Think of her in that light.
My guess is she will use her time to promote her brand. It needs promoting. It has gotten a lot of bad press and some of its alumni have worked for very conservative governors.
It does seem really weird to invited someone to speak who is all about promoting her own organization. Kind of like broadcasting an infomercial. How often do corporate CEOs give commencement speeches at well-respected universities?
TIAA sent its CEO, who is very chummy with Pete Peterson, to give a university speech. The school newspaper fell into the trap of thinking TIAA’s prior, reputation “common good” and such, was still accurate.
Remember John Dewey? Just love Dewey’s work.
https://blog.cambridgeinternational.org/reflections-on-the-100th-year-anniversary-of-john-deweys-democracy-and-education/
Reflections on the 100th year anniversary of John Dewey’s ‘Democracy and Education’
By Tristian Stobie09.08.16In Teaching strategiesComments 0
John Dewey [1859-1952] an influential philosopher, psychologist and educational thinker, published his book on Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education in 1916. One hundred years later what is the relevance of Dewey’s work in general, and this book in particular?
John Dewey [along with Lev Vigotsky and Jean Piaget] is often considered as the father of constructivism. He believed that learning is a social, communal process requiring students to construct their own understanding based on personal experience. “No thought, no idea, can possibly be conveyed as an idea from one person to another…..only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem first hand, seeking and finding his[her] own way out, does he [she] think.….the joy which children themselves experience is the joy of intellectual constructiveness.” [Dewey 1916, p166]
The importance of inquiry as an instructional approach
Dewey emphasised the importance of inquiry as an instructional approach and has become associated with the discovery of learning and child-centred, progressive teaching approaches. While he certainly believed education needs to connect learning to the real world experience of learners and be child-centred, he also emphasised the importance of a rigorous curriculum that developed powerful methodologies and knowledge. Dewey was uncomfortable with some of the more extreme progressive pedagogical approaches that became associated with his name.
Dewey believed developing intellectual powers is a necessary but not a sufficient goal of education. Schooling must equip young people to live a fulfilled life and become life-long learners, able to fulfil their potential and contribute to society. Dewey was alarmed that schools failed in this regard, promoting passive and compliant pupils rather than reflective, autonomous, informed decision makers. He believed one absolutely critical function of education is to develop the intellect, motivation and wisdom of young people so that they become ‘mature’ and effective citizens able to transmit culture from one generation to the next and transform it in the face of change: “What nutrition and reproduction are to physiological life, education is to social life.”
The link between democracy and education
What is particularly interesting about this book is the link Dewey highlights between democracy and education reflecting his advocacy of democracy. Democracy is not only about extending voting rights, a big issue in 1916, but also equipping citizens with the ability to take on the responsibility to make informed, intelligent choices and decisions leading to the public good. He believed that democracy is not just a political system but an ethical ideal with active informed participation by citizens.. Established beliefs and theories should be critically questioned and revised in the light of developments, pragmatically evolving to meet the needs of changing times. If democracy is to work it required informed, knowledgeable and wise citizens and, therefore, education has a moral purpose. Classroom teachers and schools have a responsibility to nurture character as well as teach knowledge and skills.
Dewey stressed that education has to prepare students for an uncertain future and, therefore, a high priority should be given to developing effective habits and the ability to adapt and learn how to learn. This is notable given the fact that during his lifetime, with the notable exception of the great depression and two world wars, life for most people was comparatively predictable. Industrialisation and mass production meant many people had a job for life and emphasis in education was on preparing individuals for their respective roles in a fairly predictable workplace. The modern globalised world is by contrast highly unpredictable. Individuals often have little job security and multiple careers, and coping with uncertainty well has never been more important.
Teachers were viewed by Dewey as needing to be creative professionals demonstrating not only understanding of their subject matter but a passion for knowledge, intellectual curiosity, an understanding of the learning process and the children in their care. Dewey understood that excellent teachers responded quickly to student responses as indications of their current level of understanding, a direct consequence of constructivism.
Dewey’s understanding of constructivism as a theory explaining how deep learning happens, further developed by Vygotsky and others, has become the established paradigm. Consequences, now widely recognised, include engaging and challenging students, relating learning to experience and listening to the voice of the learner in order to understand students’ thinking and adjust teaching accordingly. Dewey’s concern that a focus on the learner’s interests needs to be balanced with the need to develop powerful knowledge and understanding continues to matter today in debates about how to organise the curriculum.
As we move into the uncertain global information age perhaps Dewey’s concern with the relationship between effective democracy and education is his most important lesson. It has never been more important to help the young cope with uncertainty well, to learn how to learn for life, and to understand that education is a moral enterprise concerned with developing informed citizens capable of making informed choices and decisions.
Yvonne,
This summarizes orthodox thought in America’s schools of education today. Unfortunately there are many problems with it. This powerful paper, a summary of research from the past fifty years, completely discredits constructivism:
Click to access kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf
Do you know of any paper that contradicts this one? If not, shouldn’t we follow the evidence and start deconstructing constructivism?
A commencement speaker should say something to the graduates and get out of there. Commencement is in their honor. Exhortation, admonition, and debate should have already been a part of a college experience, where these thoughts will have an effect. If Kopp says “be honest and do good”, she seems as good as the next adult to talk to a group who is in no shape to listen. If she says “go TFA” , a majority of the students will yawn anyway.
Well said.
The students will yawn (actually many will still be hung over from the night before) but that isn’t the point, nor is freedom of speech.
The point is the the flagship school of the University of California will have validated the status of this fraud and Overclass grifter, by giving her such a prominent and respected place on the most important day of the year.
Then invite a good person to do that.
True, but my big issue with the invite was not what Ms. Kopp would say, but who she is as a DPEer. Just for fun (and no, I’m not making fun of your actual comment), let’s look at this another way: “If Hitler says “be honest and do good”, he seems as good as the next adult to talk to a group who is in no shape to listen. If he says “go Germany”, a majority of the students will yawn anyway.
good analogy, Oakland mom
Agreed. There are limits. Having DeVos speak at a public school would be a bit over the top, given her striving for private perfection.
Oh, goody. The TFA speech. Again.
One could really merge all ed reform speeches into one. They’re all exactly the same.
Kopp should be replaced with a hologram.
Give the audience, individual controls to shut her off.
Better yet, her speech on line. See how many tune in.
It’s always seemed odd to me how an organization like TFA, who lobby AGAINST public schools, would not exist without public school students being used as an experimental population for their training.
Our kids are used for their training then they take management and lobbying roles that harm our schools.
TFA’ers also staff investment firms that provide capital for charter schools. Betsy’s department provides a lot of the cash for the charter school grifters (at the expense of taxpayers who don’t want privatization).
The issue here, it seems to me, is that this woman is basically a shill for her organization and its dubious principles. I didn’t attend any of my own graduations (I don’t care much for rituals, I’m afraid), but if I planned to, and heard Wendy Kopp was to speak, I would pass.
Surely the University of California-Berkeley can find and afford a more inspiring speaker than the self-serving Ms. Kopp. In any case, she has her own echo chamber; why not leave her to it?
Should Wendy Kopp be invited to Cal to speak? Sure. Debate? Why not?
But not at Commencement.
Commencement is not the time for such controversial and self-promoting speech.
The fact that millions of people find TFA originally well-intentioned, but ultimately, wrong on so many levels, should have been reason enough to not invite such a speaker.
However, none of the other comments here, nor Diane herself, have mentioned Berkeley’s proximity to Oakland, where teachers just had a seven day strike. One of the major issues in the strike was the existence of Oakland’s many charter schools, and the desire of the teachers and their supporters to not have any additional charter schools. Twenty-six percent of Oakland’s students attend charter schools, and OEA blames charters for siphoning money from traditional schools.
UC Berkeley’s proximity to Oakland, coupled with the fact that it is home to thousands of students (rent in Oakland is slightly cheaper than in Berkeley), and on the heels of a recent, divisive strike makes Kopp an inappropriate choice as a Commencement speaker.
The Berkeley Chancellor should know better.
Promoting free speech is not the same as taking a side in the argument.
The University of California’s President, Napolitano, was a featured speaker at a Walton event. One of the 3 goals the Walton organization listed, was to privatize public education.
IMO, U.C.’s students, faculty, administrators, and community should demand Napolitano’s resignation.
They should ask her first, if she’s advocating for PPIC’s plan for an outside review council to replace the current system that oversees California public higher ed, which is characterized by diverse representation and consensus building. She should be asked her opinion in regard to the Purdue Global (Kaplan) transmutation of public higher ed., which is opposed by the Purdue faculty.
Koop has pushed a harmful narrative about public school teachers that has infiltrated the general media.She talks about the status quo and uses coded speech to put down older experienced teachers. In Asian countries, these are the master teachers. In European countries, these are the master teachers. They the mentors. She feels that class and status is what matters and it trumps experience.
Kopp dislikes experienced teachers because (a), they hurt her business model of selling inexperienced teachers; and (b), she has never taught a day in her life.