Charlotte's Web Blog

Caught in a Community College Stereotype

I am a ravenous Pac-Man when it comes to education. Instead of gobbling up arcade dots, I devour community college (CC) credits and spit them into some anonymous education database, never to make their way into a transcript. This is because I have no need for records; I earned my college degrees years ago.

Although community colleges benefit society with their low cost learning and convenient locations, my experiences with them punctuate a less-than-flattering stereotype. For example, CC teachers often have a “no goof-off left behind” philosophy in which they treat pupils like mental deadbeats regardless of their aptitude or commitment to college.

There is also a tendency among CC teachers to focus on grades and classroom conduct and to put forth rules that encourage uniformity. These practices bruise efforts to master the subject matter, and hamper creativity and personal responsibility. They groom students to be obedient workers and followers rather than executives and leaders in society.

No doubt there exist maverick CC instructors who operate outside of this paradigm, but unfortunately my educational path has not yet zigged or zagged with theirs.

I feel qualified to analyze these issues due to my surfeit of school experiences. I studied at six four-year universities, including the University of Southern California (USC) and Oxford University in England, and I have taken dozens of courses at three Los Angeles area community colleges in statistics, real estate, screenwriting, typing, philosophy and physical education, to name a few.

This semester I am enrolled in a community college film production class, and the teacher has informed the camera savvy students that they should lose some of their savvy in order to make it fair for the less advanced. This blatant example of lowest common denominator learning reminds me of an article by Andy Monfried about showerheads at his gym. Monfried told management how one showerhead in the men’s dressing room was superior to the others; he requested the water flow of the inferior ones be improved. Rather than bring the deficient ones up to a higher standard, management disabled the one with the good flow.

The high-flow students in my class have been asked to disable themselves. Those who own quality cameras must toss them aside in favor of substandard ones, and lighting equipment is forbidden because it is not clear all students have access to it. Our final project—a one-minute movie—should not be too professional, according to the instructor.

Another point; there is a tendency for CC teachers to be obsessed with grades, tests and attendance rather than course content. My film teacher is such a repeat offender in this area that I have devised my own version of hangman to track the extent of her neurosis. Every time she mentions grades or exams, I add a body part to a pen-drawn hangman in my notebook. By my calculation, she has been noosed 42 times.

Class attendance is an integral part of my film teacher’s obsession. All students are required to sign in twice: once at the start of her class and again at the end, and two absences means a failing grade for the semester. I suppose members of the proletariat need to learn how to comply with a time clock, to practice being tame and mindless workers, to experience what it feels like to receive a demerit or get fired. My teacher’s message is clear whether she realizes it or not: we can’t have CC students thinking they can be executives or controlling their own schedule.

Last semester, I took a tennis class and encountered another attendance-related absurdity. My teacher said all students must sit quietly in the gym for two hours on rainy days or suffer a lower grade. My classmates did not seem too bothered; I flat-out refused.

In addition to lowest common denominator learning and the flawed tendency to focus on grades, tests and attendance, there is one final trend I find at community colleges. Teachers often go overboard in an effort to control students’ behavior in the classroom. I call this the “nun with the ruler” syndrome.

He didn’t look like a nun, but my basic computer skills teacher would reprimand students who touched their computer keyboard before they were told to do so. If he’d owned a ruler, he’d surely be a serial whacker. He also exhibited paranoia about cheating. He thought every student was itching to glance at someone else’s paper, so he’d pace the room with an eagle eye.

Five years ago, I convinced my 62-year-old husband Charles to take this computer class with me. We sat side-by-side, and the “nun” got the impression Charles was cheating. Charles resented being treated like a child, so he defiantly refused to study and received low marks on tests. Whenever he got an answer right, the teacher assumed he’d stolen it from my paper. In addition, Charles kept touching his keyboard during class and getting admonished for it. This made him seem like a troublemaker.

What the instructor didn’t know was that Charles had a law degree from Oxford University and was an English Barrister, California attorney and Judge Pro Tem. He had no reason to cheat in an entry-level computer class.

One day, Charles said, “I need to leave class early. I have to be in court.”

The teacher shook his head in a condescending manner--assuming Charles to be a criminal in addition to an underperforming bum—and asked, “Now, what did you do, Charles?”

We told him he was sitting as a judge. It was hilarious, but at the same time, disturbing to know that a brilliant man who had excelled at Oxford—where showing up for class was never required--could barely survive the oppressive regime of a community college despot.

Research shows that community college students are as much as 31% more likely than similar four-year college students to drop plans to obtain a bachelor’s degree after two years of higher education. The CC students in the study initially had the same grades, abilities and academic motivation as the four-year students. They were similar with respect to race, class, gender and age, and did not have greater responsibilities at work or home. The findings suggest that there is something inherent about community college that makes students lose interest in education.

Although CC campuses have a less collegiate feel—a factor that surely disadvantages students—treatment in the classroom is also a likely factor.

Teachers should not coddle students, drown them in rules or stifle creativity. They should not obsess over grades and attendance, but rather encourage initiative, trust, freedom and personal responsibility. They should replace true-false tests with essays, and focus on big picture learning with the assumption that their students will become managers, business owners, industry leaders and high earners.

Forty-six percent of all undergraduates are enrolled in the 1200 community colleges in the United States, so there’s a lot at stake. I suggest we relegate the community college stereotype to the same fate as the stick figured man in my film production notebook.

Stephen Colbert Smokes Out Political Ickiness

I’m no slacker when it comes to politics, but I almost fell off my balance ball when I saw Carol Fowler, the chair of the South Carolina Democratic party, tell Stephen Colbert that her little committee of 16 didn’t think he was “quite ready to be president.” I hate to be the Col-bearer of bad news, but in case you haven’t heard, they voted to keep him off the ballot.

The funnyman had failed the party’s “viable candidate” test despite the fact that one poll showed him statistically tied with Joe Biden and ahead of Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel; and another gave him 13% of the vote in a three-way race with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

Until that moment, I had no idea that a few political party elites could decide subjectively who was viable and vote to scrap the others before America could have its say. Could a not-so-sweet 16 reject Hillary Clinton willy-nilly if they believed a female had no chance? Is this a backstage glimpse of democracy in action? Shouldn’t legitimacy require objective standards?

Fowler’s words felt like fowl play (that’s southern for chicken ordure) and no doubt ticked off millions of young people who had crept out from behind “down with politics” placards to vote for the first time. The sentiment is expressed best on Youtube with the lyrics: “Get even, vote Stephen… Show them you’re disgusted…. The system’s busted….Stick it to the man.”

In the end, did “the man” (aka the establishment) stick it to Colbert and his fans, or did “the man” puncture its own fantastically undemocratic balloon? I say the balloon has lost its air; there will be backlash for refusing to lend Mr. Popularity a “members only” jacket. For example, there are those who have now vowed to deep six both parties, grinning, “Take that closed-door Dems. And take that backroom Republicans, who treated John McCain in a similarly unacceptable fashion during the 2000 New York presidential primary.”

By shutting the door on Colbert’s candidacy, some argue the political establishment has revealed its true colors are not red, white and blue. Instead, they secretly salute the flag of monopoly, manipulation, disenfranchisement and hypocrisy.

Ralph Nader would agree. He has no love for the Republican or Democratic Party. In fact, the consumer advocate has recently filed a lawsuit against the Dems for conspiring to intimidate and use other underhanded tactics to prevent him from the 2004 presidency. Nader’s attorney says it was a “shameful anti-democratic process by a party that claims to be a democratic party.”

The two parties are private organizations with the legal right to choose their candidates however they wish. They can evaluate party loyalty, use ideological litmus tests, weigh campaign nest eggs, cave to daddy’s political connections or allow a committee of 16 to call shots “out” even when the masses would rule them in bounds.

Muckraker Colbert has shed a light on this irksome game. It is particularly unappetizing because the two parties have a quasi-public reality to them. They are like public utility companies in that they get all the business all the time: a candidate has little chance of winning--especially the presidency--unless he or she is affiliated with one of the two giants. In addition, the parties simulate nonprofits, saying they exist to benefit the public good. Have you ever heard a Democrat or Republican admit it’s all about increasing party power and achieving a monopoly; and well, curses to the little people?

The South Carolina Democrats blundered big time. The assured media coverage of the state and of their party—not to mention the voters who would have been brought into the system--would have made it all worthwhile in the end.

Plus there is the education factor. 1.3 million Colbert Report viewers got an entertaining dose of Civics 101 night after night, including information on campaign finance laws, political action committees and Democratic Party “hoop jumping.” It is conceivable they were shedding a few layers of a well-entrenched apathy at each sitting.

As a native-born Georgia girl, I once dreamt of crushing the triangular state to the north. But I completely lost the urge because Colbert made South Carolina seem downright warm and fuzzy. Now that Colbert’s been rejected, I associate the state with a bunch of Old Guard fuddy duddies. Is that really the reputation South Carolina wants, in addition, of course, to its inferior peach status?

Colbert’s fake campaign was arguably less phony than those of competitors because the comedian was honest about the politics-as-usual hustle. Plus the entertaining Everyman offered Independents a place to hang their hats with hope that a mountain of headgear could eventually transform the two parties into relatively harmless molehills.

According to the book Independent Nation, 40 percent of American voters (and 44 percent of those between ages 18 and 29) in 2000 called themselves Independents, and the number has been growing steadily for some time. How has the two-party grip become an immovable object when so many people have jumped overboard or never climbed onto the boat?

Maybe Colbert and his campaign soldiers should seize the helm, starting The-Party’s-Over Party and giving it one platform: to end the two-party stranglehold. It might be the only way to foist the “good ole boys” from their threadbare captain’s chair.

The time has come to end political ickiness, folks.

SB 1818: The Devil’s in the Density Bonus Details

SB 1818, California’s density bonus law is misguided. The situation is exacerbated by the LA City Council’s proposal for local implementation, which increases density bonuses to 35%, well beyond that mandated by state law.

The City Council should refuse to comply with SB 1818. After all, they disregarded the wishes of the US Government by proclaiming LA a sanctuary city and by recently reaffirming Special Order 40. If they can ignore federal law regarding illegal immigration, why can’t they ignore a bad state law on housing?

SB 1818 will hurt those it purports to help. It will put “below market rate” buyers in property prisons where they can lose their down payment and equity. It will hurt market-rate buyers who have to compensate for the low, fixed HOA fees of their neighbors. It will lead to housing stock decreases and an unnecessary decimation of zoning laws. It will mean an onslaught of infrastructure problems.

The “housing affordability crisis” is a myth. Today, a person can buy a condo in the San Fernando Valley for $82,000 and a house for $299,000; and prices are on the decline. Apartment rents start at $525 per month. A five-bedroom house in Valley Glen goes for as little as $1600 per month. 

Paternalistic housing laws are unnecessary and destructive. The Los Angeles City Council should find ways to encourage developers to build market-rate units in areas where new units will be naturally affordable. Public-private partnerships between government and real estate industry professionals should be explored as an avenue for increasing homeownership.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky was the first to criticize the Los Angeles proposal in a letter to Mayor Villaraigosa. These are my comments, which were forwarded to the Mayor and City Council in October 2007.

 

Gnomes, Smiley Faces and the LA Gay Debate

I was one of the 250 people invited to attend the televised LOGO / HRC Democratic debate in Los Angeles, which focused on lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. From my second row seat, I spent a good deal of time bobbing around the head of a husky Department of Homeland Security officer in order to get a view of the stage. He told me that he had a mission: to protect Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I don’t think “pissing me off ” was part of that mission, but I could be wrong.

There was one benefit to my seat: witty gay men surrounded me and editorialized on every issue. Like smart, lovable gnomes, they guarded the gay agenda. They opined when they thought a candidate had fumbled or advanced the ball, and revealed the show’s behind-the-scenes happenings. This included details about how half the crew had volunteered without pay to help with the production—putting in hundreds of hours—simply because they were thrilled the presidential hopefuls were addressing the LGBT community.

I got the skinny on Bill Richardson’s aim to get skinny; the New Mexico Governor had asked that no snacks be placed in his dressing room. He didn’t want to be tempted off of his diet. One gnome said to me, “If he can be tempted by Chex Mix, can we trust him when corporate campaign checks get tossed into the mix?” I couldn’t quite grasp the connection. 

Sitting in the audience were Arianna Huffington, Doogie Hauser’s Neil Patrick Harris, and California Assemblyman Mike Feuer. LA City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl rushed to his seat and apologized for his tardiness, explaining how he’d been backstage coaching his candidate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

The Democrats were questioned in the order they RSVP’d for the event; Obama was first, and Clinton was last. I could not help but think Clinton had planned it that way, as part of an “I’m experienced, unlike my opponent” strategy to get the last word. I could just hear her practicing in front of the mirror: I refuse to meet with leaders of rogue nations. I refuse to RSVP until after my rogue, I mean, esteemed competitors have done so… 

Obama—following the “separate but equal” line and discounting the importance of the word “marriage”--argued that the rights afforded married couples should be given to the LGBT community. He described himself as a “supporter… of a strong version (of civil union);”a platform that did not produce smiley faces in the crowd because they felt the word “marriage” was central to true equality. I felt Obama’s biggest error was to suggest gay issues and homophobia are less important than inner city jobs, but the interviewers threw him a towel and let him walk. 

The second victim tossed into the ring was Senator John Edwards--the “barbers union” and “scissors lobby” favorite—who also shied away from supporting same-sex marriage. Edwards blurted out, “it’s not true” in response to a rumor that he was uncomfortable around gay people. I heard my neighboring gnome mumble, “Thank goodness for that, Senator. Cause it looks like we’ve got you surrounded.” The audience was tightly wrapped in a U around the stage.

Governor Bill Richardson made the most pronounced blunder of the evening when he said that being gay was based on choice rather than genetic factors, a comment that surely came from a deprivation of brain food, most notably Chex Mix. Following the debate, his campaign sent an emergency email to the press, reversing his position.

Richardson—who also refused to support gay marriage--pounded the line, “I’ll do what’s achievable,” so many times that those around me wondered if yanking him off the stage would be achievable. 

Senator Clinton—who wore a festive coral jacket--was not immune from the innocent “candidate bashing” game. One gnome said, “she’s dressed like one of us,” and another mused, “I almost wore the same outfit.” Like Obama, Edwards and Richardson, Clinton did not support the LGBT threshold issue: gay marriage; and like her opponents, she could not explain why. She merely called it a “personal position.” Clinton’s greatest stumble came when she said the LGBT community’s fight for equality “has not been a long term struggle yet,” implying that a group needs to suffer for a prescribed number of years before a politician takes notice. Could this argument be applied to the 2008 election? Is there a particular junior Senator from New York who has not struggled long enough in politics to be taken seriously as a candidate for President?

Former Senator Mike Gravel, the candidate I affectionately call the “grumpy outsider,” was not so grumpy that night, nor was he an outsider. The crowd loved it when he tossed his support to same-sex marriage, and predicted “five years from now, the marriage issue will be a non-issue.”

At first the gnome to my left said Gravel’s shoes were not up to par, “I am judging all candidates on their shoes and this one fails. This is a gay forum. He should know better.”

However, after Gravel proved himself to be an advocate for LGBT issues, the gnome altered his harsh position on footwear, ” I’ve changed my mind. I like what he said, so I’ve decided his shoes are ok.” I’m sure Gravel is relieved. 

Congressman Dennis Kucinich strolled into the room as if he was the reigning champion of the LGBT agenda and gave his unwavering support to same-sex marriage. Like a cross between Tarzan and a Vermont Teddy Bear, he radiated a cuddly and caring confidence while beating on his chest that “the federal government (should) be the agent for change” and that as president, he would be a true leader, always taking a stand on principle. The panelists gushed over him, saying, “They told me not to fawn over you” and “you’re so evolved for a member of Congress.” My gnomes were all smiley faces and applause.

I feel Kucinich won the debate due to his sincerity and passion for the issues, while Gravel earned second place.

The gay debate was about the LGBT community “arriving” and formally entering the hallowed political halls. The gay debate was about fun and making tasteless jokes at the poor candidates’ expense. The gay debate was about moving towards a necessary equality.

And there’s absolutely nothing the matter with that.

_____________

This article appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News on August 16, 2007.

Confessions of an Adopted Child

I was born in the backseat of an Oldsmobile. My mother was in labor for 15 minutes, not long enough for my father to drive us to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. I popped out during the Drifters’ song “There Goes My Baby;” and moments later, there I went. In the emergency room parking lot, I was whisked away by a nurse, complying with a pre-arranged adoption pact and who was under the assumption—as were most adoption “experts” in 1960--that cutting ties should be done in an abrupt and swift fashion like pulling off an old Band-Aid. I would never see my natural parents again. At least that’s what everyone thought.

My adoptive family always had the appropriate number of cars, boats, housekeepers and country club parties; they were skilled at complying with “old money” standards. Those who had “new money”--such as show business folk or overnight get-rich schemers--were naturally inferior to us, or so I was told. By adopting me, my parents were on track for procuring a suitable number of children for a respectable family: two. My brother was adopted a couple of years later.

To the neighbors, everything looked primed and painted, but I was well acquainted with the wood filler and industrious termites beneath the surface. Partly, my negativity stemmed from a perception that I was an outsider with an entirely different value system. I did not qualify as the black sheep of the family for only one reason: sheep tend to be followers. I was more like the independent, black cat, who went my own way.

From grade school to high school, my classmates regularly criticized me for supporting the civil rights movement, for rejecting communism conspiracy theories, for failing to be enamored with all Republican candidates, and for not accepting Jesus as my Redeemer, despite the fact that I attended religious services six days a week.

It galled my friends when I lusted over the flashy, sequined evening gowns that the “new money” movie stars would wear to the latest premiere. Then I’d show up at the school dance wearing one and watch the whispers percolate throughout the room.

I felt ideologically out of place regardless of whether I was at home, school or the local mall and wondered why. Many studies point to a connection between biology and criminal behavior, but what about biology in relation to simple, run-of-the-mill beliefs? Could a person have a genetic predisposition towards particular moral values and favored activities? Could “nature” make a person more likely to support universal healthcare, gay marriage, educational vouchers or the National Rifle Association? Could DNA be a factor in a person’s distaste for vintage automobiles or her attraction to sports?

The answer seems to be yes. British and Australian researchers determined that twins who are reared apart think similarly on subjects ranging from sex, religion, politics, divorce, apartheid and tough-mindedness; and twin research at the University of Minnesota confirmed the finding. “Nurture” has little influence on a child’s personality. In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker makes the case that as much as 70% of the variation between individuals, in areas such as political leanings, personal philosophy, intelligence and personality, are derived from genes.

According to the Washington Monthly, a study conducted by Bruce Sacerdote found that biology rather than environment correlates with income. He learned that “being raised (as an adoptee) in a high-earning family doesn’t seem to have much effect (on the income of the child when she grows up), while being born (as a natural child) to a high-earning family does.” Did this mean I might have to give up those big-ticket gowns and go from being “old money” to “no money?”

Adult children often seek out their natural parents in order to address health concerns, such as to determine whether cancer or heart disease runs in the family; but I wondered if it could help a person better understand herself? I aimed to find out and started the search for my natural parents at the age of 25.

The process was jammed with roadblocks. Adoption records were closed; in other words, I was not supposed to gain access to names or identifying information. Although the bulk of my detective work took place by phone from my home in Los Angeles, at one point I traveled to the Atlanta adoption agency that had placed me and persuaded an employee to divulge the names of my mother and father.

When I was told “Wilson,” I anticipated a needle-in-the-haystack search and realized I had not even arrived at the farm. Today, there are two and a half million listings on Google with my father’s exact first and last name.

As I sleuthed after data, I picked up helpers along the way. Amiable strangers in Georgia, Maryland and Virginia—most of who lived in residences that were once occupied by my mother or father--volunteered to devote investigative hours and legwork to my pressing mission. I made calls. They made calls. In the end, I found my father’s former college and got his contact number from alumni records. I located my mother via a Baltimore school that had employed my grandmother.

I learned one parent is a university professor and author, and the other works for the U.S. Government in Washington D.C. They gave me up for adoption because they were in graduate school and did not plan to stay together. They didn’t.

In the end, I found parents—as well as aunts, cousins and a grandmother—who have values and interests akin to my own. They study philosophy, are environmental advocates, teach aerobics, have similar taste in art and suffer from the migraine headaches that have plagued me since I was a child.

My mother’s religious path detoured in the same way as mine. We were both raised Christian, then attended a Unitarian church for a while, and eventually converted to Reform Judaism.

Although my natural family is rich in heart, their pockets are not totally bare; so genetically speaking, it looks like I may be able to feed my “frock habit” for a few more years.

The ongoing connection with my kin has taught me why I am the way I am, and why I am unlike those who raised me. I appreciate my adoptive parents’ efforts, but have learned that one can never have too many parents.