Uninhibited's blog

Setting the Expectation for Deviance: School Policies and Urban Youth

With the number of incarcerated people on the rise, economic advantages to building prisons, and incentives for law enforcement to get “tough on crime” it seems that more states are focused on increasing their prison population than their student populations.  As state budges cut their funding for schools and increase their funding to build new prisons, the message is clear: there is an expectation that the prison population will continue to grow rapidly. How are schools being part of this expectation of the growth of the prison population? According to Erica Meiners, the school-to-prison pipeline is an issue that is plaguing urban public schools, as school-based-disciplinary policies are preparing poor urban students to enter the prison system. School policies such as suspensions, dress codes, and the use of metal detectors are making schools look more like prisons and students look more like prisoners. How are these school policies setting the expectation for urban youth of color to break school policies instead of thrive in schools?  How are these policies made visible to the students, families, and communities that are being targeted?

I posted the picture below because I was introduced to the Prison Industrial Complex by learning about Angela Davis. Every time I think of prisons I can't help but think of her movement and her books. I also think that the fact that a black boy is wearing a shirt of her speaks to the facts we've been learning in class about the incarceration of black bodies and the inability of schools to respond to their needs. However, this guy perhaps has some consciousness, I see him as a direct contradiction to a system that wants him to fail. By wearing an Angela Davis shirt, he is speaking his consciousness and at the same time standing for those who like him that have been chased by the prison, schooling, etc. system.

I found it interesting how Wideman used space, time and distance as measures of success at the beginning of the book. It seems like he really reflects on his desire to separate himself not only from his neighborhood and his relationship with brother but also from his own identity. He doesn’t seem to be proud of it, but simply acknowledge the complexity, and perhaps reason as to why his relationship with his brother is so broken.

The quote that strikes me the most is on page 27 when he said, "One measure of my success was the distance I'd put between us. Coming home was a kind of bragging...It's sure fucked up around here ain't it? But look at me, I got away." I think that this quote really exemplifies the belief that success and his home stand in direct opposition, that he must leave one in order to embrace the other, even though later on the book he complicates this idea. Although I understand that there must be a refashioning of the self in order to fit into alien spaces, I don’t think that it is absolutely necessary to choose one or the other. It seems to me that the distance and the silence can in fact point not just to the fact that him and his brother are different because of his “choice to be successful” but also to the fact that the awkwardness exists because of their history and blood, because that awkwardness and guilt would not manifest itself through silence if they were not intrinsically tied. 

            Through the process of research professors are able to enter an academic conversation with goals that range from solving a social problem to giving voice to particular communities. Interviews, surveys and participatory observation serve as channels that seek to deepen and broaden our understanding of certain groups of people. What is done with the results of months of data collection can range from a change in policy, to simply sharing the findings with other academics. What happens when research is conducted, policy does not change and communities are left “damaged”? By using Eve Tuck’s desire-based research, I will explore the ways in which research can either give voice to or silence communities. Are researchers truly giving communities a voice, even if the act of research is simply a representation of their stories? Who is listening to these voices besides the researcher and the academic community? What is the purpose of research if voice and/or change are not outcomes?

When finishing part two of Offending Women, where they talk about Vision's idea of therapy and addiction as solutions and causes for the women's incarceration, I was particularly struck by how good intentions can go bad. It seems like the women involved in the program had good intentions, but had much difficulty executing them in productive ways for the incarcerated women. I was horrified at the lack of privacy the women in Visions were given, not only in respect to the program but with the expectation that they should air out their problems and lives for everybody to see. This was especially evident when incoming women were asked to write "autos" in which they fully detailed traumatic experiences and just bad situations. Not only were they asked to revisit them but they were also asked to "perform" them. That just didn't sit well with me. I was horrified. As someone who deals better with trauma and difficult experiences alone, focusing on self-reflection, I can't imagine being asked to completely break down in front of an audience when I'm not ready. I don't understand how helping these women "unmask" themselves or open up about their struggles serves as anything else than feeling shame, guilt, anger, pain. I wonder where the opportunity for positive experiences went. This program seemed very much "damage-centered."

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/07/152183865/lena-dunham-addresses-criticism-aimed-at-girls?ft=1&f=1008#

Below is a link to a youtube video where Marc Lamont Hill interviews Angela Davis on her work with prision abolition. Needless to say this is very relevant to our class. Both of them have come to speak on campus for Black History Month (Hill came my sophomore year).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AZ5waLhdV0&feature=relmfu

Our readings for this week really reminded of the consequences of placing an identity on somebody else. How our entire interactions are based on who we think individuals are, and how that should influence the ways in which we treat them, connect with them, listen to them and understand them. This was especially true in Offending Women, where it was clear that the young mothers that were part of the program were given a narrative of what their lives were or ought to be, which completely shaped all of the interactions between the staff and them. The staff saw them as either victims or bloodsuckers, and consistently reminded them that neither of these things would lead to their independence (from the state, from blaming others etc). What would have happened if they had seen these women differently, If they hadn't assigned them that specific identity? Again, this identity idea is restated in Colored Amazons, where the author talks about the ways in which prisoners and (black) women were impacted by a story about who they where. The whole prison system was based on this judgment of their morals, biology, racial hierarchy and ability to be "restored." I definitely think that this practice is alive and well today, where we assign identities that have deep consequences that people have to live with (I'm thinking of Tuck's damage-centered research). How can we be active in creating different narratives for ourselves with the hope that others will also have the same opportunities?  

My little sister is away at a boarding school focusing on science for girls this semester. Part of what they do every day is wake up in the morning and experience silence to gather their thoughts and goals for the day. One of the girls in the program wrote about her experience and I thought it would be relevant to share. Here's their blog.

http://girlwaves.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-09-19T06:16:00-07:00&max-results=7