Les Miserables: My Review of the Performance

I have some advice for people who may have recently viewed Les Miserables at the movie theater: open your internet browser of choice, point the browser to youtube.com, in the search field enter “Javert’s Suicide,” click on the first result it returns. The man you see on the screen is Philip Quast, an Australian actor and theater teacher. If you view all five minutes and twenty-four seconds of the video, you will now have experienced a small sample of the real, genuine musical.

The difference between Quast’s performance and Russell Crowe’s in the recent made-for-film musical may not seem that drastic, but Les Mis lovers will find something wanting in the film.

Before I review the actors and the songs, I think it is worth adding this caveat, the film’s worst problems are not the added or omitted lines (though there are some problems there) or the action scenes used to make it more suitable for that medium. The problems arise out of the singing and the acting, not the necessary adaptations made for the screen.

First, while I generally consider Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe to be impostors on the musical scene, it cannot be denied that the film has some hidden gems of talent. A good guide for the talent in this film is: the bigger the name, the smaller the talent. The following well-known actors absolutely botched their characters in the film: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. The only exception to this rule is Anne Hathaway’s performance.

While I’m not prepared to say that her version of “I Dreamed a Dream” is equal to that of Ruthie Henshall or even Susan Boyle, it is not as far from the mark as are so many of the other performances in the film. Moreover, she redeems herself in many of her other performances throughout the film, though she still does not measure up.

As for Jackman and Crowe, they both lack the same thing, the ability to hit the high and low notes respectively. Perhaps this was an intentional element of the performance, but I found that neither of them seemed to give the same kind of range to their voice that other performers in the same roles have. Compared to one another, Crowe makes Jackman sound like a regular Orpheus, staged, as Jackman is, beside such an impoverished voice.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter ruin the roles of Thenardier and his wife, though Bonham Carter very much looks the part. In both of their cases, their characters sang less sharply, less subtly and were much more comical when compared to, for instance, the tenth anniversary performance of the musical where their characters are portrayed as much more comic, bumbling and witty. It’s nevertheless true that they were not given as much stage time as in the musical, the film omits Thenardier’s solo “Dog Eats Dog” and shortens “Beggars at the Feast” to omit the less politically correct lyrics which betray their characters’ racism and homophobia. Perhaps, they are simply forced into this role but they seem very cartoonish on the big screen.

The real gems of the film are: Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks and Daniel Huttlestone. Among these, I would rate Samantha Barks’ (Eponine) performance the highest with Eddie Redmayne (Marius) coming in a close second.

It is not because they are true to the ‘original’ performance that I rate these actors higher. In fact, they make substantial changes to the way the musical has been performed in previous years, but these changes are not deleterious. For instance, Eponine’s “A Little Fall of Rain” as performed by Barks outright trounces Jackman’s performance of “Bring Him Home” which does not adequately express the desperation of Valjean and is at times flat, nasal and whiny. Similarly, Redmayne’s performance is much more alive than and represents an improvement on the singer who was cast as Marius in the 25^th anniversary performance.

It is also worth mentioning the child actor Huttlestone’s performance as Gavroche which is quite effective and an improvement I think on the musical.

I did not know that Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe could sing before viewing this movie but the truth is I’m still not sure either of them can.

On the whole, the best thing about the film was the orchestra’s performance. I strongly recommend finding a copy of the orchestral music from the film, it was enough to make me reluctant to turn on the radio as I left the theater.

It is possible that the film’s many shortcomings are due to the fact that it has descended into the pop culture realm of film from the high art world of musical theater.

The screen does not capture large, dramatic performances well, stage acting is usually much bigger and more vocal, whereas acting and speaking for the camera is subtle and more nuanced. Thus, perhaps it is possible that Crowe’s Javert is less dark and dramatic; Jackman’s Valjean is less passionate and panicked because of the constraints imposed by the medium, not because of the failings of the actors. This problem might also explain the problem of portraying the Thenardiers, who are essentially caricatures in the musical and don’t translate well onto the screen.

In any case, for a musical that is so brilliant and which conveys such powerful feeling, I think a connoisseur should try to see it in person; it’s much more striking that way.  

Big Government Inefficiency at the Smallest Level: A Personal Matter

When a medieval serf wanted to travel to a different area, he or she would need to obtain permission from their Lord in order to do so. The same was true of many activities outside of travel. For instance, they needed permission to marry or plant new crops. To acquire such permission they might seek an audience with their Lord or his Steward.

Obviously, American society is not composed of Serfs and Lords. Instead, we have citizens and petty bureaucrats. Citizens are ostensibly free. Petty bureaucrats exist to give force to the ‘ostensibly’ in the preceding sentence. If one needs a license to drive, hunt, purchase a gun or practice one’s trade; one must seek to obtain an audience with the relevant petty bureaucrat.

Their feudal domains are not geographically divided; they are divided according to the service they provide. I suppose this might represent an innovative, new form of government provided to us as part of the fallout of the enlightenment.

In any case, much like the medieval serf, the modern citizen does not see his or her government operating at the grand level. There is much talk of the problems of ‘big government’ which most people roughly equate to taxes on the wealthy or government regulations of industrial activity.

Although this does harm even the poorest of citizens in ways he or she may not imagine, the more obvious forms of government oppression come at the lower levels where the citizen’s activity is overseen by petty bureaucrats.

I recently decided to attempt to obtain a license and tag in the state of Alabama, where I live, work and vote. What follows is a brief list of the various ways in which my individual liberty as a citizen of this state has been overseen by petty bureaucrats.

1. I went to the tag office, where I was informed that I would need a state license to obtain a tag.

2. At the licensing office, I was informed that I needed certain documents in order to transfer my license from another state to Alabama.

3. The documents provided, I was informed that due to an (alleged) unpaid ticket from 2009, acquired in the State of Louisiana, I would need to provide additional documentation proving I had paid it.

4. After many calls to Louisiana (where someone humorously asked me if my name was spelled ‘Duc’) I was advised that the ticket had been paid (in 2009, before it was due) and that I would need to appear in person to obtain the said documentation which cannot be transmitted over the ‘unreliable’ internet.

5. Upon the obtaining of said documentation, I will tentatively, be forced to pay $100 to secure a ‘reinstatement’ of a license I never had in Alabama following an interview to determine whether I am a ‘safe driver.’

Let me briefly outline for my readers what this will cost me in terms of non-incidental costs alone.

1. $300                  The approximate amount of the initial ticket, paid in 2009.

2. $100                  The cost of the gas for the trip from Tuscaloosa, AL to Baton Rouge and back.

3. $100                  The cost of the reinstatement fee.

The Distance I must Travel in Order to Improve my Government Experience

For five-hundred dollars and a great deal of inconvenience, I can obtain an Alabama license. It is fortunate that my employment does not require any specific hours of labor and that I have the luxury of my own time.

Were I employed on an hourly basis, I would most assuredly find it more difficult to find the time to make the trip. Imagine also the hours I would have to spend waiting for the petty bureaucrat to have time to attend on my case. The opportunity cost would soar and my employer might find someone else who did not need so much time off from work to fill my job. Let us not even begin to think of the toll this will take on my aging car.

There are two competing views on how to solve the problems created by such incidents. The first is exemplified by a quotation from President Obama: “What we should be asking is not whether we need a big government or small government, but how we can create a smarter and better government.” I like to think of this as the ‘Better Government’ solution, which accepts that all systems oppress people and attempts to make the system less oppressive than it might otherwise be.

The second view, and the one I hold to, is that there should be no system which unjustly oppresses people. The unjust oppression I speak of arises not out of unavoidable problems but out of predictable inefficiencies. It is predictable that the states should miscommunicate regarding the status of my ticket, it is predictable that the system should not allow a fax or email of the same document I must pick up in person, it is predictable that even at the lowest level government should operate inefficiently.

An economist of some note, Milton Friedman, who is very often quoted wrote: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.” Although the only shortage in my case is a lack of common sense and justice, the quotation still applies. Government, lacking any competition is inefficient. There is no reason why Louisiana’s Office of Motor Vehicles should consider using that system of tubes that we call the internet, there is no reason why Alabama’s Department of Motor Vehicles should obtain more staff to reduce waiting lines.

More importantly, there is no reason why either of the two should work toward the resolution of the problem of miscommunication because I am not a customer, I am a citizen. A customer is a first-class citizen in a place of business; a citizen is a second-class customer in the office of a government department. Every person who has ever been to a government office to acquire any product is aware of this fundamental truth.

If I was a medieval serf, I might consider offering my Lord a ‘gift’ to make the problem go away. The same solution might be cheaper to attempt than the enormous feat of travel I shall have to attempt in order to resolve this matter. 

In the same speech, President Obama also said: “Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe.” This age-old assumption, that the government should administer the maintenance of roads and the right to travel on them is one which we should seriously reconsider.

But the purpose of this brief article is not to discuss the specific issue of government administration of the highway system, it is to point out that even at the lowest level, government is inefficient. Government cannot be made better or less oppressive, it cannot improve in the same way that a business can because no individual has any interest in its improvement. Although our methods of oppressing people have changed since feudal times, this fundamental truth remains: when the government attempts to regulate any activity such as marrying, hunting or travelling the inevitable outcome is injustice.

Classical (rhetoric) Magic Test

Maybe you will find these funny, more likely you will think: why did he spend his time doing this? The answer, he was avoiding finishing the last two questions on the exam. :) 

The test reimagined as though Harry Potter had been on our reading list. 

# 1 

What might have caused Cicero to believe that his On the Ideal Orator was superior in style and quality to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series? Compare the two in terms of their style and readability.

# 2 

Between Hermagoras, Hermogenes and Hermione, whose style do you believe has the most charms? Be sure to indicate an understanding of the differences and similarities between a stasis system and a stasis spell.

# 3 

Do you suppose that Tacitus’ birth as a squib was what motivated him to reject magic/rhetoric and become a historian? Do you feel that his attitude was of the ‘sour grapes’ variety?

# 4 

When Cicero first discovered that ‘rhetoric’ was really a code word for magic in ancient texts, he remarked: “Rhetoric without magic has been of little help to states, but magic without rhetoric has often been a great obstacle and never an advantage…” Consider whether Harry Potter and his contemporaries might have benefited from the ability to give speeches that lasted for hours and entrapped their audiences using spellbinding language.

# 5

Consider how St. Augustine used ‘rhetoric’ to convert the muggles to Christianity. Why do you think he focused on the non-magical aspects of rhetoric? Do you think that these aspects of rhetoric are the closest thing to magic for a muggle?

Bonus Question: 

Compare the Latin terms used by Rowling in Harry Potter to describe magical spells to the Latin terms used in textbooks to describe the Roman rhetorical system, note any similarities. If you had to choose between the ability to cast an “engorgio” charm and the ability to conduct a “copia”  speech, which would you choose?

The Zeitgheist of Defeat at Bama

     Wearing a garment of that shade of red favored by the locals, I am standing on a street corner and watching them exiting that place from which so much fame and glory has originated, today the scene of their tragedy. The general attitude is subdued, their eyes downcast, avoiding each others' gaze, as if looking into another person's eyes might cause them to realize the tragedy once more. the adults are depressed, sullen even. The smarter children know better than to laugh in the presence of defeat, those that do not are quickly silenced. There is no jovial laughter, there are shouts of anger between familiars. Grimness pervades their aspects.
      The authorities have been forced to deploy themselves to restore order, likely to prevent a riot. Houndstooth purses and are tucked tightly under arms, possibly to prevent theft, or is it out of shame? But no one of them can disguise themselves from the phantom of defeat which I see hovering over and chastising their crimsoned torsos, heads and spirits. I saw none of them bleeding physically from wounds to the body, but their crimson exteriors were the perfect symbols for their bloodied spirits, sullied by the A&M.

      On a side note, I'm sure that this defeat was totally insignificant, but I could not help commenting (and dramatizing) the spirit of defeat I have witnessed, especially when compared to the audible celebrations I am forced to endure. A little humility never hurt anyone, not even the Crimson Tide.

Sharmeka Moffit - A Rapist of Reputation

-->

There is a certain irony regarding the reaction to the incident surrounding Sharmeka Moffit who recently set herself on fire and scrawled an unfortunate word and the letters KKK on her car in toothpaste. The irony occurs at multiple levels.

First, the reaction is suprisingly similar to the reaction which often occurred in small, white, southern communities following the commission of a crime in the pre-civil rights era. Whenever people heard about a crime at that time, the predominant racist sentiment was that someone black had committed it. Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind as an example and also conversations with family members who lived through that era. The racism inherent in the general fear of African-Americans by their white contemporaries is both disgusting and revealing.

A lot of the reaction in the social media sphere was ready to raise a hue and a cry against that old, decrepit specter - white supremacism. As one local news station reports, the reaction of one facebooker was to say “a suspicious looking white person was seen in the area with a Romney bumper sticker.” This echoes of the pre-civil rights era, when, regardless of the crime and the evidence, black people knew to be afraid because one of them was likely to be singled out and accused of a crime. Of course, back then, it would have been the authorities reacting, now it’s just ignorant people on social media sites and feminist blogs like those at the crunkfeministcollective. The point is this, we can’t just change who we revile and who we generally blame for crimes. We should reserve judgment on any case until we know as many of the facts as are available, the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case might have benefited from a little bit of circumspection as well.

We can’t simply stop suspecting black people and start suspecting white people, justice would not be served that way, we should reserve judgment until we know something.

Second, there are also some fringe groups who are saying that even if Ms. Moffit did set herself on fire, it must be the fault of a society that embraces white supremacy and capitalism. This argument is so specious that it doesn’t really deserve comment. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, not society. If there is no such thing as individual responsibility, there is no crime that can’t be blamed on someone else which means that there is no crime. Even in parts of the Islamic world, where women routinely set themselves on fire to escape the horrors of child marriages and a real patriarchal culture which bears no resemblance to our own, the women who set themselves on fire are still to blame for the effects of the fire, though not perhaps for the legal system which oppresses them.

Finally, no one seems to be willing to voice any concern over the implications of Sharmeka’s actions other than to make muted comments about how this might be blamed on a culture of this or that. If the reports we have about her self-incineration are true, then she should be at fault. Not only for setting herself on fire but also for inflaming the issue of white supremacy, when clearly, there were no white supremacists involved. When an individual assassinates the character of another individual, it’s called libel or slander, we have no suitable word for the crime when its object is not another individual but an entire group of people united only by the loose and transient bonds of race and gender. 

Now I’m not suggesting that the KKK represents the “white race” or even “white men” insofar as those phrases even represent coherent groups of people – which they do not. But, there will be some people who perceive all white men to be the same, who conflate the KKK with all white men, just as there were once (and may still be) people who perceived all black men to be the same. And in the perceptions of these people, Shameka’s actions could have inflamed some suspicion and hatred of white men.

Shameka is guilty of attempting to rape the reputations of a whole group of people, who are mostly unassociated with each other and innocent.  Nevertheless, I don’t think she should be punished. I believe in an absolute freedom of speech and writing slurs on your car using toothpaste is fair game. Also, since she didn’t implicate a particular person, she can’t be accused of making a false accusation. I can’t even begin to highlight how ironic it would be if the KKK brought suit against her for copyright infringement or slander. Maybe the prosecutor in Louisiana will disagree with me, but I think she should walk free, but be scarred for life as a result of her own actions. 

If we are all going to live together in a society composed of multiple ethnic groups, we have to stop rushing to judgement on the basis of appearances and recognize that when someone commits a race-based crime or makes false accusations against anyone on the basis of their race, it is a despicable act deserving of our censure.

http://www.wtvm.com/story/19897441/burning-case-goes-viral-rumors-spread

http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/when-the-hoodies-are-white-justice4sharmekamoffitt/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/sharmeka-moffitt-lied-racist-attack-set-herself-on-fire-louisiana-kkk-_n_2008690.html

Reviving the Image of Columbus or What I Celebrate on Columbus Day

Today seems to be the day when everyone who ever took World History 101 or had American History in High School comes out to play the social critic. Columbus Day is the perfect day for post-colonialists who have read a lot of theory to step up to the bat and pretend to know something about history. The problem with applying such meta-theoretical perspectives as post-colonialism is that such applications obscure the people of the past, Columbus in this case, and prevent modern audiences from ever understanding them as they saw themselves. This is not to draw attention away from the rape and pillage of the Caribbean which Columbus oversaw, but to properly contextualize it.

The tendency of post-colonial amateurs is to isolate what Columbus did once he came to America and forget that the process of arriving did not happen automatically. Post-colonialism obscures all of Columbus’ virtue behind his manifold vices. His virtue lies in the fact that he stepped out beyond the parameters of defined existence and looked for something beyond the known. The intellectual and physical bravery of Columbus is rare in the modern world and particularly rare in the academy, which, if we measured it metaphorically against Columbus, would have burned its ships before sailing or at best stuck close to the shores of the Mediterranean and remained a Genoese trader for life. Such is the attitude in our institutions of ‘learning.’

Imagine for instance if Columbus had been possessed of a mind that was afraid of falling off of the side of the earth, of stepping out beyond the approved dogma of the collective. Such an individual would never have left Genoa, much less had the audacity to try selling his plan to the crowned heads of two of the world’s most powerful monarchies. Would such a mind have ever risked life and limb to sail toward something unknown in search of riches which were, according to the accepted nautical norms of his day only available by sailing east or bartering with the Ottoman Turks?

It is OK to teach children that such an individual was courageous and that they should strive to embody the ideal of courage. There is nothing wrong with teaching children that cultural ideals exist and that they should live their lives to embody those ideals. When I speak of ideals, I mean ideals which humans can embody such as courage, in this case. This is radical or insane, I understand, in a world that has no ideals i.e. a post-colonial, neo-Marxist world.

Eventually, children should be clued in to the fact that the raping and pillaging happened. Not to destroy the image of Columbus for the sake of destroying an image and showing that “humans are fundamentally flawed” but to show that Columbus held ideas which were non-objective and irrational, such as the moral superiority of European Christians. This will also show them that non-objective and irrational ideas lead people to commit savage acts of barbarism and that such ideas cannot form the permanent basis of civilization without destroying it. Columbus’ real vices were the bad ideas he had about civilization, not the barbarous acts he committed in Hispaniola.

Columbus’ actions in the new world are a classic example of one collective oppressing another and should provide us with evidence that the best moments in human history have been the achievements of daring and bold individuals not collective actions. It should also show us that people who cling to the collective, which Columbus did with regard to religion but not nautical science, are only going to be products of their era and are what Ayn Rand, the novelist, calls ‘social ballast.’ Post-colonialists are also not keen on mentioning another facet of Columbus’ life: the fact that his mismanagement of the new world got him thrown in prison and that he more or less died in poverty.

Columbus’ legacy is indeed a mixed one, but there is something to be celebrated on Columbus Day – the joyous and triumphant individual achieving success in spite of tradition.  Post-colonial theorists should hold their theory in for a few minutes and attempt to understand Columbus’ virtues before running amuck in their attempt to list his vices.

A State of Intellectual Independence

      As our nation celebrates its two hundred thirty-sixth birthday, I am reminded as much of the progress our nation has made across two centuries as the recession of that progress in the days since our founding. Values which were first realized in the United States: individual rights, intellectual independence and the freedom to succeed (or fail) are losing their prominence on the national scene. I am not a partisan die hard who believes that a return to the past is what will make us great. Nor am I a champion of either political party. I write this post from a cafe in the heart of the bible belt, where the greatest portion of my twenty-two years has been spent.

      The present incorporation of the democratic party represents a threat to our freedom – the freedom of our bodies. Taxes that redistribute income take from one person and give to another, solely on the basis of need, which is no form of merit. It is easy to see how such a policy is a threat to the freedom of our body. The work of our minds belongs to us, the reward should as well, yet it is wrenched from us by force. This is a type of mysticism, it is the pretense that work does not create wealth, that those who do not work can achieve success without working by riding on the backs of those who do work. Success is not mystical, it is systematic. Yet 'liberal' policy makers and politicians pretend that success is a mystic process which some will never realize. The irony is that many never will succeed on their own as long as we continue to teach them that success comes from thievery.

      But the mystics of the mind, not the mystics of the body, rule this part of the nation. Southern republicans, people who supposedly cherish their freedom, are quick to arch their backs against threats to their freedom. Guns, god and gold are the holy triad of conservatism in this corner of the union. But what many self-labeled republicans are not aware of is the fact that faith (or god) is as large a threat to their freedom as Barack Obama. The Christian faith encourages people to depend on a higher power, to give up control and place their lives in the hands of the divine. The better sort of Christians admit that this will not always bring success because their god is not concerned with giving them success so much as doing what is best for them.

      God is the ultimate tyrant, the tyrant of the mind, though no longer the body. John Milton glimpsed as much in Paradise Lost but perhaps lacked the courage to admit it to himself or others. Having faith in god to solve your problems is very nearly the same as having faith in government to do so except that government exists, god does not. The danger of surrendering your mind to god is that you have surrendered to a false premise and even if you manage to hit at some other truths, your thought process will not be unified as long as you defend that false premise. Defending a false premise with logic is like defending an uncooperative non-combatant who cannot see the danger in the middle of a firefight.

      How can Christians, who are supposed to be models of the altruistic, neighbor-loving citizens protest the theft of their money in the form of taxes when it is going toward such a good cause – care for the needy? The simple answer is that if they understand Christianity for what it is, they cannot. Freedom from god is freedom from false premises, the freedom to stand on your own two feet, the freedom to pursue the truth no matter the consequences. Christianity demands devoted slaves to Christ's reason – faithful followers who do not and cannot understand their master's true intentions. This is a recipe for disaster especially given the fact that their master does not exist and they are all following each other or their leader (who does not really know what he is doing either ).

      But not all leaders in the Christian church are so blind, many see the money that is to be made from pretending as though you know what is going on – these are the Joel Olsteins of the world. The truth is, Joel Olstein is less dangerous than the small-town pastor who blindly follows an often contradictory corpus of literature written thousands of years ago and the voice of the 'spirit.' The very mentality which fosters tyranny in politics, is the same mentality which controls the mind of the average parishioner. That mentality is fear. The fear of the unknown and the fear of thinking for oneself. The same fear which leads people to band together to legally rob the strong of this world is the mentality which leads them to band together as a defense against the unknown, in devotion to the unknowable.

      The world is knowable, this should be a source of comfort to our minds but it is presently a source of fear to many people because so much of it is unknown to them. To me, this represents a challenge, the challenge to know! I have no special malice against god (only an insane person would hate someone who does not exist) or against Christians particularly – only against the mystics of the mind and body, those who would enslave us as workers and as thinkers.

      What America needs, two hundred and thirty-six years after its founding is people who will take risks and who have the freedom to do so - entrepreneurs of the mind and body. What America has is faithful followers everywhere who are afraid of such risks and witch-doctors who fan the flames of their fear - intellectual cowards and thieves. These forces could combine to see America in a somewhat European conundrum, fifty to one hundred years from now. It is the pioneering spirit of the intellect, which led us to span a continent, that will reinvigorate our nation, our politics and our economy one individual at a time.  

Educational Issues: The Taco Without the Filling

Teaching is not an easy job. The profession is filled with more pitfalls and potholes than the way to hell, yet many people embark on the path of teaching – often as a last resort and often without an end in mind.

I was in this position when I first started teaching last June during summer school at a small private institution in Jackson, MS. I had no clue about the ethical monsters I would confront as a teacher, some of which I kept at bay and others to which I gave ground. The beginning of the regular school year brought them all rushing toward me pell-mell, and I attempted at times to fight them off, at others I ran away from them in a similar fashion. But the school year came to an end, I had time to recuperate from the battle and then the opportunity came for summer school. I would like to think that I have the metaphoric monsters on the retreat. But let me here give name to these monsters, and castigate their followers in passing, for there is nothing so vile as an enemy who flies friendly colors, or a devil who is adored as a deity. I propose to accomplish this over a series of blog posts in the following weeks. But here I start with one of the most vile of the creatures.

Upon taking up my post as a teacher, I was introduced to a new and innovative method of teaching. A method which involved the use of two simple materials:  a study guide and a test! In this method of giving credit, students complete the study guide and then take a test on the chapter in question. By this method, students can sometimes finish year-long classes in a matter of weeks. There is no discussion, there is no lecture, students do not have homework or activities, simply study guides and tests. I once confronted an administrator about this issue and was told that the way I taught class was “thought provoking” but students needed a more “basic course.” A more basic course! The thought is so detestable to me that I do not know what to compare it to – a sandwich without meat, an Oreo without stuffing, a taco without filling? I was wise and held my tongue in the face of this criticism but I cannot imagine how anyone thinks it a good idea. There are worse methods: giving out grades with no work to show for them, grading for completion or not grading at all. Zeus or Jupiter, their names are different, their effects are similar. In any case, my own track record against this monster is clear – I have never once allowed a student to complete a course in such a manner.

I must here pause to castigate the followers of this method who have the daring to call themselves teachers. Can you make no effort to bestir yourself to teach? Do you not care about the subject you are teaching? Are you afraid of any work which involves more than going through the motions? How is it that you can value your work or accept your paycheck? Are you not aware that by giving students credit for completing a course in which they learned nothing that you are giving them a false sense of achievement? Do you imagine that your actions are unimportant?

In answer to this last question I wish to describe an episode which arose in one of my classes this very day. My students were trying me to see if they could escape completing some work, I was in the process of declining when one of them said to me “Mr. Duke, you act like this is a life or death issue, it's just Government.” In short I responded by asking him if he would say the same in other educational situations: the doctor learning the location of the heart or the physicist learning how to harness the power of atomic energy. He agreed that it was important. Nevertheless, his unconsidered objection is the stated opinion of many 'well-educated' people. I have only to say to them that bad politics is as deadly as bad science. The point is that high school is not some throw away time period when students should not be expected to learn. Every subject is important for its own reasons. If you, as a teacher, are unaware of the reasons why what you are teaching is important, you should be deeply ashamed and immediately try to find out or find a different job.

Teachers are not the only ones to blame. We must also castigate parents and students for being such poorly informed consumers of education. Any parent who is not concerned about whether their child is actually learning or not (as opposed to simply passing classes) does not deserve the title. If the error is one of being intellectually unaware of the difference it can be forgiven. If it is one of not caring to make the distinction, it cannot.

But here I must go on, because it is not enough to blame those directly involved in the classroom and the home (teachers, parents and students). There is a fourth class of perpetrators who are perhaps most culpable for the practice continuing, namely, administrators. First, administrators have the responsibility to oversee teachers. In my own experience, as well as that of other teachers I communicate with, I have not found that administrators exist to actually help facilitate the educational process. All too often, when a teacher sees an administrator coming into their room it is so that they can discuss 'alternate means of assessment' which is a kind of Orwellian, educational doublespeak for an easier assignment. Administrators often mandate that certain students receive easier work than others (more 'basic courses'). They have removed students from my classroom, taken their files, given them work and then had the nerve to suggest that I lost the student's material and that I need to turn in a grade for that student. In the earlier periods of my employment, I am sad to say that I was sometimes intimidated by these tactics and once or twice gave ground.

The problem is that many administrators are too driven by empty results. These results vary from school to school but all have the same effect. In private school, more students graduating (and thus more money) is the object. In public school, better scores are the goal. Better scores and more graduations are not enough. Students must actually learn something! A few words for the wise administrator:  Identify those teachers who are not teaching – fire them. Do not interfere with the curriculum simply because some students are incapable of completing the material to the state's standards – perhaps these students need to learn a trade which does not require them to know about English Literature, Algebra, Physics or U.S. Government. Finally, acknowledge that your roll in the actual process of education is as a watchdog – a watchdog against the unethical, against anyone who would waylay the educational process or give in to those who would do so. If you are involved in marketing the school in any way, you should either make no promises about what will happen in the classroom or be honest about what is possible when speaking to parents.

As I wind down this rambling diatribe, which I hope to recommence some time in the future, I would like to say that not everything I write about deals with issues at the school where I teach. Much of my writing concerns stories I have heard from other teachers at other schools, though some of my experiences are included. Above all, I believe that education is a process which must constantly subject itself to criticism and self-reflection. Otherwise, the process never changes and we all keep plodding along trying to educate as we always have, often ineffectively.