Shut Up and Listen: Writing and Multicultural Pedagogy

Knauss, Christopher. (2009). Shut up and listen: applied critical race theory in the classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12, 133-154.

 This article is an examination of the effectiveness of applying critical race theory in urban classrooms, specifically in teaching writing. Christopher Knauss, who is both an educator and scholar, argues that traditional “rote-and-drill educational approaches” are largely rejected by urban students because they cannot see its relevance to their lives (Knauss 137). Subsequently, Knauss proposes pedagogy rooted in critical race theory (CRT) that allows students to present their voice rather than be arbitrarily subjected to objective writing curriculum. He structures his pedagogy in two ways: catering to student’s needs and allowing them to engage in narrative writing. In doing so, Knauss argues that he allows traditionally marginalized students to become invested in their educational process. By writing in narrative, they are able to see the relevance of writing in their lives.

One of the major arguments that Knauss makes throughout the article is how educationally deleterious it is to silence students, particularly disenfranchised ones. When they feel that they are not allowed to speak or are heard, these students disengage from the conventional education process. According to Knauss, this perceived rejection not only disengages minority students but causes them to “disregard school as irrelevant, dismissive, and disrespectful” (Knauss 134).   Unfortunately, this reaction pushes them even further onto the societal fringe and even the most well meaning educator struggles to bridge this ideological gap. These students’ disengagement however is not merely rooted in “hurt feelings”.  Knauss argues that perhaps a more foundational factor for minority student angst is distrust. Knauss suggests that this distrust springs from a curriculum that privileges White knowledge and at best tokenizes Black history. Given the havoc that this hegemonic framework has wreaked on urban students circumstances, Knauss concludes that it is not surprising that they have such a negative attitude towards this condescension.

 Personally, I think that Knauss’ application of critical race theory to urban schooling is very incisive. I especially enjoyed the ways in which he weaved the meta narratives of his individual students to create a more expansive discourse about education and voice. It is one of the most theoretically sound and accessible articles about the issues surrounding urban education that I have read. I completely agree with his argument that we cannot continue to rely on rigid pedagogical standards to truly measure the intelligence of marginalized students. We also cannot continue to separate education from student’s personal experiences, as that only serves to further alienate them. While allowing them to delve into their pathos can often be uncomfortable, it is necessary if we wish to legitimize them.  However, it is in this uninhibited sharing of pathos where my only issue lies with Knauss. While I understand that this process requires the teacher to have a level of confidentiality with the students, many of them need more help than a collection of cathartic and empowering moments can give them. To his credit, Knauss does mention the importance of his student’s “developing tools to survive” their oft grave situations (Knauss 145). Yet, I think a viable question that was not addressed in his article is how can teachers not only help these students survive but create realistic alternatives to these nightmares? In my opinion, a teacher who truly engages in CRT must not only be willing to listen to student voice, but also take the action necessary to help change their circumstances as well. I think Knauss would do well to create an additional article that explains how CRT teachers can accomplish this without succumbing to a patronizing savior.

Multicultural Readers: Progressive or Regressive?

Jordan, J. (2005). Rereading the multicultural reader: toward more “infectious” practices in multicultural composition. College English, 68, 168-185.

In this article, Jay Jordan analyzes and problematizes the use of multicultural readers in composition studies.  He acknowledges the need for such materials because of the “historical role of composition as a gatekeeper” that excluded minority voices (169). However, while well intentioned, multicultural readers appear to succumb to the same issues that plagued composition readers prior to the move towards inclusivity. Jordan argues that the main problem with said texts is a failure to accept cultural texts as academic ones. This leads to the production of a composition handbook that still privileges the dominant voice while placating dissidents by allowing for a few cultural texts. Yet despite these issues, Jordan points out that “multicultural readers continue to be published, marketed, and sold” (169). He then proceeds to examine the evolution of these texts and give an overview of their criticism. Perhaps more importantly, Jordan uses this work as a space to provide his own criticisms of these texts.

When examining past criticisms of the multicultural reader, Jordan focuses on theorists Jamieson and James Gee. Both of these scholars argue that multicultural readers are problematic mainly because they provide a mere cursory analysis of the individual nature of prejudice rather than deconstructing the structural hegemony of discrimination. This realization spurs Gee and Jamieson to trouble the notion of literacy as “schooling” in “dominant ideologies” as demonstrated in these texts (172). In other words, multicultural readers do little to challenge and actually reinforce the ideology of majority privilege.

These critiques create a framework for Jordan’s subsequent “interrogation” of composition texts which claim to be multicultural. Each of the books that he scrutinizes divorces the multicultural articles from the rest of the texts, causing Jordan to present some of the same assessments of his predecessors. He however focuses less on the problems themselves than on finding possible solutions. Jordan wishes to understand “how diverse interactions should best be facilitated” (180).  In doing so, he brings in new and transformative dialogue to an old question.