Then I Opened My Big Mouth...

So...I got myself elected/appointed "Parish Education Chair" at church.  I'll skip the story of how THAT happened and just say that technically, I'm kinda helping to oversee ALL education this year -- from preschool to adult.  This also means I'm now on church council.

Joy.  (They are very nice people, but the timing of the monthly meeting -- third Wednesdays at 5:30 -- is less than ideal, in fact WAY inconvenient.  What would be wrong with, say, 7:30?)

It's one of those things I cannot change -- there are other things that go on on Wednesday nights and really, other things that go on EVERY night and this is, well, the established time and theoretically the most convenient for the most people.  But not for me. 

I'll live.

Back to topic -- at the first meeting I mentioned that there were a few things on MY agenda that I think are relevant to parish education.  First?  Gender inclusive language to refer to God.  Get rid of "Lord," "He," "Father," "Kindgom," "King".  Replace with such phrases as "Our Loving Creator," "the Almighty" "Our Parent," "Realm," "Ruler".  In the last two churches I belonged two (the previous SEVENTEEN years prior to coming to this church), this was already done.  Prayers had been rewritten to get rid of patriarchal language; hymns and creeds as well. A statement as to WHY this was done was in EVERY bulletin, EVERY week, as well as in the church information available in every pew.  The reasoning?  God is NOT human, does NOT have any genitalia that we know of and continuing to refer to God as male continues a tradition of lifting men above women -- something *most* people these days think is wrong.  Whether or not this is explicitly stated is irrelevant -- when that which is MOST HIGH is referred to as male, people get the image that males are higher or better than females.  It's inherent in the structure of the concepts, which is precisely why the language should change.

So in the first meeting, I mentioned that at the very least, we should get the teachers to refrain from exclusively referring to God as "He" or "Father" in Sunday School classes. Get the kids to talk about various ways of imaging the divine and get the older kids to talk about the patriarchal culture that has dominated religion(s) and how that limits how we think of God.

Lead. Balloon.  One guy said that his daughter is not so insecure as to think that one must refer to God in gender neutral terms in order to feel good about herself.  He also said to me that "if you need a more liberal church, you should go to a more liberal church".

I'll get back to THAT in a minute.

Referring to God in gender neutral or gender inclusive terms is as "normal" to me as eating breakfast in the morning.  I don't think of God as human; I do recognize that Jesus was an historical  figure and a male one so I do not mind referring to *him* as *he*.  But not God.

So being in a church that does NOT use inclusive language (one pastor told me, when I discussed this with him briefly last year, "Well, THAT will never happen") is increasingly intolerable.  It's not enough that *I* generally change the terms when I recite the creeds or prayers or read in front of the congregation.  It really bugs me that so few in the church think as I do.  (If they do, they are mighty silent about it.)

A few weeks ago, I was the reader in church.  I changed words such as "kingdom" to "realm" and "He" to "God" and I also changed the traditional ending, "The word of the Lord" to "Here ends our lesson".  (To which the traditional response is "Thanks be to God," something that does not need changing.)  The one pastor for whom this is blasphemy pointed to me my "mistake".  Uh, no.  Not a mistake.  (The changes had been cleared, by the way, by the director of children's and family ministry and by the senior pastor, though it is entirely possible that the younger pastor did not know this.)

The point?  I don't know how much longer I can take this, yet here I am, appointed Parish Education Chair.

As if the whole rigmarole about inclusive language isn't enough (the senior pastor thinks of it as "optional," meaning that readers may change the words if they want to), I then had another "brilliant" idea.

Every year, our church has a Blessing of the Animals Sunday (Oct 3 this year).  Lovely tradition.  Everybody brings their pets (or pictures of their pets -- no horses have yet to show up at church) and each one receives a blessing and a treat.  The kids, in particular, LOVE this Sunday.  Pets (at least those unlikely to have an accident) are even allowed in the sanctuary.

So, it occurred to me that the previous Sunday (Sept. 26) would be good to have an animal theme for adult education hour.  I mentioned that one of the challenging issues of our time is animal rights and that it would be a thought-provoking discussion (NOT SERMON) to have and we could tie it back to two church traditions -- the Blessing of the Animals Sunday and the church task force, Caring for Creation (which has presented on such topics of supporting local farmers and reducing food-to-grocery-store-miles).  We could even briefly explore how the Genesis command of "have dominion over all" has perhaps led to some things we should re-think. 

Logical?  I think so.  Could I do it without proclaiming that everybody go vegan?  Yes, I could.  Am I willing to?  Again, yes, even though I think going vegan is the logical conclusion to the facts about animal suffering, HUMAN health, and environmental degradation.

So, what was the initial response?  A few people said yes (and by the way, I *do* have the blessing of the council to do the talk).  But two people were less than responsive -- one guy (who used to run the adult education hour) said that I have to "present the opposing side".  What is that?  As my (omnivore) husband joked, "the NRA".  Even the senior pastor (in a separate meeting) joked, "the opposite side is 'let's kill the animals!'".  (His daughter is vegan; I suspect that little fact makes him immediately see the ridiculousness of requiring the "opposing view".)

What REALLY gets me, though, is that I've NEVER seen any other speaker during adult education hour have to present anything other than what he or she is there to present (end of life decisions, archeology in Israel, missionary trips, history of Handel's Messiah, etc.).  WHY should *I* be required to do differently? 

It's a tough topic -- thinking that animals HAVE rights is revolutionary and I'm the first to admit that it still makes me a bit twitchy.  But it's a great topic BECAUSE it isn't easy.  It's also a great way to let people know what's involved in those eggs or meat or milk that they routinely purchase.

There is always a tension between fighting the good fight in a place that arguably isn't ready for it or joining those who have already fought it.  Once, back in Divinity School, I asked Professor Krister Stendahl (former Bishop of Sweden), whether or not one should bring up controversial topics in church or whether one should be more quiet about them.  He looked at me and said, 'Well, sister, some people fart on the inside and some fart on the outside.'  I *think* that means there's no clear answer and some people are destined to push the envelope and others are destined to walk away to a place that is more comfortable for them.

Holy Moly.  I am SO wishing I hadn't volunteered to do this talk.  And that guy who suggested maybe I should find another church?  Maybe he should know that idea isn't too far from my mind.

Where's the Line?

This is one of those blogs that is going to get somebody's knickers in a twist.

Every term there are students in my classes who have documentation from Disability Services that they need special accommodations. Most of the time, their disabilities are firmly in the "mild" category. They have ADHD and need more time on tests. They have anxiety disorders and cannot present in front of the class -- or, sometimes they claim, they cannot even talk in class. They have auditory processing disorders and want to tape record the lecture so that they can listen to it over and over again. They have a seizure disorder and need to tell me what to do in the event that they have a seizure. They have a processing disorder and need a notetaker.

None of these accommodations bother me in the least, though I find it ironic that it is these kinds of modest "disabilities" that end up receiving a relatively large portion of my attention. The student in the wheelchair is doing fine. The temporarily disabled student recovering from a serious football injury and hobbling all year long on crutches is too. So is the student who wears hearing aids and so is the one who is obviously pretty seriously visually impaired. They all have found ways to meet the requirements of my course -- they may not all be getting an "A," but somehow they are taking notes, reading the material, completing assignments, contacting me the questions. In other words, they are easily fulfilling their duties as "student".

This week I had a student claim that part of his disability accommodations includes being allowed to have access to professors' notes. This is the first time I've been presented with documentation that basically says I have to pony up MY lecture notes to a student.

I politely told the student "no." Later, after having consulted with several colleagues, I recontacted the student to tell him that all of us found this request highly unusual. Giving a student one's notes puts that student -- even with a disability -- at an incredible advantage over all other students. No WAY am I doing that.

I said I'd contact his disability advisor to discuss. I also told him that if he has trouble taking notes (believable, given his disability), he needs to have an assigned notetaker.

Mind you, it's past midterms. This should have been taken care of WEEKS ago. (He has since found a notetaker.)

My conversation with the disability advisor was telling. She told me that, indeed, he had permission to get professors' notes directly from them. She also told me that "universities have been designed by people who are successful in them; in order to open them up to more people, we have to change the way they work. Not all students can process oral or aural information." She went on to say that there's an "emerging trend at the University" for professors to give their notes to ALL students.

NO way. No F-ing WAY!

OK -- so here's the rub. Historically, universities have been horribly elite places. I agree. I also think that, given the economic pressures to have a BA, more and more people are in college who maybe don't really belong there. (And it's not so clear that pushing more and more people through college actually always gives them a leg up in the job market, but that's a topic for another blog. Basically, if everybody is "enhanced," then nobody is enhanced.)

I also agree that those who find school "easy" are those who design classes and have historically established the system that we all recognize as education. I can also accept that not everyone is equally gifted with words, or with processing what they hear, or with taking notes.

But holy hell! THAT, my friends, is part of what education is all about. The reason we grade students is to distinguish between those of more average ability and those with more of the "gifts" that go along with being scholarly. If you can't take notes or if you can't write what you hear, then by all means bring a tape recorder to class or hire a notetaker.

I don't want to deny an education to those who are less academically gifted. I don't want to be a one-woman crusade against grade inflation or a one-woman crusade against the tide of making everybody go to college. But by God, I'm not giving my notes to a student.

I'm also seriously questioning where this slippery slope is leading: are colleges now just service institutions? Are we just providing a service to those who demand it? Are we still hoping to differentiate the smarter and (sometimes) harder-working from others? Is college for everybody? Or are we here to teach and work with people who have, hopefully by the age of 18, done "enough" to stand out a little bit?

And by "little bit," I mean being able to: read, take notes, ask questions, write a minimally competent essay (correct grammar, correct spelling), and synthesize information in new ways.

The disability rights movements has done great things, has made people aware of how we are all differently abled, how we are all disabled in different ways, how we learn differently, how often disability is due to the structure of the environment and not inherent in the person. How often relatively mild accommodations can mean the difference between failure and success.

HOWEVER...the twin pressures of a) "needing" a degree and b) having to accommodate nearly everybody has arguably led to an explosion in diagnoses of mild "disabilities" and is changing -- perhaps NOT for the better -- the nature of professor-student relationships, as well as the role of higher education in society. Not to mention making some students seek out a label in order to make things easier for themselves.

Not a good student? You must have something "wrong" with you. BULLSHIT.

(I take time out here to remind everybody that I parent a kid with one of those disabilities; I don't doubt that these can be impediments to success.)

However, maybe some people just aren't academically inclined -- it doesn't mean they should be slapped with a diagnosis. Similarly, maybe some people with these diagnoses should have other avenues to success OTHER THAN COLLEGE opened up to them.

To expect colleges to stoop so low as to force professors to make all their notes publicly available changes both the definition of "student" and the role of "professor".

If you cannot take notes, should you be in college?

Seriously, is that "too much" to expect of a student?