Has anyone here heard of the home ed review?

[ailbhe]

I've written something about it in Who Teaches Whom. I did honestly try to give it my most charitable interpretation but at some point in the next few days I expect I'll post something else too. I do feel that if I want anyone who agrees with the review to listen to me I can't point out its worst and most damaging flaws, which hurts somewhat.

Comments

[radegund.livejournal.com]

Whoa. OK, I'm upset by your comment, biascut, which is a bad state to be responding in, but if I don't do it now god knows when I'll get around to it.

You seem to imply that demonstrably discriminated-against groups are the only ones who are entitled to articulate a sense of trepidation at the prospect of airing their minority views. This seems to me as unkind as it is dismissive. As you know, I share some of ailbhe's unease around defending home-education to friends who oppose it, and I don't accept that she (or I) needs to earn the right to mention that.

It's my impression that you and I have very different responses to the experience of vigorous dissent. Being dismissed might not seem so scary to you, but to me it can be a real obstacle. I empathise with ailbhe's position here, and I have plenty of experience of doing precisely what she describes: "adjusting my tone so that the dominant group won't dismiss me as hysterical". I do not hereby claim equivalence with any systematically oppressed group. There might be no legal or economic consequences to revealing my opinions on home-education, but the potential social and emotional consequences can be troubling nonetheless.

(For instance, I'm scared of how you'll react to this comment. If you turn upon me the full blast of that articulate intellectual scorn with which I have seen you shred opponents on other occasions, I will probably run away and not feel able to talk to you for a while. Yes, saying this might be passive aggressive. I don't feel I can risk not doing so, though. Apologies.)

Comparisons are dubious, as we know, but your mentioning cyclists reminds me of some of your own posts on that subject. You seem to identify a widespread misunderstanding of cycling by non-cyclists (and perhaps also by those who make the rules about it). That seems to me a possibly useful analogy here: home-educators worry that the rules relating to them are framed within a paradigm that simply doesn't fit their circumstances, and will hence impair their ability to make what they believe to be the best choices for their families. Broadly supporting the State's right - indeed duty - to keep tabs on all children's welfare does not imply an obligation to welcome any given implementation of this principle.

[biascut.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what kind of response you want here, because I don't want to upset you and I'm not sure exactly how to avoid the accusation of intellectual scorn. But I'm going to try and explain my position and I'm really sorry if it's hurtful. I don't want to be.

But I didn't say that I object to people expressing minority opinions, or being nervous about doing that, or expressing nerves about doing that. That all seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. What I was alarmed by is the very particular use of language - "tone" and "hysteria" - which have been used over and over again in discussions like RaceFail and which carry a particular baggage.

I ask because I think the point of Derailing for Dummies and How To Suppress Discussions of Racism is that they put a responsibility onto members of the dominant group to accept a subordinate position in that conversation, and to consider very carefully whether any point of disagreement is a genuine point of disagreement, or whether it is a function of privilege and a tactic to silence the minority group. In that context, the demand by the majority group that a minority group moderate its tone is part and parcel of the dominant group's ability to silence the minority.

What I was asking is whether ailbhe thinks that a discussion of home-schooling operates on the same model. If it does, in her opinion, then having to moderate one's tone isn't simply a matter of how you talk to different audiences, it's an unreasonable and oppressive demand made by a privileged group in order to silence a minority group. (By extension, if I am a member of the majority group and disagree with a point or choose to leave the discussion because it's too heated or emotional, that's not because I disagree, it's because of my privilege. To me, invoking "the tone argument" in the absence of the institutionally unequal relationship is pretty much death to the conversation.)

I made the comparison with cyclists and vegetarians because they are groups where I belong to the minority (well, sort of, in the latter case!), and yes, I do think the rules are made by a non-cycling majority. But I don't think that puts an onus on non-cyclists to listen and accept what I have to say even if I express it angrily or sarcastically or passionately. I think that's a discussion where we meet as equals - even if I think I'm better informed than they are - and where it's my job to convince them using whatever rhetorical devices are at my disposal. In that context, the way I moderate my tone isn't a function of oppression, it's a function of language and communication. It's frustrating, and sometimes upsetting, but it's not oppression. Of course we moderate our register for different audiences: that only becomes oppressive in the context of a wider discrimination, in my opinion.

I think it's really important to preserve that distinction. It's really important to preserve the particularity of discussions in which one group is systematically and institutionally disadvantaged to their great detriment, and also to preserve access to whatever rhetorical devices are appropriate within the mutually-agreed etiquette of the conversation when neither group is institutionally disadvantaged by the other. If you don't agree which is the case, how you can decide which set of conventions you're using?

So that's where I'm coming from. If that wasn't at all what ailbhe intended to suggest, then I apologise to her. Knowing that ailbhe is familiar with that language and how it was used in RaceFail, though, it does seem unlikely that it was completely accidental, though, and if it wasn't, I still think questioning the intent behind the reference is legitimate.

I'm sorry if that makes you feel unsafe talking to me. But I have also been in your company when you've said something dismissive about school or schooling and felt completely unable to answer you. It's not a topic on which I feel very safe around you either, and I don't really know how to handle that.

[biascut.livejournal.com]

(oh my god, I am such a nightmare. I'm sorry it's so long, ailbhe!