day 8 meeting #2

considering a curriculum

We began today by discussing, oddly enough, religion. We actually had not really spoke about religion in the context of this independent study before today. What started as a discussion about the singularity/novelty of Mormonism evolved to center around "real" faith. When people say they are Catholic or Hindu or Jewish, do they all truly believe in the religion? I am quite skeptical of this myself, mostly because I consider myself atheist and therefore quite removed from the visceral emotions (hope, trust in a higher power, etc.) people of faith often experience.  I asked Mrs. Lawson how this played out historically: did people in the Middle Ages or Reformation really believe so wholeheartedly in God's will and the doctrines of Protestantism/Lutheranism/Catholicism [we are currently studying the Reformation in AP Euro]? She said that most people really, truly worried about salvation. The reason Luther and Calvin had such an impact is due in part to the anxieties people felt about the validity of their faith. Was faith alone really enough? Was it important to also act/work like you believed in God? Mrs. Lawson mentioned that people are still arguing these theological questions. I find religion and its nuances fascinating, but I also find it terrifying, especially historically. The lengths people - and entire nations - have gone to assert their faith and their religion's superiority are rather alarming. I guess it's ignorant to judge religions by their extremes, but I have to say I can't place myself in institutional/organized religion. 

I do, however, consider myself a cultural Hindu, especially because of my community and my family. I am proud of my heritage, and I follow a lot of traditions even if they are based in Hinduism. I think this discussion is important because it is a part of my identity - and my favorite part of this study is the way all of these factors affect one's sense of self. 

I told Mrs. Lawson that I would be interviewing Dr. Susan Grayzel sometime in the next two weeks. We decided my questions are sufficient to hold this conversation. Dr. Grayzel recommend that we take a look at the writing of Elsa Barkley Brown and Evelyn Brook Higginbotham in Signs and Feminist Studies. Mrs. Lawson and I searched these journals in JSTOR - I think I may read something about women in prison, as there is an entire volume centered on prison conditions and politics. Mrs. Lawson also recommended I check out the Latino USA podcast. 

From there (after a discussion about the mess that is Sean Hannity in relation to Catholicism and Republicanism), we went back to discussing gender and the bathroom bill. Is there a solution? Mrs. Lawson brought up the issue of schools in particular; how does an institution maintain the safety of its students while also accommodating students that do not fit into or agree with the strict societal gender binary? We decided this question is not simply answered. I mentioned that if [males especially] are taught to respect others more, the issue of assault and violence could be alleviated. I thought about this because I am very interested in rape culture and the danger it presents not only to victims but males as well. Then, I thought, having multiple gender-less bathrooms would be fine. Mrs. Lawson brought up a great point: what about privacy? Sometimes the problem isn't as serious as assault and violence. She mentioned that people nowadays come to expect privacy and the locker room or bathroom is a sort of escape from "everyone is looking at me" - would having gender-less bathrooms result in people feeling uncomfortable with others looking at them? I immediately thought that having stalls in all bathrooms (for toilets as well as just for changing) would be the solution. However, her question made me realize something. I had never really thought about how we are all so self-customized. It is threatening to realize that others want us to "uncustomize" ourselves. [THIS IS PHRASED WRONG; ASK MRS. LAWSON HOW I SAID IT AND FIX THIS]

As we were looking through JSTOR, Mrs. Lawson came across an article on compulsory sexuality, and we turned to talking about the asexual (ace) discourse in the  LGBTQ+ community. I told her about the (frankly ridiculous) amount of angles and opinions I have seen presented. It's... messy and rough. I don't really know how I fall in that debate. I also told her about the "monosexual privilege" discourse, as well as the issue of biphobia in both debates. 

I told Mrs. Lawson that I might appreciate structure as we move forward, and she's already been really helpful on that front. It's been like 4 hours. I'm really lucky she's my supervisor, to be honest. We decided that we might stick to race for now, especially how it has become what it is now and why it is important to study/pay attention to it. She gave me some links to begin my research xx xx xx xx xx. One thing these articles bring up is how the law and government plays into the current race discussion. I'm already excited to read up on these this weekend. And anyways, I'm always excited about dragging Trump. Let's go.

Side note: if I have time/if it pans out, we might also look closer into how independent schools are dealing with the issue of gender/the bathroom bill. 

email from Mrs. Lawson: 

Reading about intersectionalism’s roots in labor law has really helped things “click” for me.  When cases are litigated, the “why” matters.  For example, if the state legislature redraws Alabama’s congressional districts in a way that advantages the Republican party, that’s ok, if they can prove that’s what the legislature’s intent was.  But if they redraw the map to advantage white people, that’s not ok – it’s a violation of the constitution.  The outcome (the electoral map) is the same.  It is constitutionally permissible for it to have a racial impact, even a discriminatory one, but it’s not permissible for that to be its “intent.”  For fun, take a look at Alabama’s delegation J

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/AL

Anyway, as it relates to law, it’s interesting where the burden of proof is.  What’s the default setting?  Currently, the Supreme Court has definitely shifted rightward, so that discrimination is assumed NOT to have occurred, even when results are discriminatory.  You basically need to find those emails between legislators or employers declaring their racist intentions! For a while, in matters of voting and representation, the opposite was true – legislators had to demonstrate that they had created the maximum possible number of “minority-majority” districts.  Those days are over.  In employment law, a person would have to demonstrate that the discrimination they faced was isolated to their race, not their skills, performance, resume, or, if it was relevant, gender.   How hard is that?!  It makes much more sense to me, using the legal framework analogy, as to why we may usefully invest in parsing the oppression, rather than confronting it more generally.