Private New York school agrees to diversify after "mock slave auction" incident

Checkmite

Skepticifimisticalationist
Joined
Jun 7, 2002
Messages
29,007
Location
Gulf Coast
Private New York school agrees to diversify after "mock slave auction" incident

The Chapel School, a private school in Bronxville around 15 miles north of New York City, has agreed to initiatives for diversifying its faculty and student body after a recent investigation by the NYAG's office.

The problem reached a boiling point in March after a teacher at the school conducted a "mock slave auction":

The investigation found that in March, in two separate fifth-grade social studies classes, a teacher asked all of the African-American students in each class to raise their hands, and then instructed them to exit the classroom and stand in the hallway. The teacher then placed imaginary chains or “shackles,” on these students’ necks, wrists, and ankles, and had them walk back into the classroom. The teacher then instructed the African-American students to line up against the wall, and proceeded to conduct a simulated auction of the African-American students in front of the rest of the class. These “auctions” reenacted the sale of African-American students to their white counterparts. The investigation found that the teacher’s reenactments in the two classes had a profoundly negative effect on all of the students present – especially the African-American students – and the school community at large.

That teacher was subsequently fired after parents' complaints about the incident, but a state investigation revealed a prior history of parental complaints about incidents of racial insensitivity and discrimination at the school which were never addressed by administrators.

I've heard of some positively brain-dead exercise ideas by teachers before, but I have to say that one truly takes the flatline cake. What on Earth did he possibly expect fifth-graders to absorb from that reenactment, and could he truly think of no better way to convey that message than by humiliating his students?
 
Wow.

I wonder if American History is being taught is a way that pretty much guarantees that black children will grow up thinking that everything bad that happens to them is because of racism and white supremacy, and that white people essentially owe them reparations. Does it perpetuate animosity and division between the races? (Of course, for much of American History that was true, I don't deny that; but how are we ever going to get to that "post-racial" future if we dwell on the past too much?) I mean, re-enacting slave auctions? Is that sort of thing really necessary?
 
The weird thing is that there must be fifty thousand video reenactments he could have shown them. Hell, when I was in fifth grade, they made me watch one - on a goddamned reel-to-reel projector.
 
Every time you hear anyone advocate making something more diverse, let your mind automatically translate it into "make it less white."

That is literally what it means, and all it means.

If anyone were to talk about making ANYTHING less black, less Jewish, less Asian, less anything other than white - it would be seen as pure evil / total racism / genocidal even.
 
The weird thing is that there must be fifty thousand video reenactments he could have shown them. Hell, when I was in fifth grade, they made me watch one - on a goddamned reel-to-reel projector.

When I was just a sprat, there was this TV program, like a short-film. Often billed or presented as an After-School Special, although I don't think it strictly was. At any rate it was called "The Wave", it was made back in like the 70's or 80's or something; but even so, educators in the era of my school years seemed to have something of a love-affair with it. It claimed to be based on true events, for certain values of the term "true" at least.

The plot revolves around a social studies teacher who is covering World War 2 in his high school class when a student asks him how the ordinary citizens of Germany could stand by doing and saying nothing while the Nazi Party openly committed atrocities on their behalf. Struggling for some reason to answer this question, the teacher devises an experiment where one day in his class he starts a group which appears to have no function except to engage in a fascism LARP for its own sake, and declares the entire class to now belong to it. He teaches them a jingoistic mantra and hand-gestures and makes them repeat them over and over, and stuff like that. I forget what the upside of it was supposed to be - improved grades or something? Not sure but whatever, most of the class oddly digs it and soon begins recruiting members from outside the class itself. After some unspecified length of time it's implied (quite improbably, it has to be said) that a huge number, like perhaps the majority of the school's students, have been absorbed into the group, with members beginning to harass, bully, and even beat up non-members and resisters. At last at the pleading of the last few holdouts to end the nightmare, the teacher informs everyone that the group is just one local chapter of a national youth movement, and announces an assembly in the auditorium on such-and-such a day in which the leader of the movement will give a televised address to the students. They all absolutely pack the auditorium to the rafters at the appointed time, and the "presentation" begins, which for a while is nothing but a big projector screen with static on it. The students start fidgeting and eventually start calling out the teacher, and suddenly he hits a button and scenes of Nazi rallies from "Triumph of the Will" start playing, and the teacher points at Hitler's gigantic black-and-white mug and declares "HERE IS YOUR LEADER!" and starts lecturing the stupid kids about how they so easily let themselves be turned into Nazis and that's exactly what happened to the Germans in WWII. The end.

Firstly, just to get things out of the way, many years ago I read an article which explains that the "true experiment" the movie was based on was tremendously exaggerated in the retelling by the teacher who did it, in almost every way - talking the success of the experiment, the number of kids who participated (more like three or four dozen tops), the fact that any kind of violence or bullying took place, the stinger at the end, all of it - so the movie really represents I guess the fantasized idealization of the experiment that existed in the teacher's own head rather than what actually happened. I can't find the article anymore though, so feel free to take all that as apocryphal if you want. Anyway, let's assume for a moment that the movie is more or less 100% accurate, because that's what all the teachers who loved to show it seemed to want us to think anyway.

Like I said, teachers seemed to love this flick - during my life my family moved around a lot, so I went to several different school districts over time and I solidly remember being shown this movie in-class in at least two different districts, maybe even three. It was quite obvious the teachers who showed it thought the main character-teacher was some kind of genius and this experiment was so obviously the perfect way to impart the lesson; even the climax where he declares Hitler their leader was obviously intended to be some kind of TOUCHDOWN moment - ha ha, your hero is Adolf Hitler, that's what you all get for being little Nazis.

This movie horrified me, but NOT for the reasons the teachers obviously wanted it to. I already knew Nazis=bad and fascism=dangerous, this movie didn't actually teach me anything new on that front. Taking the "true events" slugline on good faith, it horrified me that a teacher would consider an experiment like this to be the only or even an acceptable way to answer the student's question from the beginning of the movie. And he's so clearly the hero of the narrative too - he would never have to answer for turning his class into a horde of fascists who went around tormenting and actually physically attacking other students as a way of answering a question about how the Nazis happened, because the Ends of delivering the lesson justified the Means used to deliver it. I was at least thankful that my own teachers considered that a simple movie with such a plot was sufficient to impart the lesson, and wondered with no little distress why it never occurred to THAT teacher to try something similar instead.
 
Wow.

I wonder if American History is being taught is a way that pretty much guarantees that black children will grow up thinking that everything bad that happens to them is because of racism and white supremacy, and that white people essentially owe them reparations. Does it perpetuate animosity and division between the races? (Of course, for much of American History that was true, I don't deny that; but how are we ever going to get to that "post-racial" future if we dwell on the past too much?) I mean, re-enacting slave auctions? Is that sort of thing really necessary?

Wow. So much privilege and blindness to inherent racism against African Americans. This is fine indeed.
 
Trying to imagine if the teacher (since it was being done anyway) had reversed the situation with the non-African-American students in the “shackles” instead.

Wonder how that would have played?
 
Every time you hear anyone advocate making something more diverse, let your mind automatically translate it into "make it less white."

That is literally what it means, and all it means.

If anyone were to talk about making ANYTHING less black, less Jewish, less Asian, less anything other than white - it would be seen as pure evil / total racism / genocidal even.

Less white hegemony will do.
 
Wow. So much privilege and blindness to inherent racism against African Americans. This is fine indeed.

This post made me feel defensive and I started to write out a whole post to defend what I had posted earlier, but perhaps it would be more productive if I just asked what was so problematic about what I wrote? Maybe I'll learn something.
 
Every time you hear anyone advocate making something more diverse, let your mind automatically translate it into "make it less white."

That is literally what it means, and all it means.

If anyone were to talk about making ANYTHING less black, less Jewish, less Asian, less anything other than white - it would be seen as pure evil / total racism / genocidal even.

Are you one of those people who believe in "white genocide"?

Like if a white person marries outside their race or just decides that they don't want to have children because they don't want to have children, that that's "genocide"? Or that "diversity" is a codeword for "white genocide"?
 
This post made me feel defensive and I started to write out a whole post to defend what I had posted earlier, but perhaps it would be more productive if I just asked what was so problematic about what I wrote? Maybe I'll learn something.

Well, consider how easy it is for a white person to be able to say that awareness of the simple but unflinchingly brutal facts of slavery is "dwelling on the past too much". The only direction from which we ever hear history framed in terms like that is by white people when minorities who have been harmed historically by whites want to learn more about that aspect of their own cultural histories. History is important except when it's uncomfortable to us, and then there's "no need to dwell".
 
Well, consider how easy it is for a white person to be able to say that awareness of the simple but unflinchingly brutal facts of slavery is "dwelling on the past too much". The only direction from which we ever hear history framed in terms like that is by white people when minorities who have been harmed historically by whites want to learn more about that aspect of their own cultural histories. History is important except when it's uncomfortable to us, and then there's "no need to dwell".

Fair enough.
 
The weird thing is that there must be fifty thousand video reenactments he could have shown them. Hell, when I was in fifth grade, they made me watch one - on a goddamned reel-to-reel projector.

I love rtr projectors and still own both 8mm and S8 ones as well as editing/cleaning set up for them as well as 16mm and 35mm . And lots of films.
 
When I was just a sprat, there was this TV program, like a short-film. Often billed or presented as an After-School Special, although I don't think it strictly was. At any rate it was called "The Wave", it was made back in like the 70's or 80's or something; but even so, educators in the era of my school years seemed to have something of a love-affair with it. It claimed to be based on true events, for certain values of the term "true" at least.

The plot revolves around a social studies teacher who is covering World War 2 in his high school class when a student asks him how the ordinary citizens of Germany could stand by doing and saying nothing while the Nazi Party openly committed atrocities on their behalf. Struggling for some reason to answer this question, the teacher devises an experiment where one day in his class he starts a group which appears to have no function except to engage in a fascism LARP for its own sake, and declares the entire class to now belong to it. He teaches them a jingoistic mantra and hand-gestures and makes them repeat them over and over, and stuff like that. I forget what the upside of it was supposed to be - improved grades or something? Not sure but whatever, most of the class oddly digs it and soon begins recruiting members from outside the class itself. After some unspecified length of time it's implied (quite improbably, it has to be said) that a huge number, like perhaps the majority of the school's students, have been absorbed into the group, with members beginning to harass, bully, and even beat up non-members and resisters. At last at the pleading of the last few holdouts to end the nightmare, the teacher informs everyone that the group is just one local chapter of a national youth movement, and announces an assembly in the auditorium on such-and-such a day in which the leader of the movement will give a televised address to the students. They all absolutely pack the auditorium to the rafters at the appointed time, and the "presentation" begins, which for a while is nothing but a big projector screen with static on it. The students start fidgeting and eventually start calling out the teacher, and suddenly he hits a button and scenes of Nazi rallies from "Triumph of the Will" start playing, and the teacher points at Hitler's gigantic black-and-white mug and declares "HERE IS YOUR LEADER!" and starts lecturing the stupid kids about how they so easily let themselves be turned into Nazis and that's exactly what happened to the Germans in WWII. The end.

Firstly, just to get things out of the way, many years ago I read an article which explains that the "true experiment" the movie was based on was tremendously exaggerated in the retelling by the teacher who did it, in almost every way - talking the success of the experiment, the number of kids who participated (more like three or four dozen tops), the fact that any kind of violence or bullying took place, the stinger at the end, all of it - so the movie really represents I guess the fantasized idealization of the experiment that existed in the teacher's own head rather than what actually happened. I can't find the article anymore though, so feel free to take all that as apocryphal if you want. Anyway, let's assume for a moment that the movie is more or less 100% accurate, because that's what all the teachers who loved to show it seemed to want us to think anyway.

Like I said, teachers seemed to love this flick - during my life my family moved around a lot, so I went to several different school districts over time and I solidly remember being shown this movie in-class in at least two different districts, maybe even three. It was quite obvious the teachers who showed it thought the main character-teacher was some kind of genius and this experiment was so obviously the perfect way to impart the lesson; even the climax where he declares Hitler their leader was obviously intended to be some kind of TOUCHDOWN moment - ha ha, your hero is Adolf Hitler, that's what you all get for being little Nazis.

This movie horrified me, but NOT for the reasons the teachers obviously wanted it to. I already knew Nazis=bad and fascism=dangerous, this movie didn't actually teach me anything new on that front. Taking the "true events" slugline on good faith, it horrified me that a teacher would consider an experiment like this to be the only or even an acceptable way to answer the student's question from the beginning of the movie. And he's so clearly the hero of the narrative too - he would never have to answer for turning his class into a horde of fascists who went around tormenting and actually physically attacking other students as a way of answering a question about how the Nazis happened, because the Ends of delivering the lesson justified the Means used to deliver it. I was at least thankful that my own teachers considered that a simple movie with such a plot was sufficient to impart the lesson, and wondered with no little distress why it never occurred to THAT teacher to try something similar instead.
This is the study guide for showing the film: https://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/lbmsphiladelphia/Losh/Study_Guide_KEY.pdf

The film is still used and there was an updated version around 15-20 years after the original (and a German made version a bit back also).
 
Last edited:
This post made me feel defensive and I started to write out a whole post to defend what I had posted earlier, but perhaps it would be more productive if I just asked what was so problematic about what I wrote? Maybe I'll learn something.

The total blindness to all the actual racism that is still out there. But really the blacks are the ones to blame when Toyota gives them higher loan rates than white customers.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-consumers-autofinance-toyota/toyota-motor-credit-settles-with-u-s-over-racial-bias-in-auto-loans-idUSKCN0VB2EO

Would you view blacks who complained about discrimination in loans as more of the whining and not accepting responsibility?
 
NPR’s “Reveal” did a couple of segments on the “history” scene in the South generally. They visited Civil-War re-enactments, Museums, and the like.
Every effort was being made to promote the idea of the “Lost Cause”, to portray famous southerners as being kind and loving to their slaves, and to avoid much (or any) mention of slavery at all.
All the reenactors interviewed talked about the typical “states rights” and “yankee aggression” points, with no mention of the actual reason for the war...
 
NPR’s “Reveal” did a couple of segments on the “history” scene in the South generally. They visited Civil-War re-enactments, Museums, and the like.
Every effort was being made to promote the idea of the “Lost Cause”, to portray famous southerners as being kind and loving to their slaves, and to avoid much (or any) mention of slavery at all.
All the reenactors interviewed talked about the typical “states rights” and “yankee aggression” points, with no mention of the actual reason for the war...

A few years ago I was dragged along to tour a historic mansion in Savannah. They were delighted to talk about every aspect of the fancy house except for questions about the domestic staff.
 
When I was just a sprat, there was this TV program, like a short-film. Often billed or presented as an After-School Special, although I don't think it strictly was. At any rate it was called "The Wave", it was made back in like the 70's or 80's or something; but even so, educators in the era of my school years seemed to have something of a love-affair with it. It claimed to be based on true events, for certain values of the term "true" at least.

I remember that TV special. A bit on the nose, with "the wave" substituted for the swaztika.
 
Every time you hear anyone advocate making something more diverse, let your mind automatically translate it into "make it less white."

That is literally what it means, and all it means.

If anyone were to talk about making ANYTHING less black, less Jewish, less Asian, less anything other than white - it would be seen as pure evil / total racism / genocidal even.

No, that is not what it means. It means make it more diverse. Little bitty intellects who fear people who are different interpret it to mean "make it less white".

If you've ever been in a planning session for a lefty meeting or rally, you'd recognize the foolishness of your second statement. There are always groups that want the demonstration or march to be particularly representative of their personal in-group, be it Ban the Bomb, Black Veterans for a Fair Deal, Hadassah for Peace, Cow Tippers Against MAD, etc... but there is much discussion by Jews or by Blacks as to how to make the march/demonstration more diverse and less Jewish or Black, respectively.
 
I guess a lot of people don't know about this:

A Class Divided


From PBS' Frontline.

I work with kids those ages and don't know if I'd have the nerve to do this, but it's pretty much an inner-city school anyway and pretty diverse. The lesson obviously had a big impact on the kids, but I'm not sure how I feel about it.
 
When I was just a sprat, there was this TV program, like a short-film. Often billed or presented as an After-School Special, although I don't think it strictly was. At any rate it was called "The Wave", it was made back in like the 70's or 80's or something; but even so, educators in the era of my school years seemed to have something of a love-affair with it. It claimed to be based on true events, for certain values of the term "true" at least.


I think anyone who was in public school in the '80s had that one shown to them in class at some point. It was produced independently in 1981, and later adopted into the ABC Afterschool Special series. I remember at the time feeling like there was something wrong with it, but not really having enough experience I couldn't put my finger on what bothered me about it. Looking back now, I would use the terms "badly contrived" and "subtle as a sledgehammer". Certain scenes from it stick very strongly in my memory, probably because of how cheesily over-the-top they are.

That one and the 1968 classroom experiment by Jane Elliott, The Eye of the Storm.
 
Every time you hear anyone advocate making something more diverse, let your mind automatically translate it into "make it less white."

That is literally what it means, and all it means.

If anyone were to talk about making ANYTHING less black, less Jewish, less Asian, less anything other than white - it would be seen as pure evil / total racism / genocidal even.

Your grandchildren will be caramel colored, communist, gay and transgender. And there is not a single thing you can do about it because you'll be dead and forgotten. :p
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom