Monday, December 29, 2008
News / Clout City Give me one--just one--Harvey Milk
Posted by Ben Joravsky on 12.29.08 at 12:47 PM
Go see Milk, if you haven't already. On top of the captivating story and Sean Penn's brilliant performance, it features two Chicago references.
One is so obvious I won't bother mentioning it--just see the movie and you'll know.
The other is a little more subtle.
An underlying theme in the movie is the conflict between radicals and moderates in San Francisco's gay community in the 70s. The radicals, like Harvey Milk, have no patience for the bigotry and police brutality they face. They demand change--in fact, they expect nothing less.
The moderates--represented by David Goodstein, the well-to-do gay publisher of the Advocate--are much more cautious. Yes, things are bad, they acknowledge; but they warn against moving too quickly for change for fear of upsetting the powers that be. Watch what you say, Goodstein cautions Milk, or you'll get us all in trouble. And in time, if we're good, they'll give us some of what you want.
The movie champions Milk and scoffs at Goodstein. He's the butt of the jokes--when I saw it, people in the theater were laughing at him.
In reality, of course, it's much different. Here in Chicago, for example, most people are like Goodstein (if they're engaged at all): sucking up to an all-powerful mayor, afraid to say what they think, going along with his wasteful boondoggles--like the bid for the Olympics--for fear of getting in trouble.
It's hard to find any Harvey Milks.
When we--a city of sellouts--scoff at David Goodstein, we're scoffing at ourselves.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
Mayor Daley is for gay marriage. The liberals are all machine corrupt hacks now too. Look at Carol Ronen and even Helen Schiller is raising taxes.
like
dislike
It's my understanding that Daley routinely uses words like n*gger and f*ggot in private. I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people who Daley might refer to with the latter term support his agenda regarding people he would describe with the former.
Daley has the Gay community in his pocket. It is rumor Daley is on the downlow. The Chicago Gay Community represented by Tunney is hardly progressive. White Gays regularly Discriminate against Black Gays. Many members of the city Council are Gay or Bi-sexual.
I think that you all may be missing the point that Mr. Milk is trying to make. He must be frustrated. And soon to be without a job.
Just as interesting to me was Milk's rise at the expense of Dan White, executed in close concert with Mayor Moscone - as ignorant, volatile, and ultimately murderous as White was, I did have some sympathy for him. As media-savvy identity politics warriors like Milk became part of the urban political establishment, regular guys trying to represent the interests of working families became irrelevant. No amount of open-mindedness could have saved him from that fate. After watching Milk, it was hard to say that White killed out of hatred or homophobia - he was just desperate. To Gus Van Sant's credit, even as he celebrates Harvey Milk's legacy he doesn't gloss over his shrewd gamesmanship and manipulation of others in the political arena.
Ben -- There IS one Harvey Milk in Chicago today -- a growing movement of parents, students, teachers and community groups standing up against CPS's Renaissance 2010(15) which has already privatized 10% of CPS and, at this rate, 50% of CPS schools will be in private hands by 2020. It is a wasteful, classist, union-busting, LSC-destroying anti-public education program with little or no proof that it improves education. CORE, the Caucus of Rank and File Educators, invites you and your readers to a 1/10/09 public hearing to learn more -- see CORE's website http://coreteachers.com. Yes, Ben, there is ONE Harvey Milk -- come join us!
You guys are really pieces of work. Your agendas, per your own web page: "1. WAGES We at CORE believe that our leadership has sold us short by not demanding a better compensation package. Years of 2 percent raises under Reece and 4 percent under Deborah Lynch and Marilyn Stewart do not even come close to approximating the amount teachers should be making compared to others in similar professions. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that Teachers lost considerable ground during the late 1990s, as earnings of college graduates grew 11% relative to 0.8% growth in teaching. An analysis of trends in weekly earnings shows that public school teachers in 2006 earned 15% lower weekly earnings than comparable workers. In 2006, teachers earned 85.7% as much (14.3% less or $154 less) in weekly wages as did those in the group of comparable occupations," So, your number 1 priority is money. As in more money, taken from the taxpayers and transferred into your greedy, and minimally accountable, little paws. "2. IMPROVED FRINGE BENEFITS Paid and pensionable Family Leave - currently teachers who have children are only allotted sick days and unpaid leave to attend to their needs. We believe that teachers and paraprofessionals must be provided a paid family leave similar to that provided by other industrialized countries. All work pensionable No increases in Health care costs, co-pays or prescriptions A comprehensive dental plan. No alteration of the pension and mandatory 90% contributions by the state and the city." So, your number 2 priority is, once again, money, via increased benefits, paid absences, paid health services, and generous pensions. Wow. Must be nice to be feeding at the public trough of 'unlimited' taxations. All without having to actually produce a product or provide a service subject to those pesky consumer demand market forces the rest of the citizenry have to deal with; you know, customer satisfaction. "3. BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS Contractual language on class size that we can grieve No scripted learning or corporate driven curriculum schemes No High Stakes Testing - an inaccurate and biased tool that is too often used to berate and dismiss teachers and denigrate their students. An Elected School Board with two teacher representatives. This way we can ensure that we get full wind of any plans the board is hatching for us and mobilize to make certain that those "reforms" are screened by teachers. Work in concert with parents and students to protect our public school system. Equal distribution of resources among all schools, and replenishing title 1 funds to schools that use them for security purposes." Hmmmmm, so now you guys get around to approaching the real issues that effect the actual educational environments our children are subjected to, and, predictably, you are still essentially focused on your own, personal interests, to wit: 'Contractual language on class size that we can grieve..' And the root cause of this 'dilemma'? Why, could it be the centralized behemoth that is the CPS? And it's nature as a predominantly political element in our absurdly politically ruined city? You know, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? All those pathetically impotent LSC's not withstanding? 'No scripted learning or corporate driven curriculum schemes No High Stakes Testing - an inaccurate and biased tool that is too often used to berate and dismiss teachers and denigrate their students.' Now, here's one thing, so far, that we can agree upon. Your solution to this abomination is, however, no solution at all. Your insistence on putting your own financial interests far above the educational interests of the students reveals the fact that your agendas are no different than those of the political bureaucracies you find to be so egregiously oppressive. In fact, the only effective means to rid ourselves of this oppressive bureaucracy is to eliminate it entirely. Which brings us to: 'Equal distribution of resources among all schools...' and 'Work in concert with parents and students to protect our public school system...' If, by 'school system' you mean the failed CPS travesty, then, no, you wouldn't be working with parents and students, but against their best interests. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the fair, equitable and equal distribution of those tax monies intended to finance the laudable goal of educating our society's progeny, then that would be an excellent goal, one which can be best accomplished by instituting a total tax-financed voucher system of providing an equal amount of taxpayer funding to each and every school aged child residing within our state, via a three tiered system of voucher amounts, (K-4th grade, 5th-8th grade, and 9th-12th grade), financed by the elimination of the property tax based funding of our schools, replaced with said funding being primarily state income and sales taxes, and having said vouchers payable to the independent school of the parents' choice. No more central office bullshit, no more standardized testing crapola, no more authoritative control, via the absolute control of the spending of our tax dollars being in the greedy hands of a few, no, all that would be a thing of the past. Put the control of the money we pay, in taxations for our children's educations, into the hands of each and every parent, force the providers of said educational services to prove, to the now empowered consumers of same, the worth of the services that are offered, and you will have achieved what no amount of political pandering can ever achieve, namely, equity, quality, economy and efficiency. "4. JOB SECURITY No more schools closings - get contract language, engage in job actions and build a strike fund to stop charter proliferation Cut officer and field rep pay to match average teacher pay and use the savings to increase our Strike fund. Establish system-wide seniority for all tenured teachers, not to the reassignment pool but guaranteed real jobs. The central office needs to appoint teachers to vacant positions to stop the cronyism of principals doing the hiring. No merit pay - this is a scheme that has been proven to mainly benefit those who teach children from privileged backgrounds. It is a trick used by the Board to label teachers in low income and minority communities as 'failures' and set the stage for privatizing our jobs." Well, you're back to protecting your own, personal financial interests again. 'No more schools closings...' and the relevant: '...build a strike fund to stop charter proliferation...' and 'Establish system-wide seniority for all tenured teachers, not to the reassignment pool but guaranteed real jobs.' and 'The central office needs to appoint teachers to vacant positions to stop the cronyism of principals doing the hiring.' and 'No merit pay - this is a scheme that has been proven to mainly benefit those who teach children from privileged backgrounds.' and 'It is a trick used by the Board to label teachers in low income and minority communities as "failures" and set the stage for privatizing our jobs.' Accountability, both as applied to teachers, students and parents, is, to you guys, as abhorrent as fiscal responsibility is to an elected official. Of course, IF what you, the self-proclaimed proponents of public education, were truly interested in was effectively and successfully providing educational opportunities to the children, would you be so vehemently opposed to holding the students, the parents and yourselves accountable for the failures to do so? And would you be so vehemently opposed to a totally voucher financed system of taxpayer funding? And the resulting expansion of choices not currently available to said parents and children? You do realize, don't you, that you are part of the problem? A big part. Almost as big a part as the bureaucrats, the patronage pigs, the corrupted political bullshitters, the ignorant parents and the students who are the reason you included '....replenishing title 1 funds to schools that use them for security purposes.' in your 4th Plank? Sorry, liz, but your 'C.O.R.E.' agendas are just more of the same old bullshit. The one point you appear to care about, ie., eliminating the dictatorship of imposed teaching to the test, would be best achieved by those 'free market forces' you so vehemently oppose. Because, unless you believe that the individual consumers of educational services, ie., the parents and their children, are substantially incapable of discerning quality from crap, and economy from waste, those free market forces you hold in such disdain and contempt, are the only effective means to cure the disease from which our current public education systems suffer.
CORE, a Chicago Teachers Union splinter caucus, arose from the lack of effective union representation, and thus many issues on its website (as you note above) revolve around what a teacher union has historically advocated. In all the education research over the past two or more decades, two factors stand out over time as most directly impacting student achievement: quality teachers and smaller class sizes. What is often misunderstood or misrepresented by many anti-unionists is that by supporting teaching as a profession (via wages, working conditions and professional standards), education will attract and RETAIN good teachers. That is not currently happening in Chicago. Where I disagree with most teachers’ unions is that they have not aggressively led a movement to develop solutions to inequitable access to quality public education via equitable funding (read smaller class sizes) and solid enforcement of fair principal and teacher evaluation. We agree on other points (equitable funding, less bureaucracy/smaller districts, parental oversight, etc.), however the effectiveness of privatization and vouchers is not one of them. You write "...you appear to care about, teaching to the test, would be best achieved by the 'free market forces' you so vehemently oppose." Actually, privatized education as we know it in Chicago (charters/contract/performance/turnarounds) is singularly focused on teaching to standardized tests because that is mainly how charters etc. are judged for their 5-year “renewals.†Charters were initially meant to be laboratories for developing educational innovation – to free them of the bureaucratic mandates (by both the school district AND the unions). But the majority of research shows that privatized schools produce little improvement in educational gains (as measured by standardized tests) or a treasure-trove of educational best practices. Instead, many replicate the worst of the system – top down edicts from non-educators using scripted curriculum focused on raising test scores. What charters DO offer initially is smaller class sizes/smaller schools, which CPS could provide if it had the political will without funneling public money to private “edupreneurs.â€
"In all the education research over the past two or more decades, two factors stand out over time as most directly impacting student achievement: quality teachers and smaller class sizes." First, the phrase 'student achievement' needs to be defined. And the 'authority(ies)' defining same need to be established as authorities primarily, if not solely, interested in, and committed to, achieving the goal of teaching every single child to think, to aspire to fulfill their natural talents, to effectively utilize their native propensities and abilities and to mature into adult human beings who will add to, and not subtract from, our society as a whole. This 'quality teachers and smaller class sizes' fixation omits the essential nature of both the learning experience and the teaching experience. What is a 'quality teacher'? And what would be the evidence of said 'quality'? "What is often misunderstood or misrepresented by many anti-unionists is that by supporting teaching as a profession (via wages, working conditions and professional standards), education will attract and RETAIN good teachers." What is routinely misrepresented by many unions is that a desire for a quality work product is not synonymous with being anti-union. In fact, the most successful unions are the ones possessing the most highly skilled and quality dedicated memberships. And, as it concerns the teaching profession, specifically the teaching professionals who've chosen to teach within a public school system, dedication to the calling of teaching is a much more dependable element relevant to attracting 'good' teachers and removing the giant dead weights of bureaucracy, patronage, (both political and union driven), restrictive and often specious curriculums, (dictated by equally specious and bureaucratic governmental authorities), extremely myopic, and politically active, citizen knuckleheads, who routinely dominate their local school boards, school councils, etc., would be a much more effectives means by which to retain same. For individuals who've truly chosen teaching as a profession, the money will always be secondary to the authentic opportunity to actually teach, and, thereby, make a positive difference in the lives of their fellow human beings. Always. What commonly beats down the natural teacher is having to deal with all the bullshit. And there's a whole lot of it. Mountains worth. "Where I disagree with most teachers’ unions is that they have not aggressively led a movement to develop solutions to inequitable access to quality public education via equitable funding (read smaller class sizes) and solid enforcement of fair principal and teacher evaluation." Equitable funding is achieved via the previously stated total voucher system of taxpayer funding of the opportunity to receive an education. 'fair principle and teacher' evaluation will never be achieved within a bureaucratic cesspool, since the very definitions determining said evaluations' outcomes are tainted by the nature of their source. "Actually, privatized education as we know it in Chicago (charters/contract/performance/turnarounds) is singularly focused on teaching to standardized tests because that is mainly how charters etc. are judged for their 5-year 'renewals'. Charters were initially meant to be laboratories for developing educational innovation – to free them of the bureaucratic mandates (by both the school district AND the unions). But the majority of research shows that privatized schools produce little improvement in educational gains (as measured by standardized tests) or a treasure-trove of educational best practices. Instead, many replicate the worst of the system – top down edicts from non-educators using scripted curriculum focused on raising test scores." And your point, I presume, is that the half-assed and insincere pseudo attempts to pass off 'charter schools' as a substitute for actual school choice has, as it was planned to do, resulted in producing the necessary amount of minimal truths needed to continue to conceal the lie that school choice, via a total tax-funded voucher system of financing the educations of our children, will not work. Yes? "What charters DO offer initially is smaller class sizes/smaller schools, which CPS could provide if it had the political will without funneling public money to private 'edupreneurs'." What you're attempting to do is cover a pile of shit with milk chocolate. That pile may appear to be a chocolate treat, so good to eat, but, to those who've taken a bite, it's shit, through and through. And no amount of chocolate coating will change the nature of that inner filling.
