Because I have a very strange definition of “vacation,” I’m still working on reviewing books. But, my inability to win the battle over FOMO worked out for “Learning in Public: Lessons for a Racially Divided America from My Daughter’s School” by Courtney E. Martin.
I’m not going to lie: I was struggling with this book review. I wanted to enjoy this book unconditionally. Courtney Martin seemed legitimately interested in proposing a way for people to be about action and not just words and empty gestures when it comes to advocating for racial equality.
The big problem for me is that there are parts of it that seem a little “liberal savior-y.”
Explain.
So, there’s a thing called “The White Savior Trope.” I’ll let Wikipedia explain:
The term white savior, sometimes combined with savior complex to write white savior complex, refers to a white person who provides help to non-white people in a self-serving manner.
The liberal savior is basically the same thing, they just happen to also try to save conservatives and rich people.
Why is that a problem? Aren’t saviors good?
While I could go into a whole schpiel about how true altruism is a myth and there are no truly selfless acts, I’ll save that one for another day. Saving people is great. Doing it for self-serving reasons is a little icky. There’s also the problem of paternalism and depriving people of agency. So, the framing of who the hero of this book was didn’t sit well with me.
Other parts of the book struck me as being like a Crocodile Hunter-type nature video.1 And there were also too many sections where Martin came off like that friend who is trying so hard to seem “down” that they don’t realize that they are perpetuating stereotypes, but without the malicious intent. So, I was pleased as punch to see that Danzy Senna covered this aspect of the book very well in an article from The Atlantic. Senna addressed the problematic aspects of “Learning in Public” and the issues with Robin DiAngelo’s “Nice Racism” so well that I don’t see a need to try to reinvent the wheel and dig into those parts.
I thought you didn’t do negative reviews.
Believe it or not, this isn’t a negative review. I think that “Learning in Public” is a book that people interested in equality (in general) and parents of school-aged kids, (in particular) should read.
Aside from those parts, what did you think about the book?
I felt that Martin did an admirable job of framing the problem of underfunded schools that are disproportionately attended by children of color. I’m confident that many people aren’t previously aware that school integration peaked back in the late 1980s. While other writers focused on the existence of the racial and economic disparities between these currently segregated schools, Martin contemplates what parents of white students may, should, and do consider when picking the education path for their children.
The other useful thing Martin does is to call out segregation in places where people like to think that racism and bigotry doesn’t exist.2
…Cool. Lea…You still didn’t tell us what you actually thought about the book.
What I think about the book is complicated. Something that I couldn’t stop thinking about while reading this book was that there are certain things that are easy decisions in theory but far more complicated when it’s not just an academic exercise.
I believe that all kids should have equal access to a high-quality education. The US Supreme Court agrees with this particular perspective as long as the equal access is race or gender based. In “Learning in Public,” Martin raises important points about what individual parents are doing to keep those funding disparities alive. She also offers insight into how these funding disparities appear to have a racial element. And there are some very intriguing questions about what real integration and equality are going to take.
One of the recurring questions I had when reading the book was whether parents should do whatever they think is best for their kids above all other concerns. As Americans, rugged individualism is kind of our thing. While it can be said that making things equal and fair will make things better for all kids by creating a better world, what Martin appears to be suggesting is a huge shift in thinking that goes against parental instincts.
Parents are willing to beg, borrow, cheat, bully, and bribe3 to give their children every possible advantage. Even when it isn’t over the top, the whole Baby Einstein line exists because parents want to train their kids for excellence.
Little tangent: I get that the question of what’s better or best is subjective. I also know that standardized tests only measure a certain type of aptitude. I also know that there are types of skills and competencies that go beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. With the system that is currently in place and the standards used by elite institutions right now, we know that what goes for merit is high achievement in IQ tests and other standardized tests.
Encouraging parents to go against that instinct is a hard sell.
What do you think of the idea of putting your child in a school with lower test scores for the betterment of society in general?
I think that’s an impossible question. Sometimes, what you should do is let a book make you think and let the ideas raised in the book inform your decisions. And maybe the whole point of the book may be to show how there really aren’t any completely good or right answers.
- There are parts that talk about differences in perceived white vs black body movement, behavior, and tastes in music. It wasn’t quite to the level of making me want to chuck the book out of the nearest window, but I did have to remind myself often that Martin meant well. And, yes, I totally understand how I’ve been socialized to write things like this off. ↩
- Basically, liberal areas and people who insist that they would have voted for Barack Obama a third time. ↩
- Merriam-Webster defines a bribe as “money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust” ↩
