WORDS: The Danger Zone

The two main readings from George Orwell and Proscio are what I consider “modern-day satire.” Both articles point out glaring flaws in common language usage and diction, hoping that people will take note of their own bad writing habits, and then make necessary changes. In any event, the glittering wit of these authors only further demonstrates their mastery of language and shrewd judgment.

With that said fellow Verons, I would like us to continue to address the heart of the matter: clear writing and speaking! Today’s class discussion touched on some important aspects, and I would like us to consider these aspects carefully.

Clear writing, I believe, has a lot to do with knowing yourself and developing the ability to put words to your inner thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. So, I have a few questions that should help us analyze our own issues with language and find the best ways to reduce instances of language abuse and misuse. We agreed that there is a connection between language and meaning. We also agreed that perhaps the only way to avoid the abuse and misuse of language is by forcing ourselves to think about our language AND its intended meaning.

As scholars, the words we choose to use are very important. But, do you think that the word choice issue that Proscio elaborates on is completely valid? Or does it seem like he, as well as the other authors, sometimes quibble over language use? After reading the articles, I suspect that there is at least one point with which you strongly agree or disagree. What is it and why? Also, which, if any, of these “bad habits” are you guilty of?

I agree with Orwell’s statement that “[t]he great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” Have you guys ever read a piece of work by someone or, worse, spoken to someone who had great things to say but you were turned off by a slight feeling that they were being insincere? I have, and I don’t like it when people do it, so that is why I try not to write or say things that I don’t mean, especially regarding flattering words or words about my beliefs. But back to my point, do you realize how insincerity can create barriers between different parties, people, etc.? Once you get the feeling that someone’s writing, words, or feedback is insincere, further communication seems to undergo the proverbial “shut-down.”

Another interesting point that Orwell makes is that “[p]olitical language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Three classes ago, we had to submit our personal mission statements and review the mission statements of a few prominent organizations and institutions (including John Jay college). I remember that there was a lengthy discussion about the “politics” behind the mission statements of these organizations and institutions. Professor Stein, in particular, seemed to be picking up on the political language to which Orwell refers. However, if it is true, as Professor Stein noted, that these mission statements are riddled with buzz-words in an attempt to gain and maintain funding, then what does it imply about these institutions and organizations? Do their mission statements imply that they are all being insincere about the type and quality of services which they claim to provide? Does a mission statement with buzz-words necessarily facilitate poor or negative results and vice versa? Or do our concepts of buzz-words reflect our own biases?

While we are on the topic of scruples, do you consider yourself to be a scrupulous writer (and speaker)? I try to be scrupulous most of the time, but my writing (and speaking) may appear over-the-top to some people, and still there are others who enjoy it. I say this to show that words are potent precisely because another individual’s perception is involved. As we discussed in class, the agencies for which we work are cautious about their use of words because the truth is that throwing around words is sometimes akin to throwing around knives. But, even if throwing around words is not the best idea, can we ever be sure that we are saying exactly what we mean AND that people are understanding exactly what we are saying? Are there any instances when you feel as though you are not understood, despite numerous (re) explanations? Should the “labels” that agencies use boldly encompass the issue at hand? At what point, if ever, do you think we should throw in the towel on all of this “precision-talk”?

I don’t throw in the towel often, but I do in situations where I am speaking to people and I feel that they are intentionally trying to twist what I am saying or when they seem to be feigning uncertainty. At that point, logical discourse is no longer possible because they have broken an important rule of logical communication.

I am still mulling over which of the “bad writing habits” I have. I think that I am guilty of using the word “assist” instead of “help.” I always preferred the word “assist” more because it has a nice professional ring to it—it might be the ending “t” sound versus the “p” sound. I also like the word “empowerment”--just saying or seeing the word makes me feel empowered.

Professor Reitz said it best when she said that “sloppy writing means sloppy thinking.” However, is it possible that we are creating harsh generalizations? I say this because Lenny commented on how difficult it was to find the right words during one of her former courses but that she had an idea of what she wanted to say. Yet if we had read her work for that course, because of its lack of clarity, we would be forced to say that her thinking was sloppy based on the aforementioned generalization. HOWEVER, I would not say that her problem was with her thinking, it was more a problem of finding the “right” words, whatever they may be. What I am trying to say is that in some cases, finding the right words can be challenging and it would be unfair to say that unclear writing is a clear indication of one’s inability to think clearly.

Family

Towards the end of our discussion today it seemed that a pattern was emerging throughout most of Vera’s Agencies. This pattern being the integration of family into the various treatment processes. Family is used as a tool for positive reinforcement and motivation. In the article, Coming Home: Building on Family Connections, it is stated that “research supports the notion that family support and acceptance can spur positive change in people released from prison”. In addition to the concept of family, the article explains the approach in which La Bodega de la Familia takes when assisting a new individual. This is the approach of “strengths-based”. In other words, rather than focusing on weaknesses and negativity, strengths are not only the focus, but they are heavily emphasized.

Realizing the importance of family and a strength-based approach caused me to reflect on not only each Vera Agency, (including the project that was mentioned about working on getting kids to school), but my own life. Various questions came to mind.

-How has my own family led me to where I am today?
-Similarly, could I be where I am today without them?
-Why did I choose Esperanza?
-Do I act as a motivator for someone in my life?
-How do the challenges of college compare and contrast to going to jail/prison(going away, etc.)?

The first two questions piggy back off of each other. My family has been my support system, my conscious, my drive, and so much more. And knowing how much they have contributed to my life, I know that without them standing by my side I would not be a Vera Fellow today. Would I be in jail or prison without them, probably not but I would not be as motivated as I am. This leads me to the next question, as to why I chose Esperanza. I can remember during the interview when I reread Esperanza’s mini summary and there was one word that caught my eye, family. I was extremely interested in Esperanza because of the family aspect. I also find it intriguing that a family may not realize how much of a support system they are, and that I may not realize that I too am toughing somebody’s life, the same way that my family motivates me. Something like family to me is something that I am grateful for, however, even though I know how blessed I am today I realized one way in which I take my family for granted, and that is through the motivation that they unknowingly provide me with.

The last question comes across as really having almost no comparison. However, after speaking with Margaret DiZerega before leaving she brought something like this up. I am not sure if this is how she meant it but I found it to be interesting. I realize that John Jay is a commuter campus but I wanted to include it regardless. Both leaving for college and going to jail/prison removes a family member from the support system. Communication becomes difficult, and the relationship is no longer as easy as it once may or may not have been. Being that I am not from New York, but from Rhode Island, I know this feeling. It is time consuming and it takes energy to make sure that long distance relationships are maintained. Of course the biggest contrast is the re-entry aspect. Even though a person going to college is not with their family, they still maintain contact with “the real world”.

Overall, it is interesting, important, and crucial to analyze both family and the strength-based approach. It is hard to imagine a person who has been incarcerated being thrown back into the world without family. To be alone, without motivation, or anyone to show you your strengths seems a recipe for disaster.

As a side note, family is being referred to as a loose definition.

Educating with Justice

Hi Verons,

** Please introduce yourself before you respond.. at least with your name & placement**

Like Amanda, I was really excited about this “Ask an Alum” blog post.. I am looking forward to our conversation.

Also like Amanda, I was a cohort 1 fellow (08-09) and I partnered with 2 organizations: Wildcat Service Corporation and LEAP. I graduated JJAY with my BS in Criminal Justice. Currently, I teach 7th grade math and science in the Bronx through a fellowship program.

Word is that this week in class the Hilfiker article “Justice and the Limits of Charity” was a topic for discussion. I was asked how the themes presented in the article related to my experience in the classroom, particularly the role of charity.

Ostensibly, the purpose of school is to provide students with the tools they need to function in society. Whether or not our schools are actually providing this may be another discussion. It is my opinion that charity is way too expensive- not in money, but in long term effects- to dispense freely in schools. I may be influenced by the nature of my student population.

In my classroom, I feel many of my students have come to expect charity. Many of them, having been labeled “special ed.” in early elementary school, have grown up with this crazy idea that they are somehow less able or less responsible than their peers. Some of my seventh graders- though physically capable- get frustrated by the little tasks: using scissors, copying their homework, and answering questions in class. “Can you do this for me?” is probably the most popular classroom phrase, beating even: “man, you’re beastin” and “why do we have homework every single night?” It would be an injustice to my students if I didn’t say “no” to their pleas for help. And they don’t make “no” easy to say. The kids who think they are the biggest and baddest are quickly reduced to a blubbering mess if their teacher will not tell them how to spell a word.

Balancing all of the demanding needs of my students all day makes these DOE incentives (read: bribes) like “free backpacks for kids who come to school on time!” sound really enticing. Why not if it works? While they might be excited by a backpack for 3 1/2 minutes, it’s still not a backpack that they need. Nor do they need the hand-holding baby- sitting “okay I’ll cut this out for you if it means you won’t throw a temper tantrum.” In the long run they need adults that will push them, whether they throw the temper tantrum or not.

While my examples have related to my seventh grade class, there were many clients that I worked with (particularly formerly incarcerated young men) who saw themselves in a similar light: things in life happened to them, they didn’t cause the things in their life. They were the victims. They were not needy, but perpetually in need. Though, not of the things they said they needed. I saw a need for confidence, for structure, for strong adult figures in their lives and for encouragement in these young men. But those things are much harder to give away than back packs or minimum wage customer service jobs.

What do you think?

Ask an Alum

Hello Vera Fellows and Professors!

I’m excited to be one of the first participants in the “Ask an Alum” blog series! I was a Vera Fellow during my senior year (2008-2009) at Project Renewal’s Parole Support and Treatment Program (PSTP) and Housing and Services, Inc. (HSI). While at PSTP, I shadowed a team of caseworkers whose client list consisted of mentally ill and drug addicted ex offenders. My big project at HSI was to research and report the impact of New York City and State budget cuts on supportive housing units. I was fortunate to have two internships that were very different from one another.
Just a little background… I spent my entire college career working towards becoming a researcher. When I started my first internship in the fall, I had already filled out several applications to PhD research programs. By the time I ended my second internship in the spring, I realized I wanted to enroll in a clinical program and be a practitioner. How annoying, right? There I was in my senior year with a future plan that no longer fit what I wanted to do. It wasn’t that I lost all interest in research or that I wasn’t happy doing it, just that I was happier working directly with clients. This realization led me to take some time off after graduation- a scary, unacceptable thing for overachievers to do. I worked full-time and filled out new applications to MSW programs. I’m happy to say that I just began my first semester at Hunter College School of Social Work.
I am interested to hear about your future plans- do you see yourself as more of a researcher or practitioner? Are you hoping to continue on to graduate school or go right to the work force? I know you haven’t been at your agencies for very long, but have you had any immediate thoughts about how your experience will fit into your larger professional goals? Have your first impressions caused you to question the type of work you think you want to pursue?
Can I offer some advice? Be flexible. It’s okay to change your mind. You may have figured out what you want to do but don't let that stop you from trying something different. You can love to do many things. Also, remember that your good and bad experiences are equally important- they’re both helpful in figuring out what it is you do or don’t want to do. The community you will create with the other Fellows and Professors is rare and special, take advantage of it! Feel free to ask any questions and I will do my best to comment back!

Thanks for inviting me to the blog- it’s good to be back!