Tuesday, November 8, 2016

The Morning After: A Dream Deferred or The Glass Ceiling Shattered #SOL16


Tomorrow morning we will awaken to the final count, the result of the 2016 presidential election. As a political junkie, I've followed this election cycle glued to my screens--computer, smart phone, television. I also subscribe to several print magazines: The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Time. I devour political rhetoric and happily talk politics. 

But I am exhausted and ready for the morning after. 

I even took the pledge above, but I'll struggle with it regardless of the results. For I know that whatever the results, our nation will forever be changed from what it was to what it is. 

Will we be a nation of deferred dreams? Langston Hughes asked this question in "Harlem" which he wrote during the Harlem Renaissance: 

What happens to a dream deferred? 
      Does it dry up 
      like a raisin in the sun? 
      Or fester like a sore— 
      And then run? 
      Does it stink like rotten meat? 
      Or crust and sugar over— 
      like a syrupy sweet? 
      Maybe it just sags 
      like a heavy load. 
      Or does it explode?

Will the nation "explode" into riots of disenfranchised voters, victims of limited places to vote in states that have reduced the number of precincts by more than half? Will women struggle for another 32 years before seeing a female's name on the presidential ticket? It has been, after all, that long since Geraldine Frerraro ran as Walter Mondale's vice presidential pick. 

Certainly, a Clinton loss will shatter my dreams. Will I shrivel and weep or ooze with anger. I feel the load of this election and have struggled to articulate all that troubles me. As a life-long Democrat, I've at least been able to understand what drives folks to the elephant in the room. At times I've thought that were I living somewhere else I might even lean in a little to the right. 

Not this year. 

Sunday night "60 Minutes" featured a segment about our national mood and our inability to listen to and respect one another's differences in political opinion. Our "National Mood," the segment argues, is contentious and angry, both with the political process and candidate choices. No fewer than 80% of the electorate dislike our choices, claims pollster Frank Luntz. He put supporters of both Trump and Clinton in a room together, and chaos ensued as neither side listened to the other. The participants blamed social media and all other media, which the participants see as biased and focused on entertainment. As Luntz says, "We can't even agree on the same facts." 

This is a real problem. We have reached a place in which facts get denied and rejected outright. This paradigm shift differs from our interpretation of the facts. A fact is verifiable, but many ignore the science, environmental, historical, social on which we base and learn facts. When we can't agree on the facts, we can't debate or discuss what these facts mean. We can't talk about what to do about the facts. 

Yet I can't help but think Luntz misses much of the bigger picture. As he scolded the participants for not listening to the other side, I wondered why the emotional reactions. I simply can't listen to and respect someone who supports a sexual predator. I feel violated by such respect for someone I find so vile and reprehensible. The facts verify my claim, but many ignore these facts. That puts us in a wag-the-dog loop. We go round and round the same circle, forever chasing our political tales. 

How then do we awaken the morning after the election and move on, whether our side wins or loses? 

I'm in the 20% who likes my candidate choice. Simply, I'm with Her. I have followed Hillary Rodham Clinton's career since the early 90s, and while I have cringed at some of her comments over the years, I've grown to understand her wifely responses and separate them from her political aspirations. Some will disagree with and take issue with that. I understand. I've read much that HRC has written and found myself focusing more on the village necessary for teaching. 

We women have long endured secondary status, so I'm longing for a morning after celebration that allows me to shout the words of Maya Angelou in "Still I Rise." 

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,You may trod me in the very dirtBut still, like dust, I'll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?Why are you beset with gloom?'Cause I walk like I've got oil wellsPumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,With the certainty of tides,Just like hopes springing high,Still I'll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?Bowed head and lowered eyes?Shoulders falling down like teardrops.Weakened by my soulful cries.

Does my haughtiness offend you?Don't you take it awful hard'Cause I laugh like I've got gold minesDiggin' in my own back yard.

You may shoot me with your words,You may cut me with your eyes,You may kill me with your hatefulness,But still, like air, I'll rise.

Does my sexiness upset you?Does it come as a surpriseThat I dance like I've got diamondsAt the meeting of my thighs?

Out of the huts of history's shameI riseUp from a past that's rooted in painI riseI'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.Leaving behind nights of terror and fearI riseInto a daybreak that's wondrously clearI riseBringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,I am the dream and the hope of the slave.I riseI riseI rise.


I long to rise Wednesday morning and hear the sound of shattering glass and the breaking of the thickest glass ceiling in America. 

Each Tuesday the team at Two Writing Teachers sponsors the Slice of Life
Story Challenge. I'm grateful to these ladies for their unwavering commitment to
the power of narrative. Thank you. Head over to TWT for more slices. 


*Last week Betsy Hubbard and her family lost much of their home and belongings in a house fire. As one of the members of the TWT team, Betsy gives tirelessly to our profession. Pleas consider helping Betsy and her family rebuild by donating to a fund on her behalf. Click here to donate now. 

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Loving My "Grecian Urn" Lessons: A Response to @Cult of Pedagogy #SOL16

Via Wiki images
"The only place Keats could have seen a Grecian urn is in the British Museum." Dante Cantrell, professor Emeritus at Idaho State University made this comment years ago during a discussion of John Keats's "Ode on a Grecian Urn." The comment wedged itself into my mind.

I thought about Dante's remark as I read Sunday's post "Is Your Lesson a Grecian Urn?" on Jennifer Gonzalez's blog Cult of Pedagogy. Jennifer's argument against what she calls "Grecian Urn" lessons operates on two premises, both of which we need to recognize to understand how the argument veers off course into hasty generalization and an ironic twist given her use of a Grecian urn as a metaphor for pedagogically unsound lesson plans. In John Keats's acclaimed poem a Grecian urn symbolizes the power and beauty of art. More about that later. 

The first premise from Jennifer is one I accept: Teachers need to construct lessons that align with relevant standards and that actually teach those standards. I spent a year developing a course in English 12 for the NEA Better Lesson Master Teacher Project, which required me to do exactly that: develop standards-based lessons, so I speak with authority on this topic. Those lessons that teachers assign with no relevancy to standards my friend Michael LoMonico, senior consultant in education with the Folger Shakespeare Library, calls "building the Globe theater out of popsicle sticks." Such a lesson has nothing to do with Shakespeare's language. 

Where I take issue with Jennifer's argument is her second premise, which indicts performance-based tasks such as acting as "Grecian Urn Lessons," as well as "neat-o tech" projects, both of which take time for students to complete, and to Jennifer's thinking, too much time on a project diminishes its value. Of course, this begs the question: How much time is too much time?

In his book Fearless Writing: Multigenre to Motivate and Inspire, Tom Romano articulates the value of immersion in big projects, those projects that inspire and motivate students to explore, create, and discover through critical thinking: 

"Multigenre writing is an immersion in a big topic of personal importance. I want students to taste such passionate immersion. I want them to experience how that immersion, combined with the possibility of multiple genres, can waken a boldness of expression in them. Students' subjective experience with multigenre will affect their attitude toward writing. It will affect your attitude toward teaching."

A multigenre project may appear "Grecian Urnish" to the untrained eye and even to many teachers who don't understand the time-consuming nature of writing and creating. But multigenre engages students creativity and passion for learning in ways traditional research cannot. Yes, it takes more time, but it's time well spent when a student suddenly awakens to the power of her own voice. 

Digital stories and illuminated texts likely fall within Jennifer's paradigm of "Grecian Urn" lessons as they, too consume time. They also engage students in literature and help them understand imagery, tone, diction, and figurative language. I good illuminated text requires a student to verbally interpret/perform a poem in such a way as to demonstrate insight into the literature. 

Similarly, Jennifer's indictment of acting as "Grecian Urn" lesson planning shows a woeful lack of understanding of the academic nature of dramaturgy. I hold a certificate to teach drama, and my study with the Folger Shakespeare Library reinforces the validity of performance pedagogy in all classrooms. It's through performance, through playing with Shakespeare's language that students as young as third grade grow to love Shakespeare. 

A couple weeks ago I wrote that after participating in a brief performance activity while touring the First Folio exhibit at Boise State University, my students asked if we could study Hamlet in AP Lit and Comp this year. 

Two weeks ago students performed a readers theater production of A Doll's House. This activity necessitated a close reading of the assigned act, which means students read most of the play multiple times. It necessitated students cut the act to ten minutes; that each group plan for costuming, props, vocal cues, pauses, etc. Additionally, I required students to annotate their scripts and perform for a colleague's class, which meant they had to write an introduction for their scenes. We followed this with a formal in-class essay, which students are currently revising. It's a messy process, but one worth the time and energy.

Simply, there is no better way to engage students in the study of a dramatic work of literature than through performance. The ancient Greeks embraced this notion not only through performance of such classics as Antigone and Orestes, which is the play in which Euripides penned something I find poignant in our time: 

When one with honeyed words but evil mind
Persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.

The Greeks valued rhetoric, and they worked both for excellence in presentation and style. Drama activities support Cicero's Five Cannons of Rhetoric, and rhetoricians recognized their importance in our communication: 
  • Invention
  • Arrangement
  • Style
  • Memory
  • Delivery
As a speech and English teacher, I value helping students understand each of these cannons and know that the creative learning opportunities I offer lead them to greater command of verbal and written communication as well as the deep reading skills they'll need to be college and career ready. Our students need more opportunities to commit their learning to memory. 

Thus when I see a generalized statement that devalues these learning opportunities grounded in sound pedagogy, I'm concerned. 

Finally, using the Grecian urn as a metaphor for bad lessons resonates with irony. In Keats's poem, he describes a pair of lovers frozen in time as they run toward one another. This depiction of art on the urn mirrors the poem's last two lines, lines immortalized in English literature as some of the most important utterances celebrating art and artistic expression: 

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Rather than toss those Grecian urns on the scrap heap of pedagogy, maybe it's time to dust them off, and display them in our classrooms for all to admire and cherish as we embrace the young lovers frozen in time and eternity. 

Each Tuesday the team at Two Writing Teachers sponsors the Slice of Life
Story Challenge. I'm grateful to these ladies for their unwavering commitment to
the power of narrative. Thank you. Head over to TWT for more slices. 

*For another perspective and response to the Cult of Pedagogy post I address, check out "Drama is Not a Grecian Urn" over on Huff English.


Tuesday, October 25, 2016

False Equivalencies and the Thinking Logically #SOL16

Each Tuesday the team at Two Writing Teachers sponsors the Slice of Life
Story Challenge. I'm grateful to these ladies for their unwavering commitment to
the power of narrative. Thank you. Head over to TWT for more slices. 
I teach students to think logically. 

Scratch that. 

I work to teach students to think logically.

This election cycle has complicated my work. 

My own thinking has veered into the illogical at times as the roots of polarized thinking take hold. 

I found myself succumb to confirmation bias Sunday. For the uninitiated, confirmation bias results when we think new evidence supports our existing beliefs and/or theories. 

Consequently, when I viewed a video about False Equivalency posted on FB by Media Matters, my initial response was to think it affirms my own beliefs about the merits of Hillary Clinton's candidacy compared to those of Donald Trump. 

My second reaction to the video included disappointment at the speaker's use of profanity. I had hoped to use the video as a teaching tool, but the taboo language, although infrequent, rendered the video inappropriate for use with high school students. I posted a comment to this effect on the discussion thread accompanying the video. I received a response by the creator of the video, Michael McElroy, which he has since deleted. 

In essence, Mr. McElroy resorted to an ad hominem attack, calling me an irrational person, someone incapable of "rational thought" because I challenged his use of profanity. Mr. McElroy based this remark on a belief that "adults" should be able to handle the language he used. Perhaps they should, but even in this time of political chaos, I'd argue that a sense of rhetorical decorum elevates a speaker's ethos. 

I responded to Mr. McElroy's ad hominem attack: 

Clearly you don't understand my point. And instead of trying to understand it, you resort to an ad hominem attack. I teach high school students in an ultra-conservative Mormon area. Out of respect for cultural norms, I don't use profanity. your use of it would ring as a mark on your credibility to my students, both at the ninth grade level and among the dual enrolled students. There is something inherently wrong w/ the inability or refusal to consider a potential audience. I requires students to learn the basics of the VALs framework and psychometrics. Know that as a rational thinker I'll exercise my right to ignore your voice in the future. 

A little further down the thread, I saw a comment labeling the video "propaganda." It's at this moment I began thinking of the video as girding confirmation bias. Indeed, the video does degrade Donald Trump. It does seek to present "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." It qualifies as propaganda.

At its core the idea that Donald Trump fails the litmus test of respectability and preparation necessary in a candidate for the highest office in the U.S.A. resonates with me. He is, by many metrics, a vile man. 

However, the video offers an analogy of the election as a horse race. The analogy, call it a metaphor , works up to a point. It fails when it frames Donald Trump as a "wild bull." Simply, a wild bull would not run in a horse race. For the analogy to pass the test of logic, the Donald Trump equivalent in the video would need to be a horse. That is, it must be like the other animals in the race at least in this basic way. Since it is inherently different, the video presents an illogical argument vis a vie its representation of other candidates a s race horses and Donald Trump as a bull. 

I found myself pondering this Media Matters video and realized that had it not been for the questionable language in it, had it not been for the presenter's attack on me, I might have used the video in my Communication 1101 class. 

I almost allowed the bias of Media Matters to confirm my own bias through an illogical argument. That's the inherent problem of consuming information that merely affirms our own beliefs and values.

Each year I begin my Communication 1101 class with Aristotle's words that "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." That's my challenge in a difficult election cycle if I am to model the logical thinking I've come to expect from my students. 



Tuesday, October 18, 2016

"A Doll House" Mentality in Presidential Politics #SOL16

During my AP Literature and Composition class's study of Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, Donald Trump's now infamous journey on Billy Bush's "Access Hollywood" bus has defined the news cycle. 

I could not pry my eyes and ears from the onslaught of talking heads and cable news programs loops replaying that conversation between Trump and B. Bush from 2005. It literally became my personal Groundhog Day repeated every evening when I returned home from work. 

Reading A Doll's House in the context of Trump's sexual abuse of women illuminates for me how far we have come as well as how far we have to go in our treatment of women. Ibsen's play resonates as remarkably relevant these days. 

For example, throughout Ibsen's drama, Torvald Helmer objectifies his wife Nora by referring to her with animal imagery: 

"Is that my little lark twittering out there?"
"Is it my little squirrel bustling about?"
"The same little featherhead..."
"my little skylark"
"My little songbird must never do that again."
"little singing bird"

Images of Nora as a child, a girl, an animal permeate the play to frame her as subordinate to her husband. 

Helmer lives the life of a man incapable of self-reflection. At one point he refers to the hypocrisy of Krogstad, one of his employees. Similarly, Trump has characterized his accusers as "liars" and pawns set to destroy him and deflect attention from the foibles of his opponent. Speaking to Nora, Helmer says,

Just think how a guilty man like that has to lie and play the hypocrite with everyone, how he has to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children. . . I assure you it would be quite impossible for me to work with him; I literally feel physically ill when I am in the company of such people.

Ironically, Hlemer doesn't know his own wife has a secret, one for which Helmer owes his life. It's this hypocrisy and this refusal to reflect on his own choices that speaks to me as a woman in the 21st Century. Once he realizes Nora has borrowed money from Krogstad, rather than thank his wife for her efforts to save his life, he unleashes a torrent of insults:

"Miserable creature--what have you done?. . . ."

"What a horrible awakening! All these eight years--she who was my joy and pride--a hypocrite, a liar--worse, worse--a criminal! The unutterable ugliness of it all! For shame! For shame! I ought to have suspected that something of the sort would happen. I ought to have foreseen it. . . No religion, no morality, no sense of duty------ How I am punished for having winked at what [your father] did! I did it for your sake, and this is how you repay me. . . ."

"Now you have destroyed all my happiness. You have ruined all my future...And I must sink to such miserable depths because of a thoughtless woman!"

Rather than owning his remarks and behavior, Donald Trump has insulted the women he sexually assaulted as too unattractive. His surrogates have added additional abuse by rationalizing his behavior. 

Make no mistake, Donald Trump described sexually assaulting women. He has recounted to Howard Stern walking in on young girls half naked as they prepared for the Miss Universe competition. 

For Donald Trump, women are his "joy" and his "pride." He blames women when his happiness is challenged by his own ingratitude and by his own actions. He blames women for having ruined his future. One need only listen to his conspiracy theories about the media being out to get him, about the election being rigged to know this. 

And all this misery coming Trump's way is "because of a thoughtless woman." 

Come November 8, my hope is that Donald Trump will have one more Torvald Helmer moment. That moment at the end of A Doll's House has reverberated throughout literature for more than a hundred years. It's the moment Nora leaves her husband and the audience hears the slamming of the door as she exits. 

May Donald Trump hear the slamming of the electoral door as women respond: "I believe that before all else I am a reasonable human being..." And as reasonable human beings, we will no longer sacrifice our honor for men like Donald Trump and Torvald Helmer, men who sacrifice so little for the women in their lives but expect women to sacrifice all. 

As Nora tells Helmer when speaking about sacrificing honor: "It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done." 

*Side Note: I began the unit by having students view a fabulous video inspired by A Doll's House. We discussed the ways Nora unmasks herself in the play. 


Each Tuesday the team at Two Writing Teachers sponsors the Slice of Life
Story Challenge. I'm grateful to these ladies for their unwavering commitment to
the power of narrative. Thank you. Head over to TWT for more slices. 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Celebrating William Shakespeare's First Folio: Photo Essay #SOL


The First Folio on exhibit at BSU.
This artifact has been rebound.

Last spring my colleague Debbie Greco and I made a reservation with Boise State University to take our students to the traveling First Folio exhibit, sponsored by the Folger Shakespeare Library and the American Library Association as part of their year-long celebration of the 400th anniversary of the First Folio's publication.

We each chaperoned a bus of students on the trip and allowed some nerdy colleagues and an administrator to tag along on the trip a few weeks ago.

Along the day-long journey a few weeks ago, I snapped some photos of students as they

  • traveled on the bus,
  • toured the main exhibit,
  • participated in a performance activity featuring a cutting from Hamlet, and
  • learned about the printing process in Elizabethan England. 
On the bus, anticipating the adventure. 

An introduction to the First Folio, shown in the case.
Meeting the Cardboard Bard. This guy gets around.
I've seen him at NCTE Annual Convention in the exhibit hall. 

Kaden and Logan commiserate over a facsimile of the First Folio.



Supplementing the First Folio exhibit with other rare texts.


Performing a scene from Hamlet: Shakespeare on the Lawn!


Attendees at the NCTE Annual Convention in Atlanta will have the opportunity to tour the First Folio visiting Emory University and can reserve a spot on the NCTE website.

Shakespeare through the years. Part of the main exhibit. 
The day after we returned from our folio field trip, we had an opportunity to debrief. During our discussion students asked: "Can we read Hamlet?" By way of assessing the success of a lesson, a request to read Shakespeare doesn't get any better! 

Each Tuesday the team at Two Writing Teachers sponsors the Slice of Life
Story Challenge. I'm grateful to these ladies for their unwavering commitment to
the power of narrative. Thank you. Head over to TWT for more slices. 


Tuesday, October 4, 2016

House Call #SOL16

Thank you, Two Writing Teachers, for
sponsoring the Slice of Life Story Challenge
every Tuesday. Find more slices on the TWT blog.
Last night, shortly before 8:00 p.m. and fifteen minutes after I arrived home from work, my doorbell rang. Normally such unannounced visitors signal a solicitation from a neighborhood boy scout or student athlete raising money for team jerseys or equipment.

Imagine my surprise when I saw my GYN through the sidelight, especially since I'd already changed into my loungewear, baggy pants with a book and eyeglasses motif.

The doctor who makes house calls harkens to a bygone era before managed care and other artifacts of modern medicine. And even though Dr. Michael Jones lives in my neighborhood, even though his daughter Jocelyn is one of my exceptional former students, even though Dr. Jones and I have had many informal conversations, I never expected him to visit my home in a professional capacity. Yet there he stood in blue scrubs, having taken a slight detour before going home after delivering four babies during the day.

Only recently did I begin receiving treatment from Dr. Jones, and I've only been in his office one time. During that initial meeting we discussed the results of an ultrasound and biopsy I had a few weeks ago, necessary tests for a problem that manifested itself shortly before school started and that my primary care physician recommended.

Last week I had a second ultrasound. It's the results from this latest procedure Dr. Jones came to my home to discuss.

Tomorrow I will have a more through type of biopsy and exam that will give Dr. Jones a look into my inner being to see why I have a fat womb that now more closely resembles an amoeba than a uterus. These, of course, are my characterizations. Sadly, Dr. Jones said I can't blame my fat butt on my fat uterus as there is no causal relationship between the two.

I'd be lying if I said I'm not a little afraid that I won't "pass" my test tomorrow. I've never been as proficient in biology as I am in English and speech, and I don't have any way to cram for this test. I'll have to "wing it," as we say in teaching.

Last night I awoke at 2:00 a.m. and thought about life and losing life. I've always been keenly aware of the temporality of life since my father died at 39. Last spring I read Paul Kalanithi's haunting memoir When Breath Becomes Air. Sometimes books find us and speak to us when we need them most. I've wondered if Kalanithi's story is such a book, but I don't know yet.

Both during my office visit with Dr. Jones and his house call, we talked about life and the value of doing all we can in our time to make a contribution to the moment. We shared our mutual belief that the brief lives we live require us to do our best to make meaningful choices.

We live in a moment but "human knowledge is never contained in one person. It grows from the relationships we create between each other and the world, and still it is never complete," Kalanithi reminds us.

Regardless of what tomorrow brings, I'll face my own mortality again. For now all I can do is remember "the physician's duty is not to stave off death or return the patients to their old lives, but to...work until they can stand back up and face, and make sense of, their own existence" (Kalanithi). This moment allows me to recalibrate and reflect.




Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Susan Glaspell's "Trifles" from the Trump View of Women View of Women #SOL16

"Come up to the fire, ladies."

The opening line in Susan Glaspell's 1916 one-act play Trifles offers a window into the current election cycle. 

My AP Lit and Comp students examined Trifles in a lively discussion on the day Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off in the first presidential debate. I contemplated my students' observations about the murder of John Wright and our discussion about whether or not Mrs. Wright had reason to kill her husband. 

Together, we looked at the textual evidence supporting a justifiable homicide as well as passages that gave us pause about the murder. 

  • Did Mrs. Wright fear for her life after discovering her husband had killed her canary? 
  • Was Mr. Wright both physically as well as emotionally abusive to his wife? 
  • Why did Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters withhold information about Mrs. Wright's quilting from their husbands? 
  • What clues does Glaspell reveal through both stage directions and dialogue? 
Together we examined evidence so that we could unravel the mystery of what drove Mrs. Wright to kill her husband as he lay in their bed with her sleeping on the inside. 

I asked students if they know the significance of a canary in the mining industry. I shared with them the legal concept of imminent danger and how we see this working in the defense of police officers who shoot and kill unarmed African American men. 


Monday morning I had read an article in The Atlantic titled "Donal Trump's Cruel Streak" that resonated with me both in the context of Trifles as well as in concert with Trump's claim that he has the best temperament, an assertion he reiterated during the debate. Prior to offering a menagerie of Trump's cruel acts and comments and inviting us to "judge for yourself" the cruelty of Donald Trump, Condor Friedersdorf announces his thesis: 

Donald J. Trump has a cruel streak. He willfully causes pain and distress to others. And he repeats this public behavior so frequently that it’s fair to call it a character trait. Any single example would be off-putting but forgivable. Being shown many examples across many years should make any decent person recoil in disgust.

I wondered how Mr. John Wright would describe himself were he to have that opportunity. At one point in Trifles, Hale characterizes Mr. Wright as a man who wants only peace and quiet. In contrast, at first the audience is led to think Mrs. Wright fails as a wife given the unkempt state of her home. 

Many have written about Donald Trump's tone deafness to women's issues. In this sense, he's like Mr. Wright about whom Hale remarks: "I didn't know as what his wife wanted made much difference to John." Images of cold underpin this observation throughout the play.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton's powerful political ad "Mirrors" captures that paradigm, that tone of cruelty evident in Trump's treatment of women: 

This election Donald Trump invites us to "come up to the fire." But as Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale reject the idea of incriminating Mrs. Wright by offering evidence that she had reason to murder her cruel husband, as a demographic group college-educated women have denounced Trump's offer to warm ourselves by his dangerous, misogynistic rhetoric. 

We see through the window from which Trump views us. And through that window, we look into a mirror reflecting our future in a Trump presidency and know many of his supporters don't understand our "getting all stirred up over a little thing like a--dead canary."

Thank you to the team at Two Writing Teachers for their faithful commitment to
teachers and students. Head over to TWT for more slices. 

*The ideas expressed in this blog reflect only my thoughts, my beliefs and are in no way offered as representative of my employer or any other entity.