Category: ENG 110

1. Learning Outcome 4: Peer Review
   1. I feel as though my peer review style has remained the same throughout the semester. I go into it to just read and react to the paper, so my peer review mainly consists of what I am thinking as I am reading. A lot of the time I usually ask “how are these ideas related,” “I feel like this segment of text could be moved somewhere else,” or “This part isn’t really clear to me so make sure to explain fully.” Those are a generalization of what I usually try to write when peer reviewing. 

Task 2: Annotation and Reading Response Work (for learning outcome 3)

1. 3/26 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) This homework was about identifying where Coates mentions HR40 and why the idea of studying reparations has been debated. We had to go through the article to find where each section on HR40 was and describe what Coates was trying to imply about why HR40 hasnt been passed.This homework forced us to do a lot of interpretation of the text, thats why I included it to be a useful part of the annotation section.
2. 3/24 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) This homework was when we read the second half of the article and had to explain the annotations we put on it. This and 3/22 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) both use annotations we put on the article. The annotations I put are mostly targeted around relations, questions, and sometimes challenges. Race is a heavy hitting topic so I was trying to really put into perspective how different my life is from what Coates is describing.
3. 3/29 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) This homework was about trying to connect the ideas we already formed with the other articles we read throughout the year to what Coates was writing about. I think this homework was challenging because we had to take our annotations/ideas we already formed about past articles and try to rethink those ideas in a way that they could connect to Coates’ article. I specifically chose Dweck and L/H for the connections, and it was really hard because they both already talk about extremely different situations and now I had to try and connect them to how racism was affecting HR40 being passed. It was hard for me to go from “L/H have a fixed mindset because…” to “L/H can be connected to the U.S. government because…” 

1. Read and copy the Learning Outcomes for ENG 110 (right on the syllabus page of the course site!) Open the “Framing ENG 110 Development” Google Doc to help you see the goal. 10 minutes
   1. Demonstrate the ability to approach writing as a recursive process that requires substantial revision of drafts for content, organization, and clarity (global revision), as well as editing and proofreading (local revision).
   2. Be able to integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant sources.
   3. Employ techniques of active reading, critical reading, and informal reading response for inquiry, learning, and thinking.
   4. Be able to critique their own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision early in the writing process and local revision later in the process.
   5. Document their work using appropriate conventions (MLA).
   6. Control sentence-level error (grammar, punctuation, spelling).
2. Choose which of your 3 major papers best demonstrates your ability on Integrating Ideas, Recursive Process, and MLA. You NEED the first draft of that paper (with peer comments) and the final draft of the paper for our work. (Most students select paper 2 or 3, as they can see their growth over the term in those projects.) 20 minutes
   1. Paper 3, The Study of Reparations, the Debate of Almost 3 Decades
   2. First Draft: Kimball, Paper 3, First Draft – Google Docs
   3. Final Draft: Kimball, Paper 3 Final Draft – Google Docs
3. Revisit your peer review feedback on students’ papers. Take 4-6 screenshots of what you think are really good comments that help a peer make a claim, choose good evidence, explain evidence, and/or reorganize. 20 minutes
   1.  Found at the top of the post^
4. Write THREE FRAMING STATEMENTS – Outcome I (recursive process), II (revision), and V (MLA). You can put them in a blog post for now. 30-60 minutes.
   1. Learning Outcome 1: Recursive Process
      1. The most change I see between the first and final draft of paper 3 is focusing in on the ideas I present in each paragraph. By this I mean that I revised to try and give the best explanations of evidence that I could and tried my best to connect the evidence in a way that made sense.
   2. Learning Outcome 2: Integrating Ideas
      1. I feel I have done a good job of integrating my ideas/views from the start of the semester since the Lukianoff and Haidt article really pushed me to say what I thought. So, since we started off with such a strongly worded article I feel like that made me more comfortable with inserting myself into the whole paper instead of just a vague idea of what I think.
   3. Learning Outcome 5: MLA
      1. In the beginning of the semester, I had no idea what a signal phrase was. My go-to for “introducing” a quote was to just try and make the non-quote part of the sentence flow with the quote so it would be a functional sentence. I had been doing that for so many years and then signal phrases are that same concept but you can add in different complexities! I really tried my best with signal phrases but I’m not sure I completely get them so I will definitely need more practice.

Revising 2 Paragraphs:

Original:

L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation. They refuse to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country due to the lack of education on the subject. The lack of education on the subject of racism can be seen in the not-so-recent movement of Black Lives Matter and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble/hesitation in getting the bill passed. “HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (Coates, part 3 para. 14). The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

Revision:

L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. They explain that the practice of vindictive protectiveness is “turn[ing] campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation since the aggressor is playing the victim. The U.S. government refuses to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country. Due to the lack of education on the subject, many white people feel as though they are being “attacked” by the black community to pay these reparations for something that these white people perceive as untrue or too far in the past to be “their problem.” The lack of education on the subject of racism can be tied to the on-going Black Lives Matter movement and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood  and has caused much trouble and or hesitation in getting the bill passed. Coates explains that“HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (part 3 para. 14). HR 40 is proposing the study of reparations not demanding reparations immediately which is the big misunderstanding here. The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

Exp: I mainly tried to explain my quotes better towards what I am trying to claim for the whole paragraph. Better explaining the quotes makes the paragraph sound more coherent and argumentative. I also added introductions to the quotes so they are no longer free standing.

Original:

The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (Coates part 3, para. 12). The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong.  The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. OR The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes.

Revision:

The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. Coates provides an example of white supremacy/white fragility in the following quote, “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (part 3, para. 12). The government presents as “not interested” when discussing the bill, which exemplifies the idea of white supremacy by the majority white government choosing not to even consider something that could benefit minorities and maybe even the whole country. The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years, yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong. The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. Dweck’s idea of fixed mindset can be attributed to the government’s way of thinking about HR 40. Dweck describes that “[f]rom their [the students studied] more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the intelligence and the comfort zone that the U.S. has created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. 

Exp: In this paragraph I also tried to explain my quotes better. To do this I added in the idea of white supremacy/white fragility to make my explanations better since they were extremely vague and or suggestive without these terms included. I also added in intros to the quotes and brackets when needed.

Mackenzi Kimball, No intro or conclusion yet. All quotes are free standing right now.

HR 40 is a bill that has been proposed for over 25 years calling for the study of reparations. Yet it has not been passed. One clear reason HR 40 has not been passed is due to the governments unwillingness to be upfront about the country’s past mistakes. Reparations are first seen as a payment option, but Coates provides an alternate reason for them in the form of justice. “Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution” (part 3, para. 11). Reparations in the case of justice require the U.S. government to acknowledge all previous and current wrongdoings towards black people. This is obviously an unthinkable amount which makes our government uncomfortable. Thinking of reparations as something deeper than a check is intimidating to the government. Reparations are much deeper and more complex than we can imagine. “The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world” (part 9, para. 7). The government has denied the idea of paying reparations many times, as seen with the denial of the HR 40 bill. All this bill calls for is the study of reparations and slavery so that maybe there might be a solution in the future. HR 40 is just a starting point yet the government refuses to initiate this change. The government is uncomfortable since they built the facade of America through “patriotism.” The sheer existence of America now is about patriotism and that is being “threatened” by the notion of reparations. “An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders” (part 10, para. 16). The governments’ overall discomfort towards the topic of racism and slavery is keeping the country from growing out of the childhood myth that Coates describes. Talking about the truth of American history ,both past and present, can bring so many people out of their blind patriotism. This could kickstart a whole new America where it learns from its mistakes and tries to actually fix the deep cracks in its structure. 

L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation. They refuse to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country due to the lack of education on the subject. The lack of education on the subject of racism can be seen in the not-so-recent movement of Black Lives Matter and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble/hesitation in getting the bill passed. “HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (Coates, part 3 para. 14). The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

 The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (Coates part 3, para. 12). The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong.  The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. OR The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes.

Works Cited

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, June 2014, The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic, 4 Apr. 2021.

Dweck, Carol. “The Power of Believing that You Can Improve” TED Talks, November 2014, Carol Dweck: The power of believing that you can improve | TED Talk,  31 Mar. 2021.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The Atlantic, September 2015, How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus – The Atlantic, 31 Mar. 2021.

1. Read the Prompt for Project 3 and begin sketching initial ideas – 15-30 minutes.
   1. The U.S. does not want to disrupt the “patriotism” that has clouded the dreadful past that the government does not want discussed.
   2. It is troublesome to try and call out something that so many people choose to ignore when it most definitely shouldn’t be ignored.
   3. The U.S. government is choosing to shut out the justice being demanded for black people.
   4. The idea of paying reparations after such a long period of mistreatment is a big task to please those affected. It seems no matter which way we think of repayment right now will never be enough which I think is fair, the emotional and generational scars can never be healed by any amount of money if people aren’t willing to change the problem. What’s the point of being paid a sum of money for an apology of racism, while they still have to experience it sometimes (if not everyday)! 
2. Write a paragraph-like unit (claim, evidence, explanation) that says something about HR 40 and engages with Coates. (This paragraph might be more like a summary/description; it might start to signal your view on HR 40’s nonpassage.)

Topic: HR 40 is a bill that has been proposed for over 25 years calling for the study of reparations. Yet it has not been passed.

Claim: One clear reason HR 40 has not been passed is due to the governments unwillingness to be upfront about the country’s past mistakes.

Intro: Reparations are first seen as a payment option, but Coates provides an alternate reason for them in the form of justice.

Quote: “Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution” (part 3, para. 11).

Exp: Reparations in the case of justice require the U.S. government to acknowledge all previous and current wrongdoings towards black people. This is obviously an unthinkable amount which makes our government uncomfortable. 

Transition/claim: Thinking of reparations as something deeper than a check is intimidating to the government. Reparations are much deeper and more complex than we can imagine.

Quote: “The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world” (part 9, para. 7).

Exp: The government has denied the idea of paying reparations many times, as seen with the denial of the HR 40 bill. All this bill calls for is the study of reparations and slavery so that maybe there might be a solution in the future. HR 40 is just a starting point yet the government refuses to initiate this change.

Transition/claim:The government is uncomfortable since they built the facade of America through “patriotism.” The sheer existence of America now is about patriotism and that is being “threatened” by the notion of reparations.

Quote: “An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders” (part 10, para. 16).

Connection: The governments’ overall discomfort towards the topic of racism and slavery is keeping the country from growing out of the childhood myth that Coates describes. Talking about the truth of American history ,both past and present, can bring so many people out of their blind patriotism. This could kickstart a whole new America where it learns from its mistakes and tries to actually fix the deep cracks in its structure. 

3. Write a paragraph-like unit (claim, evidence, explanation) that connects a specific passage in Coates to a specific passage in one of our other texts (Dweck, Lukianoff and Haidt, Scheuer, Ungar). Practice Barclay’s here. This will be rough, we know. That’s ok!

Topic: L/H connection to the U.S.

Claim: L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past.

Intro: L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses.

Quote: “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5).

Exp: This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation. They refuse to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country due to the lack of education on the subject.

Transition: The lack of education on the subject of racism can be seen in the not-so-recent movement of Black Lives Matter and the request for HR 40 to pass.

Claim: This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble/hesitation in getting the bill passed.

Quote: “HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (Coates, part 3 para. 14).

Connection: The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

4. Write a paragraph-like unit that connects a passage in Coates to a passage to a passage from a different text we’ve read. Again, a rough Barclay’s is what we need. (Not detailed enough yet)

Intro: Fixed mindset in the United States.

Claim: The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations.

Quote: “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (Coates part 3, para. 12).

Exp: The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid.

Transition: Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong.

Claim: The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up.

Quote: “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41)

Connection: The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long.

OR 

The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes.

1. Revisit Carol Dweck’s TED Talk and her concepts of fixed mindset and growth mindset. Connect one of her concepts to the issue Coates raises about the US being reluctant to study reparations. Quote both texts and write at least 3 of your own informal sentences to connect the texts.
   • Fixed mindset– The U.S. wanting to stay in the white comfort zone that it created over hundreds of years.
   • “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41) AND “The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world” (Coates, part 9 para. 8). These quotes can be tied together through the idea of a fear of failure. A fixed mindset described by Dweck is somewhat a fear of coming out of your comfort zone which is what the U.S. is dealing with. The U.S. has had a long and painful history being constantly covered up and whitewashed. The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long.
2. Revisit either Lukianoff and Haidt’s concept of “vindictive protectiveness” or one of the following: emotional reasoning, fortune telling, or catastrophizing? Might one of these concepts help make sense of what Coates finds about HR 40? Explain with evidence and at least 3 of your own informal sentences.
   • “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). AND “That HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (Coates, part 3 para. 14). Connecting these two quotes start with the roots of the U.S. The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

1. Identify the four passages where Coates mentions/discusses/describes HR 40, the bill to study reparations. This is the bill that never passes the House, and it’s important that you have ready access to the “places” where Coates discusses it. Quote each mention. Be thinking – hard – about what’s up. Pay careful attention, because Coates is really after more than “how much would it cost.”
   1. Part 3 (mentioned 2 times), 9,10
2. Coates suggests in the first mention that the JUSTICE of reparations may be the issue, not the $. What do you think he means by this? (in Part 3)
   1. I think the way the word justice was used in this sentence (“if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point…”) was meant to convey that reparations are complex and not many people are really integrating the intention of giving justice to those who were wronged. Justice for those individuals means calling out and admitting the severity of the wrongdoings against black people in America. 
3. In the second mention, he says it’s probably something more “existential.” That perhaps reparations has to do with our EXISTENCE as a country. What might a racial reckoning mean for American democracy? (In part 3)
   1. I think a racial reckoning would mean the re-writing of our whole democracy. From my understanding of what a racial reckoning might be, the U.S. government/democracy would have to be completely rearranged since it was built/made for white men and white men only. A racial reckoning would bring more POC into spaces where they can stand up for and make decisions on behalf of underrepresented communities instead of a whole bunch of white people trying to rationalize what is “good” for the minorities in the country.
4. In the third mention, he perhaps helps us out a bit by suggesting reparations is a kind of threat. What’s that seeming threat? What do you think about it? (In part 9)
   1. HR 40 simply pokes at white fragility, that is why reparations seem “threatening” to a lot of white people. HR 40 is specifically calling out the history of the country that has been constantly whitewashed and has been pushed under the rug. After learning so much from the Black Lives Matter movement over the past year, I have seen time and time again that many white people simply just don’t believe any history past “We win wars” and “This country is free” which it most definitely is not. Of course reparations are going to feel threatening, they are asking a whole country to confront its terrible past. But the threatening feeling should not last if you actually understand why reparations are being requested.
5. In the fourth mention, Coates observes that a reparations conversation might help us out of a “childhood myth.” How does what Coates has detailed challenge the American “myth” or story of itself? (In part 10)
   1. Coates states “An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future” which shows exactly the point I was trying to make in the last question. The childhood myth that he speaks of is the one where Americans think we are the best country in the world without digging deep into why we think that. The “childhood myth” aspect to me sounds exactly like blind patriotism, which I know we were all taught as children (ex. Standing and saying the pledge of allegiance every freakin’ morning not knowing why we actually did it). Coates discussion challenges the story of America since the U.S. has completely disregarded that dreadful past. It’s long overdue to crush that childhood myth so we can all learn the dark, painful, but true history of the U.S.

1. Read and Annotate the remainder of “The Case for Reparations.” Take photos of at least 4 annotations and include them in your homework response on your ePortfolio. In your shared/posted annotations, draw at least 2 relationships to earlier sections of Coates’ text.
2. How did elements of programs/agencies like the New Deal, the GI Bill, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation help Whites up and hold Blacks back? Explain with at least 2 pieces of textual evidence. (Find key information in parts V and VI of Coates.)
   1. “Title III of the bill, which aimed to give veterans access to low-interest home loans, left black veterans to tangle with white officials at their local Veterans Administration as well as with the same banks that had, for years, refused to grant mortgages to blacks” (para. 79). This quote shows that the GI bill only benefitted white veterans. Black people couldnt get a mortgage before the war, so when some went to war and were able to make it back you would have thought they would get some sort of benefits for risking their lives in the war correct? No the GI bill shoved it in the black veterans’ face that they were used only for their hard work and potentially their life once again with nothing to gain from it. If you say you’re going to give veterans low interest loans/mortgages then give all the veterans those privileges.
   2. “It was the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, not a private trade association, that pioneered the practice of redlining, selectively granting loans and insisting that any property it insured be covered by a restrictive covenant—a clause in the deed forbidding the sale of the property to anyone other than whites” (para. 85). This quote shows that redlining didn’t just pop up randomly in the real estate industry, it was the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation that created and tried to perfect the act of segregating down to neighborhoods. They made sure to include the fact that the sale of property should only go to white people, which perpetuates the buying on contract route for black people which inevitably runs them straight into poverty with no hope of getting a loan to try and help pay for their home that they aren’t even allowed to rightfully own.
3. Coates writes in Part VIII, “Contract Sellers did not target the very poor” (para. 7). Consider this section of the text and connect it to another section: Coates’ distinction between the Obamas and the Bushes at the end of Part II. How does what we’re reading help us consider why upward mobility is that much harder for Blacks than for Whites? Explain with evidence.
   1. “The more telling question is how they [Malia and Sasha Obama] compare with Jenna and Barbara Bush—the products of many generations of privilege, not just one. Whatever the Obama children achieve, it will be evidence of their family’s singular perseverance, not of broad equality” (para. 42). This quote helps to explain why black people have a harder time with upward mobility compared to white people. Barack Obama being president was a great representation of the black community, but it also brought to light how difficult it is to become a president of color considering how long we had exclusively older white men as presidents. Seeing that we have only ever had white men in office up until President Obama took the presidency, it shows the extreme white privilege. When Barack Obama is compared to the Bush’s you find the long history of white privilege with the Bush family, while Barack got much hate/comments/theories on why he was “unfit” to be president because he was black and people thought he hadn’t been a U.S. citizen for long enough. Things like this are what exemplify why it is so hard for people of color in general to move up in the world. They are always questioned on their abilities, and even if they exceed expectations they could simply not move up when compared to their white competitors because of their skin color and white people’s biases/stereotypes. 
   2. I’m not sure I explained that very well at all, I had a thought in my head and I tried to put it on paper but I don’t think it makes complete sense. My main idea was that black people have a harder time moving up in the world because of how past generations of white people formed bad perceptions of black people PLUS the whole system/country being against everything black people did/do.
4. “Perhaps after serious discussion and debate – the kind that HR 40 proposes – we may find that the country can never fully repay African Americans…. The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper – America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world” (Coates Part IX, roughly para. 12). Why might the issue of reparations be so much more threatening if it’s not actually about the $?
   1. Personally, I think the idea of reparations is “more threatening” (I myself do not think it’s threatening to pay reparations) because it means the white people in this country as a whole would have to face the terrible past of this country after being taught that this country is the best in the world which it most definitely is not. Some white people are just not used to self reflection and or thinking of others feelings/traumas. These are the people that are threatened by the idea of reparations because they don’t want to confront all of the problems in this country or within themselves (confronting our racist tendencies and implicit biases). Paying reparations is definitely about the money, but it is also extremely about tackling issues that white people are uncomfortable talking about/refuse to talk about. I feel like reparations would be the start to really reforming what this country looks and feels like.

1. As you read, make annotations that help you Understand, Ask Questions, Draw Relationships, and Challenge. Post pictures of at least 4 different annotations, using at least two of the moves we’ve been practicing. ^^^
2. Pay attention to what happened to Clyde Ross, one example of a Black man who moved from the south to Chicago in the great migration. How does the information Coates provides about housing in Chicago complicate the perhaps more commonly known narrative of historical discrimination? Be sure to quote from at least one part of Coates’ text in Part I. Pay attention to the time period involved.
   1. I’m not sure exactly what common known narrative about historical discrimination you have in mind because my highschool never talked about the great migration. But going off of what I have in front of me, there are many twists and turns these white sellers can take to really just straight up bamboozle their black buyers. Like Clyde Ross said “‘I’d come out of Mississippi where there was one mess, and come up here and got in another mess. So how dumb am I?’”(para. 25). He was just looking to get away from his suffering down south but was tricked into a different situation of suffering. He wanted a good house for him to grow his family yet they could barely pay for it given the fact that the man who sold the house to him had more than doubled the price that he had just bought the house for. It also doesnt help that there were no insurance policies that were there to help black people, and there were no lawyers that were actually on the black residence’s side when trying to fight for their rights over their home. A quote that shocked me was “If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself”(para. 15). This shocked me because of the extreme nature of just trying to keep your house. If you couldn’t make rent that month, like a lot of people do today, you are immediately kicked out but you also need to pay the seller $1000? It just makes no sense to me. 
3. As you read Part II, pay careful attention to the statistics/information. Pick 2-3 pieces of data that strike you as important in some way. Explain why.
   1. “Forty-three percent of the people in North Lawndale live below the poverty line—double Chicago’s overall rate” (para. 32).
   2. “The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970” (para. 34).
   3. With both of these quotes in mind,, how are black people expected to “just work harder” or “get better jobs” when they already are working their butts off to still keep living below the poverty line. Why if we have made progress in other areas is the income gap the same as it was in 1970? Like I have seen a lot since last May after George Floyd’s tragic death, many black activists have called out the fact that the system wasn’t made for them. This is so very true given just these two statistics from the article. The income gap has not changed because the system has not allowed it to change. This is what’s keeping a majority of black people below the poverty line because the system wants to keep them there to struggle which is absolutely ridiculous. No one ever deserves to live in poverty even as they try their best to keep themselves afloat. 

4. Coates reports that the Contract Buyer’s League was seeking “reparations,” as was Belinda Royall. What is the theft/fraud/crime for which they sought repair? Does it seem reasonable for them to seek reparations? Why or why not? Be sure to support your view with relevant passages.They both sought reparations for the money they rightfully should have gotten. Belinda Sutton/Royall wanted reparations/a pension from the Royalls since she was their slave. She wanted to get the money she rightfully deserved and I agree that it was a reasonable request. The contract Buyers League was seeking reparations because of all the money each homeowner/renter lost and hardship endured due to their white seller which I think is also reasonable. Both their requests were reasonable because each situation was clearly in favor of the white person involved since they received great profit while the black person/people involved were left in the dust. For the Contract Buyers League, they called out reparations based on “Chicago’s long history of segregation, which had created two housing markets—one legitimate and backed by the government, the other lawless and patrolled by predators” (para. 41). The Contract Buyers League sought reparations from a system that inherently put them at least importance. Considering the fact that “85 percent of all black home buyers who bought in Chicago bought on contract” this means the majority of black people living in Chicago were more than likely scammed (para. 23)! I think it’s very reasonable that the Contract Buyers League was seeking justice. Their houses could have been in really bad shape and the White seller could have lied about anything they wanted to. So their call for reparations was a good one.

Mackenzi Kimball

Professor Cripps

English Composition 110

March 19th, 2021

The Integrated Curriculum Found at UNE

A liberal arts education is extremely important in the 21st century, but some still seem to contest that idea. Many people nowadays say that the liberal arts are a dying concept for students of all ages, but that sentiment should never come to pass. 2 articles discuss the importance of the liberal arts, “Critical Thinking and the Liberal Arts” by Jeffrey Scheuer, and “7 Major Misperceptions About the Liberal Arts” by Sanford Ungard. Both speak on what the liberal arts are and are not and how a liberal arts education can be so useful for molding young minds into strong and capable adults in the future. Mainly, the liberal arts allow students to be exposed to many different areas of study and can learn a wide set of skills in this kind of learning environment. UNE has created the core handbook with this kind of curriculum in mind.  The UNE Core Handbook crafts a very well rounded liberal arts education, one in which Scheuer and Ungar would agree given their definitions and ideas of a liberal arts education.

Scheuer and Ungar present a rough model of a liberal arts education as encompassing many different topics of studies and skills all in one curriculum. Without this type of curriculum, students are very unprepared for real world issues. Ungar discusses the idea of a career education for the fact that that type of curriculum leaves students without meaningful skills. It is reasonable for Ungar to disagree with the idea of vocationalism in this way because a career education only strives for students to have practical skills within their major. In his article he states, “the ‘career education’ bandwagon seems to suggest that shortcuts are available to students that lead directly to high-paying jobs—leaving out ‘frills’ like learning how to write and speak well, how to understand the nuances of literary texts and scientific concepts, how to collaborate with others on research” (Ungar, para 4). Ungar points out that career education leaves out the learning of very important skills to have when facing real world problems. A liberal arts education would give the students who believe in vocationalism a broader range of skills, especially with communications and writing. The inability to communicate your ideas in an effective way can cause much confusion, so learning effective reading, writing, and speaking skills is very important for job life, professionalism and personal life in general. While Ungar explains the shortcomings of a career education, Scheuer gives a rough definition explaining exactly why a typical career education is not enough. Scheuer describes a liberal arts education as “an evolving system, consisting of stable but impermanent fields of inquiry that fuse at some points and fissure at others, adapting to cultural shifts while sharing a common language and assumptions, overlapping knowledge bases, and the core of critical thinking.” (para. 14). Both Scheuer and Ungar understand that a liberal arts education model must include topics of study that build on communication and critical thinking skills. These skills help students in every course of a liberal arts education and can be applied to our personal lives in the future which make an individual well rounded and prepared. 

The Core curriculum at UNE utilizes the integrated curriculum that Scheuer presents in his article. The integrated curriculum that Scheuer describes is widely used throughout U.S. liberal arts colleges because it includes many different disciplines and skills all in one package. Scheuer states this integrated curriculum as “encompassing virtually all nonprofessional higher learning, from the natural and social sciences to the humanities and the performing arts. At its best, this comprehensive vision recognizes both the value and the limitations of such categories, along with the consequent need for interdisciplinary learning” (para. 9). Scheuer explains that this curriculum covers a broad range of disciplines and how they can all connect to each other. At UNE, each category of study comes with a different set of knowledge and skills learned through the course. UNE acknowledges the fact that no topic of study can purely be on its own without taking information, ideas and concepts from other areas of study. For example, a laboratory science course objectives read as follows, “This course will serve to introduce the scientific method as an approach to knowledge and may include topics relating natural sciences to human interactions with local and global surroundings… [students will] Demonstrate a functional understanding of the scientific method to make informed decisions based on scientific information/Demonstrate conceptual and practical knowledge of course topics and describe ethical implications of human interactions with the natural world” (Core Handbook, 14). Just in this course description alone students have to be able to connect natural science to the world around them. These courses recognize that the knowledge you gain from taking that course will translate to another course you will take. No course is a stand alone course, as Scheuer notes, and each course feeds and survives off good critical thinking and communication skills. UNE is most definitely practicing the integrated curriculum that Scheuer talks about.

UNE does a great job of formulating a liberal arts education model in the core curriculum. The core curriculum prepares students for adult and professional life by introducing every student to a variety of skills that can both be used towards many aspects of their future. The description of the core curriculum as a whole is as follows, “The Core Curriculum is designed to incorporate many teaching strategies to facilitate student-centered, integrative (such as interdisciplinary) learning experiences that utilize the skills of our faculty. Core requirements introduce students to disciplines as ways of knowing, provide interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives, and instill advanced understanding of disciplines outside a student’s major” (Core Handbook, 4). UNE acknowledges that each major should not be left out of learning important information and skills from other majors and thus incorporates this into the whole curriculum. We can see this same general idea in the form of critical thinking and citizenship being learned from each course. Scheuer describes citizenship as an integral factor in a liberal arts education by saying “[t]he overall goal [of citizenship] is to foster vibrant and prosperous communities with broad and deep participation, in public conversations marked by fairness, inclusion, and (where critical thinking comes in) intellectual rigor” (Scheuer, para. 20). Citizenship can be seen in the UNE Core Curriculum because courses integrate the use of critical thinking skills with students’ background knowledge which they can then use in engaging and thoughtful conversations in class and in the future. Both professors and the course objectives encourage the use of these skills in class for the assignments and discussions. His practice helps prepare students for their future role in their community. Scheuer and Ungar both talk about how important it is to not completely separate each course’s information so students can get the most out of their education. UNE recognizes that no subject of study should be completely separated from the other so students are given the opportunity to grow their skills exponentially through this integrated curriculum.

Overall, a liberal arts education is useful for those all around the world. Scheuer ends his article with one last remark about the importance of a liberal arts education, “The STEM disciplines are obviously important to economic productivity, but so is the entire rainbow of human knowledge and the ability to think critically. That’s why nations around the world are beginning to embrace the liberal arts idea that American education has done so much to promote, even as we question it.” Scheuer references the “rainbow of human knowledge” which is one of the most important pieces of information discussed in his article. STEM and career education are very motivated ways of learning, but to the average person they don’t excite the entire rainbow of human knowledge. By this Scheuer means there are only so many subjects and skills you can learn through those kinds of educations, but a liberal arts education allows for a student’s brain to constantly be stimulated by knowledge, discussions, debates, research and many other things.  A liberal arts education is an integral part in making students who understand and back up their beliefs with knowledge and skills.

UNE embodies the idea of an integrated curriculum given Scheuers’ definition. Scheuer describes the complexness of the integrated curriculum since there are infinite connections between courses. Ungar strongly disagrees with the idea of a career education simply for the reason that a complex education like the liberal arts can give so much to students without them realizing it. The liberal arts teaches students about various categories of study while also influencing the growth critical thinking skills in hopes that the individual can make informed decisions for themselves and for the people around them. This is what helps make a well rounded society is having the space for critical thinking to take place. The liberal arts should never be seen as a dying way to educate since it is ingrained in us from elementary school. 

Works Cited

Scheuer, Jeffrey. “ Critical Thinking and the Liberal Arts.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 28 Feb. 2010, 7 Major Misperceptions About the Liberal Arts (chronicle.com). Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.

UNE Core Handbook: core_handbook_2019-2020_mcreynolds_edits_august_2019.pdf (une.edu)

Ungar, Sanford J. “7 Major Misperceptions About the Liberal Arts.” American Association of University Professors, Dec. 2015, Critical Thinking and the Liberal Arts | AAUP. Accessed 5 Mar. 2021.