Sunday, May 13, 2018

Tara Westover’s EDUCATED: A MEMOIR


Tara Westover’s Educated is marketed as 2018’s Hillbilly Elegy. The surface level plot is about how your family—in Westover’s case, insular Mormon survivalists in Idaho—can mess you up, and how education can save you. Westover’s publisher won endorsements from J.D. Vance as well as Vance’s Yale Law School mentor Amy Chua. It is centrally about the redemptive power of education.
Educated’s effectiveness, though, lies in charting the path of education and its political significance. Hillbilly Elegy’s power is in J. D. Vance’s intimate descriptions of the chaos in his family, especially the ever-shifting cast of boyfriends in his mother’s life. Vance grew out of that experience into a moderate Republican, convinced of the power of the disciplined individual to move into a stable and gratifying personal life. Educated’s politics are more basic, not partisan, but about the polis. Westover’s political message lies in her unpacking of how education works. For her first sixteen years, Westover had no formal education. Although she was nominally homeschooled, her formal teaching was limited to reading and basic arithmetic. In its etymological Latin sense, to educate someone is to “lead them out.” Westover’s education leads her inexorably away from her natal family by teaching her how to see the world from multiple perspectives. While education permanently fractures her family, it also liberates her.
            Drawing on the tools from her doctoral studies in history, Westover’s primary sources for reconstructing her escape are her journals and emails and the memories of some of her siblings, as well as her own recollections. It takes some three quarters of the memoir for Westover to unfold the horror at the core of her family. Her father’s extremist stance against public education, the government, and the “Medical Establishment” animate the book from the start. But it is not his beliefs themselves that are the core problem for his daughter. What Westover ultimately cannot live with are the physical and emotional abuse from her brother, her father’s prioritization of his patriarchy and business over his children’s well-being, and her mother’s willful blindness.
Overlapping with her slow recognition of her willingness to rupture the family bond is Westover’s narrative how accessing a formal education allowed her to see the world entirely differently from the paternal indoctrination that shaped her childhood. In the second three quarters of Educated, we slowly watch the scales drift from Westover’s eyes. As she realizes that her new educated worldview will permanently sever her from her family, she falls into a temporary madness, wasting her a fellowship at Harvard binge-watching television instead of working on her scholarship. But by the end Westover has triumphantly earned a PhD with a dissertation that includes, inter alia, an analytical reading of the Mormon sacred texts that she grew up studying with religious eyes—a radical break.
            Westover never went to school until she was seventeen. After teaching herself enough mathematics to win a high-enough ACT score to be admitted to Brigham Young University, Westover begins to learn about events that her parents never bothered to let her know existed, starting with the Holocaust. More important than her ever-increasing knowledge, though, Westover shows herself moving through three essential epistemological problems. First, she has to learn how to distinguish what is true. The process starts in her dormitory, where she is astonished that the roommate with “Juicy” written on her backside goes to church. Initially, most of the other (similarly immodest) Mormon students at BYU seem to be what her family would have called “gentiles.” After several false starts, Westover learns that her roommates and new friends can teach her valuable things about how to get along in the world—including the importance of washing one’s hands after using the bathroom and that you have read the art history textbook, not just look at the images.
            Next, Westover reveals herself discovering the existence and value of perspectives other than the sole view cultivated by her family. That there is more than one way to see the world comes home to her most dramatically when her abusive older brother mocks her face blackened with dirt from summer work and spends months calling her the N-word. Westover narrates how she suddenly connected his taunts with the images of Civil Rights demonstrators she had learned about in a history class at BYU. Recognizing that her family “had lent our voices to a discourse whose sole purpose was to dehumanize and brutalize others,” Westover stops laughing along; “The word and the way Shawn said it hadn’t changed; only my ears were different.” (pp. 180-181).
            Finally, Westover explores whether one’s own memories can be trusted. In the book, she narrates several events whose exact sequence and details she remains unsure of, even when she was present as a witness to their aftermath—one brother’s burn, and another’s brain injury. Rather than just accept her own versions, historian that she became, Westover consults with the siblings who are still speaking to her to reconstruct what probably happened. She also flags those narratives as potentially unreliable and what the uncertainty over the exact details means for what kind of man her father actually is, softening his portrayal from a dictator to a fallible and flawed man. As further testimony to her intellectual honesty, Westover also marks passages where she has paraphrased emails instead of quoting them directly.
In short, Westover’s memor shows how far she has come from the certainties of the single worldview of her childhood. While there are things that are true, there is also more than one way to see the world, and a careful person acknowledges the limitations of her vision.
In these senses, Educated is a paean to the value of a liberal arts education. The education Westover received at conservative Brigham Young University, and then the venerable University of Cambridge and Harvard University, was not indoctrination in politically liberal values like tolerance, compassion, and the Democratic party—not the brainwashing of “liberal professors” (p. 134) that her father railed against. Instead, it was liberal in its fundamental (again etymological) sense: liberal as free. Westover’s education literally freed her from the bonds (=chains) of her family, whose patriarch systematically forced them to acknowledge only a single point of view—his. Westover shows us that education that is liberal—literally liberal—sets you free.
This praise for education is a vital political message for 2018, which perhaps explains why this book is resonating so deeply with American audiences.[1] If Hillbilly Elegy gives us insight into Trump voters, then Westover’s memoir reminds us how the skills embedded in liberal education—delivered with nuance, modesty, and skepticism—matter in securing American freedom and democracy.

Tara Westover, Educated: A Memoir (New York: Random House, 2018).


[1] As of this writing, Educated is #44 on Amazon’s bestselling books list, with 906 customer reviews. There are a few negative reviews, including one that doubts Educated’s credibility and compares it to James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

What I Witnessed at the Walkout


I. I witnessed hundreds of children—fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth graders—exit the building in complete silence at 10 in the morning.
2. I witnessed my own tall daughter, earlier enraged and drowning in tears, calmly lead off the speakers at the podium and loudly proclaim her right to safety and education.
3. I witnessed children, one two three at a time, realize that they had something to say and discover the courage to say it.
4. I witnessed a snowplow carefully placed at the entrance to the blacktop and city police stationed around the perimeter of the field.
5. I witnessed a child whose mother died of cancer demand safe schools.
6. I witnessed a child whose mother teaches math renounce all guns in schools, his face stretched in passion.
7. I witnessed the principal nervously checking his watch as the allotted twenty minutes ticked past and decide not to silence any child who wished to speak.
8. I witnessed scores of children recognize their need to speak, respectfully duck around their speaking classmates, and wait patiently in line for their turn.
9. I witnessed recording equipment for posterity but no microphones for the speakers.
10. I witnessed the crowd cheer every child who spoke, even the ones whose words I could not make out.
11. I witnessed a child in a T-shirt and no coat decide to watch everything without complaint, for an hour, in 30 degree cold.
12. I witnessed a child stop speaking, overcome by tears, and other children rush up to stand with her to help her finish.
13. I witnessed my own grief blossom into pride, love, and hope.
14. I witnessed a black girl and a white girl, hands clasped, declare themselves best friends and call for everyone’s safety.
15. I witnessed a few planned remarks and scores of impromptu speeches.
16. I witnessed the best thing I have ever seen in a school.
17. I witnessed more than one hundred children find their voices.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

A Professor Responds to Parkland

Dear Students

I am going to exercise my privilege as instructor to take a few minutes at the start of our class time to respond to what happened in Floriday yesterday.

The world so often seems like an awful place. When we are whole enough to get beyond our own immediate feelings, I believe that there are three things we can do to address the terribleness of the world.

1. We can influence our government to address the causes and effects of problems. We can urge them to create new laws and programs that will help, and we can urge them to eliminate laws and programs that are dysfunctional.

2. We can respond to distress among our fellow humans with decency and compassion. This means we must take care of ourselves, our families, and our friends; and we should also seek to help those who are consumed by disordered cognitions and emotions, instead of turning away from them.

3. We can create and spread knowledge and ideas. I cannot articulate the depths of my feelings about this, but I know at the core of my being how much education matters.

Although I believe all of these things, I have committed my professional life to the third--the dissemination of knowledge. In that spirit, I refuse to let one murderous person derail what I am able to offer you in the privileged setting of this classroom. If you are too distressed to make good use of today's lesson, I understand that and encourage you to address your emotional needs and take care of yourself. You are welcome to return to class when you are ready. I will be here.

Sincerely

Amanda

Saturday, July 29, 2017

[X] High School

Friends,

If you were in a relationship with someone you really cared about—a partner, a parent, a child, a friend—and they said to you, calmly and clearly, “When you say [X], it hurts me.” What would you do? Would you push back, dismiss their feelings and their words, keep doing the thing that hurt your loved one? Or would you say, “I’m sorry that hurts you. Out of respect for your feelings, I will try to choose less hurtful words in the future.”

What if your friend said this?: “When you say [X], it hurts me. And, [X] is bound up in our country’s racist past. It reminds me of numerous other ways that my family and I are devalued because of how other people perceive us, a devaluation whose effects are too legion and devastating for me to recount for you now—and whose effects you are already aware of. When you keep saying [X] despite the fact that I have told you how it hurts me, it tells me that saying [X] is more important to you than our relationship.” Would you persist in saying [X] because your need to say [X] was more important than you need to heal your relationship?


If you went to high school with me, you probably see where this is going. It hurts me—and it hurts you, and it hurts us—that our high school was named after a man who gave his life to keep African Americans enslaved, subject to brutality, families broken, women subjected to unpunishable rape. Why is it more important to you to honor the name of a man who died a century before you were born than it is to heal your relationship with your friends, your classmates, your teachers, and the future students in that school?

Sunday, June 18, 2017

JEB Stuart High School


            For the past several years, the Fairfax County School board has been enmeshed in a debate about what to do about the name of my alma mater: J.E.B. Stuart High School. General J.E.B. Stuart was a dashing cavalry officer who died in service of the Confederate army. Since the 1980s, when I attended, the high school has been one of the most ethnically diverse and stably racially integrated in the United States. Not only are there white and black students in significant numbers, but many students with family backgrounds in Asia and a majority from Latino heritage and origin. Photos suggest that the school continues also to have a significant Muslim population whose presence is not reflected in demographic data.
The arguments for dropping or retaining the school’s name are heated. Two of the most common reasons cited for keeping Stuart’s name on the school are that we cannot change history and the costs associated with the change.
It is true that we cannot change the past. But place, institutional, and personal names do change. Think about the name of the place where you live. Is the word for your city or neighborhood indigenous? The city where I work now does have an Ojibwe name that reflects the prevalence of Anishinaabemowin speakers in this area in the 19th century. But would the earlier Woodland people who built Wisconsin’s effigy mounds have recognized “Milwaukee” as a meaningful name? The airport now named after Ronald Reagan replaced ones named for Herbert Hoover and the place named for George Washington. In the United States, women who marry and divorce routinely change their names, updating their identities to reflect changes in their personal histories. In all of these cases, people have chosen to update names, not to deny history but to reflect what is most meaningful to them in the present.
We do not have to be ruled by decisions made in the past. J.E.B. Stuart High School was named in 1959, as the “massive resistance” strategy came peaked in Virginia. Massive resistance was a political response to the 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board decision ordering racial desegregation of public schools. Rather than comply, whites in Virginia shut down public schools. White children could attend private academies. Black families made the wrenching decision to send their children to other states in order to get their educations. The story was different in Northern Virginia, where the postwar population had boomed. In contrast to the rest of the state, the Fairfax County School Board opened new schools. But no one could mistake the insult to African Americans intended by choosing to name a school after a Confederate hero. Black students might get a public education at J.E.B. Stuart High School, but for years afterwards they also carried on their résumés the name of a man who died for the principle that states could decide whether their ancestors were property or were included in the fundamental American value of liberty. The choice of school name was probably also a thumb in the eye of thousands of white “carpetbaggers” who had come south to work in the booming postwar federal government.
The second reason given against the name change is the cost, which would allegedly eat up funds better spent counteracting cuts to important school programs. The Fairfax County School Board website lists $678,000 in projected costs associated with new signage, in-school branding, athletic and band uniforms, and logo-bearing items. This argument is more compelling but still not persuasive. As the site also notes, items such as uniforms normally wear out and are replaced on a regular basis, and other items fall under the purview of the work of the booster club. The difficulty is coming up with all that money at once rather than amortizing it over multiple budget years. Replacing signage is a one-time cost that could potentially be covered by engaging the community and alumni in fundraising. Further, development professionals know how to turn a crisis into a fundraising opportunity. The school district could take advantage of the heightened interest of alumni in this issue to send out an appeal for the funds needed for special education, parental support, and smaller class sizes to raise private money.
            The naming of local institutions like schools, parks, and streets reflects local values. It is up to the Fairfax County School board to decide what it values more right now: retaining a local heritage name that branded the school as one where black students were second-class citizens or finding a new, less divisive name that students and alumni can carry with pride and help them want to give back to the school for generations to come.




Saturday, January 28, 2017

Dear Students from Iran

Dear students from Iran:

It appears that the time has come to say this: I love you.

Iran has been in my consciousness for most of my life. As I child in the United States in the 1970s, I heard often about the Shah on the news. The day the Shah died is burned in my memory. I was packing up my bedroom to move to a new life in the Washington DC suburbs. Because it did not occur to me to retune the little radio that was keeping me company, I listened over and over again to reports about men chanting in the streets of Tehran, “The earthworm of the century is dead.”

Then of course there were the American hostages held at the embassy, who seemed to be the lead story every day for more than a year. I cannot forget the day the hostages flew home, just as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president. The tension and excitement that day were so intense that my younger brother had a meltdown my whole family still remembers.

The public schools I attended in Northern Virginia were full of children from around the world. I had no idea who was an economic migrant, who was a political refugee, whose heart was in the United States and whose was still abroad. I had friends from Iran, from Libya, from Vietnam, from Korea. The hallways were full of Spanish. All the kids were cooler than I was, and many were kind and friendly and smart. All that mattered more than where they had been born. We were classmates, not enemies.

So I watched with a full heart when Iranian students took to the streets in 2009. Soon after, applications from students Iran started flowing into graduate program I was directing. It has been my privilege to teach and learn from several of you. I am proud of the work we have done together. I have been silently gratified by the notion that we have built personal ties that transcend our national differences. I have not asked you much about Iran not from lack of interest, but because I try not to intrude in my students’ personal lives. You have been kind and friendly and smart, and all of you are cooler than I am.

I do not know how much longer you will be in the United States. I know that some of you are planning on returning home soon. Please take this message to your friends and families in Iran or elsewhere: It is evident that both authoritarian governments and democratic ones are capable of inhumanity and wickedness. The foolishness of our governments does not mean that there must be enmity between our people.


I am not tagging any of you because I do not know what Magnus Frater is watching. I never knew what was safe for you, and I no longer know what is safe for me. But I love you, and I trust that you know who you are.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

2016 is not 1968. But they are relatives.

During my first year of doctoral study in history, one of my assignments was to read a month’s worth of newspaper coverage from any year in history. As a student of postwar America, I picked the stretch of time (really two months) between the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, in the spring of 1968.
            It was indeed a tumultuous year. At the end of February, the Kerner Commission issued its report on the riots that had rocked American cities in the summer of 1967. Its most famous line, that America was becoming “two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal,” offered little hope that things would get better. The Democrats were split by the war in Vietnam. In late March, Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run for reelection. Less than a week later, Rev. King was murdered in Memphis, sparking mourning marches that transmogrified into arson-fueled riots as terrible as those the Kerner Commission documented. Robert Kennedy, running for president on an anti-poverty message and invocation of his slain brother’s legacy, was killed just after winning the California primary election. At the Democrats’ convention in late August, political shenanigans reigned inside Chicago’s International Amphitheater while members of the Chicago Police Department beat up protestors on television images that “the whole world [wa]s watching.” The United States seemed fully destabilized.
            With increasing frequency in the past week, I have heard comparisons between the summer of 2016 and the summer of 1968. Two primary factors seem to be driving that comparison: the political stalemate over the deaths of black and brown civilians from guns wielded by police and the mass shooter in Orlando, and the unprecedented presidential campaigns, especially that of Donald Trump. Additionally, the combination of Trump’s mercurial politics and the unfilled Supreme Court seat of Justice Antonin Scalia quietly hint that a constitutional crisis might unfold sometime between August and January, 2017. Finally, the backdrops of the Syrian civil war, multi-national terrorism credited to ISIS, and the echoes of Brexit across the Atlantic keep Americans unsettled about the virtues of entanglements abroad. While some cultural sea changes—most notably the national institutionalization of gay marriage—have occurred with fewer ripples than might have been expected, 2016 is also a strange and uncertain time.
            But the comparison between 1968 and 2016 goes only so far. Forty-eight years on, while they invoke similar feelings of public and personal anxiety, some significant differences reign.
            In 1968, African American public protest took on broad range of issues. Despite the legal gains of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the dismantling of segregation promised by the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education rulings a decade earlier was incomplete. African Americans remained locked out of many employment and housing markets and even nominal school desegregation was bitterly contested. In 2016, the Black Lives Matter movement targets one issue: the deaths of blacks at the hands of police, asking only “Stop killing us.”
            In the 1960s, black public protest took two forms beyond the court system: demonstrations and civil disturbances. The frequency with which protest marches occurred simultaneously with riots confused white observers, who had trouble discerning the differences and roundly condemned public activism as unseemly. Catholic nuns and priests who marched for civil rights received angry letters condemning their political expressions as inappropriate. President Johnson, presented with a proposal for “Demonstration Cities,” insisted that it be renamed “Model Cities.” Riots were such common occurrences in the “long, hot summers” of the mid-1960s that both civil rights and government organizations developed plans for how to respond to them. In 2016, marches protest police shootings of black civilians have been tense but largely peaceful—until the murders of police officers in Dallas by a rogue shooter who was not part of the demonstration. Because of the easy availability of weapons, an angry person who agrees with protesters’ critiques but disagrees with their tactics does not need a mob to wreak havoc.
            That same easy availability of semiautomatic weapons—put to traumatic use in recent years in public places including malls, schools and universities, workplaces, grocery stores, houses of worship, military bases, community centers, and an Orlando nightclub—has put all Americans on guard in a way that they were not in 1968. Although there were from time to time mass murders in the American past—including those committed by the 1966 sniper on the University of Texas campus—the term “going postal” did not signal a cultural phenomenon until the 1990s. Although homicides by gun have actually decreased markedly since the peak period of the 1970s to the 1990s, adults understand that they are implicitly taking a risk when they go out in public. Nonetheless, the New York Times pointed out recently, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in the country’s poorest neighborhoods.
            Even segregation is different in 2016 than it was in 1968. In the 1960s, protest of residential segregation focused on black access to white neighborhoods. Racial steering by real estate dealers, blockbusting, and the dual housing market meant that few white Americans lived near African Americans. Although racial discrimination and exploitative real estate practices still exist in the US, blacks did get legal and financial access to formerly all-white neighborhoods. Many American public schools are somewhat integrated. What hypersegregation means in the 21st century is that many African Americans do not have white neighbors or classmates.
It was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia decision invalidated state laws that prohibited interracial marriage. In the twenty-first century, although it is not necessarily evident to African Americans who still live in all-black neighborhoods, many more white Americans have deep personal connections to people of color. This week, responding to police shootings, two of my Facebook friends shared a meme reading “I can’t keep calm, I have a black son.” One is a white woman married to a black man; another is herself a biracial mother. The dangers felt by blacks who are stopped by police might well be resonating in your mostly-white family.

            In short, in 2016 we are not as separate as we were in 1968. But we surely still are unequal. 2016 is 1968’s grandchild, softer in some ways but harder in others.