Twitter | Search | |
Chris Friend
Students must feel safe in schools because fear and duress prevent full presence, engaged thoughtfulness, and the ability to question and learn. If a student worries about how their identity is accepted, the perceived surveillance limits what the student brings to the table.
Reply Retweet Like More
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
This is why we have anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies—they reassure marginalized groups that they are welcome as themselves, giving conversation and learning a place to begin. Until and unless that safety exists, debate is unbalanced or false.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
Folks in marginalized groups worry about the quality of their work only after knowing they are safe in their workplace. They worry about scholarly engagement only after knowing they are safe in their school. They decide where to attend based upon where they can be themselves.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
Until and unless folks in marginalized groups know they have protection, those groups remain at the mercy of authorities. Institutions dictate what they can do, who they can be. Stock’s letter presumes that academic debate can exist in the absence of safety, when it cannot.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
The ongoing debate is tricky. Both sides agree that academics must have the freedom to question and challenge ideas and value systems. Those who penned the letter want to ensure they can challenge their institution’s stance—but they already have the protection of the institution.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
Those of us who object to the letter do so because we see a marginalized group of students losing protections they need in order to be safe. It’s not a debate over whether we’re forced to use “ze” or “ve” pronouns. It’s whether the students or the faculty need protection.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
Hybrid Pedagogy has, since long before I was involved, advocated for the protection and liberation of marginalized groups—from adjunct labor to queer folks to neuroatypical instructors. At its core, the journal works to ensure safety for those groups.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
Just as marginalized students who feel unsafe in school face obstacles to learning, marginalized authors who feel unsafe in journals face obstacles to writing. Hybrid Pedagogy’s editorial work (staff & processes) must first and foremost provide safety.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
For a journal to argue adamantly for the liberation of marginalized students, its staff cannot then become—or even appear—the oppressor. Before any debate can take place, our authors must be safe. Stock’s letter threatens that safety and precludes the debate we seek.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Friend 23 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
This issue, for Hybrid Pedagogy, is not a matter of shutting down an argument or censoring a perspective. It is about holding space for a group that needs protection against the entrenched powers of authority already in place.
Reply Retweet Like
HarlequinDuck🕷 24 Jun 19
Replying to @chris_friend
The limited interpretation that having ones identity accepted is an issue for trans students in isolation from all other students is misleading and misunderstand the unique, unprecedented nature of transgenderism as a phenomenon.
Reply Retweet Like