Riot Reflections, 50 years later

Had the riots at Dixie M. Hollins High School in St. Petersburg, Florida happened today, I would probably be writing about a body count, who the shooter was, and what weapons he used.

But it was 1971, and what happened at Dixie M. Hollins High School resulted in fighting, injuries, multiple arrests, and at least one stabbing.

I was seven years old in September of 1971, the first school year when court-ordered busing went into effect in an effort to achieve racial integration. One of the school districting lines went down my street. Had I lived on the other side of the street, I would have gone to Northwest Elementary. Instead, I was able to walk four blocks to Westgate Elementary. 

I didn't understand the controversy about busing.  That first year, I mainly remember the "bus students" listed on the roll in my third grade class.  They were Tonetta, Rita, Lolita, and Valarie, they were placed at the end of the roll and called out separately. 

But during September and October of 1971, Dixie M. Hollins High School was embroiled in controversy, a controversy that would end up making national news.  

In December, 2015, Tampa Bay Times reporter John Romano looked back on those days. He described the students who lived through them as "kids who fought with fists and wounded with words . . . who saw cops on the school's rooftop with rifles and saw adults inciting violence from across the street . . . who saw football games and school days canceled for fear of race riots."

It started a week after the school year began, when Dixie Hollins' principal got on the intercom and announced that the Confederate battle flag, the "Stars and Bars", would no longer be permitted on campus.  

For a school whose fight song was "Dixie" and whose athletic teams were called the "Rebels," this spelled trouble. 

The next day, angry adults, Confederate battle flags in hand, stood across the street, protesting.

For the next couple of weeks, they drove up and down the street, the Stars and Bars protruding from the backs of their cars, flapping in the breeze, as Black students arrived on campus. 

Tension built.  Fights broke out.  Students were sent home early due to fears of violence. 

The week of October 11, 1971, all hell broke loose. 

On October 12, 1971, the school had to be closed after what the St. Petersburg Times described as a "fist-swinging, rock-throwing, slogan-shouting melee." Afterwards, the school superintendent was quoted as saying, "God, I'm tired. They didn't have any courses like this in school administration." 

The next day, a 16-year-old girl brought a steak knife to school and stabbed a deputy in the chest.  Fortunately, the wound was minor.

Eventually, things settled down, though not without simmering unrest under the surface.

In 2020, although the official name of the school remains Dixie M. Hollins High School, the school decided to brand themselves as "Hollins High", and gave themselves a new nickname, the "Royals."

The irony here is that Dixie Martin Hollins, the first superintendent of schools for Pinellas County, supported education for all students, no matter what race, and he often hired people from Black colleges and universities. 

But with the first name "Dixie", the nickname "Rebels", and a mascot resembling a Confederate colonel, "we'd still be tied to a past that we needed to break free from," according to principal Bob Florio.  

This school year marks 50 years since those days of tension and rioting. I remember little about it except reading bits about it in the paper and seeing bits of it on the news. Two of the people arrested during that October week of violence were the father and sister of a girl in my sister's Girl Scout troop.

That Friday, I went with my mother and sister to drop my sister off at weekend camp. The father was there, and he and my mother had a long discussion. I heard none of it. Instead, as a seven-year-old going on eight, all I wondered were two things:  1. Why was he here and not in jail, since he'd been arrested (he was probably out on bail), and 2. Where were the marks of the handcuffs on his wrists? 

Such is the innocence of a little girl. 

I'd love to say that we've progressed in 50 years. 

But school violence? Confederate flag controversies? Racial tensions? 

Little, if anything, has changed.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

That’s Doctor Biden --and Doctor Engineer -- to You, Sir!

In a conversation held probably in the late 1940’s or very early 1950’s, a teacher informed a mother that her youngest son “would never amount to anything.”

Today, that youngest son is the proud owner of a doctorate in engineering. 

He’s traveled all over the world, worked for the Honeywell Corporation, and taught at a large university. 

He is one of a handful of people in the country that knows what he knows.

He put in the hard work to earn the title “Doctor” of engineering.

But, according to the author of an recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, [note: you may need a subscription in order to read] he has no right to call himself “doctor”.

Why? 

Because he hasn’t delivered a baby.

That is the opinion of one Joseph Epstein, author and former lecturer at Northwestern University.  

The thrust of his opinion piece was to suggest, nay urge, soon-to-be First Lady Jill Biden to drop the “Dr.” from her name. 

Dr. Jill Biden holds an Ed.D.  She teaches at the community college level.  Her students refer to her as “Dr. B.” She plans to continue teaching once her husband takes office as President. 

For whatever reason, Epstein took it upon himself to tell her:  “Madame First Lady — Mrs. Biden — Jill — kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is not an unimportant matter.  Any chance you might drop the ‘Dr.’ before your name?”  

He goes on to say that “Dr.” “sounds and feels fraudulent” and also “a touch comic”. 

He disparages her dissertation title, “Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students’ Needs”.  Apparently, he’s not familiar with the usual titles of dissertations, which do not run along the lines of “Fifty Shades of Gray” or “Gone With the Wind” or “The Bluest Eye”. 

He states that he taught at Northwestern University for 30 years without a doctorate or advanced degree. 

Then, he goes on to lament about the “relaxation of standards in university education” and also about the decline in the “prestige of honorary doctorates”.  

He concludes by ordering Jill Biden to “please consider stowing [your title] at least in public, at least for now. Forget the small thrill of being Dr. Jill, and settle for the larger thrill of living for the next four years in the best public housing in the world as First Lady Jill Biden.”

So let’s see:  a man with only a B.A. who taught English at the university level for 30 years, who has not lectured at Northwestern since 2003, who does not even know Jill Biden, thinks he has the authority to tell her to drop a title from her name that she has honestly earned through hard work?  

I guess that means that since only those who have delivered children can call themselves “Dr.,” that means, first of all, that all teachers should forthwith refer to themselves as “Mr.” or “Ms.” or [first name]. 

Second of all, since not all doctors are OB/GYNs and therefore, not all doctors deliver babies, I guess psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, and most surgeons should forthwith drop the “doctor” from their names as well.  

The blowback from this article has been swift and punitive. Northwestern immediately stated that they did not agree with Epstein's opinion, and Northwestern's English department has removed Epstein's profile from its website. And if you Google "Joseph Epstein op-ed", you'll find a smattering of articles from NPR, Psychology Today, Chicago Tribune, and others roundly condemning the piece as "misogynistic" and "out of touch".

Dr. Jill Biden became an Ed.D. after 15 years of hard work while raising a family and supporting a husband.  I've gone to school while being a wife and mother, and it is not easy.  (Unlike Dr. Biden, I did not finish.  I attempted court reporting school, and due to a number of factors, had to stop.) 

Part of the reason for the blowback has been the tone of the article. Epstein referred to Dr. Biden as "kiddo" and told her to "forget the small thrill of being Dr. Jill" (did he intend to be a poet with that phrase?) and enjoy the "larger thrill" of being First Lady. This from a man who has never held public office and definitely will never be a First Lady. 

I've also seen the question asked:  Would such an article have been written about a man? Let's think about it:  When a woman becomes President, if she's married to a man who holds a doctorate and who is not a medical doctor, would he be ordered to "forthwith drop the doc" and enjoy the next four years as First Husband, or First Man, or whatever he will be called?

Somehow, I doubt it. 

Dr. Jill Biden earned her degree through hard work, stress, and figurative -- if not literal -- blood, sweat, and tears. (While I doubt the blood part, the sweat and the tears are probably true.)  When one has earned a degree, one has earned the right to use the title conferred by that degree.  When you receive a diploma, part of the wording on that diploma includes "all the rights and privileges thereof", including the right to use the title conferred upon you.

Oh, the man I referred to at the beginning of this article?

The son whose mother was told he'd never amount to anything?

The one who holds a doctorate in engineering?

Who traveled all over the world and taught at a university and worked for Honeywell?

Know how I know about all that?

He's my uncle.

I will proudly introduce him as Doctor Jerry Sergent, Ph.D.

In other words, Mr. Epstein, that's Doctor engineer to you!

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday: Education and the little blue penguin

(I'm trying to get back to a regular schedule of blogging.  Life and other things have gotten in the way.)

When my niece was in the second grade, she was assigned a report on the little blue penguin.  I would figure that, as a second grader, she would be required to go to the library, look up a book (or something on the Internet), write up a report, and read it aloud to the class.

Uh, no.

What her teacher wanted her to do was to, among other things, make up a diorama AND a display board about the little blue penguin.  She encouraged her class to "get the whole family involved."  In fact, the only way my niece could finish the project was to "get the whole family involved".  My niece's stepfather ended up making out a schedule for her to follow so she could get the assignment finished.  (Just a side note:  My niece asked her stepfather to adopt her.  I think that says a lot about their relationship.)

I can understand this sort of assignment as a way to learn more about the little blue penguin.

But in second grade?

I've wondered for some time if the reason for our abysmal performance in education is that we expect too much too soon from our kids.  I can remember, in first grade, reciting the ABC song.  Now, kids are expected to know their ABC's when they hit kindergarten, if not sooner.

We're pushing our kids too hard, too soon.  We don't give them the time they need to learn the fundamentals, because they have to go on to the next subject.  Hurry up, hurry up, we have requirements to meet!  Our teachers either can't or won't take into account that each student will learn in a different way.  I tend to think that they can't because they are under pressure from their higher-ups to get through a curriculum, so their students can get through a test.

I wonder, too, if so much of this emphasis on our poor educational system is because of a true concern for our students . . . or only because "America must be number 1 in the world because we are America."  We are a great country.  Although we have made our share of mistakes (see slavery and discrimination), we are also known for our compassion, for being the land of opportunity with freedom of speech, assembly etc.

But do we want to be "number 1" simply for the sake of being "number 1"?  And are we willing to do anything, including sacrificing our children, to be "number 1 in the world"?  Are we going to force second-graders to do a diorama on the little blue penguin just so we can meet some sort of arbitrary standard to make us "number 1 in the world"?

Education is vital.  I think teachers are underpaid and underappreciated.  I think they have lost power in the classroom, and I also think they are used as pawns in a system that is more concerned with results rather than the methods used to get them.  I want the United States to have a good--great--educational system that turns out excellent doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers; and also plumbers, electricians, auto workers, etc.  (Those of us who look down our noses at blue-collar workers--where would you be without running water, flushing toilets, or electricity?)

But how are you going to do it?  Are you going to impose a curriculum on everyone that demands the same performance whether the kids can meet it or not?  This has been one of the main--and understandable--criticisms of the No Child Left Behind program.

I may or may not have a valid voice in this debate.  My son is in special education.  He has what is known as an IEP, an Individualized Education Plan, which sets out goals and objectives according to his strengths and weaknesses.  He's been very fortunate with his teachers, also.  I can think of only two bad teachers he's had in his life, and one of them was "bad" simply because she was dealing with some very difficult personal circumstances in her life.  I don't know the ins and outs of "regular" public education.  I do know, though, what I hear from other teachers and workers in the school system.  My father was also a public school teacher until 1992, when he retired due to illness.  (He died in 1993.)  When I asked him if he regretted not teaching, he said, "No.  It was getting pretty bad."

I also remember being a public school student in the 1970's, and even then, public schools were having their problems.  Discipline was a big one, as it is now.  When you tell a student to do something, and they say no, and you have no leverage with that student . . . what do you do?  I experienced this in 1989, when I briefly worked in an inner-city public school as a librarian.  I had no way to maintain discipline, and the students knew it.

I cannot remember what year this was, but during the first day of final exams in high school, we were given the opportunity to have some sort of a break, or privilege, during that day.  Many of the students abused that privilege, and as a result, our principal came on the intercom and announced our punishment:  We were going to have less time to do our finals the next day . . . which meant we were going to get out of school earlier.  

HUH???

What kind of consequence was that?

And it's gotten worse since then.

My niece is now 20, a college student, and doing well.  Her experience with the little blue penguin apparently hasn't harmed her.

But I wonder how many other students, in the name of "educational excellence" have been left behind? How many other students have paid the price for our desire to be "number 1"?

When are we going to learn to find out what our students are capable of, and fit the curriculum to their needs, instead of expecting them to do something they may not be capable of yet?  Why expect our second-graders to do a diorama on the little blue penguin?  Surely that can wait until third or fourth or fifth grade.  Why do they need to know it in the second grade?  Do the people who expect that out of second graders even know if the average second-grader is capable of that?

I believe in setting standards for students to reach for.  But there's a difference between asking our students to stretch and asking our students to grab something that's totally out of their grasp.  And I fear we are asking our students to do the latter.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.