High school teacher tells graduating students: you’re not special

[QuantMech]

Still can't access the text of the speech itself, in full. Is it available on any other site?

[college_query]

Boston Herald has it on their site:

You’re Not Special - BostonHerald.com

[Pizzagirl]

Quote:
"If this were a lower/working-class high school, it would be a bad message, but for wealthy students who probably have an overinflated sense of self, it's good that at least one adult around them didn't play along.
If he made that speech at my urban public magnet where most kids were working/lower-middle class kids like myself....the parents and the alumni association would take great umbrage and campaign to get the offending teacher fired or at least...put on notice that his behavior is tone deaf considering the socio-economic contexts of most students. "

Cobrat, you would do well to remember that your high school isn't all that special. Because you constantly go on about it in a way that suggests that we all should give special consideration to it, its alums and social norms. 30,000 Hs in the US - yours is just one.

[kayf]

How about at a board of ed meeting, the board get up and tell the teachers, in front of their friends and family, that they are not special? Does this teacher not understand wrong time, wrong place? Of course, when you are civil service, there is no wrong time, wrong place.

[coase]

Busdriver, I agree with you. This guy comes off as an arrogant guy who thinks he is special. Thinks his pension that exceeds what the private sector gives is due to his being special.

I would have thought that his feeling specal (if he does) would derive from having a dad who was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale, won two Pulitzer prizes, and was commercially successful as a historian. DM Jr. knows of what he speaks. Or it could be because of the size of his high school teacher's pension.

[kayf]

Wow, coase, if that is true, I hope they give this guy every disagreeable job they can give him (of course the union will control that) - but I am thinking bus duty at 8 am on 10 degree days, etc.

[emeraldkity4]

I don't generally remember graduation speeches.
But the one given at my oldest high school graduation ceremony resonated with me.
Her school was small, and quite a few of the students had this biology teacher for several subjects. She is a very dedicated teacher, the year D graduated, she had been undergoing chemotherapy, but an extended treatment, to allow her to still teach.
She was the inspiration for my D to earn her biology degree, and to work towards her masters in teaching which she will recieve next week.
Just an excerpt, from around the middle of the speech.

The First Corollary to the Fairness Postulate: Life isn’t supposed to be fair. When life was designed, fairness was not in the specs. Fairness is not a quality that life had in some Golden Age past, or that it might acquire in an Utopian future. Life falls down on all of us without regard to who we are or what we deserve.

A few years ago I went one evening to a meeting at the Temple de Hirsch Sinai. The speaker was the woman who tried to save Anne Frank and her family by hiding them in that attic. After she spoke, the audience asked her questions, and one question was, “If you could tell parents and teachers one thing you wished they would teach all our children, what would that be?” Her answer was this: “Teach our children that terrible things sometimes happen to people through no fault of their own. Otherwise children grow up thinking people deserve their misfortunes.”

I think you could argue from the first corollary to the fairness postulate that the basis of human compassion is a full understanding that life is not built fair and therefore we must be kind to each other.

The Second Corollary to the Fairness Postulate: The statement “life isn’t fair” is not a complaint. It makes as much sense to complain that life isn’t fair as to complain that grass isn’t orange. Really getting this postulate means not being disappointed in life because it fails to be fair.

Justice and compassion are another matter. These are qualities that HUMANS are supposed to have, and the statement “Humans are unjust” is a valid complaint. Forget fairness. Work for justice, and don’t require of life that it be fair for you to love it.

I am from the cohort who believes that everyone is special, therefore we all are chosen to give 100% percent.

[cobrat]

Originally Posted by Pizzagirl

Cobrat, you would do well to remember that your high school isn't all that special. Because you constantly go on about it in a way that suggests that we all should give special consideration to it, its alums and social norms. 30,000 Hs in the US - yours is just one.

You sound like many upper/upper-middle class suburban parents I've encountered who either assume all high schools are the same or worse, suburban public/private schools are automatically better than urban publics...including magnets.

It's one reason why like that English teacher if he was dumb enough to try delivering that speech at my HS, you'd come across as nothing more than a sheltered out-of-touch upper/upper-middle class suburbanite and ignored/mocked/pranked accordingly by the student body and alums.

[bovertine]

^^^
You graduated high school in the 1990s and still mention your "urban public elite magnet high school" in probably over 75% of your posts (I don't know exactly how many but it is a constant topic of your posting). That's what she is commenting about. It strikes me as bizarre as well.

Edit: Oh, I forgot, that's "elite public magnet urban selective high school. Wouldn't want to drop an adjective.

[busdriver11]

"Actually, educated on the topics covered at large by my post."

You couldn't resist adding some additional education in there, could you? Such as, "this should have gone in the speech. "Less for others, more for you." The wealthy don't get that enough." Or, "In colonial times, we had the best health and standard of living on Earth, and now we're obese." And, "Though we are richer than the Third World. Oh, we're richer. And others are poorer! The US and its corporations are good at exploiting cheap labor in underdeveloped countries." And, "Yeah, because constantly acting to enrich yourself and assert personal dominance over all others, while sometimes giving to charity would make people think you should care more about yourself."

So you apparently also needed to educate lmkh of your opinion that we are fat, selfish, and greedy....which is what I call self loathing. It is possible to dispute and try to clarify others points without adding belittling statements that are unrelated to the point you are supposedly trying to make. Unless, of course, our contemptible status as Americans is so ingrained in your philosophy that you cannot even recognize it.

For example, I can add to your statement about foreign aid, by saying that the number of dollars that our government gives in foreign aid is greatly helped by the personal charitable donations of millions of American citizens. In fact, I recall reading that Americans give over double the percentage of their income as the next most charitable country, which is Britain. See how I did that? It can be done that without insulting anyone or calling them idiotic.

[Manorite]

You couldn't resist adding some additional education in there, could you? Such as, "this should have gone in the speech. "Less for others, more for you." The wealthy don't get that enough."

I did want to stress how terrible it sounded to say that we should give less to others and keep more for ourselves.

Or, "In colonial times, we had the best health and standard of living on Earth, and now we're obese."

The poster said to look at where we were a few hundred years ago and where we are now, and a few hundred years ago we were the healthiest and had the best standard of living, and now most adults are either overweight or obese, and we no longer have the best standard of living. Again, a response to the post insinuating something that was not true.

And, "Though we are richer than the Third World. Oh, we're richer. And others are poorer! The US and its corporations are good at exploiting cheap labor in underdeveloped countries."

Yes, it is fact that rich countries have built their wealth in part by exploiting labor and resources in poor countries. I wanted to point out that the US didn't magically generate its wealth independent from others. The US and other rich countries have caused a lot of problems in poor countries, so helping them fix things is the least we should do.

And, "Yeah, because constantly acting to enrich yourself and assert personal dominance over all others, while sometimes giving to charity would make people think you should care more about yourself."

The United States is a country. Countries act primarily to advance their own interests. All countries. The United States acts to enrich itself (as do all countries) and often asserts its military dominance around the world. Again, this was a counter to the picture of the US as some kind of selfless martyr doing nothing for itself.

So you apparently also needed to educate lmkh of your opinion that we are fat, selfish, and greedy....which is what I call self loathing.

No, the point of the fat thing was that we haven't come the farthest in the last few hundred years. And all countries are selfish entities; I didn't say the US was greedier than all others, merely that it often acts to enrich itself (or do we not "protect our interests abroad"?).

(By the way, even if I did loath the United States, it wouldn't be self-loathing.)

It is possible to dispute and try to clarify others points without adding belittling statements that are unrelated to the point you are supposedly trying to make.

My point was that just about everything in that post was false, along with the general ideas that we dominate foreign aid, we have come the furthest in the last few hundred years, and that we are too selfless.

Unless, of course, our contemptible status as Americans is so ingrained in your philosophy that you cannot even recognize it.

Again, all countries act in largely the same way (in these matters at least), seeking to advance their interests constantly, then offering aid to other countries when tragedy strikes. I did not call that behavior contemptible, I just pointed out that the US does not give too much. I did not attack "Americans," but rather the idea that we should give less to others and keep more for ourselves.

For example, I can add to your statement about foreign aid, by saying that the number of dollars that our government gives in foreign aid is greatly helped by the personal charitable donations of millions of American citizens. In fact, I recall reading that Americans give over double the percentage of their income as the next most charitable country, which is Britain.

I can't find a source for that; all I could turn up was a NYT article citing a study that says poor Americans give much more of their income to charity than well-off Americans. If you have a study for this, I'd be happy to read it. And if it's true, then it means that American donations are even more important, and should not be scaled back. But then, I never said anything about American citizens, as what was being discussed was governments.

See how I did that? It can be done that without insulting anyone or calling them idiotic.

I called a statement idiotic, because it was blatantly false. Saying that no one comes to the aid of the US when we're in trouble is an affront to the generosity of countries all around the world (even those demonized by the US) who came to our aid after Hurricane Katrina. It was clearly not researched and claimed only because it helped advance the idea that the US is some kind of overgenerous martyr, which simply isn't true.

And perhaps you didn't insult me, but you have been constructing strawmen out of my lack of blind patriotism.

[busdriver11]

Well Manorite, I guess I'll just have to settle for disagreeing with you, as this entire argument is getting pretty far off topic.

But I suspect that the gut reaction that compels you to dispute any semblance of "blind patriotism" is similar to my gut reaction to defend against statements that sound purely contemptuous. I realize you do not recognize that in your arguments, and it is unlikely that anything I point out will change it.

[QuantMech]

Thanks for the working link, college_query. I thought the speech improved greatly starting at about the point "If you've learned anything in your years here . . ."

I totally fail to see the point of the gratuitous slap at weddings. The rest of the early part of the speech could have been ditched as well, in my opinion.

After a few years, a teacher ought to be able to recognize the anxiety that underlies the helicoptering, on the parts of both parents and children. Regarding the students as pampered and cosseted is just looking at the surface.

[Bay]

The speech rubbed me the wrong way, first because it sounded so cynical and thus uninspiring, and second because I believe competitive high school administrators and teachers are just as guilty of emphasizing activity and achievement for the singular purpose of padding college resumes. I cannot say how many times I've heard them start conversations with, "Colleges like to see...ECs, rigorous course selection, lots of volunteer hours, blah blah blah." I honestly cannot remember a teacher/administrator encouraging students to do those things because of their intrinsic value.

[limabeans01]

I have come to the conclusion that CCr's can debate ANYTHING! A high school commencement speech, really?

That's why I love it