Quick overview

All posts still in progress. If you have additions you want to suggest, please let me know in the comments or on twitter @schomj.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Cassirer: The End of the Problem

Fourth post in this series, in which I try to make sense of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, volume 1: Language, by Ernst Cassirer. Feel free to play along in the comments section!

The focus here is on the ideation of signs. There's also a lot of metaphysical stuff that I skipped over because... I don't really understand what it's doing here, to be honest. It may be a legacy of philosophical thinking in the early 20th century? No idea.

How does a "sensuous particular" like spoken sound carry "purely intellectual" meaning? (p106) The basic function of signification must be present before the utterance is produced. The utterance stabilizes the meaning, and situates it in a particular context. Cassirer then talks about how every linguistic sign has a spiritual content that puts it beyond the sensory sphere... and I zone out at the metaphysics. I also have skepticism about the possibility of anything being "purely intellectual" and not having an embodied component. *glares at Plato*

Going back to the idea of context, which Cassirer describes as a complex web of relationships. Signs serve as an intermediary between consciousness and "spiritual" form. (I wish someone could translate Cassirer's use of "spirit" to a concept that makes sense to my brain.) Signs may stabilize meaning, but they don't just fix that meaning in place; they propel that meaning in a certain direction. "Similarly, the spoken word, considered from the standpoint of  physical substance, is a mere breath of wind; but in this breath there lies an extraordinary force for the dynamic of ideas and thoughts." (p109) Rephrasing this idea yet again, signs don't just represent meaning, they open up new roads of discovery.

So, that's it for the first part! Next up will be discussion of the phenomenology of language, which I suspect (hope) contains the content that got this book on my reading list.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Cassirer: The Problem of 'Representation'

Part 3. I'm making progress!

This section starts with Cassirer posing the question "how can sensory content turn into meaning?" Answer: it requires time, space, and causality.

Lots of talk of metaphysics follows, which I mostly skim.

Argument: We don't copy a ready-made material model of the world in our minds, but we use our senses as a way of building a representative mental model. Language allows us to build a bridge between this mental model (cognition) and the sensory world.


Moving forward to psychological theories: "the whole constitutes its parts and gives them meaning." (p103) This section seems like it could describe intersectionality.

Describing Descartes's dualistic approach to meaning making: "Objective unity is a purely formal unity, which can neither be heard not seen as such, but can be apprehended only in the logical process of pure thought." (p104) I think Cassirer shares my skepticism about this approach.

Kant also addressed this problem, and identified a process that could be described mathematically.... but to do so would require us to go beyond the realm of mathematics, into other realms which follow their own rules. As we learned in the previous section, that's not a winning argument.

Result: foiled again? I guess we're just working through theories that Cassirer is rejecting, but in a really nice way so they don't get offended?

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Cassirer: The Problem of Meaning

In which I continue to try to make sense of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, volume 1: Language, by Ernst Cassirer. This series begins by talking about concepts and systems. Feel free to play along in the comments section!

Cassirer Post 2: The Problem of Meaning (pp. 85-93)

Symbols are abstract connections based on cognitive processes rather than sensory impressions. (It is so interesting to compare this discussion with how these ideas are expressed in Buddhist teachings.) These symbols -- or abstract connections -- are part of self-contained conceptual worlds, in which each concept is a complete thing in itself. Example: a word in a language.

Cassirer references Leibnitz, stating that the logic of things cannot be separated from the logic of signs. There is a mutual relationship between signifier and signified. The example he presents is: without universal signs (symbols) of mathematics, no law of nature would be expressible. This mutual relationship is also true in other conceptual worlds including religion and art.

This is where we start talking about linguistics a little more directly. (Yay!)

"the chaos of immediate impressions takes on order and clarity for us only when we 'name' it." (p87) This logical unity also leads us to categorize, analyze, and synthesize ideas.

The 'unreality' of myth allows spontaneity, but still follows the laws of myth. (This reminds me of the portal worlds in McGuire's Wayward Children series.) Each disciplinary world has its own rules. Therefore, claims of universal validity are particular cultural forms themselves, in which the content of a thing and the content of the sign are fused. This creates a "magical force" in a way. I think what Cassirer is saying here, is that our cognition of things is based on illusions given force by our cultures?

(Another side note: I knew Cassirer wrote philosophy in German during the Nazi period, so I looked him up. Turns out he was a Polish Jew who fled the Nazis during the writing of this series, and eventually ended up teaching at Yale by way of Oxford.)

Fixing content in a linguistic sign or artistic image "seems to do no more than hold it fast in the memory" as a reproduction. However! A reproduction presupposes an act of consciousness; more than mere repetition, this is a new level of reflection. (p. 89) I am not going to superimpose the WEMI model on this, but all y'all catalogers might have fun with that.

Cassirer brings the conversation back to the conclusion of the section discussed in part 1. "The way in which we apply the conceptual opposition of 'subjective' and 'objective' in giving form to the world of experience appears to be not so much the solution to the problem of cognition, as its perfect expression." (p.91) He attempts to mediate this conflict by presenting science, language, myth, art, religion as the building blocks of reality, not simply structures but functions. They give form reality. Phonetic signs provide a way of bridging subjective and objective. Phonetic signs allow us to both produce and hear discrete sounds. Spoken language in general synthesizes "I" and "world", subjective and objective.

I'm not sure I totally buy this argument, because of the idea that cognition is a non-sensory process. But I'm willing to continue slogging in the hope of making eventual sense of all of this!

Monday, October 16, 2017

Cassirer: Concept and System of Symbolic Forms

First in a series of posts in which I try to make sense of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, volume 1: Language, by Ernst Cassirer. Feel free to play along in the comments section!

Ontologies, pp. 73-78

Cassirer discusses two views of 'reality': the unity of being versus a multiplicity of existing things.

Way back in the day, Plato moved from investigating the order, condition, and structure of being to investigating the concept of being, and what that means. Among other things, that meant that meaning became more important than factiness. But Plato's fundamental problem was being: he came to the conclusion that thoughts about being determined the (inner form of) being. Put another way, the (ideas of) structure determined the structure; the idea became the thing.

In discussing how philosophers and scientists came to discover causality, Cassirer states that "Mathematicians and physicists were first to gain a clear awareness of [the] symbolic character of their basic implements." The discoveries of science are symbols created by the intellect rather than passive perceptions of objects, and the intellect can thus forecast what comes next.This all made me laugh. These ideas have been major discussion points in the Eastern hemisphere since before Gautama Buddha walked the earth, bud. They're not new.

An early 1st Century Tibetan wall painting depicting the Buddha pointing at the moon. In the Chan/Zen tradition, this is expressed as: the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
Following this, Cassirer observes that in this ontological way of viewing the world, "the object cannot be regarded as a naked thing in itself" as it must always fit into categories. If it doesn't fit into categories, it's unknowable. This whole section had a lot of statements that conflict with my (Buddhist) belief system, so I took them all with a grain of salt. However, that said, this ontological way of viewing the world has a lot of influence in my work -- cataloging, for example, is dependent on this way of thinking.

At the end of this section, Cassrer notes that the intellectual symbols of specialized disciplines may either exist separately in parallel systems or are manifestations of the same basic concepts. My past self would absolutely have believed the latter viewpoint (and I think it's a very Liberal view of the world; I say this with no pejorative intent). However, my current self thinks worldviews aren't that simplistic, and working under the assumption that different terms are just glosses on the same fundamental ideas is focusing on the finger instead of the moon.

Spirit, pp. 78-85.

Cassirer seems dissatisfied with solely addressing cognitive approaches to the idea of being, and moves on to what he calls spirit. (Reminder: this is an English translation. He wrote in German.)

In this section, spirit includes linguistic thinking in relation to mythical, religious, and artistic thinking. One statement that I really loved was "the critique of reason becomes the critique of culture." (p80) He takes that point to go off in a direction I didn't find very compelling, personally, but I want to note that statement in here so I can revisit it sometime.

He continues to investigate what it is that we call 'reality' while reviewing some major philosophical ideas (Descartes, Hegel). The ideal of a unified center can never lie in a given essence but in a common project. A unified center requires multiple efforts toward the goal of turning passive impressions into active expressions. He points out that striving toward the absolute leads people to develop a multiplicity of ideas which inevitably come into conflict. With that knowledge, modern philosophy expresses the goal of finding a philosophical standpoint above and beyond the forms it describes and map each one of these forms to a specific relational place. (This was written from 1928-1945, by the way.)

Renouncing that goal would mean that a strict, systematic understanding of these forms is unattainable. There would be no self-contained cosmos, and humanity is back to the multiplicity of existing things that Plato rejected.  He ends this section with a question: Is it possible to find and intermediary between these positions?

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

CFP: Library Trends : Disabled Adults in Libraries

Library Trends : Disabled Adults in Libraries : Call for Proposals

We are preparing to edit a special issue of Library Trends on the topic of Disabled adults in libraries, which is scheduled to be published May 2019.

The nature and scope of this issue:

Though scholarship about disabilities has been robust in various social science and humanities disciplines for decades, libraries have been slow to theorize or systematically examine the experiences of dis/ability in libraries. This special issue will be geared toward the experience of being a Disabled adult in libraries, as user or worker. Through a mixture of empirical research, case studies, interviews, and theoretical papers, this issue will capture perspectives of Disabled members of our broad library community.

There are many possible approaches one can take to examine disabilities and disability theory. The approach guiding this issue is taken from an in-press work by one of the editors.
There is no universally accepted definition of disabilities or single approach to disability theory. Legalistic definitions, including those presented in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities tend to be exclusionary and restrictive in their ideations about humanity. By this, I mean that in their construction of disability and disabled people, they work from a deficit model in which disabled humans are treated as corporeal abnormalities. However, if one out of every seven human beings could be considered disabled, as research demonstrates, disability is a common part of human existence. For many of us, when we talk about in/accessibility in libraries, we’re not just talking about things that others experience; we’re talking about ourselves.
Critical disability studies (CDS) is one approach that offers a way of including disabled people in academic discourse. In this approach, disabled people are participants and researchers who can engage in self-reflexive critiques, not just objects of study. While some theoretical models focus on binary categories that are presented in contrast to each other, such as contrasting social and medical models or disability and impairment, CDS scholars focus on the entire lived experiences of disabled people. This allows for more complicated modes of analysis, such as acknowledging that disabilities may include both social and medical aspects.

We are intentionally seeking out reviewers and authors who have diverse experiences and backgrounds, including library workers of color, library workers who have LGBTQIA+ identities, and those who have Disabled identities. Because we anticipate that several authors will have experience both as Disabled library workers and as Disabled library users, we want to allow either or both perspectives to be incorporated into their research. However, to provide some limits on the scope of this issue, we are focusing on the library experiences of Disabled adults.

January 1, 2018 - article proposals are due
February 1, 2018 - editors will notify people if proposals are accepted
June 1, 2018 - article drafts are due
August 1, 2018 - reviewer feedback will be sent
September/October, 2018 - final edits
November 1, 2018 - final manuscripts are due to the publisher

The writing style follows Chicago rules. Complete articles are expected to be in the 4,000-10,000 word range. More information about the style rules can be found here: (PDF)   https://www.press.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/Author%20Instructions%20for%20Library%20Trends%202017.pdf

Proposal requirements
A complete proposal will include the following:
  • article title
  • abstract of proposed article (200-300 words is preferred)
  • a short author biography -- it doesn't have to be formal at this point; we welcome casual explanations of how your background and experience influences your desire to write in this area

If you need help with your abstract or framing your article (I always want to include too much! - Jessica), the Article Framework Questions used by In the Library with the Lead Pipe are very helpful:

If you plan to include statistical analysis, please let us know how you will ensure that your methodology and analysis are solid.

Please contact us if you have any questions!

Jessica Schomberg, co-editor
Shanna Hollich - co-editor

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Acknowledging Whiteness, part 8: Silence is Complicity

This series has been an interesting reflective process for me. It's also been an interesting observational experience. The posts in this series have generally received a good number of hits, at least compared to the normal things I post. But compared to the normal things I post, I have received far fewer comments. The silence has been interesting.

Some of those few comments have been in praise of a given post (thanks Max!) but some of the comments have been expressions of white discomfort. Discomfort at the expectation that as white people they have a right or responsibility to call out racism. Let's pause a moment, and dwell on that; let's take a moment to experience discomfort right now.


I saw an article a few days about how sometimes when we talk about being lazy, what we're actually describing is fear, overwhelmedness, procrastination and avoidance driven by perfectionism.

Are we silent because we feel like we're not ready yet to speak out? Because we need to prepare more so when we do speak out, we don't mess up? Let me take this opportunity to remind you of April Hathcock's wonderful blog post called You're Gonna Screw Up.

You're never going to be ready. You're never going to be perfect. If you're lucky, you'll be good enough. Good enough is a reasonable goal.


I learn most effectively by trial and error. By screwing up, noticing where and how that screw-up happened, and watching to see what improvements are made the next time. This is how I learn/ed how to manage my diabetes, how I learn/ed how to write, how I learn/ed how to catalog. This is how I am learning to unravel the racism that was threaded into my being before I learned to talk. I fully expect -- no, I hope! -- that in 10 years I'll revisit this blog series and feel amused fondness for my past self and how much I still had to learn.

Because I know I'm not perfect. I know I make mistakes and missteps and that I stumble and fall both up and down the stairs. But at least I'm trying. And I'm not letting my fear of imperfection lure me into silence. Because for the people I care about, my silence in the face of systemic racism is more damaging than my stumbling attempts at building a more just society.


This is the end of this series, at least for the summer. Thanks to everyone who came along on this ride with me. If this has prompted you to write your own blog posts or engage in antiracism work in new or different ways, please drop me a line either in the comments or on twitter. Peace, love, and justice to you all.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Acknowledging Whiteness, part 7: Colonialism

I'm writing this from Dakota land. Technically it was ceded via treaty, but then the U.S. government broke the treaty. I don't know what this means legally, but ethically/morally, it's very sketch.

I'm writing this from a town that was the location of the largest mass execution in U.S. history. Thirty-eight Dakota men were hanged here in December 1862 for "uprising" against U.S. settlers in response to a decade of treaty violations. These uprisings led to the Dakota War of 1862. Let's think about that statement for a second. Thirty-eight Dakota men, who were fighting as members of a sovereign nation against the invading United States, were executed as unlawful combatants, not treated as enemy soldiers. Originally 303 men were to be hanged, but President Lincoln reduced that number to 38. Yes, the president who is hailed for freeing enslaved Africans was responsible for the deaths of unknown numbers of indigenous peoples during the course of his presidency. Then after they were hanged, some of their bodies were dug up and dissected as part of William Mayo's medical studies. Yes, that Mayo. History is complicated.

I'm writing this as the descendant of settler-colonialists. If my ancestors had been in the U.S. at the time of the Dakota hanging, they would have cheered it on. Even though they immigrated later in the nineteenth century, they still financially benefited from those treaty violations, from the forced migrations and mass deaths. As a result, I have financially benefited from these same events.

I'm writing this as a white descendant of settler-colonialists, which is true of many of us who work in libraries. I cannot provide the perspective of an Indigenous American. In order to encounter that perspective -- and I should clarify this to say those perspectives, plural -- you need to read/listen to the words of indigenous people. Then you need to cite them when you use their insights in your research. And/Or hire them to speak at your library events. And/Or pay them so they can afford to share their insights, either by buying their books or putting cash in their paypal accounts.

I'm writing this as someone learning to recognize the harm caused by mainstream (white) narratives about indigenous people. As someone learning to recognize the silent places in my library's collections. As someone learning that no one owes me their words or thoughts or time; I have to earn it by being trustworthy and morally responsible.

I'm writing this with the knowledge that I do not have the skills, expertise, or moral authority to tell anyone how to decolonize libraries. Who taught me that my position as colonizer means I will always be in the learning seat when it comes to de/colonialism? I'm trying to keep a list. So here we go!
  • Katherine Crocker - scientist and citizen of Kaw Nation
  • Mari - SF/F author, tribally enrolled Ojibwe member, and making of fabulous threads
  • Debbie Reese - librarian, tribally enrolled Nambe Pueblo member, who maintains a great blog about American Indians in Children's Literature 
  • Jody Gray (her twitter account is locked so I'm not going to post a link) -  ALA Director of the Office of Diversity, enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Nation
  • nina de jesus - Their twitter bio describes them as transpinay, so I'll go with their words. No, they're not Indigenous American, but this article they wrote a few years about about the relationship between libraries and indigenous genocide was eye-opening for me!

I'm hoping to add to this list of books over time. But these were a good start:

Also, check out the work of AILA (American Indian Library Association)

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Acknowledging Whiteness, part 6: Conflict is Scary

I did a couple of quick twitter polls to see what topics people would be most interested in for the next installments of this series. The winners were: conflict is scary, silence is complicity, and colonialism. I'll get to all three, but first off: conflict is scary!

In part 5 of this series, I linked to a list of traits associated with white supremacy. None of these traits are explicitly based on the idea that whiteness is superior, but they are (often unspoken) characteristics of Anglo-Saxon and other Northern European cultures, and all of us are required to adhere to these characteristics whether that is our cultural background or not. One of the traits listed is Fear of Open Conflict, described as:
  • people in power are scared of conflict and try to ignore it or run from it
  • when someone raises an issue that causes discomfort, the response is to blame the person for raising the issue rather than to look at the issue which is actually causing the problem
  • emphasis on being polite
  • equating the raising of difficult issues with being impolite, rude, or out of line 
How many of you have witnessed this happen in libraries? *pause for everyone reading to raise their hand*

Conflict is scary because many of us white people were raised to view it as taboo.

I remember hearing my grandmother express disgust with people who challenged authority, whether it was challenging (her) religious leaders, teachers, doctors, police, or other types of authority (that she recognized). I remember being told by my parents to be quiet, to behave, to follow the rules. The purpose and power of those rules were never questioned. My elementary school teachers always said that I was "a pleasure to have in class" because I was good at being obedient and non-confrontational. None of them noticed that by 7th grade, I'd stopped smiling, laughing, or talking. I wasn't causing trouble, I was compliant, I was white, I faded into the background of "good kids."

So what happened between my early conditioning and now? Diabetes. Living with diabetes caused me to break rules by necessity. "Be polite and accept candy from strangers" became "you can't have candy, so you have to be rude and refuse that candy." The alternative to refusing candy was to accept the candy, and thus be non-compliant with my doctor's directives. That double-bind caused me to notice other rule-breakers -- who in turn were the first to notice my silence and to encourage me to laugh, cry, yell, take up space, be.

And at this point, we're about to cycle back to post 1, so I'll pass over my personal history and get back to libraries.

We are human. We care about our fellow humans. We white people are in positions of relative privilege. If we are afraid to speak up when we see injustices done to our colleagues and patrons of color, how do you think they feel? If we can see the risk of calling out a supervisor, a colleague, an influential member of the profession for accidental racism, do we think that people of color can't see that risk? Or do we think it's not our responsibility, because we don't feel the direct impact?

Being conditioned to fear speaking up for ourselves or others is a direct impact. That in itself is a negative consequence. 

As Angela Pashia notes in a description of a panel presentation at IACAL, in which librarians who call out oppressive practices at work discuss the emotional cost:
It's exhausting when you are the only one to "take a stand in a meeting or take a risk in speaking up about a problem, and are left hanging out there all by your lonesome… But then after the meeting, people want to come take your time to tell you how much they appreciate what you said, how much they agree, how frustrated they are by the situation. Great, so why didn’t you say that in the meeting? And why do you expect the person who did speak up to continue to discuss this one-on-one with you, demanding even more emotional labor?"

Bryce Kozla recently wrote a post describing a situation in which white people can use the phrase "takes all kinds" to redirect racist statements in a non-confrontational way. Sometimes we're not up to pursuing direct conflict, and this is a handy script to have ready for when you need it.

But sometimes direct conflict is what's needed. Some of the ChangeWork recommendations to overcome fear of conflict include:
  • role play ways to handle conflict before conflict happens
  • distinguish between being polite and raising hard issues
  • don't require those who raise hard issues to raise them in "acceptable" ways, especially if you are using the ways in which issues are raised as an excuse not to address the issues being raised (this is also called tone policing)
  • once a conflict is resolved, take the opportunity to revisit it and see how it might have been handled differently
What other ideas do you have?

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Acknowledging Whiteness, part 5: Compliance Culture

"To bring up racism is to bring up the issue of compliance and even suggests a failure to comply." -- Sara Ahmed, On Being Included

David Perry writes a lot about the cult of compliance, and how it’s used to harm disabled children -- particularly disabled children of color -- within educational and criminal/police/incarceral systems. He has not to my knowledge written about how the cult of compliance manifests in libraries, but he could. Reading this American Libraries article about homeless and mentally ill people who “are hurting the library experience for others,” makes me think he could write a lot about libraries’ cult of compliance.

Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun wrote about the characteristics of white supremacy culture. These characteristics “are damaging because they are used as norms and standards without being pro-actively named or chosen.” The full list has more details, but briefly, those characteristics are:
  • Perfectionism
  • Sense of urgency
  • Defensiveness
  • Quantity over quality
  • Worship of the written word
  • Paternalism
  • Either/Or thinking
  • Power hoarding
  • Fear of open conflict
  • Individualism
  • Progress is bigger, more
  • Objectivity
  • Right to comfort (who has it and who doesn’t)

When I think about these two points, the cult of compliance and white supremacy culture, it reminds me of my childhood. It reminds me of my schooling, including my LIS grad program. It reminds me of how I was acculturated to be a library worker. It reminds me of all the reasons I’m in therapy. It’s damaging.


When we white library workers talk about privilege and diversity, when we talk about serving our communities, when we talk about creating healthy workplaces… we need to think about these things. We need to challenge these things. We need to challenge ourselves, and lean in to our own discomfort. We need to consciously and deliberately identify what norms and standards we actually do want, and why, and then discuss them… yes, even with people who disagree with us.


And now, I am going to go read Emily Drabinski’s new article about “Teaching Critically in a Time of Compliance.”

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Acknowledging Whiteness, part 4: So Many Questions

Attempts to answer the questions I posed in part 2 of this series, and that Max Macias posed in his own series on whiteness from 2016.
·         What am I doing to support colleagues who need solidarity?
Listen, signal boost, try not to ask too many annoying questions (I am an endless fountain of questions, so this will always be a work in progress!). Also, contribute funds and time to projects as I can. Position myself to be present and prepared to speak up if needed.
·         What am I doing to understand why intellectual freedom proselytizing might cause colleagues of color to become upset?
I had never put my occasional sense of disgruntlement about intellectual or academic freedom into words until I started reading nina de jesus. But once I started to understand their concerns, I saw justifications for that concern everywhere. The more I looked, the more I realized that political actions both for and against academic/intellectual freedom are more likely to harm people of color. The arguments themselves can be used in proxy fights to maintain white supremacy. This isn’t to say that IF is bad – or good. It’s too complicated for that kind of simplistic language. Being aware of context and how IF arguments are being framed and utilized is important. I am still learning how to be both critical and sensitive in my understanding of these topics, and often find myself relying on the good judgment of librarians of color to deepen my understanding. (And no, librarians of color don’t always agree on everything – they’re individual humans – but sometimes paying attention to discussions without interfering can be really informative.)
·         What am I doing to understand why indigenous people might not want their intellectual property put in the commons?
Following First Nations/Native American people on twitter makes me aware of how damaging cultural appropriate can be. Reading about the history of indigenous peoples in the Americas has made me more aware of everything that has been stolen from indigenous people. Educating myself is encouraging me to listen more and unlearn my settler-colonial conditioning.
·         What am I doing to make space in the center for people of color?
Paying attention to signs that POC aren’t being heard and trying to signal boost and otherwise support their work. Also really, really trying to be aware that making this space means stepping back and trying to get other white people to step back, not shoving POC unwillingly into the center of a space that won’t be safe.
From Max’s post, Embedded Whiteness.
·         How do you see Whiteness relating to Education?
It’s the default.
·         Can you think of some examples of Whiteness in Education that you have seen?
Standard white English being taught as the only acceptable form of English, students who are fluent in AAVE being told that they are speaking “slang” i.e., a substandard version of English. Which is both untrue and damaging. Students whose home languages aren’t English being punished for speaking those languages in schools, but (white) native English speakers being rewarded for learning Spanish.
·         How can we mitigate Whiteness in Education?
Recognize Whiteness and remove it from the position of unacknowledged default.
·         Should we mitigate Whiteness in Education?
As a step towards decentralizing and undoing Whiteness in education, yes.
·         How does Whiteness impact Educational Technology?
Interesting question. I’m not sure that I have an answer. I know that ableism impacts EdTech. Maybe expectations that everyone can afford home internet and other technologies disenfranchises POC, who are statistically more likely to be lower income than White people? (Talking averages here, not everyone.)
·         Does Whiteness come in between the truth and investigators?
Unacknowledged Whiteness means unacknowledged bias. So, yes.
How would you answer these questions? What questions would you add?