Thursday, April 19, 2007
A tale of two professors regarding Cho
``It's not like, `I'll rip your heart out,''' she recalled. ``It's that, `Your bra is torn,and I'm looking at your flesh.'''
His work had no meter or structure or rhyme scheme. To Giovanni, it was simply ``a tirade.'' [eh, voilà - clue of being disturbed, having no outlet, having no competent professional help to deal with it all.]
``There was no writing. I wasn't teaching him anything, and he didn't want to learn anything,'' she said. ``And I finally realized either I was going to lose my class, or Mr. Cho had to leave.'' [And still, it seems to me that this is more evidence of what a highly stupid African-American woman this is, because after one piece of evidence after another, she simply doesn't get a clue that Mr. Cho was in serious trouble.
Isn't it very clear how she keeps interpreting Cho's behavior as if he were a "normal" kid? Like if did all these things out of some superficial petulancy, some sort of disdainfully capricious behavior, or just bad manners, or as she says, a bully? And the article just lavishes praise on her because she can write poetry. There is more to life and to being a laudable human being than writing pretty verse. The ability to diagnose serious trouble in a kid and to win over the huge bureaucratic obstacles so that responsible action can be taken is not found all that often on campus, even when it congregates all these glossy faculty members, whose life of privilege makes them so grotesquely blind in human ways.]
His work had no meter or structure or rhyme scheme. To Giovanni, it was simply ``a tirade.'' [eh, voilà - clue of being disturbed, having no outlet, having no competent professional help to deal with it all.]
``There was no writing. I wasn't teaching him anything, and he didn't want to learn anything,'' she said. ``And I finally realized either I was going to lose my class, or Mr. Cho had to leave.'' [And still, it seems to me that this is more evidence of what a highly stupid African-American woman this is, because after one piece of evidence after another, she simply doesn't get a clue that Mr. Cho was in serious trouble.
Isn't it very clear how she keeps interpreting Cho's behavior as if he were a "normal" kid? Like if did all these things out of some superficial petulancy, some sort of disdainfully capricious behavior, or just bad manners, or as she says, a bully? And the article just lavishes praise on her because she can write poetry. There is more to life and to being a laudable human being than writing pretty verse. The ability to diagnose serious trouble in a kid and to win over the huge bureaucratic obstacles so that responsible action can be taken is not found all that often on campus, even when it congregates all these glossy faculty members, whose life of privilege makes them so grotesquely blind in human ways.]
