An Act of Reconstruction

I read a book recently called The Year of Fog by Michelle Richmond. One of the themes in the book is the reliability of memory, about how we often are unable to remember the small details that matter the most. This book explores the boundary of memory, a topic that we have talked a great deal about in class this year, and one that I find to be increasingly interesting the more I learn about it. Here's a passage from the book:

"A common misconception is that memory is like some kind of computer that stores and retrieves information. The truth is, memory is an act of reconstruction. Every time we remember an event, we piece together rough drafts of the of the event based on our lifetime of experiences... Memory is not unlike a photograph with multiple exposures. One event is layered on top of another, so that it is impossible to distinguish the detail of the two. The older we get, the more multiple-exposure memories we have. Temporal relationships become elastic. As the years progress and we experience more and more, the mini-narratives that make up our lives are distorted, corrupted, so that every one of us is left with a false history, a self-created fiction about the lives we have led" (Richmond 162-63).

The idea that my memory is not a reliable way to remember the past, that what I know may not be the truth, that my memory could fail me when I need it the most, kind of scares me. In this quote, it talks about how our experiences following an event are reflective in how we remember that event. But the question I have is not how our future influences the way we remember our past, but how does the way we remember our past- our reconstructed memories- influence our future?

35 Years of Lost Time

I read a really interesting article the other day about James Bain, a man who was exonerated earlier this week after serving 35 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. In 1974, when he was 19 years old (pictured left), Bain was arrested for kidnapping and raping a 9-year old boy. Regardless of his confirmed alibi, Bain was sentenced to life in jail. But thanks to new DNA-testing techniques, it was recently determined that Bain could not have commited the crime.

How could the court have made this mistake? Rationally, I understand that mistakes happen, but isn't the point of the justice system to prevent things like this from happening? It made me kind of mad to think that this man wasted so much of his rightful life behind bars. But my own feelings aside, what surprises me is that Bain is not bitter. Not in the least bit. "No, I'm not angry," he said. "Because I've got God." He has decided not to dwell on the past, but instead embrace what his future holds- a future that until recently held nothing- understanding that being angry would only result in more time being lost.

On the bright side, one good thing for Bain is that he is entitled to $1.75 million. A few years ago, Florida passed a law that entitles inmates found innocent to $50,000 per year they spent in prison. Do you think this is proper compensation for 35 years behind bars? How do you compensate for taking away something away that can never be returned, that you can never get back?

Photo courtesy of CNN Justice

Is Education Stifling Creativity?

After reading Mr. O'Connor's blog post about creativity, I started thinking a lot about how creativity affects education, but more about how education affects creativity. I came upon a video of Sir Ken Robinson giving a speech called "How Schools Stifle Creativity" at the TED conference in 2006.

This video showed me a perspective that I was lacking as a student myself. Mr. Robinson believes that although we are all born with great innate talents and creativity, our creative abilities are not recognized in traditional schooling curriculums and we are therefore rarely able to apply them in settings where they should matter the most, in places where it has the greatest potential to grow if given the opportunity.

Education is narrowly focused to the output. As Mr. Robinson puts it, the goal of public education is to produce young adults that have the cognitive ability to be "college professors," a profession where factual education trumps creativity. He makes the argument that "We don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it... we get educated out of it." I've never given this idea much thought, and right after I watched the video, I didn't think I agreed with Mr. Robinson's perspective. But after pondering it for a while, I have realized that traditional schooling environments don't give kids and young adults the opportunity to regularly tap into their creative abilities, and since it is not actively being used, it becomes useless.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you believe that school systems are stifling (not necessarily intentionally) children's creativity, or not? Does academic accomplishment define success? How does creativity have a role in success?

Invisible Racism

In People magazine a few weeks ago, the cover article was about children who vanished without a trace. Recently, I was reading some reflections on this article, and there was one that made me think about how race silently continues to impact America: "Being the founder of the blog Black and Missing But Not Forgotten, I was happy to see that your cover included two missing blacks. It's a relief to see that someone knows it's not just whites who vanish."

This quote made me realize that inequality between the majority and minorities in America continues to be a problem today, just not as explicitly and not in the same way it used to be. The purpose of Black and Missing But Not Forgotten "is to raise awareness of the racial disparities in mainstream media's reporting of missing persons of color... to draw more attention to missing minorities and help bring them home." The founders of this blog believe that the media pays less attention to minorities than to the majority. But why? This doesn't make any sense to me. We're all American, so for the media what makes missing whites more important than missing blacks?

According to Ernis Suggs, vice president of print for the National Association of Black Journalists, "There is a certain level of interest, a certain fascination with White missing persons... Americans identify with who they want to be." After processing this quote, it occurred to me that there are people that still equate being white with being American, while they should equate being American with being American. Although inequality between races does not affect the public the way it used to, it's clearly still an issue. In class, we have talked a lot about how the media chooses what information to feed to the public. In this situation, what gives the media the right to write stories pertaining to some races more than others? Are they the root of this invisible racism?

Forest Kindergarden

Earlier this year, I blogged about the idea "experience is education," that children need to experience something to fully understand it. Recently, I read an article about forest kindergardeners, a concept that directly addresses the importance of learning through experiencing. Forest kindergarden has been popular in Europe for years and is now gaining popularity in the United States. The 23 forest kindergardeners at the Waldorf School at Saratoga Springs (there are over 100 Waldorf Schools across the nation that offer a variation of the same program) spend at least three hours every day outside, warm or cold, rain or shine. These kids- ranging in age from 3 to 6- have no academic curriculum until first grade. For them, nature is their classroom and the sky is the limit. 

Using their natural surroundings, these children are able to make discoveries that are not possible in a traditional classroom setting. With their imagination and Saratoga Spring's 325 acres of land, there are an infinite number of things to explore and examine.

I see nothing wrong with this type of education for young kids. I think that experience can only enhance and reinforce education, and this forest kindergarden supports this. According to the Waldorf Schools, this type of schooling for young children is favorable because "research has shown that free play in nature increases children's cognitive flexibility, emotional capacity, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, use of imagination, self-esteem, and self-discipline. It makes them smarter, more cooperative, healthier, and happier." So if forest kindergarden has all the above benefits, what is the downside to this type of early education? Should schools across America continue to adapt this type of program, or does traditional preschooling provide a better learning environment?