WaPo pays homage to teacher who violated state law by making students feel discomfort about being white
Mary Wood is a high school teacher in South Carolina who broke state law by having her AP English Language and Composition students study Ta-Nehisi Coates’ anti-white screed, Between the World and Me. For this, Wood received nothing more than a formal letter in her file. However, her feelings were hurt.
The Washington Post wasn’t pleased, either. Thus, it presents Wood as a victim in this doting piece.
Wood is the kind of liberal who began life as a conservative, was indoctrinated saw the light in college (at UNC Wilmington), and returned home to enlighten the folks in her conservative-leaning town. According to the Post, her classroom features posters of Malcolm X, Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes, and LGBTQ pride stickers.
Apparently, there is no law against teachers engaging in this sort of propaganda effort. But South Carolina does forbid teachers from making students “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” on account of their race.
Coates’ book certainly does these things. Coates thesis is that “people who believe themselves to be white” have subjugated blacks from the beginning of American history through the breaking of the black body. This claim can’t help but make some students “who believe themselves to be white” feel discomfort, at a minimum.
And this passage is likely to make white students feel guilty:
[Police reforms] are all fine and applicable, but they understate the task and allow the citizens of this country to pretend there is real distance between their own attitudes and those of the ones appointed to protect them. The truth is that the police [castigated by Coates as brutal and racist] reflect America in all of its will and fear.
Wood admits that reading Coates’ verbal assault on American whites will cause discomfort among some students. Indeed, she admits that she imposes the book on them for that very reason, and it’s difficult to think of an alternative, non-ideologically-based rationale for selecting it.
According to the Post, Wood defended teaching Coates’ book because for her students to trust her, she needs to be authentic and authenticity for her means assigning books that are disconcerting to students in her mostly white, conservative-leaning town.
Wood’s authenticity/trust argument is both irrelevant and absurd. It’s irrelevant because state law does not include an authenticity exception. It’s absurd because no rational person could conclude that Wood’s students won’t trust her unless she tries to indoctrinate them with Coates divisive and toxic world view, in violation of the law.
Wood’s argument also ignores the fact that some of her students complained to the school principal (not to Wood) about having to endure Coates’ racist preaching. These students clearly didn’t trust Wood to respect either their feelings or state law. They did not trust her to provide an education that does not cause them emotional distress.
Wood doesn’t care about trust from her students. It’s clear to me that she cares only about her own “authenticity” and her mission of indoctrination. Therefore, she’s too selfish to retain the trust of students and parents.
Maybe one day, Wood will realize that teaching her students isn’t primarily about her. Meanwhile, she’s lucky to still hold her teaching job.
What struck me on this WaPo article is its length. The Post plucks a single teacher in a school well beyond its circulation area and, as Paul notes, dotes on her for pages. This is typical WaPo, turning molehills into mountains to serve its ideological bent. Jim Dueholm
"Meanwhile, she’s lucky to still hold her teaching job."
She shouldn't