Mixed review...

I guess I have mixed emotions about this article. Kumashiro is on the right track in many ways. I think it is great to recognize the fact that individual student's come from many backgrounds and have unique home experiences that should not be overlooked. Students should be able to attend classes where they are not marginalized, should have the opportunity to learn about their cultural background, and should feel that they can be themselves and not have to hide the fact that they are Asian American, LGBT, or any other frequently oppressed group.

The very use of defining these students as the "other" seems only to reinforce Kumashiro's attempt to avoid marginalizing these students. I do realize that he is discussing a large and varied group of possibilities, but perhaps there is a better, less generalizing term that could be chosen.

On page 27, Kumashiro writes, "Thus, to the onlooker; some of these students "succeed" in school, whereas others are marginalized, fail, and drop out, while still others exhibit no signs that distinguish them from the majority of the student body. But despite the apparent differences between those students who "succeed" and those who "fail" or simply fail to distinguish themselves, all experience oppression." Here Kumashiro is discussing what happens to the "other" after experiencing oppression at school. I mean, come on, they're all dropping out because they are oppressed? This seems a bit over-generalized to me. Perhaps some struggle because of language barriers not being addressed by teachers, maybe there are learning disabilities, perhaps they fell in with the wrong crowd of kids. I think attributing the academic success of the "other" to only the oppression (to which there are undoubtedly varying degrees) they received is absolutely an absurd statement to make.

I agree that teachers need to integrate education to make all students present feel safe, comfortable, like they have a voice, and like their particular group is being represented. However, I feel that Kumashiro is very vague in this section. Nice ideas don't get us very far. How are teachers being held accountable for the ways in which they are treating students? Are students encouraged to speak to a superior regarding issues with a particular teacher? Not likely, as Kumashiro suggests they find their voices behind closed doors at meetings with other like "others".

While I understand this is merely a lit review, it seems unproductive in its attempts to produce a substantial amount of meaningful ideas. It seems packed largely with generalizations, nice ideas with little critical thought of accomplishment behind them, and some ideas that plainly contradict the very "other" the article spends so much of its time trying to define as something that should be done away with.