I agree with hooks" assertion that no education is politically neutral, that our political perspectives shape our pedagogy in ways that we sometimes don't even notice, but I have a problem with the lofty sentiments and ambiguous solutions wound through the text. This is not a trait particular to the hooks piece. In fact, I have found that most of the writing I have read discussing the implications of embracing multiculturalism to be quite vague. At least hooks acknowledges the difficulty of shifting our pedagogies and invites students to talk about their fears and experiences. In addition, she encourages educators to share with students the intent of multicultural inclusion in the curriculum. This awareness, however, is only a partial solution to providing comfort in what can often be an uncomfortable environment. "Hearing individuals describe concrete strategies helps dispel fears" sounds great but falls way short of offering practical advice to teachers of how to implement multiculturalism in the classroom. These "concrete strategies" are continually referred to but never identified. I felt the same way reading Freire and Rose. And, quite honestly, I felt the same way after our discussion on race last semester. I agree with the vital importance of fully integrating diversity, and I want to be able to do it well in my classroom, but I feel that even after all the reading I have done and the discussions I have had, these "concrete strategies" which will help me are still floating around me in an ambiguous, invisible cloud just beyond my reach. .
"Embracing Change" asserts the need for educators to discuss race as a part of the curriculum, making it just another part of discussing a text.
