Coach Comment wrote:What I'm trying to say is that I want the quiz bowl community to be more inclusive to students from all over the state, and to re-evaluate the knowledge that we value as important. We largely appreciate white European culture, and talk about African-American culture largely in the lens of slavery, except sometimes there is a Toni Morrison question because she comes from Ohio. Let's make quiz bowl about learning new things, instead of memorizing facts about the dominant American culture.
This is a very intriguing comment, one worth engaging in. Although it really isn't a specific OAC issue, let alone something the OAC can probably do much about, the respondent does bring up an interesting point.
The overarching principle of quizbowl, behind why the game is played, is to "reward knowledge" and the content asked about is a direct indictment of what is promoted as being worth having knowledge on. I think there is something to be said on the (admittedly massive)blind-spot, sociologically, our community has when it comes to what is asked about and how that blind-spot inadvertently reinforces much of the dominant culture (a product of majority group producing the culture, and then dictating that said production is the most valuable to be discussed and learn... see: Bloom's
Western Canon and the lack of non-white authors) as one valued-above.
Although I disagree with the supporting argument to this complaint (not the Morrison one -- I'll get to that in a second -- but the one written on the slide before) for several reasons, it is indeed worth discussing the value*importance of representation in our questions: it serves as a better example for our students, and with a present-day student population that is invariably more interested in learning about the contributions to be had from representational diversity (likely because it helps impart the common, now normal value of consciousness) it is only right that more of an effort be made to show that our activity acknowledges the value of said content.
There are questions on this matter to be had...
a) to what extent of the change in question-canonization must there be;
b) are there, indeed, questions that should be considered "off-limits" (this may be extreme, admittedly);
c) in the context of history, American and world, what is the scope of the already-extant canon that
doesn't ask about atrocity, oppression, anything-and-everything else that is 'The Sins of Powerful People(s) Past';
d) are there figures where their relevance and significance to the overall footprint of the academic/cultural, enough of such that it would be reasonable for a high-schooler to know about them, exceeds that of their sins (maybe not so much "stan[ning] Henry Clay", but John C. Calhoun? Calhoun was not a good guy.)
e1) is there a way to discuss the cultural significance and contributions made by black Americans in the arts and literature, in a context that completely (or somewhat) separates their contribution from the entire root of generations-long discrimination/racism/denial of opportunities/disenfranchisement/the lack of rights that has gone on for centuries: the institution of slavery, the era of Jim Crow, and the general fact prejudice*systemic racism has pervaded our country and its institutions from the very beginning? I completely get that slavery -- the very image of it, the very mention of it -- is certainly an uncomfortable, traumatizing topic that is best-not-suited as being a "For 10 Points, Name this Slavery Thing" (because the seriousness of the topic and the impact of the event should be enough to suggest it shouldn't be reduced to being discussed glibly, without consideration of the impact and seriousness) but does that mean we should put Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey out of the arena to be asked... when all along the idea behind asking them was (supposedly) to revere them, not unlike why schools talk about John Brown?
e2) Is there indeed enough replaceable content that can be answered by high-schoolers regarding this topic? I'm all in favor of ditching
Roots if there is more to be valued representationally and socially by asking about
The Fire Next Time instead (or if Roots is fine, still can't go wrong with more Baldwin in the canon anyways.) I'm fine with re-evaluating whether we really need to ask about some of the works of Faulkner and O'Connor that portray black people in rather unflattering caricatures (regardless of context, era and setting -- they're still not fine.) Perhaps take a look at instead promoting more of Stockett's
The Help. But history? I'd like to see there be enough in the replacement transition of increasing black achievement in American history to where it isn't just a sum of half-assed tossups on Shirley Chisholm, John Lewis, Tom Bradley or (worse) the trivialized sensation of black Americans having their legacies reduced to a binary "person did this" a la middle school Black History Month.
f) I don't really agree a whole lot on the art comment, for a few reasons, but I get the general point that respondent is making and agree.
**The Morrison question -- I suspect the respondent heard the cited question at a local match. That one kind of is a pitfall of bad-writing, and honestly it's possible I may have written that question as part of a Morrison/Thurber/Grey "Ohio authors" themed American Lit category. It is also true in many low-level question supplies, Morrison being cited as being from Lorain occurs at a weirdly high and (in retrospect) inappropriate frequency that undermines her contributions.