By Renée H. Shea Titus Kaphar is a young and rising artistic star. Named a MacArthur Genius in 2018, he’s making his presence known with his provocative paintings that “revise” canonical ones as he investigates who gets to speak and who gets left out. He’s done a brief TED Talk (about 12 minutes) on the subject. His painting “The Cost of Removal,” a commentary on both the forced migration that resulted in the Trail of Tears and our contemporary immigration politics, is an engaging way into the Conversation on the Statue of Liberty in our 9th grade book Foundations of Language and Literature. One interesting way that Foundations of Language and Literature addresses differentiation is through its use of visuals. As teacher education scholar Dr. Edwin Ellis says: “Visual prompts can enable teachers and students to see how learned information is structured as well as see how to engage in complex information processing tasks.” Enter Titus Kaphar. In a way, watching this TEDTalk offers two visual texts – the video of Kaphar and the Frans Hals painting he works with. To summarize: Kaphar opens by recounting a story of going to the Natural History Museum in New York City with his two young sons. The statue of Theodore Roosevelt on horseback near the entrance includes two figures, a Native American and African American walking alongside. One of his sons asks why they’re walking when the other guy is riding – and that sends Kaphar into a discussion of representation in art, what it says about who we are, and how it informs and forms our sense of our place in history and culture. This connects nicely to the Conversation in Ch7 on Poetry, “What Does the Statue of Liberty Mean to Us Today?” It’s an especially urgent question these days when monuments of Confederate generals and Christopher Columbus are generating heated debates and often violent responses in communities from coast to coast. And, like all good questions, it asks more than it answers. Kaphar goes on to use the 17th century painting Family Portrait by Frans Hals, asking what we see – and don’t see. So let’s start there. Even before you watch the video, you might ask students what they see in the Hals’ painting. It’s a pretty standard portrait of the time period, clearly a well-to-do family who can afford a portrait and believe they have a rightful place in the history of their time. If students are bored or go right for the technical structure, fine: the point is for them to be surprised by what Kaphar does with this work. Kaphar cleverly paints an additional figure, a person of color, and then paints over the others with linseed oil, pointing out that the figures will not be permanently erased, just temporarily obscured as he makes his point: “this is not about eradication….What I’m trying to show you is how to shift your gaze just slightly, just momentarily, to ask yourself the questions, why do some have to walk?” He ends by emphasizing that he is not advocating erasure but amendment, i.e., exposing and acknowledging what is missing – and then creating art that is “honest, that wrestle[s] with the struggles of our past but speak[s] to the diversity and the advances of our present.” In other words, he’s asking a similar question to the one posed to students regarding the Statue of Liberty. After students watch the video, leveled questions can engage them in analysis of Kaphar’s talk—his argument—moving from personal experience to more abstract ideas: Level 1: Why does Kaphar start with his son’s question about Teddy Roosevelt? Level 2: What point is he making by painting over certain parts of the Frans Hals painting? Level 3: What is the difference between erasure vs. amendment? These questions support students’ learning, as Dr. Ellis says, by “engag[ing] in complex information processing tasks.” If you like, you can press further with the rich rhetoric of this TEDTalk, particularly when it comes to the way Kaphar establishes his ethos: what he’s wearing, his story about his visit to the museum, his backstory about meeting his wife, etc. Even if you don’t want to go into this kind of depth, however, just discussing those three initial questions gets to the main point(s). If you have time, you might look at some of his paintings (e.g. The Cost of Removal​ and Beyond the Myth of Benevolence​) to see how he calls attention to erasure and suggests an amended viewpoint. These activities and discussion Could take one, possibly two class periods before you segue into Langston Hughes and the Conversation in the book. One way to transition from Kaphar to this Conversation is to ask a question on his terms: What would it mean to “shift your gaze” when you look at the Statue of Liberty? What might you see? Or what might you notice is not represented? As you consider how to sequence your discussion of the poems in the Conversation, keep in mind the three leveled prompts that reflect differentiation (p 554): Level 1: To what extent does the Statue of Liberty represent a belief that you hold about America? Level 2: Is the Statue of Liberty still an appropriate symbol of America? Why or why not? Level 3: What is the value of symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty, to a country or a group of people? How can they also be problematic? The Hughes poem is difficult, and will likely take some time to understand the “shifting gaze” that he offers. Or you might start by letting groups of students work on other texts. In increasing order of difficulty, I suggest the Oral History Remembrances, the essay by Michael Daly, “The New Colossus,” “Black Statue of Liberty,” “Slant,” and “lady liberty.” Students might begin their explorations by asking what “amendment” Kaphar would see each of these writers adding to the symbol of the Statue of Liberty. Of course, there’s much close reading and interpretation to be done as students move toward the summative assessment of the three differentiated tasks that each prompt represents. But Kaphar’s voice offers a pathway there. ... View more

by Renee H. Shea   Take 90 seconds—really, it’s just a minute and a half—and treat yourself to “Words Matter,” a video made by outspoken activist and brilliant filmmaker Spike Lee (and not incidentally, recent Academy Award winner for BlackKKKlansman).   The motorcycle roars through the California desert toward the camera; the handsome cool guy skids to a stop, takes off his helmet, and it’s Black Panther star Michael B. Jordan! He looks around at the dystopian landscape, spots some rocks and picks them up: “evil,” “hatred,” “bigotry,” “lies.” He throws them away. Then, he walks (with a map?), sees a children’s swing set, and finds more words: “courage,” “truth,” “dream,” “love.” These are keepers. Helmet back on. And off he goes.   This man has changed the landscape.   Punchline: this is an ad for the pricey leather goods brand Coach, part of their #wordsmatter campaign. Make that marketing campaign? And, BTW, that iconic leather jacket Jordan is wearing can be yours for $1400.   What a great opportunity to have some fun while studying rhetoric! Here are a couple of conversation starters: What’s the exigence? Who’s the audience? What’s the purpose (for Lee? Jordan? Coach?) – i.e., what’s being “sold”? How does this video promote Coach’s "strong poetic narrative that speaks to Coach’s values of inclusion, optimism and courage" (according to their web site)? Does this campaign name trivialize or celebrate #blacklivesmatter? Why would Spike Lee and Michael B. Jordan do this? (Fame and money can’t be the answer for these celebrities.) If the ad is an argument, what is the evidence that supports the claim? Any logical fallacies rearing their heads? What has been the reaction to this video? It’s very current, and commentaries, especially on social media, are coming in at this minute.   This activity alone could lead to some interesting discussion and writing. But those of us who work on The Language of Composition are always looking for ways to connect our carefully curated texts, many of them iconic, to contemporary discourse. So you might go right to the Conversation in this thematic chapter on “The Value of Celebrity Activism.” Adding this video might lead to some fruitful exploration of, first, whether this “advertisement” is indeed “activism.” Does knowing that Lee involved his children, Satchel and Jackson, in the making of the video change students’ sense of the purpose and interpretation? Does knowing that Lee and Jordan, first-time collaborators, chose the words themselves?   Another strategy is pairing this – motorcycle jacket and all – with the essay in our Pop Culture chapter “How the Motorcycle Lost Its Cool and Found It Again” by Troy Patterson, a 2015 article on the history and cachet of the motorcycle jacket through the past decades, actually since it debuted in 1928.   The questions in TLC3e following the essay lead to a provocative analysis of Patterson’s purpose and style, its structure and argument. (My favorite asks how Patterson supports his claim that “the motorcycle jacket is an international uniform impervious to obsolescence.”) So what does that jacket that Jackson is wearing and Coach selling have to say about our current moment? What if he were wearing an L.L. Bean shirt or a hoodie? Is the moto (as it’s called) code for macho? Power? Taking a stand?   If you want to dive a little deeper, add “The New Power Blazer,” a very recent article in Fortune magazine subtitled “How a symbol of rebellion found its way into the boardroom” – via the ladies! Apparently, the new CEOs and captains of industry and Congress, are ditching their blue blazers for swanky black leather motorcycle jackets. Why? Read the article.   And then put those three pieces together to stimulate analysis:   Is the moto still cool? (or in AP parlance, “to what extent is the moto still cool?”). Do you want one? Why or why not? What kind of power does that black leather jacket signal in 2019? (Think about the logic here: what’s the premise – unstated? -- of a jacket that can cost upwards of a thousand dollars being a symbol of power… or rebellion?) Is fashion political? Should it be? (“Should Fashion Influence Politics and Culture?”)   Or, if you want to get into the rhetorical weeds, then this activity could be just a warm up to reading the superb Central Essay in Pop Culture – “Hip Hop Planet” by the wonderful James McBride. It’s a sophisticated analysis of the history, artistry, and cultural significance of Hip Hop.   These are the kind of connections we hope that our selections in TLC3e will generate as you tailor readings to your own classroom. All exam prep need not be, well, totally exam prep. Enjoy! ... View more