Study Hall! The scary truth.

Get Educated

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Discuss with a friend: what did you uncover this week that you never heard of before? What power and privilege may have protected you from unpacking this concept? Or, which trauma(s) may have shielded you from learning more?

Just because we Democrats are disadvantaged now, I don't think we should stoop to Trump’s level. Are there future repercussions if Biden were to pack the court?  From Expand the court on 10/27/2020.

There's certainly repercussions to restructuring the court; it could divide the two parties even further and make the Supreme Court a critical part of every future election. Some are calling for different ways to restructure the court, like implementing term limits, that might not feel as radical as changing the number of seats altogether.

We could also have a court that changes more rapidly, offering more diverse perspectives on cases than what we've had historically.

But I think many people feel (including myself) that the stakes are too great to worry about the optics or the repercussions. The repercussions that the American people will experience outweigh any political maneuvering. Some of the most foundational human rights are at stake, and if we believe this democracy is designed to protect them, we need to make rapid changes so it can.

Q+A

This election I have the chance to vote for more environmental protections for my city. The plan notes that it will raise taxes to achieve its vision. I know we've talked about how important environmental protections are for marginalized communities in particular, but we've also talked about how the tax system disproportionately impacts the same community. How do I vote in a way that actually helps, not hurts? From Fight for environmental protections on 10/23/2020.

When writing one newsletter on one topic each day, we oftentimes fail to demonstrate the complexities of this work. Unfortunately, our best efforts on one issue don't exist in a silo, and often come in direct conflict in what we believe our best efforts are in another. This is a great example of that paradox.

When abstracted, this is an example of a futility cycle, which some radical abolitionists point to in discussions about changing the current system. Because our entire society is built upon oppression, it's incredibly difficult to make monumental change. We can rally to change in one aspect of our lives, but overhauling everything is going to take more drastic action. It's akin to rebuilding a house on a rotting foundation. At some point, we need to raze the entire structure and start anew.

I don't know the specifics of the issue on your ballot this year, and sure, there might be one of the two choices that are slightly better. But let's focus on the paradox at hand. How can we look at both issues past the ballot and fight not for reform, but for abolition? Like in your scenario, taxes often come at the "cost" of other threats – poverty, housing insecurity, hunger – so what would it look like if we abolished the tax system entirely? How can we start today to push for a reimagining of taxes tomorrow?

I don't have the answers, but community activists in your city may. You're asking all the right questions. Keep listening for more tangible ways you can reshape the system. And in the meantime, keep doing what you can and make the decision that marginally moves things forward.

Q+A

I disagree with some of the costumes you say are offensive. Humor is healing, so zombie cops or coronavirus in chains could be a good way to look at where we are right now. From Don't be racist this Halloween on 10/31/2020.

It may be for you! But I'll be honest, I had a visceral reaction to thinking about someone draped in chains walking down the street – regardless of what they're dressed as. I personally hold my breath when I see any cop while walking down the street; I don't think realizing one in particular is a Halloween costume as I approach will assuade that gut check.

Your response centered your assumption on how other people will feel based on what you deem funny. This work always encourages centering your assumptions on how people most vulnerable may feel; those that have had to live with the real-life horrors of cops and sickness. I don't think it's right to assume that everyone will appreciate a joke over the assumption that someone could be offended.

When it comes to humor, this take is often hotly contested. Comedians, for example, are both praised and condemned for making light of difficult situations. But I personally think that Halloween costumes occupy a different territory than a space designated for those kinds of statements. To me, Halloween is a way to escape the horrors of the day-to-day, not place them center stage.

Q+A

I heard that the term "spooky" is rooted in a slur against Black people and we shouldn't use it. Is that true? From Don't be racist this Halloween on 10/31/2020.

Kind of. The term "spook" derives from the Dutch word for apparition, or specter, as did all of its variations (like "spooking" or "spooky").

But the word "spook" became a derogatory term for Black people in WWII, when Black Army pilots who trained at the Tuskegee Institute were referred to as the "Spookwaffe". Referring to someone – particularly a Black person – as a "spook" or "spooky" is absolutely uncalled for (NPR).

However, the term is "spooky" is still used as a colloquial statement towards general specter related activities (I clearly used it without thinking even though I already knew this). There's definitely more adjectives we can use instead of this term that's been co-opted in our history to have this meaning.