A classic example of why we need to purge the education bureaucracy.

I remember in the early 90s and the term "multicultural" made it on the national lexicon, I saw a protest with "Reverend" Jesse Jackson. The chant of the week was "Hey hey, ho ho, Western civ has got to go!" The usual suspects were screaming to end the requirement of (as I recall) an Ivy League that every student take some classes on Western civilization. I really didn't appreciated this as much as I do now, but it's something that binds the peoples of this nation. People who's ancestors came from multiple parts of the world but who have called this nation their home.

There was a time assimilation was the norm. One of my best friends is from India and I love telling the story of his family. His father, an engineer, made it to the United States in the middle 70s. He spent years working all day in New York and all night at a news stand to make the money needed to get his family over. And now their three children have raised their own families and there is no question, they are Americans. My friend's son was named after his favorite Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin.

Now we've come to this. This "teacher", another leftist with a chip on her shoulder, decided she will not teach the Bard because he is white. Just read it.

Teacher: Why I don’t want to assign Shakespeare anymore (even though he’s in the Common Core)

A new report on the teaching of Shakespeare in higher education found that English majors at the vast majority of the country’s most prestigious colleges and universities are not now required to take an in-depth Shakespeare course — but the Bard remains a fixture in high school English classes. In fact, studying Shakespeare is a requirement in the Common Core English Language Arts standards, mentioned in specific standards throughout high school.

Shakespeare, of course, is seen by many as the greatest writer in the English language and central to the Western canon. The idea of not teaching Shakespeare works — with their insights into the human condition — is anathema to many English teachers. But not all of them. Some wish they could stop teaching William Shakespeare’s works altogether. One of those teachers is Dana Dusbiber, a veteran teacher at Luther Burbank High School. Luther Burbank is the largest inner-city school in Sacramento, California, with all students coming from low-income homes and a majority of them minorities. In this post, she explains why she doesn’t want to teach Shakespeare to Luther Burbank (or any) students.

By Dana Dusbiber

I am a high school English teacher. I am not supposed to dislike Shakespeare. But I do. And not only do I dislike Shakespeare because of my own personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate, but also because there is a WORLD of really exciting literature out there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students.

I do not believe that I am “cheating” my students because we do not read Shakespeare. I do not believe that a long-dead, British guy is the only writer who can teach my students about the human condition. I do not believe that not viewing “Romeo and Juliet” or any other modern adaptation of a Shakespeare play will make my students less able to go out into the world and understand language or human behavior. Mostly, I do not believe I should do something in the classroom just because it has “always been done that way.”

I am sad that so many of my colleagues teach a canon that some white people decided upon so long ago and do it without question. I am sad that we don’t believe enough in ourselves as professionals to challenge the way that it has “always been done.” I am sad that we don’t reach beyond our own often narrow beliefs about how young people become literate to incorporate new research on how teenagers learn, and a belief that our students should be excited about what they read — and that may often mean that we need to find the time to let them choose their own literature.

I was an English major. I am a voracious reader. I have enjoyed reading some of the classics. And while I appreciate that many people enjoy re-reading texts that they have read multiple times, I enjoy reading a wide range of literature written by a wide range of ethnically-diverse writers who tell stories about the human experience as it is experienced today. Shakespeare lived in a pretty small world. It might now be appropriate for us to acknowledge him as chronicler of life as he saw it 450 years ago and leave it at that.

What I worry about is that as long as we continue to cling to ONE (white) MAN’S view of life as he lived it so long ago, we (perhaps unwittingly) promote the notion that other cultural perspectives are less important. In the 25 years that I have been a secondary teacher, I have heard countless times, from respected teachers (mostly white), that they will ALWAYS teach Shakespeare, because our students need Shakespeare and his teachings on the human condition.

So I ask, why not teach the oral tradition out of Africa, which includes an equally relevant commentary on human behavior? Why not teach translations of early writings or oral storytelling from Latin America or Southeast Asia other parts of the world? Many, many of our students come from these languages and traditions. Why do our students not deserve to study these “other” literatures with equal time and value? And if time is the issue in our classrooms, perhaps we no longer have the time to study the Western canon that so many of us know and hold dear.

Here then, is my argument: If we only teach students of color, as I have been fortunate to do my entire career, then it is far past the time for us to dispense with our Eurocentric presentation of the literary world. Conversely, if we only teach white students, it is our imperative duty to open them up to a world of diversity through literature that they may never encounter anywhere else in their lives. I admit that this proposal, that we leave Shakespeare out of the English curriculum entirely, will offend many.

But if now isn’t the time to break some school rules and think about how to bring literature of color to our student’s lives, when will that time be?

Let’s let Shakespeare rest in peace, and start a new discussion about middle and high school right-of-passage reading and literature study.

I just ask one question. If a history teacher said "I'm not teaching about Harriet Tubman or the Underground Railroad because a lot of (mostly white) people said we need to. That was a long time ago and it's not relevant to a modern diverse populace." I think this woman who screech from her hind legs about racism, destruction of our history, etc. Funny, she doesn't see the same with her.

If you want to speak to your "cultural" traditions, fine. Italians, Irish and Germans have their own parties, celebrations and days. But they are at first, Americans. And there is the issue with idiots like this woman. America has a culture of rugged individualism, liberty and independence based on the Western ethos. And we expect our "teachers" to instruct and reinforce that. If you don't want to, fine, get another job. Or if you want to offer "oral histories" as a elective class, excellent. But this is a western nation and if you don't like that, please, go back to the Third World hell holes your "oral history" were inspired by.