Dan Luke is Famous

Educator and artist in Chicago

[danlukeisfamous]

Exceptional Learners and South Park

Krazy Kripples began with Jimmy as he prepared to host his comedy show. As an aspiring comedian, a comedy show, hopefully attended by many, was of great importance to him. He was devastated to later learn that nobody attended. His show had been scheduled in direct conflict with a speech presented by famed actor Christopher Reeve regarding stem cell research.

Jimmy, first dejected and hurt, turned his focus to the frustration he felt with the situation. In his eyes, Christopher Reeve was someone that had become “crippled” later in life and then used his fame and disability to advocate his own interests. Jimmy, and his friend, Timmy, never had experienced able bodied life at all, in addition, they were without the status of celebrity in order to promote and advocate on behalf of their own interests. The two formed a club for those “born crippled” and called it “The Crips.”

Rather quickly, the newfound crips encountered a real life street gang also calling themselves “The Crips,” and in a series of misunderstandings and odd coincidences, they were indoctrinated into that gang. The Crips warred violently with rival gang The Bloods. At the peak of the violence, Jimmy rose as a mediator between the two groups, and brokered peace, with a rousing speech in which he compared the suffering endured in his life time to that of both gangs, urging them to break the cycle of violence.

In addition, the episode featured a subplot where Christopher Reeve, campaigning for stem cell research in South Park, began to abuse experimental fetuses in order to cure his paralysis, only to later ascent beyond it to new levels of superhuman abilities. In the end, those powers ended up corrupting Reeve, and subsequently, he was taken down by Gene Hackman, famous for portraying Lex Luthor in the Superman films. The end of the episode found Reeve trapped in the “Phantom Zone” as a humorous reversal of characters Hackman and Reeve portrayed in the plots of the Superman film series.

South Park, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, generated controversy and debate through its 17 seasons. Parker and Stone have often described themselves as “equal opportunity offenders” who reject any notion of political correctness. In their opinion, there is no topic or group to be spared mockery, or satire, or both.

Many champion the show and its satire; they herald the creators as “geniuses” and praise their appetite to tackle hot button issues. Especially in the instance of the exceptional community, for instance, Jeff Shannon, a quadriplegic, and reporter for The Seattle Times, in 2009, wrote:      “[South Park is] outrageous because we live in an outrageous world, and while issues like disability are treated with kid gloves in the cultural mainstream, “South Park” tackles them with blunt force honesty, free from the politically correct restrictions that curtail open discourse in more “respectable” forms of debate (Shannon, 2005).” This seems to be a statement on intensity, and in that regard, it is correct. The show does tackle issues, especially those with the exceptional community, with intensity. That being said, intensity is a world that only matters in regard to it’s Latin root “intent.” That is to say, “what exactly is the intention of one which brings such intensity?”

“For a long time we we’re like, ‘You know what? Maybe that’s not cool.’” Stone and Parker said, regarding the portrayal of Reeve in Krazy Kripples. The two had wanted to parody Reeve and his advocative interests for some time, but held off. Later, when the two saw Reeve on Larry King Live, speaking about stem cell research conducted in Israel, the two thought “You know what? F--- him. He really is taking up this cause of ‘Everyone needs to help me out (Goldman, 2006).’”

That is an interesting notion. What are the exact implications for a celebrity, rendered handicapped by circumstance, who advocates in order to benefit himself? Is it justified in the conceit that, in the bigger picture, it will help many more as well? Is it a selfish notion entirely?

What’s more interesting, is that, despite their fascinating opinions on Reeve, Stone and Parker never address the issue in Krazy Kripples, at all. Instead, we’re left with a Superman parody framed around stem cell research and those who advocate for it, featuring Reeve and Hackman obliviously reprising their roles, and, in addition, a main plot completely structured around a single joke of two handicapped boys starting a club where they call themselves “The Crips.” Both of those stories were executed with intensity, that’s for sure, though, it’s the intent that is much more haunting. Are Stone and Parker cowards hiding behind the conceit of satire in order to make a series of cheap and juvenile jokes? Does it even matter?

“We may not all agree on the benefits and shortcomings of this ongoing cartoon controversy,” again, Jeff Shannon, The Seattle Times, “but in the simple act of addressing disability at all, “South Park” is opening a dialogue where none previous existed. As strange as it may seem to some, Jimmy and Timmy and goodwill ambassadors, and we owe them our thanks (Shannon, 2005).”

It was 2009. I had just turned 21 and landed my dream job as a writer at a huge television network. I was in a pre-production meeting regarding a certain sitcom when a high level producer expressed disdain over the stereotypical actions which a homosexual character had taken in a script that was about to go into production. There were two options: eliminate the plot entirely from the episode or go into production on a plot that was, on many levels, “cringeworthy.” The room was quiet until one of the writers, an openly gay man, stated that he would rather see his community represented on television, as offensive, or distasteful as it could be, than not at all. It was an argument of representation at any cost. I still wonder about that sometimes. I try to explain it to my friends. So much so, that I have even titled it. I call it “The Exposure Principal.” In the end we ran the episode. The intensity was there. Sometimes, though, I wonder if our intent was correct.

Ultimately, that episode of our show, like Krazy Kripples, was a stepping stone, it was one episode in a larger series. It was part of a mosaic and, bit by bit, and week by week, it composed a bigger picture. A bigger picture that became distorted, embellished, and unfocused. Something that held greater implications than what could be imagined. It was, in simple terms, a Frankenstein monster.

In that respect, it’s important for us to assess the global implications of a show as popular as South Park. What are the lessons taken from it? What is incidentally learned? What are the implications for the global exceptional community?

By now, Jimmy and Timmy have represented the exceptional community on South Park, on various episodes, for years. They’re two sides of the same coin, they represent both the failure and success of South Park as a functioning satire and informative, pop-culture mechanism. Analysis, of the two, separate, or in tandem, was found to be especially beneficial.

First, an analysis of Timmy Burch. Timmy Burch is described by the official South Park website as being “ailed by a strange combination of palsy and Tourettes (South Park Studios, 2008).” The intention, then, is for the creators to utilize this character to analyze real world issues for those living with palsy or Tourettes. In fact, it was Timmy's embodiment of Tourettes which served as the catalyst to his popularity.

Introduced in 2000, the character quickly became a fan favorite. He has been voted The Greatest Disabled TV Character and was ranked #2 of South Park’s Top 10 Peripheral Characters (Iverson, 2007). Parker has even noted that the fans he encountered soon after the debut of the character had adopted the character's exclamation of “Timmy!” as a catchphrase. It quickly overshadowed catchphrases long held by the show (Parker, 2002).

That catchphrase, Timmy’s emphatic exclamation of his own name, has been, and still is widely used, and frequently, been mistaken as a representation of Tourettes.  While Timmy demonstrates a physical and vocal tic, common with Tourettes, it never waxes or wanes, is suppressed in temporary bursts, or is preceded by a premonitory urge. Timmy’s catchphrase, an emphatic representation of his own name, seems more typical of conduction aphasia. This then, serves as an example of how a single piece of a mosaic and convolute the greater whole. For the majority of viewers, this is likely a battle of knowledge and accuracy already lost.

I don’t have my own words to describe what I need to say. I do have a memory of what my father used to say when I would cause a commotion, however, and I believe they will serve well. In the circumstance that I had slopped up the house, he would look about, and then say “if you’re going to make a mess, at least do it right.”

That sentiment is relevant here. If a show is to invoke satire, and therefore, the education that comes with satire, then it needs to mind the double edge of that sword. A character introduced with propensity toward controversy need be paid mind as to what their controversy means. The devil is in details. In simpler terms, satire implies learning.

That being said, South Park has done several things right, be they mechanical or physical representations of the exceptional community or cognitive or emotional ones. Let’s begin with the physical: Timmy’s friend, Jimmy Valmer, accurately represents a very real and common variation of cerebral palsy. “Cerebral Palsy,” according to Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education “is a condition characterized by paralysis, weakness, lack of coordination, and or, other motor dysfunctions; caused by damage to the brain before it has matured (Hallahan, 2012).” Jimmy suffers from spasms and tics that suggest athetoid or spastic forms of palsy.

In addition, Jimmy, unlike Timmy, features robust character traits, he is ailed not by his disability, but by a universal adolescent sexual frustrations. He is not humbled or humiliated by his status, but of his chose profession as a standup comedian. He is propelled forward not with a sense of disenfranchisement but by his passions. It is not the intent, there, to imply that the exceptional community is characterized by those things, the intent is that that an especially bad writer of a television series would focus on such sentiments, unlike Stone and Parker, who have approached the issue with the same neutrality they afford to their satire and worldview as a whole.

In fact, it's important not to dismiss that there is a larger emotional picture being painted here, and the representation of an almost utopian balance to the world and context of South Park as a whole. It is a world where all are equal, except the willfully misinformed, or the menacingly opportunistic, who are rightfully vilified, rejected, and punished by the moral code of the show. Jimmy and Timmy are not “disabled people” on South Park. They’re just people, and, for the most of the time, the jokes come at the expense of those whom feign ignorance or callous words upon them for the wrong reasons.

I can still remember various episodes with Jimmy and Timmy. Jimmy, attempting to lose his virginity to a prostitute. Timmy, kindly protecting a turkey on Thanksgiving weekend from vicious hunters. I remember those stories, and the non-biased emotional connections that I made with these characters, without provocation on any other terms than I connect with them as people, trying to get by like anybody else. In that way, they really were, and are, ambassadors.

Krazy Kripples, however, just is not one of those episodes. It’s a series of pointless and juvenile jokes and vague meanderings, where most of its actual gravitas, intellectuality, lies in the negative space of context. It’s a missed opportunity and the deliberate misinforming on the issue of stem cell research, void of heart, soul, or meaning. A pointless half hour of TV where the only offense to be taken is that the viewers time be wasted entirely.

In the grand scheme of the show, the episode will probably prove to be a small misstep in a larger and highly beneficial mosaic. It will become part of a show that demonstrated a ferocious emotional intelligence, important and welcome. I just wish that they had taken the time, with this episode, to go beyond emotionality, and present the responsible intellect appropriate for satire, as to honor this, or any, group which happens to be caught in the crosshairs of satire.

References

Goldman, Eric (2006-07-18). "South Park: Matt And Trey Speak Out, Part 2". IGN. Retrieved 2008-10-19.

Shannon, Jeff (2005-11-28). "The Seattle Times: Arts & Entertainment: Timmy of "South Park" challenges viewers' attitudes about people with disabilities". seattletimes.nwsource.com. Retrieved 2009-05-16.

Hallahan, Daniel P., and |. Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.

"FAQ". South Park Studios. Accessed on Nov. 14, 2008

Iverson, Dan; Zoromski, Brian (2007-03-06). "Top 10 South Park Peripheral Characters". IGN. IGN Entertainment. p. 3. Retrieved 2008-11-24.

Trey Parker, Matt Stone (2002). "South Park" – The Complete Fourth Season (DVD). Comedy Central. Mini-commentary for episode "The Tooth Fairy Tats 2002."

[danlukeisfamous]

Choice Words

By: Daniel Kevin Luke

Researchers in the UK observed 25 girls and 24 boys with the mean age of 8 years enrolled in the primary school system. They were individually tested for sessions of 30 minutes in a quiet part of the school in “processing speed, reading, and phonological tasks... (Warmington, 2013)” as well as memory and general cognitive ability measures. The children performed 5% over the national mean with a minimalization of “aggressive behaviors.”

“Forty-one children and their parents were selected from three child care centers and asked to participate in an eight-week early literacy intervention. Participants completed a series of measures of early literacy prior to interventions with parents and then again after the interventions with parents. In addition, 26 children were selected from two child care centers to serve as a comparison group by completing pre- and post-tests eight weeks apart... Results from the statistical analyses showed that an early literacy intervention can be effective in increasing young children’s print knowledge (Mullis, 2004).” Researchers found that children exposed to parental intervention scored 7% than the established mean on the post-test.

Researchers in South Africa utilized therapeutic use of daily events experienced by all of their students in order to establish a “relational approach.” They utilized examples of belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity. They found that they were better able to facilitate the personal and professional development of their students. (Winield, 2013) Researchers in Indonesia found that students were more physically active and healthy as a direct result of physical education via surveys and teacher lesson plans that were gathered. Their grades befitted overall from this implementation of self worth. Other improvement noted was their motor skills. (Bakhtiar, 2013)

48 senior students read, analyzed, and reflected on a case of an early childhood teacher having a dilemma regarding a girl who seemed to have special needs. Students suggested that the parents consult a specialist. They also suggested implementing strategies which aimed to support the child’s development. They concluded that teacher educators should consider integrating case-based pedagogy into teacher education courses. (KOC, 2012) Researchers examined the expectations and understandings of parental involvement in schools. They found that those expectations were often disconnected from the home lives of the students. Focus groups were held for two hours and participants contributed thoughts via an interview which lasted 50 minutes. Parent participants wrote hypothetical letters to a “teacher” of their choice about their family and community. Participation on behalf of parents was found to possess needs which were fluid, robust, and specific to their context and culture. (McKenna, 2013)

I observed a second grader for my Case Study. She excelled in both academics and extra curricular activities. She was the sister of the girl that I observed in my first case study. Her parents insisted that I not use any “critical language” when interacting with their child. Like the students in the UK, they found that their daughter had benefited from the positive manner in which she was spoken to - even in the instance of mistake or error. I happily obliged.

Her parents actively read to her, like the students from the literacy intervention study. They assisted her with homework. They read her a nightly bedtime story. She played traveling soccer. Her parents noted the many positive physical, cognitive, and social affects this had had on their daughter. The child conducted herself with a confidence and enthusiasm not found in most children.

In the specific case where the child was having issues sharing a particular toy with her sister during play her parents referred her to the notions of team work that she had learned on the soccer field. The child, as a result of this intervention, obliged. It was a reminder, like the study in South Africa, that the context utilized when administering a lesson, no mater how simple or complex, benefited from a frame of reference which was aligned with the child’s own life and experiences.

At school the child experienced excellent curriculum written by educators with eyes as sharp as their mind. She excelled in education thanks to these teachers. Knowledge and learning came, and always would come, easy to her.

Her parents were happy to be present in their child’s life. They understood their responsibilities. They worked hard.

Only half of the battle of an educator is that of tests and their scores. The other half are the words and attitudes which are utilized in order to communicate with any participants in the educational system. These are the choices that the educator is to make on a daily basis. These things will hopefully come easy to most educators. The educator inherently wants their students to succeed. My only question that I would pose to a future educator is: “How will you speak? What choice will you make?”

I formally conclude here. Thank you for your time. I now turn the floor over to anyone that has questions, comments, or answers.

References McKenna. (2013). Grounded theory models of parent voice, presence, and engagement in k-12 education. KOC. (2012). Using a dilemma case in early childhood teacher education: Does it promote theory and practice connection?. Bakhtiar. (2013). The implimentation of dynamic system theory and the principals of growth in physical education of elementary school. Winield. (2013). Bridging theory and practice: Thoughts on the therapeutic use of daily life events in the education of south african child and youth care workers. Mullis. (2004). Early literacy outcomes and parent involvement. Warmington. (2012). Improving world learning in children using an errorless technique.

[danlukeisfamous]

100%

Good afternoon,

My name is Daniel Kevin Luke. I am a graduate student and assistant enrolled in the school of education at this University. I was asked to speak about my experience here. The piece I have written for this occasion is entitled 100%.

I was born rich. I was born into the top 10% of this country. I was born smart. If you were to ask me how smart I would have to explain that I took a fancy IQ test when I was in the second grade and scored in the 90th percentile. The point is, in terms of my intelligence, I was also born into the top 10% of this country.

Being part of the 10% meant that I had the money to go to a great school. It was there that I was able to build a specific type of intellect that academia found valuable. I could attend any college I wanted. I was smart enough for most and rich enough for the rest.

Intelligence, as we know, is subjective, and made up of a wide variety of concepts. Yes, I can pass a standardized test, but I cannot write a symphony. I can get A’s on a report card but I am weak in reading and expressing my emotions to the point that I seem robotic. I can write a three paragraph essay but if you left me in the wilderness, I would get eaten by a grizzly bear in minutes. Those are not abstract notions. Those are very real forms of intellect. We all share them in various personal capacities. They are our strengths and weaknesses. None of us are people of very superior anything. We’re just differently balanced individuals.

What is more capitalistic and inhumane is how most Universities pulverize 90% of this country. Can’t meet our specific benchmark of intelligence? Okay, you get charged more. Can’t afford it? Take a hike. Meanwhile, we’ll raise our tuition rates higher and faster than inflation. That toxic attitude, based on their personal incentives, has only one outcome. An American family, that even with generous amounts of financial aid and federal grants cannot afford to send their child to the typical American college within their own financial means. The kid has to take out a student loan. Now, as a result, we live in a society where careers are hijacked by debt before students can even strap on their cap and gown and cross the stage toward an uncertain future. To receive a diploma in America in this day and age is to head off into a marketplace already encumbered by debt while lugging $27,000 in student loans on your back. That’s 67% of your net worth if you begin at an average salary of $40,000 a year. Dealing with that is practically impossible and, because of that, there is over $900 billion owed on student loans with $85 billion being past due. 9% that found themselves unable pay on principal.

Newsweek Magazine named Northeastern Illinois University the sixth best investment school in the United States. They reported that “78% of NEIU’s full-time students receive financial aid and only 13% incur debt.” They continued, “Graduates from the University receive an average mid-career annual salary of more than $70,000 with a starting annual salary near $40,000.” $70,000, for those of you paying attention, places those graduates the top 20% of the nation. Newsweek concluded saying “The Ranking showed students attending NEIU could expect to pay less than $20,000 a year in tuition and living expenses.”

Affordable colleges maintain low costs so that their students can succeed. Their students graduate with minimal debt. Affordable colleges embrace a wide diversity of economic and cultural backgrounds and many paths to enrollment so that students may have access to life-long learning opportunities and graduate with the skills and knowledge needed to become effective leaders in their professional and personal lives.

Affordable colleges are a shining beacon of light in such bleak darkness. They are a rare oasis that looks to nurture their students and, in turn, improve the world. I am proud to work at such an institution. I will never be able to repay this world for the random luxurious it bestowed upon me during my childhood, but every day, as I help students turn themselves from the 90% to the 50%, 25%, or 10% by utilizing their wit, individualistic intelligence, ingenuity, frugality, and courage, I find that the weight of my own bizarre and personal guilt eases.

The last five years have been a tremendous financial nightmare. Americans, like myself, lost our jobs and watched our money burn down to the ground. Despite my rhetoric here today, I would like to state that I still believe in my government and politicians. I have to believe in a better future. Even so, it frightens me that we’ve seen huge cuts in state budget to higher education which have resulted in a 21% rise in tuition. States have been spending 28% less per student while expecting them to achieve more with less. I will not hesitate to state that I cannot support any more cuts to the funding of affordable colleges. To cut more funding would mean eliminating course offerings, turning the lights off in computer labs, consolidating faculty, and severely limiting library resources. It is a slap in the face to those that work so hard to provide a humanistic, reasonable, and wonderful service that benefits both our state and nation.

We all deserve the liberty to be whom and where we want to be in this country. We deserve the liberty to learn what we want to learn. Therefore, we deserve the justice to participate in higher education without petty penalties because we don’t fit a specific description. Higher education is how we better ourselves so that we may give back. We should not have to worsen ourselves in order to attain it. Unfortunately, that is now what we and our government must fight for.

I’d like to close today with some famous words that Francis Bellamy wrote in 1892: “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” All is not 10%. All is 100%.

It has been an honor to speak to you. Thank you so much for your time today.