By means of our lack of understanding of our own history as a nation, we fail to see how history has placed race at the center of most of the mechanisms of our founding and practices. Many of these mechanisms are still in place and continue to negatively impact the communities whose labors were and are essential in the creation of this rich nation. Since race was invented and fabricated by those who considered themselves to be white to rationalize the enslavement of those who they considered to be Black, little can be addressed or remediated without seeing our society through that lens. How do we rectify inequity within our discipline? If we are to do this, it is through the incorporation of counter-narratives in our field which is so rife with dominant and exclusive narratives. Seeking colorblind solutions to colorbound problems will not yield results of even the smallest of consequence and may lead to more problems and further inequity. If we are to create change here, we must see race to ensure equity and forge a plan for the way forward.
This curriculum unit proposes that we reassess and refocus our efforts as music educators so that the benefits of music study and musicianship in general can reach all students from all backgrounds. Our first step should be welcoming counter-narratives that have been long overlooked by our curriculum and/or excluded from our classrooms. An examination of some of the “business as usual” approach to music education that many teachers fall in line with is a great place to start. When we spend our instructional time on narrowly focused and short-term goals, like Regional and All-State competitions, I would argue that we not only miss the point, but we are upholding white supremacist elements within our discipline of music performance. By white supremacist, I am not talking about explicit forms of white supremacy like hate groups like the Klu Klux Klan, rather, implicit white supremacy within our discipline. This unit seeks to examine the ways in which music education props up and is tied to this supremacy, albeit unconsciously in the case of most educators. Musicologist Loren Kajikawa points out: “to have access to classical music means having access to other forms of property that were reserved for whites, such as expensive musical instruments, music lessons, and concert subscriptions. This codependency of whiteness and classical music was a main reason why black participation in classical music was restricted by whites and simultaneously sought after by African Americans seeking upward mobility.” (Crenshaw, 164) Contests like All-State thrive on exclusivity and are skewed, by virtue of how they are structured, to benefit students of means and of an increasingly more exclusive and diminishing population. Contests of this sort celebrate the “geniuses” amongst students using a framework and criteria that recognizes a very narrow type of musical proficiency and fluency.
One needn’t look further than the 2021 TMEA (Texas Music Educators Association) Convention for proof of why these contests, and the exaggerated role they are allowed to play in education, should be reexamined. In what is now being dubbed “Bassoongate”, Francis Chambers presented a clinic to teachers in attendance entitled: Building Better Bassoons 1. The clinic appears to be a harmless and potentially useful clinic. The problem arises when one reads how Chambers claims to be able to help attendees “build better bassoonists”. (The handout from the 2021 TMEA Convention can be found here 2.) He claims that this goal is met by being aware of certain “intangible characteristics” in assessing potential bassoon students. I use this as an example because I don’t doubt that he might have meant well when he came up with the criteria, but functioning within this pageant framework leads to this sort of thinking becoming the dominant logic in music education. He might very well be an example of someone who has slowly over time bought into the culture of “music as competition” or a way to line his office with trophies. We have truly lost our way when we get begin thinking about choosing students based on economic data in an effort to raise the chances that our school might have a student who made All-State Orchestra to the exclusion of students who could benefit from musical study regardless of whether they “bring home the gold” or not. Chambers’ “intangible characteristics” included:
Francis Chambers’ List of Intangible Characteristics Workshop
- Self-motivation
- Find students who don’t need constant teacher attention to improve.
- Intelligence
- Find kids strong in math and reading comprehension
- Socio-economic status
- Pre-packaged musical knowledge
- Stable home environment
- Do they live in an apartment or house?
- Are they buying or renting?
- Do they move/relocate often?
- Are their parents transferred for work often?
- Are lessons a possibility, both from a financial perspective and a mobility perspective?
- Is the home open to home practice?
Chambers also presents ableist prejudice by providing a list of “physical characteristics” that include hand size, overall body size and “being athletic”. This kind of mentality harkens back to the turn of the 20th century when scientists were using fields like eugenics to justify the creation of the concept of race, racial hierarchies and in some cases, overt caste systems. American citizens jumped at the chance to prove themselves worthy or better than others by holding Fitter Family and Better Baby Contests where whiteness was used as a norm or ideal against which difference is measured. (Crenshaw, 161) These contests sound silly to us now, but we must make sure that we learned the lesson that a student cannot be assessed through these methods with any reliability or validity. Humans are amazing and adaptive, don’t get in their way. Mr. Chambers’ list troubling for at least two reasons. Firstly, that he thinks this list is an efficient way to assess children and what they are potentially capable of achieving is absurd, at best. Secondly, that TMEA (which is the largest and therefore one of the most influential music educators’ associations in the country) saw no problem with advertising this clinic as is and therefore promoting this method as a valid approach to assessing students is equally concerning. The mentality of “win a trophy at the expense of respecting our very humanity” is disconcerting to say the least, yet here it is in black and white. This mindset has crept into our discipline and it is high time to reexamine our methods and goals. (Listen to episode 52 of The Score: An Urban Music Education Podcast 3 for more on Bassoongate and further dialog about music education as social gatekeeping.)
Personally, I would rather have a student who continues to make music throughout her life than have one the boasts at 49 years of age that they made All-State in middle school but hasn’t played a note since. Music as social praxis should be our goal! By this I mean, how much of what students learn at their instruments or in your rehearsal affects who they are, how they problem-solve or interact in their lives. Contests like the All-State do not prepare students well for future study, do not help them acquire the skillset acquired through music study and do not yield the type of musicians that we need in our ensembles. These contests play to the dominant narrative of the “young musician as child prodigy” which is not helpful in meeting the goals of the early music educator. These contests might help produce soloists, which is not a role that young musicians should be focusing on so early in their study. Furthermore, teaching students what matters is becoming a soloist with regards to why they should practice or make time for music leads to instruction “making a pragmatic musical difference for only a select (or self-selected) few- those with the ‘talent’ or interest needed to submit to such instruction – and, of these, usually only for their school years.” (Regelski, 72) These contests “promote outright competition between students for ensemble seating solos, and the like – formal competition or the informal kind of ‘comparatition’ that is natural in the identity formation of adolescents – where ‘social’ status is the goal rather than music and musical learning”. (Regelski, 71) If the goal is to impact the student’s epistemology, sense of self and confidence in their ability to learn, this is not the way to go about directing our ensembles. Quite simply, once the contests and concerts stop after graduation, the student will struggle with finding musical motivation to continue study and keep music in their lives as the enter adulthood. Keeping in mind that in teaching students we are trying to make better citizens who know how to navigate their own mental, as well as social spaces, with all of the obligations that come with that is what we should be striving for within our classroom and rehearsal spaces.
If we are to accept this assessment of the current state of our society and our discipline, we will need to apply this assessment to our circle of personal and professional responsibility. If you are reading this, chances are that you are a music educator in some capacity. If you are a music educator, I would argue that we need to reassess how knowledge production within the discipline of music education has helped to promote white supremacy and excluded other narratives and voices in favor of promoting the dominant narratives presented by Western Europe in music performance, practice and history. If you are invested in making change in the way music is taught and how its gifts are passed to and maintained by the next generation, your circle of personal and professional responsibility should be seen as your classroom and the students working in your ensembles. Writer James Baldwin said it best when he said, “If any particular discipline … does not become a matter of your personal honor, your private convictions, then it is simply a cloak which you can wear or throw off.” (Baldwin, 42) There is much work to be done but we are up to the task.