Dallas school district spends $57k sending *boys* to a movie

[skeptical scientist]

...but girls had to stay in school.

I don't even have the words to express how appalled I am by this news story.

http://dallasisdblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/dallas-isd-fifth-grade-boys-ar.html

The Dallas school district took about 5,700 fifth-grade boys this morning to see a new movie about African-American fighter pilots in World War II, but female students were excluded.
...
Dallas ISD [Independent School District] spokesman Jon Dahlander emailed me some answers to my questions.

"Approximately 5,000 fifth grade boys in the district are watching Red Tails," he wrote in the email. "The film is about the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of African American pilots whose acts of bravery during World War II earned them the President Unit Citation in honor of their achievements."
...
Dahlander writes, "There is only so much available space at the movie theater, so the decision was made for boys to attend the movie. Girls stayed at school but principals were given the option to show them Akeelah and the Bee."
...
The all-boys field trip cost more like $57,000 -- not $32,000, Dahlander told me this afternoon.

[BoomFrog]

"There is only so much available space at the movie theater

If only they didn't have to burn down all the movie theaters after the first showing because of how awesome the movie is.

[Woopate]

Wow, I'm not even sure I can think of a BAD reason to do this, let alone a good one.

[yurell]

... I so hope they get sued hard.

[Zamfir]

Wow, I'm not even sure I can think of a BAD reason to do this, let alone a good one.

I imagine something like this:

Some people are organizing stuff for Black History Month, and want to do something fun and inspiring for school kids. They come up with the plan of this movie viewing. They make an estimate of costs and available subsidy budgets, and it looks doable. Some people start talking to schools, others to movie theaters, and others yet start raising budget. You have to do those things always a bit in parallel. For time reasons, but also because you can't raise budgets if you don't know about if schools are interested, can't get interest if you don't know about feasibility, can't negotiate with theaters if you're not serious.

Somewhere in the process, people have screwed up. Too much kids, costs are higher than expected, subsidies lower, a big sponsor bailed, I dunno. They find out too late, when promises have already been made, some contracts are signed, etc. This happens a lot, especially when ethusiast but not too experienced people are stting up a project that turns out too big for them.

So they have to salvage the project, get it forward without too much cost overruns. They have been to schools already, they have heard that boys like the prospect and girls don't, so someone says "Hey, if we only do boys, we don't bust the budget too much, and we get most of the kids who really want to go". Sounds good at the emergency meeting, everyone is relieved that the project is not completely wrecked, and no one considers how it will look in the newspapers.

I don't if it happened like this. But "massive screw up" often beats "nefarious motives" when it comes to explanations.

[skeptical scientist]

I don't if it happened like this. But "massive screw up" often beats "nefarious motives" when it comes to explanations.

I think sexism counts as a nefarious motive. It may have been unconscious sexism rather than conscious sexism, but that just means the nefarious motive was unconscious.

[curtis95112]

I don't if it happened like this. But "massive screw up" often beats "nefarious motives" when it comes to explanations.

I think sexism counts as a nefarious motive. It may have been unconscious sexism rather than conscious sexism, but that just means the nefarious motive was unconscious.

Yes. If they weren't sexist, the obvious solution would have been to have people sign up for the movie, and draw lots if there's too many.
If this is just a massive screw up with nothing to do with sexism, the people in charge should be fired for stupidity or something like that.

[Zamfir]

I don't if it happened like this. But "massive screw up" often beats "nefarious motives" when it comes to explanations.

I think sexism counts as a nefarious motive. It may have been unconscious sexism rather than conscious sexism, but that just means the nefarious motive was unconscious.

It's words, but I'd count "unconscious sexism" as part of "screwup", and keep "nefarious motives" for cases where the people responsible are fairly happy with the outcome. Which could surely be the case here as well.

Both are problems, just different kinds of problem. In particular for people who were only tangentially involved, like the schools and the subsidy-dividers.

Option one: the project was pitched from the start as "something for the boys of Dallas". In which the question for those other people becomes, why did we go along with that project?

Option two: the project was originally for all kids, and the "only boys" thing was a last-minute change that came as a surprise to most people involved. In that case, the question becomes "why didn't we recognize these organizers as incompetent until it was too late".

[Adacore]

I don't if it happened like this. But "massive screw up" often beats "nefarious motives" when it comes to explanations.

I think sexism counts as a nefarious motive. It may have been unconscious sexism rather than conscious sexism, but that just means the nefarious motive was unconscious.

I agree with you, but I think Zamfir's suggestion was that the boys had expressed interest in the film and the girls had not (generalising, of course), so it wasn't so much stereotyping as responding to perceived differences in demand. Maybe. That would be a result of inherent sexism in society as a whole, but not necessarily sexism on the part of the event planners, who may just've been responding to what the kids wanted.

Personally I doubt that, and think the subconscious sexism answer is more likely.

Preview edit: Ninja'd.

[Tirian]

I don't buy the story that this was about limited space. They could have done this over two days and provided co-ed viewings to have half the schools send all their fifth graders each day. It's not like movie theaters get used at all before noon. Would have made a lot more sense to make a deal with the producers and bring the movie to the kids instead of dealing with the logistics of (badly) bringing the kids to the movie.

I think they could have made better choices, but gender based education is nothing new. Remember when Take Our Daughters To Work Day meant that boys stayed in class to learn about domestic violence and deadbeat dads? I'm opposed to carping about the cost too -- $10 per student attending a field trip strikes me as astonishingly frugal.

[Chen]

Maybe my sense of scale is off, but isn't 5700 people a lot for a theatre to fit? Was this not over multiple theatres anyways? Why would space be a reasonable reason to not allow everyone to go?

[Zamfir]

Maybe my sense of scale is off, but isn't 5700 people a lot for a theatre to fit? Was this not over multiple theatres anyways? Why would space be a reasonable reason to not allow everyone to go?

Presuambly the theaters (or the movie license holders) demanded more money for more viewings, and the program was already over budget.

I agree with you, but I think Zamfir's suggestion was that the boys had expressed interest in the film and the girls had not (generalising, of course), so it wasn't so much stereotyping as responding to perceived differences in demand. Maybe. That would be a result of inherent sexism in society as a whole, but not necessarily sexism on the part of the event planners, who may just've been responding to what the kids wanted.

Personally I doubt that, and think the subconscious sexism answer is more likely.

That's roughly what I tried to say. But I wouldn't divide that as sexism on one side, something else on the other side. More as different levels of sexism.

It's possible that the plan was from the start to show war movies to boys, because boys need heroic war heros as example. Then the sexism is deeply ingrained, hardly subconscious. It means that everybody involved took it for granted that boys and girls need different role models, and consciously set out to provide the gender-appropriate ones.

On the other side of the spectrum they just had to hurriedly ditch half of the kids, and followed the perceived (and possibly accurate) difference in demand. Without much consideration of the message they we're providing. They end up providing the same role examples, but more as thoughtless followers than as active trail blazers.

Reaility is presumably somewhere in between, with some of the people involved more towards the first and others more towards the second. I can even imagine people giving themself a kind of karmic absolution "we're already providing people with black role models, gender roles are the next project"

[Jahoclave]

They realize girls are allowed to serve in the military now, right? So, they just missed out on recruitment propaganda for the actual majority of u.s. citizens in terms of biological sex.

It's possible that the plan was from the start to show war movies to boys, because boys need heroic war heros as example. Then the sexism is deeply ingrained, hardly subconscious. It means that everybody involved took it for granted that boys and girls need different role models, and consciously set out to provide the gender-appropriate ones.

True; however, it also has a ring of Santorum and his protestation of women in the service. It's more than just need different role models, it's that women should have certain rolls. I'd really like to actually see some research on conservative reactions to the increasing more accurate representation of women as taking on actual war work in films. Could probably call the book, "Reactions to 'Hotlips'".

Though, the fact that it's an all black movie seems to have the same sort of congratulations as Zizek congratulating society for at least not blaming the Jews for the economic crises.

[el_loco_avs]

Isn't that Akeelah movie way superior? Boys are missing out.

[Triangle_Man]

This could be a case of 'evil through stupidity' more than 'evil through intent', or something like that.

To be honest, I have noticed myself falling back on gender/racial/sexual-orientation-based stereotypes in the past (much to my personal dismay) and have had to catch myself when that happens; however, not everyone has the level of self-awareness required to catch themselves when similar (possibly media inspired) thoughts run through their heads. I suspect that the school board in this case (operating under the assumption that we've 'cured' sexism, which is technically true if you only count overt expressions of hatred/prejudice as sexism) assumed that the movie would be more interesting to the male students than the female students because, on some unconscious/unaware level, they were operating on the 'boys like war' stereotypes; therefore, when the planning problems started (if they started), they saw absolutely no harm in only taking the male students to see the move.

...Or something like that. Feel free to challenge me on this.

@ el_loco_avs - Just looked it up. It seems like an interesting movie. Why did they go with the war movie in the first place (assuming that the trip originally included female students as well)?

[el_loco_avs]

Also. Girls apparantly are getting their own field trip later on as mentioned in this article:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/educat ... rip-020912

No details. I wonder what the boys will get to do that day.

[Tirian]

I've heard very good things about Red Tails as well. Children should be exposed to both. Making an external decision that you should seek role models that have the same gonads as you is so last-gen.

@ el_loco_avs - Just looked it up. It seems like an interesting movie. Why did they go with the war movie in the first place (assuming that the trip originally included female students as well)?

Their lesson plan for the year is an in-depth study of WWII, so a documentary on the Tuskegee Airmen is a great conjunction of that mission with African-American History Month. In my opinion, it's such a strong idea that the only flaw was excluding half the students in the district.

[folkhero]

Isn't that Akeelah movie way superior? Boys are missing out.

I'm not sure if your serious here, but getting to see a movie at a real movie theater is going to be a much more enjoyable experience than watching a movie on a little 20 year old CRT in your same old boring classroom, sitting on your same old uncomfortable plastic chairs.

[skeptical scientist]

It's words, but I'd count "unconscious sexism" as part of "screwup", and keep "nefarious motives" for cases where the people responsible are fairly happy with the outcome. Which could surely be the case here as well.

I'm a firm believer in the maxim, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." However, any way you slice it, it's clear that there's more than just mere stupidity at work here.

[ConMan]

Also. Girls apparantly are getting their own field trip later on as mentioned in this article:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/educat ... rip-020912

No details. I wonder what the boys will get to do that day.

I'm more interested in what the girls will be doing that will so obviously be of interest only to them, as this film was to the boys.

[Jave D]

Girls stayed at school but principals were given the option to show them Akeelah and the Bee."

I think the only way that could be more blatantly sexist and outdated is if the girls were given the option to watch an informational newsreel about the joys of knitting and making dinner for your husband.

[Jahoclave]

Also. Girls apparantly are getting their own field trip later on as mentioned in this article:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/educat ... rip-020912

No details. I wonder what the boys will get to do that day.

I'm more interested in what the girls will be doing that will so obviously be of interest only to them, as this film was to the boys.

Shopping at the mall, but JCPenny's is verboten.

[Zamfir]

I'm a firm believer in the maxim, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." However, any way you slice it, it's clear that there's more than just mere stupidity at work here.

In cases like this, it easily becomes scapegoating. Specific people become responsible for a discomfort that goes way deeper, and the rest of us can be absolved.

After all, when the organizers decided that girls won't be inspired by the movie, they are presumably largely correct. They're digging the hole even deeper, but the hole was mostly already there. If they had sent the girls together with the boys, we could have ignored the hole more easily, but it wouldn't go away.

We have some narrative traditions that are sharply recognized by kids of that age. You're mostly supposed to identify with the characters of your own gender, and historic figures are always portrayed with the correct gender. The lead roles of Red Tails are based on historic persons, except that their names, life story and actual deeds in the war have been changed. One of them is played by a British actor with Nigerian parents. They're still male and of the right skin colour, which is apparently what really matters in history.

We ask girls to appreciate that these heroic and succesful WW2 combat pilots are black, and that this reflects historic fact. At the same time, ignore that there are no female pilots, or that this also reflects history. Of course, we can dig up some historic heroic women as well, if there's a paying market.

Most of the soldiers in Captain America could have been women, without much extra strain on the suspension of disbelief. Cuba Gooding could have been the lead actor of Pearl Harbour. Oskar Schindler wasn't Irish either, after all. They're not, and that's mostly because we as an audience are finnicky about such things.

From that position, it's too easy to blame the organizers for taking a male-oriented movie about men doing manly things, and then show it to boys. They're mostly going along with a flow that we are shaping together.

[Deep_Thought]

From that position, it's too easy to blame the organizers for taking a male-oriented movie about men doing manly things, and then show it to boys. They're mostly going along with a flow that we are shaping together.

I agree that this particular action was probably misguided and incompetent, rather than malicious. However, your last point raises an important issue - how are we supposed to change a flow if everyone just goes along with it? This kind of thing is a perfect opportunity to challenge stereotyped gender roles. It's a shame it was missed.

[lutzj]

Of course, we can dig up some historic heroic women as well, if there's a paying market.

There were actually quite a few women who served with distinction as fighter and bomber pilots in WW2 (airplanes being a good equalizer for physical strength (being smaller and shorter can actually be a huge help)); the problem is that the vast majority of them were fighting for the Soviets, and obviously we can't make a movie about that.

[Gear]

At the same time, ignore that there are no female pilots, or that this also reflects history.

I can't tell if you're saying that there were no women pilots, or that some other people might say that there were no female pilots as an excuse not to include them, but either way at least 1074 American women flew in WWII.

Also, slightly off topic I really want to see a movie about the Night Witches. That would be pretty awesome.

[Zamfir]

I can't tell if you're saying that there were no women pilots, or that some other people might say that there were no female pilots as an excuse not to include them, but either way at least 1074 American women flew in WWII.

And none of them saw combat duty. Which I don't care much about one way or the other, but Red Tails clearly does.

Keep in mind, there's nothing that stops a movie from having female actors to portray combat pilots, in whatever heroic role and in any historic period. It's our arbitrary choice to make the masculinity of WW2 pilots a defining characteristic.

[Cleverbeans]

However, any way you slice it, it's clear that there's more than just mere stupidity at work here.

I think you underestimate the stupidity of Texans. They do have the worst education system in the developed world after all...

[Vieto]

Of course, we can dig up some historic heroic women as well, if there's a paying market.

There were actually quite a few women who served with distinction as fighter and bomber pilots in WW2 (airplanes being a good equalizer for physical strength (being smaller and shorter can actually be a huge help)); the problem is that the vast majority of them were fighting for the Soviets, and obviously we can't make a movie about that.

Actually, I would totally pay to watch a good WWII movie from the Soviet's point of view. It would be refreshing.

[Zamfir]

Lots of soviet and Russian ww2 movies if you want to. I think 'idi i smotry' is the most famous one, though I have never seen it. Should be easy to download. More heroic ones are available in endless droves.

[thc]

It's not a perfect situation, but I have a hard time seeing how this is something to rage over. When I was in grade school, we had a lot of boys-do-this and girls-do-that activities. Sometimes the boys got the better deal and sometimes not, but if it can be evened out in the end, I don't see how anyone can claim harm.

Actually suing over something like this? That strikes me as a frivilous lawsuit, though IANAL.

[curtis95112]

Because if this was caused by subconscious racism, as it probably was, then it won't be evened out in the end.

[Lucrece]

My head hurts just from knowing they even think of doing gender-segregated activities. It's a detestable message.

If they didn't have enough space, do what the other public schools do: let parents cover the cost of attending movies so further services can be purchased. The entire notion that war things are for boys vexes me deeply.

[Djehutynakht]

It can be summed up by the First Law of Humankind:

People are Stupid.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, I'm going with stupidity on this one. I can really envision how the thought that this was a good idea formed in their minds just slowly enough that they were too stupid to think about the sexism component.

[thc]

My head hurts just from knowing they even think of doing gender-segregated activities. It's a detestable message.

You mean like going to different bathrooms?

[el_loco_avs]

Because if this was caused by subconscious racism, as it probably was, then it won't be evened out in the end.

the... female... race? what?

[Zamfir]

the... female... race? what?

Oh yes, they breed like rabbits and there's more of them everyday. It's not ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? to say, but most welfare queens and single mothers are women.

[Ghostbear]

I heard they've even reached the point of being just about half the world's population.

[omgryebread]

My head hurts just from knowing they even think of doing gender-segregated activities. It's a detestable message.

You mean like going to different bathrooms?

This is not really worth replying to, but bathrooms are in no way comparable to the $56,992 (since buying a DVD for the girls cost about 8 bucks) spending gap here. You know that, you know Lucrece knows that, and you should feel bad for even comparing them.