Satire as an Educative Tool for Critical Pedagogy in the Public Affairs Classroom

Administrative Theory & Praxis ISSN: 1084-1806 (Print) 1949-0461 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/madt20 Satire as an Educative Tool for Critical Pedagogy in the Public Affairs Classroom Nini Hayes To cite this article: Nini Hayes (2016) Satire as an Educative Tool for Critical Pedagogy in the Public Affairs Classroom, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38:4, 251-266, DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2016.1240464 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2016.1240464 Published online: 16 Nov 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=madt20 Download by: [King County Library System], [Nini Hayes] Date: 23 November 2016, At: 16:01 Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38: 251–266, 2016 Copyright © 2016 Public Administration Theory Network ISSN: 1084-1806 print/1949-0461 online DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2016.1240464 Satire as an Educative Tool for Critical Pedagogy in the Public Affairs Classroom Nini Hayes Saint Martin’s University Critical pedagogy is a teaching praxis focused on theories of change. It is fundamentally concerned with the relationship between power and knowledge. Satire is a humor technique sometimes used to describe the absurdity of public policies, human behavior, and institutional practices. Using satire and critical pedagogy in the public affairs classroom can be useful to educate public administration students how to ask hard questions and consider multiple perspectives to become effective leaders and policymakers. Examples are shared from a public administration classroom focused on the analysis of education policy, the political economy of schools, and the politics of schooling. The fundamental task of educators is to make sure that the future points the way to a more socially just world, a world in which critique and possibility—in conjunction with the values of reason, freedom and equality—function to alter the grounds upon which life is lived. —Henry Giroux If a goal of public administration is to advance a democratic society as it relates “itself to concepts of justice, liberty, and fuller economic opportunity for human beings,” the praxis and foundation of public affairs education must be rooted in equity and social justice (Clapp, 1948, p. 169). Social justice refers to the political ideology and labor of individuals, communities, and collectives committed to systemic change for groups who are marginalized and dispossessed (hooks, 1994; Love, 2000). In public administration programs, a social justice praxis aims to support students in their analysis of the success and failings of public institutions and public policy. Most importantly, an equity-centered approach strives to improve the level of well-being for all members of society, especially society’s most marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as young people. A cornerstone of the democratic impulse is education. What we teach, why we teach, and how we teach are political and ethical decisions that must be taken up in public affairs education. Shulman (2003) refers to this professional duty as a “pedagogical imperative” (para 4). “This is an obligation that devolves on individual faculty members, on programs, on institutions, and even on disciplinary communities. A professional actively takes responsibility; she does not wait to be held accountable” (para 5). Therefore, conversations about how to best prepare public affairs practitioners should include pedagogical practices that Address correspondence to Nini Hayes, Teacher Education, Saint Martin’s University, 5000 Abbey Way SE, Lacey, WA 98503, USA. E-mail: nhayes@stmartin.edu 252 HAYES are reflective, critical, and relevant. A critical and responsive pedagogy uses historical and sociopolitical knowledge to demystify and interrogate systems of power that intentionally create social hierarchies to systematically disadvantage and privilege individuals based on real or perceived group membership (Bell, 2007; Freire, 1970; Love, 2000). This approach to educating public administration students is important if they are to be prepared to ask hard questions, listen to stakeholders, and become effective leaders and policymakers. The training of public administrators involves the examination of major public domains, such as education, healthcare, labor, housing, and economic development. For the scope of this article, particular focus is paid to education and U.S. schools. The challenges of excellence and equity in U.S. public schools have been and continue to be contested terrain in the analysis of education policy, the political economy of schools, and the politics of schooling (Giroux, 2006, 2012, 2013; Lipman, 2011; Watkins, 2012). Schools are sites of socialization, and education is inherently political; therefore, the importance of education in K-12 U.S. schools elevates the responsibilities of public administration programs and instructors to prepare students to explore such issues as equity and racial equality (Anyon, 1997, 2005; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Giroux, 2006, 2012). In preparing them to become effective educational leaders and policymakers, we must engage our public administration students through difficult conversations that focus on the goals of equity and excellence within public education, a domain that concentrates both the opportunities for prosperity and the challenges of social inclusion. How then can we as educators in the public affairs classroom give our students the praxis and tools to help them reflect on the kind of public servant they want to become and to value equity and the full participation of all people? What are our approaches to help students how to think versus what to think? One approach is to use satirical comedy as an educative tool for critical pedagogy in the public affairs classroom. In this article, I share the benefits of humor in college classrooms. Second, I explain critical pedagogy. Third, I explore satirical comedy and contemporary comedians whom I refer to as critical social comedians. To conclude, I offer a couple of my own observations in my classroom regarding the use and justification of satire as a tool in the preparation of public administrators examining education policy in the United States. The classroom with all its limitations remains a location of possibility. —bell hooks HUMOR THEORY IN COLLEGE CLASSROOMS An instructor’s enthusiasm for their subject matter and craft is a key factor in students’ motivation to learn, and using humor is one way instructors can stimulate and encourage learning in their classrooms (Berk, 2002; McKeachie, 1994). While it is not the sole responsi- bility of the instructor to motivate students to learn a particular subject, using humor as an educative tool can develop students’ intrinsic motivation by tapping into their curiosity, especially when students perceive a subject matter to be difficult, dull, or anxiety-producing (Berk, 2002; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Research literature indicates evidence of the psychological, physiological, and pedagogical benefits of humor and laughter. “Most of the psychological research has been conducted on stress, anxiety, and tension. The concept here is that when you encounter a negative situation  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 253 or aversive stimuli, if you’re able to joke, you can detach yourself from that situation” (Berk, 2002, pp. 6–7). The psychological effects in the classroom include decreasing students’ anxiety, increasing their motivation, curiosity, and cognition, and boosting their self-esteem and morale (Anderson & Arnoult, 1989; Bennett, 2003; Berk, 1996; Cornett, 1986; Garner, 2006; McKeachie, 1994; Stambor, 2006). The physiological effects of humor include muscle relaxation, improved respiration, better circu- lation, strengthened immune system, release of stress-relieving hormones, production of endorphins, and lowering of blood pressure and pulse rate (Berk, 1996, 2002; Caron, 2002; Mahoney, 2000). Berk (2002), a renowned scholar on the topic of humor in the college classroom, proposes two classroom applications for using humor as a pedagogical tool: (a) to improve your connection with students, and (b) to bring subject matter to life (p. 4). Research supports these applications, as it shows that the pedagogical effect of humor demonstrates students’ ability to comprehend and retain more information (Garner, 2005, 2006), builds rapport among students and instructors (Berk, 1996, 2002; Burbach & Babbitt, 1993), stimulates curiosity and creativity, increases student participation (Wanzer & Frymier, 1999; Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010), and keeps students on task (Chaisson, 2002; Hill, 1988; Lundberg & Miller Thurston, 2002). Furthermore, as Berk (1996) states, “the potential of humor as a teaching tool to change attitudes, decrease anxiety, and increase achievement is unlimited and, at this point, largely unrealized” (p. 88). Hence, my interest in wanting to use satire as a tool for critical pedagogy in a public affairs classroom to engage students in difficult conversations about controversial topics and policies softened by humor and laughter (Beavers, 2011; George, 1989). CRITICAL PEDAGOGY Public administration instructors have no small task. An “ethical and moral commitment” to engaging students in purposeful dialogues that address the historical, political, economic, and social context of schooling in the United States is imperative if we are to understand and solve major policy and leadership dilemmas that have defined and plagued public schooling (Shulman, 2003, para. 4). A commitment to a critical pedagogical practice affirms Shulman’s “pedagogical imperative” in public affairs education. Critical pedagogy is a teaching praxis informed by the work of critical theorists focused on theories of change. It is fundamentally concerned with understanding the relationship between power and knowledge (Apple, 1982/ 1995; Freire, 1970; hooks, 1994). Critical pedagogy is rooted in the tradition of critical theory and, as such, draws upon that foundation to offer both a school of thought and a process of critique (Giroux, 1985; McLaren, 2008). The eminent thinkers of the Frankfurt school of critical theory (Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse) believed that “social critique is a force for social change to the extent that it challenges the dominant social ideologies that present the existing society as a natural and morally beneficent order” (Seidman, 2013, pp. 121–122). These critical theorists rejected objectivity and understood knowledge to be subjective, constructed, and contested; mitigated by history, society, and culture. McLaren (2008) elaborates: Critical theorists begin with the premise that men and women are essentially unfree and inhabit a world rife with contradictions and asymmetries of power and privilege. The critical educator 254 HAYES endorses theories that are, first and foremost, dialectical; that is, theories which recognize the problems of society as more than simply isolated events of individuals or deficiencies in the social structure. Rather, these problems form part of the interactive context between individual and society [emphasis in original]. (p. 61) Freire (1970), one of the most influential critical pedagogues, used critical pedagogy as a dialectical and dialogical tool to raise consciousness and empower marginalized peoples to understand that oppressive forces are not part of the natural order of things, but rather the result of historical and socially constructed human forces that can be changed. At its core, critical pedagogy seeks to critique social power dynamics and social inequities at an institutional and societal level by way of identifying root causes. A critical educator is a problem-poser who asks thought-provoking questions and encourages students to ask their own questions. Through problem posing, students learn to question answers rather than merely answer questions. In this scenario, the teacher is also a student, and the student is also a teacher, each tasked with different responsibilities. With a critical pedagogy, students experience education as something they do, not as something done to them. Given this understanding, it behooves a public administration instructor to include critical perspectives and critical approaches in the classroom. To that point, “the purpose of dialectical educational theory, then, is to provide students with a model that permits them to examine the underlying political, social, and economic foundations of the larger society” (McLaren, 2008, p. 63). As pertains to K–12 U.S. schools, we must prepare effective education leaders and policymakers who ask: What should be the purpose of schooling? What constitutes educational equity and excellence—who decides what it is and how it can be achieved? Is equity possible in the U.S. school system? Who benefits from inequality in school funding? In what ways do we margin- alize, discriminate against, and punish particular groups of young people in our school system? In addition to critical theory, critical pedagogy has also been shaped by the field of cultural studies, “a critical lens that incorporated post-colonial theory, youth studies, ethnic studies, queer studies,” all informed by a Marxist orientation (Foley, Morris, Gounari, & Agostinone- Wilson, 2005, p.114). Other significant influences on critical pedagogy include, but are not limited to, the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies led by Stuart Hall, Jürgen Habermas’s notion of emancipatory knowledge, Antonio Gramsci’s, belief that any person has the potential to be an organic intellectual, W. E. B. Du Bois’s struggle against racism, Carter G. Woodson’s emphasis on curricular inclusivity, John Dewey’s focus on experiential education for a liberal democracy, bell hooks’s teaching to transgress, Paulo Freire’s education for critical conscious- ness, and Henry Giroux’s analysis of schooling and public life—“each of these contributions emerged as an act of resistance against the legitimization of cultural practices which promoted conformity and hierarchy and constrained autonomy, criticality and democratic relationships” (Amsler, 2010, p. 20). Shor (1992), a critical pedagogue, defines critical pedagogy as: Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse. (p. 129) Shor’s definition speaks to the relationship between society and education. Society is an amalgamation of cultural forms. “Cultural forms are those symbols and social practices that  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 255 express culture, such as those found in music, dress, food, religion, dance, and education” (McLaren, 2008, p. 66). Add to the list humor, a quintessential cultural phenomenon. Lawrence Mintz argues “that humor is a vitally important social and cultural phenomenon, that the student of a culture and society cannot find a more revealing index to its values, attitudes, dispositions, and concerns” (Mintz, 1985, p. 71). Beyond this description, a deeper analysis takes the stance that cultural forms “don’t exist apart from sets of structural underpinnings which are related to the means of economic production, the mobilization of desire, the construction of social values, asymmetries of power/knowledge, configurations of ideologies, and relations of class, race, and gender” (McLaren, 2008, p. 66). Similarly, schooling in the United States is also a microcosm of the aforementioned phenomena of society. For these reasons, using humor— specifically, satirical comedy—in the public affairs classroom can help students make meaning of and analyze education policy. Furthermore, using satire in the classroom affirms the connection between a critical praxis and nonschool/institutional curricula that highlights the public pedagogies present in our lives, especially for students who are preparing to become public servants, leaders, and policymakers. Schubert (2009) describes outside curricula and public pedagogy as the ability to perceive more fully the great diversity of venues that shape who we have become, are becoming, and might become. Focus on curriculum and pedagogy in schooling alone presents a myopic view of what shapes human beings. Finally, it is crucial that individuals and grassroots communities see education as a search for who and how they are becoming—to see themselves as developers of curricula, currere, and public pedagogies as they more fully find who they are and hope to be. (p. 16) To that end, public pedagogies and outside curricula are all around us. As individuals, many outside influences shape us, including, but not limited to, family, friends, home, culture, country of origin, community, language, art, television, movies, theater, radio, books, magazines, video- games, church, other nonschool organizations, hobbies, travel, and work. Schubert (2009), among many curriculum theorists, such as William Pinar, Henry Giroux, and Maxine Greene, pushes us to use and interpret public pedagogies and outside curricula in the habit of a critical educator who poses thought-provoking questions to get to the heart of “what is worth knowing, needing, experiencing, doing, being, becoming, overcoming, sharing, and contributing” and “how can human beings be enabled to acquire certain knowledges, skills, and dispositions?” (p. 15). No one is ever more herself or himself than when they really laugh. Their defenses are down … They are completely open, completely themselves when that message hits the brain and the laugh begins. That’s when new ideas can be implanted. If a new idea slips in at that moment, it has a chance to grow. —George Carlin SATIRICAL COMEDY AND CRITICAL SOCIAL COMEDIANS A widely used definition describes satire as an “artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes 256 HAYES with an intent to inspire social reform” (Satire, n.d. Ziv (1988) describes this social practice of highbrow criticism based on truth-telling as an art form that exposes ugly human phenomena (those that render the world almost unbearable) to mockery, in the hope of thereby eliminating them. Man makes a mockery of man. In his efforts at changing and improving mankind, man turns matters he thinks grave into absurdities. He does this sometimes with delicate casualness, sometimes with disrespect, and sometimes with ferocity. The laughter that derives from the perfection of absurdity reforms the world. (p. 357) To that end, this highbrow criticism is indicative of comedians’ contribution as public intellectuals and critical social theorists. As successful public performers, they have credibility and use their satirical craft as a method of critical inquiry. For the scope of this article, a critical social theorist is understood as an individual who acknowledges the inequalities in society and seeks socially just solutions. For ease in understanding satirical comedians as critical social theorists, I will refer to them as critical social comedians, because they use their art to address societal norms, mores, and injustices. As with many critical social theorists, comedians “who have been innovative and daring, willing to challenge the conventions of the dominant social and political order” have too often been denounced as not productively contributing to society, “garnering more scorn than respect” (Giroux, 1997, p. 383). Yet a closer look beneath the laughter shows that critical social comedians hold up a mirror. While most comedians do not produce their work within the walls of academia in the traditional intellectual sense, they are intellectuals who utilize multiple platforms of popular culture that can connect with a broad audience. Critical social comedians who expose society’s inequities bear witness to a myriad of social issues, including, but not limited to socioeconomic issues, politics, cultural differences, the fail- ings of schools, violence, drugs, ethnic relations, and discrimination; they treat issues of inequity in their comedic routines with their “penetrating, unsparing comic eye” (Schudel, 2005, para 2). For this reason, critical social comedians should be considered organic intellec- tuals. Antonio Gramsci believed that “all men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social function” (Geofrey & Troare, 1971, p. 3). Gramsci theorized two kinds of intellectuals. “Traditional” intellectuals hold specialized expertise, considered more technical, and have access to power and upward mobility due to historical affiliations with privileged classes. They fancy themselves as separate and free from political class struggle as they heavily dictate the dominant ideology alongside and with the ruling class. Meanwhile, “organic” intellectuals are individuals who cultivate strong roots in their communities by “directing the ideas and aspirations of the class to which they organically belong” (Geofrey & Troare, 1971, p. 3). Organic intellectuals work to build their communities in their respective classes to empower citizens and raise their critical consciousness. We live in a world where dominant ideologies represent and define the interests of the powerful in society, what Gramsci named hegemony. Critical social comedians, as organic intellectuals, often have insight into, and are keenly aware of, the fine line that delineates their position in relation to dominant ideologies and their collusion in perpetuating them. As public intellectuals, critical social comedians ask us to question and reflect on pressing social problems.  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 257 Standup comedians like Richard Pryor, Paul Mooney, Dick Gregory, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Whoopi Goldberg, Margaret Cho, Roseanne, John Stewart, Wanda Sykes, David Chappelle, Louis CK, Russell Peters, and Chris Rock are examples of critical social comedians who have used satire throughout their careers as a social corrective—analyzing how society deals with difference, and critiquing social and political problems that question the underlying assumptions that maintain the status quo of traditional and conventional thought (Ziv, 1988). Their ability to use satirical comedy as a form of criticism requires a depth of analysis that earns them a place in the company of social critics, critical social theorists, cultural theorists, progressive thinkers, and public intellectuals who are concerned with dissolving notions of false neutrality and advancing public discourse that entertains more positive possibilities. Brief examples of such critical social comedians are Richard Pryor, Paul Mooney, and Roseanne Barr. Richard Pryor (1940–2005), who found mainstream success from the mid-1970s into the 1980s, was known for his uncompromising analysis of racism and the current events of his day. He is considered one of the most important and influential comedians of all time. [He] drew his humor straight from the lives and speech of working-class Black Americans in an overt, unapologetic way never before seen. In so doing, he helped bring Black customs and language into the American mainstream and exerted a lasting influence on the nation’s humor and cultural life. He assailed the nation’s inequities, unabashedly used the n-word and adopted a variety of exaggerated facial expressions to touch on some of the deepest and unspoken fears of all Americans. (Schudel, 2005, p. 1) Paul Mooney, a fellow critical social comedian who often wrote material for Pryor, has had an extensive career writing comedy material for other comedians, television, and movies, and also as an actor. Like Pryor, Mooney addresses racism and race relations in the United States. Exam- ples of the aforementioned can be heard on Mooney’s comedy album Race and Master Piece and seen in his DVD Know Your History: Jesus Is Black; So Was Cleopatra. He is consistently vocal about the rhetoric in the United States that espouses lofty ideals of equality and egalitarianism, but conveniently and intentionally leaves out most people who are not considered White. Roseanne Barr is best known for a sitcom based off her standup comedy material. The sitcom Roseanne differs from the mainstream, with her as the central character, the wife and mother in a feminist household. The show, notable as one of the first sitcoms to depict a poor working- class family where both parents worked outside of the home, tackles issues of poverty, substance abuse, race, social class, and gay rights. Using satirical comedy, Roseanne is a counter-narrative to dominant male discourse and the stereotypical representation of women in society. The show portrays a strong female character who does not conform to conventional standards of beauty; her relationships with other female characters are cooperative rather than combative and superficial, and she expresses herself without fear of reprisal. Other popular media for satire are comic strips and television. Garry Trudeau is a satirical cartoonist and show creator. He is most known for his Doonesbury comic strip, which has used satire to critique education, the Vietnam War, and obesity, among other topics. “Trudeau’s ability to touch readers with timely satire resulted in him receiving the first Pulitzer Prize ever awarded to a comic strip artist” (Crittenden, Hopkins, & Simmons, 2011, p. 175). Another example is the critical social cartoonist, writer, and show creator Aaron McGruder. He created The Boondocks comic strip about two young Black brothers who move from 258 HAYES inner-city Chicago to live with their grandfather in a tranquil, mostly White suburb. The comic was developed into an animated show that offers satirical social and political commentary intended to explore and disrupt narrow worldviews and stereotypes on culture, social class, and racialization. The Boondocks is a highly political endeavor, aggressively dispelling notions of neutrality based on affinity or status quo. The popularity of satire in entertainment is further evident from the many satirical shows and news programs on television and cable in the United States: The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons, and South Park to name a few. These shows engage their audiences in critical inquiry as a facet of participating in a democracy. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is a successful newcomer among satirical news programs. Oliver’s show uses humor to diffuse the taboo of talking about certain topics and uncharacteristically engages the audience in long segments investigating nondominant narratives, 15–25 minutes each, that allow individuals to question and critique complex issues such as special voting districts, policies regarding the re-entry of formerly incarcerated individuals, civil forfeiture, and standardized testing in schools. I would be remiss without acknowledging the privilege we have as instructors to choose from a plethora of satirical material for use in our classrooms as the abundance and popularity of such shows stems from our culture to protect free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For example, “in totalitarian countries satire directed against the ruling powers is banned, and any manifestation of satire earns harsh punishment” (Ziv, 1988, p. 359). A recent example is that of Bassem Raafat Muhammad Youssef, an Egyptian satirist who from 2011 to 2014 hosted Al-Bernameg (The Program), a popular satirical news program influenced by Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. In 2011, he was inspired by the Egyptian Revolution to give voice to Egyptians who had been silenced and enraged by the Egyptian government’s media coverage of the Revolution. In 2013, an arrest warrant was issued for Youssef, citing “alleged defamation of Islam and the country’s president,” Mohamed Morsi (Made for Minds, 2013). As this shows, the critical work of social commentary may come with risks for the satirist. The risks can range from government surveillance and financial repercus- sions to intimidation, harassment, and fear for one’s own safety and the safety of colleagues and loved ones. SATIRE AS AN EDUCATIVE TOOL FOR CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE CLASSROOM “When done well, satire can bring attention to very serious curriculum topics and challenge students’ thinking about taken-for-granteds in ways that are consistent with critical pedagogy” (Armstrong, 2005; Beavers, 2011; Pinto, 2013, p. 164). While critical social comedians call attention to the absurdities and injustices in society, their seething analyses rarely succeed in making policy changes, unseating a problematic elected official, or leveling a playing field. This is where the hope of education and critical pedagogy in the classroom can use political and social satire to inform and spark conversations we otherwise steer clear of, thereby building a bridge between the truthfulness and pessimism of satire and hope and agency in the classroom.  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 259 In public affairs education, some of the things we expect of students are to be familiar with how institutions work, manifestations of oppression, the social forces that inform the creation and implementation of public policies, to understand the dominant political, economic, and social actors that shape the policymaking process, and be able to critique and offer different possibilities for public governance. Sometimes, when studying the problems of society, a melancholy can settle into the classroom and cloud the learning that must take place. The late film director Billy Wilder is often credited with saying, “If you’re going to tell people the truth, be funny or they’ll kill you.” Under this caveat, satire in the public affairs classroom can be a delivery device both to garner students’ attention and to make the space for difficult conversations less daunting. I once attended a conference session on politics and humor and in the session, Michael Moore, a famed documentary filmmaker known for his use of satire and humor throughout his body of work, spoke about how he saw the role of humor in dealing with hard topics such as guns and violence, globalization, healthcare, and the government. Moore (2013) stated: Humor is a release valve on the pressure cooker where humor allows people to leave the theater after watching one of my movies angry. And angry is an active emotion … whereas feeling depressed or feeling what’s the use is a very passive, inward thing. So if I am going to hope that ten percent of the audience will go out and do something, they have to be looking for the pitchforks near the Goobers and Raisinets. Which is to say that the reality of the United States falls short of its democratic and egalitarian ideals, and satire and humor can bring awareness to these inconsistences in a way that we can teach and learn from in the classroom. Using satirical comedy to embody a more critical approach in the classroom allows educators to engage “schools as sites of possibility, that is, as places where students can be educated to take their places in society from a position of empowerment” (Giroux & Nealon, 2010, p. 120). Sometimes, asking, “why is this funny?” is the beginning of a conversation to unpack the meaning and intention of what is taken for granted as “this is the way things are.” Satire can help guide the questions we ask our students and ask ourselves because the better questions we ask opens the possibility of better solutions we can arrive at. I get nervous before I use satirical material in class to discuss and complicate various poli- cies, institutions, and roles in society. What motivates me to use satire with my public affairs students is my commitment to a critical classroom and the collective experience grounded in laughter. The shared experience of responding in multiple ways to satirical material gives us the space to then have conversations with a more open-mind and self-reflection. Cornett (1986), in her book titled, Learning Through Laughter: Humor in the Classroom, identifies several reasons why she believes “teachers should get serious about incorporating humor into their lessons,” one of them being that it can help to solve problems (p. 9). I have experienced that when we laugh at the absurdity of how and why some things are done, it elevates the class discussion towards problem solving. Nancy Goldman (2013) summarizes this well by writing: Laughing together connects us through our similarities as a species in spite of our social and political differences. Humor that questions the status quo allows us to consider that there are other, possibly better, ways of being. And jokes that challenge our assumptions help us to refresh old ways of thinking. (p. 8) 260 HAYES An example was a class discussion on the topic of educational policy in regard to standardized testing. Students read about the federal government’s mandated No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. NCLB required all federally funded schools to administer annual statewide standar- dized tests to students in support of a standards-based education reform that set high standards and established measurable goals to improve education for all students. While states maintained autonomy to develop their own academic standards, NCLB extended the federal government’s role in education by emphasizing standardized testing to increase accountability and demonstrate annual yearly progress. At length, students discussed the institutional and federal perspectives for the public policy. They conversed and debated the strengths and weaknesses of NCLB to under- stand better the intention of the legislation, what it has and has not done to raise the standard of education for all students, and to evaluating the credibility of those claims. To further this discussion, I showed students a segment from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver where the topic was standardized testing (Oliver, 2015). The segment mocked the culture of schools trying to make testing fun and entertaining despite the epidemic of anxiety and distress that high-stakes testing has caused many students, families, and teachers. Oliver’s show crafted an informative narrative that included historical reference to U.S. students’ low ranking on inter- national test scores that was the impetus for federal education reform, highlighted the major econ- omic and racial disparities that testing shows and exacerbates, and problematic models of tying student performance to teacher pay as part of the show’s analysis (Au, 2015; McNeil, 2000). When the segment finished, I asked students what the segment made them want to know more about, what questions did it bring up? Also, what did watching the segment clarify for them and what new information muddied or complicated their thinking about standardized test- ing? What more information do they need to understand the history and context of standardized testing in the United States? I made note of these questions and then had students gather at the front of the class. Written on the left side of the board was the word “disagree,” in the middle was written “unsure,” and on the right side was the word “agree.” I repeated back to the students some of the questions and responses they shared then asked students to organize themselves on the continuum so we could then have a discussion that included multiple perspectives and raise additional questions about standardized testing. Students used the activity to reposition them- selves along the continuum as their thinking on the subject changed. They engaged each other with information from the Oliver segment, the required readings, and their own lived experi- ences, including those of close family members, to delve into a politically and socially charged conversation about standardized testing and education reform, but with less resistance as the collective experience of laughing about the topic minutes before had quelled fears about dialogue. The Oliver segment was a complementary tool that allowed me to incorporate students’ interest in popular culture and media to interrogate and question educational reform policy at the local, state, and federal levels. It got my students thinking and asking better questions about their roles as educational leaders and policymakers, about why public school students face an ever-increasing amount of testing throughout their K–12 careers (on average, 112 tests before they graduate) and who and what it really serves. They also rethought their assessments at the local, state, and national levels, and discussed how standardized testing impacted school funding and the ever-growing educational debt owed to historically margina- lized and underserved students (Council of the Great City Schools, 2015). Laughing first got the class to a place where students genuinely wondered how they could make sure they were making the best decisions with and for the most vulnerable in our society.  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 261 Another example used a segment from an MTV News show called Decoded. The segment was titled “Why Colorblindness Will NOT End Racism.” The host, Franchesca Ramsey, pro- blematizes why a colorblind approach to denying and ignoring race as a way to end racism will, in fact, not stop racism but may do more harm. I used this clip in a public administration class where students are asked to analyze education policies, such as curricular content, school disci- pline, the labor market and makeup of the teacher workforce, the preparation of teachers, the role of schooling in eliminating and maintaining racial gaps in educational performance, and school choice and charter schools, to name a few. Before showing the clip that partly touches on racism and school discipline outcomes, I ask students to share what they know about the relationship between racism and the disproportionate representation of students of color in school discipline interventions (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Beginning a critical conversation about what the students already know and have experienced primes for a more difficult conversation later. They share in an activity many call a “silent chalk talk.” Around the classroom, large post-it papers are posted with questions that solicit students’ anonymous responses, which they write on smaller post-it papers and then place on the larger ones. Such questions asked, what stereotypes and stories do we tell about students of color? What stereotypes and stories do we tell about families of color? What stories do we tell about White students in relation to students of color? How do school policies reinforce and sanction narratives we tell about groups of students based on their real or perceived race? How do policies enforce narratives about who has power and self-determination in schools? The school/classroom-to-prison pipeline makes you think about who and what? What kinds of policies, rules, and practices contribute to the disproportionate representation of students of color in discipline interventions? What do school discipline and policies say about adult behavior? After students have had time to walk around the room and respond to several prompts, I prepare them to watch the segment. I ask students to circle, underline, and/or highlight the transcript of the clip in places where Ramsey offers tangible solutions for eradicating racist and discriminatory practices experienced by students and people of color in the domains of schooling, housing, and labor. In the segment, using satire and jokes, Ramsey shockingly declares that race does not exist and that we have all been lied to. After responding dramatically to discovering this fact, she explains that race is not biological but a social construct that has real impact on our lives in the form of racism (Goodman, Moses, & Jones, 2012; Omi & Winant, 1994; Yudell, 2014). She defines race as a human project that is about the structural foundation of social power—more specifically, a social project that is about benefiting and maintaining power and resources for White people in the United States. She uses preschool punishment as a specific example of the manifestation of structural racism in schools, citing a U.S. Department of Education (2014) civil rights report on school discipline where disparities are problematic. Snapshots from the report reveal: Suspension of preschool children, by race/ethnicity and gender: Black children represent 18 percent of preschool enrollment, but 48 percent of preschool children receiving more than one out-of- school suspension; in comparison, White students represent 43 percent of preschool enrollment, but 26 percent of preschool children receiving more than one out-of-school suspension. Disproportionately high suspension/expulsion rates for students of color: Black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than White students. On average, 5 percent of White students are suspended, compared to 16 percent of Black students. American Indian 262 HAYES and Native Alaskan students are also disproportionately suspended and expelled, representing less than 1 percent of the student population but 2 percent of out-of-school suspensions and 3 percent of expulsions. Arrests and referrals to law enforcement, by race and disability status: While Black students represent 16 percent of student enrollment, they represent 27 percent of students referred to law enforcement and 31 percent of students subjected to a school-related arrest. In comparison, White students represent 51 percent of enrollment, 41 percent of students referred to law enforcement, and 39 percent of those arrested. Students with disabilities (served by IDEA) represent a quarter of students arrested and referred to law enforcement, even though they are only 12 percent of the overall student population. These statistics are sobering, but throughout the segment Ramsey remains lighthearted as she delivers them and comes across as hopeful, offering possible policy solutions and school practices to systemic problems that persist. The satirical jokes she interjects throughout the segment serve to point out the ludicrous practices used to perpetuate racism. I found the video a useful tool to highlight current school discipline data and as way to enter into the uncomfort- able conversation that our schools and school policies are still not supporting the most vulner- able students. The video also served as a reminder for students that to become effective education leaders and policymakers, they must have a critical analysis of how race and racia- lized experiences impact how people experience school and of how they will work with young people and their families. Again, it bears repeating that the challenges of excellence and equity in U.S. public schools have been, and continue to be, contested terrain; therefore, public admin- istration students must be prepared to have difficult conversations as they will undoubtedly make complex decisions that involve issues of equity and racial inequality in the nation’s public schools. CONCLUSION As public administration instructors teaching during a time of social unrest that has drawn attention to issues of institutional racism, persistent economic inequities, policing, failed drug policies, and inadequate schooling, it is imperative that we train and prepare current and future leaders to address these issues with equity-centered approaches that emphasize well-being for all members of society, especially society’s most marginalized and vulnerable populations. It is when we center and work with the most dispossessed groups in society that we strive for the most inclusive and thoughtful solutions. In addition, we must continue to ask ourselves, individually and in community, tough questions, good questions, and better questions. The teaching and learning of public administration is sometimes more insular than public. Schubert (2009) summarizes the work of some of his peer-scholars to get at the central ques- tions they ask, questions that can help guide our own praxis in the public affairs classroom: William Pinar (1975, 2004; Pinar & Grumet, 1976). From where have we come? How do we experience our present? How do we anticipate possible futures with agency to create and re-create ourselves and our contexts? What do we honor and grow? What do we let go? What kinds of lives and communities do we fashion, and continuously re-fashion with personal and political consciousness?  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 263 Michael Apple (1979/2004, 1982/1995). Whose knowledge is considered worthwhile? By whom? How, where, and when? Who benefits from such consideration? Who is harmed by official knowledge? Paulo Freire (1970, 1994, 1997, 2007). How do we enable ourselves and others to name the world, to read and write the world? How can we be hopeful and loving in oppressive times? How can we not? How can we dare to dream and keep the dream unfinished? (pp. 15–16) This article is an effort to draw symbiotic connections between our work as public admin- istration instructors and a critical pedagogical approach that uses satire to engage students in difficult conversations. The importance of critical inquiry in public policy education is that it honors the democratic impulse for truth, justice, and equality. Together, these elements ask the question of how we can make public policies that work for everyone. Satire allows us to enter into conversations that are usually taboo or rarely discussed. Critical pedagogy creates a space for both teacher and learner to think critically and dialectically about public policy, providing a framework in the form of the language of critique and the language of possibility (Giroux, 1985). The language of critique, in courses that analyze education policy, the political economy of schools, and equity and excellence in U.S. public schools, helps students under- stand that schools can be sites of socialization that reproduce and legitimize ideologies related to political power and education, while the language of possibility encourages hope and move- ment toward action. Thus critical pedagogy is equally about understanding problematic policies and the liberatory thinking that will help students devise public policy for justice and equality. Meanwhile, satirical comedy as a tool supports critical pedagogy in its ability to historicize, contextualize, deconstruct, and [re]construct meaning by going beyond face value to uncover what is intentional, subversive, and contradictory; shedding light on the lived realities of the spaces we occupy as individuals and social group members effected by institutions and culture. While I offer my own reflection and praxis about teaching in public administration with an ethi- cal and moral commitment, I am still left with many questions about how to best prepare future and current public administration students to be effective leaders and policy makers. While I have ideas about how to facilitate and approach difficult conversations in my own classroom, I wonder about the work of public administration instructors as a collective to address and reframe resistance from students in our classrooms. How is it that we prepare and support each other in doing this important work? I wonder how we modify the examples I offered for different groups of students in different contexts as a critical praxis is not a one size fits all approach. I wonder how the field can make more specific links to humor as a social corrective; satire and a critical academic practice that facil- itates conversation, growth, and action. I also wonder, how do we more broadly include other forms for public pedagogy and outside curriculum? The more we involve these questions in our teaching praxis, the better we can prepare future public administration students. REFERENCES Amsler, S. (2010). Education as critical practice. In S. Amsler, J. E. Canaan, S. Cowden, S. Motta, & G. Singh (Eds.), Why critical pedagogy and popular education matter today (pp. 20–23). Birmingham, UK: C‐SAP: Higher Education Academy Subject Network for Sociology, Anthropology, Politics. http://www.lulu.com/items/ volume_67/8291000/8291569/1/print/Critical_Pedagogy_Popular_Education.pdf 264 HAYES Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1989). An examination of perceived control, humor, irrational beliefs, and positive stress as moderators of the relation between negative stress and health. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 101–117. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1002_1 Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (1979/2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (1982/1995). Education and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Armstrong, P. (2005, June). The Simpsons and democracy: Political apathy, popular culture, and lifelong learning as satire. Paper delivered at the 3rd International Conference on Research in Lifeline Learning, University of Stirling, Scotland. http://www.adulterc.org/proceedings/2005/proceedings/armstrong.pdf Au, W. (2015). High-stakes testing: A tool for white supremacy for over 100 years. In B. Picower & E. Mayorga (Eds.), What’s race got to do with it: How current school reform policy maintains racial and economic inequality, (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Routledge. Beavers, S. L. (2011). Getting political science in on the joke: Using the Daily Show and other comedy to teach politics. PS: Political Science, 44(2), 415–419. doi:10.1017/s1049096511000266 Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge. Bennett, H. J. (2003). Humor in medicine. Southern Medical Journal, 96(12), 1257–1261. doi:10.1097/01. smj.0000066657.70073.14 Berk, R. A. (1996). Student ratings of 10 strategies for using humor in college teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 71–92. Berk, R. A. (2002). Humor as an instructional defibrillator: Evidence-based techniques in teaching and assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Burbach, H. J., & Babbitt, C. E. (1993). An exploration of the social functions of humor among college students in wheelchairs. Journal of Rehabilitation, 59(1), 6–9. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/An+exploration+of+the+social+ functions+of+humor+among+college...-a013839718 Caron, J. E. (2002). From ethology to aesthetics: Evolution as a theoretical paradigm for research on laughter, humor, and other comic phenomena. Humor, 15(3), 245–281. doi:10.1515/humr.2002.015 Chaisson, P. E. (2002). Humor in the second language classroom: It’s not a laughing matter. Retrieved from http:// www.caslt.org/Print/humourp.htm Clapp, G. R. (1948). Public administration in an advancing south. Public Administration Review, 8, 169–175. doi:10.2307/972321 Cornett, C. E. (1986). Learning through laughter: Humor in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED276028.pdf Council of the Great City Schools (2015). Student Testing in America’s Great City Schools: An Inventory and Prelimi- nary Analysis. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/ Domain/87/Testing%20Report.pdf. Crittenden, V. L., Hopkins, L. M., & Simmons, J. M. (2011). Satirists as opinion leaders: Is social media redefining roles? Journal of Public Affairs, 11, 174–180. doi:10.1002/pa.400 Foley, J. A., Morris, D., Gounari, P., & Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2005). Critical education, critical pedagogies, Marxist education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(3), 110–144. http://www.jceps. com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/13-3-7.pdf Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (2007). Daring to dream: Toward a pedagogy of the unfinished. London, UK: Paradigm. (Organized and presented by Ana Maria Araujo Freire; translated by Alexandre K. Oliveira). Garner, R. L. (2005). Humor, analogy, and metaphor: H. A.M. it up in teaching. Radical Pedagogy, 6(2). http://www. radicalpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy/Humor,_Analogy,_and_Metaphor__H.A.M._it_up_in_Teaching.html  SATIRE & CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS CLASSROOM 265 Garner, R. L. (2006). Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can lead to aha! College Teaching, 54(1), 177–180. doi:10.3200/ ctch.54.1.177-180 Geofrey, S., & Troare, Q. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers. George, W. (1989). Teaching satire and satirists. English Journal, 78(3), 38–43. doi:10.2307/819447 Giroux, H. (1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education, 49(5), 376–379. Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Giroux, H. A. (2006). America on the edge: Henry Giroux on politics, culture, and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Giroux, H. A. (2012). Education and the crisis of public values: Challenging the assault on teachers, students, & public education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Giroux, H. A. (2013). America’s education deficit and the war on youth. New York: Monthly Review Press. Giroux, S. S., & Nealon, J. T. (2010). The theory toolbox: Critical concepts for the new humanities. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Goldman, N. (2013). Comedy and democracy: The role of humor in social justice. Retrieved from http://animating democracy.org/sites/default/files/Humor%20Trend%20Paper.pdf Goodman, A. H., Moses, Y. T., & Jones, J. L. (2012). Race: Are we so different?. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Hill, D. J. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers and other entertainers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge. Love, B. J. (2000). Developing a liberatory consciousness. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. R. Casteneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 599–604). New York, NY: Routledge. Lundberg, E. M., & Miller Thurston, C. (2002). If they’re laughing, they just might be listening: Ideas for using humor effectively in the classroom—even if you’re not funny yourself (3rd ed.). Fort Collins, CO: Cottonwood Press. Made for Minds. (2013). Egyptian satirist released on bail after questioning. Retrieved from http://www.dw.com/en/ egyptian-satirist-released-on-bail-after-questioning/a-16711590 Mahoney, D. L. (2000). Is laughter the best medicine or any medicine at all? Eye on Psi Chi, 4(3), 18–21. https://www. psichi.org/?043EyeSpring00bMahon#.V-mSkMjQfP4 McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Health and Company. McLaren, P. (2008). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Routledge. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Mintz, L. (1985). Standup comedy as social and cultural mediation. American Quarterly, 37(1), 71–80. doi:10.2307/ 2712763 Moore, M., Fugelsang, J., & Forlano, J. (2013, June). Politics and humor. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Ks5boCwFDfk Oliver, J. (2015). Standardized testing: Last week tonight with John Oliver. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York, NY: Routledge. Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory?. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pinar, W. F., & Grumet, M. R. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Pinto, L. E. (2013). From discipline to culturally responsive engagement: 45 classroom management strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Satire. (n.d.). In Encyclopaedia Britannica online. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/art/satire Schubert, W. H. (2009). Outside curricula and public pedagogy. In J. A. Sandlin, B. D. Schultz, & J. Burdick (Eds.), Handbook of public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling (pp. 10–19). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis. 266 HAYES Schudel, M. (2005, December 11). With humor and anger on race issues, comic inspired a generation. Washington Post. Retrieved from http:// http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121001406.html Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Seidman, S. (2013). Contested knowledge: Social theory today (5th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shulman, L. (2003). No drive-by teachers: A Carnegie perspective. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 14, 20. http://archive.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/no-drive-teachers Stambor, Z. (2006). How laughing leads to learning. Monitor on Psychology, 37(6), 62–66. doi:10.1037/e512802006-032 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot (School Discipline, Restraint, & Seclusion Highlights). (Issue Brief No. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48–62. doi:10.1080/03634529909379152 Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/ 03634520903367238 Watkins, W. H. (2012). The assault on public education: Confronting the politics of corporate school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Yudell, M. (2014). Race unmasked: Biology and race in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Ziv, A. (1988). Humor as a social corrective. In L. Behrens & L. Rose (Eds.), Writing and reading across the curriculum (3rd ed., pp. 356–360). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Nini Hayes is an assistant professor who teaches in the College of Education and Counseling Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, and Interdisciplinary Studies at Saint Martin’s University. Hayes’s interests include social justice education and teaching and learning.