Alana Marcelino

10.19.16
Claiming an Education
In Adrienne Richs Claiming an Education speech, she argues that education entails
being responsible for oneself. This statement broadly represents the issue within being a woman
in education, and the type of education a woman is a part of. This speech seems like it would be
directed at only women, but once understanding the reasons as to why it is being told, the speech
can easily reference other groups of people as well.
The main reason why the speech seems directed at only women, is because a lot of what
is wrong in the history of education, has a whole lot to do with the underrepresentation of women
in history. In the speech Rich says, you are hearing about what men, above all white men, in
their male subjectivity, have decided is important. This leads me to believe that the speech can
very well be intended for anyone whose history has not been taught because its true that our
history is only taught from one perspective. The foundation of our education has been the text we
read and what we study; all of which reflect how white men have perceived their own history.
If this speech were to specify whether it is directed at all women and men, I think there
would still be a lack of representation in certain areas. Its one thing to talk about the history of
all women and men in America, but we forget the foundation of America in which there are
different cultures and different histories that make America what it is today. This speech can
easily be applied to other ethnic groups and other individuals identities. The lack of other
histories taught, have led to other classes that focus on them specifically; almost like a
subcategory to the American history that has already been established in education. In Richs
speech she refers to womens studies as a fresh vision of the human experience, and I
understand that statement completely. Much like ethnic studies, I feel like womens studies are
an opportunity for all people to be represented, and all histories to be taught.
For this speech to be changed to the perspective of a man, and be directed at only men,
there are many points where I dont think it would make sense. White men especially, if the
speech were to be directed at a white man, it would be a lot of representation where it is not
needed. But, if the speech were to be directed at men as whole, I think it would make a little
more sense considering there are other men of color that have a history that is often unheard of.
Overall, I think this speech can be perceived in various ways, which include applying to
both women and men. The main purpose of her speech is what I believe is meant to voice the
unheard experiences of other individuals in our history. The history that is taught every day is
more often than not, oppressive and leaves a lot of people underrepresented. Richs argument
could still be held, but in a different way than its original purpose. Even a man of different ethnic
backgrounds, can still be held above a woman who is oppressed twice.