Not diverse, just tan.

I felt compelled to share my reaction to an article my colleague Chris posted not long ago on Twitter. Specifically, he posted a piece from Diverse Issues in Higher Education, "Interview: The Tanning of America with Dr. Marcia Alesan Dawkins" which in turn links to the article, "The Future of the 'Tan Generation'" from The Root. A primary theme is that the increased multiculturalism in America--children under the age of 1 were more likely (50.4%) to be nonwhite than white at the time of the 2010 census--will not necessarily lead to increased social justice.

It was the words chosen that gave me particular pause. I had little issue with the term Tan Generation. The mean skin tone of our nation is likely tan, and while the root is the fact that we're dealing in skin color, not culture here, black, white, and brown have been in the lexicon long enough that this is simply its natural progression. Further, my daughter, who is biracial (black/white), would likely select a tan crayon to draw herself, as would many from across the United States from various cultural and racial backgrounds. It's a bit clumsy, but it fits.

The title that Diverse chose, "...The Tanning of America..." bothered me, however. They took tan from a noun or an adjective into a verb and used it in a way that to me implied a specific action. Tanning, as we most commonly use it, is a process through which fairer-skinned--largely white--people expose themselves to the sun to increase melanin production and ultimately appear darker. Science aside, this says to me a couple of things: America is "supposed" to be white, despite a current trend to the contrary. It also says that we view America as primarily homogenized--that the only difference is pigmentation, ignoring facets of cultural and experience that are what we should really be addressing when we talk about diversity.

The original message was that a rise in population diversity would not necessarily lead to a rise in social justice and cross-cultural understanding. The title chosen helped hammer this point home in a way it may not have intended.

Why I Lead a Double Life

In the Twittersphere, if you're reading this, chances are good that you know me as CurtisTMEd (That's Curtis T., M.Ed., in case the format is confusing). You may also know me as 80mins (that one's 80 min(ute)s, as in 80 Minutes of Regulation, for reference). My name is Curtis Tarver, and I lead a double life.

Or rather, it may seem that way online. After all, who has two Twitter profiles except someone trying not to acknowledge their professional life in their personal life and vice versa? Well I do, and there's a story. See, what had happened was...

I won't lie to you. I've been known to give the side-eye (usually more mental than physical) to pros who had, say, separate Facebook accounts for their students and their "real life". My personal belief is that there's one me, and while there are multiple facets, when all's said and done, I'm just Curtis. People can make their own choices as far as if they want to engage with students (or in some cases, colleagues or other work folks) in that space, but to choose to assume the squeaky-clean, safe-for-work alter ego just hasn't been my style. That's what privacy settings (admittedly easier to navigate on Facebook than a few years ago) are for.

Then Twitter came along. I was far from an early adopter with Twitter. I mostly sat on the opposite shore, looking through binoculars, deciding whether I would choose to embark on this strange new journey. After all, the customs seemed strange over there. I didn't quite understand them. "Why do people need to know everything I'm doing in 140 characters?" was the common refrain. Even when I chose to dip my toes in, it wasn't for me, per se. At least that's why I told myself from the start. No, I was creating a Twitter account to correspond with my blog, which is why they share similar handles. I would only post sports and marching/athletic music content, same as the blog itself. All of my follows were in that narrow spectrum.

And then the beast took over.

Having the medium, I couldn't help but engage. I'm sure it started with folks I know personally/virtually--followed because they walk in the sports/marching/athletic music world--and branched out from there. Soon my account wasn't simply 80 Minutes of Regulation, it was Curtis (luckily, there's significant overlap). I was on Twitter. For real this time. But now that I was being honest with myself that I was in the space, how do I engage in the space as a whole person? After all, I was hearing of #sachat and various other opportunities to connect in the field on Twitter, and the excuse that I don't use it was no longer valid. I wanted in. And while I initially started to participate and connect with folks via @80mins, it quickly became clear that I wanted to go another route with it. And thus, @CurtisTMEd was born.

It was my initial belief--one I continue to maintain--that I do this far less for me than I do for you, the possibly-hypothetical follower. If you're familiar with Google+, they provided me with the language with which to talk about my dual identity: Think of it as circles. Folks on 80mins get my sports/band side, while folks on CurtisTMEd get my pro side. Conversely, it's my belief--founded or not--that the majority of my professional connects would be annoyed at my tweet rate during a game or DCI show, while my sports/band folks couldn't care less about the play-by-play of a NACA conference. This gives folks a choice as to what they choose to follow. I've got folks who follow me on both; some of whom I touched base with before the dual account, some of whom found out about 80mins (I put it right up front in CurtisTMEd's profile) and are legitimately interested, and most of whom I consider friends beyond the professional or topic-centric realms.

After all, beyond the topical tweets and the professional tweets lies a nebulous third persona: Regular-ass Curtis. Because of the manner that I came into the space, and the fact that I spend more hours (hopefully) away from the office than in it, most of that resides at 80mins. Non-work-related tweets come through on CurtisTMEd as well--mostly between 9 and 5 (ish) but I think I'm far more work-friendly over there, even though the other me is just a click away. Does it mean that those folks are missing out on the "real" me? Again, only a click away.

I don't know if I'd do it the same way if I were to do it again. I might go strictly topical as one and strictly Curtis (personal, professional, and all) on another. There's no telling, and I'm too far down the rabbit hole to to turn back now.

There you have it. A tale of two Curtises. Follow one, follow both, follow neither. It's all one me.