Tortilla Curtain Socratic

Hey group! Well... we have finally made it to our last socratic together and I just wanted to say that it has been a pleasure working with all of you. It is very meaningful to me that I am given the chance to lead this last socratic, and although I don't know if it could ever live up to the others, I hope everyone enjoys the discussion. So...let's begin!

• You've just finished the novel... WHAT DID YOU THINK? Were you shocked by the ending? How did Book Two and Three compare to the novel's opening?
• The novel's ending was very sudden and powerful. Do you feel like the loss of Socorro and Candido's act of courage left you unnerved, happy, or what?
• Still discussing about the novel's ending... Is there any apparent symbolism that you found noteworthy?
• Did you feel like the ending brought closure to the issue of illegal immigration presented in the text?
• After concluding the novel, What side do you think T.C. Boyle was writing from when he discussed illegal immigration?
• There were many main characters in the novel (Delaney, Kyra, Candido, America) Who is this novel really about??? Is there a hero? A villain? What is the overall conflict?
• At this point I want you to bring your "Being Saxon" projects into the discussion. How are you going to get the overall themes across to your students?
• After reaidng the novel... do you feel that it should become a required reading for students? DOo the current affairs with this issue make it a necessary read?
• Lastly, I would like to know... have any of your views been changed after completing the novel? It's okay to be an honest! what is said in the circle stays in the circle!

The real "Tortilla Curtain"

Should illegal immigrants be granted the privilege of defending themselves when their civil rights are threatened? In a current case, Roger Barnett of Douglass Arizona, where he lives on a ranch that is used daily by illegal immigrants entering the country, is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who are accusing him of “conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on the US-Mexico border” (Seper 1). The immigrants are being represented by The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (Maldef), who seek “$32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes” (Seper 4). Barnett’s attorney has argued that illegal immigrants should not have the same rights as US citizens, making the entire case void. Barnet’s land has been littered upon and vandalized for years, resulting in established immigrant trails that are ten inches deep in trash which include “human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil” (Seper 13). The case’s central issue lies in Barnett’s belief that he is the victim in the case. He has stated, “’When someone’s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can’t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back’” (Seper 17). In this time, it is questionable whether or not these 16 illegal aliens deserve the chance to reap the benefits of our legal system. The case has long surpassed the fundamental idea of money, and has become a moral strife in which Americans have begun to re-examine their own beliefs on the current immigration situation.
Today’s America is experiencing conflicts on many diverse issues. The illegal immigration situation does not only affect those at the conflict’s center (like our “hero” from Arizona), but America as a whole. T. C. Boyle’s, The Tortilla Curtain brings the issue in question to readers all over the US. Boyle presents immigration with neutral pretences, allowing his readers to make their own conclusions without preconceptions. Some readers may side with the concerned, sometimes arrogant members of Delaney’s gated community, who believe in locking out the immigrants, as if they were coyotes living off their trash (perhaps I read into the symbolism too much?). These people, comparable to our Roger Barnett, would have no problem “turning over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the border patrol since 1998” (Seper 9). I believe that Americans will always be split on this issue; it is one that affects peoples’ lives very differently, and one that may never be solved simply.
Men like Roger Barnett are set in their ways. They are, and will always be, adamant supporters of the anti-immigration cause. Being that this is the unfortunate case in today’s society, it is all more important to educate the undecided population of America. By reading books like T.C. Boyle’s The Tortilla Curtain, American youths are given the chance to see both sides of the issue, and are thus able to decide if they really can feel hatred towards a character like Candido, who is really only trying to earn the same opportunities that we (yes, I’m talking about the kids in this very class) take for granted.


Seper, Jerry. "16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher." Washington Times 9 Feb. 2009.
17 Mar. 2009 16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/>.

"Eric's Buddy"--> Homosexuality on TV

Only recently has homosexuality begun to grow into a more accepted alternate lifestyle choice. Throughout history, being homosexual was always thought of as a wicked sin. The idea that heterosexuality is the only true sexual orientation is described in what is called the theory of heterosexism. The media is often responsible for the perpetuation of such beliefs. Not until recent years has there been many TV shows or Hollywood movies that present homosexuality in a hopeful light. Just a few weeks ago, I watched an episode of That 70’s Show that had themes dealing with this topic. The episode, comically titled “Eric’s Buddy,” had a plot revolving around the ultimate conflict of sexual orientation, during which Eric’s new lab partner and friend makes a move on him.
Most other episodes of the show have conflicts revolving around heterosexual relationships, whether it be that of Donna and Eric, or the more superficial one between Kelso and the beloved (by herself) Jackie. “Eric’s Buddy” was a unique episode that presented the idea of homosexuality in the 1970’s. Set in 1976, a time when gays were suppressed and targeted as freaks in society, the episode follows an oblivious Eric as he has adventures with his new rich friend Buddy whom everyone seems to like; everyone except Hyde of course. (Ironically, had the show actually been aired in 1976, It would have aroused much confrontation.) All throughout the series, Hyde has represented the “rugged man” character: the gang’s mojo. During this episode, Hyde is skeptical of Buddy. Upon hearing that Buddy is gay, Hyde is quoted telling Donna, “you know Donna, if Forman ever decides to dabble in the love that dare not speak its name…. I’m there for you.”
Eric’s first reaction to the kiss is fear. He is confused about his new friend’s lifestyle choice and rushes home to redeem himself by kissing Donna. The next day at school however, Eric is able to confront Buddy and even joke around with him, which reduces the effect of the news. I feel that the episode does not perpetuate the heterosexism belief. Although Eric is initially ignorant towards the signs that Buddy is gay, the episode ends with Eric reassuring Buddy that he still wants to be friends. It is important to have TV shows like this one that don’t conceal the reality of having gay people in our society. By approaching this matter in a comical light, the episode trivializes the idea of targeting those with homosexual lifestyles.

Check out this introspective essay written by a student who was gay throughout high school