University Shouldn’t Punish Me for Not Addressing Male Student as ‘Ms.’

Returning from a sabbatical in my 21st year at Ohio’s Shawnee State University, I resumed teaching my regular political philosophy course.

Taking questions in one such class at the end of my first day back, I acknowledged a male student with a “Yes, sir?” (It’s my practice to address my students in this way and to call them Miss, Mrs., or Mr. to foster an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect.)

After class, the student approached me to explain that he identifies as a woman and hereafter expected me to refer to him with feminine titles and pronouns.

“I’m not sure I can do that,” I told him.

He didn’t like that. He began to pace in circles around me, his voice rising and taking on an edge. He suggested an unprintable name he might feel free to call me if I declined to indulge his demands. Moreover, he said, he would see to it that I lost my job.

So far, that hasn’t happened, but I do have a letter of discipline in my file now that says I treated this particular student differently than other students by referring to him by his given name rather than as “Ms.” and “she.”

That’s all. No other allegations of hostile conduct or even of an unfair grade for the student were ever filed.

Consequently, I found it necessary to file a grievance against the university for violating my First Amendment protections of speech and religious freedom. My objections to the student’s request were based on my own philosophical and religious convictions, which the university blithely ignored.

I also believe I should have a certain amount of freedom, within my own classroom, to determine the exact language I do and do not use when teaching my class. The university denied me that freedom, as well. And it also denied my grievance.

That left me with no choice but to file suit through my Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys. Contrary to claims, such as those recently made by law professor Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern University, that I was simply “spoiling for a fight” and that my “arguments are so extravagant that they shouldn’t be worthy of notice,” all professors should be free to respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


They should not be compelled to say and teach things they don’t believe or risk being fired or disciplined. And everyone should be free to stand thoughtfully for the truth.

My letter of discipline notwithstanding, the school’s problem with me—and, for that matter, the student’s problem with me—is not really that I treated him differently, but that I did not. I treated this student exactly like I treat others, when in fact he wanted to be treated differently.

He demanded to be referred to as a woman. Though I could not in good conscience do that, I did offer to make an exception and refer to him by his given name, rather than either “Mr.” or “Ms.,” but, again, that wasn’t what he wanted. Nor was it, once his preference was stated, what the university administrators wanted for him.

“But,” many would say, “he has the right to identify as a woman if he wants to.” Perhaps, but I also have a right not to identify him as something I do not believe he is.

He has his beliefs, and I have mine. I can’t compel him to speak like me, and neither he nor the university should be trying to compel me to speak like him.

And, as a philosophy professor who regularly teaches ethics, I have a professional as well as a personal responsibility to honor the truth for what it is—not for what some of us might want it to be.

One other point: I am a Christian, and we, too, set particular stock by the truth. We also put a premium on compassion, which is why I would never deliberately mistreat the student in question by mocking his point of view, or making my class more difficult for him, or adjusting his grade based on how closely his views align with my own. He earned and received a high grade, and we had no other difficult interactions.

Yet by punishing me for expressing my views, the university seeks to deny my students the opportunity to learn about and respond to philosophical ideas they disagree with.

This would not be serving these students well and would deprive them of one of the hallmarks of higher education.

Don’t just take my word for it. Listen to two of my former students. One wrote:

I’m a queer person. Your personal convictions could not be any further from mine. It doesn’t matter, though. I respect you, and I respect the ideas that you bring to the table of the marketplace of ideas. You made me think. That’s hard to come by these days.

Another, a self-described atheist, wrote:

Insulating students from intellectual scrutiny in the name of avoiding offense would be doing them a disservice. You and I saw eye-to-eye on very little and that made those arguments all the more valuable to me. … I hope that more people can [rein] in their emotions and see the benefit in having their ideas stress-tested by an earnest lover of wisdom.

These students powerfully express the real reason I am standing up for my First Amendment rights: to ensure that public universities remain a marketplace of ideas, not an assembly line for one type of thought.

COMMENTARY BY


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Nice White Parents’ Responsible for Failing Public Schools, New York Times Says

Why does the public education system continue to fail America’s children? Policy experts have pondered this question for decades.

Most say the answer is complicated, requiring a nuanced, collaborative approach.

But not The New York Times. It found the problem, and it’s simple: white parents.

The solution? “Try, whenever possible, to suppress the power of white parents.”


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


That quote comes from the Times’ podcast “Nice White Parents,” which chronicles the history of a single public school in New York. Specifically, the host, Chana Joffe-Walt, decides to look into the racial history of this school.

Her first finding: Many parents who advocated for the integration of public schools, specifically this public school, did not end up enrolling their children. Instead, they chose to send their children to established schools with a history of success. This choice—made predominantly by white families—is why the school has struggled, Joffe-Walt says.

She contacts several of these parents to scold them for not sending their children to a worse school to serve the larger cause of public education. Some parents note that although they believed in advancing school integration, they perceived this particular school to struggle academically, noting that many students could not read at grade level.

Joffe-Walt chalks up these criticisms to racism, rather than a genuine observation that the school would be a step backward academically for a student functioning at grade level.

Does she offer concrete policy solutions to fix the underlying academic issues plaguing the school? Of course not. Instead, she perpetuates the myth that parents choosing to exit the public school system leads to underfunded schools.

In reality, schools are not underfunded. Not even close. In fact, since the creation of the Department of Education in 1979, education spending has gone only in one direction: up. Test scores, by contrast, have remained entirely stagnant.

New York spends almost $23,000 per student per year in the public school system—a close second to Washington, D.C., for the highest per-pupil expenditure in the country. That figure also is significantly higher than most private school tuitions. So why are so many schools still failing?

One reason: The public school system is drowning in bureaucracy. And bureaucrats get paid before teachers—and before students get new textbooks.

Ben Scafidi at Kennesaw State University has studied the concept of administrative bloat in the K-12 public education system extensively. He found that between 1950 and 2015, the student population at public schools had grown roughly 100%. During that same time period, teaching staff had grown 243%.

Although that disproportionate growth in the number of teachers compared to the growth in student population is shocking enough, that is hardly his biggest finding. During that same time period, “administrators and other staff” in the public school system grew 709%.

An increase in administrative staff exceeding 700% compared to just a 100% increase in students seems to be a far more likely answer to why heavily funded public schools appear to lack resources than the choices of some parents to seek out the best education options available for their children.

Throughout “Nice White Parents,” Joffe-Walt details examples of parents’ getting involved in the day-to-day operation of the school, and paints this involvement as affront to public schooling.

In Episode 1, for example, she describes how when “white parents” came into the school, many wanted their children to learn French, yet no French classes were offered. The parents formed a committee, held fundraisers, collaborated with administrators, and got their French program.

This is problematic, according to “Nice White Parents,” because a French program strays from the cultural needs of the majority-minority population of the school.

This scenario is exactly why every family needs school choice. There never will be a one-size-fits-all public school system that will offer the foreign language needs and wants of every family, nor other such demands.

The New York Times and the makers of “Nice White Parents” argue that the solution to the different wants and needs of families is to ignore the wishes of parents altogether and let education bureaucrats decide what is best for their children.

School choice proponents, by contrast, believe that every family in America should be empowered to choose an education option that is custom fit for their child’s needs. Through programs such as vouchers or education savings accounts, every family would be financially empowered to make that decision. Students do better when their parents are actively engaged in their education.

A podcast attacking parental autonomy is bad enough. But the fact that The New York Times attacks parents of a particular race for executing their autonomy is worse. “Nice White Parents” isn’t just troubling, it’s wrong, and an affront to American ideals.

Ultimately, this hurts all children because “Nice White Parents” racializes the failure of the public schools, hurting the students who are trapped there and don’t have the resources to flee the public system.

There has got to be some accountability for the failure of the public system. The New York Times’ use of a racist canard to avoid systemic culpability for failing these kids isn’t going to cut it.

COMMENTARY BY

Mary Clare Amselem is a policy analyst in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

School Choice Shines This Week

School choice was a policy star this week at the Republican National Convention. President Donald Trump capped off the week by stating his desire to “expand charter schools and provide school choice for every family in America” during his speech Thursday night, the final night of the convention.

A slate of speakers throughout the week made impassioned cases for school choice, including Rebecca Friedrichs, famous for bringing a legal challenge to the forced collection of union dues. Her effort resulted in the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of teacher freedom in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., also made powerful arguments for education freedom. Scott called a good education “the closest thing we have to magic in America… When a parent has a choice, a kid has a better chance.”

On Wednesday, Tera Myers, an Ohio mother who helped launch that state’s school choice program for children with special needs, spoke about how life-changing school choice had been for her son, who has Down’s syndrome.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


The teachers’ unions were none too pleased. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted in part, “Tonight we heard over and over about ‘school choice.’ This is their way [of] pushing to defund public ed.”

Her tweet begs the question: Why would giving parents a choice defund public education?Implicit in her tweet is the recognition that given an option, many parents would chose something other than their child’s assigned district school.

There are numerous policy changes Congress could make to advance school choice immediately, recognizing the particular urgency of the moment (most public schools across the country are still closed to in-person instruction). That includes:

1. Repurposing Existing Federal Programs

There are dozens of federal programs that are ineffective and inappropriate for Washington to manage. Instead of those dollars flowing to district public schools that are largely closed, Congress should redirect funding for those programs to families to use at an education option of choice.

There are many to choose from, including:

  • Supporting Effective Instruction (Title II, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)—which would yield $2.13 billion per year for education choice.
  • Teacher and School Leader Incentives Fund (Title II, Part B)—$200 million per year.
  • Literacy for All (Title II, Part B)—$192 million per year.
  • Student Support and Academic Enrichment (Title IV, Part A)—$1.2 billion per year.
  • 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part B)—$1.2 billion per year.
  • Education Innovation and Research Grants (Title IV, Part F)—$190 million per year.

2. Allowing Portability of Title I and Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Dollars

To help students with special needs and children from low-income families, Congress should allow Title I dollars and funding from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to follow students to learning options of choice.

For example, public schools receive $13.5 billion annually in federal the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funding for students with special needs, ages three to 21. Federal policymakers could do a better job of serving these students by allowing them and their parents to access micro-education savings accounts worth approximately $2,000 per year, carved out of those existing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds.

Similarly, the design of the federal Title I program for low-income students has become cumbersome and obsolete, with distributions today having little connection to district-level poverty. Congress should allow states to make their Title I dollars portable, following a child from a low-income family to a private school or education option of choice.

3. Creating School Choice for Populations That Congress Is Directly Responsible for Educating

Finally, for education purposes, specific populations of students fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. That include children from active duty military families, Native American students living on tribal lands, and children residing within the District of Columbia—a federal city. Congress should provide education options for these populations.

That includes providing education savings accounts to military-connected children, education savings accounts to Native American children living on tribal lands, and transforming the Washington, D.C., into an all-choice district through expansion of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.

States Should Lead Charge to Expand Education Choice

Most importantly, states should heed the call to advance education choice. COVID-19 has demonstrated how ill-prepared districts were to meet the needs of students when the pandemic hit. Six months later, most remain closed to in-person instruction, leaving children without access to their schools and friends.

It doesn’t have to be this way. American taxpayers spend more than $700 billion per year on K-12 education. If that money funded children directly instead of defaulting to a district school system, families could have maintained education continuity by directing dollars to learning options that were open, or to private tutors, learning pods, online education, micro-schools, and homeschooling co-ops. But the inflexible nature of the existing system precludes that.

States should be doing everything they can right now to provide emergency education savings accounts to families.

COMMENTARY BY

Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Nice White Parents’ Responsible for Failing Public Schools, New York Times Says


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Institutional Racism in Higher Ed

Institutional racism and systemic racism are terms bandied about these days without much clarity. Being 84 years of age, I have seen and lived through what might be called institutional racism or systemic racism. Both operate under the assumption that one race is superior to another. It involves the practice of treating a person or group of people differently based on their race.

“Negros,” as we proudly called ourselves back then, were denied entry to hotels, restaurants, and other establishments all over the nation, including the North. Certain jobs were entirely off-limits to Negros. What school a child attended was determined by his race.

In motion pictures, Negros were portrayed as being unintelligent, such as the roles played by Stepin Fetchit and Mantan Moreland in the Charlie Chan movies. Fortunately, those aspects of racism are a part of our history.

By the way, Fetchit, whose real name was Lincoln Perry, was the first black actor to become a millionaire, and he has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and, in 1976, the Hollywood chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People awarded Perry a Special NAACP Image Award.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Despite the nation’s great achievements in race relations, there remains institutional racism, namely the widespread practice of treating a person or group of people differently based on their race. Most institutional racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning.

Eric Dreiband, an assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, recently wrote that Yale University “grants substantial, and often determinative, preferences based on race.”

The four-page letter said, “Yale’s race discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular Asian American and White applicants.”

Yale University is by no means alone in the practice of institutional racism. Last year, Asian students brought a discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University and lost. The judge held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the lower personal ratings assigned to Asian applicants are the result of “animus” or ill-motivated racial hostility toward Asian Americans by Harvard admissions officials.

However, no one offered an explanation as to why Asian American applicants were deemed to have, on average, poorer personal qualities than white applicants. An explanation may be that Asian students party less, study more, and get higher test scores than white students.

In court filings, Students for Fair Admissions argued that the University of North Carolina’s admissions practices are unconstitutional. Its brief stated: “UNC’s use of race is the opposite of individualized; UNC uses race mechanically to ensure the admission of the vast majority of underrepresented minorities.”

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, said in a news release that the court filing “exposes the startling magnitude of the University of North Carolina’s racial preferences.”

Blum said that their filing contains statistical evidence that shows that an Asian American male applicant from North Carolina with a 25% chance of getting into UNC would see his acceptance probability increase to about 67% if he were Latino and to more than 90% if he were African American.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) that read: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

California legislators voted earlier this summer to put the question to voters to repeal the state’s ban on the use of race as a criterion in the hiring, awarding public contracts and admissions to public universities and restore the practice of institutional racism under the euphemistic title “affirmative action.”

When social justice warriors use the terms “institutional racism” or “systemic racism,” I suspect it means that they cannot identify the actual person or entities engaged in the practice.

However, most of what might be called institutional or systemic racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning. And it is seen by many, particularly the intellectual elite, as a desirable form of determining who gets what.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams, a columnist for The Daily Signal, is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Black Patriots Who Helped Keep America Free


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Chinese Communist Party is Setting Up Cells at Universities Across America

“I see in Communism the focus of the concentrated evil of our time.” – Whittaker Chambers

“For in this century, within the next decades, will be decided for generations whether all mankind is to become Communist, whether the whole world is to become free, or whether, in the struggle, civilization as we know it is to be completely destroyed or completely changed.” – Whittaker Chambers

“God is on your side? Is he a conservative? The Devil is on my side, he’s a good communist.” – Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader, to Winston Churchill at Tehran, November 1943


Amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and China over a trade war, Covid-19, and threats of Chinese espionage and political turmoil in Hong Kong, critics worry that China uses their Confucius Institutes to promote Chinese Communist Party propaganda on American college campuses. They are right to worry!

The University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana is not the only cell.  Party cells have appeared in California, Ohio, New York, Connecticut, North Dakota, and West Virginia. The cells appear to be part of a strategy, now expanded under Chinese President Xi Jinping, to extend direct party control globally and to insulate students and scholars abroad from the influence of “harmful ideology,” (i.e. America’s constitutional freedoms) sometimes by asking members to report on each other’s behaviors and beliefs.

Two years ago, in the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress voted to strip colleges and universities of certain Pentagon grants unless they closed their Confucius Institutes which promote Chinese cells. Yet they are still flourishing on American campuses.  Why?  Because American universities have been looking to global sources to fill seats and find cash in the face of government cuts.

Chinese Gifts to American Universities

About 115 colleges received monetary gifts, contracts or both from sources in mainland China in recent years according to a Bloomberg analysis of U.S. government data. The leader was Harvard University, which pulled in $93.7 million, the majority as gifts. The University of Southern California and University of Pennsylvania were second and third.  At the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana, $27 million of the $35 million in contracts with Chinese sources is directed to a partnership between the engineering school and Zhejiang University to develop a program in Haining. Many small universities are also affected; Middle Tennessee State received $1.1 million. Link

In a recent WSJ article, U.S. Presses Universities on China Assets, a letter came from Keith Krach of the State Department urging university endowments to divest themselves of Chinese stocks and disclose Chinese assets held in their index funds.

China’s growing prominence in emerging-markets indexes has steered more money from U.S. institutions into China, putting many endowments at odds with the Trump administration’s increasingly confrontational stance toward Beijing. A growing chorus from DC has linked Chinese stocks to human-rights violations, such as the treatment of the Muslim Uighurs and slave trade, not to mention organ “harvesting” from inmates, and the building of China’s military via US dollars.

“China is a threat to the world in a sense, because they’re building a military faster than anybody and, frankly, they’re using U.S. money,” Trump told reporters at a news conference last September as he discussed global trade with Australia’s prime minister.

Higher education’s alarming willingness to accept money at the expense of principles that universities are ostensibly devoted to upholding clearly paves the way for socialist and communist indoctrination into America’s young minds. At a time when universities are as willing as ever to shield their charges from controversial viewpoints, i.e. conservatism, some nonetheless welcome foreign, communist propaganda—if the price is right, resulting in American universities becoming a soft target for China’s spies.

Confucius Institutes

The first Confucius Institute opened in South Korea in 2004. They quickly spread to Japan, Australia, Canada and Europe. The United States, China’s biggest geopolitical rival, has been a particular focus, fully 40 percent of Confucius Institutes are stateside. In addition to the Institutes at universities, Hanban also operates hundreds of so-called Confucius Classrooms in primary and secondary schools. The public-school system of Chicago, for example, has outsourced its Chinese program to Confucius Classrooms.

In 2017, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte made an announcement to great fanfare. The university would soon open a branch of the Confucius Institute, the Chinese government-funded educational institutions that teach Chinese language, culture and history.

More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.  Hanban is an entity funded and run by the Chinese government’s Ministry of Education. They also pay and screen who teaches the institute’s courses.

Confucius Institutes teach a very particular, Beijing-approved version of Chinese culture and history, one that ignores concerns over human rights, for example, and teaches that Taiwan and Tibet indisputably belong to Mainland China. Tiananmen Square is never mentioned, neither is the Hong Kong desire for freedom as espoused by America’s President Donald Trump.

The UK reports that on balance, given the evidence they’ve received, and while the teaching of Chinese language and culture should be welcomed and encouraged, Confucius Institutes as they are currently constituted threaten academic freedom and freedom of expression in universities around the world and represent an endeavor by the Chinese Communist Party to spread its propaganda and suppress its critics beyond its borders.  America agrees with this assessment.

National Review reported that Alabama’s legislature is seeking to ban the Confucius schools in their state. The other 49 states need to follow suit.

China’s National Security Law

The number of Chinese students at U.S. colleges has almost tripled over a decade. China accounts for one-third of the 1.1 million foreign students, according to data from 2018-19 compiled by the Institute of International Education. Schools have been looking to global sources to fill seats and find cash in the face of government cuts.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) passed a national security law for Hong Kong that aims to quell anti-government protests following a year of unrest in Taiwan’s global financial hub.  The effect of the new national security law is extending far beyond the territory to American college campuses.

The new national security law stemmed from the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and allows China to find and prosecute people for “sedition, subversion, terrorism, and colluding with foreign forces.”  Under the national security law, suspects could be removed to mainland China, handled within the mainland’s criminal justice system and tried under mainland law. … Being charged with a national security crime on the mainland can lead to arbitrary or even secret detention.

Elite universities, Harvard and Princeton, are trying to protect students from China’s National Security Law. Professors are turning to code names, warning labels to protect students.

Classes at some elite universities will carry a warning label this fall: This course may cover material considered politically sensitive by China. And schools are weighing measures to try to shield students and faculty from prosecution by Chinese authorities.

Remember Professor Charles Lieber of Harvard who was working at Wuhan? It was shocking news that a faculty member and researcher was arrested for how he was helping out communist China.  It’s not bad enough that we have millions of dollars flooding into America to set up propaganda institutes, now education is kowtowing to a communist regime.  What next when it comes to a history class?  Are we going to see professors delete parts of communist Chinese history that the regime in Beijing might find embarrassing, and the tens of millions killed in the name of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong?

Radical Indoctrination

The sad truth is universities are no longer institutions of higher learning.  Conservatives have allowed them to become indoctrination mills for at least two generations.  Remember what happened in 1968-1969 with the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that sought to overthrow imperialism.  It was led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were trying to affect a Marxist revolution in America with their Chicago Days of Rage and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).  They failed then, but they are still at it.  They became tenured professors in Chicago, they became high school teachers, and what did we do when these communist anarchists gained so much control?  Nothing!  In fact, America voted not once, but twice for Bill Ayers’ close friend.

The delayed reaction of home schooling was a band-aid on a heart attack.  And now we’ve awakened to the fact that the latest survey from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 72 percent of American millennials would prefer to live in a socialist or communist America!  This happened in our high schools and universities and now the same propaganda is taught to kindergarten children. It is indoctrination, not education.

Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by three avowed Marxist women, is in over 20 major city school districts in America.  And we wonder where all the Antifa and BLM anarchists have come from…they were trained in America’s schools.

Seventy-five of the communist indoctrinating Confucius Centers are still on university campuses and even in kindergarten through twelve schools.  Why are we not removing them right now?  They are nothing more than propaganda operations and bases of communist operations for surveillance and most likely espionage.

The fact that we’ve seen communist propaganda worm its way throughout our universities has to be stopped, but first they’d have to fire 98 percent of their tenured professors.  Yes, professors just like Bill Ayers…there are thousands of them, and now the high schools and grammar schools are inundated with them.  Teachers have said they don’t want the children being taught via virtual learning because the parents might find out what their children are being fed.  It’s not academic education, but communist propaganda.

China’s Authoritarian Regime

The communist regime of China is the largest in the world today.  It has slave labor camps, it has forced organ harvesting for transplants; look at the video of the Uighurs being blindfolded and handcuffed and put on cattle trucks.

The relationship with China started in the Nixon administration with Mao Zedong, and now we have dictator Xi Jinping ruling the Chinese people and determined to take over  Taiwan and make Chang Kai-Shek’s former freedom loving country a part of the People’s Republic of China.

At the rate of amalgamation with foreign nations, China’s hundred-year plan to become the world’s super power, started in 1949 by Mao Zedong, will reach its desired completion in 2049.

China declared war on America years ago by destroying our manufacturing.  Oh, how the neo-cons promoted and loved it and told us the cost of products would be so much lower.  Well, I can tell them my experience and it certainly isn’t good.  I remember Walter Williams subbing for Rush Limbaugh and espousing the trade deals and how a $750 dollar recliner would now cost us $350.  What he didn’t tell us is that it would last less than half the time.  American made products from the late forties and fifties lasted for decades.  Freezers and refrigerators lasted 45 to 50 years.  Electric and gas stoves lasted forever, all you replaced were the coils. Not today.  Everything today has a computer module in it that lasts only eight to ten years and you have to buy another at a cost that is more than triple what we used to pay for an item that lasted 35 to 55 years.  In many cases, this ensures continued slave labor from China.

Conclusion

America shouldn’t be doing business with China at all.  All manufacturing needs to be brought back to America and China needs to be cut off.  It will take time, but it can be done and it will help our economy recover from the Wuhan virus.  Clinton granted China “most favored nation” in 1994 and in 2002, President George W. Bush granted permanent trade status to Communist Red China.  We lived happily without them before they became the “most favored nation” and we can live without them now.  Dealing with evil will only beget evil.

China has not removed Xi Jinping from office, they have not apologized to the world for Covid-19, and they have not sought a new direction for their nation.  They are a nation bent by their leaders on the control of the entire world and the domination of every state by their Marxist totalitarian leaders.

As for their infiltration into education, the only way we can get rid of China’s dominance in America’s higher education is to keep Donald Trump as our president.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Trump Should Ban ‘Critical Race Theory’ Reeducation!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives from 1995-2003. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPIC: Trump Should Ban ‘Critical Race Theory’ Reeducation!

DR. GERARD LAMEIRO

Dr. Gerard Lameiro is an author, philosopher, economist, and engineer. He is the author of five books and is a popular TV and Talk Radio show guest. Dr. Lameiro was a member of the 1980 Presidential Electoral College and personally cast one electoral vote for Ronald Reagan for President of the United States of America. Dr. Lameiro accurately predicted a Trump victory long before most pollsters and pundits gave Trump even a small chance of winning the presidential election. Dr. Lameiro correctly predicted every State that candidate Trump actually carried in the 2016 election.

HIS LATEST BOOK.. “Real World Socialism..” TOPIC: Why You Need to Vote!

TWILA BRASE

Twila Brase, president and co-founder OF Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom has been called one of the “100 Most Powerful People in Health Care” A public health nurse, Brase has been interviewed by CNN, Fox News, Minnesota Public Radio, NBC Nightly News, NBC’s Today Show, NPR, New York Public Radio, the Associated Press, Modern Healthcare, TIME, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Washington Times, among others. She is at the forefront of informing the public of crucial health issues, such as intrusive wellness and prevention initiatives in Obamacare, patient privacy, informed consent, the dangers of “evidence-based medicine” and the implications of state and federal health care reform.

TOPIC: Potential ‘Backfire’ of COVID-19 Vaccine.

©All rights reserved.

Francis Buk Video: ‘My Escape From Slavery in Sudan’.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Debating Porn With Brandi Love And Terry Schilling — How Do We Protect Children From Accessing Adult Content?

The Daily Caller sat down with adult film star Brandi Love and executive director of American Principles Project Terry Schilling to debate all things porn.

In this episode, Love and Schilling were first asked to swap sides. Schilling pondered what his biggest pro-porn argument would be while Love described an anti-porn viewpoint.

Next, the two took on one of the more prominent issues that has come up regarding porn – in an age where so much is accessible with the touch of a button, what are some potential solutions that would prevent minors from accessing pornography?

WATCH:

Both agreed on the importance of regulating the ability of minors viewing this content, but had different ideas on how to police.

Schilling brought up a solution that his organization has already proposed. In his eyes, reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be a good step in making it more difficult for those underage to see this content.

Schilling noted that Section 230 has “been debated with social media platforms.”

“What you would do is, you would give Section 230 immunity to adult websites based on whether or not they have age verification,” he explained. “And if those websites don’t have age verification, then they lose the Section 230 immunity, which would open them up to civil litigation, basically making them liable for any content posted illegally or inappropriately.”

“It would basically force a lot of the adult entertainment companies that are online to do some type of meaningful age verification.”

Love offered a different solution. She argued for a digital ID, although Love noted that she understood Schilling’s argument for reforming Section 230.

“The problems that I see with 230 is that as it’s currently written, it is working,” Love responded. “I feel like the responsibility doesn’t need to be on the free market, on the companies that create the platforms, the user-uploaded content sites.”

“I feel the responsibility needs to be on the person uploading the content. By putting the responsibility and opening up companies to sue-happy people or potentially people that want to abolish a particular aspect of the industry, meaning adult, that leaves these companies wide open … By having a digital ID, which is no different than having a driver’s license … this would be attached to your age, your name, all of your information.”

Love and Schilling continued to discuss each other’s pitches, with Schilling noting that “verified third-party actors” would need to “verify the information and then relay it to the sites.” He expressed concern about the possibility of the federal government getting involved regarding digital ID’s.

“If we can make something happen, not just talk about it but create a solution that solves all these problems,” Love said. “And it’s not about applying it to the adult industry … It’s maintaining and preserving the free and fair market, but also applying equal application of the laws that we’re able to set in, so that there’s not that one ‘target.’”

Stay tuned for more content from Schilling and Love’s porn debate.

COLUMN BY

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Yang: ‘Rampant Access To Pornography Is A Real Problem’

Is it racist to say that 2+2=4?

Facts once assumed true by everyone are quickly becoming controversial. This is a trend we have all become aware of. There is, for example, increasing pressure to suggest that pregnancy can happen to women and men. People who wish to express that “all lives matter” may now choose to self-censor for fear of reprisal. You may have even heard that the American Cancer Society, well-meaning no doubt, recently called women “individuals with a cervix”.

In the latest development, it’s being suggested that we could be guilty of Western imperialism if we insist that 2+2=4.

In late 2019, Seattle Public Schools released a new draft curriculum aimed at “re-humanising” mathematics. It suggests that “Western” maths has been used to “disenfranchise people and communities of colour” by posing as “the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence.” The document goes on to ask, “Who gets to say if an answer is right?”

This draft curriculum builds on the theory of ethnomathematics — the study of intersections between maths and culture — which began in the late 1970s.

While the historical oppression of minorities should by all means be covered in school curricula, using it to dismantle the universal facts of mathematics is highly questionable. But Seattle Public Schools seem quite serious.

So did many Twitter users in the online debate that followed. Nikole Hannah-Jones, founder of The New York Times’ controversial “1619 Project”, weighed into the debate, tweeting,

“I wonder if folks always talking about ‘standards’ ever stop to consider that it’s their so-called standards that are the actual problem.”

Brooklyn College professor also voiced her view that 2 + 2 = 4 “reeks of White supremacist patriarchy”. Laurie Rubel objected to “the idea that math (or data) is culturally neutral or in any way objective,” claiming that this is a myth. “I’m ready to move on with that understanding. Who’s coming with me?” she added. Several other academics from American universities and colleges went on to retweet and support her views.

It turns out that this is no isolated discussion.

A New York-based group called Abolition Science was formed in 2018. The community produces a regular podcast and describes itself as “an anti-colonial project” with a mission to “undermine the racial capitalist logics of Western Science and Math”. Their vision statement explains that they are “an abolitionist project that envisions a science and math delinked from racial capitalism, imperialism, and oppression”.

In actual fact, key concepts behind mathematics came to the West from non-Western lands. The concept of the number zero — a revolutionary concept for mathematics — has roots in Mesopotamia and India, for example. Al-jabr, or “algebra” as we call it, came to us from the Middle East.

Moreover, mathematics is embraced far beyond the West today as the basis for just about every modern advancement — from smartphones to medical research to skyscrapers.

This is important context before dismissing mathematics, as we have always understood it, as being “oppressive”.

These are ominous signs of our times. For good reason do many describe ours a “post-truth” world. Social theorist Thomas Sowell, who is himself African-American, was sharp in his analysis that “we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint”.

English philosopher G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) saw the early signs of the West’s abandonment of objective truth, and in a cheeky tone, he warned:

We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.

But there is another eerie backdrop to these developments.

The phrase “two plus two equals five” was made famous by George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). In that story, the totalitarian government that ruled Oceania brainwashed its citizens to say and believe absurd things. Under threat of torture, protagonist Winston Smith was forced to declare that two plus two equals five. This was part of the ruling Party’s push to replace “thoughtcrimes” with approved ideas known as “Newspeak”.

Could it be that in coming years, insisting that 2+2=4 will become as risky as saying that there are only two genders?

It is good to question our assumptions and challenge our biases. And yes, let’s continue to root out injustice and oppression if we encounter it. But sometimes fashion goes too far. In the all-consuming desire to critique Western civilization, we may well end up dispensing with truth itself. That won’t help us — and it’s doubtful that sowing this kind of distrust among the next generation will bode well either.

With so much cultural upheaval that has taken place in recent years, now might be a good time to ask yourself: is 2 + 2 = 4 a hill you’re willing to die on?

COLUMN BY

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a teacher, freelance writer, and the Features Editor of the Canberra Declaration. He contributes regularly at the Spectator Australia, Caldron Pool and The Good Sauce. He hosts his own… More by Kurt Mahlburg

RELATED ARTICLES:

Faith and the novel in a secular age

Why is Australia’s PM making a free vaccine for Covid-19 mandatory?

The optics are not good: lessons from euthanasia in Canada

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

I’m a Former Teacher. Here’s How Your Children Are Getting Indoctrinated by Leftist Ideology.

Your children are being indoctrinated. The education system designed to teach them how to think critically has been weaponized by the radical left to push an anti-American agenda.

As someone who has worked in education for four years, I have seen firsthand how your children are being ensnared by the left and their teachers.

I worked with kids from ages 3 to 13 and saw the brainwashing that exists at all levels of education. The left uses a combination of propaganda and suppression to push kids into the ensnaring grip of socialism and anti-patriotism.

First is the propaganda. Teachers will assign work instilling the idea that the pillars of Western civilization were evil, and their memories deserve to be thrown in the trash.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Here’s an example. I was helping one of my elementary school students with a homework assignment about listing famous Britons throughout history. She already had some of the more obvious ones: Shakespeare, Princess Diana, Queen Elizabeth.

“Well, how about Winston Churchill?” I recommended.

“Oh no, not him,” she replied. “He was a racist and didn’t think women should have rights. He wasn’t a good guy.”

I was floored. It clearly wasn’t something she came up with on her own. She was just regurgitating propaganda her teacher had taught her. All sense of nuance and critical thinking about the man who saved Europe from the Nazis was gone. Churchill committed “wrongthink,” so in the bin he goes.

Another way the left propagandizes is through the normalization of its views and positions as nonpolitical.

The Black Lives Matter organization is a prime example of this. Many of my colleagues wore Black Lives Matter pins and apparel to school in blatant violation of school rules forbidding political statements on clothing.

When I asked for a justification of the behavior, I was told it wasn’t political to support the group, it was a matter of human rights. The children would see these pins and clothes and connect radical leftist groups with basic human dignity. “How dare you question Black Lives Matter? I was taught this is a matter of human rights!”

But it isn’t just a matter of actively teaching that America and the West are evil. Suppression of “wrongthink” is equally as important to the brainwashing process. The lessons I was allowed to teach also were censored.

I was preparing a lesson on Thanksgiving involving Pilgrims and American Indians, with an activity centered on making paper teepees for arts and crafts. Cue the progressive panic.

Other teachers at the school were incensed that a non-Indian was “appropriating” Native American culture for an activity. Of course, these teachers weren’t Indians either, they just wanted to virtue signal.

The whole thing culminated in a hilarious incident where my colleagues tracked down the one teacher on staff who was one-sixty-fourths Native American and asked her if it was cultural appropriation. In her esteemed authority, it most certainly was. The school administrators pulled me aside and promptly nixed the project.

The suppression extends to American religious values as well. I would try to engage my students with folk stories from around the globe to teach them world history and other cultures.

Story time went on without a hitch until I decided to tell stories from the Bible. Other teachers began to complain I was preaching Christian values to the children and attempting to convert them.

Keep in mind, this wasn’t a problem when I was sharing stories from other ancient cultures throughout history. Stories about ancient India and China were fine and encouraged as “sharing unheard voices.” After sharing the story of the Tower of Babel, I was told to switch back to non-Christian stories or face consequences.

The young adults who today gleefully tear down statues of the Founding Fathers were incubated in our very own schools, groomed to burst from the education system and burn America down.

The left argues the great men and women who built this nation are problematic and must be destroyed. Conservatives must demand an end to the indoctrination of our youth or face a new American public taught since childhood that the country shouldn’t exist.

COMMENTARY BY

Douglas Blair is an administrative assistant at The Heritage Foundation and a graduate of Heritage’s Young Leaders Program.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: A Welcome Conclusion That Yale Discriminates Against Asians, Whites


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Parents, Educators, Doctors Join Trump in New Push to Reopen Schools

Dr. Melanie McGraw Piasecki is both a pediatrician and a mother of three who wants to see kids back in school after the COVID-19 lockdown that shuttered classrooms in the spring and is on the cusp of doing so this fall across the country.

“My children did not have a particularly great experience in the spring, particularly my youngest, who was in first grade at the time,” Piasecki, of Charlotte, North Carolina, said Wednesday at a White House event. “I think the online learning for the young ones, it just doesn’t work.”

Her children’s school is moving to a hybrid model, a mix of in-classroom and remote learning.

“In terms of being a pediatrician, I just think the science is so clear that the risk of death or hospitalization for children with this virus is so, so low,” Piasecki said. “We know the risks of missing school are catastrophic. We probably don’t even know how high they are yet, and they cover so many different areas.”


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Piasecki was among nine Americans—including parents, doctors, teachers, and education officials—who attended the White House event to advocate the reopening of schools.

“We are 100% with you,” President Donald Trump said, referring to children’s return to school.

Vice President Mike Pence, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, presidential counsel Kellyanne Conway, and new White House medical adviser Dr. Scott Atlas also were part of the event.

“The concept of every other day [school attendance] seems a little ridiculous, right?” Trump asked Piasecki. “If you’re going to do it, you do it. The concept of going back—even from a management standpoint from the school—every other day seems very strange.”

Piasecki explained the thinking behind it, but said she’s generally supportive of returning to school.

“The idea is they are going to take half the student body on ‘A’ days and half the student body on ‘B’ days so they can socially distance in the facility; then if you’re home, you’ll be watching it on technology,” she said.

Trump responded:  “But you’d rather see them go back period, right? You’d rather not see that?”

The doctor answered: “That’s right.”

Trump secured $13 billion for states to spend on K-12 education, and is asking Congress to approve another $70 billion for K-12 schools.

Keeping schools closed harms earning potential for students, said Paul Peterson, director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University.

“For every year you spend in school, in the future you will earn 10% more in lifetime earnings,” Peterson said at the White House gathering, adding:

So, if we lock down schools for a year, we assign this generation to a 10% earning loss for the rest of their life. This is profound. The costs are vastly greater than people have appreciated, to say nothing about the importance of young people being together with one another.

At this point, Trump said: “So sitting in isolation with a computer, looking at a laptop, is not the same as being out there in the real world?”

Peterson said the COVID-19 pandemic changed his mind about the effectiveness of remote learning.

“At one point, Mr. President, I thought digital learning was the future,” Peterson said. “But, we have learned through this COVID crisis that we haven’t got digital learning to the point where you can really engage young people. They have got to be in that classroom. They have to be with their peers.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: After Losing Both Her In-Laws to COVID-19, Janice Dean Is Calling for an Investigation of New York


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Schooling Was for the Industrial Era, Unschooling Is for the Future

We’ve entered a new era, the Imagination Age, so why are we still schooling kids like we did in the 19th Century?


ur current compulsory schooling model was created at the dawn of the Industrial Age. As factories replaced farm work and production moved swiftly outside of homes and into the larger marketplace, 19th century American schooling mirrored the factories that most students would ultimately join.

The bells and buzzers signaling when students could come and go, the tedium of the work, the straight lines and emphasis on conformity and compliance, the rows of young people sitting passively at desks while obeying their teachers, the teachers obeying the principal, and so on—all of this was designed for factory-style efficiency and order.

The trouble is that we have left the Industrial Era for the Imagination Age, but our mass education system remains fully entrenched in factory-style schooling. By many accounts, mass schooling has become even more restrictive than it was a century ago, consuming more of childhood and adolescence than at any time in our history. The first compulsory schooling statute, passed in Massachusetts in 1852, required eight to 14-year-olds to attend school a mere 12 weeks a year, six of which were to be consecutive. This seems almost laughable compared to the childhood behemoth that mass schooling has now become.

Enclosing children in increasingly restrictive schooling environments for most of their formative years, and drilling them with a standardized, test-driven curriculum is woefully inadequate for the Imagination Age. In her book, Now You See It, Cathy Davidson says that 65 percent of children now entering elementary school will work at jobs in the future that have not yet been invented. She writes: “In this time of massive change, we’re giving our kids the tests and lesson plans designed for their great-great-grandparents.”

While the past belonged to assembly line workers, the future belongs to creative thinkers, experimental doers, and inventive makers. The past relied on passivity; the future will be built on passion. In a recent article on the future of work, author and strategist John Hagel III writes about the need to nurture passion to be successful and fulfilled in the jobs to come. He says:

One of my key messages to individuals in this changing world is to find your passion and integrate your passion with your work. One of the challenges today is that most people are products of the schools and society we’ve had, which encourage you to go to work to get a paycheck, and if it pays well, that’s a good job, versus encouraging you to find your passion and find a way to make a living from it.

Cultivating passion is nearly impossible within a coercive schooling structure that values conformity over creativity, compliance over-exuberance. This could help explain why the unschooling, or Self-Directed Education, movement is taking off, with more parents migrating from a schooling model of education for their children to a learning one. With Self-Directed Education, passion is at the center of all learning. Young people follow their interests and pursue their passions, while adults act as facilitators, connecting children and teens to the vast resources of both real and digital communities. In this model, learning is natural, non-coercive, and designed to be directed by the individual herself, rather than by someone else.

Self-Directed Education and unschooling often take place in homes and throughout communities, but increasingly individuals and organizations are launching self-directed learning centers geared toward homeschoolers with both full- and part-time options. These centers make Self-Directed Education more accessible to more families in more places, and each has a unique philosophy or focus. Some are geared toward teens and value real-world apprenticeships and immersion; others are makerspaces that emphasize tinkering and technology, and so on. In Boston, for instance, the JP Green School in the city’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood serves as a part-time self-directed learning space for homeschoolers and unschoolers with a focus on sustainability and nature connection.  Co-founder Andrée Zaleska says:

People educated in coercive models will be damaged for life (most of us are). The lack of respect shown to their autonomous selves as children translates into a lifelong tendency to “get what they need” by any means necessary…We are part of a growing counterculture which finds traditional schooling damaging in ways that are intertwined with the general brokenness of our culture.

Instead of complaining about the education status quo, entrepreneurial individuals are building alternatives to school that challenge it. Centered around passion and an overarching belief in individual self-determination, these entrepreneurs — who are often parents, former school teachers, and others who have become disillusioned by coercive schooling — are freeing young people from an outdated and harmful mass schooling system. Enlightened parents and innovative entrepreneurs may be the key players in constructing a new education model focused on freedom and designed for the Imagination Age.

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Illinois State Rep Calls for the Abolition of History Classes in the State’s Public Schools

Rep. Ford claims that “current school history teaching leads to white privilege and a racist society.” Meleika Gardner of We Will says: “Miseducation has fed and continues to feed systemic racism for generations. If Black History continues to be devalued and taught incorrectly, then it will call for further action.” Evanston Mayor Steve Hagerty adds: “I support House Bill 4954 because I am interested in learning more and believe the history of Black people should be taught to all children and include all groups, Women, LatinX, and Native Indians who helped to build America.”

All this gives the impression that February is White History Month, not Black History Month, and that the teaching of history in public schools has more of a slant toward the Confederate States than the United States. This is, of course, absurd. We see the products of public education in America today venting their hatred for their native land every night now in Seattle and Portland.

What we need is not more focus on the grievances of this or that group, but rather on what has made the nation great for all of us, of every race and ethnic background. Rep. Ford’s initiative is yet another in a long line of Leftist attempts to erase our history and make us ashamed of being Americans, which will lead us to not having either the will or desire to defend this nation from internal and external attacks.

What we need now, when so many people are telling us that America was never great and is nothing to be proud of, is an unapologetic reaffirmation of what did indeed make this nation the greatest, most magnanimous, freest country the world has ever known. That’s why I wrote Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster, which will be out in a few weeks and which you can preorder now. It evaluates the presidents of the United States on the simple basis of whether or not they were good for America and Americans. Along the way, it gives you a brisk reminder of the history that Leftist destroyers are trying to steal from us. If we do not know our own history, their sinister endeavor will be all the easier to accomplish. Rep. Ford himself put it best regarding why this book is urgently needed now: “the miseducation of our children must stop.”

“Chicago-Area Leaders Call for Illinois to Abolish History Classes,” NBC Chicago, August 2, 2020:

At a news conference, State Rep. LaShawn K. Ford said current history teachings lead to a racist society and overlook the contributions of women and minorities.

Before the event Sunday, Rep. Ford’s office distributed a news release “Rep. Ford Today in Evanston to Call for the Abolishment of History Classes in Illinois Schools,” in which Ford asked the ISBOE and school districts to immediately remove history curriculum and books that “unfairly communicate” history “until a suitable alternative is developed.”…

The full news release is below:

Rep. Ford Today in Evanston to Call for the Abolishment of History Classes in Illinois Schools

Concerned that current school history teaching leads to white privilege and a racist society, state Rep. La Shawn K. Ford, D-Chicago, will join local leaders today at noon at the Robert Crown Center in Evanston to call on the state to stop its current history teaching practices until appropriate alternatives are developed.

“When it comes to teaching history in Illinois, we need to end the miseducation of Illinoisans,” Ford said. “I’m calling on the Illinois State Board of Education and local school districts to take immediate action by removing current history books and curriculum practices that unfairly communicate our history. Until a suitable alternative is developed, we should instead devote greater attention toward civics and ensuring students understand our democratic processes and how they can be involved. I’m also alarmed that people continue to display symbols of hate, such as the recent display of the Confederate flag in Evanston.”

Attendees at Sunday’s press conference will discuss how current history teaching practices overlook the contributions by Women and members of the Black, Jewish, LGBTQ communities and other groups. These individuals are pushing for an immediate change in history changing practice starting this school year.

The miseducation of our children must stop,” said Meleika Gardner of We Will. “It is urgent that it comes to an end as we witness our current climate become more hostile. Miseducation has fed and continues to feed systemic racism for generations. If Black History continues to be devalued and taught incorrectly, then it will call for further action.”

Evanston Mayor Steve Hagerty notes “As Mayor, I am not comfortable speaking on education, curriculum, and whether history lessons should be suspended. This is not my area. Personally, I support House Bill 4954 because I am interested in learning more and believe the history of Black people should be taught to all children and include all groups, Women, LatinX, and Native Indians who helped to build America.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump on Boston Marathon jihad murderer: ‘The Federal Government must again seek the Death Penalty’

Co-Founder of Federalist Society Calls for ‘Fascistic’ Trump to Be Impeached for Election Delay Tweet

Muslim prof: ‘Conversion of Hagia Sophia has handed right-wingers an excuse and impetus to demonise Islam’

Spain: Muslim migrants preparing explosives for jihad massacre in Barcelona are thwarted and arrested

Germany: Berlin police record two rapes a day, migrants are 19% of region but nearly 50% of rapists

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Trump Trump Wants to Send Education Funds to Parents if Schools Do Not Open

President Trump wants education funding sent directly to parents to pay for whatever school they choose for their children–including “home school.”

CatholicVote posted the following video on YouTube:

©All rights reserved.

College women, take heed: Prioritize marriage and family!

A marriage and relationship coach encourages young women to follow their hearts, prioritizing marriage and family.


In the last week alone, I’ve spoken with three millennial women (who reached out for coaching) who are all in the same boat: they’re up to their eyeballs in debt, having gotten degree upon degree due to the pressure they felt from their parents and the culture to do something big with their lives. To not let their intellect go to waste. To not worry about finding a man to marry or even having children because, well, they have bigger fish to fry.

These women aren’t just in debt—they’re crestfallen. All they want is to have a family of their own, but they’ve been so conditioned to believe marriage and motherhood constitutes a lesser life, they don’t dare admit this desire. I can’t tell you the number of single women who tell me they’d give up their career in a hot second for a husband and kids.

And it’s not just unmarried women. Many of the wives and mothers I hear from are working at professions they don’t care much about, and want more time at home to be with their kids and to live a slower-paced life. Problem is, they married men who lack ambition (either that, or they had it but took a step back to accommodate their wives’ ambition) and as a result the women became their family’s main breadwinner. And it’s a role most of them hate.

Their predicament was inevitable. For one thing, modern women weren’t taught to look for a man who can provide for a wife and kids. Women are supposed to take care of themselves! That’s the narrative with which these women were raised, so it never occurred to them to look at a man’s professional prospects.

Second, by delaying marriage indefinitely, these women wound up with fewer choices. Good men of strong character, who are conscientious and gainfully employed, tend to marry younger, family-oriented women. These women may or may not have a college degree and/or a career, but they nevertheless view work as a secondary value to their main priority: marriage and family.

Ergo, by the time the career-focused women are around 30 years of age, the pickings are slim. They can look for a man who’s as ambitious as they, and occasionally they will find him—but sheer math means many will not. So they settle on the best they can get: men who are nice and who are safe, but who lack the necessary drive to produce on behalf of their families.

And we can’t dismiss the reason why so many modern men lack drive: because they’ve failed to launch. What did we think would happen in a culture that hails women’s ambition and independence from men and tells men, both verbally and subliminally, that they’re superfluous?

It’s the culture, along with the previous generation of parents, who created this mess. They instilled all the wrong messages and all the wrong values in the modern generation. As a result, women and men are paying the price.

Still, I have hopes for the women of Generation Z. I think they’re witnessing all of this; and while this group has problems of their own—anxiety, mainly—I don’t believe they’ll end up in the same boat as their millennial sisters. I think they will marry earlier, and they will prioritize motherhood. A career will likely be part of their lives, but it will not be the focus of their lives. It will not be their raison d’être.

That’s the crux of the problem for the women who reach out to me: they were taught that their value lies in what they do, rather than in who they are—that if they don’t live lives the way men live theirs, they are failures. And it’s tearing them up inside. One woman broke down after admitting she has spent a decade getting two degrees she doesn’t even want.

This is madness. Going into debt to prove one’s worth and struggling to do what previous generations used to do with ease—find a man and settle down—is hardly progress. There’s nothing empowering about any of this. College women, take heed: Do not let this be your fate! Prioritize marriage and family. Make it the center of your life, and fit everything else in around that.

No offense, but I’d love to not hear from you ten years down the line.

Republished with the author’s permission. Read the original article at SuzanneVenker.com

Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker (@SuzanneVenker) is the author of five books and a relationship coach, as well as host of The… 

RELATED ARTICLES:

On critics and bullies

When the New York Times covered up one of communism’s worst atrocities

Twitter hack revelation: people are still human

A bleak pandemic inspires glimmers of goodness

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

UK Rightly Pushes Back on Gender Transitioning for Minors

On both sides of the Atlantic, advocates for transgender rights are increasingly substituting ideology for biological reality.

But while here in the U.S. the Supreme Court last month was writing into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act legal protections for people who identify as transgender that the authors of the law never intended, the United Kingdom appeared to be moving in the other direction, standing up for common sense.

On the other side of the pond, just five days before the Supreme Court handed down its decision, bestselling “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling published an intensely personal essay in response to criticism of her position on the issue of gender identity.

In the essay, Rowling, who is British, revealed her past experiences with sexual assault and domestic abuse, and expressed concern about transgender activists’ attacks on single-sex spaces for women.


Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today. But what side are you on? And how can you sharpen up on how to defend your position? Learn more now >>


As a former teacher and a supporter of children’s charities, Rowling also stated her discomfort with the rush to medically transition children with gender dysphoria and especially the massive increase in young girls suddenly identifying as transgender.

Despite the vitriol she received in response from the left, Rowling refused to back down from her stance.

The comments by Rowling, along with other recent developments in the United Kingdom, show promising signs that the relentless advance of transgender ideology in medicine and public policy finally might be encountering some resistance across the Atlantic.

Britain’s minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, recently announced plans to ban sex-change procedures for anyone under the age of 18.

Truss told a parliamentary committee April 20: “I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.”

Transgender activists frequently recommend those medical interventions—which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery—for children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Parents of children questioning their biological sex are advised to unquestioningly affirm the child’s new, self-identified gender and help them to transition socially with the help of a new name, pronouns, and wardrobe.

Little attention is paid to the adverse effects of that treatment, however. As Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George have written, such interventions “should be prohibited”:

Prudent legislation is needed to prevent adults from interfering with a child’s normal, natural bodily development.

‘Gender affirmation’ procedures violate sound medical ethics. It is profoundly unethical to intervene in the normal physical development of a child as part of ‘affirming’ a ‘gender identity’ at odds with bodily sex.

Activists have frequently brushed off concerns about possible regret following gender transitions, ignoring evidence that shows that they carry a number of physical and psychological risks.

The use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can lead to increased cancer risk, decreased bone density, and adverse effects on brain development. In addition, hormones and surgeries can sterilize children who would normally be considered far too young to make such a serious—and permanent—medical decision.

In contrast, a “watchful waiting” approach allows children time to accept their biological sex instead of rushing to alter it and can help address any underlying issues causing the distress.

Studies show that 80% to 95% of children experiencing gender dysphoria who do not transition eventually come to accept their bodies, while nearly all children who are placed on the path of social transition go on to pursue medical interventions.

The U.K.’s decision to prevent those under 18 from being subjected to those unproven procedures demonstrates the importance of considering the best medical and scientific evidence, even if it contradicts the activists’ narrative.

Britain’s National Health Service recently made another change related to its treatment of gender dysphoria in minors.

The Health Service’s website, which provides information about medical conditions and treatment, includes a section on gender dysphoria in children. A section on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to prevent puberty in children who identify as transgender previously stated, “The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time.”

That’s a common talking point for transgender activists, often employed to support early transitions while avoiding discussion of detrimental side effects or the lack of medical evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria.

Surprisingly, that section on the National Health Service website was recently updated to read:

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. …

It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue, and mood alterations.

Rowling noted those concerns in a tweet, writing, “Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests.”

The National Health Service site also notes that the use of cross-sex hormones can lead to irreversible physical changes, such as deepening of the voice in females and breast development in males, as well as permanent infertility.

The changes to its site were made without fanfare, suggesting that the Health Service still fears activists’ outrage against even reasonable medical cautions.

Despite its own update, the Health Service continues to recommend and administer these medical treatments to minors. The Minister for Women and Equalities’ report on banning some of those treatments is not expected until later this summer, and its exact recommendations remain to be seen.

The changes to the Health Service’s website and the minister’s comments provide reason to hope that they will move toward a more cautious approach to treating children with gender dysphoria, protecting vulnerable youth from rushed, ideologically motivated—and often irreversible—interventions.

Policymakers in the United States would be well advised to do the same.

COMMENTARY BY

Andrea Jones is a research assistant in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society.


A Note for our Readers:

These are trying times in our nation’s history. Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today, with polar opposite viewpoints on public policy and the government’s role in our lives.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation asked world-class speaker, educator, and researcher David Azerrad to walk you through his research and outline the differences between the “two regimes” in our society today—conservatism and progressivism—and their primary differences.

When you get access to this course today, you’ll learn key takeaways like what it means to be a conservative, what “modern progressivism” is, how a conservative worldview differs from a progressive one, and much, much more.

You will come away from this online course with a better understanding of the differing points of view, how they align with your principles, and how to defend your beliefs.

Don’t wait—start taking “The Case for Conservatism” course online now.

GET YOUR FREE ACCESS NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.