Tag Archive for: education

‘Christian Nationalism?’ Texas Legislation Would Require Ten Commandments Be Posted in Schools

Critics are calling a Texas bill that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms an example of “Christian nationalism.” But the bill’s sponsors say the legislation is needed to help remind students of America’s biblical foundations.

In April, S.B. 1515 passed the Texas Senate with a vote of 17-12; the bill is now headed to the state’s House of Representatives.

“[The bill] will remind students all across Texas of the importance of the fundamental foundation of America,” Texas State Senator Phil King (R), the bill’s sponsor, said during an April committee hearing.

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R) expressed further support of the legislation along with another bill requiring there be allotted time for students and employees to pray and read the Bible if they choose. “Allowing the Ten Commandments and prayer back into our public schools is one step we can take to make sure that all Texans have the right to freely express their sincerely held religious beliefs,” he said in a statement, adding that the bills “will enable our students to become better Texans.”

King went on to assert that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to uphold Coach Joe Kennedy’s right to pray on the field after high school football games in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District signaled that it would also uphold S.B. 1515 if it became law. This outcome remains uncertain in light of a previous Supreme Court ruling in Stone v. Graham (1980), which held that a Kentucky statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional due to it violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Critics such as Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman say that the Texas legislation amounts to a “new frontier of Christian nationalism,” claiming that the so-called philosophy “rejects our legal and cultural tradition of religious pluralism.”

But as mass shootingssuicides, and mental health issues continue to mount in the U.S., observers fear that a lack of clearly defined principles to live by in the public square will only lead to further societal chaos.

“What we are seeing culturally is a predictable result of a secularizing culture,” Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm told The Washington Stand. “Government schools, claiming to be neutral, are teaching children to understand the world without consideration of the one who created the world. This predictably leads to growing depression and suicide because there is nowhere to turn when we lose control. It also leads to increasingly lawlessness, because there is no one to be accountable to.”

Still, Backholm, who serves as FRC’s senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, expressed reservations about the legal ramifications of mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.

“As a legal matter, if a state allows the Ten Commandments, they would be obligated to allow other religious displays and messages I might not want my kids exposed to,” he observed. The rise of “After School Satan Clubs” indeed has some experts worried about what kinds of beliefs could make their way into schools once a legal foothold is achieved.

“That’s why this situation also shows the necessity of universal school choice,” Backholm continued. “No parent should be forced by government to have their child indoctrinated in a worldview they do not share. By giving parents control over where their child is educated, parents have control over how their child is educated — and no one has to fight over the Ten Commandments in school. The only reason this is even controversial is because people are stuck in public schools, so people who have no shared values are fighting over space the government mandates we share. It’s a recipe for conflict, so we are seeing conflict.”

“So yes, we need reminders that we are accountable and we are not alone, but government should not be the source of our theology,” Backholm concluded.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘They Will Try to Bully You’: Lawmakers Exit the Democratic Party

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Boy Who Knew Too Much for His School

Exposing trans madness in education doesn’t require advanced degrees, political influence, charisma, or even 18 years of life, as one plucky middle-schooler demonstrated. At the April 13 School Committee Meeting for Middleboro, Mass. Public Schools, 7th grader Liam Morrison, a student at Nichols Middle School, stepped up to the microphone for two minutes of public comment — and then reached up to turn it down towards his mouth. He then narrated for the school committee what might be the silliest reason any student has ever been sent home from school: wearing a shirt conveying factually accurate information.

“I never thought the shirt I wore to school on March 21 would lead me to speak with you today,” began the pint-sized culture warrior. He described how he was removed from his Tuesday gym class “to sit down with two adults for what turned out to be a very uncomfortable talk. I was told that people were complaining about the words on my shirt, that my shirt was making some students feel unsafe.”

“What did my shirt say? Five simple words: ‘There are only two genders,’ Morrison emphasized. “Nothing harmful. Nothing threatening. Just a statement I believe to be a fact.” And not only a fact, but a bedrock principle to many lessons Morrison would likely have encountered in both biology class and grammar class.

“Yes, words on a shirt made people feel ‘unsafe,’” repeated Morrison. If people did complain, they lacked the courage to tell Morrison to his face. In this instance, the accused was not accorded the right to face his accusers, making their very existence unverifiable. Morrison recalled, “Not one person, student, or staff, told me that they were bothered by what I was wearing. Actually, just the opposite. Several kids told me that they supported my actions and that they wanted one, too.”

“I was told that I would need to remove my shirt before I could return to class,” Morrison continued. “When I nicely told them that I didn’t want to do that, they called my father. Thankfully, my dad supported my decisions [and] came to pick me up.” In other words, because Morrison’s shirt proclaimed a fact of biology and language that he learned (or should have learned) in school, school personnel sent him home — which would hinder his ability to learn — to quarantine his knowledge from other students.

School personnel tried to justify their decision to Morrison, who said, “Their arguments were weak, in my opinion.” The Nichols Middle School dress code does not prohibit students from wearing clothing that displays a message — which is sometimes the case in a controversy of this nature — and school personnel did not object to Morrison’s shirt on that basis. Instead, they claimed that the shirt was disruptive and targeted a protected class.

The dress code does provide:

  • “Clothing that … inhibits learning is not allowed.”
  • “Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.”

“I was told that this shirt was a disruption to learning,” said Morrison. But “no one got up and stormed out of class. No one burst into tears. I’m sure I would have noticed if they had. I experience disruptions to my learning every day. Kids acting out in class are a disruption, yet nothing is done. Why do the rules apply to one yet not another?” A healthy measure of common sense lies underneath the crew cut.

“I have been told that my shirt was ‘targeting a protected class,’” explained Morrison. But he had questions. “Who is this protected class? Are their feelings more important than my rights? I don’t complain when I see pride flags and diversity posters hung throughout the school. Do you know why? Because others have a right to their beliefs just as I do.” Here Morrison argues for the basic principle of free speech, that merely holding and stating a political opinion does not count as hate speech against anyone who disagrees.

It’s not the dress code itself that Morrison spoke out against, but the illegitimate, arbitrary, and unequal way school personnel enforced it against him for his disfavored political views.

Per the dress code policy, Morrison was asked to change. “If students wear something inappropriate to school, they will be asked to call their parent/guardian to request that more appropriate attire be brought to school.” Since he was unwilling, and his father supported his decision, he was sent home. Yet Morrison could face “disciplinary action” if he wears the shirt to school again.

Even while they were enforcing the dress code policy against Morrison, the school officials seemed reluctant to admit what they were doing. “They told me that I wasn’t in trouble, but it sure felt like I was,” said Morrison. “I feel like these adults were telling me that it wasn’t okay for me to have an opposing view.”

But Morrison responded, “I know that I have a right to wear the shirt with those five words. Even at 12 years old, I have my own political opinions, and I have a right to express those opinions, even at school. This right is called the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court prohibited prayer at high school graduations because “adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity.” They reasoned, “What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.” Now, the logic of the opinion is working in reverse, as “the machinery of the State” enforces the anti-religious orthodoxy of transgender ideology on adolescents who are just as susceptible to outside pressure as they were 30 years ago (although Morrison stands out as a remarkable contradiction of this generalization).

Alas, this is the state of public education in America today. Pride flags and other ostentatious celebrations of sexual deviance go unchallenged. But if a single 12-year-old wears a shirt stating the biological and grammatical truth, “there are only two genders,” two adults will pull him out of class to berate him for “targeting a protected class.” Content to let classroom disruption slide most of the time, if any young person has the temerity to wear a truth-telling shirt to class, the school will disrupt his education to call him disruptive.

What other shirt messages might, for simply telling the truth, fall afoul of this ridiculous interpretation of the dress code? Here’s a few likely candidates: “2+2=4 is math, not white supremacy,” “Life begins at conception,” “Latinx is bad Spanish,” or “Jesus is the only way.”

“I learned a lot from this experience,” concluded Morrison. “I’ve learned that a lot of other students share my view. I’ve learned that adults don’t always do the right thing or make the right decisions. … Next time, it might not only be me. There might be more students that decide to speak out.” Education experts have determined to train students as activists, calculating that they can harness their convictions into a left-wing political agenda, but with just a few brave freethinkers like Morrison, teaching students to stand up for truth and right may just backfire.

Just about any young person would find it intimidating to stand up and speak before nine adults in a formal setting — not least one beginning to experience the awkward and uncomfortable physical changes of puberty. But Morrison was not deterred; after all, it’s his future education and free expression that he’s fighting for. His generation (and every other one) could use a few more courageous men willing to stand up for what’s right.

“I didn’t go to school that day to hurt feelings or cause trouble,” Morrison told the school committee. “My hope in being here tonight is to bring the school committee’s attention to this issue. I hope that you will speak up for the rest of us, so we can express ourselves without being pulled out of class.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Parents Protest After 1st Graders Allegedly Forced Girl, 6, to Perform Sex Act, Recorded it on iPad

Soft-Spoken High School Wrestler Grabs Microphone To Sing National Anthem When No One Does

‘Banning Books’ or Protecting Kids from Sexually Explicit Material?

Children Sex Ed Org Apologizes for Linking to Fetish Material on Website

Fathers and Sexual Identity

KISS Superstar Paul Stanley Calls Child Mutilation ‘A Sad and Dangerous Fad’

Openly Gay Professor Indicted for Alleged Heinous Acts Against Children

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden Reelection Bid Promotes Abortion, Pornographic School Library Books as ‘Personal Freedom’

President Joe Biden officially announced he plans to seek reelection in an online video message that indicates he plans to wage a social issues-focused campaign that presents unrestricted abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage as “our rights” to “personal freedom.”

Biden chose to launch his reelection campaign, not with a traditional campaign speech, but with a previously recorded video posted online around 6 a.m. Tuesday morning. Abortion is among the ad’s first political messages, as the camera pans a protester holding a sign that reads, “Abortion is healthcare.”

The campaign video, which cites no presidential accomplishments in the president’s tenure, seemingly seeks to paint Republicans as extremists who threaten America’s spiritual health. “When I ran for president four years ago, I said we were in a battle for the soul of America. And we still are,” Biden says. “The question we’re facing is whether in the years ahead whether we have more freedom or less freedom, more rights or fewer rights.” But, the president asserts that “MAGA extremists are lining up to take on those bedrock freedoms,” including allegedly “dictating what health care decisions women can make, banning books, and telling people who they can love all while making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.”

Conservatives say the ad shows Biden’s newly discovered focus on social issues. “Five seconds. That’s how long it took Joe Biden to endorse abortion in his new campaign ad,” noted SBA Pro-life America. “It’s what he’s running on. It’s what he stands for: taxpayer funded abortion on demand up to birth.”

Biden’s reference to “banning books” apparently refers to outraged parents’ efforts to remove books heavy with graphic depictions of sexual acts from public school libraries serving children under the age of 18. Among these titles is “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe, which “has detailed illustrations of a man having sex with a boy,” as well as “fellatio, sex toys, masturbation, and violent nudity.” Another book that frequently generates parental outrage, “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison, “describes a fourth-grade boy performing oral sex on an adult male” and remembering the experience fondly. The content of books that parents removed from Florida school libraries proved so sexually explicit that TV networks cut away from a press conference in which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) showed their contents publicly. One such concerned parent pushed back against such characterizations, telling “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” last July that removing pornography from school libraries is “not Kristallnacht.”

Biden’s campaign appears to have adopted the talking points offered last summer by a Beltway Democratic polling firm, Hart Research Associates, which advised Democrats to attack “Republicans’ culture war attacks on schools” and accuse the GOP of “banning books and censoring curriculums,” while reassuring voters that Democrats want to “put politics aside.”

Biden’s launch video also appears to indicate that he will highlight his signature accomplishment of the so-called “Respect for Marriage” act, which imposed a nationwide redefinition of marriage on all 50 states. As he refers to “telling people who they can love,” the camera features Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court opinion that invented the right to same-sex marriage. Swing-state voters in Ohio rejected Obergefell in a landslide loss last November.

The ad says Biden intends to advance “personal freedom,” to “protect our rights,” and “to make sure that everyone in this country is treated equally.” As president, Joe Biden attempted to impose a COVID-19 vaccination mandate on every employer with 100 employees or more, doubled fines for travelers who refused to wear masks, and shoehorned discriminatory race- and gender-based equity policies into every aspect of government.

“I know America,” Biden insists in the ad.

Biden’s campaign intends to enroll inner-city Christians in his coalition. Near the end of the video, a shorter-than-normal screen cut featured two shots containing a cross-shaped Baptist church sign and a black minister opening his church door, separately.

Critics showed no surprise that the president chose not to highlight his record, which has included inflation unseen in 40 years, a poorly executed withdrawal from Afghanistan, and divisive efforts to brand his political opponents as incipient domestic terrorists.

“This particular president has been a sad story for the United States,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Tuesday. “We’re exposed to so many weaknesses in consequence of it abroad.” The last 27 months have inflicted “debilitating damage,” Bishop stated.

Entirely apolitical figures have criticized Biden’s promotion of gender ideology, threatening to cut off school lunch funding to schools that refuse to give men access to women’s private facilities and the “right” to compete against females in sports. “More and more women are realizing their biological reality is being attacked by politicians pandering to their base instead of protecting women’s rights,” said 12-time NCAA All-American swimmer Riley Gaines. “Protecting the girls’ and women’s sport category is common sense and should not be a partisan issue.”

Whatever issues his handlers highlight, Joe Biden faces an uphill battle in 2024. Biden currently has an approval rating of just 39%, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll. A new CBS News/YouGov poll shows that 72% of Americans say the nation is “out of control,” and 71% say it’s Joe Biden’s fault.

“In terms of inflation and other problems in our economy, it’s time to turn a page,” Bishop told Perkins. “But he’ll do what he’s going to do, I guess.”

A whopping 70% of Americans, including 51% of Democrats, say they do not want President Biden to seek a second term in office. He currently faces two Democratic primary challengers: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and New Age author Marianne Williamson.

The Democratic National Convention currently plans to hold no debates during the 2024 primaries.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Republicans Explain: How GOP Candidates Should Be Talking about Abortion

Despite Left-wing Disruptions, States Continue to Bar Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

Saving Sex for Marriage Leads to Happier Marriages, Study Finds

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Teaching American Students to Be Americans

The Florida legislature is now considering a measure that calls for American students to be taught about America.

The bill, in the typically cumbersome language of most proposed laws, is titled “Public Postsecondary Educational Institutions.” Formally introduced as H.B. 999, the bill would give greater power to boards that oversee Florida’s public colleges and eliminate funding for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs at public universities. But these are not the aspects of the bill that most caught my eye.

H.B. 999 urges higher educational institutions to “(promote) citizenship in a constitutional republic.” It states that when appropriate, Florida college students should be taught “the historical background and philosophical foundation of Western civilization and this nation’s founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments thereto, and the Federalist Papers.”

I am a little tempted to stop there. As an historian and advocate of teaching our youth the facts and philosophies of America’s founding, I’m delighted that tens of thousands of young men and women will actually have to read the texts that contain the ideas and beliefs that began our country. By doing so, the contempt for the United States being taught so aggressively in far too many bastions of liberalism, by which I mean most colleges and universities, might lessen. Appreciation for our remarkable country might increase. Patriotism might mean more than watching almost nude “entertainers” at Super Bowl halftimes.

History should be taught accurately. This means thorough and honest appraisals of our country’s heritage, good and bad. The tentacles of slavery and its appalling effects on African-Americans and all of us should be examined with integrity. Labor exploitation during the Industrial Revolution and the treatment of ethnic minorities are among the other unpleasant themes that should be covered.

But our heritage is not one of relentless ugliness. The darkness in our past is pierced through with bold streams of light. Although we have failed to apply the principles of the Declaration — human equality and God-given rights — with the rigor or justice for which those principles call, we have done so much better than other nations. And our commitment to self-correction is unsurpassed in the world.

At the height of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke to the promise of American life eloquently. Acknowledging the grim implications of racism, he pointed to a shared future grounded in certain “self-evident” truths. “One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God” — black men and women denied the right simply to have coffee at a downtown café — “sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

We should share a common indignation at wrongs done, whether political, social, racial, or economic. Yet should our disappointment over failure surmount thankfulness and even wonder regarding all that is good and right about the United States? When the pursuit of justice becomes a pretext for rage and when problems are so magnified that they obscure the great things we enjoy and presume upon each day — degrees of religious liberty, economic opportunity, and political freedom unknown in all but a handful of other countries — we prove ourselves not only unworthy of self-governance but of those who have sacrificed so much on our behalf.

Learning about our Providential history cannot help but inspire appreciation for those who have fought and built and hoped and dreamed in past generations. Imperfection is not the same as ignobility. Elements of our past have been painfully, ashamedly hurtful. Yet the broad course of America’s heritage cannot but inspire a deep sense that despite the many evidences of human fallenness woven into the fabric of our national story, the tapestry itself is nothing less than remarkable.

In 1957, then-Senator John F. Kennedy received a patriotism award from the University of Notre Dame. In his acceptance speech, he challenged the faculty with these words: “the duty of the scholar — particularly in a republic such as ours — is to contribute his objective views and his sense of liberty to the affairs of his state and nation.”

We can hope that Florida’s public universities have such scholars. Governor Ron DeSantis (R) seems to be working to that end, for which all of us can be grateful.

AUTHOR

Rob Schwarzwalder

Rob Schwarzwalder is Senior Lecturer in Regent University’s Honors College.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Enacts ‘Heartbeat Protection Act,’ Reaffirming Life Issue’s Popular Appeal

Missouri AG Moves against ‘Progressive Woke Ideology’ with Emergency Trans Treatment Rule

Gender Confused Teacher Allowed to Continue Teaching after ‘Shooting Students’ Comment

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Virginia School District to Remove 14 Sexually Explicit Books from School Libraries

On Wednesday, Spotsylvania County Public Schools (SCPS) in Fredericksburg, Va. announced that it would be removing 14 books that “contain sexually explicit content and themes that are inappropriate for young persons” from the school district’s libraries. With the move, SCPS joins a growing list of school districts around the country that have opted to remove school library books that contain graphic sexual content amid a growing movement of parents decrying the availability of “pornographic” books to minors.

In a press release, SCPS Superintendent Mark Taylor cited a recent state law put in place in 2022 as the impetus for the removal of the books. “These books contain sexually explicit material which makes it clear there should be parental notification,” he said. “State law sets the definition. The only way we can guarantee they’re not available to students without parental permission is to remove them.”

The measure, championed by Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R), requires that parents be notified of books available in school libraries that contain sexually explicit material.

According to an SCPS memorandum from Taylor provided to The Washington Stand, the 14 books marked for removal include: “All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto” by George Johnson; “Like a Love Story” by Abdi Nazemian; “Dime” by E. R. Frank; “Sold” by Patricia McCormick; “Out of Darkness” by Ashley Hope Perez; “Beloved” by Toni Morrison; “America” by E. R. Frank; “Looking for Alaska” by John Green; “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky; “Water for Elephants” by Sarah Gruen; “Neanderthal Opens the Door to the Universe” by Preston Norton; “More Happy Than Not” by Adam Silvera; “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison; and “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult.

The memo goes on to note that the books on the removal list can still be assigned by teachers with parental permission.

In an attachment to the memo, a compilation of extractions of the explicit content from the books is listed. In many of the extractions, sexual encounters between minors as well as between adults are described in graphic detail. The content also includes hundreds of instances of profanity and crude references to sexual organs and other sexual terms, as well as racial and sexual orientation slurs, which are all notably prohibited from being uttered in most schools.

A growing movement of parents protesting sexually explicit books in school libraries has taken place across the country over the last few years, with parents voicing their concerns at school board meetings in New YorkTexasVirginiaAlabama, and Florida, among others. At recent board meetings in GeorgiaTexas, and Alaska, parents who read content from sexually explicit books were told to stop reading due to the graphic content, with a speaker in Florida being physically kicked out of a meeting for reading the content.

Lawmakers in a number of states are responding to parents’ concerns, as explicit books have been removed from school libraries in MissouriFloridaLoudoun County (Va.)Texas, and elsewhere.

Critics, as well as many legacy news outlets, claim that the removal of explicit books from school libraries amounts to a “book ban.” However, the SCPS press release notes that the 14 books on the removal list remain available at local public libraries if students wish to access them. The press release went on to state that copies of the books being removed “will be stored securely until arrangements can be made to donate them.” Superintendent Taylor’s memo recommends “that they be donated to the Central Rappahannock Regional Library or another public library system.”

Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, commended SCPS’s decisive action.

“It is great to see a school system take this issue seriously,” she told The Washington Stand. “Too often, school leaders delegate this task, or allow political pressure from activists to overwhelm the reasonable concerns of parents. To his great credit, Superintendent Taylor has removed books with sexually explicit content from school libraries. He will no doubt face hysterical accusations of the worst sort from LGBTQ activists, library associations, and publishing industry lobbyists.”

“Fortunately, most parents can understand that school libraries and public libraries serve different age ranges and that no child has an alleged ‘right to read’ explicit or pornographic content. Thanks to Spotsylvania County Public Schools, their school board members, and Superintendent Taylor for preserving childhood innocence and academic excellence,” Kilgannon concluded.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Parents MUST Be Given Access to What Their Kids Are Learning

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kirk Cameron, Trent Talbot Discuss DC Story Hour and Raising Brave Kids

Kentucky Legislature Enacts Parental Rights, Student Privacy, Help Not Harm Act over Governor’s Veto

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

How Entrepreneurs Are Expanding Education Options For Families in Texas

“Parents are the best advocates of their children and ultimately know what type of schooling is best from an academic, social and moral perspective,” said Braveheart founder Chrystal Bernard.


In early 2020, Chrystal and Joshua Bernard decided that they would begin homeschooling their four young children at the start of the following school year. Their two oldest children were completing first grade and pre-kindergarten, respectively, at a traditional private school in the greater Fort Worth, Texas area, but the Bernards were drawn to homeschooling’s more personalized, family-centered educational approach.

The school shutdowns later that year accelerated their homeschooling plans, and the Bernards became increasingly convinced that more learner-centered education was the path forward—both for their own children as well as for others in their local community. “Homeschooling enabled us to connect more as a family and helped our two eldest children skyrocket in their academics, drawing other people to our method of schooling,” said Chrystal, who taught high school mathematics in Texas public schools before launching her own CPA firm.

During the 2020/2021 school year, the Bernards heard from a growing number of parents who wanted a more personalized, accessible, faith-based educational option. “As pastors of our local church, we saw the desires of people in our community who wanted a Christian education with low student-teacher ratios without the hefty tuition prices of the local private schools,” said Chrystal. “Additionally, with the rise of virtual learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how some students were falling through the cracks.”

In the fall of 2021, the couple founded Braveheart Christian Academy, a pre-kindergarten to 7th grade microschool in Arlington, Texas that emphasizes individualized, mastery-based learning with a focus on character development. Some of Braveheart’s teachers taught in the local public schools but were attracted to the new school’s smaller, more holistic learning environment. “Instead of placing students in a box, education is brought to their level,” said Chrystal, who uses assessment tests to evaluate each child’s skill level upon enrollment and then adapts the curriculum accordingly. “We had one child who entered school as a fourth grader by age but who performed at a first grade level. Now, after a school-year-and-a-half with us, that student has nearly caught up academically to his fifth grade peers,” she told me during my recent visit to Braveheart.

With an annual tuition of about $7,000, Braveheart is significantly lower in cost than most traditional private schools in the area, but it is still financially out of reach for many families. “Cost is the major barrier,” said Chrystal, who hears often from parents who wish to enroll their children but can’t afford it.

The Bernards do what they can to lower the tuition burden. They received a microgrant from the VELA Education Fund, a national philanthropic non-profit that provides small amounts of funding to education entrepreneurs who are creating individualized, out-of-system learning models. One local VELA partner, The Miles Foundation, recently dedicated $1 million to support the rising number of founders in Tarrant County. “By investing in everyday education entrepreneurs, we can create real change in the education system,” said Grant Coates, president of The Miles Foundation.

In addition to philanthropy, the Bernards also rely on personal fundraising efforts to reduce costs to parents, but Braveheart is still financially inaccessible to many who want it. “One parent was actually weighing whether she should pay her rent or the school tuition,” said Chrystal, acknowledging that providing a quality education for their children is a top priority for many families.

Last week, Texas became the latest in a string of states to introduce school choice legislation that would enable education funding to follow students to whichever school their parents choose. The bill would provide an annual education savings account up to $8,000 for each Texas student to use toward tuition, books and supplies. This amount would more than cover the cost of Braveheart and similar schools across the state, including the new ones that have been quickly emerging over the past three years of education disruption.

Chrystal is a strong supporter of these school choice initiatives. “Every Texas family should be afforded the opportunity to attend their school of choice, including private schools,” she said. “For many families, the sole barrier is the financial requirement needed to do so. Parents are the best advocates of their children and ultimately know what type of schooling is best from an academic, social and moral perspective.”

The Bernards will continue their efforts to make Braveheart more accessible to the families that want it, but Chrystal believes that statewide education choice policies will be most empowering. “The Texas school choice bill would give more freedom and leverage to parents to make the best schooling decision for their children,” she said.

This article was originally published at Forbes.com. It has been reprinted with permission.

AUTHOR

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and host of the weekly LiberatED podcast. She is also the author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, education policy fellow at State Policy Network, 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 email newsletter here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Than One Million Students Left District Schools. How Do We Know They’re Learning?

New York City’s Not-So-Secret World of Low-Cost Private Schools

Why Can’t This Retired US Navy Officer and Engineer Open a Private School in Nevada?

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

‘Extensive Collusion’: House Committee Report Confirms DOJ Targeting of Parents

The Department of Justice “extensively colluded” with a special interest group to “manufacture” a supposedly sweeping threat against school personnel posed by parents, a House Subcommittee interim staff report has found. Experts say the findings further confirm what DOJ officials have denied — that the government worked behind the scenes to undermine a grassroots movement of outspoken parents concerned about their children being exposed to controversial racial and gender theories and mask mandates at school.

On Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released its findings regarding the controversial memo issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland in October 2021 to “federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement,” in which he ordered the FBI to coordinate investigations of parents due to an alleged “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”

The subcommittee report reveals that the National School Boards Association (NSBA) “collaborated with the Biden White House to develop the language of the NSBA’s September 29, 2021 letter to President Biden urging the use of federal law enforcement and counterterrorism tools, including the Patriot Act, against parents.” The NSBA letter suggested that parents should be investigated for “domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” which it later apologized for.

Five days after the NSBA letter was sent to Biden, Garland issued the contentious memo. Two weeks later, the FBI’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions announced the creation of a new threat tag for the investigation — “EDUOFFICIALS.” One related investigation by an FBI field office targeted “a dad opposed to mask mandates” who “fit the profile of an insurrectionist.” When the FBI interviewed the complainant who reported the dad, they admitted they had “no specific information or observations of . . . any crimes or threats.”

As a direct result of Garland’s memo, the report found that federal law enforcement used “counterterrorism resources to investigate protected First Amendment activity.” The FBI later revealed that it had “opened 25 ‘Guardian assessments’ with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag.” Of these 25 investigations, “the FBI determined that only one warranted opening a ‘Full Investigation,’ and referred the majority of the remaining cases to state and local authorities. There have still been no federal prosecutions.”

The report went on to note that “[t]he overwhelming majority of judicial districts reported not having heard of any instances of threats or violence being levied at school board officials. One U.S. Attorney reported that threats against school officials was ‘described by some as a manufactured issue.’” It also observed that local law enforcement officials around the country “warned of ‘misapplied’ federal law-enforcement priorities, and local officials generally opposed federal intervention at local school board meetings.”

The subcommittee report concluded that the DOJ failed to perform “any due diligence prior to the issuance of the Attorney General’s memorandum.” If the department had done this, the report asserts, “it would have understood clearly and forcefully that federal intervention was unwarranted.” As a result, the report noted, “parents around the country had FBI ‘assessments’ opened into them.”

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill like Congressman Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) are conveying relief at the prospect Garland’s potential exit in 2025.

“I think this demonstrates to people across our country how fortunate we are that Merrick Garland is not sitting on the Supreme Court bench right now, because that was what was proposed under the Obama administration,” he observed on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday. “And then he would be making these decisions for life right now. As problematic as this is, at least we can assume that as soon as the Biden administration term has ended, that Merrick Garland’s term also will end.”

Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, expressed alarm at the report’s findings while also encouraging resolve on the part of parents.

“This report confirms all our worst suspicions,” she told The Washington Stand. “The degree to which the government has been used to attack parents at the behest of education bureaucrats who are supposed to serve children and families cannot be overstated. Parents knew this by instinct — that the powerful were working together to advance their own interests instead of working for the good of children and families. And they have no problem exercising Gestapo-like tactics on parents, while advancing progressive policies inside schools that amount to lawless chaos for children and teachers.”

“Christians must engage — we must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by these tactics,” Kilgannon concluded.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden, DOJ Worked Together to Brand Parents as Terrorists

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Thousands of Schools Won’t Tell Parents About Kids’ Gender Transition: Report

More than 5,000 schools across the nation allow teachers to hide a child’s decision to identify as a member of the opposite sex from the child’s parents. The parental exclusion policy — which is heavily advocated by LGBT lobbying groups and applies to more than 3.2 million children nationally — has already resulted in the sexual trafficking of at least one young girl.

A total of 5,904 schools in 168 school districts nationwide allow, or require, teachers to conceal children’s transgender “social transition” — in which children change their name or preferred pronouns, or begin using the locker rooms of the opposite sex — from their parents. School districts keeping legal guardians ignorant about their children’s life-altering decisions stretch from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, and from Alaska to Arizona.

“This investigation shows that parental exclusion policies are a problem from coast-to-coast — and that living in a red state doesn’t mean that families are automatically shielded from this issue,” said Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education (PDE), which compiled the list. PDE discovered four districts in deep-red Kansas that have adopted the policy, crafted by LGBT activists. For example, Wichita Public Schools’ teacher training claims, “The lack of using [a child’s preferred] pronouns could lead to death.”

In all, PDE reports, such policies affect 3,268,752 students — and their parents — in 28 states and the District of Columbia.

“This list is not comprehensive,” the report notes.

A Virginia high school’s decision to conceal a teenage girl’s gender transition ended with the teen being drugged, gang-raped and, on two separate occasions, sexually trafficked. In August 2021, 14-year-old Sage began attending Appomattox County High School. Her biological grandmother, Michele, who legally adopted her, said Sage told her “all the girls there were bi, trans, lesbian, emo,” and Sage soon decided she “wanted to wear boys’ clothes.” But Michele added, Sage told school officials “she was now a boy named Draco with male pronouns. Sage asked the school not to tell me, and they did not tell me.”

After a group of boys accosted and threatened to rape her in the boys’ restroom, Michele took Sage home and found a pass made out to “Draco.” Michele said Sage was too afraid to return to school, so she ran away to meet an online “friend,” who sexually trafficked her through Washington, D.C. and Maryland. By the time the FBI found her locked inside a room in Baltimore nine days later, Michele recalled, Sage had been “locked in a room, drugged, gang-raped, and brutalized by countless men.”

“One of the expert witnesses in the hearing [on January 30] confirms that online predators do target social media accounts of children who list themselves as ‘ftm’ or ‘female to male,’” Delegate David LaRock (R-Berryville) told The Daily Signal.

But Sage’s nightmare had only begun. A judge accused Michele and her husband of inflicting “emotional and physical abuse” by “misgendering” their granddaughter. The judge had Sage committed to the male section of a children’s home, where she was “repeatedly beaten” and “given street drugs,” Michele said. Sage ran away from the home, but the FBI found her in the grips of a sexual trafficking in Texas. Sage had again “been drugged, raped, beaten, and exploited.”

“Sage isn’t unique,” LaRock told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on February 9, although “the degree to which she’s been violated is, hopefully, rare.”

Reports of schools allowing or encouraging minors to “socially transition” to another gender have trickled out, as outraged parents have taken legal action against the districts on PDE’s list. A coalition of parents sued Iowa’s Linn-Mar Community School District last summer. Last month, Amber Lavigne filed a lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School in the coastal Maine village of Damariscotta — population 2,300 — after she found a chest binder in her 13-year-old daughter’s belongings. A social worker facilitated the child’s decision to identify as another gender, and the school withheld all information from her mother, according to her legal counsel. “The school never stopped trying to keep me in the dark at every turn, repeatedly stonewalling me when I tried to find out what was going on,” said an exasperated Lavigne, who is represented by the Goldwater Institute. “My parental rights aren’t up for debate: I deserve to know what’s happening to my child in school.”

“Counselors and teachers didn’t tell Sage’s family about the fact that she was transgender. And she got caught up in some horrific human trafficking issues, and they almost lost her,” Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) told a CNN townhall last Wednesday. “There’s a basic rule here, which is that children belong to parents — not to the state, not to schools, not to bureaucrats, but to parents.”

Last September, Youngkin enacted model school guidelines that affirm, “School personnel shall keep parents fully informed about all matters that may be reasonably expected to be important to a parent.” Parents may “determine (a) what names, nicknames, and/or pronouns, if any, shall be used for their child by teachers and school staff while their child is at school, (b) whether their child engages in any counseling or social transition at school that encourages a gender that differs from their child’s sex, or (c) whether their child expresses a gender that differs with their child’s sex while at school,” the guidelines add.

Despite Youngkin’s actions, the report lists seven school districts in Virginia that continue to hide social transition from parents.

To remedy the situation, LaRock introduced “Sage’s Law” (H.B. 2432), which requires school officials to contact parents if a child begins using names or pronouns not consistent with his or her sex. The bill passed the House of Delegates on February 6 by a narrow 50-48, party-line vote. (Democratic Delegate Cliff Hayes also intended to vote no.) It is currently under Senate consideration.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is taking steps to assure no American parent is frozen out of his or her child’s life decisions. Last week, House Republicans advanced a measure barring any federally funded elementary or middle school from changing a “minor child’s gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name” on any school form, or allowing students to use the restrooms and changing facilities of the opposite sex. The House Education and the Workforce Committee adopted the measure — originally introduced as a separate bill, the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their (PROTECT) Kids Act, by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) — as an amendment to the Parents Bill of Rights (H.R. 5). Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S. 200).

Walberg, an ordained pastor who once worked for the Moody Bible Institute, found it “unconscionable that some believe that parents should be kept in the dark regarding gender transitions of their own children. He urged Congress to “ensure that schools do not hide important information about children from their own parents,” “increase transparency, and defend the God-given authority and rights of parents.”

President Joe Biden is all but certain to veto such a bill. The president’s now-inactive nonprofit, the Biden Foundation, partnered with Gender Spectrum, a group whose “Gender Support Plan” tells schools to have “contingencies in place” if parents find out their child is “being supported” against their will. Since taking office, Biden has said transgenderism reflects “the image of God.”

You may see PDE’s incomplete list of the school districts that have adopted anti-parental rights transgender policies here. The group asks citizens to report such policies to PDE.

“Frighteningly, this only begins to scratch the surface of what is taking place behind closed doors in America’s schools,” said Neily. “Without a doubt, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of others with similar policies on the books.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

West Virginia Bill Offers Path forward on Higher Ed Free Speech Reform

New Kentucky Bill Would Expand Religious Freedom in Schools

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Critical Race Theory And Gender Ideology Are Ubiquitous In U.S. Schools, New Study Shows

Last month, the Manhattan Institute released a groundbreaking new study, titled “School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education.”

The study presents survey results of a representative sample of over 1,500 Americans aged 18-20. Their primary finding was that “Ninety-three percent of American 18- to 20-year-olds said that they had heard about at least one of eight [Critical Social Justice] concepts from a teacher or other adult at school, including ‘white privilege,’ ‘systemic racism,’ ‘patriarchy,’ or the idea that gender is a choice unrelated to biological sex.'” Also included on the list of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) concepts are the ideas that discrimination is primarily responsible for disparities, that America is built on stolen land, and that there are many genders.

This study is significant because, over the past two years, debates about education policy have occupied an increasingly prominent place in political discourse. In particular, ideas on the proper way to instruct on subjects like race and gender have been hotly disputed. Backlash over perceived indoctrination into extreme theories of race and gender — as well as the exclusion of parents in the educational process — have decided major elections in some states.

However, up to this point, there has been a glaring issue with these debates: they have been largely based on anecdotes. The findings of the Manhattan Institute’s study are important because they represent the first time we have been able to put some real numbers to phenomena that many have only observed anecdotally.

Thus, we should examine the findings in more detail to find out how we ought to move forward.

Ever since journalists such as Christopher Rufo and Bari Weiss began highlighting examples of “institutional capture” of the education system by politically-driven actors, skeptics have often claimed that CSJ concepts are not being taught in schools. This assertion has been promoted by the leaders of teacher unions, cable news hosts, and politicians.

The issue is, and this study confirms, that their claim is simply not accurate. As noted, 93 percent of respondents affirmed that they had heard at least one CSJ concept “from a teacher or other adult at school.”

If these concepts were being introduced as one perspective among many, then there would be no issue with the fact students have been exposed to them. After all, if one wishes to give students an accurate picture of the competing visions of society, then it would be dishonest to exclude all CSJ concepts.

The issue is that the Manhattan Institute study confirms that K-12 schools are effectively indoctrinating students into radical — revolutionary, even — political ideologies. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said that, when taught, “These concepts are introduced as the only respectable approach to race, gender, and sexuality in American society.” This means various perspectives were not weighed against one another, but rather kids are being led to believe that only one view is legitimate. When one considers how impressionable K-12 students are, along with the fact teachers have a fair amount of sway over the way their students think, the issue here becomes apparent.

Click here for Deltapoll Survey results.

This is also concerning because CSJ presents a vision of America that is at best unorthodox and at worst destructive. In Critical Race Theory: An Introduction — which is among the most influential textbooks on the subject — the authors write that “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” In other words, critical race theory opposes the basic tenants of the American founding. Ibram X. Kendi, a leading “anti-racist” author — whose writing has been brought into many schools — has written that “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

There is simply no justification for schools across the country to present this as the only viable perspective.

The study demonstrates that the prevalence of CSJ concepts — and the way they have been introduced — is having real effects on students. Data presented in the report show that the more CSJ concepts kids have been exposed to, the more left-wing they are in their politics — as measured in a variety of ways in the study.

It should be clear that this approach is an improper use of the state — which should be educating, not indoctrinating, students. It not only gives children an incomplete picture of the world around them, but also creates a civil society that is more prone to intolerance of dissenting views. After all, if one was led to believe only one perspective was legitimate, then it is natural to then believe that it is important to shut out all “illegitimate” views — both socially and maybe even legislatively. This is concerning because pluralism and tolerance are indispensable to a healthy and vibrant political culture.

Critics of the educational approach detailed above often assume their enemies are the traditional public school system and public sector teacher unions. One thing that this study demonstrates, though, is that this problem is by no means exclusive to traditional public schools. Rather, this type of instruction on race and gender has made its way into private schools, parochial schools, and even homeschools; indeed, CSJ was shown to be just as prevalent in private schools as it is in public schools.

This observation is why the title of the study is “School Choice Is Not Enough.” The authors recognize that this issue is not relegated to traditional public schools, which means that advancing choice and privatization will not make the problem go away.

This is true, but it does not mean school choice should not still be promoted. After all, studies show that school choice programs are associated with better educational outcomes. Additionally, public sector teacher unions inflict considerable damage on the traditional public school system — and, by extension, the children in those schools. This means that we should recognize school choice as beneficial, but not as a panacea.

The fact that these ideas are being taught everywhere — not just in traditional public schools — suggests a deeper problem than is often assumed. It is not just about the traditional public school structure, but about an ascendant culture that — much like the instruction outlined — assumes that CSJ concepts are the capital-T Truth. Thus, in order to fight against it, and remove indoctrination in schools, it is important to address it on a cultural level. Private and parochial schools will only stop if, culturally, the tide turns decisively away from these ideas and towards those that have traditionally characterized American philosophy — ideas of liberty, virtue, pluralism, and meritocracy.

The significant exception to this “cultural argument” is when it comes to public schools. The reason is simple: the government decides the curriculum. Taking action on this front would therefore be a way of correcting government overreach. In particular, impartiality laws, curriculum transparency laws, and audits of existing instruction and employee training — as the study recommends — are reasonable measures to ensure the government is not being used as a tool of indoctrination for CSJ.

This would hopefully, in turn, help shift the culture towards a more balanced classroom in all schools.

This issue has been brewing for a long time, but only now do we have the data to back up our suspicions and anecdotal understanding. This study represents a comprehensive statement of the problem.

Now it is our job to fight back.

AUTHOR

Jack Elbaum

Jack Elbaum was a Hazlitt Writing Fellow at FEE and is a junior at George Washington University. His writing has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The New York Post, and the Washington Examiner. You can contact him at jackelbaum16@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @Jack_Elbaum.

RELATED TWEETS:

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

Teacher Claims She Knows Better than Parents Because ‘I Have a Master’s Degree’

An Arizona teacher made the case for parental rights legislation she was testifying against in a bizarre rant last Wednesday. While testifying against Arizona SB 1700 on February 15, the teacher insisted that parents should not have the right to oversee her school materials because, “I have a master’s degree. … What do the parents have?”

SB 1700 would give parents the right to review material for 120 days before it is made available to students and ask schools to remove books the parent finds “to be lewd or sexual in nature, to promote gender fluidity or gender pronouns or to groom children into normalizing pedophilia.” It passed out of the Senate Education Committee last Wednesday in a 4-3 vote.

Special education teacher Alicia Messing complained:

“I have a master’s degree, because when I got certified, I was told I had to have a master’s degree to be an Arizona-certified teacher. We all have advanced degrees. What do the parents have? Are we vetting the backgrounds of our parents? Are we allowing the parents to choose the curriculum and the books that our children are going to read? I think that it’s a mistake — and I’m just speaking from the heart — the one line that I love is, ‘we must remember that the purpose of public education is not to teach only what parents want their children to be taught, it is to teach them what society needs them to be taught.’”

“The master’s degree is the problem. It’s not the solution,” responded Joseph Backholm, FRC’s senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, in an interview with The Washington Stand. “There’s a saying, ‘I’d rather be governed by 100 people randomly selected from the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard Law School,’ which applies here. Uneducated is better than miseducated. And all of these people have been miseducated.”

In response to the teacher’s suggestion that passing SB 1700 would be a mistake, Backholm replied, “It’s only a mistake if you think parents are a problem for your children. It’s only a mistake if you think you know better what their kids need than they do.”

Backholm also reacted to the teacher’s final quote, taken from the radicalized Michigan Department of Education, that public education is about teaching kids “what society needs them to be taught,” rather than what parents want. “That is so laden with religious, moral implications,” said Backholm. “She has no idea that she’s been completely brainwashed, and that she’s trying to brainwash children as she has been. Teachers like her come to believe there’s only one way of seeing things.”

“This quote is a great example of the divide we face in American education today,” FRC’s senior fellow for Education Studies Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand. “This encapsulates the mindset of the progressive ideologue. But it also reflects the kind of training that most teachers get in schools of education at college or in professional development offered on the job. Teachers like this one are trained to believe they are superior because they have a special knowledge of or insight into children.”

“Parents are understandably offended to be held in such low regard,” continued Kilgannon. “This attitude causes a breakdown in the relationship parents should have with those to whom they entrust their children.”

Backholm shared an anecdote of his wife pursuing an education degree in Washington State. Many people in her program were “not functionally literate” — as in, couldn’t write a coherent paragraph — but he said they got their teaching certificates all the same because they could prove on a test that they held the proper Marxist beliefs. “They think their expertise is the solution,” said Backholm. “We as parents think their expertise is the problem because they’re experts in the wrong things.”

“People who think this way seem more interested in educating children into ideologies or belief systems not shared by parents, rather than multiplication tables or parts of speech — facts we can all know regardless of our individual beliefs or ‘identities,’” Kilgannon agreed.

Fortunately, said Backholm, “Arizona has already implemented universal school choice, which lets kids just leave the schools where this stuff is taught. That’s what will ultimately solve this problem.”

But he said SB 1700 would improve education in Arizona because it “would serve as a further deterrent to the trash being implemented. Because the teachers understand the likelihood of being caught is much higher, and they don’t want to deal with that.”

“Anything that gives parents the ability to oversee the moral instruction of their students is really helpful,” summarized Backholm. “This teacher is a prime example of why, because she thinks she knows what other parents’ kids need more than their parents do.”

“I hope that this viral moment can contribute to a discussion about the importance of adults working together for the good of children, with respect for parents,” concluded Kilgannon, “but it can at least serve as a warning to parents that not all the folks in school hold parents in high regard.”

Backholm agreed, arguing that parents “should make sure they never have a child in that woman’s classroom. That teacher should never have another student. … The primary impact she’s going to have on children’s lives is a negative.”

“You should be vigilant,” Backholm implored parents. “Intervene with teachers before your child enters their classroom. Keep your kid home rather than send him to her class. Give him a book. Let him go walk in nature.” Anything would be better for children than placing them in the care of such a teacher.

If educators all have master’s degrees, what do parents have? For starters, they have a God-given responsibility for the education of their children — particularly their moral education. The Lord commanded Israel, “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).

On top of that, parents have literally known their child for his or her entire life. They stayed up for colic and stayed home for sniffles. They know better and earlier than anyone else about their child’s personality, proclivities, habits, tones, moods, diet — you name it. They know how to discipline, teach, and train their child (who likely takes after them in some ways) to best encourage their virtues and mortify their vices.

Parents aren’t perfect, but, compared with a Marxist doctrinaire who just met their child this year, they have a huge head start.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Teacher Who Allegedly Saluted Hitler, Pushed Antisemitic Conspiracy On Students Placed On Leave

RELATED TWEET:


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

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

American Pride Burning

They called it a “night of rage.” But outside the charred walls of Buffalo’s CompassCare, pro-lifers could barely get the national media to call it anything. Like the string of domestic firebombings across WisconsinOregonColoradoTennessee, and Washington, the blown out windows, graffiti, and trashed offices were barely a blip on network news. It’s been quite a contrast to the extensive coverage a single burned flag in New York is getting. But then, that’s the power of the Pride.

The incident that’s grabbing headlines happened in the wee hours of Monday morning. According to security footage, a woman parked her SUV, walked over to a rainbow flag hanging outside SoHo’s Little Prince restaurant, pulled out a lighter, and set the flag on fire. An employee working late inside saw the flames and called 911. Although the residents on higher floors had to be evacuated, no one was injured. There were, however, cracked windows and “external damage,” especially to the outside landscaping.

“It’s disgusting,” restaurant owner Cobi Levy said. His staff, he told the press, is shaken and scared. “These kinds of acts are desperate acts committed by people who are consumed with hate and filled with hate,” thundered Eric Bottcher, a local councilmember. The New York Times and other major newspapers descended on the scene, interviewing sympathetic neighbors and calling for the suspect to face the harshest penalties.

Within 24 hours, an investigation had been launched by NYPD’s Hate Crime Task Force and a replacement flag — larger than the one that proclaimed “Make America Gay Again” — had already been hung.

The all-hands-on-deck response was quite a contradiction to what more than 100 churches and pro-life groups have experienced over the last seven months from the FBI, which waited six of those months just to list the attackers on its Most Wanted website. Not a single arrest has been made in CompassCare’s case. In fact, the federal government has been so indifferent to the crimes that several pro-life groups have resorted to launching their own private investigation.

Meanwhile, in the Big Apple, Bottcher celebrated the LGBT movement’s resilience. “Our resolve is only strengthened when acts like this happen,” Bottcher told the community at a special ceremony to replace the colors on Tuesday. “We are standing up in the face of this hate and reasserting our pride in ourselves and our community. That’s why we hung the flag again.” Little Prince posted a photo of the new flag with one word: “Defiant.”

I want to be clear right off the bat: While there’s an obvious discrepancy in how the two sides have been treated by the media and law enforcement, no one is defending this woman’s actions. Respect for other people’s property — whether it’s a ministry or a drag bar — ought to be a reasonable expectation of every American. There’s no excuse for lawlessness in any form or against any person. That said, the hysteria over what happened in SoHo is a powerful illustration of where we are as a nation, and ignoring it only primes the pump for more hypocrisy.

There are plenty of double standards at play here, not the least of which is the excessive significance the legacy media assigns to victims of their pet political causes, while more than 100 pro-life ministries, churches, and pregnancy care centers sit smoldering in the ashes of a similar hatred, virtually ignored. Imagine if this woman had set fire to an America flag. Would the press race to the scene and mourn the lack of national pride across their platforms? Of course not, because in this age of identity politics, we’ve gotten to the point where setting fire to a rainbow flag is a “hate crime” and burning Old Glory is self-expression.

Frankly, the fact that a single act of arson can make national news is astonishing in an age when mobs can burn down entire cities with the ruling class’s blessing. During the George Floyd riots of 2020, torching federal buildings, courts, city property, and private businesses wasn’t violence, the Left said. It was “justice” — the kind that major Democratic figures publicly embraced.

It wasn’t even two years ago that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), told the masses that if there wasn’t a guilty verdict in the Floyd murder case, then “… we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice.” Party leaders, like then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), defended Waters’s call to arms, saying she should not have to apologize for inciting violence. Rep. Alyssa Pressley (Mass.) flat-out called for “unrest,” while liberal city leaders from Portland to Chicago linked arms with anarchists, even going so far as to sue federal officials who tried to restore law and order.

The soon-to-be vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, also endorsed the mobs, telling Stephen Colbert, “They’re not going to stop. … This is a movement. … And everyone, beware. …They’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.”

Protestors, emboldened by Democrats, went on an anti-American rampage, toppling statues, defacing monuments, spraypainted historic buildings, and destroying private property, racking up more than $1 billion dollars in damage across the country — the most expensive riot spree in U.S. history. And yet this, the burning of a single LGBT flag, is “war in America.”

The irony is hard to miss. At a time when liberal ideologues argue against prosecuting anyone for anything, a woman destroying a rainbow flag faces double the punishment under New York’s hate crimes statute, which not only penalizes crimes but motives too. But what about the motives of the arsons in Buffalo? Where was the demand for “hate crimes” in cities where “ABORT THE CHURCH” and “DEATH TO CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM” were spraypainted across houses of worship?

If you’re starting to believe double standards are America’s only standards, you’re not alone. When burning our flag is “protected speech,” and a banner of sexual fanaticism is untouchable, we’ve passed the point of absurdity as a nation. And yet, these are the lessons our children have been taught: you can kneel for the national anthem but not refuse to wear a rainbow.

Now the bitter fruits of that indoctrination are everywhere. Today, more of Generation Z identifies as LGBT (20%) than feels proud to call America home (16%). Is it any wonder that society treats the Pride flag with a reverence it used to reserve for the country that gave activists the right to fly it in the first place?

In 1989, when the Supreme Court struck down the criminal penalties for burning a U.S. flag, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented in his dissent, “[The American flag] is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations.” It does not “represent the views of any particular party, and it does not represent any political philosophy,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted. “The flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.” The value of its unifying power, the four dissenting justices argued, cannot be measured.

Thirty-four years later, that unity is being tested as never before. We’ve become a people determined to wave our own flags, so comfortable in our factions that we’re trampling our country’s ideals — the same ideals that laid the foundations of self-expression the Left worships today. But if America has any hope of healing these deep divides, of ending these uncivil wars, the solution is returning — not to what divides us, but to what connects us. A national identity found, not in a spectrum of colors, but in three: red, white, and blue.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Abortion and Miscarriage: The Emptiness of Lies and the Fullness of Life

Tuberville Challenges DOD Abortion Subsidies, Holds Military Promotions


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

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

GOP Primary Voters Want Candidates to Embrace Cultural Issues, Poll Finds

A new poll reveals that the overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters want future GOP presidential contenders to embrace hot button issues like gender transition procedures for minors and implementing restrictions on pornography.

The survey, conducted by OnMessage Inc., found that 93% of respondents want candidates to confront parents rights issues, including increased transparency with school curriculums and school activities. A full 76% also want candidates to ban gender transitions procedures for minors, such as surgeries to remove healthy organs, puberty-blocking drugs, and cross-sex hormones.

The poll also found 86% of respondents saying they are more likely to support a candidate that advocated for requiring age verification in order to access pornographic websites.

In response to issues that are considered less contentious, voters showed less enthusiasm, with 59% saying they want a candidate who will push for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and 50% saying they want an emphasis on supporting Ukraine through military aid.

“The fight against the woke issues … that’s where the intensity really was,” said Jon Schweppe, director of Policy and Government Affairs for the American Principles Project, during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” last week. “Ultimately, voters are looking for someone who’s going to defend the family, who’s going to fight the woke Left, who’s going to fight to stop these horrific sex change procedures that are being performed on kids. … I think a Republican candidate who emerges from this presidential primary is going to have to be strong on all those issues.”

Perkins pointed to a particularly notable result in the survey indicating less than expected support for protecting women’s sports from men who identify as transgender women. “Sixty-nine percent [who support prohibiting males from competing in girls sports], that’s still a good number. But what was surprising was that it’s even stronger when it comes to these sex change medical procedures. People understand what’s going on and what really matters.”

Schweppe, whose organization released the results of the poll, concurred.

“When you’re talking about puberty blockers as young as seven, eight years old, that’s where voters are really animated,” he observed. “They see it as an issue of life and death because it is. Women’s sports is important and we want to protect these opportunities for girls, but I think it’s a little bit lower stakes. [Gender transition procedures] are a horrific thing that’s being perpetrated on these kids. And it really, really animates Republican voters. And what we’ve found is that in our polling of the general electorate, it’s actually really important to independents and even some Democrats too. It’s a great issue for Republicans to lead on and hopefully do the right thing as we try to stop this from happening across the country.”

The survey’s results appear to rebuke the strategy taken by some Republican candidates and strategists ahead of 2022’s midterm elections, which was to steer clear of divisive social issues. That strategy did not appear to pan out in the midterm results.

The poll also found that GOP primary voters prefer Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over former President Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup, with DeSantis garnering 53% and Trump receiving 38%.

Schweppe asserted that the growing rivalry between the two men will benefit conservative voters in the end.

“The encouraging thing, especially for social conservatives, is that as Trump and DeSantis fight each other, they’re going to continue to try to outflank each other on all of these issues. [Even with] the Big Tech issue today, they’re kind of outflanking each other with that, trying to do a digital Bill of Rights to make sure censorship doesn’t happen online.”

“I think folks should be excited about the primary. Let’s make sure that we get a strong candidate that can finally take Joe Biden out of office and make sure we can save this country,” Schweppe concluded.

Matt Carpenter, director of Family Research Council Action, was also encouraged by the message voters appear to be sending to presidential candidates through the latest poll results.

“GOP primary voters want to hear their presidential candidates address cultural issues,” he told The Washington Stand. “Many of these voters are motivated by what their children are exposed to in the classroom, or the obsession of the current administration to fund abortion through all stages of pregnancy. They want their nominee to provide a clear contrast to the radical anti-family, anti-faith, anti-life agenda of the current administration.”

“Americans, in general, have opted to vote with their feet and their wallets, by leaving liberal states in favor of more conservative ones and by cancelling subscriptions or deciding to shop elsewhere in order to avoid woke corporations,” Carpenter concluded. “It follows that the GOP would see a similar pattern emerge among their likely primary voters in the upcoming presidential primary.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans Introduce Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood: “Abortion is Not Health Care”

North Dakota House Passes Bill Blocking Gender Transition Procedures for Minors, Votes Down Another

A Japanese professor at Yale floats the idea of mass suicide for the elderly


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

87% of Books Removed from Florida Schools Were Pornographic, Violent, Inappropriate, Data Shows

An overwhelming majority of books removed from Florida schools since the beginning of the academic year in September 2022 were pornographic, violent, or inappropriate for students’ grade levels, according to school district data submitted to the state’s Department of Education.

Twenty-three out of 56 school districts reported that they had removed a total of 175 books, while 33 districts (59%) said that they had not removed any books this academic year, according to data reviewed by The Daily Signal.

The data reveals that 164 of the 175 removed books were taken out of school media centers, rather than classrooms, and 153 of the books that were removed (87%) were taken out because the district discovered that the book was “pornographic, violent or inappropriate for the grade level for some other reason.”

The school districts in Duval County and St. Johns County removed the most books at 19 each, according to the Florida Education Department data. Duval County schools reported that they removed 16 out of the 19 books because they were pornographic, violent, or inappropriate.

The data comes amid a review of educational materials in Florida schools prompted by the state’s curriculum transparency bill and a national outcry over explicit conversations, books, and materials for school children.

Media outlets like The Washington Post have suggested that Florida is criminalizing nebulously defined books in schools, forcing teachers to get rid of all their books to avoid prosecution.

“There has been no state instruction to empty libraries or cover up classroom books,” Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ press secretary, Bryan Griffin, said in a post on Twitter. “However, we ARE taking a stand against pornography and sexual material in the classroom.”‘

Griffin also denounced the idea that teachers in Florida would be committing a third-degree felony by having certain books and literature in classrooms.

“No. Not literature, not ‘certain topics’ — it’s pornographic material that carries the felony penalty,” he said. “NO classroom or school library should have pornographic material made available to children. Unfortunately, this is a real and ongoing problem. If you are confused about the law, you can review Statute 847.012, which has been the law in Florida for years.”

That statute specifically prohibits adults from knowingly distributing pornography, nudity, or sexual content to a minor on school property.

DeSantis signed a curriculum transparency bill in March 2022, which requires school districts to be “transparent in the selection of instructional materials, including library and reading materials.” The legislation aims at preserving the rights of parents to know and decide what their children are being taught.

“In Florida, our parents have every right to be involved in their child’s education,” DeSantis said at the time. “We are not going to let politicians deny parents the right to know what is being taught in our schools. I’m proud to sign this legislation that ensures curriculum transparency.”

This week, DeSantis officials took to Twitter to highlight some of the more horrifying books found in Florida schools. This includes the books “Let’s Talk About it,” “It’s Perfectly Normal,” and “Gender Queer,” which includes “shockingly obscene comics.”

This article was originally published by The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Mary Margaret Olohan

RELATED TWEET:

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Zombie Studies’: DeSantis Declares All-Out War on University DEI, CRT in Education Manifesto

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) last Tuesday rolled out a new education agenda designed to comprehensively recapture the state’s higher education system from woke ideologues. Instead, he set forth a conservative vision for a higher education system: “to focus on promoting academic excellence, the pursuit of truth, and to give students the foundation so they can think for themselves.” The proposals affect curriculum, faculty, funding, and more.

Proposed Reforms

DeSantis proposed reforms to Florida curriculum so that “everybody who goes through a Florida university has to take certain core course requirements that’s really focused on giving them the foundation so that they can think for themselves.” There is that phrase again — “think for themselves.” This is the essence of DeSantis’ proposals, and leftists work hard to smear it because they understand how popular that objective is.


Enjoying news and commentary from a biblical worldview?

Stand with The Washington Stand by partnering with Family Research Council.


DeSantis offered specifics. “The core curriculum must be grounded in the actual history, the actual philosophy that has shaped Western civilization. Our institutions are going to be graduating students with degrees that are going to be meaningful. We don’t want students to go through, at taxpayer expense, and graduate with a degree in Zombie Studies.” Florida is already practicing this at the high school level. Earlier this year, Florida rejected a proposed high school curriculum for AP African-American studies because it was riddled with CRT-related concepts. Days later, The College Board (which produces the curriculum) released “a serious rewrite,” in the words of The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

DeSantis also proposed reforms to hiring and firing of higher education faculty. He identified two problems with the hiring process: a political process and a lack of control by those supposedly in charge. A lot of hiring decisions are “done by faculty committees,” he explained. “And if they have a certain worldview that they want to promote, those are the kinds of candidates they’re going to bring in. And, if you don’t toe that line, you’re not going to get hired.”

That’s not just a “blue state” problem. A WSJ op-ed from this week began, “At Texas Tech University, a candidate for a faculty job in the department of biological sciences was flagged by the department’s search committee for not knowing the difference between ‘equality’ and ‘equity.’ Another was flagged for his repeated use of the pronoun ‘he’ when referring to professors.”

Under DeSantis’ proposed changes, university presidents may “go out and recruit directly. Boards of Trustees will be able to do a lot of this approving directly. And that’s going to make a huge difference in terms of making sure, not only do we have high quality faculty, but we’re not applying some type of ideological litmus test to be able to be hired in the first place.”

Another problem DeSantis identified is the irresponsible behavior encouraged by life tenure. He said “the most deadweight cost” to universities comes from “unproductive tenured faculty.” Under his new proposals, tenured faculty must undergo a performance review every five years, and they would be liable to an impromptu performance review at any time.

DeSantis also announced his intention to defund all DEI and CRT programs at Florida universities, particularly DEI bureaucracies. “We are also going to eliminate all DEI and CRT bureaucracies in the state of Florida. No funding, and that will wither on the vine,” he said.

In a December 28 memo, the governor’s office required public universities to itemize all woke programs and expenditures and report them by January 13.

“They reported that, and it’s a lot of money. And it’s not the best use of your money,” said DeSantis. “Those bureaucracies are not representative of what the people of this state and the taxpayers of this state want.” DEI “bureaucracies are hostile to academic freedom,” he continued. “And really, they constitute a drain on resources and end up — certainly around the country — contributing to higher costs as these bureaucracies metastasize.”

DeSantis justified scrubbing DEI bureaucracies for two closely intertwined reasons, one ideological and one pragmatic. First, their purpose runs counter to the academic freedom most Americans expect from public universities; they are, essentially, wrong. Second, they’re just too expensive. They capture resources that can be better spent elsewhere — and more so as they continue to grow. Pairing these reasons is both accurate and politically astute. Together, they outflank any counterargument (such as suggesting DEI bureaucracies might possibly provide a marginal benefit) except the most radically left endorsement of critical theory — which voters rightly see as crazy.

By purifying the hiring process and distilling out DEI bureaucracies, DeSantis hopes to transform public higher education into a potable experience. Under Florida’s proposed system, FRC senior fellow for Education Studies Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand, “Professors and students will be able to learn in an environment freed from politically correct groupthink.”

DeSantis rounded out his policy proposals with targeted initiatives aimed at certain professions and institutions. He proposed that Florida research universities increase their research grants for STEM programs up to $50 million annually (thus draining resources that might be used for less serious, woke “research”). He endorsed his administration’s efforts to expand the training of Floridians to serve in critical, under-staffed occupations, such as nurses, truck drivers, and mechanics. He promoted the establishment of two constitution-focused centers at Florida State University in Tallahassee and Florida International University in Miami.

DeSantis also expressed concern over the plight of New College of Florida, an autonomous public institution since 2001. “In Florida statute, it’s supposed to be our premier liberal arts college,” he lamented. “Its mission has been more into the DEI, CRT ideology, rather than what a liberal arts education should be.” DeSantis chief of staff James Uthmeier said last month, “It is our hope that New College of Florida will become Florida’s classical college, more along the lines of a Hillsdale of the South.”

In early January, DeSantis appointed six new members to the New College of Florida Board of Trustees, creating a conservative majority. Some of the appointees are widely known, such as Manhattan Institute fellow and CRT-exposer extraordinaire Christopher Rufo, Hillsdale College Professor Dr. Matthew Spalding, and former 1776 Commission member Charles Kesler.

It turns out that appointing conservatives to higher education boards — thus puncturing academia’s typical, boring, progressive sameness — excites potential applicants. “When we announced the trustees,” DeSantis said, “you had people asking, ‘How do I apply?’ You had professors asking, ‘How do I join?’” The national media may scoff, but introducing real diversity — intellectual diversity — to university systems generates widespread enthusiasm.

Political Context

DeSantis’s new round of education policy proposals builds on his popular but unfairly criticized efforts undertaken during his first term as governor. For instance, the national media widely lampooned the Parental Rights in Education Act as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill for prohibiting teachers from discussing inappropriate sexual content in K-3 classrooms.

But what the national media sees as a problem, the average Floridian — and average American, for that matter — views as popular. Governor DeSantis and other Florida Republicans cruised to huge victories throughout the former swing state in November, even as Republicans generally underperformed expectations in most of the country. After winning reelection by 20 points, Governor DeSantis announced, “Florida is where woke goes to die.”

Conservative Education Manifesto

DeSantis’ proposals for higher education reform were no haphazard assortment of disjointed, incoherent positions working at cross-purposes. Rather, each is a well-thought-out piece of a comprehensive vision for a higher education system free of woke nonsense. And DeSantis accompanied his proposals with a 20-minute speech which is probably best described as a conservative education manifesto.

“There’s really a debate going on about, what is the purpose of higher education, particularly publicly-funded higher education systems?” said DeSantis, “The dominant view is, the use of higher education under this view is to impose ideological conformity, to try to provoke political activism, and that’s what a university should be. That’s not what we believe is appropriate in the state of Florida.” Instead, he proposed “centering higher education on the academics, excellence, pursuit of truth, teaching kids to think for themselves, [and] not try[ing] to impose an orthodoxy.”

Not only will slicing up the woke monster restore academic freedom, but it will also free up resources to promote real education. “And so, you’re not spending the money on DEI bureaucracies,” said DeSantis. “You’re spending the money on bringing really good people in. … That makes much more sense from a financial perspective, and it’s much more mission-oriented.”

DeSantis suggested his vision for higher education is actually quite popular. The more we implement this vision, he said, the more “you are going to see people flooding into these institutions because there’s a desire for it.” He underlined the basic motivation for this desire, “people want to be in a situation where they can send their kids to a university or college and not have to worry about, ‘what is going on?’”

He used New College of Florida as a prime example. Its DEI bureaucracy “really serves as an ideological filter, a political filter,” he said. “New College has really embraced that, and I think that’s part of the reason it hasn’t been successful and the enrollment’s down so much. Because I think people want to see true academics, and they want to get rid of some of the political window dressing that seems to accompany all this.”

Higher education reform benefits not only college-bound students and their parents, but every taxpaying Floridian as well, added DeSantis. “It’s important that your tax dollars are funding institutions that you can be proud of, with a mission you can be confident in.”

More Than Just Slogans

With slogans like “education not indoctrination” and “bring more accountability to the higher education system,” the new round of changes to higher education in Florida may seem like all talk and no action — a politician specialty. After all, things that sound too good to be true usually are. But when you pierce the surface, Florida’s new education plan brings the substance, too.

“This move by Governor DeSantis to really direct and guide higher education officials in his state is a great development,” said Kilgannon. “For too long, conservative leaders have not prioritized reforming higher education in ways that impact the moral and cultural life of students and faculty.” But the DeSantis plan emphasizes what others have neglected.

Nor are DeSantis proposals pie-in-the-sky fairy tales. “By reining in diversity, equity, and inclusion infrastructures that often act as Marxist politburos on college campuses, Governor DeSantis is offering not just an ideological critique but an actionable path toward reform,” said Kilgannon.

This path to reform already has the buy-in of every Florida college president. All 28 of them signed a letter pledging to “ensure that all initiatives, instruction, and activities do not promote any ideology that suppresses intellectual and academic freedom, freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity, and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning. As such, our institutions will not fund or support any institutional practice, policy, or academic requirement that compels belief in critical race theory or related concepts such as intersectionality, or the idea that systems of oppression should be the primary lens through which teaching and learning are analyzed and/or improved upon.”

Here is a conservative education solution that doesn’t content itself with condemning leftist dominance in higher education; it actually proposes a workable alternative. DeSantis’ team has clearly thought long and hard, at every level, about what is required to take back the wheel of a public education system and redirect it to serve all the citizens and taxpayers of Florida.

Two qualities are rare among politicians: a brain and a spine. With these comprehensive education proposals, DeSantis demonstrates both.

Florida’s education plan is making news because it hasn’t been attempted before. No other conservative state has set forth a plan this comprehensive or this pragmatic to recapture higher education. “I don’t think there’s any state in the country that’s been leading on the issue like Florida,” said DeSantis. “We’ll be the first state that’s actually leading by example.”

“This is a great example for others on how to tackle the problem of taxpayer funded Marxist education at the higher-ed level,” said Kilgannon. “And since this is where teachers are formed for service in K-12, it’s a reform that will benefit younger children too.”

“We have more work to do,” said DeSantis. But he added, “I think you’re going to see some positive results really quickly.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Don’t Do This to Kids’: State Hearings on Gender Transitions for Minors Draw Large Crowds

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

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Team Biden Joins the School Library Wars, Launching Federal Investigation

UPDATE:


“Whoever succeeds in telling the stories to the children gets to control the future.” That was Kirk Cameron’s answer to people wondering why he’s joined the debate over America’s libraries. As parents everywhere fight to keep graphic content out of their children’s hands, Texas officials are warning the battle is taking an ominous turn. It’s not just the forces of the Left that communities will have to contend with. It’s the federal government, whose new investigation into a local school district could upend every grassroots effort to protect kids.

For leaders in Texas’s Granbury School District, the bomb dropped shortly before Christmas. Officials in the Civil Rights Division of Biden’s Department of Education (DOE) said they’d received a formal complaint from the ACLU that the small community outside Fort Worth was somehow violating the government’s definition of “sex” by pulling books from school library shelves.

The ACLU’s beef dates back to November 2021 when Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) urged the state’s association of school boards to “ensure no child is exposed to pornography or other inappropriate content in a Texas public school.” His letter, which keyed off parents’ growing outrage about the material on school shelves, insisted on greater transparency about the content students can access. Abbott said his office had been contacted by a number of moms and dads who were “rightfully angry” about the “pornographic and obscene” content.

Granbury officials took the governor’s directive to heart, ordering a review of the district’s book titles. But what ultimately landed the district in hot water was a candid conversation Superintendent Jeremy Glenn had with the schools’ librarians — which was eventually leaked to the press. He talked about the conservative make-up of the community and insisted that they would act accordingly. “We do have a very conservative board,” Glenn said in a reference to the two new school board members. “They are elected, and recently more conservative. And so that’s what our community is. That’s what our job is.”

At the end of the day, Glenn insisted, “I don’t want a kid picking up a book, whether it’s about homosexuality or heterosexuality, and reading about how to hook up sexually in our libraries. … And I’m going to take it a step further with you,” the superintendent went on. “There are two genders. There’s male, and there’s female. And I acknowledge that there are men that think they’re women. And there are women that think they’re men. And again, I don’t have any issues with what people want to believe, but there’s no place for it in our libraries. … I’m cutting to the chase on a lot of this,” Glenn insisted. “It’s the transgender, LGBTQ, and the sex — sexuality — in books. That’s what the governor has said that he will prosecute people for, and that’s what we’re pulling out.”

Over the next two weeks, Granbury embarked on what the Texas Tribune called “one of the largest book removals in the country, pulling about 130 titles from library shelves for review.” Two months later, the volunteer review committee inexplicably voted to return all but three books that they’d permanently banned.

By then, the audio of Glenn’s meeting had made its way to the media, and liberal news outlets like the Texas Tribune, ProPublica, and NBC News pounced, accusing Glenn of anti-LGBT bias. That’s when the local chapter of the ACLU got involved, demanding an apology and calling for every book to be reinstated.

Glenn didn’t oblige, conveying through district spokesman Jeff Meador that all the titles they’d pulled from shelves are “sexually explicit and not age-appropriate.” That said, the libraries “continue to house a socially and culturally diverse collection of books for students to read, including,” he pointed out, “books that analyze and explore LGBTQ+ issues.”

Naturally, that didn’t satisfy the ACLU, whose lawyers decided to involve the federal government in a local dispute that could have a chilling effect nationwide. “If the government finds in the ACLU’s favor,” The Washington Post cautioned, “the determination could have implications for schools nationwide, experts said, forcing libraries to stock more books about LGBTQ individuals and requiring administrators — amid a rising tide of book challenges and bans — to develop procedures ensuring student access to books that some Americans, especially right-leaning parents, deem unacceptable.”

Of course, the heart of the ACLU’s allegation — that Granbury (and Glenn, especially) is violating the Left’s new definition of “sex” — is a stretch by almost every legal standard. The Biden administration may have twisted the word “sex” to mean “gender identity” and “sexual orientation,” but that interpretation has never been passed into federal Title IX law.

And yet, the ACLU’s Chloe Kempf maintains (unconvincingly) that the “book removals and also the comments create this pervasively hostile environment.” “Both send a message to the entire community that LGBTQ identities are inherently obscene, worthy of stigmatization — and the book removals uniquely deprive LGBTQ students of the opportunity to read books that reflect their own experiences.”

Conservatives pushed back, insisting that this isn’t about LGBT hostility but age-appropriate content. Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, insisted that this whole controversy amounts to a leftist intimidation campaign. “The ACLU is bullying school districts who have responded to parental concerns about pornographic library books offered to children. Access to pornography at school is not a civil right.” Even if the law had been changed to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX, “children still do not have a right to sexually explicit or violent content in public school library books. And school systems are under no obligation to support a publishing industry who can’t sell these books to parents and so sells them to librarians instead.”

Frankly, Kilgannon argued, “This is federal overreach into the education system, which is supposed to be a state issue.” Not to mention that “Biden is weaponizing another government agency: the DOE.”

If the president does intervene, dictating how school libraries handle certain book titles, the issue will almost certainly end up in court. “This isn’t the sort of civil rights issue that requires federal intervention,” Will Flanders of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty argued. “It’s a question about books in schools, not about individual rights being violated.”

Either way, it does show one thing: the potency of the parents’ movement. Cameron, who’s in his own fight to host story hours in the same libraries that allow drag queens, is witnessing the momentum firsthand. As many as 1,000 people turned out in Placentia, Calif. to hear the “Growing Pains” actor read his new book, “As You Grow.”

“I know why parents and grandparents are coming out of the woodwork,” Cameron told The Federalist. “They understand there is a war on children — and nobody’s going to stop it but us.” So if there’s one thing Americans can do, he told the crowd, it’s this: “Don’t just talk about what’s going on. Change what’s going on.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Frederik Jansen on the link between LGBTQ+ and the Frankfurt School – The Laughland Report

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.