Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Only Gender Neutral Pronouns, Please
Schools are one of the primary places where the minds of the next generation are developed, molded and guided. What is taught in school will have a deep impact on the culture for years to come. What is troubling is just how successful the Rainbow Mafia has been not only in pushing for acceptance but in promulgating its odious agenda in the nation’s schools.
The latest example of this comes from a school district in North Carolina, where the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) board has recommended that educators not refer to students as “boys” and “girls” but by gender neutral terms such as “scholars” and “students.” CMS Chief Communications Officer Kathryn Block stated, “CMS remain fully committed to supporting its transgender students and nurturing a safe and welcoming environment for every student and employee.” In response, Tami Fitzgerald, an activist with the North Carolina Values Coalition, said, “School is no longer about reading, writing and arithmetic. It is now about gender fluidity.”
The school board also stated that it would put on temporary hold its plan to fully institute regulations that would allow transgender students to use bathroom and locker room facilities corresponding to their gender “identity” rather than their biology. These regulations will be on hold until the Supreme Court gives a finally ruling on the transgender bathroom issue. The times they are a changing, but not all change is a good thing.
America's Universities Become Man-Hater Clubs
Over the past several years a popular, often media-driven narrative has developed at universities and colleges across the nation — that of the campus “rape” culture. Various university campuses aiming to clean up and rid the school of this “rape” culture have developed procedures establishing university tribunals designed to police and deal with misconduct. But many of these tribunals seem to harbor an “anti-male” bias. Over the years, numerous male students found guilty by these tribunals were disciplined by the university even though no criminal charges were ever brought or even pursued.
The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a lower court that had dismissed a student’s claim that Columbia University had violated federal anti-discrimination laws when the school found him responsible for sexual assault. The suit brought by the student was based on the Title IX federal statute, which bans sex discrimination in education. The student’s claim was that Columbia University had engaged in an anti-male bias when it had found him responsible for sexual assault.
This pattern of anti-male bias seems to be a growing problem on many university and college campuses across the nation. As K.C. Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College, said, “Accused students often have claimed that these new procedures violate [Title IX] in reverse — that effectively they were biased against male students.”
In its ruling, the Second Circuit Court reprimanded the lower court judge, stating that a “university that adopts, even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over the other in a disciplinary dispute, doing so in order to avoid liability or bad publicity, has practiced sex discrimination, notwithstanding that the motive for the discrimination did not come from ingrained or permanent bias against a particular sex.”
The final outcome of this case is still pending, but what has become quite evident is that many of the nation’s universities and colleges have an “anti-male” bias problem.
Grammar wreckers KNEW they would make Britain's schools worse
By PETER HITCHENS
Here's why the quarrel about grammar schools never ends: it is not really about schools, but about what sort of country this should be.
Grammar schools stood for adult authority, for discipline, for tradition, for hard work first and reward afterwards, and for self-improvement.
They also tended to assume that boys and girls were different, and so educated them apart from each other. I like these things, but many don’t.
Old-fashioned Labour saw the point of this. They realised that it helped the poor become better-off and to have better lives and more power. They created a peaceful revolution that changed Britain for the better. Labour councils used to build new grammar schools and be proud of them.
But the modern liberal Left don’t like any of these ideas. They would rather teach children how to have sex than teach them to believe in God.
Especially they don’t think parents or teachers should have any authority over the young. The State should be trusted to tell them what to think. They should look to the State for any improvement in their lives.
They don’t like the idea that there are fixed things that you just have to learn – which is why the teaching of languages and sciences is shrivelling in our schools.
The people who smashed up more than a thousand of the best state secondary schools in the world didn’t do it to make education better. They knew it would make it worse for bright children.
In one case, that of Sir Graham Savage, they openly admitted this. They did it to make the country more ‘democratic’, more like the USA. They have made it like the worst bits, but very unlike the best bits.
How odd it is to recall that in my childhood there was a thing called the ‘brain drain’, which meant British scientists being lured away to the USA because they weren’t educating enough of them.
And in those days a set of English A-levels was said to be equal to an American university degree. It isn’t so now. The enemies of grammars really should stop lying about the subject to get their way.
They moan about those who don’t get into grammars. But what about the huge numbers who can’t get into good comprehensives, and are dumped in vast bog-standard comps which are, in reality, worse than the old secondary moderns.
Of course selection for any school has losers as well as winners. But we have selection in our supposedly comprehensive schools. It is mainly done through the secret privileges (fake religious belief, close knowledge of feeder schools etc) exercised by sharp-elbowed, well-off parents. How is this better than selection by ability?
A 2010 survey by the Sutton Trust found that comprehensive schools in England are highly socially segregated. In fact, the country’s leading comprehensives are more socially exclusive than the remaining grammar schools.
Both the 164 (then remaining) grammars and the 164 most socially selective comprehensives drew pupils from areas where about 20 per cent of children were from poor homes.
But the supposed comprehensives were more socially selective, taking only 9.2 per cent of their pupils from poor homes, while the grammars took 13.5 per cent. Who’s democratic now?
In fact, most of the remaining grammars are so besieged by middle-class commuters hiring tutors that their entry figures are utterly distorted. If we still had a national grammar system they would be far fairer than the top comprehensives are.
I wish I thought Theresa May really wanted to restore grammars. This has been successfully done in the former East Germany.
But I fear that this is just a token move to try to hold on the support of the many voters who want to see this change. Even so, it is a good deal better than nothing, and a sign that this dreadful national error may one day be reversed.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:44 AM