The Left Wing School Agenda and the Banning of Patriotism

An article by Mark Loftin [markcloftin@yahoo.com]

When Winston Churchill was dropped from the UK school curriculum last July, one had to wonder if patriotism itself was next. Now it's official. The Institute of Education, a leading educational body, has warned teachers not to instill pride in students when speaking of great moments in British History:

"To love what is corrupt is itself corrupting, not least because it inclines us to ignore, forget, forgive or excuse the corruption. And there's the rub for patriotism."

The recommendations singled out specific moments in history that students should now feel "ambiguous" about:

1750-1830 The Industrial Revolution: exploitation of the poor versus great wealth creation and growth

1807 Abolition of the slave trade. Britons were both practitioners of the trade and responsible for abolition

1947 Indian independence and Partition. How well did Britain manage its withdrawal from the sub-continent?

2003 Iraq war: was it liberation or occupation?

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The UK schools' leftist agenda has been in full steam over the last year:

* Last month, "Mum and Dad" become forbidden in British schools because it assumes a child's parents are different genders, and The Three Little Pigs was banned so not to offend Muslims.

* Last July, as mentioned, Winston Churchill was dropped from the UK school curriculum.

* Last April, teachings about the Holocaust were dropped as to not offend Muslims.

* Last March, schools began teaching 4-years olds about homosexuality through books like "King and King," (which is about a prince that rejects three female princesses before falling in love with a prince).

* An Inconvenient Truth is regularly shown in 3400 UK schools, instilling paranoia in 7-11 year olds.

Here in the U.S., the leftist agenda is also sinking its teeth into our schools at an equally disturbing pace. Leading the charge is California:

* San Francisco is debating an anti-war textbook, which features corporate American celebrating the spoils of war and Ronald Regan hugging Osama Bin Laden. Pete Hammer of the San Francisco Unified School District, who approved the book, says "The topic is one that a lot of teachers would have an interest in bringing into the classroom."

* A current bill gaining momentum by California lawmaker Joe Simitian (D - Palo Alto) would require California schools to include climate change as part of the science curriculum

* Last October, "Mom and Dad" were banned from schools, along with "Husband and Wife." In the same bill, public schools were ordered to allow boys to use the girls' restroom or locker room, and vice versa, if they choose

* Last June the state passed a homosexual education bill SB 777, which: ".requires textbooks and other instructional resources to cast a positive light on homosexual `marriages,' cross-dressing, sex-change operations and every other facet of homosexual and bisexual lifestyles."

* More hatred of Israel, as seen by anti-Israel speakers and the atmosphere that appears on the UC Irvine, UC Berkeley and San Francisco State campuses .

While there is not a specific mandate here in the US to "ban" patriotism - or any specific heroes that defined it - with more of the left's agenda taking up course time, one must wonder what will be slighted to make room.

A 2003 poll from California's Santa Monica High School said that 1/3 of students were not proud to American and 40 percent said America itself was "unjust". One can only imagine what the numbers would look like today in the name of "progress." Of course, you can't blame young, impressionable students for not being proud to be an American if that is what they are taught. The way the left commonly twists the meaning of the word, not being proud to American could be taught by a teacher as "patriotic."

In typical Doublespeak fashion, the left has been adamant about manipulating patriotism's definition for years. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines patriotism simply as "love for or devotion to one's country." In 2001 Senator John Kerry redefined patriotism to mean "not drilling in the Arctic refuge." In 2006, Kerry redefined it again to mean "wartime dissent." Air America has defined it as "pointing out the flaws in your country." Entire Web blogs are dedicated to this trickery, such as US Patriots United which issued it's "10 commandments of patriotism." A few entries:

(someone who),

"respects the diversity and culture of all nations, recognizing that our continued success lay not in spite of other nations but in alliance with them in a uniform approach toward promoting the global general welfare."

"ensures that the basic rights of those we hold dear to access quality healthcare and education is steadfastly supported, uncompromisingly and without discrimination based on race, color, creed, gender, or orientation."

"offers foreign humanitarian aid unconditionally without tying it to religious dogma"

"exercises the right to openly challenge (the president) and hold accountable at all times, even and most particularly in times of war"

Multiculturalism? Socialized Healthcare? Government- administered education? Wartime dissent? If the left had their way, being a patriot would be officially redefined to mean.being a liberal democrat.

At Nathan High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a project was started in 2005 to hang a picture of George Washington in every classroom. John Pribram, chairman of Project George Washington and a member of the Military Order of the Purple Heart said:

"I'm grateful (for the success of the project). After Sept. 11, we were united at that point. Flags in front of every house. Patriotism was rekindled. George Washington does the same thing."

One can only speculate at the heated debate that would occur in California over whether George Washington - military hero and devout Christian - deserves the classroom wall. Unfortunately, with Churchill being pulled from the walls in Great Britain, there is now a precedent for more patriotic disillusionment from California's schools.

Perhaps Leo Lacayo, San Francisco Republican Party media surrogate, put it best with his response to San Francisco's anti-war book: "We're not teaching them -- we're basically washing their brains with liberal mish-mash."

FINIS





College Tuition Inflaters

Okay, Washington politicians, we get it. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are hoarding lots of money while tuition prices skyrocket, and states sometimes cut funding to public colleges. That's all very troubling, but with reauthorization of the Higher Education Act passed by the House yesterday and a final version likely to come up for approval by all of Congress soon, please stop throwing blame around and address the heart of the college cost problem: your constant lavishing of aid on students that pushes tuition up, up, up.

By now, probably everyone has heard the righteous wailing from Washington, led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), over well-endowed institutions of higher education that don't spend their cash to keep to tuition low. "Parents and students have a right to expect these universities with big endowments to end the hoarding and start the helping with skyrocketing tuition costs," Grassley declared last month.

Grassley's assault on wealthy colleges has generated lots of press and made for great grandstanding, and there's certainly something wrong when ivory-tower endowments, which are tax exempt because colleges supposedly serve the "public good," lose hardly a tuppence in service of the public. But the fault lies with government for giving colleges favored status, and endowment hoarding is hardly driving tuition costs.

Just look at the number of schools with big endowments. A few weeks ago, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) sent a letter requesting information to every college and university with an endowment over $500 million. How many schools was that? Just 136, or about 3 percent of the nation's nearly 4,300 colleges and universities. That's hardly enough to make much difference on overall average tuition levels.

Despite the small number of schools being directly harassed over their endowments, most higher education lobbyists are on high alert, especially against threats from Grassley and others to make colleges spend 5 percent of their endowments annually. Unfortunately, to protect themselves colleges and their Washington defenders are pointing at an even more popular scapegoat for rampant tuition inflation than Harvard and Yale: tight-fisted states. "A primary reason that tuition has been rising is that state funding has been flat," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told a gathering of higher education officials in Washington last week, exhorting them to close the "communication gap" between themselves and politicians on Capitol Hill.

But Washington pols, as the HEA reauthorization bill proves, have been hearing that message loud and clear. If the bill passed yesterday is enacted, the federal government would withhold funds from any state that cut higher education spending below its previous five-year average. In other words, states would have to spend taxpayer money to make taxpayer money.

So who are the real culprits behind higher education's ever-higher price tag? Sadly, just like the endowment blow-up, blaming tuition inflation on impecunious state spending is a dodge. State financing of public institutions, for one thing, has no direct effect on the nation's roughly 2,600 private colleges or their tuition prices. Moreover, state spending on higher education hasn't actually been flat. According to the latest federal "Digest of Education Statistics," after adjusting for inflation state higher-education expenditures rose from $46.8 billion in academic year 1990-91 to $53.9 billion in 2003-04, a 15 percent increase. Despite that, the average real cost of in-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions rose 86 percent in that time, from $2,460 to $4,587. So much for the cheap states theory. But what, then, is the real cause of the college cost crisis?

There are many cost-driving excesses in higher education - luxurious dorms, unused classroom space, growing bureaucracies, expensive academic journals, and the list goes on - that are intermediate causes of the college cost problem. They are all, however, undergirded by a single reality: You can't charge an arm and a leg unless people can pay it, and to curry favor with colleges, kids, and parents Washington ensures that those limbs keep coming, taking them from taxpayers and giving them to students and schools.

The growth in federal student aid makes this clear. According to data from the College Board, real federal aid - including grants, loans, and tax credits - ballooned from $48.7 billion in the 1996-97 academic year to almost $86.3 billion in 2006-07, a 77 percent leap. On a per-pupil basis, aid per full-time equivalent student - most of which came through Washington - rose from $6,627 to $9,499, a 43 percent increase. Meanwhile the per-pupil cost of tuition, fees, room and board rose 29 percent at private four-year schools, from $25,031 to $32,307, and 41 percent at public four-year institutions, from $9,657 to $13,589. In other words, college prices kept rising because aid made sure they could.

So who are the real culprits behind higher education's ever-higher price tag? Not endowment hoarders or cheap states, but the Washington politicians who blame everyone else for the problems that they themselves have caused.

Source