Bank Reverses Decision, Picks Schoolkids Over LGBT Activists

Seven hundred kids. That’s how many students would have lost their scholarships—and a chance at a better life—if Fifth Third Bank hadn’t come to its senses.

Instead, after a week of uncertainty, the company sat down with Florida parents and pastors and decided not to listen to Florida’s cultural bullies. It’s one thing for a company to support LGBT extremism. It’s quite another, the bank agreed, to hurt needy children in the process.

Most kids had already left school for the weekend when they got the good news: One of the biggest contributors to the Florida voucher program wasn’t dropping out after all.

Fifth Third Bank—who’d joined Wells Fargo in abandoning the scholarships—had gotten an earful from the local community. And, after a few days of protests, rallies, and nonstop phone calls, the business finally relented: Its $5.4 million investment in school choice for the state would go on—regardless of what the Orlando Sentinel and a handful of liberal lawmakers think.

It was a major reversal for the bank, who threw the program into complete chaos earlier in the month—all because parents had the option of using those scholarships for religious schools, who (not surprisingly) have religious beliefs.

Democratic state Reps. Anna Eskamani and Carlos Guillermo Smith apparently object to that and have been harassing corporate donors to drop their contributions over those schools’ biblical views on marriage and sexuality.

Local parents, pastors, and politicians were furious—including a good number of their Democratic colleagues. Members like state Reps. James Bush III and Al Jacquet couldn’t believe their party would actually use children as pawns to appease the LGBT Left.

“We have children that need these opportunities,” Bush said. When there’s a chance for parents to have a choice that will help their kids, “we should afford them that opportunity.”

So when Fifth Third’s leaders finally listened to reason and reinstated their donations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who’s been an outspoken champion of the program, was thrilled.

“I am glad to see Fifth Third Bank putting students and their families above destructive identity politics,” he said. “It shows people can raise their voice and overcome the insane ‘woke’ agenda that drives our politics and culture. School vouchers provide opportunities for low income and special needs students, and I am proud of all the Floridians that stood up for these children.”

Other leaders from both parties, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, also praised the company for seeing the bigger picture.

As principals like Lakisha Robinson know better than anyone, this option is sometimes the only option for parents. Her Victory Christian Academy is right smack-dab in the inner-city of Orlando, an “oasis in the desert,” as she calls it.

“We’re almost all minori[ties],” Lakisha explains. “We have mostly African Americans … in an area that’s mostly impoverished.” When parents have the choice between a failing school or a private one, “it’s a whole other ballgame.”

But Victory, like other schools in the program, is “unapologetically Christian,” so having bullies at the door is nothing new.

“We catch a lot of different heat in this area,” Lakisha explained on “Washington Watch.” But the reality is, Lakisha explains, no child is forced to go to their school—parents choose it. And they do so, she points out, even when they aren’t Christians themselves because “they love the positive environment of the academy” and its proven success.

Sure, she agrees, they could get more money being a charter school (which is what a lot of liberals have tried to push Victory toward), but that would mean surrendering their values.

They [wouldn’t] allow us to use our Christian curriculum or … allow us to keep ‘Christian’ in our name. And we want it to be Victory Christian Academy, not Victory Academy.

The state’s voucher program is one thing that helped her school keep its identity and offer a high-class education. “It means more to us to stand firm on God’s principles.” These needy neighborhoods, she insists “need the Word of God more than anything.”

And the results speak for themselves. In these past 18 years, students are graduating and getting into good universities.

“These are first-generation college students,” she says. Their lives—and the lives of their families—will be forever impacted because of this program. If Fifth Third Bank can see that, surely Wells Fargo can too.

SOURCE 






3 High School Girls File Lawsuit to Preserve Fairness in Women’s Sports

Three brave high school girls in Connecticut have done what many of their much older counterparts have been unwilling to do… They have asked the simple question: Do female athletes deserve the right to compete on a level playing field?

The answer should be common sense. That’s why Title IX was created, after all—to provide women and girls with equal educational and athletic opportunities. But those opportunities are being stripped from these high school athletes. And now they are speaking out.

You see, in 2017, they started facing a different kind of competition. That’s the year that the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) changed its policies to allow male athletes who identify as female to compete as girls.

That’s why these three girls are taking a stand. Last year, they filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. And while the Department of Education agreed to investigate this CIAC policy, these female athletes are taking extra steps to ensure that the athletic opportunities of women and girls are preserved.

Today, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, they filed a lawsuit against the CIAC.

Let me introduce you to these brave high school girls—who have been personally harmed by being forced to compete against male athletes.

At the 2019 Indoor Track & Field State Championships, Selina finished one place away from qualifying for finals and two places away from qualifying for the New England Regional Championships in the 55-meter dash. But two of the sprinters that finished ahead of her, placing first and second, were male athletes. Because of that, Selina lost out on the opportunity to compete in front of college scouts at the New England Regional Championships. Instead, she had to sit on the sidelines.

In June 2019, Alanna won the 400-meter dash at the New England Regional Championships—as a freshman! Thankfully, in that event, she hadn’t been forced to compete against any male athletes, so she earned her rightful spot. But a male athlete did compete in, and win, the 200-meter dash. Alanna placed third in that event, instead of runner-up. Alanna has a promising track career in front of her. But she knows that being forced to compete against male athletes could threaten her future opportunities to win championship titles and even earn scholarships.

Chelsea is one of the top female sprinters in Connecticut. But she has been denied the title of state champion four times because the CIAC has allowed male athletes to compete as girls. Last year, she had the unexpected opportunity to compete on a more level playing field after a male athlete was disqualified for a false start. Chelsea went on to win the state championship and the New England Regional Championships in that event.

These Girls Deserve #FairPlay

Selina, Alanna, and Chelsea are not the only girls in Connecticut that have been impacted by this CIAC policy. In fact, two male athletes in Connecticut have taken 15 state championship titles that previously belonged to nine different girls. And they have taken 17 individual meet records that previously belonged to 13 different girls.

The reality is that there are significant differences between males and females. Comparably talented and fit males have more muscle mass, greater bone size, and even more heart and lung capacity—which makes them stronger and faster.

The CIAC policy ignores this reality. And it is female athletes that are paying the price—losing out on championship titles, state records, and even scholarship opportunities.

Girls like Selina, Alanna, and Chelsea should be in the spotlight for their athletic talent and success. Instead, they have faced adversity from teammates and coaches simply for standing up for common sense.

SOURCE 






Free speech: It’s time for a higher education shake-up in Australia

It is with much humility that I ­announce my candidature for the forthcoming vacancy of chief executive of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

TEQSA wields extraordinary power to decide what institution can call itself a university or college. It is responsible for enforcing the Higher Education Standards Framework, which includes requirements ranging from admissions and course design to facilities and infrastructure. This framework also requires that a university articulates “a commitment to and support for free intellectual inquiry in its academic endeavours”.

But in recent years TEQSA’s leadership has become a free-speech denier. It has repeatedly played down concerns from parliamentarians, academics, students and the broader public about the ability to express a wide array of opinion at our universities. Like practically every regulatory body, TEQSA has become captured by its sector and a certain left-wing, misnamed “progressive” perspective.

TEQSA chief executive Anthony McClaran will step down at the end of next month to take up the vice-chancellorship of St Mary’s University in London. The federal government must avoid simply appointing an individual from the sector, someone who will continue business as usual. It needs new leadership from outside the groupthink that epitomises higher education.

Across the English-speaking world, universities are becoming hotbeds of ideological extremists which reject the legitimacy of alternative perspectives. Across the past four years, in the Institute of Public Affairs’ Free Speech on Campus Audit, I have extensively catalogued how university policies and actions undermine freedom of expression. This has been acknowledged, even by its critics, as they point to the key report that first brought attention to free speech issues at universities.

Last year, the government released a review into free speech by former High Court chief justice Robert French. This report pointed to substantial issues within existing policies, including many previously raised by the IPA. It recommended universities adopt a model free-speech code, partly in the spirit of the University of Chicago. While some universities have acted, such as the University of Sydney, most have not. This is despite an IPA poll of university students last year finding that three in five students say they have been prevented from voicing their opinions on controversial ­issues by other students.

Nick Saunders, the chief commissioner of TEQSA, told Senate estimates last year that TEQSA would not be playing a “regulatory role, in the sense of imposing penalties” on universities that failed to adopt French’s code. Saunders also played down the possibility of future enforcement on the basis that he did not think freedom of expression on campus was an issue. All carrot and no stick (billions of dollars of public money without any responsibility) make for a ­pathetic lack of freedom of expression at our universities.

Last year, Peter Ridd was found to have had his freedom of speech impinged by James Cook University after it sacked him for criticising the quality of his colleagues’ work on the Great Barrier Reef. Ridd was awarded $1.2m after winning the unfair dismissal case. Despite the significance of the precedent-setting case, TEQSA has also yet to mention Ridd. TEQSA has also refused to issue a guidance note on freedom of expression or academic freedom, ­despite maintaining an extensive note on “diversity and equity”. This guidance typically focuses on every type of diversity other than diversity of viewpoint.

Free speech is not the only challenge facing our universities. They appear to be ferociously dependent on foreign funds, leading to substantial influence opportunities for the Chinese Communist Party. This is epitomised by the Confucius Centres and the slow reaction to thuggish pro-CCP students last year at Hong Kong democracy protests, particularly at the University of Queensland. There are also concerns that ­dependence on overseas students has lowered educational quality.

Gerd Schroder-Turk, an academic at Murdoch University, claimed universities, including his own, admitted international students who did not meet English language standards. “Admitting students who don’t have the right qualifications, or right prerequisites, or correct language capabilities, is setting them up for failure,” Schroder-Turk said. Academics are then pressured to pass these students, including many who stand accused of cheating, despite an inadequate quality of work.

Once again displaying the lack of tolerance for contrarian opinions, Schroder-Turk was sued by Murdoch University for daring to critique its approach. The response by TEQSA to these issues has been wholly inadequate.

Meanwhile, the “replication crisis” continues, with half of all published academic articles likely being unreplaceable and false. There are also concerns about students being sold degrees costing tens of thousands of dollars despite getting limited educational value or a high-paying job at the end. Many students simply drop out, leaving themselves with large debt and no degree to show for it.

The extent of red tape imposed by TEQSA makes it almost impossible to start up competitor universities that would bring real competition to the sector, thereby decreasing tuition costs and ­increasing educational quality.

The appointment of TEQSA’s next chief executive is a perfect opportunity for the Morrison government to give the Australian university sector a significant shake-up. And I am the person to do it.

SOURCE