Monday, October 05, 2020


In Other News, We Haven’t Had COVID Outbreaks from Schools Re-Opening

It’s not like this was a controversial position when you looked at the data. It’s not like there weren’t medical experts saying what The Washington Post has reported recently about schools in the COVID era. Instead, we got endless drama from teachers who didn’t want to work. We had to deal with their nonsense about dying on the job, how they’re signing wills in case they die, and the media did well in peddling the panic porn to make these people hysterical. Parents want their kids in school.

And sorry, teachers, you need to get back to work. If you don’t want to, that’s fine—you get no paycheck. No work, no pay. That should be the rule because guess what—schools haven’t had any outbreaks from COVID since re-opening. None. It’s not happening.

Why? Well, as the data showed from the outset of this unsubstantiated freakout, kids really don’t get it. They account for just two percent of all COVID cases in the US. Pediatricians gave their stamp of approval too. This really wasn’t a scientific debate. The science was clear: re-open the schools. Can we please kill this idiocy (via WaPo):

Thousands of students and teachers have become sick with the coronavirus since schools began opening last month, but public health experts have found little evidence that the virus is spreading inside buildings, and the rates of infection are far below what is found in the surrounding communities.

This early evidence, experts say, suggests that opening schools may not be as risky as many have feared and could guide administrators as they chart the rest of what is already an unprecedented school year.

“Everyone had a fear there would be explosive outbreaks of transmission in the schools. In colleges, there have been. We have to say that, to date, we have not seen those in the younger kids, and that is a really important observation,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

[…]

… researchers at Brown University, working with school administrators, released their first set of data from a new National COVID-19 School Response Data Dashboard, created to track coronavirus cases. It found low levels of infection among students and teachers.

[…]

Teacher’s unions in Texas that keep track of infections say they have been surprised by how low it was. In many parts of the country, teacher’s unions have resisted school systems’ efforts to return to classes, saying sufficient safeguards were not in place.

Yep. It’s time to get back to work. Daniel Horowitz of The Blaze added:

Well, knock me over with a feather. Studies from countries including theU.K., Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Taiwan, and Iceland have all failed to find meaningful spread from school-age children. Sweden kept the younger grades open throughout the entire pandemic and didn’t experience a single death. The Public Health Agency of Sweden found no measurable difference in outcomes for children between Sweden and Finland, even though Finland closed its schools.

The Washington Post also observes that data from 37 school districts in Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania that opened schools shows “there have been 23 confirmed cases of the coronavirus across 20 schools and no indication that the virus was spread in schools.”

In other words, what we are consistently seeing in grade school is that, unlike in college dorms, there are just a smattering of cases here and there with no evidence of children driving the transmission. A comprehensive review of COVID-19 cases in German schools conducted by the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin found that “most school outbreaks had few cases per outbreak, with more cases among older age groups who could have been staff or other persons epidemiologically linked to school outbreaks.” Additionally, they observe, “considering class sizes of usually 20 to 25 students per class the low number of cases in each age year suggests rather limited onward transmission within classes.”

The bottom line is that a mere discovery of some cases in schools does not mean these kids were infected from the school setting or would have avoided getting it by being out of school.

This debate is over. Teachers unions shut up and get the hell back to work, and re-open the schools. Now.

SOURCE

No, the government has not banned anti-capitalism from schools

‘Is it fascism yet?’, US commentators ask whenever Trump opens his mouth. In the overactive imaginations of those panicking over the prospect of a second Trump term, fascism is on the rise. Unsurprisingly, then, the launch of Trump’s ‘1776 Commission’, a White House investigation into the teaching of history, and a direct response to the 1619 Project set up by the New York Times, is taken as conclusive proof that ‘America is spiraling toward fascism’.

The f-word is increasingly used to describe developments in the UK, too. Boris Johnson is a ‘proto-fascist’, according to former shadow chancellor John McDonnell. Meanwhile, a handful of thugs harassing asylum seekers is taken as evidence of imperial British fascism. So when the Department for Education (DfE) last week warned schools against using ‘resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters’, and defined ‘anti-capitalism’ as one example of an extreme political stance, the ‘fascism’ klaxon sounded loudly.

McDonnell was again quick off the mark. ‘This is another step in the culture war and this drift towards extreme Conservative authoritarianism is gaining pace and should worry anyone who believes that democracy requires freedom of speech and an educated populace’, he said. Labour’s Beth Winter described the new guidance as ‘sinister and alarming’. But McDonnell then went beyond hinting at fascism to offer his own interpretation of the guidance: ‘On this basis it will be illegal to refer to large tracts of British history and politics including the history of British socialism, the Labour Party and trade unionism, all of which have at different times advocated the abolition of capitalism.’

McDonnell’s word was soon taken as law. A writer at the Canary tweeted: ‘Under new guidelines the Johnson government is banning from schools in England works by William Godwin, William Morris, JB Priestley, Noam Chomsky, Jean-Paul Sartre, George Orwell and many others who critiqued the economic model of the established order.’ Author and broadcaster Stuart Maconie joined in: ‘So ironic that this would mean no teaching George Orwell.’ Teachers everywhere bemoaned a ban on teaching poets like Wordsworth, Shelley and Coleridge and topics like the Peasants’ Revolt, the trade-union movement and Marxism in history. The parallels between Trump and Johnson wrote themselves: two demagogues implementing fascism through the school curriculum.

Banning Animal Farm from English lessons and the Russian Revolution from history classes would indeed be truly alarming. But this is not what is happening. John McDonnell is simply wrong and the fearmongers on Twitter are spreading fake news. The new curriculum guidance says nothing about English or history – it refers specifically to ‘relationships, sex and health education’.

It is in this context that the DfE warns against the use of resources produced by organisations that: desire to abolish or overthrow democracy or capitalism, or to end free and fair elections; that are opposed to free speech; that use racist language; and that endorse illegal activity. More specifically, the guidance warns that children should not be led to believe that their preference for particular clothes or toys means they may have a different gender identity. It all comes with a reminder that teachers should note their duty to impartiality and the need for a balanced treatment of political issues in the classroom.

The DfE’s new guidance fires a warning shot to schools that uncritically endorse groups like transgender children’s charity Mermaids or Black Lives Matter. And, sadly, this is needed. For too long the DfE itself has forged links with certain organisations and allowed them to influence directly what children are taught in relationships and sex education classes. In turn, too many school leaders see inviting LGBTQ activists to speak to pupils as a quick and easy way of ticking a diversity box. Lessons in gender, relationships and, most recently, race and racism, are rarely prompts for debate but an opportunity to inculcate particular values.

English teachers can still teach Orwell and Shelley. Indeed, I wish they would: Priestley’s An Inspector Calls seems to be 2020’s ubiquitous choice. And history teachers can still cover the Russian Revolution and the Chartists. Good teachers will encourage children to engage with literature and other resources before thinking critically about the text and about their own society. This bears no resemblance to treating children as a captive audience for your own views.

There should be no need for government ministers to spell out which organisations or resources can and cannot be used in schools. Teachers should be trusted to decide what’s appropriate for their pupils. But this depends on there being a clear distinction between education and indoctrination, between teaching and activism. The blurring of the boundaries between these activities is not the fault of teachers alone. The very existence of relationships and sex education – a made-up subject that is entirely about influencing children’s behaviour and deliberately altering their views – lends itself to imposing values and political perspectives. Worse, when traditional subjects like English and history are no longer seen as worthwhile for their own sake, they too become hollowed out receptacles for political objectives.

The government should not be dictating acceptable resources for teaching. But rather than crying fascism over made-up edicts and bad-faith interpretations of guidance, let’s campaign to scrap the whole notion of relationships and sex education. Then children would have more time to learn and think critically about all kinds of topics – even anti-capitalism.

SOURCE

Is it racist to watch college football?

A professor has penned a grovelling and obsequious apology for an article suggesting that college football could reunite a divided America. Why? Because, apparently, his remarks were racist.

Matthew J Mayhew of Ohio State University originally co-wrote an article for Inside Higher Ed suggesting that a shared love of American football could reunite a nation torn apart by political division and the Covid pandemic.

But just five days later, an apology has been published. In it, Mayhew asked for forgiveness for any hurt his comments had caused minority communities. His extended apology reads like an admission of guilt from a tortured prisoner at a Soviet showtrial:

‘I learned that black men putting their bodies on the line for my enjoyment is inspired and maintained by my uninformed and disconnected whiteness and… positions student athletes as white property. I have learned that I placed the onus of responsibility for democratic healing on black communities whose very lives are in danger every single day and that this notion of “democratic healing” is especially problematic since the black community can’t benefit from ideals they can’t access. I have learned that words like “distraction” and “cheer” erase the present painful moments within the nation and especially the black community.’

Mayhew goes on to vow to create ‘a plan for change, for turning the “I am sorry” to “I will change” – for moving Black Lives Matter from a motto to a pathway from ignorance and toward authentic advocacy’.

But it is hard to find anything remotely offensive in Mayhew’s original article. He did not even mention race, except when praising sport’s ability to provide athletes with ‘a platform to make statements about issues they care about’, including ‘racial equality’ and ‘police brutality’. Which, if anything, was an attempt to make an anti-racist point.

It seems as if literally any activity, hobby or point of view – no matter how innocent – can now be denounced as racist. And as identity politics colonises more and more areas of life, we are expected to bow, scrape and grovel before its dogmas. We need to take an unapologetic stand against this absurdity.

SOURCE

Australia: University of Queensland barred from holding hearing over medical student rape allegations

A small blow against a university kangaroo court — but via some very complex and questionable jurisdictional reasoning — with the costs award not reflecting the verdict

University of Queensland cannot hold a disciplinary hearing into allegations that a medical student sexually assaulted a fellow student two years ago, after losing an appeal.

The university disciplinary board’s appeal against a judge’s decision barring the hearing was dismissed, because the accused male medical student graduated at the end of last year.

The Court of Appeal found the former student, only identified as Y, who has never been charged with a criminal offence, is no longer subject to the university’s disciplinary process.

However, it found the male student’s Supreme Court bid to block the disciplinary hearing should have been dismissed last year, under the facts and circumstances that then existed.

It was alleged the female student was digitally raped by the male student while both were staying in student accommodation, while doing a clinical placement in a regional town in 2018.

After being told the allegations involved a number of acts of “unsolicited physical intimacy’’, the male student applied to the Supreme Court for an order to prevent the disciplinary hearing.

The student’s lawyers claimed the proposed inquiry was unlawful, because it was into an allegation of a criminal offence of rape and the board did not have jurisdiction.

The university disagreed, claiming it was a hearing to determine whether student integrity and sexual misconduct policies had been contravened.

Last year, Supreme Court Justice Ann Lyons said the particulars of the alleged sexual assault could be categorised as including at least three counts of rape and a number of counts of sexual assault.

Justice Lyons said the university only had jurisdiction in relation to criminal acts of a sexual nature where the alleged offence was proved.

However, in the Court of Appeal, Justice Philip McMurdo disagreed with that interpretation of the university’s sexual misconduct policy.

The policy said the university did not have jurisdiction over criminal acts, but could take action in respect of breaches of its rules, policies and procedures.

Justice Lyons said the policy removed the university’s jurisdiction to determine whether acts occurred, if commission of those acts constituted a criminal sexual offence.

But Justice McMurdo said the policy did not remove the university’s jurisdiction to decide whether there had been any breaches.

Justice McMurdo said Justice Lyons should not have concluded that the disciplinary proceeding was beyond the university’s power.

As a result of that finding, the Court of Appeal unanimously set aside a previous costs order against the university.

SOURCE

No comments: