I remember how it was -- JR
Vaccine Mandates and Bribery Are Headed for K-12 Schools
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, more than 680 U.S. public and private colleges require students to get a coronavirus vaccine. This is a non-negotiable mandate for students to maintain enrollment status.
The vaccination edicts come even as the coronavirus has an extremely low mortality rate among college-aged students — CDC data attributes only 2.8 percent of coronavirus deaths to those under age 45. Regardless of this reality, those favoring mandated vaccines argue that schools already require students to provide proof of other vaccinations.
Those opposed to the vaccine mandate argue that the mandates impinge on individual freedom and demonstrate a disregard for the right to make personal medical decisions.
Although most state governments have jumped on the vaccine edict bandwagon, some states are banning universities from requiring the vaccine. Not surprisingly, Florida is among those states standing up to the federal government and overreaching collegiate institutions. And in a limited yet growing number of schools, students can avoid the vaccine requirement through a religious or medical exemption.
The Bribery Alternative
Some colleges that are not mandating vaccines are instead pressuring students through bribery tactics. For example, gift cards, housing, and even tuition credit are being used as bait to lure students away from their initial personal decision. Missouri State University has committed $150,000 toward prizes for vaccination, ranging from free tuition, housing, books, and dedicated parking spaces. The College of Charleston is using a host of incentives based on various percentages of the student body obtaining vaccination. This includes the college dangling the carrot reward of puppy therapy.
Other colleges are charging students for not getting vaccinated. The fee at West Virginia Wesleyan College is $750 for the fall semester alone. Rhodes College is tacking on $1,500 to tuition charges each semester in the form of a health and safety fee for unvaccinated students.
Implications for K-12 Students
Trends in higher education often trickle down to K-12 schools over time. And indeed, the coronavirus vaccine fiat is heading toward the primary and secondary academic setting in record time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is pushing the vaccine for K-12 students, recognizing that it’s only available for students ages 12 and older at this point. On its website, the CDC encourages schools to host vaccination sites on campus and offer teachings on vaccinations to arm K-12 educators with tools for pushing vaccinations on minor children. The CDC believes schools should function as advocates for the vaccine and utilize their rapport with school families to build trust and confidence in the vaccine, despite the fact that school leaders are not medical experts.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has mandated that all city employees, including public school employees, be vaccinated or complete weekly testing beginning September 13, the start of the school year. Denver Mayor Michael Hancock followed de Blasio’s edict with his city employees, but he took it one step further. Unvaccinated Denver city employees, including K-12 teachers and staff, won’t be allowed to work, and there will be no testing alternative.
As vaccines become available for children under the age of 12, it will only be a matter of time before public schools attempt to follow higher education’s footsteps and go to inappropriate lengths to incentivize, if not require, students to be vaccinated as a condition for enrollment.
On August 17, Culver City Unified School District, outside of Los Angeles, with 7,000 students, became the first district in the nation to announce mandated coronavirus vaccination requirements for student in-person enrollment. The mandate states it’s required for all eligible staff and students, indicating that as the vaccine is made available to children younger than 12, the mandate will include them as well. For those eligible, failure to get vaccinated will result in the district removing the student from in-person learning.
A few days later, on August 20, de Blasio announced that all New York City high school athletes and coaches “participating in high-risk sports” must be vaccinated.
According to a May 2021 Gallup Poll involving 3,500 U.S. adults, a high percentage of people oppose the vaccine mandate for students (44 percent oppose a vaccine mandate for high school students and 49 percent oppose it for middle school students). Had Gallup polled only parents of school-aged children, they likely would have found higher opposition numbers.
Before stepping down in June 2021, Austin Beutner, superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, the second-largest school district in the U.S., stated that vaccines for students should be mandatory.
Some states are pushing back. The first state to preemptively block K-12 vaccine requirements for school attendance was Oklahoma, thanks to Gov. Kevin Stitt in May 2021. Since July 29, the following states have enacted laws to prevent mandated COVID vaccines in schools: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah.
Parents Speaking Up & Pulling Students Out
Over the past year, parents have become significantly more engaged in their students’ school experience. School shutdowns, poor quality remote learning, and efforts to indoctrinate students with leftist propaganda have led many parents to speak out. And they’re also pulling out. Traditional public school enrollment fell a steep three percent — a loss of one and a half million students in the past year alone.
The mandatory mask requirements have added to the number taking flight from traditional public schools. With the vaccine bribery tactics and mandates, K-12 public school enrollment will further plummet. School leaders should take heed and stick to academic instruction rather than alienating the families they purport to serve.
https://spectator.org/vaccine-mandates-and-bribery-are-headed-for-k-12-schools/
*****************************************Pluck of the Irish: Notre Dame bites back after its leprechaun mascot is deemed one of the most 'offensive' in college sports
The Fighting Irish are fighting back after Notre Dame's famed leprechaun mascot was voted one of the most 'offensive' in modern-day college sports.
The green-clad mascot, along with the school's logo that includes a leprechaun in a fighting pose, was voted the fourth-most offensive mascot in the country, according to a survey conducted by Quality Logo Products Blog.
Officials from the university in South Bend, Indiana, which has won 13 college football championships, quickly fired back.
'Our symbols stand as celebratory representations of a genuine Irish heritage at Notre Dame,' the school said. 'A heritage that we regard with respect, loyalty and affection.'
Notre Dame finished behind Florida State's Osceola and Renegade, San Diego State's Aztec Warrior and the University of Hawaii's Vili the Warrior in the poll of 1,266 people.
'None of these institutions were founded or named by Native Americans who sought to highlight their heritage by using names and symbols associated with their people,' the school said.
The university also looked to distance itself from the recent wave of sports franchises which have folded to public pressure to change their names. In April, the Cleveland Indians announced the baseball team would be called the Guardians.
Last year, the NFL's Washington team dumped its nickname.
'It is worth noting... that there is no comparison between Notre Dame's nickname and mascot and the Indian and warrior names (and) mascots used by other institutions such as the NFL team formerly known as the Redskins.'
Notre Dame said its nickname and mascot emphasize the resilience of the Irish people.
'In both the upraised fists of the leprechaun mascot and the use of the word 'Fighting', the intent is to recognize the determination of the Irish people and, symbolically, the university's athletes,' the school said.
According to the Catholic university, the Fighting Irish nickname was initially created as a derogatory term, used by rival schools at the start of the 20th century, as most of their students were of Irish and Catholic descent.
The term was made the team's official nickname in 1927 by then-university president Father Matthew Walsh, who was of Irish descent.
The Fighting Irish are one of the most successful college programs, not just in football, winning a total of 22 national titles in all sports. It last won the college football national championships in 1988 under coach by Lou Holtz.
Also, no college has more alumni in the Pro Football Hall of Fame than Notre Dame, which had 13 former players voted to Canton, according to the Hall of Fame website.
In the NFL, the newly-named Washington Football Team changed its name from the Redskins and the Kansas City Chief's retired its longtime on-field mascot, Warpaint the horse, over concerns about the use of Native American imagery.
In August 2020, the Chiefs also banned fans from wearing Native headdresses and 'any American Indian-themed face paint.'
They have also asked fans to perform the 'Arrowhead Chop' cheer with a closed fist instead of an open hand, according to The New York Times.
Furthermore, politically correct and social activists groups are insisting the Chiefs' name be changed, despite the franchise's recent changes.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians announced they will cease using the name 'Indians' following the 2021 baseball season, after which they will change their name to the Cleveland Guardians.
Quality Logo Products, a company that prints logos of sports team on all levels on T-shirts and water bottles, recently pushed out surveys asking people to find the best, worst, sexiest, creepiest, and most offensive mascots in college football.
The Illinois-based company managed to poll 1,266 people in total in and the surveys included 128 mascots from different Division 1 colleges and universities in the US.
Teams at both professional and collegiate level have come under intense scrutiny since the summer of 2020 regarding nicknames and mascots.
*******************************************
Solving the Federal Student Loan Fiasco
By RICHARD K. VEDDER
As I have previously said: the federal student loan programs are an unmitigated disaster, causing massive tuition price inflation, campus administrative bloat, declining academic standards, and a reduction in the proportion of recent college graduates from low income families. Some Democrats tenuously running the federal government want to make it worse: let’s forgive student loans, or allow people to simply “pause” their loans, or liberally honor requests for “forbearance” (temporarily excusing student loan obligations). According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, before the pandemic roughly three million of the 45 million with student loan debt were in forbearance; now about 20 million are—nearly half.
The more centralist Democrats like President Biden said a few months ago that they want to simply forgive $10,000 in debt. The Bernie Sanders- Elizabeth Warren progressives want to forgive $50,000. Never mind the fact that many with large debts actually have high incomes from being doctors, lawyers or management gurus. Never mind the fact that many million conscientious Americans have worked hard and sacrificed to get out of student loan debt. The federal government seems to be saying: Let’s reward the bigger borrowers slow to repay debt, often partly because of big post-college spending, and let’s punish the hapless Americans who have honored their loan commitments by paying them off. Why would future generations of borrowers of federal student loans ever bother to repay their obligations? Wait long enough, and the politicians will bail you out. Whether the executive branch even has constitutional authority to drastically alter programs approved by Congress is highly debatable, although Congress and the President could agree to new legislation.
More generally, Americans increasingly are threatened with financial pain from previous irresponsible decisions. This is the second consecutive year when the federal budget deficit will exceed 10% of GDP, while the money supply in 2020 grew by double digit percentages—we are following the pattern of nations like Argentina or Greece that have suffered from long periods of lackluster economic growth because of their massive fiscally reckless conduct.
What makes current federal student financial assistance policies so egregious is that we are implicitly telling young persons making their first large investment decision (borrowing to pay for college): “don’t take your obligations too seriously. If things get rough, we will excuse your obligations.” That is a very bad lesson to teach young persons, and policies like that could ultimately lead to the nation’s economic demise relative to ascending Asian powers.
There is lots of evidence suggesting we are overinvested in higher education—too many students don’t graduate, or get jobs that can be filled by high school graduates. We should be exploring alternative ways of financing college or non-degree alternative forms of vocational training. But the higher education lobby is powerful and skeptical of big changes in the status quo. Hyper-partisanship discourages innovation. Two ideas make a lot of sense and might get some bipartisan support. First, make colleges have some skin in the game—force them to face some financial consequences for admitting large numbers of dubiously qualified kids who run up huge amounts of loan delinquencies that taxpayers must cover. Make colleges, in effect, become cosigners on federal loans. Incentivize colleges to select students who likely will be at least marginally successful.
Second, simultaneously move to privatize financing college. Start limiting availability for federal loans—ending the parental PLUS loan program, putting time limits on loan support, eliminate vast lending for professional degrees. At the same time, encourage non-lending forms of college financing, such as income share agreements, turning the burden of college financing more over to experienced investors, while putting college lending on more of a commercial basis.
Maybe we should go back to first principles and ask: why do we publicly subsidize attending colleges? Allegedly, they promote “positive externalities”—spillover effects aiding society while potentially improving income mobility. However, I see considerable evidence instead that today they foster elitism, promote education credentialed aristocracies, and stifle economic growth. As the late great economist Milton Friedman presciently told me in an email about 18 years ago, perhaps we should tax rather than subsidize colleges and their students. The loan programs probably need to be ended or substantially revamped.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13717&omhide=true
***********************************My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
*******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment