Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Teachers Are Feeding Critical Race Theory to Our Kids. Look What’s Happening in Wisconsin

A widespread, vigorous debate is going on in this country right now about critical race theory and if it should be taught in our local schools.

Critical race theory is an academic discipline that has been around for decades but only recently became the ideology of the far left in its push to tear down our country, destroy the principles our country was founded on, and eliminate the protections every American is afforded under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Critical race theory seeks to fundamentally and profoundly change the United States forever.

Critical race theory preaches that the United States was founded on racism, grew to become the successful nation that it is today because of this racism, and that our country, still today, is fundamentally defined by our racism and racism is found in everything that we do and that we do not do.

Christopher Rufo, director of the Initiative on Critical Race Theory at the Manhattan Institute, writes that “critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration of Independence and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.”

Critical race theory replaces the founding principles of this country such as equality, excellence, and equal protection under the law and replaces them with the communist ideal of equity, that is, every American, no matter their ability, work ethic, or moral fiber, should end up achieving the same result.

Instead of every single one of us, no matter the color of our skin, no matter our ethnicity, or our current lot in life, being guaranteed certain unalienable rights by our creator, under critical race theory, we would be dictated to by the all-mighty government that no matter our individual merit, ability, or talent, we will all end up in the same place, an equal place.

As the critical race theory debate heated up nationally, our readers requested we investigate to see if critical race theory was being taught directly in our classrooms here in Wisconsin or being used at the district level to shape the curriculum used to teach our children. We supplemented our own investigation and research with the dozens of tips we received from friends all across the state.

We found that critical race theory—or one of the many other names for critical race theory, like culturally responsive teaching, equity, anti-racism, woke, implicit bias, white privilege—is being taught in many school districts all across the state and is quickly on its way to fundamentally changing K-12 education in Wisconsin.

Parents need to wake up to what critical race theory is, what critical race theory will do to their children’s education, and speak up before it is too late.


Waltz Follows Up After West Point Failed to Deliver Full Answers on Critical Race Theory

Republican Congressman Mike Waltz, a Green Beret who fought in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa, is continuing his efforts to eliminate Critical Race Theory from West Point's curriculum.

In another letter to West Point Superintendent Lieutenant General Darryl Williams, Waltz is asking a series of follow up questions after detailed documents and teachings of CRT were not sent for review.

"While I appreciate the substantive details you provided, I did not receive 'the full presentation of these seminars, presentations, assemblies, and other related curricula' that I have respectfully requested in my oversight capacity as a Member of Congress on the House Armed Services Committee. My request still stands," Waltz wrote.

"In a screenshot of a slide obtained by me, as described in my previous letter, the title 'Understanding Whiteness and White Rage' is depicted. This title is an incendiary overview that is by no means subtle, as are her highly politicized public statements. Why was a guest lecturer who characterized the former Commander-in-Chief as a 'white nationalist' and the Republican Party platform 'white nationalism' invited to teach cadets who should aspire to lead an a-political military? Was there a vetting process and review of her statements made on social media and in media prior to extending her an offer to teach Military Academy cadets?" he continued. "CRT is a theoretical framework, rooted in Marxism, that posits individuals as oppressed or oppressor based on their gender, race, or sexual orientation. These teachings posit Americans as the oppressed or an oppressor—a status from which you are freed only when all existing societal structures, which are inherently systemically racist, are torn down or overthrown. Not only are these teachings antithetical to unity, discipline, and order within the U.S. Army, they are incredibly disturbing given the monopoly on power our military can have over American society and for their implications towards the continued subordination of the military to civilian oversight."

Waltz introduced legislation last month to "prohibit the United States military and academies from promoting doctrines associated with CRT" and is working to include additional legislation that would "prohibit U.S. Military Academies from providing training and education based on CRT" in the National Defense Authorization Act.


Virginia teacher fighting critical race theory on behalf of her students

Virginia teacher Lilit Vanetsyan said her colleagues are afraid to speak out against critical race theory for fear of losing their jobs.

Lilit Vanetsyan, a teacher in Fairfax County, Virginia, confronted school board officials in neighboring Loudoun County on Tuesday to push back against what she described as radical lesson plans that will teach kids to "root for socialism by the time they get to middle school."

"Parents, the longer that you wait and don't have your child's schools accountable, gives these guys more time to dictate what's best for your child's physical, mental, and emotional health," she said, pointing to the board as she spoke from the podium at Tuesday's school board meeting.

She joins a growing number of parents and educators who are speaking out against the controversial critical race theory, which opponents argue is a divisive curriculum that teaches adolescents to judge one another by the color of their skin.

"Students, you are on the front lines of these indoctrination camps. Challenge the staff when you are presented with a ludicrous statement, and do not allow anybody to tell you that you cannot accomplish anything because of your skin color, or to hate yourself because of your skin color," Vanetsyan intoned. "Students, it is up to you to be the next generation of victims, or victors."

Vanetsyan's final message was for the school board: "And finally, to the board, this isn't over. And your policies as just as -" she's heard saying before her mic cut out.

Social media users gave her rave reviews. "Share this everywhere. Every parent, teacher and student should hear it," conservative comedian Tim Young tweeted.


Australia: What they don’t tell you about elite private schools

This author resolutely misattributes the strong correlation between parents and chidren in educational matters. Smart parents tend to have smart kids and there is little you can do to reverse that.

And there is also a strong correlation between educational achievement and social class. It grates on Leftists to hear this but educational achievement and social class are both genetically determined. Rich kids do indeed tend to be middle class but that is because of their genetics not "privilege"

Education and who gets it is the focus of the third book by Brisbane-raised author Bri Lee, and she pulls no punches about the inequality in the city’s schools. An interview:

Can you tell me what sparked the idea for this book?

In 2018 my friend Damian started his Rhodes Scholarship over at Oxford University and when I went to visit him he took me on a tour of Rhodes House and the rest of the university. Back then I felt that something like a Rhodes Scholarship was the absolute apex of achievement for academic-slash-intellectual people so I felt like he was a “winner” and I was a “loser”.

The more I learned on that trip, though, and then in the years of research since, the more I realised how rigged the game is.

And also, how truly horrific the legacies of these institutions and systems can be.

If a school or institution or a program is supposed to be about knowledge sharing but actually gets all its value and appeal from the number of people it excludes, then we have to ask some tough questions.

Q. In Queensland and particularly Brisbane, people are often asked what school they went to. How relevant is this to someone’s success?

Unfortunately it is hugely relevant.

The single biggest correlative factor in terms of student success, is parental income. In Australia, over the past couple of decades in particular, we have seen a “drift” of every family who can afford the fees sending their children to private schools and the result is that about 80 per cent of students with some kind of disadvantage are being left behind at underfunded state schools.

Catholic and independent schools can use all kinds of interview and testing procedures to exclude children they don’t want to teach, which is blatantly unethical.

In this country, some schools have orchestra pits and firing ranges, while others cannot afford to run breakfast programs for kids who aren’t getting fed enough at home, and we tell ourselves we have “equality of opportunity”? You’ve gotta be kidding me.

Q. After writing this book are there any conclusions you came to about private versus public education?

Plenty! The main thing is that out of all OECD nations, Australia ranks fourth worst for having a segregated schooling system according to socio-economic class.

Every year that the current funding and political plan progresses, the worse this divide gets.

Other OECD countries with better outcomes for kids don’t have this split down the middle, where so many children are at private schools.

And we scratch our heads and wonder why our overall PISA (Program for International Assessment) literacy and numeracy rates are still decreasing.

The problem is obvious. The solution requires courage and political willpower.

Private schools are rarely co-ed? What did you discover about the success of girls and boys in these schools?

Research shows girls at single-sex schools are better able to accurately measure how well they are doing, particularly with science and maths subjects. When they are in co-educational settings they are made to feel bad about themselves and their abilities.

Boys benefit from proximity to girls and their confidence in themselves translates to better results.

The real value of single-sex schools for boys is in the “Old Boys” networks, where men can find employment opportunities, mentors, and defence barristers.

This is true of “Old Girls” network but to a lesser extent.

Overall my opinion is it’s just weird and unhealthy to have kids growing up never interacting with other genders.

Q. How much do you think your and your brother’s schooling impacted your life?

Hugely. Something my research for this book made me confront and articulate is that my wonderfully comfortable life now was almost predestined, thanks to my world-class education.

I was almost certainly going to end up middle class, and with these qualifications and a white-collar job.

That’s not to say I didn’t work hard but I think what lots of middle-class Australians don’t like to acknowledge is plenty of people work just as hard as we do and don’t end up as comfortable as we are.

We tell ourselves stories about “deserving” and “social mobility” that are mostly myths.

Q. What persistent myths around intelligence do you debunk in the book?

Hopefully a few.

One big one that really annoys me is the way we tell children there are “all kinds of ways to be smart” – re-branding interpersonal skills, kindness and self-awareness as types of intelligence in order to value them just reinforces the problem.

I wish we didn’t automatically allocate morality and worth to people who have “intelligence”. Also something the book deals with is that at each point in human history when we think we have found a way to quantify intelligence, white supremacists and eugenicists appear and start acting horrifically.

Honestly, it’s a relief we don’t yet know much at all about how or why the brain does what it does. History tells us there are some types of knowledge humans can’t be trusted with.




Tuesday, June 15, 2021

The Right Way to Fight Racism

Members of Congress, including several Asian Americans, surely meant well when they drafted a bill against hate crimes committed against Asian Americans. Alas, it’s a hollow political victory for one side, rather than real progress toward justice.

The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act focuses on strengthening law enforcement efforts against hate crimes related to the coronavirus and on providing guidance on racially discriminatory language.

But when they had an opportunity to do something tangible to reduce discrimination against Asian Americans, Senate Democrats defeated an amendment that would have prevented college admissions officers from using race to penalize Asian Americans.

Instead of unrigging a system of legal discrimination that clearly hurts Asian Americans as well as those it purports to help, those lawmakers decided on a symbolic measure that signals virtue, rather than one that advances justice.

“Hate crime” penalties seek to protect minorities. But there’s no evidence that increasing a perpetrator’s penalty because of the victim’s race actually prevents crimes based on race.

Furthermore, it devalues the lives of those who don’t belong to a category seen as one of the victims. And when an Asian American is attacked for a motive other than race (e.g., money), the harm is felt no less, but the perpetrator receives a lighter sentence.

Fighting racial discrimination with more racial discrimination doesn’t unrig the system. To undo racial discrimination and favoritism, we must increase impartiality.

That means that people must be treated as individuals, not members of a racial group.

That might not be what critical race theory teaches, but it’s the right idea. Women and people of color were not among the drafters of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, as critical race theorists remind us, but the promise of equality and inalienable human rights has benefited women and men of every skin color.

And the hope of impartiality was what Martin Luther King Jr. inspired Americans with during the dark days of racial segregation, when the legal, economic, and social systems were rigged against black Americans.

Impartiality is not the same thing as “not seeing race.” It’s seeing an individual, including his or her race, but not reducing him or her to the boxes we think he or she checks. Treating each other with impartiality is how Americans can make true progress against prejudice. Each American has his or her personal experience with race.

Like many other Asian Americans, racism is not new to me. I was born in America, but strangers have told me to go back to where I came from. And last year, as Asian Americans experienced an increase in racial slurs and violence, ugly scratches appeared on my car.

I couldn’t shrug off the suspicion that it was motivated by racism.

The nightmarish violence has made me and many other Asian Americans fearful and angry. But I don’t actually know who scratched my car or what his or her motive was.

I know that some people scapegoat everyone with Asian features, rather than the Chinese Communist Party. But did the person who “keyed” my car bear a racial animus against me? I can’t be sure of that. In any case, what good would it do to see myself as a perpetual victim of racism, especially since I would just as often be wrong as right?

It has been particularly painful to see the most vicious members of society attack the most vulnerable, especially the frail and elderly.

But Asian Americans haven’t grieved alone. After the killings of both Asian Americans and white Americans at three Atlanta massage businesses, I attended a prayer service led by an Asian American pastor and a white pastor.

They led a lament for all those who lost their lives. Rather than siding with the perpetrator because of his race, white Americans joined Asian Americans and those of other races to ask God for justice and redemption.

The suspect said his motive was not racial animus, but rather a twisted desire to eliminate sexual temptation. The truth may never be known, but those who grieved were from many races.

We must all agree with The Boston Globe columnist who recently wrote that Asian Americans should be seen as who we really are; namely, Americans and not foreigners in our own home.

In fact, all Americans should be seen as who they really are. For that to happen, we must see each other as individuals, not members of racial groups.

Fortunately, that happens. Almost every person who has sought to hire, promote, or mentor me has been of a different race. I don’t know how they viewed my race, but they evaluated me according to my individual strengths and weaknesses. Now that I’m in a position to hire, promote, and mentor, I seek to understand each person’s unique talents, strengths, and potential.

I should not be prejudged by the color of my skin or my last name, nor should anyone else. Those who think that racism is systemic may think this is naive, or even that I have “false consciousness” and fail to perceive the systemic nature of racism. But I’m not unconscious to racism. Rather, I’m just conscious that we’re all susceptible to it.

“The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being,” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote of his own experience in the Soviet gulag, where soldiers beat and starved him because of his political and religious beliefs. But he resisted the temptation to demonize them.

With honesty and moral clarity, he recognized his own heart was not immune to the temptations of hate and evil. None of us are. No individual and no country is above it. America isn’t. And China isn’t, either, as the persecution of Uighur Muslims has made all too clear.

Instead of evaluating us as individuals with moral responsibility for our own choices, critical race theory, which is being institutionalized across America, reduces people to the color of their skin, prejudging all whites as beneficiaries of systemic racism and exonerating all non-whites from racist motives and actions. But using race as a proxy for guilt and innocence is a fundamentally flawed idea.

Human beings aren’t that simple. Each of us is capable of making good or bad choices, and we should be held responsible for the choices we make, not the ones that previous generations made.

As Chief Justice John Roberts said in a 2009 case on racial preferences: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The path out of racial discrimination is through knowing one another and being known, as individuals.


The Culture of Arrogance Breeds Decline: Why Colleges Are Dying

The two stories that were the lead in Inside Higher Ed on May 26 exemplified to me why higher education in America is no longer a vibrant growth industry. The proportion of Americans attending college has declined by a double digit percentage since 2010, and a big rebound is not expected soon. Aside from wartime disruptions, I don’t think a decline of this magnitude has happened ever in the 150 years or so for which we have reliable data.

One story related how SHEEO (an organization of higher education executives) issued its annual report on public support for higher education, State Higher Education Finance. We are told that in fiscal year 2020, inflation adjusted higher education appropriations from states and local governments rose a very healthy 2.9 percent. I think most observers would conclude “support for higher education rose rather robustly.” Yet the spin put on this by SHEEO was quite negative: public support is still below what was in the years before the Great Recession.

The presumption seems to be is that spending should rise over time more than the overall inflation rate and enrollment expansion. That is to say, public resource inputs per student should grow. In the private sector, firms strive to reduce resource usage to enhance profits. The goal is to raise productivity, lowering the cost of offering the product. In many higher education circles, however, success is measured by what you spend, not by what you achieve, since we don’t really make a serious attempt to measure educational outcomes in a comprehensive fashion.

Moreover, a look at the SHEEO report shows that total revenues from appropriations and tuition fees have actually risen notably over time because of tuition increases. It takes a good deal more money to educate a student than it used to, but the SHEEO people are saying “we are starving for money.” Moreover, a close look at the underlying report suggests the form of inflation adjustment used is a bit murky and not altogether straightforward, using something standard like the CPI-U price index. The notion we should “do more with less” is not entertained, indeed it is treated with derision. Rather, I read the SHEEO report as a plea from a bunch of rent-seekers trying to grab as much of the public purse as they can for their own benefit.

The other big story on the 26th was that the American Association of University Professors issued a report blasting the erosion of “shared governance” during the pandemic, looking mainly at eight universities in five states (New York, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and California). The report says some “institutional leaders seem to have taken the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to turbocharge the corporate model.” They laid off faculty members “As expeditiously as if colleges...were businesses whose CEOs suddenly decided to stop making widgets....”

As often is the case in higher education these days, corporations are portrayed as forces of evil, institutions that heretofore morally superior academic leaders are starting to emulate. And laying off widget-makers (whatever a widget is) is understandable, but, not professors! The decline in university budgets arising from reduced enrollments and pandemic related expenses should not touch the saintly faculty. When widget-makers are laid off, it is because consumers are no longer buying many widgets; but the AAUP is indignant when the same principle rooted in financial necessity is applied to professors.

The Academy has become too complacent, too arrogant, too contemptuous of ideals and traditions that have successfully defined the American economic experience over the past two centuries of extraordinary economic growth and prosperity that has permitted us to fund colleges. The efforts of “corporate” America have enabled us to fund an extraordinarily large and diverse system of higher education, totally unappreciated and even denigrated by most of academic America.

The broader problem is the disconnect between the Ivory Tower and the Real World has grown to the point where it is starting to hurt universities. As I have said before: universities are utterly dependent on the beneficence of the people. When public support of universities wanes, appropriations, private donations and enrollments fall. The “public be damned” attitude of much of higher education must end for its own good.


A New Kind of Private School

The pandemic lockdowns have created quite a conundrum for conservative parents. On the one hand, we’ve been on the front lines of the (maskless) school reopening movement. On the other hand, as schools do reopen, our children are encountering a level of sexual and political indoctrination never before seen.

Or maybe we just hadn’t noticed. Ironically, it was the closures themselves, championed by the left, that helped bring the abuses to light. Parents peeking in on their children’s Zoom lessons found themselves appalled at what was being taught: critical race theory, BLM-inspired anti-police rhetoric, “LGBTQ” propaganda.

The backlash has been swift and harsh, with parents across the country crowding into school board meetings to demand an end to this nonsense. Meanwhile, conservative pundits like Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager have been arguing that the public schools are irreparably broken and the best thing conservative parents can do is get their kids out as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, for many parents, that’s not as easy as it sounds. For one thing, in many parts of the country, the public schools are still pretty good. Families are invested in their local schools and loathe to just up and leave.

Even for those who agree it’s time to go, where exactly will they go? Home schooling is growing in popularity, especially since many parents (again, ironically) discovered during the closures that they could educate their children just fine on their own. But for other parents, especially in two-career families, home-schooling simply isn’t practical.

Then there are private schools, which present their own set of problems. First, they tend to be prohibitively expensive, far beyond the ability of most families to pay, especially if they have multiple school-age children. Besides that, many private schools these days seem beset with exactly the same problems facing their public counterparts. In many cases, they, too, have become “woke” indoctrination factories. So what do families gain for their money?

I would like to propose a possible solution: that communities, churches, and other charitable organizations band together to create a new kind of private school. I confess that this suggestion is not original. It was inspired by a recent article by Trevor Thomas atAmerican Thinker. I would, however, like to give the idea an even wider airing while also adding a few wrinkles of my own.

In this battle for the heart and soul of America, we conservatives are at a distinct disadvantage, with very few institutions on our side. We do not have the mainstream media (although we do have our own media, thank goodness). We do not have the entertainment industry (although the folks over atDaily Wire, among others, are working on that). We do not have the government bureaucracy. We do not have the education system--yet. We no longer even have corporate America.

What we do have are churches. Granted, more and more Christian churches these days are also becoming “woke,” which is to say no longer Christian. But there are still many good, conservative churches. We also have money, in that many of us are at least moderately well off. Indeed, we already give so liberally to our churches that many congregations are blessed with large, modern facilities.

What I propose is that we use that money and those facilities to create a network of affordable private schools. I know many churches already sponsor schools, but like most private schools those tend to be expensive and exclusive. What I’m suggesting is that, as Christian conservatives, we put our money where our mouth is and make those schools accessible to nearly everyone by subsidizing the cost of attendance.

Families that could afford to pay, of course, would do so. But for everyone else there would be needs-based scholarships, with the churches themselves—which is to say, the parishioners—picking up the tab. Churches could also conduct capital campaigns to raise funds in the community.

And of course, it would be ideal if states would pass so-called “voucher” laws, allowing parents to take their tax money out of the public school system and give it to the private school instead. But I don’t think we should hold our breath waiting for that to happen. We will probably have to fund this initiative ourselves.

The good news is that we can. We have the means, if we’re willing to use it.

I’m also thinking that these new private schools, though sponsored by churches, should not be exclusively Christian. They shouldn’t require a statement of faith to attend (or teach), nor should they seek to indoctrinate students into any particular religious tradition. That would only keep people away. The schools should focus, instead, on providing an excellent, college-preparatory education in the arts and sciences while also teaching the truth about American history.

A potential roadblock would be accreditation, since accrediting bodies nationwide are as responsible for the recent radicalization as the local schools themselves, perhaps more so. When accreditors insist that schools institute “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” initiatives, for example, the schools themselves have little choice in the matter.

The solution would be for these community-based, church-sponsored private schools to form their own national accrediting body—focused, again, on high-quality education, not social engineering. Hopefully, many private religious colleges would recognize that accreditation initially, and over time, other colleges would follow suit as the excellence of the graduates, compared to their public-school peers, becomes apparent.

Obviously, there are many more details to be hashed out than I can cover in a short column. My goal is to help Trevor promote the idea in the hope that those in a position to do so will take it and run with it. I believe if we are ever going to win the culture war, there are certain things we just need to take into our own hands—and the education of our children is at the top of the list.


National Parent Group Emerges to Fight ‘Woke’ Education, Says It Harms Children

Less than a year ago, Elana Fishbein was a happy stay-at-home mother, raising her three boys in a well-off Philadelphia suburb. She’d noticed the school that two of her boys attended would push out some lessons and activities that she considered politically biased or inappropriate, but each time was able to resolve the situation by opting her children out. In June last year, however, she saw no other choice than to take action.

Following the protests and riots sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota, the school issued new “cultural proficiency” lessons.

“My husband and I looked at the lesson plan and opened the links to the books that they included for the lesson plan and we were thoroughly horrified because they were totally racist,” she told The Epoch Times.

The events that followed led to the launch of a group that now runs chapters in nearly half the states, sporting tens of thousands of followers.

The school materials Fishbein examined followed what she called “woke” culture—a set of quazi-Marxist ideologies that divides society into “oppressors” and the “oppressed” based on characteristics such as race, sex, class, or sexual proclivities. The term “woke” is sometimes used interchangeably with critical race theory (CRT), which is only one of the ideologies that operate within this framework.

Fishbein immediately opted her children out of the lessons and sent an incensed letter to the school district superintendent.

“The material selected for this indoctrination pumps their brains with LIES that puts unbearable emotional burdens on them for years to come,” she wrote, backing her argument with a doctorate in child welfare (pdf). “Why must our kids feel like villains and hate themselves for something they had no control over—the color/pigmentation of their skin?!?”

“They are doing to us what they told us not to do to others,” her 9-year-old commented, according to the letter.

Her children didn’t return to the school in fall—a decision she’d already made before she learned of the new curriculum.

“I was just a happy mom. But somebody made a point of destroying the life of my children and many other children,” she said.

Since nobody responded to her letter, she posted it on the parents Facebook page of the school, asking others what they thought.

The response took her aback.

“I was called racist and bigoted and homophobe and whatever,” she said. Her post was then taken down.

She tried several other local Facebook pages with similar results. “I was blown away,” she said. “They won’t even discuss it. They just call you a name.”

She contacted her friend at a conservative-leaning news outlet that agreed to run a story about her experience.

It was then that people facing similar issues started to reach out to her. “They were telling me, every single one of them, that they’re afraid to speak up,” she said.

This was the watershed moment for her.

Being of Jewish descent, Fishbein felt an implicit threat behind the ideology.

“This is ridiculous,” she said she told herself. “This is going to take over our country. They’re attacking our children. They’re attacking our families, our values, our way of life and we’re just going to sit around and take the bullet? And people are just afraid? Just because somebody called you a racist?”

In that moment, in late-August, “it hit me … and I launched a movement,” she said.

She assembled in her living room a few parents that contacted her and she shared her idea with them.

“Are you a racist? If you’re a racist, I understand, but if you’re not a racist, why are you not standing up for your kid and for your family?” she told them.

In mid-September, she was invited on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” after somebody forwarded the initial article about Fishbein to the show.

Over the week after the show aired, her small Facebook page called “No Left Turn in Education” received over a million visits.

Tens of thousands of people were reaching out to her with their fears and worries.

“They were tormented. And many of them said, ‘We would like to act, but we don’t know what to do,’” she said.

And so she started to organize people into chapters.

Soon after, the organization launched its first lawsuit after Fishbein connected a Nevada mother with a lawyer.