Sunday, February 13, 2022



Woke Brooklyn College that banned campus cops from carrying guns is forced to call for help from OTHER schools during active shooter threat

Brainless Leftist twitch does not survive real life

Top administrator Michelle Anderson, formerly a Yale Law school professor who specialized in rape law, yanked the Glock-19 pistols from peace officers on the Flatbush-Midwood campus in early October last year after a school official said she was 'triggered' by the sight of a female campus security officer wearing a firearm.

'It is all somewhat ironic because this woman peace officer had been personally authorized to carry her Glock on school grounds by Anderson herself several years ago,' a source told DailyMail.com.

On February 3, the school issued an 'active shooter' threat and at least 10 peace officers from five other institutions were called to respond to the shooting while on-campus security were dispatched to collect their locked up guns from lockers.

While the threat was not acted on, the new edict raises questions of how the school can ensure the safety of students on campus in a city where gun crime has risen 30 percent year-on-year, according to the latest NYPD crime statistics released on Wednesday.

In Brooklyn south alone, where the college is located, gun crimes have risen a staggering 111.1 percent year-on-year.

On February 3, Brooklyn College issued an 'active shooter' threat and at least 10 peace officers from four other institutions were called to respond to the shooting while on-campus security were dispatched to collect their locked up guns from lockers

At least nine institutions of the 25 under CUNY control continue to allow armed patrol guards, including City College of New York in Manhattan, Bronx Community College, Kingsborough Community College and Staten Island College.

Earlier this month, two unarmed campus cops at Virginia's private Bridgewater College were shot dead when a former track star, 27, opened fire on them.

At least nine institutions of the 25 under CUNY control continue to allow armed patrol guards, they include:

- City College of New York, Manhattan

- Bronx Community College

- Kingsborough Community College, Brooklyn

- Lehman College, The Bronx

- Hostos Community College, The Bronx

- Guttman Community College, Manhattan

- Medgar Evers College, Brooklyn

- Queensborough Community College, Queens

- Staten Island College

John Painter, 55, and J.J. Jefferson, 48, were gunned down after confronting a suspicious man stalking near Memorial Hall on the campus of the small college in the Shenandoah Valley at 1:20 p.m.

The suspected shooter was identified as Alexander Wyatt Campbell, 27, who fled the scene before being hunted down at a nearby waterway about 40 minutes later. Multiple firearms allegedly belonging to Campbell were recovered, with weapons found both on and off campus, officials said.

Shortly after the October 'no gun' policy at Brooklyn College was instituted, Anderson participated in a Zoom meeting with campus administrators, faculty and students with the goal of revamping campus safety by eliminating police involvement and without armed security .

'She is all about wokeness,' a CUNY campus police supervisor, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution, said.

Shortly after Anderson's disarming edict was handed down, on October 21, there was a shooting just off campus in which four people were wounded.

'Please be cautious when coming to or leaving the Campus,' a text alert to students and staff said.

Although the shooting was off campus, the warning underscored the hazards of the urban campus, especially in light of the city's rising crime rate.

The union officials who represent the campus cops acknowledged that there was a 'departure' in status for their members, but offered a guarded response.

'Although it is the prerogative of the college president not to utilize the full measure of protocols within the campus security system set up by CUNY, all is well until something bad happens,' Gregory Floyd, president of Local 237 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said.

'Then, the responsibility of that decision also falls on the president — and CUNY as well, for allowing such a departure.'

Each armed peace officer earns about $50,000 annually and has undergone 50 hours of firearms training, the source said.

No Brooklyn College students were hurt in the off-campus shooting, but other colleges have not been so lucky when it comes to violent crime.

On December 11, 2019, Barnard College student, Tessa Majors, 18, died after she was fatally stabbed by three teenagers during an armed robbery in nearby Morningside Park.

More recently, in early December 2021, a Columbia University graduate student, Davide Giri, 30, a Ph.D. candidate in computer science who was attending the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was stabbed to death about two blocks from his apartment building, not far from the college's Upper Manhattan campus.

And this year marks the 15th anniversary of a mass shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech in which 32 students were gunned down by one of their classmates.

About 600 peace officers are employed by CUNY throughout the entire university system, but only about 100 are authorized to carry guns while patrolling those schools that permit an armed security presence. Most are in uniform, although a small number of armed campus cops do occasionally patrol in plainclothes.

Despite Floyd's statement and claims by multiple sources who spoke to DailyMail.com, a spokeswoman for Brooklyn College insisted that armed CUNY peace officer have never been allowed to patrol the campus while armed, but keep their firearms locked in a campus security office.

'The safety of the students, staff, and faculty in our campus community is of the utmost priority at Brooklyn College and our excellent public safety team ensures this every day.

'Public safety officers have never been permitted to carry a weapon while on campus patrol. Weapons are secured and brought out in emergency situations. Authorized administrators have always kept firearms on their person while in their secured offices, but they do not patrol the campus.'

One veteran CUNY security official sharply disputed the accuracy of the Brooklyn College spokesman's statement.

'It's an absolute lie that authorized Brooklyn College peace officers were previously not allowed to patrol while armed,' the official said.

Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and author who is an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was flabbergasted by the decision to strip guns from trained law enforcement personnel for no discernible reason tied to campus security objectives.

He suggested that Anderson, Brooklyn College's president — who enjoys a chauffeured vehicle driven by a campus security peace officer, as do all senior-level CUNY executives — was advocating an indefensible policy that was not rooted in public safety.

'Once again, we see those with school-owned vehicles and private chauffeurs making security decisions for the rest of us.

'If Brooklyn College thinks their students will be safer with no cops around, go ahead. God forbid something happens. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of that lawsuit,' he noted.

Giacalone added that 'criminals are opportunists and if they know cops are not welcome on campus, they will take advantage of it. It's only a matter of time. One would think that after two students [from Columbia and Barnard] have been murdered . . . you would make your campus more secure, not less.'

Forcing campus cops to rush for their guns during an emergency — or responding while unarmed — can pose unanticipated dangers, he insisted.

'The confusion this can cause during an emergency or police response is off the charts,' said.

On October 7, less than a week after the gun policy change, Anderson participated in a Zoom meeting 'to develop a new CUNY-wide public safety plan' attended by approximately a dozen CUNY officials and some CUNY students.

'Brooklyn College has stated that the impetus for a new strategic plan [on campus security] are the Black Lives Matter and George Floyd movements,' the source quoted Anderson saying.

'These two experiences must be incorporated into any new operational plan and any new rebranding efforts of CUNY public safety,' Anderson added, according to the source.

She sought to do so without police involvement.

'Brooklyn College has recommended that the relationship with the NYPD and CUNY public safety be eliminated and 'policing' be removed from the CUNY public safety mission, its practices and tactics,' Anderson stated, according to the source.

The college spokeswoman denied that there was any friction between cops and the college.

'Brooklyn College values its relationship with the NYPD and will continue to work closely with it to keep our campus community safe,' she said.

The policy change, however, seems to be a continuation of tensions between law enforcement and the administrators at the college.

In November 2017, the New York Post reported how Brooklyn College officials barred NYPD cops from walking on the campus while armed so they could use the bathroom — incidents that purportedly 'triggered' some nervous students who felt threatened by the prospect of seeing cops with guns in their midst.

Donald Wenz, a retired NYPD captain who currently serves as Brooklyn College's director of public safety, told the student newspaper, The Excelsior, that he was trying to keep New York's Finest out of sight.

Police were only allowed to use a dirty bathroom in the isolated West End Building that had a broken toilet with a stained seat and no soap or paper towels, the Post reported.

Joseph Tirella, spokesman for CUNY, did not respond to a DailyMail.com request for comment.

Wenz declined to comment. Hector Batista, CUNY's CEO and André Brown, the university's director of public safety — both of whom attended the recent Zoom meeting in which Anderson spoke — did not return phone calls.

Giacalone warned that the Brooklyn College president may be playing with fire.

'Any policy that limits their certified armed personnel from carrying their weapons while on the campus is only inviting trouble. When mass shootings are unfortunately common in and around educational facilities, one would think that this plan is short-sighted. Even more so, have there been complaints of misconduct or unlawful use of weapons by the staff? If not, I need to ask, why this now?' he said.

***********************************************

California Schools Can Change Students‘ Gender Categories Without Parent Consent

Dov Fischer

A Catholic mom in Northern California enrolled her daughter in a public charter school. During her initial Zoom classes, the girl, an incoming freshman who had not yet stepped foot in the school due to COVID-19, was asked her name and “preferred pronouns.”

She chose a male name and male pronouns. The school then routinely used this information without informing her parents, and then began to socially transition the child—the first in a series of steps culminating in a so-called “sex change.”

It’s a measure of the peril of our culture that these parents have asked that I protect their anonymity. They have good reason to fear: soon after they voiced their anger with school officials, Child Protective Services showed up at their doorstep.

It’s bad enough that some in government aspire to divide us by race, religion, or languages. But using our schools and law enforcement to divide our families? Deliberately separating parents from their own children in order to indoctrinate our children with radical gender ideas—starting in preschool?

This is wrong. Had COVID-19 not forced so many classes into our homes via Zoom, few of us would have become aware of it.

And that’s just the tip of the proverbial non-binary iceberg. The gender category “non-binary” now appears on all student information forms. Few parents, reared in a prior generation, realize that “non-binary” means “unlimited gender choices.” The California Department of Education defines “non-binary” as anything beyond the historic “male-female” binary understanding of gender—new terms for a new age, including “transgender,” “non-gender,” “intersex,” “agender,” “gender-queer,” “gender fluid,” “Two Spirit, bigender,” “pangender,” “gender nonconforming,” or “gender variant.” Really.

The California Department of Education says these genders are ever expansive, ever evolving and ever changing, and that children can self-certify or choose their own gender. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention defines “gender nonbinary” as “gender creative,” meaning children can create or make-up their own gender, and these non-conforming imaginary genders are marginalized minorities.

Troy Flint, the chief information officer from the California School Boards Association, says “non-binary” means “multiple options.” These teachings not only denigrate our respective faiths but also defy common sense.

The California Teachers Association adopted a policy in January 2020 stating students should be able to access hormone therapy without parent consent, for the sake of “equity.” This is already a reality for foster youth starting at age 12, thanks to Assembly Bill 2119. Also, according to Assembly Bill 1184, minors can bill their parents’ insurance without their parents’ consent for gender-affirming care, which includes hormone therapy or “sex-change” operations.

Today’s accommodations could consign a child to lifelong ramifications—powerful hormone treatments, a lifetime of meds, inability to bear offspring, horrific and grotesque surgeries that irreversibly remove core body parts.

I am an Orthodox Jew. Although my viewpoint on this matter may be inconsistent with the zeitgeist, it is normative among more than 1,500 American Orthodox rabbis with whom I affiliate in organizations like the Coalition for Jewish Values, the Rabbinical Alliance of America (Igud HaRabbanim), and other mainstream Orthodox Jewish bodies.

We rabbis speak for congregants, lead synagogues, teach at yeshiva elementary schools, high schools, and advanced-degree programs. Our voices rarely are heard by Americans because media focus elsewhere.

We stand boldly and proudly alongside Americans of other faiths who share family values similar to ours. Devout Catholics, Protestants of varying denominations, faithful Muslims, Hindus, and others. We work together in the Statewide Interfaith Coalition (www.Interfaith4Kids.com), a network of many races, ethnicities, religions, and skin colors to oppose extremist gender ideologies infiltrating pre-K-12 education. Together, we oppose the erosion of parental rights, as well as the deceptions perpetuated through public education today.

A colleague, a Southern California imam, has asked, “When will we collectively say enough is enough?” It’s not hard to imagine that we’re on the road to becoming a society in which the state owns children. But not yet.

In America, parents give birth, feed, nourish, house, clothe, and embrace their children. We are not compelled to inculcate them in a state religion. We decide whether they trick-or-treat on Halloween or deliver mishlo’ach manot on Purim—or both. We monitor and guide their social media. We help them choose friends. We teach them to obey the law.

Here in the state of California, school personnel or mental health workers partnering with schools, now have authority—solely based on a child’s request, regardless of age—to change a child’s gender category in the California Data System without parental knowledge or consent. This betrays parental trust no matter religious or non-religious affiliation.

Sacramento and the local school boards must leave parents to mentor their children on gender matters. If they don’t, they will begin to exit public schools in great numbers.

**********************************************

Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill Hits Target: Gender Ideology Harms Kids

Children are being targeted with sexual content—not just in social media, but also in school curriculums. As with other recent controversies, however, leaders in Florida are fighting back.

Lawmakers in the Sunshine State have introduced a new bill, Parental Rights in Education. If the name doesn’t ring a bell, that may be because big media have mislabeled it as the “Don’t Say Gay” Bill.

The bill would not ban the word “gay.” Rather, it would protect children from teachers and other school officials who seek to sexualize and bombard them with gender ideology.

In particular, it would require schools to be transparent with and get permission from parents for any health services students receive. It would also prohibit elementary school teachers from pushing classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Liberal activists are claiming that the parental rights bill would harm kids. Nonsense. It would protect young kids from what is, in effect, sexual grooming—whether in the classroom or the nurse’s office.

The fact that this has become a partisan issue is a sign of how bizarre our culture and politics have become.

In recent years, sexually explicit and age-inappropriate material have flooded America’s classrooms. For example, last year in Washington state, a first-grade teacher read students “I Am Jazz”—an infamous children’s book that promotes transgenderism.

Sexually Explicit Content Harms Kids

Anyone with common sense knows that we should protect young children from sexual content. Scientific evidence confirms that wisdom.

We know that early exposure to sexual content can harm young students. It has been linked to poor “mental health, life satisfaction, sexual behavior and attitudes, and pornography-viewing patterns in adulthood.”

Decent schools used to know that kids need visual and intellectual space to flourish and mature into healthy, balanced adults. Unfortunately, times have changed. Schools are now often a pipeline for sexualizing kids as young as kindergarten.

The fact that activist-educators do this in the name of “compassion” or “gender equity” doesn’t change what’s really happening.

Bad Medicine

What’s more, the fashionable gender ideology peddled by many schools is contrary to the best medical evidence.

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 88% to 98% of those struggling with gender dysphoria will reconcile with their biological sex after going through puberty.

Trendy gender interventions can prevent this healing and set children of a lifelong path of surgeries, hormone treatments, costly and painful medical treatment, and physical illness.

That’s the problem with all three stages of the transition trifecta—puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery.

But even prior social transition can lead to harm. If a girl spends her teen years presenting and imagining herself as a boy, she will be more likely to take the next steps on the path to gender “transition.”

She won’t get those years back, even if she changes her mind. She will be out of sync with her peers.

Then there’s the physical harm.

Puberty blockers have been shown to reduce bone density, which can lead to lifelong problems. Cross-sex hormones can sterilize those who receive them. And removing sex organs is just sterilization—full stop.

Parents have the most interest and incentive to weigh the options, the risks, and the irreversible, life-altering consequences of these methods.

A healthy culture recognizes that parents—not teachers and school nurses—have the chief responsibility for helping their children who struggle with their sexed bodies.

Transparency

Of course, there’s honest debate about what is age-appropriate and about what is the best treatment for those with gender dysphoria. So, in short, who should decide: teachers, administrators, or parents?

The Florida bill sides with parents—as it should. That’s why much of it is about transparency for parents. Parents can then decide when, if, and how their kids will be exposed to sexually explicit content and referred for therapy and medical treatment.

In a normal world, a law mandating transparency wouldn’t be needed.

Teachers would share the values and priorities of the parents in their communities. Today, however, many public schools treat parents as hostile and reactionary impediments to gender indoctrination.

Those schools aid and abet in the “social transition” of kids who request it—using and enforcing “preferred pronouns” and the like—while hiding it from parents. Parents in Wisconsin and Florida are currently suing their school districts for doing just that.

Such deception strikes at the natural bond between parents and their children. Moms and dads, not teachers and principals, know their children best.

Moms and dad have the right and responsibility to raise their children. They may delegate some of the details to schools, but that does not mean they give up their prerogatives.

The new Florida bill recognizes the well-being of children and the right of their parents to raise and teach them. Other states should ignore the liberal media trolls and follow Florida’s lead.

***********************************

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)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*******************************

No comments: