I remember how it was -- JR
School Choice Milestone Calls for New Approach
Next year will mark 30 years since California’s Parental Choice in Education Initiative, Proposition 174, appeared on the ballot. The measure provided a voucher equal to roughly $2600 for use at qualifying government, independent or religious schools.
As the Christian Science Monitor noted, “not since California started the national tax revolt in 1976 by adopting Proposition 13 have voters faced an initiative with greater political and policy consequences.” Proposition 174 failed, partly due to opposition from then-governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, who called the measure “too costly.”
Since 1993, California voters have had no opportunity to vote on a parental choice measure. The pandemic amplified the problems of government schools with unnecessary shutdowns. Children are now subject to racist government propaganda, and parents may be branded domestic terrorists if they dare to protest. The problems parents face are best modeled by the “captain of the anti-choice team.”
Government schools in Washington D.C. are dysfunctional and dangerous. For low-income students, most African American, the only alternative is the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program, a school choice program run by Congress. Obama education secretary Arne Duncan not only limited the program but rescinded scholarships that had already been granted, sending the students back to failing schools.
Back in 1993, Prop 174 supporters said parents should have the right to choose the schools their children attend. It would be more accurate to say that parents have had this right all along. Still, it has been taken away from them, just as Arne Duncan rescinded scholarships already granted. Call it educational theft.
The strategy moving forward should be to restore the right to choose. If the legal and political obstacles seem daunting or “too costly,” ponder the prospect of another 30 years under current conditions. Teacher cartels call the shots, students are essentially captives to government propaganda, and parents are forced to pay the freight.
The right to choose must be restored, and the dollars should follow the scholars, as in the G.I. Bill. That is the path to meaningful reform, increased student achievement, and the expansion of liberty.
https://blog.independent.org/2022/10/21/school-choice-milestone-calls-for-new-approach/?omhide=true
****************************************************Jewish University Launches New Strategy Amid Religious Freedom-LGBT Conflict
An Orthodox Jewish school at the forefront of the battle for religious freedom has presented an interesting compromise: Rather than endorse the LGBT student club that is currently suing the school for recognition, it will launch its own club that it says will help LGBT students while obeying the Law of Moses.
Yeshiva University announced Monday that it has established “the Kol Yisrael Areivim club for LGBTQ students striving to live authentic Torah lives.” The announcement came just over a month after the Supreme Court rejected the university’s request to block a non-final New York trial court order forcing it to recognize YU Pride Alliance, an LGBT student group that promotes activities that conflict with Torah values, according to the university.
The New York Appellate Division later agreed to rehear the denial of Yeshiva’s request to block the order, and the Pride Alliance agreed to let Yeshiva’s rejection stand for the duration of the litigation.
“We are eager to support and facilitate the religious growth and personal life journeys of all of our students to lead authentic Torah lives, and we hope that this Torah-based initiative with a new student club tailored to Yeshiva’s undergraduate LGBTQ students will provide them with meaningful support to do so,” Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, said in a statement.
“We love all of our students, including those who identify as LGBTQ,” the university wrote in a frequently asked questions document explaining the new club. “Through our deep personal relationships and conversations with them, we have felt their struggles to fit into an orthodox world that could appear to them as not having a place for them. We recognize the inherent challenges of our LGBTQ students who are fully committed to live uncompromising halachic lives. Their struggles are our struggles, and we remain eager to support and facilitate their religious growth and personal life journeys.” The term halachic refers to Jewish law.
The university described the Pride Alliance as “a recognized movement in colleges throughout the country that not only fights anti-LGBTQ discrimination, a cause which we fully support, but also promotes activities that conflict with Torah laws and values.” Yeshiva University did not provide further language clarifying what it means by such “activities,” but it appears the term refers to homosexual activity and expressions of transgender identity, which the Torah forbids (Lev. 18:22, Deut. 22:5).
“While an adoption of this national brand is inherently unacceptable in the context of Yeshiva, we also realize the need to find additional ways to be supportive of our students that are consistent with halacha … and inspired by our values,” the university added. “That is what we have done with the approval of this new student club. It is worth noting that this approach is in line with other devout, faith-based universities nationwide, who similarly do not host Pride Alliances, but have established clubs consistent with their own faith-based languages and traditions.”
In addition to the new club, the university also announced that it would enhance “on-campus support for its LGBTQ students.” Yeshiva University will launch new efforts, in addition to the efforts it currently has underetaken, which will include “sensitivity training for faculty and staff”; “strict anti-harassment, anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies”; and “an ongoing LGBTQ support group.”
Yeshiva University, America’s oldest Jewish institution of higher education, has operated by Jewish law for 135 years, but New York County Supreme Court Judge Lynn Kotler ruled that the school did not qualify as a religious corporation under state law.
The case represents an important test for religious freedom. Does a Jewish university have the right to apply its values in its operations, or must it kowtow to the demands of LGBT activists and New York’s public accommodations laws? If religious institutions like Yeshiva wish to welcome all students, but also to follow their religious convictions against endorsing homosexual activity and transgender identities, must they forgo public funds and move to states with more favorable laws?
Conservative Christians often use the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.” This phrase expresses the heart of what Yeshiva University aims to prove with this new student group: The college will accept all students who struggle with homosexual orientation and gender dysphoria, without endorsing homosexual activity or transgender identity. Many Jewish students may feel same-sex attraction and may feel like they are women trapped in male bodies (or vice versa), but in keeping with Yeshiva’s Torah values, they refuse to act on those feelings.
Yeshiva will have to work hard to preserve the distinction between its new club and the activities the school refuses to endorse. It will need to be clear on the nature of those activities and on the limit of the support it is willing to give LGBTQ students. The future of religious freedom in America may depend on it.
******************************************
Dearborn dads get school board to buckle — providing an example to America’s men
The most perverse in our society will always seek out the most vulnerable, and lately, literary perversion has crept its way into schools and libraries nationwide by means of progressive influence and paid for with our tax dollars.
These perverse actors have attempted to weaponize our parental instincts to protect our children from anything age-inappropriate by claiming our objections are either politically or religiously motivated.
For the last few weeks, Dearborn, Mich., has become another battleground as parents showed up in force to school-board meetings in fierce opposition to books being available that feature highly sexually explicit content and instructions.
One of the books parents particularly objected to, “This Is Gay,” was accessible to students despite giving explicit details on a variety of sexual acts and even offering suggestions on where to find sexual partners.
“I’m a 43-year-old man, embarrassed to say this stuff, and yet you say it’s OK for this to be in the hands of my children. Shame on you,” fumed a father at a recent meeting.
This stark response from the community led the school board to abruptly end one meeting early and proceed with another meeting later at a larger venue able to support the number of people from the community who wanted to have their voices heard.
The media and social media’s central focus was aimed at the religious demographics of the residents — Dearborn has the largest Muslim population in the United States per capita. But for me, their religion took a backseat as to what was vastly different at Dearborn versus every other school-board confrontation we’ve seen: The speakers were mostly men.
It wasn’t just fathers who were outraged enough to come and express their opposition to explicit books on school shelves; the community’s elders also made their presence known. Masculine righteous indignation permeated these meetings as men felt schools were encroaching on their community’s children’s innocence.
For the first time since the start of these nationwide school-board battles, I saw men rallying together to make it clear that any action to exploit their children’s vulnerability will receive an equal and opposite reaction. They weren’t cowering in fear of being “canceled” or labeled “toxically masculine” because they’re like most fathers: We would rather risk death than allow our children to remain in harm’s way.
Despite being falsely accused as anti-LGBT because of their Muslim faith, they remained steadfast in insisting that sexual perversion, regardless of orientation, is unacceptable, and they’ll without hesitation fall on the sword of slander to protect their children from it.
While both parents have a duty to protect their children, I’ve seen the lack of male representation at these school-board meetings as a troubling sign for the state of fathers today. Too many have left the burden of protection solely on the mothers.
What is happening across our nation at school-board meetings isn’t a minor squabble over lunch-food selections — it’s about stemming the tide of inappropriate sexual content before it becomes normalized and justified as being beneficial for your child’s education.
The progressive perverts pushing this content are cowards, and the only way they change course is when the public exposes their deeds. But the public can’t be just the attentive mothers.
We need our fathers to take ownership in protecting our offspring from the indoctrination and immorality perpetrated by representatives and employees of the state, and we need our mothers to advocate for their participation as well.
The men of Dearborn led the charge there — and it quickly forced their school district to create a Book Reconsideration Committee, providing a process for parents to challenge the age-appropriateness of books in their district’s libraries. Our most vulnerable need their fathers fighting for them as hard as Dearborn’s.
Our protection is love, and we need to lovingly protect.
***********************************
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)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment