Friday, March 04, 2022

A Racist Virginia School Board and Principal Get Called Out

In a terrific win for parents, hardworking students, and those who want to end discrimination in our schools, a federal judge has thrown out the racist admissions policy of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a prestigious public magnet school in Fairfax County, Virginia.

On Feb. 25, federal district court Judge Claude Hilton granted summary judgment to the Coalition For TJ, a coalition made up of Asian American parents with children who had applied for admission to Thomas Jefferson High School or were planning to do so. They were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The parents challenged the change in the school’s admissions policy implemented by the elected members of the Fairfax County School Board in 2020. Hilton concluded that change was made with a clear racist purpose:

Board members and high-level FCSB (Fairfax County School Board) actors did not disguise their desire for TJ (Thomas Jefferson High School) to represent the racial demographics of Fairfax County or Northern Virginia as a whole.

Despite their efforts at ensuring “holistic” admissions, Hilton found the policy to be “racial balancing for its own sake,” and therefore, “patently unconstitutional.”

As internal emails and other evidence showed, the 12 members of the school board were upset that so many Asian American students, and so few black and Hispanic students, were accepted at the school. So was Thomas Jefferson’s principal, Ann Bonitatibus, who seemed more concerned with the race of her students than their individual character or education.

In the 2020-21 school year, before the policy change, the racial makeup of the student body was 71.9% Asian American, 18.34% white, 3.05% Hispanic, and 1.77% black. The defendants expressed their anger that the Hispanic and black racial makeup of Thomas Jefferson did not reflect that of Fairfax County, which is 19.8% Asian American, 36.8% white, 27.1% Hispanic, and 10% black.

With the implementation of the new admissions policy, which resulted in 64 more students being admitted than in previous classes, the percentage of Asian American students in the class of 2025 still fell to only 54%.

The change in the admissions policy was prompted, in part, by George Floyd’s death in May 2020. Bonitatibus sent an email a week after Floyd’s death to the Thomas Jefferson community about “black citizens facing death and continued injustices” and complaining that the high school “did not reflect the racial composition” in the Fairfax County school system.

Other board members expressed similar sentiments, with one saying she was “angry and disappointed” about the old admissions policy and saying they had to “address the under-representation of black and Hispanic students.” While white students are also “underrepresented” at the school, that apparently wasn’t a concern to the board members.

But Hilton found that “board member communications show a consensus that, in their view, the racial makeup of TJ was problematic” and they “set out to increase and decrease the representation of certain racial groups at TJ.”

The school’s original, rigorous admissions policy explains why it has been regularly rated as one of the top high schools in the country. Students from five different school districts are eligible to apply. But in addition to requiring applicants to have a minimum core 3.0 grade point average, the school also required students to take three standardized tests: the Quant-Q, the ACT Aspire Reading, and the ACT Aspire Science tests.

Students who met certain minimum scores advanced as semifinalists for another review that evaluated their GPA, test scores, teacher recommendations, responses to three writing prompts, and a problem-solving essay.

The daughter of one of the authors went through this tough process and graduated from Thomas Jefferson in 2012.

Keep in mind that in the case against the school board, there was no evidence produced of any kind that the preexisting admissions policy, including the battery of tests that was administered to applicants, was at all discriminatory. It is simply that this objective process did not produce the racial proportions the school board and the school principal wanted.

Instead, the board eliminated the standardized tests in their entirety, got rid of the multistage review process, and implemented a “holistic” (i.e., subjective) evaluation that included “Experience Factors” such as “(a) attendance at a middle school deemed historically underrepresented at TJ; (b) eligibility for free and reduced price meals; (c) status as an English language learner; and (d) status as a special education student.”

The school board also guaranteed seats for 1.5% of the eighth-grade students at each public middle school, creating a pool for the remaining unallocated seats.

Hilton concluded that there was “no dispute” that the board was “racially motivated” and “acted with discriminatory intent” when it changed the admissions policy. It implemented, according to Hilton, a policy that “does not treat all applicants to TJ equally,” where Asian American students are “disproportionately deprived of a level playing field.”

Moreover, the board short-circuited the usual process for making policy changes in order to dampen public opposition, going out of its way to prevent input from stakeholders—something Hilton himself noted. He found that “the process was rushed, not transparent, and more concerned with simply doing something to alter the racial balance at TJ than with public engagement.”

The process suggests—as one board member said in an email—that the board was moving “quickly” because it was “currently incurring reputational/political risks,” meaning that “now is better timing.”

Hilton contrasted the fact that the school board held “full, public meetings” on renaming two schools named after Confederate generals with the fact that the “public did not even see the proposed plan that the Board actually adopted for TJ admissions until 30 minutes before the final meeting.”

He said that the board could not “transform racial balancing”—discriminatory conduct forbidden by the Constitution—by “simply relabeling it ‘racial diversity.’” And it didn’t even consider alternatives “like further increasing the size of TJ or providing free test prep … before the Board defaulted to a system that treats applicants unequally in hopes of engineering a particular racial outcome.”

What is crystal clear from this decision and the evidence that was introduced is that the members of the Fairfax County School Board, the principal of Thomas Jefferson High School, and numerous others inside the school system had no hesitation in implementing a racially motivated, discriminatory admissions policy intended to achieve a racial quota system that would allocate seats in the entering class based not on the qualifications, credentials, and hard work of those students, but their skin color.

All of them should be ashamed for betraying the public trust and engaging in such egregious conduct.


Another Loony Lib Teacher Caught Wishing Death On Conservatives…

A liberal Texas middle school teacher was caught telling two other women that “conservative Christians” needed to “get COVID and die” because of their political opposition to coronavirus mandates, which she says has “impacted” the “rest of [her] life.”

Parents have identified the teacher as Lisa Grimes, who used to teach at Colleyville Middle School. She was reportedly upset over political opposition to pandemic-related restrictions and blamed conservative Christians for prolonging the pandemic.

I mean, nobody was stopping her from living her life except for her. She is the type of person who thinks that your freedoms stop because of her fear.

A hidden video captured while talking with two other women, Grimes starts going off on a rant about vaccines and their importance:

“We have a political system that will not allow us to [inaudible] so we’re vaccinating like the flu … which is, you know … get the flu vaccine if you want but you can’t — don’t ‘tread on me.’ But it’s too late. It would have had to have been immediate. If we would have done it immediately, it’d already be gone. That’s what’s frustrating. The rest of my life is impacted because of politics?”

Grimes, before she walked away, chose to make one last scathing comment that she will likely regret:

“Because of conservative Christian crap?”

“I’m telling you, those conservative Christians … they need to die … they need to get covid and die.”

100 Percent Fedup reported:

Grimes was recorded by an anonymous school parent who wishes to remain unidentified at this time.

According to LinkedIn, Grimes attended a Graduate program at Texas Christian University. She is also a fitness and nutrition coach who, according to her bio, wants to “live a happy life and influence others to do the same.”… well, as long as they’re not conservative or Christian.

Her social media is also littered with posts that are clearly meant to convince others that she is a good person, with a ton of posts about BLM and how to not be a racist. The majority of content on her accounts is either virtue signaling, social justice, or yoga.

One of her Twitter posts is captioned “Only Love.” and includes a quote from MLK which reads, “And may the appalling hate of others fuel you to step more deeply into your work as a warrior of love, justice, and freedom in the fight against oppression and bigotry.”

Pretty ironic considering she just admitted to wanting Christians and conservatives to die because they disagree with her political views. If that isn’t bigotry then what is?

Not to mention the “appalling hate” that Grimes holds against such a large number of people based on their religion.

But that “science” she was governed by must have changed, given that in the video above she and the other two women she was talking with were not social distancing, nor were they wearing masks.

A woman with this much hate in her heart should not be educating children, especially in such important developmental years.


Elite International Schools Have a Racism Problem

Around the world, finishing schools for the Davos class teach excellence—as long as the excellence is White, Western, and English-speaking.

The “placement gong” rings out in the offices of Teaching Nomad, a recruiter for international schools, every time the company places a teacher. The past few years it’s been ringing a lot.

International schools—private, expensive, the instruction almost always in English—were once the exclusive domain of the children of diplomats and expat executives. Today, parents everywhere want in, seeing a Western-style education as a child’s pathway to success. On average, two new international schools are opening a day, and the demand for teachers is insatiable. Teaching Nomad’s website features hundreds of job openings, from Panama to Vietnam.

Some applicants are novices looking for an overseas adventure. Others are veteran educators seeking to burnish their credentials. Few of them understand, however, that their chances of getting a job might come down to the photo they upload with their résumé. It’s been an open secret in the industry for decades that parents, and therefore schools, demand Caucasian teachers and administrators.

Teaching Nomad responds to that with a simple system: Candidates are categorized Level I for Whites, Level II for all others, according to four former employees who logged and classified applicants at the company’s offices in Denver and Shanghai. The agency also notes what kind of teachers each institution seeks, with a drop-down box that offers the option “White Only,” say the ex-employees, who asked not to be identified, citing concerns about legal retaliation for violating confidentiality.

Brett Isis, Teaching Nomad’s founder and president, says the ex-employees misunderstood. Teaching Nomad does separate candidates into tiers, he says, but the levels have nothing to do with race—they’re an assessment of a candidate’s “hireability,” based on many factors. He acknowledges that the system notes schools’ requests for only White candidates but says Teaching Nomad forwards all qualified applicants to those schools, regardless of their skin color. “The reality is that we’ve helped hundreds, if not thousands, of minorities to achieve their teach-abroad goals,” Isis says, pointing to the company’s reviews on and “Many, many of those are African American or Black candidates.”

Teaching Nomad isn’t an outlier. Teach Away, a competitor in Toronto, has worked with local recruiters and partner schools in China that categorize candidates by race: A 2019 spreadsheet seen by Bloomberg had a column labeled “skin color”—with A for Black, C for White, and B for the rest. Teach Away said in an email that since August 2018, it’s required all clients to accept a school diversity pledge and that schools which don’t follow best practices on diversity and inclusion risk having their contract canceled.

These are just two agencies, doing what’s expected in an insular system that’s only beginning to examine itself. The racial reckoning that swept schools across the U.S. in 2020, calling attention to the White privilege and systemic racism endemic in academia, initially went unheeded at international schools. It was an American problem, irrelevant in their enlightened halls. But as the Black Lives Matter movement rippled abroad, students, alumni, and teachers began to peel back that worldly patina. First-person testimonies about racial discrimination emerged from schools on six continents, inspiring a movement calling on international schools to expand beyond their Western-centric biases.

Interviews with dozens of teachers, administrators, and recruiters reveal hiring tactics unheard of in almost any other industry. International schools overtly prize White skin and calibrate salaries accordingly. Ads for teaching positions are blunt about what kind of candidates should apply: “White only,” reads a recent one for a school in China. Another, for a Saudi school, states, “Must—Native American (Fair and Blonde).” In the U.S. such practices would be illegal. But abroad, discrimination laws differ, enforcement can be negligible, and the schools are largely unregulated. There’s a rule of thumb in the trade: The more elite the school, the less diverse the staff.

David Stewart, a former Teach Away recruiter, says he tried repeatedly to place qualified candidates of color but found it too hard. After two years he left, dispirited. “Racism” he says, “is just baked into the business model.”

International schools trace their roots back more than a century and a half. They were born of a certain idealism. In 1864, Charles Dickens urged his countrymen to take note of a new international school established right outside Paris—the first in a program that planned to rotate boys through schools in Europe so they could learn alongside classmates of all nations and acquire the local language in each country. The result would be “a citizen of the world at large,” Dickens wrote.

As businessmen and diplomats increasingly began venturing abroad with their families, there was also a practical need for schools that allowed children to continue their education overseas. A group of enterprising women in Tokyo banded together in 1902 to create what would become the American School in Japan. Two decades later, Royal Dutch Shell set up a school on Borneo, where it had struck oil, to attract engineers from Europe.

International schools today guarantee children will emerge speaking fluent English, the language of aspiration and a prerequisite for a shot at the Ivy Leagues and Oxbridge. Power coheres early, and children establish lifelong ties with peers groomed for the global elite. The notables who’ve emerged from such schools include Rockefellers and Rothschilds, former chief executive officers of Nokia Corp. and Standard Chartered bank, the king of the Netherlands, and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson. North Korea’s Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un, attended the International School of Berne in Switzerland.




Thursday, March 03, 2022

2+2=5? Bill Gates funnels $1 MILLION to push 'math is racist' narrative

The Left will stop at nothing to destroy the society they live in. Very twisted people pretending to be do-gooders

With a $1 million check from the Gates Foundation, leading universities and local governments are building an effort to bring “anti-racism” efforts to mathematics.

A Pathway to Equitable Instruction exists to address “barriers to math equity” by offering “guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice.”

Among the group’s content developers are Ruth Basket, Mirna Maranda-Welsh, and Malane Morales-Van Hecke from the Los Angeles County Office of Education’s Multilingual Academic Support Unit; David Chun, the Director of K-12 Mathematics at the Sacramento County Office of Education; and Mindy Shacklett, a Coordinator of Mathematics at the San Diego County Office of Education. Multiple professors from the University of California system and Loyola Marymount University also worked on the project.

In its acknowledgments section — which lists the aforementioned universities and governments as “dedicated partners” — the project thanks the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its “generous financial support.”

Gates Foundation senior communications officer Josie Duckett McSpadden confirmed to Campus Reform that the nonprofit gave $1,000,000 to the group.

One of the group’s guides — entitled “Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction” — lists the “focus on getting the ‘right’ answer,” the emphasis on “real-world math,” state standards directing classroom instruction, and the sequential teaching of skills as “white supremacy culture.”

Accordingly, the guide endeavors to debunk several alleged signs of white supremacy in mathematics. For instance, the notion that “‘good’ math teaching is considered an antidote for mathematical inequity” among minority students is decried on the grounds that “either/or thinking” “allows the defensiveness of Western mathematics to prevail.”

In addressing the belief that state standards ought to direct classroom instruction, the guide suggests that teachers “unpack how the standards uphold white supremacy culture.”

As an antidote to white supremacy culture, the guide suggests centering the classroom upon “ethnomathematics.”

Students may, for example, “recognize the ways that communities of color engage in mathematics and problem solving in their everyday lives” or “challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

Teachers are likewise encouraged to “intentionally include mathematicians of color” in their instruction and “acknowledge the mathematical knowledge of students of color, even if it shows up unconventionally.”

Another guide — “Sustaining Equitable Practice” — asserts that “the relationship between instructional coach and teacher can be complicated and nuanced given the intersectionality of both participants’ identities.”


Indiana Parents’ Rights Over Their Child’s Education Are Threatened. Here’s What Parents Around the Country Need to Know

Parents and voters are taking every opportunity to reject racially biased teaching and sexually explicit classroom material. Through whistleblower activity and using their right to speak at school board meetings, families are advocating for their students’ interests, and state lawmakers should take notice.

Currently, a high-profile legislative proposal in Indiana is going in the wrong direction. Hoosier officials are considering an amended proposal that makes only a mild attempt at allowing parents to see what their children are being taught and no longer protects children from racial prejudice. State lawmakers are proposing to make it optional for school leaders to inform parents about the topics educators are teaching students.

Legislators recently replaced provisions from a proposal introduced earlier this year that would have required public school leaders to make textbook lists, course syllabi, and results of student surveys available to families with optional measures for disclosing school content. And that’s not the worst of it.

The latest version of the proposal struck key provisions that would have protected teachers from critical race theory’s racial bigotry. Lawmakers had considered preventing school employees from being compelled to affirm racist concepts, but such language has since been erased.

Students are also at risk under the proposal because lawmakers would allow school counselors and, potentially, unlicensed school employees to meet with students and provide “ongoing” therapeutic services without parents’ permission. School officials are required to “attempt” to contact parents. Parents have a limited window during which they can remove their children from this treatment before it begins.

Surveys find that parents do want school leaders to inform families about conversations that educators are having with children on gender identity, and parents want their children taught that slavery “was a tragedy that harmed the nation, but our freedom and prosperity represent who we are as a nation.” Indiana’s amended proposal dismisses parents’ priorities.

Those who argue that critical race theory and radical gender theory are not taught in Indiana schools should see the social media feed for Carmel Clay schools, a district located 30 minutes north of Indianapolis. There, district officials advertise their advocacy for transgender activism.

In January, the district hosted a speaker with “extensive research in colonialism, white supremacy, and concept of racism [sic],” who said students should avoid “othering [sic] of ‘BIPOC/LGTBQ+’” because it leads to “oppression”—all ideas straight from the canon of critical race theory and gender theory.

Indiana officials should move quickly and consider proposals that protect children from racial bias and empower families with access to course outlines, reading lists, and other class material. Lawmakers should say that no public official can compel a teacher or student to affirm any idea, but especially ideas that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This would mean, for example, that professional development programs for teachers could not require educators to profess that individuals should receive benefits or punishments based on the color of their skin—something the Indiana proposal, in its current form, should strengthen through a prohibition on compelled speech. Further, by specifically addressing compelled behavior, educators would be reminded that dividing students into mandatory affinity groups according to race for different school activities is discriminatory.

Such affinity groups have been the subject of a lawsuit in Illinois. A similar lawsuit unfolded in Massachusetts, where district officials dropped an affinity project after settling with Parents Defending Education.

Indiana lawmakers should also require school leaders to post textbook lists and assignments online so that parents can see what teachers are presenting to children. And legislators must make sure parents know what mental health interventions school counselors are planning to use, and, aside from a medical emergency, parents should be intimately involved with and have the final word on such treatment.

The San Francisco school board recall election last week, where voters unseated three board members with reputations for radical positions, was the latest in a string of voter activity that will help protect children from discrimination and aggressive sexual content in schools. Parents are advocating for their children—and Indiana lawmakers should defend the rights of both.


Stop this ‘COVID-theatre’: Florida governor chides students for wearing face masks

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a fierce opponent of coronavirus mask and vaccine mandates, grew visibly annoyed and admonished a group of students for wearing face masks at a news conference on Thursday AEDT.

DeSantis, a Republican, approached the students and asked them to remove their masks as they waited for him at the news conference at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

“You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off. Honestly, it’s not doing anything. We’ve got to stop with this COVID theatre. So if you wanna wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous,” he said, letting out an audible sigh and shaking his head.

DeSantis is running for reelection and is considered to be a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate.

His opposition to masks and vaccines has drawn national attention, and his administration has banned mask mandates in schools.

DeSantis’ office did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The federal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention late last month eased its masking guidelines.




Wednesday, March 02, 2022

British university 'failed to protect and support' lecturers who were targeted in 'campaign of intimidation and harassment over transgender privileges

Academics have condemned a leading university after trans rights activists targeted colleagues who wanted to cut ties with Stonewall.

They accused Cardiff of failing to ‘protect and support’ lecturers who had urged the institution to review its membership of a scheme run by the gay rights campaigning group.

Staff members at the South Wales campus have faced a ‘campaign of intimidation and harassment’ for raising concerns about freedom of speech in relation to transgender rights.

Their names and photographs were circulated on leaflets which branded them ‘transphobic’ and featured a cartoon of a woman holding a gun, while ‘knee capping and throat punching’ threats were made on the university’s LGBT+ society’s official Facebook page.

Twenty-three academics across the country have now signed a letter to protest about the ‘relentless harassment’.

They have demanded that president and vice chancellor Professor Colin Riordan and deputy vice chancellor Professor Damian Walford Davies ‘denounce the threats of student activists seeking to undermine academic speech and reasonable discourse’.

The row began when 16 Cardiff academics wrote to Professor Riordan last June, arguing that it was ‘inappropriate’ for Stonewall to be ‘embedded’ within the institution and ‘influencing policies which affect freedom of expression’.

A counter letter, condemning the ‘transphobia’ of the signatories, was signed by more than 100 academics at Cardiff, and over 1,000 current and former students and others.

Days later, a protest took place outside the university, and leaflets featuring the names and photographs of the signatories were circulated. They featured the caption: ‘Not gay as in happy, but queer as in f*** you.’

In November, stickers appeared on campus depicting a raised gun, with the same caption as the leaflets. The open letter, launched on Friday, claims the original Cardiff signatories were cast as ‘transphobic’ by staff, students and external parties.

It alleges they have been subjected to ‘relentless harassment’ that has been ‘ignored by university administration’.

The document accuses the university of repeatedly failing ‘to undertake proper investigations’.

A Cardiff University spokesman yesterday disputed that these matters have not been ‘thoroughly investigated’. He said: ‘We have found insufficient evidence to link Cardiff University staff or students to any actions that would breach our internal disciplinary codes.’

The university has ‘remained in dialogue’ with staff over the last few months and will ‘continue to support staff and students on all sides while upholding our commitment to free speech’.

Toby Young, general secretary of The Free Speech Union, yesterday demanded Cardiff launch a ‘proper investigation’ into its ‘bungled handling’ of the matter.

He said: ‘Cardiff University has completely failed to intervene while militant trans activists have created a culture of abject fear, with anyone who opposes their ideology afraid to speak out.’

He has written to Jeremy Miles, Minister for Education and Welsh Language, urging him to intervene in the row.


History and Literature students at the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland have been warned the classic novel contains 'graphic fishing scenes'

It is a story of one man’s heroic struggle against the elements and often viewed as a metaphor for life itself. But Ernest Hemingway’s classic novel The Old Man And The Sea is the latest victim of today’s woke standards, with students warned that it contains ‘graphic fishing scenes’.

Successive TV and film adaptations of the 1952 classic have been awarded U and PG certificates, suitable for children, but a content warning has been issued to History and Literature students at the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland, an area renowned for its fishing industry.

Mary Dearborn, the author of Ernest Hemingway, A Biography, said: ‘This is nonsense. It blows my mind to think students might be encouraged to steer clear of the book.

‘The world is a violent place and it is counterproductive to pretend otherwise. Much of the violence in the story is rooted in the natural world. It is the law of nature.’

Jeremy Black, emeritus professor of history at the University of Exeter, added: ‘This is particularly stupid given the dependency of the economy of the Highlands and Islands on industries such as fishing and farming.

'Many great works of literature have included references to farming, fishing, whaling, or hunting. Is the university seriously suggesting all this literature is ringed with warnings?’

The content warning was revealed in documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday under Freedom of Information laws.

The novel tells the story of Santiago, an ageing fisherman who catches an 18ft marlin while sailing in his skiff off the coast of Cuba.

Unable either to tie the giant fish to the back of the tiny vessel or haul it on board, he proceeds to hold the line for an unspecified number of days and nights.

Despite suffering intense physical pain, Santiago feels compassion for the captured animal. Only when the fish begins to circle his craft does he reluctantly kill it, but he is then forced to fight with, and kill, several sharks intent on devouring the corpse.

Santiago chastises himself for killing the marlin and tells the sharks they have killed his dreams, before eventually making it to shore.

Fans of the novel, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, believe Santiago’s battle with the forces of nature is a reference to Hemingway’s own struggles, while others have seen the story of bloodshed, endurance and sacrifice as a metaphor for Christianity.

The University of Highlands and Islands, made up of 13 research institutions and colleges, has issued content warnings for other classics.

Students studying Homer’s The Iliad, written in the 8th Century BC, and Beowulf, an English poem penned around 1025 AD, are warned that they contain ‘scenes of violent close combat’.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is flagged because it contains ‘violent murder and cruelty’ and students studying Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Romeo And Juliet are warned that the plays contain scenes of ‘stabbing, poison and suicide’.

A University spokesman said: ‘Content warnings enable students to make informed choices.’


Students and recent grads describe challenges of being a young conservative

College-age attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando spoke with Fox News about what it’s like to be a young conservative in America today.

"Being a young conservative is really hard nowadays," said Madeline, a student at Ohio Northern University. "You really have to have a lot of guts to put up a big fight. You're fighting not only your peers, but also the big institutions that are after you, that are trying to silence you,"

For all the pushback some students feel, others told Fox News they won’t be silenced by those who oppose their conservative beliefs.

"There's always going to be a few people who say things about you, but at the end of the day, you just have to stand up for what you believe in and fight for what's right," Eric said.

Joseph, a student at East Carolina, told Fox News he felt "scorn" from professors for expressing his conservative viewpoints but that he feels a responsibility to create a positive environment for future generations, which he believes is rooted in conservative principles.

"You kind of have to step in, and you have to stand up, and you have to say, 'That's not what I want, that's not what I want for this country.' You know, we're going to grow up, we're going to have kids, we're going to have grandkids," he said.

"And so it's kind of on us to make sure that we're charting the course and that we're supporting the people and the policies … that are going to make this country prosper," he continued.

The annual CPAC conference brings together conservative activists, elected officials and candidates for office. Former President Trump is slated to speak Saturday evening.




Tuesday, March 01, 2022

GA Senate Passes Bill Barring Students from Competing on Sports Teams Not Consistent with Biological Sex

The Georgia Senate passed a bill that would ban student-athletes from competing on sports teams that do not align with their biological sex.

SB 435, also known as the Save Girls' Sports Act, passed Thursday in a 34-24 largely party-line vote.

The bill would prohibit school sports teams with transgender athletes from competing against other teams in the state in an effort to preserve "the fairness of sports."

"No local public school system, public school, or participating private school in this state shall operate, sponsor, or facilitate interscholastic or intramural athletics" that allows male athletes to "participate in any interscholastic or intramural athletics that are designated for females," the bills reads, similarly adding that such schools would also be banned from allowing female athletes to "participate in any interscholastic or intramural athletics that are designated for males."

The legislation allows exceptions in cases where "there is not an equivalent interscholastic or intramural athletic program" for a student athlete's biological sex.

The bill would also allow grievance complaints to be filed against schools that fail to comply.

Republican lawmakers argued that it is unfair for biological girls to have to compete against biological boys and explained that separating athletes by gender ensures fairness.

"Forcing girls to play against biological boys inhibits the ability of young girls to win competitions, achieve scholarships and achieve the highest level of success," state Sen. Marty Harbin (R-Tyrone Republican) said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Democrats, however, took issue with the legislation, with state Sen. Sally Harrell (D-Atlanta), who is the mother of a transgender child, urging her colleagues to not "move so fast, because this is hurting our kids" during her remarks on the Senate floor.

And Georgia's Democratic Party slammed the bill following its passage, claiming it is a piece of "extreme legislation."

"It's absolutely despicable that Georgia Republicans are attacking kids for political gain," spokesperson Rebecca Galanti said in a statement. "This hateful bill is a dangerous ploy to rally political support in an election year by demonizing Georgia’s transgender community and threatening kids and teenagers’ wellbeing."

The bill now heads to the Republican-controlled House, where it is expected to be passed. The bill would then go to Gov. Brian Kemp's (R) desk to be signed into law. The governor has previously indicated his support for the bill and likely would sign it once it passes the House.

Kemp said in his State of the State speech last month that he would "strongly support [legislation] to ensure fairness in school sports."


Arizona State’s WOKE Theatre Performance Excluded White Students

The Sundevil leadership at Arizona State University has lost control of their campus social justice activists. Instead of ensuring they are providing a productive learning environment for all students, they instead appear to be focusing on bombarding potential students worldwide with marketing material, hoping to convince them to attend their various online or on-campus classes at locations located in the Phoenix, AZ metro area.

As big-time proponents of the BLM, LGBTQ, and BIPOC movements, some “people of color” in the student body have felt emboldened to openly attack white students and Christians on campus.

In a recent example, a few Woke Arizona State University students accused the college of ‘persecuting’ THEM after they were reprimanded for making two white students leave campus multicultural space because of their anti-Biden shirt and pro-cop laptop sticker.

College Fix reported that Arizona State University’s theatre department hosted a performance of “The Color Cabaret,” which excluded white students, a potential violation of federal law preventing discrimination based on race.

The description for “The Color Cabaret” says that it is “an opportunity for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) students in the School of Music, Dance and Theatre to create performances that speak to their own experience.”

“This performance also serves as a fundraiser for the BIPOC student scholarship fund, led by the ASU Music Theatre and Opera Student Organization,” the description also said. “Together we celebrate and highlight what makes us different.”

The State Press reported that the performance, “held Jan. 29 and 30, was made up entirely of students of color, and the songs performed told a story with heart, grace and a cultural flair representing the diverse community at ASU.”

“Thanks to Brian DeMaris and our supportive faculty and staff, we have made it known to our entire community that diversity and equity are the pillars that carry this program,” a program for the performance said. “Through hard discussions and active change, the MTO program has made it clear that all Black, indigenous, and People of Color, no matter the artistic background, are free and welcome to take up space here,” student director Jonice Bernard wrote.

The problem with excluding anyone based solely on their immutable characteristics is, it’s illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.”

The show has been performed since 2013. It reportedly excluded white students from participating, so the Fix asked the school if it could confirm such reporting and whether a university attorney reviewed the event to make sure it didn’t violate the Civil Rights Act.

ASU responded to the Fix by releasing an unsigned statement:

The Music Theater and Opera Student Organization (MTOSO) is one of hundreds of registered student organizations at ASU. Like every other registered student organization, MTOSO is responsible for planning and organizing its meetings and programming. And like every other registered student organization, MTSO has committed to operating in a manner that does not discriminate. Consistent with that commitment, the MTSO Color Cabaret was open to all Music Theater and Opera undergraduate, graduate, and vocal performance students.

While the statement said the event was open to all students, it did not explicitly say whether white students did, in fact, participate or were encouraged to do so along with students of color.

Hey ASU, here is a simple fix to your growing problem. Go back to treating everyone equally, and require your students to leave their aggressive radical “justice’ issues off-campus.

Now that was not too hard, was it?


U.S. Catholic schools see first enrollment hike in two decades

National Catholic school enrollment increased by 3.8 percent this year, officials said, marking the first hike in parochial students in two decades.

Demand began to mount during the pandemic-impacted 2020-2021 school year, where most Catholic dioceses offered in-person classes while many public schools did not.

Catholic schools added 62,000 kids to their rolls this academic year, according to data from the National Catholic Schools Education Association.

The total parochial population is now 1.68 million kids across the country.

The draw of stable full-time schooling attracted a surge of new applications and students in recent years, local Catholic school administrators told The Post.

“I think some parents were compelled to look elsewhere during this whole ordeal,” a Brooklyn Catholic school principal said. “And in a lot of cases I think they liked what they were seeing.”

City Catholic schools — which enroll roughly 70,000 kids across the boroughs — boosted their registers while traditional public school enrollment fell.

Locally, the Diocese of Brooklyn reported a 2.4 percent increase in enrollment this year — the first hike in a decade, officials said.

But Catholic school officials cautioned that future advances are not guaranteed.

“Catholic schools innovated throughout the last two years to meet the needs of their communities,” the National Catholic Educational Association said. “They need to continue to adapt to those needs and use the momentum to retain students and recruit new students in the upcoming years to stabilize or continue to increase enrollment.”

Despite the recent uptick, the number of American Catholic schools is still well below what it once was.

There are currently 5,938 parochial schools across the country — down from 11,000 in 1970.




Monday, February 28, 2022

Oakland’s Educational Bureaucrats Steamroll Parents and Kids

Oaklanders are mainly black so the bureaucrats probably thought they might not be likely to protest

Conversations with some of California’s most vulnerable families show they have become the targets of increasingly autocratic officials entrusted with the education of their children

The pandemic kind of destroyed my kids,” Maplean told me. Her son, Da’vine, is 17 years old and a high school junior in Oakland. “Kids like him have to be in school,” she said. “It was really, really rough for him doing online classes. It put him back even farther than what he was.”

Last year, Oakland saw a surge in shootings, assaults, and homicides. Maplean tries to keep her kids home not only because she is still concerned about COVID, but also due to the increased threat of gun violence in their neighborhood—itself a product of policies that put school-age kids at risk by disrupting normal patterns of socialization for the most vulnerable.

“For the kids that don’t have anything to do with their lives, don’t have any support groups, of course they’re going to go out there and think it’s OK to start doing more violence,” Maplean told me.

Everything that was hard before COVID is worse now in Oakland. Prices are higher, and as a single parent Maplean feels the financial strain. “I used to take my kids out a lot,” she said. “Now I have to be really cautious. Money-wise, I just don’t have it.”

Maplean thinks masks, testing, and other mitigation measures were necessary for schools to reopen, but she knows that virtual learning took an emotional toll on her son. Da’vine once took pride in his schoolwork and good grades, so falling behind had an impact on his self-esteem. “He comes home and tells me he doesn’t know how to do the work,” Maplean said. Wealthy people “are able to make sure their kids get the education that they need, but what about the less fortunate ones? What about us?”

The San Francisco Bay Area, where Maplean lives, was once considered a center of tolerance and personal freedom. Since the pandemic began, it has become notorious for its inequality and dysfunction, brought about in part by rigid and often evidence-free COVID policies. In San Francisco and other Bay Area cities, unvaccinated people—including children—are barred from restaurants, movie theaters, gyms, and other indoor spaces. Schools in the Bay Area were closed for longer than almost everywhere else in the country, making the experience of children and parents in the educational system where I once worked an ongoing experiment in the costs of isolation and desocialization for some of the most disadvantaged children and families in America.

Like Los Angeles, some parts of the Bay Area tried to implement COVID vaccine requirements in schools but were forced to postpone them when thousands of kids didn’t meet the deadlines. Gov. Gavin Newsom has also recently announced an upcoming statewide mandate for children in grades 7-12, making California the only U.S. state in which COVID vaccines will be a condition for in-person school next year. The state legislature is currently set to vote on bills that would expand the mandate to include grades K-6, eliminate personal-belief exemptions, and enable kids 12 and up to get vaccinated without parental consent. Although the stereotype persists that only white Trump voters are unvaccinated, the Black and Latino residents of blue California have the lowest levels of vaccine uptake for both adults and teens.

What They Did to the Kids

Many of the parents I spoke with in order to better understand the toll of COVID mandates—imposed in many cases with little to no scientific consensus about their likely efficacy—are working-class mothers whom I know from when I was a public school teacher in Oakland. They preferred that I only use their first names, which makes sense, given their vulnerability to the whims of an increasingly autocratic, intolerant, and punitive bureaucracy that has shown no interest in putting kids or families first.

None of the parents I spoke with described themselves as “anti-vax.” Their kids have received all of their regular childhood vaccines, and some of their kids have been vaccinated against COVID, but they believe the COVID vaccines should be a personal choice. They spoke to me about the losses they have experienced, how school closures affected their families, and the ways in which institutions they once trusted have failed them. This is about much more than a school policy or a vaccine: It’s about the fact that parents have been sidelined, ignored, and left out of crucial decisions about their children’s lives. Their experiences and opinions about COVID and COVID restrictions are all different, but they share the same overwhelming sense that something in our state is going terribly wrong.

Even though Maplean often worries about her kids’ safety at school, she doesn’t support the vaccine mandate. “It’s not up to the school district,” she said. “It’s actually up to us parents.” At first Maplean did not want to get her kids vaccinated, but she’s glad she did. Her daughter has allergies, so Maplean brought an EpiPen with them to the vaccination site and was nervous that she would have to use it if her daughter had a reaction. Because of this, she understands why some parents have anxiety about the vaccines.

To date, 30% of students 12 and up in Oakland public schools have not verified their vaccination status, even though the district threatened to unenroll them or put them into “independent study” (online learning). “I just feel like the school district is pushing parents, especially African Americans, to force them to get their kids vaccinated,” Maplean said. As for why she thinks Black students have lower rates of vaccination, their parents “don’t trust too many people in Oakland. We as African Americans have trust issues with certain things of what we put in our kids’ bodies. I have that issue too.” Some of this hesitancy may be connected to the fact that COVID deaths have disproportionately affected minorities. Maplean feels that the city and the hospital system failed to provide adequate care: “They said ‘Forget these people, they’re going to die anyway’… And why? It’s because we’re poor.”

Ofelia, whose sons Jesus, 17, and Cesar, 16, are in high school in San Leandro, told me that it feels like the state’s approach to COVID has been like a lab experiment. “They have no control, so they’re trying to put everyone in a box,” she told me. “They’re saying, ‘Let’s see if this works, and if this doesn’t work, then we’ll try this, and then if that doesn’t work, then we’ll try this.’” During online learning, her sons’ school and their teachers did as much as they could to help them, but it was still challenging. “Emotionally, I think they checked out after the first month,” Ofelia said.

Ofelia was already under the worst possible strain; her other son died suddenly in June 2020 at age 24. “I can’t remember a lot of it because I was so distraught,” she told me, “but because of the pandemic we couldn’t have a decent rosary for him and we couldn’t have a vigil for him.” Only 10 people could attend the funeral and they had to stay 6 feet apart. It was difficult to get any emotional support. “That was really hard because I have a big family,” she said. “It was really hard to go through that and still have so much restrictions … You don’t realize that you’re going to have this loss in your family and then to still be so confined and you can’t do anything. It just makes it 10 times worse.”

Ofelia did not oppose the lockdown or the school closures because she felt that so much was uncertain, and both of her sons got the COVID vaccine. However, she does not think it should be mandatory. “This was something that I think they were throwing on everyone,” she said. “There wasn’t a lot of research about it. And it was not a choice. At this point it’s not your choice to get it—it’s either you get it or you can’t go into the restaurant to eat … Either you get it or you can’t go to school.” Ofelia told me that she has family members who passed away from COVID, but she firmly believes vaccination should be a personal decision. “Everybody has their reasonings,” she said.

More here:


W.Va.: House Judiciary Committee Delays Action on ‘Anti-Stereotyping’ Bill

With three days until the deadline when bills must be out of committees, lawmakers dove into a bill Thursday dealing with discussions of race and gender in West Virginia classrooms.

The House Judiciary Committee discussed House Bill 4011, the Anti-Stereotyping Act. The committee heard details of the bill for more than an hour, but put off any action on the bill until later today.

HB 4011 would require greater curriculum transparency for public schools pertaining to non-discrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, bias or any combination of those concepts. The bill also would prohibit the teaching and discussion of specific racial and non-discrimination topics often categorized under the name critical race theory, or CRT.

The bill states that no person should be blamed for the action committed in the past by someone of the same race, sex, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Schools and county board of education officials would be prohibited from compelling students and staff to adopt any belief or concept that one race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior to another.

The House Education Committee recommended the bill for passage Feb. 3 after a contentious discussion that ultimately ended with Republicans on the committee moving to end further debate and vote on the bill.

The House Education and Judiciary committees held a public hearing on the bill Feb. 9, where 23 out of 25 attendees spoke out against the bill.

Del. Lisa Zukoff, D-Marshall, asked how does someone determine if a teacher has compelled a student to learn something prohibited by the bill.

“Where it seems worrisome to me is it seems so broad,” Zukoff said. “How do you prove and how do you determine whether this has actually happened?”

Del. Mark Zatezalo, R-Hancock, asked about a complaint from opponents of the bill that it would prohibit the teaching or discussion of certain historical topics in the classroom, such as discussions of slavery, segregation, and civil rights. Counsel for the committee explained that there was nothing in the bill prohibiting the teaching of history.

“I didn’t hear anything that spoke to any degree whatsoever about history or the teaching of history,” Zatezalo said.

Del. Joe Garcia, D-Marion, pointed to a provision of the bill that would prohibit teachers or administrators from compelling students or employees from adopting a belief that “An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined, in whole or in part, by his or her race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.”

“I just find it weird,” Garcia said. “An individual might be Adolph Hitler and you cannot discuss Adolph Hitler’s moral character as it relates to the history of what happened in Nazi Germany.”

While the bill doesn’t mention Critical Race Theory (CRT) by name, the bill is aimed at prohibiting the teaching of concepts derived from CRT, such as the anti-racism philosophies found in the works of Ibrim X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. Examples include teaching that racism is systemic regardless of whether a child believes they are not racist, saying that race-blind standards are inherently racist, and calling white students “oppressors.”

Todd Gaziano, the chief of legal policy and strategic research and the director of the Center for the Separation of Powers at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, testified that HB 4011 is very narrowly tailored and said some legislation in other states are too broad and restrictive. HB 4011 is based on model legislation offered by the foundation.

“When I was advising on some of the language … we were extremely careful about making sure that this was well grounded in federal law, but particularly well grounded in the First Amendment,” Gaziano said. “Certainly, you could condemn Nazis. That’s not a whole race. Could you condemn slaveholders? You should condemn slaveholders.

“No one should have any problem with this (bill), but if you do, you have a problem with federal law,” Gaziano continued. “What you can’t say is … all whites, by virtue of being white, have certain moral failings. But that is what is being taught … there are school systems with curriculum that say because of the virtue of the color of your skin you are an oppressor.”


Why Don’t Universities Protect Freedom of Speech?

In 2017, Georgetown University revised its speech and expression policy to reflect an institutional commitment to freedom of speech on campus. The new policy committed the University to provide students and faculty with “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” The policy specifically declared that speech “may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill conceived,” and that the University undertook “a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of deliberation and debate, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”

That same year, Love Saxa, a campus group that advocated for marriage as “a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman,” was accused of being a hate group because of this definition, and threatened with defunding. In 2019, the Acting Homeland Security Secretary, who had been invited to deliver an address at the law school, was repeatedly shouted down by protestors and forced to leave without delivering his speech. The law school administration took no action to stop the protestors. In 2021, the dean of the law school summarily fired an adjunct professor for what he described as an “abhorrent” conversation in which she made “reprehensible statements concerning the evaluation of Black students.” He placed another adjunct professor on administrative leave for merely listening to these comments without disagreeing.

Last week, Ilya Shapiro, the incoming director of the law school’s Center for the Constitution expressed his opinion of President Biden’s decision to appoint an African-American woman to the Supreme Court on Twitter. In the abbreviated language needed to fit his comments into 280 characters, he stated: “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?” In a follow-up tweet, he stated, “Because Biden said he’s only consider [sic] black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached.”

The dean of Georgetown Law responded to these tweets with a campus-wide e-mail in which he stated that Shapiro’s “tweets’ suggestion that the best Supreme Court nominee could not be a Black woman and their use of demeaning language are appalling. The tweets are at odds with everything we stand for at Georgetown Law and are damaging to the culture of equity and inclusion that Georgetown Law is building every day.” Three days later, he issued a second campus-wide e-mail stating: “Ilya Shapiro’s tweets are antithetical to the work that we do here every day to build inclusion, belonging, and respect for diversity. . . . I am writing to inform you that I have placed Ilya Shapiro on administrative leave, pending an investigation into whether he violated our policies and expectations on professional conduct, non-discrimination, and anti-harassment, the results of which will inform our next steps. Pending the outcome of the investigation, he will remain on leave and not be on campus.”

One would be hard-pressed to find an institution whose principles and actions are more misaligned. Yet, Georgetown is far from unique in this regard. Almost all major universities make grandiloquent commitments to freedom of speech. Few honor these commitments in the breach. Why?

Contrary to right-wing rhetoric, university presidents, deans, and administrators are not woke ideologues. The answer is not ideology. It is incentives.

University administrators get no reward for upholding abstract principles in the face of student outcry and protest. Their incentive is to quell the dissension as quickly as possible, which usually means mollifying the protestors. Standing on principle tends to exacerbate the strife by provoking more virulent student protests and generating negative media coverage. Those who successfully quiet the disruption receive praise from the university administration. (Indeed, this is precisely what happened at Georgetown when the dean fired and disciplined the adjunct professors for their speech last year. The President of the university published a campus-wide message praising his “decisive actions [as] essential and consistent with the ethos and ideals we strive to sustain at Georgetown.”) They receive no personal blowback for violating the institution’s abstract commitment to freedom of speech.

Consider the position of Georgetown’s dean. He is confronted with students using social media to ramp up outrage and skipping classes to protest. The Washington Post and other media outlets have picked up the story. There is a real risk of things spiraling out of control and disrupting the functioning of the law school. His strongest incentive is to make this issue go away. How can this be done? By mollifying the students or by sticking up for the University’s commitment to freedom of speech on campus?

How surprising can it be that, in the event, the dean spent more than an hour trying to assuage the students? Reiterating his shock—“[a]gain, I was appalled to see the tweet. I tried to move as quickly as I can . . . within hours of the tweet going out, I made my statement.”—sympathizing with the students—“this is painful for all of us but I know how painful and awful it is for you, and I know what a terrible burden it is,”—and praising them for their input—“I’m grateful for you taking the time to talk, I’m grateful for your insights, I heard a lot today that I won’t just be reflecting on but that I’ll be moving forward with, and I will be in dialogue with you about what we’re doing.”

What personal detriment does the dean suffer from violating the University’s speech and expression policy? His actions have been criticized as a violation of academic freedom in a public letter signed by more than a hundred academics. The officers of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education published a column in the Washington Post decrying his action as a violation of freedom of speech. These actions may make the authors and signers feel good about themselves, but they impose no hardship on the dean personally.

Universities that layer an abstract commitment to freedom of speech onto an incentive structure that rewards the suppression of offensive behavior are committing the classic managerial blunder of “hoping for A, but paying for B,” which invariably produces B. For the abstract commitment to freedom of speech to have any practical effect, universities must alter their incentive structures. Those with the responsibility of enforcing the commitment must either be rewarded for doing so or punished for failing to do so.

Fortunately, these incentives can be changed. The first requirement is to add the following sentence to the university’s speech and expression policy: The University will summarily dismiss any allegation that an individual or group has violated a university policy if the allegation is based solely on the individual’s or group’s expression of his, her, or its religious, philosophical, literary, artistic, political, or scientific viewpoints. This makes the university’s abstract commitment to freedom of speech definite and explicit. Think of this as a freedom of speech “safe harbor” provision.

University policy is binding on the institution. It creates a contract between the school and its students and faculty that is legally enforceable.

The second requirement is to create a pro bono legal group that will sue any school that violates the safe harbor provision. This allows parties targeted for their speech to sue for the violation of their contractual rights.

The prospect of such lawsuits does not change the incentives of university administrators. But it does change the incentives of one party; university counsel. University counsel are not interested in winning lawsuits brought against the university. They are interested in preventing lawsuits from being brought against the university in the first place. The combination of the safe harbor provision and the realistic threat of lawsuit for its violation can motivate university counsel to restrain the conduct of administrators. They might require allegations of harassment to be reviewed by a member of the counsel’s office who knows how to distinguish complaints about speech from genuine harassment. They will almost certainly insist on revising the university’s anti-harassment training to stress that students and faculty should not file complaints based solely on the content of the viewpoint being expressed. But whatever steps they take would tend to give the college’s or university’s abstract commitment to freedom of speech some real practical effect.

The fear of being sanctioned by universities for advocating unpopular ideas does not arise from a lack of institutional commitments to freedom of speech. Almost all universities make such commitments. The fear arises from the fact that no university administrator has the incentive to honor the commitment when it counts. Adding a safe harbor provision to university policy and organizing a pro bono legal firm dedicated to protecting freedom of speech on campus—something the Foundation for Individual Rights is currently doing—can change this incentive.

Administrators will not act against their own interests merely to uphold an abstract principle unless there is some cost for failing to do so. The threat of damage awards can be that cost. It is a way of making universities that issue grandiose commitments to freedom of speech put their money where their mouths are.




Sunday, February 27, 2022

British schools told to overhaul history curriculum to tackle 'diversity, migration and cultural change' instead of repeating the Tudors and Second World War

The principal task of a history curriculum would appear to be to help children understand how we got to where we are today and to ask what lessons we can derive from the past so that we can avoid repeating old mistakes. Conventional history teaching attempted that. But it is hard to see how talk of 'diversity, migration and cultural change' does that

The government is planning an overhaul of the history curriculum in schools that will push 'diversity, migration and cultural change' over 'classic' topics like the Tudors or the Second World War.

Children aged five to 14 will get to focus on the rich breadth of history, rather than being taught a narrow range of British-centric topics solely in preparation for GCSEs.

Schools Minister Robin Walker said that diversity had to be part of the 'canon' of history rather than an add-on, and hoped the move would lead to fewer people pulling down statues - instead placing them 'in context'.

'This is about the range of opportunities there are within the curriculum to teach world history and the relevance of that to modern Britain,' Walker told The Times.

'Do we want people to learn about the Tudors and the Second World War? Yes, absolutely. But we want to do it in a context of understanding Britain's place in the world.'

The new model curriculum will move away from Michael Gove's vision to teach children 'our island story' that he enforced as Education Secretary under David Cameron.

Model curriculums go into more detail than the national curriculum and sets out what schools are advised to teach to reach the highest quality of lessons.

According to The Times, it will apply to children aged 5 to 14, before they start their GCSEs and will be published in 2024. Gove's history national curriculum caused controversy when published in 2013, with some academics calling it 'offensive'.

Walker added that putting British history in context was key to fighting 'woke wars' over anti-racism groups and activists wanting to pulling down statues of historical figures.

'If there was more understanding you're less likely to have people wanting to pull down statues and more people wanting to explain the background around them,' he said.

Planned changes to the curriculum follow a slump in the number of students taking history at A-Level because of many regarding the subject as 'boring' and too narrow.

History entry figures for England fell by 13 per cent in the year to 2020. Geography saw a larger dip of 14 per cent.

It comes as Birmingham City footballer Troy Deeney demanded the national curriculum included more history and experiences of black, Asian and ethnic minorities in Britain.

Deeney - who was a driving force behind Premier League players' decision to take the knee before matches in their fight against racism - believes the current curriculum is failing children from ethnic minorities.

He commissioned a YouGov survey which found the majority of British teachers think the school system has a racial bias and only 12 per cent said they feel empowered to teach diverse topics.

The professional footballer was encouraged by the Welsh Government, which will have a new curriculum framework in place from September where the stories of black, Asian and ethnic minority people will be taught.

In June, a report commissioned by Penguin and the Runnymede Trust found fewer than 1 per cent of candidates for GCSE English literature answered a question in 2019 on a novel by an author from an ethnic minority background


UK: Net Zero and climate policies: Schools should teach to debate it

Net Zero Watch has given the thumbs up to new government guidelines reminding teachers of their legal duty to remain impartial on contentious issues surrounding climate and energy policies.

UK law states that teachers must not promote partisan political views such as contested Net Zero policies, having a duty to offer a balanced overview of opposing political views about different approaches to tackle climate change are taught.

Net Zero Watch’s director, Dr Benny Peiser said:

There is abundant evidence that children are being badly served by the teaching establishment. Far too often, pupils are being indoctrinated into an irrational belief in end-of-the-world climate catastrophism, and bombarded with political ideas of extreme environmental groups.”

The announcement comes hard on the heels of new figures showing that increasing numbers of parents are choosing to abandon formal schooling entirely.

Dr Peiser said:

The new government guidance for teachers is welcome, but it remains to be seen if anything changes in UK classrooms. We will keep a close eye on the situation and will monitor whether the law of impartiality is being obeyed.”


A PTA Leader said conservatives should die

The Virginia PTA said Saturday that one of its officials had resigned after she was filmed at a rally saying, “Let them die,” during a speech interpreted as a denouncement of opponents of critical race theory.

Recently, the parents have been protesting and demonstrating against CRT (critical race theory). A learning procedure that is so controversial -- and beneficial for AG Garland’s family business. Of course.

Michelle Leete is the first vice president at the civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. She is also vice president of training at the Virginia state PTA and vice president of communications for the Fairfax County PTA.

Counter-protesters surrounded Leete to hear her speech. What ensued was a borderline incoherent rant that quickly turned into a call for violence.

Leeth berated and said,

“So let’s meet and remain steadfast in speaking truth, tearing down double standards, and refuting double talk, Let’s not allow any double downing on lies. Let’s prepare our children for the world they deserve. Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people. Let them die. (everyone cheers) Don’t let these uncomfortable people deter us from our bold march forward.”

Unsurprisingly this video went viral and Leete herself was forced to resign from her position at the Virginia PTA for wishing death upon her parents.

One of many parents who were deeply disturbed by Leete’s comments was Harry Jackson who is a parent and the first African-American to be elected PTA president for Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, adamantly opposes CRT and now hopes the other organizations that employ her will follow suit.

He told CNN, Why would you ever wish death on someone who you disagree with, It was a responsible gesture by the Virginia PTA. Now I hope the Fairfax NAACP and PTA do the same.”

Speaking of hypocrisy, the NAACP has extended their support to Leete and her stance which debunks the group’s professed dedication to “equity” and “social justice,” both of which are anathema to equality and justice.

“The NAACP said it “does not condone or support violence of any kind, whether we agree with an individual’s ideas or not. We believe in peaceful demonstrations and activism to achieve social justice and equity. But we will always stand in opposition to anti-diversity and anti-equity rhetoric, and any ideas or policies that further an inequitable agenda.”