Thursday, June 08, 2023

Junior high teacher in Canada berates Muslim students for boycotting Pride events: 'If you don't think that should be the law, you can't be Canadian'

An audio clip, which has gone viral on social media, revealed a teacher at a junior high school in Canada chastising the Muslim students in her class for staying home from school rather than participating in scheduled Pride events. During the rant, the teacher became so heated that she even told Muslim students that they "can't be Canadian" if they do not support legalized gay marriage.

On the clip, a teacher at Londonderry Junior High School in Edmonton, Alberta, scolded students for skipping school "because you think there's some Pride activities going on" that day, and she gave several reasons that such behavior was not "acceptable."

First, she seemed to imply that Muslim students are obliged to support the LGBTQ agenda — which she even hinted was a kind of "religion" — because LGBTQ students have supported Islamic holidays in the past. "They're here when we did Ramadan," she reminded the class, "... And they're showing respect in the class for your religion, for your beliefs."

She then warned Muslim students that if they want "to be respected for who" they are, if they want to avoid racial or religious "prejudice," then they "better give" the same respect "back to people who are different" from them. The relationship "GOES TWO WAYS," she enunciated clearly.

"Back and forth. You want it, you gotta give it," she insisted.

During the two-minute clip, which was reportedly recorded and shared by a student, the teacher also discussed the differences between the laws and values in Canada and the laws and values in other countries. She asserted that all Canadians "believe in freedom" and "believe that people can marry whomever they want." Canada officially legalized so-called same-sex marriage in 2005.

She also seemed to presume that such laws grant Canada better moral standing in the world, and she drew a contrast between her home country and countries such as Uganda, which she incorrectly asserted will "literally ... execute" anyone suspected of being "gay." Under the new law, Ugandans caught engaging in sodomy can face up to life in prison, but the death penalty is restricted only to those who engage in "aggravated homosexuality" involving children, vulnerable adults, or those who are HIV-positive.

According to the teacher, anyone who supports such a law is not welcome in Canada. "If you believe that kind of thing, then you don't belong here," she said. "Because that is not what Canada believes."

"If you don't think that [gay marriage] should be the law, you can't be Canadian," she continued. "You don't belong here, and I really mean it."


Award-Winning Gay Teacher Suspended for Speaking Out Against Transgenderism

A gay fifth grade teacher in Glendale, California, was placed on leave after complaining at a school board meeting that his school promotes transgenderism.

Ray Shelton, a 25-year veteran teacher, spoke at a recent meeting of the school board for the Glendale Unified School District wearing a T-shirt that read “Make Biology Great Again.”

Shelton, who teaches at Mark Keppel Elementary School, has been named the Glendale school district’s “Teacher of the Year” twice and earlier this year won the PTA’s Golden Oak Award.

In an exclusive interview, Shelton, who is gay, told The Daily Signal that his intent in speaking at the Glendale school board’s April 18 meeting was to speak what he called “basic, commonsense truths.”

Shelton told the board:

Two plus two equals four. The world is not flat. Boys have penises; girls have vaginas. Gender is binary and cannot be changed. Biology is not bigotry. Heterosexuality is not hate. Gender confusion and gender delusion are deep psychological disorders. No caring professional or loving parent would ever support the chemical poisoning or surgical mutilation of a child’s genitalia.

Transgender ideology is anti-gay, it is anti-woman, and it is anti-human. It wants to take away women’s sports, women’s rights, women’s achievements—it is misogyny writ large.

And I can also say this as a gay man, the gay people …

At this point, someone muted Shelton’s microphone and a board member informed the teacher that his time was up.

Applause broke out from the audience.

Glendale, a city located in the San Fernando Valley, is part of Los Angeles County. Its school system has 32 schools and 25,000 students, according to the district’s website.

A fellow teacher, Alicia Harris, filed a formal complaint against Shelton at 12:36 p.m. April 19, claiming that he was “showing off a swastika” during the school board meeting.

Shelton says during the board meeting he held up four “Progress Pride” flags arranged in a pattern to form a swastika. This, however, is a familiar meme on social media meant to criticize progressives by arguing that authoritarian measures to compel speech are fascist:

Shelton also alleges that Hagop Eulmessekian, Glendale’s director of student support services, assaulted him by ripping several “gay pride flags” out of his hand.

This incident is referenced in Harris’ complaint against Shelton to Kyle Bruich, the Glendale district’s human resources director, for holding up what she called a swastika at the April 18 school board meeting:

In a comment on social media praising a different speaker at the board meeting, teacher Taline Arsenian claimed that Shelton proved he is a Nazi by holding a banner mocking transgender activists as fascists:

The next day, April 19, Shelton was visited in his classroom at 8 a.m. by Principal Kristine Tonoli and a Glendale district administrator.

Shelton told The Daily Signal that he was given a letter informing him that he was being placed on paid leave pending investigation after “several complaints” were lodged against him.

But, the teacher said, all of the complaints provided to him by the Glendale district were made after he had been put on leave, not before, suggesting either that Glendale didn’t provide Shelton with earlier complaints or that Tonoli lied to Shelton. All of the emailed complaints provided to The Daily Signal originally were sent after the meeting at 8 a.m. April 19, according to time stamps.

After that classroom meeting April 19, Shelton was escorted to the edge of school property and told not to return unless accompanied by someone from the Human Resources Office.

When most public school districts place a teacher on leave, questions from students, parents, the community, and media typically are deflected with a response along these lines: “This teacher has been placed on leave pending an investigation; for the privacy of all parties, this is all we can say at this time.”

The Glendale district’s administration took a slightly different approach.

On April 20, Tonoli sent out an official email, via the district’s communication program Parent Square, accusing Shelton of “hate speech and hate symbols"


The campaign against New York’s exam for specialized schools punishes the children of working-class immigrants in the name of racial equity

In late October 2012, as Hurricane Sandy was set to crash upon the shores of New York City, I remember standing in front of a newsstand in my neighborhood of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, and scanning the headlines. A Chinese-language newspaper, the Sing Tao Daily, displayed a large photo of the white vortex on the front page. Below that was a banner: “SHSAT Postponed To November 18.”

What exactly is the SHSAT—something so important to Chinese-language New Yorkers that its postponement received top billing alongside one of the biggest natural disasters to ever strike the city? The Specialized High School Admissions Test (commonly abbreviated as the SHSAT) is the sole gatekeeper of admission into New York City’s specialized public high schools, some of the most prestigious public schools in the entire country. It is also a central battleground in a conflict over what kind of country America should be.

In working-class Sunset Park, where half the population is foreign-born and much of the other half is made up of the children of the foreign-born, tutoring centers are ubiquitous in the Asian-populated cross section. An array of acronyms fill the front windows of each tutoring center: SHSAT, PSAT, SAT, ACT, AP. While some immigrants may not have a full grasp of the English language, they can still understand that these acronyms serve as symbols of upward mobility—and of a meritocracy where access to elite spaces is not about knowing the right people and signaling the right cultural cues, but about competency on an exam that anyone can pass with enough studying. That’s what drew Jewish immigrants in droves to specialized high schools decades ago. And in an era where elite colleges consistently rank Asian applicants lower in “personality” metrics—a loophole that allows them to impose quotas and cap the number of incoming Asian students in the name of increasing “diversity”—it’s no wonder why many Asian immigrants are working to preserve standardized testing.

The children of Asian immigrants, like myself and the current and former students who spoke with me for this article, still tend to see the test as a good thing. For us, a colorblind, meritocratic admissions system is not only perfectly consistent with liberal ideals, but also serves as a crucial engine of economic mobility.

On the other side of the debate, the fight to eliminate the SHSAT is led by a cohort of identity rights activists, wealthy progressives, and other members of the professional-managerial class who depict the test as an oppressive tool of racial segregation. These people are represented by leading figures in the liberal educational establishment and by institutions like The New York Times, which published an article last week decrying the “lack of diversity” in city schools, while also noting that Asian students were offered 53% of all seats in the specialized high schools this year.

The Times article also describes the restoration of “tougher criteria” at specialized high schools as a move that is “worrying integration advocates.” In other words, the article and its supporters argue that people who support rigorous academic standards that are applied without regard for race or ethnicity are segregationists. And indeed, that is exactly how it was characterized by The New Yorker’s Philip Gourevitch, who responded to the revelation about a testing system in which Asians dramatically outperform whites and every other group by tweeting about “segregationist admission statistics,” which he labeled “an ongoing disgrace.”

A colorblind, meritocratic admissions system is not only perfectly consistent with liberal ideals, but also serves as a crucial engine of economic mobility.

The case for racial equity in New York’s schools was made most explicitly by former Department of Education Chancellor Richard Carranza who, in arguing against the SHSAT in 2018, remarked that “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools.” His statement set off a wave of grassroots protests from Asian American parents, who knew exactly which “ethnic group” he was talking about.

Despite Carranza’s suggestion that a single homogenous group was unfairly monopolizing the top schools, the reality looks very different. During the four years I attended Stuyvesant, the most selective of all the specialized high schools, I witnessed a dazzling variety of ethnicities, cultures, and religions. Students wearing kippahs commingled with students clad in hijabs. Students from the West Indies socialized with students from India. Students from various East Asian backgrounds coagulated around similar interests: bubble tea, Korean pop music. No Stuyvesant student would ever claim that “one ethnic group” dominated the school.

The common thread that linked students of all stripes was the immigrant experience. During a social studies class one day, the teacher asked us to raise our hands if we had at least one grandparent born outside the U.S. Every single hand shot up. The teacher then dramatically shrunk the question’s scope to only apply to students with two foreign-born parents. Even then, only a few hands came down. Some students were immigrants themselves, coming with their family to America before high school and still managing to secure admission into the halls of upward mobility.

What is most notable about the schools, and yet goes largely ignored in the anti-SHSAT racial equity discourse, is that the immigrant dynamic operates separately from race. When The New York Times published a profile in 2012 of a Black student at Stuyvesant, titled “To Be Black at Stuyvesant High,” the student profiled was a Jamaican immigrant. The piece mentioned the former president of Stuyvesant’s Black Students Association, who is also Jamaican. The Times seemingly never gets tired of this subject, and ran another profile of Black Stuyvesant students seven years later. In that piece, every student profiled either had one non-Black parent or was from a Nigerian, Eritrean, or Kenyan immigrant family.

While New York’s top public schools are still full of the children of immigrant strivers, many among the city’s white liberal elites—America’s white saviors, as Zach Goldberg dubbed them—prefer sending their children to private schools that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition.

These same private-school parents partake in cost-free virtue signaling by demanding that the SHSAT be eliminated to ensure more “diversity.” In fact, The New York Times seems to have made it a mission to guilt these parents into supporting the equity agenda. In 2020, the paper put out a podcast called Nice White Parents, then followed that up with a piece about “How White Progressives Undermine School Integration.” The podcast and article fail to consider the roles Asian American parents have played in the education debate. Indeed the only mention of Asians is a throwaway line where one panelist declares that both “white and Asian families” were complicit in opposing “integration,” and later mentions “white and privileged parents”—a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that casts Asians as oppressors of people of color, despite the fact that Asians are people of color.

But while the test-based system is presented as racist and backward, the evidence shows the opposite. Not only does it favor students from Asian backgrounds, it does so despite their relative lack of resources. Half the students at specialized high schools currently qualify for subsidized lunches. In contrast to media portrayals of “crazy rich Asians,” Asian Americans are the poorest racial group in New York City.




Wednesday, June 07, 2023

Community Furious After Student Is Cut from Graduation for Stating There Are Only Two Genders

At Kellogg High School in Kellog, Idaho, another conservative American is facing consequences for affirming a traditional view of male and female.

During a recent assembly where soon-to-be graduating seniors were meant to give parting words of wisdom to underclassmen, 18-year-old Travis Lohr made a statement that apparently offended the school’s administration.

“Guys are guys and girls are girls,” Lohr said according to the Shoshone News-Press. “There is no in-between.”

Shortly thereafter, Lohr was informed that he would not be allowed to walk in the school’s graduation ceremony.

Lohr and the other seniors had to prepare their statements in advance for school approval. After school officials told Lohr he wasn’t allowed to say that “guys are guys and girls are girls,” he chose to share the statement anyway, according to the News-Press.

“I feel that I shouldn’t be punished for believing in something that I believe,” Lohr told the News-Press.

“It’s more that people took it the wrong way. Everyone can speak freely, I can’t see why I can’t voice my opinion.”

On Twitter, the Idaho Tribune shared a short clip showing over 100 parents and students mobilizing outside the school to protest Lohr’s suspension on Friday.

According to KHQ-TV, a number of students participated in a walkout that day in protest of the suspension.

The walkout is shown in the Tribune’s video, with the many parents in attendance cheering loudly as the protesting students exited the building.

Later in the video, the crowd can be heard forcefully and repeatedly cheering “Let him walk.”

Nevertheless, it appears that Kellog High School will stand by its decision.

Later on Friday, the Kellogg School District announced it would be postponing the graduation ceremony, which was originally meant to take place on Saturday, claiming that “threats” had made the situation unsafe, KHQ-TV reported.

Despite all the controversy caused by his comments, Lohr stands by what he said. “I would love to walk in my graduation ceremony. I don’t believe that I should be punished for what I said. I wasn’t directing it at anybody or any groups, it’s just something that I believe in,” Lohr told the Shoshone News-Press.

“Kids nowadays really support gay people, transgender people, and it wasn’t targeted at that but there’s a lot of confusion about genders in the world today and I figured that underclassmen might find something in me saying that.”

“There’s a lot of support for other genders and other groups, but yet I don’t see any support for people who just believe in two (genders). I don’t have any hatred toward gay people or transgenders — just like I hope they wouldn’t have any resentment toward me for believing what I believe.”


Biden’s Education Department Tells Nation’s Schools to Go Back to Race-Based Discipline

The school year is over, but a new race-based missive from Washington will loom over teachers and students all summer.

Just before Memorial Day, federal education officials issued a “Dear Colleague” letter telling the nation’s educators that the Biden administration is resurrecting a policy of investigating and coercing schools to adopt more lenient discipline policies.

This policy originated under President Barack Obama’s administration but was rescinded in 2018 by a commission led by then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The Federal Commission on School Safety found that parents and local educators are better at deciding when a student’s disruptive actions warrant suspension or expulsion than are quotas handed down from Washington.

The reprieve from race-based federal manipulation was short-lived.

Federal policymakers from the Justice Department and Education Department released a letter to K-12 schools stating: “Significant disparities by race—beginning as early as preschool—have persisted in the application of student discipline in schools.”

Yet what if the student behavior is the issue, not skin color?

A new survey from the Education Department finds that 84% of school personnel report that “the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted the behavioral development of students” and a plurality of 46% said that “threats of physical attacks or fights between students” have increased since before the pandemic.

Fully 39% of school personnel report that physical fights between students are up, the survey finds. And 61% said “classroom disruptions from student misconduct” also have increased.

Vandalism, out-of-control behavior in school hallways, verbal abuse—all have increased since before the pandemic. Yet the new letter from Washington redirects attention to students’ ethnicities instead of classroom safety.

This isn’t the first time this year that the Education Department has tried to micromanage local school safety policies and emphasize racial preferences.

The agency issued a report in March that urged educators to use “restorative justice” practices instead of suspension and expulsion, although exercises such as “restorative circles” and other conversation-style interventions leave disruptive students in class with their peers, even after they have been violent or otherwise interfered.

School officials in Broward County, Florida, had employed these methods for years before an expelled student shot and killed 17 at his high school in 2018, opening school leaders to intense criticism.

These new reports from the Justice and Education departments warn schools that employ school resource officers that their activities should be limited. Emails obtained by The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project under the Freedom of Information Act show that the two agencies coordinated their statements on school resource officers. The Justice Department report says these officers should undergo “anti-bias” training and use restorative justice practices.

Not all school districts are ready to limit school resource officers, though. In Washington, D.C., which is under federal authority, local policymakers are reconsidering their 2020 decision to remove all school resource officers by 2025.

The last three budget proposals from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, have included “fully funding” school resource officers in District of Columbia Public Schools, according to The Washington Post.

The Post’s editorial board praised these proposals, writing: “Many cities yanked officers out of schools while reassessing policing after George Floyd’s 2020 murder. However well-intentioned, the experiment has left kids more vulnerable and classrooms less safe amid surging youth violence.”

Neighboring jurisdictions such as Alexandria, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland, also are considering hiring more school resource officers, as are Boston and Phoenix, the Post’s editorial board wrote.

Two students were shot in separate incidents in just the last two weeks near D.C. high schools, police said. A D.C. Council committee notes that 77 knives, 15 tasers, and five guns were found on the school system’s campuses in the 2021-2022 school year.

Incidents such as these, along with surveys showing a surge in disruptive student behavior after the pandemic, explain why the new federal guidance on limiting school resource officers and calling for racial preferences in student discipline isn’t what schools need.

School officials should judge each disciplinary incident on its own merits. Parents and educators know their students and their schools best, and they should decide how to keep students safe and maintain order.

They can do that without letters from Washington that reek of racial quotas.


What Settlement of Vaccine Mandate Case Says About Corruption of Teachers Unions

Teachers unions across America have defended members from termination for virtually every imaginable kind of misconduct.

The unions defended teachers for illegal marijuana use and intoxication on the job. They defended teachers who stole money, had excessive absences, or otherwise abused their position.

They defended teachers who had pornographic materials in the classroom. They defended incompetent teachers who failed to produce positive student achievement.

And in Rhode Island, the teachers unions vigorously defended one teacher who engaged in inappropriate touching and language with his female students. They appealed his firing all the way to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

As one of the primary purposes to justify the paying of dues, teachers unions promote themselves as fighting to protect the jobs of teachers and rarely ever backing down when it comes to the dismissal of one of their members.

But unions are criticized routinely for defending bad employees, regardless of the cost, and often seeking alternate accommodations or filing their own grievance, no matter the gravity of the sin.

However, teachers unions cannot tolerate one sin, and they’re willing to break the law in order to virtue signal.

That sin?

Exercising one’s religious freedom by choosing not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Oh, the horror.

In early 2022, in the small town of Barrington, Rhode Island, three teachers were fired for this unforgivable sin. Throughout the long ordeal that followed, the teachers nobly stuck to their principles and stood their ground.

Last month, they emerged from their battle with a rare major legal victory and complete vindication, when their lawsuit against Barrington Public Schools was settled. The settlement included payment of all back salaries, significant compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees.

But a second lawsuit by the teachers is pending, one that has garnered little media attention but may have greater long-term implications. That lawsuit also was filed against the Barrington Education Association, which brazenly abandoned these three dues-paying union members.

In the same case earlier this spring, the three teachers’ attorney, Gregory Piccirilli, filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim against the Barrington teachers union, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

The teachers filed a legal complaint May 25 in Rhode Island Superior Court, the state’s second-highest court, against the NEA’s local, state, and federal branches. The lawsuit alleges that the union discriminated against teachers based on their religious beliefs and breached its “duty of fair representation.”

According to federal law, neither employers nor unions may discriminate against employees or members for religious reasons, as the Barrington teachers union did when deciding not to represent the three teachers.

And under Rhode Island law, unions are required to provide a “heightened” obligation to defend their public sector members against wrongful termination, not abandon them.

The suing teachers hope to demonstrate that the local teachers union openly conspired with the Barrington school committee, or school board, which not only imposed the vaccine mandate but fired the teachers who resisted it.

An attorney for the teachers claims that he has irrefutable proof that the local and statewide NEA chapters not only publicly advocated that every school district impose such a vaccine mandate, but that the union clearly said it wouldn’t defend any teachers fired as a consequence of the policy.

This declaration may be viewed only as open collusion with school districts. In essence, the union said to them, “If you implement a vaccine mandate, we will support the school district policy, not our own teacher members. So go right ahead, impose your authoritarian dictate, and we’ll stay out of the way.”

Most school committees in Rhode Island understood that such a mandate wasn’t within their purview to make medically; it belonged to the state Health Department. Also, lawyers for many school committees had legitimate, and prescient, fears of being sued for overstepping their bounds.

But, as it turned out, Barrington was the only school district in Rhode Island that took this unjustified and legally dangerous step. The district went so far as to deny paying the three fired teachers their lawfully required salaries until the end of the school year. And now, the school district is paying a steep price.

The lawyer for the Barrington school committee, who supported the teachers union’s push for the vaccine mandate and firing the teachers, eventually was fired herself for her incompetence and shockingly poor legal advice.

The school committee’s recently hired attorney, recognizing the obvious legal peril, quickly moved to settle the case. At the school district’s great expense, the three plaintiff teachers were “made whole, plus” in a settlement that exceeded their original demands.

Soon, the unions may suffer the same fate for failing to fulfill their legal and moral responsibilities. Instead, they chose to demonstrate egregiously blind adherence to a false government narrative.

Imagine an innocent citizen, charged with a criminal offense, discovering that her own defense attorney was conspiring with the prosecutor to ensure her conviction.

Basically, the same thing happened in Barrington, Rhode Island, where the three teachers were denied their rightful and guaranteed legal representation by the union, which had openly colluded with the school district. More alarmingly, these teachers were treated even worse than actual criminals.

But why?

Why would a teachers union so blatantly sell out these teachers and so obviously break the law in order to push a vaccine mandate that didn’t work?

Are they just incredibly stupid and ignorant? Were they completely and mindlessly brainwashed, as so many others have been—and still are—about the false claims of the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines? Were they drunk with power?

Or was it just pure corruption?

In perpetual league with local and state officials—elected and appointed—public sector unions routinely enjoy every conceivable legislative and regulatory advantage. To maintain its illicit gravy train of taxpayers’ money, were this teachers union’s illicit actions simply a means of showing support for the government’s narrative?

In a recent example of unions dutifully backing the official narrative, another local teachers union in Rhode Island actually went to the extent of filing suit against a mother for asking too many questions about the government-run school system’s radical racial curriculum.

Regardless, such union disregard for the law—and for its own responsibility to dues-paying members—must be exposed and punished to such an extent that it never happens again.

The National Education Association has a $1 million liability insurance fund; no doubt that fund will be greatly depleted after the resolution of the pending lawsuit, which will seek significant punitive and emotional distress damages.

It is time for school districts to return to the basics of education. Similarly, teachers unions must keep to their collective bargaining duties and desist with their open promotion of controversial and divisive curricula and of all things big government.

Corrupt departure from traditionally accepted educational norms now may lead to severe legal and financial costs. It’s about time.




Tuesday, June 06, 2023

Family punished for opposing transgender student in girls' locker room scores settlement with school district

A family reached a $125,000 settlement with a Vermont school district that punished them for speaking out against a biological male student using the girls' locker room, the Daily Signal reported Friday.

"This settlement was a huge victory for freedom of speech, not just for Blake and me, but for anyone who wants to voice their opinion on important topics," Travis Allen told the White River Valley Herald.

Blake Allen, then 14, was suspended from school and her father Travis Allen lost his coaching position after both spoke out against a biological male using the girls' locker room at Randolph Union High School.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Allens' records will be cleared of references to the disciplinary action; Travis Allen will be reinstated as a middle school soccer coach, and the district will pay the family and their attorneys $125,000.

"The settlement of Blake and Travis Allen’s case is a resounding victory for freedom of speech," Phil Sechler, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Daily Signal.

"We are grateful that the school recognized it was wrong to suspend Blake from school and Travis from his coaching position simply for exercising their freedom of speech. No one should lose their job or get suspended from school for voicing their opinion or calling a male a male and we are glad to see this case resolved favorably, not only for Blake and Travis, but for all students and coaches to be able to speak freely and without fear of retaliation," Sechler also said, as the Herald reported.


University of Cincinnati student alleges professor failed her for using the term ‘biological women’

A sophomore at the University of Cincinnati claims that her professor gave her a zero on a college project for using the term “biological women.”

Olivia Krolczyk, 20, said her professor for Women’s Gender Studies in Pop Culture class failed her for using the “exclusionary” term despite admitting that she submitted a “solid proposal,” the student told The Post.

The course instructed students to pick a topic related to feminism, with Krolczyk choosing to research the changes female athletes have experienced throughout history and the rights and opportunities they have been awarded and fought for in athletics.

Her project discussed things like the first woman to compete in the Olympic games to the fight female athletes like Riley Gaines are making for proposed to Title IX.

The chemistry major said her project ended by sharing how “these rights and opportunities are being threatened by allowing men to compete in women’s sports.”

Krolczyk, who hasn’t identified the professor for fear she may be subjected to online harassment, first made the claim in a now-viral TikTok, which has been viewed more than 2.5 million times.

The clip shares an apparent photo of the zero grade and the professor’s comment, which reads, “Olivia, this is a solid proposal. However, the terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity.”

“The final grade is based on the very few assignments we have, adding up to 200 total points. All grades relating to this specific project add up to 100 points, which is half of my grade,” Krolczyk told The Post.

“The project in general was very broad and the students had a lot of freedom to pick a topic.”

The undergrad student — who competed in cross country and track throughout high school and the beginning of her college career before transferring to the University of Cincinnati — said she followed the professor’s instructions to a tee, including using three sources from the class and formatting the paper to the teacher’s requirements.

“The directions for the assignment in which I received a zero on specifically state, ‘This exercise is developmental. Thoughtful proposals submitted on time will receive full credit.’ I turned in my assignment on time and I can guarantee 100% that my proposal was extremely thoughtful,” she insisted.

Krolczyk also said she had contacted the university’s Gender Equality office, which told her they would have a different professor review and grade her work — but she is yet to see her grade change nearly two weeks later.

The student also claims this was not the first time she’s run into issues with this professor.

Krolczyk said she was rebuked when she pushed back during a class discussion and argued that generalizing all white men as having privilege is “not fair.”

“She commented that something along the lines of it being necessary and important to recognize privilege and oppression. I was docked on my grade,” the student alleged.

The University of Cincinnati’s said the matter is being reviewed through their established policies and processes.


MSU hit with civil rights complaint alleging school’s business boot camp discriminated against white males

A government watchdog organization on Friday filed a civil rights complaint against Missouri State University, alleging that the school’s business boot camp program illegally discriminated against white males.

The Equal Protection Project (EPP) said it was bringing the civil rights complaint against MSU for "engaging in racial- and gender-based discrimination through its sponsorship, promotion, and hosting of a small business training ‘boot camp’ that limited participation to individuals who identify as ‘BIOPOC’ … or are female. White males, and white males alone, were excluded from eligibility."

"BIPOC" is an acronym for "Black, Indigenous and Persons of Color."

In its complaint to the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education, the EPP accused MSU’s program of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

"The OCR should investigate this program and the circumstances under which such a blatantly discriminatory program was approved, take all appropriate action to end such discriminatory practices, and impose remedial relief," EPP said.

MSU began accepting applications for the Spring 2023 Early-Stage Business Boot Camp program in late November.

The university said the program was for "aspiring or current BIPOC and/or women small business owners who have recently started or are in the idea phase" and live in Southern Missouri.

The program ran for eight sessions (once a week for eight weeks) and concluded in mid-April. Participants were given a $3,000 stipend for transportation, childcare, or other business expenses.

Per EPP, the program was funded by a $30,000 grant from U.S. Bank Foundation for the university’s foundation for the "efactory," a technology-focused business incubator and entrepreneurial development center. Funding also came from the Missouri Scholarship and Loan Foundation.

After EPP filed a complaint to the Missouri Attorney General in April, MSU said the program would be offered to everyone "irrespective of their race and/or sex."

MSU told Fox News Digital at the time that the program was "designed to assist new and aspiring small business owners in establishing and growing their business."

"The Spring 2023 program was funded by the U.S. Bank Foundation and, on a one-time basis, focused on minority and/or woman-owned businesses," MSU said. "On an ongoing basis, the efactory will continue to offer the Early-Stage Business Boot Camp Program at no cost to the participants, and irrespective of their race and/or sex."

EPP founder William A. Jacobson said the change was a "good first step" but argued that MSU "needs to publicly and officially acknowledge its wrongdoing, and make clear what steps it will take to make amends to the people wrongly excluded based on race and sex."

"Missouri State also needs to state whether there are any other segregated or discriminatory programs, what investigation it has done to identify such programs, and what specific steps it will take to prevent such misconduct," Jacobson said in a statement.

"It's not enough, when caught, to say 'oops, sorry.' Sunlight needs to shine on the nature of DEI activities at Missouri State, and how such a blatantly discriminatory program was allowed to happen in the first place."




Monday, June 05, 2023

Another "cancellation" that perverts history

It is unreasonable to blame people for accepting the conventional wisdom of their day

IN 1914, 50 years after his graduation from Middlebury College and two years after completing his term as Vermont's 53d governor, John Abner Mead reached out to his alma mater with a generous offer.
In a letter to the college president that was forwarded to the board of trustees, Mead proposed to underwrite the construction of a campus house of worship — a "dignified and substantial" chapel that would reflect "the simplicity and strength of character" of the people of Champlain Valley and the state of Vermont. Specifically, wrote Mead, he would provide $60,000 to build a chapel at the highest point on the Middlebury campus, "to be known as the Mead Memorial Chapel."

The trustees readily accepted Mead's offer. A groundbreaking ceremony for the chapel was held in June 1914; the completed building was dedicated two years later. By then, the funds donated by the former governor had risen to more than $75,000 — the equivalent of $2.2 million today. The chapel soon became an iconic feature of the Middlebury landscape and the college's branding. It still is. But the building was recently stripped of its benefactor's name. Thereby hangs a lawsuit, and another chapter in the dismal annals of contemporary cancel culture.

On Sept. 27, 2021, with no advance notice, Middlebury workers were dispatched to remove the stone slab engraved with the words "Mead Memorial Chapel" from its niche above the building's entrance. With the name gone, bare brick was exposed beneath the pediment.

Hours later, Middlebury administrators issued a statement announcing that after a "deliberative process," they had decided to eliminate the name of the chapel's donor on the grounds that he had played a role in "advocating and promoting eugenics policies in Vermont in the early 1900s."

Mead thus joined a long list of prominent historical individuals whose names or images have been stricken, toppled, defaced, or expunged from public places of honor because things they did or said long ago are regarded today as shameful or benighted. Statues of figures as varied as Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, and the singer Kate Smith have been "canceled" in this manner, as have buildings named for Woodrow Wilson, the Sackler family, and Dianne Feinstein. In Boston, the street bearing the name of former Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey was renamed in 2018. A year later, Roxbury's central hub became Nubian Square, memory-holing the name by which it had been known for generations, that of Puritan governor Thomas Dudley.

Sometimes the case for removing a statue or a name from a building is undeniably compelling. I have long argued that monuments honoring leaders of the Confederacy — the vilest cause in American history — deserve no place in a free society. Too often, however, men and women whose careers were admirable and even heroic have been dishonored because in one notable respect they fell short.

Jefferson, for example, was among the most visionary, inspiring, and influential leaders in US history. But because he was a slaveholder, he is deemed by many to be unworthy of any honor. In his case and numerous others, historical figures are reduced by contemporary critics to a single, defining negative characteristic — and that moral failing is given more weight than all the good they may have achieved in a life of accomplishment and merit.

That is what Middlebury has done to Mead. And to rectify that unfairness, a more recent Middlebury alumnus — former Vermont governor James Douglas — has gone to court to get his predecessor's name restored to the chapel made possible by his munificence.

In a 79-page lawsuit filed in Vermont Superior Court, Douglas makes two essential arguments.

One is that removing Mead's name from the Middlebury chapel amounts to a breach of contract, since the former governor's offer to pay for the building was conditioned on its being called the "Mead Memorial Chapel." That understanding was expressed in numerous communications at the time, Douglas contends. Mead specified that the building to be constructed with his money would bear his family's name, and the college accepted that term. "The name 'Mead Memorial Chapel' was the essence of the deal and it was the entire deal — forever," the complaint reads.

Whether that argument will stand up in court is unclear. In a motion to dismiss Douglas's suit, the college argues that Mead's offer in 1914 was never made explicitly contingent on a permanent grant of naming rights and that "it certainly did not call for a reversion of the gift if the name should be changed more than one hundred years later."

But if Douglas's legal claim is iffy, the moral argument he makes is wholly convincing.

In prying the former governor's name from the chapel because of his support for eugenics — support that appears to have amounted to little more than a single passage in Mead's farewell speech as governor — Middlebury College "sullies the reputation of a decent man," Douglas maintains. The college "has obliterated any memory of the selfless acts and the altruistic contributions John Mead made to his nation, state, county, town, church, and to Middlebury College itself."

Those acts and contributions were considerable. Mead, an orphan who worked to put himself through school, became a successful doctor, businessman, and philanthropist. He served as Vermont's surgeon general, a state senator, the mayor of Rutland, and lieutenant governor before being elected to the state's highest office in 1910. As governor, Douglas observes, Mead was a progressive who supported women's suffrage, toughened child labor laws, and strengthened campaign finance statutes.

John A. Mead, who graduated from Middlebury College in 1864, went on to become a physician, a businessman, the governor of Vermont, and a philanthropist.

It is true that he was sympathetic to eugenics and believed that "undesirable" people, such as the mentally ill and criminally insane, should be restricted from procreating. But in the early decades of the 20th century, that was the mainstream progressive view, enthusiastically embraced by leading thinkers, scientists, and activists, including Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, and Helen Keller. Mead's single 1912 speech on the subject was, by modern standards, profoundly unenlightened. But it changed nothing and was not a subject he pursued further. Not until 1931 did the Vermont legislature pass a bill for the sterilization of "mentally unfit" people. By that point, Mead had been dead for over a decade.

Whatever else might be said about Mead's views on eugenics, they didn't define his life or his legacy. They were far outweighed by the good he did as a citizen, a public official, and an alumnus of his college. To strip his name from the landmark chapel he provided because his once-conventional support for eugenics is now disfavored doesn't amount to an honorable grappling with history. It amounts to tawdry virtue signaling by an institution that should be better than that.

With or without Mead's name, the chapel he built will continue to stand tall. A pity the same can't be said for the president and trustees of Middlebury College.


Conservative Efforts To Roll Back DEI in Higher Education Sweep Through Another State

Ohio college students should thank Jerry Cirino. The Republican state senator has written a bill designed to spare those students instruction in the type of sordid thinking that sees all of life in terms of group power dynamics, cancels opposing views, preaches color consciousness, and discourages merit.

In other words, Cirino wants to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, requirements from Ohio’s public university system.

One of the nation’s largest, with 14 four-year research universities, 24 regional campuses, 23 community colleges, and 13 graduate schools, Ohio’s higher education system would be better off without DEI.

Some Ohioans, of course, don’t see it Cirino’s way. That’s to be expected, but what’s hard to grasp is the degree of demagoguery that has met his bill.

What this criticism shows, once again, is the instability produced by the type of regime politics America is gripped by at the moment. We are arguing not over fine policy points, but what type of regime we will have.

To describe the two camps briefly, those on the Left claim that America is systemically racist, in the sense that the American system itself—everything we do—oppresses members of the “marginalized” categories. From this leftist perspective, DEI training is needed to deprogram the American mind and reset it with a greater awareness of racial matters.

On the other side, people say no: Although there certainly are racists (just as there are murderers and rapists), the system itself is not racist. America is also far from being an oppressive state. Although the government can and should do nothing about “thought crimes” or freedom of association, state and federal civil rights laws adequately protect against true discrimination.

The conservatives in this latter camp say that diversity, equity, and inclusion practices themselves often violate the spirit and letter of statutes that proscribe race-conscious decisions by the government and the private sector. They also affirm that DEI in practice at public colleges unconstitutionally compels speech, enforcing the view of America as being racist and oppressive.

Cirino’s anti-DEI bill is an attempt to correct these wrongs, among others. This comprehensive legislation also addresses many aspects of higher education in Ohio that are in need of reform, from the terms of trustees to making syllabuses digitally searchable.

But the key part of the bill would prohibit “any mandatory programs or training courses regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion.” This section deals mostly with banning compelled speech or requiring particular ideas as a condition of admission, hiring, or obtaining a degree.

One section, for example, would order the boards of trustees of colleges and universities in the Ohio system to require their institutions to “affirm and declare that the institution will not encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy, nor will the institution require students to do any of those things to obtain an undergraduate or post-graduate degree.”

Cirino’s bill, which has many other sponsors, passed the state Senate, headed to the state House, and may appear on the desk of Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, for his signature.

The legislation also supports viewpoint diversity, attempting to ensure that universities “will seek out invited speakers who have diverse ideological or political views.”

It also would eliminate the practice of canceling conservative speech. It would require that an institution of higher learning “declare that its duty is to ensure that, within or outside the classroom, the institution shall not require, favor, disfavor, or prohibit speech or lawful assembly.”

The bill moreover rightly would bar the Chinese Communist Party, China’s ruling organ, from influencing America’s young minds. It says that “no state institution of higher education shall accept gifts, donations, or contributions from the People’s Republic of China or any organization the institution reasonably suspects is acting on behalf of the People’s Republic of China.”

These are commonsense approaches, but they are being demagogued by a leftist professoriate that runs the university system as its fiefdom.

One ethnic studies professor, Timothy Messer-Kruse, seized on the bill’s single use of the term “divergent” in a definition—“‘Intellectual diversity’ means multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives”—to make outlandish claims.

The bill, writes Messer-Kruse, would require him “to teach the ‘divergent’ theory of racial construction, which is that race is a biological, fixed, natural attribute of humankind.”

The professor continued: “It requires me to teach the ‘divergent’ theory of civil rights, which is that the Constitution allows for the legal separation of races and that this is a justifiable form of equality. It requires me to teach that the South seceded because it wished to defend states rights against the unlawful aggression of the Lincoln administration.”

But none of this is true. These lines are meant to scare good people who are too busy to read the bill. In fact, the legislation would entrust to professors “the exercise of professional judgment about how to accomplish intellectual diversity within an academic discipline.”

The teachers unions are up in arms, too, demagoguing the bill and crying about the limitations on China’s influence.

Fighting DEI will not be politically easy, as Cirino is finding out. But for the more than half a million students attending Ohio’s institutions of higher education, it’s worth it.


The sinister side of making ‘misgendering’ a disciplinary offence

Should ‘misgendering’ someone be a disciplinary offence? One Oxford college seems to think so. Yesterday, Regent’s Park College posted a ‘Trans Inclusion Statement’, burnishing its existing bullying and harassment policy. On a long list of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ that might warrant punishment is ‘consistently using incorrect titles, pronouns or names to refer to a trans person’ – also known as ‘misgendering’ or ‘deadnaming’ someone.

The obvious problem here is that the list of speechcrimes provided could apply to almost anyone who simply doesn’t believe in the eccentric tenets of gender ideology

The timing can’t have been coincidental. All eyes were on Oxford this week due to the strangely controversial appearance at the Oxford Union of gender-critical feminist Kathleen Stock, whose great heresy is to believe in biological sex and women’s rights. There were protests and demands the event be cancelled. Regent’s Park College says it has been working on this policy ‘since 2022’, but just so happened to choose this week – of all weeks – to publish it.

‘Regent’s Park College celebrates and values the diversity of its student groups, workforce, and visitors, and we aim to create a place for them that is welcoming and inclusive’, the statement begins. Which might sound reasonable enough. After all, no sane person is in favour of bullying and harassment, certainly not bullying and harassment fuelled by hatred of a minority group.

But the more you dig into the document, the more it becomes clear just how stretched the definition of bullying and harassment has become these days – and how, certainly where the trans issue is concerned, this poses a direct threat to free thought and speech.

Alongside the prohibition on ‘misgendering’ and ‘deadnaming’ we are told students must not deny or dispute ‘the validity and / or existence of a trans person’s identity’, make ‘jokes about trans people or their trans status’, or refuse ‘to treat a person in accordance with their affirmed identity’. Such behaviour, the document suggests, is tantamount to abuse.

One could easily see a situation in which some unpleasant person could deploy all these tactics and more to make someone’s life hell. But harassment is harassment, regardless of how you go about it. The obvious problem here is that the list of speechcrimes provided could apply to almost anyone, however reasonable or well-meaning, who simply doesn’t believe in the eccentric tenets of gender ideology – or who simply shows insufficient deference to them.

Take ‘misgendering’. There are an awful lot of people who cling to the view, held by everyone until about five minutes ago, that you cannot change sex – not least because it is an observable scientific fact. Some will happily refer to trans people using their ‘preferred’ pronouns, because they see it as somewhere between a courtesy and a harmless fiction. But others would just rather not. Must they really be compelled to do so – to lie, essentially – under pain of punishment? Compelled speech corrodes freedom of speech.

The pronouns thing is particularly insidious given the fact that we mainly use someone’s pronouns when that person isn’t around. (When you’re out for a drink with a friend you don’t turn to them, at the appropriate time, and say ‘would she / her like another pint?’) What is ultimately being demanded here is that you change how you think about someone, and how you describe them when they aren’t there, not just how you address them.

As for this demand that all staff and students treat people ‘in accordance with their affirmed identity’ – which according to the policy needn’t mean he or she has had any medical treatment – this is an affront to safety as well as conscience. What if a female student would rather not have a male-bodied individual in the women’s loos – and dares to say so? This whole approach seems particularly foolhardy given the small, but not insignificant, number of abusive, nefarious men who have abused the notion of ‘gender self-ID’ in recent years in order to gain access to women’s spaces.

The Regent’s Park College policy is testament to the doublethink of our age: it exhorts its residents to be ‘inclusive’ while excluding anyone of an opposing view. Worse, it would happily compel students to say things they don’t believe and act in a way that is against their conscience. We need to rediscover the true meaning of tolerance. Everyone is entitled to their views so long as they don’t impose them on anyone else. Is that really so difficult? In the gender wars of today, apparently so.




Sunday, June 04, 2023

Harvard rejects brilliant Asians in favor of poorly qualified blacks

Although I don't condone it, I can sort of understand what they are doing. If all admissions were on merit, the Harvard student body would have a minority of whites -- mostly Jewish -- and a majority of Asians.

If the Harvard leaders really do have a hankering to see black faces in the student body they could achieve that without loss of standards by recruiting from South India. There are some very bright people there who are also very black

And they are at a high cultural level too. Tamil Nadu is the only surviving classical civilization. Some Tamils below

image from

Any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in a pair of landmark cases Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has brought forth against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, alleging that their race-based college admissions practices actively discriminate against high-achieving students who don't fit the woke mold, often Asian American applicants.

Townhall has conducted a series of sitdown interviews, in the lead-up to the much-anticipated SCOTUS decisions, with Asian American community members outraged over the Ivy League's racial gatekeeping and affirmative action's trickle-down effects, now seeping into suburbia. As an affront to the race-obsessed Left's forever war on meritocracy, and in unyielding defense of the American Dream, which we, like many, believe is well worth fighting for, here are their firsthand accounts from the frontline:

Jon Wang, Harvard University reject now-attending the Georgia Institute of Technology

Harvard hopeful Jon Wang, currently a freshman at Georgia Tech double-majoring in mathematics and computer science, was rejected by the Crimson's guard despite submitting a near-perfect SAT score. Achieving an elusive 1590, just 10 short of the total possible points, Wang outperformed 99 percent of all other test-takers, which also meant he placed among the top 1 percent.

"It's harder to gain acceptance as an Asian American..." Wang, remaining "cautiously optimistic" at the time, recalled his high school counselor telling him, in essence. "They didn't really give me much advice other than to try to appear a bit less Asian."

For example, Wang said, "Don't write your essays about Chinese traditions or things commonly associated with Asian culture."

On paper, Wang was surely a shoo-in for the Ivies: Aside from graduating with a 4.65 GPA, extracurriculars-wise, he was captain of the academic QuizBowl team, a competitive golfer, making headlines at junior tournaments across the country, and co-founded a start-up company that provides golf-data analytics to the Chinese market via an app he had developed the backend code for.

"Obviously, race plays a factor in it," Wang stated, noting that based on SFFA's acceptance-percentage model, his approximately 20-percent possibility of being admitted into Harvard as an Asian American would have skyrocketed to a 77-percent chance of admission if he were Hispanic, with the liklihood climbing to 95 percent if his race was black. "The model's results are pretty clear..." Wang said of the calculations. "The fact that I'm Asian—I don't think makes my accomplishments any less valuable."

Shortly after the Harvard-rejection letter arrived, Wang joined SFFA in hopes of changing the racially rigged game for younger college-bound Asian Americans facing the feat soon as well as applicants of the coming generations. "Maybe my kids in the future," Wang, the son of first-generation Chinese immigrants, mused, "so they don't have to deal with unfairness in the system."


Prestigious University May Expel Students Who 'Misgender' Trans Peers

In January, Townhall reported how Ithaca College in New York will allow students who identify as "transgender" or "non-binary" to live in a separate residential community that excludes "cis-identifying students." This move was meant to create a "supportive community" for students who identify as LGBTQ+. Shortly after, reports broke that students at the all-women's Wellesley College voted to allow transgender and nonbinary individuals to apply to the school.

Now, another university announced that students who "misgender" a transgender student could face expulsion for doing so.

Students at the University of Oxford in England could be expelled for misgendering their peers under a new "transgender harassment policy."

Regent's Park College unveiled a new "trans inclusion statement" in an effort to combat "transphobia" on campus, according to The Telegraph:

The new policy says that “unlawful discriminatory behaviour, including transphobic harassment or bullying … will be regarded extremely seriously and could be grounds for disciplinary action”.

The statement lists examples of harassment, including “consistently using incorrect titles, pronouns or names to refer to a trans person (‘deadnaming’) especially where this causes distress”.

The college’s students are also banned from “unduly intrusive or personal questioning”, “making jokes about trans people or their trans status” and “denying or disputing the validity and/or existence of a trans person’s identity”.

Students found to have broken the policy may face “expulsion or dismissal”, the statement continued.

In addition, the college reportedly said that it believes "gender reassignment" is not an "exclusively medical" term and that it has "personal" dimensions.

"Individuals perceived as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (even incorrectly) are still afforded its protections," the statement said.

Last year, a teacher in Ireland was suspended from his job and jailed for contempt of court after he refused to address a transgender student by their "preferred pronouns," which Townhall covered.

Reportedly, Burke, who teaches history, politics and German, refused to address a "transgender" student as "they" instead of "he." Burke addressed the student by male pronouns. The school then placed him on administrative leave "pending the outcome of a disciplinary process."

"I love my school, with its motto Res Non Verba, 'Actions not words,' but I am here today because I said I would not call a boy a girl," Burke said in court, according to the New York Post. "Transgenderism is against my Christian belief. It is contrary to the scriptures, contrary to the ethos of the Church of Ireland and of my school."


Just 3pc of tech graduates are job-ready, Australian Information Industry Association survey finds

Only 3 per cent of Australian tech companies believe graduates are job-ready after finishing university, with many taking up to 12 months of training to reach required productivity levels.

The lack of readiness is tightening the overall jobs market, forcing smaller firms that can’t afford to train staff without experience to fork out hefty sums while competing against major companies for highly-skilled workers.

The state of the market amid Australia’s current skills and labour shortage is severely limiting the ability for Australian tech start-ups and small firms to be innovative, Australian Information Industry Association chief executive Simon Bush said.

“Feedback from our members is that on average it takes between six to 12 months to train a graduate and while larger companies can take on that overhead and the cost of training, for smaller companies it is a real handbrake on productivity,” he said.

The 3 per cent job-ready rate, which arrived from the AIIA’s fourth Digital State of the Nation survey, had fallen from 5 per cent in the previous year.

Across the nation, cybersecurity positions are the most in demand in the tech space followed by artificial intelligence roles.

To meet demand, many tech companies had moved away from hiring people university degrees and were actively hiring workers who had recently completed micro-courses and vocational training courses, the AIIA found.

Some of the training provided in short courses was similar to on-the-job learning, and easing the pressures on companies to train staff, Mr Bush said.

“We’re finding that our members really are looking to hire people from non-traditional areas, in other words, non-ICT areas in order to meet demand,” he said. “And in relation to cyber security, micro courses are the what the market wants.”

The local tech market will not be as active as previous years over the next 12 months, with 26 per cent of companies unsure if they would actively hire this year, the survey found.

The pulling back on expanding staff headcounts may drive some pressure down on graduate salaries, which The Australian revealed last year had been as high as $147,000 to $350,000 at the top-paying firms.

“What’s happening with consumers, and cost of living, inflation and interest rates there, companies are not looking to grow their business as much as they perhaps were going to last year in terms of hiring people,” Mr Bush said.

The roles which demand a premium are cybersecurity and AI, with senior staff in those fields in more demand than ever before. “If you are an AI expert in a technology company, right now you are a rock star,” Mr Bush said.

Of those looking to hire, the intention to bring on local workers had grown to 69 per cent, up 5 per cent from the previous years when borders were closed.

The major factor driving companies toward hiring overseas staff was the skills shortage. Labour costs were another factor, cited by 17 per cent of staff, down from 50 per cent the previous year.