Thursday, June 22, 2023

The Uprising: Families Clash With Schools Over LGBTQ Propaganda

In a June like none other, where the LGBTQ agenda has been crammed at increasing velocity down the throats of unwitting Americans, everyday folks are reaching their limits.

With two more weeks to go in “Pride Month,” this is bad news for the rainbow mafia. But it’s a sign of character and courage that the rest of us can take hope in—especially when demonstrated by families in the direct line of propagandistic fire.

In response to the Left’s “sex-and-gender-everything” policies, parents and kids are both flexing their muscles in opposition to schools that are all in on “Pride.”

Earlier this month, a group of students at Marshall Simonds Middle School in Burlington, Massachusetts, reportedly protested a “Pride Month” event by tearing down LGBTQ “Pride” signs and banners and chanting, “USA are my pronouns.”

This prompted the Equity Coalition, an LGBTQ advocacy group, to demand that the Burlington school district discipline students involved in the protest and fill the district’s vacant position of director of diversity, inclusion, and equity, or DEI.

In Huntington Beach, California, students at Edison High School revolted against a “Pride” video shown in math class. For their outbursts, their teacher threatened: “if you’re going to be inappropriate, I will have supervision down and give all of you a Saturday school for next year.”

And a few miles up the California coast, in ultra-Left Hollywood, parents kept their children home from North Hollywood’s Saticoy Elementary School in protest of a planned “Pride Day.”

The frustration extends beyond LGBTQ school events to curriculum and policies, too.

Parents at an elementary school in Connecticut were infuriated after their 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds were shown a video celebrating gender identity without the parents’ knowledge, and then given “puberty kits” to take home.

One parent, Kyle Reyes, the father of four kids under age 9, decided to pull them all out of the Granby School District as a result of policies on sexual orientation and gender identity, saying: “These are conversations that, if anyone is going to have with their kids, it should be the parents having with their kids.”

North of the border, at a large protest in front of an Ottawa school board led by Muslim Canadians but also attended by Christians and Jews, parents and kids voiced their opposition to radical gender ideology in the classroom.

Much of their ire was directed at the school board’s recent mandate on gender-neutral pronouns, prompting chants of “Let the parents decide.”

The divide between propaganda and common sense is no more readily apparent than in the context of scholastic sports—where Gallup now reports massive increases in the number of Americans who say biological sex—and not gender identity—should dictate participation in organized sports.

Gallup notes:

A larger majority of Americans now (69%) than in 2021 (62%) say transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender. Likewise, fewer endorse transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their current gender identity, 26%, down from 34%.

This finding tracks with a recent study indicating that 65% of Americans say they believe there are only two genders—an increase of six percentage points from 2021.

Now, if school districts had been paying attention to such numbers and operated according to federal law and not the will of cultural elites and LGBTQ evangelists in the federal government, situations like those in Wisconsin and Vermont high schools might have been avoided.

At East High School, in Wisconsin’s Sun Prairie Area School District, an 18-year-old biological male who identified as “trans” entered the girls’ locker room and showered naked in front of a group of terrified 14-year-old freshman girls. In a manifestation of what’s become a troubling trend on parental disenfranchisement, the school district chose not to contact the girls’ parents.

Now, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty is urging the U.S. Department of Education to investigate whether the high school violated federal civil rights law.

A few weeks ago, a Vermont school district that punished a father and daughter for speaking out about a biological male using a girls’ locker room was ordered to cough up $125,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees. Considering this, the Wisconsin school district might want to get its legal house in order.

LGBTQ talking points once focused on “equality” and wanting to “live and let live.” Now, yearlong “Pride” initiatives look more like a hostile takeover of government school systems.

What with school libraries shelved with gay porn, LGBTQ curriculum, gender-neutral bathrooms, preferred pronoun policies, and gaslighting parents on the gender identities of their own minor children (frequently facilitated by school administrators), families finally have had enough.

For once, the alphabet mob is back on its heels. But only because taxpaying parents and their brave kids are speaking up.

As noted by Kyle Reyes, the Connecticut dad: “Parents are starting to come out of the woodwork, and it’s time to start fighting back.”

And fight back they will.


Academic Freedom Is Social Justice

In 2014, Harvard student Sandra Korn wrote a column in the undergraduate newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, titled “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom: Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.” Korn, a joint major in history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality, argued that rather than relying on the principle of “academic freedom” to guide decisions about what kinds of academic expression should be permissible, we should rely instead on principles of “academic justice”:

"If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’? Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of ‘academic justice.’ When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue ... It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just."

A fellow undergraduate, Garrett Lam, a neurobiology and philosophy major, penned a response, “Academic Freedom Is Academic Justice.” He answered “Korn’s central question: If we oppose social injustice, ‘why should we put up with research that counters our goals?’” Thus:

"We shouldn’t ... science can do many things, but it can’t justify oppression. After all, science tells us the way things are. It tells us what is natural. But just because things are a certain way does not mean they ought to be that way ... If we believe people should be treated equally, an institution that treats them unequally opposes our values. But even if it were true that people are born with unequal capacities, this would not imply that we should treat them unequally ... Rather than closing our eyes and plugging our ears (which, by the way, wouldn’t make [scientific] truths cease to exist), we’re better off confronting them in the long run. After all, we choose how to apply knowledge, and can leverage it to effect the change we want in the world."

During the Korn/Lam exchange, I was busy teaching and advising Harvard undergraduates in my department, Human Evolutionary Biology, and somehow missed it. But it was far from the first time that members of the Harvard community disagreed about the limits of academic freedom. One particularly noteworthy event occurred in 2005, months after I’d earned my Ph.D. from Harvard (on testosterone and sex differences in cognition). I was furiously preparing to teach my very first class as a lecturer, “The Evolution of Human Sex Differences,” when the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, plunged right into my area of expertise.

At what was supposed to be a small, closed conference focusing on the problem of the underrepresentation of women in STEM careers, Summers gave a talk in which he proffered several hypotheses to explain the imbalanced sex ratio. One invoked “different socialization and patterns of discrimination” which was unlikely to ruffle any feathers. But another hypothesis was that the underrepresentation was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end.” It does appear that on many traits, including cognitive ones, males vary more than females—the male distribution curve is flatter, with more males than females in both the high and low tails. As Summers noted, this can result in a large male bias at the extreme levels of ability, from which elite universities draw their STEM job candidates.

Although Summers only said that he was offering his “best guesses” which “may be all wrong,” when his remarks were leaked, the Harvard campus (and the wider world) exploded in controversy. I was interviewed by a writer for the Crimson, and said what seemed obvious to me: “We tend to put blinders onto science when the explanations for behavior or social problems are distasteful or difficult ... We must explore all reasonable hypotheses.” Summers said what he did because he believed that openly debating the possible causes of a problem was an important step in trying to solve it. All these years later, I am even more convinced that this is right.

I teach behavioral endocrinology, which touches on sensitive issues related to stress and trauma, health disorders, and sex and gender. Student after student has told me how learning about this topic has helped them personally: gay students who have gained the confidence to come out to their families; trans students armed with knowledge about how hormones shape behavior and impact gender transitions; and students with differences/disorders/variations of sexual development, who can make better decisions about treatments. Students also tell me that learning about the science of sex and gender has increased their understanding and empathy—especially toward those who are different in terms of sex-related biology or gender expression. Many of them have been inspired to pursue careers in the medical or psychological fields as a way to care for people with such differences. These are the same students who don’t always agree with me about where the evidence points, but we almost always have productive, respectful conversations, in and out of class.

Unfortunately, the production and communication of science, on university campuses, scientific journals, and the popular press, has become more politicized over the last few decades. As academic freedom has been significantly eroded, disagreements about its limits have become more extreme and heated. One recent example of this erosion is a statement from the editor of the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior, describing new guidelines and policies that echo Ms. Korn’s proposal in her 2014 Crimson article. The editorial, innocuously titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans,” indicates that editors’ publishing decisions will be influenced by their judgments about an article’s potential to “cause harm.” Problematic content includes that which “undermines—or could reasonably be perceived to undermine—the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.” Groupings based on “sex, gender identity, sexual orientation” are given as examples.

Since the word “dignities” in particular is hopelessly vague and subjective, policies of this sort threaten to further restrict scientific research and scholarship in the areas of sex and gender. If we restrict research on the basis that it may undermine “dignities,” then we place severe limits on our ability to discover what is true. And to whom should we bestow the power to determine our “dignities,” and what qualifies as undermining them? Are these judges of dignity deemed to be the most moral among us? Would they represent everyone’s views, or just a subset of society? Or would they be elevated to the position by others with power?

Last but not least, when we censor research that fails the “dignity test”—say, research claiming that psychological sex differences may have some biological origin—we implicitly endorse the idea that troubling ethical and practical consequences follow from evidence of group differences. That is a big mistake, one that science educators, researchers, and publishers should focus on correcting before real damage is done to science, and to the lives of vulnerable people.

Apart from helping to attract a huge number of students to my seminar on sex differences, the Summers controversy had no practical effect on my work or life at Harvard. But a similar controversy, in which I became embroiled 16 years later, did. I found myself on the receiving end of public moral outrage in response to comments I made about human sex differences (also on a public platform), which have impinged upon my ability to teach and research in my area of interest and expertise. As a result, I am currently on leave from my position at Harvard.

Part of what is significant about my case, and most others like it, is that the limits on my academic freedom were not set by explicit, detailed, formal guidelines and policies like those outlined in the Nature Human Behavior editorial. Rather, my troubles were due to informal and personal attacks on my character, initiated by people without much institutional power, but implicitly sanctioned by those with it.

In the summer of 2021, shortly after the publication of my book T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us, I appeared on Fox and Friends, a news program on the Fox network. I was asked to comment on an article written by the journalist Katie Herzog, about the pressure some professors felt to back away from using language like “male and female” and “pregnant women” in teaching.

I agreed to appear on Fox and Friends for a few reasons. First, my book had just been released and I wanted it to reach as large an audience as possible. Second, while I am in favor of using language that makes people feel respected and comfortable, I feel strongly that we should resist succumbing to the demands of bullies and be unafraid to use clear, indispensable scientific terms like “male” and “female.” And third, I wanted to explain that sex categories are facts of nature which do not carry implications for anyone’s value or rights. I had nothing to say in the interview about how to describe pregnancy.

While people might have objected to just about anything I said, simply because I said it on Fox, here’s the bit that got me in real trouble:

The facts are that there are ... two sexes ... there are male and female, and those sexes are designated by the kinds of gametes we produce ... The ideology seems to be that biology really isn’t as important as how somebody feels about themselves or feels their sex to be, but we can treat people with respect and respect their gender identities and use their preferred pronouns, so understanding the facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect.
In response to my appearance, a graduate student tweeted out a thread, representing herself in her official capacity as director of my department’s Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging task force. She said, among other things, that she was “appalled” by my “transphobic” and “dangerous” remarks which allegedly interfered with the task force’s efforts to ensure that the department was a “safe space” for people of “all gender identities and sexes.”

At the time, I had few followers on Twitter and was not particularly active on the platform. I was not tagged in the student’s tweet. I learned about it secondhand. I felt scared and nervous that this awful portrayal of me, written by someone in an official position in my own department, was broadcast to the entire world. (This might be a good time to make clear that I care deeply about my students, whatever their identities happen to be. Based on my strong relationships with students, their comments and reviews of my teaching, the teaching and advising awards I have earned, and my being repeatedly voted one of “Harvard’s favorite professors.”)

Since I thought the tweet thread might adversely affect my relationship with future undergraduates and my reputation in general, I attempted to control the situation by quote-tweeting the thread, asking the student to explain what I had said that was harmful to undergraduates. I didn’t get what I considered a straight answer. Soon the whole thing went viral, with headlines like “Harvard professor Carole Hooven who refused to use term ‘pregnant people’ rather than ‘woman’ is accused of transphobia.” Again, I never said anything about “pregnant people,” but some newspapers seem not to care about getting the facts straight.

Most of the public (and private) comments and coverage were in my favor, and the graduate student received lots of criticism on Twitter, some of it harsh. Inside Harvard, though, things were quite different. Soon a narrative developed in the department that I was the primary bad actor, “punching down,” and had caused a graduate student to suffer abuse. A petition against me was linked to a Crimson article about the incident. Thankfully, the petition never gained much steam, but the damage had been done. I found myself walking with my head down in places on campus where I used to feel at home. I feared that someone might recognize me as the “transphobe” from whom students needed to be protected.

Being called transphobic for declaring the reality of sex on Fox and Friends was not a complete surprise; in the few years leading up to that appearance, I had felt an increasing intolerance of straight talk about what it means to be male or female. What was a surprise was the way people “in charge” responded: Vacations were interrupted by this “situation,” and a flurry of activity followed, in the form of emails, phone calls, and Zoom meetings. I was not privy to most of it, however.

Even though someone publicly maligned my speech in their official capacity as a representative of the institution, which is a clear violation of Harvard’s Free Speech Guidelines, the person who maligned me was not sanctioned. A few faculty members, still my good friends, expressed concern about my well-being and supported me personally, and I owe them a debt of gratitude. But despite my pleas for help, those who could have done so failed to defend my right to express my views and to communicate biological facts, to apologize for what happened, or to make any statement on my behalf.


Don’t stop at affirmative action: End college legacy admissions too

Sometime this month, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the future of affirmative action in college admissions.

A pair of lawsuits brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, by advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, accuse the effort to admit a more diverse class of systemically disadvantaging Asian applicants.

A decision could come anytime between now and June 30, and many legal analysts expect the conservative-majority court will overturn race-conscious admissions practices.

It would be a consequential and disruptive decision that, in my view, would represent a victory for fairness in the application process.

But it would only do part of the job of making college admissions truly fair: The next behemoth that should be tackled is nepotism.

Thanks to the Supreme Court case, Harvard had to hand over troves of internal data about how they craft their classes. And, when you pull back the curtain on that infamously cutthroat and opaque admissions process, you find rampant backdoors into Harvard.

In 2019, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed Harvard’s admissions data. They found that, while Harvard’s admissions rate averaged 6% from 2009 to 2014, special interest groups had a drastically easier time getting in.

A legacy applicant with a close relative who graduated from Harvard had a 33.6% chance of acceptance (the Common Application used by most colleges and universities explicitly asks where your parents went to school, which shouldn’t even be a question).

A student on the “dean’s interest list” — code for someone whose family donated to the school — had a 42.2% shot. And a child of faculty or staff had a 46.7% chance of getting in.

In fact, the researchers found that 43% of white students at Harvard were either legacies, children of faculty, kin of donors, or a recruited athlete. And a staggering 75% of them wouldn’t have gotten in if not for that special status.

Harvard admits fewer than 2,000 students per class, and its admissions rate has plummeted to just 3.41% this year.

It’s harder than ever to get into Harvard… that is, if you were born with the wrong last name or to parents with the wrong bank balance.

I saw this firsthand when I went to a boarding school. My father never went to college, and I didn’t apply to my mom’s school.

But my peers who were children of Ivy League graduates sailed into their parents’ alma maters, and oftentimes their more qualified classmates received rejection letters from the very same colleges and universities.It was straight up unfair — and everybody knew it.

Every spot taken by someone who got in for the wrong reasons is a spot stolen from another applicant who busted their butt to get flawless grades and perfect test scores while juggling varsity sports and starting their own company on the side. There are many such stories of unsuccessful Harvard hopefuls.

Booting those kids out for an affirmative action admit is no less justifiable than skipping over them for an graduate’s kid. Both are unfair. And neither should ever happen. A alumnus or donor or professor’s child should have the same odds as anyone else.

If schools like Harvard are truly interested in creating a diverse class, they should be trying to diversify the last names of their students by dumping special legacy considerations. Undoubtedly, doing so would open the door for more first-generation graduates and underprivileged kids.

Harvard fought all the way up to the Supreme Court to maintain their race-conscious admissions process, claiming it’s critical to creating a diverse class.

But, in all reality, getting rid of the special status they confer on kids who know the right people would help achieve that same goal.

In fact, the researchers found that “removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged.”

The fact that we have a meritocracy and not an aristocracy underpins the American dream. Anyone can make it here with hard work and grit.

But schools like Harvard, which are churning out generation after generation of elite graduates from the same rich families, are manufacturing an American aristocracy.

It’s time for that to change.




Wednesday, June 21, 2023

New York State’s Directive to Schools: Lie to Parents

Parents who send their kids to New York public schools have lots to worry about. Is he really learning? Is she really safe? And: Is the school gender-transitioning my child behind my back?

Earlier this week, the New York State Department of Education (NYSED) published a “legal update and best practice” document for how schools should serve “transgender and gender expansive” students. The key takeaway: if your child decides that he or she wants to socially transition to the opposite gender, it is now a “best practice” for the school to lie to you about it.

“Only the student,” the NYSED declares, “knows whether it is safe to share their identity with a caregiver.” The baseline assumption, then, is that “unaffirming” parents are dangerous to their children. If Kevin wants to go by “Kimi” but doesn’t want his parents to know, the best practice, according to NYSED, is as follows: “The teachers call her Kimi and use she/her pronouns at school. When calling home for any reason, teachers use the name Kevin and he/him pronouns.”

Leading experts like Hilary Cass, a medical doctor who documented rampant malpractice in England’s Tavistock child gender clinic, have explained that social transition is not a neutral act but rather an active psychosocial and arguably even medical intervention. Finnish medical authorities have discouraged gender self-identification for children, recognizing its potential to disrupt healthy development and result in unnecessary medicalization. While activists believe that transition is beneficial to mental health, a new study in the U.K. finds no improvement for socially transitioned kids relative to control groups. Evidence suggests that treating children as if they are the opposite sex can cause their feelings of gender dysphoria to persist and increase the likelihood that they will seek experimental hormonal intervention.

If the NYSED has its way, schools will also effectively market experimental hormonal interventions. Its new policy recommends that all schools, at a minimum, adhere to the guidelines of the National Sex Education Standards, which state that children should learn about puberty blockers by fifth grade. It may be doubted whether schools would provide the full medical picture concerning the use of puberty blockers, including the lack of evidence for their benefits, the serious long-term side effects, and the near-certain progression to cross-sex hormones that can cause permanent sexual dysfunction and sterility.

The National Sex Education Standards also recommend introducing children to the concept of “gender identity” starting in kindergarten. As a next step, NYSED recommends that staff actively solicit sexual and gender information by “ask[ing] students which terms they use and generally us[ing] the term the student uses to describe themselves.” (This includes terms such as “agender,” which “refers to a person who does not identify with or experience any gender, [and] is different from nonbinary because many nonbinary people do experience gender.”) In New York, schools now apparently stand ready to tell five-year-olds that they might have been born in the wrong body, socially transition them behind their parents’ backs, and steer them toward experimental hormonal interventions.

Public polling suggests that NYSED’s policies on gender are massively unpopular. About 70 percent of registered voters oppose teaching students in elementary school about sexual orientation and gender identity, and 75 percent say that schools should be required to get parental consent before facilitating a gender transition.

But when it comes to public education, the will of parents matters far less than the whim of activist-captured bureaucrats. These widely unpopular “best practices” have been sent out to schools as a “legal update”—and school district administrators and principals will not unreasonably assume that the recommendations are required for legal compliance.

If parents don’t want this indoctrination going on in New York public schools, they must get organized and petition their local school boards. But they face two stiff headwinds. First, activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center have labeled positions on these issues held by the vast majority of the public as “hate,” so anyone openly advocating for them runs the risk of cancellation. Second, since school board members are voted for in off-cycle elections with extremely low turnout, they may feel little need to pay attention to parents’ preferences.

Still, if parents don’t push back, no one will.


Schools are scaring our kids to death with this indoctrination program

As nearly every standardized test is showing, our schools are doing an abysmal job teaching kids how to read or do math. In some cases, kids graduating from high school can barely read their diplomas.

But the schools are wildly succeeding with their climate change indoctrination program.

When I speak to kids on high school and college campuses and ask what the greatest threat is to their generation, the answer isn't China's aggression. It isn't a drug abuse problem that is becoming the leading killer of our children. It isn't the failed schools or the corrupt government or the more routine violations of freedom of speech. It isn't the $32 trillion national debt soon headed to $50 trillion. (I always remind the kids, I won't be paying for this Mount Everest-sized debt burden. YOU will.)

No, they almost all raise their hands and moan that they are most worried about global warming or "climate change." We are raising a generation with millions of Greta Thunbergs.

A Daily Telegraph poll found that more than half of teenagers surveyed believe that the world "may end in their lifetime" because of climate change. No one has ever told them that the climate has been changing for as long as the planet has existed.

They've apparently never heard of the ice ages. The Earth has gone through centuries of warming – and that was before air conditioning, which the climate czars want to take away from us to combat warming. Figure that one out.

I'm not here to argue about "the science" of global warming. What I do know is it's only "settled science" because anyone who dares question the "experts" is written off as crazy or a quack.

Meanwhile, the people who warned us about "the population bomb," nuclear winter, mass starvation, running out of energy, global cooling and a future so polluted that everyone would have to wear gas masks in cities, are telling us to just trust them as they are busy at work erecting a multitrillion-dollar climate change industrial complex that revolves around our planetary savior – the windmill.

But scaring the bejesus out of our kids to score political points is a reprehensible practice. Our school kids are being terrorized with misinformation. This, in turn, is leading to all sorts of maladies, including a rise in teen depression, suicide, lower productivity and drug addiction.

Worst of all, we are seeing the opposite of a population bomb. We are experiencing one of the most severe birth dearths in American history. The birth rate is plummeting and no surprise. Who wants to bring kids into a world that will be uninhabitable in 50 years?

Psychologists are attributing these dysfunctions to a new syndrome called "eco-anxiety." It's a fear that Mother Earth is going to punish us in a brutal way – and very soon.

The irony of all this is that today's children and teens are inheriting a living standard, a cleaner planet, and a level of goods and services and technologies and medical care that is far superior to anything anyone in history – even the richest kings and queens – had access to even 100 years ago.

Biden's green movement isn't about better energy, it restricts what works: Alex EpsteinVideo
If kids think climate change is worrisome, they should try dealing with the bubonic plague, which killed one-third of Europe's population, or polio or tuberculosis – or fending off barbarians or working 60 hours a week in a coal mine.

If my parents were part of the "greatest generation," living through two world wars and a Great Depression, then this must be the psychotic generation. Are they to blame? No, we – their parents – are.

We are the ones who have passively sat by as the Left turned our kids into neurotic Green New Dealers. Death to the machine. Turn the lights out. No more cars. No more flush toilets or washing machines. What's next to save the planet? Euthanasia?

That's what happens when you teach your children that they aren't inheriting the Earth, but a fiery hell.


Utah school district puts Bible back on bookshelves after pushback: 'Significant, serious value'

Colton Lindsay, a Utah parent, said he opposes his daughter's school district removing the Bible from elementary and middle schools for "vulgarity or violence"

A school district in northern Utah on Tuesday reversed its prior decision to remove The Holy Bible from its middle and elementary schools.

The Davis School District determined the texts were appropriate for students and will now be available in all district libraries, district officials said at a board meeting on Tuesday. The reversal comes after 70 community members appealed last month's decision to ban the Bible over claims it was not age-appropriate.

School board members voted unanimously to return the Bible to district libraries.

The district, located north of Salt Lake City, received a request in December for the Bible to be reviewed in response to the state's "sensitive materials" law passed last year allowing residents to challenge books found in schools and libraries that they believe are inappropriate. The request argued that the Bible is "one of the most sex-ridden books around."

Utah Parents United, one of the primary groups involved in curriculum battles, "left off one of the most sex-ridden books around: The Bible," the challenge read, referring to parents' efforts to remove books about sex, gender and critical race theory.

"You'll no doubt find that the Bible … has no serious values for minors because it's pornographic by our new definition … If the books that have been banned so far are any indication for way lesser offenses, this should be a slam dunk," it continued.

The challenge also criticized a "bad faith process" and said the district was "ceding our children’s education, First Amendment Rights, and library access" to Utah Parents United.

A review committee – made up of mostly parents – determined the Bible was not age-appropriate for middle or elementary school students. Appeals were filed shortly after the decision.

On Tuesday, the school board said an appeal committee, basing their assessment on community standards, determined the Bible has "significant, serious value for minors which outweighs the violent or vulgar content it contains."

"The magnitude of the value of the Bible as a literary work outweighs any violence or profanity which may be contained in the book," District Board Vice President Brigit Gerrard said at Tuesday's meeting.




Tuesday, June 20, 2023

High school math teacher is fired after comparing students' skin tones to coffee roasts including 'extra cream', 'medium roast' and 'dark roast'

A Florida high school math teacher has been fired after a 'racially charged incident' that saw him compare students skin tones to different types of coffee roasts.

Cary Altschuler, who taught AP statistics and precalculus at Lake Worth High School, posted photos of three students on his smart board along with the labels: 'Extra Cream,' 'Medium Roast,' and 'Dark Roast.'

He claims he did it in response to two students who began calling each other 'light-skinned'. Altschuler reportedly told the students that if they were going to mock the color of each other's skin, they should be more creative.

Altschuler pulled the shocking stunt in February and was fired on Wednesday by the Palm Beach County School Board after they conducted an investigation.

Lake Worth High School Principal Dr. Elena Villani called the incident 'egregiously inappropriate,' and in a letter sent to parents apologized for the 'disturbing' situation and referred to it as a 'racially charged incident.'

According to WPTV, Altschuler admitted he posted the three students' pictures on the Smart Board during his math class and that he took the pictures from the SIS software that teachers use for student grades and attendance.

Two of the pictures were students in the classroom at the time of the incident and the other student was from last year.

Some of the students told a few teachers at the school what had happened and how it made them feel very uncomfortable. They also went on social media to share the dreadful experience.

The ex-teacher said that he was just joking with the students in his class, but then realized he made a 'major mistake' and later admitted it 'was wrong of him to jump in and discuss skin tones.'


Schools and the federal government are trying to usurp parental authority when dealing with the topic of “gender transitions.”

Moral and Ideological Kidnapping

Ideological grooming is taking place in schools across the nation. Thousands of school administrators are prompting their teachers to teach about LGBTQ+ in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion.” It is a religious instruction packaged in the name of civil rights and identity politics. Because of that deceptive packaging, it was not immediately thrown out of the public school classroom — like the Bible and prayer have been. Schools have also instructed teachers to hide when a student declares a change in gender identity — i.e., when a teacher’s ideological instruction has brought about a conversion.

If this teaching is right and good, why hide it from parents? The answer is obvious. It is not right or good; in fact, it is abuse of power. But the radical leftists long ago decided that they would brainwash children into their political worldview to ensure their hold on political power. That worldview now includes radical Gender Marxism and the enforcement of celebrating every aspect of the LGBTQ+ community … or else.

President Joe Biden recently said: “These are our kids. These are our neighbors, not someone else’s kids; they’re all our kids. … LGBTQI+ Americans, especially children: You are loved. You are heard. And this administration has your back.” In essence, Biden is echoing what has long been a left-wing sentiment: that children belong to the government and not their parents. “It takes a village,” as Hillary Clinton once put it.

The Federalist’s David Harsanyi comments that Biden’s statement “sounds like an innocuous platitude to some woke White House speechwriter, but to me it sounds like a totalitarian notion.” Harsanyi goes on to clarify that he doesn’t think Biden is going to send parents to the gulags or that they are particularly deep thinkers when it comes to gender theory. But he does think that “the White House is teeming with wannabe authoritarians who believe the state would do a better job raising kids by filling their impressionable heads with corrosive, immoral ideas.”

What have been the consequences so far for parents who have discovered, to their dismay, that their child was brainwashed into the transgender ideology cult? The lucky ones lied until they could get their child out of the hostile school system to rectify the damage inflicted on their beloved child. The not-so-lucky ones have had Child Protective Services CPS come in and take these gender-confused children out of the home. Immigrant single mother Abigail Martinez lost her beautiful daughter to CPS and suicide because of this ideology. It destroys families.

What are the consequences for the children who are indoctrinated into this cult, which lets them put themselves in the place of God and choose their own gender? They are warped morally. Many develop mental disorders (such as depression) if they weren’t already struggling with one. Still others slip down the pipeline of never-ending medical treatments that never give them the desired solution: For their lie to become truth.

The children are put on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones that make them feel good for a while, but down the road, when their brains are fully developed, many deeply regret this decision. These drugs cause sterilization and make the user more vulnerable to developing other deadly conditions including cancer. Several countries in Europe have seriously restricted the use and distribution of these drugs to children, as there are no discernible benefits to using them. Some children go on to actually mutilate their bodies in an attempt to be who they are not. They destroy healthy body parts and are left with useless flesh and mountains of medical bills.

What precisely are the federal government and public schools advocating for educationally? One need look no further than the topless stunt that male “transgender” social media influencer pulled a few days ago at the White House for clarification. Under the guise of “tolerance,” “acceptance,” and “inclusion,” kids are sexualized. They are made to believe that their identity lies in their sexuality. They are exposed to pornographic books. The goal is no longer to educate but to indoctrinate. Governmental entities don’t have to put back the broken pieces that they shattered. They only care that the broken child is so warped that they will still vote Democrat when they turn 18.

To quote Harsanyi again, our children “are human beings with rights, parents, and unique ambitions, not platitude-spouting automatons who should be categorized by skin color or gender ‘identification.’”

Conservatives have rightly pointed out that children belong to their parents, certainly not the government. Representative Byron Donalds (R-FL) sums up this sentiment perfectly: “I think politicians should really stay out of that stuff. I don’t think we should be making that statement [that they’re all our kids] at all, especially with something so controversial. And at the end of the day, what we really need to do is let kids be kids, not use them as political tools, political weapons [emphasis added]. Let them grow up. Make sure that they understand that there’s a lot that they need to learn and work through, and not bring politics into it. I think kids being a part of this thing is the worst thing.”

As Christians, we believe that all children belong to God. Parents are merely stewards of those lives entrusted to our care. It is parents who have the right and the duty to train their children morally, ideologically, and religiously. The government’s job is to protect our rights and uphold our laws. None of which the Biden administration seems to be doing very well. ?


Mother of Year 8 pupil scolded by a teacher for questioning classmate's claim she identities as a cat says she is proud of her daughter amid 'ridiculous' gender row

The parents of a 13-year-old girl who was branded 'despicable' by her teacher after she rejected a classmate's claim that she identified as a cat have tonight told of their fury.

The angry couple say their daughter was 'bullied' by her life education teacher for speaking out and have blasted a decision to report her as 'ridiculous'.

Two teenage Year 8 pupils at Rye College in East Sussex were ordered to stay behind in class after clashing with their classmate who identifies as a cat.

One of the girls secretly recorded their conversation with the teacher, who can be heard reprimanding them both for their views that gender is binary, calling it 'really despicable' and 'very sad'.

The girls are also told 'if you don't like it you should go to a different school.'

Tonight, the mum of one of the girls, who has asked to be kept anonymous, told MailOnline: ‘I’m so proud of my daughter, she will always stand up for what she believes is right and this is all that she did.

‘She expressed a view that many, many of her classmates and their parents would share yet she was shouted down and bullied by someone in authority.'

She continued: 'For that teacher to tell her to leave and go to another school if she didn’t like what she was being told made my blood boil. What kind of welcome is that for a 13-year-old girl.

‘My daughter texted me from her life education class last Friday and said that she was being taught gender identity and asked to fill out a worksheet. We’ve spoken about the issue before and she’s like me you can be whatever you want to be - but facts are facts.

‘I replied that she could walk out of the lesson if she didn’t feel what she was being taught was right.

‘She didn’t, however, and stayed in the classroom but her and her friend put their views across and clashed with another girl in the class who identifies as a cat

‘My daughter told the teacher that what they were learning was ridiculous and the girl identifying as a cat tried to argue that it wasn’t and that anyone could identify as anything.

‘As she said that my daughter replied “so If I identify as a kangaroo then I can say I'm a kangaroo?!” Some of the others in the class started laughing and the girl who thinks she’s a cat started crying.

‘My daughter and her friend were told to stay after the class and were given a warning to stop and toe the line. That’s when she started secretly recording the teacher.

‘I have to say that when my daughter came home from school and told me what happened. I didn’t believe her, I thought she was a typical teenage girl exaggerating.

‘But then she played me the recording and I was shocked and then horrified and then furious. I still get angry listening to it.

'There are girls in her class and at the school who are trans and she has no problem with any of them, she calls them by their preferred pronouns and accepts them for who they are - but there are only two sexes. It's just science, you are born male or female.

'The fact that the school is shielding this young girl who identifies as a cat and reprimanding anyone who challenges that notion seems to me to be completely absurd.

‘Why on earth are 13-year-old kids being taught about gender identity anyway? They're just children. It’s not right.

‘So many people agree with us on this but many are reluctant to put their heads above the parapet, so to speak, because they’ll be labelled a bigot, a TERF or a Tory. But this sort of stuff is messing with children's heads.'




Monday, June 19, 2023

University Announces Big Move on Confucius Institute After Republicans Call It Out

A New York university will shut down its Confucius Institute by the end of June after facing intense scrutiny from Rep. Mike Gallagher, chairman of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.

“I’m glad to see Alfred University finally doing the right thing and shutting down its Confucius Institute,” Gallagher, R-Wis., said in a statement Thursday. “But the Confucius Institute is only one tool in the CCP’s toolbox—it will use research partnerships, talent programs, and other initiatives to gain access to sensitive research and technologies that fuel the [People’s Liberation Army]’s advancement.”

“We’re going to continue to dig into the facts to make sure that no American taxpayer dollars are supporting research partnerships that the CCP can exploit for its own purposes,” Gallagher said.

China funds Confucius Institutes, founded in 2004, as “cultural” centers operating on college campuses. In the past few years, these centers have come under increased scrutiny as operations of Chinese state influence.

Gallagher sent a letter to Alfred University President Mark Zupan on May 31 and launched an investigation into the university.

“In 2022, you were awarded a $13.5 million DOD research grant for hypersonic weapons while simultaneously hosting a Confucius Institute and partnering with a Chinese university ‘actively engaged in defense research’ on behalf of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA),” Gallagher wrote to Zupan.

“To put it plainly, you are conducting advanced, hypersonic weapons-related research while actively partnering with a Chinese university that performs similar research for the PLA. We seek additional information regarding this alarming matter and Alfred’s commitment to safeguard sensitive U.S. military research,” Gallagher also wrote.

A lawyer representing Alfred University responded to Gallagher in a letter Tuesday.

“Alfred University has decided to close the Confucius Institute as of June 30, 2023. I also note that Alfred University takes very seriously the issue of protecting intellectual property and improper technology export,” the lawyer wrote.

“Even though Alfred University does not engage in classified research, it has for multiple years engaged with the Department of Commerce and the FBI to strengthen its export control policies and processes,” the lawyer added. “Thank you for attention to this matter and the important oversight function you fill as a member of Congress.”

“While our community has benefited from the cultural programming provided by the Confucius Institute that we have operated since 2008, current geopolitical concerns regarding China make it difficult to continue to run it. With respect to those concerns, we have decided to close our Institute effective June 30, 2023,” Mark Danes, vice president for marketing and communications at Alfred University, told The Daily Signal in an email.

Gallagher also sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on May 31 and launched an investigation into the Defense Department.

“The Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation write to express our deep concern that lucrative Department of Defense (DOD) research grants continue to be awarded to universities that host Confucius Institutes,” Gallagher wrote in the letter to Austin.

“These institutes are ‘funded by the CCP Propaganda Department’ and ‘overseen by personnel based in Chinese embassies and consulates,’ according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,” the chairman also wrote


College Board Will Not Revise AP Course to Comply With DeSantis' Education Laws

On Thursday, the College Board, which oversees the Advanced Placement program, told Florida leaders that it will not revise its psychology course that covers the topic of sexual orientation and gender identity.

According to The Washington Post, the organization sent a letter to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration to notify them that it will not change the course.

“Please know that we will not modify our courses to accommodate restrictions on teaching essential, college-level topics,” the organization said in a letter to Florida’s education department. “Doing so would break the fundamental promise of AP: colleges wouldn’t broadly accept that course for credit and that course wouldn’t prepare students for success in the discipline.”

Last year, Florida began enacting restrictions on curriculum surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation in public schools. A letter sent from DeSantis’ administration to the College Board last month asked the organization to review its courses and make changes to comply with the state law.

“Some courses might contain content or topics prohibited by State Board of Education rule and Florida law,” the department’s letter reportedly stated.

In April, Townhall covered how the College Board announced that it would revise its Advanced Placement African American studies course following criticism from scholars and from DeSantis’ administration. Reportedly, the course included lessons in “black queer” studies and “intersectionality.”

In addition to restricting lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity, DeSantis has come out against other “divisive” topics in schools, like Critical Race Theory.

In a statement, the College Board said that it is “committed to providing an unflinching encounter with the facts and evidence of African American history and culture. To achieve that commitment, we must listen to the diversity of voices within the field. The development committee and experts within AP remain engaged in building a course and exam that best reflect this dynamic discipline. Those scholars and experts have decided they will make changes to the latest course framework during this pilot phase. They will determine the details of those changes over the next few months.”

Months prior, DeSantis had rejected the AP course over its “political agenda.”

“We believe in teaching kids facts and how to think, but we don’t believe they should have an agenda imposed on them when you try to use black history to shoehorn in queer theory, you are clearly trying to use that for political purposes,” DeSantis said at the time.


Australia: Government schools losing students

No surprise why. Government schools offer a choice range of chaos and propaganda

Public primary schools in Sydney’s east, north shore and inner city have lost more than 4700 students in the past four years, with more children being clustered in composite classes to manage shrinking enrolments.

The decline in public sector enrolments – intensified in more affluent suburbs – comes as more families move suburbs, switch catchments, or leave to secure a place in year 5 at private schools.

In a letter to parents last month, Clovelly Public’s principal Matt Jackman made an impassioned appeal to parents urging them to push back against the “pressure and marketing the private sector” places on families and keep children enrolled through to year 6.

“As with most public schools in the eastern suburbs, we are seeing an even greater increase in students leaving the public education system at the end of year 4,” he wrote.

“There are a variety of reasons this happens, but the one I hear most is that private schools can’t guarantee placements in year 7 if the child does not transfer over in year 5.”

The fall has occurred as schools in the east and north have recorded the fastest growth in composite classes – where students from different years are grouped – rising by 35 classes, or 20 per cent between 2019 and 2022.

Principals say cost of living pressures mean families are relocating to more affordable parts of Sydney, while private schools are competing for top-achieving students in year 5 by offering scholarships or encouraging parents to enrol before year 7 to avoid forfeiting a place.

A NSW Education Department spokesperson said there had been a surge in births between 2005 and the end of the baby bonus payments in 2014, which was translating into falling enrolments.

Public primary schools in the eastern suburbs have been hit with the biggest enrolment drop, declining by 13 per cent in four years, followed by the northern beaches, North Sydney and inner west.

In Maroubra Junction Public’s latest annual report, the school notes declining enrolments are partly due to families moving “out of the local area for financial reasons, transferring into their local school closer to their new residence”.

Morag Bond said she opted for Coogee Public for her son Jonah – who is now in year 4 – because of the school’s proximity to the family home, the teachers and extension activities offered.

“Coogee is our local school, and we really saw the benefits in that. But it’s been hard this year. He’s losing his friends as they go into private and Catholic schools,” she said. “I appreciate it’s such an individual decision, but we are happy, and he will stay until the end of year 6.”

She is undecided about secondary options, except that it will be a school close to home. “There is also the massive financial pressure of private education. People can get seduced by well-kept grounds, or the facilities, but it’s important to look at the school as a whole,” she said.

Despite an overall decline in public school enrolments due to population changes and lower migration, private schools have retained a steady share of students over the past four years.

Independent schools increased enrolments from year 4 to year 5 by 1500 students in 2022, up by 35 per cent from 2020. Year 5 is the biggest intake grade into private schools after year 7.

Another parent, Heather Shepherd, who has a son in year 4 at Randwick Public, said there was a noticeable difference in year 5 and 6 class sizes.

“There is a lot of pressure on parents to get them into a private school, or they are moving away from Randwick because there is no co-ed public high school option. Families leave for different reasons, but I think staying at the school until year 6 is such a rite of passage,” she said.

NSW Department of Education Secretary Murat Dizdar said he wants parents to see public schools as the first choice. “I know independent and Catholic schools compete strongly for enrolments. I want our public schools to be competing too, and that starts with attracting and retaining the very best teachers and school leaders,” he said.

The department spokesperson said it was common for schools across NSW to have composite classes and the evidence shows they do not disadvantage students compared with single grade classes.




Sunday, June 18, 2023

Cambridge College goes for Woke

There are some wokefications in this world of ours that are a little more disheartening than others. One of those was the news that on June 4th, Cambridge University’s Corpus Christi College at held a Pride themed Formal Hall in its beautiful Pugin wallpapered, 19th Century gothic Dining Hall.

The College of Corpus Christi and the Blessed Virgin Mary was founded by townspeople in 1352 after the Bubonic plague had decimated 30-40 percent of the population. As the Italian author Bocaccio commented, such was the terrifying speed at which the virus spread, that its victims ‘ate lunch with their friends and dinner with their ancestors in paradise.’ About 2/3 of the clergy were wiped out, prompting the surviving members of two Cambridge gilds, still reeling from the horror, picked themselves up and founded a college specifically to train priests.

This June, the college sought to create a ‘comfortable, safe space for our LGBTQ+ family’ with a Pride themed Formal Hall. Organisers positioned an enormous rainbow balloon arch at the hall’s entrance, which was apparently ‘the showstopper of the evening.’ Once they had taken their seats in front of plates adorned with rainbow napkins, attendees were treated to selection of queer- themed lectures, delivered from a lectern draped in a voluminous rainbow flag.

First up was Leah Palmer of the Scott Polar Institute who talked about ‘how queer voices are changing our thinking about the Arctic and Antarctic regions’. She was followed by a public servant who rift on ‘what LGBTQ+ people think about having children’. Then an induvial by the name of Roan Runge from the Department of Anglo Saxon- Norse and Celtic, gave a lecture on medieval Irish hagiography from a ‘Trans Studies perspective’. According to her bio, Ms Runge occupies her time by ‘thinking about the continued dehumanization of trans people, as well as trans reclamations of unhumanity and monstrosity’, hoping to ‘take theoretical approaches to figures who linger between species and gender.’ The evening must have been a blast.

Once the propagandising was over, hungry college members were dished up the type of fare that you might expect at a four-year old’s birthday party, the catering staff apparently pulling out all stops to produce a three-course meal of rainbow -themed food. The entire evening was an embarrassing infantilisation of students, academics, and staff. The college has survived the Peasants Revolt, the Reformation, Civil War and Two World Wars, but whether it will survive the war on reality by the forces of woke remains to be seen.


Fighting Woke

People hate Chris Rufo. "Your agenda to turn our campus into a space of extremist indoctrination is harming our enrollment!" shouts a student at Florida's New College. "You are the problem!"

"I'm not the problem," Rufo tells me in my newest video. "I'm actually the solution."

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made Rufo a trustee of a state college. Rufo quickly moved to end what he considers leftist indoctrination. "We fired the director of DEI and abolished her entire department."

Rufo learned about indoctrination after making a PBS documentary on poverty. He started getting odd leaks from government workers. "Mid-level bureaucrats, so exasperated with what was happening, started feeding me documents," says Rufo.

The documents showed that government Diversity, Equity and Inclusion officials pushed anti-white racism. Seattle told employees, "Work on undoing your own whiteness."

It's a product of critical race theory, says Rufo. "The intention is to have an emotional lever against you."

"What's in it for them? I ask.

"Career advancement, and cultural and emotional power over others," he answers.

Tweeting the leaks led to more leaks. "I did one story, and then I'd get five or six people sending me documents ... then suddenly it was 100 people and 1,000 people."

A worker at the defense contractor Sandia Labs revealed that Sandia's new hiring rules require them to always interview "at least one" woman and one minority.

"Sounds fair," I say to Rufo. "Make up for past discrimination."

"You should be encouraging a wide variety of people to apply," Rufo responds. "But when we're talking about nuclear weapons, you need to have the most capable individuals, regardless of race or sex."

Rufo's critics accuse him of making things up. The New Yorker profile on him was titled "How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory."

"I post all of the original source documents for every one of my stories," Rufo responds. "It's so shameful when it's exposed to sunlight that they've engaged in these accusations as a form of denial."

"All 100 Fortune 100 companies have DEI bureaucracies. It's seen as second nature to endorse Black Lives Matter, a left-wing racial activist organization responsible for rioting, violence, but if you say, 'I'm pro-life and I want a pro-life message in a corporate setting,' it would be shut down immediately! ... Why are only one set of political ideologies allowed?"

I push back, "Because America's history of slavery and oppression is so bad."

"But that's also based on a lie!" Rufo replies. "Of course, slavery is an abominable historical legacy, but the record of the United States on slavery ... is much better than almost anywhere else."

Florida now has banned all public universities from funding DEI programs, and from claiming that systemic racism is inherent in the United States.

But doesn't that violate professors' right to speak? The free speech group FIRE calls Florida's new university rules "flatly unconstitutional."

"I worry about things you and DeSantis do," I tell Rufo. "It feels authoritarian."

"Impressionable young kids should not be taught race hatred," Rufo responds. "These are commonsense restrictions that aren't authoritarian. They're simply acknowledging that the state is the authority in the public schools."

Florida forbids public schoolteachers from teaching the '1619 Project,' which argues that America was really founded when slaves were brought here.

"The idea that the founders fought the revolution to protect slavery," says Rufo, "is so mind-boggling that even Marxist historians debunked it."

That's true. But doesn't he worry that the next Florida governor might require schools to teach things like the '1619 Project'?

"Of course I worry about that," says Rufo. "But that's what democracy is for ... what politics is for."

Really? I think politics is for letting us choose representatives who preside over limited government, one that protects us from fraud, force and theft, but mostly leaves us alone.

Florida leads the nation in school choice. That's great. We're better off when politicians give power back to parents. Then parents who want their kids taught the '1619 Project' can have that. Those who don't are free to pick another school.

Choice is better than diktats from politicians.


Why the Left Can’t Stand Homeschooling

Loudoun County has been in the news quite a bit recently. Why? Because parents in the Northern Virginia enclave are outraged over the baptism of their children in “woke” ideology. For example, last year the Virginia Department of Education enacted a policy that allowed schools to shirk their obligation to notify parents of a change in their child’s gender identity.

Some of those parents have been harassed, and at least one has received death threats.

But that wasn’t enough. The smear campaign against concerned parents got some help from the media. Namely, The Washington Post, which recently decided to run a hit piece on homeschooling by cherry-picking a disgruntled couple who’d been homeschooled themselves but decided later to enroll their own children in public schools to free them from what they now claim is the oppressive and abusive environment of a Christian homeschooling education.

The fact that the Post had to find a needle in a haystack to make a point is a testament to homeschooling and represents the lengths to which the enemies of homeschooling are willing to go. Meanwhile, it only takes a click of the mouse to unearth thousands of disturbing reports coming out of public schools each year about drugs, violence, sexual assault, critical race theory — you name it.

One of the more despicable undercurrents within the Post’s article is that Christianity is synonymous with child abuse. Besides basic observation of society all around us, at least one study refutes that dubious insinuation.

“What they want is for people to put their kids in government schools,” writes Joy Pullmann at The Federalist. “As this article shows, they’re willing to invest major business resources in smearing anybody who doesn’t obey. Since we’ve established it’s not because The Washington Post cares about child abuse — because if it did, it would go to war against dismembered marriages, the No. 1 risk factor for child abuse — we have to ask the real reason it is using such sharp rhetorical swords to herd people into this one childraising direction.”

The Post’s cross-town rival, The Washington Times, adds this: “We won’t do the couple a disservice by mentioning their names, but they were perfectly cast in this Post screed, which is anti-Christian and anti-home schooling. They’re probably nice people, especially since they were raised in Christian homes. But somewhere, the husband lost his faith.”

How convenient. But it’s nothing new. This is simply one of the strategies of the Left. When covering a political campaign, they’ll showcase the one pro-abortion Republican candidate, write an article about the one conservative librarian who doesn’t mind putting pornographic materials on the bookshelves, or fawn over the one church pastor who thinks Jesus was nonbinary.

What’s ironic is that the Post fully supported homeschooling for several years during the COVID-19 scare, praising the benefits of keeping our kids away from their teachers and classmates. Now, though, the Post thinks it’s dangerous.

In another irony, it was the pandemic itself that made many parents across the country realize that homeschooling was a better option for their kids. Data show that major public school systems across the board have lost a significant number of students who’ve never returned. Today, their parents are taking advantage of homeschooling or independent schools.

Educators should celebrate these trends, but a child who doesn’t attend public school is a child who can’t be controlled by the teachers unions, the activist teachers, or the cultural Marxist ideology that permeates the current public school curriculum.

For these reasons, the so-called progressive Left has done everything to scare parents away from alternative methods of educating their children. Indeed, for decades they’ve claimed that homeschooling is steeped in racism and child abuse.

Leftists fail to address why parents are pulling their kids out of public schools “because the fruits of the poisonous tree would lead back to these same failed leftist education policies,” as our own Emmy Griffin wrote last year. “More and more parents are unwilling to sacrifice their children on the altar of the leftist agenda.”

Parents who want the best for their children need not fear the Post’s attack on homeschooling because the movement to stand up and protect our children is growing larger each year — thanks to the Left’s very own noxious and destructive policies.