Thursday, July 13, 2023

Fed-up parent slams ‘dysfunctional’ NYC School amid outrage over its trans acceptance policy

A furious parent and board member at the prestigious Browning School resigned and trashed the all-boys institution as “dysfunctional” just prior to the school planning it would accept transgender students.

The anonymous parent — who claims to have spent $1.5 million in tuition and donations at the historic institution — accused the progressive administration of trying to bilk him of thousands of dollars and unfairly punishing their children.

“Browning has degenerated into a morass of dysfunction, misfeasance, and unfairness,” the seven-year board of trustees member said in an email leaked to nycprivateschoolwatch.

“Those are serious words, and I use them carefully — as a parent and a fiduciary.”

The fed-up parent claimed he committed to a $1 million donation for the Upper East Side school in 2022 and attempted to make the payment out in two massive sums.

In October, after initially gifting a $348,600 payment, the board member tried to pay out the remaining $651,400 balance, but the K-12 school allegedly told the parent they owed even more.

“Because of discrepancies in Browning’s poor bookkeeping, the Chief Advancement Officer took the bizarre position I somehow ‘owed’ $710,000” — nearly $60,000 more than the parent had committed to, they claimed in the email.

The school allegedly gave the parent the run-around for two months until the frustrated parent took back the entire hefty donation.

“Almost immediately, the administration turned against our sons,” the board member claimed.

The parent accused the school of handing down disproportionately heavy punishments to their sons on at least three different occasions throughout the rest of the school year.

The boys — who reportedly had not been the subject of disciplinary action before the revoked donation — were not afforded “even the most basic due process” in any case, the parent said.

Browning allegedly only backed down when the boys’ parents sicked their lawyers on the school — which cost them thousands of dollars in legal action and a week of classes for their targeted son.

Throughout the ordeal, Browning’s Head of School John Botti allegedly refused to meet with the parents.

“With the administration in an ivory tower, Browning is no longer a school run for its students — and it is behind time for accountability,” the former board member said.

“Browning has put our sons, and undoubtedly many other students, through a massive amount of stress and anguish. This conduct is, put simply, cruel — the antithesis of the lofty rhetoric the administrators extol in their speeches and blogs but betray in their (in)actions.”

A representative for Browning did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

The email was sent prior to the school making its announcement on trans policy.

However, nycprivateschoolwatch shared the email just hours after Browning announced it would begin accepting students who identify as male as part of a new gender policy and would work to accommodate current students who no longer identify as a boy.

The academy said in its letter to parents that the school had been evaluating its admissions policy during years of public discourse over gender and diversity.

“Like many schools around the world in recent years, we have witnessed changing cultural concepts, vocabulary and identities with regard to gender,” the letter said.

“As a single-gender school that educates boys starting in kindergarten, we are engaging with how gender is viewed today, particularly by the students whom we serve.”

The decision has left multiple parents fuming, with some claiming it defeats the purpose of sending children to a single-sex school.


College Racism

The Left is angry because the Supreme Court ruled race-based affirmative action unconstitutional. President Joe Biden says he "strongly disagrees."

But Chief Justice John Roberts was right to say, "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."

It's a victory for Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued, thereby forcing Harvard to admit that Asians had to score 22 points higher on the SAT than whites, 63 points higher than Blacks.

How did Harvard justify that? They said Americans of Asian descent score lower in personal attributes, like "likability."

"Asian Americans are boring little grade grubbers," complains the Asian American Legal Foundation's Lee Cheng, in my video on race-based admissions. "That's bulls--t," he adds.

Economist Harry Holzer, who defended Harvard, says the school did the right thing.

"Asians are not interesting?" I ask. "They don't have interesting qualities?"

"Personal ratings reflect a wide range of characteristics," Holzer responds. "It's possible that some of that is anti-Asian bias, but you certainly can't prove that. ... When you have a long history of discrimination based on race, you have to take race into account."

"There are many, many, different ways to achieve diversity without discriminating against Asian Americans," Cheng responds. "Race-focused affirmative action helps rich people. Seventy percent of the students of every ethnic group at Harvard come from the top 20 percent of family income."

But Asians already do well in America, earning more money, on average, than other ethnic groups. Blacks have faced more discrimination. "Isn't it Harvard's job to try to make up for some of that?" I ask Cheng.

"The right path out of the history of discrimination based on race is not more discrimination," he replies.

Cheng is right. Affirmative action is racist, and therefore wrong.

I once tried to make that point by holding a racist bake sale. I called it an "affirmative action bake sale." I sold cupcakes at a mall. My sign read:

Asians -- $1.50

Whites -- $1.00

Blacks/Latinos -- 50 cents

People stared. Some got angry. One yelled, "What is funny to you about people who are less privileged?" A Black woman called my sign "very offensive, very demeaning!" "You got to be out of your gosh darn mind, boy!" said another. One man accused me of poisoning the cupcakes.

But after the initial anger, when people let me explain the reasoning behind my racist sign, many expressed second thoughts about affirmative action. "I guess it is unfair," said one Black student.

I modeled my bake sale on what a student group at Bucknell University did to call attention to the racism of affirmative action. Bucknell officials shut down the students' experiment. Schools that practice affirmative action don't like to be confronted with the reality of affirmative action.

Now that affirmative action is illegal, universities will still discriminate by race. They'll just hide it better. One tactic is to become "test-optional." Over 1,800 schools, including Harvard, no longer require students to submit SAT scores.

Already, schools practice legacy admissions, meaning that they favor the children of alumni. That's clearly unfair. It helps mostly rich people, who are mostly white people.

The problem with both "test-optional" schools and affirmative action is that ultimately, it harms Black students. Those admitted with lower standards often struggle or drop out. Had they attended other schools, they might have done well.

And of course some people look at even the smartest Black students and wonder, is she really smart? Or did she just get in because of her race?

If activists want to help young people, they should start before college. Promote school choice. It allows all kids to escape bad public schools.

That will help more kids than rigging college admissions.


University at Center of SCOTUS Affirmative Action Case Will Give Free Tuition to Specific Students

Late last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions policies, known as "affirmative action," at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional.

As Spencer reported, the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett stated that "Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today."

Following the Court’s decision, the UNC will offer free tuition to some undergraduate students now that it is not allowed to use race-conscious in its admissions process.

Beginning in 2024, the school will provide free tuition and required fees for incoming in-state students whose families make less than $80,000 per year, UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz said in a statement published Friday (via UNC-Chapel Hill):

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that universities across the country can no longer consider race when making admissions decisions, marking a fundamental change in the law that governs our admissions process, and that of thousands of other universities.

We will follow the Supreme Court’s decision in all respects. That means race will not be a factor in admissions decisions at the University. It also means we will comply with the Court’s ruling that an applicant’s lived racial experience cannot be credited as “race for race’s sake,” but instead under some circumstances may illuminate an individual’s character and contributions.


First, Carolina will provide free tuition and required fees for incoming undergraduates from North Carolina whose families make less than $80,000 per year. Beginning with the incoming class in 2024, we will expand the University’s long-standing commitment to access and affordability for North Carolina families.


Second, as part of our commitment to reach future Tar Heels throughout the state, we have hired additional outreach officers as part of our admissions team. They are serving in under-resourced communities to spread awareness of our affordability and recruit students from across the state. We want the best students to know that a UNC-Chapel Hill education is a possibility for them.

Our responsibility to comply with the law does not mean we will abandon our fundamental values as a university.

According to The Hill, the average cost of tuition at UNC for in-state students is $9,000.

“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Last week, Townhall reported how Harvard is now facing a legal challenge over its legacy-based admissions policies. The organizations behind the lawsuits claim that this kind of policy benefits white students.




Wednesday, July 12, 2023

NYU hosts anti-racism workshop open only to white public school parents: report

New York University hosted a months-long anti-racism workshop geared toward white public school parents that allegedly barred people of color from joining in what legal experts claim was a violation of civil rights law, according to a report.

The six-month-long workshop was “designed specifically for white public school parents in New York City committed to becoming anti-racist and to collaboratively building equitable, powerful, multiracial parents communities in their schools” and began in February, a listing states.

The series cost $360 per person and was hosted by the Education Justice Research and Organizing Collaborative at NYU Metro Center.

While the now-delisted workshop description and sign-up sheet say it was designed for white parents, it doesn’t expressly state that people of color were forbidden from joining.

Still, organizers distributed a handout to participants days before the first workshop titled “Why a White Space” which lists the reasons for hosting white-only group discussions, according to a copy obtained by the conservative publication, the Washington Free Beacon.

“For many, it sounds contradictory: ‘It’s racist if just white people get together. Isn’t that segregation?'” reads the document produced by Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles, before listing seven reasons.

Some of the reasons include the suggestion that the responsibility of educating white people about racism shouldn’t be on the shoulders of people of color. Another reason listed was that white people need to have a safe space where they can make mistakes without having to subject people of color to further undue trauma or pain.

The workshop instructors reiterated the apparent need for a white-only space in the first workshop discussion, according to audio and video obtained by the Free Beacon.

A parent said it seemed “a little counterintuitive” to exclude people of color from the anti-racism series, to which instructor Barbara Gross said it was necessary, according to the outlet.

“People of color are dealing with racism all the time,” Gross reportedly said. “Like every minute of every day. It’s a harm on top of a harm for them to hear our racist thoughts.”

Despite organizers’ intentions, five lawyers told the right-wing publication that the workshop “almost certainly” violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which governs recipients of federal funding such as non-profit colleges like NYU.

One lawyer — Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project — also told the outlet that the seminars went against laws banning discrimination in contracting since participants were charged a fee.

“It’s quintessentially illegal,” Ilya Shapiro, the director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, told the Free Beacon. “This episode illustrates the horseshoe theory whereby left- and right-wing radicals end up agreeing on race-based societal balkanization. It’s like that social media meme: ‘Woke or KKK?’”

“They are literally running a ‘whites only’ program in the interest of so-called social justice,” Samantha Harris, an attorney who litigates campus speech and civil rights issues, told the publication. “I find it inconceivable that the people putting these programs together don’t see the irony.”

NYU told the Free Beacon that it was “reviewing these matters to determine whether they conform to our standards.”

The workshop began four years ago, Gross said, according to the outlet. It grew out of the Black Lives Matter movement and the police murder of George Floyd in 2020. Interest in learning how to be anti-racist was reportedly at an all-time high during the months following his killing.


‘You’re not allowed to just talk about women any more’

Honi Soit [The student newspaper of the University of Sydney] records that in June 1973 a small group of feminists and leftist activists kicked off a historic battle to offer students the first women’s studies course at the University of Sydney – and only the second in the country. Two PhD students, Jean Curthoys and Liz Jacka, wanted to teach a course called Philosophical Aspects of Feminist Thought.

The university professorial board’s rejection of the course led to a month-long strike by staff and students, supported by the Builders Labourers Federation and other unions. The Philosophy Strike, as it came to be called, was the precursor to the arrival of intellectual feminism on campus.

Fifty years later, philosopher and feminist academic Holly Lawford-Smith has had a security guard stationed outside her tutorial room at the University of Melbourne to protect students from disruption during her feminism course. At times the guard also has escorted Lawford-Smith as she walks the short distance from the Old Arts building, across a path called the Professors Walk, back to her office in the Arts West building. Feminism is not so welcome these days on campus.

What has gone wrong? Before women had rights, imparting feminist thoughts may have been dangerous. But now? In 2023? This is nuts. Ferret around the wondrous English language all you want. There is no other word. Has feminist philosophy so lost its way that it no longer deserves a place on campus? Or is there something seriously wrong with those forces that have led to a security guard being posted outside a feminism tutorial room?

To answer these questions, we should start with what Lawford-Smith teaches. Her intensive course of 24 online lectures and 12 in-person tutorials for PHIL20046: Feminism covers topics one would expect: “Are women oppressed?” and “Patriarchy”, “The sex industry” and “Beauty norms and women’s revolution”. Given the security guard stationed outside Lawford-Smith’s tute room, maybe the trouble stems from lectures 21 and 22 on “sex/gender identity”.

Yet it would be remiss of an associate professor in political philosophy not to discuss in a feminism course the difference between sex – a woman’s biology – on the one hand, and gender, where a man self-identifies as a woman. And it would be entirely ridiculous to expect all academics to agree that gender identity is a sufficient reason to up-end feminist teaching about issues confronting women that are rooted in women’s biology.

In an interview with Inquirer this week, Lawford-Smith describes the first time she faced intense hostility for believing that a woman’s biology is central to the teaching of feminist philosophy.

In March 2019, the philosopher was interviewed for cultish literary and philosophy magazine 3:AM. After discussing mostly ethical and collective responsibilities about climate issues, she was asked about the trans issue and her gender-critical beliefs.

“It really has become toxic,” Lawford-Smith told interviewer Richard Marshall. “I’ve been surprised by the levels of vitriol that have been directed at me and other radical and gender-critical feminists within the profession. My stance is that a person can’t change sex (not even with sex reassignment surgery), that ‘gender identity’ has no bearing on sex, and that with very few exceptions gender identity should have no bearing on a person’s sex-based rights.”

“Some trans women inside the magazine complained to the editor to get the piece taken down,” Lawford-Smith tells Inquirer. Her interview was pulled. Marshall quit the magazine in protest against the censorship.

It started escalating from there. There were threats of protests and attempts to deplatform Lawford-Smith and another gender-critical academic at the University of Reading in Britain a few months later. “But they (university administrators) stood their ground and let the public event go ahead rather than give in to the protesters.”

Lawford-Smith mentions the Australian Association of Philosophy conference in Sydney in July 2019. Her conference abstract about women-only spaces led student organisations and other groups to organise protests. “I walked into this big conference, maybe 300 or 500 people go, and there was security everywhere and I was thinking, ‘Oh, did something happen?’ And then I realised that they were there for me,” Lawford-Smith says, matter of factly.

“I just remember it so vividly. My heart was racing. I felt like, ‘Oh god, everyone must be staring at me. I’ve caused all this fuss.’ ”

Though the online threats were extreme, protests didn’t eventuate that day. In June 2019, Lawford-Smith’s Twitter account was permanently suspended – it was pre-Elon Musk.

In September 2019, student activists tried to cancel her talk called Deplatforming is a Feminist Issue at RMIT.

“I’m sure the irony was lost on them,” she writes on her online Censorship timeline.

That the philosopher can fill five pages about censorship attempts against her is evidence of the level of abuse and hatred she has endured. “It felt really intense being a person who was hated that much by a small sector of society,” she says.

After a few more extreme online hate fests against her failed to translate into physical protests, Lawford-Smith says she realised that the numbers were small.

“That just took some experience to learn that the numbers (of trans activists) are puny,” she says.

I come back to why is there a security guard being posted outside a Melbourne Uni tute room to protect students who want to learn about Lawford-Smith’s feminism? The university, she says, has overreacted on many fronts, bestowing more power on a small group of trans extremists than they deserve.

Lawford-Smith is known as a “radical” feminist because her focus is on women and their biology. Radical? How times change. Her new book, Sex Matters: Essays in Gender-Critical Philosophy, was not an easy project, either.

Publication was halted by Oxford University Press last year. Matters were resolved and the book is out this week. Originally classified as a book for a general retail audience, it has been reclassified by OUP as an academic book.

Nothing is easy if you believe feminism is for women. Does that make Lawford-Smith a TERF? The term trans-exclusionary radical feminist is thrown around a lot these days.

“TERF is a slur. I’m trans women exclusionary from feminism,” Lawford-Smith explains. Not from society, note. From feminism. “It is indispensable to our form of feminism to have the concept of femaleness because women are the people to whom subordination, marginalisation has been done over centuries.”

Can’t feminism include trans women?

“It’s hard to see how it would be coherent. You could say we have this constituency of female people who, by their biology, have been mistreated over the centuries. Oh. And there are also trans women.”

But she says these two groups – biological women and trans women – “have nothing in common; there’s not a shared constituency. There’s not much at all of an overlap between the groups.”

Lawford-Smith says including trans issues in feminism has changed the focus, away from issues facing women and feminist politics to those facing trans women who claim to be the most marginalised.

Is the trans movement trying to take over feminist politics?

“Absolutely. That’s my impression,” she says. “Somehow – and I can’t fully account for the hostility and aggression of it – but somehow you’re not allowed to just talk about women any more.

“There’s a sense now that feminism has kind of accomplished its goals and there isn’t really a problem any more. So why would you want to talk about women when you could be talking about trans people? The gender studies approach has assumed cultural dominance. That’s the big project that cares about everyone and everything. And it’s wrong to take the women’s studies approach, which is the approach that I’m taking.”

If issues facing women and trans women differ historically and intellectually, why not a separate university course for students who want to explore trans issues?

“I ask myself that question all the time.” Instead, “feminism is being devalued”, Lawford-Smith says.

This is not just an intellectual debate. It’s about women-only spaces, and sport, and our language where a woman’s essential biology is being erased. Tampons are for “people who menstruate”, breastfeeding has become “chest-feeding”, untethered from a woman’s biology, and new laws allow gender self-identification.

In short, modernity’s diversity- and-inclusion project is excluding large parts of what it means to be a woman, and necessarily undermining women’s rights, to accommodate a tiny group of biological men who identify, in gender terms, as women.

The irony of an inclusion movement excluding women and their biology is not lost on Lawford-Smith, let alone millions of people off-campus who wonder whether trans extremism has peaked.

Certainly, in some sports there is a reckoning with reality about male physiology up-ending an equal playing field. Business is not immune either, with the manufacturer of Bud Light beer in the US learning that tagging on to the trans issues was a dumb idea for business. Former Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon learned the hard way about overreaching on gender self-identification laws and what that meant for female prisons.

Meanwhile, in Britain last week, tax expert and feminist campaigner Maya Forstater was awarded more than £100,000 ($190,600) after she was discriminated against, losing her work contract, because she expressed her view that “male people are not women”.

Though there are signs of trans extremism causing the first major chink in the woke movement’s armour, academia is proving to be more obscurant.

Lawford-Smith says it drives her crazy that the university has had ample opportunity to see that this is not actually a sizeable threat yet they keep pandering. She points to policies that have turned university bathrooms into shared spaces.

“The policy has invited (into female-only bathrooms) any male who decides that he would prefer to use them,” she says. “This tiny proportion of trans students is prioritised over the interests that any female students of any religion or culture might have to having single-sex bathrooms.”

The university’s new LGBTQIA+ Inclusion Action Plan allows students to lodge griev­ances against course curriculum, putting Lawford-Smith’s course in the direct line of fire from trans activists. She notes that none of her students has complained about her course; complaints have come from students who have not done her course. But this could change, she says, if trans activists take her course simply to try to shut it down.

More broadly, the philosopher feminist is concerned that policies about the “safety and wellbeing” of students could be weaponised to stop important debates.

Whereas once it was about hurt feelings, the new battleground is over “wellbeing”. It’s easy to see how this equally slippery term could be exploited by trans activists to censor a feminism course that focuses on women and their biology.

Lawford-Smith, who has lodged a complaint against her employer for not protecting her from spurious attacks, is disappointed at the lack of support.

“I don’t think the (university) leadership have shown that they understand that you cannot serve two masters,” she says. “They constantly make statements that they’re trying to balance academic freedom against diversity and inclusion. I just think that’s not true.

“These two objectives pull in really different directions.”

The contemporary corporate diversity and inclusion mantra on campus of creating a safe place where everyone’s comfortable, where everyone feels celebrated, is not consistent with rigorously challenging orthodoxies, she says.

Some discussions that prise open our minds to new ideas may be uncomfortable and potentially even distressing.

“A lot of students today just uncritically swallow gender identity ideology and don’t see any kind of conflict with feminism. I can perfectly imagine going into a first-year subject and trying to teach something slightly critical about reifying gender as identity and having most of the class against me and think I’m transphobic.

“We want to be able to challenge orthodoxies. That’s the really important thing. If there’s something where that’s just what we progressives do now, you want to be able to challenge that and make sure it’s a view held for good reason.

“How do you gain new knowledge? How do you overthrow old paradigms? How do you really pursue the truth at all costs and also keep everyone really comfortable?”

We have no law of physics to help a cultural pendulum settle somewhere more sensible. Only a healthy marketplace of ideas can do that. And that requires people such as Lawford-Smith to keep teaching what is now deemed “radical” feminism.

But back to that security guard. Is there room for feminism on campus? The philosopher pauses. She’s not sure.

“It seems nuts if the answer is no, right? It’s absolutely nuts.”


Long march of the Marxists

Instead of 'I think therefore I am', the credo is ‘I feel therefore I’m right’

‘The Past is a foreign country: they do things differently there,’ wrote L P Hartley. What schools and universities teach and don’t teach about Western civilisation and Australia’s development as a nation illustrates the truth of Hartley’s observation.

Remember when government schools had a picture of the Queen in the foyer outside the principal’s office, and Monday morning assembly began with raising the flag and taking the oath of allegiance: ‘I love God and my country, I will honour the flag, I will serve the Queen and cheerfully obey my parents, teachers, and the law.’

The history curriculum adopted a grand narrative centred on Western civilisation, starting in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome and moving on to Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia from the time of the First Fleet. Students were taught to acknowledge the debt owed to a Westminster government and a common law system inherited from the United Kingdom.

Fast forward, and it’s obvious how much has changed. ‘Advance Australia Fair’ has replaced ‘God Save the Queen’, and ‘Welcome to Country’ has replaced the ‘Oath of Allegiance’. The national curriculum has jettisoned a balanced approach to history, civics, and citizenship. It embraces the ‘black armband’ view of history. The arrival of the First Fleet is described as an invasion leading to genocide. It ignores the arrival of the King James Bible and Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England that arrived with Captain Phillip and underpins our freedoms and liberty.

The way civics and citizenship is taught highlights the success of the cultural left in its long march through the institutions. Students learn that: ‘Citizenship means different things to people at different times depending on personal perspectives, their social situation, and where they live’. Based on postmodern relativism, they are taught citizenship involves multiple perspectives that ‘reflect personal, social, spatial and temporal dimensions of citizenship’.

Instead of acknowledging our British heritage, Australia is described as a ‘secular democracy and pluralist, multi-faith society (that) draws upon diverse cultural origins’. Forget about nation-building. The focus is on diversity and difference instead of promoting social cohesion and stability.

Under both Labor and Coalition governments in Canberra, the curriculum undermines a sense of pride in Australia. So, it’s hardly surprising that when millennials were asked in a poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs whether they would defend Australia if it was invaded, 38 per cent answered ‘No’.

Although the most recent iteration of the curriculum mentions Magna Carta, Westminster government, common law, and our constitutional monarchy, it is not compulsory to teach students about them. Indeed, it is more than likely that schools will continue to teach the ’Black armband’ view of the nation’s political and legal systems because the cultural left dominates tertiary education and teacher training.

In her chapter on universities in Cancel Culture and the Left’s Long March, Jennifer Oriel writes that universities have long since forsaken the concept of a liberal education defined by Matthew Arnold as the ‘best that has been thought and said’. Instead of the pursuit of what T S Eliot called wisdom and truth, universities are dominated by a rainbow alliance of nihilistic theories, including radical feminism, postmodernism, deconstructionism, post-colonialism, and LGBTQI+ gender and sexuality. In line with the Black Lives Matter movement and post-colonial theory, students are taught that Western societies are structurally racist, Eurocentric, and riven with white supremacism.

And it’s not just happening in Australian universities, across the Anglosphere, academics are purging curricula of ‘whiteness’, and even science and mathematics are not immune. In the UK, students and academics associate Enlightenment thinking with capitalism and imperialism. Such oppressive thinking is condemned as ‘the knowledge and standpoint of wealthy white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men occupying positions of objective superiority. Dismantling the white curriculum thus requires the dismantling of the multiple spheres of power that reproduce the dominant system of thought.’

The origins of Woke ideology and cancel culture can be traced back to the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1920s. In Celsius 7/7, British conservative Michael Gove argues this was a time when the Left concluded that the most effective way to overthrow capitalism was to take a long march through the institutions. Instead of inciting a revolution as occurred in Russia and China, leftists infiltrated and took control of schools, universities, and churches, and undermined the family. The cultural revolution of the 60s, epitomised by the student riots at the Sorbonne and the rise of postmodernism and deconstructionism, has also had a profound effect on education.

As a result of the dominance of cultural Marxism, we live in a world where identity politics prevails, and disadvantaged individuals and groups are presented as powerless victims of an oppressive, Eurocentric, capitalist system while Eurocentric, heteronormative men are guilty of being male, pale and stale. Rather than relying on reason and rationality, arguments are subjective and emotional, leading, in the end, to either epistemological suicide or violence. Instead of the Enlightenment’s focus on rationality and reason, generations of young people espouse the belief ‘I feel therefore I’m right’. Free and open discussion and debate are replaced by what Camille Paglia calls, ‘An ethical chaos where intolerance masquerades as tolerance, and where individual liberty is crushed by the tyranny of the group.’

What is to be done?

Conservatives and those committed to rationality and reason must be willing to call out the true nature of cultural left ideology and have the courage to be true to their beliefs and convictions. Cultural warriors must reassert the importance of the Anglosphere and the debt we owe to the UK and Western civilisation that can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome. As Augusto Zimmermann argues, ‘Our political and legal systems are underpinned by the New Testament and the admonition to ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’, and the importance of Christianity must be asserted. Like the cultural left, we must call on like-minded individuals and associations to be active in the public sphere and take a medium to long-term view of the struggle against nihilism and neo-Marxist ideology.




Tuesday, July 11, 2023

The National Education Association’s summer reading selections aim to indoctrinate kids, not educate

Why did the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union, put porn on its recommended-reading list?

The NEA presumably listed Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer: A Memoir” in its “Great Summer Reads for Educators” under “banned” books because Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, correctly, got it out of his state’s school libraries.

The book is aimed at teens but was found in several elementary schools. It contains truly shocking, explicit descriptions and drawings of sexual acts.

The NEA pretends the book’s LGBT characters got it removed from school libraries, writing on its website: “Twilight used to be at the top of banned-book lists for its racy content. Today, those lists are much more likely to feature LGBTQ+ people or People of Color.”

This is true only because organizations like the NEA are using books with LGBT characters to put inappropriate sexual material in front of children.

“Twilight” had some kissing.

“Gender Queer” has oral sex.

It’s not at all the same.

More than ever, the teachers unions are on the opposite side of moms and dads.

What parent wants his or her kid to stumble onto a book about dildos and sexting, both concepts included in “Gender Queer,” at school?

In fact, when DeSantis wanted to show the images from the books he was pulling from school libraries, local news outlets had to cut out of his press conference because the pictures were so graphic.

Yet the NEA wants this book in your kid’s school.

Left’s hollow defense

The defense from the left seems to be that there’s no point in barring these books from a school library when a child can access far worse material on a phone or home computer.

By this theory, parents should have been buying teenage boys copies of Playboy to read behind the Piggly Wiggly — otherwise parents were committing censorship.

Just because kids, unfortunately, have access to inappropriate material doesn’t mean their school should supply it and their teachers encourage it.

NEA’s inclusion of the book on its list is meant to do just that.

In addition to being inappropriate and gross, “Gender Queer” is of poor literary quality.

Out of all the books in the world, classics as well as books written recently, it simply doesn’t rank as literature our kids need to read.

Our country has seen a sharp decline in reading scores, at many grade levels, in the last year.

An unexplored reason might be that schools are supplying nonsense books like “Gender Queer” and kids never learn to read and comprehend actual literary works.

But the NEA doesn’t care about your kid reading. It cares about activism, not education.

Another book on its “banned” list is “Ready Player One,” which, again, was not banned but taken out of Florida middle schools for profanity and plot lines including a sex robot.

School libraries can’t contain every book in the world. Why should they contain this one?

Best they have to offer?

Another book on the list, presumably not banned, is “Milo and Marcos at the End of the World” by Kevin Christopher Snipes.

In it, a boy is convinced God is punishing him for being gay. Religious people are weird and awkward. The book is also poorly written. So perfect for NEA teachers to read over the summer!

Also listed is Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility,” a book used to scam pathetic white liberals into paying for white DiAngelo’s pricey seminars to make sure they parrot the correct language on racism.

The NEA has an agenda and that agenda is far-left and child-last.

The union displayed it during the pandemic, by ensuring schools stayed closed even if that meant the poorest kids in the country would be hardest hit.

Now it’s moved on to fighting a culture war that is specifically a war against families.

It’s not interested in educating children, only indoctrinating them.

The NEA isn’t trying to hide its goal.

Parents just need to believe the union. And stop it.


Nearly 40% of students at Brown University identify as LGBTQ+ — doubling what it was in 2010

About 38% of students at the Ivy League school identified as either homosexual, bisexual, queer, asexual, pansexual, questioning, or other — more than five times the national rate for adults not identifying as straight.

A similar poll conducted at the school just over 10 years ago found that 14% of the student body identified as being part of the LGBTQ+ community.

The poll was conducted by The Brown Daily Herald, an independent student newspaper at the Rhode Island school, and released in June as a part of a Pride Month special issue.

It is unclear how many students were polled in the survey. As of fall 2022, Brown had an undergraduate enrollment of 7,222 students and another 3,515 in its graduate and medical programs.

The Herald could not be reached for comment, and the university declined to comment citing the paper’s independence from the school.

About 7.2% of American adults identified as being non-heterosexual, according to a 2022 Gallup poll, up from 3.5% in 2012.

Since The Herald first conducted a survey of sexual orientation on campus in 2010, Brown students identifying as lesbian and gay dropped by more than half from 46 to 22%. About 19% of that group were college-aged members of Generation Z.

The number of students identifying with other groups, however, soared: bisexual students increased by 232%, and other LGBTQ+ groups rose by a collective 793%, The Herald found.

Of the LGBTQ+ respondents, the most common orientation was bisexual at 53.7%.

Josephine Kovecses, a member of the class of ’25, told The Herald she thought those numbers were driven by broadening social norms in recent years.

“Queer people haven’t been able to be open in their identifications for that long. So it’s exciting that the numbers are growing and that queer people are able to be open in particular at Brown,” Kovecses said.

The Herald’s own poll question options over the years mirrored that viewpoint.

In 2010, students were given only heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and other as orientations to choose from. It wasn’t until spring 2022 that queer, pansexual, asexual, and questioning, were added to the survey.

Some have argued that the soaring number of LGBTQ+ students at Brown is an example of a “social contagion” at a famously left-leaning school.

“There are two theories, that greater tolerance is allowing more to come out of the closet, or Bill Maher’s assertion that LGBT is trendy among some youth,” professor of political science at the University of London Eric Kauffman told The Fix in June.

“I think the second theory better fits the data and explains more of why the rise occurred.”

Citing data from the right-leaning Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, Kauffman said LGBTQ+ identification has increased much more than sexual activity in those groups.

“If this was about people feeling able to come out, then we should have seen these two trends rise together,” he said.

“What we find instead is that identity is rising much faster than behavior, indicating that people with occasional rather than sustained feelings of attraction to the opposite sex are increasingly identifying as LGBT.”

Others, including Sharita Gruberg of the LGBTQI+ Research and Communications Project with the Center for American Progress, agree with Kovecses that the environment of greater awareness that Gen-Z was raised in has driven the numbers.

“Gen Z has grown up at a time when stigma around LGBTQ identities is on the decline and rights are expanding,” Grunberg said in 2022 after Gallup released its findings, according to CNN.

“As greater awareness about the diversity of sexual orientations and gender identities grows, and as stigma surrounding LGBTQ identity lessens, we’re likely to see more people self-identify as LGBTQ.”


‘Adversity scores’ meant to boost medical school diversity would ‘ignore’ patients’ best interests, expert says

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that it is unconstitutional for educational institutions to use race as a factor for college admissions, some medical schools reportedly are looking into other ways to try to bring in a diverse study body.

One so-called idea is the notion of considering adversity when weighing applicants.

President Biden himself said after the Supreme Court ruling, “What I propose for consideration is a new standard where colleges take into account the adversity a student has overcome when selecting among qualified applicants.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that both Harvard University’s and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs unlawfully discriminated against Asian Americans by considering race as a specific factor in admissions.

“Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points,” he noted.

The ruling still allows colleges and universities to consider race in the overall context of an applicant’s life experiences. “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts added, in his majority opinion.

Diverse medical class at UC Davis

One medical school, the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), has gained national attention for having one of the most diverse medical school classes in the nation, although its own state banned affirmative action in 1996.

The medical school became well-known for its controversial affirmative action policies after a contentious 5-4 Supreme Court decision on June 28, 1978, when the court ruled its quota system was unconstitutional.

Allan Bakke, a White student, sued the school after he was twice denied admission when he learned the school reserved slots for students of color, according to the school’s website.

Although the court ruled in his favor, it decided the school still could allow race as one of many factors to achieve a diverse class — but it could not have specific quotas.

The most recently admitted UC Davis medical class contains 133 students, with 84% coming from “disadvantaged” backgrounds — 14% are Black and 30% are Hispanic or Latinx, according to the school’s matriculant data.

“Word has gotten out,” noted a recent New York Times article, “about the U.C. Davis scale.”

Some 20 schools reportedly “recently requested more information” about the process, the Times piece noted, quoting Dr. Mark Henderson, head of admissions at UC Davis.

Fox News Digital reached out to UC Davis to learn more details about how it boosts diversity. The school declined to comment.

‘Race-neutral’ score

Multiple reports highlight the UC Davis socioeconomic disadvantage scale, or S.E.D, to help increase the number of students of color, especially those who come from unrepresented backgrounds.

Every applicant is rated from 0 to 99 based on socio-economic characteristics, such as family income or education of parents, yet admissions decisions are still based on a complete evaluation combined with the “race-neutral” score.

But if the student is a child of doctors, then that student receives a score of zero, per a recent report.

“We are familiar with this particular program and have followed its progress, but were not participants in its design or implementation,” said Geoffrey Young, PhD, senior director of Transforming the Health Care Workforce at AAMC in Washington, D.C.

“What we do know is that the [recent] court’s decision allows admissions committees to strengthen or implement holistic review in admissions to consider the whole individual, including their academic metrics and personal, lived experiences,” he added.

“Holistic admissions programs can help increase diversity even when race or ethnicity are not factors that can be considered,” he also said.

Critics of adversity scores say this minimizes individuals by crunching their life circumstances into a single score.

In 2019, The College Board, the nonprofit that administers the SAT, piloted a program to measure a student’s “adversity” from 0 to 100 — but after receiving immense backlash later that year, the board scrapped the score.

Even so, medical schools around the country have tried for years to increase the number of underrepresented minorities to better reflect the population they serve.

Still, only about 6% of practicing doctors are Black, although there are roughly twice the number who identify as such in the country, according to a 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report.

Also, only 0.1% practicing doctors identify as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, while only 0.3% are American Indian or Alaska Native.

‘Flawed notion’ for producing ‘better health care outcomes’

Others argue “adversity scoring” does not usher in the best and brightest physicians.

“Medical school does not exist to ameliorate society’s problems. It exists to create competent physicians,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chair of Do No Harm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told Fox News Digital.

Do No Harm fights for patients and physicians against discriminatory ideology in medicine, according to its website.

“The notion that adversity scores should be a component of medical school admissions depends on the flawed notion that physicians who have overcome some adversity will produce better health care outcomes,” he added.

“To feel that individuals who have overcome some prior difficulties in their life have a unique right to become physicians simply ignores the best interest of patients.”

Despite its drawbacks, though, some experts say that adversity scores are not unconstitutional.

“The recent Supreme Court decision targeted the explicit consideration of race in college admissions,” Jerry Kang, UCLA distinguished professor of law and Asian American studies, who is based in Los Angeles, told Fox News Digital.

“It does not prevent taking socioeconomic class into account,” added Kang, who is also UCLA’s founding vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion.

“Any good faith measure of an individual’s overcoming adversity, whether it be qualitative or quantitative, may be considered in the admissions process.”




Monday, July 10, 2023

I got into medical school by pretending to be black: We must enforce Supremes’ ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision banning college-admission based on race was a good first step, but the challenge now is to see that schools abide by it.

Indeed, no sooner did the court rule than President Joe Biden vowed not to let the decision “be the last word.”

I know first-hand why Americans should make sure it is.

Back in 1998, I knew my odds of getting into medical school, as an Indian-American, would be better if I were black. So, being dark-skinned, I pretended I was black — and got accepted, despite a mediocre 3.1 GPA.

Once there, though, I found the going rough and dropped out. That made me realize that affirmative action really doesn’t really do anyone any favors.

And it’s unfair to those who are excluded even though they were more deserving than those admitted on the basis of race.

Outside the courthouse in October, during deliberations in the recently decided case, I asked Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions (the plaintiff), about the potential consequences of a victory.

He replied with a twist on Winston Churchill’s famous words: It would be “the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.”

After the decision, colleges and universities displayed a range of reactions — from reluctant acceptance to outright defiance.

More than a 100 colleges and universities, including the entire Ivy League, had filed amicus briefs backing Harvard and University of North Carolina’s admission practices, which the court now deemed discriminatory.

These schools have collected tens of billions in taxpayer dollars and sent millions of rejection letters to applicants whose only fault may have been their race.

In the case against Harvard, SFFA’s attorneys unearthed the school’s use of “positive personality traits” as a guise for Harvard’s affirmative-action admission practices.

Theoretically, schools that had endorsed affirmative action could continue to cloak such discriminatory practices in defiance of the court.

They could employ stealthy, complex admissions algorithms that make it hard to identify their illegal scheme.

Gauging the sincerity of commitments to comply and scrap these practices will indeed be a formidable task.

Anyone hoping for colorblind admissions will need to support individual and class-action lawsuits against institutions that refuse to adopt race-neutral admission policies.

This means identifying victims of such biases, gathering expert testimony, subpoenaing relevant admissions data and enduring lengthy legal battles.

They should not be afraid to threaten stiff financial penalties — via legal settlements or awards or new legislation — for defiance.

Former President Donald Trump has suggested consequences large enough to erode endowments. Though legislation or court settlements might not go as far he’d like, he’s got the right idea.

The local, state and federal government must all be involved: Scores of congressmen and virtually every major Republican presidential candidate publicly supported SFFA’s cause.

With the court’s ruling, these leaders can now move to withhold federal funding from the Department of Education, Department of Justice and the universities themselves if they fail to enforce the court’s ruling.

Officials might also look to devise additional punishments as well, for school officials and the schools themselves, including loss of accreditation, a powerful weapon.

Recall that, years ago, Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status due to its discriminatory policies.

Further back, Washington dispatched federal marshals to see that black students were allowed into schools like the University of Alabama.

Surely officials can come up with other ways, too, to enforce compliance and design a routine for regularly examining, supervising and auditing these institutions until this scourge is truly behind us.

I am hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of affirmative action.

I’m desperately crossing my fingers that we’re entering a new era, with nationwide lawsuits and civil-rights campaigns dedicated to upholding race-neutral admissions policies when universities refuse to comply.

I’m encouraged not only by the Supreme Court’s ruling, but by the successful 2020 effort (in which I participated) to defeat California’s Prop. 16, which sought to allow affirmative action at California state institutions, including my beloved alma mater, UCLA.

Despite our staggering financial disadvantage, our efforts yielded a remarkable triumph, as 57% of voters sided with us.

These recent successes show that the nation is on the right track.

Americans will be better off when we no longer have to worry about legally sanctioned discrimination — against people of any race.


Interfaith parents demand Maryland schools allow students to opt out of LGBTQ curriculum

Parents of all faiths joined together to oppose a Maryland school district’s gender ideology instruction, saying they will not be silenced.

Shaykh El Hadji Sall, a Muslim immigrant from Africa, joined the demonstration and spoke out against Montgomery County Public Schools’ decision to no longer allow students to opt-out of lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation.

In a Fox News op-ed, Sall explained that the instruction conflicts with his religious beliefs.

“Our simple request to restore the most basic of our rights — the right to opt out — received a surprising backlash. The opposing side lacks an argument as to why they should deny us our basic freedoms and parental rights, and so they have smeared us as bigots,” he wrote. “Yet none of these smears are going to silence me or other parents in Montgomery County from the Muslim and other faith communities. The stakes are too high, and our children are paramount.”

MCPS announced last year efforts to include an LGBTQ-inclusive reading list as part of its English language arts curriculum for the 2023 to 2024 academic year.

Sall told “Fox & Friends” Friday that it is parents’ right not to adhere to the curriculum, which is “completely against” their theological principles.

He said the school is trying to change his children’s values to something that is considered “sinful” in his religion.

“We are just not being treated properly because these are a small group of liberals in the Board of Education [who] just want to do what they want to do against all of us, which is not right,” he told host Brian Kilmeade.

Ismail Royer, a member of the Coalition of Virtue, serves as an advocate for the concerned parents. He said parents don’t want to be put in a position to choose between having their children indoctrinated or being punished by the school district.

“People of faith and people who share a moral consensus have to get together and pay attention to who’s getting elected to these school boards,” Royer explained.

“Voting has to be done by a case-by-case basis, but in this situation it would be suicidal for Muslims to vote for a Democrat unfortunately, just the way that Democrats line up on this issue.”

Montgomery County Public Schools issued a statement following the outrage from parents: “Maryland law permits students and families to opt out of ‘Family Life and Human Sexuality Unit of Instruction’ but not other curriculum such as the English language arts curriculum.”

Sall, however, said he is not satisfied by the school district’s statement.

He argued the push for gender ideology and sexual orientation in schools is an attempt to erase his culture and religious heritage.

“We’re not going to accept it,” he said. “We just want to opt out completely to this curriculum they want to impose to our children to indoctrinate them.”

He predicted this issue in education will impact the next election in a big way.

“Our God teaches to obey him, to obey the prophet, but also to obey the authority among us, meaning to be a good citizen,” he said. “And to be a good citizen is definitely to vote and to vote properly.”


UK: I was hauled before a court because I challenged my sons' 'woke' school for removing urinals in the boys' toilets

A father-of-four says he was hauled before the courts for challenging what he believes are 'woke practices' in his sons' fee-paying boarding school and now faces a criminal conviction.

Martin Howard, 39, says urinals were removed from all boys toilets at Sexey's School in Bruton, Somerset, last summer leaving just four cubicles for 300 boys which he believes is a move to creating gender free toilets.

Mr Howard - whose sons aged 15 and 12 are pupils - wrote to the headteacher repeatedly to complain about the toilets and what he terms other 'extremist actions' which he says include rainbow flags in classrooms, inappropriate questionnaires on Year 7 pupils' sexual activity and an assembly likening all men to controversial influencer Andrew Tate.

It comes as the Government's long-awaited guidance to schools is set to be published imminently amid the growing debate around transgender issues. It is expected to say pupils shouldn't be allowed to use facilities designed for the opposite sex, but advice on 'gender neutral' toilets is still unclear.

After believing that his requests for clarification on why urinals and exterior toilet doors were removed weren't adequately addressed, Mr Howard went into the school to gather evidence last November.

Video recorded on Mr Howard's phone shows him visiting four toilets after school and being told to leave by teachers - several months later two cops arrived at his home and ordered him to come to the police station for questioning where he was later charged with causing nuisance or disturbance on school premises.

Mr Howard, from Shepton Mallet, Somerset, says he was banned from the school grounds for three months.

Appearing before Taunton Magistrates Court on Wednesday to represent himself, he pleaded not guilty and described the entire process as a 'waste of mine and the court's time'.

He added: 'As a parent I have an implied right of access to the school.'

But Magistrate Angela Brereton said: 'The only issue is whether or not you were being a nuisance or creating a disturbance. 'I am not sure you're allowed to video in toilets - what if there had been pupils present?'

He was released on unconditional bail but faces a trial in November, If he is convicted then will result in a criminal record and a fine of up to £500.

His case comes as women’s rights campaigners, including author JK Rowling, desperately try to stop public bodies and businesses replacing separate male and female toilets with gender neutral ones in an attempt to be more welcoming to trans people.

From the National Trust to UK theatres and even the Houses of Parliament, proposals to install gender neutral toilets have been blasted as woke and dangerous.

In May, parents at Walsall Academy, near Wolverhampton, were left fearful that new gender neutral toilets would leave 11-year-olds sharing lavatories with 18-year-olds of the opposite gender.

There were reports of pupils recording each other in the toilets, while teenage girls were refusing to drink water because they were forced to wait until they were back home before relieving themselves.

Meanwhile late last month, The Telegraph reported that a teenage boy was reportedly arrested over allegations that female pupils were sexually assaulted in the gender-neutral toilets at another secondary school in Essex.

The Essex school reportedly has a number of gendered toilets to be used by boys or girls as well as a set of 'open suite' cubicles that can be used by either sex.

Speaking after his court case, Mr Howard said: 'I am shocked it has gone this far. 'The school don't want parents finding out what they have done or challenging their woke policies.

'I tried to raise my concerns but the headteacher ignored these concerns as she continues to politicise her educational policies and the environment towards her extreme left ideologies.

'It is not a nice experience being charged and I will be writing to the school demanding compensation.'

Section 547 of the Education Act 1996 makes it a criminal offence for a person who is on school premises without legal permission to cause or permit a nuisance or disturbance. Trespassing itself does not constitute a criminal offence.

To have committed a criminal offence, an abusive individual must have been barred from the premises or have exceeded their 'implied licence', then also have caused a nuisance or disturbance.

Earlier this year Ofsted rated Sexey's school 'good' in all areas of an inspection - four years after it was judged 'inadequate'. Inspectors found pupils are 'happy and safe', 'polite' and 'thrive' there.

Sexey's - a state-run boarding school for boys and girls aged 11-18 which charges fees of up to £13,000 per year - has been contacted for comment.




Sunday, July 09, 2023

University rescinds reprimand for professor who failed student for using term ‘biological woman’

I guess it's very wrong of me but I see this as a case of an ugly b*tch of a professr trying to hurt a good-looking student

The University of Cincinnati [UC] on Thursday reversed its reprimand for a professor who failed a student for using the term “biological woman.”

The reprimand was issued on June 14 by the head of the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at UC, to penalize gender studies professor Melanie Nipper after she failed student Olivia Krolczyk’s assignment for citing biological science.

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, Nipper’s reprimand will be removed from her personnel file. Nipper is still required to complete training about the university’s free speech policy and submit a syllabus to her department head.

Per the Cincinnati Enquirer, Nipper filed an appeal request and met on-campus with administrators. After the appeal request was filed, the UC decided that the reprimand was “issued in error.”

Nipper argued that failing the student was not in violation of UC’s free speech policy.

Krolczyk sent a statement to the Cincinnati Enquirer about UC rescinding the reprimand.

“UC is affirming that professors will have no consequences for failing students with dissenting opinions… they will not uphold a student’s rights to free speech and will take no action to ensure that the educators hired are acting in a professional manner,” Krolczyk said.

Fox News Digital previously reported on Krolczyk posting a TikTok video last month explaining that she received a zero on her project proposal about transgender athletes competing in women’s sports because she used the term “biological women.”

The gender studies professor, Nipper, had told her that “the terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity. Please reassess your topic and edit it to focus on women’s rights (not just “females”) and I’ll regrade.”

“How am I supposed to do my project if I can’t use the term ‘biological women?’” Krolczyk asked in her TikTok video.

Nipper was ordered to complete free speech training after she penalized a student for citing biological science.

Since then, Krolczyk has received a new grade and finished her class with an A, but her former professor has faced a less flattering fate.

The Cincinnati Enquirer obtained a copy of a formal reprimand from UC informing Nipper that she violated school policy. According to the paper, “The reprimand directs adjunct instructor Melanie Nipper to complete training about UC’s free speech policy and submit her syllabi for the coming school year to her department head.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer obtained a copy of a formal reprimand from UC informing Nipper that she violated school policy. According to the paper, “The reprimand directs adjunct instructor Melanie Nipper to complete training about UC’s free speech policy and submit her syllabi for the coming school year to her department head.”

The letter also demanded that “you must complete training on the requirements of the Campus Free Speech Policy” and that she “submit all syllabi” for review and approval “at least two weeks prior to the beginning of classes.”


School principal leaves job to home-school her children, says education system suffering 'deep rooted' issues

A former private school principal, Mandy Davis, shared her concerns about the exodus of well-qualified teachers leading to unfit educators in public schools.

Parents should worry that the ongoing exodus of experienced teachers will harm their kids' education since under-qualified applicants could start filling vacancies, a former private school principal told Fox News.

"Every time one of those amazing, qualified and caring educators leaves the field, it just it gets you a little bit because you know how many kids they were serving," Mandy Davis, a private school principal turned home-school mom, told Fox News. "If our solution is 'let's just bring in somebody,' I'm not sure that's an environment we want our children staying in."

School districts nationwide have struggled with teachers fleeing the profession since the COVID-19 pandemic, with 45% of public schools operating without a full teaching staff in October 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Some states have amended or considered amending state laws to relax teacher certification requirements to alleviate the shortage.

"There are teachers that are burning out and are saying ‘the classroom is not a safe place for me, the classroom is not somewhere where I can do what I set out to do and teach and have accountability over my classroom,’" Davis said. "Those are concerning."

Davis began teaching in 2008 and advanced her education career all the way to becoming a private school principal in Central Oregon. But the former principal quit in June 2022 to home-school her three kids.

"Initially, that's what got me into education, was wanting to be a change for as many students as I could," Davis said. "Coming to the realization that there are just these deeper rooted issues throughout the system that can prevent even teachers still today from doing their job and doing what they set out to do, it ultimately did lead me to leave."

Former school principal responds to teacher shortage
Davis says many factors led to her decision to home-school her kids, including a lack of child-led learning and concerns over well-qualified teachers exiting the workforce among other reasons. (Fox News Digital)

The former educator told Fox News that declining student behavior and the inability to change outdated curricula and policies were some of the many reasons she left the traditional school system. For her own kids, she said the exodus of well-qualified teachers, one-on-one instruction and political bias in classroom discussions also played roles in her decision to home-school.

Davis first switched her two oldest kids to private school in 2019 before moving them to home education. Her youngest is only 18 months old but will join his siblings when he's old enough.

"I saw a lot of gaps in our school system and the direction that the schools are moving, both with student behavior and teacher shortages and what's happening inside the classroom," Davis said. "It was not an environment that I thought promoted learning and promoted the life that I wanted my children to experience."

Between February 2020 and May 2022, 300,000 public school teachers and other staff left the field, The Wall Street Journal reported last year. Even after a hiring spree, there's still 165,000 fewer staff than at the onset of the pandemic, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

The majority of vacancies reported in March 2022 were a result of resignations rather than layoffs or retirement, according to the National Center of Education Statistics. Meanwhile, more than one-third of teachers said they’re likely to quit in the next two years, according to the Merrimack College Teacher Survey, which polled 1,200 teachers in January 2023.

"I’m not surprised by that number at all, especially the way that we're trending," Davis said. "I think it's important for parents to not only see it as a concern of why are all these teachers leaving, but to ask who is going to come in, and what's the solution going to be."

In Oregon, where Davis worked, the state allows for emergency licensed teachers to step in during urgent circumstances, leading to 438 such hires statewide during the 2021-2022 school year, up from 181 the year prior, according to the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission. The emergency licensed teachers aren't required to have prior teaching experience or training and can work in a full-time teaching position at a school for up to one year.

"Is that the best environment for our children's education?" Davis said. "For me, that was enough to make that school choice."

"If there are other educators wondering what they should do, I would just say to lean into your family first and think through what your children need," she said. "And if that's being met, then it just becomes more of a personal decision."


JD Vance Putting Universities on Notice When It Comes to Complying With Affirmative Action Ruling

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative action with a series of decisions out of Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). To say that the left is not pleased would be putting it politely.

In case any college or university gets the idea to not comply, though, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) is putting them on notice with a letter he sent on Thursday to the presidents of elite schools, including those in Vance's state of Ohio. Not only did Vance write to "express concern," he also called on those presidents to preserve documents after they expressed "openly defiant and potentially unlawful reaction" to the Harvard decision.

Despite the ruling being as clear as it was, Vance's letter pointed out that "within hours of the decision's pronouncement, you and your institutions expressed open hostility to the decision and seemed to announce an intention to circumvent it."

His letter includes examples from 10 university presidents, including from Princeton, Oberlin, Dartmouth, Harvard. Cornell, Kenyon, Yale, Brown, the University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia.

A Fox News report summarized some of the reactions included in Vance's letter:

"Princeton President [Christopher] Eisgruber complained that the Court’s decision was ‘unwelcome and disappointing’ and vowed to pursue ‘diversity . . . with energy, persistence, and a determination to succeed despite the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in its regrettable decision today,’" Vance recounted.

"Oberlin President [Twillie] Ambar felt ‘deeply saddened and concerned for the future of higher education’ when the Supreme Court’s ruling was announced," he continued. "She assured her students and faculty that, rather than dampening her enthusiasm for affirmative action policies, the decision ‘only strengthens our determination to be a welcoming place where diversity is celebrated.’"

"Harvard President [Lawrence] Bacow boasted that ‘[f]or almost a decade, Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system’ that the Supreme Court ruled unlawful and then ‘reaffirm[ed] the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives and lived experiences[.]’"

Vance's letter makes note of colleagues who "have assured me that they share my concern that colleges and universities, and particularly the elite institutions to whom this letter is addressed, do not respect the Court's judgment and will covertly. defy a landmark civil rights decision with which they disagree."

Speaking of another landmark decision, Vance reminded the presidents of the painful consequences of schools refusing to abide by the Brown v. Board of Education decision from 1954. "In one infamous case" regarding reaction to that case, as Vance pointed to, "Virginia Governor Thomas B. Stanley responded to the decision... by pledging to show 'the rest of the country [that] racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South' and by vowing to organize 'massive resistance' in the Southern States. Violence and racial animosity ensued."

As the senator's letter indicates, his authority is not just limited to strong words. "The United States Senate is prepared to use its full investigative powers to uncover circumvention, covert or otherwise, of the Supreme Court’s ruling. You are advised to retain admissions documents in anticipation of future congressional investigations, including digital communications between admissions officers, any demographic or other data compiled during future admissions cycles, and other relevant materials. As you are aware, a number of federal criminal statutes regulate the destruction of records connected to federal investigations, some of which apply prior to the formal commencement of any inquiry," he pointed out.

The letter concludes by asking several questions of the university presidents to indicate compliance, including:

What procedures will your institution implement to ensure that records are retained in accordance with this letter?

What instructions are you giving staff about their obligations to preserve records in anticipation of a potential investigation? Please inform me of the date and nature of such instructions?

Has your staff ever been advised not to preserve records or to communicate internally in ways that could circumvent future inquiries? If so, please discuss the date and nature of such advisements.

How will your institutions ensure that new admissions practices do not "simply establish ... the regime" that the Supreme Court has held unlawful?

What admissions practices previously employed by your institutions will now be forbidden?

If you have publicly committed to an interest in "diversity," how will you ensure that your commitment to that value does not entail direct or indirect race-based preferences?
Vance expects answers by July 21.

Fox News noted that they reached out to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Oberlin College and Kenyon College about the letter. While a spokesperson for Harvard pointed to a statement that said the university "will certainly comply with the Court’s decision," no other schools had responded.

A report from, however, did include a statement from Oberlin spokesperson Andrea Simakis who indicated the school is reviewing the decision. "Oberlin will comply with the law," she said in part.