Displaying posts categorized under

EDUCATION

Equity = Inequality, Discrimination and Mediocrity The fixation on equity is a loser for all concerned. By Larry Sand

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/24/equity-inequality-discrimination-and-mediocrity/

At the same time that the indoctrination of American students continues to work its way through the schools, its evil twin “equity” is advancing right along with it. As the race-obsessed Ibram X. Kendi explains, equity exists when “two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing.” In other words, if 10 percent of white kids are in a school’s gifted program, equity demands that 10 percent of black kids are also included. Kendi also claims, “There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy.” The terms “equality” and “quality” are nowhere to be found in the equity playbook.

The gaslighting here is palpable. What Kendi is apparently saying is that we must discriminate to put an end to (alleged) discrimination. But, insane or not, this is what is happening throughout much of the country. In reliably woke San Francisco, the top-rated Lowell High School will no longer admit students based on their academic performance. Instead, the school will use a lottery to admit its students. This will, of course, discriminate against Asian students who make up 50.6 percent of its student body.

Similarly, in New York City, the gifted and talented program has been deemed unfair. Mayor Bill de Blasio and his equally reprehensible schools chancellor Richard Carranza insist that the testing program is unjust because the students who wind up in the program “don’t reflect the diversity of the city’s population.”

Protecting American Children from Today’s Educational Activists A healthy way to begin defending our children from leftist indoctrination. Jason D. Hill

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/protecting-american-children-todays-educational-jason-d-hill/

A friend of mine told me an apocryphal story that left me with a cold shudder. He is an old-fashioned left-leaning “liberal” and a strong advocate of public education. All his children attend public schools. In fact, he is vehemently opposed to the idea of promoting private schools on the premise that its implementation will result in a more stratified society because, he believes, poor whites and blacks will be disproportionately disqualified from attending such institutions.

In good faith, he has always entrusted his children’s education to what I had typically referred to as Government Schools. He was confident that his children would receive a robust education from K-12 grade.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, he was forced to monitor the classroom activities of his children. Unemployment had left him more time to inconspicuously sit-in — especially on the classes of his 6th grader son.

He was shocked, one afternoon, to come upon an assignment being conducted during an English class in which all the white students in the zoom online course were required to place their arms beside a brown paper bag. How his 6th grader had acquired a crisp brown paper bag was a mystery to him. The teacher asked them if they noticed a difference in color between their skin and the brown paper bag. All of the white students nodded, and some verbally assented. The teacher asked them if the color of the bag looked close to the color of some of the students identified as black in the class. His son peered at the zoom screen and raised the icon button identifying his acknowledgement. The teacher then announced with full moral rectitude and intransigence the following:

If your skin color is different from the color of the paper bag, then you are part of a problem in America known as systemic racism that does irreparable harm to all black and brown people in America. Further, if your skin color is different from the brown paper bag and you are identified as white you enjoy something called white privilege which means you are practicing racism every day without knowing it.

Ivy League ‘Wokes’ are the Biggest Supporters of Political Violence D.C. doesn’t need the National Guard, but Columbia and Yale might. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/ivy-league-wokes-are-biggest-supporters-political-daniel-greenfield/

The Democrats and their media have spent the past few months crying about political violence coming from conservatives, calling for gun control, and militarizing the nation’s capital. All of the agonizing about political violence came after a year in which ‘woke’ Black Lives Matter mobs killed, beat, and burned their way across the country in an orgy of ‘mostly peaceful’ violence.

Even the most modest estimates of political woke terror in 2020 place it at 8 dead, over 700 injured, and over $2 billion in damages. And the year could have ended even more bloodily with the Left prepping for mass protests with “bail funds that could be activated in response to mass arrests” and a fund “for the families of anyone killed in violence on or around Election Day.”

Months before the election, 41% of Democrats suggested that there would be at least a little justification for violence if President Trump won. Those are numbers the media won’t discuss.

While the media continues to promote a phantom conservative threat, it doesn’t want to look at where the violence is coming from in its own ranks. But it will not surprise anyone who remembers the seventies that Democrat support for violence is coming from the Ivy League.

The ‘Experts’ Cited by the New Censors A leftist professor helps Democrats attack non-leftist media. By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-experts-cited-by-the-new-censors-11614128309?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

Two House Democrats from California, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, launched a frontal assault on the First Amendment this week with a letter to the CEOs of communications companies demanding to know what they are doing to police unwelcome speech.

A Journal editorial notes that “the letter is a demand for more ideological censorship.” The two legislators write: “Our country’s public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies.”

But it’s clear that they only want to discipline one side. The Democrats claim, “Experts have noted that the right-wing media ecosystem is “much more susceptible…to disinformation, lies, and half-truths.”

The “experts” quoted are three Harvard academics, and the lead author is law professor Yochai Benkler. His take on “right-wing” media is perhaps not surprising given that according to the OpenSecrets website he donates exclusively to left-wing politicians, especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).

In any case, Mr. Benkler has assembled an interdisciplinary team at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society and purports to have discovered data showing that conservative media is bad.

No Speech Coddling in Chicago A new journal from students who refuse to be cancelled

https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-speech-coddling-in-chicago-11614125023?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Most college administrators are no doubt exhausted by constant student demands that range from the type of cereal served in the dining hall to the latest intersectional fad. So those running the University of Chicago must be pleasantly surprised by the arrival of Chicago Thinker on their campus this school year. It’s an online journal by conservative and libertarian students who refuse to be canceled.

Their mission statement makes the point: “We demand not to be coddled. Embracing the experience of unfettered inquiry and free expression is precisely the point of these years of intense study: to rigorously confront and challenge our most deeply-held beliefs—and to emerge from the experience as more thoughtful, informed human beings.”

They build on a firm foundation. In 2015 the university released a statement reaffirming its commitment to “free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation.” In 2016 the university’s incoming freshman received a letter informing them that “we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

The Chicago Thinker’s latest posts include stories on the “insane COVID rules and snitch culture” at today’s universities, a definition of conservatism offered “in defiance of egregious caricatures,” and a piece on “how leftism ruined ‘Stargirl,’” a superhero TV series based on the character from DC Comics. Good for the Chicago Thinker—and even more for the university that promises never to coddle the students running the publication.

On Free Speech at Stanford:Scott Atlas, Niall Ferguson, and Victor Davis Hanson *****

https://stanfordreview.org/atlas-ferguson-hanson-stanford-free-speech/

What is the purpose of academic freedom?

Is it to allow all kinds of ideas to be expressed and explored, protecting even speech that people in the past considered heretical—protecting free expression that some people today would like to “cancel”? Or is it to allow co-workers in the ideological minority to be personally and selectively disparaged with impunity?

The answer for some faculty at Stanford University would appear to be the latter.

In a recent meeting of the Stanford Faculty Senate, four professors (Joshua Landy, Stephen Monismith, David Palumbo-Liu and David Spiegel) presented and then subsequently published a farrago of falsehoods directed against various fellows of the Hoover Institution. Their complaint was, first, that the Hoover fellows’ views were unapologetically conservative and, second, that they appeared antithetical to the majority of those of the Stanford community—and were therefore properly subject to some sort of institutional and personal censure.

Our faculty accusers failed to achieve both their overt and their implicit goals—creating a faculty-controlled committee to investigate Hoover and intimidating us into silence. Some respected faculty members, including the President, the Provost, and the former Provost all forcefully spoke up for academic freedom in general and defended Hoover in particular. They should be congratulated for doing so in these ideologically polarized times.

Nevertheless, our faculty accusers still succeeded in maligning us as individuals. The impression was left even by the President that we might have “behaved inappropriately” or “spoken untruths.” Unfortunately, this is not the first time such use has been made of the Senate. Indeed, it has happened repeatedly in recent years, for example in February 2019.

‘I needed security just to give my lectures’ Academic Selina Todd on her experience of campus censorship, and what we should do about it.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/19/i-needed-security-just-to-give-my-lectures/

The government has announced new measures to tackle the crisis of free speech on campus. Selina Todd is professor of modern history at Oxford University and author of Snakes and Ladders: The Great British Social Mobility Myth. Todd is a gender-critical feminist, who believes womanhood is a matter of sex, not gender identity. Her campaigning for women’s sex-based rights caught the attention of trans-rights activists and, as a result, she was deplatformed last year from a Women’s Liberation Festival event. spiked caught up with her to find out more.

spiked: The government says it is concerned about free speech on campus. How bad is the problem?

Selina Todd: It’s endemic and really serious. Over the past week, I’ve heard Jo Grady, the leader of the University and College Union (UCU), and representatives of the National Union of Students (NUS) saying this should not be a priority during the pandemic. But universities should be completely democratic institutions. And you never need democracy any more than in times when you are at your lowest ebb – which, as a nation, we are.

About 10 days ago, somebody set up a website collecting testimonies from feminists who feel that their freedom to debate on campus has been compromised. It has garnered over 70 testimonies. People feel that this is a really pressing issue. Something seriously needs to be done.

spiked: What are your personal experiences of campus censorship?

The Danger of Unassailable Ideas Treating beliefs as truths makes it impossible for the academy to do its job Ilana Redstone and John Villasenor

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/01/12/the-danger-of-unassailable-ideas/

Open inquiry is supposed to be the foundation of the academic endeavor. And yet today, that endeavor is constrained by a set of unacknowledged beliefs that administrators, faculty and students at colleges and universities increasingly treat as unassailable truths.

As we argue in our new book, Unassailable Ideas, many of these beliefs have in recent decades migrated from the edge of academia to its very center. Three of these beliefs in particular now shape how the academy conceptualizes research, teaching and its administrative role, a phenomenon that restricts how classes are taught, which questions can be asked and how problems are solved.

The first of these beliefs is that any effort that aims to undermine traditional frameworks is automatically viewed as good. In making this claim, our aim is not to mount a defense of conventional discriminatory power structures. However, it should be possible to rightly condemn them and simultaneously point out that not all efforts designed to fight against them are well thought-out. Sometimes the goals of a particular effort will be worthy, but the methods to achieve them won’t be.

The second belief is that discrimination is the cause of all unequal group outcomes. In other words, absent discrimination, all intergroup differences in representation in various aspects of life—from education to family structure to employment—would cease to exist. While discrimination is clearly a force that should be combated, this second belief precludes any consideration of the potential role of preferences, priorities and culture that might also play a contributing role.

The third belief is in the primacy of identity, where identity is defined by attributes such as race, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, etc. We are not suggesting that identity along these lines isn’t important: it is. Rather, we are suggesting that there can also be value in non-identity-centered perspectives.

1776 truth vs 1619 falsehoods by Larry Arnn

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-1776-commission-and-american-education

One of the clearest signs that we are in a debate over the central meaning of our country, and therefore of our rights and of us, is the controversy about the status of the American founding. That controversy rages. I was appointed chairman of the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission by former President Donald Trump. Its purpose was to advise on chiefly two things: preparing for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026 and proposing ways to teach American history better.

The commission issued its report unanimously a few days before President Biden took office. He canceled it and removed its report from the White House website on the first afternoon he was president. Since then, he has said several things to excoriate the report and its authors. The chief cry is that it seeks to whitewash the story of slavery. In fact, the story of slavery is extensively addressed. The main points are simple and indubitably true: Slavery existed in the United States for 150 years before the nation was formed by the Declaration of Independence. Those who wrote that Declaration of Independence stated emphatically and repeatedly that slavery was wrong. The leading founders are nearly uniform in this view, and it seems to have been the sense of most of the public.

The immediate fruit of this sentiment was that slavery was abolished in more than half of the country within 20 years. In 1787, when the Northwest Ordinance was passed, our government grew for the first time. It was the first time a free government had done so. It did so without the benefit of colonies but rather with a plan quickly to form states and the citizens of those states to be equal with those of the existing states. This ordinance concerned the five states in the Northwest Territory, regarded by the founders as a precious resource. Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance provides that there is to be no slavery with these words:

Veteran Bronx educator claims she was fired after refusing ‘Black Panther’ salute Caitlin McFall

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/veteran-bronx-educator-claims-she-was-fired-after-refusing-black-panther-salute
DPS Asks – Can public education in NYC get any worse? Of course it can and it will …..

The Department of Education insists the famous cross-arm gesture doesn’t refer to ‘Black power,’ but is instead ‘a symbol used to represent the Bronx’

A Dominican-American Bronx educator, one year away from retirement, says she was fired after refusing to participate in the cross-arm, “Wakanda forever” salute to Black power.

 Rafaela Espinal, who identifies as Afro-Latina, says she was chastised for repeatedly refusing to mimic the gesture popularized in the 2018 Marvel Comic’s “Black Panther,” during superintendent meetings, reported the New York Post Saturday.

According to a Manhattan Supreme Court suit against the city’s Department of Education Chancellor Richard Carranza and other top officials earlier this month, Espinal was “admonished and told that it was inappropriate for her not to participate” in the salute by the then-Bronx superintendent Meisha Ross Porter.

In the 2018 movie, the cross arm motion represents Black empowerment.  Though the film’s Director Ryan Coggler said the idea was largely taken from pharaoh sculptures in ancient Egypt, coupled with it’s meaning of “love” or “hug” in American Sign Language, he said in a 2018 interview with Inverse.