RUTHFULLY YOURS

Is this just a gratifying dream or a frightful, dangerous fancy: to have a government agency that cracks down on the sources of intellectual and spiritual pollution the way the Environmental Protection Agency treats manufacturers that produce toxic pollutants?

The dream is reality, at least in part, as evidenced by the recent intervention and inquiry of the Department of Justice in lawsuits against Harvard and other elite colleges and universities. The real monster here is not expanded powers of government that might endanger free minds in higher education but rather the administrative state itself that, of course, gets its brains from these institutions.

The administrative state, which the Trump Administration intends to “deconstruct,” is a hulking monstrosity of bold bureaucracy and supine elected officials that has replaced constitutional government in the United States.

Harvard and other elite colleges have recently attracted the attention of the Trump Department of Justice. The issues include long-suspected discrimination against Asian-Americans in admissions at Harvard and collusion (that is, a conspiracy!) on early decisions in admissions. To prove this in court, the accusers would need access to admissions committees’ data and decision-making. The universities plead privacy and protection of trade secrets about their admissions decisions and financial-aid calculations.

Might colleges violate “antitrust laws by exchanging information about prospective students who make early decision commitments”?

Early decision (narrower than early application) requires students who are accepted to commit to that institution—and no other. This practice requires an applicant to take an offer without being able to compare financial aid packages. “Early decision programs have afforded some colleges nearly half of their freshman classes”—Duke University, for example. One education consultant observed, “only about 200 schools of the more than 4,000 in the country use early decision. ‘Given that this doesn’t affect many schools, or many students, it’s the ultimate first-world problem.’”

Cornell University is so bad at conducting sex assault and harassment investigations that 23 professors from its law school have filed a brief in court to require the school to follow its own policies.

Cornell, apparently in its zeal to appease the media and culture created by the Obama administration, is denying male students accused of sexual assault proper due process procedures, according to multiple lawsuits against the university. Now, a third of its law school professors are defending one of those students who filed a suit.

Colleges and universities typically fall back on the defense that at least they followed their own policies when denying a male student due process rights. But Cornell isn’t even doing that. Professor Sheri Lynn Johnson, who filed the brief, asserts that Cornell didn’t provide an accused student the right “to test his accuser’s account of events and credibility by having a disciplinary hearing panel ask his accuser proper questions that he proposes,” which is granted to students in Cornell policy.

Although the brief specifically addresses this policy in one case, the professors note they are “concerned more generally with whether Cornell respects this and other procedural protections in its Title IX policy going forward and whether courts properly interpret the policy.”

The specific case included in the brief involves the pseudonymous John Doe and his accuser, referred to as Sally Roe. Sally made inconsistent statements throughout the investigation and hearing, and even though John submitted questions to the hearing panel to be asked of her, none of his questions were asked.

While congresscritters expressed outrage at Facebook’s intrusive data grabs during Capitol Hill hearings with Mark Zuckerberg this week, not a peep was heard about the Silicon Valley–Beltway theft ring purloining the personal information and browsing habits of millions of American schoolchildren.

It doesn’t take undercover investigative journalists to unmask the massive privacy invasion enabled by educational technology and federal mandates. The kiddie data heist is happening out in the open — with Washington politicians and bureaucrats as brazen co-conspirators.

Facebook is just one of the tech giants partnering with the U.S. Department of Education and schools nationwide in pursuit of student data for meddling and profit. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Pearson, Knewton, and many more are cashing in on the Big Data boondoggle. State and federal educational databases provide countless opportunities for private companies exploiting public schoolchildren subjected to annual assessments, which exploded after adoption of the tech-industry-supported Common Core “standards,” tests, and aligned texts and curricula.

The recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act further enshrined government collection of personally identifiable information — including data collected on attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions — and allows release of the data to third-party contractors thanks to Obama-era loopholes carved into the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

College continues to get more interesting. One young man who missed 15 out of 28 days of school explains that he and “his ex-girlfriend just had a baby.” When asked who would take care of the baby, the boy (also a product of a single-mother household) said his mother and the girl’s mother needed to work this out. Although he admitted that his girlfriend had used birth control for two years, by the “third year, it didn’t seem that necessary.” While he was happy about the baby, the young man also explained that he wasn’t even sure the baby is his, so he was scheduled to have a DNA test soon.

Nothing like common sense, fidelity, and future planning!

But did you know that in the inverted world of education today, if a student has a baby, then more financial aid is available? Indeed! Consequently, students are being told by their college advisers that they should get pregnant. Even some of the students are appalled at this suggestion. But then there are those who proclaim that “the money comes from the government,” implying that it is not really problematic. Deliberately unschooled in how things actually work, and already the recipients of financial assistance, these students see government as the ultimate security blanket. There is no connection to the idea that government comprises taxpayers.

What a wonderful idea – to have a money tree somewhere pumping out financial aid ad infinitum!

Should we be surprised, given what has been documented in the booklet titled “Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools” by Sara Dogan and Peter Collier? In Edina, Minnesota, the Highlands Elementary School students write poems that link “the anti-police and racially divisive Black Lives Matter movement with peace.” The principal reproduced Black Lives Matter’s own website, which states that its members “are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and villages.”

Then there is the book titled A is for Activist, which features “C is for Creative Counter to Corporate Vultures, E is for environmental justice, T is for Trans. X is for Malcolm. As in Malcolm X.” It is billed as an “ABC board book written and illustrated for the next generation of progressives[.]”

In Ithaca, New York, the Beverly J. Martin Elementary School students sat through a presentation featuring Bassem Tamimi, who videos his own children sharing a message that “we [Palestinians] don’t like that Israel kill [sic] us, kill Gaza, kill Palestinian[.]” Actual facts be damned.

Brown University costs $73,000 per year to attend.

The Brown University Health Services office now offers “safe spaces for men” to help them “unlearn toxic masculinity” and combat traditional notions of “what it means to be a man.”

Viewing masculinity as if it were a public health crisis, “Unlearning Toxic Masculinity” offers a three-pronged approach for helping male students recover: a weekly discussion group to unlearn “toxic masculine norms,” a biannual magazine, and a video series.

The crux of the programming revolves around Masculinity 101 Peer Education, a peer-to-peer weekly discussion group that convenes male students to talk about issues such as “Cultivating Empathy” and “Harm and Healing.”

Eight students have already been hired to facilitate these workshops, PJ Media has learned. According to the program description, the workshops vow to teach students what “healthier norms of masculinity can and should look like.”

Warns Brown University: “Modern society is quick to bestow unearned privilege on men … there is nothing in place to teach men — young men especially — how to avoid abusing that privilege or how to leverage it for good.”

Unlike programming at other schools, the Masculinity 101 Peer Education program notes that it is open to all students regardless of gender, and especially since its programming also is dedicated to destroying the male-female gender binary.

Race advocates and the media are greeting a new Government Accountability Office report on racial disparities in school discipline as a vindication of Obama administration policies. The GAO found that black students get suspended at nearly three times the rate of white students nationally, a finding consistent with previous analyses. The Obama Education and Justice Departments viewed that disproportion as proof of teacher and principal bias. Administration officials used litigation and the threatened loss of federal funding to force schools to reduce suspensions and expulsions radically in order to eliminate racial disparities in discipline. The GAO report, which implicitly rubberstamps the Obama approach, comes just as Trump education secretary Betsy DeVos is evaluating whether to rescind Obama’s school discipline directives. DeVos should go forward with that rescission: the administration’s policies were fatally flawed, as is the GAO report that attempts to justify them.

The GAO report ignores the critical question regarding disciplinary disparities: do black students in fact misbehave more than white students? The report simply assumes, without argument, that black students and white students act identically in class and proceeds to document their different rates of discipline. This assumption of equivalent school behavior is patently unjustified. According to federal data, black male teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at nearly 10 times the rate of white male teenagers of the same age (the category “white” in this homicide data includes most Hispanics; if Hispanics were removed from the white category, the homicide disparity between blacks and whites would be much higher). That higher black homicide rate indicates a failure of socialization; teen murderers of any race lack impulse control and anger-management skills. Lesser types of juvenile crime also show large racial disparities. It is fanciful to think that the lack of socialization that produces such elevated rates of criminal violence would not also affect classroom behavior. While the number of black teens committing murder is relatively small compared with their numbers at large, a very high percentage of black children—71 percent—come from the stressed-out, single-parent homes that result in elevated rates of crime.

Can you imagine a public university banning free speech and threatening arrests over flyers exposing anti-Semitism and warning about a student group funded by terrorists that promotes their propaganda?

But that’s exactly what happened to the Freedom Center at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

“Disciplina Praesidium Civitatis” is the Latin motto that circles the seal of the University of Texas. The University of Texas system motto is a latinized quote from the second president of the Republic of Texas, “A cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy.”

The University of Texas at San Antonio disgraced the motto by banning any flyers and posters from the David Horowitz Freedom Center under threat of criminal prosecution. The threatening letter from UTSA contains a “criminal trespass warning” to “the David Horowitz Freedom Center and its members”.

“You are barred and forbidden from entering or remaining on any UTSA properties. If any member of your organization returns, they are subject to arrest,” the public institution has threatened

At the University of Texas at San Antonio the guardian genius of democracy is behind bars. Its administration is protecting Hamas front groups while suppressing free speech and civil rights.

President Taylor Eighmy celebrated the unconstitutional threats of arrest against the Freedom Center. “Freedom of expression is vital to institutions of higher education, but we cannot tolerate speech that violates our freedom of expression policies,” the head of a taxpayer-funded institution warned.

Freedom of expression means something very different at the UTSA than it does everywhere else.

Many who emerge with a Bachelor of Arts degree rightly earn and confirm the poor reputation that degree now confers. They come out knowing nothing, and many plunge black into the schools, this time as teachers, to pass on nothing. It is a depressing sort of carousel.

The History Curriculum has attracted a great deal of controversy since its inception in 2013. Former Prime Minister John Howard addressed his concerns with the scope of the curriculum in Quadrant. Kevin Donnelly and Mervyn Bendle have done the same. Nonetheless, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has trundled along, barely missing a step, despite an inquiry launched by the Abbott government, forging a national curriculum largely informed by the Melbourne Declaration of 2008.

This paper will deal solely with History, and how ACARA’s curriculum has contributed to what is, in my view, a corruption of the discipline in schools. Many of the problems in the History Curriculum are to be found elsewhere; the interested reader will find plentiful examples in the English Curriculum, for instance.

I will look at two things. Largely, I will look at how we teach history at present. What we teach has been covered extensively elsewhere, so I will spend only a little time on it.

How we teach history

“We are not concerned about the narrative of events, or the retelling of history,” I have heard so many times I have lost count, “we are interested in skills.”

Thus, history teaching is not about content—a dirty word among the ACARA curriculum gurus—but is instead about skills. What good is knowledge to students? Who cares if they can recount the events of 1066, or the fall of the Roman Republic, or the Pacific Campaign? What relevance will it have to their daily lives, to their future role in the workforce? But skills: now, there’s a word we can get behind. Everybody likes skills. What could be of better utility?

We have become, even among our educated classes, a post-learning society. Ostensibly, the internet has been the vehicle of this shift in consciousness; with information on anything easily obtained, we have no need to carry it about in our own skulls any longer. Of course, information is not the same as knowledge, and without knowledge, wisdom is difficult to obtain. Sending unformed young minds to the internet for knowledge is like sending them to a sewer for fresh water. I am no longer startled by the abject lack of general knowledge among everybody under the age of fifty. Once, we might have said they knew a lot about a little, or a little about a lot; now it seems they know very little about very little. ACARA’s unwieldly response to this shift is to turn learning history into the learning of abstract skills, transferable everywhere—the best response to the interconnected world. It is, in essence, to swallow more of the same poison. The antidote is rigour, but rigour won’t be found in the utilitarian and progressive model of teaching.