RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/10/06/heres-what-happened-when-a-concerned-mom-dressed-like-drag-queen-at-a-school-board-meeting-n1635089

““Does this outfit make you turn your head?” Reicks asked. “Does this outfit seem appropriate for anybody here to see? This is what the man dressed like in front of our kids. So if this makes your head spin — if this pisses you off in any way, shape, or form — it should. Because I’m embarrassed to stand here in the outfit that I am in today, but I have a point to prove — that this outfit should not be ever accepted in our schools anywhere.”

For years now, we’ve seen woke schools hiring drag queens to perform for young kids as some sort of exercise about tolerance and diversity. If you spoke out about it, you were a bigot.

Earlier this year, it was reported that New York City schools spent over $200,000 putting drag queen shows on for their students.

This is only part of the trend of inappropriate things happening in schools with the full knowledge and consent of woke school boards. Sexually explicit books are also being carried in school libraries and incorporated into curricula—all in the name of “tolerance.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/school-choice-winning/

Finally! Now more states will let parents use their tax money to educate their kids at a school they choose.

In Arizona, families can get $6,500 to spend on private school, tutoring or even home schooling.

The education establishment is horrified — especially teachers unions. They don’t want competition.

But competition makes us all better. The Ford Model T was a breakthrough. But it’s lousy compared to what we have today. That’s because carmakers compete to make better cars.

But American education has barely changed since the days of Henry Ford. Kids still sit in a room, watching a teacher at a blackboard.

For my video this week, I debate a union leader.

He’s David Walrod, president of the Fairfax, Virginia, chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. The AFT has been controlled by union boss Randi Weingarten for 14 years. I once provoking her by saying, “Unionized monopolies like yours fail!”

“We are not a unionized monopoly!” she replied. “Folks who want to say this … don’t really care about kids.”

Weingarten won’t talk to me anymore, so I’m glad Walrod would.

“What’s wrong with giving parents a choice?” I ask. After all, competition makes us try harder.

“If I compete directly against you, I have a vested interest in doing better than you,” he said.

Isn’t that good?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/09/30/restoring_free_speech_at_our_universities_148260.html

Now that the autumn semester is well underway, it is worth asking whether students have a chance to participate in free and open debate. The short answer is “No, they don’t.” They don’t have a chance to explore unpopular ideas and controversial opinions. They are “protected” from ideas that might make them uncomfortable. What’s being stifled here is more than speech. It’s their education and, with it, their preparation to live in a tolerant society, where fellow citizens hold different views.

As Hanna Holborn Gray, one of America’s finest university presidents, once observed: “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.” She was absolutely right.

Unfortunately, today few universities follow Gray’s advice, and they bear a heavy responsibility for their failure. Promoting free discourse is central to their mission. It’s not only the best way to educate students, it is also the best way to encourage innovative research and to model serious engagement with differing views, a beleaguered value in today’s Western societies.

Students don’t need reminding how intolerant their campuses are. They already know. If they hold unpopular opinions, they keep their heads down. If they hold dominant views, they are all too eager to shame those who differ rather than debate them. Faculty and administrators are among the worst bullies, and they hold real power over students.

Whole departments display this intolerance. That’s especially true in the humanities and social sciences, but the infection has spread to the sciences. Increasingly, departments won’t hire or admit anyone who doesn’t swear allegiance to a specific political agenda. That’s not hypothetical or hyperbolic. Many now require applicants to submit written statements explaining in detail how they contribute to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).

https://www.frontpagemag.com/banned-books-bunkum/

Mercifully, Banned Books Week, celebrated Sept. 18-24 this year, is over, and we can take a deep breath for the next 51 or so weeks till it once again rears its ugly, hysterical, manipulative, leftwing head.

Whatever righteousness this week may have once held, it has been taken over by progressive sex obsessives and groomers who are trying to legitimize the field once known quaintly as “obscenity.”

Started in 1982, Banned Books Week is proudly promoted by the American Library Association, whose incoming president, Emily Drabinski, is euphoric at the prospect of leading the organization. In a tweet, she gushed, “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary. I am so excited for what we will do together. Solidarity!”

In a similar pathetic vein, she added on LinkedIn that she’s proud “to have the support of Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers for our campaign for president of the American Library Association. Solidarity!”

Then there is PEN America, an organization that purports to stand at the “intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide.” Like ALA, the organization has a far-left agenda, and has no problem with the fact that porn can wind up in the hands of a six-year-old.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-boards-racial-pandering-education-k-12-schooling-ap-courses-exams-testing-high-schools-math-reading-propaganda-11664309793?mod=opinion_featst_pos2

Ever wonder why Democrats push so hard to expand the mission of K-12 public education even while the system continues to underperform in its core tasks?

Even before the pandemic, a majority of fourth- and eighth-graders were unable to read or do math at grade level, and outcomes are even worse for minority students. New York City Schools Chancellor David Banks said last year that 65% of his black and Hispanic students never reach proficiency on standardized tests and then quipped, “If everybody in the Department of Education went home and all the kids went to school, you could get those same results.”

Nevertheless, Democrats from President Biden on down advocate for “universal” prekindergarten programs, even though studies have shown little to no evidence that they improve test scores. Progressives also want explicit sex education in earlier grades and have fought successfully to introduce racial propaganda into curricula via the controversial New York Times Magazine “1619 Project.”

The latest evidence that reading, writing and arithmetic are secondary concerns comes by way of the College Board, the nonprofit organization that runs the Advanced Placement program. AP courses are offered to nearly three million students in more than 22,000 high schools across the country. Students who complete the courses take a final exam, graded on a 5-point scale, and those who score a 3 or higher can be eligible for college credit.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/poll-majority-of-americans-disapprove-of-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/

With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments in a pair of landmark affirmative-action cases this fall, a majority of Americans say they disapprove of racial preferences and still favor a meritocratic system in college admissions.

An 85 Fund poll conducted by CRC Research found that 59 percent of respondents disapprove of colleges and universities considering a prospective student’s race or ethnicity when making admissions decisions. Only 29 percent approve, and 12 percent are unsure. Respondents were selected randomly from opt-in panel participants for the September 14–18 polling.

Most Americans, 58 percent, still want colleges and universities to judge applications based on credentials, test scores, and other qualifications rather than racial identification, even if it means that fewer minority students are represented in the student body.

One of the affirmative-action cases on the Supreme Court docket, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, involves a complaint against Harvard for its alleged discrimination against Asian candidates, who typically submit statistically very high test scores and academic records. The plaintiffs have asked the justices to ban the consideration of race in college admissions, arguing that it disadvantages Asian applicants and violates federal law. Recently confirmed justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the case due to her past role on the school’s board of overseers.

Asked to speak to the Harvard situation specifically, 72 percent of conservatives, 58 percent of moderates, and 47 percent of liberals oppose the school’s consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions, the poll shows. Harvard acknowledged in its brief that if it “abandoned consideration of race as one among many factors, representation of African-American and Hispanic students would significantly decline.” It also said that the “lower courts found Harvard uses race . . . only ‘as a plus factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant,’” seemingly conceding that race can elevate an application of certain individuals but not others.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/09/25/nowhere-mann/

In a recent New York Times column, “School Is for Everyone,” Anya Kamenetz lavished praise on 19th-century education reformer Horace Mann, who saw public schools as a “crucible of democracy.” His goal was to have the state take over schools and increase taxes to pay for it all.

Mann and his acolytes insisted that shifting the reins of educational power from private to public hands would “yield better teaching methods and materials, greater efficiency, superior service to the poor, and a stronger, more cohesive nation.” He even ventured to predict that if public schooling were widely adopted and given enough time to work, “nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete,” and “the long catalogue of human ills would be abridged.”

On the macro level, Mann was dead wrong. Our nation, with its massive education bureaucracy, is more divided than ever, crime is skyrocketing, and we have more “human ills” than we can handle.

On the micro level, he also misses the boat. In a rebuttal to Kamenetz, former National Review writer Kevin Williamson asks why “some abstract egalitarian ideal should be given predominance over the real-world interests of actual children and young adults whose lives would be improved—not in every case, but in many cases—by access to different kinds of education better suited to their own needs and interests.”

Williamson gets to the heart of the matter. What is the primary purpose of a school? To make good citizens? To teach children how to earn a living eventually? To foster creativity?

The correct answer is that parents should be able to send their kid to a school that shares their own vision and values. The government’s vision—with bureaucrats and teacher union honchos running the show—may be very different than theirs.

In fact, Mann’s vision, nearly 200 years old now, has been fully exposed. Due to the extended COVID-related lockdowns, parents are fleeing the government education plantation in unprecedented numbers for private schools, microschools, homeschools, etc. But Kamenetz bemoans this development, claiming:

This country has seemingly never had a harder time embracing a shared reality or believing in common values. The parents who are showing up at school boards yelling about ‘critical race theory’ and pronouns are trying to get public schools to bend history, reality and values to their liking. I disagree with them vehemently, but I also want them to stay in the argument. It would be far worse if these parents went home and created their own schools. Because their children would then grow up with one set of unchallenged beliefs, while my children and the children of like-minded people would grow up with another—emerging as adults who have no hope of understanding one another, much less living together peacefully.