RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/02/classical-v-unclassical-curricula/

Chad Aldeman, a Virginia-based researcher who focuses on education-related issues, recently detailed the educational experience of his daughter, who completed sixth grade in June. He writes that her teachers didn’t use textbooks, assign homework, or expect kids to study at home for tests, didn’t teach kids to sound out words, and didn’t drill times tables. He also mentions that there were no spelling tests, students didn’t practice handwriting of any kind, cursive or otherwise, and didn’t learn the 50 states and their capitals, let alone world geography.

Aldeman is very concerned by this shift, arguing that her educational experience has “reduced instructional time devoted to science and social studies and emphasized isolated skills such as critical thinking or reading comprehension over teaching students a coherent body of knowledge and facts.”

The scenario spelled out by Aldeman is hardly an isolated case, as traditional pedagogical fads have replaced tried and true methods. Additionally, political causes in education are frequently front and center to the detriment of traditional learning. In a 2022 statement, the National Council of Teachers of English declared: “The time has come to decenter book reading and essay-writing as the pinnacles of English language arts education.” Instead, teachers are urged to focus on “media literacy” and short texts that students feel are “relevant.”

In many places, the curriculum has taken a Marxist turn. In New York City, students now receive lessons critical of capitalism, that black Americans should receive reparations, that student loans are equivalent to “debt peonage,” and the feasibility of abolishing the police.

In Evanston, IL, the district is loaded with Critical Race Theory bilge. Schools there are committed to equity and to “identifying practices, policies, and institutional barriers, including institutional racism and privilege, which perpetuate opportunity and achievement gaps.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/on-race-and-admissions-elite-universities-cannot-be-trusted

When the Supreme Court banned the use of race in college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, elite universities variously condemned and pledged to subvert the verdict. Now that multiple top schools have announced the racial composition of their 2028 classes, we’re learning what that looks like in practice.

Ending race-based affirmative action was expected to change elite universities’ demographics substantially. Indeed, in SFFA, many of these schools signed an amicus brief arguing that it was imperative that they be allowed to continue discriminating, because race-neutral methods would keep them from admitting classes with—in their view—enough black and Hispanic students.

Yet, in their first admitted undergraduate classes following the Supreme Court’s ruling, several top universities, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Penn, and Duke, have seen little to none of the expected shift in the racial composition. On average, the cumulative black and Hispanic shares of these schools’ incoming classes has declined by just 0.6 percentage points (from 26.8 percent to 26.2 percent), while the Asian share has fallen 2.4 percentage points (from 32 percent to 29.6 percent). Though schools record their demographic data differently—some exclude international students from their calculations, for example—the general pattern indicated by these results is troubling.

We know that elite universities previously discriminated against white and Asian applicants to benefit black and Hispanic students. So, universities like Yale that signed the amicus brief and have seen little change in their demographics after SFFA are either breaking the law now, or they were misleading the Supreme Court when they declared race-neutral methods insufficient to achieve their diversity goals. Which is it? The answer is probably both.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/meet-russell-rickford-who-found-oct-7-exhilarating/

The New York Post reported Thursday that “the Cornell University professor who last year called Hamas’ depraved Oct. 7 attack ‘exhilarating’ sparked more outrage Wednesday after taking part in an anti-Israel march on campus where protesters chanted, ‘Long live the intifada.’” More on Russell Rickford’s reappearance in the anti-Israel protesters’ ranks can be found here: “Cornell professor who cheered Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack sparks more outrage after marching in anti-Israel protest,” by Carl Campanile and David Propper, New York Post, September 19, 2024:

Associate history professor Russell Rickford walked with dozens of demonstrators as they spewed slogans against Israel, with one Jewish student calling the controversial instructor’s presence at the protest “insane” and another accusing him of “emboldening hate.”

Rickford was the only faculty member accompanying anti-Israel and pro-Hamas demonstrators on September 18. The participants were calling for support of an Intifada, a violent “uprising” of Palestinians against the Jews of Israel, akin to the Second Intifada.

Photos and videos obtained by The Post show Rickford clapping along with the chants as he walked with a keffiyeh around his shoulders and wearing an Ivy cap on his head — similar to the hat he wore last year when he made his shocking statements.

Intifada is the Arabic word that in English means “uprising” or “shaking off.”

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, intifada has been used to describe violent Palestinian protests against the Jewish state, according to the American Jewish Committee. The White House has previously condemned the phrase.

Protesters eventually crashed a career fair that was held on campus where school officials said they pushed past school police officers — though it does not appear Rickford was part of that disruption from footage posted online.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/education-for-freedom-not-dei/

Two Supreme Court decisions in 2023 struck down the use of race-based admission to colleges and universities, and proscribed various proxies for race like admission essays. But just a year out, the Wall Street Journal reports, “The group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA),” who represented the Asian-American applicants before the court, “suspects this [violation of the rules] about Yale, Princeton and Duke universities, and on Tuesday it asked the schools for information on how they chose the current freshmen who will graduate in the class of 2028.”

Having spent more than 50 years of my life in universities, I’ve had a front-row seat for observing how universities over the years have juked their admission criteria to make sure they admitted enough “protected classes,” which means anybody except white males. In my university, for example, even after California in 1996 passed Proposition 209, which forbade the explicit use of race, the admissions and hiring process still comprised numerous opportunities for evaluators to discern the applicant’s race.

The former “Affirmative Action Officer,” for example, required the hiring committee to document each member’s sex and race, as well as the applicants’. After Prop 209, the university didn’t observe the law, but merely changed the title to the “EEOC Officer,” who still gathered the same data that were inappropriate if the process was truly merit-based, while reminding everybody that the federal agency Big Brother was watching.

So those experiences made me skeptical when “Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority that students must be admitted ‘based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race’ and that ‘what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.’”

But the really damaging idea connected to affirmative action came from an earlier Supreme Court decision and still remains today. Despite the blatant violation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, these race-based policies were given the Supreme Court’s imprimatur in its 1978 Bakke decision. The court didn’t, as it should have, proscribe preferences based on race, but just numerical quotas, which were easily circumvented to reach the same end––choosing by race rather than merit.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/wake-forest-university-to-host-pro-hamas-speaker-on-october-7/

Wake Forest University will host a pro-Hamas speaker on October 7, one year after the terrorist organization attacked Israel, to discuss “One Year since al-Aqsa Flood: Reflections on a Year of Genocide and Resistance.”

Rabab Abdulhadi, who will deliver the talk, is slated to speak at Wake Forest on the evening of Monday, October 7, according to a poster obtained by National Review. The school’s Humanities Institute, Department of Politics and International Affairs, and Middle East South Asian Studies Program are co-sponsoring the event. Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups named the operation, during which terrorists invaded Israel and murdered 1,200 civilians, “al-Aqsa Flood.”

Abdulhadi is a Palestinian scholar who is an associate professor for San Francisco State University’s ethnic-studies program. On October 8, Abdulhadi responded to Ilhan Omar’s statement on the attacks, in which the congresswoman condemned Hamas’s “senseless violence” and “horrific acts.”

“Seriously @IlhanMN? ‘Senseless,’” Abdulhadi said in response. “#PalestineUnderAttack are merely defending themselves. Are you saying that #Palestinians should be exceptionalized from the right to defend themselves against colonial & racist violence? Check your facts! #FreePalestine #IsraeliCrimes.”

On October 7, the professor said on social media that “it‘s worth remembering how vicious colonists act when the colonized dare #breaktheirChains from @Palestine . . . No innocent bystanders here.” 

https://www.city-journal.org/article/affirmative-action-doesnt-work-and-mit-knows-it

Several highly selective colleges and universities in the U.S.—including MIT, Yale, Princeton, and now Harvard—have finally revealed the racial makeup of their incoming freshmen, the Class of 2028. This is the first group to be admitted since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), last year.

Supporters of racial preferences anticipated that the ruling would lead to a decline in black and Hispanic enrollment at America’s top schools. Opponents anticipated the opposite, contending that progressive university officials would find ways to evade SFFA and continue discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities.

Both groups now have data that seem to vindicate their arguments. At MIT, the percentage of black enrollees in the freshman class dropped to 5 percent from 15 percent in the previous year; the percentage of Hispanic enrollees dropped to 11 percent from 16 percent; the percentage of white enrollees dropped to 37 percent from 38 percent; and the percentage of Asian enrollees rose to 47 percent from 40 percent. Yet at Duke, the combined share of black and Hispanic freshmen increased (compared with last fall), while the share of white and Asian freshmen fell. Meantime, at the University of Virginia, the racial makeup of the Class of 2028 remained virtually unchanged from that of the Class of 2027. Clearly, some universities, such as MIT, are taking SFFA more seriously than others.

Indeed, MIT’s President Sally Kornbluth and Dean of Admission Stu Schmill directly attributed the decline in black and Hispanic freshmen at the university to SFFA. Kornbluth, in a recent announcement to the MIT community, said: “The class is, as always, outstanding across multiple dimensions. What it does not bring, as a consequence of last year’s Supreme Court decision, is the same degree of broad racial and ethnic diversity that the MIT community has worked to achieve over the past several decades.” Similarly, Schmill told MIT News during an August 21 interview: “I have no doubt that we left out many well-qualified, well-matched applicants from historically underrepresented backgrounds who in the past we would have admitted—and who would have excelled.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/09/the-radical-norm-at-elite-colleges/

If Cornell’s Russell Rickford, a history professor, went elsewhere to ply his wares, he’d in all likelihood be replaced by someone with equally pernicious views.

The remarkable thing about Russell Rickford is that there is nothing extraordinary about him.

The Cornell University prof gained notoriety in the immediate aftermath of October 7 by declaring that he found the terror attack “exhilarating.”

He wasn’t specific about what was more exciting to him — the slaughter of hundreds of people at a music festival, including wounded people at point-blank range, the mass hostage-taking, the burning of people alive, or the horrific sexual violence.

For the committed anti-Zionist, there must be so many exciting moments to choose from.

Afterward, Rickford apologized for his “horrible choice of words.” But his remarks at a pro-Palestinian rally at the Ithaca Commons on October 15 weren’t a matter of mere vocabulary. He didn’t say “exhilarating” when he meant to use a word that means the opposite, or something less positive.

He was affirming throughout his comments about a cruel massacre. He said that “Hamas has challenged the monopoly of violence,” that “Hamas has shifted the balance of power,” that “Hamas has punctured the illusion of invincibility,” and that “Hamas has changed the terms of the debate.”

All of this was unmistakable praise. Then Rickford added to his toxic brew the contention that Palestinians and Gazans on that day “were able to breathe, they were able to breathe for the first time in years. It was exhilarating. It was energizing. And if they weren’t exhilarated by this challenge to the monopoly of violence, by this shifting of the balance of power, then they would not be human. I was exhilarated.”

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/18/teacher-pay-myths-reality-and-union-shenanigans/

Teacher pay

Chad Aldeman, a leading researcher who focuses on school finance, the teacher labor market, and assessment and accountability policy, recently wrote, “Wrong Ideas about Teacher Pay, Happiness May Keep Students from the Profession.”

The essence of the piece is that teachers generally like teaching and stay in the profession for about as long as accountants or social workers stay in theirs. “Teachers may not get rich, but they live comfortably middle-class lives. Plus, teachers get to retire a couple of years earlier than other workers.”

He then delves into the common misconception that teachers don’t earn a decent wage. “In 2021, Education Next asked a random sample of Americans to guess how much the average teacher earned in their state. Those guesses weren’t just wrong; they were consistently too low—by about 50%, or about $22,000. According to the latest data from the National Education Association, the average teacher salary in 2021-22 was $66,745.”

Just Facts takes the data one step further and adds that in the 2021–22 school year, the average school teacher also received another $34,090 in benefits (such as health insurance, paid leave, and pensions), which brings the total annual compensation to over $100,000. Additionally, full-time public school teachers work an average of 1,490 hours per year, which includes time spent on lesson preparation, test construction, and grading, providing extra help to students, coaching, and other activities, while their counterparts in private industry work an average of 2,045 hours per year, or about 37% more than public school teachers.

The great purveyors of the underpaid teacher myth are the nation’s teachers’ unions, which continually drill into teachers, legislators, and the general public that educators are paid a peon’s wage and need the unions to raise their salaries.

Actually, the opposite is true. Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Institute has dug deeper, claiming collective bargaining agreements (CBA) hurt the bottom line of all teachers. “Teachers in non-collective bargaining districts actually earn more than their union-protected peers—$64,500 on average versus $57,500.” Petrilli’s study was conducted in 2011, and research by Michael Lovenheim in 2009 and Andrew Coulson in 2010 bore similar results. Also, University of California San Diego professor Augustina Pagalayan reported in 2018 that CBAs do not improve teacher pay.

http://Under anti-divestment laws, a majority of states will be required to sever business ties with Brown should the university vote to divest from Israel.

Brown University will face “immediate and profound legal consequences” should its governing body vote next month to divest from companies with connections to Israel.

Although the university’s president, Christina Paxson, has previously rebuffed student-led divestment efforts, her administration agreed last spring to have the Corporation, as Brown’s governing body is known, vote on the divestment proposal, known as Brown Divest Now, as part of an arrangement with anti-Israel encampment organizers.

In turn, the student protesters agreed to clear out their encampment on the university’s Main Green and not stage protests through commencement. The Corporation — which is run by 12 Fellows and 42 Trustees — is slated to vote on the measure during its October meeting.

Just the agreement to take a vote on the matter was controversial enough that one trustee, a prominent New York hedge fund manager, Joseph Edelman, resigned from his post, slamming the upcoming vote as “morally reprehensible.” 

In his resignation letter, which he published in the Wall Street Journal, he criticized the administration for choosing to “lend credence” to “antisemitic voices” and choosing to “reward, rather than punish, the activists for disrupting campus life, breaking school rules, and promoting violence and antisemitism at Brown.” 

He continued: “Brown’s policy of appeasement won’t work. It’s a capitulation to the very hatred that led to the Holocaust and the unspeakable horrors of Oct. 7.” 

Just hours later, the president of Brown University, Ms. Paxson, published a letter in response, claiming that Mr. Edelman “misunderstands and mischaracterizes the decision behind the October vote” and that the decision reflects the university’s commitment to giving “fair and due process to formal claims challenging its ethical responsibility.”