EDUCATION Comments turned off

How College Summer-Reading Programs Are Failing Our Students — and Our Culture Most universities have cut out the classics in favor of indoctrinating students. By Mark Tapson —

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/448246/print

EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece is reprinted with permission from Acculturated.https://acculturated.com/how-college-summer-reading-programs-are-failing-our-students-and-our-culture/

Many colleges have a “common-reading program” that assigns incoming students a book to read over the summer before starting school in the fall. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has just released its annual study of these programs, and the findings, while not unexpected, are a disheartening indication of how higher education is shortchanging our youth — and our culture.

The Beach Books Report (BBR) is an examination of the common-reading programs of 348 colleges and universities in nearly every state in the country — 58 of them identified by U.S. News & World Report as among the top 100 universities in America, and 25 among the top 100 liberal-arts colleges. Thus, you might expect from them reasonably challenging reading assignments that reflect the highest quality education — but you would be wrong. If you assumed that the recommended books include such classics as, say, St. Augustine’s Confessions or even Ralph Ellison’s more modern Invisible Man, then you are blissfully ignorant of the intellectually shallow state of our purported institutions of higher learning.

The NAS study revealed that colleges rarely assign classic works anymore; in fact, all the books in the common-reading programs for the academic year 2016-2017 were published during the students’ lifetime — 75 percent of them since 2010. Moreover, a significant number of the readings demonstrates the degree to which “high culture” has capitulated to pop culture: many are graphic novels, young adult novels, books based on popular films and TV shows, and books associated with the left-leaning National Public Radio (NPR).

The NPR factor comes into play because the books’ themes are increasingly politicized and heavily weighted toward social-justice activism. Indeed, as FrontPage Magazine’s Jack Kerwick notes in his article about the BBR, the reading programs’ mission statements emphasize “non-academic goals” such as “building community or inclusivity.”

The BBR’s authors note that the themes strongly reflect “the common reading genre’s continuing obsession with race . . . and its progressive politics.” The “most popular subject categories this year were Civil Rights/Racism/Slavery (74 readings), Crime and Punishment (67 readings), Media/Silence/Technology (34 readings), Immigration (32 readings), and Family Dysfunction/Separation (31 readings).” The most routinely assigned text is Bryan Stevenson’s nonfiction work Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. Its theme is “African-American” and its subject categories are “Civil Rights/Racism/Slavery” and “Crime and Punishment.” In fact, those two were the most popular subject categories for the last three years in a row.

The report laments that the “ideologically-constrained” reading selections have become “homogenous” and “predictable,” and that the programs promote progressive dogma and activism rather than encourage “the virtues of the disengaged life of the mind.” The BBR’s damning conclusion is that this politicization makes “the common reading genre parochial, contemporary, juvenile, and progressive.”

By contrast, the National Association of Scholars appends its own list of 80 recommended books appropriate for college common-reading programs. It includes such classics as the aforementioned Confessions and Invisible Man, and Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (once the most widely-read work in English besides the Bible), as well as the usual — or perhaps not so usual anymore — suspects such as Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and Orwell.

Steering our youth toward ideological activism is not education — it is indoctrination.

Disturbingly, however, students for decades now have been too often brainwashed into shunning the wisdom of Dead White Males, disconnecting themselves from our common culture, and instead, embracing a historical narrative of oppression and victimhood that molds a false identity for them based on tribal classifications of skin color, class, and gender. That way lies the death of the individual, of culture, and of civilization itself.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Will Paris Revive the Constitution’s ‘America First’ Approach to Treaties? The climate agreement is a bad deal, but far more important, the Senate never approved it. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

When did the definition of “leadership” in America become “the courage and foresight to ignore the United States Constitution”?

The fact that the sun rose again this morning was less predictable than the media-Democrat hysteria over President Trump’s entirely reasonable decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Convention on climate change. The decision was clearly right on the merits: The pact, which would do nothing meaningful to address global temperatures, is an exercise in progressive preening, touted by hypocrites who zip to and from climate confabs in their private jets — the kind of “Do as I say, not as I do” lovers of humanity (but loathers of people) who never take one plane when two are available.

To anyone but a zealot in the Church of Climate, it is obvious that carbon emissions are best reduced not by central planning but by a private sector free to innovate and respond to the market demand for environmentally responsible products and practices. That is how the United States leads, how it is already driving down emissions, and how it can promote the generation of wealth and know-how that — far better than dubious statistical models and rose-tinted crystal balls — would enable 22nd-century Americans to address their environmental challenges.

All that aside, however, President Trump’s decision should have been obvious and indisputable, not momentous. That it was not is a measure of detachment from our constitutional moorings.

The Paris Convention is a treaty. Under the Constitution, a treaty does not become law binding on the United States unless the president submits it to the Senate, obtains two-thirds approval there, and then ratifies the treaty. (Contrary to popular belief, the Senate does not ratify treaties; the president does the ratifying, but only if the Senate has consented.) That never happened to the climate agreement. It never had a chance of happening.

In this instance, as in others, President Obama conspired with his fellow transnational progressives to defeat the Constitution he had sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. He waited until late 2016, the eleventh hour of his presidency, to sign the agreement. As with the Iran deal, he had no intention of submitting it to the Senate, because there was no way it would be approved there. Because the pact would have punished American companies and workers, Obama knew that pushing Democratic senators into a vote, and boxing Hillary Clinton into a high-profile campaign debate, would have been a body blow to his party’s hopes of retaking the Senate and winning the White House.

The Left’s objective was to impose the Paris agreement without making Democratic office-seekers accountable for it. That is exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent.

Here is the basic problem for transnational progressives: If the U.S. Constitution remains vital, their ultimate goal of global governance is unattainable.

Their premise is that the Westphalian model, a world ordered by nation-states pursuing their interests, is passé. History, they tell us, has refined us into a single world community, united by common values — eerily like sharia-supremacists’ claim that the ummah is a single world community of Muslims, united by Allah’s law.

By contrast, the Constitution is designed to enable the United States to secure its prosperity, interests, and security in a world where we hope for the best but prepare for the worst — hostile countries and other alien threats. The goal of the Constitution is to protect our nation against the globe’s many troublemakers, not to tame our nation in the name of global stability.

The perfect exemplar of the Constitution’s approach is the treaty clause (art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2). Its requirement of supermajority Senate consent is a presumption against international agreements.

The perfect exemplar of the Constitution’s approach is the treaty clause. Its requirement of supermajority Senate consent is a presumption against international agreements.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Questions of societal cluelessness: Ruthie Blum

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

This week, I was contacted by a young woman conducting background research for an Israeli documentary on the socio-political fabric of the country.

“We are seeking average Israelis of all stripes and sectors for the program,” she said, asking me if it is true, as she had been told by the person who gave her my phone number, that I am a right-winger. The delicate way in which she broached the subject — as though careful not to cause offense — made me giggle.

“Yes,” I answered, stifling a full-blown laugh. After all, she was merely performing a task she had been assigned.

“I mean, like, really? You’re actually on the Right? I just have to know, so I can chat with you to find out whether you’re appropriate for the program,” she said, revealing she had never heard of me and had not thought to do a Google search before calling.

I replied again in the affirmative, adding that I am secular rather than religious.

“Even better for our purposes,” she said, noting my supposedly sui generis status with satisfaction.

This is not the first time that I have been approached by media outlets to fill the “conservative woman” slot. Nor is it unusual for millennials in journalism to ask me to explain who I am and what I think, rather than doing a bit of investigating on their own.

This particular “interview,” however, was noteworthy, because it gave me an additional glimpse into the secluded intellectual and cultural castle that many Israelis inhabit without even realizing it, let alone venturing beyond its carefully constructed moat. The woman with whom I spoke — let’s call her Maya — is such a person. Like an anthropologist studying a primitive tribe member considered dangerous by the rest of the civilized world, she advanced with caution.

“How do Israelis view right-wingers?” Maya began, apparently unaware that a majority of the country keeps electing what the Left refers to as a “far-right” government. “How are you different from left-wingers?”

She continued: “Is there any left-wing position that you would be willing to consider as valid? Have you ever attempted to look at the world through left-wing eyes?”

I could hear Maya jotting down fragments of my replies, mostly without rebutting them. After about 15 minutes, however, she was unable to refrain from protesting the positions she had requested I articulate. Key among these were my assertion that political conservatives tend to oppose big government, high taxes and the notion that the West is responsible for Islamist terrorism, while championing individual liberty and a free-market economy.

Maya was stunned. It clearly had not occurred to her that she was in favor of interference from the government, particularly not one headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nor would she ever have said she was happy to take home only half of every shekel she earns to fund such a government’s activities and priorities. Above all, she was certain that only the Left cared about individual liberty, which is why she practically gasped when I referred her to the gay caucus of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

FROM ENGLAND WITH HATE

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

Just look at the sentiments expressed by the organisation’s CEO’s Facebook friend and drivel merchant “Harriet,” who runs a scurrilous website called Harriet’s Place:

FROM A SCURRILOUS BRITISH BLOG https://hurryupharriet.wordpress.com/

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The British Election: Will Voters Opt for Intolerance and Xenophobia? by Alan M. Dershowitz

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

On June 8, British voters will head to the polls, three years early. When Prime Minister Theresa May called last month for a snap election, the assumption was that she would win easily and increase her parliamentary majority. Recent numbers, however, show the gap closing between May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn – who was given 200:1 odds of when he ran for the party leadership in 2015 – is doing surprisingly well again. This is despite the fact that Labour has been under fire for anti-Semitism in its ranks, and Corbyn himself has been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry. Corbyn denies having a problem with Jews, claiming that he is merely anti-Israel. Even if it were possible to hate Israel without being anti-Semitic – and I am not sure that it is – Corbyn’s words and deeds demonstrate that he often uses virulent anti-Zionism as a cover for his soft anti-Semitism.

For example, in a speech last year, he said that Jews are “no more responsible” for the actions of Israel than Muslims are for those of ISIS. In 2009, he announced: “It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. When British voters go to the polls on June 8, will they opt to keep Prime Minister Theresa May in power, or reject rationality in favor of intolerance? (Image source: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The company that Corbyn keeps, too, suggests that at best he gives a free pass to bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism within the ranks of his own party, and at worst, he espouses them. He has shared speaking platforms and led rallies with some of the most infamous Jew-haters. He has attended meetings hosted by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Paul Eisen, author of a blog titled: “My Life as a Holocaust Denier.” He has been associated with Sheikh Raed Salah – leader of the outlawed northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, a blood libel perpetuator convicted for incitement to violence and racism – whom he referred to as a “very honoured citizen” whose “voice must be heard.” Corbyn was also a paid contributor for Press TV, Iran’s tightly controlled media apparatus, whose production is directly overseen by anti-Semitic Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

One of the biggest criticisms of the “Corbynization” of British politics has been the mainstreaming of traditional anti-Semitism. The country’s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has called the problem within the Labour party “severe.”

Consider the late Gerald Kaufman, a Labour veteran and close political associate of Corbyn’s who touted conspiracy theories about Jews throughout his political career. When speaking at a pro-Palestinian event, Kaufman said: “Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives.” While Corbyn condemned this remark, he refused to yield to widespread demands for disciplinary action against Kaufman. This is in keeping with what a key former adviser to Corbyn, Harry Fletcher, wrote: “I’d suggest to him [Jeremy] about how he might build bridges with the Jewish community and none of it ever happened.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Selling Out Pentecost to Islam by Geert Wilders

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

The Dutch have officially been enjoying the feast of Pentecost since 1815, but the church wants it replaced by an official holiday on Eid-al-Fitr, the day marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

We are too tolerant to intolerance. We think that by allowing freedom to the enemies of freedom we prove to the world that we stand for freedom. But in reality, by refusing to draw boundaries to our tolerance, we are handing away our freedom.

If we want to remain the free and tolerant society which we used to be, we must realize that the West has a concrete identity. Our identity is not Islamic, but based on Judaism, Christianity and humanism. Our freedoms result from this identity.

Next Sunday, Christians are celebrating the feast of Pentecost. A Protestant church in the Netherlands is using the occasion to propose the abolishment of the public holiday for the second day of Pentecost. The Dutch have officially been enjoying this holiday since 1815, but the church wants it replaced by an official holiday on Eid-al-Fitr, the day marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

With its proposal, the Christian group says, it wants “to do justice to diversity in religion.” That is politically-correct claptrap. Browsing through today’s papers, I can, however, understand why many Dutch are in a festive mood once Ramadan is over! These days, the headlines are full of incidents, which De Telegraaf, the leading newspaper in the Netherlands, describes as Ramadan rellen (Ramadan riots).

Suppose Christians would, on an annual basis, start to riot after leaving church on Pentecost and demolish property, arson cars, attack police, throw stones through the neighbor’s windows. Suppose the police would feel obliged to mark the Christian Lent in the calendar as days of heightened tensions. Would we not begin to wonder whether there was something wrong with Christianity?

Or suppose Jewish gangs would terrorize entire town districts on Yom Kippur day. Would we not beginning to wonder what they were being taught in their synagogues? Or would we just accept it, celebrate it even, as indications of the cultural “diversity” of our society?

I am writing these lines in my office in the Dutch Parliament in The Hague, barely a few minutes away from the house where the great 17th century Dutch and Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza lived and died. Spinoza gave the world a philosophy of tolerance and freedom.

However, what we must never do is be tolerant to intolerance. Because if tolerance becomes a snake devouring its own tail, soon there will be no freedom left and the intolerant will rule the world. Indeed, we are almost there. Three and a half centuries after Spinoza, in the city where he lived, I am writing these lines in a heavily protected sector of the parliament building. The windows are blinded, the doors are armored, and police officers are standing watch outside. They are there to protect me against the intolerance which has in recent decades entered our country – an intolerance that is neither Christian nor Jewish or secular, but Islamic. I am not an extremist if I say that. I am telling the truth. And that is my duty.

For here is the crux of the matter: If we want to remain the free and tolerant society which we used to be, we must realize that the West has a concrete identity. Our identity is not Islamic, but based on Judaism, Christianity and humanism. Our freedoms result from this identity. By depriving Islam of the means to destroy our identity, we are not violating freedom; we are preserving our identity and guaranteeing freedom.

MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Conspiracy theories and the death of a Democratic National Committee staffer by Wayne Allyn Root

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

Our country has become a Banana Republic. Anything minor Trump does is leaked (a crime), taken out of context, hyped through the roof, and then turned into hysterical headlines by the media.https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/wayne-allyn-root/commentary-conspiracy-theories-and-the-death-of-a-democratic-national-committee-staffer/

But if Democrats conspire to fix an election and a Democratic National Committee staffer winds up killed, you hear nothing about it in the mainstream media. We’re not talking about a conversation here. We’re talking about a real-life murder.

It may be an ordinary street murder by thugs, but just the idea that it could be attached in any way to the DNC makes it off limits to discuss. It’s verboten. We see a total mainstream media blackout. But let’s put the shoe on the other foot and see what the media would say.

What if a Republican National Committee staffer was murdered in the streets of Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2016?

What if WikiLeaks publicly stated that this RNC staffer leaked the 44,000 emails that showed Donald Trump and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus conspired to fix the GOP presidential primary and cheated Jeb Bush out of victory?

What if those emails proved a former RNC chairman now working for CNN cheated and gave debate questions in advance to Donald Trump, so he would always have the perfect answer?

What if Trump and the RNC chairman were badly embarrassed by this leak of sensitive, private documents … and Trump’s chances of being elected president were damaged … and the RNC chairman wound up fired because of this leak?

What if the cold-blooded killing of this RNC staffer looked more like an assassination — with the killers never even attempting to grab his wallet, cash, watch or jewelry?

What if WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of this staffer, yet no reward was ever put up by the Trump campaign or the RNC?

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, MEDIA Comments turned off

Climate and the New York Times The newspaper is hoping to persuade readers to burn more carbon.By James Freeman

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

Much has been written lately about the intolerance of New York Times readers toward anyone who does not share their belief that emissions of carbon dioxide will destroy the planet. But this week the newspaper gave its readers cause to wonder whether even the Times shares this belief.

At least on the surface, the Manhattan-based news organization is keeping the faith. The various items in Friday’s editions amount to a collective primal scream against President Donald Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate accord. As of this writing, the home page of the paper’s website features stories claiming that Mr. Trump’s decision was “stupid and reckless” as well as “disgraceful” and based on “dubious data” from “distorted reports.” A news report says that Mr. Trump made a political “calculation” to ignore the popular will and instead placate his base. Meanwhile a Times column carries the subtle headline, “Donald Trump Poisons the World.”

But the Times seems to have made its own calculation about the risks of environmental catastrophe. And the only reasonable conclusion is that folks at the Times don’t think burning carbon is quite as dangerous as you might think from reading their product.

Even as the newspaper warns about impending doom if Americans don’t limit their emissions, the Times has also been trying to persuade its readers to dramatically increase theirs. In print and online this week, the Times has proudly presented advertisements for an exciting product offering called, “Around the World by Private Jet: Cultures in Transformation.” It sounds delightful, assuming you like the company:

Fly around the world in a customized Boeing 757 jet for the ultimate in luxury travel. Spend 26 days visiting such places as Israel, Cuba, Colombia, Australia, Myanmar and Iceland. Four award-winning New York Times journalists will accompany you, each for several days as you visit areas where they have expertise.

The Times promises, “In the air, your private jet comes with lie-flat beds and a dedicated cabin crew and chef.” Most Americans, who are generally not as well-heeled as the Times’ target demographic, probably couldn’t leave carbon footprints this big if they tried. And it wouldn’t be easy for the Times to design a less efficient means of circling our beloved planet. This week the print version of the advertisement noted there would be just 50 travelers—on an aircraft that can carry more than 200.

The concept of this trip doesn’t seem to square with the message being conveyed in the newspaper’s news and opinion pages, to say the least. Could it be a rogue operation from some overly aggressive and less environmentally sensitive staff in the Times marketing department? That seems unlikely, because at least according to the online description of this fabulous adventure, one of the “experts” on this journey is none other than New York Times Company Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Tony Thomas :Conscripting Babies in the Culture Wars

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

Red nappies, green nappies — that’s how the progressive Left grooms its social justice warrior babies, a process that begins, as one kiddie-book author asserts, ‘fresh out of the womb’. Join us now at storytime and learn that ‘A’ is for ‘Activist’, ‘L’ for LGBTQ and ‘T’ stands for for ‘Trans’.

Progressives are concerned about the “indoctrination gap” which leaves many kids untouched by Green Left ideology. This gap involves the important demographic from birth through to three- and four-year-olds.

From four onwards, the kids are safely captured by state interventions, such as the Victorian Labor government’s political and gender-bending education down to pre-school and kindergarten level. For example, Premier Dan Andrews is now rolling out a $3.4 million program for 4000 educators to eliminate four-year-old boys’ “hegemonic masculinities”.

Closing the gap is under way through radicalising picture-books for toddlers. These include those board-books with hefty cardboard pages. Traditionally their content was of the “My First Colours” kind; the new authors fill them with images of their better society.

The gap-closing has gained momentum from the election of President Trump, to American progressives a near-unthinkable disaster. Some authors’ explicit goal is to raise a new generation programmed to avert any Trump lookalike in coming decades. “We’re going to have to start in utero,” one reviewer says.

Feminist Baby is by New Yorker and BuzzFeed worker Loryn Brantz. It’s for babies “fresh out of the womb” up to two-year-olds, as she puts it. Published in April and “the perfect baby-shower gift for today’s new parents”, it’s flying off the shelves at Australian bookstores and libraries.

Brantz told Time magazine, “Why not start kids off right away? Hopefully if we raise a whole generation of kids with Feminist Baby and with older books for kids about feminism and activism, something like this [Trump’s election] will never happen again.” Brantz is marketing the book with comics aimed at adult buyers. In these, “Feminist Baby serves as an under-age heroine bent on smashing the patriarchy and subverting tired traditions like the ‘gender reveal’ [that is, binary male or female].” In one panel, Feminist Baby punches Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who is dressed as a Nazi.

Brantz started to write the book pre-Trump, but obviously, “his administration is complicit in oppressing women of all shapes, sizes and colors”, which is why her book is so very important. Feminist Baby “is decidedly the one we need right now”, says another reviewer. “She’s here smashing your patriarchy, speaking her truths, and not taking anybody’s crap.”

Feminist Baby’s first words (tongue in cheek) are “Gender is a social construct.” In Brantz’s world, the feminised cradle-dweller “lives how she wants and doesn’t let the patriarchy keep her down”:

Feminist Baby chooses what to wear
and if you don’t like it she doesn’t care!

When it’s snowing, let’s hope she doesn’t choose sandals.

And do it tough, Dads. If you coo to Feminist Baby that she’s beautiful, the infant swipes back, “And I’m smart and capable too!”

Another reviewer says presciently that the book should “imbue your tiny tot with all of the important characteristics necessary for her (or him) to become a lifelong, probably insufferable, feminist”.

Brantz sees toddlers’ books opening a cot conversation about “intersectionality and feminism”. (No, I don’t know what intersectionality is either.)

Another such author is Innosanto Nagara, whose book for children up to three years old A is for Activist has sold 50,000-plus copies. He’s “calling children and parents to action” on things like social justice and immigration. His board book is “unapologetic about activism, environmental justice, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and everything else that activists believe in and fight for”.

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Macron proposes Paris for a global junk science oasis By Monica Showalter

Posted By on June 3rd, 2017

Perhaps because his capital’s name was on the global accord being scrapped by one country, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, 39, wheeled out le grand geste, or grand gesture, in offering “refuge” to America’s climate scientists. As if such a fraud-riddled cast of characters were somehow about to be arrested. Or lose tenure. Or not get a grant. Or something.

In fact, it was for nothing more than President Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, a worthless global non-treaty premised on the fake claims of global warming and policed worldwide by an America-hating petty Eurocrat bureaucracy run out of Berlin. Because the U.S. simply does not want to be a part of the farce, Macron is going overwrought like so many of them and apparently offering asylum ahead of the knock on the door at midnight.

He’s gone off the deep end, just as most of them have.

The question remaining is whether he could actually be serious. Does he really mean to make Paris an oasis of global warming believers and then call it science?

Does he really think scientists in the States are going to give up their cushy tenured positions and hotfoot it to the charms of Paris, which has become considerably less charming, given the existing bureaucracy and existing refugee threat should one actually have to live there?

And more to the point, does he really think climate science, which has been shown time and time again to be a fraud-riddled, data-faked, hide-the-decline, messed up hockey stick, is actually going to buckle down and start producing some hard science, which so far it has failed to do?

Why not call in all the astrologers, quack-medicine practitioners, and soothsayers as well, and make Paris the world’s junk science empire? You know their public will be happy to pay for it, given all the virtue-signaling potential.