One Parent of New York City Indoctrination School Has Had Enough

Brearley is a private all-girls school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City.  Tuition costs $54,000 a year and prospective families apparently have to take an “anti-racism pledge” to be considered for admission.  However, one family has had enough of the indoctrination machine and penned an eloquent letter explaining their reason for removing their daughter.

April 13, 2021 

Dear Fellow Brearley Parents, 

Our family recently made the decision not to reenroll our daughter at Brearley for the 2021-22 school year. She has been at Brearley for seven years, beginning in kindergarten. In short, we no longer believe that Brearley’s administration and Board of Trustees have any of our children’s best interests at heart. Moreover, we no longer have confidence that our daughter will receive the quality of education necessary to further her development into a critically thinking, responsible, enlightened, and civic minded adult. I write to you, as a fellow parent, to share our reasons for leaving the Brearley community but also to urge you to act before the damage to the school, to its community, and to your own child’s education is irreparable. 

It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob. What follows are my own personal views on Brearley’s antiracism initiatives, but these are just a handful of the criticisms that I know other parents have expressed. 

I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died. 

I object to the charge of systemic racism in this country, and at our school. Systemic racism, properly understood, is segregated schools and separate lunch counters. It is the interning of Japanese and the exterminating of Jews. Systemic racism is unequivocally not a small number of isolated incidences over a period of decades. Ask any girl, of any race, if they have ever experienced insults from friends, have ever felt slighted by teachers or have ever suffered the occasional injustice from a school at which they have spent up to 13 years of their life, and you are bound to hear grievances, some petty, some not. We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country’s history and adds no understanding to any of today’s societal issues. If anything, longstanding and widespread policies such as affirmative action, point in precisely the opposite direction. 

I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression. Facile and unsupported beliefs such as these are the polar opposite to the intellectual and scientific truth for which Brearley claims to stand. Furthermore, I call bullshit on Brearley’s oft-stated assertion that the school welcomes and encourages the truly difficult and uncomfortable conversations regarding race and the roots of racial discrepancies. 

I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites. Brearley, by adopting critical race theory, is advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims, and are incapable of success regardless of their skills, talents, or hard work. What Brearley is teaching our children is precisely the true and correct definition of racism. 

I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna. These sessions, in both their content and delivery, are so sophomoric and simplistic, so unsophisticated and inane, that I would be embarrassed if they were taught to Brearley kindergarteners. They are an insult to parents and unbecoming of any educational institution, let alone one of Brearley’s caliber. 

I object to Brearley’s vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as “equity,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Instead, the school would foster an environment of intellectual openness and freedom of thought. And if Brearley really cared about “inclusiveness,” the school would return to the concepts encapsulated in the motto “One Brearley,” instead of teaching the extraordinarily divisive idea that there are only, and always, two groups in this country: victims and oppressors. 

l object to Brearley’s advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests. 

I object to, as we have been told time and time again over the past year, that the school’s first priority is the safety of our children. For goodness sake, Brearley is a school, not a hospital! The number one priority of a school has always been, and always will be, education. Brearley’s misguided priorities exemplify both the safety culture and “cover-your-ass” culture that together have proved so toxic to our society and have so damaged the mental health and resiliency of two generations of children, and counting. 

I object to the gutting of the history, civics, and classical literature curriculums. I object to the censorship of books that have been taught for generations because they contain dated language potentially offensive to the thin-skinned and hypersensitive (something that has already happened in my daughter’s 4th grade class). I object to the lowering of standards for the admission of students and for the hiring of teachers. I object to the erosion of rigor in classwork and the escalation of grade inflation. Any parent with eyes open can foresee these inevitabilities should antiracism initiatives be allowed to persist. 

We have today in our country, from both political parties, and at all levels of government, the most unwise and unvirtuous leaders in our nation’s history. Schools like Brearley are supposed to be the training grounds for those leaders. Our nation will not survive a generation of leadership even more poorly educated than we have now, nor will we survive a generation of students taught to hate its own country and despise its history. 

Lastly, I object, with as strong a sentiment as possible, that Brearley has begun to teach what to think, instead of how to think. I object that the school is now fostering an environment where our daughters, and our daughters’ teachers, are afraid to speak their minds in class for fear of “consequences.” I object that Brearley is trying to usurp the role of parents in teaching morality, and bullying parents to adopt that false morality at home. I object that Brearley is fostering a divisive community where families of different races, which until recently were part of the same community, are now segregated into two. These are the reasons why we can no longer send our daughter to Brearley. 

Over the past several months, I have personally spoken to many Brearley parents as well as parents of children at peer institutions. It is abundantly clear that the majority of parents believe that Brearley’s antiracism policies are misguided, divisive, counterproductive and cancerous. Many believe, as I do, that these policies will ultimately destroy what was until recently, a wonderful educational institution. But as I am sure will come as no surprise to you, given the insidious cancel culture that has of late permeated our society, most parents are too fearful to speak up. 

But speak up you must. There is strength in numbers and I assure you, the numbers are there. Contact the administration and the Board of Trustees and demand an end to the destructive and anti-intellectual claptrap known as antiracism. And if changes are not forthcoming then demand new leadership. For the sake of our community, our city, our country and most of all, our children, silence is no longer an option. 

Respectfully,

Andrew Gutmann

Source

Mercer U. Theology Prof’s Prayer: ‘Dear God, Please Help Me to Hate White People’

Mercer University theology professor Chanequa Walker-Barnes wrote a prayer in which she asks God to help her “hate white people,” specifically, “the nice ones,” such as “the Fox News-loving, Trump-supporting voters” who “don’t see color.” She published the “Prayer of a Weary Black Woman” in the book A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal.

“Dear God, Please help me to hate White people,” the professor began in her prayer, titled, “Prayer of a Weary Black Woman,” which was published in A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal edited by Sarah Bessey.

“I want to stop caring about them, individually and collectively,” Walker-Barnes continued. “I want to stop caring about their misguided, racist souls, to stop believing that they can be better, that they can stop being racist.”

racist prayer in book

The professor went on to clarify that she is “not talking about the White antiracist allies who have taken up this struggle against racism with their whole lives,” nor is she even referring to “the ardent racists” who “plot acts of racial terrorism hoping to start a race war.”

“Those people are already in hell,” she wrote. “There’s no need to waste hatred on them.”

Walker-Barnes explained in her prayer that she specifically wants to hate “the nice ones,” who “don’t see color.”

“My prayer is that you would help me to hate the other White people — you know, the nice ones. The Fox News-loving, Trump-supporting voters who ‘don’t see color’ but who make thinly veiled racist comments about ‘those people,’” the professor wrote.

Walker-Barnes continued:

The people who are happy to have me over for dinner but alert the neighborhood watch anytime an unrecognized person of color passes their house. The people who welcome Black people in their churches and small groups but brand us as heretics if we suggest that Christianity is concerned with the poor and the oppressed. The people who who politely tell us that we can leave when we call out the racial microaggressions we experience in their ministries.

“But since I don’t have many relationships with people like that, perhaps they are not a good use of hatred either,” added the professor, who went on to ask God to instead help her “hate the White people who claim the progressive label but who are really wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

“Lord, if you can’t make me hate them, at least spare me from their perennial gaslighting, whitemansplaining, and White woman tears,” she continued.

“Grant me a Get Out of Judgement Free card if I make White people the exception to your commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves,” Walker-Barnes wrote.

Walker-Barnes is an associate professor of practical theology at Mercer University, according to the school’s website.

Mercer University did not respond to a Breitbart News request for comment.

You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, on Parler @alana, and on Instagram.

Source

Head of NYC’s Elite Dalton School Resigning After Pushing ‘Obsessive’ Social Justice Agenda

The head of The Dalton School — an elite private school located in the Upper East Side of Manhattan — is resigning after pushing what parents call an “obsessive” and “wildly inappropriate” social justice agenda, which even included reenactments of “racist cops” in science classes.

The head of The Dalton School, Jim Best, announced on Friday that he is stepping down at the end of the year to focus on “other exciting and inspiring opportunities,” according to a report by the New York Post.

Last year, faculty members of the K-12 school issued an eight-page anti-racism manifesto, which demanded sweeping changes in personnel, academic curriculum, as well as treating black students differently in discipline matters and in assessing their academic performance.

The document also included statements that directed all administrators, faculty, and parent volunteers to “undergo yearly anti-racist training,” and demanded that all Dalton administrators and staff produce “public anti-racism statements.”

In January, an anonymous group of parents wrote a letter objecting to Dalton’s new guidelines.

“Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, ‘racist cop’ reenactments in science, ‘de-centering whiteness’ in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class,” the letter read, according to the NY Post.

“Wildly inappropriate, many of these classes feel more akin to a Zoom corporate sensitivity-training than to Dalton’s intellectually engaging curriculum,” the parents added in their letter.

By February, the school’s director of DEI (“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”) Domonic Rollins stepped down “in pursuit of other opportunities.”

The report added that Best did not address any of the issues in his goodbye note.

“Thank you for the incredible amount of time, support, intelligence, wit, and ingenuity you’ve shown me during my time at Dalton,” Best said. “I’m truly grateful for the work we’ve done together. I want the best for Dalton, because I want the best for you.”

You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, on Parler @alana, and on Instagram.

Source

For Liberalism To Hold Any Meaning, Colleges Need Religious Exemptions

And then, they came for the Christian colleges. LGBT activists have launched a lawsuit seeking to deny federal funding to Christian colleges and universities that require students and staff to live according to Christian sexual teaching. In response, the Biden administration’s Department of Education, the ostensible defendant in the suit, may try for a quick “sue and settle” surrender to cut traditional religious colleges off from federal education dollars.

The legacy media has, of course, been sympathetic to the litigants, cheering what they see as the end of exemptions that let “anti-LGBT bigots” receive government funds. They view religious accommodations as antithetical to the rule of law — special privileges that allow believers to ignore the law. But religious accommodations are the price liberalism must pay for big government. The current lawsuit illustrates this truth.

First, the sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination regulations that religious colleges have sought exemptions from are not statutory laws. Rather, they are interpretations and rules created by bureaucrats and judges — not Congress — through successive rounds of regulation and litigation. They arise from the expanding administrative state, which regularly grants accommodations and exceptions for a multitude of reasons.

Indeed, the law at issue, Title IX, explicitly permits religious colleges and universities to retain their religious character while receiving federal funding. Thus, rather than unique exceptions to the rule of law, the exemptions granted to religious colleges and universities are the ordinary products of an expansive government responding to diverse circumstances.

This sort of legal and administrative discretion is important to effective government. Even the ever-growing Leviathan must retain some flexibility, and such elasticity is indispensable to big-government liberalism — at least if it is to remain liberal.

The promise of liberalism is that all are welcome in the liberal polity, and that sectarian conflict can be set aside within a common political framework. This promise has always been imperfectly realized, but the liberal claim is that it is not a joke for a priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk to walk into a bar, or a courthouse, or a public university, as equal citizens.

The promise of everyone having a place in liberalism, however, means allowing associations in which not everyone has a place. To maintain their integrity and identity, religious communities and institutions must be able to exclude those who do not accept their beliefs or adhere to their rules.

Christian colleges and universities that seek to be communities of discipleship, as well as of mundane instruction, will necessarily insist that students and faculty try to live by Christian ethics, including sexual ethics. These restrain everyone, but concerning LGBT identities and actions, Christians believe that our essential identity is built on our relationship to Jesus Christ, not our sexual desires. It is rebellion to make temptation into an identity.

The obvious rejoinder, as illustrated by the current lawsuit, is that fomenting Christian identities should not be done with government funds. If orthodox Christians wish to run their colleges as they see fit, they should do so without taking federal money. There are several problems with this argument.

First, although a few Christian schools are proudly independent of federal funds, most are not, and would struggle to survive if suddenly cut off from them. While Christians have indeed built their own colleges, “build your own” is much harder when the government funds and controls everything, either directly or through extensive regulation. Many schools have a reliance interest on the promise that they would be able to access federal dollars without compromising their religious identity.

Second, when the government is a primary source of funding for higher education, requiring traditional religious schools to alter their beliefs to access it is a de facto punishment for their religious beliefs. To exclude these religious institutions for their authentic faith is to exclude religious citizens from liberalism’s promise of equality.

Third, it is naïve to think that avoiding federal dollars means avoiding federal interference. Federal funding isn’t why Jack Phillips and the Little Sisters of the Poor have been dragged into court again and again.

Eschewing government money might free Christian colleges from some intrusions under Title IX, but they will still be subject to other regulations by various governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from accreditors to athletic associations, which do not depend on accepting grants. For example, declining federal funds will not protect them from transgender mandates under Obamacare or the Bostock interpretation of Title VII.

By nature, big government imperils the liberal truce, in which citizens and institutions of disparate religious and metaphysical beliefs can live together in peace. The bigger the government, the more likely it is to impose or infringe upon the deeply held convictions of religious citizens and associations. Just as government-run health care will become entangled with religious hospitals, doctors, and nurses that refuse, for example, to commit abortions, government-funded higher education will become entangled with religious colleges that require students and faculty to adhere to religious beliefs and practices.

This problem is exacerbated because the presuppositions that underlay fashionable secular dogmas are often invisible to their adherents. For example, the claims of transgender ideology are not less metaphysical, or even mystical, for having been inculcated by the cultural osmosis of media saturation and peer pressure, rather than overt religious instruction and reflection. To insist that a man may become a woman, or that a man is, in some sense truer than biological sex, already a woman, is as bold a metaphysical assertion as anything proclaimed in religious teachings such as the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Government enforcement of secular dogmas — e.g. by withholding otherwise-available funding from religious schools that do not accept claims of gender identity in place of biological sex — establishes an official orthodoxy. Under this regime, traditional religious believers and institutions will be systematically punished and excluded from equal participation in education, healthcare, and even from the market in general.

Even if the current lawsuit fails (full disclosure: my wife is an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is intervening on behalf of some of the colleges targeted by this lawsuit), there is still a powerful trend toward punishing religious believers and institutions that resist the sexual revolution.

Furthermore, the attacks on Christian institutions are accompanied by efforts to make participation in public, professional, and commercial life contingent on affirming ideas incompatible with traditional Christian teachings. Thus, believers may be pushed out of mainstream institutions even as our institutions are isolated and cut off from benefits that are available to everyone else.

This prospect may delight activists eager to punish those who do not embrace the latest demands of the LGBT lobby. But a regime that penalizes Christians who authentically live according to their beliefs is illiberal by definition, and thereby, by liberalism’s own standards, in danger of illegitimacy.

A more limited government would, of course, resolve many of these difficulties. But left-liberals must at least recognize that sustaining the bargain of liberalism in a time of big government and ascendant cultural leftism requires generous accommodations for traditional religious believers and their institutions. Without equality and tolerance for dissidents, both individually and within the community, there is no liberalism.

Source

Teachers Union Head Randi Weingarten Says Kids Can’t Go Back To School Because Jews Have Too Much Privilege

What is motivating teachers unions to keep public schools closed for as long as possible?

We’ve constantly heard from the left about the need to “follow the science” in dealing with the coronavirus, as President Joe Biden has repeatedly pledged to do. Yet the gap between administration policies or even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and the scientific facts about how the virus is spread is considerable.

Given that we’ve known since last summer that younger children are unlikely to spread the virus and that the CDC has made it clear that schools can safely reopen even without all teachers having been vaccinated, the stubborn refusal of public school teachers unions to agree to go back to the classrooms is puzzling.

Or at least it would be, if it weren’t so clearly in the interests of the unions to keep the teachers and students at home rather than in school. In doing so, these Democratic Party allies and funders have managed to increase their power over both school systems and politicians.

But when asked to respond to the complaints of parents about the damage they are doing to their children by insisting on keeping them home and dependent on Zoom rather than in-person teaching, the leader of one of the country’s most powerful unions responded in a manner that demonstrated how leftist woke ideology works.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is one of the most powerful forces in education and a well-known player in Democratic Party politics. The arrogance that such power breeds was on full display in an interview she gave to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

During a fawning Q&A with a blatantly misleading headline about Weingarten’s “vision to get kids back to school,” the union boss exposed her disdain for the families her members are supposed to be serving.

She was asked how she would respond to parents who are complaining that unions have been the primary obstacle to opening public schools despite the fact that many, if not most, private and parochial schools have been open for full-time, in-person instruction since the fall. That’s especially an issue in Los Angeles, where a massive government investment has been made to help make the schools safe. But the unions are still doggedly refusing to let their teachers show up for work in the classroom.

Education Tossed Aside for Woke Agendas

Weingarten’s answer illustrated her slavish devotion to leftist ideology as well as her contempt for these families. Although she was speaking to a Jewish publication, there was no need for her to take specific aim at Jewish parents, but that’s what she did:

American Jews are now part of the ownership class. Jews were immigrants from somewhere else. And they needed the right to have public education. And they needed power to have enough income and wealth for their families that they could put their kids through college and their kids could do better than they have done. Both economic opportunity through the labor movement and an educational opportunity through public education were key for Jews to go from the working class to the ownership class. What I hear when I hear that question is that those who are in the ownership class now want to take that ladder of opportunity away from those who do not have it.

The union is still claiming that, against all the evidence and the experience of their colleagues in other systems, their members are too afraid to come to work. They claim they must all be vaccinated first but have also set other demands about funding and “equity” — a buzzword for replacing equality with race-based schemes to further skew the education system toward indoctrination of leftist doctrines about critical race theory and “white privilege.” These have been set up as excuses to prevent resuming in-person teaching.

It’s interesting that Weingarten chose to inject the notion of Jews as beneficiaries of white privilege into the discussion. Weingarten is the spouse of Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, a synagogue that serves the LGBTQ community in New York. But she spoke in a manner that seems straight of the antisemitic themes in Karl Marx’s infamous essay “On the Jewish Question,” in which Communism’s founding father (who was himself  Jewish) spewed angry contempt for his fellow Jews and labeled them capitalist parasites and oppressors.

For Weingarten to use these stereotypes was disgraceful. But it exactly illustrates worries that toxic theories about white privilege are giving a permission slip to antisemites.

That she did so in order to distract the public from the damage she and her union are inflicting on the children of this country is shameful. But what makes it even worse is that it’s not Jewish families complaining about unions who are trying to “take away the ladder of opportunity” from the poor. It’s Weingarten and the AFT who are doing that.

The unions’ determination to keep schools closed is consigning a generation of children to more months of Zoom classes that are both harming their development and widening the gap between the rich and the poor, something particularly dangerous for inner-city minority kids who were already underserved by the public system.

Online teaching is often of little use for many children, especially those in the lower grades. The unions also seem to be saying that teachers are not quite as essential as not just doctors and nurses but also grocery store clerks, who have been showing up for work every day throughout the lockdowns.

Hypocrisy Abounds

The union’s stand has also been undermined by their hypocrisy. In a notorious incident, a Facebook group for teachers instructed participants not to post pictures online of their spring break vacations. “It’s hard to argue that it is unsafe for in-person instruction, if parents and the public see vacation photos and international travel.” It’s hard to argue with that warning.

Nor is this the first time these unions have hurt minority students and others who are disadvantaged. Their opposition to school choice programs has helped keep poor children trapped in failing schools rather than given an opportunity to succeed elsewhere. The fact that Democratic politicians are beholden to Weingarten’s union for campaign contributions ensures the party continues to be a roadblock to both choice programs and charter school alternatives that have a proven record of helping children.

The injury  Weingarten and the unions are doing to children is incalculable, but what she is doing in the name of protecting “opportunity” for the underprivileged while trashing middle-class Jewish families who want their kids in school is world-class chutzpah. It also indicates how adherents of critical race theory instinctively judge people by race or background so as to silence or intimidate them.

Nor, despite her claim in the JTA interview, are her actions rooted in “Jewish values.” There is nothing in Jewish texts or tradition that says it’s okay to force minority kids to be stuck in dead-end public schools just to protect the power of teachers unions that might be lost if parents were allowed to choose better schools for their families that they can’t currently afford.

Nor is it a Jewish value to force parents to stay home watching their kids rather than go to work to help keep them out of poverty just because Weingarten’s union has discovered that the lockdowns suit them just fine.

Teachers unions have become a deeply destructive force in public education. So long as people like Randi Weingarten have public education by the throat, America’s children are in danger.

Source

California Weighs ‘Equitable Math’: Goal of Obtaining Correct Answer Is Racist

The California education department is considering implementing a statewide math framework that promotes the concept that working to figure out a correct answer in math is an example of racism and white supremacy invading the classroom.

The framework, titled “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction,” is intended to be “exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their instructional practice.”

The “Equitable Math” website states its training manual was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary private source of funding for the Common Core State Standards.

“White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the document states. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”

The proposed California framework provides examples of how “white supremacy culture” has infiltrated math classes in schools:

  • The focus is on getting the “right” answer.

  • Independent practice is valued over teamwork or collaboration.

  • “Real-world math” is valued over math in the real world.

  • Students are tracked (into courses/pathways and within the classroom).

  • Participation structures reinforce dominant ways of being.

Additionally, the document asserts the means by which teachers assess student learning in math is based on white supremacy culture, as demonstrated by:

  • Students are required to “show their work.”

  • Grading practices are focused on lack of knowledge.

  • Language acquisition is equated with mathematical proficiency.

The proposed California framework continues:

These common practices that perpetuate white supremacy culture create and sustain institutional and systemic barriers to equity for Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students. In order to dismantle these barriers, we must identify what it means to be an antiracist math educator.

In order to embody antiracist math education, teachers must engage in critical praxis that interrogates the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms, and develop a plan toward antiracist math education to address issues of equity for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.

In the section that criticizes the concept of “getting the ‘right’ answer” in math, the document states:

The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity [sic] as well as fear of open conflict [sic].

Some in the education field are sounding the alarm about the “Equitable Math” framework.

According to Fox News, Lori Meyers, co-founder of Educators for Quality and Equality, said her organization sent a letter to California education officials, expressing its members are “deeply concerned about the draft 2021 CA Mathematics Framework, which contains discriminatory and divisive content that will impede us from accomplishing” important goals in math instruction.

“We ask that the state provide us with a mathematics framework that reflects sound, research-based practices over political ideology,” Meyers’ group added.

In February, the Oregon Department of Education defended its instruction of teachers via the “Equitable Math” training manual in how to teach mathematics by dismantling as “racist” the longstanding view of objectivity in math, as exemplified by the idea that one must obtain a correct answer to a math problem.

Breitbart News reported on the same “Equitable Math” manual:

The manual enumerates signs of “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom,” which include a focus on “getting the right answer,” an emphasis on “real-world math,” teaching math in a “linear fashion,” students being required to “show their work,” and grading students based on their demonstrated knowledge of the material.

“In order to embody antiracist math education, teachers must engage in critical praxis that interrogates the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms,” the manual declares, “and develop a plan toward antiracist math education to address issues of equity for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.”

Source

North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Forms Task Force To Root Out Left-Wing Indoctrination In Government Schools

North Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who is black, launched a task force last month to root out left-wing indoctrination in schools as the racist doctrine of critical race theory cements its grip on the upcoming generation in K-12 education.

The “F.A.C.T.S. Task Force: Fairness and Accountability in the Classroom for Teachers and Students” features a tip line where parents, students, and educators may submit examples of discrimination and unequal treatment related to an individual’s faith, ethnicity, worldview, or political beliefs.

“This is not an indictment on education,” Robinson emphasized at a March press conference. He said the new task force was inspired by complaints received from people who lamented that the schools had been taken over by left-wing activists who had effectively criminalized dissent. “We found ourselves besieged by folks who are complaining about things that their students and their children were having to learn in public school, that were contrary to their own beliefs.”

The task force seeks to empower those people with an avenue to air their grievances free of blowback.

“The primary goal of this task force is to allow the voices of concerned citizens to be heard regarding public K-12 education in North Carolina,” the website reads, emphasis included, “to provide a safe and secure setting where education professionals can transmit concerns regarding their school without fear of retaliation.”

As the left’s creed of critical race theory takes hold of schools nationwide as a secular religion, parents, students, and teachers disillusioned with the ideas are increasingly intimidated from speaking out in opposition for valid fear of termination or expulsion. Those who do go on record risk being tarred by colleagues or classmates as racists for daring to question the racist tenets of the left-wing activism shrouded in the moral superiority of social justice.

“There are parents and teachers who are literally afraid to speak up against school boards, against principals, against administrators, and that has got to stop,” Robinson said. “School is supposed to be a safe place where people can go for the purpose of instruction.”

North Carolina residents are encouraged to share examples of progressive indoctrination, hostile classroom environments, and inappropriate content with the task force.

Parents who have been able to speak out against the progressive developments in their schools have begun to organize in other parts of the country. A new national nonpartisan group launched in March, Parents Defending Education, aims to connect parents and teachers in a grassroots effort while taking aggressive legal measures to resist indoctrination infecting the next generation.

“Through network and coalition building, investigative reporting, litigation, and engagement on local, state, and national policies, we are fighting indoctrination in the classroom — and for the restoration of a healthy, non-political education for our kids,” the group’s website reads.

Source

How An Immigrant Who Loves America Fought The Critical Race Mob In Her Kids’ Schools And Won

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Gordana Schifanelli, a lawyer and immigrant, joins Executive Editor Joy Pullmann to explain how she successfully fought off a critical race theory mob from indoctrinating her children in school and threatening her family and career.

“Once I said it is inappropriate to use public schools and children to promote any kind of speech, any kind of viewpoint, it’s a personal viewpoint and you should reserve that viewpoint, after hours, not on kids, and especially not banning parents to supervise it here what the kids are told … the moderator of that group said ‘oh you’re disinvited’ and shut me down,” Schifanelli said.

While Schifanelli was originally shunned by educators, staff members, and even government officials, she bounced back and organized other parents frustrated with the indoctrination to vote out the political activists on the board of education in her area. The problem, she said, however, runs much deeper than just school boards.

“The people who are born here don’t even know how lucky they are,” Schifanelli said. “As an immigrant, I lived in a country that no longer exists. And I can tell you that dividing people based on race or religion or any kind of physical, you know, gender or you know, binary nonbinary or whatever 17 different genders, this is all intended to divide and to destroy.”

Schifanellia said this nightmare is not going away.

“It won’t go away until this country is destroyed,” she said.

Listen here:



Source

University Of Oregon Paid ‘1619 Project’ Writer Nikole Hannah-Jones $25K To Lecture On ‘Systemic Racism’

The University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication paid New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the writer behind the anti-historical “1619 Project,” for a Zoom lecture in February on “1619 and the Legacy that Built a Nation,” as first reported by Campus Reform.

Hannah-Jones raked in $25,000, evident by a Freedom of Information Request filed by Campus Reform. The Feb. 19 event was co-sponsored by the university’s Office of the President, Office of the Provost, and Division of Equity and Inclusion, among other groups.

The organization that was paid by The University of Oregon was the Lavin Agency, as shown by the FOIA. The agency defines itself as “the world’s largest intellectual talent agency, representing leading thinkers for speaking engagements, personal appearances, consulting, and endorsements.” The group also offers the likes of Margaret Atwood, leftist activist Angela Davis, Khan Academy Chief Executive Officer Salman Khan, climate writer Naomi Klein, and other big names.

The “1619 Project” writer discussed why Americans need to “remain vigilant” while fighting for “racial inequality.” A promotional flyer for the event claimed there is a “lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation.”

“As the lead writer for New York Times Magazine’s the “1619 Project,’ a major viral multimedia initiative observing the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves arriving in America, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones explores the lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation—specifically, how Black Americans pushed for the democracy we have today,” the flyer read.

Last week, Hulu announced it will stream the “1619 Project,” which Lionsgate studios and Oprah Winfrey partnered to fund this summer. Hulu praised the project by Hannah-Jones in a press release as “a landmark undertaking … of the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today.” Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize for her project — which has been debunked by several historians for its pushing of the false premise that America was both founded in 1619 and that the Revolutionary War was fought to sustain slavery.

“[I]t would not surprise me in the slightest if the university is actively attempting to hide its embrace of radicalism,” Oregon Federation of College Republicans Chairman Ben Ehrlich said to Campus Reform.

John Large, a spokesman for the Lane County Republicans where the university is located, told The Federalist that “The University of Oregon is so damned two-faced that if a conservative went to the campus, they would go ahead and throw them guys out.”

According to a document put out by the university, the event was not permitted to be recorded or redistributed.

Source

Census Bureau: ‘Significant Increase in Homeschooling’ to 11.1% in Fall 2020

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in late March that 11.1 percent of K-12 students in the nation are now homeschooling, a significant jump from 5.4 percent when school closures went into effect in spring of 2020, and from the 3.3 percent of families who homeschooled prior to the coronavirus pandemic.

“The global COVID-19 pandemic has sparked new interest in homeschooling and the appeal of alternative school arrangements has suddenly exploded,” wrote Casey Eggleston and Jason Fields for the Census Bureau, which gathered data for an “experimental” Household Pulse Survey that measured the “social and economic impacts during the coronavirus pandemic.”

“Using a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. households, the survey shows homeschooling is notably higher than the national benchmarks and offers a glimpse of changes in homeschooling patterns during the pandemic,” the writers noted, explaining that, while 5.4 percent of American homes reported homeschooling when school closures went into effect in spring of 2020, “[b]y fall, 11.1% of households with school-age children reported homeschooling (Sept. 30-Oct. 12).”

The Census Bureau clarified the survey distinguished between households that were “reporting true homeschooling rather than virtual learning through a public or private school.”

The Bureau writers continued that, sparked by the pandemic, more American families are seeking education alternatives for their children:

It’s clear that in an unprecedented environment, families are seeking solutions that will reliably meet their health and safety needs, their childcare needs and the learning and socio-emotional needs of their children.

From the much-discussed “pandemic pods,” (small groups of students gathering outside a formal school setting for in-person instruction) to a reported influx of parent inquiries about stand-alone virtual schools, private schools and homeschooling organizations, American parents are increasingly open to options beyond the neighborhood school.

The Census Bureau data echoes that of Gallup polling which, at the end of August, found a five-point increase in the percentage of parents who said they would homeschool their children this academic year, from five percent in 2019 to ten percent in 2020.

Gallup also defined homeschooling in its survey as “not enrolled in a formal school, but taught at home” so as to distinguish homeschooling from remote learning programs provided by schools.

In November, Education Week also reported more than doubling of the homeschool population in the United States, with 58 percent of principals and superintendents naming homeschooling as being “a major contributor to enrollment declines caused by COVID-19—more than any other single reason.”

Of particular note in the Census Bureau data is that homeschooling rates are surging among black families, in which the proportion homeschooling increased from 3.3 percent in spring 2020 to 16.1 percent in fall 2020.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Kerry McDonald, a senior education fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), explained, “The black homeschool population doubled between 2008-2012, though it was still less representation among the homeschooling community than the black population in the K-12 school age population at large.”

“With what the Census Bureau data showed is that now there is an over-representation of black homeschoolers compared to black students in the overall K-12 population,” she added. “So, it’s about 16% black students now homeschooling, compared to 15% in the overall K-12 U.S. public school system.”

McDonald, the author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom, said she foresees a “sustained elevation of homeschooling numbers going forward,” primarily because parents’ views of directing their own children’s education have grown more positive.

EdChoice, for example, began tracking school choice options during the pandemic in April 2020, and found, at that time, 52 percent of parents had a more favorable opinion of homeschooling.

“And that number has only increased steadily every month that they’ve done the surveys, to the point where in February this year, it was to 63% favorability,” McDonald said. “I think that’s another indicator that parents are liking what they see.”

“Just wait until communities open up,” she added, noting that when libraries, museums, and science centers are fully open again, homeschooling families will once again be able to take advantage of learning opportunities in their communities.

“Post lockdown I think parents will have an even more positive impression of homeschooling,” McDonald emphasized.

“I think over the past year, parents have certainly felt re-empowered to direct their children’s education in ways that were, you know, unimaginable before school closures and the pandemic response,” she explained.

“Suddenly parents have been put back in charge of their children’s education, even if they’re not officially homeschooling,” she said, and continued:

These parents are getting a much closer look at what their kids are learning in the classroom through Zoom school, or what they’re not learning in the classroom, and they may be disillusioned by some of the curriculum ideology that they may be seeing, or the lack of academic rigor, or the way that the teachers may interact with the children. And I think they’re seeing there are other options.

McDonald said more families homeschooling may be the start of a push for more school choice policies in general.

“Now we have active legislation in over two dozen states to expand school choice,” she noted. “So, I think that’s a huge win, and something that parents are increasingly supporting. RealClearOpinion came out with a survey last November finding that support for school choice had increased ten percent,” with 77 percent of parents in support of school choice.

In addition to parental empowerment, McDonald said homeschooling is likely to remain a popular education choice because many parents now have “more workplace flexibility than they did before the pandemic, and this is likely to continue.”

She noted the reported increase in “teleworking,” with physical office locations closing permanently as more employees work remotely.

“And I think as more parents see that they have more flexibility in their work schedules, they’ll want to be able to grant more flexibility to their children in their learning schedules,” she said. “Parents maybe have a better sense of the rewards of living and learning alongside their children over the past year, and see their children might be flourishing in a non- standardized classroom where they’re really able to customize a curriculum and individualized learning.”

McDonald observed the “abundant resources, including technology or curriculum, and a whole host of different learning tools available to families, many of which are free or low-cost,” for homeschooling families.

“So, parents may realize for the first time they don’t necessarily have to be the ones doing all of the teaching in a homeschooling environment,” she added. “They can just really facilitate their children’s learning and connect them to these other learning resources and curriculum tools.”

Source