10/8/15

‘Interrupting Whiteness’: National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

Zombie has a new post out that is awesome as always. Here’s a taste:

A major national conference for teachers and school administrators starting on Saturday, October 10, in Baltimore will focus exclusively on race and racism, featuring workshops on “interrupting whiteness” in American schools, the “dominance of White supremacy” in society, “White privilege” enjoyed by Caucasian students, “white domination of thought,” and how to “decenter whiteness.”

The conference, officially titled The National Summit for Courageous Conversation 2015, is organized by thePacific Educational Group (PEG), a large and influential consulting firm hired by hundreds of school districts nationwide — often under pressure from the federal government — to address “racial gaps” in scholastic performance and behavior problems in the classroom.

But don’t take my word for it.

Below are excerpts taken from the official program of the upcoming National Summit for Courageous Conversation 2015, as well as examples taken from earlier Summits in 2014 and 2011, accompanied by direct screenshots of the text as it appears in the programs. You can confirm this by viewing the official 2015 program itself as uploaded by Pacific Educational Group, as well as pdfs of the 2014 Summit program and the 2011 program still archived at the Summit’s own Web site.

This first example is a prototypical workshop at the National Summit for Courageous Conversation; is this the kind of race-obsessed confrontational philosophy that should be guiding instruction and curricula in the nation’s public schools?

White Privilege, White Responsibility: Deepening Our Commitment as White Allies in the Struggle for Racial Equity in Schools
To achieve racial equity in schools, all educators must be able to identify and communicate where their own personal whiteness plays out in classroom, school, and community systems. Deepen your ability to focus a critical lens on your own whiteness and privilege and see how they impact your life. Through the tenets of Critical Race Theory, analyze how society constructs whiteness as the dominant norm in the U.S. Explore what it means to be a white educator leading for racial equity without perpetuating a system of white dominance.

(Screenshot here.)

Read more here from Zombie… one of the best writers on the web…

01/19/15

What is the school board afraid of?

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

A recent news item had to do with the Goochland County Public School Board demanding home schooled children justify their religious beliefs. When I read this on the internet my first reaction was, “Really? This could become very interesting”.

“A policy approved by the Goochland County School Board in 2013 has several parents who home school their children upset.

The policy requires children ages 14 and up who want to be home schooled to provide a statement about their religious beliefs to the school system.

As part of that, the board reserves the right to bring the child and his or her parent in for a hearing.”

It should be pointed out that the Goochland County School Board has no ‘rights’; rather, they have ‘powers’ given them by the citizens who have placed this board in charge of their school district. Their assumed or presumed responsibility to govern all aspects of family life beyond what is taught in classrooms becomes a can of worms.

Paul Newman played the part of a washed up ambulance chasing lawyer looking for a chance to redeem himself in, The Verdict. His client sought damages for negligence against two doctors who treated a patient, a patient who died as a result of their being too tired to read the patient’s admission chart. During the course of the trial the lawyers for the hospital and doctors began asking questions to a nurse who’d been on duty the night of the incident; but the answers she provided were unexpected and all but buried the hospital and the doctors for having been incompetent and negligent.

My reason for bringing up this up, as the Newman character pointed out, “Never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer”.

What purpose would it serve the Goochland County School Board to obtain answers about any student’s religious beliefs, much less singling out home schooled children and their families?

The supposed purpose of any school board is to administer the secular teachings of children, costs of education, maintenance of buildings and other property associated with such schooling. There really is no function of the school board which provides any governance with regard to a family’s religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Looking beyond their poorly worded ‘right’ to demand the ability to interrogate home schooled children and their parents, what is the school board afraid of?

It is a given that the school board represents the all powerful State; but at what point is the State interfering with the sanctity of the family unit? Are they afraid that a clear line would be established, a line separating where the authority of parents and educators was shared or flat out ended?

“Sir William Blackstone, in 1769, captured this shared responsibility when he articulated the doctrine of in loco parentis, literally “in the place of the parent.” Blackstone asserted that part of parental authority is delegated to schoolmasters.”

Many schools have thrown in with Common Core as the foundation for all aspects of teaching, and by design, Common Core is nothing more than communist indoctrination, a method of transforming our society into a totalitarian Utopia wherein the State replaces the family unit, something which has been deemed a threat to the state, no longer necessary or wanted.

Indeed, family values constitute a threat to government agencies that usurp powers never granted nor intended by the citizenry.

As of January 16, 2015, the Goochland County School Board reversed its decision to have home schooled children and their parents justify their religious beliefs; but, “the school board still maintains the right to demand a hearing with homeschooling families”.

Just for fun what could/would happen in such a hearing?

If the school board demanded a child account for his religious teachings at home, perhaps a child from an LDS family, a child who had been taught proper principles as found in church handbooks? There’s a strong probability that the youngster would explain the need for a moment of prayer and supplication to the Lord prior to moving forward.

“I’d say that when you start a meeting that way (with prayer), people aren’t stuck up with the pride of their opinions. You pretty quickly come to an agreement as to what ought to be done in any situation.”

I can’t imagine the members of any school board sitting still and listening to a young person in such a manner; it violates elitist arrogance, their demanding a ‘right’ they never had to begin with. What an opportunity to teach the Plan of Happiness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Another movie comes to mind, People Will Talk, where a prominent doctor and member of the teaching staff had been accused of an unsavory and even criminal behavior. During the ‘informal hearing’, a hearing which would be used to remove the good doctor from his teaching position, the board directed the accused to voluntarily make an accounting of his actions. Dr. Praetorius calmly explained that he had no intention of voluntarily explaining anything and that he considered ‘this trial to be a trial’.

Can you imagine the home schooled child of a local attorney pointing out to the school board that they were in violation the law, that they never had the power to do anything other than regulate the secular education of any child, much less interrogate anyone about their religious beliefs?

No, it wouldn’t do to be shown up by some kid who’d been home schooled, not good at all. So what are they afraid of?

They are afraid everyone would find out that home schooled children are receiving a well rounded education, one which meets or exceeds anything the State can provide.

Members of public school boards which attempt to shut down home schooling are afraid that their ‘powers’ really are limited, at least for now, they are restricted from interfering with the family unit and its sanctity.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

01/14/15

Ignore Shoemaker: Frazier’s appointment a win for Maryland

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

Well, Maryland delegate Haven Shoemaker has treated us to yet another demonstration of his incisive wit, engaging personality and stunning political wisdom with his measured, wise and gracious remarks about Robin Frazier’s appointment to Joe Getty’s Maryland state senate seat.

Not.

Shoemaker called the Carroll County GOP “nuttier than outhouse rats,” for choosing her, adding, “To make this decision represents a nullification of the will of the people.” (Robin Bartlett Frazier nominated to State Senate seat, Carroll County Times, January 10, 2015). Shoemaker’s disrespectful remarks reflect Shoemaker’s poor character and lack of integrity more than anything else.

In fact, Shoemaker has it exactly backwards. When union sanctioned, pro-government, pro-spending candidates took over the Republican primary elections across the county last year, they truly did nullify the peoples’ will. All Marylanders should be concerned by this development. You can read more about that institutional vote fraud disgrace, here. To suggest the “will of the people” had anything to do with it, reveals a profound, perhaps willful ignorance.

Democrats switched sides en masse in the primary; then switched right back after voting. Meanwhile government unions provided money, muscle and materiel to defeat conservatives. Remember all those yard signs saturating the County? Your tax dollars – through the government unions – paid for that. It was the most unethical election in recent history, and for Maryland, that is quite an accomplishment. Robin Frazier was an unfortunate casualty.

But for Haven it was all good. Moral compass swinging like a windsock in a tornado, Mr. Shoemaker now deigns to enlighten us all with his gratuitous smearing of the Carroll County Republican Central Committee. If you need further proof of Shoemaker’s true loyalties, look no further.

Haven said Frazier can’t “reach across the aisle.” Be confident that as a newly-minted delegate, Mr. Shoemaker will reach across, risking your hard-earned tax dollars in the process. In fact, he proves yet again that he is already there. And there he will stay, because as a pandering, big government statist in Republican clothing, Mr. Shoemaker is much more comfortable retreating to safe, go-along-to-get-along politics than standing on principle.

Robin Frazier stood on principle every single day as commissioner. I saw that firsthand during my time working for the commissioners. That is why Carroll County’s RINOs conspired with the state’s Democrats and unions to defeat her in last year’s election. They are not interested in saving taxpayer dollars, lifting onerous regulations, or reducing the size and scope of government. These are the things she did.

Instead, RINOs like Haven find common cause with tax and spend Democrats to explode government, smother us with regulation, and spend money when they don’t even have to. I challenge Haven to name even one thing he did as commissioner that reduced spending or regulation – which he himself, rather than Frazier or Rothschild thought of. He did, however, vote their ideas many times.

Robin would be the first legislator to reach across the aisle if she believed it would genuinely serve Maryland citizens’ best interests. And she would do so from a position of strength, knowing full well the principles she stands on. Unlike Shoemaker, she is willing to go to jail to defend them. Robin will fight. Haven is content to manage the decline. For a long time, RINOs have been compromising whatever principles they have just to claim “bipartisanship.” The disastrous results are self-evident.

And about that lawsuit over prayer? The Carroll County Times somehow forgot that the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Robin (see Greece v Galloway). They also forgot to mention that a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights donated all their legal services on behalf of the County. That battle is mostly over; won by Frazier and like-minded patriots, even if the Humanist Association and the Times can’t admit it. Haven voted with Frazier on that one too.

The Carroll County GOP Central Committee based its decision on Frazier’s extensive experience in both public life and private industry. This included her four years service in the Ehrlich Administration as the Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator for the Governor’s Office on Service and Volunteerism and Community Initiatives, and her appointment by Governor O’Malley to the Board of the Maryland Association of Counties. The Committee noted: “In this position she worked closely with legislators and other county leadership to improve, modify or eliminate legislation of concern to the counties and consistently lobbied for smaller government.”

Following are some of the things Frazier advocated and voted for as Carroll County Commissioner over the past four years:

for tax cuts every year she was in office;

for smaller county government with more efficient use of tax dollars;

for controlled spending on education in correlation with the continuing decline in enrollments;

for less regulations in both county government and from the state;

to educate county residents on the problems with common core and to return control to teachers and parents;

to stop palm scanning of Carroll County public school students;

to protect Carroll County residents’ 2nd Amendment rights;

to prevent the rain tax from being mandated in Carroll County;

to provide resources for the 20-25% of the student aged population in the county who aren’t in the public school system;

to get out of the incinerator contract that promised to bankrupt the county;

to increase the CATS bus system efficiency and reduce its costs to taxpayers;

to keep mass transit out of the county;

to protect the Commissioners’ right to pray before open session if they want to, as guaranteed in Article 36 of the Maryland State Constitution.

Pity there aren’t more people like Robin in public office. Never mind his gratuitous insults, Haven Shoemaker’s assertions are entirely off base. Haven is the kind of person who hangs on his every word. It’s a good thing that others don’t. The Carroll County GOP made a great choice in appointing Frazier. It will at least partially rectify the results of the election that was stolen from her, and assuredly blunt some of the idiocy Haven is sure to bring to the Maryland legislature – which already has more than enough.

12/20/14

Journalism Educator “Hates” Republicans and Loves Marxism

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A feminist professor of communications at the University of Michigan has become a laughingstock for a poorly-sourced column in a socialist newspaper about the academic basis for hating Republicans. In the article, Susan J. Douglas began with the statement, “I hate Republicans” and declares that “marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me…”

A specialist on “Gender and the Media,” she is reportedly married with a daughter.

I’ve got something that beats that. Curtis J. MacDougall, the author of a journalism textbook that I used in college, was a Marxist with a 319-page FBI file, who wrote favorably about Fidel Castro and feared Joe McCarthy. MacDougall was an activist in the communist-dominated Progressive Party.

As a young journalism student, I studied from MacDougall’s textbook, Interpretative Reporting, which encouraged a form of advocacy journalism, and “learned” that Walter Duranty of The New York Times was one of the great figures in the media. I later discovered that Duranty was a stooge of Stalin and one of the greatest liars in the history of journalism. In fact, he helped Stalin cover up the deaths of 7- to 10-million Ukrainians in a forced famine.

A modern-day MacDougall, Professor Douglas tries to sound like an intellectual and apparently wants to be taken seriously. She insists in the article that a “series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics,” such as “Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure.”

She cites unnamed “researchers” as proving that “the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.”

Douglas, who graduated from Elmira College in New York and received a master’s degree and a doctorate from Brown University, is not only a professor but the head of the University of Michigan communications studies department.

Since MacDougall’s textbook, Interpretative Reporting, was instrumental in training a generation of journalists, perhaps he influenced Douglas.

Now, she is trying to influence her students. But her self-declared “hate” for Republicans has backfired. She has exposed the real purpose of her “educational” pursuits.

The Detroit News reports that Andrea Fischer Newman, a member of the UM Board of Regents, said she found Douglas’s column “extremely troubling and offensive,” and that it condoned “hatred toward an entire segment of individuals in our society based solely on their political views…”

Grant Strobl, head of Young Americans for Freedom at the school, called the Douglas piece “ugly and full of hatred.”

While the article has to be taken seriously, its dependence on clearly dubious “studies” and “research” make it practically ridiculous.

Douglas ought to be laughed out of academia.

In an earlier piece for In These Times, she also gave us a precious insight into her own ideology. She hailed Stuart Hall, the founding editor of New Left Review, as a “towering Marxist public intellectual” who had “influenced multiple generations of professors and their students…” It’s apparent she is one of them.

Indeed, she appears to thank Hall for helping establish “communication studies” as “one of the most popular majors in the United States…” She wrote, “We owe him a monumental debt.”

She notes that Hall was a follower of Antonio Gramsci, but doesn’t point out that Gramsci was an Italian communist whose writings were introduced to the United States in the mid-1950s by Carl Marzani, a publisher and Soviet KGB agent whose publishing house was subsidized by the KGB. (Interestingly, Curtis A. MacDougall’s history of the Progressive Party, Gideon’s Army, was published by Marzani as well.)

Gramsci popularized the idea of destroying Western society through infiltration rather than armed revolution. It helps explain why Weather Underground terrorists such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn became college professors after giving up on a communist armed revolution inside the United States.

Robert Chandler, in his book Shadow World, noted that Gramsci’s Marxist theory of cultural revolution “stressed that dominance over the existing order in the West, including religion, was rooted in education, the media, law, and a mass culture of beliefs, values, and traditions.” In order to overturn the existing order and “Marxize the inner man,” Gramsci taught that “one must create a subversive program of ‘counter-hegemony’ against its supporting culture,” in order to “negate the established modes of thought and ways of doing things.”

That appears to be Susan Douglas’s mission in academia and journalism.

Douglas’ Curriculum Vitae identifies her participation in a “Rethinking Marxism” conference in 1992, delivering a talk on “Pop Culture, Kitsch and Social Change in the 1960s: Hegemony, Subjectivity and the Rise of Feminism.”

The editors of the journal, Rethinking Marxism, also sponsor “Marxism and the World Stage” conferences, described as “celebrations of the Marxian tradition.”

Douglas’s “academic credentials” include numerous articles for such publications as The Nation, The Progressive, and In These Times.

Her hate for Republicans is making news, but don’t think students in her classes haven’t been aware of the agenda she’s been pushing. Some of the comments from students who have taken her classes include:

She openly states that she hates certain members of the student body based on their political opinions. Avoid this closed minded intolerant person….
Boring and disorganized. Talks to students like they are children. I think she rates herself to get good scores.
Condones hatred and intolerance towards differing viewpoints.
Socialist feminist nut.

This controversy will serve a purpose if it renews a focus on the corruption in journalism education and why left-wing and even pro-Marxist bias in the media is getting worse.

Her book on decoding “enlightened sexism” was the subject of a talk she gave that was video recorded. An elitist who knows better than everyone else, she claims to be an expert on uncovering “subtle” forms of sexism in the media.

Her courses include:

Media, Culture, and Society
Media Theory and Criticism—introductory and advanced levels
Qualitative Methods in Media Studies
Gender and the Media
History of Broadcasting
Origins of Mass Culture: 1870-1930
Images of Women in Popular Culture: 1945-present
Analysis of Television News
Motherhood and the Mass Media
The Social History of Radio in America
History of Communications Technologies
Introduction to Mass Communications

In a University of Michigan profile of Douglas, she was asked, “What inspires you?,” and she replied, “My students inspire me. I love teaching undergraduates: their energy, their optimism, their openness to new ideas.”

But this “love” seems to have undergone a transformation into a closed mind of hate toward opposing views. She has made explicit what we know and understand to be their usually hidden biases.

Thank you Ms. Douglas for telling us openly what we always suspected to be the case. Thank you for alerting us to the Marxist revolutionaries in positions of power in journalism and academia.

Now, please tell us why you deserve to be in a position of trust and authority over students who desire a good education and want to make something of their lives.