Florida Earns Top Spot on Education Freedom Report Card (Arizona is #2) thumbnail

Florida Earns Top Spot on Education Freedom Report Card (Arizona is #2)

By Samantha Aschieris

Editors’ Note: Those who want the hear the podcast can scroll to the to the eleventh one below. Those who prefer to read the transcript can continue below.

Florida has once again been ranked No. 1 among the states on The Heritage Foundation’s Education Freedom Report Card, which was released at an event Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

“They have universal education choice in that state. Any child who wants it can exercise school choice,” says Lindsey Burke, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

“You’ll notice I say ‘education choice’ more often than ‘school choice,’ because we’re at a point now in the movement where states are adopting education savings accounts largely, although it’s great if a state adopts a voucher or a tax credit, but these education savings accounts, ESAs, are much more flexible,” Burke says, adding:

So, Florida took [its] education savings account program universal so every child now can exercise education choice. [It has] radical academic transparency to families. Families know what is taught in their public schools.

There’s some movement on teacher freedom to make it easier for professionals to enter the classroom without having to go through woke colleges of education in order to get there.

Burke also notes that Arizona was once again in the No. 2 spot, and Utah clinched the No. 3 spot.

Arizona is actually first in the country for education choice, but overall came in second on the report card. And then rounding out our top three was Utah,” Burke says. “Utah, also, this year adopted a universal ESA style account, where pretty soon every single child will be able to exercise education choice.”

Iowa, which hosted the event at which the report card was released, was ranked “most improved.”

Burke joins today’s episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to further discuss the Education Freedom Report Card, which three states ranked the lowest, and her advice to parents who might see the report card and want to make a change in their state.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript:

Samantha Aschieris: Lindsey Burke is joining today’s episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast.” Lindsey is the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy. Lindsey, thanks so much for joining us today.

Lindsey Burke: Thanks for having me, Samantha.

Aschieris: Now, on Thursday, The Heritage Foundation held an event in Des Moines, Iowa, on its second Education Freedom Report Card. Before we talk more about the report card, though, and this year’s results, can you tell us what exactly the report card is?

Burke: Yeah, so, this report card is unique for a few reasons. I think the name in and of itself gives you an idea of why it’s unique. This is the Education Freedom Report Card. It is not just your old standard ranking of how much states spend and where students stand.

Usually, when you see these report cards, that’s what they measure. How many dollars are states spending, how much are they relying on taxpayers, and then, where do students stand academically? Well, ours goes much deeper than that, and in fact, is unique because we actually look at ROI, return on investment, how much does a state spend, but how much does every dollar get you in terms of your academic improvement?

So, it’s not inputs-based, it’s actually outcomes-based, which is unique in that regard. But what is, I think,, the most important aspect of this report card is, we look at genuine education freedom.

How much of an opportunity does a family have to exercise school choice, or education choice to craft an education experience that fits the unique needs and aspirations of their individual child? That is one of the most important factors that we measure in this report card, but it is comprehensive in nature in that we look at education choice, but we also look, like I said, at return on investment.

We look at teacher freedom: How easy is it for a professional who decides they want to teach to actually enter the classroom, or does a state put up barriers to entry, like these what we know empirically to be useless teacher-certification requirements?

And then we look at transparency, which has become such an important factor in recent years. In particular, parents really acknowledging waking up to the fact that the content that has been taught in public schools across the country for too many years now does not reflect their family’s values, their community’s values, and unfortunately, too often has been wholly captured by the Left.

So, we look at transparency. How much transparency does a parent have into the content that’s taught in their local schools? How much leverage do they have over something like their school board? Is their school board election on cycle—which is a really important measure of how much input and control a community has in shaping their local public schools.

So again, it’s comprehensive. It goes much further, I think, than any other education ranking certainly that’s out there. But, really importantly, I think, [it] looks at your return on investment as a taxpayer, your return on investment as a parent, and your ability to actually exercise choice for your child, which is the No. 1 accountability measure that a family has.

Aschieris: Absolutely. And for our listeners, we’ll be sure to leave a link to this year’s report card in the show notes, so they can take a look at where their state stands. Before we get into this year’s results, though, I wanted to just take a step back and ask why was it important for The Heritage Foundation to create this Education Freedom Report Card?

Burke: Yeah. Well, education is one of the most important public policy issues that is, I think, has really risen to the top of public consciousness today. You look around the country. There are so many issues afflicting all American families. So many of those issues, though, are tied back to education.

If you are worried about a public school that your child is assigned to, for instance, calling your child by a name other than the name that you as a parent gave them when they were born, education is a policy issue that is important to you. If you are worried about critical theory or critical race theory, or any sort of radical, critical theory offshoots that are out there, be it gender ideology or radical feminism, fill in the blank, critical theory writ large.

If you are worried about these issues, education policy should be a front-and-center issue of concern for you, an area of involvement for you.

If you’re just worried about sort of your, for lack of a better word, standard academic performance of your child’s public school, you’re going to be concerned about ed policy. If you’re worried about students’ safety, we’ve interviewed families for years and years, and I’m sitting here in Washington, D.C., where this is a paramount concern, but so many families, that is their No. 1 issue.

First and foremost, when I send my child to school for seven or eight hours a day, are they going to be safe? If schools can’t answer that basic question to the satisfaction of a family, nothing else matters. And so, if safety is an issue for you, you’re going to care deeply about education policy.

I think at the end of the day, though, where we are right now is education policy is a vehicle for values alignment, which is where school choice comes in, a way that it really hasn’t before. It’s almost cliche at this point to say it, but COVID school shutdowns, and they weren’t COVID school shutdowns, right? They were teachers union-induced school shutdowns, where COVID was sort of the ruse long after we knew it was safe to reopen schools. But these teachers union-induced school shutdowns had at least the positive effect of opening the eyes of a lot of families to this content that was taught in their children’s schools.

When they all became accidental homeschoolers looking at the curriculum, and the lessons that were being taught virtually to their children, that became such an issue for families where they were able to see firsthand that there was a misalignment too often in the values that their families held dear and what was being taught to their children for those eight hours during the day.

And so, what I think has happened over the past two years or so is that we had a wonderful and have a wonderful school choice movement, where the focus had largely been improving academic outcomes for kids who were participating in programs and students who chose to stay in the public system.

We also had a really strong focus on the economic imperative of choice, where if you want to see a better [return on investment], school choice is an answer for you, but in a lot of ways, that values-based case for school choice was absent from the conversation until a few years ago.

And COVID really shifted that narrative. All of a sudden, it became for families who were seeing too often radical content taught in schools, “Hey, there’s a solution. It’s called school choice. School choice is an answer for you as well.” And so, all of that to say, the report card is unique in that it captures all of these factors that are really motivating families right now.

And motivating, I would say not just families, but all Americans, right? All American taxpayers, American grandparents in addition to parents, anybody who is living in this country right now is touched by education policy. And I think the past few years have demonstrated that in a really profound way.

Aschieris: Absolutely. And now just to shift into this year’s results for the report card, which states were in the top three, and why?

Burke: Yes. Well, our top three, drumroll, do you have some sort of electric drumroll we can play?

But our No. 1 state, which was also our No. 1 state last year was the state of Florida. Florida came in No. 1. They have universal education choice in that state. Any child who wants it can exercise school choice. You’ll notice I say “education choice” more often than “school choice,” because we’re at a point now in the movement where states are adopting education savings accounts largely, although it’s great if a state adopts a voucher or a tax credit, but these education savings accounts, ESAs, are much more flexible.

So, Florida took [its] education savings account program universal. So every child now can exercise education choice. [Florida has] radical academic transparency to families. Families know what is taught in their public schools. There’s some movement on teacher freedom to make it easier for professionals to enter the classroom without having to go through woke colleges of education in order to get there.

So, Florida retained [its] No. 1 ranking this year. Arizona came in second place. Arizona retained its No. 2 ranking. Arizona is actually first in the country for education choice, but overall came in second on the report card. And then rounding out our top three was Utah. Utah, also, this year adopted a universal ESA-style account, where pretty soon every single child will be able to exercise education choice.

And this is what has been, I mean, it’s an exciting time for ed policy. I tell people all day long, I don’t know why people aren’t on the rooftop shouting about how amazing it is that we’re at a point now where nine states now have universal education choice on the books. This is unbelievable.

That number was zero two years ago, and all of a sudden now, we have nine states with universal school choice. It is unbelievable. It’s such a welcome development for families. And I think pretty soon we’re going to be at a tipping point. We’re all eagerly awaiting Texas to see if anything comes out of Texas with regard to school choice this session.

But pretty soon we’re inching toward 40% of kids across the country now having access or at least being eligible for a private school choice program. So exciting to see. But those are our top three, Florida, Arizona, Utah.

Aschieris: And then what about the bottom three? Who are those states?

Burke: Right. And this is interesting, and I think demonstrates what makes our report card different from a lot of report cards you would see from say, education associations or more establishments, education organizations, because some of these states will often end up being at the top and on our report card, they’re on the bottom, and that is Rhode Island, Connecticut, and at the very bottom, No. 51, because we count [Washington, D.C.], but Oregon.

Oregon’s at the very bottom. And that is largely due to extremely poor, completely absent for that matter, education choice. Families are assigned to their local government-run district school, whether they like it or not, whether or not it’s safe, whether or not it works well for their child, whether or not it aligns with their values, that’s your public school, that’s where you attend. So, no education choice.

Transparency, they rank really poorly on transparency as well. It is nearly impossible for parents to see what is being taught in schools in Oregon. And in fact, now breaking over the past week or so, we’re seeing Oregon make this push for so-called equitable math, which is what it sounds like. Not traditional math instruction that we all came to know, but really just left-leaning, woke sort of nonsense, dressed up as math instruction.

Oregon also did really poorly on teacher freedom. You have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to become a teacher. Hoops that don’t matter in the long run. I should add for our listeners that we know empirically, there is no association between someone having a state teacher certification, state licensure, and their ability to be an effective teacher as measured by how much they’re able to get students to learn. We know there’s no correlation between teacher certification and student academic achievement.

And then, finally, on return on investment, Oregon did terribly on that measure as well, 39th overall. They’re spending a lot of money per pupil in Oregon. And student outcomes are middling, to say the least. So, much of the same story for our Nos. 49 and 50, for Rhode Island and Connecticut. Little to no education choice, lack of transparency, lack of teacher freedom, and poor return on investment.

Aschieris: Now, in terms of the state that improved the most, Iowa, what improvements did they make to earn them that ranking of “most improved”?

Burke: Yeah, so, Iowa really had just wonderful improvement over our initial, last year was our inaugural, the 2022 report card. This is our second year, as you mentioned. So, from 2022 to 2023, Iowa jumped 13 spots in the ranking, which was just a massive improvement.

And that is largely a reflection of the fact that [Gov. Kim] Reynolds’ leadership, Senate President Amy Sinclair’s leadership, they were able to get a universal ESA-style program in place.

So, in the course of the next three years, every single child in Iowa, if they want it, will be able to access an ESA-style account. So, instead of being assigned to their public school, can instead exercise choice and attend any private school that fits their needs or create a customized education experience for themselves.

They can hire private tutors, do online learning, whatever it is that fits their unique learning needs. So, that was really the No. 1 reason.

And Iowa was actually first out of the gate this year in 2023 at getting a universal school choice program in place. I mentioned earlier that we now have nine states with universal education choice. Two of those happened in 2022, seven happened this year. I mean, this is why I’m saying 2023 has been a phenomenal year for education freedom.

Seven states just this year got universal school choice in place. So, Iowa led out of the gate this year. They were the first state to get it done this year. And then we had six other states follow, and I would add, importantly, that they didn’t stop with education choice.

They also put in strong transparency protections for families. They put in provisions that prevent teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity until it is age-appropriate. Similar to what we saw in Florida in recent years, school libraries have to put their card catalogs online so parents can see what school libraries are carrying there.

And then there is also a provision as part of their parental bill of rights that looks similar to something known as a Given Name Act. So, with the Given Name Act, which we’ve seen several states adopt, a school is prohibited from changing a child’s name or pronoun, absent written parental consent. So, they didn’t get quite that far, but they made a really good step in the right direction, which is to say, if a child is trying to change their name at school during the school day, the school has to notify parents. So, they put that provision in there as well. So, they did a, whole just sort of, basket of reforms, but chief among them was that universal education choice policy that’s now in place.

Aschieris: And in addition to Iowa, Arkansas also made some major gains moving up to No. 4 from No. 13. So, what happened there?

Burke: Yeah, again, fantastic leadership, [Gov. Sarah Huckabee] Sanders there. We saw a similar move with a universal ESA account put into place in Arkansas. And I should say, I mean, we don’t have to delve into the boring methodology. I mean, I think it’s exciting, but all the methodology behind the report card rankings.

So, states are obviously awarded on the extent of their school choice landscape, and we do that in a number of ways. We look at the proportion of students who are eligible, the proportion of kids actually utilizing the accounts, but we also look at things like, is it an ESA versus a voucher?

Again, we love a good school voucher. However, ESAs … at this point, do everything a voucher does and then provide additional flexibility for a family. Like I mentioned, you can also hire a private tutor, buy textbooks, curriculum online learning in addition to paying that private school tuition.

And so we do award bonus points for ESAs over, I guess we could now call it, traditional school choice mechanisms. We also look at how regulated or overregulated a particular school choice program is in a state.

One thing the research community has long been interested in, to put it nicely, is an unfortunate occurrence in Louisiana, where in the state of Louisiana, we have the only negative evaluations of a school choice program in the history of school choice programs.

And so, this was a randomized control trial evaluation that found that students who exercised choice in the Louisiana voucher program did worse than students who did not. And it was [the randomized control trial] equivalent to a double-blind medical trial. So, rigorous evaluation. But what the research suggests is that the reason that that happened was because in the name, ironically, of accountability, they overregulated their voucher program so much that high-quality private schools said it wasn’t worth it to them to participate.

They set it out. We think lower-quality private schools ended up participating more than the high-quality private schools, and therefore, we think that explains why we got negative outcomes in Louisiana.

Again, unique to every state with a school choice program. Long way of saying that is why it’s important that as part of our school choice measure, we look at if a school choice program is overregulated. We’re seeing so much education choice in the states now. It is wonderful, but we can now be, I think as a movement, a little pickier about how we evaluate these programs.

Are they free from overburdensome regulations? How well is implementation going with these programs? That’s something that I think observers are really going to have to pay attention to, moving forward. Are these programs being implemented with fidelity in a way that they’re going to serve the most families the best they can for the long-term?

And then making sure that we actually talk to families in the states that these programs are out there, that they now have the choice to go to a private school if they want. And so, making sure that we educate families on their options and get those enrollment numbers up.

So, yes, again, long explanation to your question about Arkansas, but Arkansas has done phenomenal as well. We saw them shoot up to fourth place this year, which was great.

Aschieris: Lindsey, just before we go, I wanted to ask if you had any advice to parents who might see this report card and want to make a change in their state, what would you tell them?

Burke: Well, that is our hope, is that families and legislators see this report card and maybe they get a little angry about where their state ranks, if they’re toward the bottom and why their state doesn’t offer education freedom or why, for example, the proportion of their unfunded teacher-pension liabilities is a huge percentage of their state [gross domestic product]. Maybe that will make them mad, right?

We want this to animate families and policymakers in such a way that they do go to their school boards or they talk to their policymakers in their state and try to see improvements. And so, in order for them to do that, we’ve actually developed model policy that’s on the report card website.

So, if you’re in a state, for instance, that does not have a school choice program or doesn’t have a universal program or an ESA option, we have model legislation linked on the website for a universal ESA. We have model bills for almost everything that we measure on this report card. And so that’s kind of the idea, right?

People want to see their rankings improve. Policymakers, governors want to see their states move up in the ranking, and it is plug-and-play. Here’s some model policies that can help you, hopefully, achieve that goal.

Aschieris: Well, great. Lindsey, thank you so much for joining us today. It was great to have you on. As I mentioned, we’ll leave a link to the report card in the show notes. And yeah, thank you so much.

Burke: Thanks for having me.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

A Historian Complicates the Racial Divide thumbnail

A Historian Complicates the Racial Divide

By Ken Masugi

Brandeis University historian David Hackett Fischer’s African Founders illuminates the leading controversies today with facts that shame political cant and enable us to reassess the centuries of slavery’s effects on American national character. In a scholarly tome of over 900 pages, Fischer follows the method of his earlier work, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. There he traced the peopling of America from the perspective of the character of different regions of Britain.

African Founders achieves the equivalent with the enslaved peoples from Africa—who have hitherto largely been treated as a hapless, homogeneous heap of unfortunates, and blank slates completely recreated by masters and brutal overseers. Fischer does not hold back on detailing the brutality of slavery, but he also insists on keeping in mind the abiding character traits exhibited by the slaves from different regions of Africa. No rewrite of Roots, this scholarship forces corrections in perception created by the ideological uses of black American history then and now. Properly interpreted, this persuasive array of facts and historical exploration is an invaluable weapon against “Woke” nonsense. Perhaps that is why its reception has been for the most part less than enthusiastic. Fischer’s narratives convey an excitement that inspires awe and gratitude in the reader.

A revealing example of the fruits of his approach is his study of slavery in the Chesapeake Bay region, which comprises Maryland and eastern Virginia, with Baltimore to the north, Richmond, Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Norfolk to the south, and Alexandria toward the middle, on the Potomac. Fischer’s tightly organized account covers three regions (north, south, and frontier) each with three geographic sub-regions that describe in detail different traits ascribable to the way these chosen slaves and their descendants interacted with whites.

Fischer begins by asking why the Chesapeake Bay region of the early United States produced outstanding black leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Booker T. Washington—two Marylanders and a Virginian? In 1790, Virginia’s overall African population was 37 percent, with 35 percent in Maryland. (See Diana Schaub’s review for a thoughtful exposition of Douglass as an example of a Chesapeake slave.)

Although slaves came from various parts of Africa, Fischer estimates that during the slave trading era “about half of all arriving Africans in the Chesapeake came from what is now southeastern Nigeria” and were known variously as Igbos, Ibos, or Biafrans. They “came directly or indirectly from the West Central Africa regions of Congo, Loango, and Angola.” The regions became known for fostering slaves who worked hard and displayed discipline and intelligence.

Buying slaves of a particular ethnicity therefore became important for economic output and efficiency and for fostering marriages, so slavedealers would often seek Igbos. Later, such enterprising Igbos became known as the “Jews of Africa.” Imagine a scenario in which American slave merchants offered for sale Jews from, say, Lithuania. Such a concentration of enslaved Jews in an American region could have enormous effects on the character of those colonies. (Consider Genesis: 37-50 on Joseph’s rise from slave to Pharaoh’s prime minister.) Fischer makes similar claims about the mutual effects of slave and free men on each other in colonial and early American history.

In the Chesapeake region, the American aristocracy of founders provided models for not only the whites but also the blacks who arrived there, and the blacks’ demands for freedom made impressions on them. That desire for freedom displayed the universality of what became known as natural rights following the 1689 publication of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government. Keep in mind, too, that Fischer won the Pulitzer Prize in History for his portrayal of George Washington’s legacy in Washington’s Crossing. In Tocquevillian terms, Fischer writes about both democratic and aristocratic history—on broad themes such as migration and high themes such as the character of statesmen.

In other words, Fischer provides an alternative to simplistic accounts characterizing slaves who were merely the products of their new environment, whether brutalized victims or newly skilled workers. None of this makes slavery more just or acceptable. But it does help us understand early attitudes toward slaves and the impressions they made on their masters, besides the profitability of their labor.

African slavery produced a more complicated legacy than is generally acknowledged.

An illuminating contrast with the Chesapeake is found in the South Carolina planters who, seeing the freedom-loving ways of blacks up North, declined to purchase Igbo slaves. In the period from 1716-1807, about half of South Carolina slaves came from Africa’s west and windward coasts, with another 21 percent unspecified. These “Coromantees” were intelligent and loyal, when treated properly; they were “docile,” in the eighteenth-century sense. The blacks also outnumbered the whites by 3-1. The whites knew about the New York slave revolt of 1712, led by Asantes, a warrior people, from the region of modern Ghana. These masters had also experienced the September 1739 Stono Rebellion southwest of Charleston. “These free-spirited African people were thought to prefer death to slavery, and were reputed to be frequently suicidal.” (America’s fear of suicide warriors began early.) Slaveholders did not need the Haitian revolts of the 1790s to make them question the worth of their dangerous human property, though the Haitian atrocities certainly focused their minds.

Fugitive slaves (about half Asantis from Angola and the Congo) fled South Carolina to swell the ranks of the African Seminoles in Florida, an area fought for by the British and the Spanish against the Americans. The history of this new ethnic group discloses 12 generations of warriors, from the early 1700s to the present, beginning with African warriors brought by Spaniards. The Black Seminoles joined the other Seminoles to fight Andrew Jackson. They were subsequently forced west to what is now Oklahoma and from there to Texas and Mexico. This spirited community fought the Texans, the French, and the Comanches. Their African herding experience translated into success with cattle in the New World. Their descendants reside today in communities in Texas, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean.

Perhaps the finest example of the taste for aristocracy among the slaves comes from Robert Sutcliff, a British Quaker who traveled in America in the early 1800s, likely describing the aftermath of what became known as Gabriel’s rebellion in Virginia:

In the afternoon I passed by a field in which several poor slaves had lately been executed on the charge of having an intention to rise against their masters. A lawyer who was present at their trials in Richmond, informed that on one of them being asked, what he had to say to the court in his defence, he replied, in a manly tone of voice: “I have nothing more to offer than what General Washington would have had to offer, had he been taken by the British and put to trial by them. I have adventured my life in endeavouring to obtain the liberty of my countrymen, and am a willing sacrifice in their cause: and I beg, as a favour, that I may be immediately led to execution. I know that you have pre-determined to shed my blood, why then all this mockery of a trial?”

This astonishing speech brings to mind why Uncle Tom’s Cabin describes early on a painting of George Washington in the slave’s humble house.

Building on Virginia’s (and Maryland’s) “regional tradition” of leadership beginning with Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, Fischer adds that “Chesapeake slaves who later became national leaders also reinvented American leadership itself, in fundamental and highly specific ways. In their hands, leadership in the United States became more expansive in its spirit, more intensive in its methods, more broad in its goals, and more human in its results.” One needn’t agree with all of Fischer’s assessments to appreciate the effects of his work.

We should also keep in mind that these first generations of slaves, despite legal inferiority, often experienced less racial segregation than we might suppose, with class similarities lowering barriers for intermarriage, in northern regions. Racial segregation was “not much in evidence. … Men and women of both races drank, smoked, caroused, fought, and slept together.” (See accounts of the New York City slave conspiracy and revolt of 1741.) In fact, “most [free black] families came from ‘white servant women who had children by slaves or free African Americans.’” Might some of these Irish indentured servant girls be descended from shipwrecked Spaniards from the Armada? African slavery produced a more complicated legacy than is generally acknowledged. The slaves even included some Muslim scholars among their number. Also caught up were politicians, entrepreneurs, navigators, and linguists, as well as warriors. Even the tyrannical actions against the slaves could not obliterate these achievements, which were often prized and taken advantage of by their masters. 

These slaves insisted on their freedom, fashioning the earliest slave revolts that often reflected their African warrior ancestry as an expression of the natural right of liberty. They were revolutionaries for freedom before its culmination in the Declaration of Independence. If there is an objectionable element in Fischer’s work, it is the misguided encouragement of a backward-looking approach to who we are as Americans. The answer to who we are as Americans is fully articulated in the Declaration, whose lights shine dimmer today than they have at any time in American history. Fischer’s history, replete with portraits of various African founders, is thus a resource not only for contemporary black Americans but for all Americans who would approach the Declaration rather differently knowing what the founding generation knew.

It remains one of the great paradoxes that the Declaration of Independence insisted on the equality of all men and also condemned the King’s incitement of slave revolts. Yet it took a great war to legally abolish slavery and square the circle of the Declaration. The Emancipation Proclamation was careful to authorize slave revolts only within hostile territory. The purgation of slavery required war, yet one conducted for the promise of “safety and happiness” within the boundaries of self-government.

*****

This article was published by Law & Liberty and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Wikimedia commons

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Two Nations thumbnail

The Two Nations

By Michael Rectenwald

A bottom-up libertarian localism that rejects federal funding and resists centralized control is the only viable way to defeat the totalitarian left and to restore the American republic

Two political, economic, and cultural movements are vying for the soul of America. One is a program from above, and the other, a movement from below. But neither is nationalist as such. One aims to dissolve the nation into a universalist glob, while the other intends to starve the State of resources and disempower its means of centralized command and control. 

The dominant, top-down political orientation of the current regime is globalism. It makes no practical difference to the U.S. whether the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, or any other globalist organization is behind its program. It has been fully embraced by the government and its corporate partners, or what I call, in my book Google Archipelago, “governmentalities,” otherwise “private”companies that operate as state agencies and undertake state functions. Globalism has as its aim the de facto if not legal dissolution of the sovereignty of the United States. It aims at eradicating national borders, nullifying the Constitution, and abrogating the rights of national citizens. It means to control the  consumption, reduce the living standards, remold the habits, overwrite the cultures, and even reduce the population of its subjects. Globalism involves a technocracy, with an “expert” class wielding technological tools and systems for surveillance, behavioral modification, and repression.

The globalist state seizes on various “crises” to accomplish these objectives, including “pandemics,” “climate change,” and war. At home and abroad, it thrives on anarcho-tyranny, cultural and political disorientation, the devaluing of the currency, and economic sanctions. It also uses “stakeholder capitalism” and its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) indexing as weapons. ESG is an extra- or para-governmental instrument of coercion that is increasingly backed by government. It infringes on property rights and coerces producers into accepting its precepts and thereby establishes a woke cartel of approved producers while eliminating the noncompliant from the market and even civic life.

The quasi-official dogma of the globalist state is a leftist totalitarian ideology called wokeness. Wokeness functions to censor speech, suppress dissidents, and pit supposedly beleaguered identity groups against the majority. It denies property rights by forcing organizations to hire and promote employees based on their identities and by treating ownership as a “privilege” that can be revoked. It aims at banning the freedom of association and eviscerating the remnants of the natural social order.

Wokeness and antiwhite racism are central to the administrative globalist state and its weaponized Justice Department and surveillance agencies, who use them to attack the middle-class majority, whom they see as their primary adversaries, as those most inimical to their rule. They thereby buy the allegiance of special identity groups and weaponize them against the state’s alleged foes. This explains the Biden administration’s insistence that “white nationalism” represents the number one domestic threat to the nation, when white nationalists comprise a miniscule fraction of the population.

Meanwhile, corporate capitalists curry favor with the government and embrace the state religion because they understand who is wielding power and who can strip them of their wealth. They also recognize the power of the woke cartel, which combines companies and activists, who threaten to cancel them if they fail to kowtow to woke demands—by sufficiently censoring speech, adhering to official narratives, or meeting ESG criteria. Thus, cloaked under a thin “anti-racist” and environmentalist scrim, wokeness is statist and centralized but also emanates from governmentalities, which impose extra-governmental sanctions on both business enterprises and individuals, over and above those decreed by the state. Globalism represents a further growth phase of this woke corporate-state hegemon. It dissolves any local or national community to intensify the state’s control and extension over more and more of the population.

Yet an emergent political force, albeit still nascent, is taking shape. This movement, the one from below, may be called localism. It seeks to resist the desiderata of the federal-state globalists and to nullify their encroachments on the self-determination of citizens. It envisions and builds parallel structures under local control. It localizes the control of the police, the sheriff, the school system, property protection, self-defense, the economy, and even privatized competitive banking with private currencies. Localizing these functions and functionaries means to resist the impositions of the federal government (including the Federal Reserve) and its globalist aspirations.

Localist movements are already underway in various states and localities, including in Idaho, Washington state, New Hampshire, and elsewhere. The legal basis of localism is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states first that “the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it” and second that “the people of the several states retain the authority to exercise any power that is not delegated to the federal government as long as the Constitution doesn’t expressly prohibit it.” This principle can be taken further—to the local and individual level.

Localism’s watchword is decentralization. Unlike globalism, this movement is straightforward and honest about its objectives. Globalism, on the other hand, acts through deception. It doesn’t announce itself as “globalism” and, therefore, must be detected through its effects. For reasons that I’ll discuss shortly, localism is the only means for circumventing centralized government in the hands of the federal-global state. It is the only antidote to globalist tyranny.

Of these two orientations, globalism is necessarily more powerful, emanating as it does from the corporate-government and extra-governmental ruling class. Contrary to conscious and unconscious Marxists, the ruling class is the state and its beneficiaries, not the “capitalist class.” The state is the only entity that extorts wealth from the productive class through coercion and without an agreement.  The state is the real conductor and beneficiary of any “exploitation.” And the ambition of the reigning statists is to globalize, leaving no escape from their clutches.

Of course, the ruling class is hierarchical and striated. It includes the federal government, the central bank, the administrative state, and the permanent bureaucracy or “deep state.” But the ruling class also includes governmentalities—corporate entities that have been drawn into the state’s ambit as state enablers and effectively carry out state functions.

Governmentalities are especially conspicuous today in the cases of Big Tech and Big Pharma. The former serves to censor, disseminate propaganda, and control information while the latter is granted a legal monopoly over medicines and vaccines in exchange for the extension and intensification of state coercion. The mainstream media complex is also a governmentality, as is, of course, the military industrial complex. Along with social media, the former disseminates official narratives and propaganda and buries or discredits conflicting information. The media are the priesthood of the administrative state because they define and enforce the public orthodoxy with which the state identifies itself. Social media are central to this priesthood, which explains why Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (with its rebranding as X) apparently poses a threat and why Musk has been dogged by the regime ever since. The military industrial complex is a governmental partner for extracting wealth from the productive class to expand the state’s reach but also to intimidate, suppress, and surveil the domestic population.

The ruling class also includes such state actors who, although not employees of the government, serve as its foot soldiers. These include the standard-issue academics and other leftists, who disseminate statist ideology. Academia is one of several main “ideological state apparatuses,” to use the phrase of French philosopher Louis Althusser. Its function is to rationalize state power, making it appear natural and inevitable; its minions furnish the state with what Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe termed “intellectual bodyguards.” These include academics who, like MIT professor Noam Chomsky, posture as radicals. Not surprisingly, many of these academics are socialist. The state encourages the proliferation of socialism because socialism is statist.

Of course, under globalism, the state does not operate strictly to serve national interests. Or, to put it another way, the national interests, as defined by the state, no longer involve the weal of the nation per se. Instead, the ruling class is interested in dissolving the nation into a global hegemon. This global power may be run from the United States, but the ruling class is not interested in maintaining the integrity of the republic. Instead, it aims at making the nation part of a global order, with the citizens of the United States having no particular claim to exclusive citizenship or the rights and privileges that it entails. This accounts for the unfettered immigration that the state encourages with open borders and social welfare. Much like its corporate partners, the state has become globalist. It is a Great Reset state, and the republic is now an impediment to its monopolization of power.

The state has almost unlimited powers of coercion at its disposal. But localism’s power lies in the capacity of the productive class to resist by refusing to participate, by withdrawing its consent and precluding its own exploitation. Although the globalists have vastly more resources at their disposal, their power, nevertheless, depends on the consent and participation of the exploited.

The main resource of localists is an inexhaustible reserve of independence. But to succeed, more and more of the exploited need to develop a new class consciousness, one that understands the state, which includes its governmentalities, as their real exploiter. Academia has been commandeered as a bulwark against this possibility. Likewise, a cadre of libertarian intellectuals must counter the academic intellectual class. As Murray Rothbard wrote in an introduction to Étienne de la Boétie’s  The Politics of Disobedience, “libertarian education of the public must include an exposé of this exploitation, and of the economic interests and intellectual apologists who benefit from State rule.”

As Hoppe argued in his 1990 essay “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis,” his 2001 book, Democracy: The God That Failed (2001), and elsewhere, under a democratic system, top-down reform of the state is virtually impossible. The holders of power over public “goods” have no compulsion to abdicate their positions as exploiters, especially given the democratic participation of the exploited. Unlike kings, leaders in democratic states wield property that they do not own. Likewise, they have a shorter time preference than kings, which means that they use state resources more profligately.

Before democracy, Hoppe wrote (in his 1990 essay), “it would have been necessary only to force the king to declare that from now on, every citizen would be free to choose his own protector, and pledge allegiance to any government that he wanted.” Under democracy, the terms have changed:

Under democratic rule then, the abolition of the government’s monopoly of justice and protection requires either that a majority of the public and of their elected representatives would have to declare the government’s protection monopoly and accordingly all compulsory taxes abolished, or even more restrictive, that literally no one would vote and the voter turnout would be zero. Only in this case could the democratic protection monopoly be said to be effectively abolished. But this would essentially mean that it was impossible to ever rid ourselves of an economic and moral perversion. Because nowadays it is a given that everyone, including the mob, does participate in politics, and it is inconceivable … that the mob should ever, in its majority or even in its entirety, … renounce or abstain from exercising its right to vote, which is nothing else than exercising the opportunity to loot the property of others.

This leaves bottom-up revolution as the only viable option. The premise is that while people cannot control what the globalist state puppeteers attempt to impose on them, and they are unlikely to convince the majority to abstain from paying taxes or voting, they can nevertheless cut the puppet strings from themselves. This is also the premise of the Grand Refusal, the nine-point plan to stop the Great Reset, as detailed in my book published this year, The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda. This means establishing and extending freedom zones where the dictates of the global state regime can be resisted.

Unlike globalism, however, localism is explicitly anti-totalitarian. Decentralization involves the self-determination of localities and individuals. As a matter of principle, localism does not dictate what various states and regions do in response to global state dictates; whether they accept or reject them is entirely their prerogative. It means positing control in localities as opposed to the central government, as far down the scale as possible.

*****

This article was published by Chronicles and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Michigan Congresswoman’s Planned Speech at ASU Canceled thumbnail

Michigan Congresswoman’s Planned Speech at ASU Canceled

By Cole Lauterbach

A planned speech from recently-censured U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., on Arizona State University’s Tempe campus has been canceled by the school.

An ASU spokesperson told The Center Square Friday morning that Tlaib’s speech would not happen on school grounds, saying the groups organizing the event didn’t follow proper channels.

“Organizers of events using ASU facilities must be properly registered with ASU and must meet all university requirements for crowd management, parking, security, and insurance,” the spokesperson said. “In addition, the events must be produced in a way which minimizes disruption to academic and other activities on campus. The event featuring Congresswoman Tlaib was planned and produced by groups not affiliated with ASU and was organized outside of ASU policies and procedures.

The Friday afternoon speech was organized by several groups opposed to Israel’s military actions retaliating against Palestine-based Hamas’ terrorist raid on Oct. 7 that led to the death of an estimated 1,200 Jews and others in the country.

Republican Reps. Michael Carbone and Alexander Kolodin joined Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez in a statement Thursday saying the planned visit from Tlaib misaligns with the state’s support for its Jewish population.

They warned the university about Tlaib’s anti-Jewish statements that ultimately led to her censure on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives

“The State of Arizona is a safe place for Jews, both on and off campus, and the antisemitic rants regurgitated by SJP and others are not representative of Arizona values. Students supporting Israel have been verbally and physically assaulted on campus in recent days, requiring police escort during SJP rallies,” the state lawmakers said. “[Tlaib] has a history of espousing such a view both before and following the deadly October 7 terrorist attacks against Israel that were perpetrated by the pro-Palestinian Hamas terrorist organization.”

Arizona State University Students for Justice in Palestine posted a call for action on a social media page Friday morning, indicating the school might cancel the event. 

“Rashida Tlaib must be heard on campus as the only Palestinian member of Congress who plans to speak on an American issue at this event,” the group stated. “ASU cannot claim to hold free speech as a principle while denying Palestinians their voices on campus.”

SJP was involved in a protest earlier this week at a student government meeting on the university’s Tempe campus that ended abruptly after attendees reportedly saw windows getting hit by landscaping rocks. ASU said Wednesday that it was investigating the matter for potential criminal activity. 

Sponsors of the planned Tlaib speech included: Progressive Democrats of America; Arizona Palestine Network; Jewish Voice for Peace – Tucson; Arizona Palestine Solidarity Alliance; Palestine Community Center of Arizona; Council for American Islamic Relations of Arizona; Arizona Democratic Party Progressive Council; National Lawyers Guild – ASU; Central Arizona National Lawyers Guild Attorney Chapter; Middle Eastern Law Students Association – ASU, Students for Justice in Palestine – ASU; the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) greater Phoenix Branch.

*****

This article was published in The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Planned Speech at ASU Canceled thumbnail

Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Planned Speech at ASU Canceled

By Cole Lauterbach

A planned speech from recently-censured U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., on Arizona State University’s Tempe campus has been canceled by the school.

An ASU spokesperson told The Center Square Friday morning that Tlaib’s speech would not happen on school grounds, saying the groups organizing the event didn’t follow proper channels.

“Organizers of events using ASU facilities must be properly registered with ASU and must meet all university requirements for crowd management, parking, security, and insurance,” the spokesperson said. “In addition, the events must be produced in a way which minimizes disruption to academic and other activities on campus. The event featuring Congresswoman Tlaib was planned and produced by groups not affiliated with ASU and was organized outside of ASU policies and procedures.

The Friday afternoon speech was organized by several groups opposed to Israel’s military actions retaliating against Palestine-based Hamas’ terrorist raid on Oct. 7 that led to the death of an estimated 1,200 Jews and others in the country.

Republican Reps. Michael Carbone and Alexander Kolodin joined Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez in a statement Thursday saying the planned visit from Tlaib misaligns with the state’s support for its Jewish population.

They warned the university about Tlaib’s anti-Jewish statements that ultimately led to her censure on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives

“The State of Arizona is a safe place for Jews, both on and off campus, and the antisemitic rants regurgitated by SJP and others are not representative of Arizona values. Students supporting Israel have been verbally and physically assaulted on campus in recent days, requiring police escort during SJP rallies,” the state lawmakers said. “[Tlaib] has a history of espousing such a view both before and following the deadly October 7 terrorist attacks against Israel that were perpetrated by the pro-Palestinian Hamas terrorist organization.”

Arizona State University Students for Justice in Palestine posted a call for action on a social media page Friday morning, indicating the school might cancel the event. 

“Rashida Tlaib must be heard on campus as the only Palestinian member of Congress who plans to speak on an American issue at this event,” the group stated. “ASU cannot claim to hold free speech as a principle while denying Palestinians their voices on campus.”

SJP was involved in a protest earlier this week at a student government meeting on the university’s Tempe campus that ended abruptly after attendees reportedly saw windows getting hit by landscaping rocks. ASU said Wednesday that it was investigating the matter for potential criminal activity. 

Sponsors of the planned Tlaib speech included: Progressive Democrats of America; Arizona Palestine Network; Jewish Voice for Peace – Tucson; Arizona Palestine Solidarity Alliance; Palestine Community Center of Arizona; Council for American Islamic Relations of Arizona; Arizona Democratic Party Progressive Council; National Lawyers Guild – ASU; Central Arizona National Lawyers Guild Attorney Chapter; Middle Eastern Law Students Association – ASU, Students for Justice in Palestine – ASU; the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) greater Phoenix Branch.

*****

This article was published in The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

‘Complicated’: Over 100 Harvard Faculty Defend ‘From The River To The Sea’ thumbnail

‘Complicated’: Over 100 Harvard Faculty Defend ‘From The River To The Sea’

By The Daily Caller

Over 100 Harvard faculty members signed a letter saying the phrase “from the river to the sea” is “complicated” in response to the president’s recent statement on antisemitism.

Harvard President Claudine Gay wrote multiple statements about the antisemitism on campus following backlash from donors and fire from former grads about her response to antisemitism on campus after the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks, including a new statement on Thursday denouncing the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which has genocidal implications. A letter signed by many Harvard faculty members claimed that “pressure from donors” is racist and that condemning the phrase “from the river to the sea” is the wrong decision.

“As Harvard faculty, we have been astonished by the pressure from donors, alumni, and even some on this campus to silence faculty, students, and staff critical of the actions of the State of Israel. It is important to acknowledge the patronizing tone and format of much of the criticism you have received as well as the outright racism contained in some of it,” the letter reads.

‘The signatories are the usual suspects from the anti Israel woke hard left. Their one sided screed is part of the problem, not part of any reasonable resolution. I doubt that many of them would sign a letter in support of the free speech of such ‘complex ‘ issues as racism, sexism, homophobia or Islamophobia. Their double standard against Israel is obvious,” former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Student protests across the U.S. have used the phrase “from the river to the sea” as well as other anti-Israel slogans. Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania implemented antisemitism task forces to address antisemitism on campus following the Hamas terrorist attacks.

Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib previously reposted a tweet with the phrase “From the river to the sea” and has made other anti-Israel comments. The House voted to censure Tlaib on Nov. 7 over anti-Israel comments made following the terrorist attacks.

“The phrase ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free’ has a long and complicated history. Its interpretation deserves, and is receiving, sustained and ongoing inquiry and debate,” the letter reads.

The letter goes on to call the choice to denounce the phrase “imprudent” and a misjudged “act of moral leadership.” “It might be framed in the language of liberation, but it calls for the destruction of Israel,” professor Norman Goda, Norman and Irma Braman Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Florida, told the DCNF.

Harvard did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

BRANDON POULTER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MEF Investigation Exposes Hamas Funders in America

Biden Admin Unveils New Tools To Counter Antisemitism, Islamophobia In Schools

Elite Universities That Are Hotbeds For Pro-Hamas Activism Got Billions In Federal Grants, Tax Benefits

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

College History Textbooks Spread Misinformation About the Great Depression thumbnail

College History Textbooks Spread Misinformation About the Great Depression

By Phillip W. Magness

The Great Depression was the most significant macroeconomic event of the past century, but don’t expect to find an accurate portrayal of its causes in your college history classroom. The most commonly assigned college-level US history textbooks contain obsolete and economically erroneous explanations of the 1929 stock market crash and its aftermath.

In a new study I co-authored with Jeremy Horpedahl and Marcus Witcher, we examined nine widely used US history textbooks and evaluated their accounts of the Great Depression. We then compared those narratives to assessments of the same event by economists and economic historians. The results show that historians are largely unaware of the leading economic explanations for the Depression.

Most economists attribute the crash to a decade-long quagmire to a series of bad economic policy decisions in the 1920s and ’30s. As former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke conceded, the Fed is now widely recognized as having botched its response to the unfolding events of 1929-1933. Through a string of erroneous policy decisions and inaction, the Fed created the conditions for a monetary contraction and directly exacerbated a collapse of the banking system. Other policy blunders, such as the steeply protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, added fuel to the fire by triggering a global collapse in international trade. And in 1932, President Herbert Hoover signed a massive hike in federal income tax rates in a misguided attempt to close the budget deficit. Contractionary fiscal policy during a Depression is seldom a good idea.

Other “consensus” economic explanations of the Depression do borrow elements of Keynesian theory, suggesting that the 1929 crash and aftermath illustrated a contraction in aggregate demand. This proposition has been heavily contested since Keynes first advanced it in the 1930s, but it remains a part of mainstream economic theory. To illustrate the range of economic explanations for the Great Depression, we summarized ten of the most commonly used college-level economics textbooks below.

Turning to the nine most common US history textbooks, we found a very different story. Monetary explanations of the Great Depression were seldom mentioned at all. Only two of the nine texts mentioned the role of Federal Reserve policies. The protectionist policies of Smoot-Hawley were largely omitted. US history textbooks even neglected doctrinaire Keynesian explanations rooted in an aggregate demand contraction.

Instead, all nine history textbooks attributed the Great Depression to a class of explanations known as “underconsumption” theory. Briefly summarized, underconsumption holds that economic production outpaced what most consumers could purchase given their low pay, triggering a contractionary event in the form of the Depression. This argument attained popularity in the early 1930s and was used to justify many of the economic planning and regulatory programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Economists today overwhelmingly reject the “underconsumption” theory. Even Keynes expressed skepticism of the notion and attempted to prod the Roosevelt administration over to an aggregate-demand-based theory of the unfolding events. For the past 80 years, few if any economists have seriously entertained “underconsumption” as a viable explanation of the Great Depression.

As our study shows, US history textbook authors remain badly out of touch with the economic literature about the Depression. They also augment their obsolete “underconsumption” explanation with other political appeals.

Eight out of nine US history textbooks attributed the Great Depression to rising income inequality. Only one economics textbook made a similar argument, the explicitly heterodox CORE open-access e-book. Tellingly, none of the history textbooks offered a coherent causal mechanism by which inequality supposedly caused or triggered the Great Depression. They simply asserted it to be the case.

The table below shows the range of causes listed in the nine US history textbooks. Note that it contains barely any overlap with the depiction of the same events by economists.

So what are we to make of this odd situation? The comparison of the two charts shows that US history instruction, including at the college level, is badly out of sync with the scholarly literature on the Great Depression. History textbooks show little cognizance of the leading economic explanations for this famous event, and display almost no awareness of how this literature has developed over the past 80 years.

The resulting treatment of the Great Depression in US history textbooks does little to educate students about the actual causes of the Great Depression. It does, however, privilege obsolete political arguments from the early 1930s that were used to justify the New Deal.

*****

This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

IMPORTANT VIDEO: The Last Line of Defense thumbnail

IMPORTANT VIDEO: The Last Line of Defense

By The Editors

Editors’ Note: At The Prickly Pear, we often run as many as ten fresh videos a day. We think all of them are important or we would not select them. But as with most things, some videos are more important, and more eloquent, than others. With so little time, and so much to read or see, it is easy for something like this to get lost in the mass of online information. We find this video to be one of the most important speeches that we have ever heard. It comes at an important time, with moral clarity and moral courage that we can all use right now. We highly recommend that you find the time to listen to this entire address. And then, we hope you will take the advice that she gives at the end. In whatever capacity you can, you need to stand up and fight.

There are many ways to fight the leftist, woke and dangerous, yes, murderous trends that are endangering our nation, our culture, our liberty, and our American way of life. The key point is to fight, to resist in any way you can to turn our current national crisis back toward the foundational American values and beliefs that made our nation the greatest force of good ever in history. Citizen journalism is a rapidly growing force in this battle and we at The Prickly Pear ask you to support our mission to educate, advocate and influence Arizonan and American readers at this critical time for our nation and our liberty. Please consider a contribution for our important and common mission. The times are very serious and the months and years to come may be very different than we expect. The key is a fighting spirit and a commitment to not lose our Republic and our history to enemies both within and outside our borders.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Social Emotional Learning & Critical Thinking thumbnail

Social Emotional Learning & Critical Thinking

By John Droz, Jr.

For those new to this topic, Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is basically about instilling a set of values into school children. For more information, see two of the prior articles I’ve written about this: SEL Intro and SEL in Public Schools.

The advertised goals of SEL sound great! Who could be against the Stated Objectives of helping children to: a) Make better decisions, b) Set goals, c) Gain confidence, d) Collaborate with others in work and play, and e) Navigate the world more effectively? After all, the SEL promoters cite studies that say that these are good things! DUH…

For any such program, there are two obvious questions: WHAT? and HOW? In other words WHAT are the entire objectives that will be conveyed to our childrenand specifically HOW will they be taught (i.e. methodology)?

There appear to be three main SEL packages, and the answer to each of these questions is quite different:

Click here to view SEL OPTIONS infographic.

The promoters of SEL 1.0 do not advertise their Unstated Objectives, and they certainly do not compare the results of alternative approaches to acheiving the Stated Objectives! Let’s do a brief overview of each, and see what the takeaway is…

SEL 1.0

This is the initial version and the most common one in use today. This is what is heavily marketed by CASELSecond Step, etc.

OBJECTIVES are both the Stated Objectives, plus several Unstated Objectives. The Unstated Objectives include major elements of current progressive ideology — e.g., DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Woke. In this powerful talk, this PhD connects these objectives with Communism.

METHODOLOGY is atheismsecularism, and relativism. These are man-made (as vs God-made) standards, which are embedded in Marxism and communism. For more details, see these good explanations: herehere, and here.

An example of SEL 1.0 methodology is “group consciousness” (as compared to “individualism”). As stated well here “SEL 1.0 exercises are constructed to maximize group awareness, group decision-making, and group activities. The peer pressure for conformity to the group becomes irresistible.” Marxism and communism are about groups, while America and our Constitution, etc. are about individual rights.

Another methodology example is that SEL 1.0 works to diminish the importance of thinking and understanding. Consider this statement: “As a species, emotion is more important than understanding because, instead of our willful rationality and effortful pursuit of universal truths, we are ‘wired’ for emotion and it drives us forward — up, away, and back again countless and quiet little cycles in life.” Got that? Emotion and feelings trump knowledge and thinking!

One more methodology concern with SEL 1.0 is that it is strongly based on moral relativism. Essentially this means that there are no absolute truths (e.g., God, Ten Commandments, etc.) as truth is relative to every individual. This is an important basis for progressive ideology, and has been rightly called “The Worst Idea Ever.”

What public school system would say to parents: “We are going to downplay teaching your children critical thinking, knowledge, traditional values, etc., and instead instill in them Marxist ideology?” But that is what SEL 1.0 is. See more about this here.

Note: SEL 1.0 may violate the Education Parental Rights laws of some states. For example, North Carolina’s version gives parents the exclusive right “To direct the upbringing and moral or religious training” of their child (see § 114A-10, [2]). SEL 1.0 is likely legally in conflict with that, as SEL 1.0 provides moral training that is not only not fully disclosed, but is certainly not under the direction of parents.

SEL 2.0

There are other options than SEL 1.0! For example, the admirable Stated Objectives can be met by adherence to traditional and common US standards: Judeo-Christian values. Some examples of sources for SEL 2.0 are here and here.

OBJECTIVES are just the Stated Objectives. There are no hidden objectives.

METHODOLOGY is via Judeo-Christianity. Consider that each of the five Stated Objectives would be accomplished by close adherence to the Bible.

The best part is that this methodology would not have any of the major downsides of SEL 1.0. For example, our children would not be a faceless part of a Pied-Piper-led group. As well stated here: “Christian training encourages kids to conform to what is right, and to avoid and oppose what is wrong. They are not to go along with the world.” Further, SEL 2.0 would not be pushing DEI, CRT, Woke, or Marxism.

The fly in the ointment is that teaching Judeo-Christian values in public schools has been squelched by atheistic activists, under the guise of “separation of church and state.” What they don’t acknowledge, though, is that atheism is a religionsecularism is a religion and relativism is a religion — so why don’t the same rules apply? They do, but we’re waiting for a lawsuit to make it happen.

Note: SEL 2.0 may violate the Education Parental Rights laws of some states. For example, SEL 2.0 may be in conflict with NC’s law, as SEL 2.0 provides moral training that may not be considered to be under the direction of parents.

SEL 3.0

In the meantime, there is a clever solution to accomplish the Stated Objectives that avoids the religion minefields: properly teaching Critical Thinking. A good discussion of this is here. Also see this study that verifies this as legitimate.

OBJECTIVES are just the Stated Objectives. Again, there are no hidden objectives.

METHODOLOGY is to teach children to use and enjoy Critical Thinking. Amazingly, that will bring about every one of the five Stated Objectives!

Let’s take an example: Make better decisions. We all make thousands of decisions, big and small. It’s in our best interest — and (in most cases) society’s best interest — if we use Critical Thinking for these. For example, students should Critically Think about managing their time effectively (e.g., for homework). Doing that would directly benefit them, and indirectly benefit our society.

Considering the power of Critical Thinking, SEL 1.0 would certainly be promoting it, right? NO! They are advocating feelings over intellect, group conformity over individualism, etc. Look at their websites for “Critical Thinking” and it’s only mentioned in passing. Although it is not acknowledged, they are opposed to Critical Thinking as Critical Thinking and group conformity (SEL 1.0) are at odds.

How does Critical Thinking fit in with SEL 2.0? Since the term “Critical Thinking” did not come about for centuries after the Bible was written, you won’t find it there. However, the messages in the Bible are entirely consistent with Critical Thinking. (See here for a good discussion about this.)

Since those who believe in God are faced with the challenges of atheism, secularism, relativism, etc., etc., if they are not Critical Thinkers, they will likely become easy prey.

The bottom line is that SEL 3.0 is the most practical and least problematic way to bring about the initial five Stated Objectives, in US Public Schools. (In Catholic Schools a combination of SEL 2.0 and SEL 3.0 would be ideal.)

Note: SEL 3.0 will not likely violate Education Parental Rights state laws, as there is no religion involved in using the Critical Thinking approach.

There is one caveat though to SEL 3.0!

The Left has been aggressive in perverting everyday terminology to suit their political agendas. Be on the lookout for them to distort the concept of Critical Thinking as well. However, if you are a true Critical Thinker you will not be fooled.


PS — A good discussion: The Power of Independent Thought In A Divisive World.

Equipped with an inner compass, critical thinkers are less vulnerable to the manipulations of those trying to control narratives for their own gain. Their minds remain permeable to new data but impervious to disempowering agendas. They choose which voices to tune into, instructing their attention to amplify the insightful, while tuning out the deceptive. From this intentional space, they distill signal from noise. While powerful entities expend enormous resources trying to manipulate how people think, the critical thinker sees through these efforts. Their connection to source provides a clear window into reality.


©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Americans Should Take Islamism Very Seriously thumbnail

Americans Should Take Islamism Very Seriously

By Dr. Thomas Patterson

In a speech following 9/11, President Bush assured us that in spite of this terrorist attack, all humans deep in their hearts long for freedom and brotherhood. It’s a comforting sentiment, but it’s not true.

Radical Islamists openly proclaim their disdain for freedom as another decadent Western value. Iranian street crowds commonly chant “Death to America.” They are deadly serious. Radicalized Muslims think and behave so radically different than we do that we keep dangerously misjudging them and making massive blunders in our adversarial dealings with them (think Iran nuclear deal).

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a leading Muslim reformer, recently explained in the pages of the Arizona Republic that not all Muslims are Islamists. Some are moderate, even members of secular political movements such as the Iranian Women’s Revolution. But Islamists are the dominant side of the House of Islam, in part due to their massive financing by oil-rich Persian Gulf tribes. This allows them to control Islamic propaganda and education.

For Islamists, the sole purpose of life is complete submission to the will of Allah, as interpreted by their imams and scholars. Unfortunately for the world, what Allah wants is nothing short of complete domination, the establishment of a hegemonic caliphate and the subjugation of all non-Muslims.

Thus, the life of an Islamist is an unceasing war or “jihad” in pursuit of this ultimate goal. No boundaries are acknowledged in this quest. Kidnapping, beheading, rape, murder of innocent civilians, including their own, torture and atrocities of all kinds are not even deemed regrettable but are applauded.

These Islamists don’t fight wars for traditional reasons. They don’t battle for independence, territory, resources, or national pride. Their single goal is annihilation or subjugation of their enemies, which the Quran defines as all non-believers, especially Jews.

The problematic response of America and the West to this religion-based violence is appeasement and accommodation. We can solve our differences with talks! Surely if they understood how much we are willing to concede to bring matters to a peaceful conclusion, they would work with us.

Bad idea. To the Islamist warlords, appeasement is merely a sign of weakness. It’s a green light to ramp up the aggression.

Anthony Blinken’s trip to the Middle East to beg for a cease-fire was a telling fool’s errand. It undercut our ally Israel, which is in a bilateral existential war with radical Islamists. It gives Hamas a chance to rest, recruit, and rearm. Moreover, it has zero chance of bringing about a more immediate or favorable resolution of hostilities.

Our current American leadership appears incapable of comprehending the potential mortal danger we are in. They want to believe the “bad” Muslims are only a tiny minority. They think that if we can only defeat Hamas or Al-Qaeda or whatever terrorist organization is currently rampaging, they will surrender and all will be well.

It’s not just Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran we are fighting, but an entire global mindset, a medieval anti-western ideology of evil. For each specific foe we defeat, there are always others to replace them. Jihadists actually welcome martyrdom because it assures hero status and a better afterlife.

Americans need to understand also that an important part of jihad – the imperative to eventually kill or convert – is subversion from within. Millions of immigrant Muslims worldwide have no intention of assimilating. They are taught that their duty is not to learn the ways of their new country but to infiltrate their culture and demand accommodation.

They are seeing some success. Young Americans who are the product of our inept educational system deny that Israel has the right to defend itself. Nearly half agree that the horrific war crimes of Hamas were justified. Tens of thousands fill the streets chanting for the elimination of the Jewish state. The students weren’t born with this mindset. They learned it from radicalized authority figures.

We Americans deserve to be proud of our history as a fair, compassionate member of the international community. But being a good neighbor shouldn’t require suicide.

We may not wish to be at war with Islamism, but they’re waging deadly war against us. Meanwhile, Americans fret about climate change and Islamophobia. Time to wake up.

*****

This article was published in AZ Free News and is reproduced with permission.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

A Nobel for a Student of Civilization thumbnail

A Nobel for a Student of Civilization

By Peter Jacobsen

The 2023 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (colloquially referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics) was awarded to economist Claudia Goldin.

To preface this article, I don’t believe there should be a Nobel Prize in economics, as I’ve pointed out before. My reasoning on this is in line with previous Nobel winner F.A. Hayek who said, “The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”

There is no need for a leading scholar in the field of economics. The logic of economic laws combined with the application of institutional details is a method accessible to all. By conferring a Nobel, the committee risks conferring a “priestly” advisor status to a profession that should be filled with lowly philosophers—to borrow a metaphor from George Mason Economics professors Boettke, Coyne, and Leeson.

However, the fact is there is a Nobel prize in economics (or a Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Memory of Nobel for the nitpickers out there). Since there is a prize, I think it’s worthwhile to highlight when prizes are awarded to economists who, like Hayek, reflect the humility needed for the profession to succeed. I think Claudia Goldin is a good choice for exactly this reason.

When thinking about Nobel prizes in economics, I think it’s useful to differentiate between prizes given to those interested in trying to control the future of the economy and prizes given to students of how economic laws have manifested throughout history.

In my opinion, the 2019 Nobel Prize awarded to Duflo and Banerjee represents the former. Duflo’s published address to the American Economics Association titled The Economist as Plumber has the following abstract:

“As economists increasingly help governments design new policies and regulations, they take on an added responsibility to engage with the details of policy making and, in doing so, to adopt the mindset of a plumber. Plumbers try to predict as well as possible what may work in the real world, mindful that tinkering and adjusting will be necessary since our models give us very little theoretical guidance on what (and how) details will matter. This essay argues that economists should seriously engage with plumbing, in the interest of both society and our discipline.”

To Duflo, the right way forward is for economists to tinker and adjust things in the economy in order to benefit the interests of society. This however, is the wrong way forward. As I’ve written previously,

“Why can’t economists offer solutions the way plumbers do? To put it simply, the economy is not a closed system of pipes. There are no definite pipes and therefore no clogs, backups, or leakagesWhy should we believe someone with a degree, a blackboard, or a computer can do a better job planning people’s lives than they can themselves?

So what, then, should economists do? First, the economist has a role to play in using economic reasoning as a “prophylactic against popular fallaciesin policy-making. This is why economist Ludwig von Mises argues,

“Economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him.”

But this isn’t the only proper role for an economist. The economist can also be a student of civilization and history. Economic history as a field is severely underrated. In a world that demands prediction as a means of controlling economic outcomes, economic history humbly looks back at how economic rules manifested in times already past. By its nature, the field of economic history considers what actually happened rather than what can be controlled.

This isn’t to say that some don’t try to use findings in history to forecast future facts and tinker with the economy, but the field is less predisposed to this sort of thing.

Goldin’s work fits in with this view of the economist as a student of civilization. Consider the explanation of the Prize given on the Nobel website. The press release says,

“This year’s Laureate in the Economic Sciences, Claudia Goldin, provided the first comprehensive account of women’s earnings and labour market participation through the centuries. Her research reveals the causes of change, as well as the main sources of the remaining gender gap. Women are vastly underrepresented in the global labour market and, when they work, they earn less than men. Claudia Goldin has trawled the archives and collected over 200 years of data from the US, allowing her to demonstrate how and why gender differences in earnings and employment rates have changed over time.” (emphasis added)

Notice what’s being highlighted in the description of her prize—it isn’t policy recommendations. Goldin is being praised for her hard work searching through historical archives to study women’s role in the labor market. This information was then used to sort out which explanations of the wage gap were best. Here’s a graphic that illustrates her findings.

I’ve noticed some on Twitter scoff at some of Goldin’s findings as obvious. This is a mistake for three reasons. First, people underrate the extent to which the findings seem obvious because they’ve already been unknowingly fed the results of Goldin’s work without knowing it.

Academic findings are often distributed to the public in such a way that the public does not learn who or where the findings come from.

Second, even insofar as this explanation may seem plausible without evidence verifying it, there are many explanations that sound plausible for complex social phenomena. The question is which of the plausible explanations is the most influential on real-world phenomena? Goldin sorted out the best answer from a myriad of plausible answers.

The laws of economics are often straightforward to understand. It does not surprise the average person that people buy less of something when the price goes up. But how those laws manifest is not always obvious, and historical analysis can help the student of civilization uncover how it has happened in the past.

Finally, though the Nobel committee highlights her work on the wage gap in the press release, Goldin is a prolific researcher engaged in many topics. This thread does a deeper dive on many of her contributions.

It is a mistake to think of great advancements in economic inquiry as needing to be grand exercises in political planning done to plan a “better” society. Advancement often comes in the nitty-gritty work of diving into historical archives to create a data set no one has ever thought of before.

Goldin’s work reflects economists as truth-seekers, or, to use her word, detectives. In her paper The Economist as Detective, Goldin concludes with several pieces of wise advice including,

“Then be the best detective you can be. Don’t just ‘round up the usual suspects’; don’t simply look under the existing lamppost. Locate new suspects. Turn on lights where they have never shone before. Follow Holmes’s dictum that ‘There is nothing like first-hand evidence,’ as well as his admonition that “Any truth is better than indefinite doubt.”

Although I maintain that we should abolish the Nobel Prize in economics, I can’t help but be happy to see it awarded to someone searching for truth away from the usual lights.

*****

This article was published by FEE, The Foundation for Economic Education, and is reproduced with permission.

Image credit: Dreamstime

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Crisis of the West Revisited: Self-Flagellation and the Great Liberal Death Wish thumbnail

The Crisis of the West Revisited: Self-Flagellation and the Great Liberal Death Wish

By Daniel J. Mahoney

This crisis is nothing new.

From Sydney to London to untold numbers of American college campuses, we hear incendiary cries for destroying the Jewish state, for a new Jihad or Holy War, all in the name of an ostensibly noble and just “anti-colonialist” struggle. Tens of thousands march in major European cities, and with frenzied glee defend the indefensible. “From the river to the sea,” the mob of Islamists, Palestinians, activists, and radicals cry, shamelessly announcing their own genocidal sympathies and intent.

The “crisis of the West” is nothing new. In 1949, the political philosopher Leo Strauss lamented that the main currents of social science in the United States, and in the Western world more broadly, could not understand tyranny for what it was since they were blindly committed to the absurd position that “facts” had nothing to do with “values.” He added that a social science that could not speak reasonably, and forcefully, about the evil that is tyranny (especially in its modern ideological forms) was no better than a medical science that could not name and describe cancer. In the following decade, Raymond Aron and Hannah Arendt brought the full arsenal of political philosophy to bear on the “novel” form of tyranny that was totalitarianism and, in the process, lamented the indulgence of so many intellectuals toward it.

In 1964, James Burnham published a still potent and relevant book called The Suicide of the West, where he took aim at Western self-hatred, and romanticism about what would soon be called the Third World (some of which came to resemble “Caliban’s kingdoms” in the striking and provocative words of Paul Johnson in Modern Times), and the degeneration of a once noble and hardy liberalism into rank sentimentality, free-floating compassion, and a suicidal preference for our murderous and tyrannical enemies over our sometimes imperfect friends and even our own country and civilization.

By 1970, the great English writer and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge could write with eloquence and biting wit about “The Great Liberal Death Wish” in a seminal 1970 essay by that name. Muggeridge saw in the decayed liberal mind a perverse preference for nihilistic self-flagellation that led to the systematic “depreciating and deprecating” of “every aspect of our Western way of life.” God and all moral certitudes were dethroned even as “a Praetorian Guard of ribald students, maintained at the public expense,” were “ready at the drop of a hat to go into action, not only against their own weak-kneed bemused academic authorities but also against any institution or organ for the maintenance of law and order still capable of functioning, especially the police.” These words could have been written in the summer of 2020 amidst the violence, mayhem, and grotesque self-flagellation that followed the death of George Floyd, or in the hours and days after the savage Hamas assault on Israeli innocents on October 7, 2023. Muggeridge went on to opine that if, and when, the West fell, it would not be the result of a barbarian invasion, not because of the murderous enmity of communists, fascists, and Nazis, but because of the suicidal death wish of liberalism gone badly awry. It is hard to say that Muggeridge was wrong.

The better liberals, humane and decent people, are rightly shocked by professors, students, and activists who celebrate or apologize for the savage nihilism of Hamas or who think that these cruel ideologues and terrorists, heedless to the lives of their own people, whose deaths they relish for the propaganda value, somehow represent the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people. But what reason do we have for being surprised? English departments everywhere have given up teaching literature and humane letters and now specialize in the hate-filled jargon that defines “post-colonial” studies and discourse. “Intersectionality” is the order of the day—everyone who desires to be ideologically correct must unthinkingly parrot demands for CRT, gender ideology, abortion on demand, environmental extremism, sympathy and support for radical regimes and ideologies, contempt for religion and traditional morality, and a hatred of the West—above all for Israel, which is freely compared to apartheid South Africa and, most obscenely of all, Nazi Germany. DEI departments on most campuses enforce this new regime in a totalitarian spirit that is hardly “soft” or benign. For too long, economistic and anti-intellectual conservatives thought this had little to do with the “real world” and still proudly sent their children to utterly corrupt but still prestigious universities and liberal arts colleges.

Political correctness has been the order of the day for many years now, but somehow former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, the quintessentially “moderate” politician, just noticed. He is a decent human being, and I am glad he is appalled by the fact that the University of Pennsylvania was incapable of truly, unequivocally condemning what Hamas so brutally did to innocents on October 7, 2023. He will no longer be a benefactor of this corrupt institution. But why precisely was he surprised? Penn was only being itself when it shamelessly indulged the enemies of Israel—and Western civilization. This is a university that took down as if in a parody of political correctness, a picture of William Shakespeare in its English department. It regularly encourages every manifestation of crude, ritualistic anti-Western, and “anti-colonial” ideology.

The institution has long hounded conservative and other independent-minded faculty (and students) for not toeing the party line. Progressive ideology requires absolute fealty to the cause. To be sure, many Arabs and Palestinians (and their Western sympathizers) freely give way to Jew-hatred. But progressives hate Israel mainly because they hate themselves and the Western world of which they are a part. A figure long at the head of this charge, the radical intellectual Noam Chomsky, accused Cambodian refugees of exaggerating the “excesses” of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and wrote a foreword to a book by the French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Chomsky had no sympathy for monstrous regimes but he was adamantly committed, and remains committed, to the view that the United States, and the Western world more broadly, is the primary author of evil in the world. Chomsky embodies the reductio ad absurdum of self-flagellating radicalism.

Writing in The Abolition of Man in 1943, the Christian apologist and man of letters C.S. Lewis wondered why our contemporary “men without chests,” who had abandoned both reason and faith, who confused moral judgment with mere emotivism, and who belittled the virile virtues and the essential connections between reason and a spirited regard for liberty and civilization, were surprised by the inevitably destructive consequences of their doctrines. In words that stick to memory and that are as relevant as ever, Lewis writes:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Those false liberals who actively supported the progressivist degradation of our colleges and universities ought to be ashamed of themselves. Those who marched with the totalitarian Marxists and Maoists of BLM (who now predictably cheer Hamas on) in the summer of 2020—whether foolish white progressives or “useful idiots” like Senator Mitt Romney—are complicit in the madness that has taken hold of our political culture. They are also fools, naïfs.

As Russianist Gary Saul Morson argued in a powerful piece that appeared recently in The Wall Street Journal (“Dostoevsky Knew: It Can Happen Here,” WSJ, October 18, 2023), those ideologues and intellectuals who justify the unjustifiable would do it to us if they had the chance. As Morson argues, the militant “anti-colonialism” that is regnant today on our campuses and in bien-pensant intellectual circles is only the latest totalitarian ideology to justify the destruction of their “designated enemies.” And the soft leftists—the naïve fellow travelers—always go first. One thinks of the politically correct bourgeoisie in St. Petersburg, as described so vividly in Solzhenitsyn’s The Red Wheel (March 1917), who proudly wore red and waved red flags to display their fine feelings and progressive leanings. They were the first to be condemned as class enemies and marched off to the camps in Lenin’s new totalitarian dispensation. It is high time for their American counterparts to be “mugged by reality” before it is too late for them, and for the rest of us.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Report: U.S. Colleges Received $13 Billion from Mostly Authoritarian Regimes thumbnail

Report: U.S. Colleges Received $13 Billion from Mostly Authoritarian Regimes

By Family Research Council

On Monday, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) released a report revealing that American colleges and universities have received approximately $13 billion in undisclosed funds from foreign governments, many of which are authoritarian regimes such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. As the report and experts are noting, there appears to be a correlation between colleges that received money from Middle Eastern regimes and increased levels of anti-Semitic campus violence.

The report found that from “2015-2020, Institutions that accepted money from Middle Eastern donors, had, on average, 300% more antisemitic incidents than those institutions that did not.” Two of the top four countries who gave the most money to U.S. colleges were Qatar (number one on the list with over $2.7 billion) and Saudi Arabia (number four with other $1 billion), both of which are ruled by authoritarian regimes that use Islamic Sharia law as the basis for governance.

Notably, two of the top three universities that received the most undisclosed funds from foreign governments were Cornell University (number two on the list with over $1.2 billion) and Harvard University (number three with almost $900,000,000). At Cornell, the campus has been shaken by a series of anti-Semitic incidents, including the arrest of a student who threatened to “shoot up a dining hall that caters to Jewish students and execute other Jews with an ‘assault rifle.’” This followed the discovery of anti-Semitic graffiti on campus and a professor who stated that Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel that killed 1,400 mostly civilians was “exhilarating.”

Meanwhile, Harvard has seen numerous anti-Semitic incidents proliferate on its campus. Immediately following the October 7 attack, 34 student organizations signed a statement blaming the “Israeli regime” for “all unfolding violence.” In an open letter to Harvard’s president on November 4, alumnus Bill Ackman described what he discovered during a townhall he held with Jewish students on campus:

“Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images. On-campus protesters on the Widener Library steps and elsewhere shout ‘Intifada! Intifada! Intifada! From the River to the Sea, Palestine Shall Be Free!’”

On Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” FRC’s Senior Fellow for Education Meg Kilgannon expressed alarm at the number of universities that are illegally hiding the acquisition of funds from foreign governments.

“You’re dealing with a university system in the United States that has completely been absorbed by moral relativism,” she contended. “They’re certainly mostly anti-Israel, and definitely a lot of them are anti-American. So the fact that they’re taking this money and they’re not disclosing it, it’s evidence that they consider themselves above the law or they just don’t care to be held accountable for what they’re doing.”

Kilgannon further observed that the influence of Islamist regimes on college campuses has a long history. “[A]fter 9/11 … you had universities and colleges looking for Islamophobia everywhere they could find it. … And so a lot of this funding was happening through programs where they were trying to educate Americans about how Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all just get along … [T]hat was 20 years ago. Here we are now. And they’ve got a lot of money streaming through those channels and organizations that they set up on campus.”

The overall conclusion of the NCRI report stated that “A massive influx of foreign, concealed donations to American institutions of higher learning, much of it from authoritarian regimes with notable support from Middle Eastern sources, reflects or supports heightened levels of intolerance towards Jews, open inquiry, and free expression.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Real Scandal: Covid Inquiry’s Failure thumbnail

The Real Scandal: Covid Inquiry’s Failure

By Will Jones

The real Covid scandal is emerging right in front of the inquiry’s nose, writes Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph: Britain could have escaped the horrors of lockdown, but nobody pulled apart the doom models driving it. Here’s an excerpt.

Let’s go back to when much of the world had copied the Wuhan lockdown, with two major exceptions: Britain and Sweden. In both countries, public health officials were reluctant to implement a lockdown theory that had no basis in science. Ditto the case for mandatory masks.

The public had responded: mobile-phone data showed millions were already staying home. Could you really put an entire nation under house arrest, then mandate masks, if you had no evidence that either policy would work?

Sweden held firm, but Britain buckled. It was all decided in 10 fateful days where, thanks to inquiries in both countries, we know a lot more about what happened.

The written evidence submitted by Dominic Cummings is one of the richest, most considered, and illuminating documents in the whole Covid mystery. He was, in effect, the Head of Staff to a Prime Minister he viewed with despair, even contempt.

He has since admitted that he was discussing the possibility of deposing his boss within “days” of his 2019 general election victory. So he was prone to taking matters into his own hands, trying to circumvent what he regarded as a dysfunctional system and an incompetent PM.

His frustration, at first, was directed at the public-health officials who resisted lockdown. SAGE advisers were, at the time, unanimously against it. Even Professor Neil Ferguson fretted that lockdown might be “worse than the disease.” Was this the cool, firm voice of science – or the blinkered inertia of sleepy Whitehall?

Cummings suspected the latter and commissioned his own analysis from outsiders, whose models painted a far more alarming picture. He knew these voices would be dismissed as “tech bros.” But, he says, “I was inclined to take the ‘tech bros’ and some scientists dissenting from the public-health consensus more seriously.”

There was no SAGE modelling until quite late on but, soon, models and disaster-graphs were everywhere. Cummings’s evidence includes photos taken in No. 10 of hand-drawn charts with annotations like “100,000+ people dying in corridors.” He says he told Boris Johnson that failure to lock down would end in a “zombie apocalypse movie with unburied bodies.” The PM asked him, if this was all true, “why aren’t Hancock, Whitty, Vallance telling me this?”

It’s a very good question. Cummings told him the health team “haven’t listened and absorbed what the models really mean.” Soon, Neil Ferguson’s doom models were published – and making headway across the world. Britain’s scientists fell in behind the modellers.

It was a different story in Sweden where Johan Giesecke, a former state epidemiologist, had returned to the Public Health Agency and was reading Ferguson’s models in disbelief. Remember mad cow disease, when four million English livestock had been slaughtered to prevent the disease spreading?

“They thought 50,000 people would die,” he told his staff. “How many did? 177.” He recalled Ferguson saying 200 million might die from bird flu when just 455 did. Modellers, he argued, had been calamitously wrong in the past. Should society really be closed now on their say so?

On March 18th, Cummings had asked Demis Hassabis, an AI guru, to attend Sage. His verdict? “Shut everything down ASAP.” On the same day, Giesecke’s team in Stockholm was pulling apart Ferguson’s models, finding flaw after flaw. When some Swedish academics started to call for lockdown based on Ferguson’s work, Giesecke agreed to go on Swedish television to debate them. As did Anders Tegnell, his protégé. They gave interviews non-stop, in the street and on train platforms, making the case for staying open. They showed it was possible to win the argument.

Nelson points out that while one internal UK report said Covid patients would need up to 600,000 hospital beds, the actual number peaked at 34,000. Johnson was told that 90,000 ventilators were needed, but the actual peak was 3,700 – while all the extra ventilators ordered cost an extraordinary £569 million and ended up in an MoD warehouse gathering dust.

Noting, correctly, that new Covid cases were falling before the first lockdown, Nelson insists that the reason lockdown was not needed was because the voluntary behaviour change was enough to “force” the virus “into reverse.” This, too, is wrong, and also dangerous (though not so dangerous as lockdown) as it implies that even if lockdown is not required, people still need (and need to be encouraged) to cower in their homes when a virus is spreading. But to what end, since the virus is not going to go away and everyone will be exposed sooner or later?

The only realistic answer is some kind of healthcare rationing – stay home to protect the NHS and all that. But as Nelson notes, healthcare systems were nowhere near overload, and besides one of the main harms of lockdown – “eight million NHS appointments that never took place,” as Nelson puts it – is people staying away from getting the healthcare they need, so expecting them to do that voluntarily (and encouraging them to do so) hardly helps matters. Lockdown is bad because it keeps people away from healthcare, but we don’t need lockdown because people voluntarily stay away from healthcare is hardly a sound argument.

But the fundamental error in the ‘voluntary behaviour change was necessary’ position is that it fails to recognise that Covid waves, just like waves of other similar viruses, fall by themselves without any behaviour change. You need only look at charts showing winter flu waves and successive Covid waves to see that they all have the same shape – straight up and straight down. It’s the characteristic shape of a respiratory virus outbreak and there is no sign of it being affected by shifts in behaviour to any noticeable degree.

Thus, there is no reason to think that behaviour change – everyone staying home – was necessary to bring the first wave down any more than it was for any later wave or the flu every winter. The cause of the drop is likely in all cases to be much more due to the susceptibility of the population to the circulating strain (typically no more than 10-20 percent of the country are infected in any given virus wave) than any hiding away behind closed doors.

This point aside, Nelson is being a hero in making a big thing out of the failures of lockdown and the inadequacies of the Covid Inquiry to address the evidence properly – even making Carl Heneghan’s overlooked inquiry report in the cover piece for this week’s Spectator. Both Heneghan’s piece and Nelson’s Telegraph write-up are worth reading in full.

Stop Press: Heneghan and Tom Jefferson provide data from Lombardy which show behaviour change was not needed to bring down the first wave. Italy was locked down from March 8th (starting with the North), a date which coincided with when new daily Covid hospitalisations plateaued, as the following chart shows. Since new infections precede hospitalisations by at least a week, this indicates that the epidemic had stopped its explosive growth well before the lockdown.

*****

This article was published by the Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Elementary School Ditches Veteran’s Day for UN-Sponsored ‘Namaste’ Day thumbnail

Elementary School Ditches Veteran’s Day for UN-Sponsored ‘Namaste’ Day

By The Geller Report

And you wonder why the younger generations are so malformed and ignorant?

These heroes fought and in many cases paid the ultimate price for these spoiled, entitled losers to crap all over them.

The UN should not be honored, it should be dismantled, it is the global arm of oppressive regimes worldwide.

Elementary school replaces Veterans Day celebration with United Nations ‘Peace Assembly’ to recognize ‘tolerance’

By: Andrew Chapados, The Blaze, November 10, 2023

An elementary school in Redmond, Washington, canceled its annual Veterans Day celebrations in favor of recognizing a United Nations-sponsored International Day of Tolerance.

Benjamin Rush Elementary in the Lake Washington School District typically holds a Veterans Day assembly for its students, featuring the school choir singing “It’s a Grand Old Flag,” “This Land Is Your Land,” and the national anthem, according to 770 KTTH.

Instead, the school’s choir will sing songs relating to the theme of “Tolerance, Acceptance and Kindness,” with titles such as “Live in Peace,” “Namaste,” and “Amani Utupe.” The latter was composed by Patsy Ford Simms and was written in English and Swahili with the alleged meaning of “grant us peace, give us courage.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Weekend Read: Imprimis – Inside the Transgender Empire thumbnail

Weekend Read: Imprimis – Inside the Transgender Empire

By Christopher F. Rufo

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on September 12, 2023, at the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship on Hillsdale’s Washington, D.C., campus, as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

The transgender movement is pressing its agenda everywhere. Most publicly, activist teachers are using classrooms to propagandize on its behalf and activist health professionals are promoting the mutilation of children under the euphemistic banner of “gender-affirming care.” The sudden and pervasive rise of this movement provokes two questions: where did it come from, and how has it proved so successful? The story goes deeper than most Americans know.

In the late 1980s, a group of academics, including Judith Butler, Gayle Rubin, Sandy Stone, and Susan Stryker, established the disciplines of “queer theory” and “transgender studies.” These academics believed gender to be a “social construct” used to oppress racial and sexual minorities, and they denounced the traditional categories of man and woman as a false binary that was conceived to support the system of “heteronormativity”—i.e., the white, male, heterosexual power structure. This system, they argued, had to be ruthlessly deconstructed. And the best way to achieve this, they argued further, was to promote transgenderism. If men can become women, and women men, they believed, the natural structure of Creation could be toppled.

Susan Stryker, a male-to-female transgender professor currently at the University of Arizona, revealed the general thrust and tone of transgender ideology in his Kessler Award Lecture at the City University of New York in 2008, describing his work as “a secular sermon that unabashedly advocates embracing a disruptive and refigurative genderqueer or transgender power as a spiritual resource for social and environmental transformation.” In Stryker’s best-known essay, “My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage,” he contends that the “transsexual body” is a “technological construction” that represents a war against Western society. “I am a transsexual, and therefore I am a monster,” Stryker writes. And this monster, he continues, is destined to channel its “rage and revenge” against the “naturalized heterosexual order”; against “‘traditional family values’”; and against the “hegemonic oppression” of nature itself.

It is clear from this and from other transgender scholarship that the transgender movement is inherently political. Its reconstruction of personal identity is meant to advance a collective political reconstruction or transformation. Some trans activists even view their movement as the future of Marxism. In a collection of essays titled Transgender Marxism, activist writer Rosa Lee argues that trans people can serve as the new vanguard of the proletariat, promising to abolish heteronormativity in the same way that orthodox Marxism promised to abolish capitalism.

“In a different era,” Lee writes,

Marxists spoke of the construction of a “new socialist man” as a crucial task in the broader process of socialist construction. Today, in a time of both rising fascism and an emergent socialist movement, our challenge is transsexualising our Marxism. We should think [of] the project of transition to communism in our time—communisation—as including the transition to new communist selves, new ways of being and relating to one another.

This is the great project of the transgender movement: to abolish the distinctions of man and woman, to transcend the limitations established by God and nature, and to connect the personal struggle of trans individuals to the political struggle to transform society in a radical way.

From the Fringes to the Center

The trans movement was hatched, then, on the fringes of American academia. But how did it move so quickly to the center of American public life? Like many other things, it began with a flood of cash, as some of the wealthiest people in the country began devoting enormous sums of money to promote transgenderism.

One of these people is Jennifer Pritzker, who was born James Pritzker in 1950. After serving several years in the U.S. Army, Pritzker went into business, having inherited a sizable part of the Hyatt hotel fortune. In 2013, he announced a male-to-female gender transition and was celebrated in the press as the “first trans billionaire.” Almost immediately, he began donating untold millions to universities, schools, hospitals, and activist organizations to promote queer theory and trans medical experiments.

This money was allied with political power, as Pritzker’s cousin, Illinois Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker, signed legislation in 2019, his first year in office, to inject gender theory into the state education curriculum and to direct state Medicaid funds toward transgender surgeries. Speaking before an audience of trans activists, he proclaimed:

[O]ur state government is firmly on your side, on the side of every gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer person in the state of Illinois. . . . Those of you in this room know better than anyone that marriage equality was never the endgame. . . . We’re gonna make sure that all transgender Illinoisans are ensured their basic human rights and that healthcare services are provided to them so that they can thrive.

Here’s an example of how this combination of well-funded activism and political influence works in practice: Pritzker-funded activists at Lurie Children’s Hospital (the largest children’s hospital in Chicago) provide local schools with training, materials, and personnel who promote gender transitions for children, using the hospital’s reputation to give their ideology a scientific veneer. And the more one investigates, the worse it gets. Children are exposed, for instance, not only to trans ideology, but to concepts such as “kink” (unusual tastes in sexual behavior), “BDSM” (bondage, domination, submission, and masochism), binders to flatten breasts, and prosthetic penises.

Lurie Children’s Hospital, through its outreach presentations in Chicago public schools, encourages teachers and school administrators to support “gender diversity” in their districts, automatically “affirm” students who announce sexual transitions, and “communicate a non-binary understanding of gender” to children in the classroom. The objective, as one version of the presentation suggests, is to disrupt the “entrenched [gender] norms in western society” and facilitate the transition to a more “gender creative” world. School districts are encouraged to designate “Gender Support Coordinators” to help facilitate children’s sexual and gender transitions, which, under the recommended “confidentiality” policy, can be kept secret from parents and families.

In effect, this results in a sophisticated school-to-gender-clinic pipeline. Teachers, counselors, doctors, and activists on social media and elsewhere—many of whom are employed or subsidized by members of the Pritzker family—push children in the direction of what Chicago-area “detransitioner” Helena Kerschner, recalling her own experience, calls “the trans identity rabbit hole.” And despite frequent claims to the contrary, this is not a temporary or reversible process. Of the children who begin puberty blockers, the medical literature suggests that approximately 95 percent move on to cross-sex hormones, and that 50 percent of the females who begin cross-sex hormone treatments move on to “trans-affirming” surgeries.

The Synthesis of All Oppressions

Another place my investigation of the trans movement has taken me is Highland Park, Michigan, a city of roughly 9,000 residents located about six miles north of downtown Detroit. Highland Park has been plagued by poverty, violence, and crime for decades. Many of its homes and businesses have been abandoned or demolished. It is teetering on the edge of insolvency, yet it is home to one institution that is overflowing with funds: the Ruth Ellis Center, metro Detroit’s central laboratory for the synthesis of transgender science and politics.

The Ruth Ellis Center’s marketing pitch is an amalgam of all the usual euphemisms: “trauma-informed care,” “restorative justice,” “harm reduction,” “racial equity,” and “gender-affirming care.” In the name of these things, the Ellis Center and its partners conduct large-scale medical experiments on a population of predominantly poor black youths.

Dr. Maureen Connolly, a pediatrician at Henry Ford Health, leads the Ellis Center’s medical partnership, providing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical referrals to scores of Detroit kids. Here’s how she describes the child sex-change process:

Transitioning is an umbrella term to describe the process that someone goes through to bring their external self more closely into alignment with their gender identity. For some people that might mean changing their gender expression and the clothes that they wear or how they wear their hair. It might mean using a new name and different pronouns. And that’s wonderful. For others, it can involve taking medication to make their body more closely aligned with how they identify in terms of gender—typically, that’s masculinizing or feminizing medications or hormone therapy. People can also choose to pursue gender-affirming surgeries, which are surgical interventions to bring their body more closely in alignment with their gender identity.

Keep in mind, again, that in the context of her role at the Ellis Center, Connolly is not talking here about the affluent, educated, male-to-female trans individuals who serve as the public face of the trans movement. She is mostly talking about kids from the Detroit ghetto who suffer from high rates of family breakdown, substance abuse, mental illness, and self-destructive behavior. As such, one might suppose that they are especially vulnerable to the claim that gender transition will solve all their problems.

“My name is Righteous, first and foremost,” says an Ellis Center patient who now identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns:

I think I might have been about eight years old when I remembered or that I recall having any thought of being transgender or gender non-conforming. . . . It felt like I was an outsider to this whole world of America. On top of not being, you know, a European-American, I was black. . . . Most of my dysphoria comes from people misgendering me. With gender-affirming care, I could get the hormones I needed for free.

Righteous is thus a perfect example of the new synthesis of transgender science and politics. She works as an activist not only for the trans movement, but also for a broader intersectional coalition (i.e., a coalition of oppressed and marginalized groups), including, for instance, the movement to abolish the police. She represents the identity of the oppressed by both nature and nurture and marshals this unique “positionality” to advance the full suite of left-wing social policies. 

Frankenstein Redux

In 1818, Mary Shelley wrote the famous novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. The premise of the book is that modern science, stripped from the constraints of ethics and nature, will end up creating monsters. “Trans-affirming” doctors are the post-modern version of the book’s protagonist, Doctor Frankenstein.

According to survey data, up to 80 percent of trans individuals suffer from serious psychopathologies and one-quarter of black trans youth attempt suicide each year. “Gender-affirming care” largely fails to solve these problems, yet the doctors use these failures to justify even more extreme interventions up to the final one: genital reconstruction.

Dr. Blair Peters is a plastic surgeon (he uses he/they pronouns) who performs trans genital surgeries at the publicly-funded Oregon Health & Science University and whose specialty is creating artificial sex organs. “I think what we’re becoming very known for at OHSU is genital surgery,” he says. “A prime example of that is a procedure called phalloplasty, which is the creation of a penis. And we now have a robotic vaginoplasty program [that] has been a kind of game changer for patient care.”

As I have previously detailed in City Journal, the process for robot-assisted vaginoplasty is gruesome:

According to a handbook published by OHSU, surgeons first cut off the head of the penis and remove the testicles. Then they turn the penile-scrotal skin inside out and, together with abdomen cavity tissue, fashion it into a crude, artificial vagina. “The robotic arms are put through small incisions around your belly button and the side of your belly,” the handbook reads. “They are used to create the space for your vaginal canal between your bladder and your rectum.”

This procedure is plagued with complications. OHSU warns of wound separation, tissue necrosis, graft failure, urine spraying, hematoma, blood clots, vaginal stenosis, rectal injury, fistula, and fecal accidents. Patients must stay in the hospital for a minimum of five days following the procedure, receiving treatment for surgical wounds and having fluid drained through plastic tubes. Once they are home, patients must continue transgender hormone treatments and manually dilate their surgically created “neo-vagina” in perpetuity; otherwise, the tissue will heal, and the cavity will close.

The castration business is booming. According to Peters, the gender clinic at OHSU has “the highest volume on the West Coast”—and with the help of the robot, his team can perform multiple vaginoplasties per day. The phalloplasty program has a 12-to-18-month waiting list for consultations and an additional three-to-six-month waiting list for surgical appointments.

A less common but more symbolically apt surgery performed by Peters and his colleagues is known as “nullification,” in which a smooth, continuous skin covering from the abdomen to the groin is created following a castration or vaginectomy. In other words, the genitalia are replaced by nothing. Nullification surgery is the perfect symbol for the ideology behind the trans movement: the pursuit of the Latin nullum, meaning “nothing”; or the related nihil, the root of the English word “nihilism.” Trans ideology is animated by a profound nihilism that denies human nature and enables barbarism in the name of progress.

***

The future of transgender medicine is in flux. Major American institutions have rallied to its support, with the major medical associations going so far as to call on the federal government to investigate and prosecute its critics. At the same time, some cracks are showing. Detransitioners, a group comprised of mostly young women who have accepted their biological sex after transitioning to various degrees, are going public about the dangers of gender medicine in deeply affecting personal terms. Organizations such as Do No Harm have filed lawsuits and launched advocacy campaigns to curb transgender procedures on minors. And increasing numbers of doctors, who had previously been cowed into silence, are beginning to speak out. State legislators have also taken notice. Earlier this year, I worked with whistleblowers at Texas Children’s Hospital to expose child sex-change procedures that were being conducted in secret. The exposé attracted the attention of Texas lawmakers, who immediately passed the final version of a bill to ban such procedures.

Jennifer Pritzker, Maureen Connolly, Blair Peters, and their ilk occupy the heights of power and prestige, but like Doctor Frankenstein they will not be able to escape the consequences of what they have created. They are condemning legions of children to a lifetime of sorrows and medical necessities, all based on dubious postmodern theories that do not meet the standard of Hippocrates’ injunction in his work Of the Epidemics: “First, do no harm.” Although individuals can be nullified, nature cannot. No matter how advanced trans pharmaceuticals and surgeries become, the biological reality of man and woman cannot be abolished; the natural limitations of God’s Creation cannot be transcended. The attempt to do so will elicit the same heartbreak and alienation captured in the final scene of Mary Shelley’s novel: the hulking monster, shunned by society and betrayed by his father, filled with despair and drifting off into the ice floes—a symbol of the consequence of Promethean hubris.

A doctor at a major children’s hospital had this to say about what puberty blockers do to a child’s mind, body, and soul:

This medication is called a “gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist” and it comes in the form of monthly injections or an implant. And because it simulates the activity of this hormone, it shuts down the activity of the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is this almond-sized structure in your brain, it’s one of the most primal structures we have, and it controls all the other hormonal structures in your body—your sexual development, your emotions, your fight-or-flight response, everything. . . . And I always think that if someone were to ask me, Where is it that you would look for the divine spark in each individual? I would say that it would be somewhere “beneath the inner chamber,” which is the Greek derivation of the term hypothalamus. To shut down that system is to shut down what makes us human.

This is why we must fight to put the transgender empire out of business forever.

*****

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and a distinguished fellow of Hillsdale College. He is the director of four documentaries for PBS and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Left Conquered Everything.

Imprimis is a publication of Hillsdale College. It is published 10 times a year. Imprimis and the extensive archive library can be accessed at imprimis.hillsdale.eduTo subscribe for reception by home mailing and/or emailing of Imprimis, click here.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Universities Hit With Civil Rights Complaints Alleging Tuition Programs Illegally Discriminate Based On Race thumbnail

Universities Hit With Civil Rights Complaints Alleging Tuition Programs Illegally Discriminate Based On Race

By The Daily Caller

  • The University of North Dakota (UND) and UND School of Law were hit with civil rights complaints this week by the Equal Protection Project over tuition reduction programs they allege violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • “These institutions of higher education in North Dakota seem to have taken it upon themselves to institute discrimination, which is not required and is in our view unlawful,” EPP founder William A. Jacobson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • A North Dakota State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) policy encourages institutions to use tuition waivers to “promote enrollment of a culturally diverse student body.”

Two North Dakota higher education institutions were hit this week with civil rights complaints over tuition reduction programs open only to specific racial groups.

The Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed civil rights complaints against the University of North Dakota (UND) and UND School of Law for tuition reduction programs that are “only available to non-white applicants,” according to complaints obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. UND’s website cites the authority of North Dakota State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) policy that encourages institutions to use tuition waivers to “promote enrollment of a culturally diverse student body.”

“These institutions of higher education in North Dakota seem to have taken it upon themselves to institute discrimination, which is not required and is in our view unlawful,” EPP founder William A. Jacobson told the DCNF.

UND’s Cultural Diversity Scholarship (CDS) program is open to students from underrepresented populations, which the university defines as “African American/Black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Latino/a/x, Hispanic American or Multiracial,” according to an Oct. 30 archive of the website. The UND School of Law offers a similar “Cultural Diversity Tuition Waiver” waiver program.

UND’s website now states that it is “currently reviewing awarding requirements for Fall 2024.”

“It’s particularly shocking to us that the University of North Dakota School of Law would do this,” he said. “Because if anybody should know better, it’s a law school.”

The complaints allege that the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

North Dakota University System (NDUS) Director of Communications and Media Billie Jo Lorius told the DCNF that each institution in the system “develops and administers its tuition and fee waiver programs to meet their needs using locally approved procedures.”

SBHE policy allows institutions to offer waivers and states that, “Institutions are encouraged to use this authority to promote enrollment of a culturally diverse student body, including members of Indian tribes and economically disadvantaged students, for the benefit of all students and the academic community, to promote enrollment of graduate students and research, and for other purposes consistent with an institution’s mission,” according to the policy manual.

EPP filed a complaint in October against another North Dakota school, Bismarck State College, for a “Cultural Diversity Waiver” (CDW) program that offers a $1,250 tuition reduction per semester for “historically underrepresented” racial groups. BSC previously told the DCNF that its program is “in compliance” with SBHE policy.

After the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in higher education in June, Jacobson said there shouldn’t be any question that these programs are illegal.

“This is much worse than what Harvard and USC were accused of doing,” he said, noting the Court found taking race into consideration unlawful. “Here, you have absolute barriers based on race and ethnicity.”

“We also believe it’s extremely important that [UND] remedy this situation, not just by stopping future conduct, but by compensating students who missed out on these opportunities because of their race or ethnicity,” Jacobson said.

UND, UND School of Law and Republican North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum did not respond to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: College Faces Civil Rights Complaint Over ‘Blatantly Discriminatory’ Tuition Waiver Program

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Campus Anti-Semitism Can’t be Stopped Without Dismantling the DEI Complex thumbnail

Campus Anti-Semitism Can’t be Stopped Without Dismantling the DEI Complex

By Bruce Bialosky

The October 7th murderous terrorist attacks in Israel led to protests erupting on many college campuses. These protests were both verbal and somewhat physical on Israel and the Jewish people while Israel had yet to engage militarily. These protests were justifiably branded by many as anti-Semitic. There have been many calls for changes at numerous colleges. The only effective way to do that is by dismantling their DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs.

It is quite apparent that the connection is true. The explosion of anti-Semitism on campuses correlates to the growth of DEI staffing on college campuses. The more DEI staffing, the greater the increase in spreading the poison of DEI results and the disenfranchisement of disfavored groups like Jews.

Harvard is arguably the centerpiece of the anti-Semitism battle. After 34 student groups immediately protested against Israel, there was an immense backlash both nationally and from donors. Harvard’s president attended their Hillel’s Shabbat dinner (though not immediately) and denounced the school’s long history of anti-Semitism. This was a failed attempt to distract people from the current rampant anti-Semitism taking place. She then appointed an eight-member advisory committee charged with “disrupting and dismantling” anti-Semitism on campus.

We must start with the question of what happened to the last advisory committee. The Harvard Antisemitism Advisory Committee (HAAC) was established in 2019 to “advise the university on matters related to anti-Semitism and to recommend strategies for addressing anti-Semitism on campus.” The group had such impressive members as Ruth Wisse and RBG (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). They provided a list of suggestions to combat anti-Semitism on campus including hiring more staff to focus on prevention and education and developing a more robust reporting system for anti-Semitic incidents.

But unless you attack the source of the problem you have no chance of making changes. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ranked Harvard at the rear of 248 participating colleges for a free speech environment. Harvard was rated abysmally with a score of -10 out of 100. It seems the prestigious HAAC had little effect on expanding free speech which is inherently necessary to the cause of minimizing anti-Semitism.

Their efforts for expanding education seem to have likewise fallen flat. A prime example of that failure is the annual Israeli Apartheid Week run by the Palestine Solidarity Committee. Let’s emphasize the malicious ignorance of the week’s title because there is nothing “apartheid” about Israel, whose population includes 21% Muslim Arabs.

There were murals calling Israel racist and white supremacists at this “hate fest.” Apparently, none of the sponsors have been to Israel. Jews are a religion, not a race. There are people of all races who are citizens of Israel including the two million Arabs. Only ignorant fools would call the only country in history to willingly bring blacks into their country (Ethiopian Jews) in order to gain freedom. Harvard’s newspaper, The Crimson, is a prime example of this foolishness. Their editorial board pronounced themselves “proudly supportive” of the murals and BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction). What hope is there for the new advisory committee to counter this hatred if their own editorial board badly missed any suggestions from the prior committee?

The new “Advisory Committee” has Dara Horn (author/professor/Harvard grad) and my longtime friend Rabbi David Wolpe (Visiting Scholar at Harvard Divinity School), as a couple of top-notch choices. Do you think they can affect real change when the rest of the committee consists of Harvard establishment types? Will they address the failure of the previous prestigious panel and focus on the root cause of such intense anti-Semitism at Harvard? Or will it be another whitewash?

Planning for the Washington November 4th rally in support of Hamas has a foundation of roughly twenty groups. Each group has college chapters that freely operate on campus while Jewish groups are either banished or their speakers are cancelled. All of these groups are either far left politically or self-defined Marxist operations. They are welcomed and encouraged by the DEI regimes on campuses. You can trace the growth of these groups on campuses directly to the growth of DEI and the exploding amount of personnel dedicated to this profane idea.

When you want to eradicate a disease in a tree, particularly when it has spread throughout the entirety of the plant, you must rip it out from its roots. Otherwise, it will regenerate, and you will be back in the same place you started. The idea of DEI is not to boost the position of certain groups; it is to minimize the value of disfavored groups. Jews are a primary example of disfavored groups by the DEI complex. A solution that does not dismantle DEI will simply be a band-aid and the ill effects of anti-Semitism will continue to explode.

The support of Israel is not a Jewish value. The support of Israel is an American value and if you don’t understand that, you don’t understand America.

*****

This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

There Is No AI Shortcut to Real Education thumbnail

There Is No AI Shortcut to Real Education

By The Catholic Thing

Dan Guernsey: Artificial Intelligence can neither love a student nor inspire greatness. Despondency and cynicism result when learning is isolated, unrecognized by other humans, or simply reduced to data sets.


Educational optimists predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will soon provide amazing efficiencies and progress in teaching and learning. There is no doubt that AI will benefit educators in their research, development of teaching materials, analysis of data, and administrative duties. And some older students, charged with creating certain artifacts, may find it of use.

But because it also portends dishonesty and disruption to a degree potentially catastrophic to student learning and to the sanctity of the student/teacher bond, AI’s presence in K-12 schools must be carefully restrained.  Chesterton’s advice that children ought not be subjected to educational projects and ideas younger than they are is prescient here. For it is quite possible that elements of AI in education will work against natural human development and provide not a shortcut to human formation, but a short circuit.

Youth need to be at home in the real world and with others. The world was made for them by a loving God. Educators must guide them in seeking and ascribing authentic meaning to those flawed but real experiences that make up the real world and real relationships. Students need to be re-integrated with themselves, others, and the natural world, and need to be re-enchanted with the beauty and meaning present in all things and share God’s delight in them.

For students inclined to see schoolwork as burdensome or useless, AI is a tempting shortcut. AI can instantly answer complex “show your work” math and science problems and write unique papers. Even so, some pedagogues celebrate this possible dismantling of conventional homework in the hopes teachers will be forced to focus on developing assignments that are personalized and that promote “critical thinking” and “authentic learning.”

While developing creative and effective assignments should be encouraged, educators cannot short-circuit the learning process by giving up on requiring students to engage at times in rote learning, writing, and calculating, even if it is easier now to cheat. AI speedbumps can be integrated into homework by breaking the writing process into multiple submissions, requiring feedback, more in-class writing, presentations, etc. But traditional homework must still be assigned to protect in-class instructional time.

Students and their parents must also be made keenly aware of how AI-aided deception and sloth short-circuit authentic learning and complex development. They must be convinced that a student’s complete human development will be their competitive advantage against AI job replacement.  Those who are grounded in reality and can solve people-based challenges will not want for employment in the future.

Students and parents must also be convinced that undisclosed use of generative AI is plagiarism and lying. Writing assignments, at their best, require multiple levels of critical thinking including synthesis, evaluation, and creativity. Students must be convinced of the need for extensive practice to develop these important human skills and that essays are given not to generate new knowledge for the human species but to develop their own understanding and cognitive power. If they get essays and ideas from generative AI, they will stunt their own capabilities – and the teacher’s ability to evaluate and improve them.

AI can also obstruct the teaching process if educators become bedazzled by AI’s ability to process and use student data. AI assisted by standardized tests can establish a student’s reading or math level and decide what instruction, texts, or problem sets should come next. It can seem like the ultimate personal teacher, who is not distracted by other students and has access to unlimited, perfectly tailored resources. As a perceived bonus, AI-assisted teachers may have more time to be a “guide on the side,” with less time for grading and lesson planning.

This apparent “win-win” is, in reality, a short-circuit.

While intelligent tutoring systems may have a place in homework when a teacher is not present, they can do greater harm than good if used significantly during class time. It may save time and provide individualized data, but this “personalization” can depersonalize instruction. The intoxicating pursuit of reading-level data can stymie real reading, which is much more than getting right responses to the linear text-based questions at the heart of computer-based instruction.

We need to maintain focus on the fact that students are taught to read because they are human beings who love to share stories and insights with each other, not just rack up points on reading levels. Teaching and learning are such fundamental and intimate human-to-human processes that farming out significant elements to computers is quite literally inhuman. Humans are social animals who learn best socially, in person, and in relationships. This was made abundantly and tragically clear during the COVID shutdowns.

The teacher’s modeling of human passion in engaging with truth, beauty, and goodness –wherever it arises – is fundamentally educative and irreplaceable. The teacher is also the source of real encouragement and affirmation for the student who at times struggles and at other times makes spectacular breakthroughs – both of which are access points of human intimacy and therefore demand real human response. AI can neither love the student nor inspire greatness. Despondency and cynicism result when human experiences and learning are isolated, unrecognized by other humans, or simply reduced to data sets.

Because the purpose of AI is to make interfacing with technology seamless, there is little danger that children who do not use AI in their schooling now will somehow not be able to use AI in the future. A much greater danger to children is leaving parts of them underdeveloped and their becoming trapped in addictive, unreal worlds. The proper response to this threat is to counter unreality with reality and the unhuman with the human at every opportunity. Anything that threatens mind/body/spirit unities must be roundly rejected.

Now is the time to re-embrace the humanities as they have been traditionally understood in education. Students need to perfect their humanity as technology de-humanizes it. Unmediated access to the greatest human accomplishments, presented and discussed by other humans who know and love them, even with their blemishes and misshapenness, is what students need and what will help them to love God, learning, and each other.

You may also enjoy:

Randall Smith’s Ed Tech and the Transformation of American Education

Francis X. Maier’s Redeemer of Man

AUTHOR

Daniel Guernsey

Dan Guernsey, Ed.D., is a Senior Fellow at The Cardinal Newman Society and Director of Ave Maria University’s Master of Education in Catholic Educational Leadership Program.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. © 2023 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

NYC: Pre-K Teacher Spreads Pro-Hamas Propaganda to Four-Year-Olds thumbnail

NYC: Pre-K Teacher Spreads Pro-Hamas Propaganda to Four-Year-Olds

By Jihad Watch

UPDATE: It turns out she is a dhimmi Christian, sold out to the Islamic agenda, as so many are.


Raising up a new generation of jihadis.

NYC pre-K teacher pushes anti-Israel agenda with lessons about ‘land theft, displacement and ethnic cleansing

by Deirdre Bardolf and Susan Edelman, New York Post, November 4, 2023:

A Manhattan pre-K teacher is spreading anti-Israel hate to the city’s youngest learners – and offering parents and teachers tips to indoctrinate kids to her left-wing agenda, educators and insiders told The Post.

Siriana Abboud, 29, a city Department of Education teacher at PS 59 in Midtown, offers social-media guides on how to talk to 4-year-olds about “land theft, displacement and ethnic cleansing.”

She encourages parents to take them to pro-Palestinian protests — while blasting Israel as a “fascist ethnostate” in her Instagram stories, even in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks by Hamas terrorists.

Abboud’s exclusive “teach-ins” for educators and activists cover Palestine, Zionism, and the “struggle against colonization.” She proselytized online that “teaching can never be radical or revolutionary, so long as you deny the ongoing and violent colonization of Palestine by Zionism” and that early education can be a “tool for liberation.”

“Justice-informed teaching means breaking down power imbalances I’ve been given as a classroom teacher,” she has said, and that “we aren’t teaching the truth if we’re silent on Palestine.”…

Read more.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED POSTE ON X:

Scoop: The owner of Caffe Aronne in Manhattan has been donating proceeds to the Israeli equivalence of the Red Cross. Staff at the Upper Eastside location became upset and began wearing Palestine symbols in protest before all quitting. Now, many in the Jewish and/or Israeli… pic.twitter.com/G4ffzZkiPN

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 7, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Israel tries to protect Gaza’s civilians

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps top dog: Oct. 7 massacre was ‘greatest success of the Islamic world’

Islamic Republic of Iran says US will ‘be hit hard’ if there is no ceasefire in Gaza

Hamas top dog: ‘America’s enemies are getting closer, day may come when they turn America into a thing of the past’

Aneesa Johnson at Georgetown, and Her ‘Deep-Seeded’ Hate for ‘Zio B**ches’

Senators to introduce legislation threatening to strike Iran if it expands conflict In Middle East 

Sudan: Islamic Jihadis Slaughter 773 Civilians, Including Teenagers, Women and Elderly

RELATED VIDEO: VIDEO OF HAMAS ATTACK IN ISRAEL. WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.