Author Topic: The Politics of Education  (Read 24335 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Triage Standards Aren’t Applied to a UCLA Medical Education
« Reply #100 on: March 20, 2024, 04:44:36 PM »
« Last Edit: March 21, 2024, 07:34:34 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #101 on: March 20, 2024, 06:31:51 PM »
 :cry: :cry: :cry:



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
More Protected Class Plagiarism
« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2024, 02:03:50 PM »
Couple interesting pieces re the latest plagiarism scandals to emerge in higher ed. For those who don’t know, “protected class” is educrat speak for minorities identified as worthy of extra protections. Every time I’d embark on a performance management effort for an underperforming employee the first question HR would ask is “are they a member of a protected class?”

Perhaps it’s just me, but it seems “protected” is turning into a synonym for underperforming scholar:

https://www.karlstack.com/p/lisa-cooks-new-plagiarism-scandal?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR0l4o_eKH6kZUTQVc9MQ3fDTluc5B1bS6fiT8MjMJ_Kocac-TrE8YUIM4M_aem_ATR_vR4aNGK7i5XdRCcS3k_snAv21r2O3O7N78Kk3ND7HA9OSzAVlSP9vLwkTXG_qbUw32DAE4Nc-VQmPeNpk1q5

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trouble-at-the-fed


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Columbia President
« Reply #106 on: May 05, 2024, 02:23:18 PM »
Minouche Shafik

was married to .... drum roll...:

Shafik married economist Mohamed El-Erian in 1990 during their time working for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, respectively.[77][78] In 2002, Shafik married her second husband, scientist Raffael Jovine

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Qatar the largest foreign donator to US colleges/universities
« Reply #107 on: May 06, 2024, 06:56:27 PM »
Bermuda # 5 at one billion dollars

Now where in the hell does Bermuda get such money?
Clearly it is being funneled/laundered from another foreign source.

https://investigativeeconomics.substack.com/p/foreign-contributions-to-universities

we need to expose where these schools get their money.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
A Diet Coke Fever Dream
« Reply #108 on: May 08, 2024, 10:42:35 AM »
America needs college presidents/administrators willing to take stands like this:

https://hxstem.substack.com/p/from-the-desk-of-president-john-habidacus?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #109 on: May 14, 2024, 08:00:17 AM »
Student surveys at America's elite universities.



"For most people, politics is about fitting in."   - Nate Silver

https://www.natesilver.net/p/for-most-people-politics-is-about

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Salvaging Universities?
« Reply #110 on: May 14, 2024, 05:48:40 PM »
I see some signs that some circled wagons have opted to leave the enclosure, but it is indeed few and hardly enough to to reverse things:

POSTED ON MAY 14, 2024 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ACADEMIC LEFT, HIGHER EDUCATION
CAN OUR UNIVERSITIES BE FIXED?

Last Friday evening I had the occasion to team up in Los Angeles with Dean Pete Peterson of Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy (where I just finished a very congenial semester filling the large shoes of the late Ted McAllister) to discuss the state of higher education before an audience of about 90 citizens alarmed at the current scene. Our conversation was unscripted and spontaneous, but here are some highlights, in service of setting up some further reflections in due course:

Dean Peterson: Universities have long leaned left, but it seems universities have gotten a lot worse in the last few years. Is this correct? How and why has this happened?

Me: Universities have leaned left for decades—actually for centuries. In one sense universities ought to be “left,” in the sense that universities should be critical institutions, challenging the conventional wisdom, and thus being agents of progress, rightly understood, when they produce new innovations in science and the humanities. Recall that Thomas Aquinas was a dangerous radical at the University of Paris in the 13th century, but when a challenge survives subsequent criticism and the test of time, it deepens and extends our civilization. And thus, you can draw a straight line from Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Jefferson—the “two Tommys,” as I like to say to students—and you can make out important continuities between parts of Tommy Aquinas’s Summa Theologica and the second paragraph of Tommy Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

The problem is that today’s universities have gone from being critical institutions to being fully adversarial institutions, with contempt for both Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson (and everyone else who built our civilization step by step) because the thinkers and statesmen who preceded us are presumed to be obsolete and unenlightened, if not somehow evil and oppressive. The late philosopher Roger Scruton liked to call this the “culture of repudiation,” in which there is no achievement of the West that today’s left doesn’t want to destroy. Thus universities now have large portions of their faculty and curriculum actively and persistently undermining the foundations of our civilization just as termites undermine the foundations and frames of buildings.

Dean Peterson: Can universities be fixed? Is there hope for reform? What should we look or hope for?

Me: It is possible that the current moment, with the shocking anti-Semitism on display at leading universities right now, is an inflection point. By coincidence, we are having this conversation on May 10. May 10 was the day on which Winston Churchill became prime minister in 1940, at one of Europe’s very worst moments. People recall his speeches from that point on, though I believe his greatest speech came two years before, after the Munich agreement. Churchill’s climax invoked the famous line from the Book of Daniel: “Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting.”

More and more Americans have come to this point of view about our universities: they have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting, because they have become badly unbalanced. There is considerable survey evidence of the loss of confidence or esteem for our universities, even among Democrats, who run our universities.

There aren’t a lot of Churchills among our university leadership class these days, but I do get the sense that some people in university leadership are starting to understand that the appeasement of the campus left needs to stop. We see a few hopeful signs here and there. First, a few Ivy League universities have actually hired some high-profile conservatives for important positions recently. The few adults still in the room are finally realizing they have a big problem, and where it comes from. Second, we’re seeing more and more states disband the politicized DEI offices in their public universities. Third and most significant is the establishment of new programs and centers for civic education in leading public universities in several states, which are going to be in several cases very substantial entities, deliberately conservative in their outlook and curriculum.

What this represents is the introduction of real intellectual competition on campus, and as fans of competition this is the most hopeful thing happening. One of the causes of the sharp skew in universities has been that the number of conservative faculty, always historically small to begin with, has dwindled precipitously over the last generation, deepening the intellectual bubble of university life. This may be about to reverse itself in many places. And conservatives do not need anything near equal representation on faculties to make a large difference for a very simple reason: one of us is worth twenty of them. It takes a while to explain why this is so, but it is true. A campus counter-revolution is underway.

Much more to come on this topic.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/can-our-universities-be-fixed.php

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
No diversity at Columbia
« Reply #111 on: May 16, 2024, 10:35:15 AM »
so where is the DEI

2/3 of professors think NYPD restoring order was bad idea

while

2/3 of Americans think the exact opposite:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/67-percent-in-new-poll-concerned-campus-protests-will-lead-to-violence/ar-BB1m44ti?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Diversity my ass!


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
School Choice Costs Less, Delivers More, Among Other Findings
« Reply #113 on: May 28, 2024, 04:48:10 PM »
Education savings accounts are also considered, with links to source data. Graph heavy so only link below:

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fiscal-effects-school-choice

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Elite Ways to Launder Funds
« Reply #114 on: May 29, 2024, 03:53:35 PM »
Universities receive public funds, ostensibly for research, that are then retasked for other purposes:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/how_elite_universities_use_your_money.html

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Provost of “Progressive” Pandering
« Reply #115 on: June 05, 2024, 03:01:19 PM »
For a couple years I was my institution’s “administrative officer” at a small satellite campus, which basically meant I was dean, provost, registrar, whatever all rolled into one for this small campus. I thank my lucky stars there wasn’t a “provost for climate change” position I have had to represent as I’d have contemplated sepbuku if forced to wear that stupid mantle:

Penn creates climate change vice provost role
COLLEGE FIX STAFF •JUNE 3, 2024
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:  The College Fix on Facebook The College Fix on Twitter The College Fix on Reddit Share on Email

Will lead efforts to confront ‘existential challenge of climate change’

The University of Pennsylvania now employs a vice provost solely focused on climate change.

The “Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action” is tasked with “support[ing] Penn’s leadership in addressing the climate crisis,” according to the campus newspaper.

“This would include responsibilities such as implementing the campus-wide Climate and Sustainability Action Plan, leading academic programs in climate science and policy and enhancing education and training focused on climate mitigation and adaptation,” The Daily Pennsylvanian reported.

The Philadelphia Ivy League university has identified fighting climate change as a core part of its “strategic framework.”

Penn’s framework states:

Every person at Penn and all that we do has some nexus to the existential challenge of climate change. We must, in an all-in University effort, do more. From leading energy science and policy across disciplines to designing and caring for the built environment, Penn will seek additional ways to support and recruit the best minds; fuel initiatives that advance understanding and promise solutions; and adopt institutional best practices for the sake of our future and our planet.

Interim President Larry Jameson provided further comments on the new position as well as another new job, a vice provost for the arts.

“We promised to lead on the great challenges of the world, and climate change may just be the greatest challenge we all face,” President Jameson stated in Penn Today. “And at a moment when it is critical that people come together through deeper understanding and empathy for others, the arts are core to creating connection and fostering common humanity.”

“The most tangible goal of this program is to reduce the temperature of the planet and to protect the planet’s inhabitants and ecosystem while we get there,” Senior Vice President for Strategic Initiatives David Asch stated in Penn Today.

The university also covers the issue of climate change in various courses.

Classes offered in the past include “White Nationalism in the age of Climate Change” and “Imagining Environmental Justice,” as previously reported by The College Fix.

Its “Climate Week” in September featured a dance “dedicated to Monarch butterflies,” as The Fix previously reported.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/penn-creates-climate-change-vice-provost-role/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #116 on: June 05, 2024, 04:05:19 PM »
My alma mater. :oops:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Elite They Ain’t
« Reply #117 on: June 11, 2024, 09:35:00 PM »
Is the tide turning in higher ed, particularly at the elite schools?

Rich Students Disproportionally Play the Radical: Should We Fund Elite Universities?

June 11, 2024

By RICHARD K. VEDDER

عباد ديرانية / Wikimedia Commons

Columbia University, April 2024
Also published in Minding the Campus Mon. June 10, 2024

My friend, John Fund, a distinguished journalist and political commentator, has brought to my attention a fine study done by the Washington Monthly, showing that virulent anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests have occurred disproportionately at elite colleges where most students come from relatively rich families.

You heard a lot about pro-Palestinian demonstrations, building occupation, and tent encampments at schools like Columbia or Northwestern, but little or no mention of protests at schools where those attending are primarily from working-class families with a high proportion of first-generation students or at historically black colleges and universities.

The Washington Monthly examined this exhaustively and confirmed that the less selective public universities had far less protest activity than the elite and richly endowed private schools. This is in marked contrast to the widespread Vietnam War era protests, which were prominent at state schools, most tragically, at Kent State University, where four people died.

As one who has studied, taught, or guest lectured at schools of all stripes—I estimate on between 300 and 400 American campuses—I sense the zeitgeist of America’s collegiate villages varies enormously, consistent with the Washington Monthly study.

Many members of the campus community at the most elite schools think they are what Glenn Loury, in his spectacular new memoir Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative, calls masters of the universe—among the chosen persons classified as the best, brightest, smartest. They think they are today’s philosopher kings, destined to lead the nation in the future just as their professors and alumni did and do today.

The crisis in higher education today is that the academy’s perceptions have likely never been more divergent from those of American society as a whole.

The noble wunderkind idealists inhabiting the Harvards and Columbias of the world believe they have almost a divine right to behave as they wish, ignoring not only the rule of law but also accepted boundaries of protest in the democratic polity in which they live. Worse, they lately have displayed a despicable hatred or contempt towards a group of people based on their religion and traditions, also known as racism—evaluating people on group characteristics instead of their own worth as individuals.

But, the excessive disconnect between the real world and college is beginning to have seriously negative consequences.

Universities are utterly dependent on public support. This dependence is somewhat less pronounced for richly endowed schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Northwestern, Duke, and Stanford. However, even these institutions face significant challenges, particularly with the potential imposition of larger endowment taxes. The indication that rich alums will be withholding millions, maybe billions, in support hurts the elite schools, as does a decline in applications, making them less selective, less elitist, and less the home of the chosen ones and instead the home of what that great American philosopher Leona Helmsley once memorably called, “the little people.”

I suspect we are in the early, not late, stages of the impact of the abrupt decline in public support for universities. Waning student interest and the very real birth dearth already provide a bleak future for enrollments and governmental subsidies. When progressive icons like the New York Times and the Washington Post start critically editorializing about some of the practices of the self-appointed collegiate establishment, you know higher education is in trouble.

Both market forces—subdued as they are given massive public and private subsidies—and even governmental actions should bring corrective actions that may lead to improvements: lesser control of campus activities by leftist faculty, administrative, and student leaders. Colleges may be saved by crackdowns initiated by alumni and governing boards of private elite institutions as well as politicians and trustees of state universities.

Already, encouraging signs are appearing. MIT says faculty will no longer be asked to sign loyalty oaths to the woke supremacy commitments to support “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Decidedly, non-elitist Yeshiva University reports booming enrollments as abled—and often rich—Jewish students flee what they see as anti-Semitic hotbeds—Harvard and Columbia.

Spineless, unprincipled, and often academically dubious presidents of schools selected in a self-congratulatory affirmation of racial and ethnic inclusiveness are being defrocked from positions of dominance. And, as the public increasingly says no to campus wokeness, once religious and academically traditional schools are flourishing.

Maybe sanity will prevail, and higher education will come through wiser, rededicated to principles of free expression, civil debate, and respect for the rule of both formal and collegiate forms of the rule of law.

 
RICHARD K. VEDDER is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Economics at Ohio University, and author of Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14954

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Those Who Can’t Govern, Teach
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2024, 07:55:57 PM »
Failed mayor to teach (another!) college course. In related news, Emperor Nero will teach a course on civic fire prevention:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/ousted-chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-to-teach-public-policy-at-u-michigan/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Chevron Ruling: A Boon to Higher Ed?
« Reply #119 on: July 09, 2024, 02:03:54 PM »
Will Chevron pull all the bureaucratic interpretations of federal laws out of the hands of educrats and into the hands of colleges?

Supreme Court’s Chevron Ruling Is a Major Victory for American Higher Education

July 9, 2024

By RICHARD K. VEDDER

The Supreme Court’s recent Chevron ruling, while rightly focusing on central issues like presidential immunity, also brought a potential boon for American higher education. This decision, which I believe holds promise for the future, has yet to be fully grasped by the higher education establishment.

Specifically, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court invalidated the doctrine of Chevron deference prevailing since 1984. In the Chevron case, the Court dramatically curtailed the power of courts to rein in the actions of independent agencies and executive departments to overturn federal administrative diktats, which some think led to the creation of the modern administrative state.

The recent Supreme Court decision has had a profound effect on universities. As Jon Fansmith, the chief lobbyist for the American Council of Education, aptly pointed out, “Almost every aspect of running a modern campus is dictated in some way by federal regulations or guidance—whether that’s how you make staffing, compensation, training, or enrollment decisions, all the way down to the level of what you put on your website.”

I contend that the golden age of American higher education came in the generation before the rise in federal higher education activism, which began after obtaining statutory authority with the Higher Education Act of 1965 but most notably after the creation of the U.S. Department of Education in 1978.

America’s role in creating the world’s best universities dates back to before 1965, when both private dollars and state governments helped finance the planet’s best universities. Aside from obtaining resources, these schools benefited from competition and academic diversity—different kinds of schools, some progressive, some conservative, some religious, others militantly agnostic. We did not have stultifying schools teaching a uniform curriculum with little diversity, the model in much of the rest of the world.

But as Fansmith says, the Feds took that away, especially strongly beginning with the Obama Administration in 2009.

The modern federal administrative state has robbed most universities of much of their individuality, with a few schools of the Hillsdale or Grove City College variety that have completely severed ties with the Feds escaping that fate, generally with great success. The modern-day Department of Education’s sins include the lamentable declaration of war against college men and Anglo-Saxon rules of judicial conduct with the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter that led most colleges into adopting an almost “guilty until proven innocent” attitude regarding allegations of male student sexual misconduct. The jihad towards men has contributed to a significant decline in male enrollment.

A second significant sin came with the Obama era: “gainful employment rules” applied against for-profit colleges, not against mediocre or worse public colleges, and were designed to annihilate a small but often vibrant sector.

But the biggest problem relates to the terrible federal student loan program. In its best days, the program was a disaster, as it is the primary culprit in the tuition fee explosion of modern times. But with the Biden loan forgiveness programs, it has taken on unjust and costly dimensions of truly Titanic proportions. Aside from its policy inappropriateness, the contempt for the rule of law shown by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in the light of adverse court rulings has been shocking.

The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision may have great, long-term positive effects on higher education by giving the courts greater ability to block outrageous administrative fatwas that contradict American legal traditions. Yet that outcome is far from assured. Judicial adherence to stare decisis—deferring to Supreme Court decisions—is somewhat spotty.

Interestingly, when the Chevron case was decided in 1984, conservatives were mostly happy since it was seen as curtailing the power of liberal judges. Yet today’s conservatives also love its reversal because it reduces the power of agencies adhering to a predominantly liberal administrative agenda. The political orientation of both judges and powerful bureaucratic apparatchiks changes with time.

To be sure, the fate of America’s universities depends on many things, and not all their ails are federally inflicted. To cite just one example, the rise in debilitating grade inflation roughly coincides with the growth in federal involvement, and while there may be links between those two things, they are not obvious or strong. Still, my tentative assessment is that the Supreme Court’s recent action improved the environment where higher learning occurs in America.

 
RICHARD K. VEDDER is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Economics at Ohio University, and author of Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14986

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Unions Limit Data Collection Regarding Sexual Abuse in Schools
« Reply #120 on: July 10, 2024, 05:40:32 PM »
This is all sorts of galling. One of the hats I wear involves coordinating protection for minors attending summer programs on campus, while my father was an educator in IL, finishing his time there as a principal where he had his share of jaw dropping teachers union stories.

Here we find all sorts of pressures to limit reporting of sexual abuse by teachers, with the Trump administration attempting to collect complete data (likely one of the reasons his Secretary of Education faced so much resistance) to the Biden admin seeking to walk that effort back, no doubt as a “favor” to the teachers union:

Forbidden Fruit and the Classroom: The Huge American Sex-Abuse Scandal That Educators Scandalously Suppress

By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations
July 10, 2024

Every day millions of parents put their children under the care of public school teachers, administrators, and support staff. Their trust, however, is frequently broken by predators in authority in what appears to be the largest ongoing sexual abuse scandal in our nation’s history.

Given the roughly 50 million students in U.S. K-12 schools each year, the number of students who have been victims of sexual misconduct by school employees is probably in the millions each decade, according to multiple studies. Such numbers would far exceed the high-profile abuse scandals that rocked the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America.

For a variety of reasons, ranging from embarrassment to eagerness to avoid liability, elected or appointed officials, along with unions or lobbying groups representing school employees, have fought to keep the truth hidden from the public.

AP
Betsy DeVos, former Education Secretary: "They’ve papered them over, acted like it’s not an issue.”
AP
“In any given year they have failed to report thousands of these situations, and instead they’ve papered them over, acted like it’s not an issue,” former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos told RealClearInvestigations. Stunned by a 2018 Chicago Tribune investigation that found 523 incident reports of sexual misconduct by employees of the city’s schools during the past decade, DeVos during the Trump administration launched the process of including specific questions about such cases in the Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection, a process it undertakes every two years. Previously, the Office for Civil Rights asked only general questions about sexual misconduct incidents, without a breakdown of alleged perpetrators.

The Biden administration initially sought to remove those questions, saying it wanted to avoid data duplication, but it backtracked after fierce criticism it was doing so as a sop to teachers unions. Consequently, the question will be included on future questionnaires, but, as of today, the Department of Education “has no data,” a spokesperson told RCI. These days, from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, even a cursory review of local news reporting brings disquieting revelations of teachers accused of or arrested for alleged sexual relations with a student. In just the past month:

In California, multiple students filed a lawsuit against a male music teacher who had taught at three different schools in the San Jose area. The teacher is already serving prison time for previous convictions in sexual misconduct cases with students.
In New Jersey, a female middle school teacher was arrested for an alleged ongoing sexual relationship with a student.
In Texas, a male teacher was arrested for allegedly having a sexual affair with a 12-year-old student.
In Illinois, a female substitute teacher faces charges of “grooming and predatory criminal sexual assault” for an alleged relationship with a sixth-grader.
In Washington, the arrest of a male high school teacher on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor represented a repeat nightmare for a school district that previously had a psychologist convicted on the same charges.
Just last weekend, a 36-year-old New Jersey teacher was arrested on multiple assault charges involving a sexual relationship with a teenage student.
These stories hold a lurid appeal to some. Sensational accounts of seductions of students by teachers, typically by high school female teachers, are tabloid catnip. The topic has provided material for standup comics, Hollywood writers, and pop tunes that didn't begin or end with Van Halen’s 1984 hit “Hot For Teacher.”


Hot for teacher: From the "Little Rascals" to Van Halen, pop culture glosses over the dangerous liaisons of teacher-student relationships.
"Love Business"/Our Gang short (1931)/YouTube
But experts who track the problem don't take the problem lightly. Pointing to research from Hofstra University that found roughly 1 in 10 students in K-12 schools have suffered “some form of sexual misconduct by an educator,” Terri Miller, head of the advocacy group SESAME (Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation), said the number of victims is staggering.

“The rate of educator sexual misconduct is 10 times higher in one year’s time than in five decades of abuse by clergy,” Miller said, noting that in 2021 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reported it had received nearly 4,300 sexual abuse allegations. “Another striking contrast is we are not mandated to send our children to church; we are mandated to send them to school.”

The extent of the problem may shock many Americans. The topic has long been shrouded by a curtain held by various actors in the drama: schools reluctant to go public with embarrassing and possibly criminal activity, unions fighting for members’ privacy and sometimes state laws that protect it, and a government reluctant to ask hard questions that would gather reliable data.

But the cases and tactics often used to cover them up have become common enough to earn an ugly nickname: “passing the trash.”

“DOE does not and never has tracked sexual misconduct committed by adults against students,” said Billie-Jo Grant, a professor at California Poly State University who is one of the nation’s top researchers on the topic.

“DOE has never aggressively worked to stop teachers' unions and administrators from passing the trash,” she told RCI. “DOE does not hold accountable the many enablers who have created a pool of mobile molesters in our schools nationwide. Your questions should include why? Why? Why?”

Chicago Tribune
One headline that galvanized federal action, followed by foot-dragging.
Chicago Tribune
Grant and Miller attended a Department of Education conference on the topic in D.C. in October 2019, and it was out of that meeting that its Office for Civil Rights decided to ask more specific questions in its Civil Rights Data Collection, according to Miller.

SESAME
Terri Miller: “The rate of educator sexual misconduct is 10 times higher in one year’s time than in five decades of abuse by clergy."
SESAME
And while the government may be groping toward more clarity, as a DOE official acknowledged having “no data” the Department would make public, he insisted the matter is viewed with concern.

In 2004, then-Hofstra professor Carol Shakeshaft did a report for the DOE that assessed the data available on the topic. From a handful of regional studies and media reports, Shakeshaft’s report found some broad parameters of the problem.

For example, while stories involving female teachers may be more titillating and gain more media attention, about two-thirds of the predators in schools are male. While no region seems to be immune from the problem, about half of the reported incidents occurred in southern states, Shakeshaft’s report found. Most of the victims are female (56%), and the majority of incidents involve high schools (62%).

The problem is not confined to public schools, although the public school student population dwarfs that of private and parochial schools. Incidents of sexual misconduct at tony schools like New York’s Horace Mann, or at St. George’s in Rhode Island are but two of the most publicized examples of the problem.

Protecting kids in school from inappropriate or criminal sexual activity involving employees and students would seem a surefire winner, but instead DeVos and her team found it was a political football. Union contracts and in many cases state law protect the privacy of employees. What that meant, DeVos explained, is that even if credible allegations of sexual misconduct were leveled against an employee, unless authorities were called in or an arrest made the alleged perpetrator was often free to leave one school and work in another.

The definitions of what constitutes sexual misconduct could be broadly construed, and the proliferation of social media has not only loosened the boundaries of contact between school employees and students, but provided more opportunities for wrongdoers.

Still, for the most severe conduct, the Trump administration finally introduced on the 2020-21 school year questionnaire specific questions regarding “a school staff member and rape or attempted rape.” Answers for the initial year were optional, as is common with new reporting requirements, and the DOE declined to make the results public. But, in any case, those figures would be hopelessly incomplete because of the widespread school closures that were part of the COVID response.

Even with the new questions, Miller wondered how clear the picture provided might be, because for now OCR is asking only about incidents that occurred on school grounds.

“That means incidents that happen in a car, or an apartment, or anywhere off-campus, won’t be included, and that’s where the majority of these attacks happen,” she said.

The same problem had confronted one of DeVos’ top lieutenants, Kimberly Richey, when she served as chief counsel to the school system in Oklahoma. Even in a deeply conservative state, Richey found few supporters when, surprised by how many complaints were reaching her desk, she approached lawmakers in Norman about changes.

“I met with resistance from the very beginning,” she said. “And I had complaints, 95 percent of the time coming from parents, about a school or a teacher, and when I contacted them the teacher would immediately resign, travel five miles to the next district and start working there.”

Janet Barresi/YouTube
Janet Barresi, Oklahoma: School administrators and board members are more vociferous opponents of reform than teachers unions.
Janet Barresi/YouTube
Several people who spoke with RCI said teachers unions’ contracts were a major obstacle to both moving forward with credible allegations of sexual misconduct and blocking future school employment for alleged perpetrators. Neither the American Federation of Teachers nor the National Education Association responded to questions from RCI about this topic.

Teachers aren’t the only obstacles to reform. While Superintendent of Public Education in Oklahoma from 2011-2015, Janet Barresi said, state groups lobbying on behalf of school administrators and board members were much more vociferous opponents than teachers unions of laws that would force schools to disclose information about prior allegations and cases involving school employees.

“If the system would be more open and honest about all this, then parents would feel more relieved and it would get rid of a great deal of rumor and conjecture,” Barresi said.

It is those employee protections that produce the pattern known as “passing the trash,” several experts told RCI. This is particularly relevant in cases where state or local law enforcement agencies are never notified of allegations. A school may launch an investigation after a parent or student files a complaint, but that investigation would cease when the employee resigned, and then state law or bargaining agreements often prohibit officials administrators from relaying such information to any new school where the alleged perpetrator applied or began working.

Miller said SESAME has model legislation states could pass to confront the problem, but thus far the group has found limited success.

The Enough Abuse Campaign, which did not respond to RCI’s questions, notes that age-of-consent laws and the definitions of what constitutes sexual misconduct have created a complicated legal and regulatory map. Still, the campaign seems more optimistic about legislative progress than SESAME, declaring that “over 75 percent of states have now passed legislation specifically outlawing educator sexual misconduct,” in recognition of the power imbalance that exists in a teacher/student relationship.

And there are some signs lawmakers are grasping the enormity of the issue.

On July 1, an Oklahoma law went into effect mandating any verbal or social media contact between school employees and students be done on platforms the school controls, which state Rep. Sherrie Conley called a “long overdue” regulation.

Similarly, in Michigan, state Rep. Brad Paquette, himself a teacher, has proposed legislation appointing a state ombudsman to deal with sexual misconduct complaints.

gophouse.org
Brad Paquette, Michigan teacher and lawmaker: "You see these headlines all over the place and it’s unacceptable."
gophouse.org
“It’s just a beginning but we have to start somewhere,” Paquette told RCI. “I first heard back in 2012 or 2013, when I started teaching, that I had to join the union because I might have an accusation filed against me. But I thought, ‘No, I should be fired if I did something wrong.’”

“I think we need to be engaged aggressively to root out the problem,” he said. “There’s no good reason for us to take a lax approach. You see these headlines all over the place and it’s unacceptable. People need to start asking questions.”

While Richey said she did not recall any credible allegations crossing her desk during a brief stint as an attorney with Virginia schools, Paquette’s “everywhere” assessment seems on the mark.

In Texas, for example, the online site Texas Scorecard started looking at the issue in 2022 after administrators in Prosper, a swanky Dallas suburb, attempted to cover up alleged repeated sexual offenses by a school bus driver. Since then, Texas Scorecard has kept an unofficial tally of such incidents, and the Lone Star State has had more than 100 cases every year since.

The Prosper superintendent is currently under investigation by Texas agencies, in part for the 2022 coverup, as Texas law requires officials to report any credible allegations of child abuse within 48 hours. In May, two Prosper high school coaches were arrested for allegedly covering up another sexual assault that involved students.

Separating student-on-student sexual misconduct is key to understanding how deep the problem may run with school employees, according to Grant and other experts. For example, in the more general questions DOE’s OCR would ask regarding improper incidents that fall under Title IX, troubling trends emerged. For 2015-2016, there were 9,649 incidents of sexual violence, and of that figure 394 cases were categorized as rape or attempted rape. In 2017-2018, those numbers skyrocketed, with overall incidents rising by 43% to 13,799 and the most serious category 74% to 685.

amosguiora.com
Amos Guiora: “It is so goddamn egregious what they have done to protect people who do this."
amosguiora.com
As alarming as that trend may be, there is no way of knowing how many of those cases involved school employees, and Richey suspects that, given how the questionnaire was traditionally perceived, the majority of them are student-on-student.

Nevertheless, Grant pointed to multiple studies that came to similar conclusions to that reached in the 2004 Hofstra report. That study found that 9.6% of the U.S. student body fall victim to educator sexual misconduct.

Looking at California data from 2010-2021, Grant of Cal-Poly found 2,497 “school employees disciplined, reprimanded or arrested for sexually abusing K-12 students.” Between 2012 and 2018, the DOE received 280 complaints of adult-on-student sexual harassment in Chicago Public Schools. A Texas study from 2008 to 2016 found 1,415 Lone Star State educators “sanctioned for sexual misconduct.”

These academic papers and sometimes salacious news accounts of teacher/student relationships do send up flares from time to time. In 2007, the Associated Press declared that “sexual misconduct plagues U.S. schools,” after its investigation “found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.” In December 2023, Business Insider looked at the issue and concluded “shoddy investigations, quiet resignations, and a culture of secrecy have protected predators, not students.”

Last year, the Defense of Freedom Institute released a report titled “catching the trash” that concluded sexual misconduct by school employees has raged in the school system for decades.

“Various actors – school and district personnel, teacher unions, and the federal department charged with enforcing laws against sexual assault in public schools – bear responsibility for a systemic failure in preventing, and responding to, sexual assaults in public schools,” the report said.

Pointing to the Biden administration’s attempt to remove specific questions about the issue from the OCR questionnaire, report author Paul Zimmerman told RCI the public should not expect much daylight on the topic in the near future.

“The Biden administration has gone dark on this, they’re not interested in pressing this issue as evidenced by trying to discontinue the efforts made on this front by the previous administration,” he said.

These political bumps, and the wreckage the COVID shutdowns unleashed on education in America, means there is no way of tackling the problem’s dimensions, let alone the problem itself. “It takes so long to get these numbers that in the end they’re not that helpful,” he said.

The best way to block the passage of trash is through the SESAME Act, which DOE has cited as “model legislation” for states. To date, only a handful of states have passed the act, most recently Illinois in 2023. It requires the prohibition of non-disclosure agreements in personal or collectively bargained contracts, as well as deep background checks on all applicants.

Only such thorough steps will break what Amos Guiora, a law professor at the University of Utah who has worked with Miller and SESAME, calls “the complicity of silence.” While the parameters of the problem may be hard to find, Guiora said he was stunned when he recently published what he acknowledged is a niche book on a West Virginia teacher exposed years late as a pedophile murderer. The limited book sold out on Amazon and his podcast has now topped 1 million views.

“That tells you that what’s happening is something that is touching a chord,” he said. “It is so goddamn egregious what they have done to protect people who do this. Lawmakers will have to break the institutional complicity that surrounds this or they’ll just be protecting the perpetrators.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/07/10/forbidden_fruit_and_the_classroom_the_huge_american_sex-abuse_scandal_that_educators_scandalously_hush_up_1042969.html


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
What Higher Ed is In For Should Trump Win
« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2024, 12:39:54 PM »
Tee hee, looks like academic types at the old day job and elsewhere are contemplating the unthinkable:

What if Donald Trump is re-elected as president? As unpleasant as it may be to contemplate, it’s an increasingly likely possibility that would be a disaster for higher education. Trump leads Biden, according to recent polling. And yet the sector’s response, so far, has been to sleepwalk into the election. It’s time for us to wake up.

For well over a year now, a small army of think-tankers, consultants, congressional aides, and campaign staffers have been at work crafting higher-education policies in anticipation of a Trump restoration. These efforts, if enacted into law, would radically change higher education in this country. Even more worrisome, Republican politicians have recently shown their skill at calling attention to campus problems that resonate strongly with the public. A Trump presidency with a Republican legislative majority could remake higher education as we’ve known it.

Given the stakes, it is time to look more closely at what Trump’s re-election could mean, and to be clear-eyed about the weaknesses a second Trump administration would exploit. Put simply, changes in academic leadership style will be necessary if the sector is to defend itself effectively.

The December 5 congressional hearing on antisemitism on college campuses offers a preview of what’s to come. When we pull ourselves away from the partisan melee and the fallout, including the resignation of two Ivy League presidents, we can see the outlines of a thus far one-sided battle. The maladroit responses of the presidents provided the necessary pretext for advancing the Republicans’ attempt to punish parts of the academic enterprise they disdain and to redirect university efforts along the lines they champion. But the right’s interest goes well beyond anything discussed by the three university presidents who were grilled by Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Consider Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist behind Republican attacks on critical race theory and antiracism programs (and now a board member at New College of Florida). He sees universities as having succumbed to “race and sex narcissism” and as having turned their backs on the “pursuit of truth.” He dismisses the idea that universities can reform themselves: Administrators are too “weak,” he argues, and are thus prone to “emotional or social manipulation” by faculty activists. For Rufo, the way forward is to use state power to bring about what he sees as the necessary changes. Triumphant at the resignation of Claudine Gay as Harvard University’s president, he wasted no time in announcing a “plagiarism hunting” fund aimed at exposing “the rot in the Ivy League.” But that’s just the beginning of what Rufo has in mind.

In a panel discussion last May at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Rufo laid out his agenda: (1) mobilization of the Department of Justice to investigate elite universities for admissions procedures that violate the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action; (2) penalties for universities where the department finds free expression to be curtailed by social-justice priorities; (3) the closing of certain departments, particularly ethnic and gender studies, where “ideological capture” is, he believes, most widespread; (4) new hiring procedures that emphasize the importance of a “multiplicity of perspectives”; and (5) termination of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices. His ideal for undergraduate education is a “classically liberal” curriculum, focused on great works.

Rufo has also made clear that new accountability mechanisms will be required to achieve these ends. The locus of authority will be the agencies of government, including not only the Departments of Education and Justice (purged of people sympathetic to the social concerns of universities, of course), but also reformed regional accreditors whose criteria for re-accreditation would reflect the new priorities. Universities are highly dependent on the federal government for research and financial-aid funding. The threat of defunding is therefore a powerful instrument in the hands of those like Rufo who have big-stick sanctions in mind. Accreditation has been a recurring target of the right. On the campaign trail last year, Ron DeSantis called accrediting agencies “cartels” and promised an alternative system that would say, “We will not accredit you if you do DEI.” Trump has promised to “fire” accreditors, telling supporters, “Our secret weapon will be the college-accreditation system.”

The current accreditation system is a frequent target of Republican plans, but it is not the only one. Proposals for increasing the tax on university endowments, eliminating diversity statements in hiring and admissions, restricting international collaborations, and reducing regulations on for-profit and online colleges are also circulating in Washington. Plans to reduce the size and cost of our higher-education system are widespread. The Cato Institute’s 2022 higher-education handbook for policymakers, for example, argues that “the federal presence in higher education is ultimately self-defeating, fueling huge price inflation and overconsumption. The solution is to avoid the superficial thinking that all ‘education’ is good and to let people freely decide what education they need and how they will pay for it.”

On January 20, 2025, a newly elected Trump administration would assume the presidency armed with policies produced by a network of think tanks and research centers, including the Heritage Foundation, the Goldwater Institute, and Chris Rufo’s home base, the Manhattan Institute. Heritage has been instrumental in providing agendas for Republican politicians for more than 40 years. Its “Project 2025” brings together a coalition of over 100 conservative groups, including Turning Point USA, the National Association of Scholars, and Hillsdale College, and it has already released a nearly 900-page document, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” detailing the operations of federal agencies with the goal of coalescing “an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” Project 2025 is described as a “plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors” and as the “last opportunity to save our republic.” The precise details for how exactly to deconstruct higher education are murky, but they will almost certainly parallel those that are already circulating in the public domain.

These proposals are tied together by the now-familiar populist narrative that pits “unaccountable elites” against “ordinary Americans.” As Project 2025 explains, “Today, nearly every top-tier U.S. university president or Wall Street hedge-fund manager has more in common with a socialist, European head of state than with the parents at a high-school football game in Waco, Tex. Many elites’ entire identity, it seems, is wrapped up in their sense of superiority over those people.”
In a manner consistent with this framing, conservatives are determined to point their pitchforks at the most prestigious universities first, perhaps on the assumption that the rest of higher education will fall in line once the giants are humbled. As U.S. Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, a member of the Republican Study Committee, put it in a recorded call with business leaders, the hearing with the university presidents was just the first prong of attack. “The second step is the investigation, the subpoenas, gathering all of the documents and the records from these universities to prove the point,” Banks reportedly said. “That they’re not just allowing this behavior to occur, they’re fostering it and creating an unsafe environment for Jewish students on their campus because of it.” His third step? “Defund these universities by cracking down on not backing their student loans, taxing their endowments, and forcing the administration to actually conduct civil-rights investigations.” Rufo has spoken of directing the Departments of Justice and Education to “relentlessly degrade the status and prestige” of elite institutions. House investigations of several Ivy League universities are already underway.

As the criticisms of higher education have mounted, the weaknesses of its self-defense playbook have become evident.

In addition to the think-tank populists, Republicans in Congress will also have a say. Judging from the “College Cost Reduction Act,” introduced in January by Rep. Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who leads the House education committee, the congressional push will be directed toward three goals: capping the maximum loan amounts students can obtain, providing additional aid for low-income students who make consistent progress toward their degrees, and reforming accreditation by prioritizing student achievement and post-college employment measures. The anticipated additions to Pell Grants would be offset by penalizing colleges whose students fail to make timely loan repayments. The bill includes provisions that would incentivize colleges to close programs whose students are encumbered by loans they cannot repay and to expand programs whose students tend to fare well in the labor market in the years after graduation. In other words, the Foxx bill would place a heavy hand on the balance sheets against the arts, humanities, and softer social sciences.

And, of course, Trump will have his own ideas about what should be done. We can predict many of the priorities from those expressed in his last budget proposal to Congress. His administration called for a 7.8-percent cut from the Department of Education budget, with sharp reductions for public-service loan forgiveness. The National Institutes of Health budget was slated for a 7-percent cut; the National Science Foundation faced a 6-percent cut. Trump also attempted to eliminate all funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, something he repeatedly attempted — and was unable to achieve.

More recently, candidate Trump has offered two concrete, if far-fetched, policy proposals. The first is for an entirely new system of accreditation heavily weighted toward evaluating colleges on the basis of job placement, evidence of student learning, and curricula that focus on “the American tradition and Western civilization.” The second is for a federally funded tuition-free, open-access online university. He has christened this leviathan the “American Academy.” It would be funded primarily by taxes on existing universities’ endowments, with the focus, naturally, on the largest endowments.

Of course, not everything Republicans hope to achieve will be achievable. It will be a heavy lift to bring the regional accreditors into the Republican policy orbit, given that any national-level policy changes would require revision and reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, an endeavor that would not move quickly (if at all). And if Trump is re-elected, his American Academy seems doomed from the start — not only by its prohibitive cost but by how closely it resembles the late, unlamented Trump University, which closed its doors in 2010 and was forced to pay out $25 million to students it defrauded.

A second Trump administration would begin by distinguishing policy goals that could be enacted through executive orders from those that require congressional or state legislation. On the congressional side, it would not be difficult to find ambitious lawmakers eager to push legislation. Judging from their public statements, J.D. Vance, Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Elise Stefanik, and Virginia Foxx are already champing at the bit. White House and foundation policy shops will produce and distribute talking points. If history is any guide, these talking points will include cherry-picked data to provide a thin veneer of rationality. Those talking points will then be rehearsed doggedly in committee meetings and floor debates. Democrats would of course take to friendly airwaves to denounce the legislation, and rallies would be held on college campuses in opposition. But, in the end, if Republicans have the votes, some of the new policies would prevail.
Higher education has a playbook for self-defense, as we saw during the first Trump administration. And yet as the criticisms of higher education have mounted, the weaknesses of that playbook have become evident. The weaknesses include university presidents — particularly their reflexive reliance on policies and processes unconnected to deeply held values, their evasiveness in the face of tough questioning, and their failure to understand and respond to the demands of political theater. All of these attributes were on stark display during the December 5 antisemitism hearing. The transcript shows that Claudine Gay referenced Harvard policies and processes nearly 30 times while largely ignoring the results of these policies. She evaded answering pointed questions over a dozen times. Missing were compelling examples supporting her many references to her university’s “robust” disciplinary policies or illustrating how a vibrant culture of open expression actually exists on the Harvard campus. Instead, she relied on terse statements about her “deep commitment to free expression” and the importance of “preserving the security of our community.”

These bloodless responses made for a stark contrast to the emotionally charged language of her inquisitors. The hearing began with a short video showing hate-filled chanting and acts of intimidation. Representatives vividly described antisemitic actions on campus, including Jewish students being pushed, spat upon, and punched. Republicans passionately condemned the “moral rot” at the heart of the academic enterprise and the “poison fruits” of institutional culture. There were also many accusations of or references to murder, barbarism, and mania.

The message was clear: Republicans have learned to capitalize on dramatic events as a springboard to more far-reaching policy changes. Universities have been a punching bag on the right for decades, but rarely have so many cameras and notepads been present to record such a perfect representation of the Republican narrative.

Those who advance to top positions in universities are generally expert managers. Many also have the capacity to charm donors. They are less likely to be practiced politicians or to be deeply immersed in the intellectual life of their institutions. In part this is because of the division of labor between outward-facing presidents and inward-facing provosts and deans. It also results from the development of separate administrative tracks where the high-stakes issues are finance and budgeting, regulatory bodies, conflict abatement, reputation management, and enrollment management — not the research and teaching mission.

It would be a mistake to call most of today’s university presidents academic leaders. They are managers of complex organizations whose product lines range from athletics to zoology. They are subject to pressure from state legislatures, donors, regulatory bodies, professional associations, faculty interest groups, parents, and prospective students. Given the complexity of the role, university boards have over time concluded that outstanding scholars rarely make outstanding university managers. When I examined the careers of university presidents several years ago as part of research for a book (Two Cheers for Higher Education), I found that only about half of the top 50 research universities and a sprinkling of liberal-arts colleges recruited presidents who had excelled as scientists and scholars. The rest hired candidates with modest academic careers, candidates who had worked their way up through the administrative bureaucracy without ever professing, or candidates whose careers had been spent in political life or business.

At the nation’s largest and most-selective universities there is a playbook for how to handle nearly every situation a president encounters, including data breaches, athletics scandals, and student suicides. Because of the many units a president presides over, and the diversity of the constituency for each, such playbooks are necessary. Presidents learn to speak publicly only about the recognitions their faculties and students obtain. Prizes, graduations, and record-breaking fund-raising campaigns deserve speeches. Everything else is not for public consumption. When controversies arise, presidents put together task forces. They consult legal counsel before acting; they defer to counsel when resources or reputations may be at risk. They learn what is expected at ceremonial occasions and how to perform these duties. They are briefed on how to interact with legislators and how to deflect uncomfortable questions. They learn to promise to look into matters without necessarily intending to do so. They have speechwriters to write their speeches, assistants to troubleshoot and mollify, and deans and department chairs to interact with the faculty and students. Most of the time this managerial approach works. But when it comes to combating a well-organized political party determined to degrade academic institutions, managerialism invites disaster. If the presidential playbook isn’t thoroughly revised, higher education will face a diminished future should Trump and Republicans regain power in 2025.
What, then, can be done to avoid this unhappy outcome?

First, universities will need to decide which of the policies that are currently under attack should be preserved or strengthened and which may require reform — or abandonment. Republicans have attacked university endowments, science funding, the teaching of critical race theory, diversity policies, and academic-freedom protections. Some of these commitments will be easy to defend. How can the U.S. compete effectively without robust academic R&D? Congress has so far agreed, but the case must continue to be made effectively.

Other policies will require better defenses than have been offered thus far. Diversity policies are at the top of this list. The idea that the civic mission of universities centers on the racial and gender diversity of faculty and student bodies is relatively new. It became a fixture of liberal thinking only two decades ago when the first diversity statements were required and as DEI offices began to catch on. The decline of Republican support for higher education shares this timeline. Diversity, equity, and inclusion caught on with campus leaders after affirmative action was hamstrung by the courts. On some campuses, it has proved to be a poor substitute because it is forced into the pretense that all diversity matters even when university practices belie the claim. The Israel-Hamas conflict and the December 5 congressional hearings exposed the subterfuge.

As an antidote to the attacks on DEI, presidents can begin to extol again the broader civic mission of universities. That broader vision includes research that provides far-seeing insight into the world we inhabit; studies that help solve a wide range of community problems; the development of new technologies to bring jobs and new wealth to states and regions; lectures and performances that bring cultural enrichment to local communities; and the cultivation of future leaders from among the undergraduate and graduate student bodies.

DEI policies are part of this package, but only part. And because they are controversial, they should be defended with concrete evidence of their effectiveness. Do DEI offices have measurable effects on the sense of belonging or the level of achievement of students from underrepresented groups? Have they helped to retain diverse faculty? If so, how large are these effects? And what costs, if any, have the offices incurred in terms of campus free speech? It is surprising that studies like this are in such short supply.

It is tempting to think that elite institutions should begin to focus again on recruiting distinguished scholars and scientists for leadership roles (as opposed to those who have lesser academic records but lengthier management experience). After all, excellent scholars might be more likely to speak with knowledge and conviction about the intellectual and educational accomplishments of their institutions, having contributed to those accomplishments themselves.

But what is more essential for presidents is the ability to recognize when they are actors in a political arena and to have the presence of mind to meet such moments. If a member of Congress asks for the percentage of conservative faculty members at Harvard, the right answer should come naturally. The right answer is not the one Claudine Gay gave: “I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.” The right answer challenges the premise and is conveyed openly rather than at arm’s length: Academically talented conservatives usually prefer to go into business, legal, or medical careers, and Harvard would welcome qualified conservatives who wish to give up the higher salaries in those fields for the opportunity to research and teach at a world-class university.

Harvard is looking for a new president. One of the criteria should be the capacity to provide the public with straight talk and with concrete examples illustrating why their institutions make a difference and are worthy of public support. In the current environment, and given the stakes, the tight-lipped and evasive answers of today’s academic managers just won’t cut it.

https://archive.is/vxd7p

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Civic Ignorance
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2024, 12:10:02 PM »
https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=e29fe31f201f4f2330df59ffb6aa46d1_66a0fc92_6d25b5f&selDate=20240724

History test bodes ill for government of the people

Many young voters lack basic knowledge

BY SEAN SALAI THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An academic survey shows that, like a 1960 hit song, college students don’t know much about history … or civics, government or politics.

Far from the “Wonderful World” crooned by Sam Cooke, educators and public policy experts say the results portend an alarming disengagement from the U.S. political system as the November elections loom.

“Many Americans choose to pay not much attention to political life and don’t have a strong understanding of American history,” said Bradley Jackson, vice president of policy for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. “In the absence of that understanding, civil life will erode and decline, creating more potential for disunity and polarization.”

His nonprofit group, which advocates for the liberal arts, found in its recent survey of 3,026 undergraduates that 60% did not know the length of the terms of U.S. senators (six years) and representatives (two years).

Only 35% knew that Mike Johnson was the speaker of the House, 27% knew that Vice President Kamala Harris was the president of the Senate, and 37% knew that John G. Roberts Jr. was the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bradley, who teaches political science at American University, said the findings echo the results of several other

surveys ACTA has conducted since 2000.

Other higher education insiders interviewed by The Washington Times said the ACTA survey confirms years of research linking poor civics knowledge to disinterest, discontent and distrust among young voters.

Some said the trend has contributed to a rise in low-information voters deciding elections and in historically illiterate politicians gaining power with extremist rhetoric.

“Before we single out America’s youth, I suggest that all federal and state legislators take the history and civics test required for naturalization,” said Brendan Gillis, director of teaching and learning at the American Historical Association. “In order not to embarrass individuals, we can report the results in the aggregate by legislative body.”

Mr. Gillis said the ACTA findings spotlight the necessity of professional development resources for K-12 social studies teachers to cover hot-button topics free from outside political pressure.

Others criticized the ACTA report and its recommendation that all colleges require a course in U.S. history and government. They said K-12 public schools should be the ones to teach political literacy because many voters never attend college.

“College is not the place to learn the basics, and a college course should not be remedial,” said Robert Weissberg, a retired University of Illinois professor who started teaching American politics in the 1960s. “Student ignorance reflects how professional educators have taught some to disdain ‘mere facts.’”

The ACTA survey, conducted by College Pulse from May 10 to June 19, posed 35 multiple-choice questions in an online panel to students from all 50 states.

One question: “Which branch of the government has the power to declare war?”

Only 32% correctly identified the legislative branch, and 48% named the executive branch. Another 5% said the judicial branch could declare war, 3% pegged the Pentagon and 11% were unsure.

Another question asked where presidential impeachment trials take place.

ACTA noted that only 32% correctly answered that the Senate conducts the trials even though the students lived “through two recent presidential impeachment trials” of President Trump.

Some academics challenged the value of the questions.

“The ACTA conclusion that the bullet-point findings from their survey encapsulate ‘core principles and values’ of American democracy and history borders on the absurd,” said Robert Heineman, a political scientist and former department chair at Alfred University in New York. “These are essentially questions of detail.”

Elesha Coffman, a cultural historian at Baylor University, said her lessons do not address the survey questions.

“I would rather help my students grasp large trends — the trajectory of enslavement, emancipation, Jim Crow and civil rights, for example — than make sure they know the numbers of constitutional amendments or which speech was the source of a particular phrase,” Ms. Coffman said. “The how and the why of history matter more than bare facts without context.”

Others said that students weaned on digital media instinctively tune out any information they can find in a quick internet search.

“We adults need to realize that our education system still relies too much on rote memorization, ironically producing kids so bored that they can’t remember squat,” said Woody Holton, a U.S. history professor at the University of South Carolina.

Other key findings in the ACTA survey:

• 31% of undergraduates correctly answered that James Madison was the “father of the Constitution.”

• Just 23% correctly answered that the phrase “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” came from the Gettysburg Address.

• Only 28% correctly identifi ed the 13th Amendment as the government action that outlawed the practice of slavery.

Connor Boyack, creator of the free market Tuttle Twins franchise and author of a U.S. history book for children, said the findings show K-12 education must evolve beyond “rote memorization of random facts” to connect ideas to students’ lives.

“No wonder the kids ‘pump and dump,’ learning information for a test … only to soon forget it and move on with their lives,” said Mr. Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute in Utah. “Results such as these spell doom for our country’s future if there’s not a massive course correction soon.”

Just a handful of the ACTA survey questions went beyond factual topics.

Question 33 asked: “If the United States were invaded by Russia as Ukraine has been, what would you do?”

Forty-three percent said they would “stay and fight,” and 57% said they would “flee the country.”

Donald Critchlow, director of Arizona State University’s Center for American Institutions, said such findings underline the danger of failing to teach young people a “shared culture and history.”

“If our youth don’t know that history, the nation is vulnerable to external enemies and internal chaos,” said Mr. Critchlow, who teaches American history.

Policy experts have cited multiple reasons for the surge of political negativity among young people, such as the idea that the two major political parties do not represent their interests and mounting despair about their financial prospects as college costs rise and wages stagnate.

Conservatives have blamed woke academics for teaching “divisive topics” about race and gender identity that stigmatize straight White males as oppressors.

“Basic knowledge about American history and government does not align with their agenda to topple our constitutional republic and replace it with a communist regime,” said Sheri Few, president of the right-leaning U.S. Parents Involved in Education. “If we are to save our republic, patriotism must return to America’s classrooms.”

On the other side, liberal academics have accused conservatives of minimizing America’s painful legacy of slavery to exclude minorities from the conversation.

“What part of America’s history will be taught, and who will decide that? Across America, organizations like The Heritage Foundation and so-called leaders like [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis are whitewashing American history and denying students the full picture of America,” said Omekongo Dibinga, a professor of intercultural communications affiliated with the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University.

Historians say polarization has driven up anger toward a political system that few young people understand.

“If we don’t understand government, we can’t govern ourselves,” said Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian of education at the University of Pennsylvania. “Of course, students should have learned all of this material well before they got to college. But they haven’t, so higher education needs to pick up the slack.”

“A society that is built on the concept of democratic self-governance cannot survive without an educated citizenry,” said Wilfred McClay, a U.S. history professor at Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WT: Vouchers
« Reply #124 on: August 14, 2024, 04:57:39 AM »
Battle over school vouchers fuels funding in state elections

By Kimberlee Kruesi ASSOCIATED PRESS NASHVILLE, TENN. | Millions of dollars are being spent this year to steer voters toward candidates for Republican-led legislatures who not only support school vouchers, but will also become key figures in implementing school choice programs in states across the U.S.

Most recently, national pro-voucher advocates declared victory after spending more than $4.5 million in Tennessee’s primary election to defend and elect legislative candidates they say will support school choice proposals in 2025 when state lawmakers are slated to return to the Capitol to enact policy.

Meanwhile, at least $14.8 million was spent by similar advocacy groups in the Texas primary election earlier in May to oust and replace voucher opponents. In Idaho, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on candidates who both opposed and supported school vouchers in the rural Western state.

The spending spree is backed by the nation’s most high-profile voucher influencers, including the School Freedom Fund, a pro-voucher group tied to Club for Growth; the American Federation for Children, which was founded by Secretary Betsy DeVos, former Trump administration education secretary under; and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch family’s well-heeled free-market group.

Their focus is often on primary elections because in Republican-dominated states, primaries are seen as the most competitive hurdle to getting elected.

“Make no mistake — if you call yourself a Republican and oppose school freedom, you should expect to lose your next primary,” said David McIntosh, president of the School Freedom Fund, in a statement shortly after Tennessee’s primary. “As we continue to hear from different governors, we plan on repeating our results from Tennessee and Texas across the country. The school freedom revolution is just beginning.”

Thirty-two states have implemented some sort of voucher program in the U.S., and some have been in place for decades, often with strict income requirements or narrowly tailored for students with disabilities.

Yet over the years, there’s been a noticeable push among Republican leaders to make available taxpayer-funded vouchers, or scholarships that can follow a child regardless of income to any public or private school. About a dozen states have such programs. But proposals are being considered in many more, with varying degrees of legislative support.

Idaho, Tennessee and Texas all weighed sweeping school voucher proposals over the past year, but faced resistance not only from Democrats — who don’t hold as much political power — but also Republican members wary of directing public education dollars away from their districts.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, was forced to abandon his plans for universal school choice earlier this year after divisions inside the GOP-controlled Statehouse failed to come to a consensus on specifics.

The failure prompted Mr. Lee to break with his previous stance of remaining quiet during GOP primary elections and instead publicly pick favorites this year in a handful of legislative races.

Additionally, outside groups such as Club for Growth, American Federation for Children, Americans for Prosperity Action, and others poured $4.5 million across 16 House and Senate legislative races. Three of the open primaries saw almost $1 million spent in each of the races.

Club for Growth spent the majority of the money, pouring $3.6 million across five races and ultimately winning four of those seats.

Mr. Lee didn’t endorse any opponents of a sitting Republican incumbent, but he did throw support behind candidates in four open legislative seats — three of which were successful.

The modest gains for Mr. Lee’s cause came at a big political cost.

After Mr. Lee endorsed state Sen. Jon Lundberg, this year’s voucher bill sponsor, former President Donald Trump backed Mr. Lundberg’s opponent, Bobby Harshbarger, son of Rep. Diane Harshbarger. After Mr. Harshbarger was declared the winner, Mr. Trump swiped at Mr. Lee on social media, calling him a RINO, or “Republican in name only,” even though he endorsed Mr. Lee in his 2022 reelection.

Mr. Lee has so far brushed aside the criticism, and instead released a statement declaring that Republican primary voters “sent a clear message: It’s time to deliver school choice for Tennessee families.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Miami Teachers Union Election
« Reply #125 on: August 27, 2024, 09:18:19 AM »
The Miami Teachers Union Election
After DeSantis boosts competition, an upstart alternative wants to cut dues and quit politics.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Aug. 26, 2024 5:44 pm ET




176

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(3 min)



Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Photo: Dylan Townsend/Zuma Press
Florida’s biggest teachers union might be about to lose its job, as it faces a certification election under a law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Roughly 24,000 mail ballots went out this month and are due back by Sept. 24. Whatever the result, this is healthy competition, as an upstart alternative pledges to cut dues in half and refrain from politicking.

United Teachers of Dade (UTD) represents school employees in Miami-Dade County. Mr. DeSantis’s law, signed last year, requires public unions to prove their popularity to keep power. If a union can’t show that 60% of its bargaining unit is dues-paying members, it must hold an election to keep its certification. Last year UTD came close, 56%, but fell short by about 878. To continue representing Miami teachers, it now needs to win 50% of returned ballots.

Teachers and school staff who don’t like UTD can vote for no union, or they can cast ballots for a new group that promises to serve their interests better. That’s the Miami-Dade Education Coalition (MDEC), led by teachers dissatisfied with the status quo. UTD members who are full-time teachers pay about $1,000 a year in dues, and a good chunk goes to affiliates, which include national unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

UTD also makes political endorsements, and no prizes for guessing which party it wants in power. Two years ago UTD’s president, Karla Hernández-Mats, even ran for Lieutenant Governor as the running mate of Democrat Charlie Crist, who lost handily to Mr. DeSantis.

MDEC wants to halve dues, keep funds local, and stay out of polarizing politics. “Somebody has to do better than what it is right now,” says Renee Zayas, a high-school teacher who is MDEC’s vice president. While UTD’s leader made more than $200,000 in 2022, MDEC says it won’t pay officers more than the median teacher salary.

To qualify for the ballot, MDEC needed signatures from 10% of the bargaining unit, or 2,368, which it achieved. That’s far from the 50% it would take to win the election, and UTD has the advantage of size and organization. But the mere fact that a challenger made the ballot should give UTD pause. “We’re getting a lot of teachers that are very excited about finally being able to see a change,” says Ms. Zayas.

Mr. DeSantis’s law is also having similar effects elsewhere. Dozens of unions have been decertified in the past year, including SEIU and AFSCME affiliates, some of which hadn’t managed to sign up more than 25% or even 10% of their eligible workers as dues-paying members, according to a database kept by South Florida public radio site WLRN.

Bringing more worker democracy into union representation, as Mr. DeSantis’s law does, isn’t anti-union. It’s a way of making sure that workers are represented by unions that actually care about their interests.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #126 on: August 27, 2024, 09:32:03 AM »
Good for Ron and Florida.
This could never happen in the North.
Beware the union government complex.  Especially public unions.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
U Penn: We Don’t Need No Freakin’ Free Speech
« Reply #127 on: October 22, 2024, 10:21:29 PM »
All sorts of less lettered left wing professors have uttered all manner of ugly speech with few consequences meted out. Utter unpopular right wing views you can support? Show her the door!

Penn Will ‘Eviscerate Academic Freedom as We Know It’

Cato Recent Op-eds / by Andrew Gillen / Oct 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM

Andrew Gillen

Amy Wax has provided a perfect test case for accessing the state of academic freedom. On paper, just about any college would be lucky to have her. She earned both an MD and a JD, argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and then became a law professor at a top college for three decades. But in practice, the university where she teaches—the University of Pennsylvania (Penn)—is trying its best to get rid of her. Penn recently decided to strip her of a chaired professorship, suspend her for a year at half pay, and deny her summer pay for the rest of her life. What did Wax do to deserve such punishment? She said politically incorrect things about race and culture.

,
The most controversial undisputed remarks centered around statements that she had not seen many black students graduate at the top of the law school where she teaches and that to preserve American culture and values, the country should limit immigration from cultures that are vastly different. There are also several alleged statements that are either disputed or distorted by selective editing to appear more inflammatory.

The reason this is a perfect test case for academic freedom is that all other claims against her have been disproven. Some are claiming that she discriminated against minorities, but these claims are misinformation. Penn commissioned an independent investigation by Daniel Rodriguez, a former dean at Northwestern University Law School, which cleared her of the charges. As Aaron Sibarium summarizes, the investigation found “the most serious charges against Wax were baseless. There was ‘no evidence’ she had ‘breach[ed] the anonymity of exams,’ ‘graded minority students differently,’ ‘denied them access to professional opportunities,’ or ‘singled them out for special ridicule.’” Thus, her punishment is based solely on her speech. As Wax said, “This is a game-changer, because it’s a pure case of speech … If they succeed in punishing me for that, it will eviscerate academic freedom as we know it.”

,
In an era when political forces right and left are all too eager to sanitize campuses of voices and views they dislike, faculty nationwide must be able to rely on the time-tested principles of academic freedom.

,
There is certainly an interesting conversation to be had about whether Wax’s statements were correct or incorrect. Regarding the relative performance of black students at Penn, it used affirmative action for years, which entailed granting admission to less qualified black students, so it would not be a surprise if those students underperformed their peers. There is an entire literature on this phenomenon; see, for example, Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr.’s Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. Of course other scholars, such as Matthew Chingos, dispute the idea. The fact that Penn claims she is wrong while refusing to release the data to show it indicates that Wax’s observation is probably correct.

But whether or not Wax is right about the performance of black students at Penn, the larger point is that her statement was a perfectly reasonable claim to make and should be handled the way any other academic dispute is, by different teams of researchers formulating theories and testing them with data to see who is right—or more likely, under what circumstances each is right. What shouldn’t happen is for those on one side to face punishment for making their case. To their great credit, many who think Wax is wrong oppose punishing her. Prominent examples include John McWhorter and Zaid Jilani.

But sadly, many people and organizations are abandoning long-held principles like free speech and academic freedom for short-term ideological gain. For example, Jeffrey Sachs called out the hypocrisy of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which has raised no objection to Wax being disciplined by a top college, while objecting to an obscure college firing a professor who supports those trying to commit genocide against Jews, with one student claiming she was “using her classroom as a political platform for spreading personal bias since October 7, and that it had become ‘the most uncomfortable classroom environment I have ever stepped foot in.’”

Judging by AAUP’s stance, it appears as though statements supporting the attempted genocide of Jews warrant the protection of academic freedom, while statements about racial matters like mismatch, on which there are academic books written, do not warrant the protection of academic freedom.

The hypocrisy of the AAUP is even more galling given that it created one of the foundational documents on academic freedom that states professors “should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.”

There is simply no convincing way to square the AAUP’s claimed support for academic freedom with their tacit support of Wax’s punishment. The AAUP’s defenders are attempting to claim Wax was afforded due process in a faculty-driven manner. This is false.

As Glenn Loury writes, it is merely “using pretextual arguments to punish her for thought crimes.” FIRE notes, Penn used “dubious procedural efforts — which stripped Wax of many of the due process protections tenure affords.” Aaron Sibarium documents that Penn “ignored the results of an outside investigation that found ‘no evidence’ Wax had treated students unfairly—then launched a second investigation,” which never even contacted Wax to discuss the charges against her. And the “faculty driven” process was headed by a woke ideologue who argues that professors that resist “core values like diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) should be stripped of tenure and fired.

So, to recap, Penn 1) ignored investigations that cleared Wax, while launching new ones until it got the desired conclusion, 2) stripped Wax of the due process protections of tenure, 3) stacked the judge and jury against her by making sure it was composed of those that think it is kosher to fire their ideological opponents. If this is the AAUP’s idea of upholding academic freedom, no one should ever take them seriously in the future.

So, what has this case revealed about the state of academic freedom? The statement by FIRE—reproduced in its entirety—is spot on:

After years of promising it would find a way to punish professor Amy Wax for her controversial views on race and gender, Penn delivered today — despite zero evidence Wax ever discriminated against her students.

Faculty nationwide may now pay a heavy price for Penn’s willingness to undercut academic freedom for all to get at this one professor. After today, any university under pressure to censor a controversial faculty member need only follow Penn’s playbook.

But academic freedom is designed to protect controversial faculty from being punished for their speech or opinions. In an era when political forces right and left are all too eager to sanitize campuses of voices and views they dislike, faculty nationwide must be able to rely on the time-tested principles of academic freedom.

Wax is the canary in the coal mine. If Wax’s punishment stands, academic freedom is effectively dead on American campuses.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/penn-will-eviscerate-academic-freedom-we-know-it

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #128 on: October 23, 2024, 08:36:24 AM »
My alma mater  :cry: :cry: :cry:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #129 on: October 23, 2024, 08:54:28 AM »
My alma mater  :cry: :cry: :cry:

Is your read as stark as the one presented? It looks to me like Penn is crusing for a bruising without much of an evidentiary advantage....

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics of Education
« Reply #130 on: October 23, 2024, 09:20:37 AM »
 Not following this one closely, but the final line makes sense to me:

"Wax is the canary in the coal mine. If Wax’s punishment stands, academic freedom is effectively dead on American campuses."

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Michael Roth some college president: "we should not be neutral"
« Reply #131 on: October 23, 2024, 07:51:32 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-m-a-college-president-universities-aren-t-ready-for-what-s-coming/ar-AA1sOoes?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=af3702aee40e49919819fda649997fcc&ei=10

I can't find the poll O'Reilly spoke of in podcast past few days that found

78% of college professors are crats
8% are Rs
and 14 % claim neither or won't say.
This is consistent with previous polls that showed rations of 10:1

So I have no idea what Roth is talking about.  Is it not clear the left is already speaking out with indoctrination from within higher education?   


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Tax Dollars Underwriting University Profs Supporting Terror
« Reply #132 on: October 24, 2024, 09:11:10 AM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Taxpayers Underwriting Antisemetic Elementary Education
« Reply #133 on: October 31, 2024, 11:32:04 AM »
IMO child abuse is documented below, and those "educators" participating in it should be terminated, prosecuted, and lose their teaching certifications, too boot:

The Kindergarten Intifada

There is a well-coordinated, national effort between teachers, activist organizations, and administrators to indoctrinate American children against Israel. A Free Press investigation.
 
By Abigail Shrier
October 31, 2024


In August, the second largest teachers union chapter in the country—there are more than 35,000 members of United Teachers Los Angeles—met at the Bonaventure Hotel in L.A. to discuss, among other things, how to turn their K-12 students against Israel. In front of a PowerPoint that read, “How to be a teacher & an organizer. . . and NOT get fired,” history teacher Ron Gochez elaborated on stealth methods for indoctrinating students.

But how to transport busloads of kids to an anti-Israel rally, during the school day, without arousing suspicion?

“A lot of us that have been to those [protest] actions have brought our students. Now I don’t take the students in my personal car,” Gochez told the crowd. Then, referring to the Los Angeles Unified School District, he explained: “I have members of our organization who are not LAUSD employees. They take those students and I just happen to be at the same place and the same time with them.”

Gochez was just getting warmed up. “It’s like tomorrow I go to church and some of my students are at the church. ‘Oh, wow! Hey, how you doing?’ We just happen to be at the same place at the same time, and look! We just happen to be at a pro-Palestine action, same place, same time.”

The crowd burst into approving laughter.

The Free Press obtained a video of the United Teachers Los Angeles meeting. You can watch it here:

Seated at a keffiyeh-draped table, Gochez said, “Some of the things that we can do as teachers is to organize. We just have to be really intelligent on how we do that. We have to know that we’re under the microscope. We have to know that Zionists and others are going to try to catch us in any way that they can to get us into trouble.”

He continued: “If you organize students, it’s at your own risk, but I think it’s something that’s necessary we have to do.” He told the audience of educators that he once caught a “Zionist teacher” looking through his files. Gochez warned the crowd to be wary of “admin trying to be all chummy with you. You got to be very careful with that, even sometimes our own students.”

John Adams Middle School teacher and panelist William Shattuc agreed, a keffiyeh around his neck. “We know that good history education is political education. And when we are coming up against political movements, like the movement for Zionism, that we disagree with, that we’re in conflict with—they [Zionists] have their own form of political education and they employ their own tools of censorship.”

What are the “tools of censorship” employed by Zionists? Apparently, they include accusing teachers who rail against Israel in the classroom of antisemitism.

“They try to say antisemitism, which is really ridiculous, right?” said Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona, ethnic studies teacher at Edward R. Roybal Learning Center in Los Angeles. Cardona recently received a National Education Association Foundation Award for excellence in teaching. “What they do is they conflate. Part of that is by putting the star on their flag,” Cardona said, referring to the Jewish Star of David. “Religion has nothing to do with it.”

But, she insists, that the course she teaches, and whose curriculum she helped develop—ethnic studies—is fundamentally incompatible with supporting Israel. “ ‘Are you pro-Israel—are you for genocide?’ And if anybody were to say, ‘Okay, sure,’ that’s really not ethnic studies.” (Gochez, Shattuc, and Cardona did not return requests for comment.)

It’s tempting to dismiss this as one more bull session among radical teachers leading a far-left public-sector union. If only.

Four years ago, I was among the first journalists to expose the widespread incursion of gender ideology into our schools. Once-fringe beliefs about gender swiftly took over large swaths of society partly thanks to their inclusion in school curricula and lessons.
Today, extensive interviews with parents, teachers, and non-profit organizations that monitor the radicalism and indoctrination in schools convinced me that demonization of Israel in American primary and secondary schools is no passing fad. Nor is it confined to elite private schools serving hyper-progressive families. As one Catholic parent who exposes radicalism in schools nationwide on the Substack Undercover Mother said to me: “They’ve moved on from BLM to gender unicorn to the new thing: anti-Israel activism. Anti-Israel activism is the new gender ideology in the schools.”

Parents who watched in alarm as gender theory swept through schools will recognize the sudden, almost religious conversion to this newest ideology. And very few educators are standing against it.

Much of the anti-Israel vituperation slides into classrooms through a subject called ethnic studies. In 2021, California became the first state to adopt it as a requirement for receiving a high school diploma. Legislatures of more than a dozen states have already followed suit, incorporating ethnic studies into K–12 curricula.

The above was shown to students at Lowell High School as part of their Ethnic Studies class. (Image obtained by The Free Press)

In principle, these laws require schools to teach the histories and cultures of African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latinos, and Native Americans. In practice, they grant teachers license to incorporate lessons that often divide civilization into “oppressed” and “oppressor.” A primary fixation of ethnic studies is demonizing Israel.

Activist-led organizations readily supply instructional materials. Arab Resource & Organizing Center (AROC), Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA; creators of the Teach Palestine Project), Teaching While Muslim, Jewish Voice for Peace, Unión del Barrio, and the Zinn Education Project regularly furnish distorted histories with eliminationist rhetoric against Israel.

Especially in the year since the Hamas massacre of Israelis on October 7, 2023, the anti-Israel materials have become pervasive. It’s not surprising that they are found in world history and current events lessons. But demonization of Israel is now taught in art, English, math, physics, and social-emotional learning classes.

Anti-Israel activism spreads through online curricula that are password protected, eluding parental oversight. It is pushed by teachers unions, furnished by activist organizations, and communicated to children through deception. (“We just happen to be at the same place at the same time.”) Anti-Israel radicals willingly stake their jobs for their cause.

“So how do we do all this without getting fired?” Gochez asked his assembled audience of public school teachers. “That’s the million-dollar question. And I don’t know how in the hell we have not been fired yet because I know for sure they have tried, but we have to organize. That’s the bottom line. If they come after one of us, the district has to know that it will be a bigger headache for them to try to touch one of us than it would be to just leave us alone.”
All for the sake of indoctrinating other people’s children.

Jewish Students Fend for Themselves

Ella Hassner. (Yadid Levy for The Free Press)

Last year, Ella Hassner was a senior at Fremont High School in Sunnyvale, California. In the weeks and months after October 7, she says, her school erupted with anti-Israel propaganda.

To combat the anti-Israel posters that appeared in classrooms and hallways, the school’s Jewish club received approval from the principal to put up posters of the hostages. Within thirty minutes, the posters were torn down, Ella, who has U.S.-Israeli citizenship and is now 18 years old, told me. Another Jewish student I spoke to, “Benny,” confirmed this, adding that he and his friends had witnessed one teacher tearing the posters down.

Teachers regularly pushed the idea to students—in class and on social media, where they were followed by their students—that “Zionists” were committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. A large majority of American Jews, 85 percent, support the State of Israel.  Zionism refers to the movement that established a modern Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland. Given the quantity of anti-Israel propaganda flooding American K–12 schools, it’s perhaps unsurprising that children would turn against their Jewish classmates.

This past year saw a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents in K–12 schools. Students verbally attacked Jewish classmates in terms that echoed the very charges laid by their teachers against the State of Israel. “Baby killer” and “Violent Zionist” became popular epithets.
Two girls in Ella’s class began to harass her, she told me. A subsequent school district investigation report, obtained by The Free Press, confirms her account. The girls said to her: “Your people are terrorists.” The girls created posts on social media that claimed “Israeli babies are not real humans,” and attacked Ella’s family, tagging Ella’s younger brother.

Ella filed a “bullying report” with the school in February. Although the principal had personally witnessed some of the behavior, he and the associate superintendent consulted the school district’s legal counsel and decided “that the complaint would not be investigated by the district,” according to the investigation report.

In February, the school hosted the annual district-wide vocal talent show. Several students sang songs celebrating their ethnic heritage. Ella and a female friend sang their approved song, “Someone Like You” by Adele, and then added another: a Hebrew pop anthem, “Yesh Bi Ahava,” which translates to “There’s Love Inside Me.” They announced the song was “dedicated to their families in Israel.”

Classmates said to Ella Hassner, “Your people are terrorists.” The same girls created posts on social media that claimed “Israeli babies are not real humans,” and attacked Ella’s family, tagging Ella’s younger brother.  (Yadid Levy for The Free Press)

Ella says the associate superintendent pulled the duo aside after the performance and said the staff and other students were greatly upset and offended by the Hebrew song and the dedication. According to the district investigation report, the associate superintendent also informed the girls that “she would be following up with the principal the following week to discuss the matter.” The investigation found that the district did not take disciplinary action against Ella. (In response to request for comment, a spokeswoman from the district stated that the district could not discuss specific cases. She also wrote that staff was “made aware of several allegations of antisemitism. We took each complaint seriously and responded with great care to make sure our community of students, staff and families felt safe.”)

In March of 2024, Ella stood at a town hall with U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna and recounted many of these incidents to get them on record. (Khanna said there should be “zero tolerance” for what Ella described and offered to help if the district did not respond to her complaints.)

Ella ended her town hall speech with the advice that she gives her younger siblings: If anyone mistreats them for being Jewish, “they should come to me, not to the school.” Conversations with seventeen Jewish parents whose children attend public school in Northern California suggest that that is an understandable reaction.

Since October 7 of last year, hundreds of incidents involving the harassment of Jewish K–12 students have been reported to Act Now K12, a grassroots effort to catalog and combat antisemitism in Northern California schools. Ilana Pearlman of Berkeley, Viviane Safrin of San Francisco, and Maya Bronicki of Santa Clara County—all mothers of Jewish children in public schools—helped spearhead the effort to track the escalating antisemitism tearing through school districts in Northern California. Bronicki says two hundred incidents were reported last school year in Santa Clara County alone.

Jewish families reported incidents like this one:

An Israeli American girl walked into her first period French class at Cupertino High School to find that many of the other students and the teacher were wearing a Palestinian flag or keffiyeh in solidarity with the Palestinian resistance, on the occasion of the Middle Eastern club’s pro-Palestine day. The club handed out a map of Israel labeled only as “Palestine.”

In another incident, a 12-year-old middle school student at a charter school in San Jose arrived visibly upset on the first school day following the October 7 Hamas massacre. According to a complaint against the school district later filed by her parents in federal district court, the girl had close family members in Israel whose whereabouts were unknown. The girl asked her world history teacher if she could go to the bathroom to collect herself.

The history classroom “was decorated with maps of the modern Middle East in which Israel was erased.” The history teacher knew the girl was Israeli American because she had identified herself as such at the start of the year during an icebreaker exercise. He told her she could not go “until she read aloud to the entire class a passage he had selected to the effect that in the past, Palestinians and Jews had gotten along,” according to the complaint. “The requirement to publicly espouse a position that was at odds with present reality was overwhelmingly oppressive and humiliating.” She read the passage aloud, as directed.

The next day at lunch, two female classmates wearing hijabs approached her, according to the complaint, “and demanded ‘What do your people think about the conflict?’ ” When the girl tried to answer, they screamed, “You’re lying—Jews are terrorists.” One demanded: “Do you know that your family in Israel is living on stolen land?”

A few days later, two boys chased her around the school yelling, “We want you to die.” Kids began to refer to her as “Jew.” They would say, “Hi, Jew” or “Hey Jew.” If she protested, they said they thought it was funny.
The rest of the kids isolated and ignored her when they weren’t whispering about her, the complaint alleges. She lost all but one friend. Her parents met several times with school faculty; according to the complaint, they did nothing to ensure her safety or improve the girl’s situation.

A Jewish ninth grader, “Sam,” attends a Bay Area high school where, after October 7 of last year, posters declaring, “Ceasefire Now!” and “Free Palestine” began appearing on the walls. Because Sam’s family considers itself very progressive, Sam was not bothered by the posters.

Then one of Sam’s friends sent him a long diatribe that read in part (spelling from the original), “I would just like to say that u are an ignorant ass white ass privileged boy u are so privileged to not b one of those children being killed rn in Gaza…solidarity and indigenous solidarity is something you could never understand as you have grown up your whole life with no culture and money and you been brainwashed by isreali and western media the world stands with Palestine and frankly it’s embarrassing to be anything different, when mostly all people of color stand with Palestine and you stand with ISREAL, that’s how yk ur in the wrong bud oppressed people stand with oppressed people in solidarity SOMETHING YOU COULDD NEVER UNDERSTAND.” The text concluded: “FREE PALESTINE TILL ITS BACKWARDS BITCH!!!!”

I spoke to Sam’s mother, and her perception was that the message didn’t sound like her son’s friend. The jargon and gist appeared to come from adults. Only the self-righteous fury and the message’s abusive conclusion belonged to the boy.
I also spoke to the mother of “Dana,” a sixth-grade girl at a Bay Area elementary school. In a social studies unit on ancient civilizations last year, the teacher encouraged students to share their “feelings” about “Israel and Palestine.” Students shouted: “Fuck Israel!” and “Israel sucks!” Dana was the only Jewish child in the class.

When Dana told her mother what had happened, her mother drove back to the school and asked the teacher, who admitted that the classroom exchange had occurred. Dana’s mother asked the teacher what “Israel and Palestine” had to do with the sixth-grade curriculum. The teacher claimed she couldn’t teach ancient civilizations without talking about the Palestinians. Dana’s mother knew the lesson offered neither historical nor archaeological evidence to tie the modern Palestinian national identity back to antiquity. But teachers today often consume and regurgitate anachronistic propaganda uncritically.

I spoke to a San Francisco middle schooler, “Zoe,” who told me her ethnic studies teacher so relentlessly preached anti-Israel sentiment, and the school was so engulfed in anti-Israel propaganda, that it changed how students treated her. Zoe told me one classmate came up to her and said: “A Zionist is someone who wants Palestinians dead.” Zoe replied, “That is actually not what it means at all.”

Ilana Pearlman of Berkeley is a midwife who has three Jewish children. Her son “Danny,” who was a student at Berkeley High School, told her that after October 7, a teacher used the school’s printing press to make “Free Palestine” T-shirts that were then distributed to students.

Ilana Pearlman of Berkeley has three Jewish children. Her son Danny, who is black, said to her, “If there was an image of a noose, we would not hear the end of it. There would be protests, people would be going crazy. But it’s always okay if it’s anything anti-Jewish.” (Jason Henry for The Free Press)

One of Danny’s teachers posted a running tally, in the front of the classroom, of the number of Palestinians allegedly killed by the IDF. She says, “So every day, when my son came into class, it would say how many people Israel has killed today.” (The Free Press has confirmed this with photographic evidence.)

Danny, who is black, said to her, “If there was an image of a noose, we would not hear the end of it. There would be protests, people would be going crazy. But it’s always okay if it’s anything anti-Jewish.”

One mother reported to grassroots organizers that her seven-year-old daughter came home from elementary school in Marin County last year and asked: “Mommy, if someone asks me if I’m Jewish, do I have to tell them?”

Learning to Hate Israel

Los Angeles Unified School District is failing its students. In the 2023–24 school year, fewer than half the students met reading proficiency standards, and less than 33 percent were proficient in math. But instead of a laser focus on how to educate kids, teachers are coming up with ever more ways to attack the existence of Israel.

It’s hard to imagine what U.S. arms sales to Israel has to do with the district’s core educational goals, but recently, the L.A. teachers union voted in opposition to it. They spend considerable union time and resources on organizing opposition to Israel. In the union’s recent Motions Report from October 10 of this year, half the measures put to a vote related to Israel. One motion, which passed unanimously, endorsed a discussion about “how to organize your workplace to support the Palestine Liberation Movement” and against “the ongoing genocide in Palestine.”

The First Amendment protects teachers’ political advocacy in union meetings. But public school teachers have no First Amendment right to express their political viewpoints in the classroom. “When it comes to K–12 education, the precedents are pretty clear that the school district or legislature or the principal or whoever the political process leaves in charge can set the curriculum and can require the teachers to go along with it,” Eugene Volokh, First Amendment scholar and distinguished professor of law at UCLA, told me.
But while the school board or legislature sets the agenda for what must be taught in schools, it can also choose not to police teachers who skirt those rules or even brazenly violate them.

Curriculum decisions, Volokh said, are “subject to the political process and not the legal process,” generally speaking. If the school district doesn’t object to teacher speech—or in fact encourages it—parents’ only recourse is through the political process: voting out state legislators or school board members.

Dillon Hosier, Chief Executive Officer of the Israeli-American Civic Action Network, explained that for generations, the Jewish community has poured its resources into nonprofits, which are not legally permitted to lobby. “Our opponents,” he said, referring to organizations like Council on American-Islamic Relations, “are putting people in public office and getting bills passed.”

That strategy has paid off. School boards and state legislators are reluctant to confront the growing problem in their schools.

In Brooklyn, teachers led third graders at PS 705 in Prospect Heights in a chorus of “The Wheels on the Tank,” which encouraged them to despise Israel and the Israel Defense Forces, according to the New York Post: “The wheels on the tanks go round and round, all through the town. The people in the town they hold their ground, and never back down.” The rhyme continued: “Free Palestine till the wheels on the tanks fall off.” The book was illustrated with Palestinian kids hurling rocks at Israeli tanks.

In Portland, pre-K lesson plans included the story of Handala, a fictional Palestinian cartoon character who symbolizes the resistance. “When I was only ten years old, I had to flee my home in Palestine,” the boy tells readers. “A group of bullies called Zionists wanted our land so they stole it by force and hurt many people,” it continues, according to a piece in City Journal.

At a Fort Lee, New Jersey, high school, world history teachers confiscated students’ cell phones before giving a lesson that presented Hamas as a “resistance movement” rather than an internationally designated terrorist organization. Teachers also showed a map of Israel that falsely presented Palestinians as the sole indigenous natives of Israel. (The Free Press has obtained a copy of the presentation. Click here to see it.)

The Black Lives Matter Week of Action is a standard program at thousands of schools across the country. It now routinely shifts from a focus on white racism against black Americans to the “other brown people” allegedly subjected to apartheid in the West Bank at the hands of the “white” settler colonialist Israelis, according to several grassroots organizers I spoke to who track radicalism in America’s public schools. (A majority of Israeli Jews are from non-white, non-European heritage.)

Nicole Neily is the founder of Parents Defending Education, a nonprofit that exposes radicalism in schools. (Jason Henry for The Free Press)

Three years ago, Nicole Neily founded Parents Defending Education, a nonprofit that exposes radicalism in schools, largely in response to the race and gender ideologies she saw coursing through public schools. This year, when her organization reached out to school districts to inquire whether they planned to include the war in Gaza in their BLM Week of Action instruction, the president of a school board in Rochester, New York, wrote back to confirm that they did. The school board president added, “I would ask that you study the history of the Jewish nation and their involvement in slavery–financing the slave ships to bring Africans into the Americas and the Carribbeans,” referring to a spurious canard associated with Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan.

Last spring, millions of Americans watched in disbelief as university students, particularly at our most elite schools, vandalized buildings, set up illegal encampments, and cheered for Hamas. But there was far less attention paid to the parallel dramas unfolding at K–12 schools across the country.

Aware of their ability to shape young minds, teachers encouraged schoolchildren to join “Walkouts” for Palestine, don keffiyehs, chant the eliminationist slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and tell their Jewish classmates, “It is excellent what Hamas did to Israel,” according to a complaint filed to the U.S. Department of Education by the Brandeis Center and the Anti-Defamation League on behalf of Jewish students.

“We had been tracking a lot of antisemitic incidents in school even prior to October 7. Obviously, in the wake of October 7, we saw things explode,” Neily told me. “This had sort of been simmering below the surface for a long time. You look at everything that happened on college campuses, and it’s not that kids turn 18, go to college campus, and think, ‘I’m going to underage drink and hate the Jews.’ So much of this was baked into the curriculum before.”

Neily, who is Catholic, has now become a national leader in the grassroots effort to expose antisemitism in schools. Her team regularly submits hundreds of FOIA requests, wrangling with schools that hide behind copyright law to avoid disclosing materials taught to American school children. And what she has found is that radical anti-Israel NGOs are training teachers and supplying materials used in thousands of American classrooms.“This stuff is really going viral, coast to coast,” Neily said.
Federal law gives parents the right to inspect their children’s educational materials. But schools routinely decline to turn over lessons on the grounds of copyright law.

“So long as a parent isn’t asking for the material to duplicate it and sell it, there is no copyright violation in providing that material to parents,” Lori Lowenthal Marcus told me. Marcus is the legal director at The Deborah Project, which protects the civil rights of Jews in education. She added, “It is a bullshit excuse that takes advantage of parents who aren’t lawyers.”


Lori Lowenthal Marcus. (Caroline Gutman for The Free Press)

Online textbooks are easily supplemented with material from Al Jazeera or other radical sources. Smartboards allow teachers to display fraudulent histories of Israel and outright propaganda.

This video, shown to tenth to twelfth graders in the Sequoia Union school district in Northern California as part of the mandatory ethnic studies curriculum, was produced by the virulently anti-Israel Turkish News site, TRT World. It ignores 3,000 years of Jewish history in Israel and instead frames Jewish connection to Israel as illegitimate or what is often called “settler colonialism.”

The video omits mention of Jews’ historic connection to the West Bank—called Judea and Samaria in the Hebrew Bible—and ignores the fact that the State of Israel accepted several peace proposals throughout its 76-year history that would have created a Palestinian state. It also omits that the Second Intifada and its 138 Palestinian suicide bombings of primarily civilian Israeli targets was the impetus for Israel erecting a security barrier.

An Undercover, Front-Row Seat

Dr. Brandy Shufutinsky. (Caroline Gutman for The Free Press)

Dr. Brandy Shufutinsky, director of education and community engagement at the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values, first noticed an uptick in antisemitic K–12 materials in 2018, when she was getting her PhD in education. “What I saw was what seemed to be a very well-coordinated effort between activist teachers, activist organizations, and administrators that were trying to do a lot of kowtowing to progressive social ideology through programming and bringing that programming into their schools,” she said.
“There is just this insidious idea that it is okay to hate Jews or attack Jews if they feel any connection to the Jewish homeland—to Israel; if there’s any expression of Jewish pride, especially when that pride is Zionism,” she said.

“I think that antisemitism, like the Jew hatred, isn’t the end goal. I think it’s the symptom of a bigger anti-Western illiberalism that has taken over a lot of our institutions,” Shufutinsky told me.

Curious to learn more about the goals of these anti-Israel educators, Shufutinsky began hanging out in their virtual meetings. As a grad student at the University of San Francisco, she spent almost two years, she says, “undercover” in chat rooms where educators were developing a new curriculum: “Liberated Ethnic Studies.” This would eventually become the mandatory California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. In discussions about the need for ethnic studies, educators were uniquely fixated on promoting an anti-Israel agenda. “The whole goal for pushing ethnic studies, making it a requirement, was so that they could teach Palestine,” she said.

When in 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a requirement that schools make completion of ethnic studies a condition of graduation, he effectively made antisemitism a formal feature of California schooling. The original curriculum, “Liberated Ethnic Studies,” was so outrageously antisemitic, it was officially abandoned. In The Free Press, Shufutinsky called it “a Trojan horse to institutionalize antisemitism in California schools.”

But even the successor course—implemented by many of the same educators who had proposed the Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum in California—has provided a vehicle for anti-Israel indoctrination of American schoolchildren.

Shufutinsky told me that the reformed curriculum teaches that “Israel is something that it isn’t. That it’s the ultimate evil. That it is apartheid. That it is a settler colonial state that deserves to be dismantled. That Zionism is racism.”

Elina Kaplan, a former manager in Northern California’s tech sector and self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was quick to recognize the problems posed by ethnic studies in the classroom. A childhood spent as a Jew in the former Soviet Union taught her to recognize state-sponsored antisemitic propaganda.

Elina Kaplan of Foster City, Calif. (Jason Henry for The Free Press)

She formed a nonprofit to organize against the inclusion of ethnic studies in California schools and maintains an archive of the antisemitic materials promulgated in American classrooms. While her organization helped defeat the worst excesses of the original curriculum, the broader effort to keep antisemitism out of the schools failed. Since 2021, she has seen the antisemitism once confined to ethnic studies sprout in virtually every subject.

Kaplan says, “In math class, they can be studying charts and are told, ‘Look at this pie chart of the number of Palestinians murdered. This slice shows the number of Israelis that were killed.’ ”

That example was actually presented to elementary school students in New Haven Unified School District, California. The chart is labeled “People Killed Since September 29, 2000” divided into Palestinians and Israelis and asks: “What information is this pie graph showing us?” The obvious answer: Far more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis.

Image obtained by The Free Press.

Another mother sent me an example of an assignment used in a physics class at Cupertino High School, which asked students to consider the “Effect of Israel’s Bombing of Gaza” on climate change.

Image obtained by The Free Press.

At schools where anti-Israel propaganda is promulgated, schoolchildren are turning against their Jewish classmates. Dozens of interviews with parents, teachers, and people at nonprofits revealed that discussions of Israel quickly become personal, and American Jews—even children—are the inevitable targets.

“Tammy” is a Jewish substitute teacher in Oakland who asked not to be identified. She said in the past year, she’s been astonished by the sheer volume of anti-Israel messaging to school kids across Oakland. She says only the Jewish families object. Where there are no Jewish students, the material goes entirely unopposed.

“We’re raising a generation of antisemites,” she told me.

“I have a necklace that says my name in Hebrew. And I wear it every day and I don’t take it off. It’s pretty small,” Tammy told me. One day last year, when she was substitute teaching in middle school, a boy saw her necklace and said, “Oh, I’m Jewish too.”
The boy went and got his backpack and pulled from it a necklace with a Star of David pendant. She remembers thinking, “Why is it in your backpack? Why aren’t you wearing it?”

Abigail Shrier is a contributing editor to The Free Press, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the New York Times best-selling author of Bad Therapy.

https://www.thefp.com/p/abigail-shrier-the-kinderfada-revolution


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Relative Priorities
« Reply #135 on: November 09, 2024, 06:40:19 AM »
Peter Schweizer
@peterschweizer

Harvard cancelled classes after Trump won.  They did not cancel classes after the October 7th Hamas massacre.  What does that tell you?

https://x.com/peterschweizer/status/1854559084373999925

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Firing a Shot Across the Woke Ed Biz’s Bow
« Reply #136 on: November 13, 2024, 02:33:43 PM »
Sweet baby Jesus, let me live long enough to see this implemented and granting degrees:

Student loans need to be like mortgages: appraise the property to make sure it’s worth the loan and do a check on the buyer to make sure they can pay it back.

In student loans, the “property” is their degree: the institution and major. A computer science degree from Stanford is worth more than a gender studies degree from Stanford. A computer science degree from South Alabama State University is worth less than one from Stanford. And a gender studies or cultural anthropology degree from South Alabama State is worthless.

The borrower is the student. In addition to the student’s credit rating (which matters - are they responsible with money or racking up credit card debt to buy clothes and electronics or leasing fancy cars?), they should look at GPA. A 2.0 GPA student is far less likely to pay back a loan than a 4.0 student regardless of school.

Then there should be a formula that (based on real world data) assigns a maximum loan amount tied to these data points about the student and school/major. That gender studies major at S Alabama State would get $0 as a 2.0 and $50 a year as a 4.0. A 4.0 computer science student at the same school would qualify for $10000 a year but less with poor credit. And a 4.0 Stanford computer science major could qualify for $100,000 a year.

Let’s do this!!

BBG: In addition he posted:

Incredible news: President @realDonaldTrump planning to tax excessively large private university endowments (which have benefited greatly from taxpayer $) to establish American Academy, a free online university for all. Purely academic.

Now please make a med school. I’ll help!

https://x.com/houmanhemmati/status/1856742889197637776?s=61

ETA: a list of the largest university endowments: https://www.educationconnection.com/resources/largest-university-endowments/#largest-university-endowment-colleges
« Last Edit: November 13, 2024, 02:39:07 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
The Political Reframing of Education & All it Wrought
« Reply #138 on: November 22, 2024, 06:40:52 PM »
A wee bit of long overdue reflection from an English professor. Think it’s tepid, pulls punches, and doesn’t dive deeply enough into the arrogant pathology he’s speaking to. Nonetheless I expect he’ll be utterly excoriated in ed biz circles:

We Asked for It

Michael Clune

Over the past 10 years, I have watched in horror as academe set itself up for the existential crisis that has now arrived. Starting around 2014, many disciplines — including my own, English — changed their mission. Professors began to see the traditional values and methods of their fields — such as the careful weighing of evidence and the commitment to shared standards of reasoned argument — as complicit in histories of oppression. As a result, many professors and fields began to reframe their work as a kind of political activism.

In reading articles and book manuscripts for peer review, or in reviewing files when conducting faculty job searches, I found that nearly every scholar now justifies their work in political terms. This interpretation of a novel or poem, that historical intervention, is valuable because it will contribute to the achievement of progressive political goals. Nor was this change limited to the humanities. Venerable scientific journals — such as Nature — now explicitly endorse political candidates; computer-science and math departments present their work as advancing social justice. Claims in academic arguments are routinely judged in terms of their likely political effects.

The costs of explicitly tying the academic enterprise to partisan politics in a democracy were eminently foreseeable and are now coming into sharp focus. Public opinion of higher education is at an all-time low. The incoming Trump administration plans to use the accreditation process to end the politicization of higher education — and to tax and fine institutions up to “100 percent” of their endowment. I believe these threats are serious because of a simple political calculation of my own: If Trump announced that he was taxing wealthy endowments down to zero, the majority of Americans would stand up and cheer.

This crisis comes at a time in which colleges are ill-equipped to mount a defense. How did this happen?

Let’s take a closer look at why the identification of academic politics with partisan politics is so wrongheaded. I am not interested here in questioning the validity of the political positions staked out by academics over the past decade — on race, immigration, biological sex, Covid, or Donald Trump. Even if one wholeheartedly agrees with every faculty-lounge political opinion, there are still very good reasons to be skeptical about making such opinions the basis of one’s academic work.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The first is that, while academics have real expertise in their disciplines, we have no special expertise when it comes to political judgment. I am an English professor. I know about the history of literature, the practice of close reading, and the dynamics of literary judgment. No one should treat my opinion on any political matter as more authoritative than that of any other person. The spectacle of English professors pontificating to their captive classroom audiences on the evils of capitalism, the correct way to deal with climate change, or the fascist tendencies of their political opponents is simply an abuse of power.

The spectacle of English professors pontificating to their captive classroom audiences on the evils of capitalism, the correct way to address climate change, or the fascist tendencies of their political opponents is simply an abuse of power.
The second problem with thinking of a professor’s work in explicitly political terms is that professors are terrible at politics. This is especially true of professors at elite colleges. Professors who — like myself — work in institutions that pride themselves on rejecting 70 to 95 percent of their applicants, and whose students overwhelmingly come from the upper reaches of the income spectrum, are simply not in the best position to serve as spokespeople for left-wing egalitarian values.

As someone who was raised in a working-class, immigrant family, academe first appeared to me as a world in which everyone’s views seemed calculated to distinguish themselves from the working class. This is bad enough when those views concern art or esoteric anthropology theories. But when they concern everyday morality and partisan politics, the results are truly perverse. In return for their tuition, students are given the faculty’s high-class political opinions as a form of cultural capital. Thus the public perceives these opinions — on defunding the police, or viewing biological sex as a social construction, or Israel as absolute evil — as markers in a status game. Far from advancing their opinions, professors in fact function to invalidate these views for the majority of Americans who never had the opportunity to attend elite institutions but who are constantly stigmatized for their low-class opinions by the lucky graduates.

Far from representing a powerful avant-garde leading the way to political change, the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports. The hierarchical structure of academe, and the role it plays in class stratification, clings to every professor’s political pronouncement like a revolting odor. My guess is that the successful Democrats of the future will seek to distance themselves as far as possible from the bespoke jargon and pedantic tone that has constituted the professoriate’s signal contribution to Democratic politics. Nothing would so efficiently invalidate conservative views with working-class Americans than if every elite college professor was replaced by a double who conceived of their work in terms of activism for right-wing ideas. Professors are bad at politics, and politicized professors are bad for their own politics.

If we have a political role by virtue of our jobs, that role derives from dedicated practice in the disciplines in which we are experts. Teaching students how to weigh evidence, giving them the capacity to follow a mathematical proof, disciplining their tendency to project their own values onto the object of study — these practices may not have the direct and immediate political payoff that has been the professoriate’s reigning delusion over the past decade. But they have two overwhelming advantages.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
First, a chemist, or an art historian, really does possess authority in their subject of expertise. They can show us things we couldn’t learn on our own. This genuine authority is the basis for the university’s claim to public respect and support.

Second, the dissemination of academic values regarding evidence and reasoned debate can have powerful indirect effects. I have argued, for instance, that even so apparently apolitical a practice as teaching students to appreciate great literature can act as a bulwark against the reduction of all values to consumer preference. The scientific and humanistic education of an informed citizenry may not in itself solve climate change or end xenophobia, but it can contribute to these goals in ways both dramatic and subtle. In any case, such a political role is the only one that is both sustainable in a democracy and compatible with our professional status as researchers and educators.

It would be wrong to place the blame for the university’s current dire straits entirely on the shoulders of activist professors. While virtually all professors (I include myself) have surrendered, to at least some degree, to the pressure to justify our work in political terms — whether in grant applications, book proposals, or department statements about political topics — in many cases the core of our work has continued to be the pursuit of knowledge. The primary responsibility for the university’s abject vulnerability to looming political interference of the most heavy-handed kind falls on administrators. Their job is to support academic work and communicate its benefits. Yet they seem perversely committed to identifying academe as closely as possible with political projects.

The most obvious example is the routine proclamations from university presidents and deans on every conceivable political issue. In response to events such as the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the murder of George Floyd in 2020, administrators broadcast identifiably partisan views as representative of the university as a whole. This trend has mercifully diminished in the wake of the disastrous House of Representatives hearings on antisemitism that led to the dismissal of Harvard president Claudine Gay and others. But the conception of the university as a vehicle for carrying out specific political ends continues in less visible ways.

For instance, recent years have seen a proliferation of high-level administrators given the task of instituting what amounts to a “shadow curriculum” of student and faculty training, the content of which is the explicit transmission and enforcement of controversial political views about race, gender, sexuality, and power. Even more unsettling has been the cloud of unknowing that has descended over the political imperatives governing faculty and administrative hiring practices.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
I will give an example from my own work as chair of several faculty search committees over the past two years. At a mandatory training session, I was told by the university’s diversity officer that I was to use candidates’ diversity statements as a means of ascertaining candidates’ racial identity. Yet at another training session, I was told that I was not to base hiring decisions on knowledge of candidates’ racial identity.

Chairing a search-committee meeting in which faculty members were openly discussing candidates’ race, I wondered aloud if what we were doing was illegal. I then received a stern email from the diversity dean telling me that it was unacceptable to raise the question of the legality of the university’s practices. I then asked what those practices were. How, in fact, does the university want us to take account of race? I never received a reply.

When I did meet with the dean, my questions were repeatedly turned aside by references to our “shared values.” But what are these values? What links the work of a professor who conceives of her job as climate activism, to a student-orientation leader teaching that the term “illegal immigration” is a microaggression, to the search committee deciding that this person from a minority group is a good candidate while that one is not? The thread is a shared commitment to a particular brand of partisan politics. If this is truly what the university stands for, if these are our values, then when we are called before our elected representatives to answer for ourselves, what can we say? Colleges have no compelling justification for their existence to give when the opposing political party comes into power. We have nothing to say to the half of America who doesn’t share our politics.

I believe administrators and professors should articulate a different set of shared values, stemming from our demonstrated expertise and commitment to high standards of evidence and argument. This expertise and this commitment are the grounds of the academic freedom by which we claim to pursue knowledge without fear of political pressure.

The good news is that these values animate what most professors, in most disciplines, do every day. The bad news is that the time to share this news with the nation is rapidly running out.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-asked-for-it