RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/what-will-it-take-convince-democrats-school-choice-larry-sand/

During the 2020–21 school year, approximately 608,000 students used a voucher, tax-credit scholarship, or education savings account (ESA) to educate their children, according to policy experts Jason Bedrick and Ed Tarnowski. They wrote in August that as a result of the legislation enacted so far in 2021, at least 3.6 million additional students are eligible to participate in the new educational choice programs in seven states, and an additional 878,300 additional students will be eligible in 14 other states. In all, 22 states expanded or created school choice initiatives in 2021.

While this is certainly good news for the still small percentage of lucky families, there is a disturbing, though not exactly surprising reality. As detailed in a study released in the fall by researchers Jay Greene, James Paul, and Lindsey Burke, very few Democratic state legislators vote for school-choice proposals, “and the few that do almost never make a difference in whether those bills receive support of at least 50% of the legislators.” The researchers conclude, that the “empirical evidence is clear that the historical practice of courting Democratic policymakers has not been effective. Indeed, it has likely been counter-productive. Proponents of school choice should make a values-based appeal for choice that could attract more families, and elevate choice as a solution to some of the most pressing education policy fights of the day.”

It is no secret that the teachers unions are Choice Enemy #1, and are a big part of the problem in blue states. With only a handful of organized private schools nationwide, the unions are willing to spend big to advance their self-serving agenda, no matter how family-unfriendly it may be. And that outlay goes almost exclusively in one direction, of course. In 2020, the National Education Association contributed almost $15 million to candidates across the country, handing over 96% of it to Democrats. The American Federation of Teachers spent over $20 million, 99.6% of it going to Dems.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/25/virginia-shuts-down-plans-for-race-based-math-curriculum/

On Monday, the Virginia Department of Education (DOE) canceled plans to roll out a new form of math curriculum that would focus heavily on race relations.

As reported by the Daily Caller, the DOE website no longer has a page for the planned Virginia Math Pathways Initiative (VMPI), which was previously set up by the administration of Governor Ralph Northam (D-Va.). All that remains on the page now is a message saying that “The Virginia Department of Education has ended the Virginia Math Pathways Initiative (VMPI) project. Please see the Mathematics Instruction page, if your browser does not refresh.”

The move was applauded by parents’ rights groups in the state of Virginia, including the watchdog group Parents Defending Education (PDE), which released a statement explaining how “ideologues of critical race theory, including Ibram X. Kendi, target advanced education, including math and advanced diploma programs, as emblematic of ‘systemic racism,’ and thus they are being targeted by activists around the country for elimination.”

“For the last year, local school boards and the media have insisted that critical race theory is not in our schools, dumbing our kids down,” said PDE’s Asra Nomani. “But it is in our schools, putting us in a race to the bottom, especially with math and sciences.”

“Thankfully, the Youngkin administration with Superintendent Jillian Balow and Assistant Superintendent Elizabeth Schultz have eliminated the Virginia Math Pathways Initiative, which was going to deny students advanced math in middle school,” Nomani continued. “This war on merit must end.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/race-harvard-and-the-supreme-court-students-for-fair-admissions-colleges-quotas-11643063228?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two cases challenging racial preferences in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Kudos to the Justices for taking this opportunity to vindicate equal treatment under the law regardless of race, especially when the left is pushing racial calculations into policies far beyond campus.

This also is a chance for the Court to correct its own mistakes. Racial quotas are forbidden, but in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), a 5-4 majority endorsed the idea that race could be a “plus” factor to help colleges seek “the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Yet there was an expiration date: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

That deadline is almost here. But two decades later the progressive zeal for divvying up people by race, ethnicity and sexuality has increased. Colleges have begun hosting specific graduation events for black, “Latinx” or LGBT students. Some dorms provide optional “affinity housing.” States and hospitals lately have written race into their policies for allocating scarce Covid-19 treatments. The old goal of “equality” is now passe on the left, which wants “equity,” which means unequal treatment in an attempt to achieve equal results.

Also, what is the limit on a racial plus factor? Students for Fair Admissions, the petitioner in both cases, says Harvard admits 56.1% of black applicants in the top academic decile, compared with 31.3% of Hispanics, 15.3% of whites, and 12.7% of Asians. A black applicant who’s in the fourth-lowest decile, it adds, “has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-stuck-anti-semitic-semitism-public-labor-union-intimidation-dues-cuny-city-university-new-york-janus-11642714137?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

New York

As an observant Orthodox Jew born in the Soviet Union, I’m no stranger to resisting intimidation at significant cost. In 1971 my family petitioned authorities to leave the country after we suffered anti-Semitic harassment and physical assault. Our petition was denied and we were forced to live and work in that hostile environment for 15 years. Eventually, we settled in Israel, and I later established an academic career in New York. But the bigotry I fled has caught up with me.

I am a tenured professor of mathematics at the City University of New York. I joined the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress, nearly 10 years ago. In June, union officials—who speak for me under state law—issued a resolution I, and many of my colleagues, view as anti-Semitic.

The resolution condemned “the continued subjection of Palestinians to the state-supported displacement, occupation, and use of lethal force by Israel” and required chapter-level discussion of possible union support for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. It equated the policies of Israel, of which I am a citizen and where I still have family, with apartheid. Many of my Jewish colleagues and I were outraged.

I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity. I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good. I was wrong. Union officials refused my resignation and continued taking union dues out of my paycheck. But those weren’t the issues that led me and five of my colleagues to sue them.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/money-indoctrination-john-stossel/

Glenn Youngkin recently was elected Virginia’s governor partly because he promised to ban teaching of CRT.

CRT stands for critical race theory, which argues that every American institution upholds white supremacy.

Before Youngkin’s surprise victory, the media mocked him for complaining about CRT.

NBC’s Nicolle Wallace said it isn’t even taught in public schools. “That is like us banning the ghosts!” she laughed.

She is wrong.

In my new video, journalist Asra Nomani reveals some rather creepy CRT lessons that are taught in many schools.

Nomani filed Freedom of Information Act requests that forced school districts to reveal how they pay consultants to spread critical race theory.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/youngkin-taps-anti-crt-leader-as-virginia-diversity-officer/

Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin tapped prominent anti-critical race theory activist Angela Sailor as the state’s new director of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“The people of Virginia elected the most diverse leadership in the Commonwealth’s history. Virginia is big enough for the hopes and dreams of a diverse people. Angela Sailor’s experience in government, nonprofits and the private sector will guide us as we ensure that the government is working for all Virginians across our diverse Commonwealth, especially when it comes to economic opportunity for all Virginians,” Youngkin said.

In appointing her to the position, Youngkin also issued an executive order that will reorient the office away from realizing racialized equality-of-outcome objectives. Instead, the office will focus on creating economic opportunity for disadvantaged Virginians, enforcing “free speech and civil discourse” in academia, and ensuring that students receive an “honest, objective, and complete” civic education,” Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

The governor also announced that he would introduce legislation to change the word “equity” in the office’s name to “opportunity.”

Without specifying racial background, the executive order reads: “…too many of our citizens have not received the equal opportunity they deserve, and we recognize that diversity when genuinely embraced strengthens our Commonwealth.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-why-i-am-no-longer-a-tenured-professor-at-the-university-of-toronto

The appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity is demolishing education and business.

“And it’s not just the universities. And the professional colleges. And Hollywood. And the corporate world. Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity — that radical leftist Trinity — is destroying us. Wondering about the divisiveness that is currently besetting us? Look no farther than DIE. Wondering — more specifically — about the attractiveness of Trump? Look no farther than DIE. When does the left go too far? When they worship at the altar of DIE, and insist that the rest of us, who mostly want to be left alone, do so as well. Enough already. Enough. Enough.”

I recently resigned from my position as full tenured professor at the University of Toronto. I am now professor emeritus, and before I turned sixty. Emeritus is generally a designation reserved for superannuated faculty, albeit those who had served their term with some distinction. I had envisioned teaching and researching at the U of T, full time, until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office. I loved my job. And my students, undergraduates and graduates alike, were positively predisposed toward me. But that career path was not meant to be. There were many reasons, including the fact that I can now teach many more people and with less interference online. But here’s a few more:

First, my qualified and supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students (and I’ve had many others, by the way) face a negligible chance of being offered university research positions, despite stellar scientific dossiers. This is partly because of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity mandates (my preferred acronym: DIE). These have been imposed universally in academia, despite the fact that university hiring committees had already done everything reasonable for all the years of my career, and then some, to ensure that no qualified “minority” candidates were ever overlooked. My students are also partly unacceptable precisely because they are my students. I am academic persona non grata, because of my unacceptable philosophical positions. And this isn’t just some inconvenience. These facts rendered my job morally untenable. How can I accept prospective researchers and train them in good conscience knowing their employment prospects to be minimal?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/critical_race_theory_wrong_for_k12_education.html

Critical Race Theory (CRT), a relatively young legal theory that has been circulating in legal academic circles since the 1980s, suddenly burst on the scene of public consciousness in the past year.  It continues to be a topic of controversy due to its being advocated for inclusion in K-12 instruction. As with other subjects that become political footballs, CRT elicits very strong views — especially among those with minimal understanding of the theory. Unless a person has taken the time to earnestly read source materials from CRT’s original authors, it is all too easy to fall into one camp or the other — while still remaining in the dark about its meaning.

Here I would like to provide some insights about CRT and encourage reading original source materials by authors such as Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado. A great start would be Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement by Crenshaw, et al. What you will find is that CRT writings are not light reading by any means, but scholarly and heavily academic, as the expected audience is other legal scholars and academics. Yet grappling with these works is a necessary investment if you truly want to have an informed perspective regarding CRT.  You will likely come away with a conclusion that what has been labeled and promoted as “CRT” in K-12 education has virtually nothing to do with the theory as put forward in the key writings of its authors.

Last year we heard the continual refrain, even from the highest levels of government, that CRT is needed for K-12 students because it teaches about slavery and racism in our history.  The problem with this assertion is CRT is not something you would look for in a history book because it is not an account of specific events of the dark history of slavery and Jim Crow in America. Rather, CRT is based on legal theory from the perspective of the role of law in the treatment of people of color. Specifically, CRT examines how the law, since the founding of the country, has been both central and complicit in upholding white supremacy throughout its history in terms of social domination and subordination of people of color.