Five-year old suspended for “playing Army”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

"Armed and dangerous"

“Armed and dangerous”

They had to do it; the kid was armed — with a finger gun! (The horror…)

A 5-year-old boy was reportedly suspended from school after making a gun gesture with his hand on the playground.

His father, David Hendrix, was furious when he found out his son was issued a suspension for the gesture.

“He was playing army on the playground,” Hendrix told WBTV. “I just felt like the punishment was way too severe.”

Let’s try, “shouldn’t have happened at all.” I mean, do school administrators not have the same childhoods the rest of us have? Little boys don’t play Army and make finger guns in their world? They don’t yell “bang-bang!” and argue over who’s “dead?” Do children in their universe sit around in their onesies talking about health insurance? What goes through these “educators'” heads, except air?

I mean, my goodness. It’s not like the kid was armed with a Pop-tart, or something.

via Pirate’s Cove

(Photo source: Wikipedia)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Iran can go on enriching, but music teachers must be stopped

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted  by Phineas

music teacher violin

And you guys worry about Iran getting nuclear weapons? Fools! Thank God the FTC is there to protect us from the danger of unregulated violin instructors!

The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 in the age of oil barons and rail tycoons to bust the big trusts. Today, it’s busting a smaller enterprise – the Music Teachers National Association.

Last March, the FTC sent notice to the MTNA that it was under investigation for “anti-competitive practices.” At issue: a passage in the trade association’s ethics code that says teachers should not actively recruit from other teachers.

“We feel that that provision not only protects the students but ensures that teachers are going to get along well with their colleagues, ” says Gary Ingle, the MTNA’s executive director. 

Ingle says it’s a method of avoiding the rare conflict, where, for example, an accomplished student pianist may be approached after a competition by a rival instructor who promises to help the student win the next competition.

The FTC sees it as a threat to America’s consumers. 

There’s nothing in the rules that prevents a student from seeking out another teacher on their own, of course, and the FTC hasn’t shown how anyone has been harmed by a rule that prevents teachers from poaching each other’s students, but, apparently some bored bureaucrat decided that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE about this clear and present danger.

The MTNA has removed the rule while it figures out how to respond to the FTC’s investigation. So far, it’s amounted to a waste of member’s dues:

MTNA’s Ingle says that’s already happening. His 12-member staff in Cincinnati, Ohio has had to compile 17 years worth of records, including its by-laws, ethics code, journals, finances and membership to satisfy the FTC’s demands.

Sounds like what the IRS did to conservative groups, no? Beat them into submission by hitting them with burdensome documentation demands — and legal fees, should the group decide it needs representation.

Obama’s America: Where nothing is beneath the Federal government’s notice, except Iranian nukes.

via reader Lance

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

#CommonCore: turning History into anti-American propaganda

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

x

Necessary

I honestly haven’t followed the controversy over the proposed Common Core national educational standards all that closely (1), though I’m somewhat familiar with the questions of lowered standards, loss of local control, and the constitutional issue over a national curriculum. But I do not claim to be an expert.

If, however, this is representative of how American History is to be taught, I’ll be reaching for my pitchfork and torch. The textbook in question is Prentice-Hall’s “The American Experience,” and its chapter on the Second World War, as well as the accompanying teacher’s manual, takes a, shall we say, “slanted” view of the war:

The opening page of the slim chapter devoted to World War II called “War Shock” features a photograph of a woman inspecting a large stockpile of thousand-pound bomb castings. The notes in the margins of the Teacher’s Edition set the tone:

“In this section, nonfiction prose and a single stark poem etch into a reader’s mind the dehumanizing horror of world war. . . .”

The editors of the textbook script the question teachers are supposed to ask students in light of the photograph as well as provide the answer:

Ask: What dominant impression do you take away from this photograph?

Possible response: Students may say that the piled rows of giant munitions give a strong impression of America’s power of mass production and the bombs’ potential for mass destruction.”

Translation: Americans made lots of big bombs that killed lots of people.

The principal selection of the chapter is taken from John Hersey’s Hiroshima. It is a description of ordinary men and women in Hiroshima living out their lives the day the bomb was dropped. A couple of lines reveal the spirit of the document:

“The Reverend Mr. Tanimoto got up at five o’clock that morning. He was alone in the parsonage, because for some time his wife had been commuting with their year-old baby to spend nights with a friend in Ushida, a suburb to the north.”

Further prompts from the margins of the Teacher’s Edition indicate how the selection is to be read and taught:

“World War II has been called a popular war in which the issues that spurred the conflict were clearly defined. . . . Nevertheless, technological advances . . . [and the media] brought home the horrors of war in a new way. Although a serious antiwar movement in the United States did not become a reality until the 1960s, these works by Hersey and by Jarrell take their place in the ranks of early antiwar literature.

Have students think about and record in writing their personal feelings about war. Encourage students to list images of war that they recall vividly. [Conveniently, there is a photograph of the devastation in Hiroshima next to this prompt].

Tell students they will revisit their feelings about war after they have read these selections.”

The entire section is littered with questions and prompts in this vein and plenty of photos that show the destruction of Hiroshima. In case the students would be inclined to take the American side in this conflict, the editors see to it that teachers will remind the students repeatedly that there are two sides in every war:

“Think Aloud: Model the Skill
Say to students:
When I was reading the history textbook, I noticed that the writer included profiles of three war heroes, all of whom fought for the Allies. The writer did not include similar profiles for fighters on the other side. I realize that this choice reflects a political assumption: that readers want to read about only their side’s heroes.

. . . Mr. Tanimoto is on the side of “the enemy.” Explain that to vilify is to make malicious statements about someone. During wartime, it is common to vilify people on the other side, or “the enemy.””

After a dozen pages of Hersey’s Hiroshima (the same number given to Benjamin Franklin in volume one of The American Experience), students encounter the anti-war, anti-heroic poem by Randall Jarell, “The Death of the Ball Turrett Gunner.” The last line in this short poem sums up the sentiment: “When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.” The textbook editors zero in for the kill:

“Take a position: Jarrell based his poem on observations of World War II, a war that has been called “the good war.” Is there such a thing as a “good war”? Explain.

Possible response: [In the Teacher’s Edition] Students may concede that some wars, such as World War II, are more justified than others, but may still feel that “good” is not an appropriate adjective for any war.”

This is not a history lesson. It is anti-war propaganda masquerading as history. This is garbage designed to at best place America and Imperial Japan on an ambiguously equal moral ground, and at worst to make us out to be a villain or aggressor in the conflict. To focus on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without presenting the reasons for the attack is intellectually bankrupt. The Truman administration dropped the bombs because of the experience of fanatical Japanese resistance along a whole string of islands, where again and again Imperial Japanese Army units fought until nearly wiped out. Imagine that occurring on the Japanese Home Islands themselves, in the event of invasion; bear in mind that the Japanese government was not of a mind to surrender and indeed was talking about “70 million dead” (essentially, fighting to the last man, woman, and child), and then look at the casualty estimates for just the American invasion forces, for which figures of 500,000 killed and wounded were common. And, should the invasion have been delayed until 1946 or the islands simply besieged, there was a very real risk of famine and the  mass starvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, because transportation networks had been destroyed. And that doesn’t even begin to account for hundreds of millions suffering under Japanese rule and who needed the war to end as swiftly as possible.

Beyond the question of military necessity and the lesser of two evils, Common Core “standards” engage in moral relativism. While quoting Hersey’s “Hiroshima” (actually, a good book) and Jarrell’s poem, students are apparently left in the dark about Japan’s aggressive intentions and regular atrocities from the 1930s through the end. No mention of the invasion of Manchuria, the war on China, the Rape of Nanking, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Unit 731, or the horrors suffered by prisoners of war and civilians living under Japanese rule.

But we do get pictures of American bombs, vivid descriptions of the wreck of Hiroshima, and the lasting impression that we were the ones committing evil, not doing what was necessary to end it.

Let me be blunt: Imperial Japan was evil and had subjected Asia and the Pacific to a horrific nightmare, all to satisfy a national ideology that dehumanized everyone else. Once the war had started, it had to be crushed; the Truman administration was right drop the atomic bombs to force Japan’s surrender (2). It would have been a greater evil to let the war drag on. And while innocent people died in the fight against Japan, to teach any sort of moral equivalence between the two nations is insulting and obscene.

And yet these are the new standards? This isn’t education, it’s pedagogical malpractice.

Footnote:
(1) On the other hand, Michelle Malkin has been an avenging angel on the topic.
(2) A superb book on the end of the war and the decision to use atomic weapons is Frank’s “Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Racism! Bowie State (MD) cancels student health insurance plans due to #Obamacare

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Obama teleprompter

One empty promise after another, and another, and …

Katherine Timpf  at Campus Reform reports:

Officials at one one of the nation’s oldest and most elite historically black colleges are citing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the reason they have cancelled a school-wide affordable health care plan they had offered students.

The official website for Bowie State, a Maryland public school less than an hour’s drive from Washington D.C., explains that Obamacare’s new regulations would force the cost of the the insurance to rise from $50 to $900 a semester.

“Bowie State University has suspended offering health insurance for domestic students for the 2013-2014 academic year,” states the school’s official website. “Due to new requirements of the Affordable Care Act which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students will increase to approximately $1800 per year.”

That works out to approximately $900 per semester. The student health insurance plan had cost students $50 per semester for the 2012-13 school year, according to a cached page of the university’s description of the plan. The original link to the description has been deleted.

According to an article in The Bulldog Collegian, Bowie State’s official student newspaper, the Director of the Bowie State University Wellness Center said that the university decided it would not be worth it to provide student health insurance at all given how expensive it would be to do so under the new regulations.

The student’s article, published Nov. 10, had slightly different numbers than the school website’s. It states that the student health plan used to cost $54/semester, not $50, and that the new insurance costs would amount to $1,900 per year, not $1,800.

In August of this year, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested that President Obama’s would lend special support to the country’s historically black colleges and universities.

Yet another promise by the Obama administration on Obamacare that hasn’t panned out – and probably deliberately so. Imagine that?!

Flashback:

Shock: College hook-up culture brings far more “benefits” for men than women

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hook-up culture

Just say no … to the hook-up culture.

College Fix associate editor Jennifer Kabbany writes about a New York Times report on the “inequality” of the, um, “quality” of the hook-up culture for college women:

The infamous college campus hook-up culture celebrated by feminists suggests female students love casual, no-strings-attached sex, and enjoy one-night stands without guilt, shame or regret.

Oh yeah – then why aren’t they having orgasms when they do?

Research involving 600 college students … found that women were twice as likely to reach orgasm from intercourse or oral sex in serious relationships as in hookups,” the New York Times reported Monday. The factoid was couched in a longer article titled “In Hook-Ups, Inequality Still Reigns.”

“Many young women … are finding that casual sex does not bring the physical pleasure that men more often experience,” the Times reports. “New research suggests why: Women are less likely to have orgasms during uncommitted sexual encounters than in serious relationships. At the same time, researchers say that young women are becoming equal partners in the hookup culture, often just as willing as young men to venture into sexual relationships without emotional ties.”

The article goes on to cite another study which looked at 24,000 students at 21 colleges over five years that found “about 40 percent of women had an orgasm during their last hookup involving intercourse, while 80 percent of men did.”

The Times’ report interviewed several people who had all sorts of ideas as to what’s going wrong in the bedroom, such as that young men don’t care about pleasing a women they see casually, and the twosome doesn’t know each other well enough to know how to get each other off. Predictably, it goes on to quote sources who say sex without orgasms is fine for women seeking to scratch that carnal itch – that “mediocre sex” is the price women pay for freedom.

But the truth is women engaged in casual sex don’t reach orgasm because – on some level – they know they’re selling themselves short. They’re giving away their ace in the hole, pardon the pun, to some guy who barely knows their name and is likely too drunk to remember it in the morning. They’re offering themselves to a man who has committed nothing to them, cares nothing for them.

This is “sexual freedom”? No thank you. Give me emotional commitment over a “hook-up” any day.  It’s a lot more fulfilling and rewarding – and not merely in terms of just the physical aspects.    Young women constantly sell themselves – and their ability to have a nurturing, loving, sustaining, more equal relationship – short in this regard (frankly, men do, too).  And it hurts their ability to trust in the long run. But it’s what rules in pop culture, it’s the “in” thing to do.  It’s “rebellious”, it’s a “rite of passage”  – and for women, it’s the ultimate sign of “non-conformity” against the values their parents tried to instill in them when they were growing up.

Isn’t it far more grown up and, dare I say “rebellious”,  to resist the temptation to be like everyone else and to NOT do what everyone else is doing? Just askin.’

Dumb: Two seventh grade students in Va. Beach suspended for shooting airsoft guns UPDATE: Expelled!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

WAVY reports on another instance of a “zero tolerance policy” in schools going way too far:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) – A suspended seventh grade Virginia Beach student will find out soon if he is expelled for the rest of the year for shooting an airsoft gun.

Like thousands of others in Hampton Roads, Khalid Caraballo plays with airsoft guns. Caraballo and his friend Aidan were suspended because they shot two other friends who were with them while playing with the guns as they waited for the school bus.

The two seventh graders say they never went to the bus stop; they fired the airsoft guns while on Caraballo’s private property.

Aidan’s father, Tim Clark, told WAVY.com what happened next lacks commons sense. The children were suspended for possession, handling and use of a firearm.

Khalid’s mother, Solangel Caraballo, thinks it is ridiculous the Virginia Beach City Public School System suspended her 13-year-old son and Aidan because they were firing a spring-driven airsoft gun on the Caraballo’s posted private property.  “My son is my private property.  He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school.”

The bus stop in question is 70 yards from the Caraballo’s front yard.

Solangel Caraballo was not at home when this incident occurred.  She was taking her young son to a Head Start class.  She left her 16-year -old daughter in charge.

Khalid and Aiden aren’t only suspended, they were recommended to be expelled for a year for “possession, handling and use of a firearm.”

This story that addresses Zero Tolerance extending to private property began on September 9 with a 911 call from a concerned citizen.

Make sure to read the rest of it.  WAVY spoke to the “concerned citizen” who made the 911 call, who in her call confirmed she knew real guns were not being used but that, “it makes people uncomfortable. I know that it makes me (uncomfortable), as a mom, to see a boy pointing a gun …”

I have a hunch this is more what the call was about:

Ironically, that 911 caller’s son was playing with Khalid and Aidan in the Caraballo front yard on September 12. There were six children playing in an airsoft gun war.  “We see the bus come. We put the gun down. We did not take the airsoft gun to the bus stop.  We did not take the gun to school,” Khalid explained.

Aidan admits shooting the caller’s son in the arm, and Khalid admits shooting another friend in the back.

Petty parent using law enforcement to solve a  harmless “problem” between her child and one of his friends? Sure sounds like it.

Airsoft gun

Airsoft guns are NOT ”firearms.” Sigh. Photo via WAVY.

 

Phineas Butts In: Bryan Preston updates with the “You’ve got to be kidding me” news. Unanimous?

The boys have been expelled from school by a unanimous vote. Unbelievable.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) – A seventh grade Virginia Beach student previously suspended for shooting an airsoft gun has been expelled, WAVY.com has learned.

During a hearing Tuesday morning, Aidan Clark and Khalid Caraballo were expelled in a unanimous vote. Clark was offered the option of attending an alternative school, but his father, Tim, told WAVY News’ Andy Fox he will be homeschooled.

Caraballo will attend an alternative school.

Unbelievable.

UPDATE 2 (Phineas): WAVY has corrected the story. The boys have received “long-term suspensions,” not expulsions:

During a hearing with a disciplinary committee Tuesday morning, Aidan Clark, Khalid Caraballo and a third friend were given long-term suspensions in a unanimous vote. The suspensions will last until June, but a hearing will be held January 27 to determine if they will be allowed back in school sooner.

I’m with the parents: this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. And the school administrators still need to be demoted to janitor.

Education: Court rules NY teacher unfairly fired

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

"Class, meet your new teacher!"

“Class, meet your new teacher!”

After all, he was only found carrying heroin while on jury duty

A high school teacher who was fired earlier this year for showing up for jury duty with 20 glassine envelopes of heroin stashed in a pack of cigarettes could get his job back.

A judge found that Damian Esteban’s firing was “unduly harsh” and ordered the Department of Education to impose a lesser punishment. City officials blasted the decision on Thursday, saying they would appeal.

“We cannot fathom how a teacher who took 20 bags of heroin into a courthouse is fit to stand in front of a classroom and teach the city’s school children,” Michael A. Cardozo, the city’s top lawyer, said in a statement.

Maybe he was planning a field trip on which the children would role-play being junkies.

Our children are in the best of hands.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

About the “Invisible Man” book banning in Randolph County, NC

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Invisible Man

Ralph Ellison’s ”Invisible Man”: Too mature for high school students?

The story of the banning of Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” book from Randolph County, NC school libraries has predictably made national headlines. Via a link from the Charlotte Observer, the LA Times reports:

Ralph Ellison’s novel “Invisible Man” has been banned from school libraries in Randolph County. The book is considered by many to be a masterful novel dealing with race in America.

“I didn’t find any literary value,” said school board member Gary Mason before the board voted 5-2 to ban the book.

Ellison’s “Invisible Man” won the National Book Award in 1953. In 1965, a national poll of book critics deemed it the greatest American novel written since World War II.

The book was brought before the board by a parent who lodged a 12-page complaint, Asheboro’s Courier-Tribune reports. She found the book’s contents inappropriate for her child, an 11th grader, citing its lack of innocence, its language and sexual content.

“You must respect all religions and point of views when it comes to the parents and what they feel is age appropriate for their young children to read, without their knowledge,” Kimiyutta Parson wrote in her complaint. “This book is freely in your library for them to read.”

A school-based, six-member media advisory committee recommended it not be removed from the library, and a 10-member district panel unanimously voted to keep the book on library shelves. A motion to keep the book on the shelves was defeated.

High school juniors were asked to read a book over the summer (honors students were to read two). They were given three choices: Ellison’s “Invisible Man,” “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin, and “Passing” by Nella Larsen. All three books deal with race and identity.

That last line is especially important, because insinuated in some of the articles you read – and in the comments sections of some articles – you’d think the parent in question wanted to get the book pulled off the shelf for its racial content.   Reading the complaint itself you realize its more about the parent’s concerns about sexual content elements of the book – including incestuous rape.   I haven’t read the book, but others I’ve talked to about it have said this is not a dominant theme of the book.  Others who have read it and who are reading this post can correct me if I’m wrong.

Make sure to read the documentcloud link above. Pages 23 & 24 detail the decision of the principal, and select other Randleman High School educational administrators had come to which was to keep it on the shelves as per their strong belief in the instructional/educational value of the book.  To soothe the concern of parent Parsons, “The media center will place a warning in the computer system that the student of the concerned parent should not be allowed to check out the book.”  It wasn’t enough for the parent, whose appeal is detailed on page 35. The timeline of events, prior to the school board voting to ban the book, is on pages 1 and 2.  The decision to ban the book was the Randolph County BOE’s decision – it did not come from the school itself.

My thoughts, in random order::

1) Parents taking an active interest in their child’s education, what they’re being taught, what they’re being asked to read, is a good thing.  The number one complaint I hear from teachers is that not enough do.  This can also be a double edged sword, however, as some parents can blow an issue out of proportion, which I believe the case is here. This parent took her concerns for her child, and attempted to decide what was best for other students to read. Naturally, this is going to create a problem.

2) If a parent has an issue with what’s being taught, suggested reading lists, etc, they should complain to the school, as this parent initially did.  This is standard operating  procedure.  Sometimes the issue is obviously legitimate – sometimes it is not.  And then there are the troublesome “gray areas.”  The ultimate decision of the “legitimacy” of the issue is in the hands of the school and ultimately the school board, should the issue escalate to that point. Whether we like it or not, this is a public school system and ultimately they decide these issues, not parents.  More on that in #8 below.

3) Unfortunately, in this case, it did make its way to the county school board, which was unnecessary in my view. The school itself took steps to make sure the student of the parent wouldn’t have access to the book, but the parent took it upon herself to declare the book unfit for high school students in Randolph County, and escalated the issue when her concerns weren’t met.

4) This in spite of the fact that the reading of “Invisible Man” was optional – there were other choices, as indicated per the LA Times article, for a student – including her child – to choose.  And that being the case, the parent could have simply chosen to have her child not read the book and let that be the end of it. She didn’t.

5) I don’t react to stories of book bannings in the way some people may – state Departments of Public Instruction around the country have “approved reading lists” designed for age/grade-appropriate levels, which I suspect most parents would agree with should they review the lists. For example,  if “Invisible Man” had been on the suggested reading list for 4th graders and a parent complained about it, I suspect you wouldn’t hear near the outcry you are now.

6) Unlike in the 60s and other eras where book banning – and burning – meant it was hard for you to get your hands on a book you wanted to read, or you wanted your child to read, we live in an e-book nation now, where any book you want is available after a couple of button clicks.  No book is really “banned” anymore if you really want to get your hands on it, whether it it in e-book form or hard copy.  Thank God!

7) A common refrain from liberals I’m hearing over this is “way to let one bad apple spoil it for everyone else!” These same liberals need to remember that next time one of their own complains to a school about the display of a Christmas tree as “offensive.”  Thank you.

8) This issue of the “Invisible Man” book banning was first brought to my attention by a Facebook friend last week, and a commenter  to her post summed up this issue perfectly, IMO:

(ACL wrote): This sort of thing will always recur as long as governments have a monopoly on delivering education services. It won’t change until parents decide that the sacrifices they’d have to make to take personal responsibility for their kids’ education are worth it, and yank their kids out, opting for homeschooling or private schools. 

Public schools can’t be “fixed” any more than ObamaCare can. The model doesn’t work, because it’s designed to be unresponsive to parents and indifferent to childrens’ individual needs and interests. The only solution is to scrap the way we’ve done education for the last century and start over from scratch.

Agreed, which is why I’m very happy that the GOP-led NC General Assembly passed school choice initiatives that were signed into law by the Governor over the summer. Naturally, liberals militantly opposed this. I know. Shocking.

I’m interested in reading reader thoughts on this, especially if similar issues have popped up in your community.

For what it’s worth,  it appears the Randolph County school board will revisit the issue this coming Wednesday, so it is possible a reversal on the ban may take place.  Stay tuned.

Education: I don’t recall field trips like this when I was young

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Nope. I remember going to museums, and zoos, and observatories. We even went to a farm, where we got to milk the cows, harvest some eggs, and pick some produce. For a little kid in grammar school, those trips were fun.

Then again, we were never treated like slaves and had abuse hurled at us by our teachers, unlike these kids in Connecticut:

It was revealed this week that a school from Connecticut took their students on a field trip last November where the students reenacted slavery and had their teachers call them the N-word. The Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy took a four-day filed trip to the Nature’s Classroom in Charlton, Massachusetts.

According to the parents, they were never told about the third day of the trip (when the reenactment took place).

“The re-enactment included having the students pretend to be on a slave ship, pretend to pick cotton, pretend the teachers were their slave masters, yelling the n-word at them and chasing them through the woods.”

This is a field trip taken by a group of 12 year olds! One of the parents spoke with a local news affiliate about the trip. She said, “The fact that they used the N-Word. How dare you say that to my child and call it an educational experience? How dare you say that to my child?” This same parent was shocked when the she found out this trip had been going on for years, but no one ever saw a problem with it.

And, yes, some of the children were Black. The stupidity required to think this would be a good idea is just mind-boggling. What’s next? Putting the kids in chains and staging a sale, so they can “develop empathy?”

Whatever happened to “let them read about slavery and explain to them why it was an awful thing?”

And this was in liberal, (supposedly) enlightened New England. Can you imagine the outcry if a school anywhere in the South did this?

These are the people we have teaching our children? No wonder home-schooling is becoming more and more popular.

via Wayward_Okie

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Unhinged #NCpol Dems: What liberal NC professors think of opposing viewpoints

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Liberal academic bias

Very real. Extremely disturbing.
(Image via the Washington Times)

College Fix’s Ben Smith files this report on the recent “Scholars’ for North Carolina’s Future” gathering held at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Prepare for much New Tone:

CHAPEL HILL – Abortion safety laws make it “more dangerous for the black woman’s body.” Republican lawmakers “want kids to die.” Conservatives “are trying to take the U.S. hostage” and hope to “destroy our public school system.”

That’s just a sample of some of the vitriol spewed Thursday night at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, which played host to a meeting of Scholars’ for North Carolina’s Future, a group of secular-progressive college professors who have helped lead, along with the NAACP and AFL-CIO, weekly “Moral Monday” protests at the state capitol over the last several months.

The Moral Monday movement is a massive and disruptive weekly civil disobedience demonstration, and it has become somewhat of a spectacle in North Carolina, with liberal activists using it as a platform to rally against the Republican-held majority in the General Assembly and its approval of issues such as voter-ID laws and fiscal responsibility on public education.

The panel was billed around campus as a chance to learn what Moral Mondays are really all about, and see how they “fit in with past social movements.” Before the panel at the Global Education Center at UNC Chapel Hill began, many in the audience of about 165 people discussed their experiences during protests at the Raleigh statehouse.

Several openly bragged about their arrests, fights with cops, and the help with legal entanglements they’ve received from the NAACP. More than 900 arrests have occurred since the protests launched in April. As the audience – a mostly white, elderly group – waited for the meeting to begin, they also talked with impassioned contempt about conservatives. About a dozen students attended the event, which was heavily publicized in the Gender Studies and Journalism departments.

The lack of minorities in the audience, less than 10, was astonishing for a group so entwined with the Rev. Dr. William Barber, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Jesse White, former director of UNC’s Office of Economic and Business Development and an adjunct government professor, began the meeting by asking those who had attended a Moral Monday to stand. Almost 75 percent of the crowd stood.

He then asked all to be seated except those who have been arrested at a Moral Monday. About a dozen remained standing, none of them students. As he continued, he called the movement “inspiring” and Republican state legislators regressive.

Remember when going to college was supposed to expose you to all kinds of differing viewpoints?  It’s been so long …

Anyway, make sure to read the whole thing, and if you’re a parent who is paying or who will be paying for your daughter and/or son to attend UNC-CH, Duke, or any of the other universities mentioned in the piece, question what you’re money will be paying for.  The intolerance level is set to “HIGH” for many of the professors at these “institutions of higher learning”, and while I know many conservatives who have gotten a great education at UNC-CH, Duke, and other colleges in this state, I know of far more with the mindset of the “professors.”

Related to all this, Michelle Malkin’s Twitter aggregation site Twitchy.com documented a rant I posted earlier this week about prominent NC left wing activists based in the Raleigh area who have been after me and other loudmouthed NC conservative women for months in attempts to “out” our identities. Why? Because we dared to invade their social media frat party.  You can read the back story on this here and here.   Also,  please make sure to read Robert Stacy McCain’s post on this, titled “When ‘Shutuppery’ Fails“.

BTW, this is a group of mostly liberal women who have been engaged at this. Talk about War On Women … by women! ;)

Flashback – 8/1/12: