The George Orwell Daycare Center

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6160%2F6185437518_812b251fb9_o_d.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” – H.G. Wells, 1920

“Give me a child for his first seven years and I’ll give you the man.” – Quote attributed to the Jesuits

“All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.” – Aristotle

“A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) has footnotes explaining what words like ‘arraigned,’ ‘curried’ and ‘exculpate’ meant, and explaining who Job was. In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today’s expensively under-educated generation.

“There is really nothing very mysterious about why our public schools are failures. When you select the poorest quality college students to be public school teachers, give them iron-clad tenure, a captive audience, and pay them according to seniority rather than performance, why should the results be surprising?

“Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.

“In a democracy, we have always had to worry about the ignorance of the uneducated. Today we have to worry about the ignorance of people with college degrees.” – Thomas Sowell

“It is only from a special point of view that ‘education’ is a failure. As to its own purposes, it is an unqualified success. One of its purposes is to serve as a massive tax-supported jobs program for legions of not especially able or talented people. As social programs go, it’s a good one. The pay isn’t high, but the risk is low, the standards are lenient, entry is easy, and job security is pretty good…in fact, the system is perfect, except for one little detail. We must find a way to get the children out of it.”—Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian.

This essay started out as a philippic against a group of teachers and their self-righteous, self-congratulatory story of manipulating a bunch of eight year-old kids and indoctrinating them into socialism using “Social Justice!” as their battle-cry.

It got a little complicated. Then it got a lot more complicated. And the process repeated a few more times.

The essay initially began thus:

Orwell wrote in his dystopian masterwork 1984: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.” It was appropriate for that novel, and his prediction has been extrapolated by others to our modern world, but I think that vision is wrong. In the West, it won’t be a government stormtrooper’s jackboot stamping on a human face, it will be an underpaid government nanny wrapping us in swaddling, wiping our faces and changing our diapers. Badly. With disinterest.

Until the money runs out.

It ran on a couple (OK, a few) thousand words, and then I set it aside to simmer, so to speak. In the mean time, my copy of Jonah Goldberg’s best-seller Liberal Fascism came in, and I was between (non-fiction) books at the time, so I started reading it.

Here’s one of the first things I ran across in it (a previous “Quote of the Day” here, as a matter of fact):

For generations our primary vision of a dystopian future has been that of Orwell’s 1984. This was a fundamentally “masculine” nightmare of fascist brutality. But with the demise of the Soviet Union and the vanishing memory of the great twentieth-century fascist and communist dictatorships, the nightmare vision of 1984 is slowly fading away. In its place, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is emerging as the more prophetic book. As we unravel the human genome and master the ability to make people happy with televised entertainment and psychoactive drugs, politics is increasingly a vehicle for delivering prepackaged joy. America’s political system used to be about the pursuit of happiness. Now more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.

OK. Stop the presses.

From the time I began writing this piece there has been an almost daily deluge of blog posts, editorials, or news stories that I have earmarked “Use in the education piece.” Little did I know then, for example, that we’d have evidence of “Two Minute Hates” in kindergartens! This has been going on since March. I feel like I’ve been drinking from a fire hose. But here we go on my latest attempt. If I don’t do it now, I’ll be overwhelmed!

A while back, several bloggers posted links to a piece entitled Why We Banned Legos, published at an education site, Rethinking Schools Online. I found it via Say Uncle.

My initial reaction? RCOB. Now surprisingly enough, I don’t have this reaction often. The last time also involved the education of young children so perhaps this indicates a trend, but I knew I needed to let this one sit a bit and ferment before I attempted to write about it. I forwarded the link to a couple of people. I printed out the piece for a couple more to read. Then I asked them what their opinions were, just to gauge if my reaction was… excessive.

One of the people I sent it to was Sarah, “Stickwick Stapers” (now Doctor Stapers) of Carnaby Fudge. Sarah has, in comments here and in her own posts, related the tales of her upbringing by parents who could have been stereotypical members of the Left, up to and including their move to Canada to get away from Imperial Capitalist Amerikkka. At some point, her father had an epiphany and abandoned socialism. Here’s his response to the article, from which I took the title of this essay:

My God! The George Orwell Daycare Center.

The kids wanted to play with Lego, and were doing fine, but they get 5 months of communist reeducation and groupthink. When the commies do this sort of thing with cows and chickens instead of Legos, they kill tens of millions of people. The next step would have been Lego-Siberia concentration camps for all the little unrepentant individualists.

OK, there’s one vote for “not excessive”! And the rest were about the same.

So, if you’re interested in the topic, get yourself a beverage and a snack, settle in, and read the rest of another patented, rambling überpost™©®.

It has been my position for some time that the disaster that is America’s public education system is not an accident. I have on numerous occasions quoted something that Connie du Toit wrote quite a while back:

The other day our Carpenter’s helper heard me say something along the lines of, “it is difficult to conclude that incompetence is the reason why our public schools have deteriorated. There comes a point where you have to suspect sabotage, or a conspiracy.”

He asked me if I really meant that. I gave him the five minute explanation of John Dewey’s known affiliation with communists, his frequent essays and articles about the wonders of the Soviet education system, and his quote, “You can’t make Socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

I then went on to tell him about how public schools changed at the turn of the last century. That there were others involved in turning Americans from free-thinking individualists to factory drones. I also added that many people probably went along with it because it seemed like a good idea, but there were certainly enough people behind the scenes, who knew that the goal posts had been moved. THAT is a conspiracy.

Yes. There does come that time when you are forced to don the tinfoil hat.

The incompetence excuse only works once. Incompetence this great is impossible to attribute to accident.

The last time I quoted her, Connie commented:

“Slight correction, however. That Dewey quote cannot be verified. It was used once (I believe) by The Skinny One, but no other source/attribution can be found.

Dewey did design the schools for the USSR, however, and wrote many essays about that experience. (The USSR later threw out his design because his model/approach turned out thugs and gangsters. Surprise, surprise. It is still the model we use today.)

Regardless, I am of the carefully considered opinion that both our media and our educational system have been largely taken over by people who are acolytes of the Holy Grail that Socialism promised, and who put themselves in those positions in the belief that it is up to them to help create the New Men that Socialism cannot succeed without. Our schools, especially, have become centers for the teaching of collectivism, “identity politics,” and for want of a better term, “rage against the machine.”

And to some extent, it has worked.

To a larger extent, it has not.

What has resulted are the unintended consequences of declining standards, high dropout rates, functional illiteracy and innumeracy, almost no general knowledge of geography, history, or civics, and nearly complete ignorance of science – both general and applied.

Schools should be the foundry through which the raw material of our youth is run, coming out the other end with strong and tempered minds well prepared for the world. The ore hasn’t changed, but the ratio of dross to valuable product has grown precipitously.

For example:

Less than half of the nearly 1,100 students who entered ninth grade at Birmingham High School in Van Nuys, California in 2001 graduated with that class in 2005:

For students at Birmingham, the act of dropping out was generally the last twist in a long downward spiral. Sometimes it began as early as elementary school. Year after year, students were allowed to fail upward, promoted despite a trail of Ds and Fs.

“Here you can get straight Fs,” said Barbara Mezo, a teacher at Mulholland Middle School, which sends students to Birmingham, “and the best they can do is keep you out of eighth-grade graduation ceremony.”

Then came high school, where credits were granted only for passing grades. Failing students found themselves on a treadmill, never reaching their goal of 230 credits for graduation. And with an increased focus on improving student performance, schools have little incentive to keep those who fail.

RTWT. It’ll take a while.

75% of the graduates of the Dallas school systems who are headed for Dallas-area community colleges “can’t read above an 8th grade level, and others can’t add or subtract.”

Many kids in the LA school system don’t get to graduate, not just the ones attending Birmingham High:

When the Los Angeles Board of Education approved tougher graduation requirements that went into effect in 2003, the intention was to give kids a better education and groom more graduates for college and high-level jobs. For the first time, students had to pass a year of algebra and a year of geometry or an equivalent class to earn diplomas. The policy was born of a worthy goal but has proved disastrous for students unprepared to meet the new demands. In the fall of 2004, 48,000 ninth-graders took beginning algebra; 44% flunked, nearly twice the failure rate as in English. Seventeen percent finished with Ds. In all, the district that semester handed out Ds and Fs to 29,000 beginning algebra students — enough to fill eight high schools the size of Birmingham. Among those who repeated the class in the spring, nearly three-quarters flunked again.

Read that whole piece, too. (I’m not a fan of the LA Dog Trainer but these are good in-depth pieces.)

30% of students in the Tucson school districts fail basic subjects, but 90% are promoted to the next grade anyway. Plus, investigation suggests that up to a quarter of the students receiving passing grades should not be. (For the innumerate out there, that’s possibly over half, in total.) Nor is this limited to the Southwest.

The AP reports:

More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks. That means they could not interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school.

College students. The “successful” end product of our primary and secondary education systems. The 50-60% or so who actually get a high school diploma or GED.

According to a 2007 study cited by Harvard professor of economics Greg Mankiw:

After adjusting for multiple sources of bias and differences in sample construction, we establish that (1) the U.S. high school graduation rate peaked at around 80 percent in the late 1960s and then declined by 4-5 percentage points; (2) the actual high school graduation rate is substantially lower than the 88 percent estimate of the status completion rate issued by the NCIS [National Center for Educational Statistics]; (3) about 65 percent of blacks and Hispanics leave school with a high school diploma, and minority graduation rates are still substantially below the rates for non-Hispanic whites. In fact, we find no evidence of convergence in minority-majority graduation rates over the past 35 years….A significant portion of the convergence reported in the official statistics is due to black males obtaining GED credentials in prison.

The question left unanswered there is how many of those students, graduates or dropouts, are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate? Because it appears that a significant chunk of the ones who think they have a shot at college really shouldn’t be racking up the student loans. They should be the ones unable to give you correct change at McDonalds.

And that leaves the dropouts… where, exactly?

I believe there has been little meaningful opposition to this decline in part because our elected officials like it when the electorate is ignorant and thus either apathetic or easily manipulated. Moreover, the teacher’s unions have become an almost immovable voting block constantly demanding more pay, better benefits, and reduced accountability. Also, we are entering our fifth or sixth generation of this indoctrination so many (by now perhaps most) parents don’t know enough to question it. For too many, school has become tax-payer provided day-care, warehousing kids for much of the day while parents try to earn a living. Homework? Many parents can’t help – the school systems have changed the way they teach “language arts” and mathematics so much, they can’t understand the instructions – and the children have to do it per the procedure or it doesn’t count! (Ask me how I know.) This joke goes back several years now:

In 1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is four fifths the price. What is his profit?

In 1970: (traditional math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 80% of the price. What is his profit in dollars?

In 1970: (new math): A logger exchanges set L of lumber for set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100 and each element is worth $1. Make 100 dots representing the elements of set M. The set C of costs contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent set C as a subset of set M, and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?

In 1980: A logger sells a truckload of wood for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

In 1990: (Outcome-Based Education): By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class discussion: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?

In 2000: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?

In 2010: El hachero vende un camion carga por $100. La cuesta de productiones…

For the few who know better and protest? There are still private schools and homeschooling, but few can afford either without major lifestyle changes even fewer are willing to make. There are charter schools, but those vary vastly in quality and availability, and there is active resistance against all of the above by the State and the teacher’s unions (please watch the entire video). The latest example of this resistance was the recent California Court of Appeals ruling that made home schooling illegal if the instructor was not an accredited teacher – a more stringent requirement than Charter schools there have to live up to.

I’m not making a claim of an active “communist conspiracy.” These people don’t have monthly meetings to plan the next step in Lenin’s Great Plan. It just requires social utopists to go into certain fields and then act to influence others, and they have done just that. Worse, I think that today most of the “true believers” don’t even understand what it is that they’re advocating. They want to teach “fairness,” and “self-esteem,” “social justice,” and “awareness” etc. Who could be against that? They know all the buzzwords, but they don’t have a coherent philosophy behind it – not even the flawed one of socialism. They are themselves part of socialism’s failed outcome, acting as sand in the gears of the education system and our nation. Here’s an example from the piece on requiring algebra for graduation:

Although experts widely agree that algebra sharpens young minds, some object to making it a graduation requirement. “If you want to believe you’re for standards, you’re going to make kids take algebra. It has that ring of authenticity,” said Robert Balfanz, an associate research scientist with the Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “But you’re not really thinking through the implications. There may be no good reason why algebra is essential for all high school students.”

In a piece I linked to in an earlier post, an opposing argument is made:

Even if you accept the argument that geometry in general, and proofs in particular, are unnecessary for students to learn, at least algebra should be taught properly, since algebra is the common language of, and gateway to, all of higher math. The absence of clear explanation and logical development left students I later tutored in algebra as lost as my geometry student. Their textbooks (and, probably, their teachers too) encouraged them to use a graphing calculator. Operations with algebraic fractions, like a¼b + c¼d, were given little attention, to say nothing of quadratic equations, once the pinnacle of any first-year algebra course. Instead, the quadratic formula is presented for the students to memorize and apply—if it is even mentioned at all.

Barry Garelick has an excellent point. Algebra is indeed the gateway to all higher maths, and it does sharpen young minds – when taught properly. And given Garelick’s experience it doesn’t seem surprising that algebra is being so poorly taught in the LA school system (and elsewhere). (Somebody bring back Jaime Escalante!)

The frustrating part for the real True Believers, however, must be the same thing that confounded Marx and Lenin – the proletariat won’t rise up against the bourgeoisie, being too distracted themselves with the base acquisition of material wealth and mindless entertainment. (You know, widescreen HDTVs that proliferate in homes all across America for example, upon which the children of the proles play HALO2 on their X-Boxes and watch Jackass (Unrated) in full 1080p and 7+1 channel Dolby.) It’s tough to motivate the proletariat toward social justice when that will prevent them from watching Lost, Tivo or no Tivo.

Why We Banned Legos is just another strut supporting my belief – and it’s a BIG, loadbearing one. If you haven’t read it, I strongly suggest you do. I’m just going to excerpt one small part (throwing away literally thousands of words I’ve already written in favor of this sixth seventh eighth rewrite):

A group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children.

Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned.

(Emphasis mine.) I bet they did. Spontaneous capitalism! Imagine the horror! Why, unchecked, they might grow up to drive SUVs, eat as much as they want, and keep their thermostats at 72º year-round!

If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as we wish. That is why Utopian planners end up as despots, whether at the national level or at the level of the local ‘redevelopment’ agency. —Thomas Sowell

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. – Milton Friedman


The left is not interested in education, they are interested only in indoctrination. – Zendo Deb

That does seem to me to be a fair assessment of the “teachers” in Why We Banned Legos. It also seems to be the mindset of the instructors in the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American/Raza Studies program, which targets somewhat older students. It also appears to be something that the San Francisco school system is ramping up.

Recently I was accused: “You aggressively advocate an “alternative” education to the “socialist crap” being taught in our “collapsing” schools and yet it is clear to me that what you really desire is dissemination of propaganda….”

Now to be fair, pretty much all early education is and must be indoctrination. The questions are, what should be taught, and why?

It is not generally realized that education can never be more than indoctrination with theories and ideas already developed. Education, whatever benefits it may confer, is transmissive of traditional doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces imitation and routine, not improvement and progress. Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them. – Ludwig von Mises, Human Action pg. 314

Well, yes and no. Yes, early education is indoctrination with theories and ideas already developed. No, those theories and ideas are not necessarily “conservative” (see above). But in either case it is almost absolutely true that innovation and creative genius are not served by traditional schooling, and most especially public schooling. But I believe what is happening now is that students in the system are being indoctrinated, but some in socialism and some in the traditional values that schools have taught for decades (as demonstrated in the earlier piece on Nina Burleigh and her 5 year-old son). Those who receive the traditional version the social utopists then shatter like someone telling an eight year-old that Santa isn’t real just for the shock effect. Of course, they still hide their own uncomfortable truths.

“The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country… If children were forced to learn about the Constitution, about how government works, about how this nation came into being, about taxes and about how government forever threatens the cause of liberty perhaps we wouldn’t see so many foolish ideas coming out of the mouths of silly old men.” — Lyn Nofziger

Perhaps not. But it would be nice, if they taught those things, to also teach about how the native Indian populations were treated, how different immigrant populations were treated, and how these behaviors (and others) compared to the actions of other nations around the world during the same periods – and why. But the evidence suggest that they do not even teach much of the basics. My daughter graduated from a Tucson Unified School District high school in 1997. She just recently earned a 2-year Associates degree in business. I had her take the American Civics Literacy Quiz. She got 16 correct answers out of 60, and admitting to guessing at many of those. My wife, who was born in Okinawa, came to the U.S. at age 9 and hasn’t been a student since graduating from high school early in 1976 took it and got 29 correct. According to the ISI, the average score for a college senior is barely over 50%. (For the record, I missed four, but I’m largely self-taught.)

Yet I think commenter “Mastiff” hits close to the mark:

If the non-socialist end of the political spectrum cannot create a political philosophy that is both good theory and emotionally appealing, we’re doomed.

Any political philosophy that is not self-reinforcing is by definition not the best political philosophy. Libertarianism (with a small “l”) features a stoic acceptance of individual risk (i.e. the lack of government intervention) for the sake of long-term freedom and prosperity–yet takes no measures to ensure that the society educates its young to maintain that acceptance of risk. The equilibrium, if it ever exists in the first place, is unstable and will collapse.

This aside from the fact that libertarianism is emotionally cold and unfulfilling to most people, who have not trained themselves to consider lack of outside restraint to be worth cherishing.

And that is part of the education I think our kids ought to be receiving, but the state doesn’t teach it. That leaves it to the parents… who by now are almost all products of state education systems. Any political philosophy that is not self-reinforcing is by definition not the best political philosophy.” I believe the “best political philosophy” already exists and has for centuries, yet it isn’t necessarily “not self-reinforcing,” that philosophy has been deliberately displaced.

My accuser also said:

(Y)ou want schools to turn children into your type of drone. Do you know the one I am talking about? The kind that believe that we are in Iraq to protect our nation. The kind that think that the free market is something to be worshiped. The kind that believe that sick people…that poor people are only that way because they are weak and didn’t take responsibility for themselves.

Well, having them understand that they are expected to be responsible for themselves would be a nice start… But no, that’s not what I want. I want our children to grow up into adults with a good grounding in history, a thorough understanding of governments (ours and others) and the ability to reason from the facts. But indoctrination does go on. Interestingly enough, in that California decision essentially outlawing homeschooling the judge declared:

A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.

Of course, the question of what “good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare” means has changed a bit over the last, oh, fifty or sixty years – especially in California. That may explain why California Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) wants to repeal the law that allows “teachers and other public employees to be fired for being members of the Communist Party.” You know, the kind of employees that find the “class-based capitalist society” “unjust and oppressive,” and who define “the public welfare” a lot differently (at a minimum) than I do. But the bill does more than merely protect them from firing. According to Cryptic Subterranian the text of the bill states:

This bill would delete provisions that prohibit a teacher giving instruction in a school or on property belonging to an agency included in the public school system from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism. The bill would also delete provisions that a teacher may be dismissed from employment if he or she teaches communism in that way.

Somehow I get the feeling that the judge in the case didn’t intend that kind of indoctrination.

And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps. – H.L. Mencken

Then again, maybe he did.

Berkeley Liberals and Falwell actually agree much more closely with each other than either does with me.

Both believe in using the power of the state to “do good” by directly interfering in the lives of citizens and applying legal sanctions to those who don’t live good lives. They disagree about what that means, of course, but both are strongly illiberal in believing in active government interventionism in our lives in ways which go well beyond the minimum needed to keep us safe and free. Falwell would use the law to punish immoral behavior (according to his morality) which would include such things as recriminalizing homosexuality and recriminalizing pornography.

And the Berkeley Liberals also want to use the power of the state to do good, only what they wish to ban is much deeper, for they want to infringe my freedom of thought and of expression much more profoundly.

Equally, both of them wish to use the power of government to deeply indoctrinate the citizenry, especially the schools. Falwell wants the schools to teach Christianity; the Berkeley Liberals want to use it to indoctrinate children with their own version of “right thinking”. – Steven Den Beste, Liberal Conservatism

Some time back I wrote a piece specifically on the topic of indoctrination. I will quote again the words of economist, humorist, and very early “neo-con” Leo Rosten from an interview with Eric Sevareid from August 24, 1975:

We’re practically using the colleges as a dump into which to put youngsters we do not know what to do with. There are today 45 million people between the age of roughly 7 and 24. Their parents don’t know what to do with them. They want them to go to college and they often think that they’re being trained for jobs. But they’re not getting training for useful employment.

Someone has said that education is what remains after everything you’ve learned is forgotten. The purpose of educating young people is not only to illuminate their spirit and enrich their memory bank but to teach them the pleasures of thinking and reading. How do you use the mind? As a teacher, I always was astonished by the number of people in the classroom who wanted to learn as against those who just wanted to pass. I took pride in my ability to communicate. Generally “communicate” meant one thing. Now the young think “communicate” means “Agree with me!”

The student rebellions of the 1960’s exposed the fact that our entire educational system has forgotten the most important thing it can do prior to college: indoctrinate. I believe in the indoctrination of moral values. There’s a lot to be said for being good and kind and decent. You owe a duty to those who have taken care of you. You owe a duty to whatever it is that God or fate gave you – to use your brain or your heart. It’s senseless to whine, to blame society for every grievance, or to assume that the presence of a hammer means you have to go out to smash things.

The young want everything. They think they can get everything swiftly and painlessly. They are far too confident. They don’t know what their problems are, not really. They talk too much. They demand too much. Their ideas have not been tempered by the hard facts of reality. They’re idealists, but they don’t sense that it’s the easiest thing in the world to be an idealist. It doesn’t take any brains. This was said by Aristotle 2300 years ago. Mencken once said that an idealist is someone who, upon observing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, assumes that it will also make better soup.

And now those young people he was talking about are probably parents and possibly grandparents themselves.

The first question I have is “When should we begin teaching our children philosophy?” Followed by Which philosophy should we be teaching?” In another comment my one self-described Jewish reader noted:

In a more positive light, education is a powerful tool to make society better—and the most durable sociopolitical systems (such as traditional Judaism) place a tremendous emphasis on rigorous education, according to a particular program of morality meant to deliberately affect the behavior of the student.

I worry about America most of all because our education program does not know what it wants to achieve.

I’m not sure that’s really the case. I think there’s a conflict between two rival philosophies that appears to the uninvolved as dithering and indecision. There are essentially only two in conflict here as I have noted before: Locke and his descendants versus Rousseau and his branch. Socialism/Communism is the outgrowth of Rousseau’s concept of “the social contract.” America is the outgrowth of Locke’s “life, liberty, property.”

“The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.” – Eric Hoffer, True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

For me the choice is simple and obvious. I’m an engineer, I like what works. Teach the successful one. Point out its flaws and foibles, by all means – engineers love to change things – but don’t chuck it all out the window because it seems “unjust and oppressive.” If history proves nothing else, it proves that all government is unjust and oppressive, but our class-based capitalistic society has resulted in a system where the poorest 10% of the U.S. population was still wealthier than two-thirds of the rest of the world. (Apparently that’s because we don’t share well.)

But of course, that’s not what is happening, because the people we entrust with educating our children mostly follow Rousseau, and not Locke.

My accuser proclaimed to me: “I don’t really have a belief system, other than my belief in Christ.” He very well might believe that, but he’d be wrong.

In 1974 Ayn Rand gave a speech to the graduating class at West Point entitled “Philosophy: Who Needs It?” Here’s a pertinent excerpt:

You might claim – as most people do – that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? “Don’t be so sure – nobody can be certain of anything.” You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” You got that from Plato. Or: “That was a rotten thing to do, but it’s only human, nobody is perfect in this world.” You got that from Augustine. Or: “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” You got it from William James. Or: “I couldn’t help it! Nobody can help anything he does.” You got it from Hegel. Or: “I can’t prove it, but I feel it’s true.” You got it from Kant. Or: “It’s logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” You got it from Kant. Or: “It’s evil because it’s selfish.” You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activist say: “Act first, think afterward”? They got it from John Dewey.

Some people might answer: “Sure, I’ve said those things at different times, but I don’t have to believe that stuff all the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it’s not true today.” They got it from Hegel. They might say: “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: “But can’t one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?” They got it from Richard Nixon – who got it from William James.

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principle. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions – or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation – or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.

Your subconscious is like a computer – more complex a computer than men can build – and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance – and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.

Everybody has a philosophy, a belief system. Everybody. Some are just more jumbled, flawed, self-contradictory, and useless than others. Balls and chains, instead of wings.

Our school systems are churning out tens of thousands of ignorant students filled with self-doubt rather than knowledge and understanding, and they’ve been doing it for literally decades. Knowing this makes the current race for the office of President of the United States much more understandable.

The relative, diminishing hardships of everyday existence, together with more extensive academic instruction, has laid a foundation of knowledge for most people that is less tested by experience and affirmed more by internal feelings and passions. More people may be better educated these days, but they are also more insulated and more naive. —Richard Reay, letter to the Wall Street Journal, published 6 August 2003.

Except the evidence seems to indicate that people are not “better educated these days” than they were in the past – but “more insulated and more naive,” “affirmed more by internal feelings and passions”? Absolutely.

My sister was studying for a high school civics exam the other night and had to ask me what rights were protected under the 1st Amendment. She got “speech” and “press” but not freedom of religion, assembly, and right to petition.

Apparently they (very briefly) studied the 15th, 19th, and 26th (voting rights) amendments and a handful of others but didn’t even focus on the 1st ten in the BOR. She had no idea what the 3rd, 9th, or 10th were (although most schools generally ignore those as much as they do the 2nd) What was probably even more astounding is she couldn’t even name a single sitting Supreme Court Justice. I even gave her hints, I.E. “name the black guy” or “Name a woman” but she didn’t have a clue. Then again, in my Con Law Commerce Clause class we were asked to name the sitting justices on the final and a good portion of the class couldn’t do it. That’s disgusting considering we studied Con Law the entire semester.

This is in an Honors Level Junior year Civics class and my sister is a bright girl. Apparently they now combine Civics and Econ into one class and Civics gets the shaft most of the year. When the Constitution and the principles and fundamentals surrounding it are never taught or merely glossed over it’s not surprising that people eagerly vote for hope, change, and socialism.

Oh, and she uses the same textbook I used in high school. Those books were quite a few years old when I took the class. Another Gun Blog“And I Wonder Why Young People Vote Liberal…”

The first and so far only comment is priceless.

One more excerpt from Legos:

Children absorb political, social, and economic worldviews from an early age. Those worldviews show up in their play, which is the terrain that young children use to make meaning about their world and to test and solidify their understandings. We believe that educators have a responsibility to pay close attention to the themes, theories, and values that children use to anchor their play. Then we can interact with those worldviews, using play to instill the values of equality and democracy.

But not meritocracy and capitalism. In short, these teachers did what Antonio Gramsci advocated from his prison cell – they used education to try to make little Marxists, because they will not form “naturally.” But individualist meritocratic capitalists can, and we can’t have that!

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.

History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. – Milton Friedman

Complete equality isn’t compatible with democracy, but it is agreeable to totalitarianism. After all the only way to ensure the equality of the slothful, the inept and the immoral is to suppress everyone else. – Iain Benson

A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both. – Milton Friedman

If a consensus of the majority is all it takes to determine what is right, then having and controlling information becomes extraordinarily important. – Masamune Shirow

It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people. -James Madison

So yes, I believe Lyn Nofziger is right – we are drifting into socialism because that’s what our children have been learning in school – in greater or lesser amounts – since the turn of the previous Century. There has also been a nearly complete collapse of education in many places, mostly inner-city schools, aided and abetted by teacher’s unions and the federal Department of Education. In my opinion, that collapse is the understandable outcome of a philosophy that doesn’t work crashing into the real world.

But with a cockroach resiliency it just shakes itself off and charges on.

You want to know why so many people vote “Liberal”? George Orwell Daycare Centers that begin in kindergarten and go through High School. They don’t know any better because no one has taught them.

Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been found that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery. — Benjamin Disraeli, found at Ninth Stage

____________

Further suggested reading (that I couldn’t work into this post):

College Daze: The “Great Conversation” is now the sound of chaos

The Diplomad: About Those “Highly Educated Voters”

Parental Involvement Strongly Impacts Student Achievement (From the Dept. of “DUH!”)

Locke and Rousseau: Early Childhood Education (a PDF file)

Upside Down Education

Students Fail — and Professor Loses Job

A Modest Proposal for Saving Our Schools by Tom McClintock (who is running for the House of Representatives, BTW.)

Enough Already with the Kid Gloves

Durrrr

Political Correctness Pervades History Textbooks

Story Time

Social Justice High: Classrooms Meet the (Not So) Real World

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower

And, from America’s petri dish:

Drop ‘middle-class’ academic subjects says schools adviser

Education, education, education

UPDATE:  The original JSKit/Echo comment thread for this post is available due to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, here.

The Dali-Bama

The Dali-Bama

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

This guy sees himself as our savior. When Michelle Obama said

Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

If we can’t see ourselves in one another, we will never make those sacrifices. So I am here right now, because I am married to the only person in this race who has a chance of healing this nation.

she apparently wasn’t using metaphor.

Evidently they both believe it.

Let me quote Jonah Goldberg from Liberal Fascism again:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore is defined as the enemy.

This has been the liberal enterprise ever since: to transform a democratic republic into an enormous tribal community, to give every member of society from Key West, Florida, to Fairbanks, Alaska, that same sense of belonging – “we’re all in it together!” – that we allegedly feel in a close-knit community. The yearning for community is deep and human and decent. But these yearnings are often misplaced when channeled through the federal government and imposed across a diverse nation with a republican constitution. This was the debate at the heart of the Constitutional Convention and one that the progressives sought to settle permanently in their favor. The government cannot love you, and any politics that works on a different assumption is destined for no good. And yet ever since the New Deal, liberals have been unable to shake this fundamental dogma that the state can be the instrument for a politics of meaning that transforms the entire nation into a village.

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid. Because I think the Dali-Bama has a good chance of beating Col. Tigh. As I said before, put them both on a stage, and the country that fixates on American Idol and America’s Next Top Model isn’t going to vote for the cadaver.

Either way, we are screwed.

UPDATE: Chris Muir weighs in:

And Dale at Mostly Cajun has something to say I think you ought to read.

Quote of the Day

(P)olitics is what determines whether specific ideologies become prevalent or irrelevant for peoples’ daily lives and what we see today is a West that is not willing, because of multiculturalism and other ideologies that are reigning in Western intellectual life, to defend itself and to assert the values on which it’s based. Caroline Glick from a recent Atlas Shrugs interview.

I wonder, is there a school system in any other part of the world that teaches “ethnic studies programs” like ours do? Does Mexico, for instance, teach “American-Mexican Studies” that highlights the laws that apply to Americans in Mexico, but not native citizens? Property law, traffic law, employment law, immigration law?

No?

Do you wonder why that is?

Balkanization

I don’t read Tucson’s Arizona Daily Star much. It suffers from the same problems that most dead-tree publications around the country do today that are resulting in the spiraling loss of readership and revenue, but every now and then it does something that makes readers remember what local newspapers are really there for – to inform local citizens on what the hell is going on in their town.

Here’s an example that I’m going to quote in full for archival purposes. Read and learn what the Tucson Unified School District thinks is a good idea:

TUSD’s Raza unit survives under fire
Ethnic studies dept. could grow, reach younger kids
By Rhonda Bodfield

Calls are heating up to kill the Tucson Unified School District’s ethnic studies program — at the same time it becomes more likely that the district’s most controversial department could expand to reach more, and younger, students.

Critics, from the state’s schools chief to lawmakers to conservative talk-show hosts and columnists, have singled out Mexican-American/Raza Studies in particular, saying it’s divisive and turns students into angry revolutionaries.

For those unfamiliar, “Raza” is Spanish for “race.” The group “La Raza” bills itself as a “civil rights” organization. It is also associated with the racist organization MEChA – Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán. You remember Aztlán, right?

Would we be comfortable with a German-American Studies department that went by “Der Volk”?

But supporters say the program’s reach is too limited, given that it boosts student achievement by providing relevant and rigorous work to students all too often overlooked.

In a ruling last month that conditionally lifted the district’s decades-old racial balance order, a federal judge noted that “it is unimaginable that the eight-staff Mexican American/Raza Studies department would be capable of serving the (district’s) 30,118 Hispanic students.”

It is unimaginable to me that a judge would be sanguine about “Race studies” in elementary and secondary education.

TUSD’s budget crisis is putting the kibosh on any new money for this coming school year, but Governing Board member Adelita Grijalva says she’s committed to seeing the program grow the following year.

Oh, I imagine she is. Adelita is the daughter of U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva. More on this later.

For now, she’s asking for a discussion about equity within the ethnic studies’ $2.3 million budget, given that African-American Studies gets more funding and staff in a district overwhelmingly Latino.

Raza Studies serves about 500 high school students, who take a four-course block of history, social justice and two Chicano literature classes.

There’s that term again – “social justice.” I like Eric Schie’s take on it:

(T)he left-wing communitarian term “social justice,” which, although indefinable, clearly implies that the legal system should be involved in things like property redistribution and “human rights commissions.”

History? Actually teaching history would be great, but I imagine they use a text like Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.

The program should reach younger students, a 2006 outside audit said. Auditors recommended a feeder pipeline starting in the elementary schools.

Although they criticized the African-American, Pan-Asian and Native American departments for too few accountability measures, they lauded Raza Studies as the program’s “flagship.”

Inside the classroom

It’s the end of the school year and Raza Studies students at Tucson High Magnet School are presenting research findings to their principal.

Their PowerPoint presentation is critical of policies toward English learners; some concerns hinge on whether students are funneled to vocational tracks, and some focus on inferior equipment.

Then comes an exploration of classroom décor, with photos of classroom items students consider culturally insensitive.

First up is a baseball poster, which they say should be soccer or rugby to validate other cultures. Next up flashes the Pledge of Allegiance and a patriotic poster featuring the Statue of Liberty, the American flag and an eagle.

“Most of the kids are from a different country, and this is showing them that this is the country that’s the greatest and yours doesn’t matter,” a student maintains.

Kid, you’re living HERE. I don’t think that schools in Guatemala teach that their country sucks. They teach patriotism, too.

Principal Abel Morado tells the students he disagrees with their perspective. An initial role of public education was to mold a citizenry united under one democratic blanket, he says.

“It’s in our DNA in public schools to be sure we’re teaching you about being citizens of this nation,” Morado says.

The recent California court decision (PDF file) effectively banning homeschooling said very much the same:

A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.

Welcome to America!

Morado says he considers the dialogue valuable because it’s important to reflect that America does not have just one culture or value system.

Tom Horne, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, considers the program’s very premise grounds to publicly rail against it, and, if necessary, to ban it through legislation.

“One of the most basic American values is that we judge people as individuals based on what they know and what they can do and what their character is like — and not based on what ethnic group they happen to have been born into,” Horne says. “I think it’s profoundly wrong to divide students up by ethnicity.”

Or religion. Or eye color.

When you do that, it’s called “balkanization.”

The director

Augustine Romero took over as head of ethnic studies two years ago, after running Raza Studies for four years. In his view, the system already divides students by ethnicity.

When he was a senior at Tucson High, his father asked school counselors to make military recruiters stop calling. His counselor couldn’t believe Romero planned to go to college.

He proved the counselor wrong, and the 41-year-old just finished his doctorate. “Yes, there are examples of people who have made it, but we’ve made it by having to work harder than most people because we’ve had to endure the inequities of the system,” he says.

Uh, dude… ANYBODY who earns a PhD has to work harder than most people. This is America. You bust your ass and try your best and HERE you have a chance to do anything you can dream. Ask Raul Grijalva, whose father was a migrant farm worker who entered the U.S. on the Bracero Program. How far do you think he’d have gotten if his father had stayed in Mexico?

Romero summons the work of Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire to explain the premise of the program, hauling out a dog-eared and extensively highlighted copy of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” He points to a passage: “This, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well.”

Wow. Good to know I’m an “oppressor” just because my skin is white.

If people don’t like being called oppressors, Romero offers no apology. “We have to be able to be honest. If we have cancer, should we not name the cancer and overcome it? If oppression and subordination are our cancers, should we not name them?”

Even better! I’m a cancer!

But they’re not teaching hate or anything.

Anglos often don’t see racism, he says, so it needs to be pointed out, even though it has led to accusations that he propagates reverse racism. “When you name racism, people think you’re playing the race card and then they say, ‘You don’t like me because I’m white.’ No, I don’t like what was said. Because I’m one who names these things, some have the perception that I’m a racist and that I only care about children of color.”

Those children clearly need advocates, Romero says. There are glaring performance disparities between white and minority students — even in this district, where whites are only 30 percent of the student body.

Gee, do you think it might be because of parental involvement in their children’s education? There was a study recently published on that. There are “glaring performance disparities” between Asian students and all the rest, too. Is that because Asians discriminate against everyone else?

The recent court ruling noted test scores for black and Hispanic students lagged 10 percent to 15 percent behind those of their white counterparts, and up to 21 percent for Native Americans.

Ergo, it’s the fault of whites?

A person can take two views on this, Romero says.

The first: Blame the students and say their ethnic heritage in some way is deficient.

The second: Acknowledge that the educational system perpetuates white privilege and is stacked against minorities. These students are not at-risk, he says. “The system created risk for them.”

Yes, it’s the fault of the whites.

Sweet bleeding jeebus. Here’s an alternate for you Romey: Perhaps blame the students because they don’t study enough. It’s a proven cultural phenomenon. It’s why Asians do, on average, very well in school and blacks do, on average, very poorly. How well you perform in school is directly related not to race but to EFFORT.

A program like Raza Studies can even the odds, he says. Raza students outperform peers on AIMS tests. Scores from the 2006 senior class show 95 percent of the students passed reading, 97 percent passed writing and 77 percent passed math. Five out of six on a recent survey said the program kept them in school.

That’s great! But how? Did it make them mad enough to actually STUDY? You know, to “Prove whitey wrong”?

Do you think, just maybe, there might be some other way to motivate students to STUDY? Perhaps you should have a conversation with Jaime Escalante – but eventually school administration resistance made him give up and he went home to Bolivia.

Tucson High’s Morado visits the classes and doesn’t believe they’re divisive. “They offer a sense of identity for students who have historically not found that within these walls.”

One recent Raza Studies research project highlighted the fact that minorities take too few Advanced Placement courses and too many remedial classes — something the administration has been trying to address. “What those kids are talking about is the new civil rights movement of the 21st century,” Morado says.

The critics

The program’s critics range from elected state officials to high school students.

The campus Republicans at Tucson High circulated a petition in April to rein in the class after seeing a banner in a class window asking, “Who’s the illegal alien, pilgrim?”

The petition, signed by 50 of the school’s 2,900 students, was forwarded to a handful of state legislators, along with a note that maintained the department “is creating a hostile environment for non-Hispanic students and students who oppose creating a racially charged school environment.”

Fifty out of 2,900. (Carry the one…) That’s 1.7%. Big presence.

John Ward taught in the department in the 2002-03 school year. Of Latino heritage despite his Anglo-sounding name, Ward was all for more thoroughly integrating the contributions of Mexican-Americans into U.S. history. But once he started teaching, he became concerned about the program’s focus on victimization.

Color me shocked.

“They really wanted to identify the victimizer, which was the dominant group — in this case white America — and they wanted students to have a revolution against upper-class white America,” says Ward, who now works as a state auditor.

Ward, with his Anglo name, is obviously a race-traitor!

“They had a clear message that political departments in the U.S. are arms of the dominant culture designed to keep minorities in the ghetto and to keep them downtrodden. They’re teaching on the taxpayers’ dime that police officers and teachers are trying to keep them down. What a perverse message to teach these kids.”

Such messages, he says, won’t be found in the program’s textbooks, such as “Occupied America.”

“The department doesn’t look bad on paper. It’s what happens verbally that moves the debate from benign to pernicious,” Ward says.

The tone worried him: “The students had become very angry by the end of the year. I saw a marked change in them.”

That anger was evident in a presentation director Romero gave at a social justice symposium at the University of Arizona in April. Exploring ways schools create racially hostile environments, the presentation flashed quotes from former Raza Studies students.

Nate Camacho complained that teachers actually encouraged students to fight each other.

Vanessa Aragón said students see violence differently from what school officials see. “For us, it is violence we face from our teachers, administrators and TPD (the Tucson Police Department) every single day,” she said.

So the teachers and administrators physically abuse the students on a daily basis?

Kim Dominguez maintained she didn’t feel valued because nothing in class reflected her life. “We don’t really have a chance,” she said.

So they taught you self-pity. How wonderful!

Romero says anger is essential for transformation, but insists teachers work to transform that anger into something positive. “For me, there’s a real fine line between anger and awareness,” he says.

And you think you can control it?!?!

He chalks up the dispute with Ward to politics, saying Ward didn’t fit in because he was a conservative while he and the teachers in the department are liberal.

And he’s a race-traitor!

The students

Kristin Grijalva, 17, counts this last year as the most transformative of her school career. She was so shy as a young student that her teachers assumed she spoke only Spanish and put her in an English-learners class. “Now I’ve gained so much confidence,” says Grijalva, who plans to attend the University of Arizona to study medicine, with a minor in theater. “I have learned so much about myself that now I can talk and use my voice to inform people.”

And is Kristin the granddaughter of Raul? Even if not, shouldn’t she learn something from the Grijalva family history here? From the son of a migrant farm worker to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Why shouldn’t she be able to do anything she sets her mind to?

Raza Studies teachers push students hard, she says, but are so supportive that they share cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses and encourage students to text or call anytime.

Grijalva says that when she learned more about Christopher Columbus, she became angry that he remains a celebrated figure. But she was taught to use her anger to be a warrior, not a soldier. Soldiers do what they’re told, she says. Warriors fight with their minds.

Grijalva acted like a warrior when a student asked her to sign the “pilgrim” petition. Before, she would have ripped up the paper, she says. Instead, she explained to the student that pilgrims from Europe seeking freedom weren’t all that different from Mexicans coming here.

Her fellow students would be just as angry to hear a white person called a “cracker” as a Mexican person called a “beaner,” Grijalva says.

“We realize it’s not only Euro-Americans who are against our class. There are our own Chicanos and African-Americans against our class,” she says. “It’s what we call ‘internal oppression.’ When you hate your own race, you’re basically hating yourself, but they’re going with what they hear instead of what they see.”

Like I said – balkanization. Everyone against everyone based on external features.

“Warriors.” Wonderful.

In class, students are encouraged to think critically and to defend their positions.

One day in early May, students analyzed a political cartoon to determine if the artist was liberal or conservative. With the newspaper required reading, they discussed the Democratic presidential nomination.

During a recent presentation, a student noted, “Even a game of chess can reflect the inequalities of our society. From way back, white always goes first.”

Teacher Jose Gonzalez nodded approvingly. “That’s deep. That’s powerful.”

That’s petty and bullshit.

Amy Rusk, Tucson High’s chief librarian who taught Chicano literature in the department for three years, says that as a white woman, she finds white privilege is “very much embedded in the system and that’s why we have to talk about it.”

Kids need to read literature where the grandmother switches back and forth between English and Spanish, just like they hear at home, she says.

They need to name 10 important Hispanic and 10 important black figures in U.S. history. And they need to know the system was set up to block minority achievement, she says. “I think to pretend everything is fine is very unfair to the kids,” Rusk says.

I think to make them think every gesture or utterance is a slight is unfair to the kids.

She says she’s heard students say they can’t do some academic work because they aren’t white and they aren’t smart. But not Raza Studies students; they come to her library more than their peers, and are more able to do independent research.

Who tells them that they aren’t smart because they aren’t white? Who is it that tells black students that studying is “acting white”? It isn’t white people.

“This program has much more to do with figuring out ways to help kids succeed who have not had academic identities before,” Rusk says. “And this system has let them not have those academic identities.”

“Academic identity.” Is that one of those terms like “social justice”?

The afternoon paper, The Tucson Citizen published a guest editorial by John Ward, the teacher mentioned above. I suggest you give it a read, too. A sample:

During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.

Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a “teacher of record,” meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.

I was assigned to be a “teacher of record” because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.

I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.

Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.

Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.

In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.

This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used “to keep minorities in their ghettos.”

It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School’s advanced placement courses because their “white teachers” do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.

I repeat: who is telling them that they aren’t smart because they aren’t white? Other hispanics. But that’s not what they’re being told. They’re being told that whites think they aren’t smart, and that’s something else entirely.

They’re building race-hatred, and blaming it on “the oppressor.” And yep, he’s a race-traitor, but in Spanish they call it “vendido” – “sellout.”

What happened to teaching the three “R’s”?

The Nuclear Option

The Nuclear Option

As I’ve noted previously, I have a copy of Barack HopeChange Obama’s audiobook The Audacity of Hope, and I’ve been listening to it, off and on, throughout my workday. Today I began section 2, which contains chapters 2 and 3 (as far as I’ve gotten to date.)

But today’s excerpt had something I found interesting and important. Beginning at about 35 minutes into part 2:

Gaining control of the courts generally, and the Supreme Court in particular, had become the holy grail for a generation of conservative activists. And not just, they insisted, because they viewed the Court as the last bastion of pro-abortion, pro-Affirmative Action, pro-homosexual, pro-criminal, pro-regulation, anti-religious liberal elitism. According to these activists, liberal judges had placed themselves above the law, basing their opinions not on the Constitution, but on their own whims and desired results, finding rights to abortion, or sodomy that did not exist in the Constitution, subverting the democratic process, and perverting the Founding Fathers’ original intent.

To return the courts to their proper role required the appointment of strict constructionists to the Federal bench – men and women who understood the difference between interpreting and making laws.

Those on the Left saw the situation quite differently. With conservative Republicans making gains in the congressional and presidential elections, many liberals viewed the courts as the only thing standing in the way of a radical effort to roll back civil rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, environmental regulation, church and state separation, and the entire legacy of the New Deal.

He then goes on to discuss how the nomination of Robert Bork was defeated, awakening the Right to the fact that they, too, needed “grassroots” organizations to promote and defend their nominees, and defeat those of the Left. He goes on to relate how the Republican majority defeated 61 of Clinton’s nominees,

…and for the brief time that they held the majority, the Democrats tried the same tactic on George W. Bush’s nominees.

But when the Democrats lost their Senate majority in 2002, they had only one arrow left in their quiver, a strategy that could be summed up in one word, the battle-cry around which the Democratic faithful now rallied: Filibuster!

The Constitution makes no mention of the filibuster. It is a Senate rule, one that dates back to the first Congress. The basic idea is simple. Because all Senate business is conducted by unanimous consent, any Senator can bring proceedings to a halt by exercising his right to unlimited debate, refusing to move on to the next order of business. In other words, he can talk – for as long as he wants. So long as he, or like-minded colleagues are willing to stay on the floor and talk, everything else has to wait, which gives each Senator an enormous amount of leverage, and a determined minority effective veto power over any piece of legislation.

Throughout the Senate’s modern history, the filibuster has remained a preciously guarded prerogative, one of the distinguishing features, it is said, along with six year terms, and the allocation of two Senators to each state regardless of population, that separates the Senate from the House and serves as a firewall against the dangers of majority overreach.

There’s another, grimmer history of the filibuster, though, one that carries special relevance for me.

He then goes on to detail how the Southern Democrats used the filibuster to protect Jim Crow and prevent any civil rights legislation from passing. Of course, he doesn’t mention the fact that most of those Senators were Democrats. He mentions Richard B. Russell by name, and names his state, but not his party affiliation.

Then he returns to Bush’s court nominations.

So it came to pass that President Bush, emboldened by a bigger Republican majority in the Senate and his self-proclaimed mandate, decided in the first few weeks of his second term to re-nominate seven previously filibustered judges. As a poke in the eye to the Democrats, it produced the desired response. Democratic leader Harry Reid called it a “big wet kiss” to the far Right, and renewed the threat of a filibuster. Republicans, sensing that this was the time to go in for the kill, announced that if Democrats continued in their obstructionist ways, they would have no choice but to invoke the dreaded “nuclear option,” a novel procedural maneuver that would involve the Senate’s presiding officer – perhaps Vice President Cheney himself – ignoring the opinion of the Senate Parliamentarian, breaking 200 years of Senate precedent, and deciding with the simple bang of a gavel that the use of the filibuster was no longer permissible under the Senate rules – at least when it came to judicial nominations.

To me, the threat to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations was just one more example of Republicans changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Uh, right. Like putting up Frank Lautenberg for Senate in 2002 when it became blindingly apparent that the legally nominated but corrupt Robert Torricelli was going to lose his election? A case in which the notoriously “liberal” New Jersey Supreme Court said “It’s OK, go ahead and break your own rules!”? That kind of “changing the rules in the middle of the game”?

Changing the rules,” yes – but I was not aware that we were in the middle of the “game” of this Republic.

He continues:

Moreover, a good argument could be made that a vote on judicial nominations is precisely the situation where the filibuster’s supermajority requirement makes sense. Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments, and often serve through the terms of multiple Presidents, it behooves the President and benefits our Democracy to find moderate nominees who can find some measure of bipartisan support.

I’ve written on the topic of the Courts on numerous occasions, and I’m going to repeat myself here because this is precisely the kind of post that demands it. Barack Bipartisan Obama said early on in this excerpt, “According to these activists, liberal judges had placed themselves above the law, basing their opinions not on the Constitution, but on their own whims and desired results, finding rights to abortion, or sodomy that did not exist in the Constitution, subverting the democratic process, and perverting the Founding Fathers’ original intent”, subtly pooh-poohing the very idea that results-oriented judges exist on the Left. Once again, I’d like to quote the words of 9th Circuit judge Alex Kozinski on this very subject:

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet…and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths….When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose.Silveira v. Lockyer, denial to hear appeal en banc, dissenting.

George Will in a piece from 2005 wrote:

When (Senator Harry) Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: “I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are (sic) very hard to dispute.” There you have, starkly and ingenuously confessed, the judicial philosophy — if it can be dignified as such — of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Regardless of constitutional reasoning that can be annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?

This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes — “results” — they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?

Barack Middle of the Road Obama suggests that the selection of moderate judges should be preferred, since they “benefit our Democracy.”

It’s not supposed to be a DEMOCRACY. It’s supposed to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. One in which the CONSTITUTION defines and limits the powers of the federal government, and the Judicial branch has to abide by it just like the Legislative and the Executive. It is the Constitution that Senators swear an oath to uphold and defend, not our “democracy.”

“Moderate” judges? I’ll let Scalia answer that one, since he’s been vetted by Reid himself and found to pass muster:

What in the world is a ‘moderate interpretation’ of the text? Halfway between what it really says and what you want it to say?

It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution.

What ‘we the people’ want most of all is someone who will agree with us as to what the evolving constitution says.

We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands. – Antonin Scalia, excerpts from a speech quoted in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/10/04

Then we get to the meat of the excerpt:

Few of the Bush (appellate court) nominees in question fell into the “moderate” category. Rather they showed a pattern of hostility towards civil rights, privacy, and checks on executive power that put them to the Right of even most Republican judges. One particularly troubling nominee had derisively called Social Security and other New Deal programs quote “the triumph of our own socialist revolution” unquote.

Interestingly, Barack I’m not a Socialist Obama doesn’t tell his readers (or listeners) that the “particularly troubling nominee” was Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. district. Her remark comes from a speech she gave to the Federalist Society, April 20, 2000, entitled “A Whiter Shade of Pale”: Sense and Nonsense – The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics, which I strongly recommend you read. Here’s her quote in context:

There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the framers did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. And the document they drafted and the nation adopted in 1789 is shot through with provisions that can only be understood against the supposition that humanity’s capacity for evil and tyranny is quite as real and quite as great as its capacity for reason and altruism. Indeed, as noted earlier, in politics, the framers may have envisioned the former tendency as the stronger, especially in the wake of the country’s experience under the Articles of Confederation. The fear of “factions,” of an “encroaching tyranny”; the need for ambition to counter ambition”; all of these concerns identified in the Federalist Papers have stratagems designed to defend against them in the Constitution itself. We needed them, the framers were convinced, because “angels do not govern”; men do.

It was a quite opposite notion of humanity, of its fundamental nature and capacities, that animated the great concurrent event in the West in 1789 — the revolution in France. Out of that revolutionary holocaust — intellectually an improbable melding of Rousseau with Descartes — the powerful notion of abstract human rights was born. At the risk of being skewered by historians of ideas, I want to suggest that the belief in and the impulse toward human perfection, at least in the political life of a nation, is an idea whose arc can be traced from the Enlightenment, through the Terror, to Marx and Engels, to the Revolutions of 1917 and 1937. The latter date marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution. All of these events were manifestations of a particularly skewed view of human nature and the nature of human reason. To the extent the Enlightenment sought to substitute the paradigm of reason for faith, custom or tradition, it failed to provide rational explanation of the significance of human life. It thus led, in a sort of ultimate irony, to the repudiation of reason and to a full-fledged flight from truth — what Revel describes as “an almost pathological indifference to the truth.”

There were obviously urgent economic and social reasons driving not only the political culture but the constitutional culture in the mid-1930’s — though it was actually the mistakes of governments (closed borders, high tariffs, and other protectionist measures) that transformed a “momentary breakdown into an international cataclysm.” The climate of opinion favoring collectivist social and political solutions had a worldwide dimension.

Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and affected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests. Because the only way to come to terms with an enduring Constitution is to believe that the human condition is itself enduring.

For complex reasons, attempts to impose a collectivist political solution in the United States failed. But, the political failure was of little practical concern, in a way that is oddly unappreciated, that same impulse succeeded within the judiciary, especially in the federal high court. The idea of abstract rights, government entitlements as the most significant form of property, is well suited to conditions of economic distress and the emergence of a propertyless class. But the economic convulsions of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s passed away; the doctrinal underpinnings of West Coast Hotel and the “switch in time” did not. Indeed, over the next half century it consumed much of the classical conception of the Constitution.

Barack New Deal Obama protests that nominees like Ms. Brown want to “roll back” the “progress” that the courts have brought about. I’ve discussed this before, too. Law professor (and now Dean of the U.C. Irvine School of Law) Erwin Chemerinsky appears on the radio talk show of Republican apparatchik Hugh Hewitt weekly as one of the “Smart Guys,” along with Chapman University law professor John Eastman. Coincidentally, on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 – the day of Janice Rogers Brown’s confirmation to the Appellate position on a partisan 56-43 vote (with only one Democrat crossing the aisle to vote in her favor – Ben Nelson of Nebraska) – the Smart Guys were on Hewitt’s show, and Chemerinski made precisely the same argument. First, Eastman responds to Chuck Schumer’s objection to Brown’s confirmation

You know, I mean, it’s just so preposterous, I don’t even know where to begin. The reason Chuck Schumer is so upset about this is Justice Brown is the kind of judge who will, you know, adhere to the Constitution. And when the members of the legislature, even the exalted Chuck Schumer himself, want to take actions that is not authorized by the Constitution, she’ll be willing to stand up and do her duty, and strike it down. That’s not an arrogance, that’s what the judges are there for, to adhere to the Constitution, and not to let the legislature roll over them and do whatever they want. You know, it really is preposterous. We’ve turned this upside down. The judges that do exactly what they’re supposed to do are demonized, and those that take a powder and let the legislature get away with every abuse, every extension of power imaginable, are touted at the cocktail circuit.

Chemerinsky then throws in the “roll back” language – in his case “shred” – used by Obama:

I think what Senator Schumer is saying, and is absolutely right, is that Janice Rogers Brown’s repeated statements that she believes that the New Deal programs like social security are unconstitutional, is truly a radical view. That’s not a judge who wants to uphold the Constitution. That’s a judge who wants to shred the last eighty years of American Constitutional law. Janice Rogers Brown saying she believes that the Bill of Rights should not apply to the states, would undo the last seventy years of Constitutional law. That’s not a judge who wants to follow the law. That’s a judge who wants to make the law in her own radical, conservative views.

But Eastman understands exactly what Chemerinski – and, by extension Obama, is arguing:

Hang on, here, because Erwin…there’s a wonderfully subtle change in your phraseology that demonstrates what’s going on here. You said she won’t follow the Constitution, and then you said it’s because she won’t follow the last seventy or eighty years of Constitutional law. What happened seventy or eighty years ago that changed the Constitution? There was not a single amendment at issue in the 1930’s that changed the Constitution. Some radical, federal programs were pushed through. Some radical judges, under pressure, finally signed on them, and the notion that we can’t question that unconstitutional action that occurred in the 1930’s, and somehow that defending that unconstitutionality is adherent to the rule of law, is rather extraordinary. There are scholars on left and right that have understood that what went on in the 1930’s was…had no basis in Constitutional law, or in the letter of the Constitution itself.

So Obama wants moderate nominees?

The title of this essay is “The Nuclear Option.” I named it that for a reason. John McCain has caught a lot of flak for preventing the implementation of “The Nuclear Option” with his Gang of 14 who negotiated the compromise that also resulted in Judge Brown’s confirmation.

But he was right.

As we go into the 2008 elections, the Democrats will, once again, control the House and Senate – perhaps with significant majorities. No matter who ends up in the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be run by Democrats, and any and all nominees will be vetted by them. If John McCain wins the White House, then “moderates” are the best we as a nation can expect to see confirmed, but if Obama or Hillary wins, then Republicans will be in precisely the same position the Democrats were in. Filibuster will be the Republican’s only arrow in their quiver.

What do you want to bet that “The Nuclear Option” will be brought up by the Democrats in that event?

At least that’s not a tool the Republicans generously handed them.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others. – David Boaz, Our Collectivist Candidates, Wall Street Journal Online, 5/28/08, p. A17 of the dead-tree version.

Found at The Volokh Conspiracy.

And I still think we have to “embrace teh suck” and vote McCain, because – as Rachel Lucas opined

I don’t give a flying fuck that McCain is more liberal than we would like and that he’s basically an asshole, because I’m operating with the awareness that he’s still better than Obama by about a hundred orders of magnitude.

Okay, maybe only five or six orders of magnitude…

Repulsive Presidential Candidates

Hmm… Perhaps I should print a few gross of these up and sell them:

It’s getting to be popular. Snowflakes in Hell mentioned it, and the inestimable Rachel Lucas picked it up not once, but twice. Ol’Broad gave it a mention last week, too.

If you’ve seen it elsewhere, cited or not, please let me know.

UPDATE I: As others have reminded me, it has also appeared at The Geek with a .45, where Curtis Lowe found it. Candy for Idiots has placed it on their sidebar, and Gary Cruise has posted on it as well.

It’s a meme!

UPDATE II: At the request demand of the Blue-Eyed Infidel, I have some of these on order. I expect them to take a few days to get here, though. How does $5 each or 5 for $20 sound, postage paid? Get your orders in.

UPDATE III: It is a meme! The bumper sticker is now linked at:

Classical Values

Grief in Brief

Political inSecurity

Pun Salad

And The Jawa Report.

So far (if they’re serious) I have 41 requested.

Edited to add: One commenter at The Jawa Report suggested a good alternative:

Unfortunately, not enough people get the military slang.

And another one:

The text is too small, but the sentiment is perfect.

UPDATE IV: If you’ve just clicked in to this post as a single, and you’re at all interested in purchasing a bumper sticker or twelve, please read the post above this one.