College No Longer for Education, but “Re-education”

Racism is thinking about, or thinking negatively about someones race whenever you see them.  These communist, Orwellian elements say they are striving to end racism, but like every liberal policy it has the exact opposite of its stated intent.  They are actually seeking to DIVIDE us by constantly REMINDING us of other people’s face, creed, sex (or sexual preference), or national origin.

If you want to know where all of the communist hippies from the 1960’s went, just look in our colleges and universities, as well as most of the political offices.  It was bad two decades ago when I was a college student, but this is out of control.

I’ve always taught my children that they must respect my opinion, but they don’t have to hold it as their own.  I’ve taught them, and continue to teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

What universities such as the one documented in the article and video below are doing is outright Orwellian re-education.  Not only are they teaching you what you must say, they are screening people based upon what they THINK.  If there is evidence that a student or faculty member doesn’t THINK “acceptable thoughts,” then they are forced to undergo “re-education,” or denied admission or employment.  If the re-education movement kept you from reading “1984” when you were in school, or it’s just been a while since you read it, read the book.  It’s uncanny how it fits as a blueprint for what is going on here.

My children are not yet of college age, but should any vestiges of these programs still exist at any of the prospective schools that my children might attend, I will not be paying one red cent for them to go there.  As the white collar jobs became more popular, fewer people entered the trades of electrician, plumber, etc.  These jobs are increasingly in demand now, and many in the trades can set their own rates and wages.  If the re-education efforts on our campuses continues, I’ll encourage my kids to do something more honest for a living.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=117313

Teaching plan: America ‘an oppressive hellhole’

University outlines ‘re-education’ for those who hold ‘wrong’ views

Posted: November 27, 2009
9:15 pm Eastern
+
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

A program proposed at the University of Minnesota would result in required examinations of teacher candidates on “white privilege” as well as “remedial re-education” for those who hold the “wrong” views, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (Straight out of the pages of Orwell’s “1984”)

The organization, which promotes civil liberties on the campuses of America’s colleges and universities, has dispatched a letter to University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks asking him to intervene to prevent the adoption of policies proposed in his College of Education and Human Development.

“The university’s general counsel should be asked to comment as soon as possible,” said the letter from Adam Kissel, an officer with FIRE. “If the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group achieves its stated goals, the result will be political and ideological screening of applicants, remedial re-education for those with the ‘wrong’ views and values, [and] withholding of degrees from those upon whom the university’s political re-education efforts proved ineffective.”

By any “nontotalitarian” standards, he wrote, the the plans being made so far by the school are “severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience.”

Kissel wrote that it appears that the university “intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the ‘wrong’ beliefs and valuesthose who either do not have sufficient ‘cultural competence’ or those who the college judges will not be able to be converted to the ‘correct’ beliefs and values even after remedial re-education.”

“These intentions violate the freedom of conscience of the university’s students. As a public university bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the university is both legally and morally obligated to uphold this fundamental right,” he wrote.

WND messages left with the university requesting comment did not generate a response today.

Among the issues discussed in the plans are requirements that teachers would be able to instruct students on the “myth of meritocracy” in the United States, “the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values,” and the “history of white racism.”  (This is how you fracture a society.  It just so happened that most of the people who founded America were white, but their beliefs and values were not “white,” they were indeed Christian.  Christian values do not discriminate against anyone, even non-Christians.  Christian beliefs welcome and tolerate people while informing them of what we believe and allowing them to exercise FREE WILL to decide their own course.  The radical groups that are screaming “tolerance” are practicing anything but.  Radical gay groups are an example.  Rather than trying to show that they pose no threat and trying to get along with people, they intimidate and disparage anyone who doesn’t COMPLETELY AGREE with their agenda.  Because of my religious beliefs I think homosexuality is a sin, but I don’t go around stoning gays and publicly identifying and disparaging them.  I offer them the message of what the Bible says about homosexuality and let them live their lives.  I don’t interfere with their life or force my lifestyle on them as long as they don’t force theirs on me.  The radical groups don’t respect that boundary and seek to redefine it in a way that suppresses opposition.  On the issue of marriage, they seek to redefine the term to something that encompasses things for which the term was never intended.  Marriage defines the union between a MAN and a WOMAN for the purposes of procreation.  Radical gay groups seek to change the definition of the term and cheapen its meaning.  In reference to my original statement, gays can have civil unions, or partnerships, or whatever they want to call their relationship all they want to, and under the legal recognition of such unions they can have all the same legal benefits as marriage, but the term marriage does not apply because it is a HETEROSEXUAL term with a HETEROSEXUAL meaning, and a HETEROSEXUAL history.  Forcing us to redefine the term marriage to encompass the gay lifestyle CHOICE is crossing that line of tolerance.)

The demands appear to be similar to those promoted earlier at the University of Delaware.

As WND reported, the Delaware university’s office of residential life was caught requiring students to participate in a program that taught “all whites are racist.”

School officials immediately defended the teaching, but in the face of a backlash from alumni and publicity about its work, the school decided to drop the curriculum, although some factions later suggested its revival.

FIRE, which challenged the Delaware plan, later produced a video explaining how the institution of the university pushed for the teachings, was caught and later backed off:

Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten said the developing Minnesota plan would require teachers to “embrace – and be prepared to teach our state’s kids – the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.”

She said the plan from the university’s Teacher Education Redesign Initiative – a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained – “is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers’ lack of ‘cultural competence’ contributes to the poor academic performance of the state’s minority students.”  (Cop out.  By their logic, I don’t play in the NBA because they are biased against athletically and vertically challenged white people.  Academics is the practice of leading students to the water of knowledge.  But just like horses at the stream, you can’t force them to drink.  We can expose students to knowledge just as we expose the horse to water at the stream, but the student has to WANT to learn just like the horse has to WANT to drink.)

“The first step toward ‘cultural competence,’ says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize – and confess – their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the re-education camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi,” she said.  (If earning an honest living, paying my own way, owning all that I have because of the fruits of my own labors, and believing that anyone who owns something should acquire it the same way makes me a bigot, the so be it.  This is just more of the liberal mudslinging and name calling they employ to intimidate people.)

“What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment?” she posed. “The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must ‘develop clear steps and procedures for working with nonperforming students, including a remediation plan.'”

The plan asks: “How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?”

The original correct answer was to have “a training session disguised as a thank-you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year.” The task force later edited itself to call for a required “training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps as part of an orientation/thank-you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?”

“There was no deception planned or intended as may be implied in the use of the word [disguised],” a footnote said, “We have edited this to reflect our commitment to integrity in our work. This amendment was made 11/09/2009.”

Nevertheless, FIRE’s concern included the apparent plan for demands that teachers “discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.”

Further, the letter noted, “the college in its proposal promises to start screening its applicants to make sure they have the proper ‘commitments’ and ‘dispositions.'”

“Here’s the kicker,” FIRE said in its report. “The college even realizes that its efforts to impose such a severe ideological litmus test may be unconstitutional.” (Yet they brazenly persist in following this course of action.  That clearly identifies the leftist ideology of those running this institution.)

The letter cited a proposal to consult with the university’s own lawyers.

“FIRE urges you to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), which invalidated mandated allegiances to political ideologies at public schools,” Kissel wrote for FIRE.

Writing for the court, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared: “Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”


Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. Have you read any research in the field of Education? I grew up in Minnesota and have taught in DC, CA and abroad and for a total of 10 years. I understand that there are numerous factors that influence student performance. It’s not as simple as bringing a horse to the stream to drink water. It’s quite complicated and there’s an art and a science to providing a ‘proper’ education. Hopefully, this leads to the development of young people who learning how to think critically for themselves and learn how to learn on their own.

  2. I teach young adults (who often act like children), and my wife teaches elementary school age children. While the setting I teach in is somewhat different than a public school system, I understand thoroughly the principles of teaching. Nothing is ever as simple as a “simple” analogy, but I believe that the “horse to water” analogy is quite germane to this topic. Of the many students that have darkened the doors of my classroom, there have been few who learned anything without some desire to do so, and none who could apply anything they may have learned by osmosis without a similar level of desire.

    The greatest teachers aren’t the ones who can impart the most knowledge, but those who can inspire a hunger and excitement about learning.

  3. @texan2driver: I think your final point in boldface font contradicts the the analogy and diminishes its pertinence.

  4. How so?

    Would you define the smartest person as the one who knows the most facts, or the one who can properly apply what he/she knows?

    What do you think separates a good teacher from a great teacher?

    You and I both have memories and stories of teachers that “set us on fire.” What is that story for you?

  5. It seems like you were making the point that a student learns because of their own personal desire. Then, you say that it’s about how much a teacher inspires a student. I agree with the second point. A teacher’s ability to enable students to connect to what they are trying to learn and fully engage them determines, to a great extent, student motivation.

    There never is a smartest person in the room, unless there’s only one person in the room. It depends on what type of smarts are required. I do think it’s has less to do with knowing facts and much more to do with applying knowledge. More importantly, it’s about understanding how to learn and take in information in a critical way before attempting to apply this knowledge.

    Great teachers believe that all their students can achieve success. These teachers learn about each student’s strengths, weaknesses, desires, beliefs and uses this knowledge to create engaging class environments, units and lessons that will enable all the students to be successful. A teacher that doesn’t understand his/her students will rarely help them reach their full potential.

    I may return later to share a story, but do not have the time now. Thanks for the questions and discussion.

  6. I think we’re harmonizing on the same tune…

    See ya in a bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: