What are they teaching these children? Kansas City-area students call on teachers to speak out against racist and divisive curriculum

[ad_1]

While a Kansas City-area school district allegedly teaches divisive and racist notions in the name of fairness, it also appears to be failing to teach the First Amendment.

About 60 students at Shawnee Mission North High School staged a strike on Wednesday to protest teacher Caedran Sullivans’ op-ed published here alerting parents and clients to the indoctrination taking place there.

This was absolutely true for the students, of course. But expressing their own opinions was not enough; they wanted Sullivan fired or disciplined for expressing his.

We are manipulated and bullied by a divisive woke ideology that creates a culture of contempt and disrespect, Sullivan dared to write. There is repeated white shaming and concern for white people as oppressors, including field visits by staff focusing on systemic racism.

There is a strong anti-capitalism, anti-conservatism, and anti-Americanism in the DEI curriculum, with a focus on white fragility

If parents knew what is happening in our schools, the majority would be appalled.

Yet dozens of students were appalled that she said it out loud, and some demanded her head on a platter.

It’s not acceptable that she’s still here, and that she can post all this on the internet, and that’s OK, a student told the media. In other words, she should not just be fired, but censored in public.

I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when it’s so controversial like this it can be uncomfortable for others, especially if they’re teachers, another student added saying basically you’re entitled to your opinion, unless it’s too controversial (whatever that means) or offends my little old lady.

It’s scary stuff these kids spout. What do they teach in the Shawnee Mission School District, I mean, other than that white people are oppressors? The desire to see people with different opinions silenced, shunned and kicked out is the stuff of Bolshevism.

Even Washington Post left-wing columnist Anne Applebaum, while managing Olympian contortions to somehow tar the right, admits that today’s Marxist left has consolidated itself on the fringes of the Democratic Party and sometimes not even on the fringes as well as on campuses, where it controls the speech of its members, fights to prevent students from hearing opposing points of view and teaches a dark and negative version of American history, designed to create doubts about democracy and cast a shadow over any political debate.

Ah, but it also seeped into K-12 education.

Such are the buds of Bolshevism you see in impressionable high school students riding a heady wave of cancel culture to demand cancellation from a teacher who makes them feel gasp-insecure! say what she thinks at her own pace.

By the way, you must like this antiseptic term that cancels. As if you were simply ending a subscription or rescheduling an appointment. The term nullification does absolutely nothing to describe the real inhuman goal of foamy-mouthed nullifiers which is to take away someone’s livelihood, perhaps leaving an ideological heretic impoverished as a delicious by-product; ruin his reputation; and that society shuns him for his thoughtcrimes.

But she makes me feel in danger! Cut off his head !

God help us if this type of thinking achieves even more power than it already has in culture and government.

These students, exercising their First Amendment rights to unknowingly seek punishment from a teacher for exercising theirs, seem to be the embodiment of the title of Nat Hentoff’s book, Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee.

I’m just old enough to remember when free speech was a sacrament for the left. Today, it seems to have become a sacrilege. How utterly sad.

English philosopher John Stuart Mills’ concerns about intolerance to free speech, masterfully drawn in his book On Liberty, remain timeless, commonsense and profound, writes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Mill addressed one of the main reasons for placing constraints on free speech on campuses today, writes FIRE, namely that speech should be tempered and just values ​​imposed by campus codes of civility. of today. Mill observed that while people may claim that they are not trying to ban other people’s opinions, but simply trying to banish intemperate talk, they never seek to punish this type of talk unless it not be used against the prevailing opinion.

Precisely. This is not fashionable talk that needs protection. His speech blowing against the prevailing winds.

Yet FIRE reports that its database of college voice codes reveals that most schools maintain policies that infringe on these rights: 94 of the 486 schools in the database, or about 1 in 5, received an overall rating of FIRE for policies that clearly and significantly restrict freedom of expression. Another 324 receive a blanket yellow light for policies that impose vague regulations on expression. Only 60 schools get the green light for policies that don’t seriously impede free speech.

According to this measure, in any case, these children are ready for university.

This is a vital teachable moment in our schools that most likely will pass children by at the expense of their future citizenship and the republic.

[ad_2]