The words of a teacher currently under investigation for wrongthink.
“For example, “racism is wrong” is an obvious, non-controversial statement, and what it means in the eyes of most people is that we should not judge others by the colour of their skin; everyone should be treated the same regardless of their race.
However, because the language has now been hijacked by “social justice” activists, normal, well-meaning individuals who agree with the above sentiment are being led astray, and agreeing to statements that do not mean what they imagine them to mean. For example, the idea of “anti-racism” might seem intuitively worthy of support, but it is in fact a politically charged concept which signals adherence to this illiberal doctrine. Compelling teachers to be “anti-racist”, as if that is the only morally acceptable stance, is akin to imposing religious views on them, and by extension on their students, and it is wrong.
The Ontario College of Teachers defines anti-racism not as the act of “judging people by their character and merit, rather than their skin colour”, but as “an active and consistent process of change to eliminate individual, institutional and systemic racism as well as the oppression and injustice racism causes”. And what do they mean by racism? Well, they are referring to the “attitudes, values and stereotypical beliefs” that are “deeply rooted”, and that people might not even be aware they have. This is grounded in the assumption that differential group outcomes in society only exist because of discrimination, which stems from CRT.
Based on this kind of flawed thinking, until all outcomes are completely equal for all groups of people in all facets of society (i.e., equity), we will need to continue the purification process of all white people, who are presumed to be guilty. Evidently, achieving equal outcomes for all groups will require brutal violations of individual rights, like discrimination based on skin colour, and we are already seeing these unjust practices in selecting only candidates of certain ethnicities for jobs, scholarships, or even for access to tax-payer funded homes. Anyone who does not see that allowing for this “skin colour first”, unjust playing field will only serve to inflame racial tensions, not diminish them, needs a wake up call.
When it comes to standing against the current push toward ideological conformity, each one of us has a role to play no matter our place in society. Teachers, in particular, who are entrusted with educating the next generation, must stand up and advocate for what it is we signed up to do. We are not preachers or moral guidance counsellors, and we are not political campaigners. Enough is enough!”
This is why it is so important to start from a place of definitional clarity so that you can understand what the other is trying to say (or not say). Part of the problem in dealing with activists is that they often jump to to the social pressure levers so that they do not have to explain their reasoning – don’t fall for it.
We grapple with the question of tolerance and how to apply the notion in society. Theodore Dalrymple’s thoughts provide insight into the question of how the mechanics of tolerance works.
“If you don’t judge people,” I would ask, “how can you be tolerant?”
They did not grasp at once what I meant, so I would explain:
“If you disapprove of nothing, there is nothing to tolerate. You do not tolerate what you like or agree with; you tolerate what you dislike or disagree with. If you make no judgments, tolerance is redundant, there is nothing to tolerate.”
The misunderstanding of what tolerance is the explanation, perhaps, of a paradox: the more we extol tolerance as a virtue, the less tolerant we become. We become like the humourless man who says that he has a wonderful sense of humor.
Back in the 1960s, the philosopher Herbert Marcuse popularised the notion of “repressive tolerance.” According to this notion, the freedom to express any opinion without fear of retribution actually resulted in, or at any rate served, repression because it duped people into supposing that they were free. Yes, they could say anything they liked, but in practice they lived in a society in which they decided nothing for themselves and in which they were straitjacketed by laws, conventions, moral codes and so forth, all to the material benefit of a small elite, of course (Marcuse was some kind of Marxist). This notion, which was expressed in the dullest of prose, was appealing to utopian adolescents who a) wanted to deny that they were the most fortunate generation who had ever lived, and b) dreamed of a life completely without restraints on their own pleasure.
Half a century later, “repressive tolerance” is taking on a different meaning, one that actually has some practical application. It is repression carried out in the name of tolerance.”
The great leaders, according Kissinger have a mix of steady statecraft and a ideal vision of what they want their societies to become. The last paragraphs from the review of “Middle-Class Statecraft”.
Kissinger laments the failings of today’s faltering meritocracy:
‘The civic patriotism that once lent prestige to public service appears to have been outflanked by an identity-based factionalism and a competing cosmopolitanism. In America, a growing number of college graduates aspire to become globe-trotting corporate executives or professional activists; significantly fewer envision a role as regional- or national-level leaders in politics or the civil service. Something is amiss when the relationship between the leadership class and much of the public is defined by mutual hostility and suspicion.’
Kissinger here recognizes that interest cannot bind a people together. Ideology might bind peoples in common derangement, he suggests. But the “civic patriotism” he references is rooted in a people’s common moral life, shared culture, and even their religious faith. This is not to say that at age ninety-nine, Kissinger has become a public moralist. But this account recognizes that America—and much of the West—has lost something as they have encouraged their best and brightest to adopt the more cosmopolitan mores exemplified by the academy and elite business class. This is not the only cause of our crisis of leadership, however.
Our obvious lack of great leadership flows from the decline of deep literacy and thoughtfulness. Here, Kissinger argues that the rise of visual and digital culture is responsible. Television and social media produce less thoughtful and attentive minds, and television in particular, Kissinger thinks, undermined older norms of self-command and restraint in favor of public emotionalism and impatience. That this shift has happened amidst a world experiencing dramatic technological change is a disaster, he argues.
But despite a kind of gloomy realism about the challenges confronting our world, Kissinger’s overarching argument nonetheless demands an attitude of hope. Just as previous great leaders were to some degree sui generis, the next great statesmen could emerge from the most unlikely of places.
This is a guest post written by former teacher Chanel Pfahl.
I recently came across a collection of lesson plans for K-8 teachers. I didn’t intend to spend hours rummaging through them, but one thing led to another.
Created in July 2022, the lesson plans are featured in a “Back-To-School Kit” on a website called “Welcoming Schools”. The site is produced by the HRC Foundation — the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the United States — and it is recommended as a resource for educators by the Ontario elementary teachers’ union (ETFO).
As a former teacher who is currently being subjected to a formal investigation by my licensing body (the Ontario College of Teachers) for voicing what I believe are reasonable concerns about indoctrination in schools in a private Facebook group, I am drawn to these kinds of resources because however depressing their existence, they also carry hope. Hope that thousands more fellow Canadians might awaken and help put an end to this nonsense.
I’d like to believe most of us have a breaking point when it comes this illiberal ideology that calls itself inclusive and compassionate. My wake up call came from seeing a respected professor denounced by the university community and ultimately canceled for an innocent comment made online.
Others might start to think about this “gender” and “race” fanaticism in a different way when they come across a 19 year old who has had her breasts removed, her voice permanently altered, and her fertility stolen from her because as a teenager, she was led to believe that she was born “in the wrong body”, and later realized it was all a giant, irreversible error.
For some, evidence that the teachers’ union considers these lessons appropriate for kindergarteners might just be the drop that makes the glass overflow.
This particular lesson is based on the book “They, She, He, easy as ABC”, by queer activist Maya Gonzalez. The story introduces 26 characters — one for each letter of the alphabet — each one referred to by special “pronouns”.
The first page of the lesson plan shows it is in line with some legitimate “academic standards” (see below). This 40 minute lesson, which also requires “1-2 periods for the art project”, corresponds to the curriculum expectations, in other words.
Nowhere does it mention any connection to the Health/Phys Ed curriculum, where these concepts might be explored with some degree of transparency in later years, however. Instead, the lesson seemingly aligns with the “Common Core State Standards” for English language arts (CCSS.ELA) — standards that are used throughout K-12 education in the US.
In fairness, the students are indeed interpreting a story and participating in conversations about it.
Then again, concepts such as gender identity are completely developmentally inappropriate for elementary students, not to mention pseudoscientific. These ideas downplay or downright ignore biological reality — a child’s physical body — in favour of stereotypes and feelings, leading some to believe their body might truly be a monumental mistake. What exactly could be good about that?
And yet it appears this politicized story time is getting the green light.
If you don’t like it, you’d better have a strong capacity to withstand cognitive dissonance or a very thick skin.
The next page of the lesson plan (above) says the students—aged four to seven—are asked to “list pronouns and write them on a piece of chart paper” before the book is read. They are told to pay attention to pronouns in the story, and reminded that we can’t tell “if someone is a girl, boy, both or neither by how they look”. (Again, we are promoting an idea that is untrue, namely that more than two sexes exist. Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species: this is a well-established fact.)
The teacher starts reading. The first character introduced uses the pronoun “they”.
The second one has no pronoun. The teacher asks for a pronoun anyway. Oups, tricked ya — Brody only goes by Brody, kids.
Then we learn about Diego: “Diego drums and dances. Tree has all the sounds”.
“What pronoun does Diego use?”, asks the teacher.
Tree? Good job!
So it continues… One character uses “ze” pronoun, another uses “more than one” pronoun, and one uses “all” pronouns.
Then students are asked to write their name and pronoun on a sheet, and draw a self-portrait.
As if this wasn’t enough lunacy for one day, the teacher is also instructed to “let students know that if they have always wanted to wear a bow tie with rainbow suspenders, that they can draw themselves this way”, or that they can “change their hair to a style that represents their true selves”.
Their true selves. Hmmm.
What can I say?
This all ends when enough of us choose to speak the truth.
“The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision. It is a silent acquiescence to evil.” — Fulton J Sheen.
Excellent Summary.
Exhibit A: The Truth Matters
My fundamental right to assert the truth is the hill I am willing to die on. Here are some fundamental facts I will continue to assert because words have meanings and meanings matter:
· A “woman” is an adult human female.
· “Trans women” are not women. “Trans women” are trans-identifying males.
· A “man” is an adult human male. “Trans man” is a misleading oxymoron.
· Refusing to use misleading terminology to refer to trans people is not an expression of “hatred.”
· “Transphobia” cannot credibly be attributed to women because “phobia” means irrational fear. Female fear of male violence is perfectly rational because males are statistically significantly bigger, stronger and more prone to violence than females, particularly sexual violence.
Exhibit B: The Free Speech Argument.
Jordan Peterson was absolutely right that compelled speech is unacceptable. We have long accepted that threats of…
View original post 1,090 more words
The horror…
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…