Public Choice Theory: Unleashed

PART ONE

Public choice [theory] should be understood as a research program rather than a discipline or even subdiscipline of economics.”* 2003

Those words are from a Hillsdale College speech by Nobel Prize winning economist, James M. Buchanan, in explaining “Public Choice Theory” (PCT). But his advice was too little, too late. PCT —a research theory— had already been weaponized and unleashed on the public.

While using PCT to manipulate the public, what started as a stealth attack aimed at the heart of American democracy is now a full-fledged, outright war against the People’s right to govern. “Winning” requires the crippling of public institutions essential to ensuring educated and informed voters. Therefore, with public education being imperative to educating the masses, the masses now need to understand how PCT —not CRT (Critical Race Theory)— is the weapon being used to destroy public education and the core of our republic.

Understanding is crucial to being able to repair the damage.

From the screaming matches at local school board meetings to the halls of Congress, the PCT strategy of tapping into passions—using people’s desires, fear, anger, and frustration as bait—is focused at American “Rule of Law.”

“Their” Problem Created A Problem for Us

As political economists have long viewed it, the problem is; how can democracy (majority rule) provide justice for all (not discriminate against minorities) and “yield net benefits”* to taxpayers?

That is the mixing of political theory and economic (market) theory that defines the group of scholars called political economists. But the problem for regular Americans is that we don’t think in their terms, or live our lives based on their theories. Unfortunately, it’s their theories applied to our rules of governing that is destroying the foundation of our country.

Our problem is we are feeling the negative effects of the “Us versus Them” War without being able to see who “they” are or understand how “they” are using us.

Here’s how I came to that conclusion — by looking more closely at PCT.

The Foundation of PCT

Buchanan explained the basis of PCT in reference to two levels of collective decision-making.

Ordinary politics is how decisions are made by legislative bodies.

Constitutional politics sets the rules for ordinary politics to function under.*

Reasonable enough?

We all have an opportunity to try and influence ordinary politics —vote, go to hearings, testify to lawmakers, work with organizations to influence the lawmaking process, etc. But it is within the rule-making process —of constitutional politics—where most Americans cannot remain vigilant enough to guard against those wishing to subvert the “consent of the governed.”

“From the perspective of both justice and efficiency, majority rule may safely be allowed to operate in the realm of ordinary politics, provided that there is generalized consensus on the constitution, or on the rules that define and limit what can be done through ordinary politics.” *

Hum…generalized consensus on constitutional politics? That is exactly what “we” have lost control over. “They” —those with enough money to play the political game they created— have ALMOST total control in a majority of states. Hold that thought.

John W. Gardner (R)(1912-2002). This picture probably was taken during his time working in the Kennedy administration. The price has only gone up since then.

Buchanan, and others, may have honestly wanted to contribute to solving the problem of maintaining stability, justice, and efficiency in government. But instead, PCT’s application —a research theory’s application— in the United States fostered distrust and dysfunction. It may lead to total destruction of our republic if we don’t stop its aim at the Constitution.

Our defense starts with understanding.

Precursor to Public Choice Theory (PCT)

Buchanan drew from the work of Swedish economist Knut Wicksell. Back in the 1800’s, Wicksell assumed majority rule produces discrimination against the minority along with government inefficiencies. He concluded collective actions require unanimity. However, knowing unanimous consent on all issues is impractical, qualified or supermajority votes seemed a logical solution.

There’s logic underlying the idea of a supermajority requirement in constitutional politics. But the problem now appears to be where that logic is applied and where it isn’t. For example, some states require supermajority votes for needed school building bonds. Yet, when determining life-long seats on the Supreme Court (a constitutional political action), the Senate supermajority rule has flip-flopped without so much as a thought to our general consent.

But back to the PCT story. Wicksell’s conclusions led Buchanan, with Gordon Tullock, to write The Calculus of Consent. On Amazon, some excerpts from the book’s description explain major points.

“… The authors acknowledge their unease as economists in analyzing the political organization, but they take the risk of forging into unfamiliar territory because they believe the benefits of their perspective will bear much fruit.”

“… We examine the [choice] process extensively only with reference to the problem of decision-making rules.’”

In other words, they looked through their economic lenses as to how individuals make marketplace purchasing decisions and used those observations in analyzing public decision-making —such as voting.

When all of us are seen as “self-interested players in the marketplace,” ** we are vulnerable to division. Competition for public services runs the high risk of destroying community values. The Fierce Urgency of Now

Now consider this, did “they” then use our individual purchasing habits to manipulate our political decisions?

And the rest of the story…

The Birth of the Public Choice Movement

Buchanan and Tullock’s book was so well received they organized a conference of scholars “that were engaged in research outside the boundaries of their disciplines.”* Then they formed the “Committee on Non-Market Decision-Making” (technically what PCT is) but soon changed it to a catchier name —“Public Choice Society.” Thus, they unleashed “the idea of the profit motive from the economic sphere to the sphere of collective action”* —politics.

I see this as taking the profit motive from the marketplace to the voting booth; it’s treating the public’s voting decisions as a commodity to capture —that pays dividends.

After a half century of studying the impacts and effects of his research program, Buchanan concluded this:

“both the punditry and the public are more critical of politics and politicians, more cynical about the motivations of political action…”*

But after a half century of this theory’s application to the politics of our country, where’s that leave regular Americans?

Where I live, distrust in government turned into distrust and disrespect of local school board members as well as neighbors of differing political persuasions. Ordinary people want the insanity to stop.

PCT —not CRT— has undermined trust in our foundational public institutions. Its twisted misuse violated the sanctity of representative government. PCT —not CRT— weaken the glue of unity in America, the Constitutional Rule of Law.

The weaponizing of Public Choice Theory is divisive.

We have to unite to take back our right to govern.

How? PART TWO

#####

* FROM THE WORDS OF JAMES M. BUCHANAN ⇒ “What Is Public Choice Theory?”, Imprimis, Vol.32 No. 3, March 2003, Hillsdale College, MI

** FROM A LIBERTARIAN POINT OF VIEW ⇒ Daniel J. “Dan” Mitchell, former senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “A Taxpayer-Funded Smear Job of Professor James Buchanan”

Hillsdale College & Their Weapons of Choice

Hillsdale College, 1776 Commission, Barney Charter School Initiative, American Classical Education, Inc., 1776 Civics Curriculum —those names should give us pause and set off alarm bells!!! But most people know little to nothing about a rapidly expanding plan aimed at framing the political thought of the next generation of Americans.

To say this is a serious threat to American democracy is no exaggeration.

Therefore —please— look at what is happening and consider this. Can you vilify and devalue an entire economic and political philosophy rendering it useless in stopping political corruption?

POLITICAL CORRUPTION An 1894 cartoon by Louis Dalrymple equating pay-offs made to the New York police with corporate contributions to senators. Posted by the Granger.

If you’ve heard it said — and believe it is plausible — that the philosophy in the school room in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next, take the facts seriously.

Start With Hillsdale College, “School Choice,” and the 1776 Commission

Since 1844, Hillsdale College has stood as a private conservative Christian college in Michigan claiming to pursue truth, defend liberty, and not take any federal funding. Additionally, Hillsdale runs a private K-12 school, manages the Barney Charter School Initiative (BCSI), and started a charter management organization. They also offer free on-line courses, the 1776 Civics Curriculum, summer seminars, a lecture series and “speech digest” carrying the lecture out to over six million readers.

Hillsdale College president sees teaching as their weapon.

Source: Salon

Larry P. Arnn is their president and prior to coming to Hillsdale, in 2000, he founded and was former president of the Claremont Institute (no affiliation with Claremont colleges). If the name Larry Arnn doesn’t ring a bell, maybe you’ll recall the short-lived presidential 1776 Commission that he co-chaired. Billed as an advisory committee to support “patriot education,” its declared purpose was to…

enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776

Excluded from this commission were historians specializing in the time-frame of our founding. But included was the politically-influential founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) — Charlie Kirk.Beginning in 2012, Kirk’s TPUSA has embedded itself in high school and college campuses across the U.S.. TPUSA’s “projects” include an annual Student Action Summit, Professor Watch List, DivestU (discourages donors to higher ed), Campus Leadership Project, “school board watchlist,” and more recently TPUSA (Turning Point) Academy and Turning Point Faith.

Source: TPUSA 2021 Investor Prospectus  ExposedByCMD

Kirk wages political war using what people on both “sides” agree are deceptive tactics. All the while, he continues escalating the culture wars by building upon a network of influence and big money. ExposedByCMD

Since the 1776 Project began, Arnn and Kirk both expanded and amplified their strategies to build and enable “a rising generation” of “patriots.”

Leveraging Publicly-Funded, Privately-Operated “School Choice”

As Jeff Bryant explained back in December of 2016, the Barney initiative mission statement points to Hillsdale’s political agenda.

“[The] former mission statement, since taken down, … said the Initiative seeks to ‘recover our public schools from the tide of a hundred years of progressivism …  ‘The charter school vehicle possesses the conceptual elements that permit the launching of a significant campaign of classical school planting to redeem American public education.’”

Hillsdale began Barney charters in 2012 and recently expanded their reach through their new charter school management organization dubbed American Classical Education, Inc. (ACE). Many Barney charters already include “Classical” in naming their schools.

Hillsdale doesn’t see ACE as contrary to their stance against taking federal money. Regardless, federal funding is supporting charter start-ups and expansions. Hillsdale reasons that ACE is only “associated” with the college.

Assistant Provost for K-12 Education Kathleen O’Toole explains, “It [ACE] was formed to carry out the mission of our work in K-12 education but it’s not a Hillsdale College entity.”

Explaining The Charter Management Business

Charter management organizations such as ACE allow a single board to manage groups of schools, instead of each school having its own board. This can improve efficiency and philosophical alignment, O’Toole said.

Hillsdale’s ACE CEO, Joel Schellhammer, explained further.

“ … he wants ACE’s schools to be places where Hillsdale graduates apply for jobs. ‘Hillsdale has a tremendous pipeline of graduates …’” Hillsdale Collegian

Hillsdale College and its “associates” have created a system. But it isn’t a public education system like this country has had in place for over 150 years. This network is designed to recruit, train and supply leaders, teachers, and curriculumsteeped in Hillsdale’s philosophy— and “plant” them in the public education system at public expense.

Hillsdale College associated charter schools and schools using their curriculum.

DID YOU HEAR about TN Gov. Lee initially asking Hillsdale to start up 100 charter schools in Tennessee? Arnn eventually agreed to 50. REVEALED: Charter school program favored by Tennessee governor rewrites civil rights history.

A Network of Dissemination of Information

The messages coming at the public —from this well-funded, politically-connected network—don’t make sense. That’s why it makes sense to pause Hillsdale’s expansion into our public education system.

“… the college has inconspicuously been building a network of ‘classical education’ charter schools, which use public tax dollars to teach that systemic racism was effectively vanquished in the 1960s, that America was founded on ‘Judeo-Christian’ principles and that progressivism is fundamentally anti-American.” Salon Investigates

The network is complicated. So briefly, look at one example from the Claremont Institute — the organization co-founded by Larry Arnn.

A Claremont Institute project, The American Way of Life, claims “A new Right is needed to defend the American way of life and restore political liberty.” This is how they frame the political struggle in America.

“America is currently engaged in a regime-level struggle that will preserve or destroy the purpose that has defined it. On one side stands the American way of life, characterized by republican self-government and the habits of mind and character necessary to sustain it. On the other side stands identity politics, … These two regimes are in conflict and cannot coexist.”

We cannot coexist with differing political philosophies? The message is released! …

“A new Right is needed, one that understands itself as rooted in the noble cause of the American Revolution — unabashed and zealous in its determination to restore political liberty and politics itself.” A New Conservatism Must Emerge

Words Become “Dog Whistles”

Will people stop to think about what “identity politics” really is and what it is used for? I did.

And I found one point agreed upon by both “sides.” Identifying with a group does “rouse” some individuals into becoming part of a “politically cohesive body.” But Hillsdale concludes identity politics is extreme and divisive. Think this through.

To contrast with Hillsdale’s opinion, here is an explanation from a more progressive perspective.

“Identity politics is when people of a particular race, ethnicity, gender, or religion form alliances and organize politically to defend their group’s interests. … Identity politics seems to be experiencing a surge in recent times, which has led some people to decry this approach to politics, calling it divisive.” Philosophy Talk Blog

If you have ever tried to organize people for a purposed action — a church or school fundraiser, a campaign for or against a law, or for a political party or candidate — you know it’s true that the first people to step up to help are those that can “identify” in some way with the cause.

Identifying with a group isn’t the problem; discrimination is.

“So long as some people are marginalized, victimized, or oppressed because of their identities, we will need identity politics.” Laura Maguire

Other Anti-Progressivism Claims Made By Hillsdale and Associates

In addition to “identity politics” being framed as divisive, a frequently repeated claim against progressivism is that it goes against the purpose of America and our “noble cause” as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

A lecture delivered as part of Hillsdale College lecture series.Remember, the Declaration was about “one People” dissolving their “Political Bands” with another (Great Britain) in order to assume a “separate and equal Station” on earth. The main purpose expounded upon — which set American democracy apart— is the institution of a Government, “deriving its just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Therefore, as directed by the Constitution, it’s been up to us—through our representatives— to determine and legislate the role of our Government in establishing and maintaining the “Safety and Happiness” of our People.

So to determine if there was any truth to the claims against progressivism, time was put into reviewing its history, when it predominated American political thought, and what laws are attributed to it. The research presented some variations in details but consistent major themes.

Both “sides” agree progressives believed and acted upon the philosophy that progress on social improvements can be made through government actions. Most historians agree on what triggered the Progressive Era—corruption, greed, and the alliance of large corporations with “machine politics.”

Critics of progressivism claim it is un-American, “unpatriotic” and led to “the administrative state.”

The claim against the “administrative state” is that it is a centralized, “bureaucratic” system. But ask yourself, how does a government organize —institute— around the rule of law without “administering” those laws?

One Perspective: A Historian’s View of Progressivism

A well-respected historian of the past, Richard Hofstadter, viewed the general theme of “progressivism” as …

“the effort to restore a type of economic individualism and political democracy … and with that restoration to bring back a kind of morality and civic purity …” The Age of Reform, From Bryn to F.D.R., p5-6.

A Hillsdale College Supporter’s Perspective: A Critique of the Hillsdale Civics Curriculum

When assessing the 1776 K-12 Civics Curriculum, the Pioneer Institute Civics Audit noted the exorbitant amount of time devoted to progressivism. Yet, this is how they critiqued Hillsdale’s curriculum:

It is “the gold standard for civics curricula,” (p21), emphasizes “the Progressive movement’s gravely deleterious effects on America,” focuses on the “abhorrence of the Progressives,” and includes “an assessment of the malign effect of Progressivism on America.”(p22)

The Pioneer Institute includes charter schools among their priorities as well asgovernment transparency, privatization, economic development, government spending, and healthcare.” Source: SourceWatch

So now, having found reasons to question the civics curriculum’s bias against progressivism, the question becomes, are young American minds being indoctrinated with anti-progressivism lies?

Need More Facts About the Progressive Era? I did.

SOURCE: Addition of the time frames was mine. (Good Quick Overview/ Outline) American Historama

Reform Era Groups included the Grangers, Populists, Progressives, National Municipal League, Pragmatists, Woman’s Suffrage, Consumers’ Leagues, Labor Movement, Niagara Movement, Child Labor Committees, and Conservation Movement.

“Yet with all its variety in objectives and methods, Progressivism displayed far more unity than the forces of reform had been able to muster before 1900” (p311).

“The whole spirit of the Progressive movement involved opening the mind, not closing it; educating the public for change, not schooling it for subservience” (p329). Hofstadter, Miller, Aaron, “The American Republic”, Volume Two, 1970

Not wanting their efforts turned towards Marxian socialism, progressives sought solutions to the nation’s problems through lawmaking. They worked towards strengthening people’s participation in the democratic process.

Resulting state policies included:

  • the “secret ballot,”
  • direct primary,
  • initiative,
  • referendum,
  • recall processes, and late in the era,
  • women’s right to vote.

Other reforms that came out of the movement included:

  • the development of “settlement houses” for the poverty-stricken,
  • regulations on intrastate railroads, public utilities, child labour, worker’s safety, accident insurance for workers and their families,
  • “trust busting” laws against monopolies,
  • drug and food safety (including meat inspection), and
  • preservation of natural resources (conservation) —establishing our National Parks.

Additionally, several civil rights organizations arose and continue working towards advancing civil rights.

Also during this era was Prohibition (18th Amendment, 1919) and its repeal by the 21st Amendment in 1933. But another constitutional amendment still stands that perhaps Hillsdale crusaders found objectionable. If the 17th Amendment (1913), changing the appointment of U.S. Senators to election by the people, is seen as the problem with progressivism, then that is what we need to hear about and debate.

A Look Now at the Actual “Gold Standard” Hillsdale College 1776 Curriculum

Note the choice of words directed against progressives:

  • they rejected the Founder’s views of … the pursuit of happiness”,
  • rejection of the philosophical principles of the American founding”,
  • reject the Declaration of Independence, natural rights, and social contract theory”.

As with most effective directives to teachers, there is instruction as to the focus, the lesson, and a post-lesson follow-up, labeled here as exercises for “The American Mind.” THAT is but a glimpse. So you are encouraged to at least take a look at what Phil Williams highlighted for NewsChannel5 Nashville.

The Aim of All This?

Hillsdale College is “planting” schools and filling the teacher and leader “pipeline” with graduates schooled in Hillsdale’s political and economic philosophy. Although Hillsdale’s system is clearly aimed at “training the young … to become leaders …”, it IS NOT clear where these unelected “leaders” are taking the country.

With federal and state money flowing through the charter system, taxpayers have the right to know what Hillsdale considers “timeless truths.” Additionally, Hillsdale’s aim is now our business. Obviously, the aim of Hillsdale College goes beyond serving its students in the traditional sense of what higher education provides. REALLY? Attacking social justice?

And let’s not forget to consider the other groups involved with Hillsdale such as the Turning Point USA network.

“In short, Turning Point’s new[est] aim is to … define education as a Christian nationalist dominion … [selling the strategy] … by saying what happens on campuses eventually reaches the halls of Congress.” “SOURCE:Charlie Kirk and Christian nationalist college team up for new propaganda campaign

“Taxation is Theft”? That’s Turning Point USA, USA, USA. USA?  SOURCE of Images: TPUSA 2021 Investors Prospectus

Hillsdale College? Hum. Here’s What I Think.

I question Hillsdale’s motives. Why is Hillsdale College, a private Michigan Christian establishment, launching a national attack on progressivism?

And it is awfully odd they chose to use our Declaration in teaching that progressives rejected its principles. I think Hillsdale has rejected its principles. Think about it. One reason given for breaking ties with Britain was …

HE [King of Great Britain] has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us…”

Yet, president Larry Arnn stands unquestionably with the former president of the United States. No doubt? Absolutely sure of the truth?

Violent extremists groups came together on January 6, 2021. Christian nationalism was a driving force of the insurrection. Report on Christian nationalism and the January 6th insurrection.

What Do You Think?

Are the anti-progressivism “teachings” in the Hillsdale College 1776 Civics Curriculum indoctrinating young Americans to loath progressive political thought?

Anti-intellectualism in Today’s America!

In 2014, an article titled “The cult of ignorance in the United States: Anti-intellectualism and the ‘dumbing down’ of America appeared in Psychology Today. But what the author saw then as a trend is now our reality.

There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It’s the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.”

And the author, Ray Williams, warned …

“We’re creating … angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest, and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation.”

Many people anticipated the arrival of confrontational politics. Yet most overlook anti-intellectualism as a major contributing factor to our nation’s toxic political divide. Hence, we must acknowledge our history of anti-intellectualism so we can understand its ingrained influence on us.

Anti-intellectualism in America is nothing new.

Our anti-intellectual tendencies are historical. That history tells a story about our American character as a people — with an ever existing fault-line.

“We, the people, must redeem” …  fulfill the pledge … make America again!

Our anti-intellectualism is, in fact, older than our national identity, … [and our] regard for intellectuals … is subject to cyclical fluctuations …” wrote Richard Hofstadter in his 1964 book,  Anti-intellectualism in American Life.

Hofstadter ventured “toward definition” of anti-intellectualism in terms of human attitudes and ideas. He chose words like “resentment and suspicion. However, he saw a smorgasbord of political and emotional factors making anti-intellectualism “a broadly diffused quality in our civilization”. Therefore, he did not see the public as “simply divided into intellectual and anti-intellectual factions.”

[The public] “is infused with enough ambivalence about intellect and intellectuals to be swayed now this way and now that on current cultural issues.

Our ambivalence means mixed feelings about a given topic leaves us vulnerable to simply following leaders — with or without good reason.

But Hofstadter died in 1970 so he did not witness the depth of our current cycle of anti-intellectualism. With the online culture becoming deadly to reasoned discussions, this anti-intellectual cycle looks more like a death spiral for rational policy debates.

Hofstadter saw “dissenting intellectuals” as necessary for “their services as an independent source of national self-criticism.” Yet he realized “the intellectual is either shut out or sold out.” They either aren’t allowed to be heard — unfiltered — or they become inclined to speak in-line with the organization that pays them.

So we can’t blame anti-intellectualism solely on the education system.

The public education system traditionally takes all the blame for the “dumbing down” of America. But what the public fails to recognize is how political forces took over the system to use for political and personal gains. The politics of education policies is transforming the mission of the public education system.

“We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs,” said Professor Catherine Liu in discussing the changing mission of universities.

In that 2014 article, Williams listed multiple statistics upon which the public and policymakers judge the quality and effectiveness of the U.S education system. But if researchers and educational writers —the public’s sources of information— continue to ignore the 1991 evaluation and conclusions by Sandia National Researchers, the nation will continue to be misled by misinformation. For this reason, the country must come to grips with its mistakes of the past.

A decade after the release of A Nation at Risk, researchers at the Sandia National Laboratories conducted their own study of elementary and secondary education.

Although education alone cannot change ingrained attitudes and beliefs, proper science education focused on fostering scientific habits can lead to more rational, critical thought.

“Students should develop a conceptual understanding of the natural world, critical-thinking skills, and scientific habits of mind, including curiosity, respect for evidence, flexibility of perspective, and an appreciation for living things.”

—2002 South Carolina Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) Institute

Regrettably, education policies of the last three decades lessened learning opportunities in science and civics for too many students in under-resourced schools. Policymakers can correct this mistake now!

Anti-Intellectualism in America today?

“Today, we define American anti-intellectualism as a social attitude that systematically denigrates science-based facts, academic and institutional authorities, and the pursuit of theory and knowledge.” Source: Understanding Anti-Intellectualism

Today, political propagandists tap into American anti-intellectualism and use it to further divide us. But a nation founded upon the People’s consent can fight back against politically-cultivated anti-intellectualism. First, we must understand it. To that end, I ask readers to view the nation’s current political state of affairs as an assortment of “movements.”

Political and social movements — constructive or destructive— require the presence of certain emotions, including both discontent and faith in the future. But for a movement to grow, it requires people feel a sense of power in their ability to effect change. Therefore, when the powerful “ruling class” cultivates empowerment AND distrust of experts and institutions, they essentially sideline intellectuals while growing their movement.

Why exclude intellectuals — those that tend to question facts and reasoning?

Authoritarian rulers are in a better position to rise to power under a growing anti-intellectual movement. (Image from Anti-intellectualism in Nazi Germany slide serve.)

Multiple social and political movements are underway in the United States. From the continued march towards equality, to Tea Party resurgence, to rising White and Christian Nationalism, Americans are stirred up! But while citizens feel these movements underfoot, most still have trouble seeing how American democracy is under attack from within. Too few see how weaponizing anti-intellectualism has transformed well-meaning Americans into destroyers of the republic they believe they are defending.

“… anti-intellectualism is evoked as a way to halt the acquisition of new knowledge that would undermine groups with power and privilege,…”

“Politicians, corporations, and religious institutions stand to benefit from this most— to maintain or assert authority, anti-intellectualism is the default weapon employed to fuse patriotism, American identity, and support for their own agendas.” Source: Understanding Anti-Intellectualism

We’re never going to rid our culture, or even ourselves, from every anti-intellectual thought or action. But we must try to rid our political culture from accepting intentional use of anti-intellectualism against our republic.

When you recognize propaganda that is cultivating rejection of a person, institution or “fact”, you must question intent. Ask yourself, is there sufficient reason for rejecting a leader, an established institution, or prevailing belief? Or is there an ulterior motive at play?

Consider This:

We are all capable of logical, reasoned thought. But it does require a concerted effort to resist being ambivalent. Consequently, it requires people devote a little more of their time to looking for truths, thinking clearly, and calling-out propaganda and propagandists.

The capacity for intellectual thought exists in all of us. There is nothing “elitist” about it.

“Constant and delicate acts of intellectual surgery” (Hofstadter) will contain the ill-effects of anti-intellectualism .

Combat anti-intellectualism with facts, reasoned thinking, meaningful discussions, and a better understanding of the intentional use of politically-cultivated anti-intellectualism.

And please, respect existing intellectualism within your fellow Americans.

#####

Following the posting of this blog, I had the honor of being interviewed on Politics Done Right with Egberto Willies. Typically I shy away from a camera, preferring private one-on-one conversations. But the topic is important enough and the Times require stepping out of our comfort zone. Please join us!

Progress & Love in a Divisive Climate

 In a nation divided, linking progress & love together feels sadly out of place. But progress & love are being packaged together and used against the American people. Now a weapon in the culture wars, progress & love are cloaked, vilified, and denounced under the label “critical race theory” and social justice “ideology.”

Yes, you read that right. Here’s how I know.

Listening recently to critical race theorists speak about what sparked their interest in the theory, their use of it in scholarly research, and their discussion of recent events, several remarks stood out.

“It’s about progress.”

“It’s founded on the ethics of love.”

“Be equipped with truth and history.”

“Pursue what is just.”

“Commit to equity and excellence.”

“Live up to the promise of Brown v. Board of Education.”

Looking Further into the Love Connection

Historically, critical race theory arose when anti-discrimination laws appeared to no longer be moving us towards progress on equal treatment under the law. (See connection under: “Linking …”) But without being versed in scripture and seeing Martin Luther King, Jr. more as a a civil rights leader than a Reverend, the love connection gets lost. It’s found by looking through the perspective of a critical race theorist.

The Beloved Community. The goal of Critical Race Theory [CRT] in Christianity is the Beloved Community envisioned by Scripture and the biblical witness of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr (Revelation 5:9-10, 7:9-10; Galatians 3: 28-29; John 10: 16; Ephesians 2: 14-21; Colossians 1: 15-20; Acts 10: 34-35). Done in the spirit of lovethe ultimate goal of CRT in Christianity is the reconciliation of all peopleKey Tenets of Critical Race Theory in Christianity

Rise of the False Narrative: Where to Begin?

It’s hard to say with certainty where – behind what closed door – the false narrative about critical race theory began. But we don’t need to look far to see and hear the claims. The false claims include:

  • False: it has “identity-based” Marxist roots (truth: it’s an offshoot of social justice, civil rights and critical legal studies).
  • False: it’s “injected into” primary school curricula (read true stories below).

From there, the false claims of “indoctrination” go off the rails!

“… the overthrow of capitalism … the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech … [the theory will] overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.” Christopher F. Rufo, Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It

Christopher F. Rufo, lecturing at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021, also made the following claim.

“Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government.”

In this same lecture, Rufo, a young, talented, privately-schooled film-maker and right-wing journalist/activist, focuses his main criticism on the work of Ibram X. Kendi, refered to as a “critical race guru.” But Ibram X. Kendi, another privately-schooled talented young person, has his own definition of racism from which he puts forth his ideas on “antiracism.”

A new definition for racism!?! Who knew? But never-mind how confusing that is for us. The real concern is, what is actually happening in OUR public schools?

Is there some kernel of truth to allegations of “indoctrination”?

I believe “antiracism” is misguided. Can I still teach Black children?” Catchy title! Written by a teacher!

In answering the nagging question of “indoctrination,” I thought I’d found a firsthand account. But alas, this author wasn’t “just” a teacher. He was a senior advisor to [DPPS] Democracy Prep Public [Charter] Schools, served as vice president for the Core Knowledge Foundation, and is senior fellow and vice president for external affairs at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. His voice is amplified by a list of corporate-funded, politically right-leaning media outlets. And he provided a story!

(Subtitle) Does antiracism pedagogy demand—or even condone—inflicting emotional distress on children?

“The most chilling revelation to emerge earlier this month from a whistleblowing teacher at New York City’s private Grace Church School was the headmaster’s acknowledgement captured in an audio recording that “we’re demonizing kids, we’re demonizing White people for being born.”

Private schools have control over the content they teach —without interference or accountability to taxpayers. But I found another story, a lawsuit alleging indoctrination at a “public” charter school in Nevada. However, it is a story without an ending – to date.

On the surface, it looks straightforward.

Quoted from court documents, “My son is the only white student in this class, as far as we can tell. This teacher is blatantly justifying racism against white people thereby putting my son in emotional, psychological, and physical danger. This is not ok.”

… In the federal lawsuit [it’s alleged that the charter] violated the high school senior’s First Amendment rights by “repeatedly compelling his speech involving intimate matters of race, gender, sexuality and religion” during a required civics class. Las Vegas charter school sued for curriculum covering race, identity

This seems like a commonsense response.Yes?

But the rest of this story?

To date – this story shows a tangled web of people, money, power, loss of local control of curriculum and lack of public oversight for private providers.

Superintendent and CEO Natasha Trivers is a co-defendant in the case. Her role is to personally oversee staffing, design, and implementation of the charter school’s national curriculum program …

[The student] was originally enrolled in Andre Agassi Preparatory Academy in 2014. New York-based DPPS [Democracy Prep Public Schools ] acquired the Academy after receiving a $12.7 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education in 2016.

Parents were unaware of the ideological changes in the Civics Program, as Trivers had used the name of an existing program  … and “inserted consciousness raising and conditioning exercises under the banner of ‘Intersectionality’ and ‘Critical Race Theory’” when she modified the Program in 2017. Lawsuit Alleges Leftist Indoctrination in Nevada Charter School

The founder of DPPS is Seth Andrew who also founded Democracy Builders, “a charter school advocacy group intending to create a hybrid college education system.” But students spoke up! Look at some of the allegations raised when Andrew attempted to purchase Marlboro College campus.

“We hope, through this letter, to give you some insights into the man behind Democracy Builders, the irreparable harm he has caused to the low-income and first-generation students of color that he served as the founder of Democracy Prep; and show you why the sale of the Marlboro College campus to Seth Andrew, is not only antithetical to the legacy of Marlboro, but a great human rights concern for the very demographics that he claims to serve,” the Black N Brown at Democracy Prep letter reads.

Marlboro Alumni condemn campus sale amid reports of racism at Democracy Builders

Then this story took an unexpected twist.

“Prosecutors say Andrew helped create a network of charter schools based in New York City in 2005, and left the network in 2013 for a job at the US Department of Education, and later became a senior adviser in the Office of Educational Technology at the White House, where he continued to be paid by the charter school network. Prosecutors say Andrew left his role in the White House in November 2016 and cut ties with the school network in January 2017.”

Natasha Trivers continues to be the CEO of the organization.

What and Who are We to Believe?

Going back to an earlier publication, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001), the writers describe a collection of activist and scholars adopting and using the theory to explain racism as it relates to various aspects of the world we live in, our laws, and our history. But it was clear that differing “camps” of thinking exist – realists / materialists / idealists etc. Conformity to one way of thinking (or “indoctrination”) is not at all what you find in this introduction to the theory.

Throughout the book, there is a feeling of real desire to help people understand the effects of racism. Granted, there are two more editions of the book since 2001, but the same desire to help others understand what critical race theory is and its proper use is exactly what came through in the discussion among the higher education critical race theorists mentioned at the beginning of this post.

At this time of escalating public confusion, we see new laws emerging opposing the theory!?! That doesn’t make sense!

“Over the past few months, Republican legislators in Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and West Virginia have drafted bills that would ban the teaching of what they deem “divisive” or “racist and sexist” concepts.”

Good laws begin with at least some clarity about the subject central to the legislation. So why deliberately write state laws restricting academic freedom? Because you can? Because legislative creep has allowed more and more State and private control of curriculum “content” while pushing aside parents and other local controls.

In Ames, Iowa: “This bill is very intentional in its approach to shut down equity work in districts. I think they can sugarcoat it however they want. That is what the bill is intended to do,” said Jenny Risner, the superintendent of Ames Community School District.

In Idaho …

BOISE, IDAHO

Meanwhile: The Search Continues for Proof of Wrong Doing by the PUBLIC School System


In Idaho, a public claim of “propaganda” entering K-12 education was made in an article posted by a private, Dark Money-funded “non-profit” — after the law passed. But the claim is once again against a charter school. So that does warrant looking further at Idaho’s charters.

Author: Anna Miller

Idaho has a private charter-expansion organization, Bluum, that received at least $22 million to expand charters under the DeVos administration.

“Bluum is privileged to give voice to the work that the charter school networks [DPPS] Democracy Prep, Great Heart, Success Academies and the [Hillsdale College] Barney Charter School Initiative are doing … ” — Terry Ryan, Bluum CEO

And at the Idaho Hearing (Senate Ed 4/26/21) on the Anti-Critical Race Theory bill, Terry Ryan clearly voiced his opinion — “Pass the budgets.”

Hum? Follow the money if you can.

Idaho news spread quickly in “The Network” designed to undermine and defund higher education. “The Fix” isn’t a fix.

Author: Anna Miller writes, “Starving universities of public money is the only way to rein in a social justice university and force activists to find careers outside of higher education.”

The College Fix is a “news” website focused on higher education and funded by the Koch Foundation (among others).

It’s no coincidence that the author of both the “propaganda” and “The Fix” articles is Anna Miller, a George Mason University grad. With Idaho lawmakers passing a higher education budget cutting $2.5 million to “send a message about ‘indoctrination,'” it goes into the win column for the Koch Network.

George Mason University students recieve a  Koch-backed curriculum. Yes, this really did turn out to be another story about money, power, and control.

“We’ve Lost the Narrative” said a Scholar of Critical Race Theory.

We are losing more than the narrative. We’re losing the truth, public control of public education, and the ability to communicate with the public ahead of the Misinformation Network.

The danger is not in theory; it’s in limiting discussion of race and social justice in places where it belongs. But the “elephant in the room” that we fail to see is State overreach and private control of public schools’ curriculum. Those issues are dismantling public education.

Our biggest risk? Losing opportunities to stand on the ethics of love and create progress towards the promise.

Critical race theory allows us to see a path toward a truly just future where economic, social, and political power are decoupled from race.” U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman

Social Justice: Dangers & Expectations

In the mid-1800’s, an Italian Jesuit gave rise to the phrase “social justice.” But today, its use as a political wedge leaves its meaning unclear to many. It’s meaning is based on Italian theologian “Thomas Aquinas’ idea that, in addition to doing the right thing, we should strive to do what is necessary for the betterment of others.” Five Principles of Social Justice, Kent State.

As viewed through its religious origin, social justice is based on moral uprightness (rectitude).

Social Justice: Born from Revolution

When economic inequality produced economic distress, the resultant turmoil of the French Revolution birthed the social justice concept. Over time, its meaning began to vary based on “political orientation, religious background, and political and social philosophy.” Therefore, speaking in general terms, social justice is the concept “that people have equal rights and opportunities; everyone … deserves an even playing field.” Tricia Christensen

America’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” But that declaration is merely the foundation for the promise of America.

“…  the Declaration of Independence … was a call for the right to statehood rather than individual liberties, says Stanford historian Jack Rakove. Only after the American Revolution did people interpret it as a promise for individual equality.” Stanford News

Thus, America’s journey towards equality of individual rights and opportunities is guided by the U.S. Constitution. But we haven’t reached our constitutional obligation to “promote the general Welfare.” Regrettably, our roadblock is in determining what opportunities to provide equally. So consider this:

“By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.”

“… Congress may enact legislation ‘necessary and proper” to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending.” Spending for the General Welfare: Scope of the Power

Linking Social Justice, the Civil Rights Movement, and Critical Race Theory

Social justice is America’s target while civil rights’ work is to protect all citizen’s rights — in theory. But social justices’ progress apparently requires constant strife —examples being the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement. Currently, progress faces new roadblocks.

The Civil Rights Movement spawned new lawsFair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act all to protect citizens against discrimination. But over time, changes to enforcement and the laws have us backsliding. Awareness of that reversion is what brought Critical Race Theory (CRT) into existence.

What is the Theory?

CRT is an academic response to Critical Legal Studies —which sees “the law as necessarily intertwined with social issues …” emphasizing socioeconomic factors. But other scholars saw race as playing a more critical role than socioeconomic identity. Those scholars focused critically on the factors underlying racial inequality.

Here is a summary based on Dennis Fabrizi’s explanation of the three core themes of the theory.

  1. The theory sees racism infused in the everyday fabric of society.
  2. CRT raises the concept of ‘interest convergence’, a notion that white people have little incentive to eliminate racism except when the idea of greater equality operates in their own interests.
  3. It emphasizes ‘storytelling’ as a way to advance understanding of what it is like to be racially “minoritised”.

Why Is this Background Information Important?

By mid-September of 2020, the country fell prey to misinformation and disinformation! We all saw it happen but didn’t know enough to stop it.

“Perhaps the most controversial proposition of critical race theory is the idea that racism is built into American law and everyday life.” …

“Ironically, Trump’s most recent executive order banning racial sensitivity training confirms critical race theory’s central point: Racism is embedded in the law.” Victor Ray, Professor of Sociology, University of Iowa

The former president’s executive order halting all federal employee’s “diversity training” was a temporary setback. But it’s trickle-down effect is disastrous. By declaring the theory to be “un-American propaganda,” the political strategy of de-funding public education spread from K-12 up to higher education and down to pre-K.

“We’re indoctrinating our children at a younger level here. … the curriculum’s is already written, there’s social justice in it” said Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard [Idaho]. And [organizations] indoctrinate children with its own beliefs regarding “anti-bias education.” …. Idaho House rejects pre-K federal grant

This Big Bucks-funded “non-profit”, Turning Point USA, is a piece of the propaganda network set up to undermine the institutions of public education.

Misinformation Turns Into Bad Policies

Through networks of media sources, intentional messaging linked critical race theory to “dismantling all social norms” to “replacement of all systems of power” to being so “dangerous” it warrants laws to restrict its subject matter in schools! Let’s be clear. The messages make everyday words—like diversity and inclusion—sound like something we don’t welcome in America!

Messages heard; misinformation consumed. The result? Many state legislatures fell in lock-step to control the curriculum content in schools and de-fund those that don’t comply.

This Facebook post is from Idaho House Representative Tammy Nichols. Her rampage to de-fund Boise State University went public in September, 2019 and continues to the present.  

“What’s happening in Idaho is not unique. All over the country, state legislators are trying to curtail teaching about racism and sexism, in universities as well as elementary schools.” Michelle Goldberg

We Have to Stop the Destruction of Our  Language

If public institutions can provide opportunities for ALL citizens to participate in American life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then our policies must focus on what is “necessary and proper” to achieving that goal. But to do so, we must first stop the corruption of our political language. Equal, equality, equity, racism, sexism, privilege, diversity, “identity politics” — all of these words and more have been vilified and used to divide us.

If critical race theory helps explain why social justice is no closer to becoming a reality in America than it was in the 60’s, then let’s hear it. But if there are individual professors, teachers, or trainers misrepresenting or misusing the theory, by all means, stop those individuals. Do it without undermining public education and halting progress towards the promise of America.

The Dangers?

There is a real danger in forgetting the self-evident truism upon which America assumed independence— “all men are created equal”. Those written words only launched America’s journey towards building a nation capable of providing opportunities for all to live free, as equals. Social justice is the means to that end.

The danger is the fear created by those wishing to keep us divided. But it’s misinformation and misunderstandings producing the fear. Most Americans rightfully want acceptance without prejudice waged upon them due to their looks, speech, or individual choices.

The biggest danger is in vilifying the very meaning and goals of social justice.

A false narrative is circulating that social justice, critical race theory, and anti-bias education creates division. The propaganda claims that social justice advocates set a goal of giving everyone the same (equal) outcomes in life. In reality, we know that human differences (motivations, talents, etc.) play a role in “the outcome” of our lives. Life has never been a pie where we all get an identical slice.

The Expectations

In America, we expect fairness. We expect to not face discrimination when it comes to housing, voting, employment, and public education opportunities.

“Equality, in the American sense of the word, is not an end but a beginning. It means that, so far as the state can do it, all children shall start in the race of life on an even line. The chief agency for this purpose is the public school system.”

                                                — Edwin E. Slosson, 1921

So yes, anti-bias education —of our young— has a role to play in providing equal rights and opportunities. But without understanding the intended meanings of words used by any anti-bias author or speaker, we risk falling prey to “altered meanings.” Expect clarification.

Is anti-bias education indoctrination into a political ideology? Or is it the concept of “love your neighbor as yourself”?

“The heart of anti-bias work is a vision of a world in which all children are able to blossom, and each child’s particular abilities and gifts are able to flourish.” Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves

Did I mention participation, diversity of ideas and opinions, and inclusion of minority views make for a policy process MORE LIKELY to represent the People of the United States? Expect the policy-making process to work as intended.

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.” — Thomas Jefferson

Congress decides our national Welfare.

Attacks on Educators

Historically, attacks on educators were confined to attacks on “liberal” professors. Not any more!

Photo Credit: Posted by Gen Z Conservative 

“As Trump clearly signals an escalated attack on teachers, remember that these right wing groups from Turning Point USA to Campus Watch are not only targeting professors but high school teachers. He has blown his dog whistles, so watch out for the vicious dogs now.” (First Posted by Hyung Nam on Facebook 10/31/18. Updated:7/5/2020 )

Attacks on educators— and the whole public education system —will continue. Raging since the 80’s, this modern-day battle for control of education will not simply end with the election of a new president. Any single president is not integral to success of the plan. The plan requires organized control of the rules of governing.

Enter: Turning Point USA Coupled with Leadership Institute

Founded in 2012, Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is led by Charlie Kirk, an affluent young man that sees no need to continue his own formal education. Partnering with the Leadership Institute, the multi-million dollar TPUSA offers activism grants for conservative students around the country.

“Tax filings show the organization is funded by many of the same groups that support the Leadership Institute ... “

“Turning Point USA trains students in the art of viral filmmaking. The goal is to document campus ‘snowflakes’ ­– a derogatory term for young liberals viewed as easily offended – whenever they’re caught pushing leftist agendas. Conservative superstars such as commentator Ben Shapiro and Campus Reform Media Director Cabot Phillips speak at the group’s conventions and encourage college kids to always be prepared to film. They even offer to help student-made videos go viral by reposting them on their websites.”

The Professor Watchlist is another product of Turning Point USA. The blacklist of professors, many sourced from Campus Reform articles, seeks to ‘expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.’ Would-be saboteurs are encouraged to submit tips to the watchlist along with photo or video evidence of the offending professor.”

And the Leadership Institute?

Founded in 1979, Leadership Institute claims non-partisan 501(c)(3) status but clearly “identifies, recruits, trains and places conservatives in government, politics, and the media.” That is their mission.

“The Leadership Institute’s tax filings show net assets of more than $25 million in 2016, just over $1 million of which was funneled into Campus Reform. Roughly two-thirds of the institute’s income comes from philanthropist groups such as the Charles Koch Foundation, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and DonorsTrust and Republican super-donors such as Richard Uihlein.”

“According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, publications such as Campus Reform and The College Fix pay student reporters about $50 per article. Many of the stories are sourced from the Leadership Institute’s network of close to 1,600 conservative student groups across the country.”

“A liberal influence guide on the Campus Reform website, titled, ‘The Evil Empire on Campus,’ lists college groups supported by ‘major, national leftist organizations’ as one of the many examples of liberal indoctrination at universities.”

 

Orchestrated Attacks on Educators and the Results

“When a teacher is featured on Fox News, Breitbart, Campus Watch or The Red Elephants, the harassment follows in short order, making high-profile cases easy to count. But a recent report by Abby Ferber, a sociology professor at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, suggests that many professors experience targeted online harassment even when stories or videos about them don’t go viral. Those teachers still suffer racial epithets, misogynist comments and death threats out of the public eye.” (Hyung Nam)

These attacks on educators aren’t making headlines across the country. Yet, “according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, editors at Campus Reform’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, keep careful track of their ‘victories’ — instances in which a report published on their website results in a change in university policy or the sacking of a professor” (Hyung Nam). Consequently, harassment by politically-motivated, well-financed NON-PROFITS are changing education policies and curriculum. DAMN!?!?!!

Will We Allow This To Continue?

Not everyone put on the “Watch List” had the same experience. Here’s how Heather Cox Richardson described what happened to her four years ago.

“I will never forget standing in my dark kitchen in my pajamas, at the counter, reading my laptop in shock as I found out that some young grifter named Charlie Kirk had found my name online and put it onto his new website as a danger to students (send money to resist left-wing professors like Richardson!). As I stood there, watching in horror, messages came in from all over the country telling me people had my back. And then I wrote a post to reassure my friends that I was used to this sort of harassment and it would be okay, and then that post went viral, and I came off the list within days.”

Professor Richardson’s story ended well. But we can’t count on that being the case for others going forward. There is no certainty that things will go well for the nation’s education system.

Professor Richardson views the “Conservative” warfare waged against “Liberal” educators as follows.

“That the only way Movement Conservatives have managed to stay in power is to game the system through gerrymandering and voter suppression, hatred, and now the intimidation of people like me says to me that even they know they are in danger of losing control of the country. As a friend of mine says, a dying mule kicks the hardest.”

But it feels like we are far from the end of the attacks on educators.

A good first-line of defense includes:

  • being aware of the organizations sponsoring the destruction of public education,
  • being able to hear the dog whistles, and
  • knowing how fervently the ruling class wants control of the whole public education system.

Stopping the overthrow of our government institutions requires we do more.

Image by Xeno Phrenia

“People have asked what they can do in this moment. Across the political spectrum, I would urge everyone who believes in this nation to focus on the mechanics of government … call out official actions that you would find unacceptable … call out those who make assertions without factual evidence … call your representatives constantly to register your opinions — it matters … “

“And try to stop demonizing political opponents who fall within the normal political spectrum so we can all stand together against those who are trashing our institutions and our legal system.” Heather Cox Richardson

A Dangerous Political Game

In the midst of our Coronavirus Crisis, President Trump and Education Secretary DeVos are playing a dangerous political game.

Gambling on parent’s desire for their children to go back to school, Trump and DeVos are pushing for in-person instruction this fall in all schools. But they have no authority over that decision. So why would they make the demand?

The Obvious Set-Up

From the Daily Beast: “Trump Banks on School Reopening to Help Him in November”

“Donald Trump’s aggressive push to fully reopen schools this fall is being driven by a belief inside the president’s orbit that the policy will be a political winner for him this November. Their confidence, they say, is backed up by the campaign’s private polling data.”

“It’s unclear if Trump’s gambit—aimed largely at suburban female voters and moms—will work in his favor. …”

Yes, we know the president only has his eyes on re-election. But we should not think the  appeal is aimed at just suburban women. Opening schools appeals to every single-parent working without support at home, the working-poor couples that can’t afford daycare, and all those still not seeing COVID-19 as a real threat.

But there’s more.

“President Trump understands … that we need to get children back into the classroom so they do not fall behind …” said Trump 2020 spokeswoman Samantha Zager in a statement to The Daily Beast … , adding that …

… “Joe Biden puts his loyalty to the teachers union ahead of the well-being of students and families in America.”

How many times has DeVos said her school choice “freedom” agenda is about “funding to students …not institutions… not systems”? How many times have we heard we must “catch up”? “We’re falling behind.” “Leave no child behind.” —It’s a crisis! —Jump on the bandwagon!

You get the picture.

Photo Credit: Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/ZUMA. This article found in Mother Jones highlights DeVos’s preference for funding christian and charter schools through vouchers ahead of improving existing public schools.

 So —given the obvious— what makes this such a dangerous political move and for whom?

The Not-So-Obvious Set-Up

Did you notice the prepared statement released by the Trump campaign included this jab?

“… loyalty to the teachers union ahead of the well-being of students and families…”

Battle lines were drawn. And, the public’s attention was drawn to this story while media coverage of the continued protests of Black Lives Matter went on a back burner. Distraction politics works for both Trump and DeVos.

And with some voters, setting up a fight with the teacher’s union wins political points. But Trump and DeVos are merely pulling that “back-channel strategy” out of an old hat full of political tricks. Back in the 80’s, Lamar Alexander (then TN governor) hatched the anti-teacher’s union strategy to push teacher “career ladder” (pay-for-performance) policies.

Source: A RIDDLE IN A PLAID SHIRT David Jackson, Tribune Staff Writer CHICAGO TRIBUNE

Later as secretary of education, Alexander proposed the first federal voucher legislation in 1991, and as current chair of the senate education committee “dragged Betsy DeVos across the finish line to become secretary of education.”


Then There Is The Matter of Money

So in addition to using the familiar ploys of distraction politics, “putting students first” and setting up the teacher’s union as the bad-guys, this “open-all-schools move” brought in the money follows the student theme —effectively making some people hesitate — stop and think.

From The Hill: “Chris Wallace presses DeVos on threats to withhold funding from schools that don’t reopen”

“Look, American investment in education is a promise to students and their families. If schools aren’t going to reopen and not fulfill that promise, they shouldn’t get the funds, and give it to the families to decide to go to a school that is going to meet that promise,” [DeVos] said.

This dangerous political game appeals to individuals not truly focused on “America” —the country— our country as a united nation. DeVos twists the nation’s ideals and principles making her dogmatic views sound appealing. But she has it wrong. American investment in education is in a system of public schools capable of delivering on the promise of universal education. It’s not about a student; it’s about all students.

Wallace disputed DeVos’s comments on withholding funding, … [and went on to say] …

“I know you support vouchers, and that’s a reasonable argument, but you can’t do that unilaterally,” he added. “You have to do that through Congress.”

DeVos answered by saying the administration is “looking at all the options.”

 

Chris Wallace (like how many others?) acknowledges DeVos’s argument as reasonable, at least on the surface. But, will people dig beneath the surface to find that charters and vouchers fail to deliver on the real promise of American education? Trump and DeVos are gambling that people won’t dig deep.

What are the odds?

And Wallace was right about the need for Congress to approve voucher-funding language in another corona relief bill. Stop and think.

When the DeVos team is “looking at all the options,” does that mean they are looking at existing loopholes in the existing laws, or looking to create new ones? Will anyone in Congress recognize new loopholes if a new relief bill comes forward? Did they see it coming in the relief to “small businesses”? To education?

Search results from 7/10/2020

Is there anyone in either the U.S. House or Senate willing to represent and fight for an honest attempt to help our public education system? Or will we continue to fund the demise of our public education institution?

Some private institutions supporting charters and vouchers are already accelerating marketing of the idea of ten children in a classroom, which they never did for traditional public schools. How appealing will their plan be come mid-October?

We Are Funding Unequal Access

From TruthOut: “Charter Schools May Have Double-Dipped as Much as $1 Billion in PPP Loans”

“… Education Secretary Betsy DeVos awarded to 10 charter management organizations in April, weeks after the PPP was passed, to “fund the creation and expansion of more than 100 high-quality public charter schools in underserved communities across the country.”

That’s additional funding, the double-dip, the set-up, through the use of multiple laws (PPP plus ESSA). But this is only the tip of the federal charter school iceberg. There is a billion wasted here, and multi-billions spent there on this federal 1994 “program” that has not advanced the nation towards educational equity.

“Charters also make appeals under the aegis of ‘school choice’ to students in underserved school districts. Though many charters deliver on promise of higher quality education, others have not, and some of those that do have been accused of siphoning money from public districts that need it the most.

For these reasons [and others], charter schools are seen by some as an existential threat to public education.”

They are robbing our future! From right, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, and Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia listen during a White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing the U.S. Department of Education on July 8, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong / Getty Images

The Threat Is Real

While push-back against the Trump/DeVos demand to open all schools is prevailing, we won’t know how it fully plays out until November. But the bigger danger is in underestimating the stamina, determination, and political will of voucher proponents. We can’t afford to be recklessly short-sighted.

Those wishing to destroy our institutions are in this dangerous political game for the long-haul. Trumpism is a force. It is a danger to us all.

“Most importantly, we will need to remain vigilant … [and know this] … hope and prayer must be augmented by decisive action.”

 

Independence Day: Why the Republic Requires Rebellion

This Independence Day brings with it a new sense of urgency in the fight to save public education. Because Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is continuing to advance her personal agenda —unchecked by Congress—it is our duty to step in. We the People are the last hope for a nation built upon the ideal that supreme power resides in its citizens.

DeVos Puts Religion Ahead of Duty to Civil Rights

Ms. DeVos is hell-bent on “advancing [her] God’s Kingdom” using our education system as a weapon of destruction. But without a national understanding of why her actions must be seen as tyrannical, our republic is at risk. Hence the urgency of this Independence Day — the need to clearly see what good has come from our rebellious past and the need to rise again.

The foundation for our great country was set by the Declaration of Independence. Its writers were experiencing the corruption and greed of an oppressive government and anticipated this country would see this destructive behavior again, for they went on to say, in reference to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, … (The Crucial Voice of the People)

“… that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

Since Betsy (Prince) DeVos’ rhetoric and actions fit the definition of “destructive behavior” towards public schools, she invites our rebellion against her rule.

She and her followers are thumbing their noses at the foundational principles of the Declaration and have moved on to redefining what the First Amendment to the Constitution says.

SOURCE The Privatizer: Betsy DeVos And Her Scheme To Undermine Public Education Have Survived The Tumult Of The Trump Administration

Separation of Church and State

Let’s not forget that many of the early immigrants came to rest on American soil because they were seeking religious freedom. Freedom to practice a religion of ones’ choosing is why there is no government-sponsored religion in America. Consequently, our Founding Fathers held variously religious beliefs.

Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Our birth as a rebellious nation has always been tied to religious freedom. But although we hear the phrase “separation of church and state” used as if it is part of the Constitution, it is not. With DeVos blurring the lines between “religious freedom” and “education freedom,” it is not surprising that many standing to benefit personally from her antics don’t see her actions as an over-step of religion into a basic function of the State.

What the First Amendment says is …

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That’s it! That’s all our founding fathers wrote into our foundational law about religion.

Religious schools are private. No one is prohibiting them from practicing their religion or teaching their young about their chosen doctrines. They have religious freedom. What they do not have is taxpayer dollars to advance their philosophy. That is what is changing quickly under DeVos rules.

I hope religious schools consider this

For churches to accept taxpayer dollar is for them to then invite the State into the functioning of their schools. Anything less would be “taxation without representation.” Religious organizations can’t have it both ways. So are they ready to open their doors, their books, and their gatherings to the greater public, as our real public schools do?

But Let’s Go Back Again to Independence Day

As our country moved forward from our first Independence Day in 1776, we laid our educational foundation on the ideals of American quality and exceptional-ism. But it would take our republic almost two centuries before the country came to develop an education system that embodied the words …

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…”

With time, many of the Founding Fathers came to terms with the hypocrisy of their words and did what they could to free and educate the humans they had allowed to stay in bondage. But it wouldn’t be until after Brown v. Board of Education that a way to achieve equality of educational opportunity was proposed through federal policy.

Foundational Principles for Providing National Equal Educational Opportunity

Our rebellious founding fathers asked that we see rebellion as the Right of the People to alter our Government based on such Principles as shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness. That same request —to build upon sound principles—is what federal education law once did.

  • Strengthening and improving all schools was to be done through research, dissemination of information, and training aimed at quality teaching, counseling, and state leadership.
  • The determinate of quality was to be based on “appropriate measures” as determined by state and local officials with overview of the federal government to assure that equal access was being provided.
  • Inequality of opportunity was addressed through funding for the educational needs of children of low-income families to meet those children’s needs as determined locally.
  • Equality in access was extended to entire communities where high concentrations of low-income families resided through the funding of educational centers and services deemed vital to educational success.

Now, the legislative branch is corrupted by money. Our federal education laws better serve moneyed interests than the People’s interests.

Now, with Betsy DeVos at the helm of our U.S. Department of Education, we now face a new and very real threat — the Union of Church and State.

Our Republic: Born from Rebellion, Requiring It Again

Major religious conflicts have not divided and destroyed our republic like they have in other countries. Government sponsorship of schools that divide us will not contribute to progress as a nation founded upon the promise of equality. That makes rebellion against all of DeVos’ efforts to push her agenda both proper and necessary.

Rebellion against the destruction of public education requires we see Betsy (Prince) DeVos for what she is — a tyrant. She and her ilk are exactly the kind of people American patriots rebelled against. Never forget —in a republic the supreme power resides in its citizens. Such a republic requires rebellion from time to time to keep it alive.

Let Freedom Ring! Happy Independence Day!

“Money Follows the Student” is Voucher Funding

A Clear Plan: The Revolution in School Policy

The National Governor’s Association (NGA), corporate leaders, foundations and other special interest groups advanced a clear plan to use the rise of the Information Age to float the economy. Their vessel? Our public education system.

Necessary or not, the school policy revolution began.

1969 — 75% of parents sampled (PDK/Gallup) said they would like to see one of their children teach in a public school.

1979 — 86% of parents with children 13 years and older had no desire to send their children to a different public school.

1983 — Governor Lamar Alexander created TN’s “Better Schools Program,” which put a merit pay system (pay for performance/career ladder) at the heart of the plan.

The hook: the idea of “flexibility” in exchange for “results.”

The pretense of accountability in an outcome-based (pay-for-results) system was launched ahead of the Reagan administration’s report A Nation at Risk.

6-14-1983 President Reagan participating in a Regional Forum on the National Commission on Excellence in Education Report with Governor Lamar Alexander at the Farragut High School in Knoxville, Tennessee

The Test-Based Accountability Ship Sailed

Demand for testing needed to be created but a couple of barriers stood in the way — local control and an established and effective education system. So a clear plan to take over school policy needed to begin with a strategy to undermine the public’s trust in the institution of public education. This was known:

Parents know a good deal more about the schools … than nonparents. They are heavily influenced by firsthand knowledge, whereas the opinions of nonparents derive more often from the media,… (PDK/Gallup 1984)

The larger voting block — non-parents — became the first target for an information campaign.

1986:

“When the Carnegie Forum Task Force began its work, we knew that the Governors were the key to the necessary revolution in school policy.”

Marc Tucker 1986— then executive director of the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy

With Governor Lamar Alexander chairing the NGA, they released a report titled Time for Results.

The Reagan administration supported the clear plan to support the education industry.

“What 
is industry in a knowledge-based economy?” The answer is the education industry.

Lewis Branscomb 1986— IBM Chief Scientist, Head of  Carnegie Foundation Task Force on Teaching

The education industry would profit from two main concepts, outcome-based education and “school choice.” But the establishment of national standards were essential for industry “efficiency,” or to reach “economies of scale” (higher return on investment). National standards provided a national foundation for large-scale operations.

The Course was Set: “Education Reform.”

This project was under the direction of Secretary of Education William (Bill) Bennett with assistance from his political bedfellow, Governor Lamar Alexander.

1987 — With Governor Alexander navigating both state and federal policy waters, the governors floated projects in several states with 1991 as the target date for reporting the results. Supposedly “the results” would determine if these “real reforms” should be scaled-up nationwide. Trustworthy analysis was crucial.

It appeared that our national research and development system—Regional Education Laboratories— put in place under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) — would be central to that research.

In addition to our Regional Educational Laboratories, the Research and Development (R&D) Centers are also part of our U.S. R&D system.

1988 — Before leaving office, Reagan signed the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to ESEA.

Including: “requirements regarding accountability evaluation of programs conducted in accordance with national standards to be developed by the Department of Education.”

Boundaries Were Crossed

That policy change took ESEA from a law that prohibited any federal influence over curriculum and instruction to placing evaluation of programs associated with national standards under the direction of the Secretary of Education. Not just schools, but the whole governing structure of schools was to be restructured, not just reformed.

“Restructuring” Schools: Creation of the School to Workforce/Military Pipeline

1989—Marc Tucker advised President-elect Bush about the education restructuring efforts underway by businesses and the NGA.

Tucker’s own organization, National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), created the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) to promote Standards-Based Education. And…

… privately, an education summit was planned. New NGA chairman, Terry Branstad, hoped “the focus of the meeting would be on tailoring our education system for the workforce of the future.”

The first (invitation only) National Education Summit was held for the president with governors, business leaders, and a few representatives.

A joint statement confirmed that the setting of national goals and the development of “a system of accountability that focuses on results” had been agreed to.

1990— Tucker’s (NCEE) publication of “America’s Choice” continued the push for policies to focus on output measures (hear Tucker explain beginning at minute 33:30) as Governor Bill Clinton summarized …

“We need a national exam, measured by international standards, and the continued development of a quasi-governmental institution.”

A Quasi-Governmental Institution? As that sinks in, please keep reading.

 

1991 President George H.W. Bush appoints Lamar Alexander as his second Secretary of Education.

With Alexander in charge, and his Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) being the “lead agencyfor research, the nation should have heard results from Project Education Reform: Time for Results. Instead, the nation got a report card. 

The results? This New York Times reporter gives us some clues about Alexander’s strategies and the results.

“…disappointingly superficial on the issues…

“He resists detailed debate …”

“…and the program he’s got is not a winner, …”

The Alexander agenda included national standards and testing, teacher merit pay, change through competition, and “choice.”

The “Education Council Act of 1991” established a temporary 32 member council — National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) — “most of whom were appointed by the Secretary of Education.” 

1991 also marked the nation’s first voucher legislation (proposed by Secretary Alexander).

1992 —No surprise. NCEST recommended national standards and testing.  But it was without answering some important questions and …

NCEST does not explain why the proposed tests will not narrow the curriculum.” Daniel Koretz & Others

1992— President Bush lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton.

Marc Tucker penned his infamous November 11, 1992 letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards.” Thinker, RealistNews

Presidents Changed: The Politically Powerful Continued the Policy Journey

“To remold the entire American system for human resources development.” Marc Tucker

1993— D.C. think tank “Empower America” was co-founded by former Reagan Education Secretary William (Bill) Bennett.

Empower America philosophy: “…opportunity, competition, ownership, and freedom—must be the framework for reform of century-old public systems such as K-12 education, the tax code, and social security.”

1994— President Clinton signed the “Improving America’s Schools Act” (IASA).

Clinton’s ESEA reauthorization -IASA;

  • mandated accountability based on grade-span (3rd,8th,11th) standardized testing,
  • called for content standards to be set by ALL states, and
  • added funding for charter schools into ESEA for the first time.

Meanwhile, Lamar Alexander became a co-director of Empower America.

“We’re planning on [Mr. Alexander] coming back and being a part of a big school-choice initiative.” Empower America

1996-2002 — The school policy revolution shifted to state efforts to expand outcome-based accountability mechanisms (exit-standards testing) and charter schools.

Remember, industries were counting on public education money and governors were always key to the “necessary” school policy revolution.

The role of the governors … was crucial because they mobilized the public and legislators in their states to support educational reforms.”

The Technology Industry Took the Helm

1996 — The Education Summit, as the story goes, gave birth to the Gates’ supported Achieve, Inc.

Keep in mind; setting “higher”content  standards was never proven to improve academic achievement.

1997 — Lamar Alexander & Bill Gates addressed the NGA. Alexander mused about how after all the years of governors “leading the charge” and pouring money into “their plan,” charters and standards had not improved education.

1998 — Tucker’s NCEE created the “America’s Choice School Design Program” (later purchased by Pearson Inc.).

1999 — Tucker’s NCEE launched the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL) and Bill Gates launched the “Gates Learning Foundation.” 

NCEE was asked by Carnegie Corporation, joined by the Broad Foundation, the Stupski Foundation and the New Schools Venture Fund, to create a design for a new kind of national organization to train school principals to lead high performing schools.

 

Time to Drop Anchor on The Nation

2002: The Broad Academy was founded. Source: The Christian Science Monitor

2002 — The 2001 President George W. Bush’s ESEA reauthorization, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) went into effect.

Among other things, NCLB:

  • expanded standardized testing to yearly (3rd-8th grade and once in high school),
  • required ALL students be “proficient” on state tests by the 2013-14 school year,
  • promoted and assisted states in “enhancing” achievement through technology,
  • expanded “school choice” through a variety of programs (Clinton era – $15 Million expanded to $214.8 Million by 2007. Now, FY2018 $1.4 Billion “for public & private school choice opportunities” ),and NCLB
  • allowed access to student data for military recruiters.

In addition to NCLB’s passage, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 changed the federal system of research, development and dissemination of educational practices by created Comprehensive Centers (Regional and Content Centers).

Failure to get results from standards (Outcome-Based Theory) and “choice” had been blamed on being “too timid,” the addition of federal CENTERS worked to more aggressively implement the agenda. Instead of functioning to meet regional needs like the Regional Educational Laboratories originally did, these centers are being used to “provide frontline assistance.” For example, they were used to implement the Common Core Initiative, an initiative designed and controlled by a quasi-governmental organization.

Last but not least of the 2002 policy anchors, the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 established the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS).

Full Speed Ahead

2003 — Lamar Alexander began his senate career.

2005 — Having been recognized as the most influential person in School Policy, Bill Gates co-chaired the National Education Summit.

2006 — The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) Launched at the Data Summit.

The campaign promoted the Gates’ “ten essential elements” of a longitudinal data system, which included the ability to match student records between the Pre-K and post-secondary systems.

2007 — NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND should have been left behind. (ESEA review & reauthorization IS required every 5-6 years, by law.) NCLB remained anchored in place while common standards and assessments were being “piloted.”

2008 — Idaho was the last state to complete a statewide longitudinal data system with all the elements required by Gates’ DQC

Meanwhile, unofficial “reports” declared an educational crisis in cities while the Great Recession disrupted the nation.

For me, this map represented the War Plan. I watched as city schools and family’s lives were disrupted with school closures. This “report” was prepared with support from America’s Promise Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The Race Begins

2009 —Oh what a year! 43 percent of all large urban superintendent openings were filled by Broad Academy graduates.

In the Education Reform Toolkits by The Broad Foundation.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 went into effect and the quasi-governmental institutions went to work on spending those funds.

 Race to the Top began: “And finally, for the first time in history, we have the resources at the federal level to drive reform.”

Bill Gates explained at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) that a thorough data collection system is the best way to track student success.

2010 — Common Core became a common problem.

The Workforce Data Quality Initiative began granting federal money to connect education and the workforce data.

2011 — The undercurrent of revolt against outcome-based policies —high-stakes testing and the “accountability” systems based on them— began to surface. The resistance organized; we marched and we met.

2012 —The Obama administration called for Congress to “reform NCLB” but instead the nation got accountability waivers in exchange for adoption of “more honest standards.” Honestly, “college and career ready standards” meant the Common Core standards.

2013 — The NCLB replacement the “Every Child Ready for College or Career Act” was introduced by Senator Alexander.

2014 — Revolts against the college, career and military ready Common Core National Standards grew.

2015 Lamar Alexander took over the chairmanship of the Senate education (HELP) committee and introduced a new name for the NCLB replacement, “The Every Child Achieves Act,” which later became the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) we now have as our ESEA reauthorization. Is ESEA better than NCLB? You decide.

The flaws in No Child Left Behind remain. The funding for testing, technology and school choice are increased.

 

Clear Sailing to the Finish Line of the Revolution in School Policy

?

The finish line? A quasi-governmental organization controlling common national standards and testing with all data collection and consolidation in a single office for use in the Workforce Placement System.

A “computer-based system for combining this data” was always central to the Tucker Education-Labor System Plan.

The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking passed as HR 4174 (sponsored by Speaker Paul Ryan) but its identical sister bill was sponsored by Gates’ Washington State Senator Patty Murray.——–2019——–signed into law by President Trump.

This “honestly” is a bipartisan revolution in school policy

The Outcome of the School Policy Revolution?

54% of Americans say they would NOT want their child to become a public school teacher, a majority for the first time in a question initially asked in 1969.

70% of parents still give their oldest child’s school an A or B grade.

The Republic? Creeping or Leaping Towards Totalitarianism.

Lamar Alexander has consistently claimed to support “local control,” but what is left to control?

#####

For those requiring more proof of these historical events, more detailed of educational results, or the references not already provided, please review (and download for free) the journal article Assessing the Cornerstone of U.S. Education Reform.