Category: Education & Schools

This is the easily discredited (as all Marxist ideas)”Labor Theory of Value”
Robert Heinlein illuminated this in Starship Troopers:

“Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie,    value zero.

By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess,    value zero.

Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value — the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives — and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.

 ASU professor calls traditional grading racist, suggests ‘labor-based grading’ instead

Arizona State University professor Asao Inoue recently ranted about “White language supremacy in writing classrooms,” during which he called for abolishing traditional grading in favor of “labor-based grading.”

The latter method scores assignments based on the amount of effort students put towards in the work, devaluing quality and accuracy in the grading.

During Nov. 5 lecture at the University of Tennessee titled “The Possibilities of Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies”, Inoue claimed that “White language supremacy in writing classrooms is due to the uneven and diverse linguistic legacies that everyone inherits, and the racialized white discourses that are used as standards, which give privilege to those students who embody those habits of white language already”.

In order to rid the classroom of the “Habits of White Language”, Inoue advocated for grading to be based on the time spent on assignments, a move he claims “structurally changes everyone’s relationship to dominant standards of English that come from elite, masculine, heteronormative, ableist, white racial groups of speakers,” The College Fix reported.

Inoue paused several times throughout the speech, according to The College Fix, to allow the audience to practice being “anti-racist” by observing themselves “participating in racism, engaging in white fragility, in white rage, or in white language supremacy”.

Inoue has spent a considerable amount of time promoting his grading philosophy. As Campus Reform reported in March, he wrote a 358 page book titled Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom.

Continue reading “”

MSU Denver Writing Center calls ‘Standard American English’ a tool of white supremacy.

Metropolitan State University of Denver flags “Standard American English” as a concern for “anti-racist” initiatives on a web page dedicated to “Linguistic White Supremacy.”

The page appears on the school’s Writing Center section and prompts professors to counter white supremacy in the classroom through initiatives such as “Grading with Equity,” “Restorative Justice Approaches to Plagiarism,” and an “Anti-Racist Book Club.”

“Consider how you can design assignments, pedagogy, response/grading practices that acknowledge that racism exists in our assignments, pedagogy, response/grading practices,” the center says.

The university also warns against “Standard American English,” which is “a social construct that privileges white communities and maintains social and racial hierarchies.”

“The MSU Denver Writing Center rejects the notion that Standard American English (SAE) exists for many reasons,” the website says. “We fully support students in using their English (whatever that may be) in communicating their thoughts and ideas.”

“Standard American English (SAE) is a version of English that is often expected in professional and educational settings,” the page continues. “Employers and instructors may believe there is a common set of rules that govern SAE, but that is not in fact true. What is true is that different people have different assumptions about what SAE is.”

The website also recommends that professors ask about assignments: “Is this antiracist?,” “How does this prompt fight white supremacy?,” and “Does this prompt exploit the students in any way?”

The Writing Center names an example of an assignment that may exploit students: “Write About the Biggest Obstacle You’ve Overcome in Life.”

“This prompt is alienating because the biggest struggle some of your students may have faced is losing a pet, while others may be refugees from war-torn countries,” the page says. “Provide prompts that will not force a student to relive trauma.”

The page further advises that professors should “[a]void assumptions of American cultural knowledge.”

College English departments often promote “anti-racist” ways of teaching and grading.

In 2022, the University of Maryland at Baltimore sought writing consultants with “[p]revious anti-racist coursework or activism.”

“For students committed to anti-racist action in your own professional practices and communities, the rigorous preparation will be a major benefit of this campus job,” the job description said.

Professors at a 2021 “Antiracist Pedagogy Symposium” at Towson University in Maryland argued that grading students for grammar reinforces “white supremacy.”

“The repeated references to ‘correct grammar’ and ‘standard language’ reinforce master narratives of English only as White and monolingualism and a deficit view of multilingualism,” one professor said.

Students Push New Gun Control Bill to Prevent Gun Theft

A group of college and high school students in Minnesota is pushing for a gun control measure aimed at reducing the number of firearms stolen from vehicles.
This comes after the Annunciation Catholic School shooting in Minneapolis earlier this year. The group is working with state legislators on legislation that would ostensibly promote gun safety, according to The Minnesota Daily.

“ The University of Minnesota and high school students are working together with the state legislature to target legal loopholes to improve gun safety in Minnesota schools.

Jenny Wen, a student at Columbia University, is part of a student-led policy group working with state Rep. Julie Greene (DFL), to draft a new gun safety bill for the upcoming legislative session.

“This isn’t about taking away anyone’s guns,” Wen said. “It’s about addressing the reality of gun theft, accidental access and impulsive violence.”
The bill would establish uniform requirements for securely storing firearms in vehicles parked on all school property.
It also extends those requirements to Minnesota State High School League-sanctioned events and removes a provision allowing principals to give individuals permission to carry firearms inside school facilities.
Fourth-year Matthew Smeaton said he remembers sitting on a school bus years ago when a tree branch scraped across the windows. A friend jumped, thinking it was gunfire.
“That always stuck out to me just because of how ridiculous it is that we have to live in a world where that’s a concern kids have,” Smeaton said.”
Wen explained that state law prohibits firearms at school events. However, people can carry firearms if they get permission from the principal. She argued that “there’s no legitimate reason someone needs to bring a gun to a school football game” and that “Just because something is technically legal doesn’t mean it’s safe.”
She noted that the bill they are working on will punish people whose guns are stolen and then used in a violent crime.
Between 2019 and 2023, almost 1.1 million firearms were reported stolen. This breaks down to about 200,000 each year, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
The Council on Criminal Justice revealed that by 2022, about 40 percent of reported gun theft incidents involved thieves stealing the firearms from vehicles. Only about 14 percent involved burglaries.
However, only about 10 percent of stolen firearms are used to commit crimes. Among those using firearms for nefarious purposes, 43.2 percent bought their weapon from an underground dealer. Moreover, about 20 percent obtained the firearm for the specific purpose of committing a crime. It’s also worth pointing out that 85.9 percent of those who possessed a firearm when they committed a crime obtained it from someone other than a licensed dealer.
These kids likely mean well. They are probably too young and uneducated to understand the problems with this bill — and gun control in general.
Yes, we definitely want to prevent people from stealing firearms. But blaming a victim of gun theft for a shooting or homicide unfairly criminalizes people. Moreover, it’s not going to save lives because criminals don’t follow the law.
If an armed individual strolls onto a college campuses with intention to harm people, they already know they are breaking the law. Students and faculty on these facilities who obey the law will be sitting ducks. We have seen this happen over and over again with school shootings and other types of mass gun violence.
Nobody wants to see people gunned down at a football game. But a more effective way to prevent this would be to use other security measures such as cameras, metal detectors, armed security, and other methods. Simply passing a law mandating that people lock up their guns a certain way isn’t going to cut it.
It’s also worth noting that if a student or faculty member has to leave their firearms in their vehicle, they are granting a significant advantage to would-be mass shooters. This is not going to keep anyone safe. In fact, it’s yet another example of how gun control makes people more vulnerable to bad actors. If these students want to prevent gun crime, they should focus on how to stop criminals rather than making it harder for responsible people to defend themselves.

A foreigner, here on a student visa, who supports a murderous terrorist group need to be immediately deported, as in stuck on the first available plane back to their home country with nothing more than the clothes on their back and their passport in their pocket.

Faculty group demands protections for non-citizens who ‘express support’ for Hamas.

A national faculty coalition is pushing to grant non-citizens First Amendment protections, demanding that the Trump administration be permanently barred from revoking visas over pro-Palestinian activism or support for terrorist groups.

The initiative is led by the American Association of University Professors and several of its university chapters, including Harvard’s, in partnership with the Middle East Studies Association.

A court victory for the AAUP in September stated that the Trump administration was violating the First Amendment by revoking visas of pro-Palestinian activists, according to The Harvard Crimson.

The national coalition’s new proposal seeks to block the Trump administration from continuing what it calls unconstitutional arrests and deportations. However, it also demands that any relief must apply to all noncitizens, not just members of the petitioning organizations.

It also includes a list of pro-Palestinian statements that cannot warrant a threat to a person’s visa.

The list includes statements considered “to express support or sympathy for terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

However, not everyone agrees that citizens and noncitizens should share the same rights.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies Program Director Brandy Shufutinsky told The College Fix via email that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “has the power to revoke visas as they are a privilege, not a right.”

In her experience, no one has faced deportation or visa revocation solely for pro-Palestinian speech. However, she noted that visa-holders who express support for terrorism or violate U.S. civil-rights laws have faced appropriate consequences.

“If we do not allow criminals and terrorists into our country, why would we allow noncitizens who are already here to engage in criminal or terrorist activity?” Shufutinsky said.

Continue reading “”

‘nonpartisan’
My opinion is that anything concerning the 2nd amendment can not be ‘nonpartisan’. There is no middle ground when it comes (as Justice Thomas called it) the unqualified statement: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
I’d like to see the actual curriculum that is going to be taught. That being said, two of the three directors, Ashley Hlebinsky and David Kopel are well known for their pro-RKBA stances.

Dept. of Education to fund nonpartisan 2nd Amendment high school curriculum

The U.S. Department of Education has awarded the University of Wyoming nearly $1 million to develop what the college calls a “historically grounded” school curriculum on the Second Amendment. The university’s Firearms Research Center said the initiative will give educators nationwide tools to better understand the constitutional right to bear arms.

The two-year, $908,991 grant stems from the department’s American History and Civics Education Program tied to the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations. In September, President Donald Trump redirected $137 million to the program that’s directed by what The New York Times called organizations “closely aligned with the president’s Make America Great Again movement.”

The National Second Amendment Initiative’s aim is to give teachers sources, instructional videos and access to academics that the university said come from various perspectives on the lightning rod issue of firearms in America.

“Our project will honor the nation’s 250th anniversary by allowing educators to engage with the complexity and nuance of the country’s founding documents,” Ashley Hlebinsky, executive director of the Firearms Research Center, said in a release.

Because it’s not named as a role of the federal government in the Constitution, the Department of Education cannot force the curriculum on school districts. The restriction is also described in the 1979 law establishing the department. It can only ensure schools are obeying federal education laws like the Civil Rights Act and conduct the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Why Wyoming?

While the U.S. has myriad schools focusing on constitutional law, colleges and universities with a specific focus on the Second Amendment are far and few between. Beyond Wyoming, Duke University’s Duke Center for Firearms Law is one of the only major collegiate programs that focuses on firearms law, but not from a gun violence prevention perspective.

Wyoming’s law school positions itself as the “premier law school for practitioners who serve the legal needs of all those who produce, employ, own, and regulate firearms.”

What happens in the classroom?

While the federal government cannot dictate curriculum and states set broad educational requirements, the teacher still controls the classroom.

The National Education Association, the country’s largest teacher union, has long been outspoken on its advocacy for gun control laws.

In an issues section of the union’s website, the association focuses on school violence due to the country’s proliferation of firearms and advocates for laws that would place restrictions on gun possession and locations where they can be carried.

The union did not respond to a request for comment.

Gun Safety Part of Curriculum in Arkansas, Tennessee, Utah

Arkansas, Tennessee and Utah have something in common this year which recently caught the attention of network news.

All three are now teaching firearms safety in their public schools at all three levels: elementary, middle and high school, according to NBC News. The project includes what the story refers to as “5 basics of guns safety” including proper storage and what to do if a youngster finds a firearm. It’s a simple message which became widely known when it appeared as part of the National Rifle Association’s popular “Eddie Eagle” program: “Stop, Don’t Touch, Leave Quickly, Tell an Adult.” The original language was “Stop, Don’t Touch, Leave the Area, Tell an Adult.” However, the reports attributed the phrase to “hunter education courses.”

As reported by The Independent, “The new laws require teaching students about gun safety and proper storage, though only Utah’s legislation includes an opt-out provision for parents.” Interestingly, The Independent noted in its report that the gun safety project is supported by Republicans and “some non-partisan groups,” but “faces criticism from gun control advocates who argue it shifts responsibility from adults to children.”

ABC News reported that a similar law in Arizona was vetoed “by the Democratic governor.” In 2023, Gov, Katie Hobbs vetoed House Bill 2332, which was opposed by gun control proponents and criticized by the American Academy of Pediatrics, according to the Arizona Mirror.

At the time, Hobbs asserted in her veto message, “Mandatory firearm training in schools is not the solution to gun violence prevention. This requirement could lead to immediate and long-term impacts on the health and wellbeing of students, teachers, and parents.”

The network also reported, “lawmakers in at least five other states have introduced such proposals, putting schools at the forefront of yet another debate about gun violence.”

How important is such a class? Both networks referred to what happened in a fifth grade class at Berclair Elementary in Memphis. When the 16 students were asked how many had seen a real firearm, “nearly all raised their hands.”

The key thing about these gun safety courses in schools is that students do not touch any firearms.

By some estimates, there are as many as 300- to 400 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S.

Math teacher says he was called ‘ideologically violent’ for supporting standardized testing

Key Takeaways

  • The author recounts his college experiences facing backlash for supporting standardized testing and watching a professor get berated for her response to the George Floyd incident.
  • His book, which critiques the ideologically driven focus of higher education, recently won a Maxy Award.
  • Yellow Heights, a former software engineer turned teacher, emphasizes the need for objective assessment in education.

While studying at one of the “top” higher education institutions in the U.S., a new author recalls how he was described as “ideologically violent” for arguing in favor of standardized testing.

This incident and other concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion in education inspired him to write a book.

His book “Unbalanced: Memoir of an Immigrant Math Teacher,” written under the pen name “Yellow Heights,” raises concerns about the ideologically-driven focus of higher education.

“Unbalanced” was released on Amazon and recently won a Maxy Award, an honor for indie and self-published books. The book also is partially available for free on the author’s substack.

Yellow Heights describes himself as a “former climate researcher, software engineer, investment manager, and high school math teacher.” He also is a first-generation immigrant from China and father of two. He writes under a penname and requested anonymity due to concerns about political and job discrimination due to his views.

“This book recounts his Kafkaesque experiences at education school, where he was labeled a white supremacist simply for asking questions,” according to the book’s Amazon page. “He shares firsthand accounts of teaching math at a public and a private school, offering a panoramic view of the issues surrounding wokeness, coddling, and the lack of accountability in education.”

The College Fix spoke on the phone recently with Yellow Heights about his book, his experiences going back to college to become a teacher, and his views of the current American education system.

After working as a software engineer and manager at Microsoft, he said he decided to go back to college in the late 2010s to become a math teacher. Although he did not name the school, he said it was one of the top 10 education institutions in the U.S.

Yellow Heights said he wanted to teach math because “I just take a great joy in seeing other people learning math and find math interesting. I want to basically make more people see the beauty of math and also the practical side of it.”

Around 2020, his experiences at college grew increasingly concerning.

Once, he said he and a fellow classmate asked some “learning related questions” only to end up “being labeled white supremacists by the instructor and the students.”

In another case, after the George Floyd protests, he said one “very kind, very well intentioned teacher” encouraged the students to continue class after giving them about 20 minutes to mourn — “and she was attacked. She was accused of lacking empathy at all and she was made to cry.”

Another incident occurred when Yellow Heights defended standardized testing. “I didn’t say it’s perfect. I just said we probably need some objective assessment of learning outcomes and we can improve it rather than just say it’s … evil itself.”

In response, the author said he was called “ideologically violent.”

Continue reading “”

It’s one thing to use these systems in K-12 schools, where firearms are generally prohibited, but what happens when these systems are rolled out in places where we can exercise our Second Amendment rights? Even if AI successfully determines someone has a pistol, it can’t know whether or not someone is lawfully carrying. Suspicion of carrying a firearm alone shouldn’t be reason enough to stop and search someone, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, especially in places where concealed carry licensees are uncommon.

Superintendent Defends Detection System That Misidentified Bag of Chips for a Gun

Superintendent Dr. Myriam Rogers defended Baltimore County’s AI detection system after it misidentified a bag of chips for a gun, resulting in a 16-year-old being ordered to the ground at gunpoint.

WMAR reported 16-year-old Taki Allen was waiting outside his school after football practice. While waiting, he ate a bag of Doritos then stuffed the empty bag into his pocket.

In about 20 minutes police arrived on scene in response to a warning sent by the school’s AI detection system.

Allen said, “Police showed up, like eight cop cars, and then they all came out with guns pointed at me talking about getting on the ground. I was putting my hands up like, ‘what’s going on?’ He told me to get on my knees and arrested me and put me in cuffs.”

The detection system misidentified the empty bag, labeling it a gun instead.

Superintendent Rogers defended the system: “The program is based on human verification and in this case the program did what it was supposed to do which was to signal an alert and for humans to take a look to find out if there was cause for concern in that moment.”

Tech Crunch noted the system alert had actually been canceled upon review, but the principal reported the alert to the school resource officer because she had not learned of the cancellation. The resource officer subsequently called local police.

SAF Files Lawsuit to Protect Fourth Amendment Rights of High School Gun Owner

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a new lawsuit in New Hampshire challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle, based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from the search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept his firearm in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and state laws – but always removed the gun from his vehicle before going to school. When school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. The school had no reason to believe Harrington brought his firearm to school, and no firearm was found during the invasive and unconstitutional search.

“Being public about exercising your private rights cannot be grounds for being harassed and searched on campus,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The apparent position of the school district here is ‘choose to exercise one right, give away another.’ That’s just not how it works. If simply being a gun owner is legal justification to be harassed and searched by authorities, what would stop them from submitting gun owners like Jack to searches every day? And what’s their proposed solution to avoid that abuse, that he sells his privately owned firearm?”

As noted in the complaint, “…after the Interrogation in which Jack repeatedly refused to consent to a search and after Jack’s parents were contacted by phone and similarly refused to consent to a search, Defendants searched the Subject Vehicle anyway, finding no firearm.”

“This is the type of fearmongering response we’d expect elsewhere around the country, but not in a state that allows its adult residents to legally own and possess firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case is about as cut and dry as it gets when it comes to infringing on the rights of a citizen, and we look forward to vindicating Jack’s rights in court.”

Your tax dollars at work….and play

Legal Trouble on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Has a for-profit film school been padding its job-placement stats?

The Los Angeles Film School is caught up in a scandal over its alleged efforts to trick students into believing that its graduates do extraordinarily well in the Hollywood job market. The accusation comes from two former executives of the school, wherein no doubt there is the plot outline for a noir-ish movie about double- and triple-crosses in the shadows of Sunset Boulevard. Happily the Los Angeles Film School sits at 6363 Sunset Boulevard, and it is a private, for-profit entity, just like a movie studio or a casino.

I admit that the troubles on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams are not my usual beat. I’m more accustomed to the smooth operators of the Ivy League and the grifters of the state universities. But since the dawn of Hollywood there has never been a shortage of young people to say, in the words of Green Day, “Sometimes I wish someone out there [would] find me.” And a fair number of those who harbor such wishes are lured by the Los Angeles Film School, where “Hollywood is your classroom.”

The pockets (allegedly) picked in this instance are not just those of the students. My news in this case comes from that key source for higher-ed intel, Variety. The pockets (allegedly) picked in this instance are not just those of the students. The federal government was (allegedly) fleeced, as well. Can I skip the “allegedly” from this point on? I stipulate that this is all about allegations, and, this being Los Angeles, those allegations could well disappear with the re-write.

“‘Nearly all’ of the tens of millions of dollars the school receives each year from federal student aid programs is the result of fraud.” Most of the school’s students qualified for federal student loans: money that can be spent only to pay tuition at educational institutions that meet certain criteria. This is to prevent students from being fleeced at degree mills. The government determines whether a school is a degree mill by the percentage of students who graduate and get a well-paying job in their field of study. The Los Angeles Film School has an abundance of attractive programs, from “Animation: Environment and Character Design” to “Audio Production” and “Film Cinematography.” A bachelor’s degree in one of these costs about $80,000.

A reasonably prudent student might have some doubts about the likelihood that such a degree would pay off.

Continue reading “”

CIVICS REVOLUTION: Conservatives Are Reviving Traditional Education With a Modern Twist.

The classroom subject of “civics” evokes antiquated images of Cold War-era conformity, but Andrew Hart describes a recent teacher workshop on civics with a schoolboy’s exuberance: “It was really refreshing. I was, like, wow.”

The weeklong seminar at the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia delved into the writings of Aristotle and Cicero, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and civil rights titans W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X.

“We spent the first full day just talking about philosophy,” said Hart, who teaches history and government at a Florida private school. “It was almost like a graduate course with a professor who is an expert.”

Forty-five states are considering 198 bills related to K-12 civics education.
AP

The Jack Miller Center, a leading civics education provider, organized the seminar, part of a cottage industry that is reviving the tradition of studying the rights and duties of American citizenship, updated for modern sensibilities. After decades of neglect in the wake of the 1960s social upheavals and emphasis on STEM competency, civics is making a comeback. Universities are opening multimillion-dollar civics schools, some with deans and doctoral programs, and more than half the states now have civics requirements or competency tests in K-12. The boom reached a crescendo this summer with 45 states considering 198 bills related to K–12 civic education.

But reintroducing the subject in today’s hyper-partisan climate is not simply about making students learn the ABCs of government and practicing the art of rhetoric. Civics now comes with a warning label – “the most bitterly contested subject in education today,” according to The Atlantic – placing it squarely in the crosshairs of the culture wars.

The tension around civics reflects the national disagreement about the meaning of the United States in the 21st century: Is America a land of opportunity and freedom for all? Or is it designed to award unearned privilege to a select few, and second-class status to everyone else? The answer determines how middle schoolers and high schoolers are taught about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and other key texts of the American experience.

Ideological disagreements over the nation’s identity have led to bitter clashes over curricula, reading assignments, and library books in local school boards and state legislatures.

Continue reading “”

Teaching Liberty: Hillsdale College & The Second Amendment

Hillsdale College, founded in 1844 by a group of Freewill Baptists, has established itself as one of the preeminent private educational institutions in the United States, with a particular defense of the traditional liberal arts, as well as a robust focus on the foundational principles of the United States. Of these foundational principles, the college educates its students on the meaning of the Second Amendment in theory and practical application. Watch our “American Rifleman Television” feature segment above to see how Hillsdale approaches teaching the Second Amendment to a new generation of Americans.

“The college, from its origins, was given to four principles or what we call “pillars,” and that is high learning, it’s here to promote and to furnish high learning,” said Dr. David Whalen, associate vice president for curriculum at Hillsdale college, as well as a professor of English. “Faith. The Christian faith is foundational here. Moral formation of our students, so moral character is important. And then finally, freedom. The college, in fact, was said to exist by virtue of gratitude for the inestimable blessing of civil and religious freedom. So freedom is very important here.”

Even as early as the mid-19th century, Hillsdale College practiced what it preached regarding its defense of freedom, liberty and the U.S. Constitution. A higher percentage of Hillsdale College students enlisted to fight for the Union in the Civil War than any other western college. Four Hillsdale college students earned the Medal of Honor. Sixty students gave their lives during the war.

In front of Hillsdale College’s Central Hall, a monument commemorates the Hillsdale students who gave their lives in the Civil War.

“The curriculum here is robust. It’s rich, but it’s also, and this is important, integrated. These courses aren’t designed to provide smatterings of knowledge. They are not designed to create little dilettantes who know a little bit about a lot of the different things,” Whalen said. “Instead, they all presume upon and lean upon each other. They bespeak a unity of knowledge. There’s a kind of integration in these courses, or at least we strive for a high degree of complementarity and integration in these courses so that, you know, you’re not just graduating students who have minds full of clutter, but who have intellects capable of a kind of comprehensive vision of the world at large.”

As part of its core curriculum, a series of courses that every Hillsdale student must take, there’s a comprehensive look at early American political thought, culminating in an intensive look at the U.S. Constitution. Courses also explore the historical roots of Western civilization, as well as the American heritage, specifically in cultivating a greater understanding of the “American experiment of liberty.”

“ As I often tell my students, it’s important to remember that both reason and experience show us that it is true that liberty is not a grant from a government, but is rather a gift from God. And so we spend a lot of time in class talking about what that means,” said Dr. David Raney, NRA Director and professor of history, John Anthony Halter Chair in American History, the Constitution and the Second Amendment. “At a very basic level, in a free society, it’s each citizen’s not just right, but responsibility, to step forward and provide the means by which they can defend all of their God-given liberties. And that typically means the ability to keep and to bear arms.”

Continue reading “”

92 Ohio school districts now allow staff to carry blasters

Ohio has been doing this since 2022, a year that saw 22 school districts arm their staffs after the passage of a new law allowing the practice. Fast-forward to 2025 and that number is 92.

The main argument for arming these teachers is that in rural areas like Eastern Ohio where Benjamin Logan Local School District is located, it takes too long (about 10-15 minutes) for police to arrive during an active shooter situation. With armed staff, this isn’t as much of a problem.

These armed staff members are required to take basic firearms training before they can carry in school.

Believe it or not, 30 states allow school staff to carry firearms.

From Newsweek:

 

 

 

Here’s what the comments look like on Twitter when it comes to the above report on Benjamin Logan:

 

South Dakota Regents Finally Adopt Campus Carry Policy

When the fall semester kicks off at South Dakota’s public universities in less than a month, there’ll be at least one big change awaiting students and staff when they return to campus. Orientation materials will now include guidance on lawful carry, because for the first time, lawful gun owners who possess an enhanced carry permit or an out-of-state carry license recognized by South Dakota will be able to lawfully carry in many on-campus locations.

Earlier this year Gov. Larry Rhoden signed SB 100 into law, establishing a legal way for folks to bear arms on the state’s public colleges, universities and technical schools. Though the law took effect on July 1, the South Dakota Board of Regents didn’t get around to adopting its own campus carry policy in accordance with the statute until last week.

Pistols and ammunition must be stored in a locked case or safe when not being carried. The policy sets standards for schools to designate restricted spaces and rules for special events, establishes signage requirements, and addresses storage rules for dormitories. It also requires members of the public using campus facilities to adhere to the same regulations. “

The safety and well-being of our students and campus communities remains at the forefront, and we wanted to make sure that we were very thoughtful, very intentional, on the policy framework that we put together to do that to the best of our abilities,” [Regents Executive Director Nathan] Lukkes said.

Students who live on campus and want to carry will have to provide their own locking case or safe, which seems fair. The new law also allows for the lawful carry of stun guns, mace or pepper spray in addition to or instead of a firearm, with no enhanced carry license required for those items. That’s also a common sense provision, and it allows those who aren’t comfortable carrying a lethal weapon to choose a non-lethal way to protect themselves on campus.

San Francisco students can graduate with FAILING grades under new ‘Grading for Equity’ guidelines

On Tuesday, the San Francisco public school district announced a new grading policy that will allow students to graduate classes with a score as low as 21 percent. The “Grading for Equity” method eliminates homework and weekly test scores from a student’s final semester grade.

Instead, there will be one test at the end of each semester to decide if a student has passed the class. The final exam can be retaken several times, The Voice San Francisco reported.

Maria Su, the Superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District, enacted the new guidelines without seeking approval from the board, according to the nonprofit. The changes will impact 10,000 students across 14 high schools in California’s Bay Area.

Students may submit assignments late, fail to attend class, or choose not to attend at all without consequence to their academic performance. As of current, receiving an A requires a minimum score of 90 percent, while a D is set at 61 percent. Under the new scale, a student can obtain an A with a score as low as 80 percent, typically a B- and a D with a score as low as 21 percent, which is otherwise known as an F.

Educators, students, and parents have expressed concerns regarding the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative, particularly how it would impact academic standards and college readiness, Newsweek reported. The San Francisco school district’s experiment comes in spite of President Donald Trump’s executive order signed in January that eliminated DEI programs in federal taxpayer-funded institutions.

Supporters of the policy argue that by reducing the emphasis on behavior-based penalties like missing or late assignments, it more accurately reflects a student’s learning, while critics believe it would hurt students who are already on pace for college placement.

Ben B@dejo

I think I’ve figured it out.

Harvard never disciplined certain foreign students who harassed and assaulted Jews on campus. They didn’t suspend them, so that they wouldn’t lose their F-1 visa status. That’s what they’re “hiding” from DHS.

Harvard keeps saying they provided all records, which is not entirely false — because there is no disciplinary record for students who were not disciplined. They aren’t failing to produce disciplinary records. The disciplinary records don’t exist. DHS is looking for disciplinary records that should exist, but don’t.

Harvard won’t explicitly say that they didn’t discipline them, because the moment they say that, the Trump administration can issue a finding, on that basis alone, that Harvard violated Title VI by failing to discipline them. And then Harvard has to either agree to a “voluntary” resolution agreement with the federal government (the Office for Civil Rights in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services), or be issued an involuntary resolution agreement on terms that it doesn’t decide, or begin losing its federal funding — in a manner that cannot easily be challenged in a suit alleging violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (because the procedures will have been followed).

Harvard doesn’t want to admit that they didn’t discipline foreign students. And it’s too late to discipline them now, because if they do so now, it will be clear that they only disciplined them after DHS started asking questions.

DC_Draino

This is a brilliant analysis of why Harvard is refusing to work with DHS and why Trump is punishing them

DHS wants to deport foreign criminals who violated the rights of others in violent protests on campus

Harvard never punished them and is hiding surveillance footage of their crimes

Once its proven they failed to protect the Civil Rights of American citizens to protect foreign extremists, Harvard loses its federal funding

Harvard is backed into a corner by Trump

In 2025, an attorney for a government school district is able to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court defending exposing children as young as three years old to books about sexuality. Imagine going back in time to any point—even just a few years ago—and explaining that this is considered a serious argument.

What I find most remarkable about the exchange is the attorney’s acknowledgment that their intent is to “influence” children. He begins to explain that the goal is to install “civility,” which is the “natural consequence of being exposed to—” before he is cut off. Was he going to say that “civility” results from exposure to sexual content at a very young age? What could “civility” possibly mean here?

MR. SCHOENFELD: Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That’s no longer in the curriculum.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: That’s the one where they’re supposed to look for the leather and things—bondage, things like that, right?

MR. SCHOENFELD: It’s not bondage. It’s a woman in a leather—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Sex worker, right?

MR. SCHOENFELD: No. That’s not correct. No.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I thought—gosh, I read it.

JUSTICE BARRETT: It’s a drag queen in drag.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Drag queen in—drag queen?

MR. SCHOENFELD: So, correct. The leather that they’re pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket, and one of the words is drag queen in this—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And they’re supposed to look for those?

MR. SCHOENFELD: It is an option at the end of the book, correct.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. Okay. And you’ve included these in the English language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students, is that fair? That’s what the district court found. Do you agree with that?

MR. SCHOENFELD: I think, to the extent the district court found that it was to influence, it was to influence them towards civility, the natural consequence of being exposed to—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Whatever, but to influence them.

MR. SCHOENFELD: In the manner that I just mentioned, yes.

While this is a serious thing, “education standards” are not a specifically enumerated right. Several well known pro-RKBA people on line, as well as yours truly, are irritated, to put it mildly, that SCOTUS will take such a case while lingering for months about a couple of 2nd amendment cases

The Most Important Parental Rights Case in Years Is Before SCOTUS Right Now

If there’s one thing that undergirds parental rights, it is this: Parents know what’s best for their own children.

If there’s a second, it’s Pierce v. Society of Sisters, where the Supreme Court ruled that the child “is not the mere creature of the state” and that parents have the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

Enter Mahmoud v. Taylor, which is currently before the Supreme Court. At issue, according to Amy Howe at ScotusBlog, is “Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.” Moreover, it will rule on who knows best: parents or school bureaucrats.

The case involves a school district in Montgomery County, Md., which thought it would be a good idea to force LGBTQ+ materials on children as young as age three—including vulnerable kids with special needs.

Here’s one example:

Howe explained on Tuesday, as oral arguments before the Supreme Court began:

When the county announced in 2023 that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks, a group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents went to federal court.

They contended that the refusal to give them the option to opt their children out violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion – specifically, their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their faith and to control when and how these issues are introduced to their children.

The school district claimed that it’s just too hard to allow parents to opt their kids out of the explicit content and, rather than getting rid of the highly controversial books, told parents to suck it up. Several of them sued, citing the aforementioned Wisconsin v. Yoder. 

Continue reading “”