Quote O’ The Day
If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightly consider it an act of war. – Glenn T. Seaborg

Math professors: Incoming students can’t even add fractions, subtract

Colleges add tutoring, remedial courses as freshmen struggle post-COVID lockdowns

Universities across the country are struggling to address incoming students’ poor math skills after many fell behind academically during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

More than ever before, professors say freshmen cannot answer basic high school mathematics problems such as subtracting a positive number from a negative number or adding two fractions, according to a recent report from the Associated Press.

“We’re talking about college-level pre-calculus and calculus classes, and students cannot even add one-half and one-third,” Maria Emelianenko, chair of the George Mason University math department, told the Associated Press.

Emelianenko said new students’ math deficiencies have become such a “huge issue” that her northern Virginia university recently began a Math Boot Camp, and approximately 100 students chose to attend the week-long remedial program over the summer.

Other colleges and universities are seeing the same problem. Many first-year college students spent their 10th grade year – when algebra or geometry is typically taught – at home due to widespread, months-long lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools switched to virtual classrooms instead, but growing research indicates many students struggled with online learning and now lag behind academically.

At Temple University in Philadelphia, Professor Jessica Babcock told the AP she began noticing the problem last year when grading STEM major students’ tests in her intermediate algebra course:

The quiz, a softball at the start of the fall semester, asked students to subtract eight from negative six.

“I graded a whole bunch of papers in a row. No two papers had the same answer, and none of them were correct,” she said. “It was a striking moment of, like, wow — this is significant and deep.”

Before the pandemic, about 800 students per semester were placed into that class, the equivalent of ninth grade math. By 2021, it swelled to nearly 1,400.

“It’s not just that they’re unprepared, they’re almost damaged,” said Brian Rider, Temple’s math chair. “I hate to use that term, but they’re so behind.”

Many universities are trying to be proactive, offering remedial summer programs, expanding tutoring services and providing more office hours with professors, according to AP. Math professors say they are thinking about new ways to teach the subject, too, including more hands-on, in-class instruction.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
Let’s call this what it is: The sex groomer Stasi.

Make no mistake: This bill does involve training teachers to profile parents based on the likelihood that they may secretly harbor heresy against the transgender state religion

California Bills Headed to Newsom’s Desk Will Launch a Transgender Inquisition Targeting Parents.

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children” might as well become the new slogan of the Golden State.

California’s Legislature has passed—or is about to pass—a slew of bills aimed at undermining the rights of parents (and potential foster parents) who disagree with the transgender worldview.

What would the state need to launch a transgender inquisition? It would need inquisitors to identify and hunt down parents who dared to dissent from gender ideology. It would need an apparatus to induct kids into its cult while keeping parents in the dark. It would need institutions to screen potential foster parents to block heretics from fostering or adopting kids who might convert to the state religion. Most importantly, it would need a legal way to pry kids from the arms of their apostate progenitors.

These legislative proposals foot that bill. One of them would train teachers to profile these hated “anti-LGBTQ” parents, another would train psychotherapists to prepare to hide gender “treatments” from parents at a minor’s request, a third would prevent school districts from removing sexually explicit books if they contain transgender themes, a fourth would prevent Californians from becoming foster parents if they dissent from gender ideology, and the fifth would expand the definition of child abuse to include “non-affirmation” of a child’s claimed transgender identity.

In a supreme Orwellian irony, each of these California bills claims to uphold the virtues of “diversity” and “inclusion,” while forcing down parents’ throats a constricting worldview at odds with reality and seeking to exclude moms and dads from raising their own children if they dare to disagree.

Continue reading “”

Need more than one (1).

In Wake of Uvalde, Recently Passed Texas Statewide Mandate Means an Armed Security Officer in Every School

Texas lawmakers quietly passed a sweeping mandate for school safety measures, including a requirement to post an armed security officer at every school and provide mental health training for certain district employees.

Texas House Bill 3, which was signed into law June 14 by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, went into effect on Sept. 1, and comes in the wake of the horrific Uvalde school shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in May 2022.

In the bill, each school district campus is required to armed security guard which includes: a school district peace officer; a school resource officer; a commissioned peace officer employee; a school marshal; or a school district employee who has completed school safety training and carries a handgun on their person on school premises.



Chicago Teachers Union president sends son to private school after labeling school choice supporters ‘fascists.’

Stacy Davis Gates, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, labeled private schools as ‘segregation academies’ in 2018. Last month she called those who supported school choice ‘fascists’. She enrolled her son in private school this month.

Here’s your mirror, Stacy. What changed? It turns out the public schools in her neighborhood are craptastic. She still sends her two daughters to a public elementary school. Perhaps they don’t have dreams of being athletes. It turns out that she was “forced” to send her son to private school. She’s all about the victimization of raising “a black boy” in America, you see.

Continue reading “”


Shantel Mandlay Facebook drag queen principal

Fox News reports that the Western Heights School District in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has installed a drag queen as principal of the John Glenn Elementary School. Fox has confirmed that the new hire, Shane Murnan, is “a drag queen who goes by the name of Shantel Mandalay.” Although Mandalay’s Facebook account has since been deleted, the article provides screenshots of him in his full drag glory.

According to Fox, Murnan was employed as a drag queen at a venue called “The Boom.”

Continue reading “”

Students are entering college unable to write.

K-12 public education has failed to prepare incoming college students how to write at the public level.

In a desperate attempt to catch high school graduates up to speed, many universities are providing remedial writing classes to college students.

About 68% of those starting at two-year public institutions and 40% of students enrolled in public four-year universities took at least one remedial writing class between 2003 to 2009, according to an original report from the Department of Education.

Average math and reading test scores dropped significantly from 2019 to 2021, according to a 2022 study by two Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA). It seems likely that the 2016 figures would be much worse if they were resampled in 2023, after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Megan Kuhfeld, one of three NWEA study researchers, told Campus Reform Aug. 30 that “It seems likely but with two caveats: (a) the students in our study have not reached college yet so it is hard to extrapolate from middle school test results and (b) colleges may have changed their criteria for routing students into remedial courses as a results of the pandemic, which would also change the proportion.”

The remediation statistics from the NWEA study indicate that many incoming and current college students are not prepared for university-level coursework. As such, numerous institutions are offering remedial writing courses aimed at preparing incoming freshmen on how to write at the college level.

Continue reading “”

Back to *Home* School: 5 Lessons I’ve Learned

It’s back to school time, and for some of us that means back to home school.

In recent years homeschooling has enjoyed a fairly well-publicized upswing. But the surge in interest has also sparked some narrow-minded backlash. Like the other areas I cover, education suffers from plenty of groupthink.

My family of three is a homeschool family. My wife and I have one child, an eight-year-old son, and having an “only” makes homeschooling sometimes harder and sometimes easier. We live in an area where homeschooling is quite common, and being part of a larger community has been very helpful.

We experimented with four different types of more traditional schooling and exposed ourselves to an array of less conventional models. After some back-and-forth between schooling and homeschooling (courtesy of California’s lockdowns), we settled on homeschooling as the best fit for our son. As much as we tout it, we’re not dogmatic. If we come across something better, we’ll switch.

We’ve been lucky that the vast majority of our friends and family support our decision to homeschool. In general, the better they know us, the more supportive they are. That’s because they see that it’s working for our son.

But we’ve also experienced some rather bewildered reactions. Such reactions typically come from people who have experienced nothing but traditional schooling. One person asked if our son had any friends, but nobody who knows him well would ask that. Although many worry that homeschooling hampers socialization, our experience has been quite the opposite.

Maybe I’ll address socialization at some point, but for now I’ve focused on five lessons my family has learned from our experience with homeschooling.

I wanted to avoid more common topics (like why a family might choose homeschooling in the first place) in order to focus on some lessons that might be rather hidden at the beginning of one’s homeschooling journey. Continue reading “”

ANALYSIS: Academics think a 4-year degree is everything, employers disagree
Employers want employees with well-honed soft skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork, but graduates reportedly lack proficiency in these areas.

Nine out of 10 higher education professionals are convinced that their institutions are churning out job-ready warriors. But employers, current students, and recent grads beg to differ.

Higher education’s career-preparation efforts are not exactly hitting the bullseye, according to a recent Grammarly for Education and Higher Ed Dive report.

Citing surveys conducted by the Cengage Group and College Pulse, the collaborative report states that a mere 41% of recent graduates believe that their college degree effectively signals to employers that they possess the much-needed skills. Current students are also adding their voices to the chorus of concern, with a paltry 14% expressing satisfaction with the assistance provided by their campus career centers.

Employers are not pleased either.

The cries from the job market echo a desire for employees with well-honed soft skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork, but graduates reportedly lacked proficiency in these areas.

Pointing to Gallup, the report cites that “Only 11% of business leaders said they believed college graduates were well prepared for the workforce.”

Continue reading “”

Very, I’d say.

Gadsden flag: How ignorant are the folks running the schools?

Animated Flags - Bandiere animate pagina U-03

One of the biggest takeaways from the viral Colorado story of the school booting a 12-year-old out of class for having a Gadsden flag patch on his backpack is that the folks in charge are ignorant not just of free-speech basics, but fundamentals of US history.

How can they teach when they’re wrong about simple facts?

A top administrator at the Vanguard charter school is on tape lecturing that the flag has “slavery and the slave trade” origins, making the palm-sized patch was “disruptive to the classroom environment.”

A 10-second Google reveals the truth; the flag’s not about slavery at all.

Known for its rattlesnake and “Don’t tread on me” slogan, it originated during the American Revolution — a topic the school spends a year on in history class.

Remarkably, young Jaiden Rodriguez’s teacher toed the administration line in pulling him out of the classroom. That is, she supported ignorance, not her student being victimized by it.

The school’s fallback was to retroactively make an issue of his many semiautomatic-gun patches on the same backpack; they’re gone, and he’s back in class.

Known for its rattlesnake and “Don’t tread on me” slogan, the flag originated during the American Revolution.

And Vanguard has eaten its words on the flag (wise, as even Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat called out the mistake).

So far, though, it hasn’t explained its institutional idiocy. Chances are it’s intentional. Progressives have been pushing a distorted view of American history for years, demonizing everything from the National Anthem to the flag to the Constitution. To them, the truth doesn’t matter.

California bill would make questioning school board members a crime

California is poised to codify at the state level what the feds were once requested to do — that is, turn inquisitive parents into criminals for daring to question their school board representatives.

Senate Bill 596, introduced by Democratic State Senator Anthony Portantino in February and dubbed the “School Employees: Protection” act, expands an existing law “which makes it a misdemeanor for any ‘person’ to threaten or harass a school employee during the ‘course of [their] duties,’” according to the California Globe.

This expansion adds a penalty for creating a “substantial disorder” at any meeting of a public school board, charter school board, county board of education, and the California State Board of Education.

Although “substantial disorder” is not precisely defined, the bill notes that “course of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts over a period of time, however short … evidencing a continuity of purpose.”

Gone from the definition of “harassment” is “unlawful violence” and “credible threat of violence,” and in its place is “torments, or terrorizes.”

It’s not difficult to figure out what’s happening here. A concerned parent at a school board meeting asks a board member a question and reiterates it (thereby establishing a “course of conduct”) … and if the board member feels “tormented” the parent can be arrested and charged with a fine between $500 and $1,000 and face up to a year in jail.

Or, as the Globe’s Kenny Snell (a retired longtime teacher) put it, “In California-speak, that means school boards get to decide what is substantial and what is not; what is harassment and what is not. In Totalitarian-speak that means don’t dare even think about going to a school board meeting and question their narrative or policies.”

Keep in mind that last year the National School Boards Association — in collaboration with the Biden administration — wanted the U.S. Department of Justice to label outspoken parents “domestic terrorists” and the National Guard to monitor school board meetings.

The NSBA had complained of “acts of malice” and “aggression” by parents — eerily similar to the California bill’s “torments.”

Two other pieces of concerning legislation in the Golden State noted by the California Policy Center include Corey Jackson’s (D) Assembly Bill 1078 and Mia Bonta’s Assembly Bill 1352.

The former would give local school boards’ power to make curriculum decisions to education bureaucrats in the state capital, while the latter “would allow a duly elected school board member to be removed from office if he or she disagrees with the votes of teachers union-backed board members.”

Armed Staff Versus School Resource Officers- The Quality of Quantity to Defend Our Students

You must be present to win. That trite phrase might apply to the local bake sale. It certainly applies to protecting our students at school. It is too easy for school boards and school principals to say they did something when they certainly did not do enough. We can agree that protecting our students is inherently a difficult problem. We are trying to stop evil narcissists who want to become celebrities by killing our kids. Formulaic answers don’t work for long because these murderers learn and adapt. The actions that protected our children yesterday might not work tomorrow. There are better solutions today and we need to recognize them.

The threat is changing over time. Greg Ellifritz did an excellent job looking at armed attacks at schools after the Covid lockdown. Only 20-percent of the attacks are now in the classroom. That means we need to do more than lock the classroom doors. Half of the armed attacks on our schools occurred before or after school when students were out of the classroom and on school grounds or on their way to school. That number is increasing, and that means that a single School Resource Officer at school for a few hours a week isn’t enough. Murderers might be adapting to the security measures that schools have already put in place like locked doors, metal detectors, and revised policies when someone pulls a fire alarm or triggers a smoke detector. We have to adapt as well.

We are changing every day. Schools are embedded in our society. Every problem we have in our culture eventually comes to school. We’ve heard calls to defund the police. Some urban administrators removed police officer on campus since they neither wanted to report nor wanted to file a complaint against the students committing crimes at school. As you’d imagine, more innocent students are victimized by violent crime when crime is tolerated at school. The social justice movements that removed School Resource Officers left students vulnerable to both common criminals and to celebrity-seeking murderers who search for easy victims.

Administrators prefer visible solutions. It is hard for school administrators to get public credit for solutions that the public can’t see. The parents seldom notice the reinforced glass in the windows and doors. In contrast, the parents can’t miss seeing the uniformed police officer standing in the parking lot when children are dropped off.

Unfortunately, public visibility works both for us and it works against us as we try to protect our children. A visible deterrent like an SRO helps stop low-level threats. The drug dealers move across the street and out of the school parking lot. The visible School Resource Officer is equally easy for a murderer to locate. The attacker can wait until the SRO either drives his police car away from campus, or the murderer can shoot the SRO first. We’ve seen both happen when schools were attacked.

Any single defender has a fatal flaw. There is an obvious reason that one adult can’t supervise an entire campus. They can’t be everywhere at the same time. The School Resource Officer can’t be up on the ball field when they are down in the parking lot. They can’t be behind the gymnasium if they are in the central courtyard. A midsized school might have half-a-dozen hallways and an equal number of separate buildings. That means a single defender is probably minutes away from an attack. That delay leads to more dead children.

The solution is obvious, if invisible. The researchers who study school security told us what to do over a decade ago. Murderers stop killing our kids when they face an armed defender. The defender’s response time predicts the body count. The SRO can’t be on the bus before school and on the bus after school, but the bus driver can. The SRO isn’t at the choir practice before school, but the choir director is there. After school, the SRO can’t be at the ball field and in the music room at the same time, but the coaches and band director are certainly there.

Continue reading “”

Nipping gun ownership in the bud: Dept of Education’s outrageous moves

It is the job of the Congress to write airtight, unambiguous legislation that allows no opportunity for Executive or Judicial mischief. That’s a tough task to begin with, but an overambitious Executive or Judicial branch can stretch and mangle those words beyond ridicule to do whatever they want. It doesn’t help that the job keeps getting harder with time as long-agreed upon words are intentionally rejiggered to lose their meaning.

The latest example of Executive Overreach is the “reimagining” of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), a gun control law that was passed by government to compensate for the failure of government and placate the insatiable appetites of abusive gun controllers. Fox News reports (archived links):

Biden admin withholding key funding for schools with hunting, archery programs

EXCLUSIVE: The Biden administration is blocking key federal funding earmarked under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 for schools with hunting and archery programs.

According to federal guidance circulated among hunting education groups and shared with Fox News Digital, the Department of Education determined that, under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) passed last year, school hunting and archery classes are precluded from receiving federal funding. The interpretation could impact millions of American children enrolled in such programs.

“It’s a negative for children. As a former educator of 30-plus years, I was always trying to find a way to engage students,” Tommy Floyd, the president of the National Archery in the Schools Program, told Fox News Digital in an interview. “In many communities, it’s a shooting sport, and the skills from shooting sports, that help young people grow to be responsible adults. They also benefit from relationships with role models.”[…]

According to Floyd, his organization boasts 1.3 million students from nearly 9,000 schools across 49 states who are enrolled in archery courses. Some of those schools have already canceled plans to include archery or hunting education courses in their curriculum due to the Education Department guidance.

Why oh why would the Federal Department of Education target hunting and archery in schools? It’s perhaps a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a puzzle to some, but it’s obvious to me that the DoE is trying to nip gun ownership in the bud by choking off exposure and interest in the next generation. Gun controllers are playing a long game, and this is a move to advance their disarmament agenda.

The legislation included an amendment to an ESEA subsection listing prohibited uses for federal school funding. That amendment prohibits ESEA funds from helping provide any person with a dangerous weapon or to provide “training in the use of a dangerous weapon.”

I looked up the text of the law and this is what it says:

Subtitle D–Amendment on ESEA Funding

Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(20 U.S.C. 7906) is amended–
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking “or” after the
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and</sp
inserting “; or”; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
“(7) for the provision to any person of a dangerous weapon,
 as defined in section 930(g)(2) of title 18, United States Code, 
 or training in the use of a dangerous weapon.”.

I can see how this amendment could be stretched to construe the prohibition of funding for archery and hunting programs.

However, in a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona earlier this month, Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., expressed concern that the agency is misinterpreting the provision which they said was included in the BSCA last year to withhold education funds for programs training school resource officers, not for hunting and archery classes. School resource officer training was funded under a separate provision.

“We were alarmed to learn recently that the Department of Education has misinterpreted the BCSA to require the defending of certain longstanding educational and enrichment programs — specifically, archery and hunter education classes — for thousands of children, who rely on these programs to develop life skills, learn firearm safety and build self-esteem,” Cornyn and Tillis wrote to Cardona.

“The Department mistakenly believes that the BSCA precludes funding these enrichment programs,” they continued. “Such an interpretation contradicts congressional intent and the text of the BSCA.”

Senators Cornyn, Tillis, and every self-proclaimed Second Amendment supporting elected official have some serious explaining to do to their voters. This language slipped under the radar and is now rearing its head. Gun control-supporting apparatchiks at the DoE are taking advantage of it because the text did not explicitly state that such training programs are exempt.

Overall, the ESEA is the primary source of federal aid for elementary and secondary education across the country, according to the Congressional Research Service. The BSCA earmarked an additional $1 billion for educational activities under the ESEA.

Personally, I want to see a complete and permanent separation of School and State and the Department of Education eliminated. But that’s not happening anytime soon.

With so much money at stake, this was a legislative fumble to put it mildly. Let’s see what the Biden DoE does next.

Signs Show Staff is Armed Go Up In Texas School

In Groesbeck, Texas (about a third of the way between Dallas and Houston), the Independent School District (ISD) has had a school guardian program in place for nearly a year. On July 17, 2023, the Groesbeck ISD issued a press release showing they had placed signs announcing the program. The Guardian program is a popular Texas program to enable local schools to have various members of their staff trained and armed, in order to respond to deadly threats in the school before police can arrive on the scene. The program is much more efficient than having School Resource Officers (certified police officers) assigned to the school. One SRO costs about $100,000 per year. A Guardian costs about $1,000 a year. A school district can afford 100 Guardians for the cost of one SRO. The Groesbeck School Superintendent, Anthony Figueroa, has embraced the program. From the Groesbeck Independent School District press release:

Two months ago, I sent my monthly superintendent newsletter informing parents of our Guardian Program and new signage (see picture below). Being installed this week, signs will be posted on our campuses which state, “ATTENTION: GISD STAFF ARE ARMED AND TRAINED TO PROTECT OUR STUDENTS.”12”X12” signs will be attached to all building entrances, and larger 3’X3’ signs will be displayed at all parking/drive way entrances.

Last year the Groesbeck ISD school board watched the devastation of schools across the country, being forced to prepare for the unthinkable –the potential of a school shooting, and considered appropriate policies. The Board updated local policy, authorizing a School Safety “Guardian” Program (TX Govt. Code 411.1901). Its purpose is to provide students and faculties an armed self-defense option prior to the arrival of Law Enforcement in the event of an active shooter or “active killer” on campus.

The Guardians are ISD staff members who have passed strict requirements and training. In order to protect them from becoming targets of an intruder, their names are confidential and are not to be released. I ask that names not be guessed at nor rumors passed in an attempt to protect these individuals.

Although the program has been in place for almost a year, the Board of Trustees approved for the district to make the program more visible. By providing the community this information and by placing signs up across the campuses, we are taking additional steps so that people know we are NOT an “easy target”.

Superintendent of Schools Anthony Figueroa noted the last three school districts in which he was involved were all participants in the Guardian program. This says something about Texas and, perhaps, about Anthony Figueroa.

From the Groesbeckjournal.com:

“I am proud to have been part of a Guardian program in my last three districts and I am proud that GISD had this program when I arrived,” said Figueroa. “My responsibility is to ensure we properly train our Guardians and that we properly communicate this program to our community.”

As of October 2022, about 450 out of 1022 school districts in Texas were involved in the Guardian program. As of this writing, no school district involved in the Guardian program has been the subject of a mass killing in school.

Placing the signs prominently on the doors and entrances to the campuses is a proactive step to stop mass killers from targeting schools. One of the chief drivers of these killers is the desire for fame, achieved by a high body count. Unknown armed protectors make planning to achieve a high body count difficult. Most of the killing in these events occurs in the first few minutes. Seconds of response time means lives. Having armed responders inside the situation as it occurs is the fastest way to stop the killers and save lives.

We’ve let these schools raise up a generation or two of snowflake pansies.

If you need therapy after a court rules against you, you shouldn’t be a lawyer.

Make SCOTUS great again: Boston University law students offered therapy after recent rulings.

The work week ended with monumental rulings from the Supreme Court. The hot takes coming from the media are heavy with doom-and-gloom vibes because most of them are liberals.

There is no denying the rulings on the three big cases that deal with affirmative action, religious freedom, and student debt forgiveness, will “re-shape America for generations to come,” as one CNN anchor said this morning. A Washington correspondent for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the rulings were made “strictly along ideological lines.” Another anchor noted that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, opined that the rulings show that it may be time for “re-shaping the Court.’

The drama. The Supreme Court is following the Constitution and the liberals are emotionally distressed. They have become so accustomed to the Court randomly making law instead of following the Constitution, like Roe v Wade back in 1973, that justices who are originalists are seen as oddities of the right. For example, Joe Biden, who has been humiliated by the rulings, especially the one on student loan bailouts, said the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution wrong. Imagine the ignorance and arrogance of Biden, who barely graduated from law school, saying the Supreme Court just didn’t understand the Constitution.

The big affirmative action case where the Court ruled that the admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina “violate the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment,” was a punch in the gut to those who think discrimination is bad if it is against black and brown students but ok against Asian and white students. That is an over-simplification but it is the core of the system that routinely denied admission to qualified Asian students so that preference could be made for black and Hispanic students. Picking winners and losers based on skin color in college admissions always results in discrimination against someone. We long ago abandoned the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. that his children would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In other words, meritocracy is back in college admissions and that is a good thing. Students deserve admission based on merit, not skin color, and the ability to check a box on an application.

Boston University is trying to cope with the fact that we now have a Supreme Court that follows the Constitution.

“The rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)—in cases addressing the admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina—are profoundly disappointing because they take us backward, potentially creating less diverse college campuses and a less just America,” Boston University President Robert A. Brown wrote in a letter sent to the University community shortly after the decision Thursday. “These decisions are antithetical to Boston University’s values and mission.”

Brown added that the University would continue to review the decision “to better understand what it means for our admissions and academic practices and the changes we may be required to make.”

Whenever I think of affirmative action, I am reminded of a line George W. Bush often used in speeches about education – the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is insulting to black and brown students to assume that because of their skin color, they need special consideration. It assumes that all black and brown students come from poverty and few opportunities that others are afforded. Perhaps back when affirmative action first began but not now. There are more middle-class and upper-class minorities now than ever before. Affirmative action was never meant to be a forever policy. It is no longer needed as it once was.

There are ways for colleges to make their own admissions policies, something that Chief Justice Roberts notes. One associate professor at BU School of Law notes the lack of guidance in the ruling.

“It’s hard to say what this means for other colleges and universities because the majority opinion wasn’t all that clear in a lot of important ways,” says Jonathan Feingold, an associate professor of law at the BU School of Law.

“I wouldn’t take this opinion as a reason to take off the table ever considering race again,” Feingold says. “Colleges and universities may just have to do it in a more careful, defined way than what Harvard and UNC did.”

To that end, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing in the majority opinion, notes: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” In other words, “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” he writes.

In order for Boston University law students to be able to cope with a Supreme Court that follows the Constitution, mental health resources are being made available to help them “navigate these times.” The resources are not specialized counseling for students but resources that are already available.

Two of the resources were BU Behavioral Medicine and BU Student Wellbeing. According to its website, BU Behavioral Medicine offers therapy, on-call service for mental health emergencies and mental health diagnoses, among other services.

The student government criticized the decision in 303 Creative LLC. v. Elenis, which gave a Christian web designer the right to deny services to same-sex couples. It also condemned Biden v. Nebraska, which ruled President Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness plan was unconstitutional.

“These three decisions form part of a lengthy sequence of this court’s ruling which steadily erode the rights of marginalized communities and undermine the very diversity upon which our nation was built,” the SGA argued.

The group that has benefitted the most from affirmative action policies is women. On today’s college campuses, women students often outnumber men. In 2022, for example, there were almost two women attending college for every man. It was the highest recorded gender imbalance favoring women in U.S. college enrollment. To hear the left speak, affirmative action was solely about skin color. That was never true.

It is the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas now and that is a remarkable change. The correction is long overdue. The left is just going to have to learn to cope with getting back to the Constitution as it was meant to be, not as the left wanted it to be.

I don’t agree that President Trump’s use of DoD funds to build a wall was wrong. The Constitution makes clear in Article 4 § 4 the requirement to protect the states from invasion, and if hoards of illegal aliens coming into the country doesn’t qualify, I don’t know what would.

On CNN of all places…………

Why the Supreme Court got it right on student loans

 Ilya Somin is a professor of law at George Mason University, the Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and the author of “Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom.” 

In a lawsuit brought by six state governments, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Joe Biden’s massive $430 billion student loan forgiveness plan is illegal because it was never authorized by Congress, and the Constitution gives Congress – not the president – the power to determine how federal funds are spent. The court made the right decision: If the administration had won, Biden and future presidents would have been empowered to use vague statutes to usurp Congress’ constitutional control over the federal budget. Moreover, because of the context for this case, it also would have allowed the president to abuse emergency powers for partisan ends.

But the Biden administration was relying on a provision of the act that gives the secretary of education authority to “waive or modify” federal student loan requirements in order to ensure that recipients of financial assistance who have been affected by a national emergency “are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance” because they were affected by the emergency. The administration claimed beneficiaries of the loan-forgiveness plan qualified because they have been negatively affected financially as a result of the Covid-19 national emergency declared by then-President Donald Trump in March 2020.

The Supreme Court on Friday rightly ruled that the HEROES Act’s language comes nowhere near authorizing such a massive loan forgiveness plan. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in the majority opinion, “The authority to ‘modify’ statutes and regulations allows the Secretary to make modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions, not transform them.” The word “waive” also doesn’t give the government the power to forgive loans on a massive scale, because, as Roberts noted, the government conceded that the term “waiver” as used in the HEROES Act cannot refer to waiving loan repayments.

Continue reading “”

E-Q-U-A-L Justice under Law.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Race-Based College Admissions

In a major 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court has struck down race-based admissions at two universities, declaring it a violation of the equal protection clause.

The conservative justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, made up the majority. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the Harvard case and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson wrote the dissent in the University of North Carolina case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

In the majority opinion, Roberts writes that the court has “permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and — at some point — they must end.”

He also wrote that “however well-intentioned and implemented in good faith,” the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC “fail each of these criteria.”

More from the majority opinion:

Immediately after Brown, we began routinely affirming lower court decisions that invalidated all manner of race-based state action.…

In the decades that followed, this Court continued to vindicate the Constitution’s pledge of racial equality. Laws dividing parks and golf courses; neighborhoods and businesses; buses and trains; schools and juries were undone, all by a transformative promise “stemming from our American ideal of fairness”: “‘the Constitution . . . forbids . . . discrimination by the General Government, or by the States, against any citizen because of his race.’”

The majority opinion closed by saying that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

In other words, Roberts and the majority maintain that a person’s race is an invaluable part of their background, but it should not be used to create new barriers to college admission.

“But,” Roberts concludes, “despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”