Unbiased 'education'? Right. THIS is nothing but tyranny, and an attempt at mind control.

[Barbella]

And so I sat, zombie-like, through the strange and sad reality that is groupthink for two long years. In a publicly funded school in America’s greatest city, I was censored, threatened, and despised by my teachers. I left school after graduation feeling that something had been stolen from me. I wanted to go back and argue with my teachers some more, ask them, for example, whether a description of Reagan’s economic policies as “nightmarish” in a textbook could be considered unbiased in any context. I wished I had stood up more often for my white male friends in class, asked people if they really believed that Band-Aids that were not exactly fair and not exactly dark in color were racist.

That was why my social welfare and policy teacher felt entirely justified in asking me to stop sharing my opinions in class. She was not allowed to discriminate against me—it would have been wrong to ask me to stop speaking for being gay or a woman or black. She was discriminating against my thoughts, which were not an intrinsic part of who I was. Not important. Identities, with the exception of straight, white, religious male, could not be banned. Beliefs could.

This approach is not unique to Hunter: Two hundred thirty-five master’s programs in the United States are accredited by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), which requires schools to “advocate for human rights and social and economic justice” and to “engage in practices that advance social and economic justice” as part of their curricula.

an invitation for schools to discriminate against students with dissenting views.”

Emily Brooker, a Christian student at Missouri State University’s School of Social Work in 2006, was asked by her professor to sign a letter to the Missouri legislature in favor of homosexual adoption. When she explained that doing so would violate her religious beliefs and requested a different assignment, she was subjected to a two-and-a-half-hour interrogation by an ethics committee and charged with a “Level Three Grievance” (the most severe kind). Brooker was not permitted to have an advocate or a tape recorder with her at the ethics meeting, during which she was told to sign a contract promising that she would “close the gap” between her religious beliefs and the values of the social work profession. At the risk of having her degree withheld, Brooker acquiesced.

Bill Felkner, a student at Rhode Island College’s School of Social Work, was instructed to lobby the Rhode Island legislature for several policies he did not support. In addition, RIC’s policy internship requirements for graduate students included forcing students to advance policies that would further “progressive social change.” When Felkner accepted an internship in the policy department of Republican Rhode Island governor Don Carcieri’s office, he received a letter from Lenore Olsen, chair of the Social Work Department, informing him that he had violated their requirements and could no longer pursue a master’s degree in social work policy.

CSWE is not an official government agency, it might as well be, since virtually all U.S. social work schools must receive its accreditation to be considered legitimate and to give their students a chance of being hired. Since its inception in 1952, it has worked, largely successfully, to transform a profession into a belief system.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/closing-campus-mind_899943.html?page=2

 

[as seen on tv]

the fact that there is an entire "school of social work" at numerous colleges is at the heart of the problem.

we're creating a permanent infrastructure of support services for those who advocate permanent victimhood status for people because of their race, religion, gender, etc.

stay in school. stop using drugs. get a job. what could be simpler?

 

[Barbella]

the fact that there is an entire "school of social work" at numerous colleges is at the heart of the problem.

we're creating a permanent infrastructure of support services for those who advocate permanent victimhood status for people because of their race, religion, gender, etc.

stay in school. stop using drugs. get a job. what could be simpler?

It seems simple because it IS... however, when "staying in school" leads to the stifling of independent thought, I'm not so sure...

Schools should be like Switzerland... neutral. Teach the kids FACTS, teach them to THINK, teach them to be INDEPENDENT, and then get the hell out of the way. They're entitled to reach their own conclusions without being coerced to conform.

IMO.

 

[connieb]

It seems simple because it IS... however, when "staying in school" leads to the stifling of independent thought, I'm not so sure...

Schools should be like Switzerland... neutral. Teach the kids FACTS, teach them to THINK, teach them to be INDEPENDENT, and then get the hell out of the way. They're entitled to reach their own conclusions without being coerced to conform.

IMO.

I almost took a picture of my son's class assignment the other week and posted it, but I wasn't sure I could fully delete the GPS info on the pic, so I didn't do it. But, anyway, in his class assignment they were working on community leaders. And already - I was pissed because it recognized essentially "community organizers" as leaders which I don't think is a fair explanation of what they really are.

But, then it said, how do the Mayor and Town Council help the community. The answers were: Pay the fire and policemen. Make sure no new laws are made and two others which were like Teach School and Pick up Trash - community services but clearly outside the scope of legislators and Government directly.

So the correct answer - or the one marked correct - was " pay the fire and policemen". Which on the surface isn't "wrong" per se - but in reality they don't "PAY" them. The taxpayers pay them. They write the checks and decide WHAT they will pay them. But, they are not the ones who actually fund the money used to give them checks.

So, I can agree that in simplistic terms for a second grader " pay" may well equal the idea that they were the check-cutters and why this would be right. But, I think that to deny or not reinforce the concept that what they are doing is disbursing taxpayer money - is EXTREMELY misleading. I think it reinforces the lefty concept that Gov't provides and takes care. When what Gov't does is take the funds collected for taxpayers and re-distribute them. Whether or not you agree that the redistribution is good or necessary, the bottom line is -they have no money -without the taxpayer. And, I really resent the inference that they do. This whole - gov' will pay attitude - is being taught to the kids in the second grade. By the time he has 10 more years of school - that kind of bullshit will just be MORE and MORE enforced.

And, I will admit my other beef with this stupid worksheet was that they said "make sure no new laws are written". It was a direct slap at the Tea Party/Libertarian movement in this country. And, as a person who leans pretty heavily libertarian... it was insulting. It implies two things - one that those who advocate for fewer laws are not doing so because they think it will help the community. And, two, that it it implies the reverse which is MORE laws help the community. - Again this is nothing more than misleading leftist propaganda.

So, DS and I had a NICEEEEEE long chat about that assignment. And, where that money the town council uses to pay the firemen come from, how they get it, why we pay taxes. What their responsibilities REALLY are, and that we don't necessarily need "more laws" We need only good laws. And, that may mean we don't make more and that is a good thing. It may mean we remove some - and THAT is also a good thing. It is not necessarily good - to keep making new laws. But, in general it may be very good to NOT make any new laws.

Anyway, I complain a lot about the lack of rigor in the public school system. The ridiculous way they teach math under common core, etc.... but this is the first time I have actually seen real propaganda. And, it was both eye opening and angering, how stealthily they snuck it in there.

 

[Drumcollie]

Now watch lefty try to discredit you personally or just stay away but you wont get a response directed at the real issue here....great post!

 

[gigi]

The problem is that we don't do anything about any of this. Articles appear and people get mad and dish,but ultimately, what do we really do? Nothing. Will any of these people outlined in the article become vocal opponents of this and gin up a movement against institutions that do this strongarming and coercing? Probably not.

 

[connieb]

The problem is that we don't do anything about any of this. Articles appear and people get mad and dish,but ultimately, what do we really do? Nothing. Will any of these people outlined in the article become vocal opponents of this and gin up a movement against institutions that do this strongarming and coercing? Probably not.

You are right. The topic has been big at our local school board and many parents like myself are getting vocal about it.

But, it never gains any national media attention because they are all too happy to just cast us as kooks, etc. And, that does deter people from really speaking out against it.

 

[Jen]

It seems simple because it IS... however, when "staying in school" leads to the stifling of independent thought, I'm not so sure...

Schools should be like Switzerland... neutral. Teach the kids FACTS, teach them to THINK, teach them to be INDEPENDENT, and then get the hell out of the way. They're entitled to reach their own conclusions without being coerced to conform.

IMO.

We seem to only get extremes here in this country.
Sounds like Switzerland is getting it right.
I'm glad I home schooled my kids. ... I did give them my opinion, but I presented it as "opinion" when I did.
They don't agree with me on everything, but they are able to think.

 

[marvin martian]

The problem is that we don't do anything about any of this. Articles appear and people get mad and dish,but ultimately, what do we really do? Nothing. Will any of these people outlined in the article become vocal opponents of this and gin up a movement against institutions that do this strongarming and coercing? Probably not.

You're right, and it's unfortunate. However, as we've seen from recent incidents, standing up to this type of tyranny and intolerance now means exposing yourself to slander, threats, the destruction of your personal and professional reputation, financial damage, and possibly violence. For most people, it's not worth the risk to their safety and wellbeing to anger the lefty lynch mobs.

 

[connieb]

You're right, and it's unfortunate. However, as we've seen from recent incidents, standing up to this type of tyranny and intolerance now means exposing yourself to slander, threats, the destruction of your personal and professional reputation, financial damage, and possibly violence. For most people, it's not worth the risk to their safety and wellbeing to anger the lefty lynch mobs.

Absolutely. Silencing the opposition is the only way they can be successful.

connie