TOP LOUISIANA EDUCATION BOARD MUST PROTECT CHILDREN FROM CRITICAL RACE THEORY
Guest post by Christopher Alexander
The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) is playing with fire. The only question is whether the flame ignited by BESE that threatens to devour the hearts and minds of Louisiana’s youngest learners is intentional or borne of ignorance and naivete. In either case, any reader of this piece who is concerned about how close we are in Louisiana and America generally to surrendering our public education system to sworn enemies of the US Constitution must act, and act now.
On December 13, 2022, BESE approved a new set of Early Childhood Development Standards (ECDS) that Leftist educators across the Country have been seeking for decades. These new standards must be implemented by every early learning institution in Louisiana that receives taxpayer money. The final vote was 6-4, with RepublicansHolly Boffy and Ashley Ellis casting decisive votes in favor of the new standards.
In the near future, when and if the government becomes the parents of our children and teaches them to hate traditional American principles of human liberty and inalienable rights enshrined in the Constitution in favor of poisonous ideas like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Gender Identity (GI)- when our very youngest learners are fully indoctrinated to view the world and their fellow students entirely through the lens of perceived racial and gender inequity- the names Boffy and Ellis should be remembered, unless they change course.
There is still time for them to change course by doing exactly as suggested later in this piece, in order to avoid a complete surrender of the next generation to the predatory wolf in sheep’s clothing poised to devour Louisiana’s public education system.
The new early learning standards eliminate 75% of the former longstanding, detailed standards in existence in Louisiana. Because of their detail in articulating specific curricula, there was little room in the former standards for the injection of radical, anti-American concepts such as CRT and GI. The new standards leave intact the existing concept of “Social Emotional Development”, but strip the concept of its traditional parameters contained in the former standards. Teachers are left with the duty to instruct their youngest students in “Social-Emotional Development”, but no longer have any specific curriculum to rely on in order to do so. Our teachers have been given a ship with no rudder and no navigation system. Or so it seems.
Could it be that this is all by perverse design? In 2016, during the Obama era, the federal government added a “non-academic competency” indicator as a requirement in order to gauge the “non-academic” progress of American public school students. Ostensibly in order to satisfy this new federal requirement, prominent Leftist education organizations seized upon the opportunity to develop such “non academic” concepts as CRT and GI and to inject them into the bloodstream of our public school system. Due to the national backlash (most notably in Virginia) against CRT and GI expressly defined as such, the Left changed its tactics by changing its terminology.
CRT is now known by the seemingly harmless title “Social Emotional Learning” (SEL). It is anything but. SEL is a concept popularized by the Leftist-dominated Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). SEL predicates all education on the same lie that underlies CRT and GI:
America is an inherently racist, sexist, and gender-phobic country that must be transformed at its core.
The ultimate goal of SEL, as with CRT and GI, is to replace parents with the State, individual dignity with the “collective consciousness”, and equal rights under the law with notions of institutional racial and gender victimhood. Every one of Louisiana’s earliest learners will fit neatly into either the class of “oppressors” or the class of “victims” based solely upon race or gender.
The SEL system, at its core, teaches that the US Constitution itself is founded upon racism and gender inequity and is therefore irredeemably corrupt. While the new BESE standards do not specifically state this (even if they would not go this far in explicit terms), based upon the injection of SEL into school curricula across the country this is clearly the goal in Louisiana. Boffy’s and Ellis’ failure to acknowledge the writing on the wall will have catastrophic consequences for Louisiana students and parents.
Now the hope. Due in significant part to the valiant efforts of many Louisiana education advocacy groups, BESE has agreed to re-open its public comment portal until January 10, 2022.
The only hope remaining for Louisiana students- and there is still hope– is for every concerned Louisiana citizen to “pound the portal”. That is, go to the LACAG urgent Call to Action page and take the simple steps to make your voice heard on the BESE comment portal between now and January 10. Tell BESE that you oppose the current standards and demand that BESE vote, in its upcoming meeting on January 18, to send the new standards to the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) for further review and consideration. LACAG has reason to believe that LDOE will indeed further revise the new standards to make them far less vulnerable to SEL influence. But BESE must vote to give the LDOE this opportunity. Tell BESE that you will hold them accountable if they do not vote to send the standards to LDOE. Boffy’s and Ellis’ vote on January 18 will make the difference in this critical vote.
It is worth noting that we would not be in the situation we are in if our public institutions paid heed to Martin Luther King’s famous challenge to judge each other not by the “color of our skin” but by the “content of our character”.
We can and must return to this timeless truth for the good of our Country, our State, and our children. And the American education bureaucracy must either stop casting the US Constitution as the enemy or be ruthlessly exposed for its failure to do so.
The eyes of Louisiana citizens across the State are on BESE.
Christopher Alexander, Louisiana Citizen Advocacy Group www.lacag.org Paige Lowry, Louisiana Education Alliance
Project Veritas to Release Multi-Part Undercover Series Exposing the Secret Curriculum in the American Education System That is Indoctrinating Children
“Do you know what’s being taught to your kids?” Project Veritas asks in its promo for the new series.
Project Veritas on August 30 will begin to release its multi-part undercover series exposing the secret curriculum in the American education system that is indoctrinating your children.
Click here to sign up for email updates on this series.
WATCH:
🚨 ATTENTION PARENTS 🚨
Beginning AUGUST 30th, Project Veritas is set to release a MULTI-PART undercover series exposing The Secret Curriculum in the American Education System that is indoctrinating your children.https://t.co/vmKnd0n5Ntpic.twitter.com/AXWcrOW5A6
Parents who wonder how radical gender activism – pushing artificial identities such as “non-binary,” “pansexual” and “genderqueer” – entered the schools of their children should take a closer look at an organization that until recently was known as the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.
Rufo, senior fellow and director of the Initiative on Critical Race Theory at the Manhattan Institute, writes in the think tank’s City Journal that the GSA Network is a “professionally staffed nonprofit with a multimillion-dollar annual budget.
GSA’s rebranding in 2016, he said, reflected a new focus on “the limits of a binary gender system.” The individual GSA chapters, Rufo wrote, “use the language of ‘LGBTQ inclusion’ and ‘anti-bullying’ in their public relations, but behind the scenes, the central organization is driven by pure left-wing radicalism that extends far beyond sexuality.”
The group’s ideology “follows the basic framework of radical gender theory: white European men created an oppressive system based on capitalism, white supremacy, and ‘heteronormativity’ – that is, the promotion of heterosexuality, the male-female binary, and bourgeois family norms.”
To fight back, GSA contends, racial and sexual minorities must unite under the banner of “intersectionality” and dismantle the “systems of oppression.”
Significantly, Rufo pointed out, GSA urges adult leaders to prevent parents from finding out about their children’s involvement in the clubs.
On its website, GSA has a page titled 10 Steps for Starting a GSA that says that in addition to providing “support” to students, some local clubs “work on educating themselves and the broader school community about sexual orientation and gender identity issues.”
“They may bring in outside speakers to cover a particular topic such as LGBTQ+ history,” the site says. “They may organize a ‘Pride Week’ or ‘LGBTQ+ Awareness Events’ and offer a series of educational workshops, panels, or celebrations.”
Some GSAs organize a “Teach the Teachers” staff development day, the website states, “which focuses on teaching school staff how to be better allies for LGBTQ+ students.”
Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:
I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule [“do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Matthew 7:12]. 1
Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:
Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2
The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3
Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .
. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4
Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound of abolition” for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5
While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7
Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:
[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8
Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, “[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” 9
Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:
[N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 10 John Adams, Signer of the Declaration, one of only two signers of the Bill of Rights, U. S. President
But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue. 11 Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”
[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 12 Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration
As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].13 John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania
I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature. 14 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society
That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection. 15 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society
That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 16 John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court
The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 17 Thomas Jefferson
Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 18 Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress; Signer of the Declaration
I have seen it observed by a great writer that Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us, who profess the same religion practice its precepts, and by agreeing to this duty convince the world that we know and practice our truest interests, and that we pay a proper regard to the dictates of justice and humanity! 19 Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, Framer of the Bill of Rights
I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 20William Livingston, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of New Jersey
[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 21 Luther Martin, Delegate at Constitution Convention
As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 22 George Mason, Delegate at Constitutional Convention
Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 23 Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania
Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 24 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration
The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice. 25 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, Founder of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, President of the National Abolition Movement
Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 26 Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution
Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 27 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 28 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 29
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 30 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 31 Vermont in 1786; 32 New Hampshire in 1792; 33 New York in 1799; 34 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 35
Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 36 and signed into law by President George Washington, 37 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 38 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 39
The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address “To the People of Color,” he explained:
Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 40
While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:
While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 42 Walter Williams
Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 43
While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.
1. Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776.
2. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. III, p. 342, to the English Anti-Slavery Society in June 1788.
3. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. I, p. 34.
4. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
5. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.
6. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. I, p. 4.
7. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903),Vol. I, p. 28, from his autobiography. See also James Madison, The Papers of James Madison (Washington: Langtree and O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. III, p. 1395, August 22, 1787; James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, editor, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910), Vol. IX, p. 2, to Robert Walsh on November 27, 1819.
8. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1834), 1st Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1518, March 22, 1790. See also George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot, Patriot and Statesman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 182.
9. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
10. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1854) Vol. IX, p. 92, letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
11. Samuel Adams, An Oration Delivered at the State House, in Philadelphia, to a Very Numerous audience; on Thursday the 1st of August, 1776 (London: E. Johnson, 1776), pp. 4-6.
12. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper on April 23, 1820.
13. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson(Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1891), p. 324, to George Logan on January 30, 1804.
14. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. 5. p. 356, letter to Mr. Anthony Benezet on August 22, 1772.
15. Annals of Congress, Joseph Gales, Sr., editor (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834), Vol. 1, pp. 1239-1240, Memorial from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society from February 3, 1790 presented to Congress on February 12, 1790.
16. John Jay, The Life and Times of John Jay, William Jay, editor (New York: J. & S. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 174, to the Rev. Dr. Richard Price on September 27, 1785.
17. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia(Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, pp. 236-237.
18. Richard Henry Lee, Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee, Richard Henry Lee, editor (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, p. 19, the first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses of Virginia.
19. Richard H. Lee (Grandson), Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. 1, pp. 17-19, the first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses of Virginia.
20. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 358, to James Pemberton on October 20, 1788.
21. Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately Held at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Eleazor Oswald, 1788), p. 57. See alsoDebates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: 1836), Vol. I, p. 374.
22. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: 1836), Vol. III, pp. 452-454, George Mason, June 15, 1788.
23. William Armor, Lives of the Governors of Pennsylvania(Norwich, CT: T. H. Davis & Co., 1874), p. 223.
24. Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.
25. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 1, p. 371, to Richard Price on October 15, 1785.
26. Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48.
27. James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. II, p. 488, lecture on “The Natural Rights of Individuals.”
28. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 81, from “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture X on Politics.
29. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786.
30. A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Benjamin Edes and Sons, 1780), p. 7, Article I, “Declaration of Rights” and An Abridgement of the Laws of Pennsylvania, Collinson Read, editor, (Philadelphia: 1801), pp. 264-266, Act of March 1, 1780.
31. The Public Statue Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, pp. 623-625, Act passed in October 1777 and Rhode Island Session Laws (Providence: Wheeler, 1784), pp. 7-8, Act of February 27, 1784.
32. The Constitutions of the Sixteen States (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1797), p. 249, Vermont, 1786, Article I, “Declaration of Rights.”
33. Constitutions of the Sixteen State (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1797), p. 50, New Hampshire, 1792, Article I, “Bill of Rights.”
34. Laws of the State of New York, Passed at the Twenty-Second Session, Second Meeting of the Legislature (Albany: Loring Andrew, 1798), pp. 721-723, Act passed on March 29, 1799.
35. Laws of the State of New Jersey, Compiled and Published Under the Authority of the Legislature, Joseph Bloomfield, editor (Trenton: James J. Wilson, 1811), pp. 103-105, Act passed February 15, 1804.
36. Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894), Vol. I, pp. 288-289.
37. Acts Passed at a Congress of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1791), p. 104, August 7, 1789.
38. The Constitutions of the United States (Trenton: Moore and Lake, 1813), p. 366, “An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio,” Article VI.
39. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXVIII, pp. 407-408, to Robert Morris on April 12, 1786.
40. Richard Allen, The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Right Rev. Richard Allen (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), p. 73, from his “Address to the People of Color in the United States.”
41. Principles: A Quarterly Review for Teachers of History and Social Science (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute Spring/Summer, 1992), Thomas G. West, “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” p. 5.
42. Walter E. Williams, Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993, “Some Fathers Fought Slavery.”
43. Walter E. Williams, Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993, “Some Fathers Fought Slavery.”
Biracial father who’s running for NC State Assembly as Republican rails against CRT at school board meeting and says: ‘Anyone who tells my pecan-color skinned kids they’re oppressed would be absolutely wrong’
Brian Echevarria, who is running for North Carolina General Assembly, delivered viral speech at Cabarrus County School Board meeting
Dad-of-three, who described himself as ‘biracial’ and ‘multilingual,’ slammed Critical Race Theory as a ‘big fat lie’
‘And the person who tells my pecan-color kids that they’re oppressed, based on the color of their skin, would be absolutely wrong,’ he said
Critical Race Theory is part of a scholarly movement developed in the 1970s that focuses on the legacy of slavery, racism and discrimination
Critics of CRT contend it perpetuates the idea that all white people are inherently racist, and that all black people are oppressed victims
By SNEJANA FARBEROV FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
18 February 2022
A self-described biracial North Carolina father, who is running for a state office as a Republican, made headlines this week when he delivered a viral speech blasting the teaching of Critical Race Theory during a school board meeting.
Brian Echevarria, 44, a married father-of-three and a candidate for District 73 in the North Carolina General Assembly, appeared at a Cabarrus County School Board meeting on Monday to denounce CRT, which he called a ‘big fat lie’ and a ‘discrimination revolution.’
‘I’m biracial, I’m bilingual, I’m multicultural. The fact is, in America, in North Carolina, I can do anything I want and I teach that to my children,’ Echevarria said.
‘And the person who tells my pecan-color kids that they’re oppressed, based on the color of their skin, would be absolutely wrong and absolutely at war with me.’
North Carolina political candidate and dad-of-three Brian Echevarria delivered a viral speech at a Cabarrus County School Board meeting this week, in which he railed against Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory is part of a scholarly movement developed in the 1970s that focuses on the legacy of slavery, racism and discrimination in examining US history and modern society.
Critics of CRT contend that it perpetuates the divisive idea that all white people are inherently racist, and that all black people are oppressed victims.
Conservative state legislatures and school boards across the country have taken measures over the last two years to ban teachings related to CRT in classrooms.
In fact, the Cabarrus County School District, where Echevarria delivered his impassioned CPR-bashing speech this week, last year adopted a non-discrimination resolution, stating that the local school board is intent ‘to uphold the laws of the land and specifically encourage the Cabarrus County students to learn that all persons are created equally, that no race or sex is inherently superior to another and that no individual by virtue of his or her race or sex is inherently racist.’
In his address to the school board, Echevarria said that the CRT and mask debates have shown that ‘parents, the most powerful group in the country, [are] taking back the wheel.’
Echevarria argued that he and other parents do not want CRT taught in classrooms.
The dad-of-three (pictured above with his two sons), who described himself as ‘biracial’ and ‘multilingual,’ said he does not want anyone telling his children they are oppressed because of the color of their skin
Echevarria, pictured with his wife, said that in his experience, there are ‘hardly’ any racists to be found
Echevarria’s speech comes more than six months after the Cabarrus Board of Education adopted an anti-CRT set of rules
‘If you believe in CRT… I want to tell you, you’re a liar. it means you look at your black neighbor and say they’re oppressed and you look at your white neighbor and say they’re evil, regardless of the experience you’ve had with them,’ Echevarria said.
The parent, who also owns a business, said that in his experience, there are ‘hardly’ any racists to be found .
‘The racism is only happening at the government level and on the media,’ Echevarria added.
He concluded by taking an apparent swipe at transgender athletes, saying that he has an eight-year-old daughter and he does not want ‘a man swimming against her in the pool.’
Echevarria was seemingly referring to transgender University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, whose inclusion in a women’s team and frequent smashing of records has led some to question whether she has an advantage since she was born as a biological male.
Several states either have or are considering laws that would keep transgender girls and college-age women from playing in school sports leagues that match their gender identity.
‘This is what we’re talking about: policy going back to the parents,’ he said.
Pastor John Mark Burns is an American evangelical minister, televangelist, Republican, and political candidate running in 2022 to represent South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District and a strong Trump supporter.
Pastor Mark Burns is also a friend of President Trump.
Earlier this month, Mark Burns made headlines after calling President Trump “the Blackest president we have ever had in this nation,” during his interview with political influencers Diamond and Silk on Lindell TV.
MAGA pastor/GOP congressional candidate Mark Burns declares that "Trump is, without question, the blackest president that we have ever had in this nation." pic.twitter.com/kiT9LupFHf
On Friday, Pastor Burns spoke at the ReAwaken America event in Canton, Ohio, with Eric Trump, Mike Lindell, and Former Lt. General Michael Flynn.
“God is raising up armies. We are going to start having civil disobedience in America,” Burns said during his speech. “We are going to shut down this America led by racist, liberal, race-baiting Democrats,” he continued.
SC GOP congressional candidate Mark Burns today: “God is raising up armies. We are going to start having civil disobedience in America .. We are going to shut down this America led by racist, liberal, race-baiting Democrats.” pic.twitter.com/Wxq6klISyS
Last October, Burns suggested that fellow pro-Trump Pastor Greg Locke should run for political office. “We gotta recruit Greg Locke to run for federal office, I don’t know, we need him in office.”
Burns argued that the country needs “demon-killing machines” to run for office. Locke last August said that the only people who believe Biden actually won in 2020 “are crack-smoking, demon-possessed leftists.”
Flynn, who is an organizer of the ReAwaken events, previously endorsed Burns for Congress in December…
…Burns tweeted about his Friday remarks, tweeting, “The Glory of God came down so good today at Clay Clark & Gen. Michael Flynn’s ReAwaken America Tour that I had to take my jacket off in the middle of my speech.” The pro-Trump pastor shared photos of him standing in front of the audience.
18 school board groups cut ties with NSBA for likening parent protests to ‘domestic terrorism’
By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter| Thursday, December 09, 2021
Kimberly Fletcher, president of Moms for America, speaks at a protest outside the National School Boards Association headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, on Oct. 27, 2021. | Moms for America
The fallout over a letter from the National School Boards Association comparing parent protests and threats to domestic terrorism continues as 18 state affiliates have announced intentions to cut ties with the national education organization, according to a watchdog group.
The letter at issue, sent by NSBA leadership to President Joe Biden on Sept. 29, requested “federal assistance to stop threats and acts of violence against public schoolchildren, public school board members, and other public school district officials and educators.”
After expressing concern about the increased “acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials,” NSBA President Viola Garcia and Interim Executive Director and CEO Chip Slaven urged Biden to classify “these heinous actions” as “domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
In October, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland sent a memorandum directing the FBI to “convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders within 30 days” to “facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”
While the NSBA apologized for the letter three weeks after its publication and it has since taken it offline, outrage over the tone of the request still looms large.
In the weeks and months following the letter’s publication, the number of state school board associations that have either distanced themselves from the NSBA letter or withdrawn from the organization entirely continues to grow.
The advocacy group Parents Defending Education, which vehemently opposes the rhetoric of the NSBA letter, has compiled a list of actions taken by state school board associations in response to the letter.
In the past three weeks alone, state school board associations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Virginia have voted to withdraw from the NSBA.
The school board associations in these states join their counterparts in Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin in announcing their departure from the NSBA immediately or in the near future.
Additionally, several additional states have distanced themselves from the rhetoric in the NSBA letter without formally withdrawing from the national organization. Most notably, the Delaware School Boards Association, based in the president’s home state, issued a forceful response to an inquiry from Parents Defending Education.
“The DSBA disagrees, in the strongest possible terms, with parents and citizens protesting school board meetings being characterized as ‘domestic terrorists’ and their protests being likened to ‘hate crimes,” the organization said in a statement. “The DSBA firmly asserts that citizen and public engagement in school board meetings is an integral and vital aspect of school board governance. We also made it clear that any attempt to silence citizens’ voices is a clear violation of their rights to free speech.”
The DSBA also lamented that the NSBA did not consult with them before sending the letter, noting that had they done so, the state organization would “NOT have allowed the DSBA to be associated with the letter” and “would have asked that the language be changed to reflect the fact that the DSBA does not support the letter and should not be generally included in it.”
The NSBA letter stated that it was sent “on behalf of our state associations and more than 90,000 school board members who govern our country’s 14,000 local public school districts.”
Nine other state school board associations responded to Parents Defending Education, expressing some degree of disagreement with the rhetoric of the NSBA letter or stressing a belief in the ability of parents to speak out about their children’s education. Those states are Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Hawaii is not part of the NSBA. An email obtained via public records request revealed the head of the Rhode Island Association of School Committees telling his board that he thinks they should ignore the email from Parents Defending Education.
The remaining state school board associations did not respond to the inquiry from the advocacy group.
The NSBA letter followed a summer defined by intense protests at school board meetings in some localities nationwide as parents and community members had expressed outrage about policies allowing trans-identified students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity as opposed to their biological sex, the use of sexually explicit material in the curriculum and the incorporation critical race theory components into the curriculum.
Specific examples cited by the NSBA letter of “heinous actions” taken by parents speaking out at school board meetings include “anti-mask proponents [who] are inciting chaos during board meetings,” confrontation of school board members by “angry mobs” that have “forced meetings to end abruptly” and a resident of Alabama who describes himself as “vaccine police” calling school administrators “while filming himself on Facebook Live.”
Another occurrence cited as problematic in the letter was the mocking of a Tennessee student “during a board meeting for advocating masks in schools after testifying that his grandmother, who was an educator, died because of COVID-19.”
Five days after the NSBA letter’s publication, Garland wrote the memorandum directing federal law enforcement agencies to work with their counterparts at the local level to “facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats.” The move led to further criticism and a lawsuit.
Opposition to critical race theory and sexually explicit material in public schools played a significant part in last month’s off-year elections.
In last month’s election, candidates who campaigned in opposition to critical race theory performed well in school board races.
At the same time, Virginia’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe, who proclaimed in a debate with his Republican opponent, Glenn Youngkin, that “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” lost the election. A recent poll from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty found that 63% of Americans think parents should have the “final say” in what children are taught at school.
A whistleblowing middle school teacher says she faces a “culture of intimidation” after being forbidden to teach — despite a shortage in teachers — due to her exposing her school district’s “radicalized” critical race theory (CRT) curriculum, which is manifest “absolutely everywhere” throughout the school’s culture as well as its reading materials. She warned it was causing “great harm and racial divide and hostility between children” and that the country will soon be unrecognizable if it is not stopped.
Ramona Bessinger, a Providence, Rhode Island, veteran English teacher described in July how her school district’s “radicalized curriculum” actually “created racial tensions among students and staff where none existed before.”
Joining Steve Malzberg on his Eat the Press weekly commentary show this past week, she said the school’s previous curriculum had “lots of diversity [and] lots of multicultural materials” as opposed to the new “radicalized” one, which sees CRT implicit throughout.
“We’re not teaching critical race theory. It’s implicit in the culture. It is implicit in all the reading materials. It is implicit in all the projects that the kids are doing,” she said.
“It is causing great harm and racial divide and hostility between children and it really has to stop,” she added.
While Bessinger agreed there was no official session dedicated to CRT education — which allows the school to deny it is being taught — she noted that the situation is even more dire, with CRT permeating the entire curriculum.
“It’s in the plot narratives; it’s in the characterization; it’s in the imagery,” she said. “It’s in the art projects, the history class, the English classes.”
“It is in the language that we are told to use in our professional development,” she added. “It is absolutely everywhere.”
She also described the drastic “shift” taking place which sees an entire overhaul of the school’s education materials.
“Just to speak to the fact that our libraries are being dismantled and books are being moved into archaic basement rooms around the school or flat-out thrown out,” she said. “So there’s a whole shift taking place and we really need to pay attention to this.”
Bessinger, who describes herself as “wanted by the Department of Justice for teaching children how to read, write and think for themselves,” denied the notion that opposition to CRT being taught in schools implied one did not wish true history to be taught in the classroom.
“I’ve been teaching for 23 years now and … I’ve never ever seen anybody who is a teacher and kind and compassionate, teaching anything other than the entire truth — our entire diverse multicultural history,” she said, adding that the previous curriculum materials were “filled with all kinds of diverse materials.”
“So to suggest that we were not teaching a diverse curriculum is a lie, a flat out lie,” she added.
She also described her experience after having protested the new materials.
“It was sometime last January I noticed that the books and textbooks and materials were all like, I couldn’t recognize them,” she said. “I noticed also that huge chunks of our curriculum materials were removed, like the Holocaust for example — we were no longer teaching the Holocaust — so there was cause for alarm early on.”
“By the end of the school year I decided I had to write about this and tell the story because to erase our past, to eliminate our past — I could see a pattern occurring that somehow our culture and our history and our narrative as Americans was changing and that alarmed me and scared me,” she added.
People hold up signs during a rally against “critical race theory” (CRT) being taught in schools at the Loudoun County Government center in Leesburg, Virginia, on June 12, 2021. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
Following her return to school after writing about the issue, Bessinger described the “intimidation” and “bullying” she encountered as a result of speaking out:
When I returned back to school in September several of my colleagues were quite hostile towards me, not everyone — many people reached out to me in private in support — but you have to understand there’s a culture of intimidation, bullying and harassment if you dare speak out against this regime or against this network of educators coming from the federal government on down.
When the intimidation didn’t work, Bessinger claimed critics of hers “upped the ante” by involving school children in the matter.
“Once they turn children against you and kids start believing this narrative that you are somehow racist, then it’s over,” she said.
“And that was probably the moment in time when I wrote to my administration to say there’s a great deal of hostility occurring at my school,” she added, “and rather than mitigate the situation they moved me to another location and basically removed me from all my teaching duties.”
Bessinger then detailed the repercussions educators who speak out against CRT undergo.
“I’m being paid for not teaching while there’s a teaching shortage,” she said.
“And as an expert being a reading and writing teacher, I think it’s important that the taxpayers need to know that this is happening to anyone who goes against this regime or this whole sort of political agenda,” she added.
Stating her refusal to resign as a result, she described the importance of doing what’s right and letting the world know the truth of what’s occurring in schools.
“I’m going to stay and do what I feel is right for my own children, for the students, and ultimately for the country,” she said. “Because what is happening currently is wrong and it needs to be exposed and the world needs to know.”
Bessinger concluded by warning that the country would be unrecognizable if schools continue to change from within without any resistance.
“I’m going to fight this,” she said. “Yes, I’m not going to allow them to win.”
“Because if they do win … I don’t believe we’re going to recognize our country if this is allowed to take place because the culture is changing from within our schools and it’s changing rapidly.”
The battle over CRT in schools has resulted in nationwide tension in recent months.
People hold up signs during a rally against “critical race theory” (CRT) being taught in schools at the Loudoun County Government center in Leesburg, Virginia, on June 12, 2021. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
The theory, which is promoted by many on the left, claims that American institutions — the government, economy, and culture — are based on racial hierarchy and aim at maintaining the dominance of white people, and even that which appears race-neutral is, on closer inspection, rooted in racism.
As a result, it urges reform in virtually all of the country’s institutions.
The theory’s architects have argued that the U.S. was founded on theft of land and labor, with federal law maintaining the unequal treatment of citizens by their race.
CRT advocates have also expressed the belief that race is culturally invented, not biological.
Last week, Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, a CRT co-founder, called for youth to “understand the ground upon which we stand is ground that’s soaked in blood of theft,” while warning of the outcome if the “other side gets its way,” declaring “the road to authoritarianism will be paved through white supremacy.”
Earlier this month, a Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) educator and administrator in the largest school district in Indiana addressed parents in a video in which he asserted when school officials say they are not teaching CRT, “we’re lying.”
In June, a former Democrat congressional candidate called on Americans to listen to black parents who oppose CRT “indoctrination” in schools, while calling on black Americans to reject the Democrat Party’s race narrative and, instead, realize “that their skin color is not a barrier to their progress,” adding that Democrats use race to galvanize black electorate support though many black Americans actually “have conservative ideals.”
FBI whistleblower reveals agency created ‘threat tag’ to track alleged harassment of education officials
Republicans charge memo shows FBI crackdown on parents
By Jessica Chasmar | Fox News
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has created a “threat tag” to aid in tracking alleged threats against school board officials, teachers and staff, as part of its implementation of a controversial memo issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland last month citing a nationwide increase in harassment of education officials.
An Oct. 20 internal email from the FBI’s criminal and counterterrorism divisions, released Tuesday by House Republicans, instructed agents to apply the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS” to all investigations and assessments of threats directed specifically at education officials.
“The purpose of the threat tag is to help scope this threat on a national level, and provide an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective engagement with law enforcement partners at all levels,” the email stated.
The email also directs FBI agents to consider whether the criminal activity being investigated is in violation of federal law and what the potential “motivation” is behind it.
“Merrick Garland testified that the FBI wasn’t targeting parents,” Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, tweeted Tuesday afternoon. “We now know the FBI is ‘tagging’ parents they consider threatening. The Attorney General has some explaining to do.”
Merrick Garland testified that the FBI wasn’t targeting parents.
We now know the FBI is “tagging” parents they consider threatening.
“If this is accurate,parents are getting the domestic-terrorist treatment after all,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Ohio, tweeted.
The FBI released released two statements to Fox News on Tuesday saying it is committed to preserving the First Amendment, and that the creation of a threat tag “in no way changes the long-standing requirements for opening an investigation, nor does it represent a shift in how the FBI prioritizes threats.”
“The Attorney General’s memorandum simply underscores the FBI’s ongoing efforts to assist state, local, and federal partners to address threats of violence, regardless of the motivation,” it said. “The FBI has never been in the business of investigating parents who speak out or policing speech at school board meetings, and we are not going to start now.”
Garland’s Oct. 4 memo directed the FBI and U.S. attorney’s offices to investigate “threats of violence” at school board meetings in order to combat what the Department of Justice (DOJ) called a “disturbing trend” of harassment of school officials.
Republicans have warned that the directive is a pretext to silence parents across the country, though Garland insisted before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month that is not the case.
Critical Race Trove From California District Tells Students How To Use Witchcraft On People Who Say ‘All Lives Matter’
Critical race theory has been fully institutionalized at the California high school district that tried to reeducate me six years ago when I first pushed back.
By Spencer Lindquist DECEMBER 6, 2021
While documenting my former high school’s attempt to indoctrinate me with critical race theory six years ago, I remarked that now, several years later, “the situation has undoubtedly worsened.” Worsened it has. Now, Campbell Union High School District has promoted more than 100 “equity resources” to students and staff, including a document that taught students how to put a curse on those who say “all lives matter.”
One link takes you to an “Anti-Racism Resource List,” which teaches about “white fragility” and claims that racism can only be perpetrated by white people. One of the “resources” provided was a Trevor Noah speech labeled “Why rioting makes sense,” followed by an unhinged anti-white rant from Sonya Renee Taylor, demanding that white people “throw your white body” on police officers and “put their bodies on the line for the purpose of justice.”
The list also addresses white people when it says, “We are socialized into white supremacy from the moment we are born” before going on to say “It is about completely dismantling how you see yourself and how you see the world, so that you can dismantle … white supremacy.”
Samuel Martin graduated from CUHSD’s Branham High School in 2019 and was appalled by the district’s actions. He told The Federalist, “The idea that white students must ‘dismantle themselves’ in the context of their personality is cultish. Not only is it cultish, but it is deliberate in that this school system wants its’ white students to hate themselves. Do these people honestly think that drilling racial identitarianism into childrens’ heads from a young age is going to make them less racist?”
CUHSD also links to the Black Lives Matter Resource Guide, specifically their section labeled “high school,” which itself includes 45 different texts. Amid a wide variety of CRT inspired assignments is a document that includes writing prompts on police brutality and racist violence.
One section titled “Hex” tells the reader, “Hexing people is an important way to get out anger and frustration.” It becomes increasingly deranged, suggesting that those who say “all lives matter” or commit “microaggressions,” should be targeted. “Write your own hex poem, cursing that person,” it instructs.
When asked her thoughts on the document that instructed K-12 students to use witchcraft on political opponents, Branham teacher Meredith Allen told The Federalist she hasn’t read the documents her district recommends, so she “can’t comment,” but that she is generally “opposed to the ‘all lives matter’ message.”
Another section labeled “A World With No Police” cites police and military as “systems or institutions that … contribute to oppression.” It asks “What would the world be like without them?” before telling the reader to write a poem discussing “a world without these institutions.”
“The Black Radical Tradition,” is a 565-page e-book that includes articles from the Communist League and Noel Ignatiev under the pen name Noel Ignatin. Ignatiev was a Marxist who argued that “abolishing the white race is … so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Then there’s a slide show entitled “What is the Black Lives Matter Movement?” which is made for children and was produced in part by teachers at LAUSD. It includes a glossary of terms like “white supremacy,” the definition of which includes the line, “systems, like schools and jails, have white supremacy built into them because white people have had so much power for so long.”
The ADL’s linked document “George Floyd, Racism, and Law Enforcement” defines racism as “the … oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people,” a definition that reinforces the malicious lie that white people can’t be the victims of anti-white racism.
The district’s equity resources page is just the most visible result of a series of steps in support of CRT that started long ago. In fact, the district was a testing ground for CRT before it spread throughout the nation. The book “Research Studies on Educating for Diversity and Social Justice” was published in 2018 and describes the process. An entire chapter, written in part by my former teacher, is dedicated to discussing how CRT was used at my high school so it could be replicated.
The book noted the use of the theory, saying, “CRT is used here to centralize the discussion of race and racism at Branham High School.” It went on to describe an “equity advisory” class that I was placed in as a sophomore, where “Students learn about the different types of oppression along with the privilege it affords the oppressors.” The authors hoped their tactics would spread, writing, “the intent behind sharing the process Branham underwent is to provide a model that could be followed by other schools across the nation.”
The district’s Board of Trustees supports this agenda, recently offering unanimous support for a resolution resolving to “dismantle institutionalized racism in our society and our school district” and is “committed to … implicit bias training, Ethnic Studies, and resources that foster dialogue around the guiding principles of #BlackLivesMatter.”
Note the district’s adoption of the term “equity” rather than “equality.” Here’s superintendent Robert Bravo two hours and 39 minutes into a board meeting saying he believes “equity is about equity of outcomes.”
CUHSD even established an Anti-Racism Team, which is divided into eight Equity Teams that include teachers, principals, administrators, and even two students who must be “BIPOC.” That means white students are banned from the “Equity” Teams. They’re tasked with “challenging imbalances of power and privilege,” among other roles.
Michael Espinoza is a member of one such Equity Team and a teacher at Branham High School who won the district’s teacher of the year award. Here he is calling a Native American tribe the “rightful stewards of the lands our schools and district offices stand on” and telling teachers to recognize “the power of critical race theory and use it in our lesson plans.”
He also gave a speech to the class of 2021, where he levied leftwing complaints against America and quoted Huey Newton, imploring students to engage in revolution instead of “conforming to the machine that is the United States.” On his Instagram account, Espinoza celebrates mandates for ethnic studies classes and complains of living under “white supremacist, heteropatriarchal rule” in a plea to his “co-conspirators.”
If this is CUHSD’s model teacher, what does their model student look like? Espinoza’s students created a variety of leftwing posters in his ethnic literature class. One poster demanded “Dear White PPL: Start Listening, Stop Talking” and others that said “Wear UR F-cking Mask” and “Give us back our land.” Principal Lawton took down the posters amid outcry before caving in and apologizing to the leftwing agitators.
Co-Conspirators? Or A Conservative Counter Culture?
The full ramifications of our education system’s descent into leftwing radicalism is yet to be fully realized, although we can be certain that many of the students it doesn’t lose to homeschooling will be successfully transformed into “co-conspirators.” But as the rhetoric of revolution becomes standard for stodgy school administrators, its appeal to youth might wane.
Conversely, they run the risk of creating a small but clever cadre of conservative youth who understand from firsthand childhood experiences the consequences of toxic racial grievance politics. Don’t be surprised if the propagandizers who intend to give permanency to left-wing hegemony instead give rise to a nascent conservative political force that will uproot it.
Spencer Lindquist is an intern at the Federalist and a senior at Pepperdine University where he studies Political Science and Rhetoric and Leadership and serves as Pepperdine’s College Republicans President. You can follow him on Twitter @SpencerLndqst and reach him at LSpencerLindquist@gmail.com
Attorney General Merrick Garland labeled parents who were speaking out against Critical Race Theory “domestic terrorists” in a letter that was sent to the FBI.
The National School Board Association (NSBA) coordinated with the Biden White House weeks before AG Merrick Garland classified parents “domestic terrorists” in a letter to the FBI.
As previously reported, the NSBA begged Biden to use federal law enforcement agencies against parents and investigate them for “domestic terrorism and hate crime threats.” They shamelessly claim the situation is so dire that he should use the Patriot Act, among other “enforceable actions” against them.
Merrick Garland is targeting parents who dare speak out against Critical Race Theory (CRT) because his son-in-law makes millions off of selling the Marxist literature across the country.
Adam Lee and Bill Corbett, two former FBI agents, are now warning about the dangers of the memo.
According to Lee, “it is a scary prospect” that the capabilities of the PATRIOT Act were being turned on United States citizens.
High-ranking FBI alumni are sounding the alarm on a memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland highlighting a purportedly “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against schools and school officials, from parents. According to these former officials, the memo represents an unwelcome politicization of the bureau’s mission, and may portend further consequences down the line.
…
Adam Lee is a former special agent in charge of the FBI’s Richmond division and national executive for the FBI’s public-corruption and civil-rights programs. He oversaw the FBI’s involvement in the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 and even interviewed with former president Donald Trump to replace James Comey as director of the FBI.
Lee called the memo “pretty rare,” in an interview with National Review, noting that in his long tenure at the Bureau, he only saw a couple of items like it. Of even more concern to Lee was the fact that “the only way that [the memo] is hitting FBI jurisdiction at all is under the rubric of domestic terrorism.” According to Lee, the bureau’s domestic-terrorism program, which is held within its counterrorism division, includes resources and permission structures that he’d be concerned to see brought to bear against Americans.
“The counterterrorism division’s incredible capabilities were built to target foreign terrorist organizations under Title 50, which is all the PATRIOT Act enabling statutes. It is a juggernaut and has saved countless American lives,” explained Lee.
Corbett echoed the concerns of Lee and also added “It turns out that was sort of an empty, politically-loaded claim” and called it a “black eye” for Garland’s DOJ.
Senator Josh Hawley called for Garland to resign over the memo saying Garland “mobilized the FBI to intimidate parents.”
Tony Kinnett, the science administrator in the largest school district in Indiana, released a powerful video over the weekend on Critical Race Theory.
According to Kinnett, when educators tell you they are not teaching critical race theory in the classroom, they are lying.
Critical race theory is infused in all the classroom teachings. Race is used as an excuse when minority students fail. All problems are blamed on the white male and capitalism. And teachers are using content from critical race theory authors in all of the disciplines from science to art.
This was a powerful video. Kinnett was on the Tucker Carlson show last night.
"Anti-Racism" Definition pulled from our BLM & 1619 Project resolutions:
Yes, we told principals at the beginning of the year to lie to parents and tell them we weren't using CRT in schools. Yes, we continue to lie. pic.twitter.com/A9Qo5D77Pp
‘Massive political loss for the liars and ideologues’ trying ‘to blind the public’
By Art Moore November 3, 2021
Glenn Youngkin addresses supporters in Chantilly, Virginia, upon winning the Virginia governor’s race, Nov. 3, 2021. (Video screenshot)
Political neophyte Glenn Youngkin’s improbable, come-from-behind victory over Clinton acolyte and former governor Terry McAuliffe in Virginia Tuesday night is a “political sea change,” contends the man most responsible for elevating the issue of Critical Race Theory curricula in public schools.
Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute helped President Trump formulate an executive order banning teaching federal employees the neo-Marxist philosphy that white people and America are irredeemably racist.
With concerned parents across the nation raising the issue before school boards, Youngkin “made fighting against Critical Race Theory and the systematic state-sanctioned abuse of Virginia school kids the centerpiece and the closing argument of his campaign.”
In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night, Rufo said Youngkin’s win “showed that the lies from MSNBC, from the Washington Post and from the New York Times could not hide the simple truth that a strong majority of Virginia voters, including Republicans, independents and Democrats, reject the toxic politics of critical race theory and want to restore merit-based education oriented towards excellence.”
He called it a “massive political loss for the liars and ideologues” in media and politics “who have attempted to blind the public, to what’s happening within American institutions.”
He hopes now to “take this model of victory,” “replicate it in all 14,000 school districts” nationwide and “take back the institutions from the corrupt ideologues and bureaucrats that have had them for too long.”
McAuliffe insisted CRT was not being taught in Virginia schools and he dismissed the concern about CRT as a racist “dog whistle” by a candidate trying to win over “white supremacist” supporters of Donald Trump.
The movement, however, not only crossed party lines, it drew parents of all races, who also happened to push over the top minority candidates. They included Jamaican immigrant Winsome Sears for lieutenant governor and Jason Miyares, the son of a Cuban immigrant, for attorney general, who called himself the first Latino elected statewide.
“In case you haven’t noticed, I am black, and I have been black all my life,” Sears said in her acceptance speech, before vowing that children in Virginia, under the new administration, “are going to get a good education.”
Hey @JoyAnnReid, I heard your shameful comments. I’ll be patiently waiting for an invite to come on to your show to respond. Be well! 👍🏾 pic.twitter.com/KgzTDsm9Kg
A key figure in the school-board fight was a Muslim immigrant from India, Asra Nomani. A lifelong Democrat who voted for Biden, she formed a grass-roots activist group called Parents Defending Education.
“What the parents of Virginia have done is send a clear message to every single person who has treated us like dirt,” she said in a live Fox News interview from Youngkin’s headquarters Tuesday night.
“We are mama bears and papa bears, and we have said loud and clear, ‘Get your hands off of our cubs. You are going to lose more races if you continue to treat us like dirt,” she told Laura Ingraham.
The moment @GlennYoungkin clasps his hands in gratitude to you: mama bears—and papa bears. “Way to go mama bears!” he says. “You guys were awesome.” Then he recognizes a teen who had introduced him when he met @coalitionforTJ parents. We do this for America’s cubs 🐻 We see you. pic.twitter.com/melhkjiQ73
Reflecting the panic of the left Tuesday night, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace repeated McAuliffe’s claim about CRT.
“I think the real ominous thing is that Critical Race Theory, which isn’t real, turned the suburbs 15 points to the Trump insurrection-endorsed Republican. What can Democrats do about that?”
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) November 3, 2021
Similarly, CNN contributor Ana Navarro-Cárdenas tweeted that “Critical Race Theory is not a real thing taught in K-12.”
“But Republicans effectively used it (to) scare and outrage parents and turn out the vote,” she said. “January 6th IS a real thing — an act of domestic terrorism threatening our democracy, but Republicans want to pretend it didn’t happen.”
However, the term itself shows up in communications from the Virginia Department of Education as a concept worthy of promotion. And two school districts in Northern Virginia hired the consulting firm Panorama, which specializes in Critical Race Theory training programs. More significantly, CRT’s basic premises have been widely promoted in schools across the nation in the wake of the death of George Floyd in May 2020.
In a Feb. 22, 2019, memo to school superintendents, Virginia’s superintendent of public instruction, Ed Lane, provided a reading list that included “Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education” and books contending white people are inherently racist and America has a white supremacist foundation that must be torn down.
In his 2019 memo, the state superintendent, Lane, explained he had “received several inquiries and requests for the latest literature that examines the issues associated with racial inequities in education.” The list contained books that he “and other members of the VDOE staff are reading this month based on recommendations that we have received.”
His description of “Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education” in the memo said the “emergence of Critical Race Theory (CRT) marked an important point in the history of racial politics in the legal academy and the broader conversation about race and racism in the United States.”
“More recently, CRT has proven an important analytic tool in the field of education, offering critical perspectives on race, and the causes, consequences and manifestations of race, racism, inequity, and the dynamics of power and privilege in schooling.”
Lane’s description said “this landmark publication not only documents the progress to date of the CRT movement, it acts to further spur developments in education.”
Other books Lane recommended include “White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo, and “Between the World and Me,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
DiAngelo, who is white, offers no serious solutions, essentially posing the paradox of contending the onus is on whites to fix America’s racial problems while insisting whites are irredeemably racist.
Among her many black critics, points out New York Post columnist Maureen Callahan, is Columbia professor John McWhorter, who wrote in an article in The Atlantic stating DiAngelo “openly infantilized black people” in her book. He said on NPR that DiAngelo, who has become wealthy lecturing on her theories, offers an “Orwellian indoctrination program” that “is racist.”
“If you write a book that teaches that black people’s feelings must be stepped around to an exquisitely sensitive degree that hasn’t been required of any other human beings, you’re condescending to black people,” McWhorter said. “In supposing that black people have no resilience, you are saying that black people are unusually weak. You’re saying that we are lesser … that’s discriminatory.”
Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada, who hails from Peru, said “White Fragility” is a “self-serving” book that present “circular logic … nothing ever changes, because change would violate its premise.”
Meanwhile, the Virginia education official’s memo said, Ta-Nehisi Coates “offers a powerful new framework for understanding our nation’s history and current crisis.”
The description of Coates’ book “Between the World and Me” in Lane’s memo states: “Americans have built an empire on the idea of ‘race,’ a falsehood that damages us all but falls most heavily on the bodies of black women and men — bodies exploited through slavery and segregation, and, today, threatened, locked up, and murdered out of all proportion.”
Coates contends racial progress is a lie, rejecting “the common theory that emancipation and civil rights were redemptive” and any notion that past debts have been paid.
Whites can never escape their whiteness, and retribution rather than reconciliation is the only answer, he asserts. He writes that the “(American) Dream of acting white, of talking white, of being white … murders black people in Chicago with frightening regularity.”
At the conclusion of an article in The Atlantic titled “Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War?,” Coates expresses impatience with a passive approach to change.
“White Americans finding easy comfort in nonviolence and the radical love of the civil rights movement must reckon with the unsettling fact that black people in this country achieved the rudiments of their freedom through the killing of whites.”
Two school districts in Northern Virginia, in suburban Washington, hired the consulting firm Panorama, which specializes in Critical Race Theory training programs.
Partnering with Black Lives Matter In July, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, the National Education Association, pledged to educate members in all 50 states who “want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.”
The NEA’s plan will provide a “study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.”
The New York Times “1619 Project,” which is being implemented in public schools, contends that America was founded on slavery and is irredeemably racist.
In April, the U.S. Department of Education proposed a new regulation under American History and Civics Education programs that would give preference to grant applications for curricula that incorporate the 1619 Project and the ideas of radical “antiracist” scholars such as Ibram X. Kendi.
The NEA also wants to partner with Black Lives Matter to create special education materials based on Critical Race Theory. And it urges the implementation of new special days in the school calendar, including a celebration of George Floyd’s birthday on Oct. 14. The union envisions it as “a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression.”
The head of another major teachers union, Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, has vowed to defend educators who implement CRT in classrooms.
“Mark my words: Our union will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history. Teaching the truth is not radical or wrong. Distorting history and threatening educators for teaching the truth is what is truly radical and wrong,” said Randi Weingarten in a virtual speech to the AFT.
Weingarten made a campaign appearance with McAuliffe on Monday night, the final night of the campaign.
Democrats need to ‘find a way to talk about it’ During MSNBC’s election coverage Tuesday night, a contributor who lives in Virginia noted a significant swing in the vote of suburban mothers with children in schools.
In 2020, Trump received 49% of the vote of white women voters while Youngkin got 57%.
“Democrats are going to have to find a way in the post-George Floyd world, and as there is more wokeness on American campuses and in schools — Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk about it, rather than just saying it doesn’t exist and it’s not a problem,” she said.
“Because it’s a problem that hurt them last night, so they have to find a way.”
A month ago, a neighbor of hers who had a Biden sign switched to a Youngkin sign.
“That was the moment I knew things were changing.”
Exclusive: Mychal Massie rips ‘the tyranny of government terrorists’ the founders hoped to prevent
Oct 25, 2021
My reasons for holding the neo-Leninists in the unapologetic contempt that I do are simple. They are godless apostates and Satan’s minions. The Word of God is unambiguous: Those who truly love the Lord hate evil. (See also: Proverbs 8:13 and Psalm 26:5)
My contempt is for what they’re doing to the emotionally vulnerable and fragile, in exploiting their mental illnesses by demonic cozenage not witnessed heretofore in America. That brings me to their assault on America and their villainous transmogrification of the federal government into a weapon of subjugation against which our Founding Fathers believed they had indemnified We the People.
The framers chose Federalism as our form of government because they understood experientially that government power inevitably posed a death threat to the liberty of individuals. They understood that power of the government and its ability to exercise same had to be restrained.
Specific to the reasons for this restraint, the founders constructed the Constitution as they did to avoid tyranny and allow for the full participation in politics. It was also constructed as it is to allow states to exercise the greater authority over that which is of primary importance and interest to the citizens of each individual state.
The Declaration of Independence, which set forth the unlimited boundaries of God-given unalienable rights under Natural Law, is “Man’s” guarantor of our God-given individual rights and freedoms.
But, demonic hordes who were for most of America’s history the minority, and I argue still are, used situations they created to prostitute the idea that governmental authority needed to be expanded to resolve whatever the supposed ill. Even though the founders had separated the bodies of government as a precaution to limit government and restrain power, they underestimated the wickedness in the hearts of men that would give rise to a corrupt two-party system.
This has been their goal from the inception of political parties, i.e., one would rise to the top and “public servants” would institute the interests of their masters. And, as we have witnessed, their masters aren’t interested in the needs, wants, goals, etc. of We the People. They’re interested in self-perpetuation.
Through the mysterious, and I contend miraculous, finding of penumbras of emanation by Justice William Douglas, came the mythical “right to privacy” that had eluded legal scholars for 176 years of constitutional history prior.
Thus, killing children on demand without protections for unborn life became a right. The lives of dogs and other animals, however, are protected.
The very forms of tyranny our Founding Fathers sought to protect the populace from, neo-Leninists and their feckless, butt-kissing country-club opposition wing inappropriately now referenced as “Republican” ensure is not only the law of the land, but states are denied their right to institute the will of the people within the state to curtail or end child-killing. Well spoke Desmond S. Caulfield: “… description of abortion as a ‘fundamental right’ [“Abortion: A Right Not Subject to a Vote,” op-ed, Dec. 9] is not supported by an examination of the provenance of the easy access to abortion now available in the United States. To the contrary, the facts reveal this ‘right’ to be little more than an intellectually clumsy contrivance of the Supreme Court and an astonishing display of judicial arrogance.”
The real domestic terrorists aren’t parents who oppose the damnable heterodoxy and lies of Critical Race Theory, a fallacious construct more mythical than the Alex Haley’s fantasy titled “Roots.” It’s the tyranny of government terrorists who brought about the mythical lie from hell called “Separation of Church and State.” As I have said, if it’s possible, Thomas Jefferson probably rues the day he penned an innocent response to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.
The very tyranny the framers sought to protect us from is now being codified not by law but by edicts, subjugation and where beneficial to evil politicians through a macramé of unconstitutional creations that corrupt courts uphold.
We are now expected to surrender our God-given unalienable rights under Natural Law, simply because a demented fool in diapers who is unable to form coherent sentences demands it?
I’ve repeat my position: The ability to slow the transmogrification of our once great nation into a footnote in the rapidly approaching one-world globalist construct where citizenry are lorded over by Fabianistic, Neo-Leninist Mensheviks who are the equivalent of toxic pathogens intent upon subjugating the minds and behavior of our populace, lies with We the People who are willing to dedicate ourselves to the will and work of our Lord. What I have just laid bare will never be slowed, much less halted by wasting energy on reelecting failed politicians or more of the same to take their place.
The idea of fair elections as we once knew them is no more. The government and those who are controlling same have successfully discovered how to steal elections with impunity. Christendom has the only answer if we are willing to “come out from amongst them, be separate” and invest our energy implementing Matthew 28:18-20.
Exclusive: Mychal Massie tells of in-line debate over the cost of illegal aliens flowing into U.S.
Published November 1, 2021
Liberals and fools, while not known for being cultured, are known for their elitist self-ascribed superiority. They believe themselves to be superior, none more embracing of said reasoning than half-wit, dead-from-the-neck-up meatheads with a college degree. And they excel at revising factual history.
Such was a man who had nothing better to do than stick his nose into my business at the post office Friday past.
The attendant at the counter and I were talking about the enormous cost of postage – $21.75 for first-class mail for one book to Canada juxtaposed to a media rate of $3.19 within the U.S. The know-it-all who had been holding court on a number of different issues while waiting in line behind me took it upon himself to inform me how the mail system worked.
It was an error in ludicando, i.e., error in judgment, he would quickly come to regret. At first I was willing to ignore his intrusion, but then his blue-eyed-liberal, I’m-smarter-than-anyone-else-in-the-room attitude crossed the line. Annoyed, I quipped sardonically that it was easier for illegal aliens to get into America than it was for me to send a book into Canada legally. He took the bait, and the game was afoot, which brings me to the point of this column.
Mr. Smart-guy snapped that “12,000 illegals were sitting under a bridge in Texas, and it was their right to come here.” I elected to ignore the size of the bridge required to give shelter to 12K illegals, choosing instead to say the illegals should head back to whatever country they were coming from.
The poor guy lost it completely, launching into a stuttering screed, telling me illegals had a right to be here because they pick fruit and vegetables, and who would pick the fruit I eat if not for them? When I told him my wife had picked apples and worked in an apple orchard during the summer to help pay for her college expenses he was unfazed. He skipped all discussion of the legal entry into our country through Ellis Island and made the specious liberal claim that America was built by immigrants. Lefty obviously overlooked the fact that the slaves his kind so gratuitously love to showcase as victims of cruel white imperialists might disagree. He also ignored the fact that it was legal immigrants who built America.
He claimed the illegals on our southern border were from war-torn countries – another liberal lie. Exactly what war-torn countries are there along our southern border? I silenced him when I said: “So let me get this right. According to you and your kind, it’s OK to break the law, as long as in your mind you have a good reason.” He had no further response.
Liberals want us to embrace their pathology of anti-Americanism and disdain for the sovereignty of this nation by allowing our borders and our infrastructure to be plundered and looted by illegal marauders.
The cost of illegals to the American economy is astronomical. These aren’t workers coming to work in seasonal employment. They’re not immigrants interested in becoming American citizens. They’re the equivalent of locusts.
Liberals want us to believe they’re contributing to our nation when in fact they’re destroying our economy. I personally observe the lines of people at a Western Union outlet sending money out of the country, at a grocery store owned and operated by a family from Honduras that came here legally.
For every illegal hired, money is being taken out of the economy of that domestic American community. The amount of remittances, i.e., money sent from illegals in America back to just three Central American countries, was more than $120 billion in the last decade. In 2018 over $17 billion was remitted by illegals back to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador alone. In 2019 more than $150 billion was remitted to foreign countries. In 2017, remittances flowing out of the United States to foreign countries totaled more than $445 billion.
Hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars flow out of the United States annually from illegals participating in illicit criminal activities, not least of which are drugs, human trafficking and automobile-theft rings.
All of this is taking place while illegals are taking full advantage of America’s welfare schemes and public school system. Add to the loss of money from our economy the infrastructure costs, e.g., fire, police, hospitals, etc., and the cost of allowing illegals carte blanche into our country is ultimately unsustainable.
This brings me to another reason I find liberals such an affront. They’re the usurpers, liars and thieves, who ignore the incomparable penalties for people who enter foreign countries illegally. Even those who apply and receive legal status in South American countries, including Mexico, do not enjoy the same privileges as those born in said countries.
But America is expected to open its arms and watch looters bankrupt our businesses and services.
Grab some popcorn because the NSBA just threw AG Merrick Garland under the bus.
The National School Board Association on Friday announced “we regret and apologize for the letter” to the Biden Administration characterizing concerned parents as potentially domestic terrorists.
This letter comes just one day after the Washington Free Beacon obtained emails revealing the Biden Regime was coordinating with the NSBA in the weeks leading up to the memo attacking parents.
“On behalf of the NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter. To be clear, the safety of school board members, other public school officials and educators, and students is our top priority, and there remains important work to be done on this issue. However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter,” the NSBA wrote.
“We deeply value…the voices of parents, who should and must continue to be heard when it comes to decisions about their children’s education, health and safety.”
Breaking: In the wake of yesterday's @FreeBeacon report, National School Board Association announces "we regret and apologize for the letter" to Biden admin characterizing concerned parents as potentially domestic terrorists pic.twitter.com/3RBufvWqAN
The National School Board Association (NSBA) coordinated with the Biden White House weeks before AG Merrick Garland classified parents “domestic terrorists” in a letter to the FBI.
As previously reported, the NSBA begged Biden to use federal law enforcement agencies against parents and investigate them for “domestic terrorism and hate crime threats.” They shamelessly claim the situation is so dire that he should use the Patriot Act, among other “enforceable actions” against them.
Merrick Garland is targeting parents who dare speak out against Critical Race Theory (CRT) because his son-in-law makes millions off of selling the Marxist literature across the country.
Garland’s son-in-law’s company, Panorama, provides its CRT-related platform to over 1,500 school districts, 23,000 schools, and 13 million students. No wonder he wanted to stop parents from criticizing CRT being pushed in US schools.
The Biden Regime wanted to crush the growing movement of angry parents rising up all over the country so they coordinated with left-wing activists at the NSBA to label parents “domestic terrorists.”
Pressure from parents and conservative media forced the NSBA to apologize and make policy changes.
Garland is set to testify before the senate judiciary committee next week (October 27) so it will be interesting to see what he says when confronted with this apology letter from the NSBA.
BUSTED: Email Sent by Loudoun County Superintendent Shows School Board KNEW About Sexual Assault by a Transgender Student The Day it Happened
By Julian Conradson October 23, 2021
Scott Ziegler – Loudoun County Schools Superintendent
Despicable does not even begin to describe the insidious negligence that was committed by Loudoun County Schools.
A newly uncovered email that was sent by the county’s superintendent – Scott Ziegler – proves that the Loudoun County Public School Board WAS informed of the alleged rape of a student that took place in a high school bathroom on May 28th, 2021, but chose to bury the information instead of taking appropriate measures.
The email, which was uncovered by WTOP-TV, clearly notified the entire school board that an incident was being investigated by the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office because a female student had filed a report with them which alleged that she was sexually assaulted in a school restroom by a male student.
Good Afternoon, Board Members, The purpose of this email is to provide you with information regarding an incident that occurred at Stone Bridge HS. This afternoon a female student alleged that a male student sexually assaulted her in the restroom.
The LCSO [Sheriff’s Office] is investigating the matter. Secondary to the assault investigation, the female student’s parent responded to the school and caused a disruption by using threatening and profane language that was overheard by staff and students. Additional law enforcement units responded to the school to assist with the parent. The school’s counseling team is providing services for students who witnessed the parent’s behavior. The alleged victim is being tended to by LCSO.
The email clearly demonstrates that the board was indeed aware of the alleged bathroom assault when they held a June 22 school board meeting. In that meeting, Ziegler brazenly misled the public, saying there was NO RECORD OF ANY sexual assaults in a school bathroom.
The public board meeting was held to discuss a proposed policy that would allow transgender students to use whichever bathroom they want. Parents, like the victim’s father (Scott Smith) – had vehemently voiced their concerns over letting boys who identify as girls use the girls’ restrooms because allowing such a thing would endanger the safety of their children.
In response to the outraged parents, superintendent Scott Ziegler claimed the outrage over new transgender policies was “unreasonable” because the school district had “no record of a sexual assault ever taking place in a school bathroom.”
“The predator transgender student or person simply does not exist,” Ziegler said at the meeting. “We don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”
Just a short while later – after the meeting had been deemed an “unlawful assembly” – the board voted to approve new transgender policies that would go into effect for this coming school year. Now every school in the district has genderless bathrooms, which was what allowed this horrific (and preventable) incident to occur in the first place.
They rammed through the new policy despite the brutal incident having occurred just 3 weeks prior. The male ‘transgender’ offender was reportedly wearing a dress when he raped the unnamed 14-year-old girl in the lady’s bathroom at Stone Bridge High School.
According to an attorney for the girl’s father, the male ‘transgender’ student has been charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio related to the incident. Law enforcement investigators conducted 2 separate rape kits that confirmed the incident.
The male student who committed the brutal assault was not punished – administrators just moved him to another school in the area, where he was allowed to assault another teenage girl a short while later.
Not only did they cover up the crimes, claiming they never happened, the school board also pressed charges against the victim’s father when he tried to speak up at the July board meeting.
Last week, after the lid had been blown off of their cover-up, Ziegler scrambled in a pathetic attempt to cover himself and apologized for his “misleading” remarks, shamelessly claiming that he thought the question was only in reference to assaults against transgender students.
“First, let me say to the families and students involved, my heart aches for you, and I am sorry that we failed to provide the safe, welcoming and affirming environment that we aspire to provide. We acknowledge and share your pain and we will continue to offer you support to help your families through this trauma.”
The victim’s family now plans to file a civil lawsuit against the school, as they should! Bill Stanley, one of the attorneys representing the family, explained in a statement that the superintendent’s apology is just more proof that the school administration “failed to provide the safe environment” for the students.
From Stanley’s statement:
“As evidenced by subsequent events and revelations, Loudoun Public Schools have been failing the parents who entrusted them to provide a safe environment for their children every day. That trust has irrevocably broken by Loudoun County Public Schools’ actions and inactions.”
The activist educators on Loudon County’s Board should be held criminally responsible for their negligence and compliance in covering up this vicious attack.
Sen. Josh Hawley Calls on AG Merrick Garland to Resign After Mobilizing FBI Against Parents Without Legal Basis and Premised on Complete Lies
By Jim Hoft October 24, 2021
Republican lawmakers grilled Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday.
Garland, who was unimpressive and a terrible witness, dim and clumsy, had no answers to their many questions on the dire state of the Department of In-Justice and this corrupt regime.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan questioned Garland on his move to mobilize the FBI against American parents at school board meetings.
Garland based his policy move not on facts, but on a letter from the National School Board Association. There was NO UPTICK in violence. There was only parents voicing their concerns on what filth and garbage was being taught to their children.
During questioning Merrick Garland admitted he did not have any proof of violence only a letter from the far left group that pushed him to use the FBI to target American parents of school children. Joseph Stalin would be proud.
Following Garland’s atrocious national appearance on Thursday the National School Board Association apologized for calling parents “domestic terrorists” for questioning board members on their filthy agenda.
Senator Josh Hawley called on AG Garland to resign following this atrocious assault on American parents based on a complete lie.
Merrick Garland mobilized the FBI to intimidate parents without legal basis and, we now know, premised on misinformation he didn’t bother to verify. It was a dangerous abuse of authority that has badly compromised the Justice Dept’s integrity and Garland’s. He should resign. https://t.co/MXKN5j0L5g
Former Trump White House advisor Stephen Miller called for an investigation.
America First Legal earlier demanded an IG investigation into Garland’s Oct 4th Memo targeting anti-CRT parents: https://t.co/N4KhLwYbpF The Nat’l School Board Association’s statement of “regret and apology” adds profound new urgency to the need for an independent investigation. https://t.co/ii98qEZitm
The ‘Consultant Report Card’ details findings reviewed by Parents Defending Education (PDE)
FIRST ON FOX: An anti-critical race theory (CRT) group is providing parents with tools to track equity consultants, warning that families face a formidable and well-funded opponent in the “woke industrial complex.”
Launched this week, the “Consultant Report Card” details findings from thousands of pages of public records requests that were reviewed by Parents Defending Education (PDE).
So far, PDE has uncovered $19,575,169.45 worth of contracts with 249 documented in 29 states and 95 districts. The “report” card offers an initial look at the connections and business interests behind one of the nation’s most hot-button issues. The organization identified 122 consultants and contractors across the country. It notes that despite the seemingly large numbers, their chest of information is just a “drop in the bucket.”
Parents and teachers have long complained about getting blindsided by top-down “equity” pushes that utilize obscure theory and external consultants. The “Consultant Report Card” offers a searchable database with suggested keywords and case studies of purportedly “woke” influences.
“We’ve learned that parents and students face a well-oiled and well-financed juggernaut that could be called the ‘woke-ed machine,’” reads a statement from PDE.
“With stealth operations and no parental input this machine is turning our schools into factories of ideological conformity, using race, gender and sexuality as a cudgel to divide, shame and confuse our children. Behind this are powerful ideological forces–partisan nonprofits; school educrats, activist teachers, superintendents and school boards; ‘progressive’ politicians and regulators at the state and federal level–whose goal is to enshrine their indoctrination by insinuating the doctrine into not just school curricula but local, state and federal regulations and policies.”
The issue has captured national headlines for months as school board meetings exploded with frustration from parents. It became even more prominent when PDE reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s son-in-law co-founded one of the top education consultancies, Panorama Education. Many noted the potential conflict of interest for Garland, whose department is investigating efforts to challenge left-leaning ideas like those promoted by Panorama.
Garland has maintained that he’s not interested in infringing on First Amendment rights, but has raised concerns by using vague language like “intimidation” to describe the probe’s target. The nationwide investigation will presumably impact school districts that work or have worked with Panorama.
The company has boasted about its large footprint, stating that it’s provided services to 1,500 school systems. PDE’s list of top 10 contractors also shows Panorama receiving the most money ($5,200,684.50), followed by the National Equity Project ($2,879,655) and the Pacific Educational Group ($1,971,673.45). A previous report similarly showed that Panorama had garnered $27 million in contracts between 2017 and 2020.
The new database comes just as Garland appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, where he declined to answer questions about the apparent conflict of interest. Garland was asked if he was aware of the federal regulations related to upholding the impartiality of executive branch employees.
“I am very familiar with it,” Garland responded. “And I want to be clear once again that there is nothing in this memorandum which has any effect on the kinds of curriculums that are taught or the ability of parents to complain.”
‘Whatever you call it, it’s big money.’
PDE, partly led by former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani, has been at the forefront of digging for information on so-called “woke” influences seeping into school curricula and teacher trainings across the U.S.
Those included things like teachings on systemic racism, warnings about micro-aggressions and exercises finding privilege or oppression within one’s identity. Perhaps the most cited example is a math teaching guide, which suggested White supremacy. Cited in both Oregon and California, the program was supported by a $1 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has also donated millions to controversial author Ibram Kendi, whose books are often found in so-called “equity” programs.
PDE’s statement added that “[s]ome people call the network we have documented the ‘Woke-Industrial Complex.’ Others call it the ‘diversity industrial complex.’ Whatever you call it, it’s big money.”
Nomani has raised concern about another tech giant, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) contributed to a $16 million investment to Panorama’s efforts expanding social-emotional learning. With the help of CZI, a slew of equity and capital firms have bolstered Panorama’s bank account. In September, the company announced a $60 million investment from General Atlantic, Owl Ventures, Tao Capital Partners, Uncork Capital and Emerson Collective.
Another concern about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, raised by Nomani, is that the company recently attracted scrutiny for allegedly knowing about, but not acting to prevent the adverse effects of its algorithms. Facebook similarly encountered criticism in 2012 when news surfaced that it manipulated news feeds to observe if “exposure to emotions led people to change their own posting behaviours,” according to BBC.
It’s worth noting that CZI and Facebook are separate entities. Facebook previously referred Fox News to CZI, which did not respond to a request for comment earlier this month.
Ideas like CRT have also received backing from school administrators, teachers, academics and pundits on the left. Proponents generally argue that CRT and related ideas help uncover systemic biases that hurt minorities.
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, an expert on CRT at Boston University School of Law, told the Boston Globe that critical race theory helped people understand the complexity of race — beyond “simple” narratives that they may have been taught.
“Racism is not extraordinary,” she continued. “Race and racism are basically baked into everything we do in our society. It’s embedded in our institutions. It’s embedded in our minds and hearts.”
While some parents have publicly voiced support for equity materials, many worry about the impact they’ll have on still-developing minds at the elementary and secondary school level. More specifically, “Social and emotional learning” (SEL) and “culturally responsive” training have become seemingly innocuous buzzwords in education, but critics have worried that they serve as conduits for left-wing ideas about race and identity.
PDE has sounded the alarm about Panorama’s SEL monitoring in her home county. As Fox News previously noted, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) contracted with Panorama to conduct a SEL screener for children in the district.
It’s unclear how exactly the data will be utilized, but various statements from the school district indicate that it could raise privacy concerns.
For example a portion of FCPS’ request for proposal (RFP) claimed “schools operate as the de facto mental health provider in communities throughout the U.S. As a result, it is essential that school staff are able to appropriately and proactively identify social-emotional barriers to students’ ability to access the academic curriculum.” According to FCPS, the data is primarily intended for “[s]chool administrators, school psychologists, school social workers, and school counselors.”
Additional language in the contract’s request for proposal identifies the would-be contractor as “school officials of the School Board” for the “purposes of receiving access to FCPS Confidential Student Records.”
Fox Business’ Jessica Chasmar contributed to this report.
Garland sued for targeting parents’ free speech rights
‘There is no question that the purpose of the attorney general’s recent pronouncement is to silence dissenting opinions’
By Bob Unruh October 22, 2021
(Pixabay image)
A federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed against Attorney General Merrick Garland for his recently announced policy that “effectively” criminalizes public criticism of local school boards by parents.
He’s accused of violating the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The action was brought by the American Freedom Law Center in U.S. District Court in Washington on behalf of a group of parents from Saline, Michigan, and Loudoun County, Virginia.
AFLC Senior Counsel Robert Muise said, “The government is without authority to criminalize First Amendment activity that might cause another to feel ‘harassed’ or ‘intimidated,’ even if that is what the speaker intended, absent a showing that the speech itself falls within one of the very narrow, recognized exceptions, such as making a ‘true threat’ or engaging in ‘fighting words’ or ‘incitement’—which is not happening here.”
He continued, “First Amendment freedoms, such as those possessed by the objecting parents and private citizens, are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle government interference. There is no question that the purpose and intended effect of the attorney general’s recent pronouncement is to silence dissenting opinions, in violation of the First Amendment.”
Garland’s recently announced “with some fanfare,” that he was ordering the FBI and federal prosecutors to use “the overwhelming power of the federal government’s criminal justice system to target those parents who dare to publicly criticize the local school boards that are indoctrinating their children with progressive claptrap,” the legal team explained.
The lawsuit itself charges:
In his October 4, 2021, “Memorandum For” Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Director, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; and United States Attorneys (all responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal activity), the Attorney General falsely states that “there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools.” In his memorandum, the Attorney General gives a meaningless nod to the Constitution, stating, “While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.” Yet, the AG Policy is, in fact, a heavy-handed, direct threat by a powerful government agency designed and intended “to intimidate individuals based on their views.”
The action explains that Garland is stating the DOJ “is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats . . . and other forms of intimidation and harassment” and he created a “snitch line” for comments.
“In short, the AG Policy is a direct threat and warning to parents and private citizens across the United States, including Plaintiffs, that the Department of Justice and its FBI will be investigating you and monitoring what you say at these school board meetings so be careful about what you say and how you say it, thereby chilling such expression,” the lawsuit charges.
It described Garland’s statements as “a one-page screed that rubber-stamps the claims of ‘progressive,’ left-wing activists. It fails to address the Department of Justice’s lack of jurisdiction to intrude on interactions between parents and local school boards in the absence of any federal crime, and it fails to account for the fact that the First Amendment protects political dissent—even dissent that rises to the level of intimidation or harassment.”
The parents are seeking a court order to halt Garland’s use of the power of the federal government “to silence parents and other private citizens who publicly object to and oppose the divisive, harmful, immoral, and racist policies of the ‘progressive’ Left that are being implemented by school boards…”
Specifically cited in the lawsuit are the teachings of Critical Race Theory, which “teaches students to be racists.”
One of the plaintiffs is parent Xi Van Fleet, who “endured Mao’s Cultural Revolution before immigrating to the United States,” the legal team said.
“Based on her experience, the attorney general is using tactics similar to ones she saw Communist China use to stop parents from speaking out, so she is fighting back.”
AFLC Co-Founder David Yerushalmi explained, “AFLC is honored to represent these brave parents who are committed in their stand against the juggernaut that is the progressive movement seeking to dismantle the Constitution and the Republic. Conservative Americans are confronted today with a choice: resist or acquiesce. The Biden administration, the Obama administration before that, and the faceless bureaucrats in our nation’s capital who effectively annulled the Trump administration, are in this fight for keeps and seek a future in which free speech means ‘social justice’ speech and any and all opposition is criminalized ‘hate speech’ or ‘domestic terrorism.’ This is a battle for not just the heart and soul of this country, but its very existence.”
Critical race theory is an ideology which maintains that the United States is a fundamentally racist country and that American institutions such as the Constitution, property rights, color blindness, and equal protection under the law are vestiges of white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalist oppression—all of which must be overthrown in the name of “antiracism.” Ultimately, critical race theory and “antiracism” policies would deepen racial divisions and undermine the very institutions that are essential to addressing poverty and inequality across all racial groups. Policymakers concerned about these issues should reject critical race theory and orient public policy toward rebuilding the institutions of family, work, and education, which have been proven to lift Americans of all racial backgrounds out of poverty.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Critical race theorists falsely accuse the United States of being a fundamentally racist nation and condemns capitalism, individual rights, and the Constitution.
Critical race theory ignores evidence that shows that family structure, educational attainment, and workforce participation are the primary drivers of inequality.
Critical race theory seeks to undermine the foundations of American society and replace the constitutional system with a near-totalitarian “antiracist” bureaucracy.Copied
ritical race theory has emerged as one of the most influential—and controversial—academic theories in contemporary political discourse. The discipline’s key terms, such as “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “white fragility,” and “racial equity,” have become part of the common vocabulary and the basis for much of progressive policymaking. In 2020, the President of the United States addressed the debate over critical race theory’s role in policymaking with a speech denouncing it at the National Archives and an executive order banning critical race theory–inspired training programs from the federal government.1
The rise of critical race theory in recent years has been astonishing. For decades, the theory, which posits that America’s institutions are “camouflages” for racial oppression,2
William F Tate IV, “Critical Race Theory and Education: History, Theory, and Implications,” Review of Research in Education, Vol. 22, No. 1 (January 1997), pp.195–247. had been relegated to the academic world, circulating in journals, law review articles, and conference presentations. Over the past decade, however, critical race theory has moved from obscurity to near ubiquity in America’s academic, corporate, and governmental institutions. In recent years, a large number of schools, universities, and local governments have adopted “antiracism” or “diversity and inclusion” policies based on critical race theory. In addition, federal agencies have implemented human resources programs based on critical race theory,3Christopher F. Rufo, “Obscene Federal ‘Diversity Training’ Scam Prospers—Even Under Trump,” New York Post Blog, July 16, 2020, https://www.mahttps://nypost.com/2020/07/16/obscene-federal-diversity-training-scam-prospers-even-under-trump/ (accessed February 17, 2021). philanthropies have pledged billions toward “racial equity” initiatives,4David J. Maurrasse, “Philanthropy Responds to the Racial Equity Movement,” GrantCraft Blog, July 21, 2020, https://grantcraft.org/content/blog/philanthropy-responds-to-the-racial-equity-movement (accessed February 17, 2021). and hundreds of corporations have signaled their support for the new ideology of “antiracism.”5Reuters, “Factbox: Corporations Pledge $1.7 Billion to Address Racism, Injustice,” U.S. News & World Report, June 9, 2020, https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-06-09/factbox-corporations-pledge-17-billion-to-address-racism-injustice (accessed February 17, 2021).
Unfortunately, despite the superficial appeal of slogans like “fighting racism,” these policies will do little to alleviate poverty and inequality in the real world. As scholars such as Ron Haskins, Robert Rector, Isabel Sawhill, and others have demonstrated, the real drivers of American poverty—for all racial groups—are the so-called background variables of family structure, educational attainment, and workforce participation.
In spite of the empirical evidence demonstrating the importance of these variables, however, the critical race theorists have sought to undermine them at every turn. They have argued that the nuclear family is a vestige of white supremacy,6
Ashley A. Walsdorf, Lorien S. Jordan, Christi R. McGeorge, and Margaret O. Caughy, “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider,” Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 2020), pp. 64–79. work requirements and entry-level employment are an extension of capitalist oppression,7Wendy M. Limbert and Heather E. Bullock, “‘Playing the Fool’: US Welfare Policy from a Critical Race Perspective,” Feminism & Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 2005), pp. 253–274. and achievement-based education is a historical artifact of racism and eugenics.8Wayne Au, “Hiding Behind High-Stakes Testing: Meritocracy, Objectivity and Inequality in U.S. Education,” The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2013), pp. 7–20, https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/viewFile/7453/7812 (accessed February 17, 2021). “Poverty,” in the words of race theorist Kay Ann Taylor, “is a structural, embedded, institutionalized, and systemic requirement to maintain capitalism’s efficacy; it is an ongoing outcome of hegemony, patriarchy, and a capitalistic economic structure.”9Kay Ann Taylor, “Poverty’s Multiple Dimensions” Journal of Educational Controversy, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2009), https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=jec21 (accessed February 17, 2021).
Contrary to the doctrine of critical race theory, the solution to poverty—for members of all racial groups—is to provide a pathway for stable two-parent households, achievement-based academic success, and full-time work for householders. If policymakers can close the gap for these critical background variables, the gap between various racial groups will follow in kind.
In order to address inequality, policymakers must begin with a rigorous understanding of what drives it and how the institutions of family, education, and work can help to reduce it. Although there is no quick or easy solution for this problem, the alternative proposed by critical race theory—in essence, the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, tradition, and constitutionalism—would be even worse.
Background of Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, derived from critical theory and critical legal theory,10
For a detailed exploration of the intellectual roots of critical theory, critical legal theory, and critical race theory, see Jonathan Butcher and Mike Gonzalez, “Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3567, December 7, 2020, pp. 3–11, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/BG3567.pdf. that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression and that these forces are still at the root of our society. According to UCLA Law School professor Cheryl Harris, “historical forms of domination [such as slavery and segregation] have evolved to reproduce subordination in the present.”“>11Cheryl I. Harris, For Harris and other theorists, racism is a constant: It simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious. Consequently, Harris argues, “the existing state of inequitable distribution is the product of institutionalized white supremacy and economic exploitation.”12Ibid., p. 1778.
In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of white and black. However, the political foundations of critical race theory maintain a clear Marxist economic orientation. Ibram X. Kendi, a leading figure in the critical race theory movement, argues:
I classify racism and capitalism as these conjoined twins…. [I]n order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist…. And in order to truly be anti-capitalist, you have to be antiracist, because they’re interrelated.13
For critical race theory scholars, the entire foundation of American society is fundamentally illegitimate; consequently, they reject the traditions of constitutionalism and individual rights. As Jeffrey Pyle observed more than two decades ago, “[c]ritical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law.”14
Jeffrey J. Pyle, “Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory’s Attack on the Promises of Liberalism,” Boston College Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May 1999), p. 788, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2124&context=bclr (accessed February 17, 2021). Footnotes omitted. This is a deeply pessimistic worldview. In the language of Richard Delgado, a founder of the movement, critical race theory is “marked by a deep discontent with liberalism, a system of civil rights litigation and activism characterized by incrementalism, faith in the legal system, and hope for progress.”15Richard Delgado, “Critique of Liberalism,” in Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, ed. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013), pp. 7–8.
With regard to public policy, critical race theory’s key analytical and rhetorical framework is to portray every instance of racial disparity as evidence of racial discrimination. In the metaphor of one recent paper, “white supremacy” is the “spider in our web of causation” that leads to “immense disparity in wealth, access to resources, segregation, and thus, family well-being.”16
Walsdorf et al., “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider,” p. 65. To adopt the vocabulary of the race theorists, the forces of “hegemonic whiteness” have created society’s current inequalities, which we can overcome only by “dismantling,” “decolonizing,” and “deconstructing” that whiteness.17Matthew W. Hughey, “The (Dis)Similarities of White Racial Identities: The Conceptual Framework of ‘Hegemonic Whiteness,’” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 33, No. 8 (2010), pp. 1289–1309. In their theoretical formulations, the critical race theorists reduce the social order to an equation of power, which they propose to overturn through a countervailing application of force.
Practically, by defining every disparity between racial groups as an expression of “systemic racism,” the critical race theorists lay the foundation for a political program of revolution. If, in the widely traveled phrase of author bell hooks, American society is an “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,”18
In one of the founding texts of critical race theory, Cheryl Harris argues that property rights, enshrined in the Constitution, are in actuality a form of white racial domination. She claims that “whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property, historically and presently acknowledged and protected in American law,” and that “the existing state of inequitable distribution is the product of institutionalized white supremacy and economic exploitation, [which] is seen by whites as part of the natural order of things that cannot legitimately be disturbed.”19
Cheryl I. Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” pp. 1709 and 1778.
Harris, on the other hand, believes that this system must be disturbed, even subverted. She argues that the basic conceptual vocabulary of the constructional system—“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy. In reality, Harris believes, “rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this.”20
Ibid., p. 1778.
The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.”21
Ibid. To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model.22Ibid., p. 1780. Harris envisions a suspension of existing property rights followed by a governmental campaign to “address directly the distribution of property and power” through wealth confiscation and race-based redistribution. “Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.”23Ibid., p. 1790. In Harris’s formulation, if rights are a mechanism of white supremacy, they must be curtailed; the imperative of addressing race-based disparities must be given priority over the constitutional guarantees of equality, property, and neutrality.
In more recent years, the critical race theorists have added additional policy proposals. Ibram Kendi, who directs Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research and has received the National Book Award, has promoted the concept that individuals and societies cannot be neutral in America’s eternal racial conflict; they must be “antiracist.” That is, they must either adopt the political program of the critical race theorists or be considered “racist.”24
The amendment…would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.25
The scope and power of this new “Department of Anti-racism” would be nearly unlimited. In effect, it would become a fourth branch of government, unaccountable to voters, that would have the authority to veto, nullify, or suspend any law in any jurisdiction in the United States. It would mean an end both to federalism and to the lawmaking authority of Congress. Furthermore, under the power to “investigate private racist policies” and wield authority over “racist ideas,” the new agency would have unprecedented control over the work of lawmakers as well as the auxiliary policymaking institutions of think tanks, research centers, universities, and political parties.
Inez Stepman of the Independent Women’s Forum has called Kendi’s political program “woke Stalinism,” and journalist Robby Soave has argued that “there’s no way such a department could avoid becoming an Orwellian nightmare—indeed, the very program would necessitate the formation of a kind of speech police.”26
Robby Soave, “Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Donates $10 Million to Ibram X. Kendi, Who Wants to Make Racism Unconstitutional,” Reason, August 20, 2020, https://reason.com/2020/08/20/jack-dorsey-ibram-x-kendi-twitter-ceo-racism-center// (accessed February 17, 2021). In fact, it would entail an astonishing level of censorship. Under Kendi’s political system, the paper you are reading right now might be banned, and The Heritage Foundation, which published it, might be outlawed.
Together, the proposals from Harris, Kendi, and other race theorists would lead to a change of regime. In the name of racial justice, they would limit, curtail, or abolish the rights to property, equal protection, due process, federalism, speech, and the separation of powers. They would also replace the system of checks and balances with an “antiracist” bureaucracy with nearly unlimited state power. Although Kendi’s proposal is framed as an amendment to the American constitutional order, it is better described as an end to the constitutional order.
Under Kendi’s political system, the paper you are reading right now might be banned, and The Heritage Foundation, which published it, might be outlawed.
An Alternative Theory of Racial Inequality
Critical race theory purports to reveal a deeper understanding of racism in the United States and point the way toward decreased racial inequality. However, by reducing the complex phenomenon of inequality to a single causal variable—racism—critical race theory is dangerously incomplete and threatens to obscure important empirical realities.
As scholars such as June O’Neill, Robert Rector, and Thomas Sowell have demonstrated, the story about racial disparities is more complicated than the simple narrative of the critical race theorists. For example, if one were to believe a viral New York Times story, black men earn 51 cents for every dollar earned by white men: In other words, the black–white wage gap is enormous and has remained largely unchanged since 1950.27
However, as former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill have shown, this supposed “pay gap” disappears when one factors in the background variables of age, education, math and verbal skills, and work history.28
June E. O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, The Declining Importance of Race and Gender in the Labor Market: The Role of Employment Discrimination Policies (Washington: AEI Press, 2012), https://books.google.com/books?id=nZAY96zdt9oC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed February 17, 2021). In fact, when controlling for these variables, black men earn 99.9 percent of the wages of white men, and when the same calculation is applied to women, black women actually earn 7 percent more per hour than white women with the same education and math and verbal skills.29Ibid., pp. 209 and 217. In short order, the pay gap disappears.
By the same logic, although there is a significant poverty gap between white and black children in the United States, this disparity vanishes when one controls for the key background variables of family structure, educational attainment, and workforce participation.30
Robert Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, and Patrick F. Fagan, “Understanding Differences in Black and White Child Poverty Rates,” Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA01-04, May 23, 2001, https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/understanding-differences-black-and-white-child-poverty-rates. As Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector has demonstrated, when these background factors are held constant, “race alone does not directly increase or decrease the probability that a child will be poor.”31Ibid., p. 1. Contrary to the logic of the critical race theorists, the key determinant of child povertyis not race, but a cluster of human and social variables that affect Americans of all racial demographics with remarkably equal force.
Unfortunately, critical race theory does not offer a policy platform for strengthening these key background variables; in fact, it is in many cases directly hostile to them. With respect to family, a wide range of scholars have established that family structure is the single greatest predictor of poverty,32
Aparna Mathur, “Families Are the Real Issue for Opportunity, Not Inequality,” Brookings Institution Social Mobility Memo, May 26, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/05/26/families-are-the-real-issue-for-opportunity-not-inequality/ (accessed February 17, 2021). both at the individual and community levels.33Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility II: County-Level Estimates,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 133, No. 3, (August 2018), pp. 1163–1228. According to Robert Rector’s analysis, living in a two-parent household reduces the probability that a child will live in poverty by 82 percent—and 75 percent when controlling for level of education.34Robert Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2465, September 16, 2010, https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty-0.
Yet despite this clear evidence, critical race theorists have lambasted the nuclear family as a vestige of patriarchy and white supremacy: They consider the family a structure that oppresses rather than secures and uplifts.35
Walsdorf et al., “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider.” In a recent symposium, instead of attempting to understand how single motherhood often traps women in poverty, critical race theorists sought to normalize, reinforce, and “reclaim the welfare queen.”36Camille Gear Rich, “Reclaiming the Welfare Queen: Feminist and Critical Race Theory Alternatives to Existing Anti-Poverty Discourse,” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Spring 2016), p. 262, https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/25-2-Rich.pdf (accessed February 17, 2021). These scholars believe that the non-working single mother is a manifestation of a new feminism “that centers the right to procreation as a central issue”37Ibid., p. 278. and that the state, rather than discouraging single motherhood, should recognize that “having a child [is] an important part of self-realization that the state must respect and support.”38Ibid., p. 273.
The critical race theorists’ perception of work follows a similar logic. It is a truism that work—earned income—is the only viable mechanism for individuals to escape poverty in a self-sustaining manner. Nearly three-quarters of all poor families with children do not include an adult working full-time throughout the year.39
According to Census Bureau data analyzed by Heritage scholars. See Robert E, Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., “The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 29, 2003. There undoubtedly are many obstacles to employment for these families—most significantly, the preponderance of single-mother households—but this simply strengthens the conclusion that if all currently poor families with children had one adult working full-time, “the child poverty rate in the United States would be cut by 72 percent.”40Ibid., p. 3.
For critical race theorists, however, entry-level and low-wage work are not considered a path out of poverty: They are a form of capitalist exploitation. In a discussion of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation of 1996, which sought to increase financial independence among poor families, critical theorists Wendy Limbert and Heather Bullock explicitly reject the idea of “[promoting] personal responsibility through work,” dismissing it as a ploy to allow white male elites to “avoid responsibility for eliminating structural impediments to economic equality.”“>41
Limbert and Bullock, “‘Playing the Fool’: US Welfare Policy from a Critical Race Perspective, They argue that “critical theorists [should] situate welfare policy within a larger set of racist, sexist, and classist practices carried out by elite power holders to maintain the status quo,”42Ibid., p. 255. which ultimately reinforce the myths of meritocracy and personal responsibility, “establishing an idealized standard of ‘independent’ workers and families that is unattainable for those exploited by the interlocking systems of racism, sexism, and classism.”43Ibid., p. 266.
Finally, with respect to educational attainment, critical race theorists have increasingly begun to reject achievement-based admissions,44
Jay Barmann, “SF School Board Members Suggest Racism Is at Play in Blowup over Lottery Admissions for Lowell High,” SFist Blog, October 14, 2020, https://sfist.com/2020/10/14/meeting-discussing-lottery-lowell-high-school-gets-chaotic/ (accessed February 18, 2021). achievement-based testing,45Valerie Strauss, “It Looks like the Beginning of the End of America’s Obsession with Student Standardized Tests,” The Washington Post, June 21, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/06/21/it-looks-like-beginning-end-americas-obsession-with-student-standardized-tests/ (accessed February 18, 2021). and even achievement-based grading,“>46Kristen Taketa, “San Diego Unified Changes Grading Practices to Be Equitable, Less Punitive, arguing that they serve to reinforce white supremacy. In a recent paper in The International Education Journal, University of Washington Bothell Professor Wayne Au makes the case that standardized tests such as the SAT are an oppressive practice that is rooted in “racism, nativism, and eugenics” and serve to maintain “racialised inequality.”47Au, “Hiding Behind High-Stakes Testing: Meritocracy, Objectivity and Inequality in U.S. Education,” pp. 11 and 12.
The fact, however, is that educational achievement has a profound influence on families and inequality. One of the strongest predictors of family poverty is the mother’s math and verbal skill levels; only welfare participation and family structure were stronger correlations.48
Rector, Johnson, and Fagan, “Understanding Differences in Black and White Child Poverty Rates,” p. 2. Furthermore, educational attainment in itself is a key driver of intergenerational mobility.49Ron Haskins, “Education and Economic Mobility,” Pew Charitable Trusts, Economic Mobility Initiative, July 2, 2016, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch8.pdf (accessed December 7, 2020). Children born into the lowest economic quintile who earn a college degree have an 84 percent chance of moving up the income ladder; by contrast, children born into the lowest economic quintile who do not earn a college degree have a 45 percent chance of remaining in the lowest quintile as adults. The campaign to eliminate achievement-based academic systems, which charter school leader Ian Rowe describes as the “modern day version of the soft bigotry of low expectations,”50Ian Rowe, “The Soft Bigotry of Anti-racist Expectations Is Damaging to Black and White Kids Alike,” USA Today, December 6, 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/12/06/anti-racism-lowering-expectations-education-just-form-soft-bigotry-column/6410954002/ (accessed February 18, 2021). will do little to help the poorest students advance.
Rather than seeking ways to find common ground on these concerns, critical race theorists insist that the world must be divided into competing racial identity groups. Even worse, the race theorists dismiss the two-parent household, entry-level work, and merit-based education as manifestations of an entire class of harmful “isms” that must be subverted and ultimately dismantled. The evidence, however, suggests that what would happen after the collapse of those institutions is not human liberation, but human devastation. The real tragedy of critical race theory is that, in pursuit of racial equity, it undermines the very foundations of racial progress.
A Better Way to Address Racial Inequality
The ultimate irony of critical race theory is that, despite all of the recent attention paid to racial issues, race itself is becoming less determinative of social outcomes. In fact, according to a growing body of evidence, social class is gradually supplanting race as the most salient variable for producing inequality.
With regard to family, as Harvard scholar Robert Putnam has observed, “[t]he class gap over the last 20 years in unmarried births, controlling for race, has doubled, and the racial gap, controlling for class, has been cut in half.”51Garance Franke-Ruta, “Robert Putnam: Class Now Trumps Race as the Great Divide in America,” The Atlantic, June 30, 2012, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/robert-putnam-class-now-trumps-race-as-the-great-divide-in-america/259256/ (accessed February 19, 2021).
With regard to workforce participation, Census data show that black and white Americans with the same educational attainment have roughly equivalent levels of workforce participation: Education as a proxy for class has a much greater impact than race.52Table 501.10, “Labor Force Participation, Employment, and Unemployment of Persons 25 to 64 Years Old, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age Group, and Educational Attainment: 2016, 2017, and 2018,” in U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education Statistics,” 2019, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_501.10.asp (accessed February 19, 2021).
With regard to education, Stanford professor Sean Reardon shows that the class gap in academic achievement is “now nearly twice as large as the black–white achievement gap,” in contrast to a half century ago when “the black–white gap was one and a half to two times as large as the [class] gap.”53Sean F. Reardon, “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor,” in Inequality in the 21st Century: A Reader, ed. David B. Grusky and Jasmine Hill (New York: Routledge, 2018), pp. 177–189.
This presents a challenge, but it also presents an opportunity. Taken together, the norms of family, work, and education provide one of the most robust antidotes to poverty. As Ron Haskins has made clear, Americans who follow the so-called success sequence—graduating from high school, getting married before having children, and working full-time at any occupation—have a 98 percent chance of living above the poverty line as adults.54
New research from Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang confirms this hypothesis with millennials.55
Wendy Wang and W. Bradford Wilcox, “The Millennial Success Sequence: Marriage, Kids, and the ‘Success Sequence’ Among Young Adults,” American Enterprise Institute and Institute for Family Studies, June 14, 2017, https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IFS-MillennialSuccessSequence-Final.pdf?x91208 (accessed February 19, 2021). Wilcox and Wang find that millennials who have completed all three steps of the sequence have a 97 percent probability of avoiding poverty and that this general pattern holds across racial groups and childhood family income. Critical race theorists have denounced each step in the success sequence as inherently oppressive, but the evidence is clear: The success sequence works better than any real-world alternative, including for poor and minority families.
For Americans who care about poverty alleviation and constitutional government, critical race theory represents a critical threat. Although critical race theory as a discipline does not articulate a singular proposal for public policy, its leading intellectuals have proposed a regime of race-based apportionment of rights, property, and income, overseen in some proposals by a centralized, unelected authority with nearly unlimited state power. If implemented, critical race theory’s social policies would continue to erode the key preconditions for advancement—family, education, and work—and leave ostensibly “favored” groups more dependent on public subsidy and redistribution than ever.
Critical race theorists have denounced each step in the success sequence as inherently oppressive, but the evidence is clear: The success sequence works better than any real-world alternative, including for poor and minority families.
Conclusion
Policymakers should reject the tenets of critical race theory and orient public policy toward rebuilding the institutions of family, education, and work for Americans of all racial backgrounds. True equality will be achieved by maximizing the ability of Americans to become self-sufficient, not by dividing Americans on the basis of race and apportioning resources based on skin color.
Citizens who believe in a system of individual rights, private property, achievement-based advancement, and equal protection under the law should steel themselves against the seductive but ultimately destructive philosophy of critical race theory. In reality, the program of “antiracism” would deepen racial divisions, not transcend them; even worse, it would undermine the very institutions that are essential to addressing poverty and inequality in America. The better approach is to strengthen the foundations of the “success sequence,” which is a proven solution to poverty for Americans of all racial groups.
Christopher F. Rufo is a Visiting Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies, ofthe Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation and Director of the Center on Wealth and Poverty at the Discovery Institute.
William F Tate IV, “Critical Race Theory and Education: History, Theory, and Implications,” Review of Research in Education, Vol. 22, No. 1 (January 1997), pp.195–247.[3]
Ashley A. Walsdorf, Lorien S. Jordan, Christi R. McGeorge, and Margaret O. Caughy, “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider,” Journal of Family Theory & Review, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 2020), pp. 64–79.[7]
Wendy M. Limbert and Heather E. Bullock, “‘Playing the Fool’: US Welfare Policy from a Critical Race Perspective,” Feminism & Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 2005), pp. 253–274.[8]
For a detailed exploration of the intellectual roots of critical theory, critical legal theory, and critical race theory, see Jonathan Butcher and Mike Gonzalez, “Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3567, December 7, 2020, pp. 3–11, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/BG3567.pdf.[11]
Richard Delgado, “Critique of Liberalism,” in Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, ed. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013), pp. 7–8.[16]
Walsdorf et al., “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider,” p. 65.[17]
Matthew W. Hughey, “The (Dis)Similarities of White Racial Identities: The Conceptual Framework of ‘Hegemonic Whiteness,’” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 33, No. 8 (2010), pp. 1289–1309.[18]
Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility II: County-Level Estimates,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 133, No. 3, (August 2018), pp. 1163–1228.[34]
Walsdorf et al., “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider.”[36]
Camille Gear Rich, “Reclaiming the Welfare Queen: Feminist and Critical Race Theory Alternatives to Existing Anti-Poverty Discourse,” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Spring 2016), p. 262, https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/25-2-Rich.pdf (accessed February 17, 2021).[37]
According to Census Bureau data analyzed by Heritage scholars. See Robert E, Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., “The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 29, 2003.[40]
Table 501.10, “Labor Force Participation, Employment, and Unemployment of Persons 25 to 64 Years Old, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age Group, and Educational Attainment: 2016, 2017, and 2018,” in U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education Statistics,” 2019, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_501.10.asp (accessed February 19, 2021).[53]
Sean F. Reardon, “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor,” in Inequality in the 21st Century: A Reader, ed. David B. Grusky and Jasmine Hill (New York: Routledge, 2018), pp. 177–189.[54]
NarrowPathMinistries 
