Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of South Dakota, said that she has signed a pledge this week that will bring back “patriotic education” as liberals push critical race theory, which is racist by the very definition of racism, into school curriculums in many states. Republican politicians have condemned the racist curriculum for propagating division and hate and teaching anti-American values to school students.
Earlier this week Noem took to social media to point out that she is the first candidate in the nation to sign a pledge called “The 1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools.”
“Teaching our children & grandchildren to hate their own country & pitting them against one another on the basis of race or sex is shameful & must be stopped. I’m proud to be the 1st candidate in America to sign ‘The 1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools”
(1/2) Teaching our children & grandchildren to hate their own country & pitting them against one another on the basis of race or sex is shameful & must be stopped. I'm proud to be the 1st candidate in America to sign 'The 1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools.'
The pledge that Noem signed promises to restore “honest, patriotic education that cultivates in our children a profound love for our country,” and teach “that all children are created equal, have equal moral value under God, our Constitution, and the law.” It also will “Prohibit any curriculum that pits students against one another on the basis of race or sex” and “Prevent schools from politicizing education.”
“(2/2) In partnership with @1776ActionOrg, @RealBenCarson is helping to stop this woke, anti-American indoctrination at the state and local level & this pledge is a vital tool for clarity & accountability. We write together about it here:”
(2/2) In partnership with @1776ActionOrg, @RealBenCarson is helping to stop this woke, anti-American indoctrination at the state and local level & this pledge is a vital tool for clarity & accountability. We write together about it here: https://t.co/75PZpJ8tbf
On Monday, Noem shared writing an opinion piece for Fox News with former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson deeming critical race theory a “radical concept” and that the curriculum “pits them against one another on the basis of race and gender under the guise of achieving ‘equity.’”
1776 Action was created to fight back against things like critical race theory to push for education that is based on former President Donald Trump’s 1776 commission the purpose of which was to reintroduce the teaching of America’s Founding documents.
You do great damage to your country when you teach dark lies about it to young children. America has enough real warts in its history without making things up based on emotional racial beliefs that have no basis in fact.
Republicans all across America are working to prevent critical race theory from poisoning the minds of school children. They are expressing their concerns over the Biden administration pushing more funding for education programs created to include the falsehoods of the New York Times’ 1619 Project into US History and Civics classrooms because the Woke Supremacy wants to steer neutral education programs “away from their intended purposes toward a politicized and divisive agenda.”
On Thursday, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) led a group of thirty-seven Republicans in writing a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona going on record urging him to get rid of the 1619 Project from federal grant programs pointing out that it slants American history to cause confusion and political divisiveness. But that kind of divisiveness and chaos is exactly what Marxists do in order to break down the norms of society so they could rebuild them in their own utopian image.
“Americans do not need or want their tax dollars diverted from promoting the principles that unite our nation toward promoting radical ideologies meant to divide us. This trend is already sweeping through K-12 schools nationwide in absurd ways. In February, the Oregon Department of Education advertised an “anti-racist math” workshop run by an organization which teaches that “white supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms” when “the focus is only on getting the ‘right’ answer and “when students are required to ‘show their work’ in only one way.”
“Our nation’s youth do not need activist indoctrination that fixates solely on past flaws and splits our nation into divided camps. Taxpayer-supported programs should emphasize the shared civic virtues that bring us together, not push radical agendas that tear us apart,” McConnell and the other Republicans wrote in the letter.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the flawed 1619 Project, responded to the Republican criticism of the project during an interview on Monday on MSNBC, saying that the 1619 curriculum being added what teachers will teach to their students is a matter of free speech.
So teaching flawed racist anti-American garbage to young children is a “free speech” thing? I wonder if the KKK, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, ever thought about using public schools to spread their own hate?
“This isn’t a project about trying to teach children that our country is evil, but it is a project trying to teach children the truth about what our country was based upon, and it’s only in really confronting that truth—slavery was foundational to the United States,” and one-hundred years of legalized discrimination, Hannah-Jones said. “Mitch McConnell and others like him want for our children to get a propagandistic nationalistic understanding of history that is not about facts, but it is about how they would want to pretend that our country is.”
Let me get this straight. Hannah-Jones’ answer to “100 years of legalized discrimination,” that we as a country fought very hard to end, and did end it, is to legalize discrimination again? That’s called get-evenism.
1619 Project creator @nhannahjones on efforts to ban making it part of school curriculums: “This is fundamentally a free speech issue … It’s not about the facts of history. It’s about trying to prohibit the teaching of ideas that they don’t like." pic.twitter.com/GcP5GpY2eX
Actually, it is about teaching students that America is evil. We already teach kids about slavery, Jim Crow, black codes, pig laws, segregation, and other horrible things, warts and all, from our history, and even though public schools never mention it was the Democratic Party that committed all those offenses, the point is there is nothing hateful about teaching those parts of our history because it is factual. But there is an evil element to critical race theory which teaches among other abominations that white people are born racist. The proponents of critical race theory need to be reminded that the definition of racism is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.” [emphasis added]
Republicans in Southlake, Texas, a community near Dallas just held elections and it was a wipeout i9n favor of Republicans mostly due to Biden’s plans to initiate courses in the critical race theory that has many parents up in arms.
Voters turned out 3 times the usual size of the vote and in taking over the school board, Republicans scored a 70-30 landslide. They also won two city council seals and also scored the mayor’s seat of Southlake, Texas.
NBC News reported:
“On one side, progressives argued that curriculum and disciplinary changes were needed to make all children feel safe and welcome in Carroll, a mostly white but quickly diversifying school district. On the other, conservatives in Southlake rejected the school diversity plan as an effort to indoctrinate students with a far-left ideology that, according to some, would institutionalize discrimination against white children and those with conservative Christian values.”
The landslide for conservative Republicans came after the woke progressives decided to institute lessons on the critical race theory and they refused to address the worries of the parents in the district. It would have also forced teachers to take sensitivity training and to undergo training in so-called anti-racism courses.
The election was framed as tone-deaf progressives who tried to push radicalization in the school district versus the parents and the welfare of the kids. From that point, it was a complete route.
If this is a harbinger of things to come in 2022, the Democrats are in deep doo-doo.
“The voters have come together in record-breaking numbers to restore unity,” Smith said. “By a landslide vote, they don’t want racially divisive critical race theory taught to their children or forced on their teachers. Voters agreed with my positive vision of our community and its future.”
President Joe Biden and other progressive Democratic lawmakers are pushing schools to adopt critical race theory curriculum, which teaches that inequality is a result of systemic racism. The New York Times’ “1619 Project” is arguably the best-known example of critical race theory applied to the study of U.S. history. The project argues that slavery continues to infect almost every institution in the United States, resulting in systemic racism against black Americans and other minorities.
The Biden administration is pushing schools to bring critical race theory curriculum into their classrooms. Last month, the Department of Education proposed a rule that school districts that adopt critical race theory, the “1619 Project,” and other so-called “anti-racism” studies would be prioritized for federal loans and grants.
If Donald Trump doesn’t run in 2024 then Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis would be the next best thing as he is conservative from his core and he says what he means and means what he said.
During an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Thursday, DeSantis gave little room for doubt about how he thinks of the use of the term “systemic racism” and the racist “critical race theory” that the Marxists are trying to teach America’s children in schools. The Florida governor dismissed both as racist Marxist nonsense.
Ingraham was doing a “Red State Trailblazers” town hall to feature Republican governors who defied the lies of Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden, and the entire Fake News industry over the COVID pandemic, which isn’t even a pandemic anymore, and reopened their states. The guests included DeSantis, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, Governor Tate Reeves of Mississippi, and Governor Pete Ricketts from Nebraska.
Ingraham asked the Florida governor if he thought the United States is a systemically racist country. DeSantis
Ingraham asked DeSantis if he believed that the United States is a systemically racist country, to which he unashamedly responded, “Well, it’s a bunch of horse manure. I mean, give me a break.”
“This country has had more opportunity for more people than any country in the history of the world and it doesn’t matter where you trace your ancestry from,” DeSantis said, adding, “We’ve had people that have been able to succeed.”
DeSantis went on to expose critical race theory.
“And here’s the problem with things like critical race theory that they’re peddling,” DeSantis said. “They’re basically saying all our institutions are bankrupt, and they’re, they’re illegitimate. How do you have a society if everything in your society is illegitimate?”
The answer is you can’t. DeSantis was spot on.
In March, DeSantis said that he would purge critical race theory from public schools in Florida because critical race theory’s ideology isn’t worth “one red cent of taxpayer money.”
“Let me be clear, there’s no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory,” DeSantis said. “Teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money. So we will invest in actual, solid, true curriculum and we will be a leader in the development and implementation of a world-class civics education.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) calls the idea of systemic racism "a bunch of horse manure.”
“Give me a break … It’s a very harmful ideology, and I would say really a race-based version of a Marxist-type ideology.” pic.twitter.com/xcTuLmZtoE
Critical race theory and systemic racism are terms used to blame the failures of black people when an actual racist is nowhere to be found to blame the failure on. They used to call it “institutional racism.”
DeSantis was also asked about biological women’s sports being protected from progressive yahoos trying to force people suffering from a mental illness to ruin sports for girls and women.
“I have a 4-year-old daughter and a 1-year-old daughter, and they’re very athletic,” he said. “And we want to have opportunities for our girls. They deserve an even playing field. And that’s what we’re doing.”
For liberals reading this, what we mean when we saying we want our girls to have opportunities that are taken away from them with the transgender movement we’re talking about girls losing athletic scholarships because biological males are beating them in sports when they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in the first place. I mean, how crazy is our society now?
The Florida governor has said he will sign the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which will rightfully block males from competing on women’s school sports teams.
DeSantis also banned vaccine passports in The Sunshine State.
“I’m proud to be the first I think, elected official in the country, certainly statewide or governor to say, we’re not having vaccine passports in the State of Florida,” DeSantis said. “And not just saying government can’t make you, private businesses can’t make you. Because here’s the thing, you have a right to participate in society, without them asking you to divulge this type of health information, but just to go to a movie, just to go to a ballgame.”
Former President Donald Trump earlier this week said he may run again in 2024 and that he would “certainly” consider Ron DeSantis as his running mate. That would be a powerhouse team!
“He is a friend of mine. Certainly, Ron would be considered,” Trump said. “I endorsed Ron, and after I endorsed him, he took off like a rocket ship. He’s done a great job as governor. They like that. I’m just saying what I read and you read. They love that ticket.”
Around the United States, parents are reacting in horror to the knowledge that after over a year of pandemic shutdowns and being isolated, their children will be returning to public schools that appear to have been invaded by foreign actors who are actually looking to destroy their children’s self-image and education with a new concept in teaching called “Critical Race Theory” that comes out of highly controversial Equity Departments.
“Idaho Gov. Brad Little has signed legislation aimed at preventing schools and universities from “indoctrinating” students through teaching critical race theory, which examines the ways in which race and racism influence American politics, culture and the law,” reported Idaho news. com.
WHAT ABOUT STUDENT’S CIVIL RIGHTS? WHAT ABOUT TEACHER’S CIVIL RIGHTS? DO WHITE PEOPLE HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS? DO ALL AMERICANS HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS?
Republican state Sen. Jim Rice argued that the bill contains the “same principles that have been the foundation of the Civil Rights movement.”
“It’s that every individual should be treated equally under the law, that no one should be compelled to believe something just because someone else does,” Rice told local reporters.
“The Bill didn’t ban the idea per se. The bill prohibits public schools from directing or compelling students to personally affirm, adopt or adhere to certain tenets. The bill is actually not that strong compared to others I’ve seen,” One poster wrote.
“Awesome stuff! It’s a poison that teaches kids to hate their skin, regardless of color. They make black kids feel bad about their race’s history and blame the white kids *for* that history. It’s a lose-lose,” another poster on Twitter wrote.
The Republican governor signed the bill late Wednesday. It allows teaching critical race theory but prohibits forcing belief systems onto students that claim a group of people as defined by sex, race, ethnicity, or religion are inferior or superior to others. Some GOP lawmakers are concerned belief systems will be forced on Idaho students and have been holding up education budget bills until Little signed this bill involving what is taught in schools.
HB 377 aims to prevent schools and universities from teaching students of certain demographics that are inferior or superior to other students or that they are “inherently responsible for 41 actions committed in the past” by other members of the same demographics.
FULL TEXT OF THE BILL-IS IT STRONG ENOUGH?
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixty-sixth Legislature First Regular Session – 2021
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE BILL NO. 377
BYWAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
RELATING TO DIGNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION; AMENDING CHAPTER 1, TITLE 33, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 33-138, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, TO ESTABLISH PROHIBITIONS REGARDING CERTAIN TENETS, DISTINCTIONS OR CLASSIFICATIONS, OR COURSES OF INSTRUCTION OR UNITS OF STUDY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; AMENDING CHAPTER 1, TITLE 33, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 33-139, IDAHO CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEYS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 1, Title 33, Idaho Code, be, and the same ishereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEWSECTION, to be known, and des ignited as Section 33-138, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
33-138. DIGNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION. (1) It isthe intent of the legislature that administrators, faculty members, other employees, and students at public schools, including public charter schools and institutions of higher education, respect the dignity of others, acknowledge the right of others to express differing opinions, and foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and freedom of speech and association.
(2) The Idaho legislature finds that tenets outlined in subsection (3)(a) of this section, often found in “critical race theory,” undermine the objectives outlined in subsection (1) of this section and exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens.
(3) In accordance with section 6, Article IX of the constitution of the state of Idaho and section 67-5909, Idaho Code:
(a) No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:
(i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;
(ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or
(iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.
(b) No distinction or classification of students shall be made on account of race or color.
(c) No course of instruction or unit of study directing or otherwise compelling students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of thetenets identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be used or introduced in any institution of higher education, any school district, or any public school, including a public charter school.
(4) Nothing in this section should be construed to prohibit the required collection or reporting of demographic data by public schools orpublic institutions of higher education.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 1, Title 33, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEWSECTION, to be known and designated as Section 33-139, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
33-139. PROHIBITION ON THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEYS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. No money shall be expended by the state board of education, any entity under the state board of education’s jurisdiction, or any school district, public charter school, or public institution of higher education forany purpose prohibited in section 33-138, Idaho Code.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this act are hereby declaredto be severable. If any provision of this act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act.
24 SECTION 4. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval.
If you don’t want Critical Race Theory or the 1619 project in your schools, or you are concerned about political indoctrination, you have until May 19th to Comment, or forever hold your peace.
Go to the link to see what notable educator, author and activist, Dr. Carol Swain, the Executive Director of is warning people about with the 1619 project.
Recall: In an executive order signed on his first day in office, Biden disbanded Donald Trump’s presidential 1776 Commission and withdrew a report it released. Trump established the group in September to rally support from voters and as a response to The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which highlights slavery in America improperly according to numerous Black American leaders.
Here’s the link for comments about the Biden Administration’s new civics and history initiative that relies on the 1619 Project. https://t.co/HbkekrSovk
The Department of Education (Department) proposes two priorities for the American History and Civics Education programs, including the Presidential and Congressional Academies for American History and Civics(Academies) and National Activities programs, Assistance Listing Numbers 84.422A and 84.422B. We may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We propose these priorities to support the development of culturally responsive teaching and learning and the promotion of information literacy skills in grants under these programs.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “FAQ.”
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities, address them to Mia Howerton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C152, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.
For Further Information Contact
Mia Howerton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C152, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-0147. Email: email@example.com.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priorities that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of our programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities by accessing Regulations.gov. Due to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Department buildings are currently not open to the public. However, upon reopening you may also inspect the comments in person in Room 3C152, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Purpose of Programs: The American History and Civics Education programs support efforts to improve: (1) The quality of American history, civics, and government education by educating students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights; and (2) the quality of the teaching of American history, civics, and government in elementary schools and secondary schools, including the teaching of traditional American history.
The Academies program supports the establishment of: (1) Presidential Academies for the Teaching of American History and Civics that offer workshops for both veteran and new teachers to strengthen their knowledge of American history, civics, and government education (Presidential Academies); and (2) Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics that provide high school students opportunities to enrich their understanding of these subjects (Congressional Academies).
The purpose of the National Activities program is to promote new and existing evidence-based strategies to encourage innovative American history, civics and government, and geography instruction, learning strategies, and professional development activities and programs for teachers, principals, or other school leaders, particularly such instruction, strategies, activities, and programs that benefit low-income students and underserved populations.
Program Authority: Title II, part B, subpart 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), 20 U.S.C. 6662 and 6663.
Proposed Priorities: The Department proposes two priorities to support the development of culturally responsive teaching and learning and the promotion of information literacy skills in grants under the American History and Civics Education programs.
Proposed Priority 1—Projects That Incorporate Racially, Ethnically, Culturally, and Linguistically Diverse Perspectives into Teaching and Learning.
Background: The Department recognizes that COVID-19—with its disproportionate impact on communities of color—and the ongoing national reckoning with systemic racism have highlighted the urgency of improving racial equity throughout our society, including in our education system. As Executive Order 13985 states: “Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism. Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face.” (1)
American History and Civics Education programs can play an important role in this critical effort by supporting teaching and learning that reflects the breadth and depth of our Nation’s diverse history and the vital role of diversity in our Nation’s democracy. For example, there is growing acknowledgement of the importance of including, in the teaching and learning of our country’s history, both the consequences of slavery, and the significant contributions of Black Americans to our society. This acknowledgement is reflected, for example, in the New York Times’ landmark “1619 Project” and in the resources of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History. (2)
Accordingly, schools across the country are working to incorporate anti-racist practices into teaching and learning. As the scholar Ibram X. Kendi has expressed, “[a]n antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences—that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.” (3) It is critical that the teaching of American history and civics creates learning experiences that validate and reflect the diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students.
In turn, racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically responsive teaching and learning practices contribute to what has been called an “identity-safe” learning environment. According to the authors Dorothy Steele and Becki Cohn-Vargas, “Identity safe classrooms are those in which teachers strive to assure students that their social identities are an asset rather than a barrier to success in the classroom. And, through strong positive relationships and opportunities to learn, they feel they are welcomed, supported, and valued as members of the learning community.” (4)
The proposed priority would support projects that incorporate culturally and linguistically responsive learning environments.
Under this priority, the applicants propose projects that incorporate teaching and learning practices that reflect the diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students create inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe learning environments.
In its application, an applicant addressing this priority must describe how its proposed project incorporates teaching and learning practices that—
(a) Take into account systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history;
(b) Incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives and perspectives on the experience of individuals with disabilities;
(c) Encourage students to critically analyze the diverse perspectives of historical and contemporary media and its impacts;
(d) Support the creation of learning environments that validate and reflect the diversity, identities, and experiences of all students; and
(e) Contribute to inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe learning environments.
Proposed Priority 2—Promoting Information Literacy Skills.
Effective civics education is vital to protecting the Nation’s democracy—especially at a time when its core institutions and values are threatened by misinformation. As The Power of Active Citizenship notes: “Teaching civics should be more than just understanding the structures and functions of government . . . [It] is crucial that students learn how to gather and evaluate sources of information, and then use evidence from that information to develop and support their ideas and advocacy positions. No polity can make wise decisions if its citizens do not know how to separate fact from opinion, and how to gather and weigh relevant evidence.” (5)
Ensuring that students have strong information literacy skills is especially important in an age of digital media consumption. According to a 2019 survey from Common Sense Media and Survey Monkey: “Teens get their news more frequently from social media sites (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) or from YouTube than directly from news organizations. More than half of teens (54%) get news from social media, and 50% get news from YouTube at least a few times a week. Fewer than half, 41%, get news reported by news organizations in print or online at least a few times a week, and only 37% get news on TV at least a few times a week.” Among teens who got their news from YouTube, two-thirds reported learning about the news from celebrities and influencers, rather than news organizations. (6)
In a 2017 report, the Brookings Institution concluded that, “Funding efforts to enhance news literacy should be a high priority for governments. This is especially the case with people who are going online for the first time. For those individuals, it is hard to distinguish false from real news, and they need to learn how to evaluate news sources, not accept at face value everything they see on social media or digital news sites. Helping people become better consumers of online information is crucial as the world moves towards digital immersion.” (7)
Civics education can be an opportunity to help students develop the skills necessary to meaningfully participate in our democracy and distinguish fact from misinformation. Well-designed programs can fuel student engagement in our democracy and provide students with the knowledge and skills to critically evaluate the materials they encounter by developing their information literacy.
In its application, the applicants propose projects that describe how they will foster critical thinking and promote student engagement in civics education through professional development or other activities designed to support students in—
(a) Evaluating sources and evidence using standards of proof;
(b) Understanding their own biases when reviewing information, as well as uncovering and recognizing bias in primary and secondary sources;
(c) Synthesizing information into cogent communications; and
(d) Understanding how inaccurate information may be used to manipulate individuals, and developing strategies to recognize accurate and inaccurate information.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
We will announce the final priorities in a document published in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after considering responses to the proposed priorities and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use the priorities, we invite applications through a notice inviting applications in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing the proposed priorities only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priorities are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with the Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department’s programs and activities.
Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the proposed priorities would not impose any particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The proposed priorities would help ensure that the American History and Civics Education programs support the development of culturally responsive teaching and learning practices and promote students’ acquisition of critical information literacy skills. We believe these benefits would outweigh any associated costs.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priorities easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make the proposed priorities easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
Intergovernmental Review: These programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would affect are institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the proposed priorities would significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed priorities contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities do not affect the currently approved data collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The division in the United States between US Citizens and the infiltration of leftists who hope to cancel American exceptionalism has reached a new low with a story on Wednesday from multiple media sources.
Parents in the Loudoun, Virginia school district have been the target of activist far-left radical school employees over their lack of support for a new shift in the classroom teaching style called: Critical Race Theory.
“Loudoun County has long been at the forefront of woke progressivism. The school district first aimed at Dr. Seuss books for their “strong racial undertones,” The Washington Times reported.
“A group of teachers and others in Loudoun County compiled a list of parents suspected of disagreeing with schools’ actions — in part to “infiltrate,” to use “hackers” to silence parents’ communications, and to “expose these people publicly,” Luke Rosiak reported for the Daily Wire.
MONEY MAKING SCHEME?
Last year, it dedicated nearly a half-million dollars on programs designed to counter systemic bias and oppression. The coaching and training sessions focused on uncovering “personal and institutional biases that prevent all people and especially people of color, from reaching their fullest potential,” with “oppression analysis, learning theory and coaching for change.
From the Daily Wire article:
In response, a local mother named Jen Durham began what turned into a massive thread, writing:
This is a call for volunteers to combat the anti-CRT activities of the P.A.C.T. folks, the stoplcpscrt website, and the like. Looking for folks who are interested in volunteering to organize, lead, execute, and donate regarding the following points:
Gather information (community mailing lists, list of folks who are in charge of the anti-CRT movement, lists of local lawmakers/folks in charge)
Infiltrate (create fake online profiles and join these groups to collect and communicate information, hackers who can either shut down their websites or redirect them to pro-CRT/anti-racist informational webpages)
Spread information (expose these people publicly, create online petitions, create counter-mailings)
Find a way to gather donations for these efforts. Volunteering is great, but these activities can be costly and not everyone has extra funds readily available
Anyone who is interested in this, please feel free to comment here or PM me directly and indicate what you can help with. Then we can hold a kickoff call and start on action items.
“I’m listing them this way: -First name -Last name -Alias(es) -Location,” Durham wrote.
“I’m losing any hope that remaining civil towards these people change anything,” she wrote. “Avoiding these people isn’t enough to stop the spread of their evil rhetoric.”
“Anyone know any hackers?” she reiterated.
IS THIS STILL AMERICA?
Christopher Ruffo wrote in reaction, “Please support the brave Loudoun County teachers and parents who are fighting against the advocates of race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation. Don’t give up!”
LOUDOUN CO IS A HOTBED OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY CONTROVERSY
These issues about public education have been brewing for decades. It feels as if anger and frustration from the opponents of activists in the classroom are finally starting to stand up for their rights and protect their children.
In a passionate speech to the House of Commons this week, Kemi Badenoch slammed the teaching of Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter ideology in schools.
“What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted fact,” Badenoch said on the House floor in a clip of her speech that is now making the rounds on social media.
“We don’t do this with Communism, we don’t do this with Socialism, we don’t do it with Capitalism,” she continued. “And I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life and this is the promotion of Critical Race Theory – an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression. I want to be absolutely clear: This government stands unequivocally against Critical Race Theory.”
She called Black Lives Matter “a political movement” and called for members of the opposite party to condemn many hateful actions conducted by BLM (including an instance she recounted of white BLM protestors calling a black armed police officer the N-word).
Badenoch called the efforts to teach Critical Race Theory without balancing it with the opposing viewpoint in schools illegal.
Here’s the one-minute-forty-five-second clip from her eight-and-a-half-minute speech:
Badenoch was responding to comments made by Labour MP Dawn Butler, who argued that history is taught to children in the UK “to make one group of people feel inferior and another group of people feel superior.”
Butler called for the “decolonization” of history.
Badenoch opened her speech in response by detailing the many opportunities children in the UK are provided to learn about other cultures.
“Our curriculum does not need de-colonizing for the simple reason that it is not colonized,” she said. “We should not apologize for the fact that British children primarily study the history of these islands.”
Here is her full speech, well worth the entire watch:
Kemi Badenoch is a conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Saffron Walden, a town in the district of Essex lying between London and Cambridge. Badenoch was appointed as Minister for Equalities on February 13th of this year, a position within the Government Equalities Office, responsible for leading “work on policy relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality.”
Born Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke in Wimbledon, Kemi grew up in Nigeria and immigrated to the UK when she was 16 years old. She holds degrees in both engineering and law and was elected to the House of Commons in 2017.
In her maiden speech to the House of Commons, Badenoch spoke of growing up in Nigeria under a socialist state: “Going without electricity, doing my homework by candlelight because the state electricity board could not provide power. Fetching water a mile away in heavy, rusty buckets because the nationalised water could not get water to flow from the taps.”
“Unlike many colleagues born after 1980,” she continued, “I was unlucky enough to live under socialist policies. It’s not something I’d wish on anyone, and that’s just one of the reasons that I am a Conservative.”
60 Minutes interviewer Scott Pelley asked why the prosecution didn’t charge white former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin with a hate crime for the death of Floyd, a black man. It was a ridiculous question because there was no evidence of a hate crime the whole time Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck. But being 60 Minutes, which is part of the Fake News industry, Pelley had to try to stir the pot and make things racial, which is what the media always does.
The progressive AG responded with an admission that there was no evidence to support a hate crime. Wait, what?
“I wouldn’t call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there’s an explicit motive and of bias,” Ellison said. “We don’t have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd’s race as he did what he did.”
So then why did every Democrat, every mainstream news media outlet, Hollywood, academia, pretty much every human being on the planet, including the ones who live in those little mud huts, say it was because of racism?
Ellison said, “In our society, there is a social norm that killing certain kinds of people is more tolerable than other kinds of people.” He added, “The fact is that we know, through housing patterns, through employment, through wealth, through a whole range of other things, so often people of color, black people end up with, uh, harsh treatment from law enforcement. And other folks, doing the exact same thing just don’t.”
That is a lie. Not all black people get treated the same way by police either. It has nothing or very little to do with an officer not liking the person’s race. Otherwise, how does Ellison explain that most black people who are arrested are not killed by police? If a white suspect were to resist arrest with force, I can guarantee you that the cops would throw his rear end down on the ground and not handle him with kid gloves as well.
Ellison continued. “If an officer doesn’t throw a white neurologist to the ground, and doesn’t sit on top of his neck, is he doing it because this is a fellow white brother? No. He’s doing it because he thinks this is an important person and if I treat them badly somebody’s going to ask me about this. This person probably has lawyers. He probably knows the governor, he has connections. I can look at the way he’s dressed, the way he talks, he’s probably ‘somebody.'”
What Ellison said is despicable. I call bullschtein! In all likelihood, the reason a cop doesn’t throw a neurologist to the ground is that the neurologist didn’t resist arrest, didn’t start physically attacking the officer, didn’t try to use a weapon against the officer. The Minnesota AG making such a statement like this about [white] police officers is the height of racism. He stereotyped white police officers and isn’t that the definition of racism, to stereotype people based on a class they belong to? What total garbage. I can guarantee you if Keith Ellison himself was being stopped by police, wearing his best prosecutor’s suit, and he started cursing at the officers, began physically resisting arrest, maybe tried to start a fight to keep the officers from cuffing him, you’re damn right he’s going to be thrown to the ground.
Hear something you may not know about. Years ago, activists and community organizers complained about how black people were treated differently by cops than white people. One of the results of the committee that heard the arguments was to come up with many ways to standardize how police treat people during an arrest. If everyone under specific circumstances during an arrest is treated the same way, then there is no bias. Makes sense? One of those ways was if a suspect was getting physical when trying to resist being arrested, the officers were to get the suspect down on the ground because when a suspect is on the ground and police cuff him in a prone position; it ensures that the police don’t get hurt, that innocent bystanders don’t get hurt, and that the suspect himself doesn’t get hurt.
Last week the jury – half people of color and half white – came out with its verdict of guilty on all three charges, or “Please don’t hurt us.” I say that because the jury even found Chauvin guilty for 3rd Degree which is the equivalent of blindly shooting a gun into a crowd, and there was no way to tie what Chauvin did to something like that.
Our media made sure that everyone alive knew that the reason George Floyd died at the hands of Minneapolis police was because of racism, and that’s why Ellison’s admission that race was not a factor in the case so stunning.
“The whole world sees this as a white officer killing a black man because he is black, and you’re telling me that there’s no evidence to support that?” Pelley stated with apparent bewilderment. I mean, why not? He’s a member of the media, so maybe he believed their own nonsense.
Here’s the one question Pelley never asked. If you knew the case had no evidence that racism was a factor, why did you allow the country to burn all last summer? The death of George Floyd ushered in the racist Critical Race Theory, emboldened the Marxist group Black Lives Matter, allowed Democrats and other progressives to justify violence in Democrat-run cities, changed school curriculums, allowed the race hustlers to make racist accusations like America is systemically racist. Why did Elisson remain silent? I would have loved for the boot-licking Scott Pelley to ask that question.
Democrats have amassed enough political power to push for the ultimate institutional punishment for Americans at hospitals, preferential treatment based on skin color and ethnicity.
“A Boston hospital says it will offer “preferential care based on race” and “race-explicit interventions” in an attempt to engage in an “antiracist agenda for medicine” based on critical race theory,” The Washington Examiner reported.
(Brigham and Women’s Hospital told the Washington Examiner in a statement that the article is an “opinion piece written by two physicians, not a formal position of the hospital.”)
LOOK AT THE ARTICLE THOUGH
A Boston Review article titled “An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine” lays out a plan from Brigham and Women’s Hospital that implements a “reparations framework” for distributing medical resources in order to “comprehensively confront structural racism.”
According to Bringham Health, “Brigham and Women’s Hospital is consistently ranked among the top 20 hospitals in the nation by U.S. News and World Report.”
So to fight racism, leftists in Boston are going to be racist, admitting that it is easy for them to racist. Makes sense in today’s political climate.
The concept likely doesn’t have the majority of support from any racial group. Still, the progressive left is on a power binge, and they see no end in sight for their utopian measures to inflict as much damage on White America as they can possibly make happen.
Imagine the conversations that parents must have with their White Children about why other people will be rewarded, promoted, enabled, and given preferential treatment in medical places now, based on the color of their skin. That is today’s leftist utopia.
WHEN COLORBLIND IS NOT ENOUGH
“An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine. Colorblind solutions have failed to achieve racial equity in health care. We need both federal reparations and real institutional accountability,” reported far left-leaning Boston Review.
WHAT IS SOCIAL MEDICINE?
“After analyzing ten years of hospital data, we concluded that the trend we observed was painfully robust: white patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital—a prominent, predominantly white Harvard teaching hospital—were indeed more likely to be admitted to the cardiology service. We also found that the discrepancy, like many other racial health inequities, wasn’t fully accounted for by insurance status, established links to care, other medical conditions, or an index reflecting the socioeconomic status of a patient’s neighborhood. In a follow-up study, we found that patient self-advocacy may play a role in these disparities: white patients were perceived to advocate for cardiology admission more often and more intensely, and providers acknowledged such behavior impacted their decision making,” reporters for Boston Review wrote.
So do you see that? All other data out the window for them to conduct their investigation, and they came up with racism.
“Alarmed by these findings, we sought an immediate solution. As we began to advocate for change within our institution, however, we encountered significant resistance to calling this discrepancy an instance of institutional racism and making race-explicit interventions—even when the documentation of racial health inequities is accelerating. In medicine, as in other domains, the default options for addressing racial inequality are often limited: implicit bias training, diversity and inclusion efforts, the adoption of supposedly objective checklist-style clinical criteria for decision making. These policies may help to mitigate some health inequities—increasing racial and ethnic diversity of health care providers is essential, given the evidence that Black patients with Black providers have better outcomes in many contexts—but history has convinced us that these options are not sufficient. Implicit bias training and checklists offer indirect solutions where more direct forms of race-explicit action are available; the objectivity aspired to in clinical criteria is also inevitably tainted by the pervasiveness of structural racism. What we need instead, we have come to believe, is a proactively antiracist agenda for medicine.”
So they tapped into a stream of government funding under Critical Race Theory
Since when is America a third-world nation? Since the left figured out how to make money from making us so.
“Our path to this realization, as with nearly all advancements in social medicine, took us outside our discipline—through the field of critical race theory (CRT), in particular.”
AND THERE IT IS… SOCIAL MEDICINE.
Just when you thought the revolution was over and settling down, the left has invented Social medicine to get money from the government and to prevent other people from being a part of the Republic.