“Socialist Indoctrination”

On a blog that I follow (but often do not agree with), the owner recently posted several quotes by an author that he (the blog owner) apparently found harmonious to his own perspective.

Among the author’s quoted remarks, there was a particular one that caught my attention.  I’m curious to know what my readers think about the following:

After years of socialist indoctrination in government schools and universities, the masses have been taught to feel rather than think. Victimhood is celebrated, while personal responsibility is scorned.

************************************
(More on this perspective: The Indoctrination of American Students in Socialism )

42 thoughts on ““Socialist Indoctrination”

  1. To me, it’s a popular Right-wing talking point, representing a fear of education as a means of control (i.e. “indoctrination”). Seems like so many people worry an accurate historical reflection on the United States and the world as a whole, because the sugar-coated American exceptionalism version that many of us grew up on is really a poor representation. I found this excerpt from the link you shared particularly startling:
    “Students are being taught that race, class, gender, sexuality, and citizenship status are tools of oppression, power, and white privilege.”
    The author of that article paints this as a negative, rather than an honest evaluation of the roots of systemic oppression that founded the United States. There seems to be unbridled concern about education in the darkest recesses of our history, as though that will suppress critical thought and make the youth socialists by this indoctrination. I would argue a realistic portrait of American – as well as human – history gives us the best chance of improving on the world, because we must understand the past in order to understand the context of the present.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Our history and the obnoxious part the church played in approving of and prolonging slavery is one part they want to re-write or to cover up. They are so highly concerned because they want all education to come from the church like it was in 1529 AD. The church was taking in more revenue than the Crown. The priests were professional beggars and extortionists.

      “What remedy? Make laws against them? I am in doubt whether ye are able. Are they not stronger in your own parliament house than yourself 8 So captive are your laws unto them, that no man that they list to excommunicate may be admitted to sue any action in any of your Courts 9 Neither have they any coulour [pretence] to gather these yearly exactions but they say they pray to GOD to deliver our souls from purgatory. If that were true we should give a hundred times as much. But many men of great literature say there is no purgatory: and that if there were and that the Pope may deliver one soul for money, he may deliver him as well without money; if one, a thousand; if a thousand, all; and so destroy purgatory.”

      Fish, Simon. A Supplication for the Beggars (p. 2). Kindle Edition.

      Once the church has wormed its way into the government, then removing it is like removing cancer? Following Fish’s letter, Henry VIII kicked the papists out of England and created his own monster. Well, he did need to get rid of another wife, after all, so the Reformation took hold. But, the cancer still exists.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. They are inventing feeble excuses to explain away Trump’s defeat in the upcoming election.

    It’s nonsense.

    No, there hasn’t been a leftward creep. Rather, there has been a rightward creep which has exposed the absurdity of the extremes of conservatism.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I think one may be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The idea of some kind of indoctrination through public schools shows up now in our universities. I don’t think that’s controversial with the goings on at places like Evergreen or Smith College (this video is from a student support coordinator so she knows exactly what she’s talking about). I also think there’s a very strong argument to be made that this causes far more public harm than it produces or enhances the public good. It basically attacks our founding principles, namely, the autonomy of the individual respected in law.

    The mistake the author makes is attributing this ideological indoctrination to be ‘socialism’ (that by public curriculum we must frame the world through the lens of group dynamics in all subjects regarding power imbalances and systemic biases rather than teach the fundamental principles of what makes a liberal democracy a liberal democracy. I had to teach this mandated curriculum, so I’m not making it up).

    This assumption is partly correct because it hinges on how we define ‘socialism’. I’m sure he would be shocked if I (correctly) accused the US military as an example of ‘socialism’ at work on behalf of the public good put into effect by government policy and funded with public money to serve the public interest. Perhaps he would be equally shocked if I (correctly) accused Walter Reed Hospital that treated Trump successfully as an example of ‘socialism’ at work on behalf of the public good (ain’t that a questionable use of public resources!) put into effect by government policy with public money to serve the public interest. Or his local fire/police departments. Or his local road network. Sewers, even. It’s all ‘socialism’. How is that bad?

    I suspect he doesn’t understand that the Marxist element of what he calls ‘socialism’ he’s apparently criticizing has to do with the public expropriation of private ownership and taking over the means of production… in the name of the public. I have read nothing about the Democrats doing this with any named business anywhere and I have not come across its advocacy to do so by Biden/Harris.

    But I can tell you as a Canadian, this is exactly the right solution to certain dysfunctional services like healthcare and insurance that were meant, but were failing, to meet the needs of the public. So taking over the means of production in such deplorable profit-driven but essential service areas provides a net benefit to the public good and can therefore be justified to even die-hard capitalists and libertarians in easy-to-recognize market economics.

    In other words, regulated socialism has a very important and positive role to play regarding quality of life issues in any modern, functional, democratic, freedom-loving liberal society. And that regulation on behalf of the public good (it has to PROVE by legislation to be value added) is what is sadly lacking throughout much of the US’ economy and services. If that condition were placed on something as simple as voting, look at how many states would fail even this most basic test… with all the gerrymandering, lack of polling stations, voting registration paperwork, and so on. More ‘socialism’ is badly needed when hundreds of thousands of citizens are dying needlessly but excused by far too many nationalists and Trump enablers as simply the cost of doing unregulated business-as-usual.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, (Antifascist, Fascist, Elite). They always bunch these scare-words together. They hate social programs when it is not to their exclusive benefit. It is OK for taxpayers to support their private and parochial schools. They see themselves as being in a state of perpetual persecution while they demand the government to enable them to persecute everyone else.
      Hypocrites. Liars. Christian Nationalists. Regressionists. Corporate minions. Fascists. White Supremacists. Xenophobes. Homophobes.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. This is F&ng BS. Socialism has nothing to do with feeling rather than thinking. The whole feeling problem has to do with the self-esteem programs, which came up in the later 80’s & into the 90’s … it had NOTHING to do with socialism. It has everything to do with ME ME ME. Which is more to do with capitalism than anything.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Wow. That is quite a rant but it is typical Christ Corporation drivel. There is a great deal of projection and repeating all the right-wing assaults on public education. The conservatives have been doing most of those things this person is writing about for years. They want nothing more than to have all education turned over to the Christian Fundamentalists; the more Calvinistic the curriculum the better.

    The coalition of church leaders and GOP activists is a widespread operation and well-coordinated. The church has always been against public education. In the last few years, with the promotion of charter schools, the church has managed to divert taxpayer money into private and religious schools. Those schools were set up for the sole purpose of creating revenue. The schools have already been proven to provide a less than acceptable education. Many have taken the tax-payer money and shut down the schools. They don’t mind a little socialism as long as it is beneficial to them.

    One of their major re-writes is American history from the time of our founding. They teach that our nation was founded on Christian principles and that the founders never intended a separation of church and state. Anyone reading the constitution and the Federalists Papers will soon see that they lie. The Founders Online is a good place to read the correspondence of the Founders.

    There is big money backing all these Christian organizations. When government, capitalism, and religion join forces, human rights quickly evaporate. Christian Nationalism embraces racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and whatever they conceive as not being part of their idealism. The constitution and democratic government are not part of their plan, other than it’s obliteration.

    There are many writers like Captain John who republish all the arguments made by Capitalists, Trumpsters, radical Republicans, White Supremacists, and Christian Nationalists. In the last three years, a lot of this stuff which had been lo-key before Trump is now the mainstream top priority. They have no desire to be Christians, only to take over at the head of the column and lead the church in the direction of tyranny and theocracy.

    He quotes these people as something evil, which they were:
    “Give me just one generation of youth and I’ll transform the world.” – Vladimir Lenin

    Professor Hübl stated, “The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory, destroy its books, its culture, and its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.”

    but it describes their own intentions to a T. They want to transform the world and have Christianity as the state religion. They accuse public schools of teaching against religion (Evolution, you know?) while their intent is to teach nothing but creationism, 6000-year-old earth, and mankind as a wad of spit and dust.

    “At the end of the day, it’s all about consolidating the power of the in-group. “Christian believers,” he writes, “will someday (soon I hope) become the consummate, perfect governing authorities!”

    Ralph Drollinger, “Rebuilding America: The Biblical Blueprint
    2nd edition Nordskog Publishing 2016

    Stewart, Katherine. The Power Worshippers (p. 41). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hello cagjr. I agree with you entirely. Mind if I ask you a punctuation question. I know to capitalis the first letter of religions and political parties, but I have struggled with white nationalist and white supremacists, and frankly other racist groups. I don’t have a good background education and I thought if I did not capitalise other colors / race then I shouldn’t capitalise white? But then again I do capitalize nouns like White House. Sorry if this is off topic, but I try to take the opportunity to learn when I can get it. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      • My education is pretty limited so if you really need to learn some of those rules you may want to check with someone like tildeb who loves to fill the pages with vaporous verbiage. I bet he has never misplaced a comma or misused a colon.

        I suppose mostly we just use the same rules and let the context determine if a word is used as a proper noun, etc. I try to keep up with the way journalists use capitalization. Blacks. Whites. Gods. Muslim. Sometimes I just do it because I don’t have any other means of emphasizing a word. I don’t know how to add Italics or bold text. I sometimes use lowercase where uppercase would be required, just to tick some folks off. I had to add lowercase god and christian to my dictionary just for that purpose. It still tries to make me change some things, but I refuse.

        I suppose I just use Mark Twain reasoning”
        “I don’t give a damn for a man who can only spell am word one way.”
        Now there was a man of letters.

        Liked by 1 person

      • On capitalization:

        The general rule is to capitalize titles. So if a group organizes itself and gives itself the title “White Supremacists” it would be appropriate to capitalize. But if you are just talking about an amorphous group, where “white supremacist” is a description but not a title, then don’t capitalize.

        And, of course, people make exceptions, such as refusing to capitalize a title that the don’t like.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Thank you, Neil. I just knew there was someone out there with a text-book answer. And that part about refusing to capitalize out of spite. Yeah, I do that on a certain site where I engage certain Christians, and my spell checker refuses to accept it.
          Thanx.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Scottie,
        of course, you may ask me anything you wish, but I think there are people more qualified than me. I’m opinionated, but that doesn’t mean intelligent. You should have caught me while I was busy being a Christian. That was when I knew everything. (I wish we both had missed that period. What a waste of time and effort.)

        “A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives— of approving of some and disapproving of others; and the fact that man is the one being who certainly deserves this designation, is the greatest of all distinctions between him and the lower animals.”
        Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Kindle Locations 11287-11289).

        Morality is not a religious invention. Self-reflection does not require a priestly guide. All mankind needs is the courage to face the truth and accept the reality that there have never been any changes made in the history of mankind by some by some mythological being.
        I often wonder how much religion has impeded the progression of humanity.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Well, “they” are in for a huge disappointment. The ” Christian believers” are an extremely diverse lot. Many of the mainline clergy are just as politically liberal as the day is long. I have my work cut out, I can tell you that. I think I’ve met one of these dominionists in my entire life. I thought he probably had some type of personality disorder. Happy voting tomorrow, folks. Wild horses couldn’t keepe from the polls. 😁. Blessings.

      Like

  6. As for the comment about the victimhood culture, it’s absolutely true. It’s all about groupthink. And rather than call it ‘feelings’ (which is what underlies transactivism), perhaps feeling offended might be the central concern. We mustn’t offend is the cardinal rule now.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Hello Nan. I think the entire thing comes down to a hate of change. Tradition is a word conservatives and righteous right likes to use thinking it means something sacred, but instead it simply shows a rigid refusal to accept new information or new ways. Look at the goals of so many of the evangelical leaders and the Republican officials, it seems they want to return to the 1950’s or the 1850’s for the most extreme right wingers. They want to roll back rights, roll back science, roll back understanding, and replace it with the platitudes and slogans of when they were comfortable and in charge. It is all about going back and never forward. They are frightened of the future, of moving forward, of progressing. They can not accept that other people have ideas that differ from theirs, that young people do not have the same rigid inflexible beliefs as they do. So they claim indoctrination of those who disagree with them. But is that not what they are doing from a very young age, even to the extent of having to homeschool kids to keep them from knowing the real history and science? What about their attempts to force their religion into public schools to force other people’s children to be taught incorrectly their personal religious indoctrinations. We are the only developed country that a large portion of the population has a problem with evolution and insist children be taught that creationism is just as valid. Is that not indoctrination? Seems to me again it is a desire to return to the past that they felt more comfortable with and had more say in their world. And others had less.

    Also it is about money and power for some. In the old days religious organizations could raise more money, had more authority , and never were questioned. Politicians could keep their foibles and crimes out of the press and away from the public. So any move to a more equal society is evil in their view. Socialism of any degree making things more even, equatable, and fair is denying them their power. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

        • Hello, Scottie,
          There is a far cry between educating and indoctrinating. The Christian Nationalists have latched on to some of the writing of past scholars. Basically, they are against democracy, they view public schools as the breeding place of secular ideas, humanist, that they teach women to become men, LGBTQ as violations of their laws, as though we should all be subject to their brand of ignorance.

          They embrace Trump because he is Trump; a useful idiot. They began grooming him several years ago and some of his appointments are out of that coalition. Their Gospel Coalition is global, including Russia. Katherine Stewart has done a good job with “The Power Worshippers.”

          And right back at you with the hugs.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Hello cagjr. I agree with what you wrote. I wish we who accept reality and understand the need to progress instead of being static or regress, had seen this threat much earlier. We are late to the game to challenge them and repair the damage they have done. My question is how to move forward? How to repair and fix the system and damage done over decades / generations? How to rebuild competence and reason over emotional highs and tribalism? Hugs

            Liked by 2 people

            • Scottie, yep we are a little late. The GOP has been working on this for decades. The Democrats need to develop a more devious approach to policies and issues. The church/GOP coalition has just about reduced the wall between church and state to just so much rubble.

              There is a cartoon on Cagle.com this morning. Two guys discussing the election. “No, it’s Sunday we turn the clocks 60 minutes. Tuesday we turn the calendar back 60 years.”

              And FFRF morning mail”

              “It’s a shame that the judicial system, and especially the current U.S. Supreme Court, has tinkered so much with [the Establishment Clause] because the admonition is simple: There shall be no establishment of religion. The idea of ‘accommodating’ religion, which is the current rage with the judiciary, absolutely contradicts this clear and simple language and demeans our Constitution.”
              —Tiernan, accepting FFRF’s 2001 Freethinker of the Year award in a speech titled “Blasphemy 101”

              Liked by 1 person

      • indoctrination
        the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
        “I would never subject children to religious indoctrination” (This was part of the dictionary entry.)

        Providing education is not the same as indoctrination. We don’t have to look far into the right-wing Christian Nationalist propaganda to see that their end game is for all education to be through the church, i.e. Christian Fundamentalism.

        Not too long ago, when an Islamic group wanted to build a mosque, the White Right Christian church lost its mind. No way were they going to allow the teaching of sharia law in their nation. These same people think Christianity is the law of the land and compliance is not an option.

        Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological camp, means, or timetable, God has called conservative Christians to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. Project Blitz is a long-range plan to bring about a Theocracy in our time. If one goes to au.org they will find their plan.
        Powerful Pentecostal Movement Aims to Conquer “Seven Mountains” of American Life BY VAL WILDE
        : the titular Seven Mountains of Religion, Family, Education, Entertainment, Media, Government, and Business.

        I fear the power of the church more than anything. They have chosen Trump as their Monarch.

        Mark Litzler Joe Vanilla cartoon
        “I have found there are always two sides to unsubstantiated facts.”

        Liked by 2 people

        • As a teacher at all levels of education for many decades in many locations, I can assure you, cagjr, that I appreciate the very real difference as you say between education and indoctrination. But that appreciation is based on how you define these terms. Definitions matter.

          That’s why I said the cure to indoctrination is critical thinking (which happens to be how I define a real education: the ability to think well in a variety of ways, and apply it to effect). And that element of being taught to think critically – although widely stated throughout public education curriculum (I’ve never taught in a private school setting) – is not the focus in public education. Quite the opposite. It’s not even an after-thought. The exercise of critical thinking is a hinderance to achieving the stated goals of demonstrating an understanding and application of (take you pick of subject matter and insert here) tolerance, diversity, and equity.

          These terms are the hallmark doublespeak of group-based ideology framing the way for how every subject is to be taught. And it is being taught this way. Yeah, so what?

          Almost no one except teachers trying to teach critical thinking recognizes the inherent incompatibility here between these curriculum goals.

          Follow please: inequity is demonstrated by unequal results. Therefore it’s bad. Diversity is demonstrated by different results. Therefore it’s good. Because these two cannot coexist without preference for one or the other when in competition for attention, for either to succeed tolerance for both means acceptance and therefore good. Applying critical thinking here means rejection of the necessary preference to achieve either (either equity is the goal – same results – OR diversity is the goal – different results) because it must award privilege to one over the other.

          But what of those people – those teachers who just so happen to unfortunately respect the liberal principles of equality and fairness (which is what the original Woke movement of the 60s revealed as discrimination) – who appreciate why equality of rights means no preferential treatment based on qualities for which cannot change? Well, teachers are expected to go along with the charade that these values of equality and fairness are magically synonymous to and inherent within the term equity. And let’s be absolutely clear here: achieving an understanding and demonstration of equity is the mantra of public education today. What is being intentionally suppressed at all levels of schooling is a belief that inequity is demonstrated by group comparisons that are different (but only in one direction, of course) and that any mention, any recognition of the inherent incompatibility of these three goals – tolerance, diversity, and equity – means demonstrating intolerance. Intolerance will not be tolerated! So if a teacher does, in fact, teach critical thinking and has it demonstrated that affects these goals, it means bad! It means racism, bigotry, and intolerance. Teachers get fired for this.

          Look, I know this sounds a bit confusing and even overblown, but it is not just widespread in all kinds of areas of Western society now but specifically taught at the university level to teachers. You have to pass these equity courses and diversity studies (also named by legitimate critics as grievance studies) to become a licensed teacher. This IS indoctrination in fact because it relies ona faith-based set of presumptions that it is true and that is really does reflect reality. And it is 100% ideologically driven because it does not reflect reality and so one cannot teach to it and call it education, which directly undermines the teaching of critical thinking, and so undermines the claim that any of this is equivalent to an education. It’s more than reasonable to label such teachings as indoctrination because that is what reflects what is truly going on today.

          Liked by 1 person

          • No, I will not follow that gobbledygook. That was too much plowing for a little patch of ‘what-the-hell?”
            What does it have to do with socialist indoctrination? The absence of religious dogma does not mean social indoctrination.

            A public school is a social setting, socially financed and available all society. It is supposed to provide the general public with a basic education that will give them a little preparation in facing the world. It is an institution the Christian Nationalists define much like a petri dish growing a host of undesirable, evil, filthy, secular, communist, socialists, blah blah blah. It is funded by the public. It does not belong to the church.

            You taught ever-so-many-years in public schools but you never taught ‘critical thinking’. The first thing I think of being adversely affected by critical thinking is religion. Unless you are teaching “Critical Thinking” as a course in philosophy, all your teaching should be an exercise in critical thinking. Elementary and secondary education is to prepare for either the labor force or higher education. Religion is the only subject which does better without critical thinking. Passive, uninspired, accepting, and gullible or better put, not thinking are desirable traits for religion.

            Equality is a difference in treatment due to bias etc. Inequality is produced by artificial or manufactured manipulation.
            Diversity is the presence of different entities by age, color, culture, etc. Diversity is the product of a natural world.

            How do Liberal principles of equality and fairness differ from,say, their opposite which would be conservative principles?

            I do not despise Christianity, as a whole. I do not despise the white race, as a whole. What I despise is that combination of Christian Nationalism and White Nationalism that have determined that the rest of the world must be subserviant to their error in reasoning. Anyone who disagrees is either an imbicile, a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a Fascist, an Antifascist, or any of their choice ascine adjectives. Oh. And anyone with the audacity to be accepting of any minority group, whether identified by race, skin pigment, religion, sexual identification, economic standing, or whatever else offends their delicate senses. Maybe I could be a little more sensitive to their delicate condition. I read somewhere that people developed a superiority complex because the recognize but want to hide their sense of failure and lower class.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Ooops. Someday I will learn to proofread before I hit enter. Well, just consider the source and what you can’t decipher. discard.

              “Equality is a difference in treatment due to bias etc. Inequality is produced by artificial or manufactured manipulation.”

              Equality is a condition of being of the same value as all other things in that class.
              Inequality is a difference in treatment due to bias etc. artificial or manufactured manipulation of value.

              Liked by 1 person

            • You seemed to have missed the point about teaching kids that equity is a goal about fairness, tolerance, respect, dignity, and diversity BECAUSE it means the same thing as achieving equality. That’s the lie. It’s simply not true. In fact, promoting equity promotes the opposite of equality. Promoting equity as if synonymous with equality IS the source of the indoctrination. Equity is about achieving the same results. Equality is sharing the same rights and freedoms. Please note the difference.

              (You also confuse the political meaning of ‘Liberal/Democrat’ with the philosophical meaning of ‘liberal’, the understanding necessary to grasp what liberal values are, what they mean, what the Founders were even talking about. This difference matters when you presume the opposite of liberal must be Conservative and that shows the confusion hard at work here.)

              The opposite of liberal is illiberal. You’ve confused your categories. What’s being taught through the goals of tolerance, diversity, and EQUITY is actually illiberal, goals that are guaranteed to cause mandated discrimination based on immutable characteristics. We are seeing this today, for example, where one’s race matters more than one’s character and/or abilities. (See the video by a student services coordinator from Smith to grasp the extent of this indoctrination.) Also, as a prerequisite for gaining employment at the professorship level, a candidate MUST demonstrate a contribution to promote these goals in one’s own life – presuming they are GOOD prerequisites for correct pedagogy when, in fact, they are proof of illiberal leanings. Still, no loyalty to equity examples, no job.

              The difference between equity and equality could not be more profound, in that it demonstrates the difference between promoting the liberal value of equality versus promoting the illiberal value of equity. The illiberal value is what is meant by teaching by indoctrination because the demonstration of this illiberal value to be ‘good’ does not exist in reality. It is a faith-based belief that is factually wrong. Furthermore, one must dismantle equality in order to implement equity in policy. Just look at admission weighting for race. That is what causes real harm to real people in real life. That is EXACTLY what ML King Jr talked about in his mountain top speech, to judge people NOT by the color of their skin but by the QUALITY of their character. What is being taught today in public schools at all levels in opposite to this ‘dream’.

              To be as clear as I can be, this difference between equality and equity policies is actually rather important because the substitution of equity with equality IS the source of today’s indoctrination. They are not the same at all but in direct conflict, yet the conflict is intentionally dismissed out of hand as racist, bigotry, and some kind of -phobe. What’s true doesn’t matter. Hence the need for faith… of the religious kind but applied to this ideology in the secular world of public education.

              Equality is a liberal principle. Equity is an illiberal principle… what the original author describes as ‘socialism’. Hence the reason I say don’t throw out the baby with the bath water because his criticism of indoctrination is accurate and correct. That doesn’t mean I think his religious beliefs are therefore any better; I’m saying faith-based indoctrination is indoctrination is indoctrination and it’s bad no matter who does it. This faith-based belief about equity in the secular world is the log in our own liberal eye if we’re going to criticize faith-based belief in the religious world. They are the same vice.

              Equality is an individual right in that all people share the same rights and freedoms; equity is a group-based goal that has to actively discriminate against some individuals to achieve the same results for other individuals. That’s why equity as a public policy is not just illiberal but contrary to the founding principle of equality in law, contrary to shared rights, shared freedoms, and fair and equal treatment. Belief in the virtue of equity undermines every equality advancement made in civil rights for all people everywhere. It undermines individual autonomy in law. It promotes racism. It promotes bigotry. It promotes discrimination. This is what the original author is criticizing but calling it ‘socialism’.

              Like

          • Hello Tildeb. I disagree with your premise. The idea that

            Follow please: inequity is demonstrated by unequal results. Therefore it’s bad.

            is what the protest against inequality is about is flawed and incorrect. The idea of equality is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. There is a huge difference between the idea of equal results and equal starting places. Hugs

            Liked by 2 people

            • Then we agree, Scottie. This is why understanding the very important differences between inequity and inequality matters so much and why inserting the term inequity into public policy is so pernicious. People ASSUME it means equality when it doesn’t.

              You will find inequity between groups of people is used to justify all kinds of claims of inequality between the individuals who constitute these groups. (That’s the big lie. It’s not true. And it hooks all kinds of good people with good intentions who wish to address inequality with fair policies to be its champion… hook, line, and sinker. Checkmate liberals!). These inequities are revealed by comparing group results to specific criteria, and so differences in the results supposedly indicate inequality between the groups. The differences are taken on faith to be due to a systemic power imbalance – a hierarchy between the groups – that favors the one group over the other to ’cause’ the inequity. (This is so commonly used that there is a new name for this fallacy, the Disparity Fallacy.)

              This is the standard operating procedure used to discern why one group holds more power over – and so victimizes – the other group. This then requires public intervention by law and policy to ‘correct’ the power imbalance that produces the inequity, to redress the victims by granting them MORE power and reducing the power of the victimizers. This is why we have an ongoing competition to be seen as the most victimized, and thus gain the most credibility and virtue.

              Let’s take police shootings as an example and by all means check this out for yourself. The metric being constantly used to demonstrate systemic racism against Blacks is to compare the number of fatal shootings of Blacks as a percentage of all fatal police shootings to their percentage of the population. In other words, if Black account for, say 15% of the population, then fatal police shooting of Blacks should be 15% of all fatal police shootings. Discrepancy indicates systemic racism. Sure enough, we find a higher percentage than 15%, and so we are told over and over again that the higher rate indicates systemic racism by police. The problem, however, is that shootings are related to the number of police contacts, which tends to be much higher with Blacks in certain neighbourhoods that call for police most often. In other words, the crime rate is much higher in some Black neighbourhoods, so we should expect higher numbers of police contacts. Higher contacts, more police shootings, higher fatalities. When this metric is used – the number of police contacts – Whites are fatally shot by police more often than Blacks. So we never hear about this metric being used to indicate the opposite conclusion. The metric selected for comparing groups results narrowly applied is what determines the discrepancy one is looking for, the ‘systemic problem’ one wants to change, like equal treatment of suspects by police.

              If racism is indeed the root cause of higher rates of fatal police shootings, why aren’t Asians killed at a higher rate than Whites in predominantly Asian neighbourhoods using the population percentage metric? Well, Asians are fatally shot at a rather remarkable lower rate than any other group using this metric so it doesn’t fit with the systemic racist claim. Well, it does if you select only Blacks and only generally but fall apart when you use, say, Caribbean Blacks who have a much lower rate than anyone save Asians. Again, this doesn’t fit the narrative, that discrepancy of results indicates some kind of group hierarchy power imbalance causing inequity. The explanatory model – like creationism – doesn’t work in reality and so you are expected to simply believe it does because we want to be champions for the downtrodden and the weak and the victimized and we want to support equality and fairness and so we find it common to disregard anyone who says otherwise because they are – and here you get to pick and choose the slur – racist or bigoted or some kind of -phobe… if they criticize the faith-based systemic racism narrative measure by inequity of results. Reality is discarded. Nuance is gone. Grey no longer exists. Black and white, binary thinking only. Maintaining the belief in the inequity narrative is all that matters if you want to avoid these charges. That, and keeping your mouth shut.

              Like

            • Hello Tildeb. I disagree entirely with your premise and your example. But I won’t belabor the point here. I will simply leave the definition of both words and you can see how they are used together to create the same ideal. A better situation for more people, improvement in conditions for as many as possible. Hugs

              inequity
              lack of fairness or justice.
              “policies aimed at redressing racial inequity”
              Inequity is defined as lack of justice or fairness. If two people commit the same crime and one gets convicted and the other doesn’t because he can afford to hire a better lawyer, this is an example of inequity.

              inequality
              difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.
              “social inequality”
              The major examples of social inequality include income gap, gender inequality, health care, and social class. In health care, some individuals receive better and more professional care compared to others.

              Like

            • Equity assessments are measured by disparity metrics. Disparity is measured by comparing group outcomes.

              This is not open to debate but a fact in practice. Check it out yourself, Scottie. Go online and start reading all the equity practices and policies in public education. I’m not lying.

              The assumption is that achieving equal results (reducing and eliminating disparity) improves equality. This belief is what’s being indoctrinated and it is factually wrong when measured against improving or decreasing individual rights and freedoms. Individual rights and freedoms are LOST when group metrics are being used to measure disparity of outcome and the ‘correction’ requires imposed outcomes. In other words unequal treatment and unfairness of real individuals in real life is being institutionalized and imposed in the name of achieving greater equality.

              Like

            • Hello Tildeb. Again I disagree with you. You are using semantics over what common usage of the words mean. In my experience only people who want to make an issue of equal opportunity confuse or compared it to equal outcomes. Teaching equality to school children at all ages is not indoctrination, but an acknowledgement of human rights.

              Tildeb I respect Nan’s wishes and rules on comments / replies on her blog. I have stretched her patience pretty far sometimes with my wish to argue a point past any chance of reaching agreement. I feel we are at that point now. So with respect to our host Nan I am not going to respond anymore on this subject with you. Let us just agree we do not agree and move on. Best wishes. Hugs

              Liked by 3 people

            • A simple personal example of using equity as the benchmark for obtaining fairness and justice but actually causing exactly the opposite.

              I was a contract math teacher and taught at an elementary school with a high percentage of indigenous students. School ranking was (and continues to be) based on province-wide testing. My school ranked 3rd worst in the province (~460 elementary schools in total). When linking test results in math to indigenous population, great disparity was found compared to Whites and Asians. Systemic racism was the cause, you see, so naturally the Province tried to come up with a solution to this systemic racism on display. Those poor, poor indigenous students. So an indigenous math curriculum was created. Now we had 2 math classes, one for indigenous students, one for everyone else. But because race was the metric calculated, Asian students were graded by the disparity in scores as ‘advanced’ and so they, too, needed their own ‘gifted’ math class. Now we had three separate math classes based on race because, you see, this is how inequity and systemic racism is addressed, by breaking students into classes based on their racial affiliation.

              I know that attendance aligns very strongly with achievement. Every teacher knows this fact. Indigenous students ranked very poorly in attendance and Asian students ranked the highest. Was this disparity used to alter curriculum? No. It wasn’t used because there was public financing for any program that addressed the inequity caused by systemic racism! And Look! The disparity of test results based on race ‘revealed’ systemic racism! Duh. Funding for math was parceled accordingly and so I saw a decline in math scores at my school by the White cohort. And that decline was just fine and dandy because… well, Whites are privileged anyway, you see, so why care? Indigenous rankings were just as low but, hey, the equity solution hadn’t yet had time to take meaningful effect.

              Race became a primary issue at our school when indigenous students had access to a new computer lab, funded by the mandatory equity policy, available ONLY to indigenous students. See how ‘fair’ this is to students denied access because they were not of the approved race? The reason was that because indigenous students were subject to systemic discrimination causing lower math scores, they should have additional support… and computers with math programs is the way to go! The computer lab funded by public money for a certain group of students based on race was that support. (According to computer logs, not a lot of math was being done there, but why was I checking? Did I have a racial motivation for doing so? What business of mine was what went on in the indigenous lab? Was I a closet racist?)

              Also, indigenous students could leave any class at any time and report to the computer lab as a safe space. Indigenous attendance in other classes dropped even further. See how fair that is to every other student, watching an indigenlusn student get up and walk out of class on a whim while he or she could not? The staff member assigned full time to supervise this lab had to be indigenous, of course, to have the shared ‘lived experience’ of these students to make them feel ‘safer’, and was therefore exempt from all other ‘White’ staff duties that might occur beyond the lab. Can you see how the fairness and equality through equity policy was becoming ever more clear and obvious?

              We lost a full time teacher to transfer funds to cover this hire, which increased my class size and reduced my funding. The anti-racist program based on equity – with the goal of achieving the same results between identified racial groups – produced differences not based on character or merit or abilities or even attendance, but on race. Racism grew exponentially as students divided more and more along racial lines throughout the school day. After all, it was the school promoting racial divisions of treatment and access to materials. Violence skyrocketed. Race-based gangs became a thing self-organized by children!

              At the next round of provincial testing, our school fell to last place in the Provincial rankings. As a math teacher, I was challenged by the district supervisor and principal to raise our school’s math ranking in these rates. I asked for and received special permission to collect the worst students including behavioural students regardless of race from Grades 3-6 for one hour a day for 10 weeks prior to the next round of testing when the computer lab was closed (~60 students). I brought the school ranking up by 445 positions. My principal was awarded Provincial Superintendent for Indigenous Students. If I could do this in 50 hours, why weren’t all teachers doing this with 500 hours? My contract was not renewed by the new principal.

              I know what I’m talking about, Scottie. Equity programs produce more inequity by authorizing unequal treatment, authorizing unfair treatment based on prohibited discriminatory grounds like race. These equity programs in reality promote exactly that which they were intended to redress by well-meaning people. And the worst element of this equity fiasco is how such programs divide real people in real life into partisan camps in the name of diversity while insisting that none may criticize but must tolerate this rush to the bottom or be labeled racist, bigoted, and -phobe if we disagree…. if we can PROVE inequity is not the right metric.

              Tolerance, diversity, and equity. Sounds good because, hey, equity is defined as fairness and justice so it MUST be good public policy, n’est pas? Just ignore the fact that such public policies don’t work to achieve these laudable goals for the individuals who constitute these groups but are in fact, in reality, a disaster for social cohesion and a guaranteed recipe to cause systemic division, systemic injustice, and systemic unfairness. All in the name of equity!

              Like

      • We are in agreement. Critical thought is indeed the answer. Critical thought frees us from religious doctrine. Showing a child the life-cycle of a butterfly is not indoctrination. Teaching a child that some non-existent being is waiting to drag them into a lake of fire is indoctrination is the worst imaginable. We should be teaching them science and math and languages and arts and history ad geography; something of intrinsic value. Let them know the difference between astronomy and astrology. Let them have a life without artificial boundaries. There is no sense in handicapping them as soon as they start to develop. If in their adulthood, they decide to follow after some enigma, then it is their decision and we have no right to deny them that choice.

        These Gospel Coalition churches are already moving into public schools to set up classes and to hold worship services. (Outside school hours.) Their purpose is multifaceted. They don’t have to bear the expense of maintaining their own building. They have access to K thru 12 children. They can offer after-school activities and have children participating, even if they don’t understand what they are being taught. (Get them while they are young.) They may get state and federal financial grants, depending on what they offer.

        “I speak to these pastors” across the country, he said. “This is the one thing they say: ‘Politics is dirty.’ My response to them is, ‘So is the church. So what’s your point?’ Rob McCoy
        Stewart, Katherine. The Power Worshippers (p. 100). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

        Liked by 1 person

        • We are in agreement about the perniciousness of religion getting involved with schooling. Where might differ is a problem that I think is just as bad, namely, ideology getting involved in schooling that moves generations away from understanding and defending the liberal values upon which our civilization is based. I see the same tools of faith-based indoctrination being carried out by ideologues of group power structures, not because they work, per se, but because they require installing faith-based belief. Just as pernicious. Just as much indoctrination. And it’s not any way to combat faith-based belief from religion but a result of empowering them as the flip side to the same coin. Only this coin is bankrupting the education system of being an education system, which weakens our shared values and will cause strife and unrest and hurt real people in real life.

          Like

    • I think you are absolutely right. I wish I knew what you refer to as bullshit, though. The whole Captain John blog? I hate that an officer in the USN has an attitude like that. Combat produces a lot of different mental/emotional effects. Religion in general? Yeah. That’s some low-grade bullshit right there.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. You’ll find no argument from me about the importance of reality-based education. It’s what creates and maintains stuff that works.

    But it seems to me you were justifying the indoctrination of youth in group-based ideology named ‘socialism’ because ‘socialism’ you state, makes “things more even, equatable, and fair.” That is an ideological statement easily refuted by reality and I think it should cause some discomfort to those who believe it to be reflective of reality when it is not. Sure, some regulated socialism really does make certain undertaking and responses more even equitable, and fair’ but ion many causes it does not. It is my experience that equitable results when measured by comparing the lack equivalent outcomes between groups never to be fair but highly discriminatory against all the individuals involved by systemic oppression, victims in reality that are caused but excused under the ideological banner of ‘socialism’ because, hey, socialism is, by definition of the ideologically indoctrinated, good. That’s the same reasoning used by those who destroy people’s careers and malign people’s character and cause very real harm simply having accusations of anti-ideological charges be leveled and found sufficient for action. That’s why the main threats used against the ideology’s critics are not reality-based evidence but the labels of racism, bigotry, and -phobe. Reality, like in religious belief, plays no role here.

    So you see my problem here with your comment that seems to me to justifies indoctrination because it’s used on the religious side and so therefore what’s wrong to excuse and enable indoctrination on the secular side? What’s wrong, I think, is that I suspect too few people really grasp that advocating for and enabling indoctrination using equity-based group metrics necessitates the causing of real harm to real people in real life in the name of that indoctrinated ideology. It’s the same reasoning used to excuse harm caused on the religious side. And I very strongly suspect you would never want to do this intentionally but I think your reasoning leads you to supporting exactly that. So I thought I’d raise it with you.

    Like

  9. Oh, please.

    That’s all it deserves. And I worked for a school district until this past August, when my particular position was 86’d due to the Trump admin’s mishandling of COVID-19.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Any one using the term “government school” is a far right winger, typically a libertarian bordering on being an anarchist. (They don’t believe the “guvmint” can legally collect taxes, too.)

    And, I find they usually slap a “socialist” label on anything they don’t like. Since facts have a definite liberal bias, they don’t like higher education. You remember higher education, the cost of which is beggaring the young at this time (saddling them with crippling debts). I don’t see how that can possibly be socialism.

    What makes me laugh is when they call the governmentally-regulated capitalist states of northern Europe as being “Socialist States!” They are far from socialist, but they don’t want to admit they are capitalist states because too many of us would ask “Why can’t we have capitalism like they do?”

    Liked by 3 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.