Please consider writing an essay that reckons squarely with the tension between (a) "the null hypothesis" that education interventions are ineffective and (b) the more specific hypothesis that education interventions that target political mindset are effective.
I think students do take "vibes and values" from their schooling. They may not remember much of the specifics but they do remember the feel. So, in the 1950s, the history of America was a glorious one, opening a continent, inventing modern prosperity, saving civilization in WW II. Most graduates couldn't tell you what years WW II had been but they knew that what the United States did was good and important.
Now, the history of the United States is the original sin of slavery and stealing the land from the Natives. With sexism and homophobia only recently fought to a standstill by brave activists. Again, most graduates can't tell you much detail but they know that the history until recently is shameful.
Given that kids "know" this whether passing an APUSH test (which definitely does not teach this) or take a standard US history class, which may or may not, it's highly unlikely they are getting this from school.
To pile on, constructively I hope, isn't the null hypothesis re education that schools cannot teach the dim to be bright? This doesn't conflict with being quite able to imbue a sociological mindset, such as an inclination to view oneself as an agent rather than a victim. My K-12 teachers and curricula in the 50's and 60's certainly advanced the former view, as has my generation, generally. 21st century teachers and curricula seem to have largely reversed on this issue, and their students as well.
and aside from being funny, it was insightful in that it says:
"As a result, the most powerful people in our society constantly mistake controlling the content and output of the conversation for managing the underlying reality that the conversation is about. The problem is compounded by the fact that they are very good at exercising that control, by the existence of technological tools that make it very easy, and by the volume and immersiveness of conversation created. In such circumstances, any deception executed with sufficient skill will inevitably become self-deception."
From that, I apply to the stability of "political education" that it remains stable only so long as it remains well divorced from reality.
Disappointing to hear that you didn't enjoy this book as much. As someone likely well left of this blog's median reader (though moving your way, I can assure you) I really enjoyed Whiteshift. I thought Kaufmann argued well and that his thesis comported with what I see and hear in the world around me. I've recommended it to a few left-leaning friends, and those that bothered to read it have acknowledged that they learned something.
I'm interested in his observation about the instinct to root for the underdog. I have this instinct, and probably have always had it. As someone squarely in Gen X, I don't know that it came from the broader culture... but maybe? It manifests strongly during almost any sporting event in which I don't have a rooting interest. You can imagine how much I loved the NCAA tournament as a kid! In politics, growing up in the 1980s, I'm sure it led me to instinctive support for the Democrats.
I may have to read the book in spite of Arnold's tepid review here, since I believe that the instinct to support the underdog is common and natural and somewhat good, and obviously today has gone the "reductio ad absurdum" route with the destructive BLM movement, Queers for Palestine, etc. It's interesting how the world moves from "we should accept trans people" (agree) to "we should use their preferred pronouns" (okay maybe, YMMV) to "trans people should compete as their preferred gender" (uh what?). I used to blow off most slippery slope arguments, but that's getting much harder to do. I don't yet agree with the idea that conservatives should assume command of schools. But I'm definitely starting to understand why they might want to.
Sometimes underdogs are underdogs for a good reason.
There may be an "instinct to root for the underdog" but there also seems to be the opposite, to look up to the successful, to take cues from them and to value their opinions more highly. The vast majority of woke people don't go among the homeless to know what to think. They read the New York Times or watch network news or The View or Steven Colbert.
Perhaps the best position to be in is to be rich and successful and to preach caring for the underdog and fearing the overdog. Perhaps fear is one reason, as Charles Murray complains, the successful don't "preach what they practice". If they did, they would run afoul of "the instinct to root for the underdog" and would, if nothing else, lose social standing.
"At present, many teachers in both public and private schools are advocates for cultural socialism. "
"many" is a weasel word of course. But in fact, teachers as a group are well to the right of the average liberal, and survey as basically moderate to mildly left of center, with 30% voting for Trump.
Teachers aren't indoctrinating students. Worrying about this is a waste of time and really evidence that you all are manipulated by propagandists. If a teacher is operating well outside of community standards, the teacher will soon be fired.
You write’”many” is a weasel word’, then go on to write the false complete generalization ‘Teachers aren’t indoctrinating students’. Perhaps you would be wise become a bit weaselly yourself.
Regarding community standards: Some communities want to indoctrinate their children. A lot of school boards have become excruciatingly woke.
Women have low personal capacity for violence that isn't directed at children (which all the scholarly literature and statistics show is the characteristic "female culture of violence" even if you do not include abortion). However, if you redistribute the capacity to do more conventional violence to women through the mechanisms of the state, they of course take to it with gusto. All of a sudden, thanks to the program of the modern state, they have superpowers that they could not possess before. It is irresistible. Further, the state shields them from retaliation, so they get both a sword to use against men and a shield that protects them. Given the option, why would they not support a program that arms them against their rivals and that shields them from their enemies? Given a choice between superpowers and disarmament, most women and most men will choose the option that juices them up, or at least that they believe juices them up.
The difficulty with this model of creating new rights, which are essentially claims on government intervention, is that eventually the parties targeted or potentially targeted by those claims adapt and adjust to become more resistant to those claims. The HR department adapts an active defense against claims of racial discrimination or what have you. The culture changes so that you no longer have a lot of Classical Racists roaming around saying slurs. So you need to adapt either the way that you make claims or develop novel claims and novel identities to keep the strategy going. The other problem is that eventually the people targeted by those claims respond to the deterrent effect of those lawsuits and stop engaging in the activity that is deterred (e.g. procreating, having one-on-one meetings with women behind closed doors).
Yeah, there's also the problem that women in general seem to have more authoritarian personalities. As Orwell observed, "it was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy."
School choice only has a chance of being partly implemented in Deep Red States, and even then I suspect most people will go to their local K-12 by default and all will head on to at least modestly woke universities.
So while one of the strongest proponents of school choice you can think of, he's correct that people do have to get into the grubby business of fighting over school curriculum at the political level.
Finally, I think school choice has an external impact beyond just your own kids being able to attend another school. Being in a state where kids are free to attend another school probably will lead to a better citizen body over time. If the other 95% of kids get indoctrinated while you homeschool this will be of limited effectiveness in stopping woke.
"Cultural socialism taps into what Kaufmann calls a 'minorities good, majorities threatening' emotional reflex."
Thus, the question, "Are Jews a minority, or an especially successful part of the white majority?" If the first, they should get the benefit of the doubt. If the second, they should be feared and criticized. Many older Jewish people look at history and assume that they are automatically the first. Many younger people think equally automatically that they are the second. This extends to attitudes toward Israel. Is it a little minority state in a region of enemies? Or is it an extension of white EuroAmerica, a settler colonialist state that oppresses the natives?
A silly (?) example of this occurred in Hollywood recently. The people who do the Academy Awards have a museum and did an exhibit called something like "Jews in Hollywood". The exhibit treated them like successful white people, telling a warts and all story--this producer was a womanizer, that producer was really cheap. And the bleep hit the fan. Museum exhibits about minorities are supposed to be celebratory, how wonderful they are, how they overcame obstacles, etc. And, damn it!, these people were (or at least had been) oppressed minorities. The head of the museum wound up resigning.
New York State requires a Masters of Education to be a teacher. That requirement seems likely to select for adherents of Cultural Marxism. Occupational Licensing reform may mitigate that and should be pursued
No, it doesn't require a masters in ed to become a teacher. Bad enough the reality, which is you have to get one in five years in order to get your clear. Very few states require even that. New York is considering getting rid of it.
The idea that ed schools are indoctrinating is ludicrous. Getting that master's is very much a pay to play.
In other words, New York requires one to remain a teacher. Considering it takes years to get one, I think the distinction is not important. So it’s done concurrently or else you see yourself out. That sounds pretty close to what someone would mean by “being a teacher”.
One persons indoctrination is another persons lesson plan. I agree that the fact that most states do not require that is strong evidence against it being the singular cause. However, it could exacerbate the issue through nothing more than a selection effect.
In my experience, teachers are the most liberal professional demographic I’ve ever seen. One fancy lower school headmaster introduced himself and his background as “challenging racial disparities”. I was shell shocked.
"Considering it takes years to get one, I think the distinction is not important."
It doesn't take years to get one. And it is important, because you labeled it a selection, which it isn't.
"In my experience, teachers are the most liberal professional demographic I’ve ever seen"
Public school teachers aren't anywhere near the most liberal professional demographic. 1 in 3 is a Republican, roughtly (varies from 29-33%). You need to get out more or more likely just do some research,.
"It doesn't take years to get one. And it is important, because you labeled it a selection, which it isn't."
Google says it takes 2-3 years of part-time schooling to complete. Do you dispute that, or you dispute that 2-3 years counts as "years"?
Saying that something is a "selection effect" means that having that be a requirement of employment has some impact on the people that choose to apply to the role. It sounds like you are interpreting that as meaning it's part of the interview process, which is not my meaning.
"Public school teachers aren't anywhere near the most liberal professional demographic"
1. I said it was in my experience, in New York City. I don't think you're in a position to contest that. I doubt that fine-grained-enough data exists for you to demonstrate that it's an incorrect impression.
2. Do you have a reference to that information? I had trouble finding it. My prior recollection was that it was more like 90%-10%. I would expect it to vary a lot by state, though.
"Google says it takes 2-3 years of part-time schooling to complete. Do you dispute that, or you dispute that 2-3 years counts as "years"?"
The latter. In fact, given that teachers are given a boost in pay for more credits and separately for master's, this requirement is almost certainly done not for indoctrination, but to ensure teachers get more money. (Also probably a way to transfer funds back to state universities, alas.)
"Saying that something is a "selection effect" means that having that be a requirement of employment has some impact on the people that choose to apply to the role. "
Correct. If you had to *have* a MEd to *get* a teaching job, then it would be a selection effect. but in fact you can get a degree in anything, then get a credential if you want to be a teacher and then, only after getting hired to be a teacher, go to some bullshit classes to get more money, it's not a selection effect. I do know what it means.
"I said it was in my experience, in New York City. I don't think you're in a position to contest that. I doubt that fine-grained-enough data exists for you to demonstrate that it's an incorrect impression."
Oh, it's probably more in NY City, but then the teachers are reflecting the values of the community.
"Do you have a reference to that information? I had trouble finding it. My prior recollection was that it was more like 90%-10%. I would expect it to vary a lot by state, though."
Never in the history of teaching have they been 90-10. You simply don't know what you're talking about. There's tons of data establishing the roughly 1 in 3 statistic.
I can't find the link anymore, but I am absolutely certain that the head of the California major teachers union, the CFT, said that 1 in 3 of their members voted for Trump in 2016 and if that's true in Callifornia it's almost certainly true for most other large blue states. Might vary in Vermont.
It is well documented that somewhere around 1 in 3 NEA teachers voted for Trump in 2016 and if the numbers improved in 2020 when Biden won, they certainly would have trumpeted it. Tons of data since then has been consistently in the 29-33 range.
I'm not sure how significant this is, but if a person knows she has to get a Masters within 5 years in order to keep a teaching position, that will affect some people. People who don't want to take courses at night or who are sick of ed courses may decide not to apply for teaching positions at all. Even if passing is almost automatic, you have to do some work and show up.
> Political donations from the education industry largely come from individuals associated with various institutions, as universities and schools typically cannot form PACs. The industry reached new heights in political donationswith their highest cycle ever coming in the 2016 presidential year with the 2018 cycle becoming a close second.
> The industry dramatically favors liberals and as become more liberal in preference as the industry has spent more money. Democrats haven’t received under 70 percent of education industry donations in a cycle since 2002. In 2018, individuals from the education industry gave more than $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans. The industry’s peak giving year thus far, 2016, saw more than $75 million go to Democrats and $12 million to Republicans.
Massachussetts rather famously loosened their standards during the pandemic and is now bragging they don't need to follow all the rules, so I'd watch closely.
"The graduation speaker mentioned that she had recently read that by 2050 the United States population would be over 50 percent minorities."
An obvious question - do people of European descent then become a minority, and therefore good? Or do we flip the script, go global, and decide that the Chinese are the real oppressors on the global stage, what with their large Chinese population?
I don't think cultural socialism is the most descriptively accurate term for that movement/ideology. It is better than "wokeism," which just about any other term would be. I think, like cultural Marxism, the term socialism doesn't consider the idea of intersectionality, the distinction between equity and equality, and the idea that there is this hierarchy of oppression in society with different groups deserving different levels of preferential treatment. The word socialism implies a level of material equality or equal treatment that "wokeists" would not be content with. A better phrase might be intersectional paternalism because that would be their ultimate goal for using the state.
Socialism” is a large scale, wonky cultural response provoked by multiple generations feeling increasingly distanced from power and that - at least in this run of the software - it could actually start to diminish next year in the wake of Biden’s “glorious” exit. In short, he’s teaching boomers “how to say goodbye”.
"But the book is unreadable" I don't ask much of a book but that's pretty much job one for the medium. Readability aside, it doesn't sound like he really breaks any new ground. But sometimes I can miss nuance among elite discourse so who knows?
The Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To have a chance at victory Democrats should try listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their distain for the insane positions advocated by my party:
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
Politicians like Harris believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow crime and homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Arnold,
Please consider writing an essay that reckons squarely with the tension between (a) "the null hypothesis" that education interventions are ineffective and (b) the more specific hypothesis that education interventions that target political mindset are effective.
Schools can teach vibes and values more easily then calculus.
In fact I'd say that is their primary purpose.
I think students do take "vibes and values" from their schooling. They may not remember much of the specifics but they do remember the feel. So, in the 1950s, the history of America was a glorious one, opening a continent, inventing modern prosperity, saving civilization in WW II. Most graduates couldn't tell you what years WW II had been but they knew that what the United States did was good and important.
Now, the history of the United States is the original sin of slavery and stealing the land from the Natives. With sexism and homophobia only recently fought to a standstill by brave activists. Again, most graduates can't tell you much detail but they know that the history until recently is shameful.
Given that kids "know" this whether passing an APUSH test (which definitely does not teach this) or take a standard US history class, which may or may not, it's highly unlikely they are getting this from school.
Having had contact with present high school history, you would know better than I.
To pile on, constructively I hope, isn't the null hypothesis re education that schools cannot teach the dim to be bright? This doesn't conflict with being quite able to imbue a sociological mindset, such as an inclination to view oneself as an agent rather than a victim. My K-12 teachers and curricula in the 50's and 60's certainly advanced the former view, as has my generation, generally. 21st century teachers and curricula seem to have largely reversed on this issue, and their students as well.
Ken
That was my thought as well. Does the effect of reading that paragraph last till the end of the week? Or until reading a different paragraph?
It's a good question. I do wonder how pervasive this kind of "education" remains outside of a system set up to continually reinforce it.
I happened across this yesterday
https://www.conorfitzgerald.com/p/reality-bites?r=ymo5a&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
and aside from being funny, it was insightful in that it says:
"As a result, the most powerful people in our society constantly mistake controlling the content and output of the conversation for managing the underlying reality that the conversation is about. The problem is compounded by the fact that they are very good at exercising that control, by the existence of technological tools that make it very easy, and by the volume and immersiveness of conversation created. In such circumstances, any deception executed with sufficient skill will inevitably become self-deception."
From that, I apply to the stability of "political education" that it remains stable only so long as it remains well divorced from reality.
Disappointing to hear that you didn't enjoy this book as much. As someone likely well left of this blog's median reader (though moving your way, I can assure you) I really enjoyed Whiteshift. I thought Kaufmann argued well and that his thesis comported with what I see and hear in the world around me. I've recommended it to a few left-leaning friends, and those that bothered to read it have acknowledged that they learned something.
I'm interested in his observation about the instinct to root for the underdog. I have this instinct, and probably have always had it. As someone squarely in Gen X, I don't know that it came from the broader culture... but maybe? It manifests strongly during almost any sporting event in which I don't have a rooting interest. You can imagine how much I loved the NCAA tournament as a kid! In politics, growing up in the 1980s, I'm sure it led me to instinctive support for the Democrats.
I may have to read the book in spite of Arnold's tepid review here, since I believe that the instinct to support the underdog is common and natural and somewhat good, and obviously today has gone the "reductio ad absurdum" route with the destructive BLM movement, Queers for Palestine, etc. It's interesting how the world moves from "we should accept trans people" (agree) to "we should use their preferred pronouns" (okay maybe, YMMV) to "trans people should compete as their preferred gender" (uh what?). I used to blow off most slippery slope arguments, but that's getting much harder to do. I don't yet agree with the idea that conservatives should assume command of schools. But I'm definitely starting to understand why they might want to.
Sometimes underdogs are underdogs for a good reason.
There may be an "instinct to root for the underdog" but there also seems to be the opposite, to look up to the successful, to take cues from them and to value their opinions more highly. The vast majority of woke people don't go among the homeless to know what to think. They read the New York Times or watch network news or The View or Steven Colbert.
Perhaps the best position to be in is to be rich and successful and to preach caring for the underdog and fearing the overdog. Perhaps fear is one reason, as Charles Murray complains, the successful don't "preach what they practice". If they did, they would run afoul of "the instinct to root for the underdog" and would, if nothing else, lose social standing.
"At present, many teachers in both public and private schools are advocates for cultural socialism. "
"many" is a weasel word of course. But in fact, teachers as a group are well to the right of the average liberal, and survey as basically moderate to mildly left of center, with 30% voting for Trump.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/political-opinions-k-12-teachers-results-nationally-representative-survey
Teachers aren't indoctrinating students. Worrying about this is a waste of time and really evidence that you all are manipulated by propagandists. If a teacher is operating well outside of community standards, the teacher will soon be fired.
You write’”many” is a weasel word’, then go on to write the false complete generalization ‘Teachers aren’t indoctrinating students’. Perhaps you would be wise become a bit weaselly yourself.
Regarding community standards: Some communities want to indoctrinate their children. A lot of school boards have become excruciatingly woke.
"Some communities want to indoctrinate their children. A lot of school boards have become excruciatingly woke."
No shit. But then they aren't violating community standards which, along with the law, is all you can really whine about teachers in regards to.
Women have low personal capacity for violence that isn't directed at children (which all the scholarly literature and statistics show is the characteristic "female culture of violence" even if you do not include abortion). However, if you redistribute the capacity to do more conventional violence to women through the mechanisms of the state, they of course take to it with gusto. All of a sudden, thanks to the program of the modern state, they have superpowers that they could not possess before. It is irresistible. Further, the state shields them from retaliation, so they get both a sword to use against men and a shield that protects them. Given the option, why would they not support a program that arms them against their rivals and that shields them from their enemies? Given a choice between superpowers and disarmament, most women and most men will choose the option that juices them up, or at least that they believe juices them up.
The difficulty with this model of creating new rights, which are essentially claims on government intervention, is that eventually the parties targeted or potentially targeted by those claims adapt and adjust to become more resistant to those claims. The HR department adapts an active defense against claims of racial discrimination or what have you. The culture changes so that you no longer have a lot of Classical Racists roaming around saying slurs. So you need to adapt either the way that you make claims or develop novel claims and novel identities to keep the strategy going. The other problem is that eventually the people targeted by those claims respond to the deterrent effect of those lawsuits and stop engaging in the activity that is deterred (e.g. procreating, having one-on-one meetings with women behind closed doors).
Yeah, there's also the problem that women in general seem to have more authoritarian personalities. As Orwell observed, "it was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy."
It's a nicer job than administering beatings in some cold gulag somewhere.
School choice only has a chance of being partly implemented in Deep Red States, and even then I suspect most people will go to their local K-12 by default and all will head on to at least modestly woke universities.
So while one of the strongest proponents of school choice you can think of, he's correct that people do have to get into the grubby business of fighting over school curriculum at the political level.
Finally, I think school choice has an external impact beyond just your own kids being able to attend another school. Being in a state where kids are free to attend another school probably will lead to a better citizen body over time. If the other 95% of kids get indoctrinated while you homeschool this will be of limited effectiveness in stopping woke.
"Cultural socialism taps into what Kaufmann calls a 'minorities good, majorities threatening' emotional reflex."
Thus, the question, "Are Jews a minority, or an especially successful part of the white majority?" If the first, they should get the benefit of the doubt. If the second, they should be feared and criticized. Many older Jewish people look at history and assume that they are automatically the first. Many younger people think equally automatically that they are the second. This extends to attitudes toward Israel. Is it a little minority state in a region of enemies? Or is it an extension of white EuroAmerica, a settler colonialist state that oppresses the natives?
A silly (?) example of this occurred in Hollywood recently. The people who do the Academy Awards have a museum and did an exhibit called something like "Jews in Hollywood". The exhibit treated them like successful white people, telling a warts and all story--this producer was a womanizer, that producer was really cheap. And the bleep hit the fan. Museum exhibits about minorities are supposed to be celebratory, how wonderful they are, how they overcame obstacles, etc. And, damn it!, these people were (or at least had been) oppressed minorities. The head of the museum wound up resigning.
Arnold Kling writes: "I recommend hanging Kaufmann’s editors."
Appropriately acerbic ... We need more sardonic wit from Arnold!!
New York State requires a Masters of Education to be a teacher. That requirement seems likely to select for adherents of Cultural Marxism. Occupational Licensing reform may mitigate that and should be pursued
No, it doesn't require a masters in ed to become a teacher. Bad enough the reality, which is you have to get one in five years in order to get your clear. Very few states require even that. New York is considering getting rid of it.
The idea that ed schools are indoctrinating is ludicrous. Getting that master's is very much a pay to play.
In other words, New York requires one to remain a teacher. Considering it takes years to get one, I think the distinction is not important. So it’s done concurrently or else you see yourself out. That sounds pretty close to what someone would mean by “being a teacher”.
One persons indoctrination is another persons lesson plan. I agree that the fact that most states do not require that is strong evidence against it being the singular cause. However, it could exacerbate the issue through nothing more than a selection effect.
In my experience, teachers are the most liberal professional demographic I’ve ever seen. One fancy lower school headmaster introduced himself and his background as “challenging racial disparities”. I was shell shocked.
"Considering it takes years to get one, I think the distinction is not important."
It doesn't take years to get one. And it is important, because you labeled it a selection, which it isn't.
"In my experience, teachers are the most liberal professional demographic I’ve ever seen"
Public school teachers aren't anywhere near the most liberal professional demographic. 1 in 3 is a Republican, roughtly (varies from 29-33%). You need to get out more or more likely just do some research,.
"It doesn't take years to get one. And it is important, because you labeled it a selection, which it isn't."
Google says it takes 2-3 years of part-time schooling to complete. Do you dispute that, or you dispute that 2-3 years counts as "years"?
Saying that something is a "selection effect" means that having that be a requirement of employment has some impact on the people that choose to apply to the role. It sounds like you are interpreting that as meaning it's part of the interview process, which is not my meaning.
"Public school teachers aren't anywhere near the most liberal professional demographic"
1. I said it was in my experience, in New York City. I don't think you're in a position to contest that. I doubt that fine-grained-enough data exists for you to demonstrate that it's an incorrect impression.
2. Do you have a reference to that information? I had trouble finding it. My prior recollection was that it was more like 90%-10%. I would expect it to vary a lot by state, though.
"Google says it takes 2-3 years of part-time schooling to complete. Do you dispute that, or you dispute that 2-3 years counts as "years"?"
The latter. In fact, given that teachers are given a boost in pay for more credits and separately for master's, this requirement is almost certainly done not for indoctrination, but to ensure teachers get more money. (Also probably a way to transfer funds back to state universities, alas.)
"Saying that something is a "selection effect" means that having that be a requirement of employment has some impact on the people that choose to apply to the role. "
Correct. If you had to *have* a MEd to *get* a teaching job, then it would be a selection effect. but in fact you can get a degree in anything, then get a credential if you want to be a teacher and then, only after getting hired to be a teacher, go to some bullshit classes to get more money, it's not a selection effect. I do know what it means.
"I said it was in my experience, in New York City. I don't think you're in a position to contest that. I doubt that fine-grained-enough data exists for you to demonstrate that it's an incorrect impression."
Oh, it's probably more in NY City, but then the teachers are reflecting the values of the community.
"Do you have a reference to that information? I had trouble finding it. My prior recollection was that it was more like 90%-10%. I would expect it to vary a lot by state, though."
Never in the history of teaching have they been 90-10. You simply don't know what you're talking about. There's tons of data establishing the roughly 1 in 3 statistic.
I can't find the link anymore, but I am absolutely certain that the head of the California major teachers union, the CFT, said that 1 in 3 of their members voted for Trump in 2016 and if that's true in Callifornia it's almost certainly true for most other large blue states. Might vary in Vermont.
It is well documented that somewhere around 1 in 3 NEA teachers voted for Trump in 2016 and if the numbers improved in 2020 when Biden won, they certainly would have trumpeted it. Tons of data since then has been consistently in the 29-33 range.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not sure how significant this is, but if a person knows she has to get a Masters within 5 years in order to keep a teaching position, that will affect some people. People who don't want to take courses at night or who are sick of ed courses may decide not to apply for teaching positions at all. Even if passing is almost automatic, you have to do some work and show up.
This site at the top of Google search results shows a 85/15 split in donations from Educators.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=W04
Quoting:
> Political donations from the education industry largely come from individuals associated with various institutions, as universities and schools typically cannot form PACs. The industry reached new heights in political donationswith their highest cycle ever coming in the 2016 presidential year with the 2018 cycle becoming a close second.
> The industry dramatically favors liberals and as become more liberal in preference as the industry has spent more money. Democrats haven’t received under 70 percent of education industry donations in a cycle since 2002. In 2018, individuals from the education industry gave more than $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans. The industry’s peak giving year thus far, 2016, saw more than $75 million go to Democrats and $12 million to Republicans.
Massachusetts is the same way, but we love schooling and degrees and there's no way the requirement is going away.
Massachussetts rather famously loosened their standards during the pandemic and is now bragging they don't need to follow all the rules, so I'd watch closely.
"The graduation speaker mentioned that she had recently read that by 2050 the United States population would be over 50 percent minorities."
An obvious question - do people of European descent then become a minority, and therefore good? Or do we flip the script, go global, and decide that the Chinese are the real oppressors on the global stage, what with their large Chinese population?
I don't think cultural socialism is the most descriptively accurate term for that movement/ideology. It is better than "wokeism," which just about any other term would be. I think, like cultural Marxism, the term socialism doesn't consider the idea of intersectionality, the distinction between equity and equality, and the idea that there is this hierarchy of oppression in society with different groups deserving different levels of preferential treatment. The word socialism implies a level of material equality or equal treatment that "wokeists" would not be content with. A better phrase might be intersectional paternalism because that would be their ultimate goal for using the state.
Have a nice day, to coin a phrase.
I’d generally argue that “Cultural
Socialism” is a large scale, wonky cultural response provoked by multiple generations feeling increasingly distanced from power and that - at least in this run of the software - it could actually start to diminish next year in the wake of Biden’s “glorious” exit. In short, he’s teaching boomers “how to say goodbye”.
Here is how:
https://substack.com/@cynicology/note/c-62966932?r=8068
"But the book is unreadable" I don't ask much of a book but that's pretty much job one for the medium. Readability aside, it doesn't sound like he really breaks any new ground. But sometimes I can miss nuance among elite discourse so who knows?
to quote the wisest of all men : " bullshity bullshit , it all bullshit"
trying to understand the managerial class by analysing the social underpinning of woke is trying to understand the soviets through communism
it's just half assed excuses "our betters" make up for NOT doing their jobs and winning office fights
The Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To have a chance at victory Democrats should try listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their distain for the insane positions advocated by my party:
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
Politicians like Harris believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow crime and homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Does this mean ’my party’ has become ‘my former party’? If so, I applaud not only your critical thinking, but your application thereof.
"especially as applied to Black Americans and, later, to women and sexual minorities."
"The graduation speaker mentioned that she had recently read that by 2050 the United States population would be over 50 percent minorities."
Does anyone else see an inconsistency here?