The University of Minnesota is reportedly investigating accounts that an education professor ran an “ICE drill” in class. According to Alpha News, Professor Blanca Caldas used her “Culture, Power, and Education” class to have students practice shielding other students from ICE.
The fact that it is a required course for those seeking a degree in elementary education only magnifies the concerns about a professor pressuring students into such a politically charged demonstration.
According to a student, Caldas had students stand up and move to a corner of the room as she acted out the trauma of ICE appearing in the classroom. She allegedly pretended to confront an ICE agent and then joined the students to tell them that they had to use their bodies to shield other students being sought by ICE. Then, “she ended the drill by having us look around our peers and our fellow students within the classroom and identify specifically the people that would appear to be the targets.”
The student objected to the racial element of the drill and said that many felt “uncomfortable,” but “essentially went along,” with Caldas’ instructions, she added.
Caldas’s bio page appears to have been locked from public view. However, College Fix was able to review the page and reported that “her PhD dissertation ‘Performing the Advocate Bilingual Teacher: Drama-based Interventions for Future Story-making’ was given the Activist Research Grant Initiative Award sponsored in part by the Social Justice Institute and the U. Texas at Austin Center for Gender and Women’s Studies.”
If the account is accurate, I would view the demonstration as entirely inappropriate, particularly for a required course. If a professor had held a demonstration in helping ICE agents, there would have been mass demonstrations at the University of Minnesota.
Even if this course is designed for such political demonstrations, the question remains: why was it approved by the department as a required course?
The title of the class alone tells me all I need to know without reading anything about this propagandist in educator’s clothing.
In trying lawsuits to juries in Texas for many, many years, I have learned that they nearly always get it right, meaning that when the verdict comes in, nine times out of ten, it is a reasoned decision. I may not agree with it but how the jury got to it makes sense. (I cannot speak about juries in other states). To me, the lesson to be learned from this is that the information given to juries is controlled in the sense that it must pass muster under rules of evidence which are there to insure the reliability of the information. What somebody “heard” usually is not admissible (hearsay). Even a photograph cannot be admitted without a sponsoring witness who can testify to its accuracy. I wish there was a similar discipline in academia– a filter of sorts. I would not want anyone or anything to interfere with the academic freedom of professors and teachers, and so they must develop the discipline themselves. Unfortunately, the only apparent discipline in academia today appears to be driven mostly by ideology.
Good one.
Before debating any particular exercise, it helps to step back and ask a more basic question. Why did the Founders think education was so important in the first place?
Education was not conceived as a vehicle for moral conditioning or political mobilization. It was essential because a republic depends on citizens capable of self-government. That means citizens trained to reason, to understand law and liberty, to distinguish persuasion from coercion, and to resist passion when judgment is required.
The Founders pushed education outward to the masses precisely because power would ultimately rest with them. An uninformed or emotionally manipulated populace was not a feature of republican government. It was its greatest danger.
Which leads to the uncomfortable but necessary question. Is this what the Founders intended education to be? Because whatever our schools practice is what ultimately forms our citizens. And if the formation is activist rather than civic, the problem is not a single professor. It is systemic.
Founders… education… Caldas? Got a point to make about the professor?
Pompous blabber.
If you cannot explain what education is for, you cannot meaningfully defend how this professor is using it in the classroom.
What education is for? …. If you don’t know that by now, I’m not going help you. As for Caldas, she can do whatever she wants in her classroom. She’s not obligated to you to justify her actions. Obviously the dept. has no issues. Just because you think its repulsive is irrelevant. Live with it. And what the Founders thought of education is also irrelevant in 2026.
“The question remains: why was it approved by the department as a required course?” Answer; For political purposes.
You just answered the question.
If the purpose of education is “obvious” but cannot be articulated, then it cannot serve as a limiting principle. And when there is no limiting principle, “she can do whatever she wants” becomes the standard.
Saying the course was approved “for political purposes” is not a defense. That is precisely the concern. A required course used for political formation rather than civic education is not neutral training. It is institutionalized activism.
As for the Founders being “irrelevant,” that position concedes the point entirely. If education is no longer tied to the requirements of self-government, then the question is not whether this classroom exercise is appropriate. The question is what kind of citizens the system now intends to produce.
Gooblygook.
Concession
All Democrats are criminals that break the law while lying they are upholding the law. All Democrats hate the Constitution and abuse it every chance they get. All Democrats hate the Bill of Rights and the fact YOU have rights. All Democrats will lie to you, try to brainwash you with propaganda and force you to become like them.All Democrats are working for a Communist Dictatorship.
All Democrats are evil.
Wow! Talk about evil. In your case, you are the crazy one. Your comment reveals a very ugly mind and temperament.
And the commenters here approve his message.
Reps. are exactly like the Americans they hate.
How can we tell who is making the comment when more and more are “anonymous” participants in this commentary?
Can start by asking anons. BTW, you’re an anonymous.
What difference does it matter who’s saying what. Its about content, what one is saying. Right? Attaching a moniker to your comment doesn’t give you credibility, it your words that do.
Mary, we cannot really verify identities here, even with screen names. So the filter has to be the content. Coherent arguments, clear principles, and factual support are worth engaging. Drive-by snark, dodges, and trolling are not. Discard those and move on.
Wordy little fellow aren’t you. Lots of words that say little. Just to remind the public, you are purveyor of “snark, dodges and trolling.” BTW, you repeated what anon 6:53 sated – its about content.
“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.” Source: unknown.
I’m glad you noticed the pattern. It’s about content.
Give it a try. 😁
Dr. Turley, you have no idea of the nature of a college of education, and what is permitted under the guise of education. Every weird idea is accepted, provided it is liberal. It is the go to major for those who flunk out of “content” majors. The only way you can’t get an “A” in a education course is never to attend class. Then you can argue for a “B”. They totally teach group learning, but always taught in a lecture-delivered class. They were DEI before there was DEI. And BTW, drama-driven learning is highly accepted.
“drama-driven learning is highly accepted.” Says the blog drama queen.
You gotta love dedicated (to what who even knows) moron lefties! Haha, reminds old timers of the Duck And Cover routine in schools for nuclear attack – like that ever made a difference in a blast! Bah haha – and now this moron takes the same approach.
She is a PhD. You?
She has a job. You?
There have always been those in academia with radical ideas, but why are there no reasonable thinking adults running these institutions?
Put some thought into and get back to us.