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?
Another example of a forced, captive audience, required to take a useless class as a graduation requirement that amounts to nothing. Just like a PhD in ‘Performing the Advocate Bilingual Teacher: Drama-based Interventions for Future Story-making’ amounts to nothing.
The point of a educated public was to make informed, logical, rational, reason based judgements. Not fall prey to ideology, or emotion based decisions.
Professors like Caldas are the main problem with our educational system today. The fact that people like Caldas are involved in training future teachers is a disgrace to our educational system. No wonder America students. perform so poorly.
When this was done in Nazi Germany, we called them heros, not protecting people from concentration camps is bad.
Oh stop!!
Please give us the location of the “concentration camp” to which you refer!!
31.81210475896195, -106.2980966460874
It’s not a political demonstration, Turley. It’s practical reality. ICE and CBP are preying on schools and American police forces everywhere are stepping aside and letting it happen while you’re being paid to go out and deflect.
To not have schools trained in this reality would be like not having active shooter drills.
Turley, you’re despicable.
Pretty clear you didn’t grasp the point of the opinion.
Marxists can only grasp straw
Next thing you know, colleges will be teaching that it’s okay to break the law.
According to the article Turley referenced in writing this piece, it seems that the student “Angela” was hesitant to use her real name because she feared criticism or threats. Clearly, she leans MAGA, and from the tone of the article and her remarks, she appears to be a freshman.
It’s unlikely that ICE would actually be searching for undocumented immigrants in college classrooms and lecture halls. However, “Angela,” who seems to be intolerant of different viewpoints and somewhat paranoid about the class she’s required to take—describing it as some sort of woke indoctrination without fully explaining the course content—might be exaggerating a bit. Even Turley admits he’s not entirely sure if her account is accurate but reports it as “reportedly” so and so.
The professor’s activity seems somewhat silly, considering that ICE or CBP probably wouldn’t storm into classrooms to pick up illegal immigrants in the middle of a lecture. Such an action would be highly disruptive at any college or university, and students would have every reason to protest the tactic of barging into classrooms to carry out immigration enforcement. I highly doubt Professor Turley would tolerate such an intrusion into his class.
You just rewrote Turley’s opinion. And … your point?
Give us just ONE example of ICE “bursting into” ANY classroom!
insincere leftys, you don’t have to like it, but it IS happening.
The warmth of communism is replaced with cold, hard, “get a job!”
Their choice of career doesn’t foreshadow a future devoid of a joyless educational career.
Send your kids to college to learn to read and write. Now they sit and protest on a cold winter night.
Maybe yours. Not mine.
College Fix didn’t give us a timeline for the UT Austin funding in this report. It’s a safe bet the Governor’s people will be on this to see how much more DEI eradication the Texas public fisc needs in the education system. That’s the micro thought. The bigger thought is this: we are the human race. That’s what we call ourselves. We are separated by ideas, not genetics. The only thing white in the human race is albino. That holds for every skin shade in our palette. It is bad science to take the word race that defines us all and also use it to define supposed subgroups. I watched Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. He used the terms dark skinned people and light skinned people in some of the discussions. He was right, and at the time we we didn’t know the DNA science as well as we do now. Science also tells us that the power of our human genome gives our skin the ability to lighten or darken over generations at the place on Earth where they are to get exactly the right amount of vitamin D from sunlight. White supremacy is every bit as racist as perjorative use of the term blacks to connote inferiority. It is not only a surrender of truth to convenience. It derails the indispensable right of speech to resolve differences in ideas. We can do better.
Leftwing fascists and their propagandist media cheerleaders continue to conflate “immigrants” with “illegal immigrants”. No nation on earth is expected to welcome undocumented, illegal immigrants without limit. Well, no nation except the United States. Mexico? Nope. Honduras? Nope. Venezuela? Nope. Canada? Nope. Somalia? Nope. Only one.
Our borders are opened as an integral component of a defined strategy, not an altruistic impulse by a well meaning party. The immigrants are themselves cannon fodder as are the victims of the criminal elements among them.
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.
Honestlawyermostly, how right you are. You and l would say somebody’s life depends on the law of quality evidence in a capital case. We are hardwired to protect and put first the interest of the client. There is great appeal in a message to educators to teach as though the lives of students depend on what gets taught.
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
Round and round he goes, where he’ll stop he doen’t know.
Olly hear hear!
A primary object…should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing…than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?
George Washington
Exactly. That captures the purpose perfectly. Thank you for posting the quote.
Clearly that education GW wanted for the future guardians did not include you. There’s nothing in your past comments that reveal an enlighten mind. Just saying.
Quoting Washington accurately and in context is an example of the very capacity being discussed, regardless of anyone’s past commentary.
Yes, she can do whatever her EMPLOYER permits her to do in THEIR classroom. After all, when you violate federal laws and engage in discrimination in THEIR classroom, it is also the EMPLOYER held liable. Especially when it is now evidenced to your attention.
Excuse me, but there’s nothing in the post about discrimination or violations of law. Its about the course being mandatory. Did I get that right or?
I would putforth that teaching students to subvert federal immigration laws is a form of obstruction and interference to federal law. As the article states, some students felt uncomfortable as the exercise was solely race based, a form of discrimination. Perhaps you should read again without your lib goggles on?!
What passes for education today, isnt.
Systems produce what they are designed to produce. If education has no agreed output, everything else is performative. The outcomes we see today raise an obvious question. Are they accidental, or by design? And do they cultivate the capacity for self-government?
If the school is accredited, it is “agreed”. Recognized by the USDE and CHEA. Then geographically … HLC, MSCHE, NECHE, NWCCU, SACSCOC, WSCCU …. These organizations ensure that universities and colleges meet established quality standards in education, faculty qualifications, curriculum, and student support services. And then, where is it required a school has to be “credentialed”. Its optional.
The founders promoted education among the broader population precisely because they recognized that ultimate power would reside with an informed citizenry. An uninformed or emotionally manipulated populace posed a significant threat to republican governance. They understood at the time that education was essential not only for self-governance but also as a safeguard against religious extremism, given the considerable influence religion wielded during that period. This understanding stemmed from their experiences with the powerful Church of England and its various offshoots—Puritans, Quakers, Protestants, among others—each vying for influence, which frequently led to violent conflicts, laws branding others as blasphemers or heretics, and calls for punishments such as death or torture. Education served as a means to discern hypocrisy, injustice, and zealotry, all of which threatened the existing power structures and religious doctrines that shaped daily life in that era.
Consequently, most founders emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state. Without this separation, republican government, freedom, and liberty could not be sustained. They acknowledged individuals’ right to practice any religion freely but also insisted that no single religion should dominate others. This is why contemporary opposition to strengthening educational systems is often rooted in the desire to prevent an educated populace from diminishing influence. An informed population is perceived as a threat to the asserts of those seeking to maintain control over societal and ideological narratives.
I largely agree with your historical framing. The Founders promoted education precisely because power would reside with the people, and education was meant to cultivate judgment, restraint, and the capacity for self-government. An uninformed or emotionally manipulated populace was understood to be a direct threat to a republic.
Education was also intended to make citizens harder to dominate by any authority, whether church, state, or ideology. Separation of church and state followed from that principle, not as hostility to religion, but as a safeguard for liberty.
Where I part company is the conclusion. The issue today is not opposition to education, but the loss of clarity about its purpose. Education is a system, and systems produce what they are designed to produce. A system can expand in size, funding, and credentials while still failing at its core task.
The question, then, is whether modern education is strengthening the capacity for independent judgment the Founders sought, or quietly replacing it with moral signaling and political formation. That is a systems problem, not a religious one.
“The question, then, is whether modern education is strengthening the capacity for independent judgment . That strengthening you refer to is not DOE policy. So what then are you talking about? Some childish pie in the sky illusion … a national utopia? You’re not being realistic; base don what George Washington wanted. You just keep repeating the same empty manta. You dawdle words never making a point. You really have nothing to say, do you?
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. 😁
Gatekeeping snark? when it is most needed now to fight creeping communism? Here, in this kitchen?
Lets put numbers on them!
Your politics is YOUR ugly mind you left wing nut.
Makes no sense. Rephrase it. Check your grammar.
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.
Turley’s well aware of all that, have you been paying attention to his columns?
The only thing we have here is more news reporting of left wing commies in higher education. NOT a new phenom, but well worth keeping abreast of when deciding where tax dollars go.
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 are people doing life in prison with PhD’s. no virtue there. In fact here are really no ‘experts’ in any field.
Once someone is labeled an expert they are ‘expected’ to always come up with the right answers even if they’re wrong.
‘expert’ is an ego thing. not real. Experts are the problem, we need humility.
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.
Reasonable adults enjoy reasonable careers. Those who can, do. Not this lot.
Their choice of career doesn’t foreshadow a future devoid of a joyless educational career.
Once a moron gains any power over others, all underlings most be stupider than them or it causes them problems.
Example: Obama (source moron) > biden > Kam-a-la > Walz. Plain as day.
Bullseye!