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?
This is yet another example of how higher education has gone bad. Once the idea of a four year degree was to produce a well rounded, educated and productive member of society. Now it is indoctrination camps. They use mandates to force students to take classes they may not want to take let alone pay for, for indoctrination. Used to be, if you were interested in a class you could opt to take it. Not any more. And the graduate gets the student debt to go along with the indoctrination.
As I have stated before here on the good professor’s blog, higher education needs to be streamlined. Classes that relate to the major only. Engineering? Classes that relate to how to become a professional engineer. Not some useless DEI class. Cut out all those general education requirement classes, reduce costs, cut time.
Or, better yet, paid internships at companies. A mix of related class work and hands on training with regular testing to ensure the intern learns and knows the knowledge. After a given time and testing, the intern receives a certificate equal to a four year degree, no debt, no useless DEI classes.
Upstatefarmerk, wow, looks like we agree on something. Not the entirety of your post though, but the idea of required classes should involve just those that are going to be part of the major you choose.
For example, if you’re going for an aerospace engineering major, math classes should only be about the formulas and type of math directly associated with the field. Not math classes that have nothing to do with any of what you will be using in your chosen field. Right?
Now where we disagree is the notion of “mandated” classes. Some basic courses should be required at the beginning and a set number of credit hours to qualify for whatever bachelor’s or masters or PhD. That is where the electives come in. Most schools already do this, but some make such courses mandatory probably because it’s a revenue thing.
I would generally agree that you could cut out the general education requirements, BUT….because we have such a poor public education system often hampered by those on the right who don’t want to spend money on it. Colleges and universities require you take them again if you fail to prove what you learned in high school by taking a test. Fail the test and you are going to have to go through the general education courses again because you WILL need to understand the basics before going onto college lever courses that require that you know the basics. I’ve been in English composition classes where freshmen STILL can’t produce a decent grammatically correct essay or exercise correct punctuation. So general education courses are a money maker for colleges and universities when public education fails to properly educate. It’s the sad truth.
“wow, looks like we agree on something. … the idea of required classes should involve just those that are going to be part of the major you choose.”
AND BASIC core education 1/4 of all courses should be The same CORE material you took K-12 except with more demanded of you.
“Not math classes that have nothing to do with any of what you will be using in your chosen field. Right?”
Wrong, You should not receive a 4yr college degree if you do not have atleast 1 year of college calculus.
“Now where we disagree is the notion of “mandated” classes. Some basic courses should be required at the beginning and a set number of credit hours to qualify for whatever bachelor’s or masters or PhD. That is where the electives come in. Most schools already do this, but some make such courses mandatory probably because it’s a revenue thing.”
I am hoping you are confused. There MUST be a MANDITORY core.
I beleive a college degree is 180 credits today. That mens ATLEAST 45 credits of CORE classes – college level basic math, science history, english.
THEN approximately 45 credits of electives where the only requirement is that your work is competent – the specific material can be whatever you want.
Then 90 credits directly tied to your major.
“I would generally agree that you could cut out the general education requirements”
Absolutely NOT – further the standard you must perform int hose areas MUST be above what is expected in HS.
If you need remedial courses – that is EXTRA work, and it means more years OR fewer electives.
If you are not better at basic math,science, history, englich, … than an average HS student – you do not get a degree.
“because we have such a poor public education system often hampered by those on the right who don’t want to spend money on it.”
ROFL
The worst education in the US are the places that spend the MOST – like DC.
Regardless education spending has Skyrocketed – public and college, over my lifetime – more than anything except healthcare with a net LOSS in quality.
That is on the left – not the right.
We do not need more money in education – we need to spend less time on stupid left wing nut garbage and more time on basic education.
Advanced topics are for those who are proficient in the basics. Whether in college or K-12.
” I’ve been in English composition classes where freshmen STILL can’t produce a decent grammatically correct essay or exercise correct punctuation.”
If you are entering College that is LESS than the minimum. I do not honestly care that much about spelling, grammer and punctuation.
Though there is a minimum level you must meet.
My 2nd year english professor told me he was supposed to fail me for too many misspelled words, But he gave me a B+ because
he could not tell the worlds were misspelled himself without referring to a dictionary and because I was using correctly words his graduate students did not know, and because me writing was clear concise and readable.
I believe that George Orwell said much the same thing – your grammar, spelling and punctuation is correct if no one stumbles over your errors. The purpose of a language is to communicate.
USF – I have no problem with electives – even stupid ones.
I have a major problem with college students not getting an advanced version of CORE education that they were supposed to get as HS students.
You should have atleast 1 year of post HS math, Science, US and World history, and english to graduate.
These do NOT need to be what math and physics majors take, But they need to be beyond HS,
Further in ALL course – in your major and in the core you should FAIL if you can not write a competent english paper in a topic related to the course. I do not care what you say, just that you can do so with reasonable proficiency.
Next, though you need not be able to argue complex issues, you MUST be able to make credible arguments in your writing,
You must know the difference between a valid argument and a fallacy.
None of he above has anything to do with the topic or your views – except that whatever you are writing should be ON TOPIC.
ANY degree that you graduate from college with should leave you with the skills needed to get a job managing a McDonalds. or any other basic management job that requires you to lead 5-6 people and report to superiors.
If after meeting all that CORE requirements, you wish to major in Advanced underwater basket weaving that is up to you.
It is your money you are wasting.
Which is the NEXT issue.
Government should not subsidize ANYTHING.
Certainly not student loans.
As I said above it should ALWAYS be YOUR money that you are spending – and you should be painfully aware of it.
If you borrowed from a bank – they get to decide if they will loan money for advanced under water basket weaving.
If you borrow from your parents ….
John, Excellent! What you’ve outlined are measurable outputs: reasoning, writing, basic logic, and practical competence. Once outputs are clear, everything else is secondary. My concern is that institutions are no longer accountable to producing those capacities.
BREAKING: Olympic Update
Donald J. Trump celebrated at the Winter Olympics on Tuesday after winning the gold medal in the downhill presidency.
Trump beamed as he stood on the winners’ podium, boasting, “Obama never won this.”
Notching a historic win, Trump set a new speed record for driving the world’s strongest economy downhill.
Despite his victory, he remained bitter about the Super Bowl halftime show, telling reporters that “Bad Bunny took a job away from an American bunny.”
I’d like to see him in the luge, but I think they would have to widen the track.
However, the thought of those cankles banging back and forth against the sides would provide a few minutes of amusement.
Fake news!
You’re an idiot…
Sorry, Biden has already won “worst president of all time” displacing James Buchannon.
I think it’s about time that when a lawyer or judge makes the news for a wrong-headed decision or legal position, their law school institution should be mentioned. The reputation of a particular institution should be on the line as well as the individual. In some small way the individual might think better knowing that the school and future graduates might be affected.
apbd
l
Perhaps the same personal liability that is applied to Doctors, Engineers and Contractors should be equally applied to our judiciary. Where getting it wrong has some teeth and these lawyers and judges have actual financial and personal risk associated with their negligence.
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.
Basic question: Did y9u take that class? How can you personally judge the worth of the class to other persons. And how is that class not “informed, logical, rational, reason based judgements.”? Is your ideology “informed, logical, rational, reason based judgements.”? You are the one who has fallen prey to an ideology of contempt for other thinking minds. You can’t accept nor will you try to understand others opinions. What does that make you?
“Did you take that class?”
No.
“How can you personally judge the worth of the class to other persons.”
Because that is the wrong question.
Colleges do not exist to teach people navel gazing.
They exist to elevate your ability to produce value for yourself and others.
The MINIMUM standard you must meet to graduate from college is the skills needed to manage a McDonalds.
If your college education did not deliver that – they owe you your money back.
This is a COLLEGE DEGREE – not a HS degree.
” And how is that class not “informed, logical, rational, reason based judgements.”?”
You even have to ask ?
‘Performing the Advocate Bilingual Teacher: Drama-based Interventions for Future Story-making’
That is called NONSENSE.
Please explain in clear easy to understand sentences that a 6th grader would understand what that means ?
While I fully expect that a graduate student could write material that a 6th grader could not read,
at the same time I am NOT sure how much of an asset that is.
The most brilliant minds in history write such that most anyone can read their work.
Nobel Winner Coases work can be read and understood by a 6th grader – but it could not be WRITTEN by a 6th grader.
The sign of an excellent education is not to be able to say or write things others can not understand.
But to communicate things others have not thought of in a way that anyone can understand.
” Is your ideology “informed, logical, rational, reason based judgements.”? ”
I am libertarian – no ideology is more “informed, logical, rational [and features] reason based judgement”
“You are the one who has fallen prey to an ideology of contempt for other thinking minds.”
Yes, I have contempt for those who think they are far smarter than they are.
That is a GOOD thing – YOU are demonstrating exactly that – with ONE exaction, you are NOT smarter than UF.
“You can’t accept”
We do not accept views that are wrong or rest on false premises.
No one is obligated to give consideration to gibberish.
“nor will you try to understand others opinions.”
Everything is not an opinion – contra the left – which is a stupid argument, because if that were true then the merits of genocide would be a valid opinion worthy of trying to understand – have YOU tried to understand the opinions of actual Nazi’s ?
While you are free to try
NO ONE is obligated to.
Next – all opinions are not equal.
Again we give little attention to actual Nazi principles.
“What does that make you?”
Capable of critical thinking – a signifcant portion of which is being able to sort NONSENSE, from merit.
Upstate farmer, “forced captive audience”? You must not have been to a college or university in a while. Every class is a “forced captive audience”.
It seems “Angela” the student allegedly “traumatized” by the exercise is a bit of a snowflake. Every college or university has some weird classes, and that is mean to expose students to a different point of view, the thing Turley is always defending. You and “Angela” seem to be expressing viewpoint intolerance. Just the thing Turley is always talking about. Irony perhaps?
“You must not have been to a college or university in a while.”
If something has changed – it is clearly for the worse – modern college costs far more and prepares you far worse for the world.
“Every class is a “forced captive audience”.”
Nope, you need not attend, you will likely fail, but no FORCE is involved.
It is important to use words correctly.
Humans ommunicate through words, When you misuse words, you miscommunicate.
“It seems “Angela” the student allegedly “traumatized” by the exercise is a bit of a snowflake.”
Correct and moder education teaches students that classes and life must be free from anything that upsets them
It is you on the left that is creating generations of snowflakes.
“Every college or university has some weird classes”
Yes
“that is mean[t] to expose students to a different point of view”
Correct, yet YOU are constantly telling us that Students are entitled to reject different points of view without any exposer first.
“the thing Turley is always defending.”
And you attack pretty much every single time he raises it.
“You and “Angela” seem to be expressing viewpoint intolerance.”
Correct – as do YOU all the time, every time you say students can reject mere exposure to conservative ideas,
” Just the thing Turley is always talking about. Irony perhap”
Absolutely – you making this argument is hypocritical as h311
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.
Actually the problem is with the college or university that approves and requires this class for the degree. Another question is is the degree the college is offering worth anything?
@Anonymous
Professors like her are now just the norm even at state colleges. It’s worth while to pay attention to this. i am gobsmacked by folks that still think the needle of education hasn’t moved at all for 30 or more years, from top to bottom, and these are just weird exceptions. You all need to wake up. You needed to 30 years ago.
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
Was that supposed to be clever?
If wanted to be obtuse you should have used Township and Range, if you even know.what that means or are capable to find on a map.
Looks like TDS coordinates from Uranus…
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.
You split an infinitive, you filthy communist.
“It’s not a political demonstration”
Of course it is.
“ICE and CBP are preying on schools”
No they are enforcing the law which is EXACTLY what law enforcement is supposed to do.
You can stop ICE trivially – change immigration law.
But you will not succeed – because supermajorities want that law.
“American police forces everywhere are stepping aside and letting it happen”
Yes, state and local law enforcement if they can nto assist federal law enforcement are obligated to GET OUT OF THE WAY,
anything else would be criminal obstruction.
“while you’re being paid to go out and deflect.”
Please, Please pay me.
“To not have schools trained in this reality would be like not having active shooter drills.”
Not exactly . The odds of your finding your self in college in an active shooter situation is about as likely as getting struck by lightning.
Should schools have security – absolutely, but for far more reasons that active shooters.
as to ICE drills – that is simple
When dealing with ANY Law Enforcemnt:
1). GET OUT OF THEIR WAY
2). DO AS THEY SAY.
That is how you keep yourself alive and avoid ending up in jail.
If you want to do something for illegal alien students – contribute to legal defense funds.
Do not F#$K with ANY Law enforcement – it is a stupid idea, that will get you hurt, arrested or even killed – are someone else killed.
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!
Excuse, he did not say they did, he wrote “wouldn’t storm”.
I pointed out that it is highly unlikely ICE or CBP would be bursting into classrooms and lecture halls. Therefore making the professor’s “ICE drill” a tad silly. Not completely irrational, but given the situation in MN it’s understandable.
irrational but understandable ?
Only a left wing nut could say that.
based on one, single “viewpoint” example, georgie preaches that the student “seems to be intolerant of different viewpoints.”
based on student pointing out her objection to being taught to shield another student from ICE, georgie preaches that she is “somewhat paranoid.”
whew! talk about blaming the victim!
Intolerance of a viewpoint is exactly what Turley blames the left for. One student being intolerant is often enough for Turley to use as a springboard to blame the left as a whole. It’s how he forms his arguments. He also points out objections of students as viewpoint intolerance.
“Intolerance of a viewpoint is exactly what Turley blames the left for. ”
Yup,
But not obstruction of law enforcement.
“One student being intolerant is often enough for Turley to use as a springboard to blame the left as a whole.”
Because the left as a whole is openly intolerant.
Any YOU are constantly defending and echoing what that one intolerant is saying.
You are not saying “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
You are saying – I approve, of the intolerance of the student, studennts should be free to be intolerantand avoid any exposure to views they dislike without known.
“It’s how he forms his arguments. He also points out objections of students as viewpoint intolerance.”
Turley forms his arguments fine.
You do not.
X writes, “The professor’s activity seems somewhat silly.”
Let me rephrase that for you: “The professor is a quack with a PhD in LARPing.”
Glad the red pill is taking effect… just up the dosage.
“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.”
Get out that ouija board.
The only thing Clear is that Angela is conserned about being directed by a teacher to comitt crimes.
“It’s unlikely that ICE would actually be searching for undocumented immigrants in college classrooms and lecture halls. ”
Wow, we agree.
So exactly why is a teacher instructing students to prepare to commit crimes at an event that is highly unlikely ?
“However, “Angela,” who seems to be intolerant of different viewpoints and somewhat paranoid about the class she’s required to take”
She has good reason to be concerned where teachers are instructing students to commit crimes.
“The professor’s activity seems somewhat silly”
No it is directing students to commit crimes.
If ICE actually appeared and students did as she taught she would be guilty of conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement.
“Such an action would be highly disruptive at any college or university”
Not relevant. All that is relevant is does ICE have reasonable suspicion that there are illegal aliens in the classroom.
There is no “you can not enforce the law if it disrupts a college” standard.
“students would have every reason to protest the tactic of barging into classrooms to carry out immigration enforcement. ”
You can protest whatever you want, the professor was teaching students to obstruct ICE – that is a crime.
“I highly doubt Professor Turley would tolerate such an intrusion into his class.”
He would have no choice.
As you note – this is highly unlikely,
but not impossible.
It is likely that atleast ONCE it will happen.
and when it does – students should get out of the way of LEOs
I highly doubt Professor Turley would tolerate such an intrusion into his class.
He would have no choice. If police believe a wanted criminal is in a university classroom, they go there to arrest him. Why should they waste time cooling their heels outside? They would go in and arrest the person, and every other person in the room would have a LEGAL DUTY not to interfere. Anyone interfering would be committing a felony and would be arrested.
This whole fantasy starts with the false assertion that ICE agents are somehow different from ordinary policemen, US Marshals, FBI agents, etc.
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.
Re: Maybe yours, not mine: Seriously?!?! Is that all you glean from the thrust of comment. That they were my kids? Any parent who claims bragging rights to that is part of the problem.
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.
honestlawyermostly,
“Unfortunately, the only apparent discipline in academia today appears to be driven mostly by ideology.”
Well said!
Question, what are your educational credentials? If you do not have any, what is the basis of your ideology?
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.
. Then clearly, Olly, the democrats are using the Declaration of Independence and in rebellion, insurrection. It is their duty to bring down the abusive government that has existed. They’ve brought in foreign troops to help set them free from Republicans.
They have the same ideals but not the same values. There cannot be a white eye left on this planet. How about that , Olly? Do you applaud their adherence to duty? Aren’t you, Olly, actually for them, with them?
What about the federal military?
Perhaps, Oliver, our mission has been completed, accomplished?
Thank you, I do jumble the Dec and Constitution although they reflect each hopefully. So, will you as one person let those States go?
Adieu
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.
Just saying… you say quite a bit yet you say nothing.
OLLY,
Great comment.
“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.”
That right there is the problem with colleges and universities. They do not educate but use their power to force ideology.
“for political purposes” And what then is teaching a version of the US History in high school? A form of propaganda?
That right there is the problem with colleges and universities. They do not educate but use their power to force ideology. You obviously have never graduated from a university. Lets be clear, not all universalities traffic in political ideology.
Exactly. Education should cultivate judgment, not compel ideology. When required courses are used for political formation, the institution is exercising power, not educating.
OLLY,
Well said.
Colleges and universities are using their POWER to force students to take classes they may not want as a graduation requirement for forced ideology.
They did it to my daughter.
The original idea behind higher education was to produce a well rounded, educated, productive citizen. That is what the founders would of wanted. But what we have today is indoctrination camps that students pay for and wind up in debt for decades for questionable degrees and questionable grades with grade inflation.
Higher education has become a farce. A scam. I can see why so many young people are opting out of higher education. What once was a guarantee to a well paying job, the middle class has only become a guarantee for paying for useless DEI classes, indoctrination, and decades of student debt.
Upstate, I understand the frustration, and stories like your daughter’s are why this keeps coming up. But there’s a subtle problem underneath all of this. Education does have measurable outputs. The real question is whether those outcomes are accidental or by design. If the system is consistently not producing citizens capable of self-government, that is not drift. It is design.
That’s why the output has to be addressed first, before reforming the system that produces it. Otherwise we just argue about symptoms.
We talk about many problems with many causes. The harder question is whether there is a single root cause. If education no longer has a clearly defined purpose tied to self-government, then a wide range of downstream failures become predictable rather than surprising.
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?!
Putforth all you want, but until they actually do that its not subversion or obstruction. What is the problem with knowledge? Some might call that course civic lessons. Take the course and be done with it. Eh?
Lib? Boy are you mistaken. Perhaps you should take off you MAGA blinders.
I rest mycase…
EightBall,
I think it would of been one thing if the so-called “professor” also outlined ICE was enforcing immigration laws as enacted by Congress. That would of been education. But she did not. Rather she, as you point out, instructed/indoctrinated how to obstruct and interfere with LEOs carrying out their lawful duties.
Thank you USF, I am not a lawyer however have had the benefit of dealing with the law and judicial system in my career. What is baffling to me is just like our Anony friend, the disconnect by many of what is lawful and what is not. This comes from the appeasement of illegality, lawyers and judges twisting the meaning and intent of law to subvert justice.
I would putforth that teaching students to subvert federal immigration laws is a form of obstruction and interference to federal law.
No, it isn’t. It’s protected by the first amendment, just as is advocating any criminal activity.
Precisely!
Thank you Catherine. Purpose sets the standard. Without it, anything can be justified.
Au contraire!
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.
Accreditation certifies process, not purpose. The Coercive Acts were passed through lawful constitutional procedures and still produced tyrannical outcomes. Lawful process does not immunize a system from illegitimate results. The question remains whether education is producing citizens capable of self-government.
In order to become certified, the school has to have a Mission Statement.
Coercive Acts? With that, proves you are full of BS. Your circular logic games are useless and childish. You never make a point; just repeat the same words thinking taht a jumbled mass of words scattered with historical references makes you a superior intellect. Actually, more a clown.
The Coercive Acts followed process but violated purpose. They contradicted Britain’s obligation to protect colonial citizens. That is why mission statements and procedures are not safeguards against illegitimate outcomes.
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?
I am not describing a DOE policy. I am describing a standard.
The fact that strengthening independent judgment is not a stated policy is the point being made, not a rebuttal to it. When a system abandons its defining purpose, it still produces outputs. They are just no longer aligned with that purpose.
Referencing Washington is not utopian. It is diagnostic. He articulated the reason education mattered in a republic. If that standard is now dismissed as irrelevant, then we should be honest that education is serving a different end.
That is the argument.
Olly, today, the religious right is not very fond of a well educated populace. They want what most religious leaders at the time of our founding wanted. Control and dominance to maintain relevance. Religious doctrine was used to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, blasphemy, abortion, marriage, who could and could not be married, divorce, etc. the majority of those issues were largely controlled by religious organizations who once enjoyed a level of power that could only be possible with a poorly educated populace. That is why the Catholic Church at one point forbade people from learning to read. So they could control the narrative with impunity.
Our Constitution is written in a manner that prevents any one religion from dominating any other and many don’t like it because none want to be seen as “equal” to the others. Not when the belief that one religion is the true religion.
The recognition that religion drove a lot of conflict and strife in their time seeking to separate it from state government was a wise choice.
You’re asserting opinions as facts and moving the discussion off topic. The question is simple. What is the output education is supposed to produce, and how is it measured?
Ollie, you say that you agree with X’s historical framing.
Problem is, it isn’t X’s. He has copied and pasted it with minor changes and I would love to show you the source.
Credit matters, but authorship is irrelevant to the argument. The substance either holds or it doesn’t. The question of education’s purpose remains unanswered.
“The founders promoted education among the broader population”
“During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, most schools in the United States did not mandate regular attendance. In many areas, students attended school for no more than three to four months out of the year.”
Wikipedia.
“The founders ”
This whole thread is ahistorical.
While the founders valued education – and some even wanted PUBLIC education – which has a history back to plymouth in the US.
At the same time broad public education was NOT the norm, and was not an agenda of our founders.
Nor was “democracy”.
The founders solution to an uniformed electorate were measures like
Only white male land owners could vote.
Or Literacy tests for voting.
Or poll taxes.
You can debate whether these are good ideas,
But unquestionably they were the methods that our founders used to PREVENT democracy.
You are correct they beleived that the SOME power would reside in an informed citizenry
Not ultimate power – read federalist 51 – they did NOT beleive that was sufficient, therefore it certainly was NOT ultimate.
Regardless their means of assuing an informed electorate was to LIMIT the electorate.
Not to expand public education.
” An uninformed or emotionally manipulated populace posed a significant threat to republican governance.”
Correct, so they made it so they could not vote.
” 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. ”
Totally off base. even what little public education there was at the time YOU would call RADICALLY RELIGIOUSLY EXTREME.
Our founders WERE Religious extremeists. The religious freedom in our constitution is not because out founders were atheists, terrified of religion, but because EVERY religion in the US was a minority and they had absolutely no intention of allowing a single religion EXCEPT their own to dominate, and they had seen in Europe what would happen if they tried to FORCE their religion on the country
But very few of the founders were not deeply practicing a specific religion often believing that those that did not share THEIR religion were going to H311.
Lets not rewrite history.
You can say our founders were WRONG,
But don’t LIE about them.
“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. ”
How ignorant can you be ? Our founders WERE the puritans and quakers and anabaptists, and dunkerds, and catholics and myriads of protestants who were Chased to the new world – not just by the church of england, but catholics in france, lutherands in Germany, and Anglicans in England.
They were NOT anti religion,
They were not anti-sectarian.
They came to an uneasy truce with the myriads of sects in the country – their religion would not be the official religion becuse everyone agree to make NO ONES religion the official religion.
I would note that Early states DID have official religions.
“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.”
No, No, No,
Quit trying to project your values onto people who lived 250 years ago.
You can not call them racists, intolerant sexist white male xenophobes one moment and then pretend they were woke the next.
Consequently, most founders emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state.
No, they didn’t. One of their number — who wasn’t even a delegate to the convention that drafted the constitution — used that phrase decades later, in a private letter. The phrase was completely unknown in constitutional law until Klansman Hugo Black introduced it in the 1940s.
👏👏👏👏👏
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.
No, she isn’t. She is a recognizable entity. You are not, and you sound that way. Those with unique icons have credibility. Those without do not.
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?
OLLY,
You are correct, but so many of the anonymous comments are worth nothing. Time better spent just scrolling past them and reading the credible comments from known commenters.
Lets put numbers on them!
Mary,
Generally it is just better to scroll past the “anonymous” comments. Most of their comments are not worth reading.
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!
Ken9350,
“. . . reasonable thinking adults . . .” is exactly what those in academia do not want. They want indoctrinated leftists activists. How do we know this? By the fact this “professor” class on “Culture, Power, and Education” is a requirement to force this kind on indoctrination on their, paying, students. It is a useless class, forced on students, taught by a “professor” with a useless PhD in . . . ‘Performing the Advocate Bilingual Teacher: Drama-based Interventions for Future Story-making’ . . . whatever the heck that is.
This is what higher education has become.