Students’ objection to curriculum should not cause job loss

August 1, 2023

The old-timers among us look around and are stunned, shocked, and in disbelief at some of what they see going on.

One of those things is the “cancel culture,” where people who don’t like or are offended by something or someone proceed to “cancel” it or them. That means having statues torn down or the name of a building changed, or ruining the life or career of a person.

Quite often, the subject of the “cancelation” is someone or something about which the cancelers only know enough to be upset about it or them. And quite often, the cancelers don’t know the whole story behind the subject.

Another one is the idea that if someone is born a male or a female, and they are uncomfortable with that, they can indulge in chemical and/or surgical processes and try to change their gender to the other one.

These ideas did not exist several decades ago, or if they did, they weren’t talked about very much.

Today, the meaning of the idea of “gender” is very broad and fluid among some folks. And there has become a sort of underground rule that these ideas must be accepted by everyone, regardless of what people know or believe.

A recent news item tells the story of a biology professor, Dr. Johnson Varkey. He has been an adjunct professor of biology at St. Philip's College in San Antonio, Texas for 19 years. And during that time, he has taught Human Anatomy and Physiology to some 1,500 students.

On November 28, 2022, four of Varkey's students walked out of his class when he stated that sex was determined by X and Y chromosomes, just as he always had during his years teaching at the college. Shortly thereafter, he was fired.

However, the school allegedly fired him for teaching his students “that sex was determined by X and Y chromosomes and that reproduction must occur between a male and a female to continue the human species,” according to a report by Fox News Digital. “Despite the fact that Varkey taught from the school-approved and science-based curriculum, St. Philip's College claims his teaching was religious.”

In response to his being fired, Varkey wrote in a communiqué to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which he said, "I also explained that when a sperm (which has 23 chromosomes) joins with an egg (which also has 23 chromosomes), a zygote (which has 46 chromosomes) is formed, and it begins to divide, and after 38 weeks a baby is born. Because no information is added or deleted in those 38 weeks, life starts when the zygote begins to divide, not when the baby is born."

The Fox report noted that “in his notice of termination letter, St. Philip’s College said the complaint against him contained several reports of ‘religious preaching, discriminatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter.’ The college claims he violated ‘the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity,’ but provided no explanation or reasoning for its accusation.”

"It saddens me that we have come to the place where, in an institution of higher learning, the feelings and opinions of the students are allowed to usurp the facts of science," Varkey told Fox. 

Is there a sensible explanation for why, after 19 years of teaching the same biology course based upon a long-approved curriculum, the college suddenly accepts the allegation of four students that Varkey’s presentation of the course material is religious, discriminatory against some students, anti-abortion and misogynistic? 

In opposing his firing, Varkey’s First Liberty Institute (FLI) attorneys have argued that his classroom work is based upon his biological education and experience, and also his religious beliefs. They also state that "throughout his employment, he never discussed with any student his personal views — religious or otherwise — on human gender or sexuality."

Are college professors and others now expected to adjust the presentation of their subjects so that they don’t offend their students, even if that means abandoning long-held and scientifically sound principles?

“No college professor should be fired for teaching factual concepts that a handful of students don’t want to hear," Keisha Russel, Counsel for FLI and the lead attorney on Varkey’s case, told Fox News Digital. "When public universities silence their own professors from teaching true concepts to students, education has been turned on its head."

The Alamo Colleges District, of which St. Philip’s College is a part, told Fox News Digital it does not comment on personnel issues. 

Science is a process of investigation. At some point, a theory gains acceptance as a general truth, as no different evidence has been presented for a long time. But there is always a chance that something will come along. Therefore, “settled science” is not always settled.

However, the science of gender has not been challenged by new scientific evidence, and two genders reign as the general truth. Colleges and universities ought to be substantially more thoughtful about when they endorse ideas that are significantly different than what is considered the correct scientific position.

And certainly, this situation ought not to have cost a long-time professor his job.

More changes are being offered to satisfy the “cancel culture”

January 3, 2023

Here we go again! Along with all the efforts to “cancel” things that upset someone, a few people, or lots of people — like the names of buildings, streets and schools; and statues of people, and actual people living and dead — there is a new movement. This one seeks to eliminate words and phrases used for years, decades or centuries.

In an act of “we gotta get woke,” Stanford University has published an index of "harmful language." The school plans to eliminate this language from its websites and computer code, and will offer replacement terms to be used in the future. And likely these rules will apply to those on campus and otherwise associated with the school.

Stanford calls this project the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, and it is described as a "multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford," according to the project guide.

The guide goes on to say that its goal is to eliminate "many forms of harmful language," including "racist, violent, and biased language, including disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, and sexual bias. "It also states that it wants to educate people on the impact of words.

It should be fairly obvious that the language Stanford finds “harmful” consists of words and phrases that have been around in popular usage for years or decades. But in this new hypersensitive world, they are no longer useful because of some relatively under-lying meaning that someone might find offensive.

Here’s one example. Under a section titled “Imprecise Language,” the guide advised readers to replace the term “American” with “U.S. citizen.” The reason for this is that calling people who live in the United States of America (USA) “Americans” insinuates that the USA is the most important country in the Americas.

There are four groups of countries in the Americas: North America, Central America, South America and The Caribbean. And in those four groups, there are more than 40 individual countries. However, only one of them, the United States of America, has the word “America” in its name. The USA has also been known as “America,” for a long time. Therefore, the citizens of the USA can properly be called “Americans.”

This example is plain evidence of how foolish this and many other such efforts are. Perhaps the powers that be at Stanford realized this, had it explained to them, or gave in to the outrage over this cancellation, because it has back-tracked on this word, and now claims to absolutely welcome the term “American.” 

Progress? Perhaps.

Some of the terms Stanford deems harmful and has not back-tracked on include "abort," which the school wants to replace with "cancel" or "end," due to moral concerns about abortion; "child prostitute" to be replaced with a "child who has been trafficked," so the person is not defined by just one characteristic; and "Karen" is to be replaced with "demanding or entitled White woman."

The index suggests using "accessible parking" instead of "handicap parking," "died by suicide" instead of "committed suicide" and "anonymous review" instead of "blind review." We also should use "unenlightened" as a replacement for "tone deaf," and a "person with a substance abuse disorder" as a replacement for "addict."

The institutionalized racism section says to avoid using phrases like "black hat," "black mark" and "black sheep" because of "negative connotations to the color black." It also says to avoid using "grandfathered" and use "legacy status" instead, because of "roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks."

“Immigrant” is out, and the preferred substitute is “person who has immigrated.” The Wall Street Journal noted about this cancellation that, “It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one word when four will do?”

“You can’t ‘master’ your subject at Stanford any longer,” the Journal added, saying “in case you hadn’t heard, the school instructs that ‘historically, masters enslaved people.’” 

Does Stanford still award “masters” degrees? Or, will they simply be renamed “post-bachelor,” “bachelor-plus,” or “pre-doctorate,” “not-yet-doctorate,” or something else?

Given that these words and phrases “trigger” the sensitivities of some folks, and that the multitude of other things that people want to cancel are things that have been around or in common use for a long time, and their meanings have been understood and accepted as useful and normal.

Why is it now suddenly necessary to get rid of them?

These days there is virtually nothing that doesn’t bother someone. So, the question that arises is, are we going to give in to this new mania and change everything when some people become uncomfortable with them? Or, are we just going to learn to deal with the discomforts, as we have been doing since humans have existed?

The things that are now considered as unacceptable are part of American society and history. They are “us.” If they are removed, we lose the valuable lessons they can teach us. If we reword things, we are giving in to what in many cases are hyper-sensitive feelings about things that we historically have simply accepted. 

We aren’t perfect, and will never be. We need to learn to live with these imperfections.

Our traditional standard of free speech is under attack in America

More and more these days, people seem to be having fits over what other people think and believe. No longer do they just go on their way, shaking their heads in dismay and disagreement, but they plot how to punish those horrible excuses for humanity who dare to think for themselves.

Back in the fifties, a song in a Broadway musical was about “standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by.” After a couple of verses, the lyric says, “Brother, you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.” 

Today, you may not go to jail for what you think, but you can get attacked and “cancelled” by those who dislike your ideas, and therefore dislike you, and will see to it that you get your just desserts.

Examples of cancelling someone are not hard to find. You may have heard about speakers on college campuses being shouted down as they were speaking by students who disagreed with their ideas. A professor at the University of Southern California was put on leave because of the outrage that occurred when students mis-heard a Chinese word the professor used, and claimed he had used the N-word. He had not.

Such high-handed behavior is sharply at odds with the First Amendment’s protection of our ability to speak freely and the other freedoms the Founders of our country had in mind. That is un-American.

What someone thinks or does has become deserving of public rebuke in the minds of some who think differently. Given the radical thoughts of so many in positions of influence, perhaps in the not too distant future, it may become an area of criminality.

People see themselves as judge and jury, and convict someone on nothing more than a different point of view. Our traditional standard of free speech is being killed.

Another of our once strong standards is the sense of right and wrong. That is much weaker, given the large number of people who willingly commit crimes and other lesser wrongs. These impulses have been nourished by idiotic liberal concepts, such as defunding the police, the no-cash bail movement, and those whose job is to prosecute crime, but refuse to do it.

We haven’t forgotten the rash of incidents in cities across the country that were taken over by bands of ne’er do wells and criminals trashing public buildings and businesses, and robbing and killing people.

Newsmax magazine published a story about a crime spike in its April edition. It involved an ABC News analysis of data supplied by the state police in each of the states reported on, showing new homicide records in 12 cities in 2021. Two of the records broken last year were set in 1984 and 1987, and two others in 1990 and in 1991. The rest were in the 2000s, most on them in 2019.

The crime centers are: Columbus and Toledo, Ohio; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Portland, Oregon; Tucson, Arizona; Rochester, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Indianapolis, Indiana; and St. Paul, Minnesota.

What do these cities have in common, besides crime? They are all run by Democrat administrations.

There used to be three strong elements in our society that helped children learn how to be good humans: the home, the schools, and the churches. Actually, there still are three, but one of them has seen a dramatic decrease in participation: the churches. 

According to a Gallup 2019 poll, “… Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque at an all-time low, averaging just 50 percent in 2018.

“U.S. church membership was 70 percent or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an average of 68 percent in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change occurring since the start of the current decade [2010s].”

And while the other two areas have seen changes, too, those changes are less about numbers than about what goes on, or no longer goes on, in homes and schools.

Families too often consist of only one parent, and too often child rearing is not an important focus, at least not in the traditional way.

Schools are more and more becoming ideological training centers, and less and less educational centers. 

The grading system that has existed for decades is being replaced with a feel-good mish-mash that replaces actual testing for subject knowledge with a broad subjective judgement by the teacher. It’s not whether students earn an A, B, C, D or F, it’s about whether students made a respectable effort. Even basic discipline is missing.

These weak standards are not everywhere; not in every school system or in every school, of course, but they should not be anywhere.

So many kids and young adults today do not know and exhibit the strong traditional standards that built this great nation. Many, perhaps most, were not taught and expected to mirror those ideals, and some have just subscribed to an “easier” way of life.

Whatever the reason, the nation is suffering and becoming weaker.

America’s future is in doubt. It is under attack from within.

In past weeks this column has addressed the increasing weaknesses, outright failures, and attacks on once-stable components of our culture and our nation.

The deteriorating education system, particularly at the college level, but increasingly at the K-12 levels, has resulted in millions who have not learned about their country and its history. Lots of them have instead been, and are being, indoctrinated with distinctly un-American political ideology. And some professors and teachers willingly abandon their professional integrity to do this.

The latest big push is to fight what some call the “systemic racism” of the United States by seeking to convince members of one race that they are inherently evil, and members of the other races that they are perpetual victims.

News journalism is becoming more and more agenda driven. Relevant and important stories are often not presented by many news sources. Some who play the part of journalists will pass items off as news that are manipulated to benefit a political agenda. Some items presented are misinformation and are not researched for accuracy, because they advance the political agenda, as written. 

In the political sphere, where dishonesty exists, loyalty to partisan agendas has replaced forthright service to the American people for many office holders. The “progressives” are working hard to change things so that they will be in power forever.

The broad benefits to our culture of the two-parent family, and its educational and stabilizing effects on children, have been seeping away over recent decades. In 1960, 87.7 percent of children under 18 lived with two parents. In 2020, was 70.4 percent, almost 20 percent lower.

Concerns for protecting people’s oversensitive feelings have replaced responsible behavior as the guidepost for living a good and productive life. Efforts to make everyone equal in terms of outcomes — equity — to protect feelings, defy nature. Some people are simply stronger than others, faster than others, smarter than others, etc. It’s part of being an adult to accept our strengths and deal with our weaknesses.

The rise in violent crime in many American cities reflects the lack of appreciation for life, and the failure of families and schools to teach basic humanity and life lessons to millions of young people. Lots of these under-educated people are now adults.

An example of what results when families and schools fail is this: An adult male recently brought a pregnant 12-year-old girl to a hospital in Tulsa, OK because she was in labor. He told the people there that he was the father of the baby-to-be. He had no apparent recognition that impregnating a child of 12 is a crime, not to mention its immorality. 

This situation of improperly trained youth has been made worse by enacting truly foolish ideas. The idea of defunding the police is responsible for much if not most of this new pandemic of criminality, as police officers retire, quit, or back off of doing their job because they no longer have the backing of the local government.

And soft-headed “progressive” prosecutors who do not prosecute the accused, and the equally silly idea of no bail and immediate release of persons arrested for serious crimes, invite those criminals to hit the streets and commit more crimes. Every day criminals released or not prosecuted are availing themselves of this foolishly provided opportunity.

The rising acceptance of socialist, communist, and Marxist ideals results from the failure of families, and the education system, which is increasingly shoving un-American ideals down the throats of the young people it is intended to help learn important subject matter, like English, math, science, geography, the arts, and real history.

Today, many without a solid background in American history say they prefer socialism, because they apparently don not understand how it has failed every time it has been tried, with Venezuela and Cuba as current shining examples.

The southern border crisis is dramatic evidence of what happens when goofy “progressive” ideals replace the sensible and successful design of our federal government. Each day tens of thousands of people enter the country illegally, with the permission and assistance of the government, and not just from Cuba or the Northern Triangle countries, but also from Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, Haiti, Colombia, Turkey, Russia, and China.

As the government continues to strongly encourage vaccinations to fight Covid, and hint at renewed restrictions, thousands of illegal immigrants are ushered across the border and transported around the country with no concern about how many of them are infected with the virus.

A friend sent an email of a Facebook post, which read, in part: “I was born in 1942, almost at the midpoint of the 20th century – the American century. America’s prestige and influence were never greater. 

“Thanks to the ‘Greatest Generation,’ we won a World War fought throughout most of Europe, Asia, and the Pacific. We reduced Germany to rubble and put the rising sun to bed. It set the stage for almost half a century of unprecedented prosperity. We stopped the spread of communism in Europe and Asia and fought international terrorism.”

Today, America is a mere shadow of that great nation. And many of its people are working hard to change it further.

Thoughts on cancel culture, and the freedom of religion and speech

There seems to be no letting up in the manic drive to change everything in the country. From vestiges of the country’s founding, to the War Between the States, to being dissatisfied with one’s gender, to millions of relatively tiny things that trigger somebody’s feelings, such as calling a toy potato “Mr. Potato Head.” A stunning amount of emotional energy is spent on trying to satisfy the myriad of hyper-sensitive displeasures that some Americans agonize over.

One recent change involves the Randolph Township Board of Education in Morris County, New Jersey, where the Board unanimously voted to remove the names of all holidays from the school calendar.

“If we don’t have anything on the calendar, we don’t have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings or anything like that,” board member Dorene Roche told Fox 5 NY.

The board unanimously voted to remove the names of all holidays from the school calendar earlier this month. This decision was prompted by protests of an earlier decision to change the name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

Some of the people who object to these changes, that are being made to protect the feelings of a few that are upset, are pursuing some cancellations of their own.

“Now they’ve cancelled our holidays,” wrote Laura Assante of Randolph Township, “how will students learn about the significance of these days if our board doesn’t even deem them important enough to keep on the calendar? Enough! It’s time now to cancel the BOE and get a new, honest administration in place who values our children and community.”

And now that “Juneteenth” has been officially declared a national holiday, it will just be a “Day Off” on the school calendar.

The School Board has decided to review the decision.

***

Baker Jack Phillips is being punished by a Colorado court for refusing to design a cake that celebrates a person’s gender transition. His reason is that doing so violates his Christian beliefs.

So, if a person born a male believes he is a she, or a person born a female believes she is a he, the rest of us are expected to accept that, and in Phillips’ case, he must recognize it through his work. But a person’s religious preferences that do not recognize gender fluidity opens that person to legal action. Somehow, that doesn’t compute.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” If Phillips is prohibited by a court order from acting according to his religious beliefs, isn’t that actually “prohibiting the free exercise” of his religion?

***

Things get cancelled because some group — however large or small — dislikes them. Realistically, few things, perhaps nothing, can escape being disliked by someone. Thus, if we keep allowing this foolish cancelling of things, since nothing will be acceptable to everyone, therefore everything will be cancelled, and we will all just become dust in the wind.

***

The concept of free speech is one of the hallmarks of the United States of America. It separates us from the tyrannically ruled countries across the globe. Humanity benefits from the free exchange of ideas, as demonstrated by the very existence of the United States.

When an idea is brought forth, it will be accepted by some and opposed by others. It just makes sense that in a free country the opposition’s ideas are available to be considered by anyone and everyone. That is how a free people become informed and able to make decisions that are based on a variety of opinions on important topics.

How ironic that huge and popular organizations such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et al, operate under the protection of the First Amendment’s free speech protections, and then use that protection to arbitrarily deny free speech to expressing other ideas.

Yes, some ideas expressed may not be truthful, or might be harmful. That can occur in a new idea, or in the responses to it. Who gets to decide: the issuer of the new idea, which may be flawed, or a respondent, whose point of view may be flawed? That is why speech must remain free, in all but the most undeniably dangerous cases.

What we have today is a political faction that doesn’t want the concepts it supports to be measured against differing opinions that might lead many people to oppose its concepts. When you fear that your ideas will not win the day, what more effective way to ensure that those ideas will win than to make them the only ideas people can know about?

Such anti-American behavior is the gold standard of Marxism and Communism, among other venomous, malicious and oppressive ideologies. The difference between those regimes and the USA is that here it is not the government that is cheating to get its ideas accepted by controlling what people have access to, it is private companies.

Interestingly, it was the freedoms of America — the very ones they are working so desperately to subvert — that enabled them to become the successful entities that they are.

Potpourri: Some thoughts on a few topics currently in the news

Condé Nast’s liberal online publication Teen Vogue is in the news, and not for anything positive that has happened. Alexi McCammond was hired at the magazine on March 5th, scheduled to start as editor-in-chief on March 24th.

But in the interim, magazine staffers got wind of something McCammond had done, and raised enough cane that the up-coming EIC decided to resign the position she had not yet taken.

What horrendous deed had McCammond done? Had she committed murder, or armed robbery? Pedophilia? Did she vote for Donald Trump?

No. She had committed the unpardonable sin of making insensitive, some say racist remarks in tweets. In 2011. When she was 17 years-old. And has since apologized profusely for her transgressions.

But in this day of hypersensitivity, when anyone can be highly offended by anything or everything, even what one did years ago as a teenager is a hanging offense.

Interestingly, the delicate sensitivities of the staffers of this young women’s magazine were not sufficiently provoked by the sponsored content from the Saudi Arabian government, a country where women are routinely mistreated and subjected to male dominance. 

This is the essence of the cancel culture: ignorance and hypocrisy.

* * *

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., continues to amaze with her impudence, deviousness and heavy-handed partisanship.

When Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., who was recently declared the winner of a challenged election, asked to have her son, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, observe her being sworn in from the gallery above the House floor, Pelosi denied the request. 

“I guess he’s considered a risk,” Tenney said. No doubt. He’s the son of a Republican Representative, graduated from the Naval Academy and is now a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy. Who could be more of a threat to Pelosi than someone with such a positive record? And he never had a relationship with a female Chinese spy, either.

No, he’s not a risk. Pelosi; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; Richard Blumenthal, D- Conn.; Elizabeth (the filibuster is racist) Warren, D-MA, et al, are risks. They are working overtime to weaken the Constitution, nationalize our elections and increase the incidence of vote fraud, assist illegal aliens entering the country by the thousands, ignore the 2nd Amendment, raise taxes, increase unemployment, and the list goes on.

* * *

What is supremacy? Merriam-Webster defines it as “the quality or state of being supreme,” which is defined as “highest in rank or authority.” 

How does a group — perhaps an ethnic group — gain supremacy? In the case of a nation, supremacy would naturally go to a group that is much larger than the others, likely larger than all the others combined.

In Spain, for example, the World Atlas tells us that 89.9 percent of its population is Spanish, and just 10.1 percent is of a foreign ethnicity. 

Guess what? In Spain there is Spanish supremacy.

In the United States, even after decades of immigration, the Statistical Atlas tells us that white people still comprise the majority at 62 percent. The next closest group is that of Hispanics at 16.9 percent. Blacks make up 12.6 percent, Asians are 5.2 percent, and mixed ethnicities are 2.3 percent.

As you go back through time, the white majority was much larger. So, when the culture and norms of the United States were evolving, white people overwhelmingly set those standards. And they still exist.

So, the “white supremacy” we hear so much about is not an unusual thing, and it is not automatically a bad thing. 

* * *

Why will the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not allow the press to participate in ride-alongs with agents at the southern border? Since the news media are the source of the information we depend upon, that might make some think there is something being hidden down there.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that the department is preparing video to distribute to news media, but cited the pandemic among reasons for not allowing reporters, photographers and camera crews into the facilities housing illegal aliens.

“We are focused on our operations, executing our operations, in a crowded Border Patrol facility where hundreds of vulnerable migrant children are located,” Mayorkas said.

Wallace challenged the Secretary, saying his answer sounded like an “excuse,” and that one pool reporter and camera crew could enter one facility and record what’s happening, without endangering the children or the crew.

Mayorkas emphasized the department’s efforts to provide such a video. Apparently, he trusts the government to provide the best information to the public. Yeah, right!

* * *

If you don’t like Dr. Suess, don’t read those books. If you don’t like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson because they were Confederates, don’t try to have the carvings on Stone Mountain removed, just don’t go there. If someone you know of goes to an event sponsored by someone or something you dislike, just deal with the difference in opinion, don’t try to get them fired or otherwise punished. 

In America, small groups don’t get to decide what the rest of us can like.

Only understanding, not rewriting, history will help us meet the future

Unless you have been living in a cave — or like so many these days, voluntarily isolated in a bubble — you have likely noticed the somewhat disturbing resemblances to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” sometimes written as “1984.” Published in 1949, Orwell’s predictions were off by a few decades. But today, we see more and more how his vision was right.

Orwell’s dystopian story involves a government that controls everything people read, hear, say, eat, breathe and know. The story’s protagonist, Winston Smith, was one of many who had the job of rewriting history to fit the evolving narrative of the totalitarian government. His job was to “fix” every book, magazine or newspaper containing what used to be the truth to conform to what is the new truth.

Today’s political correctness (PC) may be the most recognizable feature from Orwell’s novel. PC mania has been around for several years, and is gaining strength these days. While PC comes from a non-government faction, rather than a totalitarian government like that of “1984,” the results from the non-governmental faction may be little different, as it converts what “used to be” into “what now is.”

An element of PC today is “white supremacy,” or “white privilege.” All of the white folks in America, who had nothing to say about who their parents are, what color their skin is, or where they were born, are the current main target. Nothing is so disliked in America as white Americans.

Have you ever been to Spain? Or to Germany, France or Mexico?

The people in those and other countries are unconcerned with people of other nationalities that visit them. They are simply and naturally the Spanish, the Germans, the French, and the Mexicans. No doubt they like the money foreigners spend in their countries, but they continue to do what Spanish, German, French, and Mexican peoples want to do. 

This is so because those countries have relatively few people there who are not natives of that country. The natives comprise the vast majority of people, and therefore are the dominant element in their culture. And the dominant element in a nation determines what is important and not important.

So, some people say “I really like Spain, except for the Spanish people. They have this supremacy thing going on.”

Is it really surprising, then, that in America, where the white, non-Hispanic people are still the majority of the total population — about 61 percent — that the long-standing American values and ways still dominate the cultural norms of the country? 

The proportion of white Americans compared to others was much larger not so long ago. Our desirable national characteristics have always invited people from other places to come here, and they did, and do. But the culture the white American majority created decades ago still is dominant.

Yet some of those in other races/ethnicities are offended by “white supremacy” and “white privilege.” Somehow, living as the great majority of people have lived for decades is no longer legitimate to these folks.

Even some white Americans have jumped on this bandwagon, feeling the guilt that the others have convinced them they should have, merely because they were born with white skin.

Today, some people say, “I would like America better if it wasn’t for those darned white people.”

It is easiest to criticize something if you know very little about it. The less you know, the easier it is to disparage it. And this is what is the basis of much or most of the cancel culture mania now hobbling the country.

That applies to hating white people, and to removing vestiges of certain people of historical note.

People who have done great things in their lives, sometimes great things for their country, have now fallen into disfavor with the cancel culture faction for something not-good they did that these folks think obliterates all the good they did.

A person that has lived for 60, 80 or more years has had a long period of time to make decisions and take actions. Some of those may not have been good ones. Should we rate their entire lifetime based upon a couple of not-so-good, or even bad things, or should we take the more reasonable route of evaluating all they have done, rather than one or a few things?

It is also common these days for the cancel culture to apply the practice of “Monday morning quarterbacking” to things and people. Without a solid knowledge of what living in past times was like, these quarterbacks feel capable of judging the past using the standards of today. 

That is profoundly imprudent. Without a deep understanding of how things were at a certain time, it is not possible to make a sensible judgement about things that happened long ago. These folks are ill-equipped. It’s like going to play 18 holes of golf with only a putter.

History, the story of our past and how it built the present, is crucial to our future success. If we erase it over some discomfort based upon superficial understanding, we will substantially cripple ourselves.

Rather than erase history because it offends us, we need to study it and learn from it.

Three topics illustrating the troubled times in which we now live

** Lincoln under attack. Again.

In the string of events of erasing history, Abraham Lincoln’s name will be removed from a high school in San Francisco, California, after a committee recommended the action. 

And just what did Lincoln do, or not do, to earn this slap in the face? He did not demonstrate that black lives mattered to him.

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building,” said Jeremiah Jeffries, chairman of the renaming committee, and also teaches 1st grade in the school district.

This seems a little weird, even for California, where very little that happens surprises us these days. Lincoln, America’s 16th president who abolished slavery, became known as the Great Emancipator, and was an inspiration to his successors. Those included President Barack Obama, who used the Lincoln Bible for his inauguration in 2009.

“Lincoln conducted a war, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and got shot in the head for black lives, but this wasn’t enough to keep him from being unceremoniously ditched by modern social justice warriors,” wrote Jarrett Stepman in The Daily Signal.

Another area of discontent followed a Sioux uprising in Minnesota, where 303 tribesmen were sentenced to death. Lincoln reviewed their cases and removed the death sentence for 265 of them. The other 38 were hanged.

But some saw that saving only the great majority of the Sioux warriors as a Lincoln failure.

This criticism of Lincoln earned a comment from Sherry Black, who worked for more than 40 years in Native American economic and community development: “Considering the time period, it’s so difficult to understand how things were at the time. How do you make these decisions?”

That is a question that the cancel folk apparently cannot answer, and is likely a subject that has never entered into their narrow minds.

So, what are they going to name the school? Perhaps “Saul Alinsky High School.”

** Governors and mayors doing crazy stuff

As the lockdowns and other heavy restrictions continue, millions are out of a job, thousands of employers have had to permanently close their businesses, and many more may meet that same fate, if things don’t soon change.

While the intentions may be good, the results often are not. The virus can be horrible, even deadly. But, people being out of work and out of money, and other lockdown problems, have also led to much suffering, including suicides. 

And kids need to be in school. Safely, of course. But they need a productive learning environment, and virtual learning falls well short. 

Restrictions often are not sensible. People can protest in large groups, shop in large stores with lots of other people, but may only attend religious services in ridiculously small numbers. Some other restrictions on activities are just as foolish.

And then there are those that make rules, but do not themselves follow those rules. Arrogant “leaders” only compound the problems. 

People are growing tired of these authoritarian actions, that deny their constitutional rights, and render us a bunch of hostages.

** Virtual education issues

 

Like many kids across the country, a 9-year-old 4th grader in the Jefferson Parish Public Schools System in Louisiana has been doing school online from his bedroom. During an online test, his computer showed some of the things in his bedroom. His teacher saw him moving a BB gun out of the floor.

That evening, the police came and searched his house, based on the teacher’s report, and the 9-year-old was facing expulsion by the school system. 

He ended up being suspended for 3 days, as he would have been if he had actually brought a gun to school, and the school board is refusing to remove the suspension from his record.

During a hearing, the school board asked the young boy how his teacher must have felt after seeing the gun on the computer screen. “I know what a BB gun looks like,” said a former teacher and school board member. “And you know what it resembles? A real gun. OK? It resembles a real gun.” 

Perhaps this former teacher and board member does not know that owing BB guns, and other guns, is legal in our country.

An attorney representing the boy’s family, called the imposition of school-ground rules enforced in someone’s actual home as an “injustice”: “This is an injustice. It’s a systemic failure. They’re applying on-campus rules to these children, even though they’re learning virtually in their own homes.”

The state legislature passed a law named after the boy that charged that the school behaved improperly, but the school board still refused to remove the suspension from his permanent record.

The teacher, the school, and the school board have no authority to tell people what they may or may not have in their homes. The reporting of this family to the police is outrageous, and the entire affair should cost the school system a pile of money.

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

The cancel culture judges America by her mistakes, not her strengths

As the nation watches the riots and criminal behavior that evolved from protests over the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has turned its attention to removing monuments to personalities from the Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the United States with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865.

But the mission to take down these monuments was confused from the beginning. It could have been a civil effort to have the “offending” items removed legally by petitioning the appropriate government agencies or property owners on which the statues reside, which is the proper way to do things. The statues could have been moved to museums or other places, if the proper authorities agreed with the petitioners.

But that wasn’t good enough for the cancel culture, which felt that the things must be removed now! And so, rioters — not protesters or demonstrators — turned their criminal behavior to destroying these historical items.

In addition to the monuments to southern Civil War personalities, they also blindly go after some who were on the same side of the slavery case as they are.

The statue of Ulysses S. Grant is one example. Grant was the 18^th President of the United States following the Civil War, from 1869 to 1877. But more illustrative of what a magnificent error it was to take down his statue, Grant was the Commanding General of the U.S. Army that defeated the hated Confederates — the targets of BLM — and won the Civil War, leading to emancipation of the slaves.

An even more astonishing mistake is the threatening to take down the Emancipation Memorial. Because this memorial features the likeness of Abraham Lincoln with a black man, Archer Alexander, in chains at his feet, it is regarded by the rioters as a symbol of slavery.

The former slave and now-famous American Frederick Douglass, however, predicted that members of his race “will think of [the Memorial] and speak of it with a sense of manly pride.”

Rather than being a passive, submissive slave, the Memorial was in fact designed to show Alexander at Lincoln’s feet exerting his own strength to break the chains that bound him.

Douglas said, “We have done a good for our race today. In doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator [Lincoln], we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us,” and “we may calmly point to the monument we have this day erected to the memory of Abraham Lincoln.”

And then there is Charlotte Scott, a former slave freed by Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, who said upon hearing of Lincoln’s assassination, “the colored people have lost their best friend on earth! Mr. Lincoln was our best friend, and I will give five dollars of my wages towards erecting a monument to his memory.”

Her contribution sparked a movement among freed slaves to raise money for a memorial to Lincoln which totaled more than $12,000. At that time $12,000, and even $5, was a lot of money.

Female RE-Enactors of Distinction (FREED) is a group of actors that is committed to accurately depict the role of African Americans, including the U.S. Colored Troops and their families during the U.S. Civil War.

Marcia Cole is a member of FREED who portrays Charlotte Scott. Regarding the Memorial, she told Washington, DC TV station WJLA, “I’m here to speak on behalf of the legacy of Charlotte Scott. I understand there’s a big campaign trying to raise money to either take it down or mend it, and I say ‘no’ on behalf of Ms. Charlotte.” 

But the rioters don’t know this history.

So, the historical figures and sites that the BLM wants removed will not be decided by the American people and their governments, but by a relative handful of the people, who don’t know history and don’t care about history. They care nothing about what others think and willingly, eagerly, turn to criminality to accomplish their goal.

That isn’t the American way. But America and her ways are a foreign language to most of these folks. They judge America by her mistakes only, ignoring her strengths. They apply his same myopia to Civil War figures. They see only a part of the lives of the individuals that they target. That small part is all that matters to them.

That sentiment was fairly clearly stated by Hawk Newsome, president of the Greater New York Black Lives Matter. “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it,” Newsome said in an interview on Fox News’ “The Story” with Martha MacCallum.

And so, what we really have is not merely a crusade by a relatively small group to cleanse the land and remove elements they dislike and that stain our history, it is to wreak havoc and impose their will on the rest of us.

In the wise words of Marcus Aurelius: “How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.”

Order must be restored, and those committing crimes must be held accountable.