The Indoctrination in Public Schools Is Working

A new report shows how students’ minds are being shaped by taxpayer-funded activism.

Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country,” Noah Webster wrote in 1788. “He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.”

Today’s American schoolchildren are certainly learning to rehearse useful ideas. But the exact nature of those ideas, and the ends they’re being used for, should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who cares about the real history of this country, not to mention our heritage in the heroes and statesmen of our past.

new report from the Manhattan Institute’s Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann provides some insight into what, precisely, American students are learning — and perhaps more important, how they’re being shaped by the taxpayer-funded activism that passes for education in this country today.

The report begins predictably enough, detailing how “a representative survey of more than 1,500 Americans aged 18 to 20” suggests “that Critical Race Theory (CRT) and radical gender ideology, together known as Critical Social Justice (CSJ), is widespread in American schools.”

Ninety-three percent of the surveyed demographic “said that they had heard about at least one of eight CSJ concepts from a teacher or other adult at school.” But the real revelation is the empirical evidence that exposure to those concepts “appears to have a significant impact in shifting children to the political left” — even if the children hail from more conservative upbringings:

In partisan terms, those exposed to no CSJ concepts break 27% to 20% for the Republican Party, while those who have been taught the maximum of eight CSJ concepts lean a whopping 53% to 7% toward the Democratic Party. In strongly Republican counties, young people taught no CSJ concepts lean Republican 38% to 20%, whereas in the same counties, those taught the maximum number of CSJ concepts lean Democratic by a stunning 46% to 14%. Parents also have less influence on their children than one might think. For instance, young people with a Republican mother who are taught no CSJ lean 61% Republican to 14% Democratic, while individuals with a Republican mother who are taught a high number of CSJ concepts in school are more balanced, at 25% Republican and 30% Democratic.

It should be clear, to anyone who’s been paying attention in recent years, that the radicalization of the American education system has reached even the deepest-red corners of the country. That’s because public education is a mass bureaucracy, with its talons hooked in well over 13,000 school districts, and nearly 50 million pupils, across America.

But for all the regional, political, and demographic diversity of the populations the public-school cartel claims to serve, the bureaucracy itself — and the foot soldiers it sends out from the education schools to evangelize red America — is an ideologically homogeneous class of activist-educators who tend to have a lot more in common with Paulo Freire than James Madison.

Hence, it should come as little surprise that a 2015 study highlighted by the Washington Post found that among elementary-school teachers, there were 85 Democrats for every 15 Republicans, and among high-school teachers, there were 87 Democrats for every 13 Republicans.

In the expansive reach of the public-education system, left-wing pedagogues lodged in the major education training schools — where Freire’s radical Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which called for education as a tool of “revolutionary transformation,” has “achieved near-iconic status,” Sol Stern noted in 2009 — saw a potent mechanism for a bloodless cultural revolution. In the hands of the new class, the epistemic authority of public-school teachers — the “priests of our democracy,” as Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter famously put it — was invoked as cover for transmuting revolutionary norms and values.

The special status of teachers, and the traditionally favorable standing they enjoyed in the public imagination, became a weapon to bludgeon critics of the revolution. Hence, in 2021, when Merrick Garland directed the FBI to “discuss strategies for addressing” parent-led school-board uprisings, the attorney general justified the action on the grounds that the alleged “threats against public servants . . . run counter to our nation’s core values.”

The Manhattan Institute report goes a long way in illustrating the specific content of the “core values” that Garland and his allies in the teachers’ unions were defending. Among the surveyed young Americans, Goldberg and Kaufmann write, “62% reported either being taught in class or hearing from an adult in school that ‘America is a systemically racist country’; 69% that ‘white people have white privilege’; 57% that ‘white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect nonwhite people’; and 67% that ‘America is built on stolen land.’” A majority also recalled being told that “America is a patriarchal society,” and that “gender is an identity choice.”

To reiterate, this phenomenon transcends the oft-discussed blue state/red state divide. CSJ is no longer just a boutique doctrine found in San Francisco: “Republicans are highly exposed as well,” Goldberg and Kaufmann report. “Consider that even 73% of white Republicans still report being taught one of the eight [CSJ] concepts” the study tested. (I.e., “America is built on stolen land,” “gender is an identity choice,” etc.) Per Webster, America’s children today are, in fact, being taught to “lisp the praise” of a revolution. But it’s a far cry from the one that founded this country nearly two and a half centuries ago.

Funded by taxpayer dollars, defended by sympathetic national media, and even enforced, when necessary, by saber-rattling from the federal security state, the American education system today is a vehicle for waging war on the values, heritage, and progeny of the nation that created it. And as the Manhattan Institute report shows, the Freirites at the head of the bureaucracy are well on their way to remaking the next generation in their image. But you already knew all that. The only question now is what conservatives are willing to do to stop them.

More at www.nationalreview.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend the Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

 

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    Hitler had the Hitler Youth….Putin is doing the same thing in Ruzzia…..next is the Biden Youth (I shudder at the thought).

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Lorraine

    |

    I don’t hold teachers in high regard just because they’re “educators”.
    They are indoctrinators with an evil agenda. I was once a museum docent who taught 19th century American Art to students both in the classroom and in museum settings. Although the fine arts are notoriously liberal, I was a person who didn’t conform to their way of thinking and offered an analysis of art based on historical fact not revisionist history. I found many students were receptive to the truth.
    I don’t agree that all is lost. Critical thought comes into play when the pendulum begins to swing away from the extremes of either perspective.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Lorraine,

      Do you understand what you have stated when you concluded: “when the pendulum begins to swing away from the extremes of either perspective.”

      What are the two ‘either’ perspectives? Relative to what you had previously written, it seems the only two are either historical fact (good) or revisionist history (bad) as you seem to imply there is middle road between these two extremes. Did you really want to imply this?

      Have a good day

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Lorraine

        |

        Hello Jerry. Thank you for asking, but no, there is no acceptable middle ground between historical accuracy and revisionist history. That would make history subjective according to the viewpoint of those writing history. It is without exception that throughout the course of recorded history, to the victor go the spoils, which includes promoting a specific accounting of events favorable to the winning side.
        That is human nature at its most banal. No one has the ability to argue without the support of the powers responsible for disseminating information.
        I was referring to the political pendulum that may swing between extremes of traditional values of God as Creator, family life, described as one man married to one woman for life, raising a family independent of secular interference, and Country as a sovereign state, governed by moral and ethical application of law by people sworn to uphold such values.
        The opposite extreme is a godless society with man as the ultimate authority, no fidelity to marriage and family as the bedrock of society, no moral and ethical basis for law or its application. Finally, moral relativism as demonstrated by those who govern, without consent, I might add.
        There are folks who fall somewhere between the two, but I’m not one of them.
        I hope I’ve clarified my opinion.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Howdy

          |

          “there is no acceptable middle ground between historical accuracy and revisionist history”
          History is written by the victors, Lorraine. How accurate can it be?

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Loraine,

      Thank you very much for your good reply.

      Because of this good reply I need clarification: “I don’t hold teachers in high regard just because they’re “educators”. They are indoctrinators with an evil agenda.” Are all teachers Educators?

      I have read that the first teacher of any note was Socrates. The Second was Jesus who taught with parables which had hidden meanings which Jesus discovered that even his disciples could not find. And the Third was John Dewey whose lectures were so incoherent that his students had to construct their own knowledge.

      Jesus was the only one who seem to test his students to see what they had learned. And I believe that is a very significant fact. But maybe I am not being fair to Socrates whose continued questions could have steered his students, who discussed, away from a wrong answer toward a better answer.

      There is a Fourth, generally unknown teacher, who didn’t lecture or ask questions. He only gave an individual student an individual assigned task, without any instruction and forbidding the student to discuss the assignment, or to read about the assignment. Each student had to complete the task to this teacher’s satisfaction before the student would be assigned the next task without any instruction. This teacher was a naturalist who claimed that his greatest achievement was that he taught some students to observe. Which is the fundamental basis of SCIENCE For being a Swiss he maybe knew that Galileo had stated: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.

      You maybe know this naturalist because he made a mistake as he tried to use a fish, to prove that Darwin’s theory of the evolution of LIFE was absolutely wrong, instead of the bird which the Creator God had also created on the 5th day. So this naturalist with a great scientific achievement lost his reputation as a SCIENTIST. So, having given you all this information, I suspect you might know his name.

      Have a good day

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via