By Nazarul Islam

Gabrielle Clark was worried about her children. Something was off, but she couldn’t put her finger on the problem. Gabrielle was temporarily disabled and unemployed, so her son William worked as a fast food shift manager to help make ends meet while taking his high school senior classes remotely. As a single mom—William’s father died before he was old enough to know him—she had to figure this out alone.

One day, she decided to sit down and watch her son’s distance-learning classes from his magnet school. She tuned into a required course, “The Sociology of Change,” and what she saw on screen shocked her. Her son, unbeknownst to her, had been taught lessons that were completely antithetical to her family’s values…and common sense.

William’s deceased father was white, which means William is biracial. However, his light skin, light hair, and green eyes mean that some people assume he is white. He’s sometimes described as “the only apparent white boy in his class.”

Being “apparently white” was enough for his teacher to target him.

For years, schools have had “anti-bullying campaigns” to stop kids from picking on each other. But what if the bullying is coming from the teacher and school administrators? According to the family’s recently filed lawsuit, William was singled out and subjected to derogatory name-calling and hurtful labeling, based on his physical appearance.

His teacher delivered regular “privilege checks” for William, which his mother described as “deliberate and protracted harassment” and “emotional abuse.” The classroom materials even implied that William’s white father probably physically abused his black mother, because—according to his lessons—that’s what white men do.

This is a far cry from Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation where people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Gabrielle claims her son, as well as the other students, were forced to profess their identities which were then subjected to open, official scrutiny that assigned negative character attributes and worldviews based on unchangeable personal characteristics, such as race and gender.

When students, including William, attempted to object, discussions were terminated and their speech effectively chilled. However, William refused to complete certain “identity confession” assignments or to avow certain politicized statements he could not in good conscience affirm.

That was enough to earn him threats of a failing grade.

As a senior, that was bad news. He had planned to spend the year applying to colleges and dreaming about his freshman year in which he’d study music. But this bad grade would put all of that in jeopardy.

Gabrielle had her attorney write a letter to the school, which prompted a meeting. But Gabrielle didn’t feel the school was taking her concerns seriously. “That’s when I withdrew my daughter and got the lawyers for my son,” she wrote. “I’m not playing with these people.” She filed a lawsuit against the school, claiming they violated the mother’s constitutional due process right to “family integrity and autonomy” by interfering with her “right and covenant to guide and direct the upbringing” of her children.

This case may have some of you scratching your heads. Others of you—having experienced similar interactions at school—might be nodding at how sadly familiar that story feels.

Recently, in both urban and rural communities, young children are being indoctrinated, bullied, and harassed by their fellow students and teachers for not falling into line on various topics.

In Arizona, Roberto Sandoval, the son of a Mexican immigrant who worked hard to achieve the American dream, was alarmed when his teen showed him her high school homework. “I have an assignment that’s asking me how I am privileged,” she told him.

The homework included statements such as “My skin color gives me privileges I didn’t earn … Your skin color gives you struggles you didn’t deserve,” and “No one is asking you to apologize for being privileged; people want you to stop using your privilege in ways that require an apology.”

In Seattle, meanwhile, teachers explain that “Western” mathematics has been used “to disenfranchise people and communities of color.” Then, they attempt to “re-humanize” math by incorporating curricular content such as explaining “how math dictates economic oppression” and asking, “How can we change mathematics from individualistic to collectivist thinking?”

Third-grade students in Cupertino, California, were told to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, ranking themselves on the intersectional hierarchy from “oppressor” to “oppressed.” One scandalized parent objected, saying, “They were basically teaching racism to my eight-year-old.” When questioned, the principal acknowledged that the lesson was not part of the “formal curricula.”

The specific topics of parents’ complaints in the examples above change from year to year, or even from week to week. Over the past few years, the following issues have waxed and waned in intensity: global warming, Occupy Wall Street, weapons of mass destruction, voter suppression, immigration reform, the border wall, DACA, Black Lives Matter, gun control, same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, abortion, patriotism, election integrity, and the MeToo movement.

In all of these examples, well-intentioned people of good faith can agree on underlying problems, while disagreeing on what to actually do about them. Increasingly, however, children who are too young to have developed solid or informed opinions are being forced into premature ideological conformity with some teachers and administrators who seem intent on pushing their own particular worldviews in K–12 classrooms.

These kinds of transgressions are not limited to the political Left.

A Georgia teacher was yanked from class after telling the students that President Barack Obama was a closeted Muslim.

In Wisconsin, a high school social studies teacher was placed on leave after instructing students to watch a one-sided video questioning the integrity of election results. In a shared screenshot of the assignment, he also apparently made sure to inform students that he would be protesting what he saw as unfair election results because it was “too important” not to do so, in a pretty clear attempt to influence them on this issue.

In Alabama, a geometry teacher actually taught a math lesson by asking students to evaluate the best angles to assassinate Obama.

No matter the specifics of the heavy-handed ideological teaching, we should all be against it. “Citizens of both parties should adopt a legal corollary to the Golden Rule—fight for the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself,” writes former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and Persuasion advisor David French. “And one of the most important and vital of those rights is the right to speak and act in accordance with your deepest beliefs.”

In fact, I’ve noticed that liberal parents are—in some ways—even more alarmed over the rapid transformation of their children’s schools and surprised to find themselves opposed to it. If it ever was a partisan issue, the problem of school indoctrination has steadily worsened to the point that people across the political spectrum have found themselves allied against it.

Many of you don’t want to think about this, and I understand. You’d rather send your kids to school and trust implicitly in the system, as your own parents probably did. After all, it worked out okay for you. However, this fight will come to you, whether or not you want it. It doesn’t matter if you live in a city or the rural South.

As frustrating as it can be to hear from people who disagree with us, this is part of the temperament that productive citizens need to develop in order to take their places in our society. In order to achieve this goal, our schools must be populated with educators who model and practice appropriate intellectual forbearance worthy of emulation by the younger generation.

Remember, it’s an imperfect world and we are all imperfect people: practice forgiveness and give others the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Nazarul Islam

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his 119 articles.

The post Defending Ideals of Founding Fathers first appeared on Sindh Courier.

African-American George Floyd’s murder trial has started however the identities of the 12 jurors and two alternates in the case are secret. They are hidden from public view and sequestered every night at an undisclosed location.

By Tom Arms

Derek Chauvin, three other police officers, the rest of American policemen, law enforcement generally, the legal system, racism and racial justice are on trial in a Minneapolis courtroom.

First – the sketchy facts of the case. African-American George Floyd was arrested after allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill. Officer George Chauvin held him to the ground by pressing his knee against his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds. By the time the ambulance arrived, George Floyd was dead.

Chauvin is charged with manslaughter, second degree murder and third degree murder. He faces the possibility of 40 years in prison.

George Floyd’s last words—“I can’t breathe”—sparked the worst race riots in American history and spilled over into 69 countries around the world. “Black Lives Matter” became the chant of an estimated 26 million protesters across the US. Ninety-three percent were classified as peaceful – But the ones that weren’t caused an estimated $2 billion in damage.

The Black Lives Matter riots were seen by African-Americans as the culmination of centuries of brutal, legalized racism by American law enforcement. It started with slavery and extended through the Jim Crow era of indiscriminate lynching and continued past the civil rights era.

African-Americans have fought back. The 4 April 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr by Earl Ray sparked off what was dubbed the “Holy Week Riots” in 110 American cities. In 1992 four Los Angeles policemen were acquitted over using “excessive force” in the beating of African-American Rodney King. The riots that followed left 2,383 arrested; 12,000 injured and 63 dead as well as causing $1billion worth of damage.

The fatal shooting of 18-year Michael Brown by policeman Darren Wilson in October 2014 led to years of simmering and at times explosive violence in Ferguson, Missouri, mainly because Wilson never stood trial. The Ferguson Riots saw the emergence of the right-wing militia group the Oath Keepers who maintained rooftop patrols during the disturbances. A Department of Justice investigation determined that the local police force had engaged in systematic misconduct against the local African-American community.

The motto of American police is “To Serve and Protect.” African-Americans ask: to serve and protect whom? They don’t believe it is them. George Floyd was one of 765 Americans killed as a result of police action 2020. Twenty-eight percent of them were Black. African-Americans comprised 14 percent of the total US population.

Being killed by a policeman is the sixth most likely cause of death for African-American men. One third of American jailbirds are Black. By the way, America makes up five percent of the world population and 21 percent of the world prison population.

Another disturbing trend is growing links between White supremacist militias and the police and military. There are estimated to be over 70 active militia groups in the US. The FBI has reported that the greatest threat to American security and democratic values is from the far right. Of the more than 400 people arrested as a result of the Capitol Hill Riots 50 were connected to the military and law enforcement and the most serious charges are being leveled at that group.

One of the reasons for Black anger is that the police are largely protected from prosecution by something called “Qualified Immunity”. Under this 1871 law the prosecution has to prove a link between the crime on trial and a clear precedent. As each case is different, it is almost impossible to draw a connection that satisfies the courts. As a result, between 2005 and 2020, only five policemen were convicted of murder.

The identities of the 12 jurors and two alternates in the Chauvin/Floyd case are secret. They are hidden from public view and sequestered every night at an undisclosed location. Judge Peter Cahill has a police guard. They are targets of both White Supremacists and Black activists, and rest assured the trial’s outcome will leave one of these two groups dissatisfied, with predictable results.

World Review

• Georgia’s Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot. The White-dominated local party dominates the state legislature and was shocked by Trump’s loss of Georgia and the Senate victory of two Black Democrats. Something had to be done. So they passed legislation to make it more difficult to vote by post; gave the legislation greater control over the conduct of elections; banned the provision of food and water to those standing in long queues to cast their ballots; reduced the number of drop-off ballot boxes and demanded strict ID requirements for all voters. All of these are aimed at making it harder for African-American voters who voted overwhelmingly for liberal-minded Democrats. But have they gone too far? The measures are clearly designed to reduce the Black vote. Could it instead galvanize it? The 2020 elections were a record turnout—67.7 percent of registered voters cast their ballots, the highest figure in more than 100 years. The reason was – still is—that America is divided and politicized like never before. The Democrats hated Trump and the conservative Republicans responded in equal measure in their feelings for Joe Biden and co. Attempts to restrict the Democratic vote could very well have the effect of encouraging Democratic activists to try harder at the mid-term elections in 2022 and the presidential vote in 2024. We proved in 2020 that we could break the Republican lock, the activists can argue. We have them on the run. Sort out your id cards and bring thermos flasks and sandwiches to the voting queues. We can do it again.
• The US State Department regularly produces country reports for Congress. This is because Congress decides whether a state should be given Most Favored Nation trading status, have sanctions slapped on them, or something in between. The country report makes recommendations and Congress usually follows them. This week—in response to Beijing’s Hong Kong crackdown– the State Department advised Congress finish the job started by Donald Trump and end Hong Kong’s preferential trading status. Not good news for Hong Kong and China. For a start the Hong Kong dollar is tied to the US dollar. That is likely to end. Hong Kong also has its own visa arrangements with the US (and other countries), which makes it easier for Chinese to travel to and from America for study and business. That is expected to cease. Tariffs on Hong Kong goods will go up, especially those re-exported from Mainland China. Controls on technology exports to China will be extended to Hong Kong. University contacts will be reduced. However, there will be a beneficiary. Singapore has for decades offered itself as an alternative Far Eastern base. It is looking even more attractive.
• France will go into its third national coronavirus lockdown this Sunday. Schools and non-essential shops will shut. Travel will be restricted and the number of ICU beds will increase from 7,665 to 10,000. Meanwhile Europe’s on-off relations with the Astra Zeneca vaccine continues. This week it was suspended in 15 EU countries and Canada. The vaccine is suspected to be responsible for a series of blood clots in patients under 50. The WHO and the European Medical Agency continue to claim it is safe. In the meantime more than 20 heads or government and international organizations have called for an international treaty on pandemic preparedness. But they have failed to answer the key question of “How?” This deficiency may be one of the reasons why the US refused to sign the final communique. Another could be fear that their powerful pharmaceutical companies may have to relinquish lucrative patent control and that they may have to internationalize their Centre for Disease Control. Russia and China were also conspicuously absent from the list of communique signatories. The Chinese nonappearance may be related to their horror of transparency. This was pointed out as a problem by a WHO team investigating the causes of the current pandemic. The good news for the Chinese was that the investigators dismissed Trump’s conspiracy theory that the virus originated in a Wuhan laboratory.
• One of the diplomatic tactics for dealing with China is to compartmentalize issues. Taiwan, South China Sea, human rights, Hong Kong, etcetera are in the “we gotta be tough” category. Dealing with the pandemic and climate change is in the “let’s do a deal” category. The hope is that by doing a deal in one area, diplomats can create a climate of trust which can have a positive impact on the “gotta be tough” category. Well, this week Beijing toughened its stance on the pandemic. It has done the same on climate change. It was scheduled to attend this week’s key preparatory meeting for the November COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow. It pulled out at the last minute. The fact is that Chinese President Xi Jinping reckons he has the West on the ropes and is in no mood for compromise anywhere.
• The Myanmar military government offered a unilateral ceasefire this week. But not to the street protesters. In fact the number of deaths is now hovering around the 600 mark. No, the unilateral ceasefire is being offered to tribal secessionist rebels who have been fighting central government for decades. The military has offered them a ceasefire because it is does not want to fight on multiple fronts. And there are a lot of alternative fronts. Myanmar is plagued with 135 ethnic groups who have spawned ten currently active rebel armies. Aung San Suu Kyi’s semi-democratic government had limited success in negotiating ceasefires. But the rebels have taken advantage of the turmoil in the streets of Yangon to step up their activities. In the past two weeks the Kachin Independence Army attacked a police station and their Karen counterparts seized an army outpost. The rebel groups have also offered their support to the street protesters, including the provision of arms. In the meantime, Myanmar refugees are flooding across the borders into India, Bangladesh and Thailand. At the UN, efforts to secure Security Council-backed sanctions are blocked by a Sino-Russian veto, and Russia is emerging as the generals’ chief ally and arms supplier. The US and UK are leading efforts to organize a non-UN sanctions regime.
• This week saw the British press report on Downing Street’s new media center. The focus was on the $3 million dollar price tag, Tory blue décor and oak paneling. They missed a story. The media center is an unwelcome constitutional development as it provides a tool for the prime minister to bypass parliament. Under the British political system (and the many countries who use its political template) parliament is supreme. Executive power is held by a constitutional monarch (or president in most countries) who vests those powers in the leader of the political party which commands a majority in parliament. That leader—or prime minister— makes decision and proposes legislation which is then put to parliament who have the responsibility of scrutinizing the government’s actions and approving or rejecting them. A key part of the process is that it is parliament who is first officially informed of government actions—not the general public via a televised media center. This way parliament acts as a check on the government. It is no surprise that the media center is the brainchild of eminence grise Dominic Cummings who made no secret of his disdain for the principles of parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty. It is a disdain which Prime Minister Boris Johnson has repeatedly demonstrated that he shares.
• Swiss women this week had only one thing to say to Swiss men—“knickers”. After years of campaigning the female members of the Swiss citizen army won the right to exchange the men’s underwear they have been forced to wear for undergarments that take account of their curvier figures. Swiss men have never been known for their embrace of feminism. The land of bankers and cuckoo clocks was almost the last Western country to give women the vote—in 1971. “Their brains are too small,” explained one politician. One European country remains the last bastion of male electoral dominance—the Vatican.

______________________

About the Author

Tom Arms is the London-based American foreign affairs journalist. He has nearly half a century’s experience of world affairs, and has written and broadcast for American, British and Commonwealth outlets. Positions he held included foreign correspondent, diplomatic correspondent, foreign editor, editor and founding CEO of an international diary news service. He is the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War,” “The Falklands Crisis” and “World Elections on File.” His new book “America: Made in Britain” is expected this year.

{The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Sindh Courier}

The post Observations of an Expat: The Trial first appeared on Sindh Courier.