Bill Gates’ Bigotry of Low Expectations

The Gates Foundation recently donated $3.6 million to The Educational Trust, an advocacy group behind “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,” which has designed a new “anti-racist” math curriculum which is more concerned with ending so-called “white supremacy culture” than teaching students objective, linear math. Please click on the picture above to watch a video analysis of Gates’ support of this program, and his bigotry of low expectations. Thanks for watching!

Interested in a toolkit to educate yourself against the misguided movement known as “anti-racism”?  Purchase my new book, “Exploring White Fragility: Debating the Effects of Whiteness Studies on America’s Schools”.

When Progressives Say ‘Whiteness’ They Mean ‘White People’

The following is an excerpt from the Federalist article by David Marcus titled, “When Progressives Say ‘Whiteness’ They Mean ‘White People’.” (Please click on the picture above to watch the companion video.)

American progressives are the masters of euphemism. They don’t “censor” books or plays; they “retire” them. They don’t “remove” lessons about the founding fathers from our kids’ curriculum; they “de-center” them. At every turn, they find some friendly-sounding phrase to obscure the illiberal and savage attacks they make on our culture. But one progressive euphemism stands out as uniquely dangerous: whiteness. . . .

What makes all of this so dangerous is that progressives are not railing against a system; they are railing against people. They are not demonizing a culture; they are demonizing people. This is why white people must confess their privilege. They must feel shame and contrition for the immoral nature of their pigmentation. Any clear-headed person can see what a dangerous game this is.

The antidote to progressive doublespeak is to say what they refuse to say. They do censor, they do remove, and yes, they do mean white people when they talk about who has to change and how to save our society. In this way, progressives regularly express good old-fashioned racism about white people and their ways under the guise of some broad investigation of that society. But do not be fooled. The next time you read about whiteness, the next time it is scapegoated into the cause of all that ails society, know what is being said. They truly believe the problem is white people.

Bree Picower: Indoctrinating Teachers with Toxic Anti-Whiteness

by Christopher Paslay

Bree Picower, an Associate Education Professor at Montclair State University, projects her own racist anti-white worldview onto preservice teachers in education programs, as well as on active teachers in K-12 schools.

Bree Picower, an Associate Education Professor at Montclair State University, is anti-white. Her new book, titled Reading, Writing, and Racism: Disrupting Whiteness in Teacher Education and in the Classroom, projects her own racist anti-white worldview onto preservice teachers in education programs, as well as on active teachers in K-12 schools. 

Which makes Picower’s particular brand of anti-whiteness even more concerning, being that her audience are educators instructing America’s children, who not only mold the minds of youth, but also have the ability to indoctrinate these young people with Picower’s poisonous ideas.    

Like DiAngelo’s White Fragility (which begins with a Forward from noted Black Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson), Picower’s book begins with a Forward from Bettina Love, a Black “abolitionist” professor from the University of Georgia.  Beginning each book with a Forward from a person of color is obviously their attempt to provide a level of authenticity to their racist worldviews — worldviews which see America as a nation founded on slavery and oppression, and see “whiteness” and the cultures of those who identify as white as violent entities that must be disrupted and dismantled. 

“The United States is not just racist; it is anti-Black,” Love writes in her forward to Picower’s book. “The word ‘racism’ does not adequately describe the ways in which the US kills, destroys, and spirit murders Black people.”

Love goes onto write that “America’s obsession with greed, violence, hate, and Black suffering always reaches into the most sacred spaces of American democracy, including schools.” This line is important, because it serves as a thesis for Picower’s book, Reading, Writing, and Racism: that the United States is a violently racist and anti-Black country, and that this violence and anti-Blackness stems directly from the white supremacist curriculum pervading K-12 schools, curriculum steeped in so-called “whiteness” that must be called out and eradicated.  

Love states in her Forward:

Too often teachers want to reflect a happy world to children, where no one was enslaved, no one was beaten, no families were separated, and White people never hurt anyone. These feel-good stories of White heroes and do-gooders uphold White supremacy and undermine the mental well-being of youth of color. To be frank, I am tired of seeing children, all children, opening up a textbook and reading about Black people as slaves and Native Americans as savages. I am even more appalled when teachers do not see anything wrong with these representations. 

Love’s logic, or lack of logic, is a microcosm of the fallacious and propagandistic nature of Picower’s entire book. In literally the same paragraph, Love insists slavery shouldn’t be white-washed from school textbooks, but then complains that she’s sick of seeing children opening up books that portray Black as slaves. But again, this lays bare the central theme of the book: that whites, no matter what they teach, are racist and oppressive and can do no good.

Thus the stage is set for Bree Picower’s anti-white book titled Reading, Writing, and Racism: Disrupting Whiteness in Teacher Education and in the Classroom. In it, Picower cherry-picks bizarre and strange examples of so-called “viral racist curriculum,” some of which she literally pulls from anonymous sources on Facebook, others which she dredges up from dusty, long-abandoned textbooks from the early 1970s.  And it’s these strange, cherry-picked curriculum resources, which have been collected under the #CurriculumSoWhite, that Picower holds up as the norm in America’s K-12 schools. 

“I have made the choice to focus on these viral examples because they are telling for many reasons,” Picower writes in her Introduction. “These singular examples reflect the toxicity of the entire body of school curricula. People outside of education rarely have a window into what happens behind classroom doors, so when these examples appear online for all to see, they call into question what other racial injustices are going on in schools.”

This is a key part to Picower’s anti-white indoctrination: like DiAngelo, she prays on naïve and unsuspecting preservice teachers and college education majors, baiting them with distorted facts and misinformation, hoping to turn them into activists who will go out and recruit others to push the radical message. 

But these singular examples do not reflect the entire body of school curricula, not by any stretch of the imagination, and saying so is a form of educational malpractice.  Like DiAngelo, Picower seems very comfortable generalizing about entire groups of people and entire bodies of curriculum. 

The ideas at the heart of Picower’s book, most of which are creative regurgitations of DiAngelo’s questionable theories, are packaged into five chapters. The first is titled “Curricular Tools of Whites” (defined by Picower as “scripted responses used to maintain teachers’ investment in White supremacy”), is a clear rip-off of what DiAngelo refers to as “moves of whiteness” (defined by DiAngelo as “a linguistic strategy used to support or challenge current power relations”).  

In a nutshell, the chapter lays out seven “tools” racist teachers use to maintain white supremacy in schools, none of which are based in any rigorous scientific analysis or backed-up with any quantitative research. In short, these “tools of whiteness” have come straight out of Picower’s brain, invented to increase the appeal of her anti-white racism and to better enable her to indoctrinate young, unsuspecting preservice teachers into this toxic ideology.

Chapter 2 is called “The Iceberg: Racial Ideology and Curriculum,” which is a reinvention of DiAngelo’s “iceberg of culture” and “white racial frame,” and examines four “case studies” to show how America’s teaching force both consciously and unconsciously produces curriculum based in white supremacy and anti-black racism. 

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 continue to recycle DiAngelo’s writings on historical racism, white socialization, white privilege, systemic racism, colorblind racism, and how these combine to form a K-12 educational system steeped in white supremacy and anti-blackness.  Again, no rigorous testing of any of these theories are done by Picower, and she employs no quantitative studies of any kind. 

Picower indeed acknowledges in her book that she is a privileged white person, who has no right profiting off of black suffering. She has two principles when it comes to her racial justice work. One, she keeps her “gaze” on “Whiteness” (which means she focusses all her research on how only whites need to change for the world to improve). And two, when asked to present or consult on racism, she makes sure she has a person of color with her, so she can hide behind them and claim she’s not racist. 

Perhaps a third principle could be to refrain from indoctrinating America’s future teachers with racist propaganda aimed at disparaging entire groups of people, or to stop writing racist books that do all of the above. 

New Website Helps Concerned Parents Track Critical Race Theory in Colleges and Universities

Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson has launched a database listing 220 universities and their approach to critical race theory (see video above).

As reported in the Daily Mail

  • Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson has launched a database listing 220 universities and their approach to critical race theory
  • He claims the database will help parents choose a school for their children
  • Jacobson told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that the site is for parents who don’t want their kids to be ‘indoctrinated’ by an ‘anti-racism ideology’
  • He claims that critical race theory teaches student that the ‘most important thing in society is the color of your skin’ 
  • Critical race theory says that white supremacy is an ideology which is baked into the structures of society and particularly the law
  • Critics say that it leaves people exposed to the training feeling that they are being blamed for problems which they did not cause 

Here is a link to the website. Thanks for watching! 

Anti-Racist Curriculum: Red Flags for Parents

by Christopher Paslay

A breakdown of major terms, and red flags for concerned parents.  

After the racial unrest over the death of George Floyd last summer, chances are your child’s school has adopted some form of “anti-racist” curriculum, aimed at ending racism and racial injustice. Also called “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion,” these programs sound reasonable and well-meaning, and some of them are.  However, there is a sliding scale between reasonable and radical, and every school district approaches things differently. 

Anti-racism is not a one-size fits all movement. The devil is in the details, and how one school implements such a program may differ greatly from district to district, and county to county. 

This article (and the video above) provides practical suggestions for keeping an eye on your school district’s “anti-racism” curriculum, and provides laymen’s definitions of terms, along with red flags to look for within the curriculum itself. As a rule, parents should keep an eye on their child’s curriculum at two levels: the district level, which includes official school board resolutions and school district approved material; and the classroom level: the actual lessons and activities that your child is doing with his or her teachers and classmates.   

In A Nutshell: The Terms of Anti-Racism

(Note: These definitions are not sponsored by any one school or district.)

Anti-Racism: Anti-racism is concerned with systems over individuals. Anti-racist educators, such as Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, believe all racial disparities in the United States are the sole result of one thing: racism. Racist systems and policies, both conscious and unconscious, are perpetuated by privileged whites, who benefit from this knowingly and unknowingly. Anti-racists attempt to end such systems by calling out, confronting, and disrupting white privilege and so-called “white supremacy culture.”        

White Supremacy: White supremacy does not refer to individual white people per se and their individual intentions, but to a political-economic social system of domination. This system is based on the historical and current accumulation of structural power that privileges, centralizes, and elevates white people as a group. The anti-racist definition of white supremacy is not hatred or white nationalism, but simply the fact that whites in America are the dominant culture. 

White Privilege:  The collective power, both conscious and unconscious, that whites have in society which makes things easier for them, and more difficult for people of color.  

Racism: Racism is more than race prejudice. Anyone across any race can have race prejudice. But racism is a macro-level social system that whites control and use to the advantage of whites as a group. Thus all whites are collectively racist. 

Equity: Equity is not about equal opportunity — but about equal outcome. It’s not concerned with a level playing field, but with level scores and level results.  Under an anti-racist framework, equity is zero-sum: one group must be disrupted or dismantled for another group to make gains. 

Anti-Blackness: This is a white person’s inherent hatred or marginalization of people of color. Anti-racist educators teach that all whites have inherent anti-blackness, whether conscious or unconscious. 

Critical Race Theory: Critical Race Theory, in a nutshell, encompasses all of the above ideas: that systems must change for racial progress to be made; that white supremacy, white privilege, and anti-blackness must be disrupted; and that those who do not get on board are perpetuating racism and inequity by default.  

Red Flags For Concerned Parents 

Parents should approach with caution curriculum that includes one or more of the following: 

Any material related to Ibram X. Kendi (How to Be an Anti-Racist) or Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility). These books are extremely polarizing, agenda-driven, and divide people into identity groups — judging them by the color of their skin, and not the content of their character, and have no place in K-12 schools.  These books violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and should be met with extreme caution. 

Any activity, lesson, or material that uses the phrase “white privilege,” “white fragility,” or “white supremacy.” These materials polarize and judge students by race, and may violate federal anti-discrimination laws.       

Any activity, lesson, or material that uses the phrase “anti-blackness,” or encourages a student to admit to or acknowledge their anti-blackness.  

Any curriculum that focuses too heavily on identity, or has children dissect or analyze their identity, or complete an identity map or identity wheel. 

Any curriculum that targets “whiteness,” or asks students to disrupt or deconstruct “whiteness,” “white privilege,” or “white supremacy.”  Such material is in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. 

Any lesson or activity that is too heavily focused on race or identity, or that divides or polarizes students by race — splitting students into so-called “affinity groups.” 

Finally, any use, mention, or inclusion of Black Lives Matter curriculum, which is extremely agenda-driven, polarizing, and based in politics. A good way to object to this is by exposing it as political indoctrination — the kind of political indoctrination parents oppose and most school boards deny exists.  BLM is a political organization with a PAC, and their agenda (defunding police, disrupting the nuclear family structure, etc.) has no place in any school that claims to teach students how to think, and not what to think. The National Education Association recently adopted BLM curriculum, a decision that must be rectified and reversed; most school districts prohibit any form of politicking or political campaigning in the classroom, and BLM is indeed a political organization with a PAC.

The first step for concerned parents is getting educated about what is going on in your child’s school. If you have a concern, make your voice heard. 

Exposing Corwin’s Toxic Teacher Resources

Corwin’s teacher resource titled “Responding to Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, and Threats to Democracy” is an outrageous lesson in political indoctrination and Critical Race Theory, and has no place in any classroom in America that genuinely cares about democracy, freedom, or critical thinking.

Dear Corwin Management,

After reviewing your recent teacher resource titled, “Responding to Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, and Threats to Democracy,” I was both disappointed and alarmed to find it filled with resources and material inappropriate for K-12 children. A closer look at the linked resources shows they are disturbingly political and agenda-driven, with a clear objective to teach children what to think, and not how to think. In short, these resources fail to allow students to critically analyze current events in an accurate and balanced context (they do not offer a classic pro/con format), but are presented from a one-sided lens that takes a complex situation and boils it down to a simplistic, over-generalized version of reality.

In particular, they push polarizing identity politics, based in Critical Race Theory, on children in K-12 schools. These resources do not treat students as individuals, but polarize them by race — stereotyping whites as privileged oppressors and people of color as oppressed victims. The curriculum resource titled “Let’s Talk Racial Healing: If Not Us, Then Who?, by Victoria Romero and Gary Howard, is anything but healing. It indoctrinates youth with the anti-American message that the United States is founded not on the ideals of democracy and freedom, but on racism and white supremacy. 

The resource begins by stating, “From the fifteenth century to the twenty-first, the genocide of Indigenous people and the enslavement of Black people, the voter suppression of the Jim Crow era to the most recent violent attempt to storm the Capitol and de-legitimize the votes of millions of Black, Brown, and Native people, a consistent through-line of our history has been white supremacy.” Is this what you want your children learning about in school?

Another resource, titled, “How to Teach Students About the Capitol Riots Using A Social Justice Framework” by Dr. Crystal Belle, begins by stating, “Drawing on the spirit of social justice and radical Black feminism, I welcome you into this written testimony of what it means to be a social justice educator after the Capitol riots that violently catapulted us into 2021.”  Since when are America’s K-12 classrooms a platform for radical black feminism?

Corwin’s so-called teaching resources also push the highly political and agenda-driven Black Lives Matter curriculum, which aims to indoctrinate children with BLM’s “13 Guiding Principles,” one of which is committed to “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” This is quite puzzling, being that 50 years of educational and sociological research show that children who come from two-parent nuclear families do better on every academic and behavior measure than students who come from a non-nuclear family structure. 

Corwin’s resources also violate Federal anti-discrimination laws. The link titled “A Best-of-the-Best Collection of Resources for Social Justice- and Equity-Focused Educators” contains anti-racism lessons that force students to create “identity charts” which divide children and judge them based on race, religion, gender, and sexuality, and force kids to “unpack colorblind ideology,” literally teaching children that judging a person by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, is wrong. 

Perhaps the most alarming thing about Corwin’s curriculum resources is that they are designed to indoctrinate, not educate — teaching students what to think, and not how to think. Specifically, instead of encouraging free discussion and open debate on the topics of race and violent protest,  they persuade teachers to silence students who may disagree by discrediting any conversation that doesn’t follow Corwin’s identity-politics-based agenda. For example, a lesson titled “But What About Antifa?” guides teachers to discredit or marginalize any counterpoints from students aimed to create a balance of information regarding the violence and social unrest that has plagued America since last June and beyond. 

If students inquire about the murder, property destruction, and domestic terrorism being perpetrated by Antifa (which was officially designated as a domestic terror organization by the Department of Justice, by the way), or the more radical fringes of Black Lives Matter, teachers are encouraged to do a lesson on “whataboutism,” explaining to students that all violence, murder, and property damage is not created equal. For example, when Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters stormed and occupied the East Police Precinct in Seattle — taking over the entire neighborhood of Capitol Hill and holding residents and businesses hostage — this violence is different. 

Four people were murdered within this so-called “autonomous zone,” including a 19-year old African American boy whose mother is now suing the City of Seattle, but this murder and violence doesn’t rise to the level of so-called “white supremacy,” and because it’s been perpetrated by people with an agenda and political ideology favorable to Corwin, bringing up this violence is to be downplayed and labeled “whataboutism” by educators. 

In July of 2016, when Black Lives Matter sympathizer Micah Xavier Johnson shot and killed five Dallas police officers during a BLM protest — publicly stating he wanted to kill white people and white officers — this is “whataboutism.” When Antifa and the radical fringes of BLM destroyed Federal courthouses, attacked the National Guard, and shot Las Vegas police officer Shay Mikalonis in the head last summer during a George Floyd protest — paralyzing him from the neck down and forcing him to live on a ventilator for the rest of his life — this is “whataboutism.”

When Antifa and the radical elements of Black Lives Matter destroyed tens of millions of dollars in property, including many small businesses that will never recover; when they looted neighborhoods and burned cars and buildings; when they terrorized citizens and business owners who did not openly wave BLM flags; when they ripped America in half for six straight months; bringing up these events is “whataboutism.”

According to Corwin’s educational resources, titled, “Responding to Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, and Threats to Democracy,” violence is only to be talked about and processed if it fits your political agenda. If it stereotypes white America, especially those with conservative values who do not believe in indoctrinating our children in identity politics, as “white supremacists” and “domestic terrorists,” then, well, you can call it out as “real” violence.  

That’s how identity politics and Critical Race Theory work. Divide good people up by race, religion, gender, and sexuality, and then polarize them against each other. And the ones who share you political agenda, well, gloss over all of their egregious behavior and pretend it doesn’t matter. And for those who demand equal treatment and colorblindness, well, brand them all as white supremacists, and discredit their worldview as evidence of domestic terrorism. 

Corwin’s teacher resource titled “Responding to Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, and Threats to Democracy” is an outrageous lesson in political indoctrination, and has no place in any classroom in America that genuinely cares about democracy, freedom, or critical thinking. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Paslay

Philadelphia Public Schoolteacher, Counselor, and Coach

Exploring White Fragility: Debating the Effects of Whiteness Studies on America’s Schools

Click here to pre-order Chris’s new book, Exploring White Fragility: Debating the Effects of Whiteness Studies on America’s Schools, due to be released on April 11, by Rowman & Littlefield. (Click on the picture above to watch a detailed description of the book.)

“Paslay’s thorough review of attitudes and actions associated with whiteness studies and racism give voice to all sides of diversity and pluralism so that we, as a nation, can continue the ongoing conversation about how to treat each other with the respect ALL humans deserve.” –Dr. Eugenia Krimmel, education professor and ESL/Bilingual education advisor at the Pennsylvania Department of Education

“This is a brave book. Paslay reveals and cuts through the endless layers of antiracist gospel which, in the name of enlightenment, leave one cohort of brown kids after another uneducated. Aspiring teachers seeking clear eyes and genuine progressivism should start by inhaling this book.” –John H. McWhorter, associate professor of linguistics and comparative literature at Columbia University

“This well-researched, well-argued, and thoughtful book provides a clear and comprehensive account of how the theory of white fragility is dividing rather than uniting American society and America’s classrooms. A must-read.” –Jonathan Church, author of Reinventing Racism: Why ‘White Fragility’ Is the Wrong Way to Think About Racial Inequality

“Paslay provides a thorough exposition and measured critique of the new ideology that has colonized the minds of America’s school administrators and threatens to wreak havoc on our students—especially students of color. It’s a must-read for any parent or teacher who is concerned about the soul of the next generation.” –Max Eden, education policy expert and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute