As part of the highly controversial “Black Lives Matter” week that took place in schools nationwide, tiny kindergarten children in an elite Washington, D.C., indoctrination center were handed BLM signs and ordered to march around the school chanting “Black Lives Matter.” Yes, seriously.

Video evidence of the scandal enlisting children in a racist and Marxist cause first emerged publicly on the school’s Instagram page before being picked up by the popular “Libs of Tik Tok” Twitter account. It was promptly retweeted over 5,000 times as outraged commentators expressed shock and horror over what many described as the abuse of children in the footage.

“The younger, the better, as far as proponents of Marxist theory are concerned,” wrote Elizabeth Stauffer at The Western Journal, one of the national media outlets that picked up the story. “If students are taught compliance now, it increases the likelihood they’ll obediently follow the orders of their leftist masters later in life.”

The Black Lives Matter “Week of Action” focuses on indoctrinating children to reject the nuclear family, private property, Christianity, and even the nation-state. It admits all of this on its websites and programs, bragging about its promotion of “globalism,” the “queer” agenda, and much more.

Despite being bankrolled by many of America’s largest corporations and wealthiest billionaires, all three of the co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement have boasted publicly of being Marxists. The trio has also publicly revealed their involvement in occult religious practices, witchcraft, necromancy, and other bizarre pagan rituals.

The controversial weaponization and indoctrination of tiny children barely old enough to tie their own shoes took place at Lowell School, an overpriced private school that charges close to $40,000 per year. It boasts of providing “progressive education” and is just as “woke” as any government brainwash camp, except it targets the children of D.C. elites set to be “future leaders” rather than their future victims.

Indeed, the school brags about turning the impressionable children in its care into “social justice” warriors on the “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity” (DIE) section of its website. “Anchored in our history and mission, we believe that the foundations of advocacy begin in childhood and early adolescence,” the school explains in justifying the indoctrination of small children.

Of course, government schools across America are similarly brainwashing children to become unthinking left-wing extremists dedicated to tearing down civilization. In fact, The Newman Report has documented “Black Lives Matter” week abuse of children in public education even in extremely conservative districts from Iowa to South Carolina and everywhere in between.

Just recently, Libs of Tik Tok exposed a government school in Pennsylvania ordering children of European descent to apologize to those with more melanin in their skin. The school also lined children up from “the whitest to the darkest” as part of its racist brainwashing campaign. Similar abuses have been taking place nationwide for years.

The horrific and systemic abuse of children under the guise of “education” is an epidemic in America, and it is destroying the next generation in both public and overpriced private schools. Unless the crisis is dealt with before virtually an entire generation is lost, the nation, its liberties and even civilization itself will not survive much longer.

Read more:

Is China Using Tik Tok to Control the Minds of Our Children?

This article was originally published on FreedomProject.com.

Have you recently heard the scornful claims of “progressives” who assert that critical race theory (CRT) is absolutely, unequivocally not taught in public schools? Never, no way, no how. Have you heard the suspiciously uniform proclamations that CRT is an academic theory originating and taught exclusively in law schools? Well, take a gander at this upcoming course offered at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy—a public high school:

SESSION # 34 TITLE: Introduction to Critical Race Theory in Education Research

LENGTH: 60 minutes / Three Days DESCRIPTION The three-day session will cover an introduction to Critical Race Theory concepts, the utilization of CRT in the field of education, and research applications of CRT in K12 classrooms and districts. The first 60- minute session is mainly lecture with a brief discussion focused on the tenets of CRT and the field of education. The second 60-minute session has a brief lecture on CRT in education and research, followed by small and large group discussions connecting students’ experiences with the CRT concepts and how they apply to the CRT framework. The final session will be students working in groups to design research questions and choose research methods using CRT as a theoretical framework. Students will create power points and share their ‘research designs’ with the group in the final 60-minute session. Students will be required to read journal articles and book chapters before the start of the session and during the 3-days of the course. Students will also have a small assignment outside the designated class time of the session to prepare for the group presentations.

SESSION GOALS

• To familiarize students with Critical Race Theory concepts.
• To familiarize students with CRT research applications in education.

STUDENT OUTCOMES

1. Students will be able to identify specific tenets of Critical Race Theory.
2. Students will be able to articulate different ways education researchers have used CRT to address education inequity in K12 classrooms and districts.

SESSION CATEGORIES

Academic – Session provides additional insight and inquiry into academic disciplines, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – Session promotes DEI values and perspectives.

PREREQUISITES

N/A

FACILITATOR(S)

Thandeka K. Chapman, Alumni IMSA Student

Remember, IMSA is a public school—that is, a school funded by you, the public. IMSA is using public funds to promote a highly controversial, arguable leftist theory on race and justice, which also includes controversial and arguable ideas about homosexuality and gender confusion.

By the end of the indoctrination seminar, IMSA expects students to be able to “identify specific tenets of” CRT and “articulate different ways education researchers have used CRT to address education inequity in K12 classrooms and districts.” IMSA does not, however, expect students to be able to identify dissenting views of CRT or how assumptions embedded in or derived from CRT may be wrong. In other words, IMSA is not teaching the controversy, and the seminar is not ideologically diverse or inclusive. It is biased in favor of CRT.

Thandeka K. Chapman

The woman teaching this course—and who is presumably being paid handsomely by Illinois taxpayers—is Thandeka K. Chapman, an alumna of IMSA, professor at the University of San Diego, and a “social justice” activist.

She calls herself a “Black Power Baby” whose “parents are educators and activists who utilized their resources to challenge injustices in education. Conversations about race and racism were regular dinner topics while I was growing up.”

All decent people oppose injustice. Many people, however, see serious problems in the way CRT defines injustice and with its proposed solutions to alleged injustice.

When asked, “If you could make any policy recommendation based on your own research (without regard to political possibility!), what would it be,” Chapman replied,

[M]y policy recommendation is to raise teacher salaries to be equivalent to–or above–salaries in other professions. Teachers have the most influence in students’ lives. … Teachers disseminate knowledge in particular ways, justify or demonize certain morals, values and behaviors. … Raising teacher salaries would elevate the profession. (emphasis added)

Paying more to recruit activists who are demonizing conservative morals, values, and behaviors is no solution, and paying activists more money will not elevate the teaching profession.

Depoliticizing teaching would be a good start, but leftist bias is systemic in schools and all ancillary institutions connected to schools, including the colleges and universities that train teachers, professional journals and organizations, teachers’ unions, and organizations that profit from advancing leftist ideas on injustice, systemic bias, oppression, race (and disordered sexuality). The entire system from the inside out and top to bottom is corrupt.

Regular IFI readers may be interested in who the “Chief Equity Officer” at IMSA is. It’s none other than Traci Ellis, former school board activist in District U-46 who infamously said about the American flag,

that flag means nothing more than toilet paper to me.

Ellis also referred to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention.” Can someone like that represent a diverse community or promote “equity” and justice?

On her school website, Ellis links to IMSA’s “Equity and Excellence” document adopted in 2018 when she was the Executive Director of the Office of Human Resources, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. What is most notable about this document filled with “social justice” education-ese is the absence of the word “equality.” There are lots of references to equity, inclusion, marginalization, cultural competence, and global citizenship (as opposed to American citizenship) but not one reference to equality.

One thing most “educators” today are not is independent thinkers. They are ideological lemmings whose rhetoric parrots whatever they read in their professional journals and hear at their conferences.

The “Equity and Excellence” document jampacked with jargon concludes with this:

The President, in collaboration with Academy departments, shall develop action plans with clear accountabilities and metrics, where appropriate, to execute this policy. (emphasis added)

This is the escape route for social justice change agents. This is the way they escape accountability for the inefficacy of their doctrinaire plans to change the world using other people’s children. They simply assert that “metrics” are inappropriate tools for measuring the outcomes they desire.

For more on the unprofessional, arrogant, and nasty Ellis who has no business involved in the education of other people’s children, Click HERE.

Some intrepid IMSA parents ought to find out how much Thaneka Chapman is being paid. And they ought to find out what teachers have been learning during professional development over the past five years since Traci Ellis was hired, because taxpayers fund professional development as well.

Anyone who teaches in public schools or has taught in public schools in the last two decades knows that ideas from CRT inform professional development and curricula. Anyone who denies that is either ignorant or deceitful.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Black-Power-Baby.mp3

Since diversity re-education is all the rage these days (and if Harris and her shadowy, confused puppet win the election will only get worse), I thought it might be helpful to publish the letter I emailed to Deerfield High School’s principal in about 2007 when I dropped out of an ongoing divisive diversity workshop due to the intolerance, close-mindedness, bigotry, and dishonesty of my un-collegial colleagues.

Here’s my lightly revised letter:

There’s gold in them thar hills–I mean, I have good news about the diversity group. I am so out of there. My time is better spent working for equity, balance, religious freedom, and parental rights as a parent rather than as participant in a diversity group. 

I am incensed at the rhetorical manipulation that took place in the meeting. For a faculty member to imply or state that somehow it is illegitimate or inappropriate for me to challenge the use of the word “safety” is itself, inappropriate. Liberals have co-opted the word “safety” precisely for its political efficacy (i.e., “safety” carries more gravitas and urgency than does “comfort”). After co-opting and redefining the word “safety,” liberals then criticize others for challenging its linguistic accuracy as well as the reality of their assertions regarding “safety.” 

I do not, in any rational way, make homosexual students unsafe. If they know my moral views—which I do not discuss with students—they may feel uncomfortable. But uncomfortable does not mean unsafe no matter what someone may “feel.” Sometimes feelings are not based on reality, and sometimes “bad” feelings are actually good things.

Then one administrator [a lesbian] said that she doesn’t like that I said she “was not legitimate.” I did not say that, nor do I think that. I said I believe homosexual acts are not morally legitimate. But I guess those are her “feelings,” so to hell with truth or reality. Actually, I had earlier said that we should value the dignity and worth of all people, which does not necessitate valuing, celebrating, or affirming homosexuality.

And we expect kids to negotiate this terrain when we can’t make it through a one-hour conversation without one administrator making things up and a faculty member attempting to prohibit me from dissenting.

Even the most fundamental aspects of debate are now controlled by liberal ideology.  That is, feelings have assumed some privileged polemical position that renders challenges to them unethical.

Feelings, in reality, have no inherent analytical value, although a society increasingly unable to think analytically, finds feelings increasingly persuasive (Read Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death). Feelings are neither the arbiters nor signifiers of right or wrong. They tell us precisely nothing about morality. If we can’t even agree on the relative value of subjective feelings, then dialogue, discussion, or debate is a meaningless exercise in futility.  

The arrogance of educators asserting, as our liberal faculty members do, that it is their job to compel kids to negotiate difficult conversations and their job to challenge the morals of students about arguably the single most controversial issue in society is astonishing. I don’t understand why the administration cannot see the intractable, irreconcilable nature of addressing this at school. Conservative beliefs will always be viewed as discriminatory, hurtful beliefs that make others “unsafe.” Liberal beliefs will always denigrate the deeply held beliefs of conservatives and–in my view–encourage destructive choices, and violate religious and parental rights.

And the assertion by the administration that the school must address this because “kids are growing up in a different world” is nonsense. Perhaps you live in some parallel universe, but I inhabit the very same world with the very same diversity issues and the very same communication challenges as my children. And when they get out in the real world, they will choose to negotiate this problematic terrain in the very same ways we adults do: some will avoid the topic in all contexts, most will avoid it except with those who share their views, and some will choose to become active on one side or the other for one reason or another.   

How dare the school compel adolescents who may be struggling with academics, peer pressure, drugs, alcohol, athletics, or family dysfunction to confront this issue that they will not be compelled to address publicly as adults. No one in the administration ever seems to entertain the possibility that this grand social experiment may indeed lead to greater division and greater stress for students—not less. I not only suspect it will exacerbate disunity, I’m certain of it. 

The administration and liberal faculty members are selective, however, in the issues and aspects of issues that they feel obliged to compel students to confront. They say the school must address homosexuality because it’s “in the world” but that homosexual kids can’t hear that many believe homosexual acts are immoral, because they will feel bad. Well, that’s the real world too. Some people will find our beliefs wrong, our behaviors immoral, our desires misdirected, and our feelings disordered.  

Our mission as educators should be much more humble, modest, and circumscribed. It is not our job to fix every problem in the world. It is not our job to expose students to every phenomenon that exists in the world. It is not our job to take our political or moral views into the classroom. It is not our job to compel others to view the world through the lens of our choosing. It is not our job to lead kids in areas for which we were not hired or try to mold our area of expertise into one that comports with our ideology. But the issue at hand is even more complex because we can’t even agree on what the problem is, let alone fix it.

The implication that the presence of bad feelings, or shame, or “lack of safety” proves that an injustice has been done is fallacious. Any time a government, society, school, or parent asserts that some behavior or impulse is wrong, those who choose that behavior or have that impulse feel bad. We don’t automatically condemn the judgment of those who assert moral principles.  

We abdicate our right to lead if we abdicate our responsibility to make judgments about right conduct. But now that some have arrived at the moral judgment that homosexuality is moral, everyone else is expected to refrain from expressing an opposing judgment so as not to make anyone feel bad.  

Polyamorists feel bad, “unsafe” and stigmatized due to societal disapproval of polyamory. Are we now expected to refrain from asserting that polyamory is wrong? Would you like your child exposed to an idea that you find profoundly immoral, just because a phenomenon exists, or because some feel bad when you assert it’s wrong, or because some want to coerce society into approval?

I also feel frustrated with the hypocrisy of colleagues who declare repeatedly how deeply they value diverse voices. Last year, I had a private conversation with a colleague in which I respectfully expressed my concern over what appeared to be a lack of balance on the topic of homosexuality in the school. I suggested that since he was teaching The Laramie Project, perhaps he could bring in an essay articulating an opposing view. Well, he shared my wrong-thoughts with other faculty members–an act for which he later apologized to me when he saw what his sharing caused.  

His sharing of my wrong-thoughts—which were that there should be ideological balance when addressing this controversial issue—prompted three colleagues in paroxysms of rage to send a letter to the local press and then demand the English Department chair have a meeting in which the three—all men by the way—could gang up on me in a man-splaining struggle session. … Oh, and guess what: one of those teachers is also in this diversity group. 

A school administrator at the time told me that actively addressing controversial issues related to sexuality is necessary in public schools in order to teach children “how to negotiate difficult conversations.” Who said that’s the role of government employees in public schools hired to teach English, social studies, world languages, calculus, or physics to other people’s minor children? What is their expertise in the fields of morality, ethics, ontology, epistemology, psychology, endocrinology, neuroscience, and conflict resolution—all of which are central to discussions on homosexuality and “trans” cultism? And if that is a responsibility of government employees, why are we letting people who are manifestly unfit for such a task, as demonstrated by their eager willingness to censor dissenting voices, take charge of it?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/audio_Drop-Out-of-Diversity-Re-education-Struggle-Sessions-While-You-Can.mp3

Written by Walter Williams

It’s nearly impossible to have even a short conversation with a college administrator, politician or chief executive without the words diversity and inclusion dropping from their lips. Diversity and inclusion appear to be the end-all and be-all of their existence. So, I thought I’d begin this discussion by first looking up the definition of diversity.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, diversity is “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” The definition gratuitously adds, “equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake.” The standard definition given for inclusion is involvement and empowerment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.

Here’s my question to those who are wedded to diversity and inclusion: Are people better off the less they have in common with one another? For example, women are less likely to be able to march 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load. They are also less likely to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles and move a wounded comrade weighing 165 pounds while carrying that load. Would anyone argue that a military outfit would benefit from diversity by including soldiers who can and those who cannot march 12 miles in five hours while carrying an 83-pound load?

You say, “Williams, the military is an exception!” What about language? The International Civil Aviation Organization has decreed that all air traffic controllers and flight crew members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium. According to UNESCO, there are about 7,000 languages in the world. The International Civil Aviation Organization could promote language inclusiveness by requiring language rotation. Some years, Cebuano (of the Malayo-Polynesian language family) and in other years Kinyarwanda (of the Niger-Congo language family) could be the language of pilots and air traffic controllers. Keep in mind that it is claimed that the great benefit of diversity and inclusiveness is that it promotes and fosters a sense of belonging. It values and practices respect for the differences in the talents, beliefs, backgrounds and ways of living of its members.

Another issue is what should be done when people who should know better praise non-diversity and non-inclusiveness? Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said, “I applaud commissioner Adam Silver’s commitment to diversity and inclusion within the NBA.” During the 2018-2019 season, more than 33% of NBA teams had head coaches of color. The number of assistant head coaches of color was over 42%. The number of black NBA players was 82%. In the face of these statistics, Oris Stuart, the NBA’s chief diversity and inclusion officer said, “Diversity, inclusion and equality are central to every aspect of our game and our business.” I would like for Jesse Jackson and others who claim that there’s racial diversity and inclusiveness in professional basketball to make their case. The same question can be asked about professional football where 70% of NFL players are black, and 9% of team head coaches are black. The thornier question and challenge is what can be done to make professional basketball and football look more like the American population?

Most of the diversity and inclusiveness insanity has its roots in academia. An example is a paper titled “Equilibrium Grade Inflation with Implications for Female Interest in STEM Majors,” written by Naval Postgraduate School professor Thomas Ahn, Duke University economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, Duke University researcher Amy Hopson, and James R. Thomas of the Federal Trade Commission. The authors argue that science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs at colleges and universities lacking female enrollment can be attributed largely to harsh grading policies in these fields. Their solution to increase the number of women’s involvement in STEM is to standardize grading curves, in order to grade less “harshly.” The insanity of this approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards across the board. This is more evidence that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

An arm of, arguably, the most tyrannical, divisive, hateful, and destructive political movement in the country will once again urge children and teens to disrupt government schools for an entire day on Friday April 12, 2019. And for the 23^rd year in row, spineless Christians will take it on the chin. They tolerate the intolerable—not for principled reasons—but out of cowardice.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) sponsors and promotes the political protest called Day of Silence whose goal is to exploit taxpayer-funded middle and high schools for the purpose of transforming the moral, political, and ontological views of other people’s children. GLSEN even provides a guide for “educators” that teaches teachers how to promote Leftist views of homosexuality and the “trans” phenomenon on Day of Silence.

GLSEN urges students to refuse to speak for the entire day—including during instructional time—in the service of normalizing disordered feelings and sexual acts that God abhors. And Christians shamefully say and do nothing.

Day of Silence uses government schools to propagate arguable assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexual acts and relationships and of biological-sex impersonation. And Christians rationalize their capitulation as fostering unity and demonstrating “niceness.”

Why are “LGBTQ” activists more impassioned, tenacious, and persevering in promoting wickedness than Christ-followers are in opposing it? Do Christians not remember that we are to deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily, to hate evil and love good, to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, and to count it all joy when we encounter trials because of our identity in Christ?

Have Christians forgotten these words of Jesus: “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble”?

As children and teens are inculcated with a body-, mind-, and heart-destroying ideology, one must wonder if Christians love—or even like—their neighbors.

There is something Christian parents can do. They can contact their children’s middle and high school administrators to ask if students and/or teachers will be permitted to refuse to speak on Day of Silence. If the answer is “yes,” keep your children home. Stop acquiescing to every moral offense the sexually deviant among us do in the service of their ideology.

Schools have a legal and pedagogical right to prohibit students from refusing to speak during class time. Schools may prohibit any actions they deem disruptive, and surely refusing to speak during instructional time is disruptive.

Imagine if another group of students refused to speak for an entire day to draw attention to the plight of women in Muslim countries, or the plight of Christians in China, or to object to American military intervention around the world, or to oppose socialized medicine, or endorse the Green New Deal. Such hijacking of government schools is disruptive and inappropriate. Students can engage in political action on their own time and their own dime—not in public schools supported by the hard-earned money of diverse peoples, many of whom object to the assumptions of the “LGBTQ” ideology.

A month ago, a Fresno, California high school spokesperson prohibited students from wearing MAGA hats, implying that the hats would be “distracting.” Translated: She feared intolerant leftist high school students would respond obnoxiously to the presence of peers wearing MAGA hats.

It’s well-known that conservative kids are far less likely to respond obnoxiously to “progressive” paraphernalia or political action than Leftist kids would to conservative paraphernalia or political action. Therefore, only conservative paraphernalia and political action are deemed distractions and banned. Leftist brats, bullies, and boors win again.

If the Leftists who control government schools really cared about creating a learning environment free of political distractions and disruptions, they would establish policies that prohibit all clothing with political messages and all controversial political action. But they don’t.

I learned from my experience working at Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore that the claims of Leftist teachers about their commitments to tolerance, inclusivity, and diversity are lies. They don’t value true tolerance, inclusivity, or diversity. They don’t seek to make schools “safe” places for all students. They don’t care if Orthodox Jews, Muslims, or theologically orthodox Christians feel excluded, uncomfortable, and “unsafe.”

The central pedagogical goals of Leftist “teachers”—better known as agents of change—are ideological not pedagogical. And they’re shameless in their hyp0crisy.

Conservative Parents: If your middle or high school allows students to refuse to Speak on Day of Silence, please keep your children home.

Click here for more information.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/mp3-What-the-World-Needs-Now-is-Some-Conservative-Civil-Disobedience_01.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It does make a difference.