creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly
14 Feb 2012
Obama Obeys the Feminists Again

Proclaiming in a New York Times headline that "Obama Adjusts a Rule Covering Contraceptives," the pro-… Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Day of Reckoning for Violence Against Women Act

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 2 … Read More.

31 Jan 2012
Jan Brewer's Photo With Obama

The now-famous picture of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shaking her finger at President Barack Obama is both … Read More.

Teaching "Social Justice" in Schools

Share Comment

Many voters didn't think it important when it surfaced during the presidential campaign that Barack Obama's friend, the 1960s radical William Ayers, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers' preoccupation with inserting his ideas of "social justice" into public school curriculum didn't seem an issue to make tracks in a national election.

Now we find that in the election week, the most respected education journal, Education Week, featured a front-page article on "social-justice teaching." This confirms that accusations about "social-justice teaching" are not inventions of John McCain's partisan consultants, but are matters that vitally concern everyone who cares what the next generation is taught with taxpayers' money.

"Social-justice teaching" is defined in Education Week as "teaching kids to question whoever happens to hold the reins of power at a particular moment. It's about seeing yourself not just as a consumer (of information), but as an actor-critic" in the world around you. This revealing explanation comes from Bill Bigelow, the curriculum editor of a Milwaukee-based organization called Rethinking Schools, which publishes instructional materials relating to issues of race and equity.

Bigelow admits that this is "a subversive act in some respects because it is not always encouraged by the curriculum." Apparently, he intends to provide the encouragement.

In Bigelow's book "Rethinking Columbus," he wrote that he encourages his students to walk in the shoes of groups that have been oppressed or disenfranchised. He assigns students to role-play various oppressed groups in the United States and foreign countries.

"Social-justice" lessons highlight past mistakes in U.S. history rather than our accomplishments and opportunities. Emphasizing problems and injustices rather than achievements is given the highfalutin label "critical pedagogy."

David Horowitz of the California-based David Horowitz Freedom Center says that social-justice teaching is "shorthand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free-market economics." He says it teaches students that "American society is an inherently 'oppressive' society that is 'systemically' racist, 'sexist' and 'classist' and thus discriminates institutionally against women, nonwhites, working Americans and the poor."

Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute describes Ayers as one of the leaders in "bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms." Ayers argues in his books and articles that "social-justice teaching" should be injected into various curriculum subjects.

Education Week identifies the "special-interest groups" that promote "social-justice teaching" and provide curricular materials, online resources and "professional development" (i.e., indoctrinating teachers).

These groups include an affiliate of the American Educational Research Association, the Cambridge-based Educators for Social Responsibility and the Washington-based Teaching for Change, in addition to Rethinking Schools.

The lobbyists for "social-justice teaching" and "critical pedagogy" sponsor well-attended conferences (no doubt at taxpayers' expense) and publish magazines. Teachers 4 Social Justice attracted 1,000 educators to an October seminar in Berkeley, Calif.

Lesson plans are available from a 30-year-old magazine called "Radical Teacher," which was founded as "a socialist, feminist, and anti-racist journal on the theory and practice of teaching."

Education Week identifies Ayers-style "social-justice teaching" as rooted in the writings of the late Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. His best-known book, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" (1970), is considered a classic text of radical education theory and is regularly assigned in education schools.

After Freire's theories took hold in teachers colleges, it's no surprise that they made their way into public schools, especially where low-income and minority kids can be taught oppression studies. Schools that specialize in "social-justice teaching" exist in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia, among other cities.

The Social Justice High School in Chicago, for example, has a 100 percent Hispanic or black student body. The principal admits that the lessons taught there are often "atypical," such as teaching the relative likelihood of whites and minorities being pulled over by police.

This district recently announced plans to open a "gay-friendly" public high school called Pride Campus with 600 students, half homosexual and half heterosexual. Official materials say that the curriculum will "teach the history of all people who have been oppressed and the civil rights movements that have led to social justice and queer studies."

It is clear that "social-justice teaching" does not mean justice as most Americans understand the term. Those who use the term make clear that it means the United States is an unjust and oppressive society and the solution is to "spread the wealth around."

Ayers declined to be interviewed for the Education Week article. His comments were unnecessary since the article was generally favorable to "social-justice teaching" and dismissive of its critics.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;... With all due respect, which is the simple respect every citizen should hold for citizen, you do not know what justice is, and that explains why you have stood so often with those who would deny justice... Yes; The United States is an unjust place, and that is what accounts for our great inequality of wealth and our great inequality of political power... When some one like Margaret Thatcher could say that when law ends tyranny begins, it is clear that she confuses law, which is easily manipulated to support power and wealth, -with justice... It is not... It is as possible to have tyranny with law as without. The tyranny with law is more difficult to be rid of... Abelard said: Ius (justice) is the Genus, and Lex (law) is a species of justice... If your laws are not just they are not law, but only a form of tyranny... And that is what the religious right offers to America: Unjust laws protecting a very unjust view of Justice... But societies, which is to say, communities, are founded, formed to protect rights... The rights for which this country was formed and fought for were clear: Life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. IN what sense are these goals of Life, Liberty, and happiness- Possible, if we deny justice??? You know that no one can have life, let alone happiness, without justice... The killer takes justice from his victim along with his life... The state in turn denies rights to the killer until he has only the right to die in some way not cruel or unusual.... But what is justice??? Justice is a moral concept like many we deal in, having no tangible characteristic as physical concepts do... We cannot measure or weigh or color a moral concept, and yet we must agree that we have them in common. And we have them in common, these intangible concept like justice, and liberty and equality and love because we find them essential to our lives and well being... Again, if you deny a person justice you deny their life, their right to the essentials of life and so on, until he, or she dies... problem over, for people like you, who seem to wish all those who disagree with you would drop dead... Bad for them... Good for you; but really bad for all... Because as Lincoln pointed out, the standard which makes one the slave of another because he is black may as well make one a slave because he is tan... Societies, as all communites, as forms of relationship built to defend rights should be in the business of delivering social justice. ..Who cares that Justice cannot be defined in gross, or in general??? Justice will always be particular to the relationship, just as love is... When we have a conflict; justice is the coin we fight over... It is the same coin for each of us, which we can only have individually by sharing with each other... What is justice for me in a given situation will be justice for you, determined by both of us, and equally ours. We need a discussion of social justice in this land, and in addition, we need people to learn how to argue, and how to bargain, and there are many books on the subject which would be a wonderful investment of government money...We have to remember, what you seem to have long ago forgotten, that forms of relationship are not just forms....It is not just the law, or only the government... There are the relationships within, and those relationships are always fluid and dynamic, and always involve a lot of give and take so long as they live... You seem to like the skeleton, the form, the structure of society... I like the flesh... We need structure, but the structure alone is death... Thanks.... Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Nov 4, 2008 9:56 AM
Where to begin? Let's start with that poorly worded "The Social Justice High School in Chicago, for example, has a 100 percent Hispanic or black student body." Is it a school where all the students are either Hispanic or black? Or is it a school where all the students are Hispanic, or all the students are black, but you don't know which? It sounds like the latter, even though it's probably the former. And it suggests you don't really care what the student body is, because it's full of "them". You know, those darker kids. But more to the point: what's wrong with teaching kids that yes, America has made some big, big mistakes in the past, along with having done a lot of things right? The fact that our country provides enormous opportunities doesn't mean we don't have some serious social problems, and those problems are not entirely self-inflicted by the affected groups. What disturbs me most is that you apparently object to having children who have never faced discrimination (on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or whatever) learning what life is like for those who do face that discrimination. It's a huge leap from having them learn the facts of life for the underprivileged to assuming that they'll be taught redistribution of goods--about as big a leap as when Leander Perez told New Orleans parents that integrating the city's schools would mean white girls being raped by "burrheads" and "Congolese".
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kevin Morgan
Thu Nov 6, 2008 1:06 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Phyllis Schlafly
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 17 Feb 2012

6 Dec 2011 National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea

5 Jan 2010 The Causes of Unemployment

8 Sep 2009 Training Kids to Be Obama's Servants