Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Students out lying principal — How did she get past the school board?
These teen journalists were assigned to do an introduction piece for their new principal Amy Robertson. After they did some investigating, however, their published article led to the principal’s resignation only days later.
The students working for the Booster Redux publication at Pittsburg High School in southeastern Kansas didn’t plan on outing Robertson as a phony when they started writing the piece. But once they started looking into her credentials, they discovered a lot of discrepancies.
After Robertson was appointed on March 6th, the students reached out to the principal in a conference call on March 16th. For starters, Robertson claimed to have received her master’s and doctorate degrees from Corllins University. When the young journalists tried to look up the school, they found that the Better Business Bureau had stated that Corllins was not BBB-accredited. Another resource said that “the physical address of Collins was unknown”.
Despite Robertson having claimed that she did most of her schoolwork online, she said she had still visited the Corllins campus in Stockton, California. A quick call to the City of Stockton’s Community Development Department told them that the school was essentially nonexistent. Robertson was also reportedly unable to provide a copy of her transcripts.
The students compiled this information along with their other findings into an article that was published in the Booster Redux on Friday. On Tuesday, Robertson handed in her resignation, which was accepted by the Pittsburg Community Schools’ Board of Education.
The six students who put the article together were launched into the media limelight for their impressive reporting. The teens even got a shoutout from Todd Wallack of the Boston Globe Spotlight Team.
“I honestly thought they were joking at first,” 17-year-old Connor Balthazor told the Washington Post concerning the praise. “It was awesome to know that such respected members of the journalism community had our backs.”
The students were recognized and thanked by school officials for their thorough investigating. Though they may still be in high school, it seems pretty safe to say that this will look good on their resumes in the future.
The Cancer Eating Away at College Campuses
The average American has little knowledge of the extent to which our institutions of higher learning have been infected with a spreading cancer.
One aspect of that cancer is akin to the loyalty oaths of the 1940s and ’50s. Professors were often required to sign statements that affirmed their loyalty to the United States government, plus swear they were not members of any organizations, including the Communist Party USA, which sought the overthrow of the United States government.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down loyalty oaths as a condition of employment in 1964.
Today we’re seeing the re-emergence of the mentality that gave us loyalty oaths, in the form of mandating that faculty members write “diversity statements,” especially as part of hiring and promotion procedures. They are forced to pledge allegiance to the college’s diversity agenda.
For example, the University of California, San Diego requires that one’s “Contributions to Diversity Statement” describe one’s “past experience, activities and future plans to advance diversity, equity and inclusion, in alignment with UC San Diego’s mission to reflect the diversity of California and to meet the educational needs and interests of its diverse population.”
George Leef, director of research at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, has written an article titled “Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty ‘Diversity Statements.’”
His article documents the growing trend of mandated faculty diversity statements—such as that at Virginia Tech, in which “candidates should include a list of activities that promote or contribute to inclusive teaching, research, outreach, and service.”
College diversity agendas are little more than a call for ideological conformity. Diversity only means racial, sex, and sexual orientation quotas.
In pursuit of this agenda, colleges spend billions of dollars on offices of diversity and inclusion, diversity classes, and diversity indoctrination. The last thing that diversity hustlers want is diversity in ideas.
By the way, the next time you hear a college president boasting about how diverse his college is, ask him how many Republican faculty members there are in his journalism, psychology, English, and sociology departments.
In many cases, there is none, and in others, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans might be 20-to-1.
Nearly 100 percent of political campaign contributions from liberal arts faculty go to Democrats. At Cornell University, for example, 97 percent of contributions from faculty went to Democrats. At Georgetown University, it was 96 percent.
A study by my George Mason University colleague Daniel B. Klein, along with Charlotta Stern, titled “Professors and Their Politics: The Policy Views of Social Scientists,” concluded:
The academic social sciences are pretty much a one-party system. Were the Democratic tent broad, the one-party system might have intellectual diversity. But the data show almost no diversity of opinion among the Democratic professors when it comes to the regulatory, redistributive state: They like it. Especially when it comes to the minimum wage, workplace-safety regulation, pharmaceutical regulation, environmental regulation, discrimination regulation, gun control, income redistribution, and public schooling.
The fascist college trend that we are witnessing today is by no means new. As early as 1991, Yale University President Benno Schmidt warned:
The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind.
What diversity oaths seek is to maintain political conformity among the faculty indoctrinating our impressionable, intellectually immature young people. Vladimir Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
That’s the goal of the leftist teaching agenda.
You might ask, “Williams, what can be done?” Parents, donors, and legislatures need to stop being lazy. Check to see whether a college has diversity mandates for faculty. Check to see whether campus speakers have been disinvited.
College administrators have closed minds about their diversity agenda, but there’s nothing more effective in opening up closed minds than the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut.
Liberal snowflakes literally ‘fear’ new Chick-fil-A on college campus
Liberal students at Duquesne University are protesting bringing Chick-fil-A to campus because they’re worried its presence will threaten gay students.
You can’t make this stuff up:
"Niko Martini, a student senator at the Pittsburgh university, filed a petition with the student government asking the school to reconsider the inclusion of Chick-fil-A in its Options Food Court.
“Chick-fil-A has a questionable history on civil rights and human rights,” Mr. Martini said in a statement to the student newspaper, The Duke. “I think it’s imperative the university chooses to do business with organizations that coincide with the [university’s] mission and expectations they give students regarding diversity and inclusion.”
If Mr. Martini is so concerned about upholding his university’s “mission,” perhaps he should do some research. Duquesne is a Catholic university, and despite all the progressive proclamations of Pope Francis the church still teaches that all homosexual acts are “intrinsically evil.”
Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Kathy never called homosexuality evil. He just said that he supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.”
Here’s some more head-scratching ridiculousness from one of Duquesne’s liberal minds:
"Rachel Coury, president of the Duquesne gay-straight alliance, said she fears Chick-fil-A will roll back efforts to create a safe environment for gay students on campus.
“I’ve tried very hard within the last semester and a half to promote this safe environment for the LGBTQ+ community,” Ms. Coury told The Duke. “So I fear that with the Chick-fil-A … maybe people will feel that safe place is at risk.”
She said it would mean a lot to the LGBT community “if someone could make a statement to eliminate the fear of being marginalized by having this business on campus.”
If you legitimately believe that the presence of a chicken sandwich will threaten your safety, then you don’t need a petition — you need a psychologist.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:43 AM