But this is nice: after spending almost every word since the 2016 election joining the relentless media attack on Donald Trump and the democratic process that elected him, The Atlantic is back to applying some critical thinking to the dangers of the Left.
In the magazine now, Conor Freidersdorf tells us that the only parent in Evanston, Illinois who would go on the record as opposing critical race theory indoctrination in the schools was a black mother and school-board candidate, who, unlike the others, was self-employed. His recent article on the curriculum in Evanston featured quotes from “parents who favor diversity, racial equality, and inclusiveness but object to lessons that they believe cross a line into indoctrination” but all the parents he interviewed “would be quoted only anonymously, out of fear that they would be harassed online or even lose their jobs.” Now he has found Ndona Muboyayi, who as a candidate for the school board in District 65 opposes the Black Lives Matter-spawned message her own children are getting, and says she speak out openly because she is an independent consultant and won’t “cancel” herself.
Hmmmm. That sounds familiar somehow…
Writes blogger Amy Alkon, who flagged the article: “This is a sign of how sick and toxically infested with the racist race profiteering of [Ibram X] Kendi and the like our society has become.”
Indeed it is.
Here is Muboyayi
…and here is some of her commentary from her interview with Freidersdorf:
The ethics quiz on banning leggings and yoga pants for some female students and not others produced several excellent responses. I was surprised that the majority here supported selective enforcement, which is normally regarded as per se unfair. This response is especially remarkable considering that the selective enforcing will be done by the kinds of geniuses that punishe little girls for shaving their heads to make cancer victims feel better.
Here is the Comment of the Day by the intriguingly named “The Wednesday Woman” (whose comment arrived on a Sunday) on the post Ethics Quiz: Targeted Dress Coding, which answered the quiz query, “Is targeted dress coding ethical?”
Yoga pants, leggings, and other form-fitting outer-wear for girls are causing controversies among students, parents and school administrators. Some of the controversies are, frankly, wrong-headed. Here is an excerpt from an indignant letter sent to an Evanston (Illinois) middle school that banned the fitted lower-wear as inappropriate:
“This kind of message lands itself squarely on a continuum that blames girls and women for assault by men. It also sends the message to boys that their behaviors are excusable, or understandable given what the girls are wearing. And if the sight of a girl’s leg is too much for boys at Haven to handle, then your school has a much bigger problem to deal with.”
Ugh. Once again, we confront the burgeoning attitude that “don’t be an idiot” translates into making excuses for jerks. School girls need to learn where and when it is appropriate to send sexual messages (and how such messages are sent), or else they will be getting notes like this one when they are theoretically adults. Telling school girls that certain kinds of garb and make-up are not for the classroom is both responsible and reasonable. That is the message, and “assault by men” is not the issue in middle school. The issue is distracting from learning. The letter concludes…
“Girls should be able to feel safe and unashamed about what they wear. And boys need to be corrected and taught when they harass girls.”
Well, let’s just let them come to school naked, then! School has a legitimate function of teaching students appropriate boundaries, both boys and girls. This is the “My Little Pony” issue, in a different form. There, the lesson is 1) don’t tolerate the bullies and 2) don’t gratuitously encourage and provoke them either. For “bullies,” substitute “middle school sexual harassers.” Continue reading