From the San Francisco Chronicle, one for the Everything It Touches pile:

Now, now. We must resist the urge to pre-judge.

Though they ain’t making it easy.

Take that, barriers to learning.

Achieved, one assumes, by not bothering to suspend pupils who are seriously disruptive or habitually violent, a policy embraced by other progressive fiefdoms. And a new, improved rate of chronic absenteeism – 44% – isn’t entirely heartening.

Clearly, these are the people we should put in charge.

Apparently, San Francisco’s elementary-school children are expected to have, or at least regurgitate, strong opinions on the Israeli military.

Many young children are of course accustomed to being given a “word of the day,” though I would guess that such highlighted words don’t usually include “strike,” “ceasefire,” and “protest.” Nor, I suspect, would third-graders often be tasked with “disrupting whiteness,” which seems somewhat ambitious and just a tad question-begging, or with imagining “a world without police, money, or landlords.” Yet here we are.

A shocking twist, I know,

Ms Gross, who claims to re-shape “big concepts for little people,” is pretty much the kind of creature you’d imagine, and her views on, for instance, Israel and the United States are similarly unsurprising. Specifically,

And,

Ms Gross goes on to declare her “unwavering love and care and compassion for children.” Which would doubtless explain her indifference to whether those children can read or have mastered basic arithmetic. Instead, our loving and compassionate educator propagates racial animosity, by invoking the evils of “whiteness,” and rails against a small country in the Middle East, whose influence on the illiteracy of schoolchildren half a world away is, shall we say, somewhat unclear.

Referring to her critics, with a self-satisfied smirk, she adds:

By undermining the life chances of other people’s children.

Again, a familiar pattern.

Update:

If you draw attention to our degeneracy, you will be suspended.

I paraphrase, of course. But not, I think, unfairly.

At our glorious state broadcaster, that beacon of human progress:

Hiring the very best, I see. Ms Queva has also denounced her employer as the “Bigoted Broadcasting Company.” Don’t worry. I’ve hired a truck to help shift the pile of ironies.

Peter Saunders on forgotten knowledge, now all but taboo:

Noah Carl on the “diversity” trilemma:

And in technological news:

The educator in question, Mark Paterson, worries that black children “could end up interacting with white robots.” Specifically, “robots with reflective white surfaces.”

Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.

In the nightmare, I’ve been found guilty of something terrible – it was only a matter of time, I suppose – and am sentenced to an eternity of listening to this:

Teacher candidates in Ontario are receiving top-notch training. Not. pic.twitter.com/CBGPLzdJ9k

— Chanel Pfahl 🇨🇦 (@ChanLPfa) January 18, 2024

The speaker above, our bringer of deep and hidden wisdom, is Dr Andrew Campbell, an “educator, facilitator, storyteller and author,” and an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. His areas of expertise – and naturally, they are numerous – include “educational change,” “radical leadership for social change,” “diversity,” “equity,” and painting his nails.

In return for his scholarly expertise, and his heroic struggles with basic grammar, Dr Campbell is paid a mere $169,272 – excluding speaking fees, obviously. Oh, and our educator’s response to scepticism and gentle mockery, expressed via social media and immediately blocked, is pretty much what you’d imagine. From a thirteen-year-old girl.

His mission is to challenge stereotypes.

Update, via the comments:

Dr Campbell also insists, loudly and with much flailing of arms, that “representation” and “diversity” do not, ever, entail a lowering of standards. “How dare you,” says he.

At which point, I’m tempted to peer over my spectacles.

Via Jonathan Kay. Previously in Hell.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Attention, heterosexuals. The way you self-identify is, it turns out, terribly oppressive:

A Wheel Of Innate Sin For Which You Must Atone. Hours of fun. And that question-begging fatuousness won’t be internalised without a little prompting.

Following the complaint, Mr Golash has replied that his disapproval of the term straight was directed at the entire class, not a particular individual, and is therefore merely a matter of encouraging “reflection” on the part of heterosexual students. Specifically,

Should any gay readers have been rendered tearful and downtrodden by an utterance of the word straight, as Mr Golash would have us believe, do feel free to share your harrowing tales in the comments below. Sad music can be added for a small fee.

And so, according to Mr Golash, we will march towards a shining tomorrow via cultivated neuroticism – fretting about the allegedly wounding properties of the word straight – and by telling heterosexual male students that they are merely a “product of the patriarchy that teaches young boys not to care.” Because, unlike the word straight, that’s not insulting at all, apparently.

The claim that straight male students are the hapless dupes of some nebulous yet diabolical and all-pervasive force is not disputed by Mr Golash. And it remains unclear whether all this caring and reflection should extend to being concerned by the dogmatic overreach of an activist high school teacher – an avowed communist and Antifa-booster who uses the classroom to champion Hamas – and who punishes students for their unfashionable honesty. On which, more in a moment.

It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the term straight – meaning heterosexual or sexually conventional – is generally thought to have its origins in gay American slang of the 1940s. Which is to say, it was a favoured in-group term used by some gay people, and often used sarcastically.

If doubt remains as which party may be in need of “reflection,” I should also probably mention our educator’s hair.

And more seriously, this:

You see, if students are presented with the statement “Only women can get pregnant,” and then fail to tick the word “false,” this is a basis for an ‘F’. And any attempt by a student to defend their answer – say, by referring to observable reality – will be construed by Mr Golash as disruptive behaviour and a basis for further scolding.

And so,

Quite right, madam. Though other, perhaps more obvious candidates for removal may come to mind.

Previously in the world of neurotic word-policing.

Come, dear reader. Let us visit the publication now laughingly referred to as Scientific American. In particular, an “analysis” piece by Juan P Madrid, in which we’re told,

Dr Madrid, an assistant professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, begins his attempt to persuade with a tale of poetic drama:

I know. The very stuff of amazement. Brings a tear to the eye.

Apparently, the word collision is, for Dr Madrid, much too brutal and masculine when referring to the unstoppable convergence of two galaxies, and the ultimate merging of the supermassive black holes at their centres – an event that will entail the sling-shotting of countless stars and their orbiting planets, and which may release energy equivalent to around 100 million supernova explosions, and subsequently be detectable halfway across the universe.

A mere hug, you see. All that kindness.

Here, Dr Madrid’s own use of language – specifically, the word reconsider – is somewhat misleading and just a little coy. The reconsidering he has in mind would of course be enforced by those suitably enlightened, much like the author himself – as hinted at with enthusiasm later in the piece:

So, not so much a reconsidering, then, as a coerced neuroticism. A mandatory affectation, on which career progress may very much depend. But hey, where’s the fun in being a pretentious and neurotic scold if you don’t have the power to make others jump through hoops?

And so, when not detecting neutron stars and gravitational waves, astronomers will be expected to submit their findings to someone of “a different gender or ethnicity” to sift out any language that may conceivably cause distress to those determined to seek it out. “This type of conscious engagement,” we’re assured, “can only be beneficial.” And not, say, a farcical waste of time that’s better spent elsewhere.

Terms deemed “needlessly vicious,” and which render Dr Madrid indignant and reaching for tissues, include cannibalism, harassment, starvation, strangulation, stripping and suffocation:

It’s all terribly oppressive – for the implausibly faint of heart, I mean. And should a colleague carelessly refer to a planet being stripped of its ozone layer by a catastrophic gamma-ray burst, this is obviously “misogynistic language” and a basis for the sternest of hands-on-hips chiding.

Given the unequal distribution of interest, aptitude, and cognitive wherewithal, one might wonder why. Alas, as so often, the mystery persists.

The implication being that hearing an occasional use of the word cannibalism or stripping in reference to astronomical phenomena will somehow, in ways never quite specified, deflect an otherwise promising astronomer from their calling, despite an uncommon focus and years of study. Because female astronomers, and brown astronomers, and especially female brown astronomers, are so immensely delicate and likely to be traumatised by such descriptive terms.

At which point, readers may wish to ponder whether the best people to be doing astronomy, or teaching astronomy, or to be making workplace rules for astronomers, are the kinds of people who mouth dogmatic assertions without any trace of supporting logic, and who are distracted, even distressed, by hearing the word collision being used to describe a collision.

The strange trajectory of Scientific American has been mentioned here before.

Update:

Before anyone quibbles, the phrase “halfway across the universe” is merely a figure of speech. The actual estimate for how far away the gravitational waves could be detected by beings with technology comparable to our own is 3.25 million light years. So, for a hug, plenty of oomph.

Via Darleen, in the comments. Which you’re reading, of course.