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.

Further to previous rumblings on the subject of crime, another small but noteworthy point:

Why, it’s almost as if antisocial tendencies were not neatly confined to only one form of expression.

This reply to the above is not, I think, entirely trivial:

Part of the reason that they were so desperate to cancel Live PD is that it showed 6 hours of this every weekend.

— someonesalt (@pervertputt) January 15, 2024

Indeed. As noted in one of our earlier discussions:

Regarding those progressive assumptions and their routine departures from reality, I’d somehow forgotten about this chap:

I’d also forgotten about some of the professor’s peers and cheerleaders – among them, fellow educator Leigh Kimberg, who’s all about “compassion, healing, justice and equity,” and announcing her pronouns to random passers-by. She’s also somewhat miffed by expectations of rigour:

There’s more to be had via the links above, and in the subsequent threads.

Try not to steal anyone’s car while you’re reading.

Update, via the comments:

Apparently, it’s outdated and oppressive for a young woman to be walked down the aisle at her wedding by her father. And so she can insult him and embarrass him by taking away that role. But of course it’s not outdated or oppressive for that same father to be expected to pay all of the bills for the wedding at which he’s being so pointedly sidelined and insulted:

Millennial girl wants dad to pay for wedding, but refuses to walk down the aisle with him.
Also mad her dad talked to friends to solicit opinions.
Dad’s not paying, girl now realizes she can’t afford it- now soliciting opinions from tik-tok.
My kids are going to trade school. pic.twitter.com/OC6Q7FRKhF

— Jason “Storm Chaser” Nelson (@RealJasonNelson) January 14, 2024

She’s “an independent thinker,” you see.

Update, via the comments:

It’s not, I think, hard to see how being very publicly dispensed with as outmoded or embarrassing – as a symbol of oppression and wickedness – might hurt the feelings of a father you supposedly care about.

And yet the above.

Little Madam concedes – albeit as somehow “unrelated” – that her parents do not, in fact, treat her as “property” – a term she uses repeatedly – and have seemingly never done so. Yet this imagined connotation must nonetheless, in her mind, be avoided at all costs. Lest The Patriarchy be empowered. As if it would otherwise occur to everyone else present and shape how they see the wedding. Which strikes me as a little odd.

Over the years I’ve been to several weddings and at no point during any of them did I regard the proud father as someone handing over his property. As if he were reluctantly, under duress, giving away his car. That’s not an idea that popped into my head – or, so far as I can tell, the heads of anyone else present at the ceremonies.

Something precious, yes. But not property.

And so, in order to ostentatiously reject a construal that no-one at her wedding is likely to arrive at anyway, Little Madam has alienated her parents and needlessly jeopardised the wedding in question. That happy day. And now she wants strangers on the internet to back her up and pin the blame on someone else.

Also, filming yourself putting on make-up while being a vain, monstrous bitch is probably not a look to go for.

Also, open thread.