The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘education’

Assimilation, Not Diversity, Built America


Defenders of heritage insist this is not nostalgia or racial chauvinism, it is realism. Every durable nation rests on a shared civilizational identity. The American version was Anglo Protestant in moral tone, English speaking in language, and liberty oriented in political philosophy. That culture welcomed millions who did not become Americans by birth but by belief. The moral confidence that built our institutions grew out of that inheritance, the conviction that ordered freedom under God and the dignity of the individual are worth defending in law and in habit. The point is not blood but a creed. The creed needs a culture to sustain it. A constitution without a people formed to live by it becomes a parchment with no grip on conduct.

Progressive critics say this story is exclusionary. They hear Anglo Protestant and think it names a race rather than a moral and institutional tradition that others can join. They favor multiculturalism, which often means many official identities and few shared obligations. But a house divided into a thousand identities cannot stand. Liberty does not maintain itself by slogans. It depends on the preservation of the culture that conceived it. The American strength was always assimilation, not diversity as an end in itself. Diversity tested by the work of joining a common life is a blessing. Diversity curated as permanent separation becomes a solvent that dissolves trust.

To see why, begin with first principles. Anglo Protestant culture supplied the United States with a grammar of freedom. The habits were simple and demanding. Speak a common language so that law can be public. Teach the young to read Scripture and the Constitution so that conscience and citizenship can develop together. Honor work and voluntary association so that the state need not try to do everything. Uphold limited government through the rule of law and representative institutions so that power is answerable to reasoned debate. None of this bars newcomers. It invites them. It sets a path that many followed. The Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, and later Asians arrived as strangers and became neighbors by mastering English, by sending their children through schools that taught a common civic story, and by entering the professions, the armed forces, and the middle class. The best evidence is visible in the second generation that reliably outran the first in income, education, and civic participation. The pattern is too regular to be an accident. It is the predictable yield of a demanding but generous culture of assimilation.

Consider language. English is not a tribal mark. It is the tool that makes a single public square. It binds courts and contracts, newspapers and classrooms, congregations and campaigns. When immigrants learn English quickly and their children learn it almost at once, they gain access to the full economy and to the nation’s conversation. They also gain a share in the country’s memory. Without a common tongue, there can be no shared history and no consistent ways of resolving dispute. The early republic knew this. Schools taught in English, even when communities spoke other languages at home. McGuffey readers and similar texts formed vocabulary and virtue together. The goal was not cultural erasure. It was civic unity.

Turn to law and institutions. American law grew from English common law and from Protestant ideas about human dignity and responsibility. Jurors judge peers because each person carries moral agency. Rights are secured under a written constitution because rulers must answer to higher law. Federalism allows local self government because communities are morally significant. The Anglo Protestant world taught that men are equal in worth and fallen in character. It therefore divided power, protected property, and upheld conscience. One need not be Anglo or Protestant to accept these premises. Millions of Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, and secular Americans have done exactly that. The test is adoption, not ancestry.

Education carried the culture. New England’s Old Deluder Satan Act taught children to read so that they could resist ignorance and tyranny. The common school movement in the nineteenth century Americanized immigrant youth by teaching the national history and the civic catechism. Civic ritual, from naturalization ceremonies to Memorial Day observances, mapped private gratitude onto public loyalty. By the mid twentieth century the assimilation model had proven itself. Ethnic neighborhoods retained food, faith, and festivals. At the same time, the children took oaths as soldiers, voted in elections, and married across lines that once seemed high walls. The melting pot never promised uniformity. It promised unity.

Something changed. Beginning in the late twentieth century, elites turned from assimilation to multiculturalism. The motive, in many cases, was humane. Minorities had suffered bigotry, so public institutions tried to honor difference. Bilingual education rose in place of immersion. Ethnic studies proliferated while common civics receded. Diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracies taught citizens to sort themselves by group box rather than to see themselves first as Americans. This shift has consequences. Young Americans know less history and civics than their grandparents did. Standard measures show sharp declines in eighth grade proficiency in both subjects. Surveys find that large majorities cannot name the three branches of government. When citizens no longer share a basic narrative about their country, public debate becomes incoherent and trust collapses.

Trust has in fact fallen. In the early 1970s, nearly half of Americans told surveyors that most people can be trusted. In recent years the figure has hovered near one third. Trust in national institutions has decayed as well. Confidence in Congress is persistently low. Trust in the media is at or near record lows. Trust in the federal government rests near the floor. Many forces play a role, including war, scandal, and economic disruption. Yet the temporal pattern is hard to ignore. As the United States has grown more diverse without strengthening common bonds, citizens have tended to hunker down. In neighborhoods where the cultural map is a mosaic without an integrating story, people vote less, volunteer less, and withdraw. This is not a moral indictment of diversity. It is a warning about the social physics of human cooperation. Heterogeneity without a centripetal force will not hold.

Patriotism has fallen with trust. At the turn of the century, strong national pride was routine. Today, the share who say they are extremely proud to be American is far lower, with the decline steepest among the young. Schools and popular culture often focus on national sins while ignoring the constitutional instruments that made reform possible. The new narrative claims that America is a story of oppression with no redeeming thread. The old narrative claimed that America is a story of promised ideals progressively realized through struggle. The second view is sober and hopeful. The first view erodes gratitude and with it, loyalty. Increasingly, public demonstrations among those who identify as Democrats feature Palestinian or Mexican flags rather than the Stars and Stripes, a symbol of shifting loyalties and declining civic pride. A nation that does not teach its children why it deserves their loyalty will not keep it.

If this diagnosis is correct, the remedy is not complicated, though it will be politically difficult. Civic education must be restored. Children need a coherent sequence in US history and government, anchored in founding documents, constitutional structure, and the great movements that extended the promise to those who were excluded. Schools should assign primary texts and expect memory of facts as well as analysis. They should cultivate the capacity to admire. They should teach that fallible founders built something precious that later generations improved. A republic needs gratitude just as a family does. It cannot survive on grievance alone.

English must be treated as the public language. Congress need not decree an official language to do this work, though it should. The urgent need is to fund English language instruction and to favor immersion for children rather than long term bilingual tracks that delay entry into the national conversation. The naturalization test should be rigorous and meaningful. USCIS could expand pre citizenship civics courses that culminate in public ceremonies embedded in community life. The point is not gatekeeping for its own sake. The point is to make citizenship feel like joining a covenant of mutual loyalty.

Immigration policy should prioritize integration and assimilation. The United States should welcome those who genuinely aspire to become Americans, embracing the nation’s values and culture. This includes acknowledging the inconvenient truth that true adherents to Islam may struggle with integration, as Islamic teachings conflict with Western principles. Immigration should favor individuals with English proficiency, civic knowledge, higher education, and skills for rapid economic contribution, including Muslims who explicitly reject incompatible ideologies and embrace Western values. Large refugee placements should be dispersed to avoid overwhelming schools and neighborhoods. Public institutions should use English as the primary language, and official forms should minimize racial and cultural categorizations that encourage demographic divisions. Class-based support for the poor will advance justice more effectively than expanding identity categories and bureaucracies to mediate them.

We should recover the old American art of patriotic assimilation. This does not mean propaganda. It means persuasion backed by practice. Communities, churches, and civic groups should invite newcomers into their rituals, from Little League to Independence Day parades to veterans’ breakfasts. The country should expand voluntary national service programs that mix young people across region and class, with meaningful scholarships as incentives. A year spent rebuilding trails, tutoring children, or assisting the elderly alongside peers from other backgrounds creates loyalty as nothing else does. Military service has done this for generations and could again form the backbone of civic renewal if made compulsory for a short period between high school and college, with exemptions for those who choose to enter skilled trades immediately after graduation. Civilian service can do some of the same work. A healthy society manufactures cross cutting friendship on purpose.

The private sector needs reform as well. Diversity training that isolates employees into grievance blocs should give way to programs that teach a shared institutional mission and a shared civic frame. Universities should replace separatist dorms and identity graduations with curated debate programs that bring students of different backgrounds into honest conversation about the national story. Classical civic associations should be celebrated again. Rotary, Kiwanis, and neighborhood associations knit strangers into partners through concrete projects. The state cannot legislate friendship, but it can remove incentives that reward social separation.

A skeptic will object that this program names a past that never existed. They will say the old culture marginalized many and that praising it implies a wish to return to injustice. The objection has bite if the claim is that the old order was perfect. That is not the claim. The claim is that the old culture contained principles that allowed honest reform. The civil rights movement succeeded because it appealed to the Declaration and the Constitution. It did not ask America to become something alien to its heritage. It asked America to be itself. The moral energies that fueled abolition, suffrage, and civil rights drew on a religious and civic vocabulary that taught the equal worth of souls and the proper limits of power. We should not discard the very inheritance that made progress possible.

Another skeptic will argue that diversity is the future whether we like it or not, that demographics are destiny, and that trying to restore a common culture is a fool’s errand. Demographics are not destiny. Institutions and norms shape outcomes. A school that teaches a common canon will produce different citizens than a school that teaches tribal grievance. A city that organizes national service will build different loyalties than a city that funds endless identity offices. A country that rewards English acquisition will converge faster than a country that allows public life to fragment into mutually unintelligible enclaves. The question is not whether America will be diverse. It is whether America will be united enough to govern itself.

This brings us back to the core claim. Heritage talk is not code for exclusion. It is a plea for realism about the conditions under which free institutions survive. The American creed of individual dignity, equal protection, limited government, and the consent of the governed is not a free floating set of abstractions. It lives in practices, habits, and narratives that children learn and adults reinforce. Those practices developed in an Anglo Protestant frame, but they are not the property of any ethnicity. They are gifts of a civilization that has proven unusually adept at self correction. Anyone can join who will learn the language, accept the law, and bind their loyalty to the country’s story. That is why America worked when it worked best. That is why it will work again if we choose it.

To recover assimilation is to recover the conditions for trust. To recover trust is to recover the possibility of persuasion and compromise. That is how republics function. The alternative is a politics of permanent mobilization in which every group seeks spoils from the center and no one believes that the common good exists. That politics ends in cynicism and soft despotism. The path out is known. Teach civic truth. Expect a common language. Invite newcomers to join a national family rather than an archipelago of identities. Govern modestly so that civil society can do its work. And speak without embarrassment about the heritage that made liberty possible in the first place.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

How Immigration Broke NYC and Delivered It to an Islamic Marxist


New York City once sold a simple promise, come here, work hard, join a common culture that made room for newcomers without dissolving the whole. That promise has thinned. The city that described itself as a model of the American melting pot now functions like a patchwork of parallel societies that share streets but not a civic center. This is not a claim made in anger. It is the sober conclusion one reaches when the city’s own data are set beside its policies and its new political trajectory. If you want to understand where this leads, look at the man most likely to be the next mayor, Zohran Mamdani, an Islamic Marxist who became a citizen just seven years ago and now proposes to scale up the very sanctuary architecture that strained the city’s schools, hospitals, courts, and budget. The issue is not his background (though troubling), the issue is the program, a program that enshrines permanent dependency and treats assimilation as optional.

Begin with scale, because scale governs possibility. Nearly two fifths of New Yorkers are foreign born, a share that would challenge even a well aligned integration system. The dominant origins today are the Dominican Republic, China, and Jamaica, which is a different profile from earlier European heavy waves. Those facts alone do not indict immigration, they do, however, heighten the importance of a firm common language and shared civic norms. On that front the city is slipping. Roughly one in five residents has limited English proficiency, and New York’s public schools now educate children who, taken together, speak 156 different languages at home. Teachers cannot conjure qualified bilingual staff in dozens of tongues, administrators cannot translate every service into scores of dialects without diluting other priorities, and students cannot reach grade level when the medium of instruction is constantly fragmented. In an earlier era, public schools were engines of Americanization. Today, they are being asked to sustain islands of language alongside the curriculum, which is a very different task.

The second constraint is fiscal. New York has spent billions in a short period to house, feed, and service recent arrivals, including large outlays for emergency shelters and purpose built relief centers. Hospitals expanded taxpayer supported programs so that uninsured newcomers could obtain primary and emergency care. Agencies layered on translation, transportation, technology, and navigation services. None of this is free. City and state watchdogs document multibillion dollar annual costs while warning about overlapping contracts, poor data sharing, and weak accountability. New York has grown a humanitarian bureaucracy inside city government, one that now commands a permanent claim on the budget. Supporters say this is moral leadership. But budgets require tradeoffs. Every dollar that sustains a newcomer in a hotel room is a dollar not spent fixing a boiler in the New York City Housing Authority or putting another cop on the beat. When leadership says there is no money for infrastructure or for restoring police headcount, ordinary citizens notice the contrast.

There is also the matter of what the aid buys. The old integration bargain asked much of newcomers. The new model asks little. City policy cushions extended unemployment among migrants and recent arrivals while guaranteeing shelter, food, and extensive services regardless of status. The point is not to deny emergency aid, the point is to note what prolonged substitution does to human capital formation. If you subsidize non work you entrench non work. The city’s own labor force snapshots show large pools of non employment among immigrant groups, not evenly distributed, and a long queue for work authorization. Advocates insist that work permits will solve everything. Permits help, but they do not supply English, education, or networks, and they do not erase the incentives created by a local welfare architecture that treats new entrants as permanent program clients (literally) rather than temporary beneficiaries aiming for independence.

Legal policy magnifies the problem. Over the last two years City Hall funded a legal services empire to maximize retention in the United States. The flagship was the Asylum Seeker Legal Assistance Network, a city coordinated web of clinics, navigation centers, and nonprofit law shops tasked with screening, preparing, and filing cases, and with shepherding applicants through complex rules. A city can decide to underwrite representation. The question is what that does to the system’s integrity. The best studies show that legal representation drastically changes outcomes in immigration court. That is not inherently nefarious, it is a reality of an adversarial system. Yet when a municipality pours hundreds of millions into one side of the aisle, then touts near perfect win rates in parts of its ecosystem, reasonable observers will ask whether the city has built an advocacy machine whose purpose is to nullify removal through volume, coaching, and strategic venue. The optics are not helped by the judge by judge grant rates in the New York courts, where some benches approve the vast majority of claims. Even if every lawyer and judge acts in good faith, the public reads this as a promise that, in New York, almost everyone who makes it to a city funded clinic will stay. That promise changes behavior upstream, and not for the better.

Culture rounds out the picture. The traditional American expectation was simple, keep your heritage, adopt the civic core. That is why E Pluribus Unum became a national motto. New York once modeled this equilibrium, a shared civic story big enough to absorb many origins. The city government now signals a different ideal, a museum of nations underwritten by municipal budgets. Dozens of flag raisings for foreign nations on City Hall’s plaza may be festive, but they are also a statement about identity, one that prizes ancestral nations as public symbols instead of orienting newcomers toward the American flag as the shared emblem of loyalty. Sustained in policy, that symbolism hardens into political balkanization, as offices, budgets, media, and advocacy groups organize around ethnic lines. That is a recipe for grievance politics as groups compete for slices of a finite pie, and it corrodes civic friendship.

Now consider the electoral consequence. Zohran Mamdani, an Islamic Marxist Assemblyman and recent citizen, rides this wave. He promises free buses, city run grocery stores, rent freezes, and a higher minimum wage stepped up by decree. He proposes to enlarge the legal aid architecture for non citizens, to widen sanctuary protocols that blunt cooperation with federal enforcement, and to funnel more money into multilingual education and social services targeted by origin and language. He is intelligent, disciplined, and fluent in the rhetoric of solidarity. He also represents a decisive break with the assimilationist center that once governed New York. If his program prevails, the city will not correct course, it will double down.

A critic should be fair. Defenders of New York’s current policy can cite gains. Some recent immigrant New Yorkers work, pay taxes, open businesses, and enrich neighborhoods. That is true and worth honoring. Others will say that all the city has done is stand up emergency scaffolding to manage a crisis created by federal neglect, then use that scaffolding to prevent exploitation and fraud. Some will point to humanitarian and religious imperatives. All of that deserves a hearing. But two truths remain. First, the sheer scale of recent inflows into one city collapses the time window for natural assimilation. Second, the city’s chosen tools, from blanket shelter guarantees to subsidized legal war rooms to multi language governance, are not bridges back to a single civic culture, they are bridges to permanent separation.

The hard question is what a responsible course correction looks like. The answer begins with decisive enforcement and a return to civic order. New York City must initiate the remigration of all illegal aliens and a significant share of temporary immigrants whose presence has exceeded the city’s capacity. For those who remain legally, assimilation must be required, not requested. City leadership should wind down emergency hotel placements, restore policing and basic services to top budget priority, and end taxpayer funding for non citizen legal defense. Schools must make rapid English acquisition mandatory rather than tolerating years of fragmented bilingualism. Agencies should dismantle redundant identity-based contracts and redirect those resources to programs that strengthen shared civic life. Limits are not cruelty, they are the discipline a sovereign city must exercise to protect its citizens and preserve the conditions that make lawful immigration sustainable.

What about the reply that diversity is New York’s strength. It is not. Diversity, when elevated above unity, becomes a weakness. While we can acknowledge and respect the varied heritages of immigrants, we must celebrate only our shared identity as Americans, the product of the melting pot where differences are refined into a common culture. Diversity without assimilation fragments a nation; unity forged from shared purpose sustains it. The melting pot metaphor matters here: it does not erase ingredients, it tempers them through the heat of civic duty and shared standards until they form something stronger. New York cooled the fire and widened the pot, and now the mixture refuses to bind.

If you worry that this diagnosis is unfair, run the counterfactual. Imagine that, beginning tomorrow, New York tied every non emergency benefit for non citizens to concrete benchmarks of English acquisition, employment, and civics, and that it set clear time limits for city support, with narrow humanitarian exceptions. Imagine that it consolidated the legal aid ecosystem into a transparent unit with tight outcome reporting, and barred city dollars from coaching narratives. Imagine that it replaced most translation mandates with a Manhattan Project for English instruction, while protecting ballot access and emergency services. Imagine, finally, that it replaced performative cosmopolitanism with renewed civic patriotism, and that it taught every child, immigrant or native born, that the flag on City Hall Plaza is the one that binds us. If you think those moves would improve the city, then you already agree that the current model is wrong.

New York’s soul is not lost beyond recall. It is simply buried under a mountain of well intended programs that shifted the telos of immigration away from joining toward subsidized cohabitation. Cities are moral teachers. For a decade, New York has taught new arrivals to live here as clients of government and as members of protected sub communities. It should return to the older lesson, live here as Americans, and meet your neighbors in the civic square we all share. That is what a great city owes to the world, and to itself.

Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification, unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline driven outlets.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

How Progressive Mandates Survive In Texas, So Don’t Be Fooled Additionally Further


Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

Texas likes to tell itself a flattering story. It is the myth of rugged self-government: a Republican legislature, a Republican governor, and the ironclad presumption that these together guarantee conservative governance. Yet, as the State Leadership Initiative’s Shadow Government report makes clear, this ideal is increasingly a mirage. Behind the scenes, unelected national associations have embedded themselves so deeply into Texas’s administrative bloodstream that the ballot box no longer delivers the policy outcomes voters expect. The result is not a drift, but a displacement: conservative electoral victories followed by progressive administrative realities.

Consider the structural mechanics. Texas agencies belong to national bodies whose influence is not advisory, but directive. They produce “best practices,” model policies, and grant templates that are adopted wholesale by career officials, often without the knowledge, let alone the approval, of elected leadership. These organizations, from the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) to the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), market themselves as politically neutral. In practice, they act as conduits for the very DEI, ESG, and identity-based governance that Texas voters have repeatedly rejected.

Transportation is a case study. AASHTO’s 2020 Equity Resolution redefined transportation policy in explicitly racial terms, instructing state DOTs to direct contracts and investments based on identity categories rather than engineering need or cost-efficiency. Texas, despite legislative hostility to such criteria, remains tied to these frameworks through its membership. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise quotas, once a federal imposition, have been normalized as an industry standard by AASHTO, embedding them in procurement long after Congress or Austin has weighed in.

Procurement policy offers another example. NASPO has institutionalized supplier diversity mandates that prioritize contracts for minority- and women-owned businesses, embedding demographic preferences into bid scoring systems. Texas agencies, guided by NASPO training and certification protocols, have adopted these preferences under the guise of modernization. The effect is to shift procurement away from value-for-money competition toward ideological conformity.

The energy and environmental sectors show the same pattern. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) has embraced the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative, which directs that 40% of federal climate spending benefit “overburdened” communities. That sounds benign until one reads the fine print: racial and environmental criteria replace traditional measures like reliability and ratepayer fairness. Texas utility regulators, through NARUC training and policy toolkits, are pressed to redesign rate structures and investment plans to achieve these federally defined equity outcomes, regardless of whether the Texas Legislature has mandated them.

Meanwhile, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) has used federal grant implementation to push “equity-based energy planning” and electrification mandates. Texas, with its abundant fossil fuel resources and energy independence ethos, finds itself nudged toward net-zero building codes and climate-justice metrics not by statute, but by bureaucratic compliance with national association norms.

Public health and social policy are no exception. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) has declared “structural racism” a public health emergency, embedding this diagnosis into all technical assistance and member programming. It has coordinated with federal agencies to suppress dissenting views on COVID policy, abortion, and gender ideology. In Texas, local health departments take their cues from ASTHO frameworks, ensuring that ideological commitments survive changes in gubernatorial policy.

Education may be the most sensitive domain. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) promote “anti-racist” pedagogy, gender identity accommodations, and equity-of-outcome benchmarks. Texas superintendents and school board members attend trainings, adopt curricular frameworks, and pursue accreditation under these national bodies. The result is that legislative bans on certain content or mandates for parental oversight are quietly diluted in practice by bureaucratic adherence to national association standards.

The financial sphere tells a similar story. The National Association of State Treasurers (NAST) and the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers (NASACT) have embedded ESG investing and DEI mandates into public finance management. Texas treasury and audit officials, through their participation, are pressured to align with investment strategies that prioritize climate risk and board diversity over return on investment, even when the legislature or governor has signaled or even legislated opposition.

This is not accidental policy creep. It is a structural inversion of democratic accountability. Texans elect lawmakers to enact laws, yet the operational rules of governance are increasingly set by distant organizations with no electoral mandate. These groups operate behind a veneer of professional consensus, but their consensus is an ideological filter. They make no allowance for the cultural, economic, or political particularities of Texas; their policy prescriptions are designed for all states, red and blue alike.

The result is administrative convergence. A Republican-led Texas Department of Transportation applies the same race-conscious contracting rules as a Democratic-led California agency. Texas school boards trained by NASBE adopt the same gender-identity policies as those in New York. Texas Medicaid administrators briefed by the National Association of Medicaid Directors absorb the same equity mandates as their counterparts in Illinois.

What this means in practice is that elections no longer guarantee policy change. The governor and legislature may issue orders against DEI trainings, but association-led technical assistance keeps them alive under other labels. A legislature may prohibit ESG considerations in investment, yet national rankings, model fiduciary guidelines, and professional certifications still make ESG the de facto standard.

This is not federal overreach in the traditional sense; it is something more insidious. It is governance outsourced to a cartel of national associations whose incentives align with the permanent bureaucracy and with federal agencies, not with the citizens of Texas. It is a shadow government in every meaningful sense: visible in name, invisible in accountability, and resistant to electoral correction.

The Shadow Government report is right to warn that this system thrives in darkness. The solution is not resignation, but structural disentanglement. Texas can withdraw from associations whose agendas conflict with state law, as it already did when it removed itself from the National Association of Attorneys General in response to its leftward shift. It can prohibit the adoption of external model policies without legislative approval. It can build parallel associations, as the State Financial Officers Foundation has done in finance, to create policy infrastructure that reflects its own priorities. Above all, it can require transparency: every agency’s association memberships, policy adoptions, and training curricula should be public record.

Texas has the legal authority to reclaim control of its governance. What it has lacked is clarity about the scale and nature of the problem. The Shadow Government report provides that clarity. It shows that the danger is not that Texas will lose a legislative fight to progressives in Austin, but that it has already ceded much of its governing machinery to progressives in Washington, New York, and the boardrooms of national associations.

If Texans want their votes to mean something, they must insist that their elected officials govern not only in the Capitol, but in the operational codes, procurement standards, training curricula, and regulatory frameworks that actually determine what government does. Otherwise, the myth of Texas self-government will remain exactly that: a myth.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Considering Ending Racially Drawn Electoral Districts


Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

The Supreme Court has asked a question long deferred: may race be the predominant factor in drawing congressional districts? On August 1, 2025, in the case of Robinson v. Ardoin, the justices issued an order for supplemental briefing on precisely that issue. At the heart of the case is a map in Louisiana, which connects disparate Black communities across the state to create a second majority-Black district. The method is undisguised: race was the reason for the shape. The rationale? Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires it. But does it? And if so, is Section 2 itself unconstitutional in its current interpretation?

This moment offers an opportunity to resolve a contradiction at the core of American election law. States like Texas, currently advancing a new map that adds five Republican-leaning districts, now face legal crossfire: if race is not considered, they risk violating Section 2. If it is considered, they risk violating the Equal Protection Clause. One branch of federal law demands race-consciousness, another forbids it. The state is expected to perform a legal contortion that no theory of jurisprudence can justify and no mapmaker can survive.

Let us be clear: race-based redistricting, as presently practiced, is not a civil rights triumph. It is a vestige of a failed doctrine, preserved by inertia and political convenience. Its intellectual foundation is cracked. Its moral justification is confused. And its legal coherence has long since collapsed.

The Court has spent three decades attempting to split the atom of race and districting. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), it held that districts shaped predominantly by race are presumptively unconstitutional. But it also held, implicitly, that racial consideration is sometimes required. In Miller v. Johnson (1995), the Court offered a test: race must not “subordinate traditional race-neutral districting principles.” But this is not a rule. It is a riddle. What is a “traditional principle”? Compactness? Contiguity? Political advantage? And what counts as subordination? The problem is not that these questions are difficult. The problem is that they are incoherent.

The jurisprudence of redistricting now revolves around motive rather than effect. A district that looks racially gerrymandered may survive if the court believes the motive was partisan, not racial. Conversely, a district drawn for racial balance may fall, even if it resembles an acceptable partisan gerrymander. In Cooper v. Harris (2017), North Carolina drew districts nearly identical to earlier ones that had passed muster. The Court struck them down. Why? Because the motive had shifted. Thus, the map itself is less important than the state of mind of the mapmaker. This is not law. It is psychoanalysis.

Justice Clarence Thomas has long warned that Section 2, as interpreted, has become an engine of racial sorting. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), he argued that the VRA “requires the very racial sorting the Constitution forbids.” The law demands that states guarantee minority opportunity, which in practice means drawing majority-minority districts. But achieving this requires treating citizens not as individuals, but as representatives of racial blocs. It is, in effect, racial apportionment. And it is incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some will object: does not the history of racial discrimination demand corrective measures? It does. But the constitutional remedy for discrimination is the prohibition of discriminatory intent, not the imposition of racial quotas. In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to allow liability based on disparate impact alone. This was the original sin. It created a legal regime in which even race-neutral maps can be struck down if they fail to produce proportional racial outcomes. The test laid out in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) invites this logic: if a minority group is geographically compact, politically cohesive, and usually defeated by bloc voting from the majority, a district must be drawn to give it a fair shot. But what is a “fair shot”? In practice, it means a seat in rough proportion to population share. This is a de facto quota, no matter how delicately phrased.

To see the absurdity, consider Texas. The House Select Committee on Redistricting recently approved a new map that expands Republican strength. Critics allege that it fails to account for the state’s growing Latino population. But how should it account for it? If Latino voters are politically diverse, no single district can reflect their preferences. If they are geographically diffuse, no compact district can encompass them. And if the state avoids using race at all, it is accused of negligence. The only way to win is not to play. This is what Judge Edith Jones once called the “Kafkaesque” quality of VRA enforcement.

Louisiana’s current litigation is a perfect test case. One-third of its population is Black. In 2022, the legislature drew a map with one majority-Black district. A federal court invalidated it. The legislature responded with a new map creating a second Black-majority district, District 6, linking communities from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. It was hailed as a VRA triumph. But another panel struck it down again, calling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. So the same racial logic that was required under federal law became unlawful under the Constitution. The Court must now answer: can a state obey both?

The answer, if it is to be principled, must be no. Race may not be used as the predominant factor in redistricting, because doing so violates the Equal Protection Clause. The state may not sort voters by race. It may not assign political voice based on ancestry. It may not draw lines that assume, a priori, that individuals think alike because of skin color. These are the principles of a colorblind Constitution, as articulated in Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007) and reiterated in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023). To say otherwise is to create a racial exception to equality under the law.

And what of the Voting Rights Act? Properly interpreted, Section 2 forbids intentional discrimination, not statistical imbalance. It was meant to stop literacy tests, poll taxes, and procedural tricks. It was not meant to guarantee demographic symmetry. To restore it to its original purpose is not to gut it. It is to save it from constitutional collapse.

Critics warn that ending race-based districting will reduce minority representation. Perhaps. But if minority candidates can win only in majority-minority districts, we have already failed. The point of civil rights law is not to freeze identity groups in political amber. It is to liberate individuals from the weight of group expectations. Political equality means that every citizen’s vote counts the same, not that every group gets a seat at the table proportionate to its census count.

This Court has a chance to complete the work it began in cases like Shelby County v. Holder and SFFA v. Harvard. The logic is clear. The Constitution does not permit racial classifications unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Proportional representation is not such an interest. Nor is political balance. Nor is group parity. The only compelling interest is the elimination of discrimination. And that does not require race-based line drawing. It requires neutral principles, honestly applied.

Texas, Louisiana, and dozens of other states now await clarity. They deserve more than a demand to “consider race but not too much,” to “achieve equality without noticing inequality,” to “mind the numbers but never cite them.” This is legal satire masquerading as doctrine. It is time the Court ended it.

Let the line be drawn, not on maps, but in the law: no more racial gerrymandering. No more euphemisms. No more paradoxes. A district should be constitutional because of what it is, not because of why it was made. That is how equal protection works. Anything else is a racial contract in disguise.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

When Does Social Engineering Become Indoctrination? Critics Point To Harvard


Suppose an American university were caught using taxpayer dollars to fund a theology course that instructed future teachers to structure public classrooms around Christian doctrine. There would be a media uproar, lawsuits from the ACLU, and urgent congressional hearings about the Establishment Clause. The same logic must apply to ideological instruction from the left. Harvard’s course EDU H210P, “Queering Education,” is not a neutral academic inquiry but a taxpayer-subsidized training ground for radical social reengineering. If President Trump’s executive order banning federally funded DEI indoctrination means anything, it surely prohibits what is happening in this course.

EDU H210P: Queering Education

Let’s examine the course on its own terms. Taught by self-proclaimed activist Kimm Topping, the author of “Generation Queer,” the class promises to equip future educators with tools to dismantle what it calls “heteronormativity” and “cisnormativity” in K-12 education. These terms, while cloaked in the language of critical theory, describe nothing more than the traditional understanding that boys are boys, girls are girls, and that most people grow up to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. This is not a conspiracy of cultural oppression. It is the anthropological norm across civilizations and millennia.

Topping’s curriculum is not merely descriptive, it is prescriptive. Students are instructed to imagine themselves as ideological engineers, redesigning classroom structures, policies, and curricula to affirm queer identities and challenge the primacy of the nuclear family. Course texts include firsthand narratives of child drag performers, transgender high school athletes, and students whose gender expression is explicitly positioned in opposition to traditional biological categories. Topping’s 2025 book, for instance, valorizes the parents of “Desmond is Amazing,” a child drag performer whose public sexualization has been condemned by child psychologists and parents’ rights advocates. The book also endorses boys using girls’ bathrooms and the placement of biological males in girls’ sports, despite well-documented biological advantages and widespread parental concern.

What is the rationale for all this? That queer youth exist and must feel seen. No one denies their existence, nor that they deserve dignity and mental health treatment. But the leap from dignity to domination, from tolerance to taxpayer-funded proselytization, is one that Harvard makes without hesitation. Indeed, the entire premise of the course is that public schools should serve not the communities that fund them, nor the parents who entrust them with their children, but the theories of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler. The course sees heteronormativity as a problem to be solved. And students who dissent from that premise, particularly those from religious or traditional backgrounds, are implicitly cast as hate filled obstacles to progress.

This is not education in the classical sense. It is not an exploration of ideas. It is a catechism. And when institutions that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid advance these teachings as normative and expected, they violate both the spirit and the letter of the Trump administration’s executive order.

That order, reissued in January 2025, explicitly prohibits federal funds from being used to promote instruction that categorizes individuals as inherently privileged or oppressive based on immutable characteristics. It also bars the use of such funds for programming that inculcates the belief that the United States is irredeemably flawed or that American institutions must be radically dismantled. Harvard’s “Queering Education” course does both. It frames the traditional family not as one possible structure among many, but as an oppressive regime. It trains students to intervene against norms, not merely to understand them.

Moreover, the course is not elective in the colloquial sense. For many students pursuing degrees in education or public policy, it is cross-listed, recommended, or required depending on one’s track. That means students on federal student aid, GI Bill benefits, or research fellowships may be compelled to sit through what amounts to an activist training seminar in order to graduate. The taxpayer, therefore, funds not just the university, but the pipeline of ideological conformity that it produces.

Some will object: is this not academic freedom? No. Academic freedom protects the right to explore ideas, not the right to impose dogma. A university cannot, for instance, mandate that all biology students renounce evolution or require chemistry students to memorize religious doctrine. The analogy applies in reverse. Students should not be coerced, explicitly or structurally, into affirming radical gender ideologies as a condition of professional advancement. Harvard can teach whatever it wants, but the public should not be compelled to subsidize it.

The broader danger here is not merely legal, but civilizational. Harvard has long functioned as the de facto brain trust for America’s elite. What is taught in Cambridge today is implemented in classrooms, courtrooms, and boardrooms across the country tomorrow. To instruct future policymakers and educators that the nuclear family is a vehicle of oppression, that biological sex is an outdated superstition, and that parental authority must be subverted in the name of “queer justice” is to invite the unraveling of the social fabric.

The West is already in demographic decline. Fertility rates have collapsed. Births per woman in the US hover near 1.6, far below replacement level. At the same time, cultural and institutional voices increasingly frame childbearing as burdensome and family as retrograde. Courses like EDU H210P are not merely reflections of this trend, they are drivers of it. By teaching the next generation that family is optional, gender is a construct, and tradition is tyranny, they erode the foundation upon which healthy, flourishing communities are built.

This is not hyperbole. It is the logical end of a cultural revolution that believes every norm must be interrogated and every tradition dismantled. That a university with a $50 billion endowment, receiving over $600 million in federal funds annually, would devote those resources to ideological subversion is not merely unfortunate. It is unconscionable.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice should launch an immediate investigation into Harvard’s compliance with federal guidelines. Institutions that knowingly violate those terms should face disqualification from Title IV student aid, a freeze on federal research funds, and potential clawbacks. Congress should reassert its oversight authority and consider stricter statutory definitions of what constitutes educational instruction versus ideological indoctrination.

To be clear, private citizens and institutions are free to believe, discuss, and advocate whatever they wish. But they are not entitled to taxpayer dollars to do so. If Harvard wishes to explore gender ideology, it must do so on its own dime, not with funds extracted from truck drivers in Ohio or small business owners in Alabama.

If our institutions are to mean anything, they must be grounded in reality. The biological distinction between male and female is not a myth. The family is not a tool of oppression. And the classroom is not a therapist’s couch or a revolutionary cell. It is time we remembered that.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The US Abandoned Meritocracy and Got Bureaucratic Bloat


The Return of Merit: Why the Civil Service Exam Must Be Reinstated

The health of a republic depends not merely on the virtue of its leaders but on the competence of its administrators. A functioning government requires that those entrusted with the machinery of state be capable, informed, and accountable. That, in essence, was the animating ideal behind the federal civil service exam: to protect the American people from the twin perils of incompetence and corruption by ensuring a government staffed by merit. Yet over the past half-century, this ideal has been eroded, then discarded, not because it failed but because it succeeded too well in measuring ability, much to the discomfort of the politically fashionable.

The modern federal workforce was born out of the Pendleton Act of 1883, a legislative rebuke to the grotesque excesses of the patronage system. No longer would positions in the federal government be handed out like party favors to the politically loyal or the well-connected. A professional class would rise, chosen not by whom they knew but by what they knew. And for nearly a century, that principle held. The civil service exam functioned as a leveling mechanism, a barrier against cronyism and a gateway for the able.

But by the 1970s, a new orthodoxy emerged, one less interested in capability than in demography. The Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE), itself a refined instrument for identifying administrative talent, fell under attack for producing racially disparate outcomes. The case of Luevano v. Campbell marked a turning point. The plaintiffs did not allege that the exam was unfair in design or malicious in purpose. Rather, they contended that because different racial groups performed differently, the test must, ipso facto, be discriminatory. It was an argument of correlation over causation, but it carried the day.

The Carter administration, confronted with this challenge, might have defended the constitutional imperative for equal treatment, the statutory demand for merit-based hiring, and the moral obligation to hire the best-qualified. Instead, it capitulated. PACE was abandoned. Objective testing, the gold standard of fair evaluation, was replaced with subjective assessments: resumes, interviews, and “diversity-enhancing” hiring programs. Where once the federal government had demanded proof of ability, it now sought proxies. The result was a quiet revolution in hiring—a regression masked in the language of progress.

This abandonment of testing was not isolated. In 2010, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13562 (still in effect today), further distancing federal hiring from meritocratic principles. The rationale was revealing: written essays and similar assessments were said to disadvantage applicants from underrepresented backgrounds, particularly those whose written communication skills were not deemed sufficient. But to concede that writing proficiency is a disqualifier is not to justify removing the barrier, it is to highlight a deficiency that the job itself may require. In any reasonable domain, poor writing is a cause for concern, not a credential to be protected.

Critics of standardized testing often assert that exams are an insufficient predictor of job performance. This is a red herring. No test is perfect, but the proper question is comparative: Are structured, objective assessments superior to opaque, informal, and potentially biased evaluations? The answer, again and again, has been yes. A 2002 study by Schmidt and Hunter, published in Psychological Bulletin, reviewed 85 years of research and concluded that general cognitive ability tests are among the best predictors of job performance, outperforming unstructured interviews and resume reviews. In a government that administers everything from cyber defense to public health policy, the ability to reason, write, and analyze should be baseline qualifications, not optional enhancements.

Moreover, the move away from standardized testing has not made the hiring process more fair. It has simply made it more obscure. Informal interviews and resume screenings are fertile ground for implicit bias, favoritism, and credentialism. At least an exam can be audited. A panel interview cannot. At least a written test applies the same standard to everyone. A “holistic” hiring process applies no standard at all.

Some will argue that the disparities in test outcomes are too large to ignore, that such differences in performance indicate systemic barriers. Perhaps. But if the goal is equality of opportunity, then the proper remedy lies upstream, in education, in preparation, in mentorship. Lowering the bar of entry is not compassion, it is condescension. It assumes that certain groups cannot meet standards and therefore must be exempted from them. That is not equity. It is a quiet form of surrender.

Defenders of the status quo claim that modern hiring tools are more flexible, more “person-centered,” more conducive to creating a diverse workforce. But a diverse bureaucracy is not a competent one unless diversity aligns with ability. The federal government is not a social engineering project. It is a system of authority, enforcement, regulation, and service. It must be staffed by those who can perform these functions with precision and integrity. To suggest otherwise is to mistake the civil service for a campus diversity office.

Furthermore, the legal justification for abandoning standardized exams is tenuous. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment practices that have a disparate impact unless the employer can show the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The courts have recognized that general ability tests can satisfy this requirement. In Washington v. Davis (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that a police entrance exam that disproportionately excluded black applicants did not violate the Constitution, as there was no discriminatory intent and the exam measured relevant job skills. The Luevano settlement, by contrast, was a political compromise, not a constitutional necessity.

President Trump, if he wishes to drain the bureaucratic swamp in more than metaphor, must begin with reforming how the swamp is staffed. The restoration of the civil service exam would do more than elevate standards. It would restore trust. Americans rightly suspect that their government is staffed not by the best and brightest but by the best connected, the most ideologically aligned, or the most demographically favored. An exam does not care what you look like, whom you voted for, or where you went to school. It cares only whether you can do the job.

This logic must apply not only to future hires but to current employees. The federal workforce is vast, powerful, and deeply entrenched. If we are serious about accountability, then every current federal employee should be required to pass a reformed civil service exam appropriate to their position. The goal is not to purge but to affirm. Those who are competent will have nothing to fear. Those who are not nor should not be on the public payroll.

It is time to end the experiment in subjective hiring. It has failed. It has produced neither a more competent government nor a more just one. It has diluted standards under the guise of equity and eroded public faith in institutions once deemed apolitical. We must reverse course. We must affirm once again that public service is not a birthright or a diversity quota. It is a trust, to be earned, not granted.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Why school unions MUST be eliminated


Why school unions have to be eliminated

One of the major focuses of my consulting business was education. I was a senior consultant to two of the largest and most troubled school systems in America during a brief period of reform—Chicago and Detroit. I was on the strategic team for two major strikes. Other clients included Friedman School Choice Foundation and the Chicago’s Teacher Academy.  I was also a board member of Chicago’s School for the Performing Arts.  As a parent, I was deeply involved in school policy issues at the local level.

I have long considered the failures in the public school systems as among the greatest immoralities in public policy. Failing schools—especially those serving minorities in the segregated communities of America’s major Democrat-run cities—have destroyed the career potential and dreams of millions of young Black and Hispanic students – and sadly destroyed too many lives. It has also deprived America of the benefit of what those millions of students could have contributed to society. Reliance on generational welfare poverty and oppression is directly related to school quality.

I have also long believed the long-term decline in public education outcomes—and the resistance to meaningful reforms—has been due to the politics and policies of the school unions. They are not educational institutions, but rather politically partisan membership clubs. The primary function of the unions is to have as many dues-paying members as possible and to use that money for personal enrichment and political power.

To better understand why we should eliminate school unions, let us look at some facts.

Teachers’ unions were once formed to protect educators from unfair labor practices and to advocate for better working conditions. But over the decades, the two largest unions—the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)—have evolved into powerful political machines. Their influence now extends far beyond the classroom. They are major funders of the Democratic Party and wield massive influence through their huge pension programs.  Rather than working to improve classroom outcomes, the NEA and AFT actually undermine positive reforms—directly or by ambivalence.

Despite their failures, union officials are well compensated. NEA President Becky Pringle has a compensation package of $480,000 per year—8.5 times the median teacher salary. Randi Weingarten of the AFT earns $565,000 per year—9 times the median teacher salary. These figures do not include a number of indirect nonmonetary benefits. Also, the lucrative pensions enjoyed by union officials are often paid by taxpayers—not union funds.

Politicization of the NEA and AFT

The NEA and AFT have become deeply entangled in partisan politics. In recent years, both unions have taken aggressive stances on national issues that have little to do with education. Their political activity is overwhelmingly one-sided. In the 2024 election cycle, 98.96 percent of NEA contributions went to Democrats, while 99.9 percent of AFT contributions did the same. This lopsided spending suggests that the unions are not representing the diverse political views of their members or the public but are advancing a partisan agenda that primarily serves the political and financial interests of union leaders and the local political establishment.

Ties to Democratic Political Machines

The NEA and AFT have long-standing ties to Democrat political machines in major cities. Their influence in urban politics has helped elect progressive candidates who, in turn, support union-friendly policies. In cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, unions have become kingmakers, funneling millions into campaigns and lobbying efforts.  In return, the political leaders work on behalf of union interests.

For generations, these same cities have suffered from chronic educational failure. Inner-city schools remain overcrowded, and plagued by low graduation rates. Despite their political clout, the unions have done little to address institutional racism and segregation in urban districts. Instead of fighting for reform, they often resist accountability measures and protect underperforming educators. (I have seen that many times in contract negotiations.)

The NEA

NEA’s Pringle has openly embraced an adversarial partisan political role. At the 2025 NEA convention, she declared that educators were “ready to engage with school boards, town halls, state legislatures, and even Congress” to advocate for their union’s politically partisan interests.  Ponder that. Pringle’s vision of the union’s role is to fight against Congress, state legislatures, and even local school boards – those the people elect.

The NEA 2025 convention revealed just how far the union has drifted from its educational mooring. Delegates passed a resolution pledging to “defend democracy against Trump’s embrace of fascism”—and to use the term “fascism” in NEA materials to describe his policies.

The NEA has also taken an official stand in opposition to the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—preferring to allow dangerous criminals to remain in American communities. Criminals who often prey on children.  They have accused ICE of targeting student leaders.

The resolution was not only politically charged but also riddled with errors. The word “fascism” was ironically misspelled twice as “facism,” prompting widespread and well-deserved ridicule. Critics argued that the union, which claims to represent educators, could not even spell the ideology it was condemning.

The NEA’s ties to the radical wing of the Democratic Party were seen in another controversial move. The union recently voted to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a civil rights organization known for combating antisemitism. The union accused the ADL of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism and claimed that the group was pushing a “radical, antisemitic agenda” on students. The resolution bans the use of ADL literature and speakers in school events. The ADL responded forcefully, calling the NEA’s actions “profoundly disturbing” and warning that the decision would further isolate Jewish educators.

They even changed the language from “deportation” to “kidnapping.”

The AFT

AFT President Randi Weingarten has similarly used her platform to push for progressive causes, from climate activism to gender ideology. She has become so politically toxic that some Democrat leaders have called for the Party to break ties with her. She was forced to resign her position on the Democratic National Committee. A position on the DNC?  How partisan can you get?

Ben Austin, a former campaign aide for Kamala Harris and founding director of Education Civil Rights Now, published an op-ed urging Democrats to “break up with Weingarten.” He pointed to her following Biden’s school closure policies—which essentially “erased two decades of learning progress” and alienated working-class voters. Austin blames her for “gaslighting Democrats” into opposing school choice and described her partisan leadership as “tragic for American children.”

More Money, Poorer Results

Despite their massive increases in school funding, the NEA and AFT have failed to deliver meaningful improvements in public education. Since the rise of unionization in the 1960s and 1970s, educational performance has stagnated or declined. According to research, unionized districts tend to spend more on salaries and benefits but fail to outperform non-unionized school systems.

Studies show that low-achieving and high-achieving students perform worse in unionized districts. While the cost of education continues to rise, the return on investment—in terms of student performance—stagnates in better districts and declines in low-income minority communities.

Children Last

One of the mantras of educators is “Children First.” In fact, in labor negotiations the children’s needs come last—if considered at all. Both in my experience negotiating union contracts and from extensive research, I can safely attest that I have never found school unions proposing or supporting any contract provisions that benefited the classroom or the students that did not benefit the union — either increasing the number of teachers (dues-paying members) in systems with excessive deadwood; shortening teacher work schedules in hours or days; or increasing teacher pay and benefits at the expense of what I call “the children’s budget.”

In several cases—thanks to support from the local political establishment—unions won pay and benefit concessions that absorbed more than 100 percent of all new money coming into the school district. This necessitated cuts in “the children’s budget” that impacted directly on the classroom—cuts in school maintenance, supplies, and even elimination of some traditional subjects, such as music and art.

Unions vigorously protect bad teachers — essentially preventing dismissal of those failing to provide quality education in the classroom and other negative personnel issues. As a means of protecting their failures, unions work against standard testing of students and also teacher testing.

Unions are also the primary force against school choice, programs that would enable parents to remove their children from failing and dangerous schools and get them into schools where they can receive quality education. Union policies warehouse students in failing minority schools—denying them an education that can lead to college or productive careers. This is especially true of schools in segregated minority communities. School choice would not end the public school system, since it largely impacts schools that fail to meet the primary mission: to educate children.

Fighting Back

The good news is that there is a growing political constituency for effective education reforms. School choice is part of it—and the Trump administration has advanced that cause in his Big Beautiful Bill. Parent Associations are taking more interest and more control over educational quality. Congressman Mark Harris (R-NC) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have introduced the National Education Association Repeal Act, which would revoke the NEA’s federal charter.

A Broken System

The original purpose of teachers’ unions was to protect educators and improve schools. But today, the NEA and AFT function more like partisan advocacy groups driven by self-interest than a professional education organization. Their actions, whether it’s labeling political opponents as fascists, severing ties with civil rights groups, or funneling millions into one-sided campaigns—have undermined their credibility and effectiveness.

Public education is too important to hold hostage by political agendas. If unions cannot return to their core mission of supporting teachers AND students, then it is time to consider eliminating them altogether. The future of our schools—and our children—are too important to be allowed to fail in the future as they have failed in the past.

So, there ‘tis.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Linda McMahon just delivered crushing news to New York officials who tried to erase this piece of American history. ’bout time!


Sanit Fuangnakhon via Shutterstock

The woke Left has been trying to cancel American history for years.

But they picked the wrong fight this time.

And Linda McMahon just delivered crushing news to New York officials who tried to erase this piece of American history.

New York officials get slammed for discriminatory mascot ban

The battle over the Massapequa High School Chiefs mascot has been raging for months.

New York’s Board of Regents tried to force the Long Island school district to dump its longtime mascot because it was supposedly offensive to Native Americans.

But the federal government just stepped in with a bombshell ruling that has New York education officials scrambling.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced that her department is referring the case to the Department of Justice for enforcement action.

The move comes after New York state officials rejected a settlement agreement that would have brought them into compliance with federal civil rights law.

“Both the New York Department of Education and the Board of Regents violated federal antidiscrimination law and disrespected the people of Massapequa by implementing an absurd policy: prohibiting the use of Native American mascots while allowing mascots derived from European national origin,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.

McMahon didn’t pull any punches in her criticism of New York’s selective enforcement.

The Department of Education found that New York violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by banning Native American mascots while allowing other schools to keep mascots like the “Dutchmen” and “Huguenots.”

That’s discrimination pure and simple.

Federal investigation exposes New York’s hypocrisy

The Office for Civil Rights opened its investigation into New York’s mascot policy back in April.

What they found was a textbook case of government overreach and selective discrimination.

New York officials were perfectly fine with mascots that celebrated European heritage.

But when it came to honoring Native American culture and history, suddenly they had a problem.

McMahon visited Massapequa High School in May to announce the results of the federal investigation.

The Trump administration wasn’t going to let New York get away with this discriminatory double standard.

“We will not allow New York state to silence the voices of Native Americans, and discriminatorily choose which history is acceptable to promote or erase,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.

The federal government offered New York a way out through a Resolution Agreement.

All the state had to do was rescind its ban on Native American mascots and issue an apology to Indigenous tribes.

New York officials turned it down flat.

New York doubles down on discrimination

New York’s refusal to accept the federal settlement shows just how committed they are to their woke agenda.

Even when faced with a clear violation of civil rights law, they’d rather fight it out in court than admit they were wrong.

The Office for Civil Rights gave New York officials 10 days to accept the Resolution Agreement or face referral to the Department of Justice.

They rejected it not once, but twice.

Now the Department of Justice will have to step in and force New York to comply with federal law.

This case perfectly illustrates the Left’s twisted approach to “protecting” minority groups.

They claim to care about Native Americans while simultaneously trying to erase their history and culture from public view.

Meanwhile, they have no problem with mascots that honor – or stereotype – other ethnic groups.

It’s selective outrage at its worst.

The real issue: government overreach vs. local control

The Massapequa Chiefs controversy highlights a much bigger problem with government bureaucrats trying to impose their values on local communities.

The people of Massapequa didn’t ask New York state officials to change their mascot.

This was a top-down mandate from Albany politicians who think they know better than the local community.

School mascots should be decided by the people who actually attend those schools and live in those communities.

Not by bureaucrats in the state capital who are pushing a political agenda.

The federal government’s intervention in this case sends a clear message that discrimination won’t be tolerated, even when it’s dressed up as progressive politics.

Linda McMahon and the Trump administration are standing up for the principle that all cultures and histories deserve equal treatment under the law.

New York’s mascot ban was never about protecting Native Americans.

It was about advancing a woke agenda that seeks to erase certain parts of American history while celebrating others.

What happens next

Now that the case has been referred to the Department of Justice, New York will face federal enforcement action.

The state could lose federal education funding if it continues to violate civil rights law.

That would be a costly mistake for New York taxpayers.

The Department of Justice has the authority to file a lawsuit against New York to force compliance with Title VI.

Federal courts don’t look kindly on government entities that discriminate based on race or national origin.

New York officials would be wise to reconsider their position before this gets even more expensive.

The Massapequa Chiefs case could set an important precedent for similar disputes across the country.

Other states that have tried to ban Native American mascots while allowing others might want to take a close look at their policies.

Selective enforcement of mascot bans based on the ethnic origin of the name or symbol is discrimination, plain and simple.

The federal government won’t stand for it under the Trump administration.

This is what happens when woke politics collides with civil rights law.

The law and truth win every time.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Death of Merit: How America’s Best Companies Lost Their Way


Over the last four years, a quiet revolution has swept through corporate America, dismantling the meritocratic ideals that once ensured the nation’s best and brightest could rise to the top. With diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) mandates dictating hiring practices, the numbers tell a stunning tale: 94% of new hires at leading public companies were so-called “people of color,” with Black women taking the lion’s share of these roles. This figure, derived from corporate diversity reports, reflects an overwhelming prioritization of identity in hiring practices. Given that Black women constitute only a small fraction of the population and that just 38% hold college degrees, this disproportionate focus raises questions about the impact on fairness and the sidelining of more qualified candidates. The implications are stark: many highly skilled individuals have been systematically overlooked in favor of fulfilling demographic quotas, challenging the meritocratic foundations of corporate success. Yet this demographic represents only 2.28% of the U.S. population—a statistical manipulation that sacrifices fairness and merit. The real victims of this social engineering are white men, systematically excluded from opportunities they would have earned on their qualifications, and the companies themselves, which have sidelined talent and innovation in favor of identity politics. The consequences are already manifesting in plummeting stock returns and organizational inefficiencies, a harbinger of long-term damage to American competitiveness.

Imagine, for a moment, the absurdity of a policy that freezes out 60% of Americans based solely on their skin color or gender. This is no dystopian fantasy—it is the new corporate normal. As James Fishback, founder of the investment firm Azoria, notes, “Exceptional companies are run by exceptional people.” Yet, under the tyranny of DEI hiring quotas, talent and merit have become secondary considerations. Firms like Best Buy have gone so far as to codify these practices, committing to filling “one in three corporate salaried positions” with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) candidates. Similarly, Wells Fargo recently faced scrutiny for limiting interviews for jobs paying over $100,000, where white men could represent only 25% of those interviewed. Although this practice was revised after public backlash, it exemplifies the widespread adoption of such policies among America’s biggest companies. These initiatives not only perpetuate divisive assumptions about minority capabilities but also systematically exclude highly qualified candidates, eroding the principles of meritocracy and innovation.

The numbers bear this out. Of the new hires filling these identity-based quotas, only 38% of Black women—the demographic disproportionately targeted by these policies—hold college degrees. By contrast, highly qualified candidates from other racial groups, particularly white men, are systematically excluded. When 94% of jobs are allocated to 2.28% of the population, it becomes mathematically impossible for these positions to consistently go to the most qualified individuals.

The fallout from these practices is hitting where it hurts most: the bottom line. Fishback’s Azoria has launched a Meritocracy ETF, boldly excluding companies like Best Buy, which prioritize identity politics over ability. As Fishback puts it, “Companies that hire on skill and ability will outperform those that hire on race and gender.” And the early results are staggering. Over the past year, a portfolio of S&P 500 companies employing racial and gender hiring targets has returned just 12%, compared to the broader index’s 30% gain. Over two years, the gap widens to a dismal 17% versus 60%.

These results are not anomalies. Firms that abandon meritocracy in favor of identity quotas are less innovative, less productive and ultimately less profitable. Exceptional employees—regardless of race or gender—build exceptional companies. But the ripple effects of these practices are just beginning. Over the next decade, the pressure to promote individuals hired under identity-based quotas will mount, regardless of their qualifications or performance. Companies, bowing to the same DEI mandates that drove these hiring decisions, will promote these individuals, further compounding the inefficiencies. The pain will inevitably be felt in declining profits, slower growth and diminished stock prices. The free market is already taking notice, with investors abandoning underperforming firms in favor of businesses that prioritize skill and merit over identity.

History offers no shortage of warnings against abandoning meritocratic principles. Cicero’s admonition that “salvation is found in the counsel of the capable” resonates here. America’s meteoric rise—its innovation, wealth, and power—is the direct result of fostering the talents of its most capable individuals. From Carnegie’s steel mills to Ford’s assembly lines, the country’s great leaps forward were driven not by identity but by ingenuity, grit, and hard work. These industries prioritized the brightest minds and the most skilled hands, irrespective of race or background. By focusing on competence and excellence, America outpaced its global competitors in nearly every domain, from manufacturing to technology.

Contrast this with societies that have rejected meritocracy. The decline of Rome, plagued by nepotism and identity-driven appointments, serves as a cautionary tale. As Rome shifted its priorities from competence to loyalty, its military leadership was increasingly filled with unqualified individuals chosen for their connections rather than their strategic acumen. Civil administrators, likewise, were selected based on familial ties or political favoritism, leading to widespread corruption and inefficiency. Over time, these practices eroded trust in institutions, weakened Rome’s ability to respond to external threats and drained its economic vitality. The empire’s inability to innovate or adapt stemmed directly from this abandonment of merit, leaving it vulnerable to collapse under the weight of its own dysfunction. Today’s corporate leaders should heed this lesson: hiring based on identity quotas weakens the very foundations upon which success and resilience are built.

Beyond financial ramifications, these policies tread on perilous legal ground. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) mandates that hiring decisions cannot discriminate based on race, gender, or ethnicity. By openly advertising racial and gender quotas, companies are inviting lawsuits and undermining public trust. This issue was brought into sharp focus by the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In a 9-8 ruling on December 11, 2024, the court invalidated Nasdaq’s board diversity rules, which had mandated that listed companies either appoint directors from specified demographic groups—namely women, underrepresented minorities, or LGBTQ+ individuals—or provide an explanation for non-compliance. The court determined that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) exceeded its statutory authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by approving these rules. The majority opinion emphasized that the SEC’s endorsement of Nasdaq’s requirements did not align with the Act’s primary objectives, which focus on preventing fraud, manipulation, and promoting fair competition in securities markets. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on the limitations of regulatory bodies in enforcing corporate diversity mandates, highlighting the ongoing debate over the extent to which such initiatives should influence corporate governance. These practices perpetuate the divisive narrative that success is unattainable for minorities without intervention, diminishing individual dignity and fostering resentment among employees.

The cultural costs are equally dire. Identity-based hiring fosters workplace conflict, reduces morale and stifles innovation. Employees, aware of these quotas, question whether their colleagues were hired for their talents or their identity. This breeds division, diminishes teamwork and ultimately hurts organizational performance. Moreover, the fear of appearing “insensitive” silences dissent, stifling the creative friction that drives innovation.

The path to restoring meritocracy is clear. Companies must prioritize skills-based hiring, blind applications, and diversity sourcing that expands talent pipelines without sacrificing standards. These methods promote inclusivity while ensuring that the most capable individuals—regardless of identity—rise to the top.

Azoria’s strategy underscores this principle. By excluding underperforming DEI-driven firms from its portfolio, the Meritocracy ETF sends a powerful message: excellence, not identity, drives success. And the invitation remains open. Companies willing to abandon identity quotas and recommit to merit will be welcomed back, ensuring their investors and employees reap the rewards of competence and innovation.

Corporate America stands at a crossroads. It can continue down the path of identity-based hiring, sacrificing innovation, productivity and shareholder value, or it can reclaim the principles that made it great. The choice is clear. By embracing meritocracy, America’s companies can rebuild their reputations, deliver superior returns, and restore the dignity of every employee. As Azoria’s Fishback aptly observes, “We’re betting on merit.” It’s time for the rest of corporate America to do the same.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: