I Love You but You Didn’t Do the Reading

You might have been out fishin’, but the interwebs kept foaming over. Here are some stories SAGLRROILYBYGTH might have missed:

From the University of Colorado, Boulder’s latest token conservative scholar reflects on his experience.

Trump, Bannon, Conway: Historian Andrew Wehrman says they would be right at home with America’s Founding Fathers.

Cut it out: Tom Englehardt argues in The Nation that progressives should stop insulting Trump.

Atheists strike back, ninety-two years later. Freedom from Religion Foundation sponsors a statue of Clarence Darrow in Dayton, Tennessee.

We know Republicans don’t like colleges these days.

Who gets to define “hate?” American Conservative Rod Dreher tees off on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Bart reading bibleIf Americans really do oppose school segregation—as they tell pollsters they do—then why are schools getting more and more segregated? In The Nation, Perpetual Baffour makes the case that class prejudice has supplanted racial prejudice.

Harvard considers banning fraternities and sororities. It hopes to diminish exclusionary, inegalitarian arrangements.

  • At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf asks, “is there any American institution that trades on unapologetic exclusion and perpetuates inegalitarian arrangements that benefit an in-group more than Harvard?”

Why does the Trinity Lutheran decision matter? Not because of playgrounds, but because of vouchers.

Don’t do it: Medievalist argues against luring college students into medieval studies with Game of Thrones references.

Queen Betsy’s civil-rights deputy apologizes for saying that 90% of campus rape accusations were due to regret over drunken hook-ups.

The segregationist history of school vouchers.

Curmudgucrat Peter Greene on the ignored dilemmas of rural schools.

Why bother killing the Department of Education? It has already been dying on its own for the past thirty years.

Leave a comment

1 Comment

  1. Agellius

     /  July 19, 2017

    If the concern over vouchers is that it will enable already privileged, i.e. richer, families to attend even more expensive private schools, while poor families remain stuck in public schools or cheap private schools, then why not have a sliding scale for voucher money on the basis of family income. Those at the lower end receive the full amount of a year’s tuition and richer families receive little or none.

    The point is that it seems to me that every objection to vouchers can be dealt with in some obvious, practical way. People like to pretend that voucher money will go to schools that forbid orthodox science, that forcefeed religious fundamentalism, that expressly exclude anyone with the least bit of pigment in his complexion, but obviously these kinds of things would not be allowed in schools that receive government money, any more than they’re allowed in private colleges that participate in federal student aid programs.

    Such objections really seem to me like an effort to obscure the real problem people have with vouchers, which IMHO is that they deprive the progressive educational establishment of the chance to expose other people’s children to the “right” kinds of influences and shield them from the “wrong” ones.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: