I don’t have the background nor the education to evaluate these claims. They make sense to me as I read the argument. I would be interested in those that come to my playtime that do engage more in the Christian religion or have studied the bible. Hugs
Let’s explore what the Bible says about transgender people, its general perspective on gender and identity, and common misinterpretations.
Many people wonder, “What does the Bible say about transgender people?” — from conservative Christians who want to point to “Biblical truths” about gender identity, biological sex, and men and women to LGBTQ+ and ally Christians who want to support diverse identities. But even though trans people have existed throughout history, the Bible doesn’t directly mention trans people because the term “transgender” wasn’t coined until the 1960s.
Despite this, the Bible does examine some issues having to do with gender identity, biological sex, and also men and women. Queer and progressive theologians spoke with LGBTQ Nation about some commonly misinterpreted Bible verses, verses that seem to affirm trans people, and different ways of understanding Christianity’s message to transgender people.
Trans people have been kings and queens, fought in wars, and led the fight for LGBTQ+ rights, thriving despite widespread social oppression.
Understanding gender in the Bible
British theologian Rev. Jonathan Tallon says that some people point to Bible verses as proof that God created only two distinct genders and, because “God doesn’t make mistakes,” changing gender is “against God and God’s plan.”
But these empty slogans ignore the existence of transgender people as well as intersex individuals, those born “with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.”
Two such verses illustrate the narrow way that some Christians misinterpret the Bible and how history and modern perspectives can provide new insights into the ancient text.
Genesis 1:27 – So God is a man?… and he only created two genders?
“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
Some people point to this verse, the first mention of gender in the Bible, as “proof” that God only created two genders — man and woman — and nothing in between. But this is a misinterpretation that ignores that most things in the world exist on a spectrum, says Dr. Justin Sabia-Tanis, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics and Social Transformation at the United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.
Dr. Sabia-Tanis tells LGBTQ Nation, “In the original Hebrew, the verbs used for God are both feminine and masculine; God is shown here as embracing more than one gender, so we know more complex things are happening with gender here.”
He also points out that, before creating humans, God created the day and night as well as water and land.
“Day transitions to the night at dusk; night becomes day at dawn — it’s not an on/off switch but a continual process,” Sabia-Tanis writes. “And then, in a similar way, the sky and the waters, and then the waters and the land, are separated. We know, however, there are many places in which both water and land mingle — wetlands, estuaries, beaches. And places where sky and water are one — clouds, the cycle of evaporation. The sky and the water, the water and the land has never been a binary system, but a cyclical, dynamic one.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 – Is God super-judgy about personal fashion choices?
“A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.”
This verse is the only one that directly references gender-based notions of clothing.
While the Bible honors many women of faith who act bravely, there are also many verses that dictate what men and women should do: how women should behave, how husbands and wives should treat each other, and how children should honor their mothers or fathers.
The Bible’s Old Testament contains 613 commandments known as Old Testament Law, ancient Biblical law, or Mosaic Law. These laws were created around 1393 to 1273 BC and were issued to regulate almost every aspect of Jewish life at a time when the Jewish people were still a group of ex-slaves struggling to survive in the desert. In fact, Biblical scholars have theorized that this specific law about clothing may have been established as a way to differentiate Jews from other religious cultures or as a way to ensure that the Jews’ gender-segregated society stayed truly segregated.
“This would prevent things like men and women engaging in various forms of forbidden sexual contact, women from entering the temple, men evading military service, women signing up for military service, and other behaviors perceived as contrary to the boundaries between the distinct parts of God’s created order,” three queer theologians told the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Mosaic Law also contains prohibitions against wearing garments of linen and wool together; burning incense; eating pork, rabbit, and shellfish; charging interest on loans; and working on Saturdays. In fact, the Old Testament refers to each of these things as “abominations” and states that the latter two items should be punished by death. Other parts of the Old Testament say it’s okay to kill women who have pre-marital sex, to smear animal feces on the faces of lazy priests, and that it’s okay to own and beat slaves.
Of course, most contemporary Christians don’t follow these ancient Biblical laws because they don’t make any sense in modern-day life. As such, people who point to Deuteronomy 22:5 to demonize trans people and other “gender-nonconformists” should question why they’re willing to uphold this particular Biblical law while ignoring all the rest — it’s likely because they want a religious-based reason to punish people they disapprove of.
However, another verse in the Bible, Hebrews 8:13, explicitly states that people no longer need to follow ancient Biblical laws now that Jesus Christ established a new covenant between man and God. The verse states, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one (Mosaic Law) obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”
Perspectives on Being Transgender in Christianity
Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount by Carl Bloch (1877)
While the Bible literally says nothing about transgender people, biological sex, or gender dysphoria, there are still a handful of verses that show how the earliest Christians embraced marginalized people as well as eunuchs, people whose bodily changes subjected them to widespread oppression.
Galatians 3:28 – All are equal in the love of Christ
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This verse appears in the apostle Paul’s letters to early Christian churches. In his letter, he angrily begins, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” He then asks church leaders who taught them to judge other Christians by their physical bodies and how well they follow laws rather than by their spirit or faith.
Paul says that ancient Biblical law was only put in place to help guide and protect people until Jesus arrived. But after Jesus arrived, one’s faith mattered more than one’s adherence to old laws.
Queer theologians told the HRC that when Paul says “there is neither male nor female,” that doesn’t mean that individual differences shouldn’t matter. Indeed, Paul’s other letters reveal that he considered personal differences important within the church. But Paul’s letter says that if we are all children of God, then that should be the basis for building a community together rather than discriminating against others based on nationality, race, social standing, class, or gender.
This sentiment is echoed in 2 Corinthians 4:7, a verse that compares the light of God inside of humans to “treasure in jars of clay.” Reflecting on this verse, queer-affirming Rev. Tallon asked LGBTQ Nation, “Which is more important: the clay jar or the treasure?”
“Yes, we need to take our physical bodies seriously – we follow an incarnate Christ. Our bodies are real. But so is what is going on inside us. Our minds are real too.” Rev. Tallon continues. “Your gender identity is how you think of (and feel about) yourself … Is making a commitment to Christ real, or just a feeling? Is having an identity in Christ real, or just psychology? To reduce biology to being the only reality is sub-Christian.”
Matthew 25:40 – We honor God by loving trans people
“And the King answering shall say to them, Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.”
This verse comes from a parable Jesus tells about God returning to the Earth as a messianic king who separates righteous people from the wicked. The king knows the righteous because they are the ones who fed, sheltered, clothed, and healed the poor, sick, and imprisoned. When the wicked people protest that the poor, sick, and imprisoned have nothing to do with their king, God essentially says, “But that which you did to the lowest of people, you also did to me.”
Put another way, Jesus says that a person’s relationship with the most marginalized people in society reflects their relationship with God — people honor God by honoring oppressed people. When people ignore or abuse trans folks, they ignore and abuse God as well as God’s commandment to love the most oppressed people in society.
“Here Jesus brings a notion of the least: those marginalized and scapegoated [and] the persons or groups targeted for exclusion and violence,” priest and theologian author Robert E. Goss tells LGBTQ Nation. “What I love about Jesus is that he consistently teaches us that compassion is justice. When we stand in solidarity with those who are marginalized we stand for [Jesus Christ].”
Psalms 139:13-16 – God’s gift of life blesses trans people and their bodies
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
These verses appear in the middle of a hymn that praises God for being ever-present and all-knowing of everyone’s innermost thoughts and beings. Some people point to this verse as proof that God purposefully created each person’s soul and body before birth, and thus changing one’s body goes against God’s creation.
But queer-affirming theologians see no textual basis in the Bible to think that God’s creation of bodies and souls should exclude any person’s gender identity or gender expression. Indeed, cisgender people regularly undergo medical and non-medical “gender-affirming care” — including styling their hair, wearing certain fashions, taking medications, having surgeries, and otherwise altering their appearance — in ways that affirm their God-given bodies while fitting the self-image they hold in their hearts and minds.
“[Many trans people who undergo physical transformations are] acting on the conviction that being ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ means that peace and wholeness is actually what God wants for us and for the world, whatever that journey looks like to each person,” several theologians wrote.
The Eunuchs: proto-transgender people in the Bible
The Baptism of Queen Candace’s Eunuch (c. 1625–30, attributed to Hendrick van Balen and Jan Brueghel the Younger)
The Bible doesn’t explicitly mention trans people, but it does contain several references to “eunuchs.” Eunuchs weren’t exactly transgender — they were people who were either intersex or who were assigned male at birth and had their external genitals removed before puberty. A Biblical law from Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids eunuchs from participating in Israelite society. As such, eunuchs in ancient Isreal experienced discrimination and oppression similar to what some trans people face today.
“Eunuchs have been proto-transgender individuals in the ancient world and even in the modern world as Hijras, religious eunuchs in Hinduism,” priest and theologian author Robert E. Goss tells LGBTQ Nation. “The eunuch was not religiously acceptable in the ancient world as transgender folks are not acceptable to many conservative Christians today.”
Dr. Sabia-Tanis tells LGBTQ Nation, “I think the value of looking at the eunuchs is not that we (trans people) share persecution with them, but that we embody similar variations in human society and physiology. I’m not sure if this helps address religiously-based transphobia, simply because I’m not sure how much it helps change those who have already firmly made up their minds to exclude and reject trans people. But, these points do, I think, provide information and comfort to those who are open to hearing it.”
Matthew 19:12 – Loving trans people is a divinely radical act
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus says these words when speaking to Judeans asking whether divorce should be legal. Numerous verses command married people to treat their spouses with love and respect, and Jesus tells the Judeans that it’s actually better for people not to marry in the first place rather than to get divorced later on.
Understanding that some Judeans may reject his radical opposition to divorce, Jesus then mentions that there are many types of eunuchs and that people should accept them as well, even though some may find that too radical.
Isaiah 56:5 – Trans people (and their names) are included in God’s many blessings
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.”
In this section, the prophet Isaiah conveys the voice of God, urging the people of Israel to keep their covenant with God by observing the Sabbath, a religious day when one isn’t supposed to work. “Blessed is the one who does this,” God is quoted as saying in book of Isaiah.
God then states that this commandment includes foreigners and eunuchs, even those who think that they fall outside of God’s blessing. Put another way, God says that no one is excluded from God’s blessings, even outcasts who were traditionally excluded from the socio-cultural life of ancient Isreal.
Dr. Sabia-Tanis tells LGBTQ Nation, “In fact, [God’s] promises are directed precisely towards those who have been treated unjustly and excluded from society. God never reserves privileges for those who follow societal norms or behaves ‘properly’ in human terms — God’s call is to be just and faithful according to God’s commandments, which include how we treat the poor and outcast.”
Sabia-Tanis also points out that God’s reward of an everlasting name makes Isaiah 56:5 a particularly beautiful verse for nonbinary and trans people who may change their names. “It affirms the promise of an authentic name that is everlasting and blessed by God,” he said.
Acts 8:26-36 – God wants Christians to welcome trans people with open arms
While traveling, Phillip, an evangelist who cares for poor Christians in Jerusalem, meets an Ethiopian on a chariot who is also a eunuch. The Ethiopian, who is reading a scroll of Isaiah, asks Philip to explain a Bible verse to him, and Philip does. When the two later encounter a body of water, the eunuch asks, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” Finding that there is nothing that should prevent, exclude, or deny the eunuch, Philip baptizes him, and the Ethiopian leaves rejoicing.
Dr. Sabia-Tanis told LGBTQ Nation that this Biblical story about a eunuch isn’t about discrimination or dehumanization. Instead, the Ethiopian “is treated as a person, who has riches (which we know because of his position in the queen’s court, his chariot, and his scroll), and is included.”
“While there are earlier baptisms in the book of Acts, this is the first really detailed account in which we get to know a bit about a person who desires to join the emerging Christian faith,” Dr. Sabia-Tanis adds. “The author chose this [story in partcular], I believe, to illustrate the inclusion of all kinds of people into the Jesus movement. It would have been easy to tell the story of an upstanding male pillar of the Jewish community being baptized — no controversies about Gentiles or women or eunuchs — but instead, the story was told about an outsider. That’s important.”
“This is a Biblical model about how to respond to nonbinary and transgender people — and one that the church should follow,” Dr. Sabia-Tanis continues. “There is no litmus test or exclusions because of who the person is, what their ethnicity or gender, or nationality is, or any other category. Just inclusion.”
Goss tells LGBTQ Nation, “The post-Easter Jesus movement reflected Jesus’ radical inclusive practices of inviting outsiders and marginalized into his table fellowship. If God in the Isaiah scripture, Jesus in the eunuch statement in Matthew, and Luke in Acts on the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch [all welcome eunuchs] into the body of Christ, then we can stand [with trans people] in solidarity.”
A complex topic for Christianity
The topic of transgender individuals and their place in Christianity is intricate and layered. While the Bible may not explicitly refer to transgender individuals, it does offer insight into the larger concepts of gender and identity.
It’s worth noting that the way different denominations and individuals approach this issue varies widely – some condemning, while others accepting and showing love.
Ultimately, it’s important to approach all interactions with individuals, regardless of their gender identity or how they choose to express themselves, with love and empathy as a guide.
Stay informed on the latest issues impacting the LGBTQ+ community by subscribing to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter.
DeSantis signs bill to defund DEI programs at Florida’s public colleges
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that would bar the state’s colleges and universities from spending money on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and limit how race can be discussed in some courses.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks on a book tour in Des Moines on March 10, 2023. (Rachel Mummey for The Washington Post)
Listen
2 min
Comment2412
Gift Article
Share
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law Monday barring the state’s colleges and universities from spending money on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and limiting how race can be discussed in many courses.
The move comes amid a larger conservative attack on higher education DEI programs, which DeSantis and others say reinforce racial divisions and promote liberal orthodoxy. Supporters of the programs say they are critical to serving the nation’s increasingly diverse student populations.
“If you look at the way this has actually been implemented across the country, DEI is better viewed as standing for discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination,” DeSantis said at a news conference at New College of Florida in Sarasota. “And that has no place in our public institutions. This bill says the whole experiment with DEI is coming to an end in the state of Florida.”
Florida’s new law prohibits public colleges from spending state or federal money on DEI efforts. These programs often assist colleges in increasing student and faculty diversity, which can apply to race and ethnicity, as well as sexual orientation, religion and socioeconomic status.
The law also forbids public colleges from offering general education courses — those that are part of a required curriculum for all college students — that “distort significant historical events,” teach “identity politics,” or are “based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, or economic inequities.”
The Florida legislation has been met with backlash at both the state and national level, where higher education experts and First Amendment advocates say the state is trampling on academic freedom. “It’s basically state-mandated censorship, which has no place in a democracy,” Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post.
DeSantis said students who want to study “niche subjects,” such as critical race theory, ought to look elsewhere. “Florida’s getting out of that game,” he said. “If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to Berkeley. Go to some of these other places.”
The governor held the signing on the campus of New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college in Sarasota, where the governor recently appointed a crop of conservative trustees. Eliminating New College’s DEI office was among the newly constituted board’s first orders of business.
The event drew protests, whose chants could be heard inside the bill-signing ceremony.
This is an important article and I hope everyone takes a minute to read it. Then think about what happened. A teacher had permission slips to show Disney catalog of movies to her students, and every parent said yes they were OK with their children seeing the Disney movies. Then this movie Strange World was show and one parent freaked out and filed a complaint against the teacher. Think of it, again one maga right winger maybe highly religious parent gets to derail the public education of all students to push their rabid right wing agenda.
So what was in the movie that could be that offensive, you ask? I did ask that, so Ron and I bought the movie for 20 dollars off Amazon Prime. Almost from the start, I saw what these MAGA right-winger republican types would hate. The parents were a loving couple who loved to smooch and kiss as they made breakfast, all very clean and not sexual / porn, just mom and dad quick cute kisses. So what is offensive about that to the maga? Well if you have seen the trailer you know that the mom is black and the dad is white. Which leads to the next maga issue.
The son, Ethan Clade, is a mixed race drawn with darker skin tone openly gay boy who is accepted by his family and his friends. In the opening get to meet the characters part of the movie, Ethan’s friends show up with some kind of game cards. With them is a boy Ethan has a crush on and the movie plays out letting us know in a funny sweet way of Ethan being shy around the boy. But the movie also makes it clear that the boy Ethan has a crush on likes Ethan as well along with all the friends being OK / happy with the boys being gay and liking each other. That is when the dad interrupts them and does the dad meeting his son’s boyfriend stating to Ethan how he likes the boy, saying something like he can see why Ethan likes him. I thought the movie was cute at this part, as most teenagers are embarrassed of their parents around their friends and to meet the one they have a crush on.
Which leads us to the the last part I think the maga people get angry at. Remember I have only gotten about a 1/4 of the way into the movie but in the movie the mother, who is black remember, is the outgoing adventurous one who manages to swoop in and save the flying ship. Imagine the maga people going crazy that a black woman acts to save everyone while the white people cling to the ship trying to hang on. Oh and also the women in the movie so far are more the adventurers and seeming more capable than the main white man character so far. Another thing I guess makes maga right-winger upset, the movie destroys their gender role stereotypes.
In all I like the movie so far. It is inclusive in a way that real life is. It is drawn and colored in bright vivid colors. The dialog and action is fun to watch. I have not watched a lot of movies in the last few years and I have not watched any animated ones. But I am really enjoying this one. But I can see why the republican right winger maga want to destroy Disney and take over what kinds of shows / movies they produce. This movie is a very far place from the stereotypical gender role models and public social standards of the 1950s that the maga are desperate to return the country to. Hugs
Purported investigation after screening of Disney animated movie comes amid governor Ron DeSantis’s attacks on educators
DeSantis has claimed, without evidence, that there is ‘indoctrination in our schools’. Photograph: Daniel A Varela/AP
Florida education officials allegedly told a school teacher that she was under a misconduct investigation after, her friend claimed, she showed students the Disney animated film Strange World.
The purported investigation following this alleged showing of Strange World comes amid rightwing Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s attacks on educators that include book censorship and limitations on discussions of race and sex as he jockeys for his party’s presidential nomination with “anti-woke” talking points.
———————————————————————————
‘The point is intimidation’: Florida teachers besieged by draconian laws
“My friend showed Disney’s Strange World in a Florida classroom and one student reported it to their parents. Now she’s under investigation by the state,” Carl Zee tweeted on 11 May. “Florida is not safe for teachers, DO NOT MOVE HERE.”
The film involves a group of explorers who try saving a “mysterious land from losing its vital energy source”, per Variety. It also has a prominent gay character – a rarity in children’s animation.
Zee included a photo of a letter from the Florida department of education, stating that “following receipt of a receipt of a complaint, this office has determined an investigation is warranted into allegations that you engaged in inappropriate conduct”.
“If you have evidentiary witnesses or documents pertinent to the case, send them to this office no later than two weeks from receipt of this letter,” the alleged missive continues. CBR.com first reported on Zee’s Tweet.
The alleged letter does not state specific allegations against this teacher. The Florida department of education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In response to a Twitter user who said that teachers who break the law find themselves under investigation, Zee wrote: “She has signed permission from every parent in the classroom to show Disney & Dreamworks movies in class, even offering lines to specify specific movies parents didn’t want shown. Not one exception was written down, so no she didn’t break the law. Try again, doofus.”
News of the alleged investigation is in keeping with Florida teachers’ concerns that they are being stymied and intimidated by new legislation championed by DeSantis. He has claimed, without evidence, that there is “indoctrination in our schools” and allowed his press secretary to claim that teachers are “grooming” pupils.
A new Florida law has effectively resulted in book bans, with classrooms and libraries removing books over concerns they contain “inappropriate” content.
One high school English teacher in Palm Bay, Florida, told the Guardian that a librarian took away a third of the books in his classroom – among them a collection of Emily Dickinson’s poems, which was not on her list of green-lighted books.
DeSantis has also assailed Disney as a company after the entertainment titan pushed back against his “don’t say gay” legislation. He hit back at Disney by signing a bill that took away Disney’s status as a self-governing special district near Orlando.
Disney fought back against DeSantis, filing a federal lawsuit contending that he retaliated against the company for expressing its first amendment right to free speech. In the suit, Disney is asking to stop the governor’s attempted takeover of the special district.
My friend showed Disney’s Strange World in a Florida classroom and one student reported it to their parents. Now she’s under investigation by the state.
Tell the teacher to show the kids Song Of The South and all will be forgiven. It’s hard to find since Disney threw it in the vault and ate the key, but the DeSantis crowd will love him/her for it.
I’ll bet that teachers and medical professionals will also be leaving, as well as high school graduates who want a real college education. It’s a crime what republicans are doing.
Yep, my daughter’s teacher friend from Florida already packed it in and moved away to a blue state where she gets paid a LOT more and has more freedom to teach. She is urging her fellow teachers stuck in that hell hole to get the fuck out now.
They’ve already got a plan in place to hire less-than-honorably-discharged ex-military and rogue cops to teach the kids. They will be armed at all times so the kids will be totally safe.
So, there literally is a war against one of the most popular companies in the world right there in Florida. Evangelicals can literally destroy anything.
Investigating a teacher for showing a Disney film? Migrant workers are leaving your state in droves, which will affect construction projects, the gathering of crops, the hotel and hospitality sector of tourism, and God knows what else, and you’re still trying to stomp on Disney by going after a teacher for showing a film? Lord love a duck, just how stupid are you, Ron?
Don’t forget that the SEAWEED MONSTER has come to destroy their beaches and recreational tourism, but let’s focus on a fricken kids animated movie that might have a gay cartoon character in it.
One parent complained. ONE. So nobody gets to watch it. That sure sounds like cancel culture to me. I’ll bet the parent who complained didn’t even have any children in the school.
I live in Michigan, so I am allowed to make this statement: The Lions have demonstrated an ability to consistently disappoint their fans to a level only surpassed, maybe, by the Cleveland Browns. And yet, my uncle was not only a great fan of the Lions team but wouldn’t miss a game on tv. That, my friends, is the mark of a true fan: it isn’t the fact that the product is the best in quality, best in performance, best in taste, it’s the fact that a fan is a fan for no better reason than he has chosen to be a fan. Thereby lives a love of heartbreak, ridicule, and a test of loyalty sufficient to scar any soul forever. I of course come from much better stock: I am a fan of the Chicago Bears. Da Bears! If you’ve not solved this puzzle by now, this is not about the Lions. Don’t get me wrong, they will forever disappoint – Sorry Uncle Bob – but this post regards how a beer company has received backlash for sending beer to someone who is an internet influencer. Now, there are few things in this world that I purposely choose not to pay attention to, and among those are the Lions and things that republicans and rednecks have chosen to cancel in their anti-cancel-culture rants. Yes, that’s confusing. It makes more sense if you drink a lot of low-quality beer and believe what Tucker Calson tells you.
Loyalty trumps Competence, as the saying goes. And, while there are those who believe Bud Light cheated on them, I expect to find all of those who have made a lifetime commitment with their Bud Light beer that has weathered two marriages, four kids, eight teeth and 29-stories that start with “dude, hold my beer…” will be drinking again like nothing happened. In time they will forget why they were mad at a beer – because let’s face it, who gets mad at beer? And, those of us watching from the sidelines, even as reluctantly as I, will remember that this was never about the beer, never about the internet influencer, but was ultimately about the homo- and the trans-phobic prejudice and hate that was so easily stirred to cause the easily led to put down their favorite beer.
I, for one, am going to continue to buy Bud Light. Mainly because it’s very drinkable – as the joke goes it’s much like sex in a canoe. What I would like to hear them ask these detractors is why they are so against someone being who they are? Who are they to not only disparage the character of that person, but to speak as if a beer company deserves to be shot for treating a person as a living and worthwhile person? Each of us in America is born with the freedom to voice our opinion. It bothers me that so many have chosen to use this freedom to be so manipulated as to only be able to speak hate and so weak as to give up a beer they appear to love for the affront of giving another citizen simple respect. What are they truly angry or afraid of?
I love Randy’s writing. He has a way of getting his heartfelt ideas across with words that few can manage. I am glad he has offered to add his voice here. When Randy was talking with me on this post, he mentioned it might help people understand how stupid this unwarranted hate response was if people could see the video that these bigots are responding to. Also remember that these cans of beer with Dylan Mulvaney’s picture on them were not mass-produced, were never for sale to the public. These few cans were just a promotional gimmick and were not intended for putting in stores. This was not a national commercial but only on social media. If the bigots and haters had ignored it, then very few would even have known of the entire thing. But the haters managed to gin this up using a fake outrage over something not happening and getting people who drink a mediocre mass-produced beer to question their own manhood. That was what this was about, men fearing a beer that had let a trans woman promote it made them less than a man if they drank it, made them less masculine, maybe others would question the size of their penis by the beer they drank because a few cans had a trans woman on them. That is what this is really about, look at how the men reacted in destroying the cans of beer, with displays of macho destruction while yelling about how manly they are. In fact most hate of trans people is about fear of measuring up to some mythical stereotypical standards for what is masculine or feminine. Below is the social media promotion by Dylan Mulvaney. Hugs
*** it was hard to find just the video with no commentary added. The comments are the YouTube page constantly cisgender Dylan as he and calling her a gay man. Dylan Mulvaney identifies as a trans woman, and she is proud to be a woman. Hugs
It has progressed to crazy town the rights’ obsession with gender stereotypes. Don’t they get that kids don’t care about what people in the 1950s were forced to endure in gender roles? Kids like bright colors and manufactures like to use the same patterns for each gender as it saves them money. These people have to get over the idea that somehow putting a 2 year old in a pink onesie is going to make them gay or trans. This is taking the culture gender war to extremes and a really weird place. Hugs
I am sorry but the current way WordPress classic editor is working it is too hard to bold and color the articles. I am still trying to find a work around. The block editor only allows a limited array of colors that are weak and not bold enough to be useful. The block editor is designed for businesses and if you look at the WordPress plans and what they market themes toward is businesses. Built for business and to make businesses happy. Blogers no longer matter to WordPress and are being pushed out of their buisness model. If you have ablog like I try to do with videos, memes, and full articles I will run out of storage space very soon. Plus the block editor is designed to allow businesses to quickly and easily replace blocks as things on their websites change. The classic editor is still there but no longer works smoothly as it did to edit what you post. Wordpress support warned me a year ago they planned to phase it out by making it harder to use until no one would use it. At the time I did not believe them as it seemed to me blogging was a big thing. I guess all the bloggers are going to substack. So I again have to find a new host company. But until I do, this is the way I have to post. The article below is very important and even though it is long I hope you will read it. It talks of the republican / right war on education and why. They point out that the right is no longer concern with US youth keeping up with other countries youth in education but instead the right is entirely consumed with indoctrinated kids with the right wing ideology out of a need to stay in power. In other words the right / republicans are afraid if schools teach reality and allow the changes in society to be accepted then the right will keep losing young people who beleive as they do and they will go exstinct. What sets the current movement apart from these previous efforts is not merely its greater intensity but its focus. Academic-achievement levels are incidental to Republicans’ concern. Their main preoccupation is not the ways in which Chinese and Swedish kids may be outpacing their American counterparts. They are instead accusing schools of carrying out an insidious indoctrination campaign that, they believe, poses an existential threat to their party’s future and their way of life. When an audience member asked how he had been able to find common ground with people who disagreed with him, Corcoran responded, “I have fought … There’s no negotiation. I don’t think antifa wants to sit down and have a conversation with me about how can we make this society better.” Corcoran went on to compare America’s disputes over education to “the warring in the streets” in Germany before World War II between the Nazis and the communists. “The war will be won in education,” he vowed. “Education is our sword. That’s our weapon. Our weapon is education.” So for republicans it is not about the good of the country or what is best for children, but instead entirely about keeping their party / their ideals in power. it is about keeping their lifestyle forced on the population no matter how wrong it might by. Notice part of that is teaching children not to question authority or what they are told to do. Hugs
Republicans have begun saying things about American schools that not long ago would have struck them as peculiar, even insane. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has called schools “a cesspool of Marxist indoctrination.” Former secretary of State Mike Pompeo predicts that “teachers’ unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids,” will “take this republic down.” Against the backdrop of his party, Donald Trump, complaining about “pink-haired communists teaching our kids” and “Marxist maniacs and lunatics” running our universities, sounds practically calm.
More ominously, at every level of government, Republicans have begun to act on these beliefs. Over the past three years, legislators in 28 states have passed at least 71 bills controlling what teachers and students can say and do at school. A wave of library purges, subject-matter restrictions, and potential legal threats against educators has followed.
Education has become an obsession on the political right, which now sees it as the central battlefield upon which this country’s future will be settled. Schoolhouses are being conscripted into a cataclysmic war in which no compromise is possible — in which a child in a red state will be discouraged from asking questions about sexual identity, or a professor will be barred from exploring the ways in which white supremacy has shaped America today, or a trans athlete will be prohibited from playing sports.
In the spring of 2021, Richard Corcoran delivered a fire-breathing speech at Hillsdale, a right-wing Christian college in Michigan, touting the agenda he had helped implement as education commissioner in Florida. When an audience member asked how he had been able to find common ground with people who disagreed with him, Corcoran responded, “I have fought … There’s no negotiation. I don’t think antifa wants to sit down and have a conversation with me about how can we make this society better.” Corcoran went on to compare America’s disputes over education to “the warring in the streets” in Germany before World War II between the Nazis and the communists. “The war will be won in education,” he vowed. “Education is our sword. That’s our weapon. Our weapon is education.”
It is hardly novel for Republicans to emphasize the need to improve schools. Ronald Reagan’s administration published a report, A Nation at Risk, that inaugurated the modern education-reform debate. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, claimed he would be “the education president.” Bush’s son, George W., signed the No Child Left Behind Act, a historic education reform that used testing to hold schools to account. What little attention Trump paid to education when he ran for president in 2016 gestured in this direction, championing educational choice as a tool to lift student achievement. All these Republican executives saw education as a technocratic issue they could use to appeal to voters outside their base.
What sets the current movement apart from these previous efforts is not merely its greater intensity but its focus. Academic-achievement levels are incidental to Republicans’ concern. Their main preoccupation is not the ways in which Chinese and Swedish kids may be outpacing their American counterparts. They are instead accusing schools of carrying out an insidious indoctrination campaign that, they believe, poses an existential threat to their party’s future and their way of life.
Dubya once said, famously, “Rarely is the question asked, Is our children learning?” The complaint of Republicans today is not that the schools aren’t working but that they are working all too well at the objective of brainwashing children in left-wing thought. Education, as Corcoran reportedly put it, is “100 percent ideological.”
Media coverage of the Republicans’ education crusade has largely treated it as a messaging exercise. A New York Times headline from earlier this year, “DeSantis Takes On the Education Establishment, and Builds His Brand,” reflects the cynical assumption that this is mostly a way for him to rile up the Fox News audience. One progressive pollster recently told The Atlantic that for Republican voters, liberal control of schools “is a psychological, not policy, threat,” even as their elected officials strike back with policy. Some Democrats have mocked Republicans for pursuing arcane obsessions that fail to connect with voters’ concerns. And it’s true the voters are not driving this crusade: A recent poll found only 4 percent of the public lists education as the most important issue. Politico reports that “mounds of research by Democratic pollsters over the last several months” have found Republican book bans to be utterly toxic with swing voters.
You might wonder why Republicans would throw themselves into such a risky venture. The answer is that they aren’t looking to enrage their base or get their face on Fox News. They have come to believe with deadly seriousness that they not only must but can seize control of the ideological tenor in American schools, from the primary to the university level. If accomplishing this social transformation carries a near-term political cost, they are willing to pay it. And to imagine that they will fail, or grow bored and move on, and that the education system will more or less remain the same as it ever was, is to lack an appreciation for their conviction and the powers they have at their disposal to realize their goal.
Culture wars can break out over almost anything, but the political content of education is the most classic venue. Kulturkampf, the German word for “culture struggle” and the linguistic origin of “culture war,” describes a wrenching conflict over whether the church or the state would control the schools in 19th-century Prussia. Around the same time, France had a similar schism, largely between monarchists and republicans, both of whom believed that if they controlled the schools, they would own the hearts and minds of future citizens.
The nature of these fights is raw. Schools are a foundational institution for inscribing the value system of the state. Nothing enrages parents more than the idea that their children are being turned against them, and few things worry a partisan more than the fear the opposing party is using schools to inculcate its beliefs in the young. “Wherever two or more groups within a state differ in religion, or in language and in nationality, the immediate concern of each group is to use the schools to preserve its own faith and tradition,” wrote Walter Lippmann in 1928. “For it is in the school that the child is drawn toward or drawn away from the religion and patriotism of its parents.”
France’s conflict eventually led to the Dreyfus affair, in which false charges of treason against Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish artillery captain, unleashed a torrent of antisemitism that pitted much of France’s secular republican left against the theocratic monarchist right. Germany’s Kulturkampf preceded … well, you know.
It was perhaps just a matter of time until the Republican Party’s perambulatory culture-war fixations, which have roamed from hippies to flag-burners to Muslims to gay marriage, landed on the schoolhouse.
Throughout American history, fights over the political content of school have broken out from time to time, usually centering on history textbooks and their treatment of racism, immigration, communism, and other social divides. Generations of conservatives have been shocked by the experience of their children reporting some unattractive facts about the Founders or the Civil War and came to suspect educators were plotting to steer children to some new worldview.
Some progressive education reformers embraced this very goal. George S. Counts, an educator and activist who went on to serve as head of the American Federation of Teachers and founded New York’s Liberal Party, wrote a pamphlet in 1932 called Dare the School Build a New Social Order? in which he argued frankly that schools should be used to inculcate progressive beliefs. “Progressive education,” he wrote, should “become less frightened than it is today at the bogies of imposition and indoctrination.” He added, “Every Progressive school will use whatever power it may possess in opposing and checking the forces of social conservatism and reaction.”
Later that decade, a number of history textbooks written by Harold Rugg swept into popularity. The Rugg history scalded the Founders as aristocratic landowners using the Constitution to preserve their wealth from the masses. Critics denounced it as left-wing propaganda, while his supporters insisted that educators alone were qualified to choose the proper historical emphasis. “Judgment as to the merits of a textbook is the function of those most competent to form a judgment: the teachers concerned and professional scholars,” maintained the American Historical Association.
As the New Deal lost momentum in Washington, Rugg’s ideas, held aloft by the assumption that liberalism had entered a new permanent ascendancy, fell out of favor. Sales of his texts plunged from a peak of 289,000 in 1938 to just 21,000 half a dozen years later, and they soon dropped out of usage altogether. The heady liberal dream that schools could serve as a vanguard of a social revolution had met political reality.
After the Rugg conflict, American history and civics texts generally adopted a mushy, consensus-oriented tone that offended very few people. Among the aggrieved minority was William F. Buckley Jr., who shortly before the founding of National Review in 1955 helped establish a publication called the Educational Reviewer dedicated to demanding right-wing content in the schools. Buckley’s first book, God and Man at Yale, proposed that the left-leaning faculty be denied academic freedom, which, he charged, they were abusing to warp the minds of impressionable college students.
Buckley is generally credited as the founder of the modern American conservative movement, but his call to conscript schools into the cause of promoting right-wing thought, like many of Buckley’s ideas, failed to catch on at the time. As Jonathan Zimmerman recounts in Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools (2002), the campaign to censor textbooks never made it far in the halls of power after World War II: “Even at the height of its frenzied search for subversion,” the McCarthy era, “Congress refused to extend the quest into textbooks.”
Eventually, the fights over indoctrination largely receded. “By the early 1980s, the shared sense across the political spectrum that public schools were sites worthy of intense contestation began to diminish,” writes education historian Natalia Mehlman Petrzela in Classroom Wars (2015).
The return came very fast at a magnitude and with a vehemence unlike anything that has ever occurred in American history.
The Republican Party emerged from the Trump era deeply embittered. A large share of the party believed that Democrats had stolen their way back into power. But this sentiment took another form that was not as absurd or, at least, not as clearly disprovable. The theory was that Republicans were subverted by a vast institutional conspiracy. Left-wing beliefs had taken hold among elite institutions: the media, the bureaucracy, corporations, and, especially, schools.
This theory maintains that this invisible progressive network makes successful Republican government impossible. Because the enemy permanently controls the cultural high ground, Republicans lose even when they win. Their only recourse is to seize back these nonelected institutions.
“Left-wing radicals have spent the past 50 years on a ‘long march through the institutions,’” claims Manhattan Institute fellow and conservative activist Chris Rufo, who is perhaps the school movement’s chief ideologist. “We are going to reverse that process, starting now.”
Many institutions figure in Republicans’ plans. They are developing proposals to cleanse the federal workforce of politically subversive elements, to pressure corporations to resist demands by their “woke employees,” and to freeze out the mainstream media. But their attention has centered on the schools. “It is the schools — where our children spend much of their waking hours — that have disproportionate influence over American society, seeding every other institution that has succumbed to left-wing ideological capture,” writes conservative commentator Benjamin Weingarten.
Or, as Florida governor Ron DeSantishas said in his most revealing comments on the issue, “Our K–12 schools are public institutions that are funded by our taxpayers. And so that line of thinking is saying, even though they’re public institutions, the people that are elected to direct those institutions have no right to get involved. If the left is pursuing the agenda. So basically, we can win every election and we still lose on all these different things. That is totally untenable. So these are public institutions, and they have to reflect the mission that the state of Florida has in our case, not just K–12, but also higher education.”
A recent study by the Manhattan Institute illustrates why the right finds this cause so urgent. The paper surveys 18-to-20-year-olds about what it calls “critical social justice” concepts they learned in school, such as “America is a systemically racist country,” “white people have unconscious biases that negatively affect nonwhite people,” “America is built on stolen land,” or “America is a patriarchal society.” The survey proposes that adults exposed to these concepts develop liberal beliefs: “CSJ and school ideology appear to be having a major impact in converting young people to left-wing beliefs and Democratic partisanship.”
The report finds that these concepts are being taught in private, religious, and charter schools and spread through social media and entertainment. Therefore, the old conservative method of promoting choice between public and private schools stands little chance of holding back the progressive tide. The biggest shift among young people seems to have occurred among those whose parents were Republicans or independents.
Put aside for a moment whether this finding is correct. What it shows us is why Republicans are acting so urgently (or, to their bewildered critics, hysterically). They believe the schools have become factories for turning children into Democrats, that progressives are so powerful the children of Republican parents cannot resist them, and that their old remedy of exiting the public-school system is nearly useless. Working from these assumptions, Republicans’ determination to seize control of the indoctrination machinery makes perfect sense.
Even the most paranoid belief systems often contain elements of reality. It is true that American society has polarized, pushing its most conservative communities rightward and its liberal communities leftward. Schools, largely being run by people who have college educations, have likely undergone the same kind of socially progressive shift that has rippled through the rest of the knowledge economy.
In California, public schools are rolling out required ethnic studies and have pushed schools to decelerate adoption of algebra in order to advance equity goals. Thousands of classrooms have used the New York Times’ “The 1619 Project,” a provocative interpretation of American history that has drawn criticism from some respected historians, including one approached by the Times to fact-check it.
Some teachers and administrators see the role of the school, like Rugg and Counts did, as a vanguard institution driving social change. In 2021, the National Education Association approved a resolution for “increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic (Native people, Asian, Black, Latin[o/a/x], Middle Eastern, North African, and Pacific Islander) Studies curriculum in pre-K–12 and higher education.” The NEA can’t simply dictate classroom pedagogy, but its desires do reflect a popular sentiment within the profession that has left its mark on many classrooms. A national report by Bellwether, a nonprofit firm analyzing education, reported, “Much of the backlash to teachers’ efforts to teach about racism in the classroom or to DEI trainings comes from lessons and programs that are poorly designed and poorly implemented, often because of limited or nonexistent resources and support or politicized approaches.”
Many parents, understandably, don’t like this stuff. A poll last year by the American Federation of Teachers found that voters would be more likely to support a Republican candidate who endorsed propositions like “public schools should focus less on teaching students about race and racism, and more on core academic subjects,” giving parents more say over content, and other right-leaning criticisms of the pedagogy. The idea that some schools have gone farther left on social policy than the public as a whole shouldn’t come as a surprise. Progressive educators can implement change that’s far more radical in character than anything Democrats could pass in Congress.
It is possible for legislatures to restrict some of the pedagogical fads of recent years without preventing children from learning unvarnished historical truths about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, and its aftermath. Reports have described bans on lessons that make students feel guilty, when they have merely restricted lessons that instruct them to feel guilty, a reasonable thing to ask. Commentators on the internet likewise depicted Florida as banning the teaching of African American history, when in fact the state merely objected to elements of the AP African American History curriculum, ultimately resulting in a revised version.
And aspects of the Republican legislation confines itself to these limited measures. But other bills attempt far more expansive levels of ideological control over the classroom, and they suffer from either sweeping vagueness or paralyzing specificity.
As an example of the former, a Montana bill currently tabled in committee would restrict science education to “scientific fact,” defined in the bill as “an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon,” which would present a serious challenge to teaching a field composed in large part of scientific theories. A South Carolina bill introduced in 2021 would have forbidden any lesson that “omits relevant and important context” and created a hotline to report violations of this hopelessly subjective criteria.
An example of the latter can be seen in an Oklahoma bill that tried to stamp out social-emotional learning, a strategy to help students manage their emotions that conservatives have bizarrely associated with indoctrination. (“The intention of SEL,” Rufo has claimed, “is to soften children at an emotional level, reinterpret their normative behavior as an expression of ‘repression,’ ‘whiteness,’ or ‘internalized racism,’ and then rewire their behavior according to the dictates of left-wing ideology.”) But how can a legislature ban an entire style of teaching? The solution settled upon by Oklahoma would have prohibited an array of concepts so vast it has to be beheld in its entirety:
Any evidence-based or non-evidence-based programming that promotes school or civic engagement or builds an equitable learning framework that creates or uses evidence-based benchmarks, standards, surveys, activities, learning indicators, programs, policies, processes, professional development, or assessments that address noncognitive social factors including but not limited to self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision-making, and other attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, feelings, emotions, mind-sets, metacognitive learning skills, motivation, grit, self-regulation, tenacity, perseverance, resilience, and intrapersonal resources.
Imagine attempting to teach a class for a year while keeping this entire list of forbidden ideas in your head at all times.
A broader problem with the wave of conservative legislation is that it is responding to a wildly hyperbolic version of reality. In a very large country with a fragmented education system, there are going to be plenty of examples of outrageous or radical teaching in the schools on a daily basis without necessarily indicating anything about the system’s overall character. As conservatives grew alarmed about left-wing teachers, their favorite media sources started curating examples of it to stoke their outrage.
Chaya Raichik’s account Libs of TikTok has amassed more than 2 million followers — DeSantis once invited her to stay at the governor’s mansion in Florida — partly by finding posts by left-wing teachers on social media. Her audience has come to see these cherry-picked examples as representing the normal experience in an American classroom. In response to a post by a teacher with brightly dyed hair and tattoos appearing to pledge allegiance to the Pride flag, National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry commented, “Don’t laugh — this pledge is probably coming soon to blue jurisdictions.” In apparent response to a viral but false Libs of TikTok post claiming a school was placing litter boxes in the bathroom for children who identify as cats, North Dakota’s House passed a bill that would, among other restrictions, forbid any “policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student’s perception of being any animal species other than human.”
These sorts of lurid fantasies inspired Republicans in Florida, Iowa, and Mississippi to introduce bills to put microphones, cameras, or livestreams inside classrooms. An Indiana Republican bill proposed to require school officials to create parent-led curricular advisory committees. Louisiana attorney general Jeff Landry, who is running for governor, created a “Protecting Minors” tip line to field complaints about libraries and schools.
Inevitably, perhaps, conservative fears of sexual indoctrination have led them to seek out evidence of heresy in school libraries. Concerned parents have been pestering school boards to keep scary books away from little Susie’s innocent eyes since the school library was invented. But the movement to do so has taken on a wholly novel scale. PEN America, a literary-freedom organization, has tracked some 50 organizations dedicated to restricting library content — nearly three-quarters of which have formed since 2021. The most prominent, Moms for Liberty, presented DeSantis with a “liberty sword” when he spoke at its summit in July.
About two-fifths of the bans are tied to rules or political pressure from state officials or elected lawmakers, an “unprecedented shift,” according to PEN America, which notes that book bans have historically been initiated by locals in a community, not their governments. Seven states are considering bills to restrict books containing things like “profane language” or “depictions of gender identity.” Twelve states have introduced bills that could make school employees and librarians subject to being charged with violating obscenity laws.
In Florida, HB 1467 — a law requiring all books in schools to be “suited to student needs” — prompted school libraries across the state to frantically pull texts for fear they would violate the new regime. The Florida Freedom to Read Project reported that some 20 school districts in the state eliminated books to comply with this law or DeSantis’s “Don’t Say Gay” and Stop WOKE acts. School officials in two counties covered up all the books in the library until the entire catalogue could be vetted for compliance. “There appears to be confusion over what books or materials could actually lead to a criminal charge,” conceded a report in National Review. Citing DeSantis’s HB 1557, what critics called the “Don’t Say Gay” law, the Lake County district removed And Tango Makes Three, which tells the true story of two male penguins who had built a nest together in the Central Park Zoo, then, when provided an egg by the zookeeper, raised the baby penguin. The book contains no sexual content, not even between consenting penguins.
One of DeSantis’s allies has introduced a bill requiring schools to “teach that the male and female reproductive roles are binary, stable, and unchangeable” and another to remove children from their parents if a court deems that they have been “subjected to” gender-affirming care, making a mockery of their professed concern for parental rights. DeSantis’s state-imposed ideology is being extended to student-run clubs: One high school shut down a meeting by its Queer and Ally Alliance, a student group, after Florida’s Department of Education reportedly sent the school administration a threatening message. <b>Both in theory and in practice, the Republican schools campaign has attacked even basic expressions of respect for gay and trans people.</b>
The difference between the old conservative approach to education and the new variant can be seen most starkly in the realm of higher education. American conservatives have never exactly adored universities, and the feeling is mutual. One study found that left-leaning faculty members outnumber conservatives by about six to one, and among administrators the ratio is twice as high. For many years, conservatives have deplored the left-wing tilt of academia and supported the complaint, along with many moderates and liberals, that the hothouse atmosphere on campus was suppressing dissent.
Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind and Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 Illiberal Education expressed the conservative view of academia: It had become close-minded and abandoned its historic commitment to open inquiry. Conservatives joined groups like the National Association of Scholars to protect conservative professors — or a liberal one who happened to say something provocative — from being intimidated or fired.
In recent years, a rising class of conservative intellectuals has advanced a different critique. Rufo, in particular, has pressed the case that the far left has infiltrated schools and other institutions so thoroughly that conservatives must take drastic action. “We’re going to actually learn the left-wing playbook,” he vowed in one lecture, calling for a “counterrevolutionary strategy for recapturing the institutions.”
Like many radicals who studied the methods of their adversaries, Rufo seemed to come away not with horror but a strange respect. “One thing I almost admire about the political left is that they want to achieve dominance and nothing less than dominance,” he said. In other words, conservatives must discard their attachment to fusty principles of academic freedom and open debate. When laying siege to institutions, Rufo has said, “You have to be very aggressive. You have to fight on terms that you define. You have to create your own frame, your own language. And you have to be ruthless and brutal in pursuit of something good.”
Academic freedom is no longer the solution. It is now the problem.
The world of politics and activism has plenty of would-be Lenins, but few have a direct plan for conservatives to use their power of the state to shape the ideological character of schools. And the place demonstrating the feasibility of this method is Florida, which represents the most advanced proving ground of the right’s new campaign against education.
DeSantis has placed his stamp on K–12 schools with an array of creative methods. His law restricting gender education and another, the Stop WOKE Act, which bans the teaching of certain progressive racial theories, have both had a chilling effect on liberal teachers. He also held voluntary training sessions for civics teachers with the lure of a $700 stipend for those who attend and the chance to receive $3,000 if they complete an online course. <b>The sessions, reportedly developed in part by Hillsdale, had a distinctly conservative slant, according to several attendees. “It was very skewed,” one government teacher told the Miami Herald. “There was a very strong Christian fundamentalist way toward analyzing different quotes and different documents.”</b>
State and local governments traditionally observe some limits on their control of subject matter. DeSantis’s K–12 agenda has at least pushed that line. When it comes to universities, DeSantis has obliterated the line completely.
He began with a takeover of New College, a public university in the state, stacking its board with right-wing ideologues, several of whom have praised him, including Rufo.
The pretext for tearing down the school leaned heavily on its alleged budgetary woes, but DeSantis immediately allocated $15 million in state spending and the board hired Corcoran as president with a base salary above that of presidents of other Florida universities that have nearly 100 times more students. DeSantis hoped to turn New College into “Florida’s classical college, more along the lines of a Hillsdale of the South,” his chief of staff told the Daily Caller. “We are now over the walls and ready to transform higher education from within,” exclaimed Rufo.
Having supplied proof of concept, DeSantis is now turning to the other, vastly larger components of the state’s higher-education system. His allies have introduced legislation that would impose rigid ideological control over every state university. The original text of the bill held that no core American-history course could teach a narrative except one “based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence” and shunted teaching any “unproven, theoretical, or exploratory content” to electives. The current version bars any general-education courses from teaching “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, or economic inequities.”
To backstop these changes, DeSantis, who had already signed a law in 2022 scaling back tenure protections for faculty, is now considering all but doing away with them. DeSantis would additionally consolidate power over hiring and firing in the hands of university presidents, some of whom owe their appointments to DeSantis. Any professors wandering too close to his vague regulations on progressive thought could find their career at the mercy of political operatives.
Ken Burns, the documentary filmmaker, recently called the DeSantis education program Soviet, which is a tad melodramatic, given that the Soviets arrested or murdered millions and millions of people. But there does happen to be a comparison at hand that is chilling in its own right: the Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, whom DeSantis and the Republican Party have adopted as a model.
When he won his first election in 1998, Orbán identified the universities as the primary institutional source of opposition. Orbán placed most state universities under the control of close allies. He drove the prestigious Central European University, which had been founded by his enemy George Soros, out of the country — not by sending in troops to seize the school but through the blandly bureaucratic method of imposing new operating requirements.
At first, the scholar Kim Lane Scheppele noted at the time, his critics joked darkly that “since educated people don’t vote for Orbán, his long-term plan for staying in power in Hungary has been to create fewer educated people.” But Orbán’s vision turned out to be much more strategic than that. Universities cut back on academic departments with the most liberals and expanded funding for departments with conservative leanings. Orbán opened a lavishly funded new campus for conservative intellectuals. His supporters publicly invited students to submit the names of faculty who professed “unasked-for left-wing political opinions.”
Last September, Balázs Orbán, the political director for the Hungarian prime minister, visited Florida, where he praised DeSantis and likened his governing style to that of his own boss. Rufo just spent a month in Budapest as a fellow at the Danube Institute, a pro-Orbán group, where he gave speeches denouncing critical race theory and reportedly met with Orbán’s government. (Rufo declined to confirm whether they actually met.) The two men appear to be swapping notes.
DeSantis seems to have absorbed the notion that conservatives have an existential need to use their political power to seize the commanding heights of the culture, especially its schools. His new book argues against the old conservative notion of supporting academic freedom, warning that “elected officials who do nothing more than get out of the way are essentially greenlighting these institutions to continue their unimpeded march through society.”
Orbán’s example has shown the government’s power over the academy can be absolute. DeSantis is simply the first Republican to appreciate the potential of this once-unimaginable use of state power to win the culture wars. Even before DeSantis’s plan has passed, Republicans in North Carolina, Texas, and North Dakota rushed out bills to eliminate tenure for professors.
Trump, racing to catch up with DeSantis on the education issue, has vowed to eliminate federal funding for any school promoting critical race theory, “transgender insanity,” or “any other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.” He promises to fire existing college accreditors and appoint new ones who will implement his ideological dictates, and to back up this threat by imposing confiscatory taxes on the endowment of any university that resists.
Conservatives as a whole have fled from any pretense of respecting academic freedom. “To complain that the governor and the state legislature are interfering with” public universities “is, in effect, to complain that the governor and the state legislature are interfering with the government that they run,” editorialized National Review, neatly sweeping away any concern that a Republican state could ever go too far in dictating content to its universities.
With DeSantis and Trump now vying for supremacy with a boot on the neck of American education, the Republican Party appears to have quickly settled on this strategy. There is not any assurance that the campaign to control the ideology of the schools will remain confined to the public sphere. Representative Dan Bishop of North Carolina and Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas have put forth a bill that would deny federal funding to public and private universities that promote CRT concepts.
And what has been revealed in these early days of the Republican plan to conquer the academy merely represents the powers of state governments. Should Republicans win control of the White House and Congress, they would have far more authority at their disposal. Federal research dollars and tuition subsidies give the federal government leverage over every institution of higher learning, public and private alike.
There is little sign Democrats have grasped the ultimate ambitions they are confronting. When DeSantis began pushing through yet another expansion of his restrictions on gender instruction — a bill that would, among other things, require “certain materials” facing objections by any parent to be removed before they were vetted — his opponents dismissed it as mere pandering. Democrats “see it as an attempt by DeSantis to excite the conservative base and, ultimately, win the GOP 2024 presidential nomination,” reported Politico.
<b>This pat assumption fails to appreciate that seizing political control of the schools is not a campaign slogan. It’s a plan to turn power into more power.</b>
When Republicans last had control of government, admiration of Orbán was confined to a marginal fringe of right-wing intellectuals, and the whole idea of imposing their will on schools had yet to be invented. It was well into his final year in office before Trump glommed onto the issue. Trump called the George Floyd demonstrations “the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools.” That is when he brought Rufo in for a visit and began ranting on the campaign trail about the “wokes” in the classroom. In November 2020, to counter the narrative of “The 1619 Project,” Trump created a “1776 Commission,” which released its report on Trump’s penultimate day in office.
This futile departing gesture seemed at the time to signify the superficiality and ridiculousness of the Republican interest in the subject. But now members of the party elite have fully invested themselves in this objective. They have only just begun to explore their powers, and their statements on the matter recognize no theoretical limit as to how far they might go. In retrospect, Trump’s late embrace of the crusade to purify the schools was not a fleeting interest but a new turn, the first shots fired in what we now see is a full-scale war.
Mauricio Garcia was radicalized by far-right neo-Nazi ideology, and he probably expected he'd be praised as a true blood-and-soil martyr. Instead, the same far-right MAGA extremists Garcia died for are labeling him a false flag Antifa liberal.
Wow. The Allen, Texas mass shooter’s profile on a Russian social media site has been found. He posted a photo of Nazi tattoos and “reconnaissance” photos of the outlet mall weeks prior. He also posted the right-wing YouTuber Tim Pool. (per @AricToler) pic.twitter.com/BnebamBumi
— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) May 8, 2023
The governor’s office also pointed to a “PBS Newshour” feature on parents’ support for various gender care treatments including puberty blockers, a gay character in “Work It Out Wombats” which airs on OETA, PBS Kids’ “Clifford the Big Red Dog” introducing LGBTQ characters “Oklahoma taxpayers are going, ‘Hey, hang on, time out for just a second. That’s not my values,’” Stitt said. “I’m just tired of using taxpayer dollars for some person’s agenda. I represent the taxpayers.”
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt bizarrely claimed PBS programming "overly sexualizes our kids." (via The ReidOut Blog) https://t.co/n7T4IQ0L7I
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who was reelected yesterday, recently dedicated "every square inch" of the state to Jesus: "[With] the authority that I have as governor, and the spiritual authority and the physical authority that you give me, I claim Oklahoma for you." pic.twitter.com/JEdTsJuzAe
“Stop using taxpayer values to push an agenda!” the bigoted governor screeched, as he used taxpayer dollars to push his agenda on everyone in the state.
That’s the problem with being a minority which represents roughly 5% of the population (except in larger cities with large gay populations). Unless the majority of citizens stand with you, which they usually don’t, you’re on your own.
And that’s the bottom line. Not that they’re taxpayers but rather the fact that that evangelical governor doesn’t see them as citizens, taxpayers, or as a demographic worth even bothering with; by acknowledging who and what they are.
Thus, he’s worse than evil. He literally can’t see LGBT people as a thing. His religion has rotted his forebrain.
No, sweetie, you represent a very narrow, exceedingly bigoted minority of taxpayers hell-bent on forcing the rest of the country to kowtow to your twisted views of morality.
“the [white male] ones that are blamed for any social ills”
Feel free to look at the office holders for the Republican (and some D) party. Pretty much white male. Also old, rich and christian. So yes, it’s entirely fair to put all the crap at their feet. it’s their show in a large part of the USA.
Below is part of the above video. It is from a man in Tenn who grew up in Tenn and his interpretation of the bill along with his childhood meeting with a drag queen. Very potent. Hugs