DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN TO ATTEND SCHOOL UNDER THE NEW AND/OR PROPOSED STANDARDS?

My children have all completed school. My grandchildren range from toddler to high school and I am scared to death about what they are being, and will be, taught in the U. S. School systems. Here is a taste of what’s in store.

An ABC News piece I found on the internet from 5/19/21 calls Critical Race Theory, that is being proposed throughout the country “A new anti-racism curriculum.” I don’t believe this is true or fair reporting. Here’s why.

In the article we are told that “Critical race theory is a study in academia based on the concepts of systemic and institutional racism.” It continues, “Systemic racism refers to how the government has discriminated against Black, Indigenous and other people of color through unjust policies concerning housing, employment, criminal justice education and more.” This was true in the early days of our country- when most countries were doing the same. I would liken this to criticizing the United States for having inadequate train safety rules based on the laws in place in 1900. No mention is made of the fact, as a country, we were leaders in almost every aspect of equality.

A few paragraphs later I read “From the conception of slavery in America, to the Jim Crow laws that segregated Blacks, to the disproportionate criminalization and brutality against Black Americans. Crenshaw (A founding critical race theorist and Columbia Law School professor) said racism and white supremacy have persevered in the U.S. through law. Even if some discriminatory laws or policies are no longer in effect, she said they can still impact families for generations.

On his June 21st show Charlie Kirk (AM 560 Chicago 1-2pm) said 58% of people polled were opposed to Critical Race Theory being taught in U.S. Schools while only 25% were in favor.

Wikipedia takes 4 paragraphs to define Critical Race Theory. I find the third paragraph most telling. “Critical race theory is loosely unified by two common themes: first, that WHITE SUPREMACY, with its SOCIETAL OR STRUCTURAL RACISM, exists and maintains power through the law; and second. that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and also achieving racial EMANCIPATION and ANTI-SUBORDINATION more broadly , is possible.”

One question I have had for awhile, and feel now is a good time to ask, is why is it now acceptable (more likely mandatory) to capitalize the “B” in black while referring to Americans with that skin tone while it is not required to capitalize the “W” in white while talking about Americans with that skin tone? Is that not a form of racism, treating one group of people differently based on color?

I searched the internet to find what percentage of Forbes top 400 (Richest people in the US) are Black and found very little, a list of names and occupations, but nothing about race which was the criteria I searched. I did find Oprah Winfrey and investor Robert Smith were shown to be the only Blacks on the 2017 list (It is my experience that the Main Stream Media proclaim it from every source possible when there are hints of discrimination, but are slow in reporting when there are no indications of racism) the 2020 list shows the addition of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith but did not list them as Black, I only knew through being familiar with their work. I ask, If our society is so steeped in anti Black, White Supremacy, how did those people slip by? The argument will, no doubt, be made that four out of 400 is by no means a good showing. I concur. I also submit that the list covers many Asians, Hispanics and immigrants from other areas reported to be victims of white racism. 

While I worked enough overtime to be hated by some workers below me in seniority I have been able to pay my bills in a timely manner but never got within sniffing distance of being on the Forbes list, despite my “White Privilege.” I would also like to stress that there are probably many more Blacks on the Forbes list. I attempted to look up each name I didn’t recognize to see if I could find a photograph of the individual. I gave up after checking about 10 because it was taking way too long and some of the “biographies” did not contain photographs.

I feel this critical race “Theory” is only that, a theory. I contend it is a very poor theory with no facts to back it up. I do not accept the premise that whites are given “passes” in our society. Can you show me any law written since 1920 (Over 100 years ago) that gives whites any advantage. I can cite many actions that are designed to give minorities an edge over their white competitors, or at least level the playing field, in recent years- How about Johnson’s Great Society or Affirmative Action? Would that happen in a white supremacist nation?

https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/lbj.jpeg?w=800&quality=85

Another “Great Idea” I am concerned about is pushing “Sex Education” on our children as young as first grade. If anyone agrees with that concept you might want to stop reading now- because I don’t and I’m going to explain why.

First off my own opinion, and that of millions of others, is that sex education has no place in our schools. 

I became aware of Sex Education in schools when I was a high school sophomore. I was completely against it. Being put in a co-ed classroom, with a teacher showing us diagrams of genitalia (Thank God they didn’t show actual photographs back then) made me very uncomfortable. Looking around and speaking to classmates I learned that I was not the only one squirming in my seat. My parents had gone over this with me, that was their job and they accomplished it. Being Catholic, my parents taught me abstinence. Say what you want, it’s 100% effective when used properly.

In my opinion this is a key part of a parent’s responsibility. Unless the government has decided to take away these parental rights and our religious freedoms with it, I don’t think they have any right to teach our children about human reproduction and intimacy. If they do plan to take away parental rights would our country still be considered the “Land of the free?”

My fears come from a lot of sources. Here are only a few of them; there are many more if you choose to search them out.

I looked up ABSTINENCE on Google and found this result, without including the word sexual in my search:

“SEXUAL ABSTINENCE:

OVERVIEW

Abstinence is the choice not to have sex. This method is 100% affective in preventing pregnancy and infection as long as all sexual contact is avoided, including vaginal, oral, and anal sex.

OTHER BIRTH CONTROL METHODS male condom, female condom, birth control pill, diaphragm spermicide, cervical cap, birth control sponge, IUD, vasectomy, tubal ligation, birth control shot, birth control patch, vaginal ring, birth control implant.” 

This list came with photos or diagrams.

This indicates, to me, that “the powers that be” find it very difficult to “allow us” to hear of abstinence without hearing the direction they want us to take.

Here’s another concern. Google tells me that the proposed range of students to be educated are 5-16 years of age.

Can you tell me why anyone would think that a 5 year old needs sex education?

When I was a police officer I was asked to teach Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (D.A.R.E.) classes and I passed up the opportunity. My reasoning was simple, I felt the D.A.R.E. program put government between the student and the parent-Which I am 100% against. I based this feeling on the fact that it teaches tobacco is a gateway drug to be avoided and many parents are smokers. After “learning” of her mother’s unacceptable behavior my, at the time, 5th grade future sister-in-law felt empowered to destroy my, soon to be, mother-in-law’s supply of cigarettes- she grabbed one of them out of my eventual mother-in-laws mouth. 

My second reason was that I strongly disagreed with a program that familiarizes young minds with drugs, when a majority of those young minds had not given any thought to them prior to the program. In my opinion children are not tempted to use drugs at that age because they know nothing about them. After attending a government forced program showing them how addictive drugs are these students are much more likely to be tempted. As with many government programs, I believe, the government solution made the problem worse.

An article I found on the internet www.ncsl.org>research>health states that the number of overdose deaths since 1990 have tripled. I think this supports my belief that making the innocent children who have never thought about drugs aware of them just might lead them to experiment with drugs rather than abstain from using them.

I now compare my feelings stated above with teaching students who are years short of puberty about sex. What could go wrong? I believe the program makes even less sense when there are no parents or guardians present to inject their opinions or religious views into the course planning or discussion. I am not demanding they bring religion into schools here. I am only pointing out that, in my opinion, there is a moral connection with sexual activity and I am very much opposed to teaching sex education without even touching on that side of this important issue.

My state, Illinois, has passed a sex education bill that is only waiting for the governor’s signature (Considered a sure thing). Here are some, not all, of my concerns with the Illinois Bill that is similar to proposed bills in several other states.

In an article on Capitolnewsillinois.com that was written by Raymon Troncosco I read that the “New ‘culturally appropriate’ requirements opposed by Republicans and faith-based groups…” My concern is who determined this is “Culturally appropriate?” It is certainly not appropriate in my opinion.

The article goes on to say the bill calls for “personal health and safety” curriculum for grades K-5 and sexual health education for grades 6-12. “All students will be educated on gender identities, different types of families, sexual orientation, consent and a women’s options during pregnancy.” I do not want the Illinois education system to be teaching my grandkids about any of this.

The U.S. scores in reading, writing and arithmetic are plummeting on the world stage and they want to be allowed to teach my grandchildren about sex- No Thank You!

The Republicans hold 45 of the 118 seats in the Illinois House of Representatives and 18 of the 59 seats in the Senate. The Republicans, who it is reported overwhelmingly opposed the bill, have pointed out that their main opposition comes from the dominant parties “All or nothing” approach regarding the bill. Another concern voiced by the minority party was that the bill was penned by a group that contained representatives of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest providers of abortions in Illinois and the United States. I think that would be comparable to inviting the largest auto manufacturer to participate in preparation of a bill to teach residents how to buy automobiles.

Another point in the article that concerns me as a parent/grandparent is, “The guidelines call on students, by the end of second grade, to be able to identify and medically name parts of the human body, including genitals, and be able to identify gender, gender identity, and gender roles.” It is my opinion, and the stated opinion of my church, that there are only two genders male and female and you don’t choose which you are. I sympathize with those who feel differently. I do not want my children/grandchildren to be taught something in opposition to my religious belief’s. 

The guidelines also call for eighth graders (12-13 years of age in most cases) to “Know how to access short-term and long-term contraception.” This runs completely opposite to what I taught my children and, in my opinion, has no place in a school system that is having a difficult time teaching the basics. Maybe I should just say this has no place in any school system. Perhaps I should take solace in the fact that the Illinois school system is not overwhelmingly effective. 

Finally the article quotes the bill as reading, “Thirty years of research has shown that this education can be highly effective in supporting positive health outcomes in youth such as substance abuse prevention, delaying and initiating sex, increasing use of contraceptives and condoms, decrease rates of bullying, increased quality of mental health decrease gender-based harassment and decrease interpersonal and dating violence.” I disagree strongly with this statement. I guess the statement is true, only because it says “can be highly effective.” I strongly believe that at the minimal it is misleading. Remember the article I pointed out above that shows statistically that the rate of drug overdose deaths tripled from 1990-2020 while the D.A.R.E. program was being used nationwide.

If you agree with me please forward this. If you disagree with me let me know why in the comments- I wouldn’t object to getting positive comments if you feel so inclined.

Thank you for reading to the end!