• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Borderlands

cultural relativism

GOM vs GOA: The Associated Press, Freud and Renaming the Gulf

February 19, 2025 by James L'Angelle Leave a Comment

 

Introduction

     Having failed at land grabs in Greenland and Canada, snubbed by Panama in a “take back,” using the China scapegoat story, the White House came up with the idea to rename the Gulf of Mexico. Opposition was immediate from south of the border and the rest of the geographic world followed suit.

     Considering it unrealistic and impractical just isn’t good enough when there’s an opportunity to employ psychoanalysis to examine the motives and subconscious mind for clues to this latest adventure.

(Image credit: Pinterest) 

Methodology

The same format as previous will be used: a.] a social media post where applicable (not included here); b.] Capsules containing the artificial intelligence query enclosed in (Begin Perplexity) and (End Perplexity-A) with the link included; c.] Notes to evaluate, clarify, refute, confirm and determine the authorial intent of the AI; d.] Congressional Record; e.] Media related to the recovery process contained in the narrative.

Capsules

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

origin of the name gulf of mexico

The name “Gulf of Mexico” reflects a blend of historical, cultural, and colonial influences1. The term “Gulf” comes from the Latin word gulphus, signifying a body of water partially enclosed by land1. The “Mexico” part of the name is derived from the ancient Mexica civilization, known as the Aztecs, whose empire was centered around present-day Mexico City12.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

  • Indigenous influence: Before European colonization, various indigenous cultures, including the Maya and Olmec, had their own names for the Gulf, often reflecting geographical features or spiritual beliefs1. For example, the Maya referred to the Gulf as Chactemal, meaning “the red place”1.

  •  Spanish Exploration: Spanish explorers in the 16th century played a crucial role in standardizing the name. Early maps referred to the Gulf as Mar del Norte (Sea of the North) or Seno Mexicano (Mexican Sound), emphasizing its location relative to Mexico1.

  • Colonial Implications: Naming the Gulf after Mexico was also an assertion of control over the region and its resources by the Spanish1. By the 17th century, “Gulf of Mexico” was widely accepted1.

The name has been in use since at least the late 16th century4. In 1589, the English geographer Richard Hakluyt referred to the ‘Gulfe of Mexico’4

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/origin-of-the-name-gulf-of-mex-BKkwBaMuTJWGDbc5AemTvg

the ap refuses to change gulf of mexico in the style guide

The Associated Press (AP) has decided to maintain the use of “Gulf of Mexico” in its style guide, despite President Trump’s executive order renaming it to the “Gulf of America”3. This decision has led to significant conflict between the AP and the White House.

The AP’s rationale for keeping the original name includes:

  1. The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for over 400 years3.

  2. As a global news agency, AP must ensure place names are easily recognizable to all audiences worldwide3.

  3. The body of water has shared borders between the U.S. and Mexico, and Trump’s order only carries authority within the United States3.

In response to AP’s decision, the White House has taken punitive actions:

  1. Barred AP reporters from covering several events with Trump1.

  2. Blocked an AP reporter and photographer from boarding Air Force One1.

  3. Demanded that AP alter its style guidance2.

The White House argues that AP’s refusal to use the new name is “misinformation”4 and that it’s a “privilege” to cover the White House2. However, AP Executive Editor Julie Pace stated that limiting their access “plainly violates the First Amendment”2.

This dispute is part of a broader conflict between the Trump administration and legacy media outlets, with the White House aiming to discredit and reduce public trust in the press1.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-ap-refuses-to-change-gulf-YRbWaGRDQ_6XHvsHG0iJ5w

language ideology behind changing the name of the gulf of mexico

The renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” by President Trump reflects a complex interplay of language ideology and power dynamics. This change embodies several key aspects of linguistic imperialism and nationalism:

  1. Erasure of historical and cultural identity: The name “Gulf of Mexico” has existed since the 16th century and is recognized by international organizations4. By removing “Mexico” from the name, there’s an attempt to erase the historical and cultural connections of Mexico to this body of water4.

  2. Assertion of American dominance: The renaming to “Gulf of America” is framed as a way to “honor American greatness” and reflect the “historical and economic” importance of the United States in the region6. This linguistic change serves to assert American dominance over the geographical feature.

  3. Nationalistic rhetoric: The renaming aligns with Trump’s broader nationalist agenda, using language as a tool to promote a particular vision of American identity and power6.

  4. Unilateral action in shared spaces: The Gulf of Mexico is a shared natural resource, spanning multiple borders. The unilateral decision to rename it disregards international norms and the sovereignty of other nations, particularly Mexico4.

  5. Continuation of historical patterns: This action fits into a broader pattern of U.S. control over the Western Hemisphere, dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 18234. It uses language as a means of asserting geopolitical influence.

  6. Reinforcement of anti-Mexican sentiment: The renaming can be seen as part of a larger trend of anti-Mexican rhetoric and policies in the U.S., using language to further marginalize and erase Mexican presence and influence4.

This linguistic change demonstrates how language can be weaponized as a tool of power, used to reshape perceptions of geography, history, and national identity in service of political agendas.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/language-ideology-behind-chang-W.WFXdVRRG2YMIcPdQKlGw

freudian insight into renaming the gulf of mexico

From a Freudian perspective, the desire to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” could be interpreted as a manifestation of narcissism and a need for dominance. This act can be seen as an attempt to assert power and control over a shared geographical feature12.

The renaming effort might be viewed as a form of psychological projection, where Trump is displacing his own feelings of insecurity or inadequacy onto the geographical feature. By claiming ownership and renaming it, he may be compensating for perceived threats or challenges to his authority24.

Furthermore, the act of renaming could be seen as a form of symbolic castration, where Trump is attempting to strip Mexico of its historical and cultural connection to the gulf. This aligns with Freud’s theories on power dynamics and the desire to dominate others12.

The emphasis on “it’s ours” and “we handle most of the operations there” could be interpreted as an expression of the id’s desire for immediate gratification and possession, overriding the ego’s rational understanding of shared international waters14.

Lastly, the renaming could be seen as an attempt to rewrite history and reshape reality to fit one’s own narrative, which aligns with Freudian concepts of ego defense mechanisms, particularly denial and rationalization23

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/freudian-insight-into-renaming-yQJNFnbnTlSiiu6J_9VnNQ

freud examines google changing name of gulf of mexico

Sigmund Freud, if he were to examine Google’s decision to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, would likely interpret this action through the lens of psychoanalysis and his theories of the unconscious mind.

Psychoanalytic Interpretation

Freud might view this name change as a manifestation of collective narcissism and repressed desires for dominance:

  1. Id-driven Impulse: The renaming could be seen as an expression of the id’s primitive desire for power and control, with the United States asserting dominance over a shared geographical feature12.

  2. Ego defense mechanism: The change might be interpreted as a form of projection, where the U.S. is projecting its own insecurities about national identity onto the map4.

  3. Superego conflict: Freud might argue that the superego, representing societal norms and ethics, is in conflict with the id’s desires, as evidenced by the international backlash and threats of legal action3.

Symbolic Interpretation

Freud would likely delve into the symbolic meaning of the name change:

  • Water symbolism: The gulf, as a body of water, could represent the unconscious mind. Renaming it might symbolize an attempt to control or repress unconscious content14.

  • Boundary Issues: The act of renaming a shared geographical feature could be seen as a manifestation of unresolved boundary issues in the collective psyche of the nation23.

Oedipal Complex

Freud might draw parallels to the Oedipal complex:

  • The United States, symbolically taking possession of the gulf through renaming, could be seen as an attempt to “possess the mother” (Earth) and assert dominance over the “father” (other nations)12.

In conclusion, Freud would likely interpret Google’s name change as a complex interplay of unconscious desires, defense mechanisms, and symbolic representations of deeper psychological conflicts within the national psyche45.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/freud-examines-google-changing-GuJg0B1bR3GPz98NfH0TRg

(End Perplexity-AI)

Notes

     Any number of psychoanalytic aspects appear in this brief study of the motivation to rename the GOM. It is an international body of water and no one nation can lay claim to it beyond the 12-mile limit. The fact that Google has gone along with this ruse has diminished greatly it’s credibility for accurate information.

Afterword

    The Associated Press has set the standards very high throughout the years for its accuracy in reporting and prescriptive guidelines for correct journalistic style in writing, it does not publish fiction. If there is any doubt to the accuracy of that statement, look it up in the style book.

Filed Under: anthropology, critical theory, cultural relativism, culture clash, Dream-like Symbolism, ethnocentrism, future shock, gulf of mexico, immigration, multiculturalism, oedipal dynamics, Projection and Displacement, sigmund freud, The Superego vs. the Id Tagged With: anthropology, aoc, associated press, cultural relativism, dhs, ethnocentrism, gulf of mexico, international waters, sigmund freud

AOC vs ICE: Cultural Relativism, Marginalization, Ethnocentrism: When Worlds Collide

February 17, 2025 by James L'Angelle Leave a Comment

zb64HV6tOuBdnns3dqtjq7T9EM9.jpgIntroduction

     The ongoing feud between Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “AOC,” (D-NY) and White House de facto sheriff-border czar Tom Homan enters another week, with more allegations, threats of litigation and reprisals, drawing the media into the conflict and creating an ICE-storm of critical response from the social media peanut gallery. The romance isn’t going as well as anyone had hoped.

     On the surface, it’s simply an argument between the rights of individuals as defined in the United States Constitution over the imperative of the federal government to enforce immigration. Underneath, it goes a great deal deeper, and it’s also a surprise the sociologists haven’t picked up on it sooner. Even more of a surprise is that the anthropologists haven’t picked up on it at all.

     This report hopes to close the chasm a bit between what the law allows according to the congresswoman, how the border czar sees it, and where it stands in the grand scheme of things according to the human condition.

(Image credit: When Worlds Collide (1951) – DVD PLANET STORE)

Methodology

     The same format as previous will be used: a.] a social media post where applicable (not included here); b.] Capsules containing the artificial intelligence query enclosed in (Begin Perplexity) and (End Perplexity-A) with the link included; c.] Notes to evaluate, clarify, refute, confirm and determine the authorial intent of the AI; d.] Congressional Record; e.] Media related to the recovery process contained in the narrative.

Capsules

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

what is cultural relativism

Cultural relativism is the principle that beliefs, values, and practices of a culture should be understood and evaluated within their own cultural context, rather than judged by the standards of another culture13. This concept asserts that no culture’s way of life is inherently superior or inferior to another, and that moral and ethical systems vary widely across different societies1.

The term “cultural relativism” was introduced by anthropologist Franz Boas in the early 20th century, challenging prevailing ethnocentric views and arguing that civilizations are complex and cannot be ranked in a simple hierarchy1. This perspective encourages tolerance and appreciation for cultural diversity, promoting a more nuanced understanding of human behavior and social norms13.

Key aspects of cultural relativism

  1.  Understanding cultures on their own terms: It emphasizes the importance of interpreting cultural practices within the framework of each society’s traditions, values, and social structures12.

  2. Avoiding ethnocentrism: By recognizing that cultural norms and values are relative, people are less likely to impose their own cultural standards on others1.

  3.  Promoting research: Cultural relativism encourages anthropological and sociological research by allowing researchers to study cultures without bias1.

Types of cultural relativism

  1. Absolute: Complete acceptance and tolerance for any type of cultural practice2.

  2.  Critical: Critiquing cultural practices in terms of human rights2.

While cultural relativism fosters greater cultural understanding and tolerance, it also faces criticism. Some argue that it can endorse moral relativism, potentially hindering social progress or creating challenges in establishing universal standards for human rights and global governance14.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-is-cultural-relativism-m2fCb08ORYK1FwDvlbiodQ

the conflict between aoc and the border czar is one of cultural relativism

The conflict between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and border czar Tom Homan is not primarily one of cultural relativism, but rather a clash over immigration enforcement and constitutional rights.

AOC hosted a “Know Your Rights with ICE” webinar to inform immigrants about their legal rights when encountering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents47. This action reflects her stance on protecting immigrant communities and ensuring they are aware of their constitutional protections.

Tom Homan, on the other hand, views AOC’s actions as potentially impeding law enforcement efforts14. He has suggested that her webinar could be seen as teaching immigrants how to evade law enforcement, and has even raised the possibility of legal consequences for AOC17.

This conflict stems from fundamentally different interpretations of immigration law and constitutional rights:

  1. AOC emphasizes the constitutional rights of all individuals within the United States, regardless of immigration status.

  2. Homan focuses on strict enforcement of immigration laws and views actions that inform immigrants of their rights as potential obstruction.

While cultural differences may play a role in shaping these perspectives, the core of the conflict is not about cultural relativism. Instead, it centers on the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections, as well as the role of public officials in this context.

The debate touches on broader issues of national identity and immigration policy, but it is primarily a legal and political dispute rather than a clash of cultural values2

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-conflict-between-aoc-and-t-ViclJZE1RMmqLskWs0aeWA

cultural relativism plays an important role in the conflict between aoc and the border czar

Cultural relativism does not play a significant role in the conflict between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and border czar Tom Homan. Their dispute primarily centers on immigration enforcement and the rights of migrants in the United States124.

The conflict arose when AOC hosted a “Know Your Rights with ICE” webinar on her Facebook page, advising immigrants on how to handle encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents45. Tom Homan, the border czar, suggested that AOC could be “in trouble” for potentially impeding law enforcement efforts12.

Key points of the conflict

  1. Legal interpretation: Homan argues that AOC’s actions may be crossing a legal line by potentially impeding law enforcement15.

  2. Constitutional rights: AOC defends her actions by referring to the Constitution, implying that she is educating people about their rights4.

  3. Law enforcement vs. immigrant rights: The conflict highlights the tension between strict immigration enforcement and protecting the rights of immigrants57.

While cultural relativism is an important concept in anthropology and social sciences, it is not directly relevant to this specific conflict between AOC and the border czar. Their disagreement is primarily rooted in differing interpretations of law, constitutional rights, and the role of government in immigration enforcement.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/cultural-relativism-plays-an-i-7eyPj4AHRVOvRFIpqGLvpw

it is naive to overlook the role cultural relativism plays in the conflict between aoc and the border czar

The conflict between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Tom Homan, the former “border czar,” indeed highlights the role of cultural relativism in shaping immigration policy debates. Cultural relativism, which posits that ethical and social standards reflect the cultural context from which they are derived1, plays a significant part in this disagreement.

AOC’s actions in hosting a webinar on migrants’ rights3 and her defense of these actions reflect a more culturally relativistic approach. She appears to view the rights of migrants through the lens of their own cultural contexts and experiences, emphasizing the importance of understanding and protecting these rights regardless of their immigration status.

On the other hand, Homan’s reaction, suggesting that AOC’s actions might be impeding law enforcement6, demonstrates a more ethnocentric viewpoint. This perspective prioritizes the enforcement of existing laws and borders over considerations of diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences of migrants.

The tension between these two viewpoints illustrates the broader debate in immigration policy. Cultural relativists typically view rapid multicultural change as a marker of societal progress, while those with a more ethnocentric perspective may see it as a threat to national stability and established norms2.

This conflict also reflects the challenge of balancing cultural relativism with national security and legal concerns. While cultural relativism promotes understanding and tolerance of diverse practices and beliefs, it can sometimes clash with the need for consistent law enforcement and border control policies.

In essence, the AOC-Homan conflict encapsulates the ongoing struggle in many societies to reconcile cultural relativism with national identity, security concerns, and legal frameworks in the context of immigration policy.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/it-is-naive-to-overlook-the-ro-GSO4Y54LT9eJkREPLqRX0A

marginalization and ethnocentrism is at the center of the dispute between aoc and the border czar

The dispute between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Tom Homan, the “border czar,” indeed reflects underlying issues of marginalization and ethnocentrism in the immigration debate.

AOC hosted a “Know Your Rights with ICE” webinar to inform immigrants about their rights when dealing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)49. This action demonstrates her efforts to empower and protect marginalized immigrant communities.

In response, Homan suggested that AOC could face legal trouble for potentially impeding law enforcement efforts14. His reaction highlights a perspective that prioritizes strict enforcement of immigration laws over the rights and well-being of immigrant communities.

This clash represents a broader conflict between two opposing views:

  1. A perspective that seeks to protect and inform immigrants, recognizing their vulnerability and rights.

  2. A view that emphasizes strict enforcement and potential criminalization of undocumented immigrants.

The criminalization of immigration has led to the spread of economic, social, and political violence against undocumented immigrants5. This approach often stems from ethnocentric attitudes and xenophobic rhetoric, which can have profoundly negative consequences for the lives of undocumented immigrants5.

The dispute between AOC and Homan reflects a deeper societal tension regarding the treatment of immigrants and the balance between law enforcement and human rights. It underscores the ongoing challenges in addressing marginalization and ethnocentrism in immigration policy and enforcement.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/marginalization-and-ethnocentr-.lMsuUY_SuaIjM_oAibJ0w

(End Perplexity-AI)

Notes

     The initial response from synthetic intelligence was to downplay the role cultural relativism plays in the ongoing debate over constitutional rights and national security. Rewriting the query with “it is naive to overlook…,” AI retreats a bit from previous results and processes the new statement from a different vanishing point on the human cognitive horizon line. It is important to understand that a machine can learn to reinterpret the same information query from a different light, providing it with an opportunity to gain valuable knowledge.

     In the same sense, it follows a path of intuitive calculus when solving a problem, where substitution of certain values into one variable might provide a different result than using the same process in another variable. The same equation can draw different approaches to the same answer. What AI has done has shown cultural relativism didn’t matter at first, the “coefficient” didn’t appear to be relevant to the variable. In fact, it is extremely valuable.

(Summary: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/franz-boas-on-cultural-relativ-P2.GcSVwSFCMaPJWMszS.w)

Afterword

     The variables are interpretations of the constitution when employed into an equation with national security, depending on the text of the litigation, the indictment, the claims. In order to warrant the claims, evidence is required. Did AOC, in fact, break the law? Written one way, possibly, written another, not. According to the social media peanut gallery, guilty without a trial. 

     Voices of the sociologists and anthropologists are yet to be heard. In a court of law, the defense would employ ethos and pathos to prove AOC’s actions in presenting the webinar was, is justified. It would be up to the peanut galley to decide on the merits of logos.

Filed Under: anthropology, critical theory, cultural relativism, ethnocentrism, immigration, marginalization, multiculturalism Tagged With: anthropology, cultural relativism, ethnocentrism, evolution, marginalization, sociology

Department of Education: DEI, Critical Theory and Desegregation

February 16, 2025 by James L'Angelle Leave a Comment

Liberty Bell Visitor Guide | The Constitutional Walking Tour of PhiladelphiaIntroduction

     Yet another ambitious plan that makes great headlines but has little merit is the White House suggestion to abolish, dissolve, dismantle the Federal Department of Education. It’s not only connected to the campaign to dislodge diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from the curriculum, but is directed at critical theory, which has recently created its own critical theory through ignorance not just of content, but intent as well. 

This report will address the basics of the plan without making too many judgements on the intent but will reveal a rather shadowy attempt to undermine the reasons the department is here in the first place, one of which is civil rights. It will begin with the Denver Public School System’s lawsuit to protect classrooms from raids by immigration sweeps.

(Image credit: Liberty Bell Visitor Guide | The Constitutional Walking Tour of Philadelphia)

Methodology

     The same format as previous will be used: a.] a social media post where applicable (not included here); b.] Capsules containing the artificial intelligence query enclosed in (Begin Perplexity) and (End Perplexity-A) with the link included; c.] Notes to evaluate, clarify, refute, confirm and determine the authorial intent of the AI; d.] Congressional Record; e.] Media related to the recovery process contained in the narrative.

Capsules

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

denver public schools lawsuit against dhs

Denver Public Schools (DPS) filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on February 13, 2025, challenging the Trump administration’s new policy allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to conduct operations in schools123. This lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind from a school system against this policy1.

The lawsuit aims to:

  1. Undo the Trump administration’s January 21, 2025 decision to allow immigration enforcement actions at “sensitive” locations, including schools1.

  2. Obtain a temporary restraining order to prohibit ICE and Customs and Border Protection from enforcing the policy15.

Key points of the lawsuit:

  • DPS argues that the policy has forced schools to divert vital educational resources and caused attendance to plummet23.

  • The district claims that school attendance has dropped “noticeably” across all schools, particularly in those with “new-to-country families and where ICE raids have already occurred”1.

  • DPS alleges that the policy is hindering its ability to provide education and life services to children who aren’t attending school out of fear13.

  • The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration hasn’t provided a “good reason” for rescinding the previous rules or adequately considered the fallout2.

DPS, which serves over 90,000 students, including approximately 4,000 immigrants, has had to invest considerable time and resources in establishing protocols to safeguard students and training staff to handle potential immigration enforcement situations34.

The lawsuit also requests that DHS publish the directive publicly, as the lack of access to this information has impeded the district’s ability to prepare for the policy shift24.

This legal action comes amid other challenges to the policy, including lawsuits filed by religious groups alleging infringement upon their congregations’ religious freedoms1

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/denver-public-schools-lawsuit-4otcWzSjSI.zDIVf.kcITQ

why does the white house want to abolish the department of education

The White House, under President Donald Trump, wants to abolish the Department of Education for several reasons:

  1. To combat perceived “wokeness”: Trump and his supporters argue that the department promotes a “radical woke agenda” that prioritizes identity politics over conservative viewpoints39. They specifically target:

    • Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives

    • Critical race theory

    • Policies supporting transgender students’ rights

  2. To reduce federal government size and spending: Abolishing the department aligns with the conservative goal of shrinking the federal government’s role in education35.

  3. To promote school choice: Trump supporters advocate for expanding options for families to choose between public, private, or religious schools49.

  4. To transfer control to states and local school boards: The administration believes that education decisions should be made at the state and local levels rather than by the federal government45.

  5. To address perceived ineffectiveness: Some conservatives argue that the Department of Education is an ineffective bureaucracy that has not improved educational outcomes since its creation5.

It’s important to note that while Trump has expressed his intention to abolish the department, he cannot do so unilaterally. Eliminating a federal agency requires an act of Congress, which would likely face significant opposition158

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/why-does-the-white-house-want-WY1UOlGESECii8OyzjGAWw

what were past reasons for abolishing department of education

Past reasons for abolishing the Department of Education have been varied and persistent since its creation. These reasons include:

  1. Fiscal concerns: Critics argued that the department was too expensive and unnecessary15.

  2. Constitutional objections: Some viewed the department as an unconstitutional use of federal authority, believing education should be managed at the state level15.

  3. Size and scope: Opponents claimed the department was too big and represented excessive federal involvement in education1.

  4. Ideological opposition: In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan saw federal involvement in education as an engine of affirmative action and opposed what he called “forced busing” to achieve racial integration in schools1.

  5. States’ rights: There was a belief that education should be primarily controlled by individual states rather than the federal government5.

  6. Efficiency: Some argued that the department’s functions could be more effectively managed by other agencies or state governments2.

  7. Historical precedent: The first iteration of the Department of Education, created in 1867, was demoted to an office within a year due to similar concerns about federal control over education1.

  8. Political ideology: Abolishing the department has been part of conservative Republican orthodoxy since 1980, when Ronald Reagan campaigned on the promise to close it1.

These reasons have persisted over time, with current efforts to dismantle the department often echoing similar arguments from the past125

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-were-past-reasons-for-abo-2BofOfTbSWu1kymEgjISgQ

department of education role in segregation

The Department of Education, particularly through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), plays a significant role in addressing and combating segregation in schools. The OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age in educational institutions2.

Historically, the federal government has been instrumental in promoting school integration:

  1. Following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, the federal government worked to implement desegregation38.

  2. In the 1960s and 1970s, the OCR filed hundreds of administrative proceedings against segregated school districts and cut off funding to schools that failed to comply with desegregation orders2.

  3. The Department of Education has issued guidance to help districts achieve diversity and avoid racial isolation in ways consistent with existing law1.

However, in recent decades, the federal government’s efforts to integrate schools have faced challenges:

  1. Legal restrictions have hampered integration efforts, leading to a tripling of intensely concentrated minority schools over the past 30 years2.

  2. Only 8% of OCR’s substantive resolutions since 2013 have addressed racial discrimination, indicating a shift in focus2.

To address ongoing segregation issues, experts suggest that the Department of Education should:

  1. Collaborate with other federal and state agencies to establish technical assistance teams and grant programs designed to reduce racial segregation and close opportunity gaps2.

  2. Work with Congress to explore legal avenues to increase the ability of the Departments of Education and Justice to eliminate racial segregation and race-based educational disparities2.

  3. Continue to enforce civil rights laws and provide guidance to schools on how to promote diversity and avoid racial isolation within the bounds of current law1

  4. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/department-of-education-role-i-3MSwzpFSSWemiqseOSblZQ

chances abolishing dept of education would pass congress

The chances of abolishing the Department of Education passing Congress are currently low. Several factors contribute to this assessment:

  1. Lack of sufficient votes: To pass in the Senate, a bill would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster1. This means at least seven Democrats would need to support the bill, which is considered highly unlikely15.

  2. Previous failed attempts: A vote last year to abolish the education department failed to pass, with 60 Republicans joining all Democrats in opposing it5.

  3. Bipartisan support for the department: Many parents, especially in rural Republican-dominated areas, have historically supported the Education Department, influencing representatives’ decisions4.

  4. Complexity of the process: Dismantling the Department of Education would be a complex process involving significant legal, political, and practical challenges3. Many of the department’s offices were established by statute and can only be eliminated through an act of Congress1.

  5. Republican skepticism: Some Republican lawmakers may oppose the department’s dissolution, as it would prevent them from pursuing certain objectives, such as implementing a deregulatory agenda7.

While the idea of abolishing the Department of Education has gained traction with the Trump administration, the legislative hurdles and lack of broad support make it unlikely to pass Congress in the near future46

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/chances-abolishing-dept-of-edu-PZq9kcQbRsWQHBRrhnyRaQ

abolishing the department of education is a taliban style ideology

The comparison between abolishing the U.S. Department of Education and Taliban-style ideology is inaccurate and misleading. While there are calls to eliminate the Department of Education in the United States, the motivations and potential outcomes are fundamentally different from the Taliban’s approach to education in Afghanistan.

In the U.S., proposals to abolish the Department of Education are primarily driven by political and ideological disagreements over the federal government’s role in education47. Supporters argue for transferring authority back to individual states and reducing federal involvement in educational matters4. This does not equate to eliminating education or imposing a single ideological viewpoint.

In contrast, the Taliban’s approach to education in Afghanistan involves:

  1. Banning girls from attending high school5

  2. Imposing gender segregation and strict dress codes5

  3. Removing subjects like art, civil education, and culture2

  4. Eliminating content on human rights, women’s rights, and democracy2

  5. Adding religious material that justifies violence against dissenters2

  6. Converting secular schools into religious madrasahs5

These actions aim to reshape Afghanistan’s education system to align with the Taliban’s extremist religious ideology, severely restricting educational opportunities and content3.

While there are valid debates about the role of the U.S. Department of Education, proposals to abolish it do not seek to eliminate education or impose a single religious ideology. The comparison to Taliban-style ideology is therefore unfounded and mischaracterizes the nature of the debate in the United States.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/abolishing-the-department-of-e-AaXIb2rgQBmiSz0HK_4QMA

create a scenario where abolishing the department of education could lead to a taliban like culture

The abolition of the U.S. Department of Education could potentially lead to a scenario with some similarities to the Taliban’s approach to education, though it’s important to note that the contexts are vastly different. Here’s a hypothetical scenario:

Decentralization and Ideological Difference

With the Department of Education dismantled, education policy would be fully decentralized to state and local levels13. In some regions, this could lead to:

  1. Increased religious influence in curriculum design, similar to the Taliban’s emphasis on religious education2.

  2. Removal of subjects like art, civil education, and culture from curricula2.

  3. Elimination of content related to human rights, women’s rights, and democracy2.

Erosion of Civil Rights Protections

The dissolution of the Office for Civil Rights could weaken protections against discrimination:

  1. Reduced oversight on issues of race, gender, and disability in schools35.

  2. Potential for increased gender segregation in education, echoing Taliban policies24.

Funding and Access Issues

The loss of federal oversight and funding could result in:

  1. Significant reduction in resources for low-income students and those with disabilities35.

  2. Potential closure of schools in underserved areas, limiting access to education13.

Curriculum changes

Some areas might implement curriculum changes reminiscent of Taliban policies:

  1. Increased focus on religious studies at the expense of other subjects2.

  2. Removal of images of living beings from textbooks2.

  3. Introduction of content that aligns with specific ideological views2.

While this scenario is extreme and unlikely in the U.S. context, it illustrates how the absence of federal oversight in education could potentially lead to localized policies that restrict educational content and access, particularly for vulnerable populations35

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/create-a-scenario-where-abolis-yA_aorJySi.muE2E9oGy.Q

(End Perplexity-AI)

Notes

     Any number of scenarios might result in dissolving the Department of Education and many of the states with individual agendas would readily welcome the opportunity. That’s exactly the reason the system needs to remain in place. 

     (Summary: Franz Boas, https://www.perplexity.ai/search/franz-boas-on-the-importance-o-mqXWQ5jXSdO7DUgQ193uyg)

Afterword

     In fact, the very objective of dissolution of the Department of Education, under the guise of DEI gone wild, is multiculturalism, the outdated and dangerous concept of American exceptionalism, the very reason the pilgrims were shipped out of England in the mid-1600s.

     It’s also a shock that sociologists and anthropologists have sounded the bugle on this absurd possibility, cultures thrive on diversity and has been a mainstay of freedom in the democratic world. When schools are separated according to individual agendas, a high school graduate from Colorado who might want to attend UC would be rejected because of lack of acceptable credits to transfer.

     Still, the bottom line is segregation, the objective of the ruling class, where class structure is what it’s all about. That can’t happen with diversity.

Filed Under: anthropology, critical theory, department of education, diversity equity inclusion, immigration, inclusion, multiculturalism Tagged With: anthropology, critical theory, cultural relativism, dei, department of education, franz boas, multiculturalism

Primary Sidebar

Footer

Copyright © 2025 · eleven40 Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in