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

Borderlands

department of education

Sputnik, Vietnam and the Department of Education

March 23, 2025 by James L'Angelle Leave a Comment

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebInKheSanh

BORDERLANDS

v.25, i. 03.21. khesanh068

Introduction

     The landmark act signed into law by President Carter didn’t exist in a bubble before then. The new bureau had been a part of a larger bureaucracy which was inadequate to serve the needs of the rapidly expanding educational system and its historic achievements in civil rights and minority admissions. Complicated by the need to keep up with the Soviet Union and eventually, with war on the horizon fostering student unrest, Congress set about to split up the bureaucracy and form what came to be known as the Department of Education in 1979.

(Image credit: Khe Sanh Combat Base,

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebInKheSanh)

Capsules

     Background on the creation of the Department of Education can be recovered through synthetic intelligence (AI) search queries.

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

which department was department of education in before it became separate

Before becoming a separate cabinet-level department in 1980, the Department of Education was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)12. The Department of Education Organization Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, split HEW into two separate entities: the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services24. Prior to this, education-related functions were housed in various agencies over time, including the Department of the Interior and the Federal Security Agency24.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-department-was-departmen-po5dU9LdSpq6OTsqCKtouw
 
the launch of sputnik was the principal reason for the creation of the department of education

The launch of Sputnik was not the principal reason for the creation of the Department of Education. While Sputnik’s launch in 1957 had a significant impact on American education, it did not directly lead to the creation of the Department of Education as we know it today.

The Department of Education as a cabinet-level agency was established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter5. Its origins, however, can be traced back much further:

  1. The first Department of Education was actually created in 1867 under President Andrew Johnson, primarily to collect information and statistics about the nation’s schools35.

  2. This original department was demoted to an Office of Education in 1868 due to concerns about federal control over local schools35.

  3. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 did have a significant impact on American education, but it led to different initiatives:

    • It spurred the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958, which increased federal funding for education, especially in science, mathematics, and foreign languages24.

    • The NDEA aimed to improve American schools and promote postsecondary education to meet national security needs and compete with the Soviet Union in science and technology4.

  4. The modern Department of Education was created in 1979, more than two decades after Sputnik, as a result of various political and social factors, including calls for expanded federal funding in education and efforts to help minorities, women, and people with disabilities gain equal access to education15.

In conclusion, while Sputnik’s launch significantly influenced American education policy and funding, it was not the principal reason for creating the Department of Education as a cabinet-level agency. The department’s creation was the result of a long historical process involving various political, social, and educational factors.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-launch-of-sputnik-was-the-0FBfDhotTi61IvwmW9Gy.w

student unrest related to vietnam contributed to the creation of the department of education

The student unrest related to the Vietnam War significantly influenced broader societal changes, including the establishment of new educational initiatives and programs. However, there is no direct evidence linking these protests to the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, which was formally established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter.

Key Connections Between Student Protests and Educational Changes:

  1. Vietnam War Protests and Campus Reforms
    The Vietnam War protests were widespread on college campuses, driven by opposition to the draft and U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. These protests often led universities to accommodate student demands, such as creating ethnic studies programs and other academic fields addressing civil rights and social justice issues48. For example, San Francisco State University established the first ethnic studies department following student strikes4.

  2. Broader Impact on Higher Education
    Universities responded to student activism by integrating more diverse perspectives into curricula, such as African American studies and women’s studies. This reflected a shift toward addressing societal inequalities and accommodating student voices in institutional decision-making8.

  3. Political Backlash and Public Trust
    The Vietnam-era protests undermined public trust in government, especially after revelations about misinformation from the Johnson and Nixon administrations regarding the war39. This erosion of trust contributed to calls for increased accountability in public institutions, including education.

While these developments shaped educational policies and priorities, the Department of Education’s creation was primarily driven by political efforts to centralize federal education policy rather than direct outcomes of Vietnam-era protests.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/student-unrest-related-to-viet-tzm5HD8tRuuZbgMwCbcdmQ

(End Perplexity-AI)
 
     The problem here with AI is that it returns the most convenient query responses. As will be seen below, both Sputnik and Vietnam had much to do with the creation of the department, not necessarily related to any measures or legislation, but to the philosophic perspective on the floor in Congress.
 
Congressional Record

    Speaking on the House floor as recorded in the Congressional Record for 11 June 1969, Rep. JD Waggonner (D-LA) made a prophetic statement under the subtitle “Amending the Higher Education Act of 1965,” which would have consequences for years to come.

(Begin Congressional Record)

     “Education, for example, was confronted in the 1950’s with the challenge of competition from the Russians. The Russians beat us to the punch because of a different emphasis, and launched the first manmade satellite on the top of Sputnik I. People became alarmed all over this country and started asking questions. What permitted the Russians to do something we could not do?”

     (In consideration for an amendment to the Higher Education Act, the need to counter campus unrest was the priority. Waggonner, in a previous paragraph, stated.)

    “They say it is surprising that this anarchy exists. I do not know where the administrators of these colleges and universities have been in recent years when they now express surprise at the crisis which exists on the campuses of our country. I said at least 50 times during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 that the tragedy of that crisis would not be that we had a confrontation with the Russians because they placed intercontinental ballistic missiles on Cuban soil, but that the long road of history would allow us to point a finger at that moment of crisis and identify it as the beginning of a movement which would prove tragic to education in this country.” 

     “In October 1965 I asked this Congress by resolution to investigate the Students for a Democratic Society. Few then were aware of who these people were and what they were attempting to do. They said then, as they have said in even more definite terms since then, that they were going to destroy education in this country.”

(Congressional Record, https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1969/06/11/115/house-section/article/15409-15466, page 15440)

(End Congressional Record)

Notes

     The details of the battle are included in the 9th Marines command chronology located at Records of War.

     The congressperson called out college students for, “they said in no uncertain way they were on the other side.”

     But it wasn’t the Russians the students were rallying against; it was the war in Vietnam. The prospect of atomic bombs raining down on the campus from Cuba was science fiction compared to KheSanh, being pulled from the college classroom or from the protest out on the quad and fitted into an army uniform to be shipped out to the DMZ. 

     Who was behind the “anarchy” on campus? Rep. Waggonner disagreed with those who blamed outside agitators, stating, “—the anarchy which prevails on these campuses is not being brought to these campuses but is being taught on these campuses by some.”

     Thus, the seeds were sown, even after an already tumultuous decade with desegregation and “racial balance” the priority for the federal government, to reign in protests, and those on, or off, campus who promoted it. The need for a more centralized bureau of education, with a direct voice to the White House, gradually evolved from a rather innocuous, but incredibly historic, event related to education. Sputnik.

Vietnam

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

vietnam october 1965

     “On October 3, 1965, Company M, 3d Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment suffered a devastating ambush by Viet Cong fighters in Quang Nam Province. The eight-hour firefight resulted in 13 Marine casualties, one of the costliest days for U.S. forces at that point in the war.”

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/vietnam-october-1965-XGpF6490S0iSZ0Bqn1BaaA

(End Perplexity-AI)

 

     The 9th Marines had barely been in country 6 months when the 03 October ambush cited in Records of War occurred. Third battalion relocated its CP to Duong son (2) (AT992678), just below the Song Cau Do River to the south of Danang that would earn a dual name of “Rocket Belt,” and “Dodge City;” the first due to where the VC set up rockets to hit the airfield, the second rather obvious. Duong son (2) was flanked by Cam Ne to the north and just below the river and Le Son to the south; each had a number of villages, all designated in parentheses. Under subheading g.) Civilian Affairs, on page 10, the chronology reported.

     Details of the 03 October ambush are found in a 2-page after action report at the command chronology. 

(Begin Records of War)

     “It has been 4 months since the VC had de facto control of the area which encompasses the 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines TAOR.”

     5.) Lessons learned a.) Even though and area has been searched it can never be assumed that the area is definitely cleared of the enemy, and b.) The basic tactical principals of patrolling (…, security to the front, flanks and rear) must at all times be adhered to when on patrol. 

(End Records of War)

     Those “principals” would be the hallmark of the United States’ long and bitterly contested campaign, both on the battlefield and “Back in the World’ (as the soldiers called America) of desegregation and student unrest on campus, that would pave the way for the creation of the Department of Education, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Student Unrest

     Even before the Company M, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines were ambushed south of the Song Cau Do on 03 October 1965, campus unrest was beginning to be extracurricular. On the floor of the Senate on 26 April, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) was keen to notice the rising tide on campus.

(Begin Congressional Record)

     “Laying stress on teaching in American colleges, the New York University Alumni News of April features an article by Dr. Floyd Zulli, Jr., professor of romance languages at NYU.”

    Below are excerpts of the article the Senator has the article submitted for the record.

From the New York University Alumni News, April 1965) ZULLI DEMANDS REVIVAL OF TEACHING CONCEPT IN AMERICAN COLLEGES (By Floyd Zulli, Jr., professor of romance languages, New York University)

     “In the last 10 years, the jargon and theory of education have been notably enriched by such innovations as programed learning, new mathematics, educational television, language laboratories, data systems, computers, and countless other boons to civilization invented by IBM or Remington Rand to assure us that we are living in the space and lunar age. But the fact that Johnny still can’t read and often has difficulty writing, and that millions of Johnnies are floundering in colleges or about to storm their portals leaves the present-day teacher uneasy, to say the least…

     “Ever since Sputnik I soared into the empyrean and the less-than-literary expression, ‘population explosion,’ was coined, the groves of academe have not been the same. Reason, calm, moderation and measure, once the hallmarks of the cultivated man, are hardly anywhere apparent.”

     “Much of the student unrest on today’s college campus is owing not to the fact that the social consciousness of this generation’s youth glistens any more brilliantly than that of its father’s. It comes about largely because students are unmotivated in their studies and find the experience of a college education dull, impersonal, repetitive, or simply a mechanized rat race. The major responsibility for ameliorating this unhappy situation rests with the teacher.”

(Congressional Record: https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1965/04/26/111/senate-section/article/8393-8503 ) Page 8425.

     Once again, the theory that the Russian launch of Sputnik into orbit is credited for the apparent lost-in-space Oort cloud covering youth. 

     The fact that student unrest was beginning to surface at all was a striking observation by Zulli, and even more so brought to the attention of Congress long before it peaked during the protests of 1968. Eight pages later, Senator Wayne Morse (D-OR), who had already become an anti-war activist, submitted for the record.

(Begin Congressional Record)

      “I ask unanimous consent that the brilliant argument and speech made by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] at the Students for a Democratic Society rally held in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 1965, at the Sylvan Theater be printed at this point in my remarks.”

     Senator Ernest Gruening (D-AK) voted along with Senator Morse against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August 1964. 

     “I was unable to vote for the resolution sent to the Congress by the White House last August, approving not only of what had been done by the administration in Vietnam, but authorizing the President to use our Armed Forces as he saw fit anywhere in southeast Asia. Only two of us in the Congress voted against this resolution. My distinguished colleague, Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, who was the other Member of the Senate to vote against this resolution, has repeatedly pointed out that we are conducting war in Vietnam in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Despite congressional ratification of the resolution, there has been no declaration of war by Congress as the Constitution provides. Of course, there should not be such a declaration, but neither should we be carrying on a war as we are doing.”

(End Congressional Record)

     Senator Gruening made other appearances along with other notables to fan the flames of the antiwar movement, which had already been sparked across the nation. One of the unintended consequences would be the restriction of funding for colleges and universities that allowed students, organizations such as the SDS, and outside agitator counterparts to begin the burning down of the institutions of higher learning in the United States. All of this because of Sputnik.

HR 11941

    The 11 June 1969 House Congressional Record included headings such as “Pending Legislation Relating to Campus Difficulties,” (page 15427) On page 15456, one of the more lucid descriptions on why there was campus unrest was presented by Rep. John Brademas (D-IN).

(Begin Congressional Record)

     “For convenience, however, it might be possible to divide the causes into three chief kinds. 

     First, I believe there is a small, but nonetheless highly significant group of revolutionary extremists on our campuses who wish to destroy the university, not to elevate it and improve its quality. With this group and with the violent tactics that some of them are willing to employ, I have absolutely no sympathy; the criminal law should be enforced when they break the law-as with any other citizen. 

     But, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be a great mistake to assert that the existence of this group is the only cause of disorders on the campus. 

     A second explanation for some of the troubles is criticism by students on the way the college or university is run. I refer here to complaints about curriculum, defense-related research, the impersonality of faculty-student relations, the roles of students, faculty, and trustees in the governing processes of the institution, the relationship between the university and the community of which it is a part, and similar dissatisfactions. Whether one agrees with a particular criticism in any given instance is another matter. All I am saying here is that criticisms of this kind are one of the principal sources of some of the student disorders. 

     A third major cause of student unrest is the entire spectrum of problems within the wider American society-the war in Vietnam, the draft, racial discrimination, poverty, and the feeling on the part of many students that too many Americans are more concerned with material gain than with making real the dreams of our Founding Fathers.”

(End Congressional Record)

Notes

   The debate went on, in and out of the House and Senate, with various pieces of legislation designed to curb unrest, address poverty, marginalization, civil rights and disability as reason not to allow students to be given equal opportunity in education.

Afterword

     From low earth orbit to the rice paddies in Quan Nam Province, the seeds had been sown for the creation of a separate branch of government dedicated to education. Twenty-two years passed between the orbit of Sputnik and the official act of creation of the Department of Education on 17 October 1979; it was eleven years after the siege of Khe Sanh, a singular defining point in the Southeast Asia war that would bring the Marines Back to the World.

 

     

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Asia, china, department of education, health and human services, khe sanh, marginalization, president nixon, russia, sputnik, vietnam Tagged With: civil rights act, department of education, khe sanh, President Carter, President Johnson, sputnik, student unrest, vietnam

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 © 2026 · eleven40 Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in