Borderlands

multiculturalism

Title IX: Genderism, Language Ideology and Swimming to UPenn

by Leave a Comment

Title IX was signed into law by Richard Nixon 45 years ago today - ImgurIntroduction

     Blame Tricky Dick for yet another controversy that would outlive the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia and Watergate, the signing into law of the now controversial “Title IX.”

     With it allows men into women’s sports, but an even more far-reaching consequence, the spread of genderism.

 (Image credit: https://imgur.com/gallery/title-ix-was-signed-into-law-by-richard-nixon-45-years-ago-today-g5i4y)

Capsules

     The initial methodology is to employ synthetic intelligence (AI) with a string of search queries to provide not just a background to the equal opportunity in education law, but it’s possible connection to genderism.

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

define genderism

Genderism can be defined in several ways depending on the context:

  1. Binary Gender Belief: It often refers to the ideology that there are only two genders—male and female—and that a person’s gender is inherently tied to their sex assigned at birth. This perspective reinforces the gender binary and can lead to negative attitudes toward gender nonconformity137.

  2. Discrimination Against Non-Binary Individuals: Genderism can also describe discrimination against people who do not identify as exclusively male or female, including non-binary individuals3.

  3. Patriarchal Bias: In some contexts, genderism is used to describe a form of patriarchy that discriminates against femininity, affecting both men and women. This form of genderism is distinct from sexism, as it targets gender roles and expressions rather than biological sex2.

  4. Essentialism and Ideology: Genderism can also relate to gender essentialism, which attributes intrinsic qualities to men and women based on their gender. Additionally, it may be linked to gender ideology, which is often criticized by anti-gender movements35.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/define-genderism-M747SzivTS2nD.sIkGjEuQ
 
language ideology of genderism

Language ideology of genderism refers to the beliefs and attitudes about language use in relation to gender identities and expressions. This ideology is closely intertwined with societal views on gender and can manifest in various ways:

  1. Binary gender assumptions: Genderist language ideology often reinforces a strict male-female binary, neglecting or dismissing non-binary and gender-diverse identities1.

  2. Performativity: Anti-cis-sexist language reform movements focus on linguistic performativity, aiming to unsettle cis-sexist assumptions and render greater gender diversity legible1.

  3. Power dynamics: Genderist language ideology can reflect and reinforce existing power imbalances between genders in society, often privileging masculine forms of expression2.

  4. Socialization: The difference approach suggests that men and women develop distinct communicative styles due to socialization from childhood, resulting in different “sub-cultures” of language use3.

  5. Historical context: The development of gendered language norms is deeply rooted in historical and cultural contexts, often reflecting patriarchal structures4.

  6. Resistance and reform: Feminist and LGBTQ+ movements have challenged genderist language ideologies, advocating for more inclusive and equitable forms of expression13.

  7. Intersectionality: Genderist language ideology intersects with other forms of discrimination, such as racism and classism, creating complex patterns of linguistic marginalization2.

Understanding the language ideology of genderism is crucial for addressing linguistic inequalities and promoting more inclusive communication practices across society.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/language-ideology-of-genderism-3_iP6R3aTKG7YsqFDfiRlw
 
background on title ix.

Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law in the United States that was enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding13. The law consists of a concise 37-word sentence: “No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”3.

Origins and Development

Title IX emerged as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned various forms of discrimination but left a gap regarding sex discrimination in education12. The initial draft was authored by Representatives Patsy Mink and Edith Green, with Senator Birch Bayh introducing it to Congress in 197123.

Key Figures

  • Senator Birch Bayh: Chief Senate sponsor who introduced Title IX in Congress15

  • Representative Patsy Mink: Major author and sponsor of the bill5

  • Representative Edith Green: Held hearings on discrimination against women and introduced legislation in the House15

Legislative Process

  1. Early legislative draft aimed at amending the Civil Rights Act of 19641

  2. Introduced in Congress by Senator Birch Bayh in 19712

  3. Passed by Congress on June 8, 19721

  4. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 197225

Impact and Scope

While Title IX is often associated with sports equity, its original statute made no explicit mention of sports1. The law’s impact extends to various aspects of education, including:

  1. Admissions

  2. Financial aid

  3. Academic programs

  4. Athletics

  5. Sexual harassment and assault prevention17

Title IX has played a crucial role in advancing gender equality in education and has significantly transformed colleges and universities over the past 50 years7.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/background-on-title-ix-S8CNFdjjT5CMSWoXWoWCLA
 
title ix is responsible for the rise of genderism

Title IX, enacted in 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs or activities receiving federal funding. While it was originally designed to promote gender equity in education, its interpretation and application have evolved significantly over time, particularly in relation to gender identity and societal discussions about gender roles.

Key Developments of Title IX:

  1. Original Purpose: Title IX aimed to eliminate sex discrimination in education, addressing inequities in admissions, scholarships, faculty hiring, and athletics. It was a response to broader civil rights movements and sought to ensure women had equal opportunities in education and employment25.

  2. Impact on Women’s Opportunities: Title IX led to significant progress for women, particularly in sports and higher education. For example, it helped increase female participation in athletics and reversed disparities in college enrollment and advanced degrees15.

  3. Expansion to Gender Identity: Over time, Title IX’s scope expanded to include protections against discrimination based on gender identity and failure to conform to traditional gender roles. This shift began under the Obama administration and was later supported by the Biden administration’s executive orders346.

  4. Controversy Over Genderism: Critics argue that Title IX’s reinterpretation has contributed to the rise of “genderism,” or the emphasis on gender identity over biological sex. This includes debates over transgender students’ participation in sports and access to facilities aligned with their gender identity. These issues have sparked legal challenges and political disputes34.

Connection Between Title IX and Genderism:

  • Cultural Shifts: Title IX has been used as a tool to challenge traditional gender roles, promoting a broader understanding of gender beyond biological sex. This aligns with efforts to combat stereotypes and foster inclusivity but has also fueled debates about fairness and societal norms13.

  • Legal Interpretation: The inclusion of gender identity under Title IX has been both celebrated as a step toward equality and criticized as a departure from its original intent46.

In summary, while Title IX was not initially responsible for the rise of “genderism,” its evolving interpretation has played a role in shaping modern discussions about gender identity and equality. This evolution reflects broader societal changes but remains a contentious issue.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/title-ix-is-responsible-for-th-uLOT4QCETNmQ3NCJu_ApmQ

title ix does not protect transgender athletes

The statement “Title IX does not protect transgender athletes” is incorrect. The current legal landscape surrounding Title IX and transgender athletes is complex and evolving, with no definitive ruling that excludes transgender athletes from protection.

Current Legal Status

Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs, does not explicitly exclude or include transgender athletes. Courts have not definitively ruled that Title IX requires the exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports teams1. In fact, some courts have argued that Title IX protects transgender athletes, and there have been strong arguments supporting the inclusion of transgender girls in girls’ sports under Title IX1.

Recent Developments

As of March 2025, the issue remains contentious:

  1. The Biden administration attempted to expand protections for transgender students under Title IX but faced legal challenges1.

  2. The Trump administration issued an executive order in February 2025 attempting to ban transgender athletes from sports, but this order does not override existing state or federal laws2.

  3. A new federal regulation protecting transgender students’ rights has been challenged by Republican states, arguing it would require schools to allow transgender athletes to compete on teams aligning with their gender identity3.

Legal Interpretations

Many legal experts argue that Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination can be read to require that transgender individuals be permitted to fully participate in school athletics4. Courts have routinely rejected arguments that physical differences between sexes justify exclusion of females from otherwise all-male sports teams, and similar logic could apply to transgender athletes4.

In conclusion, while the issue remains controversial and subject to ongoing legal and political debates, it is inaccurate to state that Title IX definitively does not protect transgender athletes. The legal interpretation of Title IX’s application to transgender athletes is still evolving, with many arguments supporting their inclusion under the law’s protections.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/title-ix-does-not-protect-tran-.2WXGYLZSjan9_ruDlIkNw

upenn and title ix investigation

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) is currently facing a Title IX investigation launched by the U.S. Department of Education in February 202534. This investigation was initiated one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports4.

The investigation primarily focuses on UPenn’s decision to allow Lia Thomas, a transgender woman, to compete on the women’s swimming team during the 2021-22 season4. Thomas’s participation led to several achievements, including winning a national championship title in the women’s 500-yard freestyle in 20222.

Key developments in this situation include:

  1. Federal funding pause: The Trump administration has paused $175 million in federal funding to UPenn, citing the university’s inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports12. This funding pause is separate from the ongoing Title IX investigation3.

  2. Lawsuit: Three former UPenn swimmers have filed a lawsuit against the university and other entities, alleging Title IX violations related to Thomas’s participation in women’s competitions4.

  3. Policy changes: Following the announcement of the investigation, UPenn Athletics removed its diversity, equity, and inclusion webpage, including its policy on the inclusion of transgender student-athletes4.

  4. Broader implications: The investigation is part of a larger initiative by the current administration to enforce Title IX protections based on biological sex in educational institutions4.

UPenn has stated that it has always followed NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student participation on athletic teams and remains in full compliance with applicable regulations23. However, the university is now under scrutiny as the investigation unfolds, potentially risking further federal funding if found in violation of Title IX1.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/upenn-and-title-ix-investigati-PSCsmjk6QpmVEr0v26Qv6Q
 

federal discretionary funding over college transgender athletics

The Trump administration has suspended approximately $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) due to its policies regarding transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports123. This action was announced on March 19, 2025, and is separate from an ongoing Title IX investigation by the Department of Education4.

Key Details

  • Funding Sources: The suspended funds come from the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services25.

  • Reason: The administration cited UPenn’s policy allowing transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams, particularly referencing former swimmer Lia Thomas34.

  • University Response: UPenn stated it has not received official notification of the funding suspension and maintains that it has always followed NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student-athlete participation15.

Context

This funding suspension follows a February 2025 executive order by President Trump banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports at the collegiate and K-12 levels1. The action against UPenn is part of a broader trend of the Trump administration targeting higher education funding, with recent cuts also affecting institutions like Columbia University and the University of Maine4.

The controversy centers around Lia Thomas, who in 2022 became the first openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I championship in the women’s 500-yard freestyle1. This event has been at the center of ongoing debates about gender identity and fairness in college athletics.

Implications

This funding suspension highlights the ongoing political and social debate surrounding transgender athletes’ participation in sports. It also demonstrates the federal government’s willingness to use financial leverage to influence university policies on contentious issues5.

 
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/federal-discretionary-funding-6N8dEXejQa2UHPsmXAeROA
 
(End Perplexity-AI)
 
Notes
     The executive order issued by the White House follows.
(Begin Perplexity-AI)
 
“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”

“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” is an executive order (EO 14201) signed by President Donald Trump on February 5, 2025123. This order aims to prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in female sports across all educational levels that receive federal funding23.

Key aspects of the executive order include:

  1. It relies on definitions of “sex,” “male,” and “female” from a previous executive order (EO 14168), which defines these terms based on biological sex at conception1.

  2. The order threatens to rescind federal funding from educational institutions that allow transgender women to compete in women’s sports, claiming such allowances violate Title IX34.

  3. It directs the U.S. Secretary of Education to take actions to protect “all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms” in accordance with Title IX14.

  4. The order prioritizes enforcement actions against institutions that require female students to compete against or appear unclothed before males15.

In response to this executive order:

  • The NCAA revised its participation policy for transgender student-athletes, limiting college competitions in women’s sports to athletes assigned female at birth23.

  • The Department of Education began reviewing athletics policies of universities and athletic associations that supported transgender women’s participation in female sports2.

  • Some state-level organizations, such as the California Interscholastic Federation, stated they would continue to follow state law and allow trans athletes to play high school sports despite the executive order3.

This executive order has sparked debate and legal challenges, with supporters arguing it protects women’s sports and opponents claiming it discriminates against transgender individuals245.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/keeping-men-out-of-womens-spor-zVjowDy2Tsenn_M_7BNmsA

(End Perplexity-AI)

Afterword
     President Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, signed Title IX into law on 23 June 1972.

Department of Education: DEI, Critical Theory and Desegregation

by 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.