“Hi, My name is Shaun and I’m a Girl Dad,” no laughter, “I usually kill with that line at home,” polite laughter. The punch line to my go-to dad-joke at least broke some ice. This was my opening statement at the December 2021 Oakwood School Board of Education (BOE) meeting. That meeting was the first after the highly emotional November 2021 school board election. An election that deeply divided the community on district issues. An election that saw record voter turnout. An election whose emotion could still be felt at that BOE meeting.
As a concerned Oakwood parent, I was one of a handful of people who requested floor time before the board after that election. My message was intended to help bring people together against the sharp contrasts our community had lived through the last 6 months. It was in part to also serve as a humble request to incoming board members to represent all members of the community, not only their voting constituents.
To the credit of the board in the months following, several board members met with the Oakwood Strong Schools group, listening and responding to comments, concerns, and questions. I really appreciated that. It wasn’t perfect, because nothing is, but their willingness to take time meant a lot to all of those who were there. Addressing key issues is still a work in progress. Do I think the work is done or the district is running the way every parent would like? No. Does it have to? No, but my feeling is the district should run in a way that is fair to all community members and gives equal consideration to those ideas in district policy. I believe we are closer to that standard than before the 2020 school year.
In part, I credit the encouragement that we feel to our former School Board President, Mr. Todd Duwell. Todd served the district for a decade from 2012-2022 and was a part of the leadership team that kept Oakwood as an academic standard bearer for the Miami Valley during that time. One key accomplishment that he helped foster was opening the school board to the public, allowing parents and community members more access to the workings of the district. Todd took the time to meet with me, connect, understand our concerns better and help foster larger discussions.
This access allows parents like me to listen and engage on important district issues. I am appreciative of that. I am also appreciative of the service Todd gave to his neighbors. Our BOE members are not highly compensated, nor are they provided with high profile benefits. They are, however, citizens like you and me who have day jobs, families, and old homes to upkeep. They do influence policy but do not oversee every single action of the Superintendent, Principals, Teachers, support staff, or students. They are part of our school system. They are people who care about our kids and our schools, the heart of our community. As such, when you have an opportunity to interact with a BOE member, think of them as your neighbor, giving time and service with the intent to genuinely help.
With Todd’s retirement on 31 Dec 2022, we welcome Debbie DiLorenzo to the board. From what I know she is a long-time community member. I look forward to partnering with her and other members in 2023 and beyond. As you enter the new year, please join me in supporting our new school board by staying engaged. Find a board member to connect with, contact your school’s administrator, engage with your child or grandchild’s teachers. Of course, share your concerns, ask questions, and respectfully challenge what doesn’t seem fair, but also learn. Do your best to understand the circumstances and processes of the business of our schools. Finally, ask if there are needs that you can meet as a citizen. That’s the strength of Oakwood, not just our use of the system, but our contributions to the system, that, in my opinion, is what makes Oakwood unique. That is how we can continue to bring our community together, find common ground on key issues, and create unique solutions that serve everyone. I’m optimistic about the future and the relationship we can cultivate.
Recently, a student club titled SPIDEE (Students Promoting Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity through Education) began operating at Oakwood High School. While SPIDEE is portrayed to students and the public as a “student run” club, the club, its concept, its contact person for students, its curriculum, the initial running and organization of its student meetings, and then the supervision and logistics of those meetings are all the work of an outside activist organization that created it: the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ). In SPIDEE meetings, NCCJ staff work directly with and train OHS students, who then present SPIDEE’s curriculum to sixth graders in Harman and Smith schools. NCCJ and SPIDEE students have asserted the club’s purpose is to promote ostensibly respectable objectives of fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion and opposing bias and bullying. If that is the club’s sole purpose and function, then it should be wholeheartedly welcomed. However, a review of NCCJ’s publications and public workshops reveals the organization advances radical and controversial Critical Race Theory (CRT)-oriented and other social and political agendas similar to those used in “student run” groups across the country that are run by other activist groups such as the GSA Network.
These agendas include: teachings of ubiquitous white supremacy and systemic racism; lumping individuals into “privileged” or “oppressed” categories and effectively judging them based on their demographics such as race, sex, income, and even religion; advancing controversial sexual and gender-related agendas; and promoting the BLM organization and key CRT figures such as Ibram X. Kendi and Kimberlé Crenshaw. In short, they are more akin to political and social indoctrination than genuine attempts to reduce bias, prejudice, and bullying. Further, they display characteristics of DEI programs that studies have shown to fail rather than those that have been shown to succeed in achieving their stated purposes. But is that also what SPIDEE teaches? At this point, it is unclear, since NCCJ’s website on the SPIDEE program gives no meaningful, specific information about SPIDEE’s curriculum or teachings and NCCJ staff have repeatedly failed to honor, or have outright ignored, repeated requests by multiple Oakwood school student parents and residents to disclose SPIDEE’s curriculum and program materials.
Please peruse the article below for more details, and pay close attention to what NCCJ publishes and appears to promote on its web pages and public seminars. Many web pages promote key CRT figures and teach us to judge individuals based on race, sex, or religion as being privileged beneficiaries who enjoy unearned benefits at others’ expense. At the time of this writing, there is an upcoming free, public seminar on “The Role of the White Accomplice” (click HERE to register) that will surely cover these concepts. Note their similarity to the contents of the GSA Network’s publications and actual student club materials (not to mention their similarity to certain professional development materials presented to Oakwood school personnel). Then ask yourself: Is this what we want to teach our children to believe? If this is what SPIDEE teaches, would it really achieve NCCJ’s and SPIDEE’s purported goals of reducing bias, division, discrimination, and bullying, or would it do the opposite by actually inciting and spreading more of it, and would it in fact amount to controversial political and social indoctrination?
If you share our concerns and desire for more transparency and disclosure about the SPIDEE program, please see the CALL TO ACTION section below for the NCCJ contact information to inquire about SPIDEE, and for questions that should be asked of NCCJ and the Oakwood school administration. If you aren’t doing so already, please follow our Oakwood Community for Strong Schools (OCSS) website and Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/oakwoodstrongschools) for information and updates about this and other topics impacting our treasured school system and community, and sign up here for regular email updates.
Last May, parents observed the following poster throughout the halls of Oakwood High School, inviting students to join a “student run” organization titled SPIDEE (Students Promoting Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity through Education):
SPIDEE Flyer at OHS in May 2022
The representation of the organization as “student run”, however, is misleading at best. The email address that the poster provides for students to contact and get involved in the club isn’t the address of a student or even a staff member of Oakwood schools, but an outside adult who works for the Dayton chapter of a nationwide activist organization called NCCJ, the National Conference for Community and Justice. Interestingly, the poster doesn’t make clear to students who the contact person is or her role as an outside activist. Furthermore, it is clear from NCCJ’s website (https://nccjgreaterdayton.org/spidee/) and the presentation NCCJ and some students gave to the Oakwood Board of Education during its August 2022 meeting (see here starting at 3:18) that NCCJ, not students, designed and operates the SPIDEE program and concept, designed its curriculum and instructional materials, organizes and runs the initial regular program meetings with students, and only then transfers the running of those regular student meetings in Oakwood High School, with NCCJ staff then continuing to handle the “logistics” of those meetings and sit in on them to provide ongoing advice and coaching. A SPIDEE club member nevertheless repeated the representation that the club is “student run” during the presentation to the Board of Education, while mentioning that NCCJ staffers had been running the meetings, which had been “more student run” only over the previous couple of months.
Based on remarks from an NCCJ staffer, Lake Miller, during the Board of Education meeting, those trained high school students then give presentations to sixth graders in Harman and Smith schools to promote the SPIDEE program, which they plan to do three times this year, and it serves as preparation for them to get involved in SPIDEE once they reach ninth grade, or to get involved in other NCCJ programs such as “Agents of Change.” He noted there are discussions about possibly expanding SPIDEE’s role at the middle school level as well, and that SPIDEE-trained high school students can get involved in running “Change at the Middle,” an NCCJ program for middle school students currently operated in other school districts.
Given the obvious role NCCJ plays in the design and operation of SPIDEE, one must ask, how did this “student run” club come to operate in the Oakwood school system? Was it at the organic request of students, or was it initiated by outreach from NCCJ or other outside organizations, and/or Oakwood school administrators or staff?
What Does the SPIDEE Program Teach to Students?
NCCJ’s SPIDEE webpage states that its lessons “focus on diversity and inclusion, the danger of stereotypes, and the value of differences”, and its programs are “designed to promote anti-bullying behaviors and positive-decision-making in the lives of the students served.” In its presentation to the Board, NCCJ presented itself as a “diversity, equity, and inclusion nonprofit dedicated to eliminating bias, bigotry, and all forms of discrimination”. A SPIDEE club member then asserted that the SPIDEE curriculum for Oakwood schools was made to be “special so that it could really touch on the heavy subjects that we think are really important and that can make Oakwood a better community and make everybody feel more accepted and included”.
If the SPIDEE program is simply focused on teaching students to foster an inclusive environment that eschews and works to eliminate bias, prejudice, and bullying while leading students to treat each other with equal respect and dignity without regard to demographic differences, then the program should be welcomed as a valuable addition to the Oakwood school system and community for so long as it adheres to those laudable aims and does not incorporate divisive or the controversial teachings such as those discussed below. It is possible that is the case.
At this point, however, it is unclear what the SPIDEE program actually teaches or presents to students. NCCJ’s SPIDEE webpage provides only scant and very general information about what the program actually teaches. Moreover, multiple Oakwood residents and parents of students in the school system have reached out to NCCJ via the “REACH OUT TO US TO LEARN MORE” portion of its SPIDEE web page to inquire about the program, and while they initially received a prompt and enthusiastic reply from the same NCCJ staffer whose email address appears on the above poster, or from other NCCJ staff, as soon as those residents and parents then asked for copies of the SPIDEE program and curriculum materials, they received no further answer, even in response to follow-up requests.
Why We Are Concerned
In addition to NCCJ’s failure to respond to multiple requests for the SPIDEE instructional and program materials, there are compelling grounds for concern about the scope of the program’s advocacy; specifically, that it may extend beyond the noble purposes described above and into highly controversial, divisive, and even radical political and social activism that even contradicts the stated purposes of the program and of NCCJ that are represented on its website and its presentation to the Board of Education.
Contact Person for the SPIDEE Program
The first cause for concern was an initial review of the undisclosed SPIDEE contact person whose email address appears on the above poster displayed throughout OHS, and who is also one of the two NCCJ staff members who has been running and then coaching the SPIDEE meetings. A review of her social media postings included, among various left-wing political content, a pair of posts made just days after the outbreak of deadly and destructive riots following George Floyd’s death: one post voicing support for the Black Lives Matter movement whose name, slogans and logos were displayed by many of those who perpetrated the riots without any condemnation from the BLM organization; and, most troubling, a post that was clearly intended to defend the riots by likening them to other “riots that created change”, such as the American Revolution, and even the Marxist revolutions in Russia, Cuba, and South America:
SPIDEE Contact Facebook Post
SPIDEE Contact Facebook Post
Just five days after her above posts, it was reported the riots had already left19 people dead (see here), and as a reminder, the riots went on to leave dozens dead, thousands injured, and approximately $2 billion in property damage, with stores looted and destroyed along with the livelihoods and finances of many of their owners, a historical 19th-century church in Washington D.C. and a police precinct in Minneapolis severely burned, a city block in Seattle overrun by violent extremists, and a federal courthouse in Portland besieged by Antifa and other rioters who attempted to set it on fire while federal employees were barricaded inside. BLM not only failed to condemn the riots, but the Chicago BLM leader defended the looting as “reparations” (see here), and within about three weeks of this NCCJ staffer’s posting, the New York Chapter BLM leader declined to condemn the rioting and stated, “[i]f this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it … I could be speaking figuratively, I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation.” (see here). This NCCJ staffer’s Facebook posts remain on display (as of October 21, 2022), and this is the individual who is given direct access to Oakwood students to influence their views on diversity, inclusion, and quite possibly, political and social advocacy.
Growing Trend of Activist Groups Injecting Their Agendas Into Schools via “Student Run” Clubs
For general background, the emergence of SPIDEE in Oakwood schools comes as a larger nationwide trend has emerged, of outside activist organizations injecting their influence into schools under the cover of “student run” clubs and organizations. They often represent themselves to schools and the public under the reasonable and agreeable mission of promoting “diversity, equity and inclusion”, “justice” and “anti-bullying”, while imposing curricula that reflect attempts to indoctrinate children to accept CRT-themed and other highly-controversial political, sexual and gender ideologies. One prominent example is the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) Network, which according to a thoroughly-sourced investigative report (GSA Clubs Smuggle Gender Ideology into K-12 Education) operates over 4,000 student clubs in elementary, middle and high schools across the country – including in Ohio – under the above-stated purposes of promoting inclusion and preventing bullying.
While the GSA Network’s presumed purposes of combating bullying and fostering respect and inclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals would certainly be respectable and agreeable, a review of the GSA Network’s publications and its instructional materials for its student clubs show its agendas, including for student clubs, extend far beyond such aims. As the above report shows, the organization’s administrative materials and literature advance the beliefs that “white European men created an oppressive system based on capitalism, white supremacy, and “heteronormativity”, that “to fight back, racial and sexual minorities must unite under the banner of ‘intersectionality’ and dismantle the interlocking ‘systems of oppression’”, and the GSA Network’s manifesto calls for the abolition of the police, of borders and of ICE, and “the overthrow of the ‘cisgender heterosexual patriarchy’”.
Further, the GSA Network’s instructional materials for its student clubs, which it repeatedly brands to the public as “student run” as NCCJ does with SPIDEE, include a Digital Organizing Toolkit (see here) teaching children to do the “self work” to understand “’how [their] actions, lack of actions, or privileges contribute to the ongoing marginalization’ of the oppressed”. The Toolkit includes a Critical Theory/CRT-themed chart that groups individuals into those holding “Systemic Power (Privilege)” who are allegedly responsible for specified forms of “SYSTEMS OF OPPRESSION” and “PREJUDICE”, versus those holding “LESS OR NO SYSTEMIC POWER (OPPRESSED)”. These groups are assigned these judgmental classificationsbased on their race, sex, gender expression, sexual orientation, and even their lawful citizenship status. For example, white people are deemed responsible for “White Supremacy”, straight and “cisgender” people are responsible for “heteronormativity” and “transphobia”, and citizens are responsible for “imperialism” and “settler colonialism”. The Toolkit includes common neo-Marxist themes of repeated calls to work for “(collective) liberation” and “dismantling” of “systems of oppression”, and features a photograph of children each with an activist fist in the air, along with a quote from longtime activist and former longtime Communist Party USA member Angela Davis. It is clear that much of the content and apparent purpose of this toolkit strays far from LGBTQ+ inclusion or anti-bullying. The investigative report also notes the GSA Network’s literature is replete with anti-capitalist rhetoric. These concepts of White Privilege, systemic racial oppression, and anti-capitalist sentiment are hallmark concepts of CRT[i].
The GSA Advisor Handbook, which is the manual for GSA personnel to use in “setting up, running and sustaining” the “student-run” club, includes instructions on hiding student participation in the clubs from parents: “Know the laws in your state around students’ privacy rights and what you do and don’t have to tell parents/guardians/families. This is important so you don’t inadvertently out a student as a member of the GSA.” It further states, “[n]ote that in many cases, it is not required that parents/guardians know that students are part of a GSA” (see p. 24 of the Handbook).
What About SPIDEE’s Sponsor Organization, NCCJ? What Does It Teach?
NCCJ’s Publications and Seminars Promote CRT Ideologies, BLM, and Judgment of Individuals Based on Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Gender Expression, Income and Religion
A review of NCCJ’s website similarly shows the organization actively promotes and teaches concepts of Critical Race Theory and Critical Theory generally, including in its online publications and in seminars it offers to the public, some of which are presented under the oft-used rubric of supporting “diversity, equity and inclusion”, “anti-racism” and “anti-bullying”. These include promoting blanket judgments of groups of people based on their racial and other demographics as “privileged” oppressors versus “oppressed” victims, teachings that any system or standard that yields or permits unequal outcomes is therefore systemically unjust, as well as controversial activist positions on sexuality and gender ideology.
As with the GSA Network’s Toolkit for its “student run” groups, the NCCJ, in its publication “What is Privilege” (see here: What is Privilege? – NCCJ), teaches the typical CRT worldview of grouping and judging individuals based on their racial or other demographic identity group membership as either holding “Privilege” or being in one of a number of “Target or Oppressed Identities”. Sporting the organization’s political bias with a picture of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson as a purported epitome of privilege, this publication defines “privilege” as “unearned access to resources (social power) that are only readily available to some people because of their social group membership”, and as “immunity granted to or enjoyed by one societal group above and beyond the common advantage of all other groups”.
The page then singles out and defines the various types of “privileged” groups to include whites, males, heterosexuals, “cisgender” people (defined as having a “self-perception” and “expression of gender” that aligns with their sex “assigned at birth”), upper and upper-middle-class individuals, and even Christians, with each group alleged to have their privilege “at the expense” of an oppressed group. So according to the NCCJ, someone who enjoys an upper-middle-class standard of living as a result of having worked hard and made responsible choices in life is nevertheless judged to have “unearned access to resources” at the “expense” of less economically successful socioeconomic groups – a quintessential Marxist economic and political worldview. If these concepts are taught in the SPIDEE program, it can hardly be said to serve one of SPIDEE’s asserted purposes presented to the Board of Education, to “make everybody feel more accepted and included”, particularly for students in one of those supposedly “privileged” groups.
As often seen with CRT literature and activists such as Ibram X. Kendi who promote its precepts, the page’s discussion of “white privilege”, and its link to ”11 Facts About Racial Discrimination”, each cite statistically unequal outcomes among racial groups as conclusive evidence of systemic racism and white privilege, without any consideration of racially neutral factors that have been shown be significant causes of those outcomes. For example, it cites the disproportionately higher share of police stops, frisks, arrests, and criminal detentions involving African-Americans without mentioning, even as a potentially-relevant contributing cause, the well-documented (and tragic) fact that a disproportionately higher share of crimes is committed by African-Americans, as evidenced not only by arrest records but also by similar results shown by victim survey data, each published by the U.S. Department of Justice (see here and here), as well as by higher crime rates in African-American communities (see here and here), among other sources of evidence. By this logic, our criminal justice system could be deemed systemically sexist and rife with female privilege based on the sheer facts that men are slightly less than half our population but account for approximately 80% of those arrested for violent crimes.
“Christian Privilege”?
Among the “privileged” groups cataloged in NCCJ’s privilege publication are Christians. This is presented in a video (https://youtu.be/IMWNYmuhTvg) showing a man angrily lecturing the “Christian Right” and complaining of the widespread acceptance and display of Christian customs and beliefs, such as holidays and holiday greetings, various affirmations of shared Christian beliefs or values, songs promoting Christian beliefs (presumably Christmas carols and hymns, etc.), elected officials acting based on Christian moral beliefs, and even having private Christian schools. It exudes a clear intolerance of and opposition to the prevalence of Christianity and its influence on our society and culture. How does this reconcile with one of NCCJ’s stated purposes of “eliminating…bigotry”, as presented to the Board of Education?
NCCJ’s Online Seminars and Workshops on “Privilege” and “The Role of the White Accomplice” (vs. an “Ally”)
NCCJ hosts a series of online seminars, workshops, and “training” sessions (see here: https://www.nccj.org/mission) whose titles and descriptions show they also promote these CRT-driven ideologies of white privilege, systemic racism, and doing the “self-work” to “dismantle” “systems of oppression” seen with GSA Network’s Toolkit for student clubs. A two-day “Anti-Racism” session “is a live, online training program that explores bias, discrimination, oppression, and privilege in the United States”, while another program is titled “The Role of the White Accomplice” where one learns “the difference between an accomplice and an ally”. Note this session will be aired FREE from 12-1pm on Tuesday, November 15th, 2022. To watch it yourself, registerHERE.
NCCJ’S Publications Feature BLM, Ibram X. Kendi, and Other Major CRT Promoters
Consistent with BLM’s support seen above from NCCJ’s contact person for SPIDEE, BLM is directly promoted by NCCJ on the Bulletins section of its website (see here: Black Lives Matter – NCCJ). Here, a promotional webpage dedicated to BLM is introduced as “an informational bulletin that can be used in clubs, classrooms, meetings, shared with friends and family…” In addition to BLM’s alarming associations with the deadly and destructive riots of 2020 discussed above, BLM advocates defunding the police on grounds that “police don’t keep us safe” (see here), a view that is apparently rejected by the overwhelming majority of African-Americans, considering a Gallup survey showed 81% of African-Americans want the police presence in their neighborhoods to either remain the same or be increased. BLM also teaches, including in its BLM At School detachment, 13 Guiding Principles that include “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family” under Principle 11 (Black Villages) and “freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking” under Principle 6 (Queer Affirming) (see here and here). BLM At School also presents recommended K-12 school curriculum materials teaching CRT-themed and LGBTQIA+ concepts to students at levels down to elementary school (see here and here).
A public statement NCCJ in Dayton released shortly after George Floyd’s death concludes with a list of linked “Resources”, including Anti-racism resources for white people – Google Docs, containing a litany of radical CRT-promoting authors, lecturers, and materials:
Ibram X Kendi, a prominent proponent of CRT ideologies who publicly asserts that any policy or system that permits unequal outcomes among racial groups is racist, and who has explicitly advocated for the use of racial discrimination to remedy past, and what he believes to be present and future racial discrimination. He has also stated that the equity gaps between black and white Americans cannot be eliminated without reparations for slavery, and anyone who opposes reparations is a racist (see here).
The 1619 Project, a New York Times publication that – like CRT – espouses the false notion of the U.S. being based on systemic racism, and has been widely criticized by historians for its many historical inaccuracies.
A presentation by Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the most prominent CRT scholars and promoters.
“White Fragility” by Rogin DiAngelo, which asserts that whites are collectively responsible for contributing to nationwide white supremacy in the country.
“Me and White Supremacy” and ”White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, among other CRT-related titles.
What’s Wrong with These CRT-Related Teachings of “Privilege” and “Oppression” for DEI
Worsens Bigotry, Discrimination, and Division Rather than Ameliorating It
Research has shown that most diversity programs, with their emphasis on peoples’ differences, fail to achieve their stated aims of fostering inclusion and positive intergroup interactions, and instead breed division and resentment, and that by contrast, programs that are more effective in achieving those aims are those that focus on our common humanity and shared identity while honoring our various differences (see here).
DEI, “anti-bullying” and “anti-racism” programs that advance these CRT-related teachings of “privileged” versus “oppressed” groups, as seen above with the GSA Network and NCCJ, fall squarely within this category of DEI programs that have been shown to be unsuccessful; they focus on our demographic differences. Teaching people to generalize and judge individuals based on their demographics as members of a “privileged” (bourgeoise) class that enjoys “unearned” advantages at the “expense” of an “oppressed” (proletariat) class under societal systems of oppression is not only false and revealing of the neo-Marxist CRT concepts from which they are derived, it also explains why such programs would produce the opposite results of those they are purportedly intended to achieve.
The predictable result of teaching people to make these blanket judgments of individuals based on their race, sex, religion, and other demographics as oppressors with unearned advantages at other groups’ expense is that it will condition them to view members of those groups in a negative light. It conditions people to think and act exactly like racists, sexists, and bigots, by negatively judging and generalizing them based on their demographics rather than viewing them for who they are as uniquely individual human beings. It clearly flies directly in the face of NCCJ’s stated purpose of “eliminating bias, bigotry and all forms of discrimination” or teaching about “the danger of stereotypes”;it will instead exacerbate and spread stereotypes, bias, bigotry, discrimination, division, resentment – and perhaps even – bullying. In fact, according to the parents of one Oakwood school student, their child experienced explicit threats of violence from other students for daring to mention her belief that there are only two genders that are not fluid or decoupled from biological sex.
Ironically, these teachings run afoul of two of Martin Luther King’s oft-quoted ideals: his advocacy for a society in which his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”; and this one:
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Stated otherwise, you cannot drive out “bias, bigotry and all forms of discrimination” as NCCJ supposedly aims to do, by injecting more of it into our society, including our schools.
These Approaches to DEI Amount to Political and Social Indoctrination
By conditioning members of certain demographic groups to believe they are “privileged” “oppressors” who enjoy “unearned” benefits “at the expense” of “oppressed” groups, these approaches to DEI clearly have a shaming effect that pressures them to undertake the steps these programs prescribe (i.e., “do the self-work”) to escape their loathed “privileged” status and gain acceptance as an “ally”. This obviously requires that such groups must submit to, and openly profess their agreement with, the underlying, radical political and social beliefs and theories on which these “privileged” and “oppressed” classifications are predicated. For example, a white person must accept the CRT precepts of “white privilege”, ubiquitous “systemic racism” and “white supremacy”, and that, as NCCJ’s “What Is Privilege” publication states, they enjoy “White Privilege” in the form of “unearned access, resources, and social status systematically given to white people at the expense of people of color”. A person who might otherwise accept what until just recently was the almost unanimously-held belief that gender is binary, unchangeable, and synonymous with biological sex must adopt the beliefs of gender/transgender theory by recognizing they are “Cisgender”, which this NCCJ publication defines as someone who merely has a “self-perception and expression of gender” that happens to coincide with their biological sex that was “assigned at birth”. They must then confess to enjoying “Cis Privilege” “at the expense of trans people”, or acknowledge that any disagreement with gender/transgender theory is “oppression” in the form of “transphobia”. A heterosexual must confess to their “Heterosexual/Straight Privilege” and take prescribed steps to resolve it; presumably, this would include accepting the content on Heterosexism in the “Resources” section of the NCCJ publication, such as agreeing that it is oppressive “heterosexism” to view “heterosexuality as inherently normal” and “moral” in contrast with homosexuality, or to oppose gay marriage. This would of course require, among other things, that some reject the teachings of their religious faith and it displays a lack of tolerance or respect for diversity of religious and moral beliefs, all under the banner of promoting “diversity”, “inclusion” and “eliminating…bigotry”.
Where does that leave us with SPIDEE?
Again, it is possible that the SPIDEE program is limited to fostering positive interactions among students of different groups, and opposing genuine bias, prejudice, and bullying; but as demonstrated above, we have compelling reasons to suspect it extends well beyond that and into these harmful and divisive ideologies, and ultimately into political and social indoctrination.
Are we to believe there is some sort of ideological firewall erected within NCCJ that prevents these divisive, racist, sexist, religiously and otherwise demographically bigoted ideologies advanced in its publications and seminars from finding their way into the SPIDEE program, particularly when their contents so closely resemble those of the actual “student run” clubs operated by GSA Network?
Considering how NCCJ and its staff who run the SPIDEE program are so steeped in this radical activism as seen above, are we really to believe and trust that they would resist what must be the alluring temptation to use their direct access to Oakwood students to expose them to those ideologies?
These concerns are compounded by the continued failure of NCCJ staff to disclose the SPIDEE curriculum and program materials in response to multiple requests, and follow-up requests, from parents of Oakwood school students and Oakwood residents. Why is it that the NCCJ staffers who operate the SPIDEE program are eager to reply to initial inquiries from Oakwood parents and residents and then suddenly ignore them once they specifically ask to see the SPIDEE curriculum and instructional materials? What is it about SPIDEE that NCCJ apparently doesn’t want Oakwood parents and residents to see?
CALL TO ACTION: DEMAND DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY
Contact NCCJ and respectfully demand that they disclose the SPIDEE curriculum, instructional and other program materials that are used to organize and run the club and its student meetings, including any materials presented to students. NCCJ can be reached at:
Ask the Oakwood school administration to explain what standards are used to determine which outside organizations are permitted to operate student clubs and organizations in Oakwood schools and have this sort of direct access to Oakwood students.
Ask the Oakwood school administration to explain what vetting has been used for the NCCJ staffers who are given this direct access to Oakwood students.
[i] See Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (3rd Edition) by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic at pages 86-91 and 134-135, with “white privilege” defined on page 86.
What is the pronoun policy in Oakwood Schools? Parents, teachers, and students in the community want to know! In previous years, including the 2021-2022 school year, many teachers surveyed children in our schools for their preferred pronouns (see photo above) and even asked whether children’s parents knew of the child’s preference. It is not clear what their intentions were in collecting this data, and there was significant debate in the community as to whether this was appropriate to be asking our kids. Many parents have reported to the Oakwood Community for Strong Schools that inquiries to the administration resulted in more questions than clear answers. This year seemed different, with pronoun surveys largely absent and reports that each school in the district was handling things independently.
All of this begs the question, what is the appropriate policy to protect children’s mental health while also respecting the role of parents as the primary caregivers for their children? In mid-September, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin released model policies that put parents at the forefront of schools’ policies regarding transgender students (https://www.foxnews.com/media/virginia-gov-youngkin-introduces-model-policy-virginia-transgender-students). One of the most important features in Gov Youngkin’s recommendations is that parents are indeed respected in these sensitive situations. It may serve the Oakwood Board of Education and the Administration to consider a similar approach.
There are many considerations for the BOE and the administration to consider. As discussed in our post regarding the SEL program (https://oakwoodstrongschools.com/2022/09/27/oakwood-sel-program-unanswered-questions/), surveying children on mental health issues without explicit consent from parents and also without appropriate personal data protection protocols puts the school district at risk of violating personal privacy and health care regulations such as HIPAA (https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html). There is a growing consensus that the explosion in gender identity and transgender claims may be the result of social contagion that can be exacerbated by unsolicited surveys introducing ideas into young minds. Dr. Lisa Littman has published work on this area of research into Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (https://littmanresearch.com/), and we have posted previously on the work of Abigail Schrier to investigate this phenomenon. Children with mental health issues should be treated with love in a private setting and with trained professionals, and not exposed publicly or labeled in ways that pressure them inappropriately. Parents should be at the forefront of these issues as the primary caregivers, and this should be clearly acknowledged by the school system.
Another consideration is the impact that school policies may have on freedom of speech. Students and teachers should not feel compelled to use “preferred pronouns.” To be forced to use pronouns is a violation of the 1st Amendment and puts the schools at risk for lawsuits. The whole concept of “preferred pronouns” is an ideological belief that gender is a social construct separate from sex. Compelling anyone to declare their pronouns or to utilize self-designated pronouns violates the tenants of the 1st Amendment. An example of an inappropriate policy is found at a 4-H group in Santa Clara, CA. The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism sent a letter explaining the First and Fourteenth Amendment concerns with the policy, as can be found at this link: https://fairforall.substack.com/p/fair-news-7-28-2022. In a case right here in Ohio, a professor at Shawnee State University was recently awarded $400,000 as a settlement following a situation in which he was disciplined for declining to use a student’s preferred pronouns (https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/04/21/shawnee-state-professor-settles-case-wont-be-required-to-use-preferred-pronouns/).
The strong protection of the freedom of speech for our teachers and students in Oakwood City Schools will build a culture with true freedom of expression, foster discussion and debate, and develop resilience as our children encounter a variety of ideas. We don’t need a community of activists who claim any dissent is “transphobia” and require compelled speech and preferential treatment in the form of “safe spaces.” We will surely come back to this topic in the months ahead with additional insight from across our country as well as within the Oakwood community.
KIDS AND GENDER – WE HAVE TO (BE ABLE TO) TALK ABOUT IT
For the Boston Globe, Lisa Selin Davis writes that “we on the left need to be able to scrutinize and talk about what schools and the broader culture are teaching our kids about sex and gender without being dismissed as hateful,” and that “silencing critiques, debate, and science…[is not] actually good for children, whether or not they are gender-atypical.”
USAF ACADEMY INSTRUCTION: NIX ‘GENDERED’ WORDS LIKE ‘MOM’
The Washington Examiner reports that the U.S. Air Force Academy’s diversity and inclusion training reportedly instructs cadets to avoid using “gendered” words like “mom and dad.” “Some families are headed by single parents, grandparents, foster parents, two moms, two dads, etc.: consider ‘parent or caregiver’ instead of ‘mom and dad,’” the training reportedly states. “Use words that include all genders: ‘Folks’ or ‘Y’all’ instead of ‘guys’; ‘partner’ vs. ‘boyfriend or girlfriend.’”
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE ACADEMY HAS 19% MATH PROFICIENCY
The Daily Wire reports that the San Leandro High School has a social justice academy dedicated to gender and ethnic studies, intersectionality, and social and emotional skill development oriented toward activism while failing to teach its students basic math, science, and reading skills.
Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, and Cynthia Lummis, R-WY, sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pressing the federal agency to provide data on the effects of a puberty-inhibiting drug recently warned about by some medical experts. The drug is designed to inhibit the onset of puberty in children with a rare condition that causes puberty to come dangerously early. But the practitioners of “trans medicine” administer the drug to physically healthy minors.
An 18-year-old woman is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful voices against “transitioning” children at a moment when most politicians and media outlets lack the courage to speak out. Chloe Cole is a self-described “former trans kid” who de-transitioned after undergoing years of puberty blockers and an irreversible double mastectomy at the age of 15. Read what Cole has to say in this courageous interview with the Catholic News Agency.
Here Chloe Cole shares her experience and warns that young children are being exploited by the trans movement.
HELPING GEN Z TO FLOURISH
Loneliness, epidemic depression, and suicide are on the rise among Gen Z. But there are three things that make actual, measurable differences: adults, religion, and Scripture. How does our Oakwood community engage our youth to help them tackle the challenges of life? This article gives some suggestions.
Social Emotional Learning, or “SEL,” is a hot topic that is quickly finding its way into public schools across the country. The Ohio Board of Education adopted SEL standards for Ohio schools in 2019 and they can be found on the state website. While the standards exist, it is optional for schools to participate in SEL programming. Oakwood City Schools began an SEL program in 2021 with the hiring of Amy Samosky and Bridget Fiore. The schools have a website dedicated to the SEL program, and the SEL team has been building out the program along with e-mails to parents and presentations to Oakwood teachers during professional development sessions. The SEL presentation for the August 2022 professional development training can be found at this link – https://oakwoodstrongschools.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-08-understanding-sel-high-aims-conference.pdf.
As noted in the recent presentation, SEL is described in this way:
There are potential aspects of SEL programs that would strengthen resilience in troubled youth when implemented in a one-on-one setting with qualified therapists. However, there are legitimate concerns with the implementation of the program, which takes time away from instruction in the classroom while encouraging teachers to engage in group therapy for which they are not trained and licensed. SEL is described as a way of setting up an educational environment based on core values and positive relationships, but these core values and positive relationships are subjective in nature, and necessarily delve into childhood identity – topics that are the purview of parents, not the schools. The schools previously utilized the 40 Developmental Assets, which had clearly defined principles that all in our community could review and understand, while SEL programming has markedly less definition for its goals.
SEL is described as the process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (CASEL, 2008). This sounds idealistic, and within the common human experience, the family is the setting in which these types of life skills are developed within a common bond and moral framework. One concern is that the schools are overstepping their authority by not acknowledging the primacy of parents as educators and moral authorities for their children. It is interesting to note that parents are not even mentioned in the 18-page Ohio SEL standards documents. The public school “values” will necessarily be overly simplified and unable to accommodate the diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds of our community, yet the schools propose to inculcate their poorly defined values nonetheless in a school setting. Many parents have questioned the need to apply SEL to all children when perhaps the resources could be focused on those troubled children most in need of assistance.
The Five SEL Core Competencies
SEL identifies five core competencies as the basis of its program, including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. Self-Awareness includes positive features such as self-confidence and understanding of one’s strengths, while it also includes concepts like accurate self-perception. There are members of our community, including some teachers and counselors in our schools, who believe that children should be encouraged to embrace alternative gender identities, such as girls identifying as boys, as “non-binary,” or other categories. In this case, the identity is not an accurate self-perception, but rather a misperception that creates confusion in a young person struggling with the challenges many will encounter while growing up. Encouraging gender confusion in a classroom and therefore a public setting sets up a situation where social pressure encourages conforming to the promoted behavior, whereas treatment within a private setting allows for a healthy assessment of the underlying emotional challenges. Has the board of education and the school administration considered these complexities as they roll out this SEL program? The implementation of a program in this manner opens the schools to potential long-term legal liability should the SEL program run afoul of parental sensibilities.
The competency of Social Awareness includes topics such as perspective taking, empathy, appreciating diversity, and respecting others. At a high level, these topics are admirable features of our modern society that must be tied to the truth about ourselves and the world. The family is the place where these issues and their moral considerations are meant to be engaged. The schools usurp the role of the family when they choose to define these terms for our children and do so in a group setting. For example, how is diversity defined? Does it include intellectual diversity, or is diversity defined as mandatory approval of identity groups in racial and sexual terms? “Diversity” in a critical theory framework means you are speaking critically from the perspective of your marginalized group as defined by concepts like intersectionality. Oakwood has promoted professional development opportunities for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion programs that utilize this precise approach, and the SEL materials have not clearly defined the guidelines required to understand how this aspect of SEL will be implemented.
Empathy is a concept that is emotion-based and offers the opportunity for emotional manipulation. Empathy is the leverage point within SEL where the teacher, as an authority figure, is positioned to tell children how they are supposed to feel in situations that are designed to elicit emotional responses. This Socratic approach guarantees that the questions asked will lead to the answer desired by the teacher, who may pose scenarios and solutions that do not align with values at home. What guidelines are in place to bound the appropriate topics used in SEL discussions? What is the policy regarding parental rights and inclusion in this activity? If a controversial topic is brought up in SEL, are students being compelled to answer in a certain way that amounts to compelled speech and may violate the 1st Amendment rights? Finally, and most importantly, is there really a fundamental lack of desirable character traits in Oakwood children that dictates the need for a program like this administered by teachers to every child in the district?
Responsible Decision Making includes the topic of ethical responsibility and provides a final example for the discussion at hand. Ethics and morals are first learned at home within the family, and this leads to the maturation of a child’s conscience over time aligned to a family’s values. A school system could teach universal principles in line with our American liberal tradition, yet the SEL program does not specifically define the principles to which it subscribes. Who is the arbiter of what is considered ethical in the context of the schools? Why is this information not posted publicly and disseminated so that parents can be aware of what their children are being told in the schools? Where is the line between the right of individual and parental conscience, closely tied to the prohibition of state establishment of religion, and permissible indoctrination of children?
SEL started as a concept for helping troubled children in a therapeutic setting with trained counselors and it is now being applied to our children in group settings in every subject of study, an “all-day process of interactions.” While some studies have shown the effectiveness of SEL as an intervention for troubled youth, it is now being applied on a much wider scale by teachers who are not licensed for group psychological counseling. SEL opens our children to peer pressure and struggle sessions if they feel that they are in the minority on a particular topic of discussion. Topics will invariably be designed to elicit emotional discomfort and provide the answer to the emotional discomfort as the approved solution. This manipulative approach applied to innocent children provides a state-sponsored avenue of abuse and violation of the rights of children and their parents to use their individual conscience. All of this is being done without explicit parental or child consent and foreknowledge, and parents have the primary responsibility of raising their children according to their sincerely held beliefs which are protected by the constitution.
Are you interested to learn more about SEL? James Lindsay has several interesting commentaries on his website, New Discourses. These are deep dives into detailed journal articles that cover what SEL is meant to accomplish through the writings of the advocates of SEL themselves. We’ll cover some additional aspects of SEL in a future post. In the meantime, please send us a note with your thoughts or sign up for e-mail updates at admin@oakwoodstrongschools.com.
IDAHO OFFICIALS PARTNER WITH PORN GROUP IN SCHOOLS
Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare offers an optional sex education program for schools statewide created by the organization “ETR.” The “Reducing the Risk” program is set to be fully implemented in schools this fall. The Idaho Freedom Foundation uncovered that ETR also advocates for teaching elementary students about “porn literacy,” and seeks to teach kids about “kink and power, pleasure, sexual identity, sexual acts, and sexual exploration in relation to pornography.”
Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Friday updated “model policies” regarding the treatment of “transgender” students, claiming that the previous “guidelines disregarded the rights of parents.” The new policies stated that the old ones “promoted a specific viewpoint aimed at achieving cultural and social transformation in schools.”
TEACHERS UNION PROMOTES INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL HOW-TO GUIDE
From Chris Rufo: The national teachers union’s “LGBTQ+ Caucus” has created a website and badge for public school employees that promote non-binary identities, a how-to guide for “queer sex,” and the idea that “transgender men can get pregnant. This was in Hilliard School District near Columbus, OH!
A groundswell of lawmakers are demanding an investigation into a Nashville pediatric gender clinic after shocking videos showed a doctor calling certain transgender surgeries “huge money-makers” and a health law expert saying “religious” conscientious objections to the surgeries are “problematic.” The Pediatric Transgender Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center performs “gender-affirming” double mastectomies on minor girls and offers puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors as well, according to an exposé from The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh.
For Inside Higher Ed, Eboo Patel offers a “plea to those educators who will shape [the] lives and careers” of incoming students to institutions of higher learning: “teach your students to be builders, not critics.”
“Critical Race Theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principle of constitutional law” – Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic
Critical Race Theory, An Introduction
Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been developing for over 40 years and can be viewed in terms of theory and praxis (how it is applied in society, including in K-12 schools). CRT rejects the modern liberal order and the traditional civil rights movement. They reject the “color blindness” best summarized in Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. CRT advocates wish to transform society through the leverage of societal power, rejecting aspects of our culture such as racial integration and unifying American values, which they perceive to be aspects of White supremacy or White values. A key aspect of CRT is the incorporation of Marxist identification of oppressed and oppressor classes, where minorities of color are cast in the role of the proletariat and White culture is cast as the bourgeoisie. CRT is an activist movement, by design, seeking to invigorate the casting off of our cultural institutions.
“Critical Race Theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black”
Christopher Rufo
CRT has a number of principles that have been developed over time and infused into resources and curriculum for K-12 schools. These principles include:
Color-consciousness: Proponents of CRT reject the idea of color-blindness and see all aspects of society through the lens of skin color. This is the opposite of the key approach of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Color consciousness can be seen in districts on the coasts where racial quotas are being applied to boost certain racial groups in honors classes. Some districts have eliminated honors programs in order to create a more equitable outcome.
Cultural separatism: CRT rejects the idea of integration into a common American culture, a culture which they pose as a “White dominant” culture. This is the opposite of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which emphasized our common humanity and pushed our nation to embrace all races within this culture of freedom. Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How To Be An Antiracist, separates everyone into “racists” and “anti-racists.” In the summer of 2020, there was an example of this at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History, which produced a pamphlet claiming that hard work, rational thinking, politeness, and the nuclear family were all aspects of “Whiteness and White Culture.”
Opposition to Whiteness: Because of the rejection of “White culture” as noted above, Black culture must resist, challenge, and disrupt “Whiteness.” There are a number of documented examples of training sessions for businesses and teachers that promote the idea of “Disrupting Whiteness.” Some schools have begun to remove classic works, such as Shakespeare, as a move to remove white literature and shift the culture.
Emphasis on systems: CRT rejects individual action and personal responsibility and focuses on “systems” and “structures” that must be changed to end inequities. Because of this belief, they reject values like hard work and meritocracy as elements that continue the status quo. This is essentially a rejection of the self-reliance, individualism, and personal responsibility upon which our nation was built. Many public schools are beginning to embrace this idea by rejecting “white privilege” and hosting speakers to discuss system injustices of varying types.
Embrace of Marxism: CRT heavily borrows from Marxist philosophy and rhetoric, posing racial or gender categories as the oppressed by society, while whiteness or heterosexuality is posed as the oppressor. This serves to motivate groups into activism. Many of these concepts were refined through the work of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which is a popular work in college education circles and has heavily influenced schools. Programs that look at group identity and intersectionality often are oriented toward defining layers of oppression and helping children to identify which category is a match for them.
Use of deconstruction: CRT uses rhetorical techniques and manipulation of language to deconstruct our common language and problematize traditions, culture, language, and values, to move discussion toward their political ends. This is why there is an endless stream of new terms, which seem to change by the minute. Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi have worked to redefine the meaning of racism and anti-racism, for example. Equity is a great example of a term that seems to capture our culture’s interest in equality, but the subtle change comes with the CRT advocate’s desire to implement quotas or other policies to ensure equal outcomes despite the effort of students or adults in our society. Another great example is the inability of many on the political left to define the word, “Woman,” including a recent addition to the Supreme Court, Ketanji Jackson Brown.
Subjective truth: CRT embraces postmodern philosophy’s rejection of objective truth. This is a form of cultural relativism and is seen in discussions of “lived experience.” Terms like “culturally responsive teaching” can be found when looking for examples of this concept. Several school districts and some state departments of education have incorporated these concepts in the subjects like math, as Florida found in a review that showed word problems incorporating CRT based questions.
Political activism: The ultimate goal of this entire movement is political activism to undermine our society and political traditions. CRT and related critical theories will always push for political advocacy (sometimes peaceful and sometimes not) in pursuit of its goals. A great example of this is the effort by Black Lives Matter to develop curriculum for schools, including its goals that include “rejecting”disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family” and embracing a variety of hard left-wing causes.
Once you understand these terms and the various techniques that are used by Critical Race Theory and its relatives, Gender Theory and Queer Theory, you can start to identify them in the culture around us and right here in our precious Oakwood Schools. If you see something in a homework or hear about a club pursuing CRT based activities, the Oakwood Community for Strong Schools would love to get your tips. You can e-mail us anytime at admin@oakwoodstrongschools.com.
This post is a summary of a great resource, Christopher Paslay’s A Parent’s Guide to Critical Race Theory. If you found this information helpful, please consider purchasing Mr. Paslay’s book and please share this site with a friend!
Our culture is awash in activist organizations pushing inappropriate materials and curricula into our K-12 schools. In the fall of 2021, the calendar in the photo above was sent home with all the kindergarten children at Oakwood’s Lange School. This calendar recommends that children who are 5-6 years old celebrate LGBTQ history month. It has references to National Coming Out Day and Intersex Awareness Day. For kindergartners!
National Coming Out Day Features Prominently in LGBT Calendar Sent Home from Lange School
The bad news is that groups across the country are putting out material like this. The good news is that it was discovered by a parent and brought to the attention of the Principal at Lange School, Frank Eaton. Principal Eaton was apologetic and assured parents that this was a surprise to him as well, as this calendar did not have this type of material on it before.
This is a great example of parents keeping an eye out for objectionable material and working with district leadership to protect our children. If you see something like this come home with your child, please send tips to Oakwood Community for Strong Schools. We can advocate on behalf of our kids and document these materials that are so prevalent in our culture. We can be reached any time at oakwoodstrongschools@protonmail.com and we have a link on every page to contact us or join our mailing list for updates.
Several years ago, Abigail Shrier (https://www.abigailshrier.com/), a writer at the Wall Street Journal, came across the story of the rising number of teenage girls making claims of transgenderism and other gender identities at high rates. Failing to find a colleague to investigate further, she rolled up her sleeves, interviewed hundreds, and in 2020 published the best selling investigation into the teen girl phenomena of rapid onset gender dysphoria, Irreversible Damage. Communities across our country are experiencing this explosion, which can be seen here in Oakwood as well. As Shrier notes, in 2007 there was a single gender clinic in the US, and today there are over 300 across our country. Some schools are seeing nearly 20-30% of the population claiming to be transgender or some other type of gender identity. What is driving this movement?
In a presentation to Hillsdale College students in May 2021, Shrier lays out the details of her investigation and detailed thoughts on the subject of her book. She notes that there are three distinct categories resulting from her investigation, which will be described through this post.
The first group to consider are the young children who do indeed experience gender dysphoria. Historically, this has been restricted to boys and men with clear clinical criteria to be met. This cohort is still quite rare, with 1 in 10,000 boys experiencing these feelings of discomfort with their bodies. This was typically treated through watchful waiting, and typically would be outgrown through puberty and the vast majority would live fruitful lives as their born sex. These children today are now offered puberty blockers such as Lupron, which can cause long term stunting of growth and sterility. Many suggest that affirmation is the only appropriate way to approach these children, yet there are no long term studies available to support this hypothesis.
A second group for consideration is the explosion of gender identity claims and transgender claims among young girls. This is a category that did not exist 10-15 years ago, but is expanding rapidly today (over 4,000% by some estimates). Scientists such as Lisa Litman of Brown University have proposed that this phenomena is a form of social contagion and calls this Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. This seems to occur among young girls who have moderate to high social anxiety and are susceptible to social contagions. Social media may be playing a significant role here, as several social scientists have sounded the alarm at the increase in depression among young girls as well. Trans identification often comes with the adulation of peers and authority figures such as parents, counselors, and teachers. Children can self-identify and are affirmed in this choice. But there is evidence mounting that this is not the path to long lasting happiness, with many “de-transitioners” speaking out about being deceived by the medical community, and in some instances court cases showing a massive failure to support kids who need genuine treatment for their mental health, and not just affirmation.
The third group is made up of the activists who exploit the groups above to suit their political and other agendas. An example of this are those who ban appropriate treatment of teens struggling with gender, or those who push to allow men to have access to women’s spaces, like sports, bathrooms, and even prisons. These groups will exaggerate medical claims, attack truth tellers who oppose them, and lie about suicide to create false compassion, demonize opponents, and claim the moral high ground. These people oppose freedom of speech and pursue power in order to push their agenda in every facet of our society.
This activist philosophy is promoted across our society by our government, the medical industry, media, and even in our schools. This top cover allows for a distortion of science and good medical practice. Those who oppose are told they are heteronormative oppressors or homophobic individuals and are not permitted to bring legitimate claims forward. The activists weaponize empathy at the risk of irreversibly damaging innocent children in our community.
If you would like to learn more and better understand what is going on in our culture and right here in Oakwood, then please consider listening to Abigail Shrier’s full presentation on YouTube.
A recent opinion piece in the Washington Examiner, In academia, support for diversity is very selective, describes the trend in diversity and inclusion programs that spread robustly across the country over the last few years. Professor Richard Vatz of Towson University pointed out that these programs in practice serve primarily to push only for specific advocacy groups, such as those focused upon racial or gender identity. This effectively serves to promote a leftward tilt and political advocacy at the detriment of intellectual diversity that should include exposure to ideas from both the right and the left. One study referenced in the article demonstrates that Democrats outnumber Republicans by greater than 10:1 in many leading universities. Perhaps Oakwood can take the lead by ensuring more balanced representation in their EDI programming and curriculum, as well as a robust embrace of freedom of speech for both the staff and the students in the future.
The Oakwood Community for Strong Schools started on Facebook in the summer of 2021 with the merger of several groups started by Oakwood parents who realized we had common interests. We continue to maintain a presence on Facebook today. Please join in and let us know what topics are of interest to you and your family.
The Oakwood Community for Strong Schools is seeking a community that encourages what is best for our children. Academic excellence is of critical importance, and also the ability to engage in the ideas of our time with depth and resilience. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s book, the Coddling of the American Mind, dives into the challenges our culture faces and the social trends that are making conversations about debated topics more difficult.
The Coddling of the American Mind focuses in on three Great Untruths that are seeping into our culture: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people. These untruths result in a culture of “safetyism” that impacts a young person’s social, emotional, and learning development, making life more difficult to navigate.
We want kids who grow up learning that overcoming challenges makes them stronger, who understand that our feelings can sometimes lead us astray and must be disciplined by reason, and that good people may sometimes disagree on prudential issues. This leads to a robust environment that embraces freedom of speech and debate of ideas. Oakwood is a community with diversity, and perhaps we can embrace this opportunity to help our city lead the way in crossing the political divide. Give The Coddling of the American Mind a read and let us know what you think!
Oakwood Community for Strong Schools was forged in the summer of 2021 as a response to the rising national interest in schools across the country. Whether it is advocacy for freedom of speech, a response to frustrating COVID policies, or pushing back against the most radical aspects of the culture wars, many parents wish to increase their engagement with their local schools.
Here in Oakwood, there continues to be a significant interest in interaction with our local Oakwood City Schools. In the last 18 months, including a hotly contested school board election, parents have expressed interest in greater financial transparency, better aid for children with learning disabilities, concerns over the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) program. These topics span the political right and left. Our group serves to engage the schools and bridge this divide, and we hope you will join us.
Our blog will include updates about our local Oakwood community with topics focused on parental rights and related issues. Stay tuned for updates to come.
