In Bemoaning What They ‘Won’t Teach Anymore,’ Educators Reveal 6 Ways They Indoctrinate Students

It turns out that laws against leftist education in schools actually work. Teachers are more mindful of what they do in class when parents and politicians hold them responsible.

This is at least the case for most teachers. Teachers will say they can’t teach in such circumstances. Hannah Natanson of The Washington Post recently reported that conservatives are keeping teachers away from their students. “basic truths.”

But there is more to this story. One exception is that all of the teachers who complained favored indoctrinating students over education. These teachers were stopped by administrators and parents, but many other educators are pushing the same agenda. To learn how teachers indoctrinate students, it is worthwhile that all Americans, especially those involved with K-12 schooling, look at Natanson’s examples.

1. Slavery

The first was a supposed “thing” Teachers won’t teach slavery is wrong if they don’t believe it. Greg Wickenkamp’s experience with using materials from an anticolonialist Marxist (Howard Zinn), and a prominent antiracist pseudo-academic, Ibram X. Kendi (to illustrate this conclusion) led to it being reached. Although his school offered little direction in what materials were allowed — as though it isn’t obvious that these texts are incredibly one-sided — certain members of the community complained about Wickenkamp pushing leftism on his students and “teaching Critical Race Theory.”

Wickenkamp somehow linked these criticisms to his teaching of slavery. At a Zoom meeting, he asked his superintendent whether teachers could teach slavery was wrong. The stupid question was interpreted correctly by the superintendent to be a trap. She would have violated the rule that prevents teachers from promoting a political viewpoint in the classroom if she answered yes. She would appear ignorant and bigot if her answer was no. Instead of answering the question directly, she decided to deflect it and told him not pontificate or moralize. “We’re not supposed to say to [students], ‘How does that make you feel?’, ‘We can’t’ — or, ‘Does that make you feel bad?’ We’re not to do that part of it.”

Although the superintendent could have communicated it better, it should have been clear enough for everyone to understand. Wickenkamp is responsible for teaching history and not morality. His students should reach their own conclusions on the evils and benefits of slavery. Wickenkamp was not able to take this discussion seriously and he left teaching shortly after.

2. Revisionist History

Next “thing” teachers won’t teach is Howard Zinn’s revisionist history — although this is translated by Natanson as teaching “Christopher Columbus’s Journal.” This anonymous North Carolina teacher claimed that her parents were against Howard Zinn’s assignment. “A People’s History of United States,” These are lines from Columbus’ journal which portray Columbus as a racist oppressor.

A parent complained to the teacher that her son felt guilty about this material. The teacher responded condescendingly. “Why would your child feel guilty about what Columbus did to the Arawak?” The parent complained to the human resources department of the district, who told the teacher to stop teaching Zinn. The teacher was then able to move to another school, where Zinn could be taught again.

There are some things that go horribly wrong about this. First, Zinn was an activist pushing the Marxist narrative and not a historian providing context. Second, history requires that you read primary sources. Not postmodern spins. Her students should learn to appreciate Columbus’ complex situation and not be obsessed with his politically incorrect views on indigenous people. Instead of encouraging her students to think and learn history, this teacher shuts them down.

3. Police Force Use

The third “thing” Teachers cannot teach something that is unusually specific. “A data set on the use of police force.” In all my years of teaching, this has been an issue I’ve managed to avoid, but it seems that some teachers struggle with it. Loudoun County Public Schools’ math teacher, who was a victim of this problem, was her. “taught a lesson built around a data set exploring the outcomes of the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program.”

Even though the lesson was not a cause for complaint, the teacher considered asking her superiors if it was okay to teach. As expected, her superiors refused to allow her to teach. “because ‘it might make children uncomfortable’ due to their race or if their parents are police officers.” This teacher was wise enough not to use this example, and instead used noncontroversial word problem in her statistics class. Natanson mentions the example because she believes that pushing leftist narratives regarding law enforcement is education.

4. Dull Texts

The fourth however, is a contrast. “thing” Teachers won’t teach it is something I You can find it here encountered. Natanson mentions an English teacher who had difficulty teaching her seniors. “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” Mary Wollstonecraft This was after Tara Westover’s memoir was published. “Educated,” which refers to the 19th-century feminist classic. This extra reading was suggested by the teacher because she was struggling to concentrate. “struggling to interest her students” The memoir. In other words, the teacher gave her students a boring text they didn’t like and then attempted to compensate by giving them another duller text.

The teacher had added reading on her syllabus. An assistant principal asked her some simple questions. “What is the purpose of using it?” “How is it connected to what you are doing?” “Is it connected by skills?” “Is it connected by theme?” The teacher, apparently not realizing that there were better texts for her students, defended the assignment and then gave up.

Although this is how it’s presented to her students, it’s not. Wollstonecraft’s essay is one of many great texts that don’t work well for students in high school — it’s a hard sell, even for an AP literature class. This isn’t a sign that the patriarchy is asserting its will. It’s just a matter of teenagers struggling to understand complex texts.

5. The Classics

Natanson includes a fifth item, but it is rather subtle. “thing,” She writes about why teachers aren’t allowed to teach classics “Huckleberry Finn” “Of Mice and Men.” It is because the novels were written by John Steinbeck and Mark Twain, both white men who used the N-word in their writings.

This is not only old news, as both books are prohibited in most districts, but it is also an issue apart from examples of leftist doctrine. Leftists are the ones who object to these novels. They believe that black students will be traumatized by exposing them to racial slurs and white students will become rabid racism. Even though this reasoning never really held much water, it has effectively removed two great books — both of which humanize and defend traditionally marginalized groups — for teenage readers.

6. Straight-Up Propaganda

The sixth, however, is final. “thing” Teachers won’t be taught, which is blatant leftist propaganda. Natanson tells of Rebecca Fensholt who was a teacher who decided to re-create the lessons she learned in college and forgoed all the normal curriculum. In her unit, for example “identity power and subversion,” That would be something her students would learn. “racial, ethnic, sexual and gender identities can be wielded to uphold or undermine those in power.” She also included videos of “cakewalks” In which black dancers mocked white formal dances with the documentary “Paris is Burning” “in which the Black feminist and social critic [bell hooks] dissects drag ball culture in 1980s-era New York.”

It is interesting that Natanson does not reveal the grade level or subject of this lesson. Fensholt’s lesson may not be relevant for high schoolers. Fensholt was eventually disowned by his parents for complaining about the lesson.

Natanson describes this situation as a tragedy. However, the tragedy for all of these teachers is the refusal of many to do their jobs. Instead of teaching students, teachers refuse to do their job. How To think, they want their students tell them What To think. This is not only wrong practice, it’s not what parents want. It is often unhelpful and irritating for students.

Although parents may not agree with these sentiments they can still disagree with the indoctrination. It deprives students from real learning, corrupts their role as teachers and ultimately leads to divisions in the families and communities these schools are meant to serve. Natanson attempts to redeem these teachers but she ironically gives a guideline of what to look out for and remove so schools can rediscover the original purpose.