Tag Archive for: PublicSchoolIndoctrination

Democratic Activists Are Dishing Out Millions To Keep CRT, Gender Theory In Schools

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

An education nonprofit that labels itself as non-partisan is pouring millions of dollars into political groups ahead of school board elections, according to Politico.

The Campaign for Our Shared Future, which works for “equitable, anti-racist programs, practices and policies” in K-12 education, is targeting school board elections in red states including Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Michigan, with a plan to reach at least 15 states, according to Politico. Executive Director Dr. Heather Harding said the group has raised at least $9 million for voter education efforts and plans to raise more. (RELATED: ‘We Are Being Censored’: Co-Founder Of Conservative Moms Group Blasts Twitter)

The campaign branches for Campaign For Our Shared Future were registered by two groups run by Arabella Advisors, a group known for pushing “Democratic dark money nonprofit groups,” Politico reported. New Venture Fund, which centers its work in “race, equity, diversity and inclusion” and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a group that works for “economic equity and racial justice,” are backing Campaign For Our Shared Future.

“After two years of being accused of a fake ‘astroturf’ movement, imagine the surprise of first-time activists and average parents from across the country to see that Arabella Advisors – a massive, dark money-funded network – has poured eight figures into jumping on the education bandwagon,” Parents Defending Education President Nicole Neily told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s unsurprising that democratic donors are panicked about how their allies have mismanaged this issue – but no amount of money can make up for the fact that at the end of the day, they truly believe that they know better than we do how to raise our children… and that is a losing message, period.”

Harding’s work history includes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Teach For America, which values a “shared commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness.”

Campaign For Our Shared Future currently works with Our Turn, a youth activism group that focuses on social justice issues like immigration reform, Politico reported.

The education group provides a “voting guide” for school board elections in several red states and provides information on what makes a “good school board candidate” including someone who is fairly involved in the school, according to the website. “Extremists are causing chaos” in school board meetings, the group says, providing an example of a Florida man who challenged the school’s equity statement and deemed it “indoctrination.”

The group also called parents who opposed mask mandates in a Virginia school “conspiracy theorists,” the website shows.

Next, the group plans to target Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin but has not revealed in what ways, and will work with Florida Student Power, a group of students focused on LGBTQ, racial, and women reproductive injustices, Politico reported.

“It’s clear to me that the battle continues to grow,” Harding told the outlet. “We think that presidential politics will continue to keep schools sort of in their crosshairs. We don’t find that productive to the actual work of learning, so we do hope that as more donors join us we can be broader, and go deeper so that public schools continue to be a backbone of democracy.”

Campaign For Our Shared Future did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.


This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Arizona Sends Kids as Young as 10 to Gender and Sexuality Chatrooms

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Arizona Department of Education directs students to LGBT-themed chatrooms for children as young as 10 to discuss gender and sexuality as part of its student resources.

The chatrooms are part of the department’s effort to support LGBT youths, and they were put together with the help of “members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community,” according to the Arizona Department of Education website. The website directs students to numerous LGBT resources, including local clubs, guides for gender transitions, and LBGT chatrooms.

Both of the chats linked to by the state Education Department have moderators, either volunteer or staff, monitoring conversations, some of whom work at LGBT centers.

The Gender Spectrum chatroom advertises online groups for “trans,” “non-binary,” and “gender-expansive youth” and can be joined by video, audio, or chat. Discussion groups are divided into age groups and facilitated by trained volunteers.

Students aged 13-16 and 17-18 are encouraged to sign up, but the 10-12 age group was at capacity, the website said.

“Gender Spectrum hosts free online groups for pre-teens, teens, parents, caregivers, and other family members and adults,” the description of the chatroom on the Arizona Department of Education website said. “These groups provide you with the opportunity to connect with others, share experiences, and feel the comfort of a supportive community.”

The other chatroom is called Q Chat Space and is targeted toward LGBT students ages 13 to 19, according to the state Education Department website. Chats are facilitated by staff who work at LGBT centers but are not mental health professionals, according to the Q Chat Space website.

The Q Chat Space project is put on in collaboration with Planned Parenthood and two LGBT groups, CenterLink and PFLAG.

The site also has a “quick escape” button feature at the bottom of the page that takes users immediately to a blank Google page.

“A Community for LGBTQ+ Teens … Find and give support, have fun, connect around shared interests and get good information,” the website says. “Chat with like-minded peers in live chats designed for you & by you, facilitated by folks who care.”

The Arizona Department of Education, Gender Spectrum, and Q Chat Space did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.


This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

What is The Main Purpose of Education?

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Our country’s K-12 public education system is being transformed into something it was never intended to be. Academic rigor is taking a backseat to an ideological mission, as schools go beyond teaching reading and math to focus on reshaping students’ attitudes and beliefs to advance a political agenda.

But most Americans do not believe this shift is the primary purpose of education, according to a survey by EdChoice and Morning Consult.

“Core academic subjects”

In Minnesota, most survey respondents said that mastery of “core academic subjects” for students in K-8 and mastery of “skills for future employment” in high school is the primary purpose of education. (Learning core academic subjects was a very close second for high school students.)

Additionally, teaching students how to be good citizens was also identified as an extremely important part of students’ K-12 journey, along with them becoming independent thinkers and learning socialization skills.

“Fixing social issues” came in last as education’s main purpose, with only 23 percent noting it “extremely important” for K-8 students to learn and 26 percent saying so for high school students.

A fundamental shift

Most Americans agree the classroom is not the place to implement a political agenda, but the advancement of an ideology with such contempt for achievement is being advanced by unaccountable teachers’ unions, unchecked bureaucracy, “equity” consultants, and philanthropic foundations that spend billions of dollars perpetuating the racism they claim to want to address.

As more parents wake up to the educational issues within our K-12 system, fundamental questions about education should get asked. This must include forcing the debate about education’s primary purpose and what students need to be set up for success outside of the classroom. Literacy and numeracy skills, paired with preparing students to further develop into responsible, enlightened, and civic-minded adults and members of society, must be prioritized.



This article was published by The Center for the American Experiment and is reproduced with permission.









Leftist Activists Hate Libs Of TikTok Because It Unmasks Them With Their Own Words

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The progressive left is very upset that people are able to see them clearly and aren’t afraid to criticize them any longer. This was made abundantly clear by the passionate support of Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz for her hit piece against the popular Twitter account Libs of TikTok. While the primary discussion has been the ethics of journalists’ selective targeting, harassment, and doxxing of private individuals, it was the underlying argument of justification that provides the most interest.

In one response, Lorenz argues, “Yes, an acct whose goal is driving LGBTQ ppl out of public life is bad. Gay/trans ppl targeted by the acct have had their lives destroyed, but the *point* of the story is actually a nuanced look at radicalization & how the right-wing outrage cycle functions. That’s worth covering.”

This theme became a primary foundation of support for Lorenz’s article. Huffington Post writer Christopher Mathias, covering “right-wing extremism and MAGA,” argued, “you don’t have a right to spread hate/fear/lies anonymously. there is a social cost to that.” Senior reporter for NBC News Ben Collins described the author of Libs of TikTok as “Fox News’ favorite aggregator of LGBTQ teachers they don’t like the look of.”

Popular Twitch creator Hasan Piker, with more than 1 million followers on Twitter, argued, “this woman is quite literally cutting propaganda for the republican party by blasting random queer teachers on the tl and trying to get them fired. unmasking her is journalism. making it seem like this is just some random twitter acc is odd.”

Critics Miss the Point

Yet among the many accusing Libs of TikTok of being “anti-LGBT,” none of them seem to recognize that the account quite literally reposts TikTok videos by LGBT activists themselves. The entire purpose of the Twitter account is to upload videos from TikTok — which each TikTok creator permits in their own settings and can alter per video — to demonstrate to its audience what LGBT activists are saying out loud.

Quite a remarkable number of self-identified teachers use their platform on TikTok to boast about their LGBT activism, often in direct defiance of school policy or the law. Somehow this has been twisted into an attack on LGBT people because many on the right, and a lot of average Americans, voiced outrage.

To argue that LGBT people are being silenced, harassed, and driven into hiding by presenting their own words is creatively absurd. Again, the account being accused of “spreading hate, fear, and lies” did not manipulate these videos in any way. What the public witnessed was exactly what the LGBT activist in question chose to present to the world.

Parents Weren’t Supposed to See This

It is the bias of journalists and other media figures who agree with the LGBT activists on display here. They are offended that regular Americans would be critical of or even outraged by the transparent presentations of this activism — activism they hoped regular Americans, and in particular, parents, would never see.

TikTok is a medium largely targeted at pre-teens to young adults. LGBT activist teachers are not speaking to parents in their videos, they are addressing young audiences and virtue signaling to their like-minded peers. Responsible adults, parents, and community leaders were never supposed to find out about their indoctrination efforts and propaganda.

When Lorenz says, “[Libs of TikTok] is playing on fears and misunderstandings of who trans people are while amping up extreme rhetoric and normalizing portraying queer people as inherently dangerous to children,” she is arguing that parents wouldn’t understand what they are seeing right before their eyes. How else would sharing the unedited self-expression of adult transgender activists with an intended minor audience be considered “playing” on anyone’s fears? It’s not the LGBT activists and their content, she insists, it’s the bigoted parents who just don’t understand.

This continued theme of left-wing adults advocating for parents to be less and less involved in their children’s lives, for their children’s own safety, is precisely why regular Americans and especially parents have reacted to these videos with such visceral outrage. We are seeing educators, often teaching children in pre-school age ranges, boldly boasting of introducing complex ideas like gender identity without parental knowledge or consent. Teachers performing drag shows during school hours wearing revealing clothing and middle school teachers saying, “If your parents don’t accept you for who you are, f-ck them. I’m your parents now.”

Parents Should Be Outraged

Of course, rational people would find these things completely inappropriate and parents should be outraged that activists feel so emboldened to impose their own moral value systems onto their children, intentionally hiding it from the parents involved. LGBT activists are not being targeted for firing because they are LGBT. They are being held accountable for their inappropriate actions. Bringing all of this to light is not “attacking” anyone, it is simply showing the average American what LGBT activists only want kids to see.

The narrative that LGBT minors need exclusive and protected media, education, counseling, and adult affirmation from educators, while intentionally excluding parents, must be aggressively challenged. Parental rights must include full access to what their children are being taught and what public information educators put out.

Furthermore, the obscene argument that LGBT people are harmed when regular people react to their own advocacy must be mocked and dismissed. LGBT people are responsible for their own publicly shared words and they should not be protected from the consequences of those words by the like-minded media.


This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

NYT Columnist Admits Schools Are Grooming Children Into LGBT Identities

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

A New York Times columnist has again confirmed that social conservatives were right: educators are pushing LGBT ideology on students.


Is Michelle Goldberg a conservative plant at The New York Times? Although she claims to be a liberal feminist, some of her recent columns are essentially admissions that social conservatives have been right all along. In another entry in this genre, she purports to critique the “freakout over sex and gender identity in schools” — only to tacitly admit that schools are indoctrinating children into LGBT ideology and grooming them into LGBT identities.

Goldberg accuses conservatives of stoking a “moral panic” akin to the “‘satanic panic’ of the 1980s, a frenzy of accusations of ritual child abuse that resulted in the conviction of dozens of innocent people.” Yet she then demonstrates the current fears are reality-based.

Her evidence that this is a panic consists of highlighting some unfounded rumors about educators indulging students with a furry fetish. She then admits that “there’s been a great evolution in how students think about gender and sexuality” with “an even bigger generational shift with trans issues. Many middle-aged liberal parents I know have different ideas about gender than their more radical adolescent kids, and I assume the gulf must be even larger in many conservative families.” In short, the sexual orientation and gender identity revolution is real, even if a few internet rumors about it are not.

Similarly, in response to the huge increase in LGBT identities among the young, Goldberg writes that “It’s obvious that more kids are going to come out in high schools where they’ll be accepted and celebrated than in those where they’ll be bullied and abused.”

True, and it is also obvious that this does not explain the mass conversions of adolescents, especially girls, to rainbow identities. Goldberg herself relays, without dispute, the example of a summer camp from which “a third of the girls came back saying that they were nonbinary or queer or gender nonconforming.”

This self-refutation continues to Goldberg’s conclusion. She does reiterate her ugly victim-blaming regarding the infamous Loudoun County rape case — why is a supposed feminist shaming a teenage girl for being raped in circumstances inconvenient to the agenda of men in dresses?

Yet she ends with a quote the victim’s mother had given to the Daily Wire, noting how her daughter was still drifting along with the gender revolution: “’Where does she get these ideas? From school, obviously,’ the mother said. ‘It’s not from our home.’”

The Left’s Contradictions

Once again, Goldberg has confirmed that social conservatives were right: educators really are leading students in a sexual and gender identity revolution, which is then furthered by social media and peer pressure. Nonetheless, Goldberg is probably not a closet conservative writing esoterically to get past her editors.

Rather, she seems to be ensnared by the contradictions of the left’s current orthodoxy on sex and gender. This sort of confusion, along with her apparently unwitting confirmations that conservatives were right, is inevitable because the LGBT movement’s justifying mantra of “born this way” is false, as demonstrated by what is happening in schools.

The born this way creed posits that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate and immutable, and that an authentic and flourishing life requires accepting these inborn identities. Thus, teaching young children about sexual orientation and gender identity is necessary to help them discover and live as their true selves, otherwise they will be repressed, miserable, and perhaps even suicidal. This is the logic behind the constant references to “LGBT youth” and “trans kids,” as well as President Joe Biden’s support for chemically and surgically transitioning children.

The True Source of Gender

But this view has been discredited. There is no gay gene. Nor is there an established biological basis for transgender identification. The case for transition rests on shoddy social science; some researchers even lie about their results. This is why transgender advocates rely on the abusive emotional blackmail of suicide threats.

The truth is that sexual inclinations and one’s sense of gender arise from a mix of biological, environmental, and cultural factors, of which genes are only a minor part. The interactions of these elements are complex and are not the same for everyone. We may have predispositions, but no one is predestined to identify as LGBT.

We can see this complexity and fluidity playing out in our culture, especially among the young. It is not just that youth are much more likely to identify as LGBT, but that they are deconstructing and recombining sexual and gender identities, often encouraged by their educators and under the influence of social media.

Educators Pushing LGBT Ideology

Nonetheless, the legacy of the (very politically successful) creed of “born this way” persists. It encourages teaching children about rainbow identities at young ages, justified by the presumption that some of them are already among the LGBT elect, even if they don’t know it yet. But rather than drawing out and nurturing intrinsic identities, instructing young children in LGBT ideology shapes their identities. Activist educators claim to protect trans children, but they are actually helping create trans children.

Horrifying examples are emerging of educators pushing young children into trans identities, even against the wishes of parents (some schools even hide these changes from parents). The Libs of TikTok Twitter account exposes a steady stream of such abuses — and these are just the activists dumb enough to boast online about what they are doing. In New Jersey, new state teaching standards have school districts distributing sample lesson plans instructing first and second graders in gender ideology and sexual orientation.

The LGBT educational agenda has more red flags than the Soviet army, from teachers talking to young children about sex to school counselors helping them to keep sexual and gender secrets from their parents. Groomer is as good a term as any for pedagogues who are eager to inform five-year-olds about sexual orientation, or who respond to the gender confusion of a troubled adolescent girl by encouraging her to inject testosterone, grow a beard, and have her breasts amputated.

The youth LGBT revolution is not a natural development among children expressing innate identities. Rather, it is an artificial social contagion encouraged by adult ideologues indoctrinating students — a six-year-old does not conclude on his own that a boy can have a vagina and a girl can have a penis. This is why parents are in revolt against the education establishment and why a liberal feminist writer can’t help admitting that the grooming is real.


This article was published in The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Trans Tyranny in Public Schools

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Schools across the country have adopted a controversial policy of hiding the LGBT statuses of students from their parents. Sold to the public as an effort to protect children from abuse, the policy effectively circumvents parental consent and notification about their children’s health, safety, and well-being.

One Texas family told Chronicles how they fought to protect their children from transgender ideology. After finding out that staff of a public school had encouraged their daughter to transition to a male gender, they withdrew their children from the school. But that wasn’t the end of the story. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) came knocking at their door, demanding to conduct a safety assessment of their family environment.

In telling us his family’s story, the father, who we’ll call John, asked Chronicles to protect their identities, for fear of retaliation. He gave Chronicles copies of all the documents he received and sent to DFPS during the agency’s investigation.

What John and his family experienced is the result of a countrywide effort to push through schools radical ideas about sex and gender to influence children at their most vulnerable developmental stages. Even more sinister, their story shows how the enforcement arm of the government is being used to punish and harass those who resist. A war for the hearts, minds, and bodies of America’s children, which can often result in devastating and irreversible consequences—is being waged in every state, red or blue, and there is no opting out of the conflict.

John is a native Texan. He and his family live—or so they thought—outside Austin’s progressive sphere of influence. Over the last two years, John and his wife noticed their daughter, whom we’ll call Jane, acting strange. Jane cut her long, light brown hair to a much shorter, militaristic style during her freshman year of high school and adopted a more masculine style of dress. She withdrew from family life altogether, and her parents began practically begging her to interact with them as she used to do. Jane asked to start seeing a therapist, but wouldn’t explain why. Worried about her state of mind, they agreed to arrange mental health therapy sessions.

The truth about what was bothering Jane came out “in bits and pieces,” John said, but they never could have anticipated what was behind it all. The moment of revelation came when the family met with the high school guidance counselor last autumn. It was a routine appointment to review a catalog of classes and plan for their daughter’s future. John and his wife noticed that Jane had an uncanny rapport with the counselor. John said the counselor and Jane were finishing each other’s sentences and seemed privy to a whole world impenetrable to the parents. He appeared to have the kind of intimate relationship with Jane that John and his wife had lost and were struggling to reestablish.

After the meeting, John asked Jane about what was going on, and she revealed the truth. The guidance counselor and other staff at the school had encouraged their daughter to adopt a new identity as a boy, and to hide that from her parents. She had lived a secret life as a boy for her freshman and sophomore years, and the school staff had conspired to keep her parents in the dark.

The family decided the best thing to do was to prepare to withdraw their children from the school district. John and his wife did as much research as they could on homeschooling, even joining the Texas Home School Coalition. Then, one Friday last October, the kids spent their final full day in the district. John and his wife filed the proper forms with the schools, stating that Jane and her brother were beginning home schooling the following Monday.

When Monday came, John received a call from DFPS. Someone had filed a report “concerning the safety of the child(ren) in your family,” according to a later DFPS letter. A social worker showed up at their house the next day to perform a child welfare check that left the family confused and disturbed. Later that week, DFPS notified John that someone else had filed a second report alleging abuse.

It was easy enough to refute the allegations. DFPS personnel even told the family that the reports appeared retaliatory. Someone was trying in bad faith to get John’s kids taken away. Moreover, the charges were so specific that it made the family suspicious of how anyone could know so much about them.

John sat down with Jane and laid out the stakes. He said that the people who had filed these reports “were willing to tear you and your brother away from your family and probably separate you from each other, simply because your parents aren’t going along with this.” Her eyes widened, and the weight of what was happening dawned on her. John relayed what the reports alleged: that Jane had been kept in isolation, denied medical care, and locked inside the house with a security system. “But, we have our own codes to the security system,” she said, just as confused as her father. Then it clicked.

Jane remembered a counselor asking her leading questions, including whether she had been denied medical care. Jane mentioned that at a routine health check-up her parents had declined a doctor’s suggestion to put her on anti-depressants, saying they had enrolled her in mental health therapy instead. The counselor also asked about her living situation, including, oddly, about her house’s security system.

John and his daughter realized together that the leading conversation she had with the guidance counselor seemed to inform the allegations of child abuse, and that he had made an erroneous assumption that the security system was some kind of device to keep Jane locked up. They suspect a teacher at the school may have been involved as well, and may have filed one of the abuse reports. At any rate, it became clear that the school’s staff had exploited Jane’s trust and used it to attack her parents.

Unfortunately, this kind of subversion has become common in public schools everywhere. State by state, examples abound of teachers and administrators actively pushing LGBT ideology on children behind their parents’ backs, causing chaos and division within families.

Jeffrey and January Littlejohn, of Leon County, Florida, in October filed a lawsuit against their school district after discovering that the staff of their middle school had secretly met with their 13-year-old daughter to develop a transgender “support plan.” The Littlejohns’ lawsuit alleges that the district was involved in “training district staff to conceal from parents information regarding their children’s assertion of a discordant gender identity, including, inter alia, assumption of a new name, use of different pronouns, use of opposite sex privacy facilities and use of opposite sex lodging on off campus trips.”

The journalist and author Abigail Shrier reported in November on her Substack newsletter that Buena Vista Middle School teachers Lori Caldeira and Kelly Baraki “stalked”—a term used by Caldeira—students’ online activity to identify candidates for an LGBT club. Parents responding to Shrier’s story characterized the teachers’ efforts as “grooming.”

The Spreckels Union School District—of which Buena Vista Middle School is a part—now faces a lawsuit alleging teachers manipulated a woman’s daughter into changing her gender identity and kept it hidden under its “Parental Secrecy Policy.”

And, in November, a Wisconsin family and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm that tries cases on religious freedom and parental rights, sued the Kettle Moraine School District because of its policy allowing students to change their names and gender pronouns without parental consent. The lawsuit alleges that staff at the school’s mental health center didn’t help their 12-year-old daughter with depression and questions about her gender, but “quickly ‘affirmed’ that she was really a transgender boy and encouraged her to transition to a male identity.”

The proliferation of LGBT ideology in schools is connected to the expansion of “social-emotional learning” (SEL) curriculum. In a nutshell, parents and parents’ rights activists describe SEL as a Trojan horse for introducing children to “critical race theory and gay and transgender advocacy,” as the Washington Examiner put it. It also cuts out parents from caring for children’s mental health, shifting that responsibility onto those versed in SEL. In other words, teachers assume the role of parents.

For all their talk about family values, Republican politicians are reluctant to act. Three of them—Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and State Rep. Dade Phelan—took a combined $2.47 million in campaign funds from political action committees affiliated with pediatric gender-modification clinics, according to an analysis of Transparency USA campaign finance records by Katy Christian Magazine. The three later helped kill bills that would have prohibited the gender modification that goes on at such clinics.

John, the father from Texas, and his family were cleared by the DFPS of child abuse allegations in October. John said the agency’s caseworker told him that there have been more and more retaliatory actions against parents who don’t go along quietly with the highjacking of their children’s gender identities. Although the Texas DFPS keeps the names of those reporting child abuse confidential and protects them from civil or criminal liability, it is, nevertheless, a felony to falsely report child abuse or neglect under the Texas Family Code. Yet overzealous or disingenuous reporting is more common than people think. As the Houston Chronicle reported in 2018, a Texas judge ordered the state to pay a family $127,000 after caseworkers wrongly accused them of child abuse.

The formal process of uncovering who filed a report against John’s family takes months. In the meantime, they are left waiting and wondering. John believes the point of the reports was to threaten the loss of his children for interfering with the educational establishment’s vision of progress. He said he’s distraught at the thought that even if his family come out of this okay, other families may not. Some parents may lose their kids or be cowed into going along with gender transitions, hormone therapies and surgeries.

John said he is encouraged, however, by Jane slowly emerging from her shell. “My wife, my daughter, and I now all go to a family counselor because we want her to know she can open up to us,” he said. Above all, they want her to see that she was a victim of a dangerous ideology, one that nearly tore her family apart.


This article was published by Chronicles and is reproduced with permission.

Meet The Sex Shop Founder Who Is Grooming Children Through Books In School Libraries

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

A book in schools that’s come under fire from parents was written by an author with a concerning – and previously unreported – resumé.

This article features obscene quoted material.

As parents across the nation wake up to the threat that the American educational system poses to children, many have taken note of the sexually explicit, politically motivated literature that has made its way into public and school libraries.

In Wyoming, community members notified the police department about explicit books in the local library’s youth section. “Sex is a Funny Word,” written by Cory Silverberg and illustrated by Fiona Smyth, is one such book. It was placed on the American Library Association Reading List for 2016.

Intended for those as young as 7-year-old second graders, the book has been featured in middle school libraries and discusses the “subjects of transgender identity, intersex conditions, and masturbation.” It also erroneously claims that “having a penis isn’t what makes you a boy. Having a vulva isn’t what makes you a girl. The truth is much more interesting than that!”

This type of propagandizing has become standard for the left-wing extremists embedded in our education system. But what makes it all the more astonishing is both the thoroughly unnerving — and previously unreported — history of this book’s author and the institutional support that’s propelled him to notoriety.

From Sex Shops To School Libraries

Cory Silverberg’s website links to the four books he’s written. Each one focuses on the same thing: sex. With the exception of “The Ultimate Guide to Sex and Disability,” which he coauthored with Miriam Kaufman and Fran Odette, the author’s work is aimed at children.

His latest book, “You Know, Sex,” another collaboration with Smyth, is available for pre-order and discusses “pornography,” “stigma,” and “gender.” He calls the book “essential for kids.” His website bio states, “Cory’s life is full of kids. All of them know where babies come from. Some know more.”

Who is this man so intent on informing your children not only about sex, but about pornography, transsexuality, and masturbation? On his website, which advertises children’s books, the author cites himself as a “founding member of Come As You Are Co-operative,” an anti-capitalist sex shop in Toronto, which he also links to.

As the Toronto Star noted years ago, this isn’t just any sex shop. This is a “beginner’s sex store.” The outlet noted that the store hoped “to hold an off-site sex-education workshop for parents of children aged 7 to 12, one that will focus on more than reproduction.” The Star went on to quote Silverberg as saying, “Our overall focus is pleasure-based rather than fear-based.”

The shop’s website includes a section that catalogs the owners’ media appearances. One edition of Fab magazine, published on February 7, 2007, includes an article titled “Come As You Are Celebrates 10 Years.” It spares no details, highlighting a “Japanese rope bondage” workshop, while also graphically describing a real life, in-person “workshop” that featured sexual demonstrations from two naked men.

The disturbing focus on children that is so clear on Silverberg’s personal website is just as apparent on the sex shop’s website. Right next to ads for the exact type of products you’d expect a sex shop to sell, is a “Kids, Parents, and Teens Books” section. The section boasts “sex-positive guides for younger folk.”

The kid’s section carries books like “Gender Creative Child,” a guide to masturbation, and “Woke Parenting,” which seeks to help readers “raise your kids to be feminist, anti-racist,” and “gender-inclusive.” Silverberg’s own books are also featured on the site.

Involvement In Curriculum Development

The author’s involvement in Ante Up reveals a conscious desire to embed his distorted worldview into schools. The organization advertises a “socio-emotional learning” curriculum that “focuses on supporting educators of color and working-class educators in unlearning the white supremacist abelist heteropatriarchal ways of writing and educating others.”

The sex shop co-founder is joined by such esteemed co-collaborators as Clarissa Francis, who cut squarely into the Babyon Bee’s marketshare when her bio explained that she “developed the Let Freedom C.U.M. Sexuality Workshop Series to equip Black sexuality professionals, and the aspiring sexually liberated, to recognize and utilize multi-disciplinary approaches to discussing Pleasure Activism as a tool for Black Sexual Liberation.”

The organization seems to have courted favor with various political bodies in New York. Ante Up’s founder Bianca Laureano “wrote the sexual and reproductive justice discussion guide for the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,” according to her bio. Silverberg spoke on “Sex Is a Funny Word” for the NYC Department of Education’s Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Learning.

It isn’t a fluke that a leftwing sex shop founder has been propped up as an authority on sexuality, with direct access to children. Media and education institutions, alongside several leftwing activists, have helped mainstream such fringe beliefs. The author is praised because of, not in spite of, the extremism of his sexual worldview.

That “Sex is a Funny Word” was lauded by Kristin Russo on behalf of BuzzFeed as “revolutionary” tells you everything you need to know, but the outlet was one of many institutions to lend its support.

The book won the American Library Association’s Stonewall Award and was celebrated by the School Library Journal, which called the book “exceptional” specifically because of “its introduction of the subjects of transgender identity, intersex conditions, and masturbation.” The organization publishes roughly 6,000 book reviews every year and bills itself as “the premier publication for librarians and information specialists who work with children and teens.”

Lambda Literary, which “nurtures and advocates for LGBTQ writers,” heaped praise on the book, noting that it took “his radical approach to sex education” featured in his first book even further. It goes on to discuss the role that the book can have in cementing cultural shifts.

During an interview with the organization, the author pointed out that some of his critics believe that he is “warping people’s ideas of gender.” He flatly responded, “Maybe I am.”

Various activists, each of whom is committed to overthrowing healthy conceptions of sex, lauded the book alongside these institutions in reviews posted on Amazon.

Andee Hochman is an accomplished leftwing activist who wrote a book all about upending traditional notions of family. It was named “one of the 100 most important feminist books of the 20th century by Sojourner magazine.” Hochman celebrated “Sex Is a Funny Word’s” “radical and urgent message – sexuality with a side of social justice,” also expressing glee that one of the children in the book was portrayed as non-binary. Her lone critique? The text was too small.

Transgender activist and author of “My New Gender Workbook” Kate Bornstein was similarly impressed, writing a review that proposed the book as a viable alternative to college, graduate school, and even “years of therapy.” This is high praise, especially from an activist who wrote the “Step by-Step Guide to Achieving World Peace Through Gender Anarchy and Sex Positivity.”

Aidan Key, who leads training in schools, remarked that the book enables readers to “step out of today’s binary gender paradigm,” while Slate’s Rachelle Hampton lauded the book because it “humorously tackles topics from gender to masturbation” and was “leaps and bounds ahead” of other books “in terms of how progressive it is.”

But Huffington Post outdid both Slate and BuzzFeed years ago when they offered the author a platform and even hosted a symposium on reshaping America’s sexual norms with him and more established leftwing activists. The author’s extreme views were given the patina of normalcy through the presence of more mainstream activists like notable author Esther Perel and the widely published Ian Kerner, who talk less of childhood masturbation and more of feminism and relationships.

They were also joined by academic Leonore Tiefer, who was involved in the leadership of an organization intent on keeping perversity like “Sex is a Funny Word” in school libraries. Tiefer won an award named after Alfred Kinsey, a hero of the pro-pedophile group NAMBLA.

What’s so telling isn’t the book itself, but that the beliefs behind it, undoubtedly considered reprehensible by massive swaths of the world, have been intentionally mainstreamed by both an activist base and an institutionally backed political movement that’s hostile to traditional notions of decency. No wonder parents are getting active.

Cory Silverberg did not respond to a request for comment.


This article was published in The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Arizona Bill Would Allow Families to Sue Teachers Over Parental Rights Violations

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A bill in the Arizona legislature would create a sharper enforcement mechanism for the state’s parental bill of rights.

While Arizona has a parents bill of rights, it doesn’t have any recourse for parents who think their rights have been violated. Senate Bill 1049, filed by Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, would change that.

The bill would allow parents to sue teachers and school districts who violate their rights as parents. Those found guilty under the law would face a class 2 misdemeanor charge. The law also would allow the state’s attorney general to take schools to court; penalties against schools could reach $5,000 under the proposal.

Townsend spoke in favor of the proposal at a February 10 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“So this bill basically brings in the teeth, so it’s no longer a ‘so what’ statute, but is actually abided by,” she said. “The erosion of parental rights is clear and obvious, and we’re just trying to restore that.”

Dana Almond, a mother of four, testified against the bill.

She said that teachers have been working hard during the pandemic and that she thinks the bill would add stress to their lives.

“When I’m looking at this bill and I see legal jeopardy,” she said. “I’m worried about the health and welfare of my kids, which is going to take away from my kids’ education and focus on that. If they’ve got something over their head, I don’t understand what the motivation is, because I know we’re collaborative, parents and teachers. I’m just worried about the health of the teachers and how it will affect my children.”

The state’s parental bill of rights has many implications in public schools. Among other things, it requires parents to permit their children to take sex-ed classes, allows parents to opt their children out of learning material they find harmful to their student, lets parents see instructional materials, gives parents a chance to opt their children out of learning about acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and prevents schools from showing R-rated movies without parental consent to students under 18 years old.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended 5-3 that the bill move forward. It has not yet come up for a formal vote.


This article was published in The Center Square and is reproduced with permission

California District Pays Nearly $170k For Curricula Teaching Children To Become Leftist ‘Co-Conspirators’

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

This California school district isn’t just indoctrinating children, it’s teaching them how to be leftwing revolutionaries.

California’s Jefferson Elementary School District will be the first district in the United States to implement ethnic studies courses in all of their elementary and middle schools, and their new curriculum for this includes teaching children to become leftwing “co-conspirators.” The district’s curriculum that brings new state requirements for high school into the earliest grade levels was created by Community Responsive Education, a leftwing organization run by critical race theorists at San Francisco State University.

The district, which is located in Daly City, California, and serves roughly 6,000 students across ten elementary schools and four middle schools, has agreed to pay the organization nearly $170k in taxpayer money.

Public Dollars to Make Leftist ‘Co-Conspirators’

District documents note that the radical curriculum will be piloted in the 2021-2022 school year. It was presented by Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, a professor at San Francisco State University and the co-director of Community Responsive Education. The presentation was given during a school board meeting in July 2021 and began with a land acknowledgment that described the Ohlone people, not the United States, as the rightful stewards of the land that JESD is on.

Tintiangco-Cubales, who uses the pronouns “she/her” in addition to “siya,” a Filipino word that means both male and female, explained that she is “a settler, an uninvited visitor” on Ohlone land before going on to note that JESD is America’s first district that “is committed to rolling out Ethnic Studies in all of their middle and elementary schools.” In late 2021, California passed a state mandate that “ethnic studies” be taught in all public high schools.

The presentation explains that the curriculum is designed to “eliminate racism and other forms of oppression” by “creating, learning, listening, uncovering, and sharing of the his/herstories, experiences, and current conditions of those who have been racially marginalized, underrepresented, and/or silenced.”

The curriculum is divided into four different units, labeled “self,” “systems,” “social movements,” and “solidarity.” Each unit is accompanied by a corresponding set of “essential questions” and “enduring understandings.”

One such “enduring understanding” under the “self” unit reads: “Learning about our own identities and those of others allows us to become more empathetic and builds our capacity to go from being allies to co-conspirators/accomplices in the elimination of oppression.”

Teaching Kids America Is Inherently Evil

The second unit condemns America as institutionally racist and teaches children that white supremacy is entrenched in American systems such as education. The unit also indicts white people as the beneficiaries of racism, claiming that they use the system of white supremacy to maintain their “wealth, power, and privilege.” Additionally, students learn that “institutional racism is the way in which white supremacy continues to oppress non-white people.”

Children are then turned into ambassadors for critical race theory at the end of the unit when they are tasked with creating a public service announcement that “denounces systems that are oppressive,” which could, according to the curriculum, include American education systems if not America itself.

Directly after accusing America’s systems of being fundamentally racist and condemning white people as beneficiaries of racism who maintain white supremacy, teachers tell children how to mobilize and engage in “transformational resistance” in the third unit.

The unit focuses on social movements and blatantly aims to turn students into racially motivated leftist revolutionaries. Tintiangco-Cubales notes that special emphasis is placed on “the notion of transformational resistance.” Students are asked, “How do we build social movements to create change and impact society?”

The final unit teaches children how they can “pursue true liberation” through an understanding of “solidarity, liberation, collective action, intersectionality, and dismantling systemic oppression.” Children are also taught that “To achieve true liberation, we must actively and collectively work together to dismantle various systems of oppression (ie: institutional racism, white supremacy, etc.).”

Making Children Into Political Agitators

Students’ transformations into leftist activists are completed with their “solidarity praxis project,” where students create a campaign to address a problem in their community. Even the presentation’s imagery leaves no doubt regarding the curriculum’s intent. Each unit is introduced by a cartoon-esque flat art character holding a protest sign.

District Pays Nearly $170k For CRT Courses

Tintiangco-Cubales presented the curriculum on behalf of Community Responsive Education, an organization that offers “professional and curriculum development services for community organizations and educational institutions to begin or sustain the journey of becoming community responsive.”

At a meeting in February 2020, the district agreed to pay Community Responsive Education $40,000 in taxpayer dollars to facilitate the development of Ethnic Studies units and lessons to be piloted in Jefferson Elementary School District,” according to the meeting’s public records.

Then in August 2020, Jefferson Elementary School District unanimously approved a motion to pay the organization $28,502 for “services during the 2020-21 school year to facilitate the development of Ethnic Studies units and lessons to be piloted in Jefferson Elementary School District,” according to the school board meeting’s minutes.

The district also voted to pay Community Responsive Education an additional $100,000 “for Ethnic Studies Curriculum and Teacher Development for both Middle and Elementary school teachers beginning on July 1, 2021, until June 30, 2023” for a total of $168,502.

The concept of “community-responsive education” from which the organization draws its name, just like “culturally responsive education,” is effectively a rebranding of critical race theory. The curriculum from Community Responsive Education is predicated on a belief that U.S. institutions are defined by racism and that collective action must be taken to dismantle them, a core tenet of critical race theory.

Furthermore, CRE, just like CRT, takes the traditional Marxist dichotomy that pits the oppressed proletariat against the oppressive middle class and reapplies it to race, thereby designating moral value, victimhood, and collective guilt on people as a result of immutable characteristics.

A Dangerous Model for Extremists In Education

As America’s first school district to implement ethnic studies curriculum in all of its elementary and middle schools, Jefferson Elementary School District could have a significant influence on other ethnic studies curricula across California and America.

Without sacrificing any of the usual extremism inherent to CRT, this curriculum may mark a shift towards a more strategically oriented method of instruction. Rather than simply indoctrinating children with the beliefs of systemic racism, privilege, and oppression, this course is blatantly designed to create the next generation of extreme leftwing activists operating from these false premises.

This model will not be specific to Jefferson Elementary School District. In fact, a report from Parents Defending Education found that Community Responsive Education has a foothold in a variety of other school districts, including six others in California and one each in New York, Texas, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

A number of other California districts have also taken steps to indoctrinate children with CRT. One Bay Area school district promoted materials that told children to use witchcraft against people who say “all lives matter.” The Los Angeles Unified School District lied in claiming that CRT is not taught in its K-12 institutions despite hosting a critical race theorist who taught staff to “challenge whiteness” and inviting the director of UCLA’s Center for Critical Race Studies to give input on their ethnic studies curriculum.

This overt leftwing takeover of government schools has led some California parents to support a bipartisan campaign that would enshrine school choice and tether taxpayer dollars to students. Should it receive the required number of signatures and pass a vote, the initiative would allow parents to take their children — and their money — out of schools that prioritize indoctrination over education.

Neither school board President Clayton Koo nor Tintiangco-Cubales responded to requests for comment.


This article first appeared in The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.


The Legalized Sexualization Of America’s Young Children

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Let’s peek in on a typical classroom scenario approved by the National Sex Education Standards (NSES). Mr. Smith’s 7 and 8-year-olds are answering true-false questions: 1) “Sexual intercourse should be ONLY between a cisgender male and cisgender female.” 2) “There are only two genders.” 3) “Cisgender boys who identify as girls must go only into restrooms labeled ‘BOYS.’”

The correct answers are all FALSE according to NSES.

The class discussions necessary for small kids to understand the test terms should drop the jaws of sane parents. Second graders still play hide-and-seek and may take stuffed animals to bed. Now public-school teachers are destroying their innocence in explaining the widely (and wildly) differing sexual behaviors of adults in bed.

Too many public-school leaders have entered the morass of mental derangement and opened little innocent minds to concepts rated “R” because they are labeled “sex education.”

Dr. Judith A. Reisman, professor and former consultant to the Department of Education explains: “Little brains are not designed to process sexual stimuli of any kind.” Sexualized behavior is learned by what children see, hear, or experience — yes, even in school.

Down the hall from Mr. Smith, the 10- and 11-year-olds review their lessons using NSES core expectations for elementary grades including the joys of masturbation and how hormone blockers help transgender children.

Their vocabulary test includes gender identity, gender nonbinary and expansive, and lesbian, to name a few. The test covers differing behaviors of sexual intimacy and how same-sex couples can acquire children, such as in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy.

Virginia middle-school children 13 and 14 will soon reveal their “sex lives” in the Fairfax Youth Survey including these questions:

  • How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?
  • During your life, with how many people have you had sexual intercourse?
  • Have you ever had oral sex?

Youth barely into puberty will assume, then, that the norm for kids their age is to be sexually active.

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), established by Dr. Mary Calderone, previous medical director for Planned Parenthood, was partially funded by Hugh Hefner’s Playboy organization. These are the opening words on the SIECUS website: “[T]he ability of the federal government to enact sweeping sex education requirements continues to be a focal point of advocacy efforts.”

NEA resolution B-53 Sex Education instructs that “…programs should include information on… diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity…homophobia…lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) issues.”

Parents who disagree with any of the above are called bigots, meaning almost 30% of Americans are so-labeled by far-left extremists who seek to cancel their rights. These tax-paying parents deserve to remove their children from the required “health” (sex ed) courses, yet 29 states have no opt-out provision.

Nobody disagrees that young children need sex-abuse education. Kids should also understand that Miguel, who has two daddies, can be a friend and so can Harriet, who was born as Harry. But youngsters should be spared details of Harry’s puberty-blocking medication and what daddies and mommies do in their bedrooms.

And when children do receive such information, it should be from parents — who know their own values and children. The late Dr. Melvin Anchell, American physician, psychoanalyst, and educator, writes that indoctrinating young children sexually causes “irreparable harm” that can last throughout their lives.

Lori Porter, of Parent Rights in Education explains: “…it [is] now okay to show what can only be described as ‘sexually obscene’ material to minor children in the classroom, but it [is] still quite illegal to show that same material to children in any other venue.”

Independent Women’s Voice recently designed a TV spot showing illustrations in a Virginia school library book. Stations deemed it too explicit for late-night audiences.

How do the schools get by with making pornography available to minors, while 49 states and federal laws prohibit it? It’s simple: “Sex education” (called health) is exempt. 

Today’s parental outrage is not aimed against what “woke” parents do sexually or teach their own children. Parents are demanding their rights to control how they educate their children about sex beyond the basics of human anatomy, awareness of sexual diseases, and pregnancy prevention, the former boundaries for sex education in schools.

Today, however, public educators feel free to tell little Sophie and Sammy that although each was born with a vagina or a penis, those organs can be changed. And if the kids ever feel they need to discuss details, they should talk to the school counselor, not their parents.

Heads up, “educators” — you are not co-parents of America’s children.

Heads up, politicians — you must amend laws to prohibit pornography in public schools. The recent Virginia gubernatorial elections revealed politicians ignore that fact at their political peril.


This article first appeared in The Independent Women’s Forum and is reproduced with permission.