Tag Archives: Harvard University

ALex Newman: LOL! Harvard Push for Homeschool Ban Backfires Amazingly 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

Well that was embarrassing! A push to ban home education by a fringe anti-Christian bigot at Harvard Law School backfired in spectacular fashion in recent days. It got so bad that Harvard Magazine quickly locked down the public comments section after every single comment ridiculed and debunked the article peddling the attack on homeschooling. Oops!

As The Newman Report documented last month, a pair of anti-family tyrants are plotting an anti-homeschooling summit this summer at Harvard. Law Professor James Dwyer of William and Mary College specializes in trying to undermine parental rights, while Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet is taking a page out of National Socialist Adolf Hitler’s playbook by pushing for a “presumptive ban” on home education.

In a bizarre diatribe by Erin O’Donnell at Harvard Magazine about the supposed “risks” of homeschooling that just went online, Bartholet’s dishonesty and totalitarian fantasies were regurgitated uncritically. Basically, according to the Bartholet, home education “violates children’s right” to a “meaningful education” and “their right to be protected from potential child abuse.”

Of course, in the real world, homeschooled children score far better on every academic indicator — usually around 30 percentile points higher than victims of government schools, on the government’s own standardized academic tests. They are also better socialized, and far less likely to be abused than government-“educated” children.

Next, borrowing totalitarian language from anti-Christian communist John Dewey, Bartholet claims that homeschooling may keep children from “contributing positively to a democratic society.” But again, in the real world, homeschoolers contribute far more to society than the victims of government schools. That is true in business, politics, law, academia, science, and more.

Finally, Bartholet goes on to suggest — falsely — that virtually all homeschool families are conservative Christians, many of whom “question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.” Seriously. Apparently this is all a threat to “U.S. democracy” (perhaps she should read the Federalist Papers). The nutty professor then suggested that the remedy was to forcibly “expose” all children to “community values,” by which she means her values of the state uber alles.

As soon as the poorly written and even more poorly supported attack was published, a deluge of comments began pouring in. Most of them came from liberal and irreligious commentators who support homeschooling. All nine expressed strong disagreement. By the end of the day, it was clear that the public was blasting holes in the lies peddled by Bartholet and the shoddy “reporting” of Harvard Magazine. And so, the comment section was closed.

“This article is sad in its total inaccuracy,” opined Kim Cheney Wayman, an atheist homeschooler and the first person to comment. Next, Larissa, who said she was a public-school educator, wrote that Harvard Magazine’s piece was “by far, the most vapid and poorly researched article I’ve ever read.” TJ then blasted Bartholet for intolerance and “attacking a minority group.” Cait Blakey wrote: “This article and others like it stun me and show a true lack of understanding of what homeschooling is.” David Shellenberger added: “Government school-prisons are the worst means of education. They should be abolished and a free market achieved.” Go read them yourself.

Obviously Harvard Magazine and Bartholet were not amused with all this democratic free expression of “community values.” The Newman Report left messages left for both seeking comment, and to find out whether the comment section was closed down only to stop more people from exposing the dishonesty. Comments sections on other articles remain open even months after publication. Nobody responded to the inquiries by press time.

No matter. The next day, the relentless exposing of Bartholet’s totalitarian vision continued in other media. “Clearly, O’Donnell and Professor Bartholet desire that the governmental agenda to waste time and money be extended to our right to education — force everyone to the same time wasting, low achieving, inefficient level, and the population is more easily controlled and brainwashed with ideas and agendas directly contradictory to democracy, excellence, truth, and freedom,” wrote Melba Pearson, a Harvard alumni who was homeschooled for her entire education before college.

“I excelled at Harvard because I was homeschooled, and of that I am proud,” added Pearson after going through the massive amounts of data documenting the overwhelming superiority of home education over government schools. “It is deeply disappointing that Harvard is choosing and promoting an intellectual totalitarian path that calls for a ban of the liberties that helped me and countless others succeed, for it is those liberties and ideals that have made America the great nation it is today.”

The absurdity of Harvard’s anti-homeschooling narrative is already making for comedy gold, too. In an April 20 satire piece headlined “Study: Majority of Homeschoolers Arrive at College Woefully Unprepared for Gender Studies,” The Babylon Bee hilariously mocked the academic bigwigs at Harvard and other far-left overpriced colleges targeting home education and parental rights.

THE TAKEAWAY

Harvard just got millions of dollars in additional taxpayer funding through the stimulus bailout scheme passed by Congress. It is grotesque that the economically struggling American people are being forced to subsidize dangerous attacks on their most sacred God-given by unhinged ideologues and totalitarians at these indoctrination centers masquerading as educational institutions. It is time to stop the gravy train and force tyrants like Bartholet et al to do something productive for a living.

TNR: https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1419-lol-harvard-push-for-homeschool-ban-backfires-amazingly


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Will Humanism Save the Planet? 0 (0)

Will Humanism Save the Planet?

by Bill Lockwood

Laws are always theologically based, whether or not they are so acknowledged,” observes Herbert Schlossberg (Idols for Destruction). This is why in the societies of the ancient Near East, laws were always associated with deity. The famous Hammurabi stele, for example, shows the sun god Shemash giving the Babylonian laws to the king. This illustrates the fact that humanity recognizes that law must have ultimacy—be recognized as the ultimate standard—if it is to give any conviction that it must be followed.

Conversely, when people lose the conviction that law must be followed as an ultimate standard, then we have societies degenerating into pragmatism—everyone does that which is right in “his own eyes” (Judges 21:25) — and the breakdown of society itself is near. Right and wrong are only questions of risk and reward and morality is only a matter of personal reflection. As atheist Richard Dawkins put it, “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution” (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 301).

This is why people who reject the first commandments of the Decalogue (Exodus 20) [“thou shalt have no other gods before me, etc. …] can not be expected to recognize any ultimate significance in the last six [“honor thy father and mother; thou shalt not kill …]. At a society level, when God is erased from a culture, as our political and intellectual leaders are feverishly seeking to do, chaos between people is the predicted result. This is exactly what is occurring in America.

Humanism

Humanism removes God from public or private consideration. “No god will save us,” says the Humanist Manifesto. But that leaves man without any basis upon which to assess any action as ultimately right or wrong. “Ethics are situational and autonomous.” No ultimate savior and no purpose in life. However, people instinctively need a moral base and a purpose for living which cannot be supplied by Humanism itself. Therefore, from the Christian world-view, humanists bootleg some type of value into their system. Not the saving of souls, for the Manifesto boasts that there is no damnation to fear. But we must have “planetary salvation.” What is this?

Greg Epstein, who serves as the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and is Executive Director of the Humanist Hub on that campus, a place where atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers connect with each other, authored Good without God. In it (p. 148) he quoted another with approval:  “This [ecological crisis] is a different kind of issue than Christians (or any other humans) have ever faced, and continuing to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life may even impair our ability to see clearly its depths and significance … What is now needed is a reordering of the whole of human life around the globe in an ecologically sustainable manner – something heretofore never contemplated by any of our great religious (or secular) traditions.”

Whatever else might be said regarding Epstein’s sounding of the ecological alarm, it is a purposeful call to arms. His ecological “crisis” demands concerted action and he has proposals to accomplish it. He is seeking to re-infuse into a vacuous world-view some sort of ultimacy—a standard which should be followed with conviction. The words SHOULD and OUGHT are written all throughout Epstein’s manifesto. What of this?

First, this is precisely what his world-view disallows. If there is no god, and ethics are completely and truly “situational” and “autonomous”—arising solely within each individual—then Epstein’s should and ought have no more value than for him to say “I itch.” When he says “What is needed …” we must remember that his convictions on the subject are nothing more than the combination of atoms bumping into one another. Only physical sensations brought about by physical chemical reactions. There is no real value in this.

Second, as all atheists, Epstein criticizes religion and specifically a God-centered world view. Religion is somehow to blame in what he calls our current “ecological crisis.” But if Epstein is correct in his basic world-view then my religious belief is produced solely by matter in motion, just as his world belief is produced. Whatever we believe and do cannot be the fault of religion since religion is only the product of matter in motion. No moral fault can be laid at the feet of those who “continue to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life …”

Where did his matter get the right to criticize my matter or even to speak about the earth being treated justly? Why blame Christianity? Why even speak about “global injustice?” There can be no such thing as injustice unless man is more than matter in motion. Of course, the particular arrangement of matter in motion known as Greg Epstein cannot help making these judgments since he is not a rational being but only matter responding to the brute force of matter.

Back to Homepage