Coming To A Preschool Near You?

by Michael Avramovich

The Montview Community Preschool and Kindergarten (“Montview”) in Denver, Colorado, is a parent cooperative preschool and kindergarten for children three years of age and older. The school advertises that its highly experienced staff is “committed to best practices and to excellence in early education,” and that the school is accredited through the National Association for the Education of Young Children, which the school administration considers the “gold standard” in early children education. Montview states that its goal is to provide an environment for experiential learning, including “developmentally appropriate play-based learning.” As a parent cooperative, there is significant parental participation as parents are considered “partners in joyful learning.” The school advertises that it uses “engaging materials” that invite children to explore and learn with their “heads, hearts, and hands.” It also seeks to foster new ways of thinking for their students. In an article posted on its website, Lance Rushton encourages parents, “Look for books that are very different from your own family and personal experience . . . . Pick books that focus on different family structures, belief systems, cultural values and understandings, social position, historical trauma or economic circumstances. Yes, all of these examples can be found in children’s literature.” He then goes on to suggest the following dialogue as an example:

Daughter: “Dad, why do those kids have two moms?”

Dad: “The two moms are the parents of Claudia and Enrique. Some families have a mom and a dad like you have, and some have two dads or two moms. Some kids have one parent, a mom or a dad. Families come together in many different ways for many different reasons that I don’t even know.

Daughter: “I don’t know of any families that don’t have a mom and a dad.

Dad: “Actually you do. Drew has two dads, and Sonia from your class last year, has two moms. Oh, and Daren and his mom, and grandma are his family!

Daughter, “hmm, I didn’t know that.”

Dad: “Yep. Sometimes it’s hard to know what other families are like or who is in them when you only see one adult come to pick them up. Right? But they are all families who love each other just like we do.

Recently, one of Montview’s four-year-old students was expelled after her mother questioned the administration’s controversial curriculum that openly promoted homosexual behavior and transgenderism in the classroom. The child’s mother wanted an opportunity to opt her daughter out of the classroom discussions focusing on sexuality, same-sex relations, and gender issues, believing that her four-year-old is far too young to participate in sex education and related topics at school. The mother told the Denver Post, “I think, at this age, they don’t know what bias is. They could have kids from Mars and they would still play with each other.” But the mother made the foolish mistake of thinking that it is her parental right to judge when, where, and how her daughter is exposed to sensitive issues. So how did this issue even come to mom’s attention? Interestingly, mom became concerned about the sexual indoctrination program at Montview when her daughter came home from school and expressed worry that her father might not like “girls” any more. After finding out more from her daughter, she met with the school principal, Linda Mars, over concerns about the books being read in class, including ones that told the stories about same-sex couples. According to a CBN News reports, “School officials . . . . explained the stories were part of the school’s anti-bias curriculum, and because the discussions are sprinkled through the day’s activities, [the administration] told her that opting out was not possible.” However, a mere two days later, the preschooler was kicked out of the school. The school’s letter handed to mom simply stated, “[The situation is] not a good fit,” and that it was her daughter’s last day at the school. So Montview apparently could not accommodate mom’s request to protect her child.

Principal Mars then wrote another letter to the Montview community about other concerns that were expressed over the choice of books being read by students and teachers in the classroom. In an attempt to avoid further problems, Principal Mars insisted that the preschoolers and kindergarteners must learn about diversity and tolerance during classroom instructional time, and that they must become familiar with all the different languages, skin colors, cultures, and family structures in American society. In contrast, the preschooler’s mom maintained that her daughter is immersed in a community that is diverse since she is being raised in a biracial family, where she is exposed to both Western and Moslem cultures on a daily basis.

Personally, I think that her “expulsion” is a blessing. Recently, the American College of Pediatricians (“ACP”) issued a statement entitled, “Gender ideology harms children,” available here, in which they warned educators and lawmakers to resist embracing the LGBTQ+ agenda that encourages gender transitions among children. In its statement, the ACP said that the trend toward gender transitioning is tantamount to “child abuse,” and further noted, “The [ACP] urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.” Indeed. Ironically, as a culture, we have fallen far in the 75 years since publication in 1941 of Robert McCloskey’s classic and immensely popular book for young children, Make Way for Ducklings. Who even knows if such a wholesome book is read today to the children at Montview? But what is happening at Montview is only the tip of an iceberg. A Queer Endeavor, an “initiative” started in the School of Education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has helped train 2,500 Colorado teachers over the past three years. In the public preschools of Boulder, Colorado, all teachers were trained this year to integrate a broader type of diversity to include gender and sexual differences, and to have “conversations” with young children. Ultimately, I would encourage my readers to find out what your children and grandchildren are being taught in their preschools and kindergarten. You might just be as surprised as was the mother of this four-year-old little girl. Is it really any wonder that millions of children are being homeschooled in the United States?

Stanford’s Demands

Nice work here from The Stanford Review on this April 1, 2016. We at Salvo also believe you’ve got to have a sense of humor about these things.

• • •
Stanford University has repeatedly failed to address systematic issues on campus. We, the Students of the Stanford Review, have seen our voices silenced, our rights trampled, and our experiences ignored. Not once has an administrator inquired as to the relative health of our feelings – the system is broken! We, the Students of the Stanford Review, DEMAND change.

  1. WE DEMAND that Stanford builds a wall around El Centro Chicano, and makes MEChA pay for it.
  2. WE DEMAND that Stanford expels Panda Express from campus, since its food is culturally appropriative, and celebrates the harvesting of the endangered panda bear.
  3. WE DEMAND that Stanford renames White Plaza to Black Plaza. Naming a central plaza after a race is hateful.
  4. WE DEMAND that Stanford recognizes that half-lives matter, and establishes a committee to fund the Chemistry and Physics Departments accordingly.
  5. WE DEMAND that Stanford’s Classics Department end its disgusting and exploitative profiteering off the lived experiences of ancient Greeks and Romans.
  6. WE DEMAND that swimming pools be abolished at Stanford, since their blueness shows implicit support for the Israeli flag, further dehumanizing the Palestinian people.
  7. We DEMAND that Stanford ends its use of European languages, since they are inherently colonialist. We recommend Xhosa, Zulu, and interpretive dance as alternatives for person-to-person communication.
  8. WE DEMAND that Stanford’s Applied Quantitative Reasoning requirement not be fulfilled by cis-linear algebra. The experiences of marginalized matrices have been ignored for too long.
  9. WE DEMAND the banning of the Stanford Federal Credit Union from campus, since all debt is alienating and shackles people to the capitalist machine. Also, people use their SFCU debit cards to purchase food from the aforementioned, oppressive Panda Express.
  10. WE DEMAND that Hoover Tower be removed, since its phallic symbolism is not countered by a suitably feminist building on campus.
  11. WE DEMAND that the Math Department immediately cease reducing fractions, each having their own unique identities and experiences, to their lowest common denominators.
  12. WE DEMAND that Stanford base grades only on attendance records in class, since all other measures are discriminatory, as SAL already nobly recognizes.
  13. WE DEMAND that Stanford remove the clearly ageist language in “Old” Union. From now on, the Review will meet in Union 215 on Monday nights.
  14. WE DEMAND that Stanford bans hard alcohol in dorms.
  15. WE DEMAND that the Administration immediately accepts the aforementioned demands, and that a statement of acceptance, a timetable of implementation for each demand, and an administrative point person for each demand be presented to the Review at 3 PM on Friday April 8, in open forum at Buffalo Wild Wings, San Jose.

Essential Articles from Salvo on ISIS and the West

ISIS & the Enigma of Modernity
Turning the Clock Back 1,400 Years by Robin Phillips

. . . Al-Qaeda grew out of the Islamic revival of the last century and, murderous as it was, it provided a platform for devout Wahhabi Muslims to prove their piety through acts of sacrifice. But the profile of an ISIS terrorist is very different. We are now dealing with people like Sally Jones, whose exposure to Islam has been shallow, superficial, and brief. I suggest that the key to unlocking this mystery lies in recognizing that the current jihad, despite its ancient roots, is also a distinctly modern phenomenon. ISIS offers an alternative to the individualism, isolation, and fragmentation of the modern world while at the same time exemplifying and embodying those conditions. . . .

English Shadows
Britain Struggles to Win Young Muslim Minds by Michael Cook

. . . “Our strongest weapon [is] our own liberal values,” the prime minister said in a speech last July. He defined these as follows: “We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.” But will these capture the imagination and idealism of young people? Democracy and the rule of law are the hard-won glories of Western culture, but they don’t appeal to the existential passions of young people trying to shape a meaning for their lives. ISIS recruits are being promised suffering, sacrifice, and eternal glory. To them, Cameron’s words must sound like the huffing and puffing of a latter-day Colonel Blimp. . . .

French Lessons
Is Blasphemy Against Free Speech Worth Dying For? by Michael Cook

. . . The real question is whether a commitment to Free Speech can bear the weight of being the lynchpin that holds society together. The terrorists are ruthless killers, but they are also prepared to die for their convictions. Are French devotees of Free Speech prepared to die for theirs? Will their lynchpin hold firm when put to the ultimate test? I hope we never have to discover the answer to this question. However, by a bizarre coincidence, a wildly popular and controversial novel that examines the conflict between Islam and the Enlightenment was published on the same day as the attack. It suggests that the French would not die in a ditch for free speech. The title of Michel Houellebecq’s novel, Soumission (“Submission”), is a clever pun, as the word “Islam” means submission to the will of Allah. But it also describes the shoulder-shrugging, life-must-go-on attitude of collaborators. . . .

Holy Struggles
Reconciling Christianity & the Crusades by Terrell Clemmons

. . . while acknowledging sin and asking for forgiveness are unquestionably laudable acts—we’ll return to that shortly—the Reconciliation Walk and its publicity team perpetuated a plethora of falsehoods about what we have come to call the Crusades, prompting Mark Galli of Christian History to “apologize for their apology.” It’s too easy, he says, to repudiate the actions of Christians of other times and places. Though wrongs certainly transpired, “there’s little point in becoming judgmental. Better to try to understand the crusaders in the context of their times.” And to do that, a little history is in order. . . .

Robin Phillips’ review of Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs by Robert Spencer

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain. The purpose for meeting with Adja was to negotiate an end to Muslim raids on American ships. Jefferson and Adams later reported what the ambassador said when asked how he could justify such attacks. According to the report given to Congress, Adja replied “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” Little has changed in the intervening years concerning Islamic hatred of Americans. What has changed, however, is that Muslims have become more cunning in their tactics. That is the subject of Robert Spencer’s book Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. . . .

The above articles appeared in the pages of Salvo. You should subscribe. SPECIAL OFFER! Subscribe to Salvo for only $19.99 and receive the Salvo Science & Faith issue FREE

The Factual Feminist on Intersectional Feminism

Christina Hoff-Sommers (aka The Factual Feminist) gives her take on the latest college campus hysteria, something called Intersectional Feminism. We’re fans of The Factual Feminist, so we recommend this short video to you.

Also, in an older issue of Salvo, S. T. Karnick writes a short piece on boys and boyhood referring to Hoff-Sommers’s book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. It’s also worth a look: “Girly Men: The Media’s Attack on Masculinity.”

“This book tells the story of how it has become fashionable to attribute pathology to millions of healthy male children. It is a story of how we are turning against boys and forgetting a simple truth: that the energy, competitiveness, and corporal daring of normal, decent males is responsible for much of what is right in the world. No one denies that boys’ aggressive tendencies must be checked and channeled in constructive ways. Boys need discipline, respect, and moral guidance. Boys need love and tolerant understanding. They do not need to be pathologized.”

Hoff-Sommers goes on to note that “it’s a bad time to be a boy in America. . . . Routinely regarded as protosexists, potential harassers and perpetuators of gender inequity, boys live under a cloud of censure.” The school curricula, she observes, are skewed toward girls’ strengths and away from those of boys. That’s why classes emphasize word problems in math class and writing essays in science class, for example.

Ideas vs. Facts

Yesterday I posted Essential Articles from Salvo on Communism and the State. One of those articles is an interview with Fr. Roman Braga who was imprisoned by the communists in Romania for 5 years. I recommend it to you (Solitary Refinement: How One Man Found Freedom Inside a Communist Prison, An interview with Fr. Roman Braga by James M. Kushiner), but I would also like to point you to this interview with another Romanian who grew up under the communist regime. From The College FixProfessor raised under communism explains academics’ love of socialism – and why they’re wrong. An excerpt:

COLLEGE FIX: Socialism appears to be a popularly embraced ideology in American academia. Why do you think this is? What is so tempting about this mindset?

FLORIN CURTA: I think that there’s an idealism that most people in academia, specifically in the humanities, share. We live in an era of ideological morass, especially with the collapse of communism that has left no room for those idealists in the academic world. No matter how you can prove that system doesn’t work, with an inclination to go that way perhaps because most people associate socialism with social justice, while the former is an ideology with concrete ideas and concrete historical experiences, while social justice is a very vague abstract notion.

You have to understand, the difference between ideas and facts is what is of major concern here. As my father used to say, it is so much easier to be a Marxist when you sip your coffee in Rive Gauche, left-bank Paris, than when living in an apartment under Ceaușescu, especially in the 1980s.

Essential Articles from Salvo on Communism and the State


State Purposes
Utopian Creep & the Struggle for Human Rights & Freedom
by Terrell Clemmons

. . . Consider that this Ameritopia’s Leviathan-sized federal government has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, contractor, grantor, insurer, health-care provider, regulator, and pension guarantor, to name only a few of the many extra-constitutional roles Uncle Sam has assumed. Worse, an alarming segment of the population has foregone self-reliance and individual industry in favor of dependence on the rest. In such an environment, those traits which represent the best in the nature of man—initiative, drive, and selflessness—inevitably languish and falter, while, as Shin Dong-hyuk warns, those which represent the worst—indolence, envy, and predation—thrive. . . .

Statism’s Deadbeat Dad
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
by Terrell Clemmons

. . . The expressions of Rousseau’s ideas took different forms in the different nations to which they spread, but one thing they had in common was the elevation of the state to the role of supreme liberator of the people and ultimate authority and caretaker over them. Whereas the original American understanding of liberty valued and recognized inherent human rights that the state may not transgress, Rousseau’s view of liberty was the diametrical opposite. As Nancy Pearcey explains in How Now Shall We Live?, to Rousseau, “freedom meant liberation from the forms and institutions of society—family, church, class, and local community.” And the state would and should be the liberator. “Each citizen would then be completely independent of all his fellow men,” she quotes Rousseau, “and absolutely dependent on the state.” . . .

Solitary Refinement
How One Man Found Freedom Inside a Communist Prison
An interview with Fr. Roman Braga by James M. Kushiner

. . . I suffered eleven years in Communist prisons. They put me in prison because I was a teacher; I was teaching religion and the Romanian language in high school. When the Communist government came into power, they immediately said everyone in the schools would have to interpret everything in the Marxist, materialistic way. But I didn’t want to lie to my students. It was not only me; many thousands of other Christians and intellectuals in Romania did the same.

We wanted to educate young people to be themselves the way that God created them, to know who they were. Personality is something given by God. Each one is unique. God never creates standard types, like bars of soap coming down the conveyer belt in the factory. It may seem that I exaggerate, because I came out of Communism, where the individuals were just numbers, like bricks in a building, all the same, and they don’t have any other function. . . .

Truth vs. State
It Takes Courage to Confront False Ideologies
by H. Lynn Gardner

. . . Among the false ideologies of the West are secularism, feminism, and sexual libertinism. Speaking against them will not advance your career in government or education. But the witness of two men who lived under the lies of communism should inspire us to speak out. They had the courage and integrity to live and speak the truth about their societies despite the risk of prison, torture, and even death—Vaclav Havel (1936–2011) & Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008). . . .

Che Guevara
The Making of a Marxist Martyr
by Terrell Clemmons

. . . Although Che had left Cuba under a cloud two years earlier, Castro responded to the news of Che’s death by declaring a three-day period of national mourning. “If you wish to express what we want our children to be,” he told a crowd in Havana’s Revolution Square, “we must say from our hearts as ardent revolutionaries, ‘We want them to be like Che!'” From then on, Cuban schoolchildren began their day saying, “Pioneers of Communism, we will be like Che!” It makes perfect sense that Castro would want everyone to be like Che, for Che served Castro to his dying breath. It also makes sense that Cuban schoolchildren would be forced to pay tribute to this would-be role model. They have no choice. What doesn’t make sense is why anyone in the free world would follow suit. . . .

The above articles appeared in the pages of Salvo. You should subscribe. SPECIAL OFFER! Subscribe to Salvo for only $19.99 and receive the Salvo Science & Faith issue FREE