ANALYSIS: Media's gaslighting misrepresents commonsense education measures as radical
Upon closer examination, however, these policies can be better described as commonsense measures aimed at fostering transparent communication between schools and parents.
Education Reporter Liz Schlemmer wrote the following in a July 12 article for North Carolina Public Radio:
“A [North Carolina] GOP bill containing a list of controversial education provisions that was expected to be heard in a state House committee on Wednesday has now been pulled from the agenda. Senate Bill 90 brings together a collection of politicized policies.”
Included in the list of so-called ‘controversial education provisions’ were policies that make it easier for parents to “Challenge school library books and prosecute librarians;” “Challenge instructional materials;” “Force a superintendent to be dismissed or receive a reduction in pay;” “Request for their child to be reassigned to another school or district;” and “Be informed if their child identifies as transgender or is at risk of suicide.”
Upon closer examination, however, these policies can be better described as commonsense measures aimed at fostering transparent communication between schools and parents.
Take the policy that would allow parents to be “informed if their child identifies as transgender or is at risk of suicide” as an example.
Though described as controversial, the policy demands transparent communication between schools and parents, which is undeniably sound.
Notifying parents if their child is at imminent risk of suicide or identifies as transgender offers an opportunity for timely intervention and support.
The bill also addresses concerns surrounding instructional materials and the role of parents in shaping their children’s education by allowing parents to challenge instructional materials and allowing requests for their child to be reassigned to another school or district.
“It would entitle parents to a hearing by their local school board if they wish to have their child reassigned to another school in the district. Parents could appeal a decision by the school board to the state Superior Court,” Schlemmer writes.
But concerning materials have been shown to elementary-aged children as of late, as videos below show:
And… it’s gone! But not before I saved it :). Why isn’t @NickiJizz proud of her drag performance where she “had them kids [middle schoolers] losing it” ? pic.twitter.com/5nGU4L8wJJ
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 8, 2022
I have obtained more footage of the drag show which took place today at Aspire Richmond California College Preparatory Academy, a middle school in Richmond, Ca. The drag queen’s stage name is “jizz.” @aspire were the parents aware of this? pic.twitter.com/iNHc9qXEtz
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 8, 2022
Is it controversial for a parent to have the right to remove their child from a district that exposes children to drag shows?
Schlemmer’s reporting, however, is not uncommon in its portrayal of conservative education proposals. Rather it reflects a larger issue in media and higher education circles where conservative educational proposals are described negatively.
Rutgers educational theory professor Bruce Baker, as an example, referred to school choice advocate Corey DeAngelis as a white nationalist.
Gotta admit - I’m struggling to understand how attacking the 1619 project (and its Pulitzer) is somehow central to libertarian values-and “liberty” more generally. Whose liberty? Seems more like white nationalist gaslighting. Nothing to do with “liberty” or “freedom” in any sense pic.twitter.com/JqKg80xYd9
— Bruce D. Baker (@SchlFinance101) May 6, 2020
Baker wrote in a 2020 tweet, “I’ve had enough of these blowhards who wear ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ on their sleeves as a shield for their blatant discriminatory views and policy preferences.”
Schlemmer’s reporting also seems to follow protocol, as it parallels the ways other legacy media groups have chosen to frame conservative policies and rulings.
For example, after the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action could no longer be used in admission, legacy media groups rushed to cast the ruling as damaging to minority students.
José Díaz-Balart retweeted an interview with a Harvard student who said that without affirmative action minority groups may be barred admission into universities.
”Affirmative action provided access to students from all backgrounds to apply.”@Harvard student Agustín León-Sáenz reacts to the SCOTUS ruling against #AffirmativeAction in college admissions.
”I hope that Harvard... can ramp up recruitment of underrepresented minorities.” pic.twitter.com/NbeZudtHGx— José Díaz-Balart Reports (@JDBalartMSNBC) June 29, 2023
NBC also advanced that line of thinking in its report, arguing that Black students would no longer be welcome in U.S. higher educational institutes.
[RELATED: Majority of Americans oppose race-based admissions, according to poll]
Of course, these reports run contradictory to the evidence.
As previously noted, in most cases where affirmative action had been banned, there has been a virtually parallel relationship between the racial demographics of colleges and the racial makeup of the state in question.
But, Schlemmer proved that, like taxes and death, deceit by media organizations and bias toward conservative educational proposals by academic elites is certain.
Follow Jared Gould on Twitter for more stories like this.
