AFFIRMING DIVERSITY: more "woke" nonsense

 

Affirming Diversity, Sonia Nieto's 1992 celebration of multicultural education, has become an educational classic — of sorts. Yet her prescription for public education is based on an obviously false assumption. Namely, that cultural values are mutually inclusive and support tolerance. They're not and they don't.

What, specifically, is Professor Nieto prescribing for our schools? She calls it "Affirming Diversity." What does that imply? The professor says it, "... implies that cultural, linguistic, and other differences can and should be accepted, respected, and used as a basis for learning and teaching."

Really? But the values of cultures can be, often are, completely at odds. Plus they're commonly at odds with the very tolerance Nieto's prescription requires. Consider, for example, the dogmatism of the Quehabi Islamic sect that controls Saudi Arabia. Their brand of religion divides the world into good guy true believers — those who subscribe to their highly conservative version of the Sunni school of Islam — and the bad guys of every stripe who don't. In their view, all other religious beliefs must be, at minimum, suppressed. Preferably, they should be annihilated. After all, they're horribly wrong!

Think this an exaggeration? Well, even some Saudi's don't think so. In fact in 2004 a Saudi royal study group, no less, found that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' Embarrassed when their religion's intolerant dogmatism was called out, Saudi education authorities promised to eliminate these features of their curriculum. But when the Washington Post analyzed Saudi school books they found them to be as hate filled and intolerant as ever.

How is this pertinent to Professor Nieto's recommendation that we affirm diversity? Let's imagine her trying to teach in Saudi Arabian higher education. As a woman she would only be allowed to teach in a gender segregated setting. And all senior administration, even of female schools, is restricted to men. She would also discover that Saudi public higher education is only open to Saudi citizens and residents. Plus each and every student must be a Muslim. (I imagine the same criteria applies to professors.) 

Now let's imagine that Professor Nieto somehow gets a Saudi public university teaching job, accepts the gender segregation and determines she will, true to her own philosophy, accept and respect the Wahabi cult's beliefs. Then, of course, she would have to comply with their characteristic utter intolerance as THE basis for all learning and teaching. After all, that's how that culture does things. 

Now, let's say she get's the Saudi teaching job but doesn't take the second step of accepting and respecting Quehabi intolerance. Instead she bravely advocates accepting and respecting ALL cultural points of view. When Saudi authorities discover she's doing that, what do you think her fate would be? Here's a clue: in 2005 a Saudi teacher merely suggested that Jews and the New Testament could be viewed positively, and he was fired, sentenced to 750 lashes and given a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned, but only following international protests.) 

Are other cultures similarly intolerant? Of course they are. Might some cultures totally reject Nieto's prescription that they accept and respect all cultural points of view? Do pigs have good table manners? For instance, some cultures are profoundly misogynistic. They countenance, often foster, things like female infanticide, genital mutilation, selling one's daughters into prostitution, wife beating, honor killings, excluding widows from wills, banning girls from school, counting a woman's court testimony as having half the value of a man's, and so forth. These and similarly profoundly intolerant behaviors, such as stoning homosexuals to death or hating whomever is on your tribe's shit list at the moment, all are rooted in culture. Yet Professor Nieto urges we not only accept and respect all cultural differences, but use them conjointly as the basis for all teaching and learning. Really?

Imagine the possible conflicts created by such a policy in a school setting. "Yes class, Conner just spit on Maureen and threatened to kill her! Conner is a Protestant, and Maureen is a Roman Catholic. And they're both from Northern Ireland. Religious hatred between these groups has characterized their respective cultures for hundreds of years. So, we must respect and affirm Conner's culture, while also respecting and honoring Maureen's." Just how in the world is that sort of thing supposed to happen? 

"Affirming diversity" is the pedagogical equivalent of following Alice down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. And, intellectually, it's pure pablum. So when "woke" professors praise, even struggle vainly to adopt, this egregious nonsense, it evidences the idiocy that ensues when political correctness replaces rigorous logic and factual evidence.

For more on the limits of multiculturalism see: www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Multiculturalism.html

BARE BOOBS OR MURDER? what's best viewing for kids?

Remember Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction?” This momentary glimpse of her right boob, a pasty covering the nipple, created such a furor that Congress, the FCC and the Supreme Court all got involved. 

Complaints about the incident repeatedly emphasized that "children were watching!" So what? Why is a kid getting a brief glimpse of a nearly bare boob so upsetting when, by the time they complete elementary school, the average U. S. child has watched some 8,000 murders on TV. Yep, that's right, eight thousand! And we're not even counting movie murders or the killings depicted in electronic gaming.

Routinely exposing children to murder as entertainment generates little to no public protest. Yet a momentary glimpse of a boob get's the nation's bowels in an uproar? What in the world is one to make of that?  Who but a moral cretin, someone like Rev. Franklin Graham comes to mind, thinks that feigned murder of a fellow human is acceptable while a very brief glimpse of a boob, nipple covered, is mouth foamingly outrageous? Murder as entertainment generates a great deal of money for people who count? But in what other way is it beneficial — especially for children? 

Okay, kids know that TV, movie and electronic media murders aren't real.  Nevertheless, what are they learning by living in a culture where the staged depiction of murder is entertainment? Also ask yourself, what kid's learn about sexuality when a breast bared for a fraction of a second creates a national furor? Healthy that ain't.

Here's an actual incident that first got me thinking about this. One morning my wife and I were walking to our car when some young boys next door made believe they were shooting me. I know, boys often do that sort of thing. But let's broaden our view of it a bit. Suppose, instead of pretending to murder me, they had mimicked having sexual intercourse with my wife. Let's imagine they were pointing at her and thrusting their butts. Imagine how the boy's mother would have reacted if I informed her that her were doing that. She would have been mortified. But had I expressed concern about her boys were pretending to murder me, she would have thought me tetched. Why? How come kids mimicking a pleasurable act is utterly unacceptable, while mimicking murder is amusing? What sort of weird cultural values does this reflect? 

Most of what shapes a child's sense of right and wrong is caught rather than taught. By that I mean, kids absorb how to behave and what to value just by living in a certain environment. Now, what do you think they are absorbing by watching and playing at murder? Is this wise and worthy of their promise? And as for this puritanical attitude regarding human sexuality that they absorb, how wise is that? No wonder we've got all sorts of sexual deviants running about.

So, am I far out in left field on this? Or does what I'm saying make sense? Please comment.

To examine similar educationally related issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.net 

MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: schools reflect America.

Mirrors reflect reality with remorseless accuracy. Exercise, eat well, and the consequences are reflected in the mirror — flat belly, taut muscles, and all. Sit on your duff and gobble Twinkies? These consequences also are reflected with unflattering exactitude.   

Schools act as our nation's mirror. What's right or wrong with them, reflects what's right or wrong with America. Here's a vivid example. The U. S. has the most uneven distribution of wealth in the world. The Aspen Foundation reports that the wealthiest 1% of American families possess some 40% of that wealth. The bottom 90%, that's the rest if us, share less than 25%. One consequence is reported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. About 18% of all of America's children, a total of nearly 13 million or 1 in 5, live in poverty. That profoundly impacts the lives of these children. And schools reflect the consequences.

Consider also that more of our citizens per thousand are imprisoned than in any other nation in the world. In fact, the US Department of Justice says that in 2022 that includes 684,500 fathers of at least one minor child. We've also locked up 57,700 mothers of minor children. In fact the Annie Casey Foundation reports that more than 5 million American children, that's 1 in 14, has had a parent imprisoned at some point in their lives.

The destructive effects of these incarcerations flood into our classrooms with devastating effect. And this is especially true in the poorest school districts where teachers have inadequate resources and the children have more numerous major problems. In more affluent areas with financially secure, well-educated parents, more functional families, safer streets, a rich tax base and broader respect for learning, good school outcomes are much, much more likely. And, paradoxically, that's where teachers are better paid and have far more resources. It's a case of "them that has, gets," 

Let's also briefly consider how the quality of parenting fits in. Is quality parenting reflected in school outcomes? You might as well ask: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Of course it is. After all, the requirements for becoming a parent are distressingly lax. Consequently a host of people gain parental responsibility who simply can't, or won't, meet the mark. Many are far too stupid, selfish, cruel, frightened, impoverished, mentally ill, emotionally needy, foolish, addicted, ignorant, etc., to responsibly raise a child. And our schools reflect this melancholy reality every hour of the day. 

I know a first grade teacher who for years won many plaudits. Then she was hired to teach kindergarten in the School District of Philadelphia. She quit before the year was up to preserve her mental and physical health.  Her comment upon quitting was, "I don't know what I was supposed to be doing in there, but it sure wasn't teaching. Then added, "And I'm tired out caring more for other people's children than their parents apparently do." Hyperbolic and spoken in disgust? Sure. But there still is a strong element of truth.

Politicians find it expedient to interpret the situation differently. They maintain, some might even believe, that poor school outcomes are the fault of educators. Sometimes they are. But most of the time they aren't.

Let's reprise. Our schools mirror our nation. So if you are disturbed by what you see reflected in our schools, it is unlikely to be schooling's fault. And if you like what you see, don't give the mirror much credit either. 

Does that mean educators are essentially powerless and can do little or nothing to improve learning? Of course not. But what they can do is very limited when poverty, crime, lousy parenting, social disorder, dysfunctional families, etc., create an avalanche of problems, indifference, even opposition. 

Perhaps you can remember the George W. Bush and Barack Obama era, when school reform was all the rage and the federal government wasted billions of dollars on mandatory testing and other largely worthless school "improvements." As a matter of fact, many of these 'reforms' actually functioned as bureaucratic distractions from the central task of schooling children. 

In retrospect it seems as if these reformers were buying new mirrors because they weren't  satisfied with what the existing mirrors reflected. That's like someone changing mirrors in hopes it will improve their looks. Are our politicos aware that this is what they've been doing when they meddle with our schools? The dumb ones probably do not. But even the dumb ones know that appearance matters more than reality when you're playing politics. And they also know that Barrack Obama was not even half serious when he officially ruled that folks in-training to be teachers were already "highly qualified." ("Highly qualified" was a standard that the No Child Left Behind Law required. But left undefined, the requirement turned out to be meaningless.) 

Obama actually did this with a straight face; proving that the former president is an accomplished liar. Fortunately, Trump and Biden have shown less enthusiasm for federal meddling with our public schools than Obama and his immediate predecessors. Of course Trump and most other republican politicians favor turning public education over to the private sector. The trouble with that 'reform' is the resultant charter schools don't do any better than their public counterparts in raising student achievement. Charter schools too are simply mirrors.

If any  'public servant' really wants to improve school outcomes, here's some of the things they would have to do: 

1. reverse the growing disparity between the rich and the rest of us

2. stop locking up parents without regard for what that does to their kids 

3. start offering free, high quality, parent training (plus follow-up support) to anyone who wants it.

4. inact national health care, so the poorest among us can afford to be well. 

Accomplish things like thes above and school results will improve. But there's little chance that any of them will actually happen. So we will keep thinking, as well as pretending, that the problems we see in our schools are pedagogical, when they really are far more than that.

For more on this see www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/PSMirror.htm  

FEEDING THE MONSTER: "woke" professors nourish MAGA

Many of today's colleges feature strident demonstrations of "woke" self-righteousness. Self-appointed inquisitors on the faculty demand that speakers be canceled and fellow professors fired should any harbor an opinion, different from their faith. Immature, censorious students inspire and/or join in these inquisitions. Then craven, opportunistic or fellow true believing administrators not only fail to squash this intolerance, they frequently cave in to it. 

It's hard to imagine more repulsive, ill-advised behavior on the part of any faculty, students or administrators. It is outrageously out of place in any institution of higher education that absolutely depends for its very existence on freedom of inquiry. Moreover this modern day zealotry is totally crazy when it occurs at a public college or university because their sanctimonious extremism undermines government funding by drastically weakening already shaky public confidence in higher education. 

Remember, attacks on higher education can pay big political dividends, particularly if you're a MAGA politician. The Pew Foundation found that two-thirds of today's Republicans already have only “some” or “little” confidence in colleges as institutions. Indeed a lot of them have come to believe that higher education is little more than “woke” indoctrination. And today's"woke" shenanigans inject this political monster with growth hormones.  

Republican-led defunding has already devastated the aspirations of lower income kids who want to go to college. Higher education is getting less and less affordable. For example, in 1958 I was only able to afford college because government funding covered, on average, 75% of public higher ed costs. Now, after 60 years of paring down, average public funding of comes to 25%.  

We can thank Ronald Reagan for modeling this tactic. As Governor of California, Reagan ended free higher ed tuition for California residents; demanded 20% across the board cuts in higher education funding; repeatedly slashed college construction funds for state campuses, and imperiously declared that the state “should not subsidize intellectual curiosity.” (Something largely absent in Reagan himself.) 

While he was at it, Reagan, and Republican legislators also slashed funding for California’s basic education. These cuts ultimately resulted in overcrowded classrooms, deteriorating schools, more poorly paid teachers and, of course, increased local taxes. Nevertheless, Gov. Reagan was reelected despite the fact that California's public education system has never fully recovered from his despoliation.

When he was governor. Reagan took particularly advantage of the anti-Vietnam war movement by vitriolicaly denouncing student peace protests. Whenever these students demanded an end to this ill-conceived adventure, Reagan was scathing in his criticism. He called the anti-war activists “brats,” “freaks,” and  “cowardly fascists.’ (Reagan, himself, spent WW 2 safe and sound in Hollywood making Army propaganda films.)

In summary, when Ronald Reagan became governor, California’s basic and higher educational systems were probably the nation’s best. When he left, they weren’t. Subsequently, in his two terms as U. S. President, 1981 to 1989,  Reagan continued his now time-then tactic of criticizing educators and slashing public education funding. In fact at Reagan's urging a Republican congress cut that federal spending on education in half. When he entered office, federal funds paid 12% of the nation’s public schooling bills. When he left they were paying just 6%. 

The Republican campaign against public education that Reagan prototyped exploits America's historic distrust of learning and the learned. But the current extremism of the strident “woke” crowd creates an unprecedented opportunity for right wing politicians to enact more censorious legislation, foster know-nothing parent's distrust of their kid's teachers, further cut financial support for “government schools, and so forth.” 

“Woke” extremists doubtless see themselves as righteous  crusaders for all that’s holy. Knights errant in a irreproachable crusade for justice. There's no question that some of the injustices they seek to cure are real. But Trump style demagogues are hoping and praying that these zealots just keep on doing what they’re doing. The opportunities this creates for them are priceless. 

THE ANTI-ABORTION CRUSADE: more smug moralizing?

We'll get to the anti-abortion crusade in just a bit. But first, let's set the stage. Remember Janice Jackson’s Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction?" National television viewers got a very brief glimpse of one of Janice's boobs and the usually inert U. S. Congress sprang into action. They hurriedly convened a high-level hearing to investigate this moral outrage that some wags were calling “nipplegate.” During this congressional circus a host of lawmakers, each pretending grave moral outrage, took turns climbing out of the congressional clown car to confront network executives and pressure the FCC to crack down on anything that might provoke sexual arousal among the pubescent.

Puritanical posing is a standard feature of American politics. Our politicos have hitched a ride on America’s sexual hangups at least as far back as the 1870's. That's when congress joined forces with Anthony Comstock, then the nation’s self-appointed moral policeman, and suppressed access to anything that might free women from unwanted pregnancy; or, heaven forbid, increase their sexual knowledge and/or pleasure. 

Comstock was the founder of the powerful New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. (You may be reminded of Saudi Arabia's present-day "Commission for the Protection of Virtue and Suppression of Vice.") Blocking access to information about birth control was Comstock’s chief objective. He also wanted to stifle access to information about abortion. And while he was at it, he set out to eliminate “obscene” books (including serious novels) “dirty” pictures, sex toys and anything else he thought contrary to God’s word — as he interpreted it.

Comstock launched his society's activities by commencing highly publicized vigilante raids on luckless retailers. He "confiscated" and handed over to the police hundreds of purloined “bad books” and “articles made of rubber for immoral purposes and used by both sexes.” (One wonders what the police did with them.) Then, emboldened by the success of this larcenous campaign, Comstock began a national crusade to criminalize sex education, birth control, abortion (except to save the life of the mother, but more on that later) sex toys, racy illustrations and “bad books.”

His crusade was hugely successful. In fact in 1873 Congress joined in by passing, without debate, the Comstock inspired, "Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use." This draconian federal law defined sex education, particularly as it pertained to preventing conception, as "obscene." Here is an excerpt: “Whoever … shall sell, or lend, or give away, or in any manner exhibit … or shall otherwise publish … or shall have in his possession, any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, … or instrument … of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful (emphasis added) abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.” 

This U. S.  law also specified that it was a crime to send any "obscene" materials through the mail. That provision led to a government sinecure for Comstock. He was anointed a special agent of the US Post Office with exclusive enforcement powers over the "morality" of the nation's mail. He held this position, — in essence, America’s sexual morality czar — for the next 42 years. 

In this role Comstock was able to prosecute anyone sending information about birth control, or committing any other "sexual offenses,” via the mail. And he was zealous in so doing. Upon retirement Comstock boasted that he had victoriously successfully brought charges against more than 3,600 defendants and destroyed 160 tons of "sexual materials." And remember, that included information about birth control, since that was officially "obscene."     

Of course this law only covered items sent via the mail. But Comstock, a zealous fellow, wasn't content with that. He moved on to push for state laws far transcending postal matters. In the following years Comstock successfully campaigned for the passage of draconian morality laws that were eventually enacted in every state in the union. 

A crusading Comstock even provoked a famous suicide. That's when feminist Ida Craddock killed herself rather than be imprisoned for sending sex education information by mail. Her suicide note reads, in part, “I am taking my life because a judge, at the instigation of Anthony Comstock, has declared me guilty of a crime I did not commit -- the circulation of obscene literature. Perhaps it may be that in my death, more than in my life, the American people may be shocked into investigating the dreadful state of affairs which permits that unctuous sexual hypocrite Anthony Comstock to wax fat and arrogant and to trample upon the liberties of the people, invading, in my own case, both my right to freedom of religion and to freedom of the press." Thus ended the life of a feminist sex education pioneer. Hundreds of others ended up in federal prison. 

Were there any limits to Comstock's zeal? Apparently, a very limited one. He once was asked by an interviewer, "Do the laws ever thwart the doctors work; in cases, for instance, where pregnancy would endanger a woman's life?"  Comstock replied: "A doctor is allowed to bring on abortion in cases where a woman's life is endanger (sic)." But then he added "... is there anything in these laws that forbids a doctor telling a woman that pregnancy must not occur for a certain length of time or at all? Can they not use self-control? Or must they sink to the level of the beasts?"" (Harpers Weekly, Birth Control and Public Morals; Mary Alden Hopkins. May 22, 1915)

So how far has America come since Comstock? Is the current torrent of anti-abortion legislation a piece of the same Comstockian pie? Is there a dime's worth of difference between the present-day politicians pushing this cause and Comstock's law-making confederates some 150 years ago? You decide. 

 To further examine similar issues involving education, see dozens of articles at www.newfoundations.net 

SENSITIVITY TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT?

Once upon a time I was an assistant professor aspiring to become an associate. As such I had to prove that my teaching, publications and service were exemplary.

My "course evaluations" were good. (Actually they were my customer satisfaction ratings. But it's far too honest to call them that.) My publications also met muster. My problem was "service." Why was that? Well, in this institution service was largely defined as serving on college committees. And despite my annually, even eagerly, volunteering for whatever committee slots were available, I never achieved appointment to a single one. I knew that some faculty got committee assignments even when they didn't fill out the requisite form specifying their areas of interest. I filled it out carefully, but still got no assignments.

Realizing this would sink my prospects for promotion, I decided to find out what was going on. Committee assignments were made by (get ready for this) the faculty "Committee on Committees." This august body consisted mostly of old boy faculty, many of them alums, and a committee chair who distinguished herself by her knee crooking servility to the Roman Catholic order that owned and ran the place. 

I requested an appointment with this chair of the Committee on Committee to find out what was going on. I was no mood to genuflect. So I simply pointed out to her that I had repeatedly volunteered for any available committee assignment and got nowhere. Others. even those who were seemingly indifferent, got one committee assignment after another. What, I asked, was going on? 

Her reply?. I had been adjudged "insufficiently sensitive to administrative intent." 

How to respond to that? I'm not recommending it, but here's what I did. I reminded this academic weather vain that my promotion was at stake. I told her that I had kept a careful record of all my futile efforts to volunteer. Then I indicated that if I failed to get promoted because of any alleged "lack of service," she and the other committee members would hear from my attorney.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

I never again had any trouble getting committee assignments, even though I continued to do my best to remain insensitive to administrative intent. As a matter of fact I was appointed to key ones. Promotion followed in due course.

Care to guess what became of this chair of the Committee on Committees? Want to wager on her future? Well it wasn't long before she was appointed, perhaps I should say "anointed," Dean of Arts and Sciences. Once in this exalted office, she continued to utilize her finely-tuned sensitivity to appraise the intent of more senior staff. Often the consequences of her appearsal disadvantaged the very faculty she supposedly represented. Before her rise to power this gal was a professor of English, not meteorology. Nevertheless, she always knew which way the wind blew.

What can be learned from this story? That course evaluations actually measure customer satisfaction? That there is a irreconcilable, though unmentionable, tension between the interests of the administration and the faculty? That too many faculty are natural-born lick-spittles? That some of them care not a wit about their colleagues? Sure, all of the above. But every one of these truths is evident to anyone who actually deserves being called “professor.“

Then what else can we learn from this tale? That there are covert academic realities that are just like the missing genitalia on censored human anatomical illustrations. Genitalia are obviously critical components of the human anatomy. But they still get “disappeared.” And even mentioning their absence is risky. 

However, joining in the pretense that academia is what it claims to be, can sometimes be exactly the wrong thing to do. There are times when it's far better to walk up to the academic equivalent of one of those censored anatomical illustration, point to the blank crotch area and boldly ask, “What the hell is happening here?” 

But when should one do that? Whenever you have more to lose if you keep pretending you don't notice. Pulling the sheet from these covert realities produces a sobering effect on academic power holders. At the very least, it causes them to stop and reflect before messing with you further. But remember, breaking the silence will forever change your status both with the power holders and your colleagues. Neither will ever view you, or treat you, in the same way again.

"WOKE": doing the wrong things for the right reason

Become convinced you are a powerless victim, and you will become one. That's because too much emphasis on injustice backfires. For instance, for centuries African-Americans have dealt with profound injustice in immoderate amounts. But the extreme emphasis on this injustice currently promoted by the most "woke" among us, can all too easily boomerang and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Thomas theorem — well known among sociologists — points to how this happens. In substance the theorem states that when a situation is defined as true, it is true in its consequences. That's why outcomes depend as much on the individual’s perception of the situation as they do on the situation itself.  

When any of the oppressed — be they African-American or otherwise —  become mired in the sticky goo of "poor me-ism," they discount their own agency; their own power to overcome. They even discount their own degree of responsibility for what happens in their lives. And when this occurs, no oppressor is needed. The oppressed have taken on that job themselves.

I spent 50 years of my life as an educator. And one of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of that half century was watching too many disadvantaged youngsters turn their backs on the opportunities schooling offers. In fact, some not only refused to learn, but did their very best to keep others from learning. 

Now it's certainly true that school curricula, policies and procedures are often badly out of step with the world these kid's live in. Nevertheless, the fact remains that slave owners brutally punished ANY attempt to school slaves, as well as any slave attempts to learn on their own. And they did so for a sound reason. Schooling endangers oppressors even when that isn't its intent. But oppressed kids who reject schooling not only suffocate that threat, they ease the way for further oppression.  

Whatever our school's shortcomings, and they are many, especially for kids who are poor, they still offer opportunities. Often the very best of the limited opportunities these kids will ever have. But these opportunities are only available for those youngsters who eschew self-pity, focus on their own agency, take responsibility, and seize the day. But, ironically, the self-righteous, self-serving hand wringing of the excessively "woke" makes that less likely.