This brilliant attorney and legal scholar was smeared and slandered by a wealthy, white male politician in order to protect an arch-reactionary SCOTUS candidate with a sordid history of sexual harassment/abuse.
That politician’s name? Joe Biden. #joebiden
How reactionary is Marshall Tuck on education issues? One measure is to compare his views to those of the notoriously right-wing JBS and GOP stalwarts. Here we look at some critical issues facing students, families, and our public schools.
Sources: ontheissues.org, marshalltuck.com, jbs.org
Remember that Marshall Tuck, like his white supremacist counterparts Tom Horne and John Huppenthal, shuttered Ethnic Studies, killed Dual Language Immersion Programs, and eliminated Heritage Language Programs.
[list to be continued]
This short essay was originally published on The Daily Censored on August 11, 2011. It would seem that all of the old works on that site are gone. That's unfortunate because I published a lot of work there. I had a teaser here linking to it, a practice I stopped doing precisely because I've learned from harsh experience that websites die and all the content is lost (like my At The Chalkface works). I was able to track down a reprint on Susan Ohanian's site, but her site is having issues as well. Ultimately, I was able to retrieve a copy of the reprint from the Wayback Machine.
I want to reproduce this last sentence from Ohanian's introduction, since she had such insight into why the essay was important:
“The hardline right wing may well love the vacuous phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations,” but let’s remember that education deform democrats love it just as much. It is mostly used to put progressive activists on the defensive.” — Susan Ohanian
“We address the soft bigotry of low expectations so that we may ignore the hard racism of inequity.” — John Kuhn
Although this footage isn't new and commentators have already discussed it, it deserves reexamination since it illuminates one of the core false tenets of the corporate education reform canon.
Amidst the bizarre assertion that Sesame Street is indoctrinating children in some sort of insidious left wing plot, reactionary Ben Shapiro says that:
"I talked to one of the guys who's at Children's Television Workshop originally and he said the whole purpose of Sesame Street was cater to black and hispanic youths who, quote unquote, did not have reading literature in the house, there kind of this soft bigotry of low expectations that's automatically associated with Sesame Street."
Ahhh — the chimerical "soft bigotry of low expectations." As opposed to the hard bigotry of the pervasive institutional racism underpinning our economic system, which facilitates the division of workers and submerses a majority in abject poverty in order to make a small minority obscenely rich. The very same minority, by the way, that supports privatizing public education via charters and vouchers.
The dubious phrase is beloved by the hardline right. The Birchers at the Heartland Institute [1] use the phrase with reckless abandon. Cato, Manhattan, Hoover, and all the other reactionary right wing think tanks repeat the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" as if it's the mantra necessary to permanently bring back the gilded age they all pine for.
Of course the nonsensical phrase isn't limited to fringe right-wing kooks that also think John Galt and Howard Rourke are historical figures. Many supposed-liberals, or at the very least Democratic Leadership Council party operatives, use the phrase as often, if not more often than their teabagging counterparts.
The vile billionaire hedge fund shyster Whitney Tilson uses the phrase incessantly. Remember too that the ever obtuse Tilson helped form two of the most virulent corporate reform and privatization pushing organizations in existence: Teach for America (TFA) and Democrats for Education Reform (DFER). The latter, DFER, uses the phrase in its privatization propaganda. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has used the phrase. TFA's Wendy Kopp has had a lucrative career peddling the phrase. The snarling queen of Erasuregate, Michelle Rhee, cherishes such phrases. Los Angeles' poverty pimping opportunist Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proudly plasters the phrase on twitter.
The unprincipled construction "soft bigotry of low expectations" is typically credited to the Council on Foreign Relations's arch-reactionary Michael Gerson, who was the speechwriter for fraudulent Rod Paige's Texas Education Miracle co-fraud, George W. Bush.
Like all the philosophically threadbare propaganda from the right, the expression is vapid and vacuous, without any real meaning whatsoever, putting it right along with "no excuses," and "working hard and being nice." Professor Noam Chomsky best addresses these types of phrases:
"It doesn't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy?" [2]
The policy in question is to ignore poverty and demand a false accountability from all of poverty's victims. While there are countless works discussing this, a recent pair of essays by my Schools Matter colleague Professor P. L. Thomas, EdD, really get to the heart of this issue: Poverty and Testing in Education: "The Present Scientifico-legal Complex" part 1 and part 2.
Humane Expectations Devoid of any Bigotry
In my many years I've never come across an educator that had anything but "realistic expectations tempered with compassion and empathy" for their students, regardless of where they taught. Moreover, for right wing reactionaries to accuse hard working women and men that have dedicated their lives to educating inner city students of bigotry of any sort smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. It's laughable on its face.
Of course compassion and empathy are foreign words to the rogues gallery discuss above, none of whom have ever taught in their lives. Well, with the exceptions of Wendy Kopp and Michelle Malkin — I mean, Michele Bachmann, er, — I mean Michelle Rhee (sorry it's so easy to confuse those three). Rhee is so devoid of empathy and compassion that one of the most enduring stories from her short stint as a TFA missionary is when she taped her students mouths shut with masking tape and then walked them to the lunchroom, bleeding lips and all. Kopp is seemingly less of a sociopath than Rhee, but it's clear her passion for fame and fortune outweigh any compassion she might have once had.
Access To Books
The other thing reactionary Shapiro gets entirely wrong before employing the hackneyed "soft bigotry of low expectations" nonsense, was to dismiss the Children's Television Workshop's catering to children that "did not have reading literature in the house." Access to books in the home is a major indicator of academic achievement and impoverished families have very limited access to books. This is a fact, and not something to be dismissed by a sniveling right winger threatening to "take them [Elmo and Big Bird] out back and cap them."
Another one of my Schools Matter colleagues, the distinguished Professor Stephen Krashen, PhD, has researched and written extensively on the subject of access to books. Here are a small sampling of his available short articles linking to longer works on the subject.
Given the staunch anti-intellectualism, lack of knowledge about all thing pedagogical, and academic aversion that whiny right wingers like Shapiro are known for, it's no wonder that he didn't get the whole importance of providing additional educational resources for children that "did not have reading literature in the house" like the prescient folks at Children's Television Workshop always have.
"True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity." [3]
Now that we're discussing these things, let's talk about the stark racism and classism stemming from the corporate education reform movement, which is orchestrated by the same plutocrats that aired Shapiro's television program. After all, those are the sort of things that vacuous phrases like "soft bigotry of low expectations" are supposed to distract us from.
NOTES
[1] Heartland Institute is none other than Parent Revolution's sister organization. Word is that in addition to co-hosting school privatization forums that Ben Austin and Ben Boychuck formulate policy together.
[2] Chomsky, Noam. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Second Edition. New York: Seven Stories Press., 1991. pp. 25-26.
[3] Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2009. p. 45.
First published on Schools Matter on August 29, 2017
It’s a tale of white fragility and fear, really.—Imani Gandy
These two racist State Superintendents finally got what they deserved for shuttering ethnic studies in Arizona. However, right here in California, we have a candidate for State Superintendent that enacted the same policies in Los Angeles—shuttering ethnic studies, closing dual language programs, and killing heritage language programs. That bigot's name is Marshall Tuck. Let's show Tuck that California is not Arizona, and that we shouldn't have to wait for years for a court to rule in on his racist policies. Let's stop Tuck from repeating a Horne or a Huppenthal, by making sure he never holds a position of power in which he can harm school children again.
First published on Schools Matter on June 08, 2016
“Hillary Clinton is not a Klanswoman, but she performs the same racial violence that white men do, just as many Klanswomen did less than a century ago. Thousands of black people continue to lose their lives because some white women still want to be as “badass” and powerful as the white men who silenced them in the home, held back their right to vote, and brutalized as many black people as they desired.” — Ahmad Greene-Hayes
The Clinton cheerleading that has been building up to a crescendo at Professor Ravitch's site reached a new nadir today. I suppose we will see a lot of this between now and November. It's hard to see people using the excuse of opposing one racist to support another racist, but that's what this election boils down to. Although I should avoid engaging those steeped in supporting neoliberalism, I couldn't avoid posting the following comments:
As horrifying as the prospect of Trump is, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that he is the only racist representing a major political party in this election. Indeed, the genteel, more insidious racism of his Democratic opponent is equally disconcerting. While Trump can't speak without uttering bigotry, are we supposed to ignore his opponent's racist slurs against Native Americans with her infamous "off the reservation" remark? Are we to excuse her vile "super-predators" speech where she says that "we have to bring them to heel" in reference to children of color? I understand her apologists excuse that kind of racist rhetoric, but any of us that live and breath social justice are in agreement with the distinguished Professor Michelle Alexander, who says, "Hillary Clinton" uses "racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals." And while Trump talks about border walls, Clinton proudly reminds us "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in…" Clinton and Trump's use of the racist term "illegal" is in itself bigoted and nativist. In fact, even the Associated Press stopped using the horrible phrase some time ago. We can discuss how terrible Trump's rhetoric is on issues of immigration, but Clinton has an actual record to scrutinize, and it is a record of the most vile bigotry in practice.
I'll stop here because I realize that speaking truth to power on this issue will do little more than evoke lesser evilism responses. No one will actually be able to defend Trump or Clinton's records on the issues I've raised, because they are indefensible. I'll be voting for the same feminist this November that I did in 2012 — her name is Dr. Jill Stein. Stein, by the way, has the best stances on education. She opposes charters and vouchers, opposes high-stakes standardized testing, stands with teachers, and called the Obama Administration out on its appointment of the doltish John King. It don't recall the candidates from the major parties ever taking such principled stands.
Like the sage Professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor says: "Clinton will never be a lesser evil."
Profound and powerful. Professor bell hooks reminds us that we should support feminism, not imperialism. Ms. Hillary Clinton's actions in Honduras alone are an indictment of what "she stands for", and it's not compatible with the tenets of feminism.
Surprisingly, this was posted in Van Jones' twitter feed. The video does a masterful job of summing up Ms. Hillary Clinton's long history of bigotry and opportunism. I voted for the Honorable Dr. Cynthia McKinney in 2008, Dr. Jill Stein in 2012, and likely will vote for Dr. Stein again in this upcoming election, so it should be obvious why I've grown weary of the Clinton camp tarring me as a "berniebot," "bernie bro," or sexist every time I point out obvious, undisputed facts regarding Ms. Clinton's record. If we look at her deeds, rather than listen to her finely crafted rhetoric, it becomes clear that she is really no better than her "supposed opposition" comprising the reactionary, racist GOP.
“In order to raise it above history, the nation is given the support of the race. History is viewed as the emanation of the race.” — Leon Trotsky
I am soliciting take out menu items for my parody of the racist restaurant chain. Feel free to contact me with menu item names and brief descriptions of what the dish contains. I have plenty of space remaining on the menu, and am sure that others can come up with more clever ones than I did.
The real life Pete Turner, owner of the restaurant chain with a hopelessly racist name, has refused to address genuine concerns that his ill conceived moniker fuels nativism and hatred. Dehumanizing others as means to market one's business is deplorable in the extreme.
As we see with the entire field of GOP presidential hopefuls, as well as with right-wing Democrats like Hillary Clinton, cashing in on fears by blaming immigrants for the economic crimes of our own 1% is a popular political tactic.
While mocking bigots like Turner provides some amusement, I suggest you join me in signing the M.E.Ch.A petition demanding the restaurant change its racist name.
Although much was initially promised to gain buy-in to school choice campaigns, most teachers, parents and communities of color have not experienced greater participation within charter schools.—Professor Antonia Darder
TAMAR GALATZAN + JOHN DEASY = 1.3 billion dollar iPad fiasco• WHO WOULD SHE PICK FOR THE NEXT SUPERINTENDENT? A JOHN DEASY CLONE?• WILL SHE ATTEMPT TO BAIL AGAIN ON LAUSD AND RUN FOR ANOTHER POLITCAL OFFICE(CD 2, 2009)?• WILL SHE WASTE MORE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS AND RESTART THE 1.3 BILLION DOLLAR IPADS, HER PET PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI AND SEC?• WHY WOULDN’T THE LA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY ENDORSE HER?Dear Friends and Neighbors:A few months ago, I wrote to you about the March 3 primary election which included a race for the LAUSD Board of Education. The result was that Tamar Galatzan faced a shocker - 60% voted against her. This Tuesday, we will be choosing who will be representing us for the next four years.I am writing to you again because I have become increasing disturbed by the visuals and verbiage of many of the flyers that are arriving in my mail on an almost daily basis. The funders of Ms. Galatzan’s campaign have chosen to use the lowest level of tactics to undermine and mislead the public. In one example, her opponent, school principal Scott Schmerelson, is referred to as a “paid” lobbyist for a school administrators’ organization. There is ZERO evidence to support these claims. WHAT OTHER LIES ARE THEY TRYING TO SPREAD??? WHY ARE THEY DEMONSTRATING SUCH DESPERATION???? MAYBE THE PUBLIC IS NOT BUYING WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL!!!!These same funders were long and vocal supporters of disgraced superintendent John Deasy. They would like nothing better than to bring back a John Deasy clone to LAUSD and Ms. Galatzan, as Deasy’s closest ally on the board, would most certainly make that her priority. Money is no object for these billionaires when it comes to taking over our local school board elections.According to the LA City Ethics Commission, violations of election rules can be filed, but it is clear that any investigation would not take place until after the election and would only result in a fine. Clearly, it appears to be safe to print and distribute these false materials with the knowledge that any actions by the city would occur after the fact and would not cause a candidate to lose their seat.On Tuesday, we have a choice. On one hand, we have Tamar Galatzan, close ally of ousted superintendent John Deasy and whose board resolution prompted Deasy to create his “tablet for everyone” plan. In contrast, revered teacher, counsel and school principal Scott Schmerelson, has expressed a much different view of how our school construction bonds should be spent and how to prioritize spending where it belongs, in the classroom.Ms. Galatzan has received endorsements from politicians(she works full time in City Hall as a prosecutor) while Mr. Schmerelson’s main supporters are students, parents and teachers who have had the priviledge of working directly with him and witnessed his ability to make a difference on every campus he has worked at.
“As a result, advantaged, mostly white parents are pushed to make choices that they think protect their privilege. These factors perpetuate the cycle of social reproduction and resegregation, wherein schools enrolling the most students from affluent white families are automatically considered “better”—and therefore attract more students from advantaged backgrounds.” — Allison Roda and Amy Stuart Wells
Washington Post just ran a piece entitled "White parents in North Carolina are using charter schools to secede from the education system," and it's exactly what we'd expect it to be.
Saw the link to the article on Dr. James Avington Miller Jr.'s Facebook page. Miller, of The War Report on Public Education radio show fame, had the following salient comment posted with the link: "BACK TO THE FUTURE------BACK WHERE IT STARTED"
I left the following commentary on Washington Post:
School Choice was coined by the segregationists, borrowed by the Broad/Gates/Walton Triumvirate, and now gleefully being reclaimed by the segregationists. Not just Southerners either, mind you. Check out Los Angeles "boutique charters" like Citizens of the World (CWC), Larchmont, and Metro. They cater to so-called liberal parents looking for "alternatives." What that really means is alternatives to having brown and poor children in their schools... well with the exception of those whose parents are self colonized and adept at respectability politics. Those are the parents of color that the Mike McGalliards of the charter project would boast are "so articulate" (read white-acting). The concept of school choice is racist and classist at its very core.
“I reject the statements, accusations and positions promoted by this group as it relates to Board Member Kayser, whom I strongly support for re-election.”—Honorable Dr. George McKenna
The above screen shot was captured on February 28, 2015.
Following California Charter Schools Association's (CCSA) initial round of vile attacks on the Honorable Bennett Kayser, the principled Dr. George McKenna demanded that CCSA's endorsement of him be withdrawn and that his name and likeness not be used in any subsequent campaign material. McKenna had never requested the revenue hungry trade industry's endorsement in the first place. McKenna demanded the CCSA stop trying to associate him with their sordid and scurrilous campaigning at least as early as February 1, 2015, meaning an entire month has elapsed. Yet the CCSA is still capitalizing on using McKenna's name, not just without his authorization, but in reckless and wanton defiance of his express wishes.
“I reject the statements, accusations and positions promoted by this group as it relates to Board Member Kayser, whom I strongly support for re-election.”—Honorable Dr. George McKenna
I spoke to a high-level McKenna official earlier this week who said they've made numerous attempts to get CCSA to stop its unauthorized use of McKenna's name and likeness, but all their requests have been ignored. I was told that they have even tried to reach out to the baleful Political Director for the CCSA Advocates SuperPAC, Carlos Marquez, but CCSA knows they're only accountable to the ideologically charged billionaires funding them.
It's not too hard to imagine an organization that was founded by bigoted nativist Steve Poizner would tokenize board members of color for their execrable political aims, but this goes beyond the bounds of even the dirtiest of campaigning. CCSA's insatiable greed, coupled with their entire lack of ethics, is revolting. Anyone who remembers the vile and vicious lies they told about McKenna last year understands. Los Angeles school board member Steve Zimmer wrote the following:
Then, last summer CCSA came after Dr. George McKenna with a vengeance. With lies, filth and distortion they tried to mar the career of one of the most beloved educators ever to teach and lead schools in South Los Angeles. The effort failed and McKenna won handily. We thought we had seen the worst.
Maybe if the CCSA would spend less time mocking the Honorable Bennett Kayser's disabilities and more time helping Students with Disabilities, they'd have a shred of credibility. Of course that would mean putting pupils before profits, the antithesis of CCSA's raison d'être.
Charter industry profiteer Ref Rodriguez is a card carrying member of the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA).
Dr. George McKenna—principled. Unlike @CCSAAdvocates @drRefRodriguez & @JohnShallman http://t.co/chZOFHNBRA #LAUSD pic.twitter.com/CuwmbcCVYT
— Robert D. Skeels (@rdsathene) March 1, 2015“…the distribution of disability types within independent Los Angeles charter schools is skewed; for students with disabilities requiring extensive special education services, the likelihood they will be enrolled in independent charter schools is one-fourth that of traditional public schools.” — COPAA
We all read Scott Folsom of @4LAKids vivid account of California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and Refugio "Ref" Rodriguez's latest vicious campaign against Students with Disabilities (SWD) and their champion on the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board, the Honorable Bennett Kayser, in absolute horror. In his weekly newsletter summary, he added the following thoughts.
THE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION: Later on in this issue I will make endorsements, to be taken with a grain of salt – or salt-substitute, if you are on that diet.
I need to rant a bit about the disreputable tactics of the California Charter Schools Association's political action committee CCSA Advocates’ locally sponsored independent expenditure committee: Parent Teacher Alliance.
(There are three degrees of separation – but they are attached.) Take a look at this: CCSA SPONSORED "PARENT TEACHER ADVOCATES" HITS NEW LOW IN ANTI-KAYSER TV SPOT | http://tl.gd/n_1skkv90 It is true that the CCSA never called Mr. Kayser a racist, but as Steve Lopez wrote: They implied it. Their TV ad last week doesn’t say that Kayser is a pro-pederast/”bad teacher” lover – or that’s he’s responsible for everything Dr. Deasy ever did-or-didn’t do. They don’t say he is given to dropping and breaking coffee cups as a metaphor for something a little darker …or something they don’t want to talk about like his Parkinson’s disease – but they imply it. They don’t claim to be The PTA, but they have the same initials.
On or before March 3rd please vote your heart, or your conscience or your professional affiliation. Don’t copy my homework, do your own! If the only reason you read this blog is to find out where I stand so you can vote the other way – more power to you! Just vote – let’s break the single digits on Election Day!
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
By Scott Folsom · @4LAKids
Feb 12, 2015 :: A few minutes ago at appx. 7:40pm the California Charter Schools Association's political action committee CCSA Advocates’ locally sponsored independent expenditure committee, Parent Teacher Alliance ran a campaign ad on MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell show that hit a new low.
Asking the question "Who is Bennett Kayser?" it showed a slow motion image of a coffee cup being dropped (In case you don't know it: Kayser suffers from Parkinson's and often trembles and appears clumsy) until it falls and breaks - while recounting horror stories about how Kayser voted to fire teachers and yet retained child abusers - in essence holding Kayser responsible for the failings of the economy, pedophiles, and CCSA's fair-haired-boy: Superintendent Deasy.
Lest we forget, the answer to the 'who is?" question is that Kayser was Deasy's - and the CCSA's - most vocal critic. But no good deed goes unpunished.
THE CCSA bogus "PTA" endorses Ref Rodriguez against Kayser - and Tamar Galatzan and Richard Vladovic in their campaigns. CCSA formerly endorsed George McKenna in his reelection bid ...but he has repudiated their support ...one would hope Galatzan and Vladovic will do the same. And Rodriguez also.
Today is Abraham Lincoln's Birthday - ...and 4LAKids guesses that the CCSA is attempting to fool enough of the people enough of the time, .At least until election day on March 2nd!
The appropriate quote here is from Joesph Welch to Joe McCarthy.: "You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Who is the California Charter Schools Association? Founded by nativist Steve Poizner. Revenues of over $2.23-Million. Walmart fortune heir Carrie Walton Penner on their Board of Directors. Director Jed Wallace stuffing his pockets with over $.335-Million in "compensation." With those dark secrets and massive revenues to protect, it's no wonder they are attacking sitting school board members.
Who is @CALcharters? Founded by nativist Steve Poizner. Revenues: $2.23-Million. Walmart heir on BOD. #LAUSD #NPIC pic.twitter.com/EFE5D3n4uD
— Robert D. Skeels (@rdsathene) February 11, 2015NOTES
Moyers on Carrie Walton-Penner
Form 990 see http://www.guidestar.org/ (cf. revenues and salaries)
CCSA Board http://www.calcharters.org/
That's all four facts stated in the image and caption above. Here are two examples of attacks by CCSA on LAUSD's Honorable Bennett Kayser.
L.A. school board election politics equal gutter politics
[Ableist] CCSA sponsored "Parent Teacher Advocates" hits new low in anti-Kayser TV spot
"Deceptively, the masquerade of “choice” has served to reinscribe former segregationist and mainstream notions, which have worked effectively to conceal an overarching, mainstream strategy of class and racialized containment." — Professor Antonia Darder
Hi Robert,
How's it going?! I hope you are well and enjoying law school!
It's killing me, I'm not sure I was cut out for this whole law thing.
I was wondering, if you knew much information about Marqueece Harris-Dawson who is running for city council in my district, 8.? I know that he is CEO of Community Coalition and I know some of their history (just a little).
When Community Coalition (@CoCoSouthLA) was founded, they were solely about helping those with substance abuse issues. Sadly they developed broad and deep connections—and became dependent on funding from—United Way Greater Los Angeles (UWGLA), which in turn is funded by the Broad Foundation and Gates Foundation (who also determine UWGLA's education agenda). Hence, the modern @CoCoSouthLA is a leading member of Los Angeles' Nonprofit Industrial Complex (#NPIC) and participates in all the local anti-public school coalitions. They've essentially become one of the more effective public relations arms for the lucrative charter school industry. Their executives, staff, and associates have worked on school board campaigns for candidates funded by Philip Anschutz, Michael Bloomberg, and Eli Broad's Coalition for School Reform (CSR) SuperPAC.
What do you know about his stance or record on charter schools? I tried google searching, but didn't find anything really.
Marqueece Harris-Dawson and @CoCoSouthLA are "all in" on charter-voucher schools, and reactionary ideas like "school choice."
Marqueece Harris-Dawson was a huge supporter of Yolie Flores' vile Public School Choice (PSC) resolution for handouts to the lucrative charter industry.
Marqueece Harris-Dawson and @CoCoSouthLA were part of the privatizers involved in the Don't Hold Us Back campaign to attack United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), and push for more school privatization.
After the CSR failures with Kate Anderson, Antonio Sanchez, and Alex Johnson, the UWGLA and other NPIC formed another anti-public school coalition: Communities for Los Angeles Student Success (CLASS). @CoCoSouthLA is a founding member, as is Educators for Excellence, Families In Schools, Inner City Struggle, Los Angeles Urban League, and TeachPlus.
Marqueece Harris-Dawson and @CoCoSouthLA were also quick to mourn the hasty departure of the disgraced John Deasy.
I have more on this seeming poverty pimp and privatization pusher, but I think the above is sufficient to establish who he serves.
So, for the list of endorsers for his campaign, there are so many. It does include both Monica Garcia & Steve Zimmer.
Garcia only endorses fellow neoliberal corporate education reform candidates (like Alex Johnson, Marshall Tuck, etc.). Zimmer always kowtows to the NPIC out of fear that they will provide volunteers to his opponents (but they still do it anyway).
At one point there was an article pointing to him as a viable candidate for La Motte's seat, last special election, but he didn't run.
I guess one Alex Johnson was enough in that election cycle.
Let me know what you know. I was invited to a house party meet & greet for him, but I didn't go.
These people think they can hide from their pasts. I make sure the filth from all those charter school industry profits never washes off their hands.
First published on K12NN Wire on December 28, 2014
"The capitalists, from the start, complained that universities were unprofitable. These early twentieth century capitalists, like heads of investment houses and hedge-fund managers, were, as Donoghue writes "motivated by an ethically based anti-intellectualism that transcended interest in the financial bottom line. Their distrust of the ideal of intellectual inquiry for its own sake, led them to insist that if universities were to be preserved at all, they must operate on a different set of principles from those governing the liberal arts." — Chris Hedges
Last week I came across a two year old essay written by Professor Patricia Williams for The Guardian. I recall reading her piece some time ago (the Arizona book bannings being covered by Schools Matter as well), and reposted it on facebook with a bit of my own commentary. The post received a few interesting comments. A teacher posted the link and my commentary to the "Badass Teachers Association" (BATs) page, and to my surprise it garnered over 180 "likes" and more than 55 comments.
I believe that this is because this is a critical conversation we should be having publicly, over and over. I'm going to reproduce my commentary here, and rather than expand on it, I'll leave it to readers to add their own thoughts.
We see this anti-intellectualism in Marshall Tuck, Tom Horne, and John Huppenthal's shuttering of Ethnic Studies programs and book banning. We see it in the proliferation of adjunct professors in higher education, and the spreading infestation of predatory, for-profit schools. We see it in corporate curricula like Common Core State Standards (#CCSS), and the proliferation of the K-12 privatization project embodied in charters and vouchers. The war on tenure at all levels of education is further evidence. It isn't just right-wing, religious reactionaries fueling anti-intellectualism, as the demands of neoliberalism require that both critical thinking, and the institutional memory of the working class be squelched. Anti-intellectualism is a prelude to the unchallenged dominance of the plutocrat class and their corporate state. — Robert D. Skeels
Two quick things. My compañero in struggle, Jose del Barrio, had commentary I felt worth reproducing here:
"There has been an unfortunate uptick in academic book bannings and firings, made worse by a nationwide disparagement of teachers, teachers' unions and scholarship itself. Brooke Harris, a teacher at Michigan's Pontiac Academy for Excellence, was summarily fired after asking permission to let her students conduct a fundraiser for Trayvon Martin's family." — Jose del Barrio
Lastly, a perfect example of anti-intellectualism. Here's a direct quote from a racist that has been trolling me on twitter: "Professors are failures at life, thus they teach"
@rdsathene you think that you know something because you took some classes? Professors are failures at life, thus they teach
— Sadico Solitario (@dasanman69) December 28, 2014Yet Eli Broad, the Walton fortune heirs, Bill Gates, David F. Welch, Charles and David Koch, Richard M. DeVos, and their ilk aren't waging a war against teachers, professors, and intellectuals?
This might be the most important tweet I've seen in 2014:
"Does torture work?" as a question needs to be put in the bin with "Is slavery commercially feasible?" & "Can genocide help overpopulation?"
— Hend (@LibyaLiberty) December 10, 2014First published on Schools Matter on December 23, 2014
"Robert D. Skeels, writing in L.A. Progressive, rips Marshall Tuck for closing down ethnic studies programs and heritage language studies programs while running the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools. He reviews Tuck’s record at Green Dot charter schools and the Mayor’s Partnership and renders a scathing judgment." — Professor Diane Ravitch
Right-wing reactionary Ben Boychuk's profound disdain for public education is somewhat legendary, and his tenures at the fringe-right think-tanks Heartland Institute, and now Manhattan Institute are testament to that. When he's not cheerleading for book banning, hosting privatization forums with the Walton Foundation funded Parent Revolution and its former Executive Director Ben Austin, or solidifying the vile Parent Trigger as ALEC template legislation, he's writing political analysis for his fellow baggers, birchers, and neoliberal corporate education reformers.
Last month Boychuk penned a postmortem on Wall Street banker Marshall Tuck's failed bid in California to join Arizona's Tom Horne and John Huppenthal as an ideologically charged non-educator holding a Superintendent of Public Instruction seat. Amidst his anti-union screed Boychuk admits, somewhat surprisingly, that Tuck's wrongheaded championing of plutocrat David F. Welch's Vergara lawsuit was a major misstep. Boychuk then makes a statement that is breathtaking inasmuch as he places the blame for Tuck's loss squarely on the anti-racist crowd. My commentary to follow, but let's look at his statement and my November comment in response.
The teachers’ unions and their surrogates, such as Diane Ravitch, used Tuck’s charter school ties to paint him as a racist, a bigot, and a tool of “the power elite.” Their attacks bordered on defamation, but they worked.
Addressing his misinformed and churlish assertions regarding defamation, I responded thusly:
Robert D. Skeels November 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM
There was no need to 'paint [Marshall Tuck] as a racist, a bigot, and a tool of “the power elite”', since an honest account of his actual record did just that by itself. No one was more forthcoming about Tuck's record than I was, because as a law student I am well aware that truth always serves as an affirmative defense to defamation, and every statement I made about Tuck was a well documented truth.
I, for one, think it's wonderful that the fringe-right wants to credit anti-racists with Marshall Tuck's defeat. Even more so because corporatist Tuck would have defended, in Boychuck's words, "charter schools and public [sic] school choice." While Boychuck uses Professor Ravitch's name, it's irresponsible and inaccurate to say that she made all the comments that he credits her with. What is true, and the link he provides is a good example of it, is that Professor Ravitch was sure to disseminate all of the wonderful essays and articles about Tuck that weren't going to be published in the corporate media. The RedQueeninLA, Ellen Lubic, Cheryl Ortega, Dr. John Fernandez, Jose del Barrio, and many other social justice activists wrote about Tuck's abject record, bigotry, and veritable crimes against students.
I too wrote a bit about Tuck. In exposing his bigotry and myriad failures, I had to put up with abuse from his obtuse Hollywood supporters, some profoundly ignorant rich white guys, and even had to block some abusive Tuck supporters on twitter. One of the more intriguing critics of my work was Conor P. Williams of the right-of-center think-tank New America Foundation. My friends at PESJA forwarded me this tweet by Williams, in which he took issue with an excerpt from one of my polemics against Tuck.
I support dual language programs, but this anti-reform ad hominem is unnecessary and unhelpful: https://t.co/poCfVK6bwg
— Conor P. Williams (@ConorPWilliams) September 18, 2014Neoliberal corporate eduction reform apologist Williams rarely has anything substantive to say when confronted by facts, and here when the PESJA folks grilled him he went into derailment mode. I'd challenge him to an honest debate in which he could try to make the case that shuttering Ethnic Studies, Heritage Language Programs, and Dual Language Immersion Programs isn't racist, but he isn't the type to engage in actual debate. For example, his laughable straw man arguments against Corey Robin's brilliant 2012 essay. I would hope that Williams would be astute enough to know that Robin's point speaks to the attitudes of the type of well-heeled folks that fund Williams' employer. Williams' big paychecks (despite his persistent whining about still paying student loans), are, of course, derived in large part from the anti-public education plutocracy. By making everything about himself, he effectively deflects the conversation about the neoliberal corporate elite he works for.
Many of us worked tirelessly to keep Marshall Tuck from being elected. My first semester of law school suffered mightily until, ostensibly, after the election. With money flowing in from the wealthiest white men in the world, Tuck had every advantage except the truth. We told the truth about Tuck, and if Tuck's fringe-right supporters like the Manhattan Institute want to say that "worked", then it makes it all worth it.
2014 was a wonderful year in which bigots Marshall Tuck, Tom Horne, and John Huppenthal all lost their elections.
