At West Bend High School, there is a required, one semester class called “U.S. Government and Law.” The course overview says:
In this course, students will experience how the wheels of government and justice work at the local, state, and federal level. Student activities and hands-on experiences will be emphasized to demonstrate how “We the People” are affected by and function within our government and law. Students electing to take Advanced Placement U.S. History have the option of taking this course in grades 10,11, or 12.
Good, right? I would argue that part of the reason for public education is to equip people to be active participants in our civic society, so this kind of education is good. One semester seems entirely inadequate, but at least it will provide kids with a rudimentary understanding of the levels of government, how legislation works, how the legal system works, etc., right?
Wrong. With one precious semester to teach kids about their government, the teachers at West Bend High Schools are using it as an opportunity to advocate liberalism to the impressionable teenagers under their care.
Here is a description from Esquire, of all places, of what happens in class:
The class recently took a political-opinion poll that places students on a forty-four-point spectrum from Conservative Reactionary (22C) to Liberal Radical (22L). About two thirds of the class were moderate to liberal, falling between 1L and 22L. Ryan says a few kids landed at the extremes: one “conservative radical,” a boy, and three “liberal extremists,” all girls.
Mr. Inkmann then has the students sing two songs written by another West Bend teacher. “The Liberal Song” is set to the tune of “Ode to Joy.” Mr. Inkmann offers to sing first before everyone joins in. “If I were a liberal, liberal, life would be so very great,” the lyrics read, “knowing that in liberal land this other man could marry me.” The students flip through their political-spectrum packets to follow along. One kid snaps his fingers, rocking out. “The Conservative Song,” set to the tune of “Beer Barrel Polka,” includes lines like “I hate social programs, they really make me want to puke / I would rather use the money for a two-ton nuke” and “Welfare is not good, before we had it, people tried / And I hope the biggest criminals are electrified!”
Yes, you’re reading that right. Here are the songs written by the other teacher:
You can see the difference in the language. The liberal song is positive and uses words and phrases like “loved,” “happy,” “pro-choice,” “protest in a big parade,” “end pollution,” etc. The conservative song is negative and uses words like, “hate,” “women should stay home, pro-create, cook,” “hate gay marriage,” want to puke,” etc. This is a liberal’s caricature of conservatism. It’s a straw man that the teachers then spend the rest of class tearing down. It is not even close to an accurate description of modern conservative philosophy.
This is not isolated. I’m told that in Mr. Kieser’s class, the teacher who wrote the lyrics, it is much the same. The first few weeks of the semester have been spent having kids identify their stances on political issues and then the teacher will spend oodles of time “explaining” to the kids how the liberal positions are the better positions – without outright saying it, of course. The message to the kids is clear, however, if you hold conservative views, you are a violent heartless bigot.
This is not a rogue teacher. This is part of the planned course of study.
There are two outrages here. First, the obvious outrage that the lefty teachers are abusing their positions of authority to push their lefty views on kids. Second, they are wasting educational time on this junk instead of using it to teach the kids about their government and legal system.
It would be easy to fill four years of civics classes with just the mechanics of government and law – without even getting into political philosophies. And yet West Bend is choosing to fill class time with this and leave the kids ignorant about everything except the basics of our government and legal systems. Curriculum is about choices and the West Bend schools are choosing to advance liberalism with the scarce classroom time allotted to them.
I’d love to see an emphasis in civics, but don’t want liberal or conservative ideology taught. Understanding how our government works and laws are made is important.
I’m not a teacher, but you’d think that civics would be easier for the instructor to teach and the students to comprehend if it was taught sans political ideology of any kind. Keep it as simple as possible. What kid needs to know more than just the mechanics, anyway.
Schoolhouse Rock-style simple certainly stuck with a lot of kids.
Asking a public school to teach civics without liberal ideology is like asking Bill Clinton to teach about marital fidelity.
The public school monopoly is too far gone into the liberal lexicon.
Here’s my *SHOCKED* face, Owen.
Owen, would you be interested in discussing this on NewsTalk 1130 WISN tomorrow afternoon? If so, feel free to send me an e-mail. Thanks in advance.
Would it be better if the teacher was deliberately pushing conservatism? Didn’t we get a state-sponsored center for that at UW-Madison courtesy of the WisGOP?
The fake outrage crowd who wants taxpayers to pay for their kids religion taugh to them @taxpayer expense is tilting at windmills again against 2 excellent teachers .
Conservatives using negative words… where would anyone get that impression?
Kevin? Donald? Anyone?
Liberals use negative words all the time!
“Racist”, “Homophobic”, “Transphobic”, “Toxic. masculinity “, “white pivilege”, etc.
Liberalism has stripped and destroyed all cultural humor!
Liberalism is full of miserable human beings being miserable!
But, yet, liberalism is mislabeled in this curriculum with happy terms! No greater academic lie can be perpetuated on young minds!
I’d be interested to know what questions they used to determine where students fall on the “conservative reactionary” to “liberal radical” spectrum–are these fair questions or an exercise in push polling? West Bend is right smack dab in the middle of one of the most conservative-voting counties in the state. That “about two thirds of the class were moderate to liberal, falling between 1L and 22L” sounds a bit fishy to me in such a red county.
It is the age of faux outrage. Kate Perry’s line of shoes pulled off the market – whimsical red lips and triangular eyes – OK until someone noticed that the black colored ones look like a blackface caricature. Trump sends a mean Tweet about Elizabeth Warren (and she has done her share against Trump), says that he will see her on the campaign “trail” – must be a mockery of the Native American “Trails of Tears” and the genocide associated with that. Catholic school boys smirking while wearing MAGA hats – the smirks are white male privilege – now the new spin is that they did some kind of “tomahawk chop” at the Native American. The Esquire article about the youth from West Bend (which seems to have prompted Owen to question the content of the government class) – March issue released in February, which is Black History Month – more flaunting of white male privilege. “Empire” Jussie Smollett assaulted on a Chicago street because he is black and gay – one assailant allegedly said “this is MAGA country” – Pelosi, Harris, and even Trump issued Tweets that this kind of hate has to stop. Story still developing – no video collaboration (street cams all over the place) – now there is some questions about two Nigerians who are associated with Smollett leaving the country before they can be questioned, as there are concerns this “hate” crime was staged.
So this fake outrage is much bigger than a few people in the small city of West Bend – it’s national.
The liberal treachery on faux outrage knows no bounds.
“Liberals use negative words all the time!”
So do conservatives!
Over the past several years you have called me a fascist, socialist, marxist, evil, abomination, communist, racist, sexist, bigot, snowflake, yada, yada, yada… You, k, are the worlds biggest hypocrite. Embrace it.
When you exhibit those things, you deserve to be labeled accurately.
The curriculum does not treat liberalism, at all, negatively.
Liberalism is an abomination and deserves far more negative treatment in curriculum.
Conservativism is positive and deserves to be described in glowing terms.
It is not, because the public school church of liberalism forbids it!
…and anyone that fails to denounce baby killing, like you do, you should be thankful I am restrained enough to only use “evil” to describe your awful lack of morality toward the innocent.
…and don’t forget, I did call you “buttercup”. That should be worth some chuckles, if liberals wouldn’t have banned all humor.
Cave contemplates: “That “about two thirds of the class were moderate to liberal, falling between 1L and 22L” sounds a bit fishy to me in such a red county.”
When an authority figure asks you a question, you tell them what they want to hear. Aside from that, by the time they get to high school, the kids have already been in leftist Education Camp for years.
“Give me your four year olds and in a generation I will build a Socialist state” – Vladimir Lenin
Now that I read the entire Esquire article, I see what was happening in the class was an “exercise about partisan stereotypes”, with the songs depicting those stereotypes. And after reading the song lyrics, I do see the stereotypes that liberals and conservatives have for one and other contained within.
While I don’t think the school should be teaching any one specific political ideology, I don’t see a problem with discussing the partisan stereotypes that liberals and conservatives have for one and other. Maybe some of those stereotypes can be dispelled instead used as blanket statements that some Individuals use against others in attempt to gain the upper hand in a debate.
Mark sez: “It is the age of faux outrage.”
Ooooo. Direct hit. A SAM (that’s sanity-to-airhead missile) to Haley’s attempted Alinsky Flip.
That is a load of BS.
What liberal stereotypes are in that song?
Liberalism is totally joyless. Nothing in the song truly stereotypes liberalism.
Who on conservative side mandates women should be in home? Unlike liberals, conservatives are understanding toward that choice. Liberals don’t want that to even be a choice! So conservative stereotypes were ridiculous as well!
It’s all liberal crap!
A partisan stereotype is what one group thinks about the other. Much like the type of stereotypical words you use to describe those that don’t hold to the same ideological beliefs you do. It’s not what one group thinks about itself.
The liberal “stereotypes” in curriculum is what liberalism thinks about itself and it is total education fraud.
You prove my point with everything you say.
Says your stereotype.
Life is about abhorring evil and defending good. Liberalism has twisted good and evil. You are applying moral equivalence, where there is none.
Again, more proof.
Outrage about our local teachers , crickets about a faux national emergency that will let my crowd take your guns , pull Kev out of the pew in shackles and allow us to save the planet by shutting down all business’s in our version of
Fake “National Emergency “ .
No surprise .
Principled conservatism is dead , this President
Buried it and you saps went along with it .
More proof of what?
That, somehow, your are the objective arbiter?
That is funny.
So you see yourself as the objective arbiter here on definition betwween liberal and conservative?
As much, I guess, as you are. But that’s not what I’m talking about.
I was talking about the subject, partisan stereotypes, that was the focus of the instruction that day, and people who hold those stereotypical views on both left and right.
I don’t give one hoot about the WB schools and what or how they teach, but if you folks want to discuss partisan stereotypes, chew on this;
“You know what I love? I love seeing some young conservatives because I know it’s not easy. Keep up that fight. Bring it to your schools. You don’t have to be indoctrinated by these loser teachers that are trying to sell you on socialism from birth. You don’t have to do it. Because you can think for yourselves. They can’t.” – Donald Trump Jr. in Texas on Feb. 11, 2019
And take note, Junior Bonehead didn’t distinguish between public or private school teachers.
@ Nord: when Donald Trump said “You don’t have to be indoctrinated by these loser teachers” it is hard to tell if he meant all teachers are losers or just ones like this: https://www.statesman.com/news/20180914/mcneil-teacher–placed-on-leave-after-mocking-student-who-supported-trump-officials-say
Nord is master of taking things out of context.
There is no such thing as “non-partisan” stereotypes. So what is it doing in the classroom?
Liberal partisan tripe is a religion, and has no place in the public school…so I am told by my liberal friends. However, the dirty secret is: the church of liberalism is allowed to be practiced in public schools.
That is a quote. It isn’t out of context. Even an incurious sort like you could look it up.. Why must you be soooo untruthful?? Nature, or nurture???
Kevin asked, “There is no such thing as “non-partisan” stereotypes. So what is it doing in the classroom?”
Possibly to teach that not all stereotypes are true. Not all liberals are tree huggers or anti second amendment. And not all conservatives hate gay marriage, and hate social programs. That possibly the majority of us may have more in common than those on the far left, and right, would want us to believe.
Kevin, why isn’t this handout “cultural humor”?
It is NOT humorous, at all. It is hateful liberal agenda, attempting to be humor. Nearly all liberalism is unfunny because it is premised on America, being a bad, hateful place, and that Christianity is not a good thing. That is why humor evades liberalism…it comes from a place of evil.
Oh please….you are trying to tell me those teachers are teaching those liberals “stereotypes” are not true? That is the most naive thing I have ever heard. the church of public school liberalsim WANTS those things to be true.
Why do you keep introducing your hateful stereotypical rhetoric into what could be a thoughtful discussion.
Do you believe there are partisan stereotypes that each extreme side has for the other, and do you believe each is just as accurate as the other?
I don’t approve of an ideology that hates America, hates Christianity, and hates the greatness of this nation.
To express concerns, dismay, and denouncement of that as evil is not “hate”. It is love of country, love of God, and love of this nation….stop trying to stereotype me.
I don’t need to stereotype you. You’re accomplishing that task effectively on you own.
I love the US and believe that it will regain the greatness it once had up to a couple years ago. I believe that everyone has the right to their own spiritual beliefs. I’m a proud, patriotic American.
That’s just dandy.
But should we be paying for the the spiritual beliefs of the church of liberalsim, demonstrated in public schools above?
If we are, we should stop banning the disfavored Chrsitian spiritual beliefs in public school.
Equal protection clause.
“Nearly all liberalism is unfunny because it is premised on America, being a bad, hateful place, and that Christianity is not a good thing. That is why humor evades liberalism…it comes from a place of evil.” That is just absolute hogwash.
There is no “church of liberalism”. That is just a term k made up to justify his intolerance and hatred for anything and anybody that disagrees with him.
We shouldn’t be paying for teaching any religious beliefs in publicly funded schools, period.
I have no idea how to respond to you. It’s impossible to have a mature discussion on this when you make things up to try and rationalize your personal beliefs and biases by creating fake religions.
Tough to have a conversation when you deny the religion of human secularism.
I, at least, am honest about my religion.
Lack of honesty about that is where this conversation derailed.
Let me know when you want to be honest about the church of Liberalsim.
Kevin said, “I, at least, am honest about my religion.”
And what religion do you belong to?
The complete opposite of secular humanist disciples.
You have never had a conversation, you harangue and lecture. My Golden Retriever is a much better conversationalist than you could ever hope to be.
There is no church of Liberalism, nor is there a religion of human secularism. You just make all that stuff up so you can sound smart in your echo chamber.
Oh, I thought you’re religious practice was WELs.
I am “well spoken and articulate” is what you really meant.
I admit an occassional typo though.
Fixed that for you.
You are welcome.
WELS are Evangelical Christians.
Were you trying to make a distinction where there is none?
I’ll take this over k’s version of intolerant, authoritarian superstition any day.
“Secular humanism, or simply humanism, is a philosophy that embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition, as the basis of morality and decision making.”
Embrace of “ethics”….is that what is happening in this class?
Embrace of “morality”….that is happening in this class?
Embrace of “reason”…that is happening in this class?
You let me know where any of these three things in the corrupted church of liberalsim is occuring in this government and law class?
It’s just that sometimes you appear to be a practicing member of conservatism and other times a practicing member of other religions. I’m assuming you only practice one religion.
I only practice Evangelical Christianity, which has quite a bit in common with conservative thought.
I practice Christianity first, conservativism in line with Christianity second.
Is that verboten?
You brought up secular humanism, and I helped give you a definition. You, once again, are trying to deflect from another of your mistakes.
FYI: There is no church of liberalism. It only exists in your head. But the misguided thought, rattling around in your noggin, sure is keeping you occupied, and less able to cause significant damage elsewhere.
So you admit “ethics”, “morality” and “reason” is missing from this class on this subject?
If the church of liberalsim followed its comandments, we would not have this discussion…they don’t, because church of liberalsim is religion based on wacky immorality.
Oh no. I fully support you being able to practice your religious beliefs. Just as I support anyone else’s right to hold their own religious beliefs. But, you tend to want to define what others religious beliefs are.
I’m trying to stay away from discussing religious philosophy here since Owen asked politely to cut you some slack when it comes to your religious ideology. I’d rather it be a discussion of political philosophy versus religious philosophy.
>You, once again, are trying to deflect from another of your mistakes.
Says the blog-troll who does that on a nearly daily basis. Pathetic.
No, you made that up.. Did you stop beating your wife?
There is no church of liberalism, and no commandments. That is all your imagination. If anything is wacky, it is your continued bearing of false witness.
j: I’ll give you all the credit.
“Religious philosophy” and “political philosophy” cannot be separated.
Especially in the church of liberalism.
You are trying to attain a separation that is impossible.
Are you saying conservativism is a religion?
Stop avoiding the question.
Does this government and law class exhibit the “ethics”, “Morality”, and “reason” of the secular humanism definition you gave?
I’m seriously interested.
I’m saying that Evangelical Christians carry their Christianity and Christian values with them in the arena of politics.
Just as godless secular humanists carry their religion with them into liberal politics.
You are most certainly not interested in the truth, but only in what you want to force on others.
As I said earlier, I don’t give a hoot what happens in the WB school district, but do care about your continually bearing false witness to advance your intolerant beliefs. You most certainly do not exhibit ethics, morality or reason when you fabricate and attempt to deceive.
But is conservativism a religion?
What happened to the separation of church and state?? Or does that only apply to the religions you chose?
You mean the “truth” as you define it? Why is that NOT intolerance on your part? especially against Christians?
“Separation of church” is a contrived USSC decision right up there with Dred Scot and Roe vs. Wade in its inhumanity. It is an attack on free speech and makes some speech “more equal” than other speech, that is why you squeal so hard at religious label, because you no it means your speech is being religated to second class status.
Don’t think so, because conservatives tend to think for themselves and widely practice Evangelical Christianity. Conservatives tend to admit their religion. Liberals faill to admit because they are ashamed of the victimology heirarchy the cosmology of the liberal lexicon demands.
As I have said numerous times, I don’t care what brand of religion you believe in, just as long as it doesn’t infringe on any rights of those that have differing beliefs. We all know that is unacceptable to you, but until we become the intolerant and oppressive theocracy you desire you will just have to get used to it..
That “think for themselves” quote is hilarious !! Religion, especially your version, doesn’t allow for independent thought. And you offer up great examples of that mindset with every post. Carry on !!
>j: I’ll give you all the credit.
Awww you’re cute. Worthless, but cute.
Actually only 38% of conservatives consider themselves to be evangelical Christians.
So? Never said all conservatives were Evangelical Christians. Some are Roman Catholic, some are agnostic, some are Jewish.
I consider 38% a wide practice of Evangelical Christianity among a very diverse group like conservatives.
There is also an argument to be made that a large portion of Roman Catholics are “Evangelical Christians”, even though the Roman Catholic church does not formally embrace the term “Evangelical”.
I’ll get the popcorn, maybe Dad29 will school Kevin on Catholic doctrine!
Why? I bet we agree on what Roman Catholic doctrine says.
I find many Catholics live by faith in Jesus as theire redeemer from sin. That is the “Evangelical” part. Many Roman Catholics I talk to have that part correct and do live by that in action.
The part where I disagree is the “but” part in the Roman Catholic Catechism where good works are required as part of the salvation package. The implication that we merit, Christ’s unmerited grace.
Evangelicals perceive good works as a joyful thank you for the gift of grace and salvation as a reflection of healthy, vibrant faith. Many Roman Catholics tend to agree with that statement as well. The part where we disagree on is whether God keeps score on it.
So why do you think there is a debate?
I thought you said, “conservatives tend to think for themselves and widely practice Evangelical Christianity.” Evidently you meant to say, some conservatives tend to think for themselves and a minority practice Evangelical Christianity.
I dunno, Kevin. Maybe you can start your discussion with him about whether he thinks there should be a folk guitar in church.
Are you saying Evangelical Christians cannot think for themselves?
If that were true, we wouldn’t have so many denominations.
Where did I say that?
“Evidently you meant to say, some conservatives tend to think for themselves and a minority practice Evangelical Christianity.”
Kevin, I’m just looking forward to you calling Dad29 the names you use on so many others with whom you have some slight difference of opinion, and to see exactly what it’ll be about.
Aren’t WELS those people who don’t even want their kids selling fund-raiser pizzas to non-WELS, no dancing, no cards, no mingling with non-WELS when it comes to something like Christmas carols? Or am I confusing the sects?
That’s what I was clarifying you meant to say. Maybe you weren’t saying that. No where did I say, or imply, Evangelical Christians can not think for themselves. I’m sure Evangelical Christians have many independent, and diverse, opinions on many subjects, and are very free thinkers, unrestricted by any and all theological constraints of others.
When did I have a slight difference of opinion with you?
You seem to be full embrace of bd policy.