Educators are getting mobbed on social media and it must stop
Why was a Canadian principal mobbed on social media for trying to educate herself about her diverse students and how to best reach them? Why was an American Dean of Students fired for having expressed views on racism in America? And if there is a need for more diversity among educators, then why is the mobbing of educators with diverse viewpoints happening on both sides of the border?
Teacher diversity matters with regard to student learning, and those teachers who lack a personally diverse background should educate themselves on how to teach diverse populations. Yet somehow, Principal Battaglini of the Cardinal Ambrozic Catholic Secondary School got a progressive tongue lashing on Twitter for doing just that.
Ideological diversity matters too. Indeed, we need more of it. So it’s disturbing (to say the least) to discover that Dean Jamie R. Riley was let go from the University of Alabama for tweeting a belief that many progressive Americans share—that the flag is problematic, and emblematic of a divisive national history.
In introducing a new principal of the Cardinal Ambrozic Catholic Secondary School, the school posted a photo of her in her office. She was shown smiling beside a book on her desk called The Guide for White Women Who Teach Black Boys. Published in 2017, by Dr. Eddie Moore, Jr. and Ali Michael, Ph.D, the book has positive reviews on Amazon from educators who want to do better to address their own internal biases and better serve their black male students.
Despite this, the existence of this book (on the desk of someone who this book was directly intended for) garnered criticism that either it was offensive that she was reading it, that it was a PR stunt, or that it was sexist as the book was only about “boys.” It was a classic, inane Twitter storm, but it was enough to raise the issue of whether or not it’s racist for an educator to make use of anti-racist literature to be a better educator.
The New York Times recently published on the importance of teacher diversity, noting that “…studies show that teacher diversity can make a difference in students’ performance and their interest in school. The effect is stronger on boys. Research has found that boys, and particularly black boys, are more affected than girls by disadvantages, like poverty and racism, and by positive influences, like high-quality schools and role models. Yet they are least likely to have had a teacher that looks like them.”
So why was the University of Alabama’s assistant vice president and dean of students pushed out not for his job performance, but for expressing his views years ago? Riley’s tweets were brought to light by Breitbart, though the comments were made well before he was appointed to his current position in December 2018. Was Riley really relieved of his position for his views or for having expressed them or for the remarks having been made public?
In Battaglini’s case, the existence of the book on her desk was considered an admission of racism and being inconsiderate to black male students. But her impulse, and the impulse of the authors, was the exact opposite. She was educating herself per the going social mandate, attempting to exorcise her own innate biases, and best serve the students in her charge. Thankfully, she survived her shaming. Riley was not so lucky.
For Riley, this was a tragically successful attempt to destroy his livelihood because he spoke his mind. There’s every reason to believe that the University of Alabama knew about the tweets, and about Riley’s perspective on race and the flag, prior to his hiring. It wasn’t until Breitbart reported on it that the man lost his job. The school should have stood up for Riley, they’d presumably hired him because he was the right candidate for the position, and not because his views conformed to whatever Breitbart thinks they should have. Free speech is only worth fighting for if it’s for all. Considering how many digital pages Brietbart has dedicated to the issue of free speech, it’s a little disturbing to see the outlet succeed in taking away Riley’s.
Surely whether you’re on the right or the left, one thing reasonable people should agree upon is that mobbing and shaming people with the aim of getting them fired is wrong and has helped create this tribalistic hellscape we are currently living in.
For the love of god, let’s do better. We could start by giving Riley his job back, and letting a principal work in peace to serve her students to the best of her ability without getting hate for it.
“Sometimes a scandal isn’t just a scandal, but a biopsy of a society,” said the British author Douglas Murray earlier this year. This apercu was coined in his reporting on the scandal that involved the indomitable philosopher, Roger Scruton, who was fired from his position in the British government for things he never said. This was the product of the crafty editing skills of George Eaton, who distorted Scruton’s responses to make him look like all kinds of politically incorrect bugaboos.
Though the context and character are different, Murray’s phrase can apply to the non-ceremonial ousting of Canada’s beloved curmudgeon, Don Cherry. His defenestration carries with it all the great features of the perfect cancelling. One of them is perhaps the most aggravating: false outrage over things that a few years ago might have disturbed the overly sensitive, but the effects would have been momentary. It would have blown over after a day or two. People would have quickly gained their composure and moved on and left the octogenarian to his work, which many Canadians enjoy. And yes, his cantankerous demeanour is among the many reasons why this has been the case for decades.
But, unfortunately, the culture we’re living in rewards outrage to the point that people will pursue it for the sake of social validation and to feed their own egomania; they’re supposed compassion for the “violated” comes off so contrived and convenient as to be nauseating. Particularly since the things upon which they train their sights are often as frivolous as a sports broadcaster expressing his concerns over people not wearing poppies. One can’t help but take notice of the façade being showcased by many, since if we were to suggest that they do something that would actually make their outrage worthwhile—such as donating property to an immigrant Cherry ostensibly violated—they’d likely disappear quickly from their podium of virtue. When Cherry was on his show earlier this week, Tucker Carlson said that these people are “fascists” with no feelings and are using their “outrage” to “exert power.”
We certainly can argue over the applicability of the word “fascist,” but the gist of what Carlson said is accurate. With the most cursory reading of the avalanche of denouncements, it’d not be far-fetched to assert that many deep down aren’t really that appalled by Don Cherry’s comments. For with the advent of social media, these people have developed even more of an addiction to attaining instant approval from their peers and, upon seeing where the wind is blowing, have shifted their focus to satisfying this addiction through the pursuit of superficial causes they likely weren’t interested in until an hour ago.
What this has created is a generation of moral narcissists who engage in performative outrage, treating takedowns of old-timers like Don Cherry as some great act of bravery and something for which they are owed adulation. They operate in a non-existent universe in which they have had no moments of indiscretion, and they arrogantly impose their new standards of perfection onto people for offences past and present. In a sober-minded world, they’d likely be left standing on a corner rambling like a crazed wing nut and attract only a few supporters. But social media provides them with an obsequious, like-minded tribe who will readily applaud their every utterance and provide them with a constant dose of self-satisfaction.
In a new article for the Atlantic with the fitting title, “The Dark Psychology of Social Networks,” Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell provide one of the most insightful analyses of this social malaise. They argue that people have become susceptible to this contagion of “fake outrage” as social media has transformed “communication into a public performance.” The lack of intimacy in the Twittersphere makes interaction with others entirely based upon outdoing the next person with their “grandstanding” and scrutinizing of others instead of actually making an attempt to connect with people by productive, two-way communication. “ Nuance and truth are casualties in this competition to gain the approval of an audience,” they observe. “Grandstanders scrutinize every word spoken by their opponents—and sometimes even their friends—for the potential to evoke public outrage. Context collapses. The intent of the speaker is ignored.”
With the immediate consumption of mass information, people have lost touch with ideas and principles that have long sustained civil society and have come to see little value in learning about them, while becoming obsessed with dim-witted fights. “Even though they have unprecedented access to all that has ever been written and digitized,” Haidt and Rose-Stockwell write, “members of Gen Z (those born after 1995 or so) may find themselves less familiar with the accumulated wisdom of humanity than any recent generation, and therefore more prone to embrace ideas that bring social prestige within their immediate network yet are ultimately misguided.”
These people deprive themselves of the timeless values that would restrain them—such as reason, curiosity, truth, giving others the benefit of the doubt, decency, pluralism, among others.
People, such as those on The Social, instead become dog whistle specialists, who are incredibly precise when it comes to reading minds and confirming one’s motives without any further questions. They then claim it as evidence of a much larger crisis, though the only ones really “taking offence” are the cultural elitists in the major metropolitans and their Twitter legion of moral narcissists desperate to profit off of outrage.
Don Cherry is only the latest casualty of this insidious enterprise.
The far-left extremist group Antifa receives support from The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAN). They have also commended and disseminated far-left conspiracy theories.
In an article in The Federalist, CAN’s relationship with Antifa was uncovered, in which the organization’s members were found to be supporting Antifa by advising and protecting the extremist group in the media.
The latest example was during a free-speech rally in Hamilton, organized jointly by Dave Rubin and Maxime Bernier. Before the event began, a member of CAN published an op-ed in a local newspaper where they demanded the group be de-platformed. This was because the rally was allegedly “ushering people into the neo-Nazi movement.” Following this, Antifa activists threatened the venue and its participants.
When the rally began, Antifa activists appeared and subsequently gained nation-wide attention when they refused to allow an elderly woman with a walker to cross the street. They did so by blocking her path so they had sufficient time to scream, “nazi scum” at her. They refused to listen to the women and were thus unaware that her family had fought against the Nazis in World War Two.
When The Post Millennial approached CAN for a comment, they responded by saying that the op-ed “wasn’t what alerted anti-fascists to the event. Organizing was already underway–which we had absolutely no involvement with.” The CAN spokesman went on to say that “I didn’t say the rally was ushering people to neo-Nazism, but that a study analyzing 79 million comments and 330,000 videos found that Rubin is part of a radicalization process on Youtube … my intention in the op-ed is quite obviously to have Mohawk make the principled decision not to host the event.”
CAN’s executive director Evan Balgord has also provided advice to the extremist group, stating that they should be “media aware” in response to the group harassing an elderly woman. When The Post Millennial approached Balgord for comment, he did not address the tweet, stating instead that he “condemned what happened.”
More seriously, however, the Chairman of the CAN, Bernie Farber, praised a journalist’s lauding of Antifa’s “muscular resistance”.
When Balgord was asked about the allegation from The Federalist that Farber himself praised Anitfa’s use of “muscular resistance,” he said “Bernie didn’t say that. You’re quoting Bernie [Farber] quoting [another journalist]. Further, muscular does not necessarily equal violence. Farber is quite explicitly anti-violence, and any implication to the contrary is defamatory.”
Nevertheless, Farber quoted the journalist’s comments and then went on to praise the journalist who said it, saying “the understanding [the journalist] brings to a difficult issue is well worth your read.”
Farber has also been tied to people who promote extremist ideology and has protected individuals who preach hate. Earlier this October, for instance, Farber spoke at an event with Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) speakers, which has been described by Canadian Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith as a “hateful and racist movement that singles out Israel.” The Centre for Israel and Jewish affairs describes BDS as “antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism.”
Additionally, Farber has regularly defended allegedly anti-Semitic individuals. In one case, Farber stated that an Imam who said “slay them one by one and spare not one of them. Oh Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews,” had been treated unfairly.
When approached with this, the CAN spokesman said “At the time it was believed to be a mistranslation–I don’t know that it’s possible to know the truth of that one way or another given the different interpretations by different linguists … that’s the information Bernie [Farber] had.”
Balgord has a history of defending Antifa. In a blog post, he defended the amorphous organization by stating that there were “many examples of anti-fascists (Antifa) using violence to protect other protesters.” Balgord proceeded to state that the media presented “a distorted image of the movement.” He also co-wrote an article for Rabble with Kevin Metcalf, one of the protesters arrested by Hamilton Police three weeks ago for allegedly attacking a man at the aforementioned free speech rally.
In response to this, Balgord stated that he was a “proud supporter of the anti-fascist movement [not to be confused with the extremist Antifa group]. The vast majority of violence at the many Canadian demonstrations I have attended or reviewed footage of is began [sic] by supporters and sympathizers of hate groups, not anti-fascists.”
On writing an article with Metcalf, Balgord stated that “Metcalf is not affiliated with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, but I wish him the best of luck with his charges.”
For some context, U.S. Antifa has assaulted prominent journalist Andy Ngo (who is also now The Post Millennial’s Editor-at-large), leaving him with a brain bleed. The Canadian branch of Antifa has also attacked independent journalists in Quebec City. In response to this event, Antifa stated that “sometimes, it is necessary to go against what the mainstream considers ‘acceptable,’ to break the law in order to do the ethical thing.”
South of the Canadian border, Antifa has been criticized for its intimidation of broadcasters with the intent to de-platform speakers. They are also known to disseminate malicious conspiracy theories and attack innocent bystanders. Public intellectual Noam Chomsky has described Antifa as a “major gift” to the right.
Concerning the malicious conspiracy theories, the “Yellow Vests Exposed group,” who call themselves “CAN contributors,” have also encouraged outlandish conspiracy theories. This includes the organization repeatedly stating that “Andy Ngo is a threat to our community and provides kill lists to Atomwaffen” on Twitter without any evidence.
Balgord stood by these unproven claims. “It [was] not a conspiracy. Andy Ngo is dangerous and by pushing that non-study he got journalists on a kill list.”
This conspiracy theory has been widely disproven. Claire Lehmann, the editor of the magazine that published this article, has gone on record stating that “Andy Ngo played no role in the production of this article.” As well as this, Lehmann stated that “the whole situation is absurd … and [the kill list] has no connection to Quillette.”
CAN are only too eager to label conservative figures and groups as “far-right.” In a report, for instance, CAN stated that there were 300 hate groups in Canada. According to their arithmetic, there are 160 percent more hate groups in Canada than the U.S. per capita.
For trans ideology to truly spread, it needs to become an inherent part of our core belief system. As natural as the sky being blue, and the earth being round, we must all have the truth of trans as a foundational element of our understanding about the world for it to thrive. Convincing adults is one thing, but to really make this wash, it’s children that need to taught the dogma of multiple gender identities and the ability of humans to swap their sex for its opposite. The purported goal behind teaching children that male and female are nothing more than feelings is compassion, empathy, and anti-bias.
The work to bring children into the trans fold is pervasive and growing, and we’ve seen it in the US and Canada. In Sweden, the government is pouring money into an educational program for drag queens to read to children with disabilities. Meanwhile, in the UK, where trans advocates have a major head start, the BBC is airing educational programming to teach children that there are as many genders as stars in the sky. Both of these programs bring new dictates on gender to young kids. And kids, malleable as they are, typically believe what adults tell them.
Presumably, both the Swedish government and the BBC believe they are doing the right thing, a good thing, taking a positive step in the education of their nations’ children. But why does the Swedish federal government and the BBC want children open to the idea that gender and biological sex are different entities, and that biological sex differences are not meaningful with regard to anything at all?
The Swedish program, implemented on a federal level, is funded by a cache of cash left behind by those Swedes who died without any heirs, and is administered by Kulturforenigen Mums, which has brought in drag storytelling outfit Among Dragons and Drag Queens to create the curriculum. Among Dragons and Drag Queens’ plans is to rewrite those staid, boring, cis heteronormative fairy tales and replace them with stories where perhaps damsels rescue themselves, and handsome princes realize they’d rather fight for their right to be princesses than aspire to true love and responsibility.
The idea behind drag story hour is that children’s concepts of gender are uprooted and questioned by having grown men dressed fantastically and comically as women. While they’re at it, Among Dragons and Drag Queens should bring in some women and men and who have truly bucked gender stereotypes, like dads who prioritize raising their kids over a full-time career, or women who build bridges. Wardrobe is fashion, but life choices are what actually matter.
In the BBC video, children read questions about gender, such as “What are the different gender identities?” The answer is that this is a “that’s a really, really, exciting question to ask.” And another specialist tells children, in a voice rich with wonder and discovery, “do you know there are so many gender identities. So we know we’ve got male and female, but there are over a hundred, if not more, gender identities now. So we know that some people might think they are two different genders, so people might think they are bigender, and then you’ve got some people who might call themselves genderqueer, who are just like I don’t really want to be anything, in particular, I’m just going to be me.”
If this is all so innate, as male and female were considered to be only a few short minutes ago, why do kids need specialized education to understand it? If the goal is compassion, empathy, and instilling an egalitarian mindset, drag story hour and blatant televised lies about there being over 100 genders are not the answer.
So why do the BBC and the Swedish federal government want to make sure children know that men who don’t feel like adhering to male stereotypes and women who don’t want to adhere to female stereotypes are necessarily something other than male and female?
Is this about making sure kids are not prejudiced against people who present and act differently from the expected stereotype? Is the goal to make sure that kids know that they personally do not have to adhere to these stereotypes? Maybe the goal is to break down sex-based stereotypes altogether so that kids know that their capabilities are not limited by their sex?
What these educational programs actually do is solidify and entrench different expectations other than the traditional ones. While these programs have the tinge of compassion, consideration, and inclusiveness, that is actually an illusion. Instead of breaking down the limiting factors of socially constructed sex-based stereotypes and leaving that space open, it fills it with new rules about how not adhering to stereotypes means you are the opposite gender from that which your sex determines you are.
The message behind telling children there are people who are bigender, or multi-gender, or people who “just want to be me,” is that children must choose their gender, not that some people do, but that everyone must. Affirming these delusions is confirming them. What child doesn’t want to “just be me?” And if the way to “just be me” is to say “I’m different from my body,” then that’s what kids will do. These are guidelines to rebellion against the body, they are not telling children “here are some paths,” they are saying “this is the path, walk down it.”
The reason for indoctrinating children early in the ways of society is to make sure they know exactly what concepts and constructs cannot be questioned and must be adhered to, both in thought and action. If trans ideology were about acceptance, something more along the lines of “people are different, don’t judge people for those things about themselves that they can’t control,” we would be in the realm of anti-bias initiatives. If the message were “you don’t have to be limited by traditional gender roles,” that would be about breaking down stereotypes.
In the current merry multi-gender climate, the way that gender stereotypes are bucked is by showing men in dresses, and women speaking up for themselves. This is a strange dichotomy where what male gender warriors are fighting against is wardrobe, and female gender fighters are railing against traditional gender roles. But the thing is, those roles have already been turned on their heads. Women and men have far more freedom than they used to and are free live as they choose. The fact that adults want to transition and live as the opposite sex, or perform drag shows for other adults, has been pretty well accepted. The problem here is that children are being told lies to uphold adult desires.
Don Cherry was trying to make a point about patriotism, loving our country, and honouring those who sacrificed everything so we could be free.
Cherry had clearly seen a lot of people not wearing poppies, and as the public figure who has perhaps done more than any other to show support for our troops and encourage respect for Veterans, Cherry was obviously pissed off.
In remarks that—if people weren’t afraid of offending the cancel culture cops—most Canadians would admit to agreeing with, Cherry said that people who enjoy the freedom of coming here and living in Canada (enjoying freedom not enjoyed in many other nations) should at the very least wear a poppy to show respect for Canadians who fell in war.
Of course, any hint of patriotism or nationalism makes the elites go absolutely crazy, and that’s what happened.
The outrage mobs and cancel culture cops went into overdrive, and Sportsnet (a company that is apparently fine with letting communist China-controlled Huawei sponsor Hockey Night in Canada) fired Cherry.
And they fired him on Remembrance Day of all days, which is a huge insult and totally disrespectful to Cherry considering how much he has fought to stand up for Veterans and those who lost their lives for Canada.
By giving in to the outrage mobs, Sportsnet has disgraced themselves.
Cherry’s colleague Ron MacLean also threw Cherry under the bus, after nodding along with Cherry and giving a thumbs up to his remarks, he then acted like he didn’t really get Cherry’s comments.
Peter Mansbridge also wrote an article for CBC with the subheading, “The notion that Canada’s veterans were all white is dangerously wrong and an insult to thousands.”
Yeah, bro, that would be “wrong” and “offensive,” if Cherry had actually brought up race.
But he didn’t.
Cherry didn’t mention race at all.
So CBC pushes an article by Mansbridge that skews the facts to make it look like Cherry was talking about race?
Also, how about the loyalty of CBC throwing Cherry under the bus after all he’s done for them – including the millions of Canadians who only watched CBC for Hockey Night in Canada?
So now, this is where Canada is:
The Prime Minister wore blackface so many times he can’t even remember how often, and he’s still in power (after getting a big assist from the media), while Don Cherry—a man who does everything he can to bring attention to our veterans and honour our troops—gets fired for saying people should wear poppies.
It’s total hypocrisy, as the examples below make clear:
“Kellie Leitch: “Values Test”
Quebec Government: “Values Test”
Cherry: “Wear Poppies”
Elites: REMOVE HIM!!”
What the hell is going on?
This is a disgrace, and it shows once again why the establishment media and political elites need to be defeated. Their priorities and judgement are broken beyond repair.