Category: Woke
The Spectator P.M. Ep. 180: The Woke Claims Jingle Bells Is Racist
Joy Reid furthered yet another woke message by reposting a video that criticized the beloved Christmas tune “Jingle Bells” as…
Seattle professor punished for mocking land acknowledgments fights back, scores win against woke university
A professor at the University of Washington was punished for having the audacity to poke fun at the school’s moral exhibitionism. Stuart Reges, a professor at UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, fought back and, on Friday, secured a decisive victory.
Reges ruffled feathers at the university where he has worked for decades by including a parodic land acknowledgment in his 2022 course syllabus.
‘The Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land.’
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the outfit that represented Reges, the university recommended in its “best practices” guide that instructors incorporate an “Indigenous Land Acknowledgment” in their course syllabi, providing the following as an example statement: “The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations.”
In a December 2021 faculty email thread, one of Reges’ colleagues referred to an article that characterized land acknowledgments as “moral onanism.” Reges said in response that he was uncertain about the value of making such statements and noted that he might include a mock statement in his syllabus.
Sure enough, the professor included the following land acknowledgment on the syllabus of his winter 2022 computer science course: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”
Administrators at UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering punished Stuart Reges over his failure to conform, which they claimed had caused a “disruption to instruction” but had in reality enraged only ideologically delicate members of the faculty and the school’s DEI student committee.
Stuart Reges. Courtesy of Twinkle Don’t Blink
The director of UW’s computer science department, Magdalena Balazinska, ordered Reges to remove the statement because it was supposedly “offensive” and generated a “toxic environment.”
According to court documents, when Reges refused to remove his dissenting statement, Balazinska unilaterally removed it, then apologized to Reges’ students, detailing ways that they could file complaints against their professor.
‘Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted.’
In addition to inviting students to switch out of Reges’ computer programming course and into a “shadow” class section taught by a different professor, university administrators launched a years-long disciplinary investigation into Reges.
In July 2022, Reges sued Balazinska, then-UW President Ana Mari Cauce, and other school officials, accusing them of violating his First Amendment rights.
“University administrators turned me into a pariah on campus because I included a land acknowledgment that wasn’t sufficiently progressive for them,” Reges said at the time. “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”
U.S. District Court Judge John Chun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, dismissed Reges’ lawsuit last year, claiming that “the disruption caused by Plaintiff’s speech rendered it unprotected.”
Reges appealed and found a court that viewed his case differently.
In a 2-1 decision on Friday, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel disagreed with and reversed the Biden judge’s ruling, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the majority, noted, “Debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university’s actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights.”
Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, highlighted the long-standing debate over the value, factual basis, and political nature of land acknowledgments as well as Reges’ sense that they are part of “an agenda of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ that treats some groups of students as more deserving of recognition and welcome than others on account of their race or other immutable characteristic.”
While acknowledging the right of members of the UW community to speak out against Reges and his views, Bress stressed that “Reges has rights too. And here, we conclude that UW violated the First Amendment in taking adverse action against Reges based on his views on a matter of public concern.”
Will Creeley, the legal director of FIRE, said that the ruling “recognizes that sometimes, ‘exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself.'”
“If you graduate from college without once being offended, you should ask for your money back,” added Creeley.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘We’re still on the air, Tim’: Hockey announcer’s hot mic sexual remarks result in suspension
Philadelphia Flyers radio play-by-play announcer Tim Saunders may have some explaining to do to his superiors.
Saunders has been suspended for two games by the Flyers, and now the organization is apologizing for comments he made on Thursday night.
‘We take this matter very seriously.’
During a commercial break in the third period of the Flyers and Buffalo Sabres game, Saunders went to a commercial break before he was heard making some non-hockey-related remarks.
“Now, they’re going to take the TV time-out. We’ll take it as well. Seven [minutes] gone in the third [period]. It’s 3-2 Buffalo on the Philadelphia Flyers Broadcast Network,” Saunders said, thinking he would then be off the air.
After a few seconds, the announcer is heard humming a tune to himself before more dead air, as muffled audio of in-arena promotions are heard in the background.
It was nearly 20 seconds after the start of a would-be commercial break when Saunders said, “While you’re down there, would you mind blowing me?”
Following a few more seconds of silence, broadcast partner and former NHL player Todd Fedoruk inserted, “I think we’re still on the air, Tim.”
Saunders then seemingly has a good chuckle before stopping to seriously ask, “No, we’re not, are we?”
RELATED: San Jose Sharks apologize for displaying pro-ICE message on scoreboard during Hispanic celebration
As reported by Crossing Broad, Saunders took another long pause before laughing again and asking, “Are we? Do you have us? Mikey, talk to me.”
On Friday morning, the Flyers issued an official statement on their social media saying they were “aware of the inappropriate comment” made during the TV time-out.
“These remarks do not reflect the standards of conduct or values we expect from anyone associated with our organization,” the team wrote.
The Flyers then announced that, effective immediately, a two-game suspension had been issued while they “address this matter with all parties involved.”
“We take this matter very seriously, and sincerely apologize to our listeners, fans and all those affected by these comments,” the statement concluded.
RELATED: Male players take over women’s hockey in Minnesota — one team has 4 men
The majority of Flyers fans on X reacted negatively to the announcement, with one Philly sports fan calling it an “incredible overreaction.”
“A suspension??? World gone soft,” a fan named Ryan said.
Jeff added, “Give him a raise.”
The Flyers would go on to lose the game 5-3.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Jennifer Lawrence admits she can’t separate her politics from movies: ‘That’s how I’m digesting the world’
Actress Jennifer Lawrence says her creativity and politics are inherently intertwined.
Lawrence revealed her thoughts during a discussion with fellow Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
‘Maybe she didn’t know that I was on an Ambien.’
Brain trust
Lawrence, 35, and DiCaprio, 51, appeared on Variety’s “Actors on Actors” segment, with the duo discussing their pasts as child actors, upcoming films, and briefly, politics as it pertains to their art.
DiCaprio was discussing his 2025 political film, “One Battle After Another,” when Lawrence asked about bringing politics into the movie industry.
“I think that the creative part of my brain and the political part of my brain are intrinsically linked,” Lawrence prefaced. “Like, I keep finding, like, every time I come up with, like, a movie or, like, it’s more often than not political.”
“I think it’s ’cause that’s how I’m, like, digesting the world. Are you like that?” she asked DiCaprio.
“No,” DiCaprio plainly replied.
Lawrence attempted to move on to another question, but the “Titanic” star was eager to explain why.
RELATED: Handmaid’s fail: Hillary stumps for Jennifer Lawrence’s new pro-abortion documentary
Photo by Taylor Hill/FilmMagic
Stating that his latest film feels “very topical,” DiCaprio said it is “very difficult to say something about the world we live in” on film.
“It has to have an element of irony or comedy to it; otherwise people — they’re not allowed in. … And it feels like, ‘Oh, I’m watching these people’s vocation and, you know, do I relate to them?'” he explained.
DiCaprio tacked on, “There’s all those political films of the ’70s: ‘The Parallax View,’ ‘Three Days of the Condor,’ ‘All the President’s Men.’ And they were taken very seriously. But nowadays, it feels like there’s such polarity and such extremism that if you pick a side, you’re alienating.”
Pillow talk
Later in the interview, Lawrence had more strange anecdotes that seemed to paralyze the veteran actor. She soon brought up the fact that both she and DiCaprio are “obsessive about sleep” when filming a movie, before reciting some of her on-set drug follies.
DiCaprio seemingly played along, smiling and laughing at times, but clearly had nothing to add.
“I took an Adderall instead of a sleeping pill,” Lawrence said, as DiCaprio smirked. “And then I didn’t sleep all night, and I was taking hot showers, panicking, because I am not somebody who can function without sleep. … I also once took an Ambien in the morning, thinking it was something else,” she continued.
“Wow. Those are key screwups,” the leading man laughed in response.
“Elizabeth Banks got really annoyed with me,” Lawrence said about her Ambien usage on the set of “Hunger Games.”
She continued, “Maybe she didn’t know that I was on an Ambien.”
DiCaprio simply put his head down and laughed, without responding.
RELATED: Jennifer Lawrence claims no women were action movie stars before her
Sigourney who?
Lawrence has made interesting claims during sit-downs on the same program before, including in December 2022 when she claimed she was the first female lead of an action movie.
Also on Variety’s “Actors on Actors,” Lawrence told Viola Davis:
“I remember when I was doing ‘Hunger Games,’ nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn’t work. We were told, girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead.”
Sigourney Weaver (“Alien”), Uma Thurman (“Kill Bill”), and Milla Jovovich (countless “Resident Evil” films) could not be reached for comment.
The Spectator P.M. Ep. 176: Pantone’s Color of the Year — White — Angers the Woke Left
Pantone crowned “Cloud Dancer,” a shade of white, as the color of the year. The decision aroused absolute outrage on…
How ‘Frankenstein’ was turned into a woke parable — and missed the real horror
Although there has been a long slew of adaptations, parodies, and spin-offs of “Frankenstein,” many fans of Mary Shelley’s famous novel were looking forward to the newest iteration by Guillermo del Toro, which just came out.
In the age of AI, gene therapy, and the modern aversion to death, the story of a scientist who gives life to a creature of his own design naturally resonates with most people. Moreover, a director who is known for his ability to craft fantastical narratives, gothic settings, and unworldly monsters seemed like the perfect fit for such a story.
What could have been a story of redemption and radical love is turned into one of violent horror and unavoidable tragedy.
But with such a tale from such a director at such a time, there was also a good chance the whole film could become an overwrought piece of woke propaganda. Would del Toro stay faithful to the source material, or would he indulge his worst tendencies and recreate “The Shape of Water” with Shelley’s basic premise?
Sadly, he opted for the latter.
Woke makeover
While showing his usual visual flare, del Toro and his writers nonetheless succumbed to transforming the romantic tale of man’s excesses and consequent fall from grace into a woke narrative of a marginalized victim suffering from an oppressive father figure. The monster is not a hideous abomination that goes on a killing spree to spite his creator, but is rather a misunderstood, sensitive outcast who deserves sympathy.
It is his creator, Victor Frankenstein, who is the real monster: Not only does he abuse his own creature, but he murders multiple people and lies about it.
In fairness to del Toro, he probably planned out the film a few years ago when such a script happily aligned with the woke spirit of the time. And he did win an Oscar for “The Shape of Water,” so he can’t be blamed too much for returning to the same formula. How was he supposed to know that this would all become tedious and unfashionable in 2025?
And yet for all that, it’s wrong to assume that the original novel lacked these themes entirely.
Original intent
While most fans and critics examine the science-fiction elements of the novel and the Promethean allegory of man’s creation running amok, an honest reading would show that the novel is first and foremost a Romanticist manifesto. The main character is neither Victor nor his creation but the Swiss Alps that provide the backdrop of every scene, monologue, and conversation. The main conflict is not Victor attempting to stop his monster from terrorizing his friends and family, but finding meaning and unadulterated joy in the world rendered cold and dull by Enlightenment philosophy.
Most importantly, the book’s main argument is the problem of loneliness and how it animates humanity’s darkest impulses. The movie actually deals with this idea somewhat, though the novel is fully based on it.
How else should the reader make sense of all three of the main characters (besides the Alps), who all suffer from profound loneliness? The first character to appear in the book is the ambitious explorer and scientist Robert Walton, who attempts to go to the North Pole. Besides detailing his progress to his sister in a series of letters, he also mentions his lack of a friend. This leads him to immediately take interest in the Swiss scientist Victor Frankenstein, who just happens to be in the Arctic, searching for his monster.
Frankenstein, in turn, also reveals his own introverted nature and consequent desolation.
RELATED: How Disney butchered ‘Snow White’ — and it’s worse than just wokeness
Manuel Velasquez/Getty Images
Even though he has good friends, a loving father, encouraging teachers, and a bride waiting for him, Frankenstein seems to reject their company. Either he feels unworthy of such friends, especially after the mayhem inflicted by his monster, or he desires full control in his relationships.
More than anything, this antisocial stance seems to be the main inspiration for creating his monster. Even though many naturally assume he was driven by glory, power, and morbid curiosity, Shelley hardly mentions any of that. Instead she details Victor’s loving upbringing and beautiful surroundings, only to have him forget all this and conduct a weird experiment of bringing a monster to life.
Then, of course, there is the monster himself, who is quite open about his loneliness and resorts to terror to have a companion. Abandoned by Victor, the creature roams the countryside, fruitlessly searching for a human being who can stand to befriend him. Long story short, this doesn’t happen, so he takes revenge on Victor for putting him in this situation.
Alone, we break
Read through the prism of loneliness, the novel makes a surprisingly compelling case not only for cultivating friendship but also for the kind of dysfunction that results from the lack thereof.
This is especially pertinent for audiences today who are forced to cope with the mass atomization of modern life.
In terms of their social life, most young people in the developed world often resemble Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s monster, or some combination thereof. They feel misunderstood, have few outlets for their thoughts and emotions, and respond in similar ways to the characters: They seek internet fame, indulge in darker temptations, and even lash out against a world that seems to reject them.
Much like the literary critics and adaptors who miss this larger theme in their analysis of the smaller ones that result, today’s social commentators who remark on the pathologies of the youth do the same.
At the heart of all this dysfunction is loneliness. And behind the social crisis lies a spiritual crisis.
Had Frankenstein abided by Christian teaching, he would accept his limitations and work to overcome his personal misgivings of befriending and serving others. Instead of trying to build a companion for the monster, only to dismantle it in a fit of rage, Victor could have loved his creation, much as God does. Instead of the monster basing his morality on Goethe, Plutarch, and Milton — which all promote epic struggles and titanic egos — he could have picked up the much more available (and readable) Gospels, which stress forgiveness and humility.
Then again, this is Mary Shelley’s story, and she was far from a devout Christian. Similarly, del Toro is also an atheist and likely shares the same outlook on the Christian demands of friendship, virtue, and human creativity.
What could have been a story of redemption and radical love is turned into one of violent horror and unavoidable tragedy.
Created for fellowship
Still, even if such Romantic secular humanism makes for better dramatic tension and suspense, it elides the deeper truth that comes out of the story: Man is not meant to be alone.
Victor’s real crime was not his ambition or curiosity but forsaking everyone around him. It wasn’t an abusive father that led him to this (as the new film suggests) but his willful ignorance of the Father in Heaven. As such, he creates a personal hell with its very own devil.
Even if Shelley and del Toro miss this point, readers and audiences should take heed and confront the problems of loneliness and nihilism in the world around them.
‘I feel like I’ve been fired by America’: Cracker Barrel CEO nearly brought to tears over redesign backlash
Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino told BlazeTV’s Glenn Beck that the company was trying to correct for lighting and comfort when it presented its redesign.
Masino was at the center of controversy in August when the old country store was blasted for changing its logo, branding, and interior design. Customers particularly took issue with the removal of the country man sitting on a chair next to a barrel, as well as the barrel itself, leaving just black “Cracker Barrel” text on a yellow background.
‘Were you surprised you weren’t fired?’
Beck sat down with Masino inside a Cracker Barrel, tucked away in a corner booth along with the company’s senior vice president of store operations, Doug Hisel. During the hour-long conversation that saw Masino almost shed tears at one point, the CEO expressed anxiety about agreeing to the interview due to feeling that her position throughout the ordeal had been misconstrued.
“I want to set the record straight,” she said. “I want people to know that this is the brand that they’ve always known and loved, and that our job is to take care of it and just set it up for the next 55 years.”
Beck cut the noise and directly asked, “Were you surprised you weren’t fired?”
“I feel like I’ve been fired by America,” Masino replied.
“That’s probably worse,” Beck noted.
The CEO explained that her intentions were only to help Americans love the brand, “the way I love this brand … the way everybody who works here.”
Pointing to the some 70,000 employees at Cracker Barrel, Masino said she knows the responsibility she has on her shoulders and that she must ensure her employees are taken care of, and in turn are able to put a roof over their head and food on their table.
“My job is to make sure that Cracker Barrel helps them do that,” she added.
RELATED: Cracker Barrel saves its old-timey decor — but will we settle for a Potemkin past?
Cracker Barrel CEO Finally Addresses ‘Woke’ Rebrand Controversy | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 275
Surrounded by classic Americana synonymous with the store, Beck asked the execs about the disconnect in terms of the rebranding; Masino rejected that there was ever a plan to remodel.
“Was [the rebrand] ever intended to get rid of all this?” Beck asked, kindly referring to the bleakly remodeled restaurants that were shown online.
“I think a lot of people think that Doug and me and other people sit around are like, ‘Let’s remodel Cracker Barrel.’ Nothing could be further from the truth,” Masino claimed.
The real reason for the recalibration, she cited, were customer experiences that described visits as being “real dark” and not being able to read the menu. She then recalled not one but two stories where she spotted customers using a stadium cushion while eating at the restaurant.
“I love your food; I love it here, but your chairs are so uncomfortable,” she remembered one man telling her.
“That’s really where it all started,” Masino said. “How do we make the stores more comfortable?”
“How do we get the right balance of investment, of comfort, of nostalgia, of the tradition that everybody knows and loves here? But in a way, that’s easy for our teams to take care of,” she went on.
Masino said it was her expectation that customers would take issue with the presence of too many booths, but “it wasn’t that. It was the black and white and the decor.”
“So that’s why, when people got upset about it, we were like, ‘Oh gosh, that’s not the intention. We can revert them,'” she added.
RELATED: Cracker Barrel folds again, tells customers they ‘don’t need to worry’
Glenn Beck (L) interviews Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino (M) and Doug Hisel (R), senior vice president of store operations. Image courtesy Blaze TV / Glenn Beck
Beck was able to extract a lot of the boardroom reasoning behind the branding blunder from the CEO. Masino told him that the remodeled stores in question were all company-owned and have since been reverted back to their original design, save for four in Florida that are dealing with permitting laws; but the company is working on that.
During this line of questioning, Beck pointed out that he could feel Masino’s genuine nature and that she was “hurt deeply” and “personally” from the backlash the company received.
“You’re so human, and you’re fighting it. Why?” Beck asked.
“I don’t know,” Masino replied, appearing to tear up. At this point, Hisel jumped in to reassure Masino that she is a good person, doing her best.
The productive conversation concluded with a brief mention of Hisel and Masino reaffirming that “everybody is welcome at Cracker Barrel.”
“It’s America’s store,” Hisel said. “Come as you are. If you play checkers, we can do pancakes and country fried turkey. Come as you are.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Woke lecturer cries ‘white supremacy’ after MAGA-racist smear doesn’t go as planned
A nose-ringed Indiana University lecturer is accusing the university of racism for investigating her in-class smear of MAGA as racist.
During a press conference held on Friday by the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, IU School of Social Work lecturer Jessica Adams claimed that she was barred last month from teaching a “Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice” master’s class and from contacting her students after a student filed a complaint over her use of a graphic that suggested “Make America Great Again” is a form of “covert white supremacy.”
‘I feel like white supremacy is actually on full display in the way that my case has been handled.’
According to the graphic Adams provided to the Indianapolis Star, “Make America Great Again” is a form of “socially acceptable” and “covert” white supremacy.
The following are also listed as forms of “covert white supremacy” on Adams’ pyramid:
- “Bootstrap Theory,” the idea that individuals can achieve success through their own efforts;
- anti-immigration policies;
- paternalism;
- “Euro-centric Curriculum”;
- “English-only Initiatives”;
- police killing non-whites;
- “Denial of White Privilege”;
- “Denial of Racism”;
- celebrating Columbus Day;
- “Fearing People of Color”;
- “Expecting POC to Teach White People”;
- colorblindness; and
- the assertion that “we’re just one human family.”
The placement of the different forms of “white supremacy” in the critical race theory pyramid is intended to signal their severity. “Make America Great Again” is located just below the line that separates “covert white supremacy” from “overt white supremacy” — a category that includes neo-Nazis, cross burnings, lynchings, and the KKK.
RELATED: Coddled Harvard students cry after dean exposes grade inflation, ‘relaxed’ standards
Trump supporter at a rally in Evansville, Indiana. Photo by Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images.
Adams claimed that while a student had initially complained about the leftist propaganda to Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks’ office, the formal complaint was ultimately filed by her dean, Kalea Benner, who allegedly accused Adams of presenting “biased information as fact.”
Evidencing her ideological blinders and apparent antipathy for the school’s administration, Adams, who appears to be white, suggested that the dean of the IU School of Social Work was a racist for questioning the factual nature of the pyramid, stating, “I feel that the assumption that it is not evidence based is rooted in white supremacist ideology. I feel like it’s very much rooted in the assumption that the experiences and the voices of minoritized populations, individuals, communities are not valid. And so I feel like white supremacy is actually on full display in the way that my case has been handled.”
Adams suggested further the critical race theory pyramid was credible since it is used by leftist organizations such as the National Education Association “as a tool for anti-racist and anti-oppressive education.”
A letter from IU administrators indicated the woke lecturer potentially violated Indiana’s intellectual diversity law, reported the Star.
Indiana Republicans passed legislation last year aimed at cultivating intellectual diversity on campuses and in classrooms.
Under Senate Enrolled Act 202, professors and other faculty members at state educational institutions are expected not only to foster a culture of free inquiry and free expression inside the classroom but to refrain from subjecting students “to political or ideological views and opinions that are unrelated to the faculty member’s academic discipline or assigned course of instruction.”
Adams has suggested, however, that she was teaching within her discipline and the scope of the course.
“I was asked to teach on structural racism, and as you teach on structural racism in the United States, you cannot not discuss white supremacy,” Adams said during Friday’s press conference. “It is the ideology that emboldens racist behavior.”
While reportedly removed from the one class, Adams continues to teach three other courses at the university.
Under the IU code, a faculty member could face various disciplinary sanctions, including a written reprimand, a probationary period, a temporary suspension without pay, termination of employment, and/or immediate dismissal.
Banks’ office did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
IU spokesman Mark Bode told WFIU Public Radio that the university does not comment on personnel matters.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Maryland school district allegedly indoctrinates 7th graders about gender: ‘Girl, boy, both or neither’
A middle school lesson is reportedly promoting the idea of “gender identity” and being “assigned” sex at birth.
Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland allegedly has an assignment designed for grade-seven students that pulls directly from pro-transgender sources.
‘Embrace family diversity, create LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive schools.’
The alleged assignment, provided to Defending Education, asks students to match a list of terms with a list of possible definitions. The terms are “sex assigned at birth,” “gender identity,” “transgender,” “gender expression,” and “cisgender.”
One of the definitions allegedly given refers to a person’s “internal sense of being male, female, or transgender,” further explaining that is “how you feel. Girl, boy, both or neither.”
Another definition refers to an “individual’s presentation,” which includes appearance and clothing as they relate to how the individual communicates “aspects of gender or gender role,” according to a screenshot on Defending Education’s site.
A person’s sex is also referred to as what “doctors/midwives” assign to someone when they are born, while gender identity is “how you feel,” the alleged exercise indicated.
Four of the definitions directly cite a program from the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that promotes transgender surgery and hormone therapy for children.
The lesson references WelcomingSchools.org, which describes itself as the “most comprehensive bias-based bullying prevention program” in the United States, meant to provide “LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive professional development training, lesson plans, booklists and resources” for educators who have access to children.
“We uplift school communities with critical tools to embrace family diversity, create LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive schools, prevent bias-based bullying, and support transgender and non-binary students,” the website says.
Erika Sanzi, senior director of communications for Defending Education, told Blaze News in a statement that the apparent vocabulary lesson requires students to “buy into an ideology that many reject.”
“Does MCPS require that students subscribe to gender ideology in order to fulfill the district’s family life requirements for middle schoolers? Because if so, that seems like viewpoint discrimination in a public school,” Sanzi stated.
At the same time, MCPS recently introduced harsher penalties into its code of conduct, which include suspension and expulsion for incidents involving drug possession, for example.
At least one local activist group said the new rules were detrimental to “black and brown students.”
“When we talk about intersecting into experiences of these black and brown students, they intersect to then lead them to be out of the classrooms, which means less time with academic study,” said Dorien Rogers from Young People for Progress, a Maryland group.
As reported by WJLA-TV, Rogers was also disappointed that the code of conduct was written only in English. The school system told WJLA that the new rules would soon be available in six languages.
MCPS did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Welcome to Harvard, where studying is now a hate crime
News broke last week that Harvard University — that ancient temple of American prestige and intersectional pride — may finally attempt to curb its notorious grade inflation. For decades, Harvard has handed out A’s like party favors at a preschool graduation. But now, administrators seem to fear the public has noticed that every graduate’s transcript reads: Congratulations! You’re brilliant.
Naturally, the students have responded with calm reflection and humility.
The American university had one job — to cultivate wisdom and virtue. If Harvard students now treat studying as oppression, maybe it’s time to grade the universities themselves.
Just kidding. They’re in full moral meltdown — which is remarkable, since most of them deny morality exists unless it’s part of an identity rubric. Touch their grades, though, and suddenly they rediscover absolute truth, glowing with divine fire.
What provoked this crisis of the soul? The rumor — merely the rumor — that they might have to study.
One distraught undergraduate complained that stricter grading would force students to spend time on academics instead of extracurriculars. And as every Harvard student knows, college is all about extracurriculars. Academics are a high-school hazing ritual — a price of entry to the elite club where you never have to study again.
Other students reportedly spent the day crying. It’s a hard life.
When they lamented losing time for extracurriculars, some surely meant yachting. Others meant activism. Who will dismantle “colonizing heteronormativity” if the revolution has to pause for midterms? Who will liberate the oppressed from the tyranny of citations?
Their outrage, ridiculous as it sounds, reveals at least three uncomfortable truths about the American university system — and the students it produces.
1. They worked hard once so they never have to again.
Some students said they nearly killed themselves to get into Harvard. Not to study there — don’t be ridiculous! — but to ensure that they’d never need to study again.
If you’re an employer expecting a Harvard graduate to be a disciplined thinker, brace yourself. You may be hiring someone who hasn’t cracked a book in years. Many of them majored in activism and minored in demanding that you pay them to keep doing it.
These students treat the workplace as an extension of campus — a new platform for “advocacy,” complete with your office space, Slack channels, and HR department. You wanted an employee. You may get an organizer.
2. Entitlement isn’t an accident — it’s the admissions policy.
Harvard attracts a particular type: students convinced that excellence is their birthright and that hard work is a microaggression.
Some even claim that “work ethic” must be decolonized as a relic of whiteness — a fragile idea until you remember they say it while demanding an A for not working. One almost admires the nerve.
We should stop treating “Harvard graduate” as a compliment. It’s becoming a warning label. These students expect to skip effort, skip merit, skip discipline — and demand that you “check your privilege” if you object.
Why wouldn’t they? Harvard built an entire institutional culture around their sensitivities. The modern university no longer shapes students; it rearranges itself around their demands.
3. The university system has failed.
The Harvard meltdown exposes a national rot. For decades, Americans have been told that college is essential for success. Universities responded by expanding enrollment, inventing dozens of useless “studies” degrees, building administrative empires, and raising tuition to swallow every loan dollar available.
The result?
Now we’re mass-producing indebted graduates with inflated expectations of high-paying careers and no knowledge or skills to justify either. Education has become a luxury accessory — a handbag whose value lies in the logo.
To test the system’s bankruptcy, try asking a recent Ivy League graduate:
- What is wisdom?
- What is the highest good?
- How did your education make you a more virtuous person?
You’ll likely get a breathless word salad about “advocating for marginalized identities and dismantling structures of oppression.” Ask how that helps anyone achieve the good, and you’ll get a vacant stare fit for a zoning map.
Of course, technical fields like engineering still demand real work. But those are small islands in a vast sea of bureaucratic waste. Most universities now operate as billion-dollar community centers with a few classes on the side — entertainment disguised as education.
RELATED: The real fraud in higher ed: Universities need that Chinese money
Photo by VCG / Contributor via Getty Images
Can the system be saved?
Maybe, but don’t bet on it.
You can’t “hire your way out” of a faculty that’s 97% left or far left. That’s not an imbalance; it’s a monoculture. And monocultures don’t reform themselves.
But the reckoning is coming. Enrollment is falling, budgets are exploding, and public trust is collapsing. The only thing keeping many universities alive is their ability to convince students that identity activism and LGBTQ+ advocacy are transcendent educational callings.
The solution is simple: Stop paying for the nonsense. No one is obliged to spend $80,000 a year to hear a gender-theory lecturer attack the biblical definition of marriage. No law, moral or otherwise, requires funding your own indoctrination.
Let them lecture to empty rooms.
The American university had one job — to cultivate wisdom and virtue. If Harvard students now treat studying as oppression, maybe it’s time to grade the universities themselves.
And the report card is long overdue.
