Government sanctioned indoctrination centers, aka the public school system, begin their agenda of brainwashing children as early as kindergarten. The government classrooms expose children to issues such as transgender, homosexual, etc., at ages inappropriate for understanding and at the developmental stage of the child. Yet, the majority of Americans continue to send their children to receive this indoctrination instead of education. But, children receive more than indoctrination into the government mindset. The government shill teachers reprogram the children’s minds to reject the values and principles of their parents, reject the founding principles of individual God-given rights and self-government, and accept the ideology of government is the be all, end all to every problem and issue.
When the child graduates high school, he/she is ripe for the final “advanced” programming, giving the government another opportunity to foment the child’s thinking into an almost irreversible process. Parents sending their children to college foot the bill for the final process. Not only is the college programming the child’s mind, the professors accelerate the process by practicing censorship in the classroom.
One professor at the University of Florida banned the use of words like “husband,” “wife,” “mom,” or “dad” in the classroom. The professor punishes noncompliance by deducting points from their grade. UF professor, Jennifer Lee, enforces what is termed “ethical conduct” in her required course “Creativity in Context” – for students obtaining a minor in Innovation – that contains a four paragraph “communications policy” in the syllabus.
The first bullet point of the “communications policy” expressly states to use “inclusive language.” This means students should use terms such as “partner” or “significant other” instead of boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife; or “family” instead of mom and dad because it “is inclusive of alternative orientations, and family structures and free of stereotypes.” She further instructs students to use “person-first language” meaning putting a person first before the difference in order to avoid dehumanization or marginalization of another individual.
To illustrate the proper use of “person-first language,” Lee provides examples. Instead of saying “autistic person” or “disabled person,” the student should use “person with autism” and avoid “-ic” words like schizophrenic or autistic. “By using such a sentence structure, the speaker articulates the idea of a disability as a secondary attribute, not a characteristic of a person’s identity.” Lee states the “primary way to devalue someone is through language, by using words or labels to identify a person as ‘different’ or ‘less-than’ or as ‘the others — not like us’ and so forth.”
Lee sums up the communication principal as “not about political correctness; it is ethical conduct revealing basic human respect and kindness.” Violators of the “conduct policy” and do not meet conduct expectations “will receive one warning by email, and continued behavior issues will result in the loss participation points per course instructor’s discretion.”
If only I lived in Florida and had a child of college age, I would pay the tuition so my child to go to the University of Florida for one semester just to take that class and violate that policy all day, every day. Regardless of what this so-called professor states, this policy is not about ethical conduct; it is all about political correctness and stifling of discussion amongst students by denying open speech. What Lee has determined as “ethical conduct revealing basic human respect and kindness” is speech that denies the existence of a family unit, the traditional definition of marriage, and the values and principles Christians hold. One could presume Professor Lee is out to marginalize and dehumanize Christian students by controlling their speech. When talking about the use of “-ic” words, it is much easier to say “psychopathic” than” person with a psychological disorder.” Isn’t it better to say narcissistic than “person with narcissistic personality disorder?”
It is what it is and the rearranging of words doesn’t change facts. However, mandating students rearrange words in the manner Lee suggests amounts to insecurity in hearing students speak frankly and openly. Lee’s own insecurity and fear, coupled with the promotion of liberalism and progressivism, drives this policy on conduct. Lee created a veritable cow pasture full of bull manure for students to navigate while participating in class or receive a low grade by violating the policy. This is worse than walking on eggshells when engaged in conversation with the overly sensitive and easily offended populace.
Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), agrees. Speaking to the Daily Caller, Cohn stated these policies are likely to “chill classroom discussion to the detriment of all” and Lee’s policy mandating “inclusive language” presents “a veritable minefield” students must tip-toe through if they wish to participate. Cohn stated, “Faced with the possibility of a lower grade, students are likely to refrain from providing their input for fear that the professor or a classmate will be offended by something that they say, no matter how unreasonably.”
Cohn noted, “Generally, professors have the discretion, and the right—consistent with principles of academic freedom—to conduct their classrooms as they see fit. However, faculty members must be careful not to infringe on the rights of their students to freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience.”
Lee isn’t the first professor to face public scrutiny for banning words inside the classroom. Just last fall, multiple professors at Washington State University threatened students with bad grades if they used “oppressive and hateful language” such as “illegal alien,” “male,” or “female,” in the classroom. After public backlash, the school walked back the language mandates.
Universities and colleges are no longer “institutions of higher learning” but rather “indoctrination into political correctness and collective mindset centers.” Since many parents stress a college education to their children, college students, void of a strong foundation in individuality and principles, will sink deeper into the mire of “good little socialist/communist” thinking. The self-evident truths contained in the Declaration of Independence are erased and replaced with the thinking it and the Constitution are “outdated.” These students will view the Constitution as a “living document” or “one to be replaced because it is broken” instead of recognizing there is usurpation and corruption in government caused by the collaboration between all three branches of government.
If there ever was a time to home school children, the time is now. Our children are the guardians of the future — the ones we pass the responsibility of maintaining our form of government and values and principles. They are the future leaders of this nation. As the transformation of the nation is continually attempted, our children will accept the narrative pushed by the government propped up by the lame stream enemedia. If the United States is not transformed completely before they accept the baton, it certainly will be completed with the “hive mentality,” “liberally educated,” “progressively indoctrinated” youth.