NAEP’s changes might cause better test results, but they fundamentally alter the meaning of reading comprehension, which would hurt students.

---

Much like the SAT adding an adversity score and the ACT allowing specific subject retakes, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the “nation’s report card,” is easing its standards to improve its numbers. As with the SAT and ACT, these changes carry significant implications for the way English is taught in American schools.

This year, the NAEP’s governing board plans to change testing to “optimize the performance of the widest possible population of students in the NAEP Reading Assessment.” To do this, it will first expand the test to include not only reading passages but also applying the reading through creative tasks such as “making a recommendation” or “developing a website.”

Additionally, it will make sure to account “for students’ differential knowledge by providing necessary background knowledge on novel topics and administering short probes to determine test-takers’ knowledge about topics they will read about.” Presumably, this means students will receive an informational video or audio clip on the test that explains a certain topic in each passage.

Finally, the governing board wants to feature “digital forms of text that are dynamic and multimodal and that require navigation as well as comprehension skills.” Thus, in addition to reading texts, students will demonstrate their literacy by clicking on links in a website, opening files, and understanding the basic functions of a web browser.

NAEP Changes Would Destroy Reading Comprehension

While these changes might cause better results, particularly for a generation of students who have grown up in an image-based, computerized environment, they fundamentally change the meaning of reading comprehension. No longer does reading mean translating, imagining, and contextualizing a piece of text. It now means doing other cognitive tasks, such as “navigating,” “developing,” and “recommending” with things that aren’t really text, such as images, videos, and websites.

Furthermore, these additions essentially turn testing into teaching. Mark Bauerlein and David Steiner point this out in their criticism of the NAEP changes. In particular, they believe these efforts remove a key factor in assessing a student’s reading ability: “An effective reading assessment … should reveal the gaps in knowledge among students.” Directly compensating for the differences in background knowledge on the test will prevent the test from revealing the possible deficiencies in English instruction.

Instead of changing the NAEP, Bauerlein and Steiner recommend changing the way reading is taught in class: “Our current mediocre results are a signal that English language arts teachers should focus instruction on the study of content-rich texts.” They argue students in an English class should not only understand and analyze a text, but also learn from it.

They would require teachers to pick texts that broaden their students’ ideas and experiences, which they believe would help students to better connect with any text they might encounter on an assessment. In other words, students need to know more so nothing in a text is so unfamiliar and distant that they cannot even begin to comprehend it.

This is a good suggestion, but on its own, it is incomplete. Asking for an overhaul in the way English is taught by switching from a skill-based model to a content-based model will not happen unless the test changes. Simply, if it isn’t tested, it isn’t taught — and as the San Diego Unified School District demonstrates, if it isn’t taught, it eventually won’t even be graded.

If a test features random texts with random subjects for which teachers cannot really prepare students, there’s little point in trying. It’s much easier and more popular to offer content-light, accessible texts that reinforce student experiences, then blame the standardized tests for being biased and unfair.

Reform the Way We Teach and Test English

Therefore, the tests must also change and start setting a clear goal for English teachers and their students. Instead of end-of-year exams featuring supposedly neutral texts about volcanoes and penguins, they should focus on a set of themes studied that year. As Daniel Willingham points out in his article about how background knowledge plays a role in reading comprehension, “If a child has studied New Zealand, she ought to be good at reading and thinking about passages on New Zealand. Why test her reading with a passage about spiders, or the Titanic?”

Focusing the test on a theme or time-period could better align with traditional or specialized curriculum, which will be a key priority if school choice expands after this year’s election. Students in a classical school could be tested on classic literature, art, traditional math, and history. Students in a STEM academy would be tested on science, technology, engineering, and math. Their background knowledge base wouldn’t hinder their reading comprehension because their curriculum would hone in on this knowledge.

Making tests theme-based would also bring much-needed focus to English curricula, which tend to be a vague mess. As such, these tests would create an equal opportunity for students of different backgrounds and make English more interesting. Besides improving their reading and writing skills, students could learn something identifiable and concrete in their English class.

A move to emphasize content as a means of teaching skills would also transform the role of English teachers. They wouldn’t be the “guide on the side,” helping students condition themselves for the state test. They would instead be a “sage on the stage,” conveying their expertise and directly cultivating their students’ intellectual growth. Instead of helplessly hoping for a set of students who are already good, they would finally have the resources and position to make their students good.

In most schools, reading comprehension is neither taught nor tested properly. Reading well seems mysterious and arbitrary, depending more on students’ background and personal habits than on anything they learn in class. The only way to effectively address the disparity resulting from the NAEP is to dispense with the catch-all reading comprehension tests and curricula. Instead, the NAEP board should pick a theme and assess it, and English teachers should respond by doing the same in their classrooms.

Auguste Mehrat, The Federalist

In Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis defines his vision of what an improved social order would look like, using theological elements, historical misconceptions,1 and political philosophy to create what has been dubbed his “quasi-humanitarian” manifesto. But in an attempt to swim with today’s political current, Francis pushes a “re-envisaging [of] the social role of property,” going against what previous popes have written and completely ignoring sound economic teachings.

As Dr. Samuel Gregg explained, Francis’s insensible treatment of economic questions has been an ever-present trait of his pontificate, making the claims in Fratelli tutti just a continuation of what Saint Peter’s 266th successor has written in previous papal documents. And it is with this reality in mind that we must approach his characterization of property rights.

Property Rights and Natural Law

In Fratelli tutti, Francis first claims that Christian thinkers understood that “if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.” In other words, those who are poor are such because someone else is holding the goods that all men require to live with dignity.

He then went on to echo Saint Pope John Paul II, saying that the “right to private property” was never considered “an absolute or inviolable right” in the Christian tradition. Instead, the church has always “stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property,” adding that the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order.”

Common good, he concludes, is “a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others,” a claim he links back to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, a document published in 2004 based on documents written by Pope John Paul II. In today’s society, Francis then explained, “secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in practice making them irrelevant.”

When Francis claims property rights are secondary rights, he is referring to what Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Secunda Secundae Partis of Summa Theologica.

Addressing those who questioned whether it was “natural” for man to possess things “as his own” when we consider that all things are God’s property, Aquinas wrote that the private possession of goods has practical and moral ends. He then added that the “community of goods is ascribed to the natural law,” whereas the “the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law.”

In other words, natural law in the Catholic tradition sees that men can commonly possess goods but never excludes individual possession.

“The ownership of possessions,” Aquinas continued, “is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.”

To Francis, this is the foundation of the idea that personal property rights are secondary to the communal ownership of goods. But is he right?

In Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, volume 1 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard wrote that the right to property comes from man’s need to defend himself.

In human nature, the right of self-preservation implies the right to property, and any individual property in man’s products from the soil requires property in the land itself. But the right to property would be nothing without the freedom of using it, and so liberty is derived from the right to property. People flourish as social animals, and through trade and exchange of property they maximize the happiness of all.

As noted by Rothbard, when private property rights are in place and a man can possess things as his own, the happiness of all men is maximized as a result.

It is the protection of property rights that secures the common good.

The very tradition of natural law we observe today is based on medieval and postmedieval Scholastic natural law, Rothbard noted. But it was the eighteenth-century Enlightenment version of natural law, in which “the individual’s rights of person and property [are] deeply embedded in a set of natural laws that had been worked out by the creator and were clearly discoverable in the light of human reason,” that helped us better understand what Aquinas wrote in the thirteenth century.

Francis’s Agenda

Despite being the Holy Father, Francis was never shy about his political leanings.

In Fratelli tutti, his love for the poor isn’t just described as a deep caring for those with less access to certain services and goods. Instead, he uses poverty as a means to advocate against free markets.

Ignoring the encyclicals of his predecessors such as Pope Leo XIII, who once wrote that socialists, “working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies,” Francis openly advocates against putting too much stock in one’s love for his or her own culture and nation, claiming that instead we should be looking at “a universal horizon,” a “global society” of sorts. In light of this, it is hard to see his claims regarding property rights as anything but an attack against the idea that communities can and should self-govern and that persons can and should have a right to own the fruits of their own labor.

As Pope Leo XII explained in Rerum Novarum, those who subscribe to socialist or related philosophies “[endeavor] to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large.” This, he added, “[strikes] at the interests of every wage-earner, since they [socialists] would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.”

Author:

Alice Salles

Alice Salles was born and raised in Brazil but has lived in America for over ten years. She now lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana with her husband Nick Hankoff and their three children.  

ENVIRONMENT

Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to COntrol Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them Steven Milloy
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Activists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed Christopher C. Horner

Censors are sometimes skillful, but never wise. The more they suppress stories like Hunter Biden’s emails or the questionable seriousness of the COVID virus, the more we talk about the very things they would rather suppress to advance their own political narratives. Even government censors, in the end, learn that no matter how hard you try, you cannot extinguish truth–or reality.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

In a speech at Hillsdale College, Sec. DeVos conveyed that in American education, the fight has just begun to restore choice and freedom to every family.

---

As most of the nation is transfixed on the looming presidential election, Sec. of Education Betsy DeVos remains laser-focused on the job at hand. “Education is the means by which we secure the God-given blessings of liberty,” DeVos told a gathering of more than 250 at Hillsdale College, in her home state of Michigan. Whether she has three months at her post, or the possibility of another four years, will be determined in the coming weeks. Regardless of the outcome on Nov. 3, however, DeVos has made it clear that while she’s happy with what the administration has accomplished, there is still work to be done in the fight to restore America to its founding principles.

“The COVID crisis has laid bare a lot about American education,” DeVos said. “Parents are more aware than ever before how and what their children are — or are not — learning. And far too many of them are stuck with no choices, no help, and no way forward.”

DeVos vowed to fight for America’s students and their parents, and to fight against anyone who would seek to have government usurp the role of the parent.

The solution to much of the current problems facing America, argued DeVos, is to embrace the family as the sovereign sphere that it is, remembering that the family predates government altogether. “The family is not only an institution,” DeVos said, “it’s also the foundation for all other institutions. The nuclear family cultivates art, athletics, business, education, faith, music, film — in a word, culture. And just as the family shapes its culture, it also shapes its government.”

After making it clear schools exist to supplement families and not to replace them, DeVos laid out her vision for the next major initiative she’d like to champion: an expanding and robust school choice program across the nation. “I like to picture kids with their backpacks representing funding for their education following them wherever they go to learn,” DeVos outlined.

The main thrust of the program would be parents having control over how their tax dollars are spent on the education of their children. Ideally, education spending should follow their children wherever they want to learn — a position most Americans now agree with. Indeed, a recent RealClearOpinion survey found 3 out of 4 families with children in public schools sought full school choice, including 73 percent of black families and 71 percent of Hispanic families.

DeVos is bolstered by the rising public support for school choice, education freedom scholarships, and vouchers, but still yearns to further “devolving” of the Department of Education, believing that states and localities can best determine how to address the educational needs of their communities. “When I took on this role, I said from day one that I’d like to work myself out of a job. That I’d work to empower parents, not politicians.”

In the meantime, DeVos recalled the good that has been done during the last four years:

We restored state, local, and family control of education by faithfully implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act, by ending Common Core, and by urging Congress to put an end to education earmarks by consolidating nearly all Federal K-12 programs into one block grant. … We expanded the in-demand D.C. voucher program by 50 percent … supported the creation of more public charter schools … [and] reformed the tax code so families can use tax-preferred 529 savings accounts for expenses related to K-12 education.

DeVos reiterated her support for the bipartisan School Choice Now Act put forth by Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., that would directly fund families and empower them to choose the best educational setting for their children. For DeVos, Scott’s inspiring story “demonstrates how education can change lives.”

The secretary explained how scholarships could be used to enhance distance learning, pay for costs tied to educating children at home, or help cover tutoring, technical education, or transportation to a different school. “Scholarships could support students attending the school that best meets their needs or matches their values. At the end of the day, we want parents to have the freedom, the choices, and the funds to make the best decisions for their children,” DeVos explained, adding, “The ‘Washington knows best’ crowd really loses their minds over that.”

In her speech, DeVos conveyed the value of English language arts, math, or science in education. A large and purposeful focus, however, was devoted to how schools teach history. Rekindling the spirit of 1776 and 1787 is, in many ways, the key battleground in the effort to have a citizenry able to defend liberty and stand up against encroaching tyranny.

“It’s ignorant to hate capitalism when you don’t really know how communism hasn’t worked. It’s ignorant to hate freedom when you don’t really know how tyranny hasn’t worked,” DeVos said. “The unholy mob thinks our economies need redistributing. It thinks our Constitution needs rewriting. It thinks our families need restructuring.” As DeVos would later remind the audience, these dangerous beliefs aren’t entirely new, but taken “right from the old Marxist playbook.”

When questioned by The Federalist for an update on President Trump’s 1776 Commission to promote patriotic education and counter the revisionist history of the dangerous and ahistorical 1619 Project, DeVos assured that work on the Commission continues. “We’re working through putting the ‘meat’ on that. Stay tuned.”

Instead of giving in to the temptation to rewrite American history or to cancel culture, DeVos charged those in attendance to challenge the culture with education. “Instead of rewriting our Constitution, let’s return to its timeless words, and restore the power of “We the People,” Devos said. “We don’t believe in retreat. We believe in redemption.”

The great work still to be done in reforming and restoring a healthy, vibrant, and educated American populace, begins, as DeVos argues, by reasserting a fundamental truth: the family is the “first school.”

“If we recognize that, then we must also reorder everything about education around what the family wants and what the family needs. Make no mistake: America cannot win the future if we lose the rising generation,” she said.

Public concern about higher education is clearly widespread. The causes are many: ugly treatment of visiting speakers, a stifling political uniformity resulting in ideological extremism and hatred, and fringe radical ideas seeping out of the campuses into the wider world. Less publicly visible are numerous recent studies that tell us how little most recent graduates have benefited from higher education. They record astonishing deficiencies in reasoning, writing, reading, basic knowledge, and civics. 

But with all this, the public is still uncertain. Most see the symptoms but don’t quite know what to make of them, and so continue to send their children to college. Because they don’t have a firm grasp of the extent or nature of the rot, they pay up and hope for the best.

Yale University (photo credit: Ad Meskens, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

How then can the public reach the clearer understanding of what is going on that they need to make sensible decisions? They can start by grasping the enormous difference between two kinds of people. https://lockerdome.com/lad/9371484590420070?pubid=ld-8832-1542&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com&rid=www.americanthinker.com&width=692

The first is the academic teacher. His job is to get students to think independently and analytically. Analytical thinking means looking at all sides of an issue so that students get the habit of examining both the strengths and weaknesses of an idea, always comparing them with those of competing ideas. Analytical thinking must be flexible thinking, always ready to respond to new evidence. It can’t be static: it’s always on the move. To power this constant movement, a motive force is needed: intellectual curiosity. That’s what academic teachers must instill in their students. It’s the force that will keep them exploring with open minds. That’s how genuine academic teachers operate.

The second type — the political activist — is the polar opposite of all this. He doesn’t want students to evaluate ideas, but instead to accept his and not question them. He doesn’t want them to examine the strengths and weaknesses of competing ideas because for him there is no competition: one is right, the others wrong. He doesn’t want intellectual flexibility but instead a firm adherence to an ideology. Greater understanding is not the point — political loyalty is. Intellectual curiosity? Seeing things from different perspectives? All of that would be dangerous because it might lead to independent thinking that strays from the political ideology he is promoting. 

It’s hard to imagine anything farther removed from the mindset of an academic teacher than the political activist’s. And herein lies the core of the problem of present-day higher education, the fundamental reality that the public needs to grasp: where fifty years ago the first type were the overwhelming majority among college faculty, today the controlling majority is of the second type. And since those are the very last people we should ever want as college faculty — because what they want of students destroys higher education — we have before us a national crisis.

In theory, an academic teacher could be politically left or right-of-center and still excel at teaching students to think for themselves, and a political activist could be either left or right oriented. And so, in principle there’s no reason why both liberals and conservatives shouldn’t want their children to be taught how to think productively and independently. This ought not be a partisan issue. But in today’s world it is radical left activists who have successfully colonized the campuses to promote their ideology. Senseless radical ideas (e.g., defunding the police) are becoming mainstream in large part because academia breeds and exports them to the wider world. The colleges are doing real social damage.

The campaign trail and the ballot box are the proper place for political activists, not the college campus — so what are they doing there? Long ago, the radical left despaired of succeeding at the ballot box, and so decided to cheat; they’d infiltrate the campuses and shut down the intellectual development of immature students in order to recruit them to their cause. It took about fifty years to realize that goal. To do it, they had to dismantle higher education, but political radicalism has no conscience: all that matters is its imagined Utopian goal — the one it never reaches because all attempts so far have produced hell on earth.

What is to be done? Some have suggested new rules to protect visiting speakers from abuse, or to stop classroom politicizing, but those remedies have a fatal flaw: they leave in place all those anti-academic political activists who now hold academic positions. The essential sickness of the campuses would remain untouched. Once you have grasped the stark difference between the two kinds of people who are involved, it’s clear that there is only one way to restore higher education. The wrong kind of people must be replaced by the right kind. Political activists must be replaced by academic teachers. We can’t keep paying huge sums for something we are not getting. We need higher education. We must stop funding the grotesque travesty that it has become and return that funding to its proper use.

John M. Ellis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at UC Santa Cruz and the author of The Breakdown of Higher Education: How it happened, the Damage it Does, and What Can Be Done (Encounter Books).

Help Support American Thinker

‘Dating Naked’ Was Canceled. It’s Clear Why

Biden Campaign Memo Warning Trump Surfaces

Gwen Stefani’s Moving Words for Kelly Clarkson Amid Her Divorce

Candace Owens Reportedly Manipulated Attendance At Trump Rally

Here’s Who Visited Jeffrey Epstein 90 Times in Jail

Why Kamala Harris’ Ex Doesn’t Think She Should Be Biden’s VPsponsored content

Advertisement

FOLLOW US ON

Recent Articles

• QAnon:The Media’s Latest Obsession
• Did the U.S. Government Hide bin Laden In Iran? Alleged Whistleblower Releases Evidence to Make His Claim
• Do the Chinese Own Joe Biden?
• The Tech Lords are Fools and Knaves
• Ordered Liberty is Not White Supremacy and Does Not Date from 1619
• Fishing in Troubled Waters
• Are the FakeNews Polls a Setup for Post-Election Chaos?
• Philadelphia: The Perfect Spot for Obama to Resurface
• Trump MUST Up His Game for the Next Debate
• The Bidens and the Crooked Ukrainian Prosecutors

Blog Posts

• Gretchen Whitmer admits it: No release from lockdown without a vote for Joe Biden
• So much for Russian disinformation: Hunter Biden’s signed receipts turn up
• The fix is in for the final presidential debate
• President Trump just got a very important endorsement
• How to get a head start on preparing for post-election civil unrest
• Watch Ice Cube responding to backlash over Trump collaboration
• Jeffrey Toobin may have done the most 2020 thing ever
• More evidence that Democrats are becoming unmoored
• The Democrats are lying about Russian disinformation
• So Joe Biden goes under the radar for four days?
• Questions for Joe Biden
• Marching madness
• What’s left for us to do until Election Day?
• Liberals restricting language restricts your freedom
• Democrats fears of ‘threats to democracy’ ring hollow

Monthly Archives

• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• July 2020
• June 2020
• May 2020
• April 2020
• March 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• More…

nullnullsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

The Untold Truth of Savannah Guthrie

Insanely Offensive Kamala Harris Cartoon Sparks Massive Outrage

David Crosby in Hot Water Over Eddie Van Halen Tweet

The Truth About the Real Life Partners of ‘The Big Bang Theory’

Women’s Groups Are Already Reacting Strongly to Kamala

Sloan From ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off’ is Unrecognizable NowAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/academic_teachers_and_political_activists.html#ixzz6bQN8dPZv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

EDUCATION

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, 10th Anniversary EditionJohn Taylor Gatto
Weapons of Mass Instruction: A School Teacher’s Journey Through the Dark World of Compulsory SchoolingJohn Taylor Gatto
The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher’s Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern SchoolingJohn Taylor Gatto
A Primer on Libertarian EducationJoel Spring
Inside American Education Thomas Sowell
Education: Assumptions and History Thomas Sowell
Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to RealityCharles Murray
The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting AheadCharles Murray

If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle. He has been opposed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and—like an axiom—used by his enemies in the very act of denying him. Whatever intellectual progress men have achieved rests on his achievements.

Aristotle may be regarded as the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved the way for one of history’s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did mankind. The Aristotelian revival of the thirteenth century brought men to the Renaissance. The intellectual counter-revolution turned them back toward the cave of his antipode: Plato.

There is only one fundamental issue in philosophy: the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind. The conflict of Aristotle versus Plato is the conflict of reason versus mysticism. It was Plato who formulated most of philosophy’s basic questions—and doubts. It was Aristotle who laid the foundation for most of the answers. Thereafter, the record of their duel is the record of man’s long struggle to deny and surrender or to uphold and assert the validity of his particular mode of consciousness.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Biden is being criticized for buying votes after he unveiled a new plan to give anyone who votes for him a seat on the Supreme Court.

“Anyone who votes for me will be appointed to the highest court in the land,” he said in a speech Monday to seven riveted rally attendees. “One vote = one seat. It’s that simple. That’s how it used to be in my day. We’d gather around in the town square and everyone would vote on whether to allow a new general store or saloon. The person who got outvoted, well, they got run out of town on the back of a goat. It was a real hoot. Gosh, I miss those days.”

Many say this is a clear case of court-packing. Not so fast, says the media. “Actually, this is just court rebalancing,” wrote every single journalist on Twitter simultaneously. “See, conservatives have gotten more picks in recent years, so adding 60-70 million seats to the Supreme Court is just correcting an imbalance.”

Since Biden is up in the polls, the Supreme Court has begun renovating its building to accommodate the new justices, with SCOTUS annexing Newfoundland to house them all.

Babylon Bee

For three years, and without evidence, The New York Times falsely claimed that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Thereafter, their hopelessly biased executive editor, Dean Baquet, decided to switch gears. After the Mueller report imploded, at Baquet’s direction, the Times would shift its focus of its coverage from the ‘Trump-Russia affair’ to the president’s ‘alleged racism.’

“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said, apparently unaware of the historically profound idiocy of his statement. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.” Through daily bogus reporting, the ‘newspaper of record’ would now seek to expose ‘the racism’ of Donald Trump and America in general. 

A Myth for All Time

From 93% to 96% of American media is controlled by leftists, considering book and magazine publishing, major newspapers, Internet tech giants, television, etc. The Left dominates in our schools, Hollywood, and popular culture. The only domains in which the Right has dominance are radio, and perhaps YouTube and blogging.

An enduring Democrat myth propagated for decades, and ramped up since Donald Trump became president, is that the Republican Party is racist. Democrats are able to maintain this myth in part because they dominate public discourse and because most Americans, daily, are concerned with making a living and caring for their families, not with scrutinizing history. Joe Biden tells the Charlottesville “fine people” lie at every appearance, despite video footage to the contrary and Trump’s 20+ denunciation of white supremacist groups. 

Even a cursory review of American history, however, starting with Abraham Lincoln, and the Emancipation Proclamation, reveals that it is the Democrat Party that has practiced and still exhibits fiery racist behavior.

Who formed the Confederate States of America? Was it Republicans? No, it was Southern Democrats. President Lincoln, the 16^th in U.S. history, was shot and killed while watching a play, “Our American Cousin,” at Ford’s Theater in Washington DC, on April 14th, 1865 by John Wilkes Booth. 

Lincoln was 56 years old, had just been re-elected to his 2^nd term and, along with millions of other Americans, was celebrating the end of the U.S. Civil War, which occurred on April 9. Wilkes, a leading actor of that era, was not a Democrat, but was sympathetic to the Democrats and their opposition to Lincoln.

The Dawn of Civil Rights            

Who murdered John F. Kennedy, the 36^th president of the U.S., in Dallas, on November 22nd 1963? Unquestionably Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed JFK. This is explained in intricate detail by Gerald Posner in his landmark book Case Closed (1993). Mr. Posner dislodged every conceivable stone in reaching his conclusion. After illuminating Posner’s work in a 25-page feature in its publication, U.S. News & World Report declared it would never review another book on the topic because the case was closed. Oswald was a Leftist, who viewed communism favorably and espoused Marxist theory. 

Hesitatingly, JFK championed civil rights. “He ordered his attorney general to submit friends of the court briefs on behalf of civil rights litigants.” He appointed African Americans to positions within his administration. He selected Thurgood Marshall for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. He backed voter registration drives. In a second term, JFK, influenced by Martin Luther King, Jr., was contemplating civil rights legislation. 

Who murdered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? On April 4, 1968, James Earl Ray, a southern segregationist, assassinated MLK in Memphis, TN. Ray, who fled to England, was subsequently captured.

In summary, the murderers of Lincoln, Kennedy, and King, were politically Left, and certainly not Republicans. Lincoln, Kennedy, and King, each of whom had great potential for expanding the rights and acceptance of African Americans, were cut down in their prime.

A Sordid History

Prior to the Civil War and for 27 months past the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, who owned slaves? Democrats. Republicans, with a few exceptions, did not own slaves. 

Who lynched at least 5,400 blacks, from 1882 to 1968, primarily throughout the South, with the annual peak occurring in the late 1800s, when one party acted to enforce white supremacy? In a word, Democrats.

Who created the Ku Klux Klan? Politifacts says: “Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a ‘strong arm’ for many local Democratic politicians…” A Confederate general, “believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.” Democrats didn’t launch the KKK, but they played along. 

Who blocked and delayed women’s suffrage, for some 79 years? At the critical times, it was Democrats. 

Who upheld segregation throughout the early 1900s, during World War II, and into the 1950s and 1960s? Democrats. Who posted signs that said, “Colored drinking fountain,” or, “Colored bathroom?” Democrats.  

Who stood at the doorway of high schools and institutions of higher learning and said to African-Americans you may not attend? Democrats.

Who interned Japanese American citizens during World War II, for three years? President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The Party of Racism, Bias, and Prejudice

Malcolm X once noted, “Both parties are racist, and the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party.” What would prompt this learned man, with vast experience in politics and racial prejudice, to make such a statement?

For 200+ years, Democrats have revealed their racism, bias, and prejudice. Yet, with a Democrat-controlled mainstream media, which party is cast as being racist and biased? Which presidents and politicians are deemed racist? Republicans. 

Throughout time, Republicans have not always acted as saints, but they can’t hold a candle in our society to the Democrat party when it comes to racism, bias, and prejudice.

Jeff Davidson