Category Archives: Education

Ironic: Moms Demand gives presentation on gun safety, fails to model responsible behavior

Moms Demand modeling “responsible” behavior/ Lewiston Tribune photo

I love it when gun grabbers prove they know nothing about basic firearm safety and don’t practice what they preach. Granted, the gun this woman is holding in the picture is an air pellet gun yet she is contradicting the firearm safety rules listed directly behind her.

The Lewiston Tribune in Idaho reports that Bloomberg’s “Moms Demand” held a class to teach people about gun safety. From their report:

“A new group in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley is taking a grassroots approach to preventing unintentional firearm deaths among children by educating parents and gun owners about responsible ways to store guns.

The Moms Demand Action group held its second information session Wednesday to present the organization’s BeSmart campaign message, which aims to make adults responsible for the safety of children while around guns.

According to numbers presented by the group, each year in the United States nearly 300 children younger than age 18 gain access to a firearm and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else — often fatally. Another 500 children a year kill themselves with a gun.

“Deliberately, there is nothing in this program that says you shouldn’t have a gun*,” said Marcia Banta, a member of Moms Demand Action. “As a matter of fact, we are speaking much to people who do own guns. I am confident there is no one in this valley who sells guns that wants those guns to harm children.”

Banta, of Lewiston, has a concealed carry permit. She helped bring the program to the valley because she thinks it offers valuable tips.

As for Christie Fredericksen, also with Moms Demand Action, her family has been personally affected by gun violence. With the increased school shootings around the nation, she decided to join the organization. “It’s promoting common-sense solutions to decrease gun violence,” Fredericksen said.

The United States has the highest rate of unintentional shootings in the world, according to the presenters. Around 4.6 million children in America live in homes where guns are not safely locked up or are loaded when not in use.

“Gun violence has become all too common,” Fredericksen said. “If you haven’t been affected by it personally, you most likely know someone who has.”

The campaign’s message is simple. It encourages adults to take five steps to prevent child gun deaths and injuries. Those include securing guns in homes and vehicle by making sure they are unloaded and properly locked up; modeling responsible behavior around guns; asking about unsecured guns in other homes and vehicles kids plan to visit; recognizing the risks of teen suicide; and telling peers about the campaign.

The duo hopes to spur dialogue in the valley that will lead to fewer accidental shootings.”


*It’s ironic that the Moms Demand representative would make this statement considering their financier, gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg, is spending big bucks to eliminate your Second Amendment rights.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Virginia school board fires Christian teacher for refusing to use ‘transgender’ pronouns

The new tyranny in America.

Graham Moomaw reports for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dec. 6, 2018, that the West Point High School in West Point, Virginia, fired French teacher Peter Vlaming for refusing to go along with the madness of ‘transgenderism’ by addressing a female 9th-grade student who imagines herself to be male with the Left-mandated “correct” male pronouns.

Note that FOTM‘s recounting of Moomaw’s report for the Richmond Times-Dispatch refers to the biologically-female student as “girl,” “she” and “her,” instead of “boy” and male pronouns employed by Moomaw, which is now mandated for journalists in America’s insane Left-dominated media.

Vlaming, 47, who had taught at the school for almost seven years after spending more than a decade in France, told his superiors his Christian faith prevented him from using male pronouns for a student he saw as female.

A year ago, the student was in Vlaming’s class, at which point, she had identified as female. Then, over the summer, the girl’s family informed the school system of her “transition” to being male. Vlaming agreed to use the student’s new, male name, but avoided using any pronouns — he or him, and she or her — when referring to the student in her presence. But Vlaming did use female pronouns to refer to the female student in conversations with others. According to “witnesses,” during a class activity on Halloween involving the use of a virtual reality headset, the student was about to run into a wall, and Vlaming told others to stop “her.”

In other words, the school relied on spies and informants.

The student said that Vlaming made her feel uncomfortable and singled out. And the school’s administrators sided with her. They recommended that Vlaming be fired for violating the school system’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies that were updated a year ago to include protections for gender identity.

West Point’s principal Jonathan Hochman said he had told Vlaming to use male pronouns in accordance with the student’s wishes, and hyperbolically condemned Vlaming’s refusal as “I can’t think of a worse way to treat a child than what was happening.” West Point schools Superintendent Laura Abel said that Vlaming’s gender “discrimination” created “a hostile learning environment” which made the student and her parents feel “disrespected.”

Although the school district’s attorney, Stacy Haney, justifies Vlaming’s firing on the basis of a school employee’s refusal to follow policies, Vlaming’s lawyer, Shawn Voyles, said the school district’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies contain no specific guidance on the use of gender pronouns, and that even as a public employee, Vlaming has constitutional rights of his own, specificially the right “to be free from being compelled to speak something that violates your conscience.”

Speaking in his own defense, Vlaming said he loves and respects all his students and had tried to reach a solution based on “mutual tolerance.” But the effort was rejected, which put him at risk of losing his job for having views held by “most of the world for most of human history.” Vlaming said, “That is not tolerance. That is coercion.”

Vlaming’s hearing drew an overflow crowd, made up largely of parents and students who support him. They describe Vlaming as a model teacher who does extra duty as a soccer coach and bus driver. They had brought to the hearing “Justice for Mr. Vlaming” signs, but school officials forebade the signs in the meeting room with the ridiculous excuse that the small room did not have space for the signs. So the signs were left in a stack outside the meeting room’s doors.

During the hearing, to highlight the pitfalls of rules against “misgendering,” Vlaming and his lawyer pointed out that school principal Hochman himself used the “wrong” pronoun for the student during his testimony. Describing his conversation with Vlaming after the incident on Halloween, Hochman testified that he told Vlaming: “You need to say sorry for that. And refer to her by the male pronoun.”

Despite the support from many students and parents, the school board chose to terminate Vlaming’s employment. Superintendent Abel released this brief statement after the vote: “As detailed during the course of the public hearing, Mr. Vlaming was recommended for termination due to his insubordination and repeated refusal to comply with directives made to him by multiple WPPS administrators.”

Vlaming has asked the School Board to reconsider their decision — the “absurdity” of punishing a teacher for discrimination on the basis of pronoun usage alone, with no accusation of overtly malicious behavior. He said, “I am being punished for what I haven’t said.”

Vlaming is considering a wrongful-termination lawsuit and is consulting with his attorney. He said: “I have to research how we would do that, what that would entail. I do think it’s a serious question of First Amendment rights.”

Contact information for your protests:

Jonathan Hochman
Principal, West Point High School
Phone: (804) 843-3630 x104
Email: jhochman@wpschools.net

Laura K. Abel
Superintendent, West Point Public Schools
Phone: (804) 843-4386
Email: label@wpschools.net

There is a petition asking Superintendent Abel to reinstate Vlaming. To sign, click here.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

More than 6 of 10 non-U.S. citizen households get welfare

A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that, in spite of “barriers designed to prevent welfare use” by non-citizens, as many as 63% of non-U.S. citizen households in America have received some form of government welfare “often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.”

In contrast, only 35% of U.S. citizen households accessed welfare.

Non-citizens include:

  • Illegal aliens, who make up about half of America’s non-citizen population.
  • Permanent residents (green card holders) who have not naturalized.
  • Long-term temporary visitors, e.g. guestworkers and foreign students.

Methodology: For the study, CIS employed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014 (and newest-available) Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) — a longitudinal (i.e., followed over several years) dataset of nationally representative samples of U.S. households. Welfare use is based on self-reporting, which means there is some misreporting. Given the human propensity to lie in one’s self-interest, that suggests the actual percentage of non-citizen households on welfare is likely higher than 63%.

Here are the findings:

  1. In 2014, 63% of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35% of native-headed households.
  2. The percentages of non-citizen vs. citizen households on welfare for the top four states are:
    • California: 72% vs. 35%.
    • Texas: 69% vs. 35%.
    • New York: 53% vs. 38%.
    • Florida: 56% vs. 35%.
  3. No single program explains non-citizens’ higher overall welfare use:
    • Food programs: 45% of non-citizen households vs. 21% of citizen households.
    • Medicard: 50% of non-citizen households vs. 23% of citizen households.
    • Cash welfare, including Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): 31% of non-citizen households vs. 19% of citizen households. EITC is a means-tested welfare program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax.
  4. Welfare-use is higher for every type of non-citizen households (illegals, permanent residents, long-term visitors), except in the case of housing programs.
  5. The longer the non-citizens are in the U.S., the more they are on welfare: Whereas 50% of non-citizen households in the United States for fewer than 10 years use one or more welfare programs, 70% of those who have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years on are welfare.
  6. Low education is the reason for non-citizens being on welfare:
    • Although 93% of non-citizen households receiving welfare have at least one worker, they often earn low wages (because of their low education) and, therefore, qualify for welfare at higher rates than citizens.
    • 58% of all non-citizen households are headed by individuals with no more than a high school education, compared to 36% of citizen households.

Why non-citizens get welfare:

  1. Most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify.
  2. The barrier preventing non-citizens from receiving welfare does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children.
  3. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own.
  4. Most importantly, non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Stanford University fraternity told to remove American flag because it’s intimidating and aggressive

The next time we find ourselves despairing about the future of America, remember the young people of Sigma Chi and the Stanford Review.

The Stanford Review is an independent newspaper staffed completely by Stanford University undergraduates. It describes itself as “a political magazine that promotes independent thought at Stanford. We aim to promote debate about campus and national issues that are otherwise not represented by traditional publications.”

Stanford Review‘s executive director Antigone Xenopoulos reports on Nov. 28, 2018, that the Sigma Chi fraternity was on probation last year. So the fraternity tried to improve its image with the university so that the probation would be lifted and the fraternity be allowed to continue.

According to senior Pablo Lozano, class of 2018, as well as other students who asked not to be named, a Stanford University administrator “encouraged” Sigma Chi to take down the American flag flown in front of its house in order to improve its image on campus.

The administrative – let’s call him Mr. Z – was assigned to serve as a liaison between Residential Education and Sigma Chi. At first, Mr. Z was supportive and helpful, explaining to the fraternity often obscure bureaucratic processes.

But his demeanor changed one night in Autumn 2017.

The fraternity had invited Mr. Z to dinner, during which he “offhandedly suggested” that the American flag flown in front of the Sigma Chi house be removed.

Mr. Z urged Sigma Chi to consider the image being presented to the rest of campus by flying the flag out front. Lozano understood the administrator to imply that the American flag was intimidating, aggressive or alienating, and made others uncomfortable, and that Mr. Z found the mere sight of the American flag to be offensive.

Lozano recounted that the more the house talked about Mr. Z’s suggestion, the more it bothered them. Many found his proposal to take down the flag “weird”. The remark was out of the blue and incongruent with the rapport the fraternity had shared with Mr. Z. Furthermore, the fraternity wondered since when is an American flag flown at an institution in the United States offensive?

In fact, American flags adorned buildings near Sigma Chi and on campus, including:

  • Stanford’s Post Office right down the road from Sigma Chi.
  • Green Library’s Bing Wing.
  • Memorial Auditorium, which commemorates fallen Stanford soldiers since WWI.

Furthermore, Lozano noted that Mr. Z raised no objections to the Dominican flag flown by a student from his bedroom window in Sigma Chi or to the Palestinian flag hung across the street at Columbae.

To Sigma Chi’s credit, the fraternity not only declined to remove the American flag from its house, they replaced it with an even bigger one — from a 3×5 ft. flag to a 4×6 ft. flag. The former flag was then framed and placed on display inside the house. In Lozano’s words, Sigma Chi’s decision was a “silent but visible protest” against the classification of the American flag as a potentially stigmatizing symbol by a member of the Stanford administration.

And the upshot?

Sigma Chi is gone. The fraternity was shut down last May and no longer exists at Stanford University. (Breitbart)

Stanford Reviews executive director Antigone Xenopoulos concludes:

This series of events, known to few, is concerning on multiple levels. One can imagine a justification for opposing a foreign flag being flown on one’s own soil, though I believe that such a condemnation would be ultra-nationalist and antagonistic. One could also reasonably consider the display of an authoritarian regime’s flag to be insulting and hostile – be it a flag representing Nazi Germany, The Confederacy, or Apartheid South Africa. One can likewise anticipate the classification of a sectarian flag as illegal – be it that of Catalonian or Chechen separatists. However, there is no reason why hoisting the American flag, on American soil, at an American institution, is offensive.

Every individual – American or not – has a right to take issue with any and all policies and actions that the U.S. government takes. I am not discouraging criticism of, protest against, or opposition to U.S. government policies. In fact, I encourage such scrutiny. To classify the American flag on American soil as offensive or jingoistic, however, is an entirely separate phenomenon which implies the condemnation of the United States at large.

There is an evident aversion amongst private institutions in the Bay Area to affiliate or partner with the American government. Be it Google employees protesting collaboration with the military on AI development, the absence of the national anthem at Stanford’s 2018 graduation ceremony, the elimination of the American flag from student organization logos, or Stanford’s framing itself as a global rather than American institution, the pattern is clear. Affiliation or partnership with the U.S. government is neither popular nor sexy. Patriotism in the Bay [San Francisco Bay Area] is not praised; indeed, at this rate of pariah-hood, it may soon perish.

However, the presently taboo nature of national pride is shortsighted. The distinction between our timeless political institutions (and their hallowed symbols) and the country’s leaders and policies at any given moment in history is elementary but crucial. Condemnations of patriotism fail to recognize that the United States’ institutions have and will continue to outlive unpopular leaders. This fact alone is cause for significant national pride. The vilification of our nation and its symbols is damning for the social fabric of American society. The current political climate has destroyed the last remnants of civic unity and patriotism.

But enough with the ominous platitudes. Next time you hear someone degrade a symbol of the United States – whether in the form of a flag, the Constitution, or the national anthem – you can defend the principles of this nation through oration or just go out and, like Sigma Chi, buy a bigger one.

To donate to The Stanford Review, go here.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Idiota: Washington DC marriage clerk asks groom for his “passport” after he presented New Mexico driver license

And to think that this person votes…

From NBC Washington: A groom encountered a surprising snag when trying to get a marriage license in D.C. last week: A clerk told him his New Mexico identification wasn’t acceptable because it was from outside the United States. 

“She was so sincere. She said, ‘I’m sorry, my supervisor says we can’t accept international driver’s licenses,’” recounted Gavin Clarkson, who went to get a license with his now-wife, Marina, at the D.C. Marriage Bureau on Nov. 20.

Clarkson said that when he first presented his license to the clerk, she looked at it, went to talk to the supervisor and then asked to see his “New Mexico passport,” he told NBC Washington on a phone call Friday.

He said the clerk was embarrassed and apologetic once the matter was straightened out.

After he informed her that New Mexico was indeed a state, she again went to speak with her supervisor, then told Clarkson, “‘My supervisor and I have verified that New Mexico is a state,'” he recounted.

“Basically, they went back and did a Google search,” he said.

At one point, the clerk also complimented him on his English, he said, noting that his now-wife, who is an immigrant, thought it was hilarious.

Leah Gurowitz, spokeswoman for District of Columbia Courts, wrote in a statement, “We understand that a clerk in our Marriage Bureau made a mistake regarding New Mexico’s 106-year history as a state. We very much regret the error and the slight delay it caused a New Mexico resident in applying for a DC marriage license.”

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Grad student asked to move out because of her legally owned guns

No laws or rules were broken. Yet feeeeeeeeelings were hurt.

Pirnie’s roommates must the type who believe urination will somehow deter a would-be rapist. Good luck with that, girls…

From Fox News: A Harvard graduate student who was asked to move out of her apartment after her legally owned firearms made her roommates “uncomfortable” said Sunday on “Fox & Friends” that she has been lied to while seeking reasons for the request.

Leyla Pirnie, 24, said that she doesn’t know why her roommates searched through her room for the firearms and violated her privacy. Pirnie said on Sunday that she has “been given so many lies” as to why her roommates were searching through her room in the first place. “Every time I want an answer, it’s a different lie,” she said.

Pirnie said a roommate’s comment that struck her in particular was that she was from the South and her “Make America Great Again” hat was not liked.

After searching through Pirnie’s room, one roommate reportedly emailed the apartment’s landlord, saying the presence of the firearms “causes anxiety and deprives us of the quiet enjoyment of the premise to which we are entitled.”

The roommate wrote that if the guns were to remain in the apartment, they should be locked in a gun safe. It is unclear if the apartment is connected to the university.

Pirnie added on Sunday that she contacted Somerville Police Capt. James Donovan, asking him to assure her landlord that her guns were safe and legal.

“Despite all that, my landlord still said … ‘it seems that peoples’ feelings are hurt, so you should leave,'” she said.

Landlord Dave Lewis reportedly said in an email that because it was “clear” Pirnie wanted to keep her firearms, “it would be best for all parties if she finds another place to live.”

Pirnie also said Sunday that nowhere in her lease did it state she wasn’t permitted to keep guns in her apartment.

“I have had a bunch of attorneys reach out and say they’d like to help out, so we’ll see where it ends up,” she said.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Berkeley professor wants an end to using student evaluations because they favor white males

Marissa Gentry reports for Campus Reform that Brian DeLay, an associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, claims that schools and universities must stop using student evaluations for hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions because the evaluations are inherently biased against female instructors and people of color.

In a series of tweets on Nov. 26, 2018, DeLay writes:

Over the next few weeks, students will get the chance to evaluate their professors and TAs. They’re going to get it wrong. They’ll be harder on women and people of color than on white men. Tenured white male faculty, in particular, should help their students understand this.

Several studies have revealed the limitations of student evaluations of teaching (SETs). Berkeley’s Philip Stark, Statistician & Associate Dean of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, co-authored a major study on this question a couple of years ago. It found:

*SET are biased against female instructors by an amount that is large and statistically significant. *The bias affects how students rate even putatively objective aspects of teaching, such as how promptly assignments are graded.

*The bias varies by discipline and by student gender, among other things. *It is not possible to adjust for the bias, because it depends on so many factors.

*SET are more sensitive to students’ gender bias & grade expectations than they are to teaching effectiveness. [Read that again!] *Gender biases can be large enough to cause more effective instructors to get lower SET than less effective instructors.

“Instructor race is also associated with SET….minority instructors tend to receive significantly lower SET scores compared to white (male) instructors. Age, charisma, and physical attractiveness are also associated with SET.”

I’ve often gotten valuable feedback in student evals, feedback that has improved my teaching. We have a lot to learn from our students, obviously. But given the well-documented shortcomings of SETs, we shouldn’t be using them for hiring, tenure, or promotion decisions.

In the meantime, tenured faculty – especially tenured white men – should explain this stuff to our students before each evaluation season. Help them understand why evals matter to peoples’ careers, & how implicit bias affects the results. They’ll listen.

Here’s the study conducted by UC Berkeley statistics professor Philip B. Stark.

On RateMyProfessors, Brian DeLay has 13 student evaluations, with an overall 4.7 (out of a 5.0 maximum) rating.

I had served on my department’s annual faculty review committee, and can attest that the three consistently worst-evaluated professors in my department were white males.

H/t John Molloy

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

College faculty are being trained to fight active shooters with…hockey pucks

Liberal logic: We have a “no weapons” policy. Criminal breaks rule and comes to school with weapon to shoot people. University police: Arm yourself with a hockey puck!

I get that some people are afraid of guns. Yet I just don’t understand the mindset that one would choose to be defenseless.

There has been two sexual assaults in my neighborhood during the past month. My revolver is within my reach. I choose to have an equalizer if a criminal breaches my safety.

A hockey puck IS NOT an equalizer.

From Fox News: How do you stop a bad guy with a gun when there’s no good guy with a gun around? Maybe throw a hockey puck at him.

A university in suburban Detroit is distributing hockey pucks as a form of self-defense against potential active shooters, according to reports.

Because Oakland University has a no-weapons policy, university police Chief Mark Gordon suggested using a hockey puck to distract a shooter.

The first thing that came to my mind was a hockey puck. I was a hockey coach for my kids growing up. I remember getting hit in the head with a hockey puck once and it hurt,” university police Chief Mark Gordon told Detroit’s FOX 2.

Gordon said to fight effectively, faculty and students need to be prepared to throw heavy objects that will cause a distraction. Gordan said pucks fit the bill and can conveniently be carried in brief cases or backpacks.

It was just kind of a spur-of-the-moment idea that seemed to have some merit to it and it kind of caught on,” Gordon told the Detroit News.

Upon Gordon’s suggestion, Professor Tom Discenna, president of the faculty union, spearheaded an effort to purchase 2,500 hockey pucks for union members and students, the Free Press reported.

“Eight hundred of them have been distributed to our faculty members and there’s an additional 1,700 that I’m working with student congress to distribute to our students,” Discenna told FOX 2.

“It’s just the idea of having something, a reminder that you’re not powerless and you’re not helpless in the classroom,” Discenna told the paper.

The black discs were distributed earlier this month, and are part of a campaign to raise money for interior locks on classroom doors, the report said.

The effort, spurred by the need for safety education after the Virginia Tech rampage in 2007, will “empower faculty and students to have a plan to have something to defend themselves rather than just freezing in place,” Gordon told the Detroit News.

In May, poll results showed that nearly three-quarters of Michigan’s teachers opposed efforts to arm teachers, the Free Press reported.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Montgomery County Public Schools to allow excused absences for protests

The speaker in this video, Matt Post, was a student member on the Montgomery County School Board. He is now a national field strategist for March for Our Lives.

From Washington Post: Skipping school to attend a protest is likely to get much easier for high school students in suburban Maryland beginning as early as January.

That’s when the school board in Montgomery County is expected to approve a revamped proposal to allow public high school students to take as many as three excused absences a year to participate in political protests and other forms of “civic engagement” during the school day.

The district’s proposal is considered to be one of very few in the country that would formally let students take an excused day off to join marches, lead protests, lobby leaders, campaign for candidates (can’t all this be done during non-school hours?) or otherwise partake in civic action. It comes in a year when high school students have been at the forefront of political protests across the country, particularly on gun violence issues but extending into political campaign matters including student debt, health care and abortion rights.

The push for the measure arose because parents and students in the county expressed concern that different schools had different approaches when it came to deciding whether a student could receive an excused absence for engaging in protests. They felt students shouldn’t be punished with an unexcused absence for taking part in demonstrations so directly connected to issues affecting their lives.

“We’re taught about how important it is to be engaged in our world and community, and to be aware of what’s going on and to be a responsible participant in the democratic process,” said Ananya Tadikonda, 17, a senior at Richard Montgomery High School and the student representative on the Montgomery County Board of Education. “This proposal gives students an opportunity to exercise civic responsibility without being penalized for it.”

When it was introduced in September, the proposal required parental consent, the approval of the school principal and permission from the organization sponsoring the political activity or protest.

Excused absences would not be approved for spontaneous walkouts or protests such as those that took place at schools across the country following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in February. Students who leave campus without receiving approval would not receive an excused absence.

The goal of the policy is to ensure students and employees “are well informed and guided in their activities regarding the requirements of state election laws and their participation in civic engagement activities, political campaigns, partisan election activities, and distribution of political or partisan materials.”

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Yawn: Cornell University to open exhibit celebrating clothing of “empowered” women

AOC’s nasty shoes…

What do you want to bet there will be no clothing worn by conservative women?

And I wonder if they’ll house AOC’s $3,500 designer outfit?

From Hollywood Reporter: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s shoes were made for walking over all her New York City congressional district.

Now, the campaign footwear worn by the youngest woman ever elected to Congress will be part of an exhibit chronicling how women use fashion for empowerment in endeavors such as politics and civil rights.

The Cornell Costume and Textile Collection at Cornell University is launching an exhibition titled Women Empowered: Fashions from the Frontline.

Among the exhibit’s other highlights are collars from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a 1954 Cornell graduate; a labor union cap from a campaign led by Coretta Scott King in 1969; and a skirt suit worn by Janet Reno, a 1960 Cornell grad and the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

The exhibit opens Dec. 6 and runs through March 31.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0