Third-party education organizations have played an increasingly strong influence on the direction being taken by the Mississippi Department of Education. Despite the fact that many parents in the state are concerned about the direction of the education system toward Critical Race Theory, the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) recently announced that it will be revising its social studies curriculum based on standards established by such questionable organizations.  

Recent debates surrounding Critical Race Theory, American heritage, and government education have highlighted how third-party education organizations on the national level often have a large degree of undue influence on the education curriculum in Mississippi. The Mississippi Center for Public Policy has long sounded the alarm on such organizations, including in an extensive report on the influence of Critical Race Theory in Mississippi. The report uncovered that while MDE has not overtly taught CRT, there has been a prevalence of MDE promoting resources from organizations that openly embrace CRT. A recent article from Yall Politics further demonstrated that much of the proposed changes to the state social studies curriculum are directly based upon the recommendations of such organizations.

The key problem with MDE utilizing the resources of such third-party organizations is that they often have an agenda that is far removed from the priorities of Mississippi parents. There are several key examples of such organizations holding an undue sway on Mississippi education.

For instance, MCPP’s CRT report provides documentation of MDE promoting the Zinn Education Project as a third-party teaching resource provider. Among other things, Zinn's resources include activities that give a portrayal of Christopher Columbus as a murderer and resources on how to teach mathematics using social justice and intersectionality. 

In addition, MDE has also implemented Social Emotional Learning (SEL) standards. While such concepts may seem benign at first glance, the standards include initiatives such as an “Equity Monitor” staffed with the task of ensuring school meetings are perceived through the lens of race and gender. Such standards are based upon the recommendations of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). With numerous references to the racial undertones of many of its SEL standards, the CASEL organization includes resources such as a racial relations document that proclaims: “systemic racism is so deeply rooted in our history, culture and institutions that there’s no escaping it.”

Finally, MDE has fundamentally based its social studies curriculum on the standards established by several national organizations, including National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). NCSS has several events and resources with CRT implications, such as “The Historical Roots of Structural Racism” and “Black History is Not American History: Toward a Framework of Black Historical Consciousness.” Such resources include statements such as “we should not debate whether systemic racism exists, but provide opportunities for students, precluding racist commentary, to analyze the data evidence and establish this conclusion on their own.” Thus, rather than fostering a culture of academic analysis and dialogue, the NCSS has made its intentions to present a singular perspective quite clear. In light of such statements from the organization, it is unclear why the MDE is collaborating with it to establish social studies standards.

 The national education establishment has a long track record of placing leftist agendas at the forefront of its priorities. Rather than importing such agendas into the Mississippi education system, there should be a proactive effort to consciously reject ideologies that place an undue emphasis on students’ immutable characteristics. Instead of a bureaucratic and top-down approach, Mississippi’s government education system needs more accountability so that it is informed by the citizenry and not the education establishment of the Left.    

1970’s Santa Clause is Comin to Town is one of Rankin/Bass’ most popular stop-motion animated programs. The holiday classic, based on the song of the same name, tells the story of how Santa Clause came to be. To lovers of liberty, it also serves as an allegory for free markets and how prohibition and tyrannical laws only lead to worse outcomes.

Santa Clause is Comin’ to Town casts its title character as an idealist, an individualist who detests nonsensical regulatory laws and fights against them, all whilst spreading Christmas cheer. The tyranny begins when Sombertown’s governor, the Burgermeister Meisterburger seeks to ban all toys after he trips over one and breaks his leg.

Does this not seem familiar to when we hear left-wing activists nowadays seeking to ban anything they deem “dangerous?” – guns, toy guns (ironically), fast food advertisements, fossil fuel-powered cars, pets, “violent” video games (more toys), and free speech, among other seemingly harmless things. The thing is, we continue to attempt to ban things when we know that doesn’t work. By nature, people will do what authority tells them not to. Outlawing something that we do not understand, fear, or do not like does not work and is simply unjust. To decide what’s good and not good for an individual without their consent is an infringement on self-governance completely. The most prevalent example of this is the prohibition of alcohol, which we know only made matters worse – crime, addiction, corruption, etc.

Santa sees the injustice happening in Sombertown and dares to defy the governor’s orders. When he finally makes the perilous journey into the village, he opens his sack of toys, and happy children commence to playing with them.

Infuriated, Meisterburger orders the arrest of the children, but Santa intervenes and offers him a yo-yo. It immediately improves the governor’s sour disposition, until one of his officers reminds him that he's breaking his own law. Thankfully though, the distraction allows Santa to escape arrest.

Santa later launches a guerrilla campaign to smuggle toys into Sombertown. He adopts the conventions that we now associate with the Legend of St. Nick — arriving under cover, entering homes through unconventional means, planting toys in wet socks hung by the fire — to meet the demand for toys while avoiding law enforcement.

The governor’s men then adopt more aggressive tactics like unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as subjecting violators to excessive punishments, though we’re told the tyrant(s) eventually died off and were replaced by better men. “By and by,” the narrator says, “the good people realized how silly their laws were,” and Santa's story goes worldwide. He no longer is considered an outlaw, but a saint. He grows older, but continues an annual ride across the planet, delivering gifts to all the well-behaved boys and girls.

It's an unconventional happy ending, and a silly allegory, but one that resonates with those who favor limited government. Unjust laws are finally repealed with the help of a brave individualist and freedom reigns. If there is some lesson to be learned, it’s that the prohibition of anything could result in many worse outcomes – crime, corruption, and increased government control over average citizens’ lives. If the adults don’t get anything out of this animated classic, hopefully, the kids will.

In recent years, the education system has become increasingly centralized. As the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, and academic organizations have consolidated their influence, there has also been an increasingly radical push to remove even parents themselves out of the equation.

It is interesting to note that the increasing centralization of education has directly increased with the radicalization of educational priorities and agendas. Ironically this is despite the fact that many individual parents are far less likely to embrace the latest radical proposals from the Left, such as Critical Race Theory and transgender bathrooms.

However, those within the high ranks of the education establishment often buy into such priorities. According to research, many of those in high academia have gone increasingly even further to the Left. Thus, the more education is centralized, the greater the ability of the Left to advance ideologies that would not be democratically approved by the majority of parents.

These factors of polarization and radicalization have challenged much of the status quo in the education establishment. This is true both for the administrators within the system and the parents themselves.

The National School Boards Association sent a letter requesting federal law enforcement investigate certain parents who were opposed to certain policies as “domestic terrorists.” This ultimately led to the Mississippi School Boards Association announcing that it would break from the national organization.

Meanwhile, parents across the state and country are responding as well. On the one hand, parental rights and education policy have become one of the biggest hot-button issues at the ballot box. At the same time, “families have explored and adopted different approaches to schooling on an unforeseen scale.”  

Such factors shed light on a growing recognition that Washington's academic elites and education bureaucrats have overstepped their boundaries. The nature of this republic is the ability of the people to civilly push back against overreaches, whether they do it as an organization or as individuals.

This points back to the truth that an increasingly top-down structure for education is not the answer for true growth and educational excellence. Truly American education was built on the foundation that strong families, faith, limited government, and personal responsibility are the true foundation for educating the next generation. Long before the centralized educational structures of today were instituted, America still had an educated populace, that not only sustained itself – but thrived.

Perhaps the time has come that some in the American ethos are having a fundamental return back to an educational vision that seeks to preserve the things that made the nation great.  The survival of the American republic depends upon future generations that are grounded in the principles of freedom and liberty. Rather than handing this over to big office buildings in Washington and the academic elites, the success of the “American experiment” proves that individual education freedom and choice are the true avenues to make this happen.

As America prepares to celebrate a day of Thanksgiving, it is important to look back and consider the lessons of our forefathers. All the way back to its humble beginnings at Plymouth Rock, the American legacy has shined as an example of what freedom and liberty can accomplish.

But in recent years, socialism has been on the rise in America. According to Pew Research, 42 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism. In addition, the nation has seen increasingly socialistic policies based on the concepts of big government and high taxation. In light of such circumstances, it is important to consider another episode when socialism was in America – and the failure of such socialism.

This story of socialism in America happened with none other than the Pilgrims themselves. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower, their voyage was financed by a group of investors called the Merchant Adventurers. As a means to pay back the investors, the Pilgrims initially set up a socialistic economy, with a portion of the communal proceeds going back to the investors. However, this system proved to be a failure from the start.

William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth Colony, described what happened: “The failure of this experiment... [proves] the emptiness of the theory that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in a community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.”

To replace this failed approach, the Pilgrims instituted a system of private ownership, with each family having a farm to call their own. This led to the bountiful successes that culminated in long-term prosperity. Such a failure of socialism, when compared to capitalism, comes as little surprise. The basic principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility will always be more successful than the principles of coercion and a lack of private property.

From Plymouth Rock, all the way to the Soviet Union, socialism has an unbroken record of failure. The successful “American experiment” rejected socialism from its very start, and an embrace of socialism would ultimately spell its end. For the legacy of the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers to continue, the lessons of history must be heeded and followed. As families gather across the nation to thank God for the blessings of the year and look back on America’s legacy, it is important to ensure that future generations will be able to reap the blessings of freedom. As the rise of socialism seeks to undermine the country's future, a return to America’s foundation just might start by looking back to the lessons of Plymouth Rock.

You know you’ve seriously annoyed progressives when you get singled out for a hit piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper by one of their New York-based columnists. According to Arwa Mahdawi writing in today’s Guardian, I am a “toxic politician” whom the UK was able to "successfully export." 

What was it that prompted Miss Mahdawi, whom I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of meeting, to launch such a highly personal attack on a private citizen in a national newspaper? (Besides Brexit, of course). 

Her tirade seems to have been prompted by the fact that I had the temerity to point out that the United States is more prosperous and innovative that Europe.

Well let’s consider the facts, for a moment. Here is a table showing how the richest countries in Europe compare the US states in terms of GDP per capita. Germany, Europe’s richest country, ranks below Oklahoma, the 38th richest state in America.

The UK is poorer that Arkansas and West Virginia. Even my own state, Mississippi, ranks above Italy and Spain. If you break the UK down by regions, Mississippi is more prosperous than much of the UK outside of London and the south east.

According to Miss Mahdawi, the US can’t be more successful because she lives in New York, where she “pays way more” for her “mobile phone plan and internet than she would for comparable services in the UK or anywhere in Europe.     

Apparently the relative cost of her New York phone bill proves the Europe is better than America. Or something. 

Perhaps if Guardian columnists made a little more effort to try to understand what those they write hit pieces on actually thought, they might recognize that free marketers favor more free markets.   

But if they did that, then they might be forced to acknowledge that one of the reasons why certain sectors of the US economy have become cartels, without enough consumer choice and competition, is precisely because America is currently led by an administration that seeks to expand the role of government and make America more European. Much easier to make childish insults. 

The interesting question to ask is why so many of Europe’s elite feel the need to lash out at anyone that suggests that the American model works better that the European. 

In the UK, it is constantly implied the America’s health care system is vastly inferior. Really?  Five years after diagnosis, only 56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients. Poorer Americans in poor states often have healthier outcomes that many in Britain.

But again, these facts are overlooked.  Anyone with the temerity to mention them gets vilified (“toxic”). And the many shortcomings in the US system are cited as evidence that nothing good ever happens stateside. 

When Europe’s elites talk about America, often what they say – or won’t say – tells us more about them, than anything happening over here.  The reality is that by most measures the United States gives ordinary citizens far better life chances than the European Union is able to provide for her people. 

Deep down Europe’s elites know this. And they fear that their own citizens know it, too.  So they constantly put America down in order to maintain their own status across the pond.

Last week’s elections in Virginia were no earthquake. Glenn Youngkin, the newly elected Republican Governor, squeaked home by the narrowest of margins. The swing from blue to red was a modest 5 percent.

Yet last week’s election could just turn out to be one of the most significant elections in America for a generation. Why?

Virginia offers the wider conservative movement a route map back towards electoral success – if (big if) they have the good sense to follow it.

It is easy when living in a state like Mississippi to assume that the Republican party is well entrenched. The reality across much of America, however, is that the conservative movement which dominated American politics when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, has suffered defeat and retreat ever since.

The last time that a Republican candidate won a popular majority in a U.S. Presidential election, for example, was back in 2004.  Republican candidates have only managed to win the popular vote in two of the past nine Presidential elections.

It is not just that Republican candidates have not done so well.  Even more ominously, not every Republican candidate has been …. how might I put this delicately? …. conservative.

Over the past couple of decades, states like Virginia, which at one time tended to lean conservative, appeared to have shifted decisively to the left.  Until last week, that is.

Despite having failed to win a state-wide election for twelve years, last week conservative candidates in Virginia were elected not only Governor, but Lt Governor and Attorney General, too.

The Virginia result was a victory for school choice conservatism. With parents denied any real power in the public education system, moms and dads in Virginia felt anxious about some of the things their kids were being taught – such as Critical Race Theory.

Youngkin repeatedly made the issue of whether parents should be allowed a say in their child’s education the center piece in his campaign. Youngkin also calmly but firmly insisted that Critical Race Theory is wrong.

And guess what? It turns out that giving people school choice is wildly popular and that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.

Here in Mississippi, we recently published a report on Critical Race Theory in our state. It shows how conservatives might offer something similar here, too.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the Virginia result was the record support that the conservative side got from both Hispanic and African America voters. It turns out that opposing a divisive anti-American ideology has a broad appeal. Again, Magnolia conservatives should take note.

One final observation about Virginia. The conservative side in the election did something that too often conservatives are loathe to do; they tried to understand and listen to their audience before trying to persuade them.

Too many of those that work in public policy presume that arguments that excite them appeal to everyone else. They don’t. In order to win in Virginia, conservative strategists used messages and messengers that resonated with the folk they needed to win over.

Instead of school choice, they talked about school freedom. Instead of attacking obstructive teacher unions, they made it clear that they wanted a better deal for teachers – if not necessarily union bosses. It takes more than a bumper sticker to win over hearts and minds. A new conservative movement that understood this, while offering real school freedom and an alternative to critical race theory, could be unstoppable.

The conversation of race and social justice often becomes inextricably linked with the conversation of diversity. Despite this questionable emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the consistency of such an emphasis on diversity could be measured against other metrics that emphasize merit and actual viewpoint diversity.

The irony is that despite the emphasis on diversity and the desire to promote an atmosphere of acceptance, companies and agencies are quite selective in the metrics and categories of diversity that are evaluated and prioritized. They are required by law to practice equal employment practices. However, this simply means that they cannot refuse to hire an individual based on characteristics protected by law (including race, gender, and religion).

Beyond that, employers can prefer some diversity characteristics over others. This is why race and gender are always evaluated in corporate responsibility reports and almost never political affiliations or religions. In other words, America is pursuing diversity, the question still remains however, what kind of diversity?

The evidence is clear that diversity in the workforce is beneficial in providing innovative solutions. However, despite the present emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the data suggests that diversity benefits primarily come from diversity of thought rather than the amount of pigment in one’s skin.

People who think differently approach problems differently. Therefore, people proposing the same exact solutions to a problem will be less likely if the group consists of people from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view. Companies and agencies that incorporate a diversity strategy are 1.7 times more likely to find innovative solutions to their respective problems. Companies that diversify their workforce see 1.4 times more revenue. Decision-making is two times faster in diverse teams. The obvious reason for these types of statistics is that diversity of thought provides an atmosphere in which group-think is minimized.

This is why viewpoint diversity, such as political or religious diversity, are important in assessing government and corporate pursuits of diversity as a whole. Without these metrics, government and corporate elites have the opportunity to dictate not only how diverse their teams should be, but also what groups they desire to leave out or minimize based on religious or political viewpoints. Not only does this not promote true diversity but it strays dangerously close to promoting social group-think of one particular ideology.

People often advertise that diversity as a concept means that when someone comes into work, they should bring their whole selves. Pat Gelsinger, CEO of Intel, said something quite interesting in that part of one’s whole self should be one’s religion, and that needs to be on the diversity radar: “If I can’t express my Christian faith in the workplace, [it’s] not a diverse workplace.” Promoting these ideals are required to ultimately promote true diversity. The problem is that the dominant view of diversity is defined by simply increasing minority representation. This is only one part of the puzzle of diversity and is short-sighted in scope to promote some alternative agenda. It is critical to cultivate an environment both inside government operations and in the corporate world to approach diversity in a way that dissuades the use of mechanical quotas: treating diversity as a quantity rather than a quality. Government policies that mandate such an approach to diversity discourage true diversity by viewing individuals in categories, rather than viewing them as individuals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): One of America’s largest conservative think tanks is partnering with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy to debate Critical Race Theory.

On Tuesday, November 9, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy will host Mike Gonzalez, a Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and America’s leading expert on Critical Race Theory, at an event in Jackson.

“As the leading conservative advocacy organization in the state, we are delighted to be partnering with the leading conservative think tank in the United States,” said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

“Critical Race Theory is deeply divisive and risks reversing many of the advances made in America since the Civil Rights era,” Carswell added.  

“Our recent report on Critical Race Theory revealed that this ideology is being advanced in our education system, perhaps most aggressively in public universities. While the education establishment often seeks to deny that they are pushing this radical, progressive agenda, we uncovered incontrovertible evidence that they are.”

Author of The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free and, most recently, BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution, Mr. Gonzalez has crisscrossed the country, advising lawmakers and citizens alike on what we need to do to safeguard America from this Left-Wing dogma.

At the seminar, Mr. Gonzalez will present the audience a number of resources and evidence on Critical Race Theory to:

• Explain what it is and define the teachings and values behind it
• How it can and is destroying our society
• How to correctly identify it in academic curricula
• How to defeat it

For more information or to request an interview with Mississippi Center For Public Policy President & CEO Douglas Carswell, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].

On practically every level, America has been a shining display of freedom and prosperity. According to the vision of its Founders, the nation has shined as a beacon of hope to a world full of tyranny and hardship. Despite these successes, America’s legacy has been under attack over the last several years.

With a focus on the failures of an imperfect but inspiring history, revisionist historians have attempted to paint the nation as a society that was ultimately built on oppression and evil. Yet, such claims do not hold validity when you look at the track record of the country.

In 1630, the world was filled with empires and monarchs. In Europe, several wars overwhelmed a continent plagued by imperial rivalries. The Ottoman Empire stretched from Turkey to Sudan with the rule of an iron fist. Spain and Portugal imposed a reign of terror over Latin America. The nations existed for their rulers. Meanwhile, far from the centers of world activity, a few dozen settlers quietly sailed up the Charles River into Massachusetts, led by John Winthrop. With a vision for a righteous society of liberty and justice, Winthrop proclaimed his aim that the settlement they established be a “city on a hill” and that “the eyes of all people are upon us.”

That settlement would become the city of Boston. One hundred forty-five years later, the War for Independence would begin 10 miles away with “the shot heard around the world.” In the wake of American victory and the founding of the nation, 245 years of history have shown that America has indeed been a “city on a hill” placed prominently in the view of the whole world.

In January 1989, President Ronald Reagan spoke of America in his farewell address as a “city on a hill.” True to its legacy, America had recently stood up to the might of the Soviet Union and led the free world in the fight to preserve freedom from the tentacles of Communism. Less than a year after Reagan’s farewell address, the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. By 1992, the Soviet Union itself had collapsed and America still stood as “the shining city.”

The year is now 2021 and most of the tyrannical regimes of the last 245 years have been resigned to the dust bin of history. Direct assaults on Winthrop and Reagan’s shining city have all proved to be futile. But the enemies of liberty have not yet given up.

Instead of trying again to attack the shining city directly, new ideologies have instead questioned whether the shining city ever existed in the first place. Defining America as a nation of racism, oppression, and subjugation, this revisionist history threatens the very foundation of America through philosophies such as Critical Race Theory. The opponents of liberty know that the only way the nation can ever lose its exceptional legacy is by the destruction of its history. This is why so many advocate for the deconstruction of history.

The fact that America has truly been “a city on a hill” stands firm. The success of the nation refutes any claims to the contrary. The nation that is called “the land of opportunity,” the nation that countless scores have built their lives in, the nation that has stood for freedom of religion and speech, this country’s historical legacy cannot be changed.

Yet, this legacy can only continue if America looks back to the foundations of former days. Americans must teach their history so that future generations can know the nation’s exceptional story. Efforts must be made to push back against the revisionism of those who assault the nation’s legacy as a city on a hill. The future of the nation depends on it.