Tags: Arsenic | and | Equal | Employment | Education | and | P.C.

Arsenic and Equal Employment, Education and P.C.

Tuesday, 24 April 2001 12:00 AM

It was brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! This is the type of political underhandedness that Bill Clinton built such a deserved reputation for. He's the master. No doubt about it.

Now that some (but not all) of the hysteria has settled over the "arsenic in the water" issue, you do realize what happened, don't you?

Let's see if we can lay this out for you in a step-by-step, easily understandable format.

This, my friends, is brilliant politics. This is vintage Bill Clinton. Clinton never had any intention to see these new arsenic standards implemented. He knew that the cost to local governments would create huge funding problems. He had eight years to put these regulations into effect. He didn't. Clinton knew that the tiny bits of arsenic in the water supply presented no hazard whatsoever to the American public. That arsenic, though, could be used to poison the minds of the American people toward the incoming president.

Bush took the responsible road on this issue. It's a move the eco-radicals and their assorted leftist friends will exploit through the next election.

The sociopath is still with us.

Atlanta area government school students held a little exercise yesterday. We are being told it was an "educational" exercise. You judge for yourself.

The students were transported from various schools to the Martin Luther King Jr. Center near downtown. At the MLK Center a canvas with the word "racism" painted on it was stretched out on the ground waiting for the students. Nearby were several buckets of paint. In this educational exercise only an NEA union teacher could love the students were told to step in paint and then walk all over the canvas, thus obliterating the evil "R" word. They were, you see, "stomping out racism."

A local news anchor told us that "students felt the experience was educational and, of course, fun."

Educational? Could someone tell me how in the known universe this inane exercise could have been considered to be "educational"? Maybe the students didn't really say that the experience was educational. Maybe an overzealous news writer just threw that into the story – or maybe government school officials told students to use the "e" word because, after all, they were supposed to be in school while this idiocy was going on.

Whatever the genesis of the students' alleged statement, if these students thought that stepping in paint buckets and then sliding their feet over the word "racism" was educational, then it's not hard to see why our government schools are doing such a miserable job of educating our youngsters.

Oh, yeah – I can hear you out there right now: "OK, wiseass, how would

Glad you asked. Here's an idea. How about conducting a real educational exercise? This time would have been better spent by getting these students together and teaching them the accurate meaning of just three words: Racism, Bigotry and Prejudice.

How about teaching these students that when a woman, alone in her car in a strange neighborhood, suddenly locks her doors when she sees a group of young black males approaching the car, it's not racism. Prejudice, maybe, but not racism. She didn't lock her doors because of a belief in the inherent and biological superiority of her race over blacks (racism). She locked her doors because she feared, rightly or wrongly, that these young men might mean her no particular good (prejudice). She pre-judged a situation and acted accordingly in her own self-interest.

We could also get these students together and teach them that disliking a person simply because of their skin color (bigotry) is not the same as assuming biological superiority over them (racism). The animosity could, after all, be due to cultural rather than biological factors.

You understand exactly why the same people who put together this little wading-in-paint exercise would never follow my suggestions, don't you? The myth has to be preserved. These children have to be brought up believing that the ONLY reason any difficulties exist between whites and blacks in this country is due to skin color. Cultural factors don't count. Crime rates don't matter. Anti-achievement mentalities aren't a factor. It's just skin color.

You see, skin color, unlike these other factors, is something these students can never change. This means that the problem is always someone else's fault.

Race problems? Sure we have race problems, and those problems need to be addressed and solved. These hapless students in Atlanta didn't move one millimeter closer to an understanding or solution to those problems with their absurd little TV news photo-op today. Wading in paint could only be considered an educational experience in a government school.

Question: Why did the television station even bother to cover this inane event? Oops – I forgot. If they didn't, it would probably be because they are racists.

I understand that next week another group of students is going to use finger paints to wipe out the words "breast cancer" on another canvas. So, there you go. Another incredible educational experience from your government schools.

We haven't discussed this story much. Last week, the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Texas, settled a lawsuit by a group of Hispanic housekeepers. The housekeepers were told they had to speak English on the job – and they ran to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which helped them win the $2.4 million settlement. The university admitted no wrongdoing and insists it would have won the case ... but it was just cheaper to settle.

National Review says 71 percent of the students at this small, private Catholic university are minorities. I wonder if these students know their tuition dollars will now go to pay a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered with speaking English.

That's not all. It is NOT illegal for employers to have English-only rules in their workplace – but the EEOC insists it's a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act! The EEOC says English-only rules discriminate against people on the basis of their national origin.

Now, think about this. This could mean that a talk radio station could be held liable for refusing to hire a Norwegian to do a talk show if the Norwegian couldn't speak English. That would be discrimination on the basis of national origin. The rights of the radio station to hire a host that could be understood by the listeners would be secondary to the rights of our Norwegian friend with the gift of gab – in Norwegian.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that nationality and language are two totally different things. And what better place for an immigrant to learn English than in a job where they're likely to encounter native English speakers? Plus, as National Review points out, English-only rules cut down on potentially damaging gossip and enable employers to communicate with workers from all sorts of backgrounds. It's a unifying concept, not a discriminatory one.

But the bottom line is that the EEOC thinks it knows every employer's workplace needs better than the employers themselves. So these kinds of language cases have gone through the roof – a 500 percent increase in the last five years.

This is what the EEOC has become in today's politically correct atmosphere. They beat up on defenseless little institutions like the University of the Incarnate Word to enforce imaginary discrimination cases.

Don't feel like speaking English on the job? Run crying to your benevolent Imperial Federal Government and some nice people will help relieve you of your responsibilities.

So now the fight over "insensitive" school mascots has finally reached America's elementary, middle and high schools.

In Maryland, for example, the state's Commission on Indian Affairs has identified as many as 30 schools that use mascots or team names it considers "offensive, disrespectful, and demeaning" to American Indians. The commission has passed a resolution against the practice. There's a similar resolution pending in Virginia.

According to the Morning Star Institute, as many as 1,500 schools and colleges have changed their names or mascots since the early 1970s. But last week's statement by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights calling for an end to the use of Indian names and images has raised awareness – and given the forces of P.C. a kick-start.

This argument over symbols and names is exactly the same as civil rights groups' opposition to symbols of the Confederacy. Both the Indians and minorities claim these symbols are deeply offensive.

That may be the case ... but don't they have bigger problems to worry about? What about the high rates of alcoholism, poverty, suicide, drug abuse and crime on Indian reservations? Will obliterating a tiny high school's Indian nickname really do anything to solve these problems?

Of course not. By pressuring schools to change their symbols, Indian groups are ignoring the serious problems and focusing instead on a high-profile, politically correct cause.

The Senate is set to take up the debate over George W. Bush's education reform plan tomorrow ... and the teachers unions are gearing up for a battle.

Dubya wants to boost federal education funding by $1.9 billion next year. He wants to spend most of his funding increase on new reading initiatives for preschool and elementary school children, as well as accountability testing to measure the reading and math skills of all government school children in grades three through eight.

But the Democrats want a $13.9 billion increase. They want to spend the money on teacher-friendly things like funding for school renovation, hiring more teachers, and professional development programs for teachers.

Teachers unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers love the Democrats' plan. They're opposed to Bush's plans to expand charter schools and allow federal funds to move along with children who transfer from bad schools to good ones.

They're even fighting a proposal to allow federal funds to pay for extra tutoring of kids trapped in failing schools and to allow high-achieving school districts to opt out of certain federal programs. These ideas were agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats!

What's the bottom line here? What are the teachers saying by supporting the Democratic education proposals and opposing Bush's plans?

They're telling you they're not interested in having their employment tied to their performance.

They're telling you that the mounting evidence in support of charter schools doesn't mean a thing.

They're telling you that the only thing they're interested in is keeping their jobs and maintaining a stranglehold on all that lovely federal education money.

They're saying that your child's education doesn't rank first on their list of priorities.

Parents, are you listening?

© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

It was brilliant!Absolutely brilliant!This is the type of political underhandedness that Bill Clinton built such a deserved reputation for.He's the master.No doubt about it. Now that some (but not all) of the hysteria has settled over the arsenic in the water issue, you...
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved