Connect with us

Politics

Oregon’s racial standards for kindergartners requires kids to ‘identify possible solutions to injustices’

Published

on

Oregon’s racial standards for kindergartners requires kids to ‘identify possible solutions to injustices’

NEWNow you can hearken to Fox Information articles!

The state of Oregon has adopted social research requirements for kindergartners that require kids to know their very own identification teams and determine examples of racial injustice.

The Oregon Division of Schooling (ODE) adopted the brand new requirements to combine ethnic research in social research curricula for kindergarten by way of twelfth grade, including new “views and histories” to permit college students to “really feel welcome and acknowledged within the classroom and part of our collective narrative, our shared historical past,” an ODE spokesman advised Fox Information Digital.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LINKS STANDARDIZED TESTING TO WHITE SUPREMACY

Kindergartners will “interact in respectful dialogue with classmates to outline range evaluating and contrasting seen and invisible similarities and variations,” in accordance with the brand new requirements.

Advertisement

Pre-kindergarten college students pay attention as their instructor reads a narrative at Dawes Elementary in Chicago, on Jan. 11, 2022.
(AP/Chicago Solar-Occasions)

Kindergartners can even study to “develop an understanding of one’s personal identification teams together with, however not restricted to, race, gender, household, ethnicity, tradition, faith, and skill,” in addition to “make connections figuring out similarities and variations together with race, ethnicity, tradition, incapacity, and gender between self and others,” in accordance with the brand new requirements.

The requirements additionally require kindergartners to “determine examples of unfairness or injustice in direction of people or teams and the ‘change-makers,’ who labored to make the world higher,” in addition to “determine potential options to injustices that show equity and empathy.”

The requirements have been flagged Sunday by Persuasion contributor Zaid Jilani.

The brand new requirements, which have been adopted final March and have an effect on each grade, are at present optionally available and won’t be mandated in colleges till the 2026-2027 faculty yr. 

Advertisement

Youngsters in first grade will study to “describe how particular person and group traits are used to divide, unite, and categorize racial, ethnic, and social teams,” in accordance with the brand new requirements. Youngsters in second grade will learn to “use listening, consensus-building, and voting procedures to determine on and take knowledgeable motion to interrupt injustice or promote justice of their group.” Youngsters in third grade will learn to “determine how programs of energy, together with white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression have an effect on the views of various people and teams when analyzing an occasion, difficulty, or drawback with an emphasis on a number of views.”

An ODE spokesman laid out in an announcement to Fox Information Digital that native faculty boards undertake curriculum to satisfy state requirements set forth by the division, and that Essential Race Idea “shouldn’t be mandated in any requirements.”

“Nonetheless, it’s clear that racial fairness be addressed to help each learner,” the spokesman stated. “We all know there are long-standing inequities in our programs which have led to gaps in outcomes for college students of shade. We do emphasize culturally responsive skilled studying and an inclusive curriculum that’s reflective of all communities in our state. There may be each an mental and moral foundation for centering fairness in skilled studying and educational supplies, primarily so ODE can meet its duty to create the circumstances wherein each pupil can attain their full potential.

“There’s a lengthy and painful historical past of racial bias in training,” he continued. “College students are prepared for programs and establishments to alter. Making a simply and equitable studying atmosphere that embraces the historical past and experiences of its learners shouldn’t be solely good for college students, but additionally for our communities and our shared future.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report

Published

on

Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report

A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump’s alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied a request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged with obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump’s handling of sensitive government records. 

The court left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.

JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE

Jack Smith, U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Justice Department said it would proceed with plans to release the first of two volumes centered on the election interference case but would make the classified documents section of the report available only to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their private review as long as the case against Trump’s co-defendants is ongoing.

It was not immediately clear when the election interference report might be released.

The election interference case was narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Following Trump’s presidential victory, Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO DENY HIS RESQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

Advertisement

Justice Department regulations call for special counsels appointed by the attorney general to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations. It is then up to the attorney general to decide what to make public.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has made public in their entirety the reports produced by special counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.

Trump mar-a-lago

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

In a statement, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said that it was time to “put a final stop to the political weaponiziation of our Justice system.”

“Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing after losing both of his Witch Hunts against President Trump. Deranged was unconstitutionally appointed and paid for, so he cannot be allowed to do anything more in perpetuation of his election-interfering hoaxes, let alone prepare an unconstitutional, one-sided, falsehood-ridden screed,” he said.

Advertisement

“Today’s decision by the 11th Circuit keeps Judge Cannon’s injunction in place and prevents any report from being issued. It is time for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland to do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our Justice system,” Cheung said. “The American People elected President Trump with a historic and overwhelming mandate, and we look forward to uniting our country in the new Administration as President Trump makes America great again.” 

Fox News’ Brooke Signman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court turns down Trump plea to block New York sentencing for hush money conviction

Published

on

Supreme Court turns down Trump plea to block New York sentencing for hush money conviction

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down President-elect Donald Trump’s plea to block a New York judge from sentencing him Friday on his felony conviction in a hush-money case.

The vote was 5-4, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh saying they would have granted Trump’s request.

The decision means Trump will be the first president to have a felony on his record when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

The majority in an unsigned opinion said Trump is still free to appeal his conviction later and said the sentencing hearing will not pose much of a burden, since he need not attend.

Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal on Wednesday that rested on a thin claim of immunity.

Advertisement

Last year, the justices ruled that a president or ex-president was immune from criminal charges for his “official acts” while in office.

This week, Trump’s lawyers argued the justices should extend the immunity rule to shield the president-elect from being held accountable now for a private criminal scheme that began before his election as president.

A New York jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, a crime under New York law. He wrote checks to Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, to repay him for a $130,000 payment to an adult film star to buy her silence prior to the 2016 election. The payments were listed as legal expenses.

Jurors convicted him on 34 counts.

Trump’s trial lawyers urged Judge Juan Merchan to delay his sentencing until after the November election.

Advertisement

Once Trump won the election, they argued the incoming president had an immunity from all the pending criminal cases, including his felony conviction.

New York prosecutors had urged the court on Thursday to deny Trump’s “extraordinary immunity claim.”

“While he was a private citizen, defendant [Trump] was charged, tried, and convicted for conduct that he concedes is wholly unofficial,” they said. In his appeal, he “makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now,” before he is sworn in as president again, they said.

On Tuesday, the day before his attorneys filed their emergency appeal in the high court, Trump arranged to speak with Alito about one of his former clerks. Alito confirmed the call to ABC News.

“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding [Levi’s] qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

Advertisement

He said they did not discuss the “emergency application” regarding Trump’s New York sentencing, which had not been filed yet at the court.

“I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

Alito cast a vote in favor of Trump.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Inside Trump’s Search for a Health Threat to Justify His Immigration Crackdown

Published

on

Inside Trump’s Search for a Health Threat to Justify His Immigration Crackdown

President-elect Donald J. Trump is likely to justify his plans to seal off the border with Mexico by citing a public health emergency from immigrants bringing disease into the United States.

Now he just has to find one.

Mr. Trump last invoked public health restrictions, known as Title 42, in the early days of the pandemic in 2020, when the coronavirus was tearing across the globe. As he prepares to enter office again, Mr. Trump has no such public health disaster to point to.

Still, his advisers have spent recent months trying to find the right disease to build their case, according to four people familiar with the discussions. They have looked at tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases as options and have asked allies inside the Border Patrol for examples of illnesses that are being detected among migrants.

They also have considered trying to rationalize Title 42 by arguing broadly that migrants at the border come from various countries and may carry unfamiliar disease — an assertion that echoes a racist notion with a long history in the United States that minorities transmit infections. Mr. Trump’s team did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The plan to invoke the border restrictions based on sporadic cases of illness or even a vague fear of illness — rather than a major disease outbreak or pandemic — would amount to a radical use of the public health measure in pursuit of an immigration crackdown. Even when the coronavirus was spreading, the use of the health authority to turn away migrants prompted scrutiny from the courts and public health officials.

But Mr. Trump’s immigration advisers, led by Stephen Miller, his pick to be deputy chief of staff, believe they are entering a political environment that will welcome more aggressive border enforcement, particularly after some Democrats embraced using restrictions like Title 42, according to people familiar with the planning. President Biden used it to turn away thousands of migrants before eventually deciding to lift it, well after his public health advisers said the restrictions were no longer useful for the purpose of stopping the spread of disease.

Title 42, which is part of the Public Service Act of 1944, grants power to health authorities to block people from entering the United States when it is necessary to avert a “serious danger” posed by the presence of a communicable disease in foreign countries.

Mr. Miller has long considered Title 42 a key tool for his goal of shuttering the border to migration. He has essentially been on a yearslong quest to find enough examples of diseases among migrants to justify the use of the law.

Even before the spread of the coronavirus, Mr. Miller asked aides to keep tabs on American communities that welcomed migrants to see if diseases broke out there. He seized on an outbreak of mumps in immigration detention facilities in 2019 to push for using the public health law to seal the border. He was talked down in most of the cases by cabinet secretaries and lawyers — until the advent of the coronavirus.

Advertisement

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not the White House, is responsible for assessing whether the public health rule is necessary at the border. And even when the pandemic spread throughout the United States, C.D.C. officials pushed back on the Trump White House’s position that turning away migrants was an effective way to prevent the spread of diseases.

Martin Cetron, the director of the agency’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, told a House committee that the implementation of the border restrictions “came from outside the C.D.C. subject matter experts” and was “handed to us” by the White House.

When Mr. Biden came into office, he initially kept the public health rule in place at the border, even when C.D.C. officials told his top aides there was no clear public health rationale for keeping the border shut to asylum seekers. Both the Biden and Trump administrations argued the rule was needed to prevent the spread of diseases in detention facilities at the border. But Mr. Biden’s top White House aides were privately concerned that lifting the rule would lead to a surge in migration.

During his second stint in the White House, Mr. Trump’s team will focus on avoiding such pushback. He is intent on installing loyalists throughout his administration who are unlikely to try to stop his more aggressive proposals.

In an interview with The New York Times in 2023, Mr. Miller sounded confident that the public would be accepting of Mr. Trump’s invoking Title 42. He said the new administration intended to use the law, citing “severe strains of the flu, tuberculosis, scabies, other respiratory illnesses like R.S.V. and so on, or just a general issue of mass migration being a public health threat and conveying a variety of communicable diseases.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s attempt to deter migration based on public health, even without a clear disease to justify its use, is just one expected piece of a flurry of Day 1 executive actions that his team is developing to crack down on immigration.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have also discussed declaring a national emergency to free up Department of Defense funds and move military personnel, aircraft and other resources to the border. They also want to revive a policy that forced migrants to wait in Mexico, rather than the United States, until their immigration court date — although they would need Mexico to agree to such a deal.

Mr. Trump’s immigration advisers received a briefing on such border restrictions — as well as the use of the public health emergency restrictions — during a recent meeting with homeland security officials as a part of the transition between administrations, according to a person familiar with the matter. After exiting a meeting with Senate Republicans on Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump said he would close the border on his first day in office.

Some immigration experts have questioned how effective the public health rule was in driving down border crossings.

From the time Title 42 was enacted in 2020 until it was lifted in 2023, border officials expelled people more than 2.5 million times. Biden administration officials have publicly argued that the use of Title 42 at the southern border drove an increase in migrants attempting to cross the border multiple times, a practice known as recidivism.

Advertisement

Blas Nuñez-Neto, a White House official, said that in that way, Title 42 “may have” actually led to an increase in border crossings that the administration struggled to handle.

The current state at the border has been particularly calm, especially when compared to the numbers seen a year ago. Border agents made more than 47,000 arrests in December, according to a senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, a major drop from the previous year when nearly 250,000 such arrests were made.

Biden officials put into place a measure banning asylum for those who crossed the southern border starting this summer. It can only be lifted if crossing numbers drop to a certain threshold for several weeks, something that still has yet to happen.

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending