From: Tim Conner
In response to Michael Leppert’s good column of Dec. 31 (“‘Don’t say homosexual’ payments intention to restrict instructing”), I wish to add a couple of feedback.
Though I agree and applaud his observations, I don’t suppose he goes far sufficient in his view of our instructional system as it’s. He appropriately states that: “… solely the delusional can probably imagine that studying much less will truly make us smarter.” I couldn’t agree extra, besides to say, why cease with mere gender ideology? If he’s talking of an schooling that features these issues that may assist our younger create a stable “social order”, why cease at intercourse schooling? When youngsters’s minds are like sponges in these tender years, allow us to educate them the abilities that may assist them get alongside in right now’s society. I’d add to their curriculum, amongst many different disciplines, mendacity and dishonest convincingly, discovering your sufferer standing in each scenario, realizing that your emotions are paramount to your character (and needs to be for everybody else you encounter), studying to face for the newest factor, be it conflict in another country or rewriting the world’s historical past to suit your private narrative.
So far as studying the three “R’s”, that’s old school. Train them the best way to manage a protest in opposition to one thing they don’t like. Train them that science and drugs are topic to the night information. Present them what number of Western constructs restrict their potential for them to be on the middle of the universe.
The prospects for shaping younger minds is virtually limitless. As Vladimir Lenin as soon as stated: “Give me only one technology of youth, and I’ll remodel the entire world.” Smart phrases with which I’m certain Mr. Leppert would concur. He also can take solace in the truth that our latest Supreme Court docket justice is incapable of defining the phrase “lady”. Our kind are profitable, thanks partly to the astute reflections in his column.