Although the U.S. president-elect is not even in office yet, his supporters are already changing the face of higher education in America moving it, if possible, even further left.
For example, from the Chronicle of Higher Education of Nov. 21, 2008 we learn that “Foreign Students Pour Back Into the U. S.” Of course, the question remains, do the student visas provide an educational opportunity or a useful cover? We have covered myriad instances of both.
On the home front, the news is clearly more ominous. The GW Hatchet at George Washington University on Nov. 17, 2008 reported that “Banners that read ‘STR8 Against H8’ and ‘Out of the Closets, Into the Streets’ stood out in a sea of rainbow-colored clothing as students and alumni joined thousands of other gay rights protesters on the National Mall Saturday.
“Less than two weeks after California voters passed Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage in the state, a crowd of more than 5,000 rallied on the Mall. Similar-sized protests were held in several other U.S. cities, from San Francisco to Boston, making this weekend’s protest one of the largest gay rights demonstrations in history, according to several media outlets.
“Students, alumni and members of GW’s Allied in Pride expressed their outrage at the approval of Proposition 8 by joining the rally that began at the Capitol, passed by the Washington Monument and ended at Lafayette Park.”
In his November 17, 2008 Washington Update Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), provided some details on the protest in our nation’s capital that the GW Hatchet missed:
“FRC monitored what happened near the Capitol in Washington, when roughly 1,000 demonstrators marched toward what one organizer referred to as a ‘phallic symbol’—the Washington Monument. Organized by grassroots activists over the internet, the rally was low-tech, with no speaker’s platform or sound system, only bullhorns. One marcher’s sign said bluntly, ‘This Means War,’ but the demonstrators in D.C. managed to avoid engaging in the vandalism and racism that had characterized earlier protests in California since Election Day. In addition to printed signs from the ‘Party for Socialism and Liberation,’ many carried hand-lettered placards with bizarre and offensive messages such as ‘Jesus had two daddies,’ and ‘If I can’t have a husband, I’ll steal yours.’ Homosexual activists are working desperately to get Prop 8 overturned in court. It’s ironic that those who tout so loudly their ‘civil right’ to marry have so little respect for those who prevailed at the ballot box in a free and fair election.”
Also from the FRC, in Tony Perkins’ December 12 Washington Update:
“Students at the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco (USF) may oppose abortion, but they’re still required to pay for it. Under the school’s Aetna health care plan…the so-called ‘maternity coverage’ pays up to 90% of a woman’s abortion care. The details are spelled out in a university brochure. Not surprisingly, pro-life organizations, Catholic churches, and USF’s own campus are outraged and demanding action. As upsetting as the plan is, this is exactly the dilemma U.S. taxpayers are likely to face under President Obama’s government-mandated health reform. Despite Americans’ moral convictions, they too could be strong-armed into coverage that violates their core beliefs.” Indeed they could.
Additionally, “Yes we can” appears to be the order of the day in elementary and secondary education as well. At least one elementary school has renamed itself after the incoming commander-in-chief.
Other more expensive changes may be afoot. For instance, from the November 2008 Carolina Journal we discover that “A majority of sampled applicants enrolled in the free and reduced-price lunch program in North Carolina can’t prove eligibility to participate, according to verification summaries from the state’s 115 school districts.”
“An analysis of the summaries showed that 54 percent of a sample pool of applicants could not or would not provide income proof to justify their meal benefits. The Entitlements, administered by the U. S. Department of Agriculture at an annual cost of $8 billion, is meant for families at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. But the summaries suggest that many ineligible families still participate.”
This abuse of a federal program took place under an administration that went on record condemning such corruption. One has to wonder what will happen under a regime that has expressed precious little interest in same.
Malcolm A. Kline is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia.
