1/ 🚨BREAKING: Lawsuit filed today against educational agencies, teachers, principal, & CEO responsible for hosting workshops requiring children to make public professions about their racial, sexual, gender & religious identities, some of which were singled out for interrogation.
2/ Educators directed the plaintiff "to reveal his identities in a controlled, yet non-private setting, to scrutiny and official labeling," and are "coercing him to accept and affirm politicized and discriminatory principles and statements that he cannot in conscience affirm."
3/ The educators "repeatedly threatened William Clark with material harm including a failing grade and non-graduation if he failed to comply with their requirements."
4/ Plaintiffs claim that the educators' "coercive and intrusive behavior compelled William Clark’s protected speech and invaded his privacy, violating his constitutional rights under the First Amendment and his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment."
5/ The new curriculum, based on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, was done stealthily: "The generic name and syllabi provided to parents remained the same," and "parents were not made aware of the ideological turn in the curriculum."
6/ The new educational sessions were not "descriptive or informational" but were "normative and prescriptive."
"Parents...were not aware of the turn towards coercive, ideological indoctrination until they began seeing the detrimental effects it worked up in their children."
7/ "The teacher’s material stated who qualified as oppressors, and who in virtue of their gender and race harbored 'inherent belief in the inferiority' of others," which "assigned moral attributes to pupils based on their race, gender, sexual orientation and religion."
8/ Plaintiff "was obliged to profess himself complicit in 'internalized privilege [which] includes acceptance of a belief in the inherent inferiority of the [corresponding] oppressed group' [and] supporting 'the inherent superiority or normalcy of one’s own privileged group.'"
9/ The education agency "Democracy Prep" encouraged radical activism against existing school policies.
10/ The plaintiff, student William Clark, has suffered "severe mental and emotional stress" resulting from the hostile environment and is "living in fear" of retaliation.
This proved justified, as he has now been suspended and accused of being a racist.
11/ COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
12/ COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S CONSTITUTION
13/ COUNT III: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Due Process: Invasion of Privacy & Equal Protection)
14/ COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Substantive Due Process: Establishment Clause, Family Integrity &
Retaliation)
15/ COUNT V: Title VI Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (Intentional and Retaliatory Discrimination on The Basis Of Color, Race and Religion against Authority, DPAC, DPPS and Defendants in their individual capacity)
16/ COUNT VI: (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.)
17/ COUNT VII: (Breach of Contract)
Parents were essentially fooled into approving of the new curriculum because the ideological alterations were not made apparent. The same old syllabi were used, so parents were "caught off guard."
18/ To my knowledge this is the first lawsuit of its kind. Keep a close eye on this one, as it could set a precedent and cause a lot of dominoes to start falling.
19/ What follows is a selection of class materials that the children were exposed to and expected to believe without question.
I demand an explanation from the @NIH and @genome_gov as to why I was just kicked out of their public event "Exploring the many dimensions of sex and gender in the genomics era," which I had registered for in advance and was quietly attending.
About 20 minutes into Dr. Tucker Pyle's session titled "Sex and Gender in the Clinic," a window popped up stating, "The host has removed you from the webinar."
When I tried to rejoin the webinar, I was told I could not rejoin.
According to the event description, this is a "public two-day National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium" that "brings together experts from the biological and social sciences to clarify and contextualize – but not resolve - the complexities around sex, gender, and genomics by considering them in their scientific, ethical, and historical contexts."
I was not disruptive and could not have been, even if I had wanted to, because the webinar was view-only. I did not submit any questions in the Q&A chat window either. I was just quietly watching.
I signed up for the webinar because, as a scientist involved in influencing policy on sex and gender, I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of how these concepts are being applied in medicine and genomics. If anyone should be attending this event, it's me.
The event claims to be an "interdisciplinary conversation," yet the speaker lineup consists entirely of ideologically aligned sex and gender activists who promote radical and pseudoscientific views of sex and gender.
Additionally, @TomasBogardus, an academic who has also voiced dissent from activist orthodoxy on sex and gender issues, was removed from the event around the same time I was.
This is completely unacceptable.
I demand that Eric D. Green (@NHGRI_Director), the director of the @genome_gov at the @NIH, who gave the opening remarks, explain why Dr. Bogardus and I were kicked out of the event.
I wrote about this event shortly after it was announced in May. See my article below for the details. city-journal.org/article/nih-ho…
After emailing the Communications Director, I was told that they did not know why I was removed. I am suddenly now able to rejoin the webinar. 🤔
🚨A new study explored the most effective way to brainwash children into accepting gender ideology.
Researchers had kids watch either a story video of Jazz Jennings, who is said to have "a girl brain but boy body," or of a marker named Blue who has "a blue inside but a red outside."
They found that "a direct, realistic story was the only effective means of teaching children about transgender identities and reducing the belief in gender immutability."
These are some excerpts from the scripts of the story videos with screenshots. The stories are nearly identical except for "boy" and "girl" in Jazz's story being replaced with "red" and "blue" for Blue's the marker's story.
The videos were stopped periodically to ask the children 3 questions about the video they were watching:
▫️What is different about Jazz/Blue?
▫️Why is Jazz/Blue sad?
▫️Why is Jazz/Blue happy?
Regardless of the child's response, the researchers responded with set answers ⬇️
Racial "inequity" is literally measured, according to DEI ideology, by the magnitude of disparate outcomes between racial groups in any given context. This idea forms the foundation of Kendi's and other DEI proponents' entire worldview. They are explicit about this. To achieve racial "equity" therefore entails eliminating those group outcome disparities. Achieving equity is synonymous with achieving equal outcomes.
Mark is absurdly naive if he does not understand this yet.
I literally clicked on the first result of a Google search for "racial equity" and got this
🔗raceforward.org/what-racial-eq…
Second Google search result:
🔗
"This site defines racial equity as 'the condition that would be achieved if one's racial identity no longer predicted, in a statistical sense, how one fares.'"
Kareem is forwarding what is essentially a "racism of the gaps" argument. It's everywhere we don't look and don't understand. As soon as you look for it in a specific place and don't find it to be predictive of outcomes, it suddenly moves to a new obscure location.
"You can't control for education, because education is racist!"
Okay, then demonstrate the effects of racism in education. Oh, we didn't find any when we controlled for hours spent studying.
"You can't control for hours spent studying, because racism is responsible for disparities in hours spent studying!"
Round and round we go in the CRT carousel.
The woke view of racism is something similar to (but much stupider than) Dark Energy in physics. It can't be viewed directly, but it's assumed to exist because they see its effects.
They've convinced themselves they see its effects because they're committed to the nonsensical idea that the existence of group disparities can only be explained by racism.
The idea that the "accountability culture people weren't defending firings" and that conservatives were just "complaining about not being liked" is a COMPLETE lie.
🧵Let's take a trip down memory lane to 2020 when activists tried to destroy my career...
In 2020 I was a postdoc at Penn State with a soon-expiring contract. I was job hunting for tenure track professorships.
I posted the following tweet (left) citing the well-known "social contagion" hypothesis by Lisa Littman in her work on ROGD. See Littman's paper on the right.
The "accountability culture people" thought this tweet was cancel-worthy and attempted to spread word of my "vile transphobia" to my colleagues, even tagging diversity organizations in my field.
"Colin is on the job market. I hope the EEB community is paying attention."
🚨BREAKING: The American Anthropological Association the Canadian Anthropology Society have cancelled the panel "Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology" scheduled to take place at their annual conference.
The reasons given for the cancellation was that the panel conflicted with their values, compromised "the safety and dignity of our members," and diminished the program's "scientific integrity."
They claimed the ideas the panel was planning to advance (i.e., sex is a real and scientifically important biological variable) would "cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large."
The AAA and CASCA have vowed to "undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings" to ensure that such discussion panels about the reality and importance of sex will not be approved in the future.
The panelists responded to the sudden cancellation of the scheduled panel discussion, expressing their disappointment that the AAA and CASCA "have chosen to forbid scholarly dialogue" on this topic.
They also firmly rejected the "false accusation" that "to support the continued use of biological sex categories (e.g., male and female; man and woman) is to imperil the safety of the LGBTQI community."
The panelists say the suggestion that the panel would compromise “…the scientific integrity of the programme” is "particularly egregious," noting that, on the contrary, "the decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign."
Finally, the panelists claimed that the AAA's and CASCA's attempt to chill future debate on this topic represents a "declaration of war on dissent and on scholarly controversy" and a "profound betrayal of their stated commitment to "advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world's most pressing problems."
Below is the program entry for the now cancelled panel.