ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans wants Iowa universities to explain ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ and other concepts being taught ‘It's not a witch hunt. It's just simply,

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,434
58,932
113
No a Witch Hunt my Ass:

A group of 26 Republican lawmakers wants Iowa’s public universities to explain themselves and their teacher training curriculum by defining a long list of terms plucked from course descriptions — like “compulsory heterosexuality,” “critical media literacy” and “equitable science teaching.”


The House education subcommittee on Wednesday passed House File 7 — introduced by Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Orange City, and 25 other Republican representatives like House Speaker Pat Grassley; House Majority Leader Matt Windschitl; Steve Holt, of Denison; and Thomas Gerhold, of Atkins.


It requires each of Iowa’s public universities — in consultation with its governing Board of Regents — to submit a report to the General Assembly by Feb. 27 defining “with specificity” a list individualized concepts and terms pulled from course summaries in each of their colleges of education.


Advertisement

“These were pulled from class titles or descriptions of the classes,” subcommittee chair Wheeler said, highlighting a few from the University of Iowa College of Education, including “diversity and identity in kindergarten through grade 12 education,” “culturally responsive classroom,” “anti-racist and anti-oppressive teaching and learning” and “queer identities at all levels of kindergarten through grade 12 education.”


“These are taxpayer dollars going to some of these different things,” Wheeler said. “When you look at these, you start to just honestly try and figure out what in the world do these even mean? So the purpose of this bill — it's not a witch hunt. It's just simply, we want some answers on how our taxpayer dollars are being used and what is going on in our teacher prep programs.”


The bill also would create an interim study committee to assess “program planning for degrees in the colleges of education of the institutions of higher education governed by the state Board of Regents and the curriculum necessary for completing a degree.”


The committee would include representatives and senators chosen by Republican leadership and it would be charged with submitting a final report with findings and policy change recommendations.


“I have grave concerns over the interim study committee and how it is currently designed,” Connie Ryan, executive director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund, told lawmakers during Wednesday’s subcommittee meeting. “It is entirely possible that only members of the majority party will be on this interim study committee.”


Even more worrying, Ryan said, is the committee doesn’t include any “professionals.”


Daily News​


Newsletter Signup
checkmark-yellow.png
Delivered to your inbox every day






“Legislators are not necessarily professionals in curriculum. You're not necessarily professional educators,” she said, airing concerns and questions over those concepts the bill wants defined.


“I'm super confused about this legislation,” Ryan said. “I'm not sure exactly what we’re trying to accomplish. It feels like we are inferring that the teacher prep programs at the universities have some kind of agenda.”


Wheeler responded, “We as legislators are confused,” too.


“I tend to study some of the, I'll just call it, new age ideologies that are out there,” he said. “Some of these are quite interesting.”


Wheeler is among the 30-plus Republican lawmakers who recently introduced Iowa’s version of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” barring public school educators from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.


Last year, Wheeler introduced the measure banning transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports at Iowa schools and colleges.


On Wednesday, Wheeler said the phrases and concepts his bill demands explanation for were pulled from courses like UI’s “LGBTQ topics in education,” described as the examination of the “intersection of policy and practice with respect to queer identities at all levels of K-12 education; history of queerness in the U.S. with focus on the creation of the concept of compulsory heterosexuality and the manner in which this concept is reinforced in K-12 schools.”


Speaking in favor of the bill, Chuck Hurley — vice president and chief counsel for The Family Leader — said he also is curious about what's being taught across Iowa’s public universities, especially as it pertains to educators-in-training.


“I think the taxpayers have a right to more information,” he said. “I think it's clear to everybody who pays attention to our university education that there are some concepts that are probably running contrary to what I would say the majority of legislators now think is wise to advance Western civilization in a positive direction.”


Keenan Crow, director of policy and advocacy with One Iowa, asked what lawmakers plan to do with the information — once they receive definitions for the listed terms.


“Legislators generally don't ask administrators to report unless they intend to do something with that information in the future,” Crow said, highlighting some concepts in the bill they said “most people would agree” should be covered in teacher preparation.


“Things like, ‘recent trends in curriculum’ or ‘current models of curriculum development,’” they said. “Those things seem to me like things that we want educators to know about.”


Even asking administrators to report on those and other terms, according to Crow, “is going to have a chilling effect.”


“People are going to follow the path of least resistance,” they said. “So if you tell a group of administrators that if you teach about X, Y and Z you're going to have to file a report about it — and that there are no additional funds with which to create and compile said report — then administrators are going to discourage folks from teaching about X, Y and Z.”

 
  • Angry
Reactions: BelemNole
To be fair if I was looking at my child's sylabus and I saw "compulsory heterosexuality" I would want to know what exactly they were teaching there.

Critical Media Literacy sounds like something that should be in every school in the country however.

Not sure what equitable science teaching is but I'm not sure it's something I would be overly concerned about.
 
Weird how there is any pushback at all against asking these questions. At a glance it doesn't look good for whomever is teaching this classes in a university especially training teachers. Very much appears like an agenda driven curriculum to push far left ideology onto students that will go on to become teachers.

Maybe there a few witches after all.
 
Ok so I just looked up compulsory heterosexuality on wikipedia and this is something I would pitch a fit over.

We don't need to be teaching far left social hypotheses in schools no more then we need to be teaching far right social hypotheses.

I disagree. Its college and students should be exposed to all varieties of subjects. Hiding divisive issues does not lead to understanding of other peoples views/lives etc. The students are adults and can read the course outline and make their own decisions. Whether we as parents like it or not.
 
I disagree. Its college and students should be exposed to all varieties of subjects. Hiding divisive issues does not lead to understanding of other peoples views/lives etc. The students are adults and can read the course outline and make their own decisions. Whether we as parents like it or not.
And the people that are teaching those courses can be held to account and answer questions like an adult... right?
 
"We can't spend tax dollars at schools where we don't have standards and accountability!!!!!!"

-has standards and accountability where our tax dollars are going

"NOT LIKE THAT!!!!"
Was that first quote in the OP? Gawd, the audacity to say that after pushing through the voucher bill. Smdh

Unless the person who said it was a “no” vote, of course. Then at least they would be consistent.
 
I disagree. Its college and students should be exposed to all varieties of subjects. Hiding divisive issues does not lead to understanding of other peoples views/lives etc. The students are adults and can read the course outline and make their own decisions. Whether we as parents like it or not.

First of all I just looked and for some reason I had in my mind that this was K-12 when I posted this. So that is fair . . .

That said I am wondering if far right social hypothesis get put in there as well?
 
Ok so I just looked up compulsory heterosexuality on wikipedia and this is something I would pitch a fit over.

We don't need to be teaching far left social hypotheses in schools no more then we need to be teaching far right social hypotheses.


Considering what the GOP is pushing in multiple states, as far as punishing anything LGTB(etc), I absolutely think the concept should at least be brought up and defined. With the GOP trying to turn the US into a Christian state, it's needed.
 
And the people that are teaching those courses can be held to account and answer questions like an adult... right?

There's held to account like an adult through the processes and procedures in place and there's also held to account like a political boogeyman and punching bag to satisfy the forever victimized and grievance filled base that these politicians are doing their performance for.

My guess is most of the educators would be thrilled to explain their courses - most people likely have no interest - but my guess is hardly anyone is interested in getting dragged into the not witch hunt, witch hunt.
 
it should

Somehow I strongly doubt those are being taught though.

Like I really doubt that a social sciences professor is talking about things like "cultural marxism"

For the record I'm not endorsing far right social hypothesis either, I kind of really detest both. Because in my mind most of these social hypothesis all end up roughly in the same place . . . my political opponents are the enemies of freedom and are destroying humanity . . . for the evulz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
Ok so I just looked up compulsory heterosexuality on wikipedia and this is something I would pitch a fit over.

We don't need to be teaching far left social hypotheses in schools no more then we need to be teaching far right social hypotheses.

I think there is something to the idea that heterosexuality is treated as the default. Of course a large bit of that is owed to the fact that society is overwhelming heterosexual and always has been. (presumably always will be) Now you could make the argument, and I'm sure they do, that we have to scrub all of society of this expectation, providing a blank-slate in which somebody kind find out who they are without nudged in any one direction. I think this is a step too far and isn't feasible. Instead we should craft a society that is open to and accepting of variation. (and we've come a long way there)

Anyway, past that thought, you start reading your link and there's a bunch of claptrap conceptualizations that aren't important to know. The problem is that A) there's so much of this in certain departments at Uni, B) there isn't the spirit of argument or contrasting other conceptualizations and C) these are impressionable young minds. Higher-ed has problems here.
 
Somehow I strongly doubt those are being taught though.

Like I really doubt that a social sciences professor is talking about things like "cultural marxism"

For the record I'm not endorsing far right social hypothesis either, I kind of really detest both. Because in my mind most of these social hypothesis all end up roughly in the same place . . . my political opponents are the enemies of freedom and are destroying humanity . . . for the evulz.

I'm the opposite. I'd be truly surprised if right wing ideologies aren't being studied in political science courses. Given their rise in popularity - here - and around the Western world and how they've been introduced into the mainstream.

Whenever there's a story about the different right wing extremist groups there's often experts cited, or studies referenced, or some group that is tracking and researching, my guess is most of them are in academia.

That said, my guess is that they are "studied" as opposed to "advocated for".
 
I'm the opposite. I'd be truly surprised if right wing ideologies aren't being studied in political science courses. Given their rise in popularity - here - and around the Western world and how they've been introduced into the mainstream.

Whenever there's a story about the different right wing extremist groups there's often experts cited, or studies referenced, or some group that is tracking and researching, my guess is most of them are in academia.

That said, my guess is that they are "studied" as opposed to "advocated for".

The bottom part is the problem. I strongly doubt there is any real debate being had or even allowed between right wing social hypotheses and left wing social hypotheses.

Personally I consider them all kind of hateful ideologies. But one gets the endorsement of professors at a college while the others get scorn.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
The bottom part is the problem. I strongly doubt there is any real debate being had or even allowed between right wing social hypotheses and left wing social hypotheses.

Personally I consider them all kind of hateful ideologies. But one gets the endorsement of professors at a college while the others get scorn.

You believe there's a problem. You doubt there is any real debate. You believe one side is endorsed. You believe one side gets scorned.


In all the colleges in all the land, maybe that's generally true, I couldn't say, but do you have reasons for believing all those things? Is it faith? Personal anecdote? It's been said enough that everybody knows it?
 
Personally I consider them all kind of hateful ideologies. But one gets the endorsement of professors at a college while the others get scorn.
I grew up in a conservative household (old school, not this perverted MAGA-evangelical nonsense we have today), and had super liberal professors at FSU. Drifted left and then settled in the middle. Pretty much everyone I know went through the same type of process, even if they settled in different places.

Why does the right seem to believe youth and adults are incapable of making up their own minds over the course of their lives? My guess is the ones who scream loudest about indoctrination do so because they believe everyone is as weak-minded and susceptible to influence as they are.
 
We're seeing the early stages of Iowa Republicans attempts to have excuses to cut education funding to Iowa's universities.

It's one way to shift funding to the voucher program.

One must remember there are ALWAYS ulterior motives for the Iowa GOP.

Dim Kim will probably be on Fox Opinion Network soon to criticize higher education.
 
Relax you stupid Libs. They are just trying to figure out how a corrupt educational system took a normal, red blooded straight guy like the mayor of Washington, and groomed him into a homo.
 
Weird how there is any pushback at all against asking these questions. At a glance it doesn't look good for whomever is teaching this classes in a university especially training teachers. Very much appears like an agenda driven curriculum to push far left ideology onto students that will go on to become teachers.

Maybe there a few witches after all.

People on the right cant conceptualize difficult concepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWolf74 and lucas80
Why does the right seem to believe youth and adults are incapable of making up their own minds over the course of their lives? My guess is the ones who scream loudest about indoctrination do so because they believe everyone is as weak-minded and susceptible to influence as they are.

My guess there's two main reasons that "indoctrination" and the higher education "boogeyman" is a popular theme for the right wing:

First one is outcomes. It's not difficult to look at recent trends and realize that education level is correlated with political affiliation. You can simplify it as college = liberal = bad. If the education/party correlation was reversed, and college graduates were overwhelmingly Republican, you can bet that the right wouldn't be screaming about "indoctrination". For instance, you don't notice them screaming about churches being indoctrination centers, even though the highly religious are reliable conservative blocs.

Second, it fits in perfect with the always a victim, grievance based, culture war politics.
 
You believe there's a problem. You doubt there is any real debate. You believe one side is endorsed. You believe one side gets scorned.


In all the colleges in all the land, maybe that's generally true, I couldn't say, but do you have reasons for believing all those things? Is it faith? Personal anecdote? It's been said enough that everybody knows it?

Ever hear of a class called "Introduction to cultural marxism" or something like that in which it's pretty clear they are going to be going through some right wing social hypothesis with a positive spin on it. There are plenty of left wing classes like that.

But there are entire departments devoted to feminist theory and queer theory.

I grew up in a conservative household (old school, not this perverted MAGA-evangelical nonsense we have today), and had super liberal professors at FSU. Drifted left and then settled in the middle. Pretty much everyone I know went through the same type of process, even if they settled in different places.

Why does the right seem to believe youth and adults are incapable of making up their own minds over the course of their lives? My guess is the ones who scream loudest about indoctrination do so because they believe everyone is as weak-minded and susceptible to influence as they are.

I agree to some extent that this isn't turning all the college kids leftist. Of course not every college kid is taking these courses either That said I also think that people tend to decide these things based in part on the information they have.

Regardless these social theories on both sides are quite frankly destructive to our politics. Because it gives both sides an undeserved and unearned confidence that they really know what's going on with our society and how to fix it. When one starts to believe in these social theories I think that person ceases to be able to change and adjust their views with new information.

I'm not against learning stuff just for the sake of learning and having a solid general information base and most importantly knowing how to think and read critically. But to me these social theories are the opposite of critical thinking which is why I don't like them. They are unprovable ideas made up in someone's head because they decided that the other side was evil for the sake of being evil and so they just needed to make up a hypothesis that supports that belief.
 
My guess there's two main reasons that "indoctrination" and the higher education "boogeyman" is a popular theme for the right wing:

First one is outcomes. It's not difficult to look at recent trends and realize that education level is correlated with political affiliation. You can simplify it as college = liberal = bad. If the education/party correlation was reversed, and college graduates were overwhelmingly Republican, you can bet that the right wouldn't be screaming about "indoctrination". For instance, you don't notice them screaming about churches being indoctrination centers, even though the highly religious are reliable conservative blocs.

Second, it fits in perfect with the always a victim, grievance based, culture war politics.

On that note how many leftists want to make churches pay taxes???

The attack the institutions that house your enemies spirit is in both sides.

I do find most of what the right is doing with education ridiculous but I don't disagree with them on these social theories. They need to go.

(To be fair before Trump college graduates had a slight right wing lean. They have moved left because Trump has made the whole right stupid.)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
Was that first quote in the OP? Gawd, the audacity to say that after pushing through the voucher bill. Smdh

Unless the person who said it was a “no” vote, of course. Then at least they would be consistent.
That was this board for the last week or two blathering about the Iowa school bill. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: SL Hawk Fan
Ever hear of a class called "Introduction to cultural marxism" or something like that in which it's pretty clear they are going to be going through some right wing social hypothesis with a positive spin on it. There are plenty of left wing classes like that.

But there are entire departments devoted to feminist theory and queer theory.

I haven't heard of that class, but I've barely heard of any classes. I'm not a current or prospective student and not generally browsing course catalogs and I'm not a target for the "anti-woke" material.

I don't find your reasons for believing what you've stated to be very persuasive. That said, I do appreciate you answering, I've found people are often embarrassed or resistant to explaining their rationale if they realize that their rationale would make them look silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4 and lucas80
Ok so I just looked up compulsory heterosexuality on wikipedia and this is something I would pitch a fit over.

We don't need to be teaching far left social hypotheses in schools no more then we need to be teaching far right social hypotheses.

It's a college course. What are you talking about? When did you turn into the townspeople from the Music Man? Good god
 
I'm the opposite. I'd be truly surprised if right wing ideologies aren't being studied in political science courses. Given their rise in popularity - here - and around the Western world and how they've been introduced into the mainstream.

Whenever there's a story about the different right wing extremist groups there's often experts cited, or studies referenced, or some group that is tracking and researching, my guess is most of them are in academia.

That said, my guess is that they are "studied" as opposed to "advocated for".
Right wing ideologies are pushed from K-12 and in business schools and have been for as long as they've existed
 
My guess there's two main reasons that "indoctrination" and the higher education "boogeyman" is a popular theme for the right wing:

First one is outcomes. It's not difficult to look at recent trends and realize that education level is correlated with political affiliation. You can simplify it as college = liberal = bad. If the education/party correlation was reversed, and college graduates were overwhelmingly Republican, you can bet that the right wouldn't be screaming about "indoctrination". For instance, you don't notice them screaming about churches being indoctrination centers, even though the highly religious are reliable conservative blocs.

Second, it fits in perfect with the always a victim, grievance based, culture war politics.
The first point was fine, but, you really could have just gone with your second point. It's just part of the non stop, curl up in a ball, seething victimhood of today's GOP.
 
My guess there's two main reasons that "indoctrination" and the higher education "boogeyman" is a popular theme for the right wing:

First one is outcomes. It's not difficult to look at recent trends and realize that education level is correlated with political affiliation. You can simplify it as college = liberal = bad. If the education/party correlation was reversed, and college graduates were overwhelmingly Republican, you can bet that the right wouldn't be screaming about "indoctrination". For instance, you don't notice them screaming about churches being indoctrination centers, even though the highly religious are reliable conservative blocs.

Second, it fits in perfect with the always a victim, grievance based, culture war politics.
There's the "boogeyman" that somebody like Glenn Beck or Tucker Carlson might push, and then there is the legitimate complaint as to why my tax payer dollars going to such slanted and questionable instruction.

Flip it another way -- wouldn't the left have similar grievances if they were finding enough obviously slanted material in certain domains of education.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: peacehawk
On that note how many leftists want to make churches pay taxes???

The attack the institutions that house your enemies spirit is in both sides.

I do find most of what the right is doing with education ridiculous but I don't disagree with them on these social theories. They need to go.

(To be fair before Trump college graduates had a slight right wing lean. They have moved left because Trump has made the whole right stupid.)

Is your question rhetorical? How many is it?

I don't get the impression that left/liberal/Dems have the same phenomenon with respect to organized religion as the right/conservative/Reps does with higher education. I'm of course aware that there's a faith based belief that there is a war on Christianity and that Christians are the most oppressed group, etc. But that isn't the same thing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT