Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

DEI

CA school taught 5th graders gender identity, had them teach it to kindergartners

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Plaintiffs “were especially bothered that they had to push the idea that individuals can select their own gender to a kindergartener, knowing this kindergarten buddy looks up to them as role models and trusts their opinions.”

A California school district allegedly had a teacher teach a lesson and read a gender identity book to fifth graders, then have those fifth graders watch a video version of the book with their kindergarten mentees and teach them the lesson they just learned.

Outraged Encinitas parents are now suing the school district and demanding a notification and opt-out program for all objectionable content; currently, content notifications and opt-outs are only available for the health unit.

The fifth grade students’ parents had first asked to review a health unit with lessons on “puberty, health reproduction, media influences on health habits and body image, hygiene, boundaries and bullying and diseases and their transmission, including information about HIV/AIDS.”

After finding the unit’s  “instruction on gender identity and transgenderism” was “affront to their religious beliefs,” the parents tried to opt out of just the gender section, but were told they would have to opt out of the entire unit, which they did.

But this opt out did not cover the school’s buddy program that pairs older students with the same younger students every week for one class.

The lawsuit says “with the buddy relationships in place and well established, [school district staff] planned a unique event for May 1, 2024. During this “buddy” program, the District would use fifth graders to help kindergarteners learn about gender identity.”

The school district used My Shadow is Pink, a picture book for young children in which a boy “wonders about his gender and how he believes it differentiates from his father’s gender” and says he “loves wearing dresses and dancing around.” The boy wears a dress to school, making the father “anxious and stressed” until he too wears a dress after his son has a difficult day. The father then tells his child, “pick up that dress! Your shadow is pink. I see now it’s true. It’s not just a shadow, it’s your inner-most you.”

Before the buddy session, one staff member said to another, “We might just inspire some sweet things to fly toward their shadow tomorrow,” suggesting the lesson had a desired outcome, according to the lawsuit.

At the start of the session one teacher allegedly read the book to the fifth grade class, which students found unusual because “It was rare for [him] to read any book to them, and he had never read a book to them for the ‘buddy’ program.”

Immediately after, the fifth graders each sat next to their kindergarten mentees, and shown a read-along video version of the book, leading one 5th grade plaintiff to allegedly say “[he] wanted to cover his buddy’s eyes and ears to protect him.”

Next, 5th graders were allegedly told to have their buddies choose a color representing their buddies’ gender, and draw their buddies’ outlines in chalk in that color to communicate “gender was determined by an internal feeling.”

Both plaintiffs “were especially bothered that they had to push the idea that individuals can select their own gender to a kindergartener, knowing this kindergarten buddy looks up to them as role models and trusts their opinions.”

“The blatant promotion of gender identity in the My Shadow is Pink book is self-evident and obvious,” says the lawsuit. “The book is marketed as “a rhyming story that touches on the subjects of gender identity, equality, and diversity.”

A petition to require parental notification for controversial curriculum items at Encinitas Union School District, but the school did not respond to the petition or its concerns, aside from sending a template letter describing the district’s opt-out policy.

The lawsuit is claiming the students’ First Amendment  rights were violated by compelling them to speak messages to kindergarteners that violate their religious beliefs and consciences, and that the school districts’ policy of allowing opt-outs only in some parts of schooling but not in others is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Among other demands, the plaintiffs seek opt out and parental notification policies for “curriculum, activities, or any other instruction related to gender identity or other LGBTQ topics.”

“You have the absolute right to opt your child out of any program out there,” said Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center, to The Center Square. Last month, the CPC issued an “opt-out toolkit” explaining to parents how they can protect and expand opt-out policies.

“These parents have the right to not have their children subjected to a radical ideology,” continued Christensen. “We’re talking about elementary school kids. What’s wrong with these teachers, and these schools?”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Cracker Barrel and the Power of Conservative Boycotts

Published on

Christopher F. Rufo Christopher F. Rufo

The uproar over the restaurant chain’s rebrand might appear trivial, but it carries a deeper significance.

Last week, another viral culture war story captured the headlines. The old-timey restaurant chain Cracker Barrel had rebranded, removing the old man and the barrel from its logo, and replacing it with a simple, modernistic, typography-only design.

At first, I dismissed the story as trivial. I have never set foot in a Cracker Barrel and, as such, have little stake in what is emblazoned above its doorways. But after speaking with conservative activist Robby Starbuck, I learned there was something beyond the logo that deserved our attention. According to Starbuck, Cracker Barrel, whose customer base is heavily white, conservative, and rural, had spent the last few years adopting all the fashionable left-wing corporate policies: DEI, Pride, pronouns, race politics, and the rest.

The logo change might have caught the public’s initial attention, but the underlying political story had real stakes. If companies that depend on conservatives adopt radical left-wing policies, they must face the consequences.

And, thanks to the work of Starbuck and others, the social media uproar seems to have made a difference. As the story circulated through the media, the company’s stock price plummeted by as much as 17 percent. Cracker Barrel has quickly walked back its changes.

All this is salutary. Beginning with the revolt against Bud Light, the Right learned how to flex its muscles in the marketplace. Rather than defer to corporations as they did in the past, conservatives have realized that corporations have a culture and must be constantly reminded that, if they deviate from core American values, the consequences will be felt in their bottom line. Starbuck has had enormous success on this point, leading boycott campaigns that have changed policies at Harley-DavidsonTractor Supply, John Deere, and other major brands.

A number of lessons can be drawn from this experience. First, conservatives can win these culture fights. Second, corporations follow the narrative in the media. Third, behavior changes through reward and punishment.

This last point is especially important. Some might dismiss the Cracker Barrel campaign as minor, or even embarrassing, given that the company is a decidedly down-class brand. But there is enormous value in making an example of the company and cementing a fear that conservatives can spontaneously lash out at any institution that crosses the line. Today, it’s Cracker Barrel; tomorrow it might be Pepsi, Target, or Procter & Gamble. As we have seen in recent years, corporate CEOs are highly sensitive to shifts in public opinion—and marginal changes in revenues—and will drop left-wing policies as soon as they become a liability.

The question is how to gain leverage. We are all tempted to be polite in public. But the fight over corporate culture can’t be won without securing real, tangible victories—which means real, tangible losses for institutions on the other side. Even if we don’t care about Cracker Barrel in particular, we should all care about the ideological capture of American institutions and use whatever power we have to reverse it.

And for that to occur, the Barrel must be broken.

Subscribe to Christopher F. Rufo.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is new co-chair of WEF, finds no misconduct in Klaus Schwab

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

In what appears to be the most obvious conflict of interest in history, the World Economic Forum which was formed to infiltrate governments and influence government decisions has elected two of the world’s largest hedge fund managers as co-chairs.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has elected BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Roche Holding vice-chair Andre Hoffmann to serve as interim co-chairs of its board.

Last Friday, the WEF announced that the investigation into Klaus Schwab had found no misconduct by its former chairman and founder. In the same press release, the globalist organization also announced Fink and Hoffmann as new interim leaders.

Schwab was under investigation in April this year after a whistleblower alleged financial impropriety and behavioral issues. The 87-year-old Schwab had already resigned from his position as chairman of the board shortly before the investigation was launched.

“Minor irregularities, stemming from blurred lines between personal contributions and Forum operations, reflect deep commitment rather than intent of misconduct,” the WEF stated in regard to the allegations made against Klaus Schwab and his wife Hilde.

WATCH: Dark origin and agenda of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum

“Following a thorough review of all facts, the Board has concluded that, while the organization must evolve toward a more institutional model, there is no evidence of material wrongdoing by Klaus Schwab,” the organization concluded.

Larry Fink is no stranger to the critics of the globalist “Great Reset” agenda spearheaded by Schwab. He founded BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, presiding over $10 trillion in assets, more than any country except the U.S. and China.

He announced in 2017 that he intends to use the enormous power he wields to engage in “forcing behaviors” in support of diversity and inclusion – and to promote the ESG agenda endorsed by the World Economic Forum. Fink, at the time, even threatened any companies who refuse to submit to his vision with punitive economic measures.

“You have to force behaviors. If you don’t force behaviors, whether it’s gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you’re going to be impacted. That not just recruiting, it’s development,” Fink said. “We’re gonna have to force change.”

Over the last several years, the WEF’s annual meeting of political and business elites in the Swiss mountain town of Davos has become synonymous with globalism. Even the mainstream news outlet Reuters wrote that the gathering “has in recent years drawn criticism from opponents on both left and right as an elitist talking shop detached from lives of ordinary people.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X