are liberals indoctrinating school children?

other than the occasional rogue teacher, i don't see a lot of evidence that that is so.

on the other hand, conservatives spend a lot of class hours on pledge of allegiance, school prayer, anti communism and one of my favorites, anti drug propaganda .....

If you were a grade or middle school student in the 1980’s or 90’s, you remember DARE. Founded in 1983, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) was a byproduct of Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign and America’s “War on Drugs”. In essence, DARE was the youth-directed arm of these campaigns. Over roughly 15 years, DARE was a hallmark of public education. At its peak in the early 90’s, DARE was implemented in 75% of schools and cost taxpayers an estimated $600 million to $750 million a year. Although immensely popular and touted by politicians, parents, and school officials, DARE had one glaring problem: DARE did not work.

3 Reasons Why the DARE Program Failed | American Addiction Centers

that is correct, nearly $B per year to implement a program designed to reward kids for ratting out their parents and class mates. and it did not work

 

DARE was based on fact not opinion. DARE taught the dangers of drugs and addiction. I liked the program. There are advantages to being drug free.

 

there are many advantages to being drug free. is that something better taught by parents?

 

No. Keeping information away from students for example, the sanitized B.S. history I was taught is a form of indoctrination. The new book burning rage brewing is rooted in the pro-indoctrination crowd. We really need to advance our critical thinking skill set in this country.

 

I would think- Best taught by the examples of parents, along with the capacities of self discipline and maturity that make taking drugs unattractive in the first place.

 

Why couldn’t it be taught at both levels? This is a common ground that everyone holds. Even drug addicts usually agree with teaching kids the dangers of drugs. This is not a political issue at all.

 

i found this on another site, but it says what a lot of people think. what do you think?

 

wait a minute. what about that poor math teacher who spent 90% of his class teaching non math stuff required by his district? it is wrong to make him teach anti bullying and racial kumbaya but suddenly drug education and "absyinence only" is ok?

 

• There is no evidence Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev said this quote about “gullible” Americans being fed “small doses of socialism.”

• Similar quotes have been attributed to Khrushchev without proof for years.

PolitiFact | No, Khrushchev didn’t say this about Americans 60 years ago

like most of the "america is turning commie" crap this stuff comes from "conservatives" who know that their own ideology leads nowhere for most people.

 

Teaching anti bullying is okay. Racial equity is not. Racial equality I would say is. I am pretty sure the only thing the right has argued against is the equity crap.

 

are liberals indoctrinating school children?
I tend to agree with the sentiment with the efficacy of DARE and the War on Drugs. But at least the right wing, as you identify it, teach about real actual stuff. Not liberal nonsense like handing out condoms, teaching children how to have safe sex, and the really bad stiff they claim is American.

 

you are 100% correct. my mistake, thanks for correcting me on this. that is why i asked for comments. i'll try to do better.

 

You cannot make a case that it didn't work. At best, you can easily defend a position that it was wasteful and poorly run, like every other government program. I remember the films we watched showing the effects of drugs on the heart and brain. That information helped me make better decisions later on.

This was the same time Dr. Koop took on the tobacco companies and and flooded the TV stations with anti-smoking "propaganda" He made a big difference.

As far as teachers pushing their political beliefs on children, I have experienced it many times growing up and my kids have also experienced it. 2 of my kids are in college and it is still happening now.

 

What DARE did was to educate kids about drugs and give them some tools to use to resist peer pressure. It did not encourage kids to rat out anyone. Also, DARE wasn’t political.

DARE encouraged kids to be healthy and do safe and healthy things. I thought it was a good program.

 

Look into The Powell Memorandum. Written in 1971, it laid out a blueprint for the corporate, capitalism response to the communist threat" of the Cold War by saturating the culture, the economy, business models, and education with carefully crafted propaganda. And that propaganda has become so pernicious and hidden behind cultural deception that many people will tell you that they never see any propaganda while they are immersed and bathed in it daily over and over and over.

 

i have been checking out your post that khurshchev never said this. and found out there is a lot of disagreement on that point. some sites say he did, others like ruiters say no he didn't. i found this on wikipedia link; We will bury you - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you quote:
History[edit]
While addressing the Western Bloc at the embassy on November 18, 1956, in the presence of communist Polish statesman Władysław Gomułka, First Secretary Khrushchev said: "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!"[5][6] The speech prompted the envoys from twelve NATO nations and Israel to leave the room.[5][6][7]

During Khrushchev's visit to the United States in 1959, the Los Angeles mayor Norris Poulson in his address to Khrushchev stated: "We do not agree with your widely quoted phrase 'We shall bury you.' You shall not bury us and we shall not bury you. We are happy with our way of life. We recognize its shortcomings and are always trying to improve it. But if challenged, we shall fight to the death to preserve it".[8] Many Americans meanwhile interpreted Khrushchev's quote as a nuclear threat.[9]

In another public speech Khrushchev declared: "We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can".[10] In a 1961 speech at the Institute of Marxism–Leninism in Moscow, Khrushchev said that "peaceful coexistence" for the Soviet Union means "intense, economic, political and ideological struggle between the proletariat and the aggressive forces of imperialism in the world arena".[11] Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you,"[12] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism" (in the Russian translation of Marx, the word "undertaker" is translated as a "grave digger," Russian: могильщик,) based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". In his memoirs, Khrushchev stated that "enemy propaganda picked up the slogan and blew it all out of proportion".[13]

Some authors suggest that an alternative translation is "We shall be present at your funeral" or "We shall outlive you".[14][15][16] Authors have suggested the phrase, in conjunction with Khrushchev's overhead hand clasp gesture meant that Russia would take care of the funeral arrangements for capitalism after its demise.[17] In an article in The New York Times in 2018, translator Mark Polizzotti suggested that the phrase was mistranslated at the time and should properly have been translated as "We will outlast you," which gives a different sense to Khrushchev's statement.[18]

First Secretary Khrushchev was known for his emotional public image. His daughter admitted that "he was known for strong language, interrupting speakers, banging his fists on the table in protest, pounding his feet, even whistling".[11] She called such behavior a "manner, which suited his goal... to be different from the hypocrites of the West, with their appropriate words but calculated deeds".[11] Mikhail Gorbachev suggested in his book Perestroika and New Thinking for our Country and the World that the image used by Khrushchev was inspired by the acute discussions among Soviet agrarian scientists in the 1930s, nicknamed "who will bury whom", the bitterness of which must be understood in the political context of the times.[citation needed]

so not the exact quote from my 1st post on this. it is very close. and i see there is much debate on weather khrushchev said it or not. so i will now say it is not proven one way or the other weather he said that. what do you think?

 

Which they don't do, so you want kids to have unsafe sex.

 

i think kruschev definitly banged his shoe on the table and saif "we will bury you." even as a child i understood that he was talking about economics.

which brings us to today who "won" the cold war? my answer might be different than yours and end with a little advice. learn mandarin.

 

Go to any university in the United States, and see if the professors are liberal or conservative.

I adjunct at one. It's not even close.

Those same liberal professors who have spent their entire lives in academia. All those elementary school teachers have been "educated" by the same liberal institutions.

Oh, and there is this:

A few key findings:

• Forty one percent of respondents described themselves as Democrats while another 30 percent said they were independents. Just 27 percent were Republicans.

• Half the respondents voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Another 29 percent voted for Trump. Thirteen percent selected a third-party candidate.

• By and large, educators aren’t fans of school choice—even if they voted for Trump, who made it a signature issue. A plurality of all those surveyed—45 percent—"fully oppose” charter schools, while another 26 percent “somewhat oppose” them. And 58 percent don’t support using government funds to help students cover the cost of private school, while 19 percent said they “somewhat oppose” vouchers.

• Forty-four percent of educators said they see the impact of immigration on schools as “mixed,” while another 38 percent said it is a “good thing.” Only 8 percent see it as a “bad thing.”

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/s...ed-for-where-they-stand-on-key-issues/2017/12

 

Then I guess you cons need to put more people into education.

 

We're too busy actually working for a living, building and working for companies, and paying all the taxes the academia and politician types are dependent on. You're welcome.

 

Then stop bitching.

 

oh, really. at auburn i don't remember many professors being liberal. i'm sure this delusion is just part of the trumpist victim mentality. you guys consider mccain and romney as liberal "rinos," i'm sure that same mindset applies to professors.

 

So... you're just going to ignore the facts provided, use your anecdotal evidence to deny it, lash out about "trumpist"?

Strong critical thinking skills you learned there at Auburn?