Feb
13
2025

Education: Action Due

(Pun Salad was doing anagrams from Day One, so every once in a while…)

In words, Christopher F. Rufo describes: How Trump Can Dismantle the Department of Education: (1) "spin off" student loans to an independent financial entity; (2) simple block grants to the states for K-12 schooling; and …

Third, Trump must shut down the Department of Education’s centers of ideological production and terminate the employment of the bureaucrats who run them. The department maintains a sprawling network of ideological centers through its research programs, as well as a vast array of NGOs, which survive on department funding and promote left-wing identity activism. These groups have become hotbeds of progressive identity politics, promoting theories of “systemic racism” and the idea that men can turn into women. Such activities do not serve the public good and do not deserve public subsidy, especially under a conservative president who promised to put an end to critical race theory and gender ideology in the federal government.

Likewise, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, while ostensibly serving a noble purpose, has been used as a battering ram to promote left-wing ideologies. The office’s core civil rights functions can easily be folded into the Department of Justice, where the administration can provide needed oversight without the Department of Education’s left-wing ideologues and civil rights apparatchiks.

I don't know where the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), to which Mr. Ramirez's cartoon refers, fits into CFR's scheme. NAEP seems to do non-ideological, useful, solid reporting. I'd keep it, somewhere. Although calling it "Progress" seems to have been overly optimistic. Their latest report is available here.

Also of note:

  • I'll call it a win. The College Fix reports some good news: Dartmouth becomes latest Ivy League institution to adopt ‘institutional restraint’ policy.

    Dartmouth College recently rolled out an “Institutional Restraint Policy,” becoming the latest Ivy League institution to install a guideline that calls on campus leaders to avoid weighing in on the hot-button political and social topics of the day.

    In Dartmouth’s case, its new policy replaced its previous “Institutional Statements vs Individual Statements Policy” that had been active since 2022.

    Of the eight Ivy Leagues, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, and now Dartmouth have now implemented policies “committing to the principles of institutional neutrality,” according to Heterodox Academy.

    That's progress. What about the University Near Here? I mentioned last month that among a lot of stupid recommendations, UNH's "Working Group" tasked with making recommendations in response to the imbroglio concerning the pro-Hamas "encampment" last May, there was one excellent one: "The University should formally adopt institutional neutrality."

    UNH's new president, Elizabeth Chilton, rejected many of the stupid recommendations, good for her. See the articles in UNH's student newspaper and the local newspaper for details.

    But I don't see any reporting on the institutional neutrality recommendation. If you'd like more information on why that's a good idea, see FIRE recommendation #4 here.

  • How many ways can I say "Hell, yeah!" Jeffrey Miron AND Jonah Karafiol ask Should the US Government Privatize the Post Office? It's a short piece, but here's the meat:

    An even better response is to privatize USPS. This would eliminate its uniform price and service mandate and allow it to close unprofitable locations. Privatizing would also eliminate restrictions on private carriers’ activity, enhancing their efficiency.

    A key aspect of this privatization is that it must be complete, or nearly so. Since Britain sold a majority stake in its national postal service, the share price has fallen about 25 percent. But Royal Mail failed to eliminate the barriers that made it unprofitable, such as uniform pricing. Mail services such as FedEx and UPS show that private mail couriers can function effectively.

    Ultimately, the case for privatization is one of efficiency, competition, and fiscal responsibility. By privatizing USPS, the U.S. could foster a competitive, market-driven postal industry that better serves consumers and taxpayers alike.

    Geez, if Britain can privatize the Royal Mail, are you seriously claiming that the Land of the Free can't do the same?