Education by Indoctrination
God is dead; trust the science. This is the theory presented by Citizen Science, as advocates of discriminative academia pile themselves aboard the bandwagon of inevitable despair—onward to an illusory utopia; amassing a heap of temporal equivocation—placing culture as its objective basis of rational. The radical policy of education-by-indoctrination has taken hold of American academia. Instead of gaining a traditional education, policy proposals for academia have now redefined the definition of education itself to mean the assimilation of institutions of higher education (IHE); to support policies that forcibly invoke “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). The following examination views the radical policy proposals that aim to actualize Nietzschean-Faucian political theory.
On January 24th, 2024 the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America published Vol. 105, No. 1; whereby Diana J. R. Lafferty, Erin A. McKenney, Tru Hubbard, Sarah Trujillo, and DeAnna E. Beasley (written henceforth as Lafferty, et al. published their policy proposal on education. The article—a policy proposal—aims to “suggest a model for change and call on administrators and faculty to implement SMART (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) strategies for DEI advancement across IHE through the United States;" and how to best “evaluate a candidate’s potential ‘fit,’” (JSTOR). The article expounds “IHE must embrace a leadership role to not only shift the academic culture to one that upholds DEI but to educate and include people who represent the full diversity of our society,” (JSTOR). Lafferty, et al. believe that “we are in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction event” adding that it “is characterized by rapid human-mediated biodiversity loss,” (JSTOR). It is apparent that the orchestrators of modern academia desire to shape man into a bluntly tempered universal self-condemning plebian; whose goal is not to invoke fortitude—but subjugation.
The most alarming aspect of this policy proposal is the implementation of “required implicit bias” and “DEI training.” What exactly is required implicit bias and why would anyone want that imposed on the children of a sovereign nation? Bias can be positive; patriotism is a positive bias; the reverence of one’s nation. Yet, is not mandated patriotism an implicit fascism? Then, how can mandated bias be different? The bottom line, it isn’t. Implicit bias should never exist inside objective education.
Top-Down K-12 Education
Lafferty, et al.’s policy proposal bears a list titled “interventions,” denoting the methods of intervention that should be supported—beginning with indoctrination at an early age; inevitably reduces the prospect of resistance in the later stages of manipulation by equivocation. To support culture, the policy suggests starting in Kindergarten, children begin the process of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) research, under the authority of Citizen Science. Instead of theology, Citizen Science believes technology is the path to producing the Nietzschean superman—the ideal manmade human state.
Additionally, children will be taught “personally relevant case studies”—relevant to who?—alongside “field trips to outdoors and museums; clubs.” The equivocation of the phrase “field trips to clubs,” raises questions and concerns. The policy does not expound with specificity surrounding personally relevant case studies and the party that the relevance pertains to. The policy is fraught with sweeping generalizations; resulting in a call for extreme prejudice, bias, and discrimination. Moreover, it does not secure a well-defined barrier that protects the interests of the children and those who fall under its authority.
Undergraduate Programs
Lafferty, et al.’s policy invokes an “undergraduate recruitment” platform whereby summer programs will be offered by Pathways to Science. The Institute for Broadening Participation (IBP) since 2003, “has connected underrepresented students with STEM funding and research opportunities, and has provided faculty and administrators with tools and resources to help promote the positive factors that keep underrepresented students on the STEM pathway into successful STEM careers.” Policymakers crafting education policy proposals are likely to discriminate on specifically who is eligible to be deemed an underrepresented student, as the majority of students remain without significant representation before entering the workforce, in a field utilizing their degree.
Lafferty, et al.’s policy proposal appeals to radical demeritorious devaluation of individualism, ensuring a more neutral body of constituents for future coercion. To achieve this, SAT/ACT requirements will be abolished; recruited students must adhere to “Science Campus initiatives,” enroll in 2 STEM classes during freshmen year; activate SEEDS campus chapter and SACNAS membership, and “advertise to national societies (e.g., ESA, TWS, 500 Queer Scientists).” Note the use of ambiguous acronyms; making it increasingly difficult to discern what exactly each program entails—those observing this policy may take for granted the intentions of these alphabet programs, yet a closer observation reveals that many of these alphabet programs are not crafted in the interests of the student, but instead toward establishing academia. Again, an equivocal term utilized to host the alphabet programs.
Furthermore, Lafferty, et al.’s policy asserts that STEM fields are “conceptually diverse,” however denotes that “STEM culture and practices at the IHE do not consistently welcome or support the variety of people or perspectives constituting our diverse society,” (JSTOR). Lafferty, et al. declare these “underrepresented populations” to be “limited” by “systems” from “positions of influence,” (JSTOR). What constitutes the underrepresented populations? According to Laferty, et. al; the underrepresented population are any special interest “people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, agender, asexual, pansexual (LGBTQIA+); individuals with disabilities; women; and BIPOC.” Not enough space permits to investigate the partiality of all the listed alphabet programs in the above text, yet at a closer look at any given organization named ensues concern;
The SEEDS organization
SEEDS was established in 1996 to reduce, over time, the serious under-representation within the field of ecology of individuals from certain minority groups. Today, the organization continues to “foster the diffusion of scientific and technical knowledge, and its use,” (ESA). The website boasts that “[i]n 2019, ESA received a $1.3 million award, DEB-1929524, from the National Science Foundation, to build upon the gains achieved in the past two decades to support and retain diverse talent in the ecological sciences,” (ESA). A further examination of the National Science Foundation reveals that it is fully funded and prepaid by you, the reader; as their Congressional budget request is prominently displayed on their website; alongside additional hundreds of millions of dollars for various projects, (NSF). The SEEDS organization appeals to those who perceive merit by race, writing that; “the first phase of the program (1996-2002) focused on the institutional support of historically black colleges and universities,” yet today goes on to invoke equitable discrimination into the field of ecology. Are certain races and ethnicities better or worse at ecology? Is that statement, or the consideration thereof discriminative?
Graduate Programs:
A further feature of Lafferty, et al.’s policy proposal demands that undergraduate programs discontinue Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) requirements. The argument can be made on both sides to abolish all standardized testing; and conversely, to bolster the exclusivity of admission; yet in this case, the abilities of all students are being consolidated, no matter their skills or abilities. GRE requirements establish some reputable standards that can be used to invoke reverence, value, and honor in the denoted field. Schools may be able to remove specific obstacles but the real world will not offer these same courtesies, inevitably leaving graduates at a disadvantage.
The Lafferty, et al. policy proposal promises to “[p]rovide, promote, and fund professional development for underrepresented populations,” including the promotion of “Citizen Science initiatives.” Citizens Science is a term of equivocation used by the federal government effort to siphon tax dollars from constituents to promote the presentation of Science as a religion. A world void of God needs an objective reference to persecute individuals per an artificial narrative that suits the interests of the elites. According to the U.S. government’s official website CitizenScience.gov, “CitizenScience.gov is an official government website designed to accelerate the use of crowdsourcing and citizen science across the U.S. government,” (CitizenScience). Under Lafferty, et al.’s proposal, policy-appointed beneficiaries will be granted immunity through the first purge of policy; imposing coercive tactics on the subservient—in this case students—through “[p]ublish[ing] institutional diversity metrics” and “[i]ncorporat[ing] DEI into strategic plans,” (JSTOR). Those who comply will remain supported by this system; whilst those who oppose are likely to find themselves in despair, and without institutional support. As this standard becomes regimented into the educational system and diffused throughout national academia, it will become increasingly more difficult to dissent against the tyrannical state. Americans must act now to avoid the incurrence of detriments aiming to depose the sovereignty of the individual, indoctrinating from a young age.
In these many instances, the government is funding programs that omit theology, religion, and God from its consideration; thereby infringing on the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The funding of programs with an implicit bias in Science—including social science—is the establishment of religion. Dr. Anthony Fauci appointed himself the official ambassador of Science diligently decreeing during the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic “trust the science; I am the science.” Those words have been responsible for hundreds of millions—billions globally—to accepting experimental mRNA gene therapy technology as a standardized prophylactic against genetically-altered influenza. The Coronavirus only affected and devastated one generation; imagine the national deficit after perpetually indoctrinating the youth with misinformation—implicitly biased DEI into education. What defines the limitations of diversity, equity, or inclusion?
Persistent Cultural Depravity
Lafferty, et al.’s policy proposal begets the prudential actions of the Great Commission; whereby Christians are obligated to engage in political discourse, as representatives of the Kingdom of God. To achieve this, the respondent must be well-versed in their faith; and bear an unwavering relationship with Jesus; deposing culture of its self-proclaimed hegemony. As it is written; “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”—which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you. (1 Timothy 6:20-21; NASB). The King James Version (KJV) states that we avoid “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” False faith can activate the faith of nonbelievers or those unexposed to the revelatory power of Christ, and the act of physical interaction and partnership to expound beyond the limits and achieve the Nietzschean superman; yet recognizing that it is the work of God’s Holy Spirit that achieves this state, not that of Nietzschean philosophy. The facetious words of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) reveal that God is considered to be dead by the institution; but it remains the duty of the reader to dissent against the apparent malevolency witnessed throughout history. We must not be conformed to the patterns of society, and remained focused on the cross (Rom 12:2).
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) exploited man under a similar pretextual political theory; whereby he wrote of eugenics, “the aim of the educational system is to make the youth prostrate themselves in homage to the idea, as if the idea were an idol. The education which makes them devotees of such abstract notions as ‘Democracy,’ ‘International Socialism,’ ‘Pacifism,’ ect., is so hard-and-fast and exclusive and, operating as it does from within outwards is so purely subjective that in forming their general picture of outside life as a whole they are fundamentally influenced by these a prioi notions,” (Hitler, A., p. 103).
Mao Zedong (1893–1976), founder of the People’s Republic of China (PRC); utilized similar strategies when he created the Cultural Revolution (1962-1976) to bolster the Chinese economy following China’s Great Famine (1958-1962). Mao wrote, “[o]ur educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture, (Zedong, M., p. 73).
Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) enforced the Soviet Constitution, containing Article 121; whereby “[c]itizens of the USSR have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal and compulsory elementary education; by free education up to and including the 7th grade, by a system of state stipends for students of HE educational establishment who excel in their studies; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, an by the organisation [sic] in factories, state farms, MTSs, and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people,” (StalinSociety).
The personal writings of tyrants must be studied to preclude future atrocities under the pretext of adaptive government intervention. Horrifying similarities exist within contemporary education policy proposals; thus magnifying the importance of sovereign resistance. What made these men so dangerous was their exploitation of civic morale to evoke enthusiasm from the constituency; for evil, under the pretext of good.
Three Alarming Changes
Contemporary academia and its institutional counterparts have made three alarming recent changes to education policy that should invoke suspicion to the citizen; First—the development of social hierarchy; this facilitates the perception of classist division, indoctrinating children at a young age; the start of their institutionalized education. Second—rapid implementation, normalization, and encouragement of collective discrimination against those dissimilar to the expectations set forth by the mandated criteria. Third—mass policy diffusion throughout academia; through exclusivity, benefits, and entrance into the elite for those willing to impose and enforce these measures. The disastrous combination of volatile ingredients of Lafferty, et al.’s policy proposal reveals correlative expectations of the state curated and imposed by authoritarian dictatorships throughout history. Hitler’s Mein Kempf (1925) was written twenty years before his death (1945); and fourteen years before he would invade Poland (September 1st, 1939). Within a period of two decades, he was able to transform Germany into a tyrannical authoritative state that took the entire world to bring him to death. Residual parasites have existed throughout government since these egregious principles were invoked, and then forgotten; citizens of today are discouraged from reading books written by dictators, yet their mentality reveals horrifying correlations to those exhibited by special interest groups working in combination with the U.S. federal government. Those that invoke its long-term strategy for top-down education through regiment narrative; whilst attempting to indoctrinate the future citizenry thus normalizing subservience under the pretext of freedom: the choice to reside in a voluntary state of collective government service in exchange for consistent elusive distraction, division, and discord. Friedrich Nietzsche witnessed the same authoritative monster in academia; warning in his book, Twilight of the Idols, that; “Liberal Institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions…Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization,” (Kaufmann, W., Nietzsche, F., p. 541). Nietzsche’s words stand supported by contemporary academia as the fascistic state continues to hijack the American education system.
Conclusion
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are vague and illusory terms that the entirety of academia is proposed to be based upon—DEI ought to stand for Discrimination, Exclusion, Indoctrination, rather than its current claimed definition. Moreover, Lafferty, et al.’s policy proposal is illogical and downright fallacious; namely committing ignoratio elenchi, (improper causation and conclusion); fallacy of the illicit process, (generalization); dicto simpliciter, (sweeping generalization); argumentum ad Lazarum, (favoring the disadvantaged); equivocation, (ambiguity); argumentum ad numeram, (data equivocation, reallocation); argumentum ad populum, (tyrannical exploitation of popular opinion); the fallacy of the negative premise, (false dichotomy); and cum hoc ergo propter hoc, (interpreted causation); among others.
Despite the depravity, evil does not prevail—there exists a fourth man in the fire (Dan 3:25) that will bring revelation to all, as seen in the radical transformation of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:29), whose inherent doubt vanished upon a posteriori, empirical experiential interaction with God, unbound to their level of faith, (Mat 14:31, 16:8, 17:20; Luk 12:28, 17:6). It is evident that all human beings possess inherent faith—whether dormant or engaged—only once the individual taps into their own personal relationship with Jesus through allowing themselves to break partnership with self-doubt; will they experience life-changing revelation and a permanent relationship with God; as James wrote “faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself, (James 2:17b; NASB). James later adds, “[f]or just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead,” (James 2:26; NASB). Yet the Apostle Paul notes in his epistle to Corinth; “[n]ow there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good,” (1 Corinthians 12:4-7; NASB). It remains Scripturally supported through an unwavering standard that all human beings are formed equal by God (Gen 1:27; Acts 17:26; 2 Cor 3:18), yet we share differences through culture after the fall of Babel (Gen 10:10, 11:1–9). Christianity offers believers an objective truth that unveils the evident logical discourse that is intended to [deceive;] be received as a standardized gospel of Science; eternally, and verily—God lives.
Bibliography
CitizenScience. (Accessed on February 21st, 2024). About. CitizenScience.gov. https://www.citizenscience.gov/#.
ESA. (Accessed on February 21st, 2024). SEEDS – The Strategies for Ecology Education, Diversity and Sustainability Program. https://www.esa.org/seeds/.
Hitler, A. (1925) Mein Kampf. Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice. Translated by James Murphy).
JSTOR. (Accessed on February 21st, 2024). A Path Forward: Creating an Academic Culture of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Creating an Academic Culture of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48754894?searchText=%28education+policy%29+AND+%28education%29&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Deducation%2Bpolicy%26so%3Dnew%26efqs%3DeyJjdHkiOlsiYW05MWNtNWhiQT09Il19%26prq%3Deducation%26swp%3Don&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa7d0753a18d9f3d092f92204d0620881&seq=3.
Kaufmann, W.; Nietzsche, F. (1954, 1968). The Portable Nietzsche: Edited and Translated by Walter Kaufmann.
NSF. (Accessed on February 21st, 2024). FY 2024 Budget Request to Congress | NSF - National Science Foundation. https://new.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2024.
NSF. Entire Rollup. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2023-08/NSF%20FY24%20CJ_Entire%20Rollup_web_%28ERRATA%20v4%29.pdf?VersionId=O1Um6rPm6xnLj80uA05Dm7IwxHUqScDO
StalinSociety. (Accessed on February 21st, 2024). Education in the Soviet Union – The Stalin Society. https://stalinsociety.net/?p=531.
Zedong, M., (2021). Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung