You can always count on Phyllis Schlafly to have a hysterical overreaction to nearly everything, but especially at the idea of kids in school actually being made to think about something she doesn’t want them to think about (science, sex, etc). Her latest freakout is over a sociology assignment at a school in Arkansas. And of course, it’s all an Obama plot.
St. Joseph-Ogden High School, a public school in St. Joseph, Ill., gave its sophomore class an assignment to choose which of 10 people were “worthy” of getting kidney dialysis when the hospital had only six machines. The assignment instructed the students, “four people are not going to live. You must decide from the information below which six will survive.”
The students were given the list of the 10 who desperately needed kidney dialysis with identification about their occupation, age and ethnicity, and told to give each a score. The instructions stated: “Put the people in order using 1-10, 1 being the person you want to save first and 10 being the person you would save last,” with the assumption that those getting scores 7 through 10 would be marked for death.
Since when are high-school students allowed to judge who may live and who must die? Is this to prepare us to accept death panels from Obamacare?
Of course, I’m sure that’s it. It can’t be a really interesting question, one that doctors and hospitals have to deal with every day, especially when it comes to organ transplants. There simply aren’t enough organs for everyone who needs them, so decisions have to be made. How awful that a school might actually get kids thinking about a situation that they may well face themselves someday, either as medical professionals or as patients (or the loved one of a patient). Thinking? In school? That’s just crazy talk.And then there’s this one:
Sixth-grade children in a history class in the Bryant School District in Arkansas (whose website brags that the district “has embraced” Common Core standards) were assigned a project to update the U.S. Bill of Rights because it is “outdated.” They were instructed to “prioritize, revise, omit two and add two amendments.”
The written assignment is full of lies, such as that “the government of the United States is currently revisiting The Bill of Rights,” that “They (presumably the government) have determined that it is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer,” and that our Constitution can be changed by a “National Revised Bill of Rights Task Force (NRBR)” (to which students could be appointed).
She calls those things “lies.” Teachers call them “hypotheticals.” And why, precisely, is it wrong to have students think about the Constitution and whether it could be improved? Oh, right. Because conservatives think about the Constitution the same way they think about the Bible — it’s all perfect, except for the parts they don’t like, and they just pretend those don’t exist. It’s sacred and holy and it’s a terrible thing to actually think about it, as opposed to just blindly accepting it without bothering to, ya know, read it.
What know-nothings like Schlafly object to is the act of thinking at all. I suspect that’s because they’re just so bad at it.