Parent Forces Teacher To Withdraw “Possibly Dangerous” “Diversity Inventory” Assignment

After North Carolina mother Dina Bartus learned of the “diversity inventory” that had been assigned to her tenth-grade student at Wake County’s Heritage High School, she decided the time had come to do something.

The assignment asked students for personal and private information—“gender, race/ethnicity, age, sexuality, ability, religion and socio-economic status”—not only for themselves, but also about “their classmates, teachers, close friends, doctors, household, and neighbors.”

Bartus complained to the school and exposed the class assignment publicly, eventually even talking to Fox News. Bartus’ rationale for taking this step was that such a collection of private information could very well place students in “very uncomfortable and possibly dangerous situations.”

Bartus further speculated that an assignment like this might have been preparatory to a lecture on “privilege.”

The reaction of some North Carolina teachers to the controversy only added fuel to the fire:

“My primary goal as a teacher is to combat unjustified cultural, racial, and socio-economic stereotypes within the high school setting….”

“…the field of education has become obsessed with what parents want from educators, rather than what educators know is best for kids.”

“Toughen up, snowflake! Adulthood is two years away!  And it’s a lot more stressful than a questionnaire.”

“Sounds like a case of White Fragility to me….”

“This looks like a good activity for creating awareness.”

It’s actually against the law for teachers to collect certain information from minors without their parents’ knowledge and approval.

The teacher who assigned the “diversity inventory” may not have known that; but any responsible adult ought to have realized what an outrageous, immoral, and perilous thing it is to ask young people, under the age of majority, to reveal personal and private information, not only about themselves, but about their circle of family and friends.

Under pressure from parents and public scrutiny, the school backed down, the principal had the teacher ditch the questionnaire, and the administration released statements indicating that public school students, “should not be asked or encouraged to reveal information about their identity or other sensitive, personal information. Students should not be asked to complete any surveys without the approval of the principal and only in compliance with applicable law.”

Even that statement falls far short of what should be acceptable, for it says nothing about the approval of the students’ parents. Perhaps that is because of a philosophy that prioritizes, not “what parents want from educators,” but “what educators know is best for kids.”

Privacy concerns aside, the specific categories of information requested—“gender, race/ethnicity, age, sexuality, ability, religion and socio-economic status”—are unmistakable indicators of a Cultural Marxist agenda. Mocking cries of “white fragility,” and declarations of “combat[ting] unjustified cultural, racial, and socio-economic stereotypes” as the “primary goal” of teaching further support this conclusion.

While it’s encouraging that parental engagement resulted in the withdrawal of the “diversity inventory,” the deeper problem of Cultural Marxist indoctrination in government schools remains.

Cultural Marxism, and its popular manifestation in the Social Justice narrative, is anti-Christian, designed to divide and destroy Christian civilization in the West. As William S. Lind wrote, “Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed.”

Cultural Marxist concepts like “asymmetrical tolerance” or “liberating tolerance” teach radical tolerance toward all beliefs and sensibilities of non-Christian, non-European minority populations, and radical intolerance toward all beliefs and sensibilities of Christian, European majority populations.

This is the philosophical source of “white privilege,” “intersectionality,” “diversity,” “equality,” “anti-racism,” “racial reconciliation,” and the drive for “social justice” for racial and sexual minorities, for the game is to permanently define white, heterosexual, Christian men as invariable oppressors, and everyone else as their victims. This narrative is rooted in a propagandized version of history casting white Christians as uniquely guilty of violence and oppression against non-white, non-Christians.

To combat Cultural Marxism, Christians must realize that, while our Christian and European ancestors were by no means sinless, they are not guilty of the trumped-up, often illusory “sins” they are charged with by today’s ignorant and adversarial Social Justice Warriors. We must not countenance the mistreating of anyone, whether for their race of for any other reason, but we must also refuse to participate in the anti-Christian, anti-Western ideology of Cultural Marxism.

Bartus was right to see a Cultural Marxist bent in the “diversity inventory” in her child’s English class, but the removal of this one element of one course will not stop the Cultural Marxist juggernaut. As the Bible places the responsibility for the education of God’s covenant heirs squarely with parents (Deut. 6:6–9; Eph. 6:4), not with the state, it’s time for Christian parents to stop rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s—their children. Only when the overwhelming majority of Christian children are receiving a Christian education will Cultural Marxism finally lose its grip on our once-Christian civilization.

Facebook Comments