‘Grooming’ Is A Perfect Word To Describe What’s Going On In America’s Classrooms
Parent and community concerns in the United States have drawn criticism for their use of the term grooming to describe the ideological manipulation taking place in public schools around the country — isolating children from their parents and replacing them with hyper-activist teachers and counselors. This is displayed most often in intersectional shaming, identity workshops, school-sponsored social pressure and interfering directly with the child-parent relationship.
The first large-scale practice of ideological manipulation is found in generational and collective shaming. Starting in the earliest history and social studies lessons, students are taught that prior generations were collectively bigoted, ignorant and often evil. Any traditional idea or belief is considered antiquated and useless. In matters of sex, race, faith, policy and other social frameworks, students are taught that only the most progressive view is moral, righteous and fair.
Countless counseling workshops are mandatory, in which students sit through lectures on the virtue of the latest progressive talking points, made to participate in “privilege walks,” where their inherited statuses and characteristics are painted as a sin to be repented of, and pressured to join “alliance” groups to show they don’t share the same horrific views as their parents.
These alliance groups are built around the “protection” of racial and sexual stereotypes — popularized as “identities.” Students are encouraged to engage with their sexual desires, gender norms and racial stereotypes to build what will be their core identity.
Kimberlé Crenshaw and other critical theory scholars have encouraged this intersectionality-view of race and color since the 1980s, drawing from “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by Paulo Freire to claim that any group not white, straight, Christian, and male is by nature a victim and therefore must find value in their inherent characteristics.
Gloria Ladson-Billings of the University of Wisconsin-Madison encouraged the use of these ideas in K-12 education in 1995 and 1998, wherein she argued that in order to teach any nonwhite student, you must first view them through a lens of appropriate racial stereotypes — such as the suggestion that black students should be encouraged to act how she defines as appropriately black, regardless of their parents’ wishes or standards.
Teachers are instructed to consider traditional values many American families have, such as dedication, punctuality, citing evidence, individualism, personal responsibility and the nuclear family itself — as characteristics of white supremacy. We expect our teachers to stand in firm opposition to what the public education system considers racist, sexist or homophobic, while in reality these are the rather benign qualities that unify American families regardless of color or nationality.
This doctrine has culminated in the direct opposition to parents by public educators in recent months. Countless posters and videos by snarky teachers inform students that if their parents don’t accept any choice they make, the teacher is their parent now.
Teachers act as gatekeepers, keeping parents at bay with the condescending statements like, “You aren’t educated enough to rear your children — but I am.” School counselors and alliance-club sponsors are encouraged to hide student concerns, medical issues and sexual activities from parents.
Some schools have gone as far as creating special changing closets for students to change into their perceived identity once they arrive — fostering a Black Mirror-esque idea that students leave their homes and parents to truly live their lives with a new family that “actually loves them”.
Many have been critical of the term grooming to describe the ideological manipulation of students to mistrust their parents in favor of the state. When one looks objectively at the nature of how students in the United States are currently taught to think, act and feel — almost always in direct opposition to the home, one must reckon with the same patterns of manipulation found in Nazi Germany, East Germany and Maoist China.
Grooming may not be sexual or pedophillic in nature — and regardless of the connotation narrowed around the term through the rise of the internet in the early Aughts, the current progressive approach to ideological manipulation in children fits the operational and passive definitions. Regardless of what you choose to call it, the wedge being driven between students and their parents is insidious, and it should be called out whenever observed.
Anthony Kinnett is a curriculum developer and coordinator in Indianapolis. He is the co-founder and owner of The Chalkboard Review and has written for National Review, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and the Washington Examiner. @TheTonus
This is a blog entry from more than a decade ago, but it shows what they’ve been planning for a long time:
The Daily Mail last month reminded the public that back in the 1970s the organisation the National Council for Civil Liberties (a diabolical liberty, to use the old Cockney phrase) successfully campaigned for the homosexual rights moved on to other sexual minorities, in particular the desire of paedophiles to have sex with children.
Labor Dolts: OK to have sex with 10-yr-olds
Sun exposes full horror of paedophile plan
The ex-Health Secretary put her name to a document that also wanted to legalise incest. She and Jack Dromey, now a Labour MP, were members of a committee recommending a revolutionary change in child sex laws.
Our investigation showed how she backed the work of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in the 1970s and 1980s. She said: “I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so.”
I have been following with interest the news bringing to the forefront of public attention again the efforts of certain left-wing politicians to bring down traditional British society.
It started with the Daily Mail last month reminding the public (which some of us had never quite forgotten, hence our mis-trust of them) that back in the 1970s the organisation the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL, now known as Liberty – and they are indeed a diabolical liberty, to use the old Cockney phrase) having successfully campaigned for the homosexual rights moved on to other sexual minorities, in particular the desire of paedophiles to have sex with children. Most notable are:
- Harriet Harman MP, former leader of the Labour Party, de factor deputy Prime minister under Gordon Brown, Cabinet minister under both Blair and Brown
- Jack DromeyÂ MP husband of Harman, former Deputy General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, Labour Party Treasurer
- Patricia HewittÂ Godmother to the Dromey-Harman children, former Secretary of State for Health, watched for years by MI5 for her communist sympathies, suspended from the Labour Party for corruption. She has had the grace to apologise and this, coupled with her no longer being in any position of power means that the main concern is about the position of Harman and Dromey.
Other notable personsÂ who had a tentacle in the slime are Margaret Hodge MP for Barking, and her late husband Mr Justice Henry Hodge. I want to set down some thoughts, less about the specific individuals than their motives, and the motives of the circles on the left in which they moved.
I was a student in the early 70s and a very lowly Civil Servant by the late 70s. We admired the NCCL, going to the extent of engaging Tess Gill (a lawyer on the NCCL team, who with Anna Coote wrote a very useful handbook) to speak at our college on the subject of the proposed bill which eventually became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Homosexual activity ‘between consenting adults in private’ was now legal. At that time we were aware of opportunities opening up which our mothers might only have dreamed of. We thought sex had only been invented in 1963 and that jealous adults wanted to spoil our fun.
Looking back at the scandals at the BBC from 40 years ago (not the career and crimes of Jimmy Saville which were and always will be abhorrent) but the free behaviour of some of the DJ’s around women and girls the emphasis and horror now is on the ‘under-age’ aspect of the activity. It must be remembered that then any sexual activity before marriage was considered wrong. What was wrong aged 15 years and 10 months did not suddenly become OK and acceptable 4 months later once the young person had reached the ripe old age of 16 years and 2 months old. It was wrong at 14, at 15, at 16 and at 17. Public opinion was (about those incidents that featured in the newspapers – there were a couple) disapproving regardless of the age. Therefore the liberals at the BBC, in pushing the boundaries in the direction of ‘free love’, to use the idiom of the 1960s, were also unconcerned about the official legal age of consent. Being aged 16 didn’t make it right; being under 16 didn’t make it even more wrong. It was just wrong.
The activities of the NCCL which have been revived are their championing of a rather nasty organisation called the PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, who (I believe) came out of a Homosexual rights organisation, possibly via NAMBLA. (the North American Man Boy Love Association)
There is plenty of information in the news this last few weeks about their campaign to lower the age of consent to 14, or 10 or even 4. My recollection at the time was distaste. My mother had been a great admirer of Mary Whitehouse and I was starting to think that lady had a point. To my relief the PIE campaign never seriously came to anything overtly, and I was able to turn my mind to family matters and my job.
10 years later in the court system, suddenly we were in the centre of enormous concern about child sexual abuse, child porn, child protection and the rest, culminating in the Cleveland Scandalof 1987. Bit by bit, with frequently the best of intentions, regulations to protect children grew, until now we have a situation where decent men are terrified to speak to any child who is not their own, lest they be accused of being a child molester. Anybody over the age of 18 who may encounter a child in a public situation has to have a police check certificate to prove their probity. That’s a certificate for every work or voluntary job they may have. An individual may hold one for the Guides, one for Sunday school, one for helping in their child’s school and one for the summer holiday club at the local sports centre. With so much regulation and scrutiny you might be forgiven for thinking that every child in the UK was as safe as houses and never suffers anything worse than cotton wool allergy.
So how did Female Genital Mutilation come to flourish, when it is illegal? Or so many girls be groomed for prostitution by gangs of Muslim men? Why are those in positions of power and influence so silent on the treatment of gay men and women in Islamic controlled areas like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Tower Hamlets?
In this Telegraph article from the weekend a letter from Philip McGuinness a housemaster of St Paul’s School dated 1976 asked
“I cannot help but think that you do not support civil liberties at all. Your aim is questionable in the extreme. Â Are you aiming for the destruction of society, for the enslavement of the individual, for the destruction of family life? Is your object to shatter prospective individual happiness at an early stage?”
Mr McGuinness concluded: “Your title is a shame and a masquerade. There must be some very twisted minds and pernicious malcontents behind your organisation if this is the sort of thing you advocate.”
Because the laws and changes in attitude they enforced were not for the wellbeing of children (or gays). Children were merely a means to an end. The end being the disintegration of traditional British, secular but Judeo-Christian based society. This wasn’t confined to the UK – similar things were happening in Western Europe, the US, Canada.
One of the factors which modified my under 20 enthusiasm for left wing politics (I blame George Orwell) was the arguments I had with fellow students about the nature of the family and working class values. Family at its best, extending to the warm network of grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, within which I grew up is (was then) the bedrock, the mainstay, of working class life. My argument was that as the proletariat, the working class, were the good guys in the revolution, emulating working class institutions was the way to go. Not so said some of my associates. The family was too patriarchal, too much a means of oppressing women, an enemy of female freedom. It was quite obvious now (but I didn’t realise it at the time) that they wanted it destroyed.
If the family is destroyed then individuals become depended on the state for support. This gives the state eventual ultimate control. Of behaviour, speech, view, even diet; 1984 was supposed to be a warning not a blueprint.
At some point between 1982 and 1984 (when I first noticed child sexual abuse cases hitting the courts in any numbers) the focus changed. I don’t know if this was a conscious or unconscious decision on the left. But I believe the thinking went something like this.
- Homosexuality is now legal and women have easy access to contraception, and increasing access to abortion.
- We are not going to get very far with reducing the age of consent. However the sexualisation of children as a way of undermining the family will happen gradually anyway as a result of the more liberal sexual mores set in motion.
- We can do more damage, more quickly, by demonising all heterosexual men as potential rapists and child abusers, via this new programme of mass hysteria around the genuine need for child protection.
And then when mass immigration happened, and the left formed their unholy alliance with Islam, the tiger they will regret trying to ride, overlooking grooming, FGM, forced marriage, wife beating and the rest was a natural consequence.
So for Jamie Doward to write in the Guardian, blaming paedophiles for ‘infiltrating’ the NCCL is disingenuous in my opinion. Although he does set out the atmosphere of the period quite well albeit with more approval than I retain of those times.
I don’t know how this will end, but we do live in interesting times.