A Northwestern University project defines an “ethical internet” as one where capitalism is gone, and envisioning instead an internet ruled by “communes”, reports The College Fix:
Led by communication studies Professor Moya Bailey, a self-described black queer disabled woman, the “Ethical Internet?” project is part of the Illinois university’s Digital Apothecary lab….The topic is “Being Online,” and speakers will discuss how the internet has become “a space for finding safety, building community, and forging feminist and LGBTQ+ resistance” and how it facilitates “violence, abuse, and harassment” against marginalized groups….The lab…employs Bailey and 11 student “research alchemists.”
Bailey said the internet is ethically problematic, in part, because it is capitalist, “military-derived technology” that enables “violence” around the world.
“Can this military-derived, exploitatively built, capitalistically driven, entity of the internet be reconfigured from the ground up in a way that doesn’t exploit human or natural resources? Can the internet be just?” she wrote in 2022 at Just Tech.
In her column, Bailey said ethical issues with the internet – including child labor, environmental problems and capitalism – “literally” keep her up at night.
“While there can be no ethical engagement with the internet under capitalism, I do think there is a less harmful path for our web wandering to take, one that my students and I will begin to explore in the classroom in the winter of 2022,” she wrote.
While admitting her ideal internet likely will never happen, Bailey stated that she envisioned servers being built on “communes” with ethically-sourced minerals and water to cool them, along with a community of “server farmers” to service them and grow food. All this would be housed on land with the consent of “the traditional stewards of the region,” she wrote.
Earlier, Campus Reform reported on a preschool teacher who says she is teaching children to “be gay,” rather than practical skills. Moreover, “Campus Reform has reported for years that education colleges indoctrinate the next generation of K-12 teachers. As a result, primary and secondary school curriculum has become more woke with Critical Race Theory and gender ideology taking precedence in classroom instruction. In 2014, University of Michigan Professor David Halperin published his book How to Be Gay, which is based on his course of the same name at the school.”
Most teacher training programs don’t actually train people to teach. Instead, they teach people to be woke leftists who understand little about how children learn. As a result, studies find that people who go through teacher training programs are no more effective at teaching than those who never receive such training.
Teacher Daniel Buck writes about this disturbing reality at the National Review:
My teacher training featured Black Lives Matter friendship bracelets, lectures on acupuncture and essential oils, acrostic poems as final projects, and a solid grounding in critical race theory. Notably lacking was a robust emphasis on teaching, learning, cognitive science, child psychology, behavior management, curriculum, or any other practicalities of the classroom. They were present but secondary to progressive politics….We assume that prospective teachers go to such programs and learn to, well, teach. Little of the sort happens. The few curricular reviews that do exist suggest that my program is concerningly representative….the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal solicited syllabi from three of the most prestigious schools of education in the country to determine the most assigned readings at each….the syllabi are replete with critical race theory, political activism, and even outright Marxism. Gloria Ladson-Billings topped the list. Notably, she introduced critical race theory into the academic field of education in 1995. She argues that because of racism’s ubiquity, our society “requires sweeping changes,” and so “liberalism has no mechanism for such a change.” Where the essay actually addresses education — and it does so sparsely — she calls existing school curricula a “culturally specific artifact designed to maintain a white supremacist master script.”
Another common name, Paulo Freire, set the groundwork for an influential approach to education called “critical pedagogy,” which envisions the classroom as a place of advocacy and revolutionary change, not instruction or learning. His seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is an attempt to map the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy onto the student-teacher relationship. He criticizes schooling that emphasizes knowledge transmission and cites the Russian and Maoist cultural revolutions as models of his thought in action. Name after name declares a radical bent at these schools. Jean Anyon wrote Marx and Education. Carlos Alberto Torres co-founded the Paulo Freire Institute. Throughout the curricula are explicit references to Marxism, critical pedagogy, radical feminism, and other fringe political stances.
Thought that would be considered extremist among the broader American populace forms the ideological foundations of these schools. Even the so-called moderates on the lists such as John Dewey advance a theory of Romantic education, an approach that centers the child’s own interests and self-directed learning….Another paper by David Steiner, the executive director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy, found a similar state of affairs after reviewing 15 different university teacher-prep programs — a mixture of both elite and non-elite campuses. Radicals such as Freire and romantics such as Dewey dominate the curricula….few programs asked their teachers to demonstrate competence on the methods of reading instruction, going so far as to call most of the syllabi “intellectually barren.” It is, he concludes, a “serious effort to shape the fundamental worldview of future teachers,” not an effort to form effective teachers….
Ultimately, students and teachers both bear the consequences of our teacher-prep failings. In my first year of teaching, having not learned the skills, my students learned little and my classroom was chaotic. Research confirms that teachers who go through established teacher-prep programs or none at all show little long-term difference in efficacy — unsurprising considering the political nature of these institutions. While I want to stymie the flow of politics into our classrooms, the real fallout of our woke-ified teacher-prep programs is simply mediocrity. Teachers who can’t teach create students who don’t learn.
