“The values of the labor movement, embodied in collective action for social justice, can counter the gross mal-distribution of wealth and power that has dangerously undermined our economy and politics. A restoration of organized labor’s power can promote prosperity by securing a living wage for working people, and reinvigorate democracy by building a politically progressive electorate that bridges the traditional fault lines of different that have been used to confuse working people and divide them against each other and from their own deepest interests.” (emphasis added)
It seems that if the truth is on your side, nothing would have to be “built.” The masses, once informed, would come flocking to your side.
But the reasoning for the union activists’ push for more “labor history” in curriculum seems to be becoming more clear. The professors cite leftist American “historian” Howard Zinn, when he wrote:
“If teacher unions want to be strong and well-supported, it’s essential that they not only be teacher-unionists but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement of teachers for their rights.” (emphasis added)
“Movement of teachers for their rights,” is, of course, code for teachers unions. So the teachers need to get them when they’re young, fill their heads with propaganda equating collective bargaining privileges and lawsuits over coverage of Viagra as somehow equal to the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis.
Is this becoming more clear now?
This is a battle that is being waged for what our youngest students are taught.
“In education the neoliberal emphasis on accountability and individual efforts militate against the labor movement’s call for solidarity and collective action to address common economic problems. This (mis)education does not serve the needs of the vast majority of students, who need more than anything else to develop the capacity for collective action in their own real interests.
“Moreover, the traditional curriculum does not require discussion of the alternatives to corporate capitalism promoted by historic American social and political movements, such as the International Workers of the World, and the American Socialist Party, beyond a nominal mention and subsequent dismissal, and despite the end of the Cold War, Marxist economics is not seriously studied and communism is not considered as an alternative economic system but simply dismissed as the flawed ideology of a deservedly defeated empire.”
This is the overarching principle of “organizing the curriculum:” to change America away from a free market economy and towards socialism, all the while exalting the virtues of Big Labor.
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich
Can the David of Swiss Human Rights Withstand the Goliath of IRS Extraterritorial Tax Enforcement? | Daniel J. Mitchell