Apostolic Age Jurist Issue 7(integrated into twitter)
Writing Policy Perscriptions that will be enacted in a few years. This time, lets talk about school curriculums
There are many right and wrong answers by the right on the issue of K-12 and Post Secondary Education. Not everyone can homeschool and not everyone can go to college. I wouldn’t recommend you send your child to a public school in a very blue leaning area personally, especially if you’re not taking an active role in your childs political development. Make sure by the time your child is a teenager and prime for rebellion or being influenced by their friends that he or she can already articulate the beliefs of the left and demonstrate whats wrong with them, while being able to not alienate too many people in positions of authority.
In regards to education, handpicking an independent organization that can regulate it with either mandatory or voluntary perscriptions that can be followed and enforced by state governments, seems like a good solution. Thus this is going to be a law that addresses just that.
There was already an attempt by former President Trump to do this. It was called the 1776 comission and it would effectively be a 20 person independent regulatory body that outlined required principles for educational curriculums across the country, mostly under the guise of reviving Patriotic Sentiment and removing the excesses of the predominantly left leaning rhetoric in K-12 education, young and impressionable kids can’t really object to for the most part, by virtue of not being able to think about abstract nuaned concepts.
But I would like to have a few caveats to this proposal. First of all, I think the 1776 Comission, while good, should also apply to college as well. I think one thing you could do is require colleges that receive funds from state taxes and the federal government give more neutral perspectives in the social sciences and humanities. This might be hard to enforce when it comes down to individual faculty but an idea you could mandate is that in any political philosphy class, especially a required one, that there be ideological ratios for whom is covered. You could mandate a far left, left, center left, center right, right and far right, along with classical philosopher be covered in the curriculum, in a neutral light or you could mandate a serious of modes of analysis to be covered for the purpose of discourse. I think alot of people get psyopped by viewing the whole world through the lense of critical theory or through hyper emprical rationalism exclusively, which makes many educated people unable to view things through the lense of an illiberal right winger, because often they cannot comprehend the way they view the world. Dialectical materialism is not only boring, its often just not true at all. There are exceptions to everything of course and I’m sure people like Carl Schmitt are taught in university philosophy courses but the amount of people who majored in that area who seem to unaware of a great deal of RW philosophy or outright deny that RWers have any philosophers worth reading, is concerning.
Another thing you can do is try to mandate weekly or bimonthly 2 sided debates for any historical topic that isn’t so contemporary that it would spark immediate outrage within US history class at K-12 or a scientific/moral debate twice a month in a course about certain fields of sciences. When people realize history isn’t a lienar progression torwards a utopia, they tend to internalize some non-left leaning modes of thinking, even subcosciously. You could do arguments like whether latin America was better off during Spanish vs Aztec rule or which side was in the right during the Punic Wars. 20th and 21st century conflicts, when they’re all you really know of in history, are tilted towards the idea of inevitable shifts towards liberalism and sadly, many Americans can’t even reference a figure from Antiquity or even the early modern era when politically debating each other.