|
Tuesday, March 22, 2022
A popular lie is still a lie
Child abuse and parental abuse in the schools
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
Three weeks ago today, I sent a letter to Donna Orem, president of the National
Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), asking her to validate a story about
the organization that was published by Breitbart, an internet media outlet;
copies were sent to members of the board of trustees. She has not replied, thus
I am going public with my concerns.
NAIS is the national accreditation association for private
schools across the country. In my letter I refer to its "queer-inclusive
curriculum," one which constitutes manipulative and highly objectionable
fare. Moreover, it does so in secrecy, intentionally shielding parents from its
contents. Many Catholic parents who send their children to a private
non-sectarian school would be horrified to learn what the curriculum entails,
as would non-Catholic parents.
At a NAIS conference in 2020, a staff member explained to
teachers in a training session what children will be taught.
"Starting in Pre-K we talk about their bodies, the
parts that they were born with, about penises and vaginas and whether they make
somebody a boy or a girl. But also their feelings, what do they feel like
inside, do they feel like a boy or a girl? What does their head say? Do their
heart and their body match up?" Vocabulary lessons include words such as
"the vulva and the labia."
After leading these children to question their status as a
boy or a girl, the schools will then proceed to encourage those who are in
rebellion against their nature. "Students ready to socially transition may
initiate a process to change their name, pronoun, attire, and access to
preferred activities and facilities," the latter meaning locker rooms and
bathrooms.
Books that students can access in their library may
include Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. It includes illustrations
of boys performing oral sex.
All of this is to be done behind the back of parents.
Worse, their children may be expelled from school if parents voice "strong
disagreement" with the curriculum. To top things off, teachers are being
instructed how to deal with "puritan" parents who object. The
condescending attitude is typical of educational elites.
"Puritan Speak" includes phrases such as "That's my job." "They're just not ready." "They're too young to know that." "Won't they lose their innocence?" "But, what if my child is not ready?" "You're just trying to put ideas in their heads." There is nothing "puritan" about these concerns—they are merely expressions of responsible parents.
What these educators are doing to children is child abuse.
What they are doing to parents is parental abuse. This is not sex education: it
is sexual engineering, and it is violative of the rights of mothers and
fathers.
If there is one good thing that the pandemic yielded, it is
the extent to which unsuspecting parents have learned just how morally debased
some teachers and administrators have become. The pushback must continue.
Monday, March 21, 2022
Why Are Ex-Gays (and Ex-Trans) So Dangerous? - The Stream
The Via Dolorosa
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The Wanderer) – As I watch the world around me, mankind
seems to be tripping from one crisis to another. There is a war in Europe which
we seem unable to deal with, soaring inflation the likes of which we haven’t
seen for decades, and an aggressive effort by our governmental leaders and
their political allies to attack the Church, its doctrines, teachings, and even
how Christians practice their faith.
And so it is probably
prudent to take a rest from the ongoing travails of ordinary life in today’s
America and experience a spiritual respite and embrace the spiritual during
this Lenten season. We have a little ways to go yet before we celebrate the
Resurrection, a feat which should really tell us who is in charge and remind us
that without a Good Friday there would be no Easter.
Most folks think of
Lent as that time where we need to fast and abstain from meat on Fridays –
actually for our younger readers, it used to be every Friday (ugh) not just in
Lent. But it is a time of penitence and self-reflection, a time when we should
take stock of ourselves and understand what happened two thousand years ago in
a remote outpost of the Roman Empire.
Since that time the
faithful have found numerous ways to mark the anniversary of the Passion. Two
that are popular in the United States today are fish fries and the Stations of
the Cross. Fish fries are nice (thank you, Knights of Columbus), but a better
and more prayerful remembrance is the Stations of the Cross which, at least in
my locale, draw a much smaller crowd than the fish fries.
Several years ago for
another project, I did a little research on the history and development of the
devotion. Here’s a bit of what I found:
While popular today,
the devotion took centuries to evolve into the 14 representations of Jesus’
path to Calvary that we know today.
The origin of the
devotion goes back to the early Christians in the Holy Land that first
memorialized Christ’s Passion by retracing His steps. This wasn’t as easy as it
sounds since in the AD 70s the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and early pilgrims
could only guess at the true locations of the first Good Friday events. But
they did congregate at Pilate’s praetorium where Christ was sentenced to death
and later at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher erected by Constantine in 335.
Early steps (they weren’t called “stations” until 1462) contained as few as
seven points of devotions.
In the fifth century,
as the devotion grew when pilgrims began bringing back relics from the Holy
Land, St. Petronius, bishop of Bologna, built a series of chapels which
reproduced some of the more important shrines in the Holy Land, including
several of what we now call stations.
In 1342 the
Franciscans were given the responsibility as protectors of the shrines in the
Holy Land and pilgrims were given indulgences for visiting Pilate’s house, the
place where Jesus met His Mother, where He met Simon of Cyrene, where He was
stripped of His garments, where He was nailed to the cross and His tomb.
In 1462 an English
pilgrim, William Wey, coined the term “stations” and numbered them at 14;
however, only five corresponded to the ones used today. He also turned the
stations around, beginning with Christ’s condemnation and ending at the tomb,
prior to the time pilgrims followed the path in reverse.
When the Muslim Turks
blocked access to the Holy Land, reproductions of the stations were erected by
the Franciscans; the number of stations varied between seven and 30, although
seven stations was the most popular number.
In 1686 the stations
moved indoors when Pope Innocent XI granted the Franciscans the right to erect
stations in their churches and granted indulgences to those affiliated with the
Franciscans the same as if they had traveled to the Holy Land. In 1726 Pope
Benedict XIII extended the indulgences to all — more about the current
indulgence below.
In 1731 Pope Clement
XII allowed the stations to be erected in all churches, provided that a
Franciscan erected them, and fixed the number at 14.
In 1851 under Pius IX,
the bishops of England were authorized to permit the erection of stations in
churches not affiliated with the Franciscans, and in 1862 Pius expanded that
permission to all churches. During the nineteenth century, the question arose
as to which side of the church the stations should begin. In 1837 the Sacred
Congregation of Indulgences, while not taking sides on the issue, suggested
that beginning on the side where the Gospel is read was the most appropriate.
Of the current 14
stations used today, the three stations representing Jesus falling, Jesus
meeting His Mother, and Veronica wiping Jesus’ face have no scriptural
foundation. In recent times some have added a fifteenth station: Jesus is
raised from the dead.
A plenary indulgence
under the usual conditions, sacramental Confession, Holy Communion, and prayer
for the Pope’s intentions, is still granted to the faithful who devoutly attend
a public presentation of the Stations of the Cross. One other condition is that
the congregation must move from station to station with the person leading the
devotion; however, if that is not possible “it is sufficient that the person
who is leading the exercise move from station to station while the others
remain in their places” (Handbook of Indulgences 63, 4).
So as we move through
Lent, let’s realize that there is more to it than meatless Fridays and fish
fries. Reconnect, if you can, to your parishes’ remembrance of the Road to
Calvary, the Via Dolorosa. If you do, I think that the fried fish the Knights
serve up will taste a bit better.
And, by the way,
Friday March 25 is the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord. As it is a
solemnity, you are dispensed from your obligation to abstain from meat that
day. Stations first, then enjoy your Friday steak dinner.
Pray for Ukraine.
(You can reach Mike
at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on
Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Look who's cheering for affirmative action
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
When I was a professor, I told my colleagues how phony they were in supporting affirmative action. None of them were in favor of it when they had a friend or lover who was interested in a faculty opening—it was only when they didn't have someone to plug that they played the game. They didn't disagree.
Nothing has changed since, only today we have the specter of high-ranking white men insisting that more women and minorities be hired. It becomes even more hypocritical when this pitch is made on the eve of their retirement.
The latest phony is David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States. On March 14, he urged the Biden administration not to hire a white guy to replace him. "That's advice I've given to the White House already: that you better not hire another white male...We've had ten white males.''
Ferriero will retire
in mid-April. If he had any integrity he would never have taken the job in
2009. He knew then that all the previous U.S. National Archivists were white
guys, so he should have dropped out in favor of someone who did not share his
anatomy or race.
Dannielle Blumenthal worked at the National Archives for several years while Ferriero was the head honcho. She claims the workplace is "a very structurally racist place (her emphasis)." She ridicules him for his latest virtue-signaling scheme, namely his decision to launch The Archivists' Task Force on Racism. The "Report to the Archivist," released April 20, 2021, is chock-a-block full of all the right code words, "diversity" and "inclusion." Truth to tell, it amounts to nothing but a hill of beans.
As to be expected, the report begins by paying homage to George Floyd, the ex-con drug addict who died following an altercation with a Minneapolis cop after resisting arrest. Then it gets serious, noting a "preponderance" of blacks and other minorities in "lower-status jobs." It also notes "the preponderance of White people in higher-paying, higher-status jobs."
This kind of systemic racism happened on Ferriero's watch, and indeed he must bear at least some of the blame for it. Why didn't he do anything about it? According to Blumenthal, under Ferriero, "racism was built in to the leadership structure. Everyone (or most people) in power were Caucasian."
Ferriero is hardly a freak. We recently published an analysis of ten major corporations, ranging from Goldman Sachs to Walmart, assessing their commitment to diversity and comparing it to their actual track record of hiring minorities. All ten have a lousy history of making good on their much-vaunted interest in hiring blacks, Hispanics and Asians. The ruling class is a white boys' paradise.
When I taught sociology at La Roche College in Pittsburgh (now a university), a left-wing professor of English, who was recently hired, cornered me in the parking lot on a Friday afternoon. He said one of his students was making the case against affirmative action, prompting him to ask if she had been taking my classes. Sure enough she was.
He smiled, self-assuredly, and walked away. I stopped him. "You have a moral obligation to resign immediately," I said. But why, he asked. "Because you took a job from a black person," I responded. His retort was priceless. "I thought I got the job because I was the best person who applied." To which I said, "That's my position—not yours."
The problem with liberals is that they are quick to offer an ethical checklist for others, but always find a way not to apply it to themselves. For example, they love to write about climate change while preparing a speech aboard their private jet. They love to give talks about gun control while their armed bodyguards stand nearby. They love to condemn the construction of a wall on our southern border while living securely in their gated community.
The David Ferrieros of
this world pat themselves on the back for establishing blue-ribbon committees
on racial equality, and then doing nothing about it. They hope no one
notices. We do. Now you do as well.
Thursday, March 17, 2022
What is happening with our children?
This week Erika Sanzi, director of outreach for Parents Defending Education (www.//defendinged.org) joined Deacon Mike and Gina to discuss how many children are being
You can listen to the program here: https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/fe7b8be1/parents-defending-education-31722
Faith On Trial is heard
every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM and 94.5 FM
Des Moines, 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, and streams on
IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can hear this program and any that you may have
missed.
West Virginia passes bill banning abortions sought because baby has Down syndrome
CHARLESTON, West Virginia (LifeSiteNews) – West Virginia lawmakers gave final approval Saturday to legislation that would prohibit abortions that specifically target children with disabilities for extermination.
The Unborn Child with Down Syndrome Protection and Education Act forbids
abortions in which the abortionist has not “first confirmed that the abortion
is not being sought because of a disability,” including Down syndrome or any
other “presence or presumed presence of a genetic, physical, emotional, or
intellectual disability or diagnosis in the unborn human being including, but
not limited to, chromosomal disorders or morphological malformations occurring
as the result of atypical gene expressions.”
The
law does not apply in cases of medical emergency, defined as “serious risk of
substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,
not including psychological or emotional conditions,” or for “severe fetal
condition[s]” that are supposedly “incompatible with life outside the womb.”
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Religion Clause: Kansas Teacher Sues Over Requirement To Use Studen...
To whom do your children belong? Next FOT
This week on Faith On Trial, Deacon Mike and Gina will try
to answer that question with the help of Erika Sanzi, director of outreach for
the Parents Defending Education organization. We’ll discuss the issue in many
schools where parents’ rights are being pushed aside by school authorities,
some of whom now claim that parents must “earn” the trust of their children
especially concerning their gender identities.Erika Sanzi
Parents Defending
Education is a national grassroots organization working to reclaim our schools
from activists imposing harmful agendas. Through network and coalition
building, investigative reporting, litigation, and engagement on local, state,
and national policies, we are fighting indoctrination in the classroom — and
promoting the restoration of a healthy, non-political education for our kids – https://defendinged.org/.
Faith On Trial is heard every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines, 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can hear this program and any that you may have missed.
Monday, March 14, 2022
Child abuse or health-care?
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The Wanderer) – In today’s highly polarized society it seems that
it is almost impossible for Americans to agree on anything, no matter how
reasonable the answer sounds. Playing out in Texas is a case in point where
there seems to be no consensus over whether genital mutilation of children is
abuse.
As many of you know
who have followed this column, or my radio program, the issue of “gender
reassignment” continues to bedevil the body politic, and rarely is the issue
examined as a question of biology and mental health. Over and over again we
have reported on situations in which children, sometimes very young children,
are being manipulated by adults around them for political or social reasons.
Unfortunately these
situations keep cropping up and they usually follow the same pattern: Children
are exposed to some type of transgender reading or discussion in school and as
a result at least one of the little darlings, after being told that they can be
whatever sex they want, will begin to raise questions about their own gender identity,
only to be encouraged to explore their feelings, usually with a counselor who
specializes in such matters, and who will “affirm” the child’s feelings and
suggest that they not tell their parents immediately.
If and when the
parents are informed, they are usually told that their bundle of joy is now a
bundle of sexual confusion which could lead to depression and suicide. The
parents are basically told that if they do not act immediately their untreated
child will be in grave danger and the state might have to intervene and remove
junior from his home. A pre-determined “specialist” is recommended to the
parents with the warning that failure to act could result in criminal charges
for child endangerment.
Obviously not all such
cases follow the exact pattern above, but while there are differences in how
each case is treated, this provides a fairly typical outline of what happens in
these situations. Of course, where a child manifests a real problem and the
parents and school handle the situation appropriately, the issue never surfaces
and folks like me never hear of them.
As we look at this
issue, however, we must understand there is a recognized mental health issue
with gender dysphoria. That should not be up for debate. Unfortunately of late,
people suffering from gender dysphoria are no longer given the help they need
and, instead, are being mainstreamed into society as if their condition was
akin to a mild personality quirk.
Thus, too many
children are being rushed to physicians and mental health professionals who are
all too quick to provide “gender-affirming health care,” which by its name
reveals no attempt to find out what is creating a kid’s problem but only seeks
to affirm his choice of identity.
Two local instances
come to mind. One was told to me by a parent of a college student studying to
be a social worker. The teaching point was to take “questioning” students to
clinics where gender-affirming therapy, and sexual reassignment surgery can be
performed.
Now I’m not a
physician, but it seems to me the first step should be a little probe into what
is causing the problem rather than jumping right into a major psychological and
possible surgical makeover for the patient. But alas, that’s not happening,
which leads me to my second observation: There is a kid locally who attends
high school as — hold on to your hats — a cat. Where are our competent mental
health professionals?
Of course I have to
admit that my profession has something to do with the problem: Parents with
lawyers can make unreasonable demands.
Anyway, going back to
where I started this column, in Texas the attorney general, a man named Ken
Paxton, last month released a 13-page legal opinion that certain forms of
“gender-affirming health care” could be considered child abuse. He noted that certain
puberty-blocking drugs, among others, as well as surgery causing genital
mutilation of minors could be criminally actionable.
His opinion also notes
that minors are legally incapable to give consent to such medical decisions
which leaves the onus on the parents.
Paxton implied that
moving too fast to a surgical response flies in the face of recent studies that
show up to 98 percent of youths with childhood-onset general dysphoria are
resolved naturally with the child returning to his biological identity. He
cited studies that show that a high rate of young women (under 21), now
sterilized by the procedure, regret their surgical decision at a much higher
rate than those who elected the procedure later in life.
Also noted in Paxton’s
opinion was the connection between the gender transition procedure and the
drugs used with sterilization of the children involved. Citing a Supreme Court
case which called procreation a basic right (Skinner v. Oklahoma, forced
sterilization of a habitual felon, 1943), Paxton noted that the minor involved
in such cases not only cannot legally give consent to the treatment, but cannot
consent to waiving his right to reproduce.
In Texas the state is
now investigating parents’ involvement with their children’s gender-affirming
treatments. One such investigation has been stopped by a court order, which
Paxton is challenging in an appeals court.
The president has even
weighed in, issuing a statement clearly on the side of the transgender
community and directing the Department of Health and Human Services to protect
such children and “putting the state of Texas on notice that rather than
weaponized child protective services against loving families, child welfare
agencies should instead expand access to gender-affirming care for transgender
children….
“In the United States
of America, we respect the rights and dignity of all families. Transgender
children bring fulfillment to their parents, joy to their families, and are
made in the image of God,” he said.
This, of course, is
not an argument that will go away soon. But remember, this is about our
children and what is best for them; that is, after all, the primary duty of
their parents, and only belongs to the state by default. But that
responsibility requires the decision-makers to consider the full impact of the
choices they make for their little ones and not to get swept up in a
pseudo-intellectual argument that tends to conveniently follow New Age
sociological trends than tried-and-true bedrock principles that have come down
to us from antiquity.
Of course, this is not
to denigrate those whose backgrounds, lifestyles, or mental or emotional
make-ups have made them susceptible to this new plague. They should be helped
which doesn’t mean we ignore biological realities and just give them a pass.
That is condemning them to a lifestyle they
don’t deserve which could be avoided.
(You can reach Mike
at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday mornings at 9:30 CT on
Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Mexican diocese to deny communion to Catholic politicians who voted to legalize abortion
(Catholic News Agency) – After the legislature of the Mexican state of Sinaloa voted to legalize
abortion up to 13 weeks, the Diocese of Culiacán announced that Catholic
politicians who voted in favor of the law will not be able to receive the
Eucharist or be godparents.
In
a statement, Father Miguel Ángel Soto Gaxiola, director of the Culiacán
Commission for Life, Family, Youth and Laity, officially announced that
Catholic lawmakers who voted in favor of abortion that the decision to deny
them Communion is "the recognition of the objectively unworthy state of a
person to receive the Body of Christ.”
Why liberals love masks
By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president
Why do liberals love masks? There is no debate about the evidence, only the reasons for it.
Peter J. Pitts is a former Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner and a visiting professor at the University of Paris Medical School. He lives on the upper west side of Manhattan, the most left-wing neighborhood in New York City. He has a gripe: Why are his neighbors so obsessed with masks? Worse, "they don't want me to take mine off either. And they're aggressive about it. Withering stares and cutting comments."
What Pitts experienced is more than anecdotal evidence: it is an accurate reflection of contemporary liberal thought and behavior.
On March 10, New York Times writer David Leonhardt analyzed data on mask wearing along ideological lines. "Mask wearing remains far more common in liberal communities than conservative ones," he concluded. That's why liberals are still not going to restaurants in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, and Cambridge, Massachusetts; restaurant traffic is at least 40 percent below prepandemic levels.
Similarly, a Morning Consult/Politico poll that was recently released found that 71% of Democrats said local leaders should continue to encourage vaccinations and masks in indoor spaces; less than half of Republicans agreed.
It is easier to find a college student burning an American flag than a mask. They love masks. That's because most are liberals, and almost all of them are taught by left-wing professors. Again, the evidence is indisputable.
A College Pulse survey of college students released last September found that eight in ten favored mask mandates for indoor settings. Just last month, dozens of students walked out of class at the University of Nevada, Reno to protest the repeal of the mask mandate. Nearly 1,700 students signed a petition demanding a reinstatement of the mandate.
But why? Why do liberals love masks?
The same liberals who love mask mandates are quick to insist on "bodily autonomy" when it comes to risky sex practices, abortion and drugs. They don't want to be told about restrictions on those behaviors. But when it comes to mask mandates, their interest in "bodily autonomy" ends, and not just for them—for everyone.
College students are known for being anti-authority, which helps to explain their disdain for cops and the clergy. Yet they bow to the authority wielded by campus administrators and faculty.
How to explain these apparent inconsistencies?
Sex is fun. Drugs are fun. Liberals reason that the risks outweigh the fun. The same is not true of mask wearing: no one is deprived of fun by wearing one, and it may keep us healthy, without which there can be no fun.
Cops and the clergy pass judgments on conduct that many college students find unobjectionable. Professors promote postmodernist ideas that are seen as nonjudgmental—there is no such thing as truth and we should be free to experiment with our bodies—notions that facilitate the prospects of fun.
It is narcissism that best explains their selective interest in "bodily autonomy," and their selective attitude towards authority figures, not some principled philosophical predilection. Liberals also tend to be statist who are comfortable with big government, while conservatives tend to be anti-statists. This helps explain the different postures with regard to mask mandates.
If there is something about liberalism that accounts for the narcissistic strain in many of its adherents, it is the liberal fixation on individual rights, and the relative absence of interest in individual responsibilities. Rights free us to do what we want; responsibilities burden us. The former is attractive to narcissists, not the latter.
The ideological split on mask mandates is a microcosm of the larger divide between liberals and conservatives. Their respective leanings would not matter if our society were not so polarized, but because it is, they matter greatly.
Of course, one way to stop the polarization is get our eyes off of ourselves and on to others. But that is not a very liberal idea.
Sunday, March 13, 2022
Saturday, March 12, 2022
Religion Clause: Lawsuit By Nun Seeks A Religious Exemption From D....
Friday, March 11, 2022
This is how 'Marxist working groups' operate in higher education
(Campus Reform) – Universities across the country sponsor working groups at the graduate level.
These groups are most often
invite-only and restricted to graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and
faculty. They center around a common interdisciplinary research interest or
inquiry such as artificial intelligence, modern literature, or economic systems.
Conferences, seminars, and public
events are often hosted by working groups during which academics gather to
discuss the topic of interest and review articles or papers solicited from the
academic community.
Commonly, working groups host
reading groups where members complete assigned readings surrounding the working
group’s topic of interest.
In American colleges today, Marxism
is a popular area of inquiry for working and reading groups.
The University of Florida
sponsors The Working Group for the Study of
Critical Theory, which focuses on “alternatives to the reigning
paradigm of the disciplines” and “imagining and creating more just and
fulfilling ways of living in the world.”
Campus Reform reached out to the
university about the group.
Hessy Fernandez, director of
strategic communications and marketing, said that the university “fosters an
environment where divergent ideas, opinions and philosophies new and old can be
rigorously discussed and critically evaluated in the academic environment.”
“The working group’s meetings are
housed in the Department of English and are available, but not required to
graduate students and faculty who are interested in evaluating these topics,”
Fernandez continued.
The Working Group for the Study of
Critical Theory advertises that it “supports” the Marxist
Reading Group at UF.
The Marxist Reading Group was established to “encourage the study of
Marxist theories at the University of Florida.” Recent readings include
“Diversity, Difference and Caribbean Feminism: The Challenge of Anti-Racism,”
“The Myth of Marxist Homophobia,” and “Theories about Sex and Sexuality in
Utopian Socialism.”
Since 1999, the group has hosted an
annual conference three of which were titled “Enthusiasm for Revolution,”
“Toward a Democracy with Rights,” and “Marxism and (Bio)politics.”
In 2019, the Marxist Reading Group
hosted its 21st Annual Conference centered
around the topic of “Political Paralysis,” which “investigate[d] how current
Marxist cultural criticism continues to enable utopian horizons in the face of
a seemingly static present.”
“What role does Marxist cultural
criticism play in dark times,” the event’s flier asked of scholars.
In 2020, the Marxist Reading Group
hosted its 22nd Annual Conference centered
around the topic of “Marxist Sexualities.” The group issued a call for papers
considering “ecofeminism,” “queer/feminist/Marxist pedagogies,” “sex work and
issues facing sex workers,” among others.
“In what practical ways might an
attenuated focus on sexual politics open Marxist praxis up to activists beyond
the academy,” the website poses.
In 2021, the group’s 23rd Annual Conference discussed
“Marxism and Neoliberalism Today” and sought to “investigate the ways in which
Marxist praxis can be practiced and reinforced within the situated politics and
policies of today, as well as the potential for the creation of new Marxist spaces
and collectives in the era of neoliberalism.”
But Marxist working groups also
operate in digital spaces.
H-net is an
independent, non-profit scholarly association that hosts a jobs board for
university jobs in the humanities. The website also offers an open academic
space to academics who wish to collaborate and engage with one another.
An H-Net network centered around
Marxism and Communism is H-HOAC, which stands for "H-Net
network for Historians of American Communism."
H-HOAC is built on the work of
"The Historians of American Communism"
which comprises professors from New York University, Texas A&M University
at Galveston, American University, and the University of Southern Indiana,
among others.
Members explore the “history of
American communism, American anti-communism, Soviet espionage in America,
American ties to the Communist International and Red International of Trade
Unions, social justice and cultural movements sponsored or endorsed by the
Communist Party and other related topics.”
This year, H-HOAC members Stephen F.
Austin State University professor Dana Cooper and University
of Mary-Hardin Baylor professor Claire Phelan issued a call for papers that
address the “intersection” of “motherhood and communism.”
Marxist working groups are active
all over the country.
At the University of Pennsylvania, a
working group called “Variations” concentrates
on “Marxism, critical theory, and literary theory.” In Fall 2018, the group
hosted a reading group studying Karl Marx’s
“masterwork” Das Kapital.
The Interdisciplinary Marxist
Working Group at the University of California, Berkeley,
focuses on the “ongoing relevance of Marxism to the current historical
moment, as an explicitly global project.”
Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor for executive communications,
told Campus Reform that the university’s administration
believes in the “importance of diversity of perspective."
"Therefore," Mogulof
continued, they "do everything in [their] power to uphold our Principles
of Community which, among other things, commits us to, ‘ensuring freedom of
expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied
communities.’”
“Academic programs like a discussion
group have latitude and independence to pursue their academic interests as they
see fit. At the same time, as is the case with all academic programs, they do
not speak for or represent the values, perspectives or positions of the
University,” Mogulof continued.
At New York University, the Marxism Working Group is
“grounded in the political-economic critique of capitalism” and concentrates on
“Marxist accounts of race and gender.”
Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences
sponsors a group called Marxism and Materialism, which
examines “contemporary uses across historical, humanistic, and social
scientific disciplines that engage the dilemmas of political economy, power,
and domination.”
Yale University’s Marxism and Cultural Theory explores
themes that include “postcolonial theory,” “socialist feminism,” “black Marxist
thought,” and “Marxist theories of the state.”
Campus Reform reached out to all of the groups, universities, and
individuals mentioned in this article for comment. The article will be updated
accordingly.