Secretary of Education DeVos's Historic Confirmation and Why The Democrats Despise Her

[MementoMori_]

Today Betsy DeVos became the first Cabinet member in the history of the United States to be confirmed by the US Senate by vote of the Vice President to break the tie vote. And what a fabulous choice President Trump made in selecting her for Secretary of Education.

Why then did the Democrats -- who claim to care so much about empowering women -- so viciously try to prevent her from being confirmed for one of the most important positions in government?

The reason the left doesn't like her is because Democrat politicians are in a corrupt alliance with the teachers unions who have a death grip on our school childrens' education. Secretary DeVos wants to provide parents with alternatives to the failing government schools, run by the unions, so their children can grow up literate instead of being sentenced to a life of illiteracy in the failed schools that the Democrats/unions force them to attend now (especially poor children who need this change the most).

We tried the Democrat's solution. We tried it for DECADES. We tried doubling the taxpayers' spending on schools, it didn't work. We tried adding more union teachers and smaller class sizes at a tremendous extra cost to taxpayers, it didn't work. The Democrats and unions want to double down on all the failed policies of the past that have failed and failed over and over again, sentencing still millions more children to a lifelong handicap of living without a decent education.

After decades of a union controlled school system, what we have is the most expensive and one of the least effective public school systems in the world.

A significant percentage of our schools are turning out students who are functionally illiterate and unable to become anything except wards of the state dependent on taxpayers for their income. They are hardly prepared to make America competitive on the world stage in the 21st century. We should continue with the same policies that led to this? Other than the corrupt Democrats and the unions that pay them off to continue this failed system, who would support that?

President Trump and Secretary DeVos want to change this. Instead of doubling down on the worn out failed ideas of the past that the Democrats are pushing, they have new ideas such as voucher systems and charter schools to give parents of children in areas with failing schools a chance for their children to escape the cycle of illiteracy and poverty that the current system is perpetuating generation after generation.

Oh what evil people President Trump and Secretary DeVos are! It's Hitler all over again!

[RedThread]

Lol nah I don't like her because she wants us to pay taxes to go towards private schools. I don't like her because she wants to drop common core. Common core has flaws but it's what stops schools from teaching creation myths in science classes or that climate change is a hoax. It protects actual science. There are plenty of Republicans that don't like her either.

I don't want my kids to have to be forced between defunded no longer secular (if the GOP have their way) public schools or tax paid religious private institutions that teach whatever version of alternative facts currently doesn't hurt their religious or political sensibilities.

It's entertaining how all your reasons aren't remotely on point. She doesn't know jack shit about the education system either.

[cipher42]

Buddy, did you actually watch any of the videos of her confirmation hearings? The reason the left doesn't like her is because she doesn't know jack shit about the public education system, so only a complete moron could possibly think she's qualified to run it.

[oddwaffle]

So... My kid isn't the brightest bulb. That means he isn't going to get into those charter schools. I am also not rich enough to pay for private schools. I also don't want my kid to travel very far for his school either.

Why do I have to pay for schools my kid doesn't have a chance of going? Is my kid doomed to spend his days in under funded public schools?

Until they can bring a better standards for public schools, I don't think a systems with a lot of kids left behind and forgotten is going g to work well.

In a lot of Asian countries, the teachers aren't exactly up to standards. However, they are forced to teach it to teach it the only way they know: keep repeating it until it sticks without any explanation (because they might not know the explanation themselves).

This is especially true with maths and science. A lot of students don't really a clue what they are doing. They just solve math problems like a machine. However, it is enough to get them into universities and remain functional. I know a lot of guys who can not read English and still passing math, chemistry and physics classes with A+ with class average being around C+. They just look at the problem and got the answer.

[MementoMori_]

"Why do I have to pay for schools my kid doesn't have a chance of going?"

Why do I have to pay for schools I don't want to send my kid to?

The answer to your concern is that your child will be better off because a strong economy generates more money to take care of the poor and needy and improve the educational system for EVERY child. Wealth and charity are not mutually exclusive. The more wealth people have in a free country, the more resources are available for charitable purposes. You can't just look at one part of the Trump administration's plan in isolation. It's all part of a larger plan to grow the economy, create wealth and solve problems (such as the failing educational system) with newly created resources that we don't have now.

[oddwaffle]

That's a probability and it might not happen just like the 'trickle down effect' in economics. Rich people has a lot of wealth and the idea of the 'trickle down effect' is as you fill the top glass (rich), it would overflow and fill the ones below and eventually reaches the bottom (poor). It didn't happen. The rich stash their cash, invest, grew into fantastic dynasties while the poor went hungry.

Education is a long term investment. You are looking at 16~20+ years of education. You want a system where it is effective even when your teachers failed.

There was an idea back during the Vietnam war. How can you educate a child when you don't have any resource, few book, no paper and your teacher didn't pass his highschool exam. The idea was to solely focus on mathematics. It is the one single subject that you can study by practice and hard work without the need for a great teacher or being rich.

[MementoMori_]

It is a fact that the more wealth that is created in America the more resources are used for charitable purposes. That cannot be disputed. The fact that some people have more wealth than others is a distraction from this fact. It does not change the fact. If your interest is to make more resources available to take care of the needy, then your objective should be to support economic policies that create more wealth. And the effective known policies to accomplish this are tax and regulatory cuts... exactly what the Trump administration is planning to do.

[oddwaffle]

Yes, America is so glorious that the phrase "Make America Great Again" is redundant?

People live paycheck to paycheck, some couldn't get a decent job because they aren't smart enough for a degree.

I watched a truck driver tried to learn some coding but he didn't have enough math education so he couldn't. They are going to replace him with self driving trucks.

I recently let 5 people of my small business go because the wage had gone up. We are going to invest on machines to replace them. The management board is talking about hiring a cheap oversea engineer to replace the 5 workers, we would pay him below the market price cause no competent domestic engineer would work for 65k a year without some strings.

Give me money and I will make you rich when I am rich! This is the absolute all profits and no loss situation! Yeah, that sounds like a perfect plan. And you fall for it.

[MementoMori_]

Your logic seems convoluted to me. But I don't have time to explain. So my last comment will be to point out that even if you confiscated all the wealth of the top 1% of Americans it wouldn't be enough to run the federal government for more than a few months. I'm not talking about taxing their income at a higher percentage, or even 100%. I am talking about taking everything they have. So it is a myth that taking wealth away from the wealthiest will solve our resource problems. It's not even close. The only thing that will solve them is incentivizing the limited number of people who create the wealth to create more of it. And you do that by cutting their taxes and the regulatory burden they have to bear. That's how you create more and better jobs, that's how you generate more resources for those who are needy and for a better education for our kids. I'll let you have the last word if you want it.

[oddwaffle]

Learn economics for a better understanding.

[BellePepper]

I only planned to be a teacher for two years or so and even I have more developed ideas about how a student's education should be directed than she does. But she's being expected to run the entire education system.

That's not a good thing...

[MementoMori_]

Don't fear change. If you want to make an omelette you have to crack a few eggs. When something is a catastrophic failure, you need to take drastic measures to fix it. Drastic measures shake things up and are sometimes scary because they don't look like the same old familiar routine. The current way of doing things gave us the most expensive educational system in the world without the results to show for it. That isn't good enough for the United States of America. She is going to try to make it better. That's a good thing for everyone except corrupt politicians and union leaders and bad teachers who are being kept on the payroll by the unions. You don't fall into any of those categories do you?

[BellePepper]

Do you understand the difference between the concepts of change and gross incompetence?

[MementoMori_]

I don't think you understand it yourself. I think you mistake views you don't agree with with incompetence. The woman hasn't even done anything yet. Yet you are already judging her grossly incompetent. Clearly you have no evidence to back up your charge. Just as clearly, you will not give her any credit no matter what she achieves since you start out with such a biased view.

[cipher42]

@MementoMori_ So I'm assuming you haven't actually watched any of the videos of her confirmation hearings? Because even just from those alone it's very clear that she has not the first clue about how the public education system even functions, let alone how it should be run.

[evenlift]

Don't forget the apparently widespread mental illness that these schools inculcate. America's young adults cannot function without 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings'! Europe isn't far behind, though.

[cipher42]

What exactly is the issue with preventing bullying and with warning people before exposing people to something that could trigger their PTSD? Like, are you even aware what safe spaces and trigger warnings are? They're basically just the equivalent of allergy warnings/protections honestly, and what exactly is the issue with those?

[evenlift]

@cipher42 A university is a place of learning, not a mental hospital.

An allergy is a physical condition, not a mental condition.

If you are a returning war veteran, maybe take a subject other than military history. If you are a feminist or other whining parasite, suck it up, snowflake.

[cipher42]

The fact that a university is a place of learning is exactly why the mental health of students should be considered. And you do know that people with PTSD exist outside of mental hospitals, right? And why exactly should we care less about mental conditions than physical ones? They can do just as much harm after all.

And as someone attending university at a incredibly liberal school, trigger warnings and safe spaces have never interfered with my learning in the slightest. Again, do you actually have any fucking clue what trigger warnings or safe spaces are and how they operate? And if you think so, could you please explain both concepts to the best of your understanding.

[evenlift]

Considered by whom? Whose responsibility it is? It is your responsibility to make sure that you can handle adult discussions, before you decide to apply to join a place built on adult discussions. Other people should not be inconvenienced by your unwillingness to take responsibility for yourself.

I didn't say people should care less about mental conditions. I'm disputing the equivalence.

If that's true for you, good for you.

Do you actually have any fucking clue what trigger warnings or safe spaces are and how they operate? And if you think so, could you please explain both concepts to the best of your understanding.

[cipher42]

It is absolutely the responsibility of the school to ensure the safety and mental health of its students. It is the responsibility of the school to ensure the best possible learning environment for its students, because that's what schools are for. And this isn't an issue of being able to handle adult discussions. It's an issue of making sure that people with legitimate mental health issues are respected, and making sure that students feel safe in their learning environment so they can actually learn. How is that so objectionable?

And if people shouldn't care less about mental conditions than about physical ones, then why should we provide protections for people who have severe reactions to certain sorts of food but not protections for people who have severe reactions to certain subject matter?

[cipher42]

And I asked you to provide your definition first, so I'd ask you to actually respond. Once you've done so I'd be happy to provide my own definition, but I'm not going to allow you to derail the argument, especially not with such a idiotic tactic.

[evenlift]

@cipher42 Again, you are conflating the physical with the mental.

Humans have free will: so you cannot actually ensure anyone's mental health.

You're ignoring the question: who should be admitted as students? No school caters for everyone. I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if yours admitted anyone who wanted to join.

It depends on the context. 'Protecting' people from information would interfere with education. Protecting people from allergens probably would not, though in some classes, such as biology or chemistry, perhaps it would.

So, you reply to my answer, and then start telling me what to do? That's not going to happen. You yourself have said that your education allegedly has not been disrupted at all by trigger warnings and safe spaces. So, let's see if, despite your lack of experience, you understand.

[cipher42]

You can't ensure people's physical health either? But you can certainly take steps to protect it. So why exactly is the analogy flawed?

And are you honestly saying that people with PTSD and the like shouldn't be able to get a public education? We take steps to make public spaces accessible for people with physical disabilities, so why not mental? What exactly is the huge difference there? Also, by your same logic, if people don't want to put up with safe spaces and trigger warnings, they should just go to a school without them.

And no, it wouldn't. You're not protecting people from information, you're protecting them from topics that could cause them mental harm. And neither trigger warnings nor safe spaces actually restrict the flow of information, they simply give people the chance to opt out of having to face certain topics.

So you're just gonna avoid the question then? Works for me I guess, since it's basically admitting that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

[evenlift]

@cipher42 Yes, you can with the correct information and the correct application of that information. Reality is absolute.

That's the problem with 'public' (government-controlled) education: your problem becomes everyone else's problem. I actually wouldn't have any 'public' schools at all. But, as long as they exist, I would limit them to people who can actually learn.

Needing a wheelchair, for example, is not as such a problem of the mind.

So, if people don't want an educational establishment that has decided not to be an educational establishment anymore, they should go to another educational establishment, at least until it decides it doesn't want to be one either?

You're not protecting them from information. You're just... protecting them from information. Right...

If lying to yourself 'works' for you, go for it.

[BellePepper]

I took a sociology class with a guy who had recently come home from Iraq. But even in something as benign as sociology he still had times he had to excuse himself from class because of what was being discussed or what videos we were watching. This was in like... 2008? So before trigger warnings were A Big Thing. Don't you think that he would have had a better educational experience if he would have know what the class would watch and talk about?

And to circle back to the allergy analogy. Like we all know I have crazy allergies yeah? I can assure you that even though the actual triggers rarely exist in my life, the anxiety, stress, and emotional burden of trying to make an unwilling and unsympathetic world safe is debilitating. My life hasn't changed because I can't be around pepper. It's changed because other people can't stand to give it up.

If I could spare someone else the constant hurt, alienation, isolation, and fear of being put in those situations, I would do so happily.

[evenlift]

@BellePepper I'm a little worried about the intellectual calibre of a university student who doesn't know that taking sociology may entail learning about unpleasant things, in addition to his having a state of mental health that is not suited to an adult learning environment.

Well, would you go and work in a restaurant and then demand that your employer protect you from peppers? A reasonable person with a food allergy would realize that maybe restaurant work is not suitable. There's an analogy for you.

[Waffles123]

Bro, you know people pay for schools, right? Whereas waiters get paid? The school is working for the students, not the other way around.

[evenlift]

@Waffles123 Yes, it's a trade. And it's not all about money. The payment by the student includes educational attainment, not just money. Otherwise, the other students suffer, and the reputation of the educational institution suffers.

By the way, even at so-called 'private' schools, students aren't making the full monetary payment, but that's another matter.

[Waffles123]

So how does warning people about the content of the material being discussed interfere with the students education?

[evenlift]

@Waffles123 I don't know, man. How does discouraging students from encountering certain kinds of important information discourage students from encountering certain kinds of important information? I'm stumped.

[Waffles123]

It's only discouraging those who already don't want to encounter it though. Besides, if the alternative to them not encountering certain kinds of information is them encountering no information at all because they don't feel safe putting themselves in spaces where they might be exposed to content that would harm their mental health, isn't not encountering just some information the better option? Plus, I don't believe trigger warnings really mean that they don't encounter the information, just that they get a warning before they do, or that they can choose to opt out of encountering it (in which case, again, the alternative is encountering even less info). And why should we force information on people who don't want it at all?

[MementoMori_]

@Waffles123 "because they don't feel safe putting themselves in spaces where they might be exposed to content that would harm their mental health,"

Well isn't that cozy. They better get over that fast because reality and the real world have a way of creeping into every delusional diversion. You think they are going to be coddled like that when they get out of school?

[Waffles123]

@MementoMori_: So people with PTSD should just get over it? Okay, be sure to tell the next war vet you meet that.

And people are coddled like that after they get out of school. Or are you unaware of the fact that both films and video games are rated based on their content?

[BellePepper]

So a man who served our country doesn't deserve access to higher education that he's been guarenteed by the federal government?

Going further on that thread the Americans with Disabilities Act also guarentees disabled people fair and equal access to public schooling. PTSD can and is classified as a disability. The schools have to make reasonable accomodations for those people.

The resturant tells me they cook with peppers though. That's the trigger warning. Whereas if I go to the dentist and someone is eating a burrito I'm in a place with a reasonable expectation of a pepper free environment but there was no warning passed on to me so I'm forced to suffer harm.

[evenlift]

@Waffles123 I think that it is a huge assumption to imply that those students would want to avoid the information anyway.

Again, you're not considering the bigger picture: the time, effort and money of the student, the money of the taxpayers, the effects on other students, the damage to the reputation of the educational institution.

There is a lot of force in the education industry, but no one is actually forced to go to university in general or to any university in particular! But, the answer to what I think you meant is that, again, an educational institution has to have standards of educational excellence.

[evenlift]

@BellePepper I don't think that he was guaranteed that, even if he is unable to cope with university education, he will get a university education.

Is it a reasonable accommodation for a place of the mind to allow opt-outs on the basis of problems of the mind? We return to the question of problems that do impede the intellect versus problems that don't. Missing one leg, for example, is not a problem that impedes the intellect.

For me, though, these questions are moot anyway. I think that 'public' schools should not exist. And I think that military personnel should just be paid in money, probably a lot more than they are being paid right now, rather than getting all of these supposed benefits.

What if you wanted to continue to work at that restaurant and you were to demand that you no longer work with peppers?

A university is not a place where you can reasonably expect not to encounter potentially upsetting information!

[BellePepper]

The GI Bill guarentees vets an education. So yeah he does have a guarentee. And a trigger warning is a reasonable accomodation for his illness.

Yes it is reasonable. Not watching or listening to graphic discussion on urban warfare when he's already experienced does not impede his education.

You're acting like these people can't be exposed to these ideas at all but the truth is that they've already LIVED them. That's subject mastery. There's nothing more the university can teach them so how are they missing out?

Your ridiculous ideas on public education are for another time and are so absurd the 400 characters I have left aren't enough to even think on them.

Yes. It is. And can be. Reasonable accomodations can and must be provided. It's the law deal with it.

[Waffles123]

@evenlift: The assumption that warnings would make students avoid the material was yours, actually. Unless you don't think warnings would do that, in which case why would warnings about upcoming material be an issue at all?

And what does providing warnings about sensitive material have to do with the reputation of the school, or the money of the student or the taxpayers? I think warning students about sensitive material they might encounter, and providing accommodations for people with PTSD would raise the reputation/standards of excellence of the school, not lower them.

[COCOCHANEL]

i wonder how these people will cope after they graduate. they can't live in a controlled environment forever.

[MementoMori_]

@COCOCHANEL The school system is teaching our kids that they have to crawl into bed in the fetal position any time their ideas are challenged. It's disgusting and dangerous not only for the kids as individuals who will have to cope in the real world where no such protections exist, but to the country as it breeds a generation of emasculated capitulators who can't defend our country. It's as if America's enemies are running our schools. It must be stopped. And DeVoss is the one to stop it. That's why the educational establishment despises her.

[evenlift]

@BellePepper I doubt that the GI BIll says that it guarantees people a university education even if they are not competent. But, regardless, I am against the GI Bill anyway. Service personnel should just be paid.

In the spirit of accommodation, I think that you should start a campaign to have your alma mater drop all intellectual requirements for admission.

It depends on the subject.

'Public' education has condemned people to become crybabies who can't even speak properly, let alone do simple mathematics or anything more advanced. At this point, it would probably be better if people didn't go to school at all than attend 'public' school. It would not be worth it, even if it were free. But, even if 'public' education were excellent, I would still oppose it. Violence is violence. And, yes, most people have never thought of a society where violence is consistently banned, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

The law is not necessarily right.

[evenlift]

@Waffles123 Yes, the warnings exist on the assumption that some students will heed them.

Well, the reputation of the school is part of the return on the investment. And, no school, except a special school for the mentally ill, is going to get an enhanced reputation from this.

@COCOCHANEL It's very worrying.

@MementoMori_ Many universities in the West are indeed staffed by avowed enemies of the West.

[Waffles123]

As far as I'm aware warnings exist to warn people, not to dissuade them from doing/seeing the thing. Like movies being rated R isn't about preventing people from seeing the movie, it's about warning them what they'll encounter if they do.

And again, could you actually explain why providing warnings for class content would harm the reputation of the school? All you've said is that it would, you haven't explained how or why.

[evenlift]

@Waffles123 If it didn't dissuade anyone, there would be no point in it.

Such practices advertise the school as either attracting students with mental problems or giving students mental problems.

[Waffles123]

Yes there would. Warning people what they're in for, for instance. Giving them a chance to prepare themselves. There's plenty of activities where we warn people of the content and risks prior to their participation therein, and we do so because we want them to be able to make an informed decision, not because we want to stop them from participating.

And you really think that a school being accessible for people with disabilities would harm that schools reputation? I think your mistake is that you assume everyone is as unkind as you. Perhaps you would like to see people who have suffered traumatic experiences or were simply born with disabilities punished and further disadvantaged for that, but I think most people aren't that heartless. And I think it reflects rather badly on you that you honestly think everyone is or should be so unfeeling toward others.

[evenlift]

@Waffles123 "an informed decision"? About what, if not whether or not to participate?

Disabilities? Like others here, you are conflating problems of the mind, which impede the intellect, with other problems, which do not.

Unfeeling? We are now getting to the heart of the matter: feelings versus facts. Feelings don't change the facts, despite what your postmodern teachers taught you. And the real unkindness comes in lying to people that they are competent when they are not. Oh, well, at least, people are unlikely to die from these lies, unlike the lies told, through lower-standard testing, to female applicants for military combat, for example.

[Dred1614returns]

As soon as I heard that the teacher's union hates her, I knew she was a phenomenal pick.

[lumberman9]

Well to be honest the public school system is failing still I don't think she's the answer to the problems but we'll see