Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper is thankful for the objective testing standards that guided the college application process when he applied to the University of Texas. Because of his scores, he received a full scholarship.
But that same opportunity, for someone to be awarded due to their merits, may soon be disappearing because of a new score being assessed by The College Board, the company that creates, administers and scores the SAT test for college-bound students. It has developed an additional “adversity score” that can be sent to schools along with a student’s test scores.
This score is already being offered to 50 schools, and could be made available to all colleges and universities by 2020.
This adversity score – a 100-point scale in which 50 is considered average – is calculated from family, high school and neighborhood environmental factors in a student’s community – factors including home value, crime rate, single parenthood, median income and free lunch enrollment. Duke University Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Christoph Guttentag said an adversity score would help “understand each applicant’s context a little better” because he thinks the current admissions process is “not a level playing field.”
On the Fox News Channel program “The Ingraham Angle,” Horace agreed with host Laura Ingraham that this could be a “proxy for race-based admissions.” He said “that’s exactly what this is.”
A lot of these lawsuits are getting to the courts, and the courts are making it harder and harder to use race as a proxy.
You come up with this adversity score, and then you don’t tell the student what his score is. And the schools get to decide which portions of it [to use].
What they’re actually getting to do is throw away:
- “Did you perform well in school?”
- “Do you have some aptitude?”
Those kinds of things are what the SAT is supposed to do.
Now if you don’t want an SAT anymore, that’s fine. But what you shouldn’t be allowed to do is have the SAT company work in tandem with the affirmative action crowd.
That’s just giving more advantage to one group over another group.
Leo Terrell, an attorney who often faces off on the show against Horace in what Ingraham calls her “Dynamic Duo,” talked about his family’s adversity and how he valued opportunities that allegedly took his situation into consideration. He asserted that “you gotta give people opportunity.”
Horace, who brought up the gradual rise in education attainment within his own family, said he did not seek to deny anyone opportunity:
It’s not about closing any doors… It’s about making sure that – in America – you’re not judged by your race in deciding if you get educational opportunities.
Polls show that people are overwhelmingly opposed to using race and ethnicity as a factor in college admissions. A poll conducted by Pew Research earlier this year found 73% completely opposed to it, and 19% who thought it should only be a minor factor.
Michael Nietzel, a retired president of Missouri State University, told Fox News that “one must wonder whether adversity scores are primarily an attempt to protect the SAT’s market or to promote social mobility.” He also was critical of the secrecy behind the creation of the adversity score, adding that “[t]he fact that the College Board does not want students to know their adversity scores reflects their own discomfort with the concept.”
The recent scandal over elite families abusing the admissions process through bribes and false applications should only bring more scrutiny to this new “adversity score” tactic.
Watch the entire “Ingraham Angle” segment below.
Asked why Intel would support the Human Rights Campaign in light of the group’s anti-religious bigotry, the tech giant’s leadership said its affiliation is a demonstration of the company’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.
It’s an odd statement to make considering that the Human Rights Campaign has sought to deny people the ability to act according to their faith and enjoy the privacy of using public bathrooms that match their biology.
That’s neither diverse nor inclusive.
Intel’s leaders – who held a “virtual meeting” today over the Internet in place of a traditional, physical annual meeting of shareholders – answered a truncated version of what Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. would like to have said if he was physically addressing the company’s leadership. That full statement and question are available here.
Intel is a HRC Premium Partner, which is the highest level of corporate donor partnership a company can have with the “largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization.” If that’s not enough, Intel also participated in a 2017 legal brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that had the support of the HRC. This is the case where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sought to compel a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding against his religious values and under threat of fines and imprisonment.
Yet despite supporting this attack on the First Amendment – where the baker prevailed by a 7-2 decision of the justices – Intel CEO Robert H. Swan said that the company supports all forms of free expression. Intel, he repeated in response to FEP’s question and had extolled earlier in the presentation, is “committed to diversity and inclusion.”
Intel’s support of the Human Rights Campaign is “part of that commitment” to diversity and inclusion.
To quote the character Inigo Montoya from the movie “The Princess Bride”: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Intel CEO Swan said: “We support each employee’s freedom of expression, and the context of respect, empathy and tolerance of fellow employees is critical.”
But the Masterpiece case was rooted in intolerance and disrespect toward the baker’s faith. HRC wants workplaces that allow anyone to use any bathroom or locker room “that correspond to his/her full-time gender presentation, regardless of what stage that person is in terms of his/her overall transition process.” Those who disagree are “fear-mongering” and “anti-equality.”
Again – not seeing a lot of inclusiveness here when that diversity includes people with faith and traditional values.
In his prepared statement, Justin said: “We are a free-market organization. We have never called for a boycott or tried to direct a company’s philanthropy. We just want to make sure that the company is actually informed about what HRC is doing with Intel’s money.” He has taken a similar message to the Hyatt hotel chain and to IBM in just the past few days. Last year, companies including Salesforce and Prudential Financial heard a similar message.
While Intel may have been able to dodge the full FEP question and any follow-up through its virtual meeting, it managed to move itself closer to a radical group that seeks to impose its will upon others. While saying they value free expression, Intel leaders have shown today that they are actually helping to destroy it.
Watch the Q&A below.
Police are looking for information about the vandalism of a statue of a black military hero. For a member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, it’s personal. He’s wondering why someone would want to destroy the lovingly crafted replica of his cousin.
“These days, it seems that no historical relic is off limits to those who want to eliminate America’s heritage,” says Project 21 member Emery McClendon, a Tea Party organizer and veteran of the U.S. Air Force and Indiana Air National Guard.
Since 2015, the life-size replica of retired Army Chief Master Sergeant Richard Hall, Jr. has been on display outside the Hannibal Square Heritage Center in Winter Park, Florida. Hall, who is 96 years old and now a resident of nearby Maitland, is one of the few remaining Tuskegee Airmen – the black fighter and bomber group of the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II.
Sometime during the first weekend in May, Hall’s statue was vandalized. It appears someone punched it, creating “an eight-inch hole in the gut.”
Fellow Tuskegee Airman Darrell Gray says, “This is personal.” He adds, “This vandalism is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.” Rigoberto Torres, the artist who created the statue, is already talking to the staff of the Heritage Center about fixing the damage.
Emery has spoken with his cousin, and reports that while Hall is devastated at the vandalism, the community’s support has lifted his spirits.
When asked by the Orlando Weekly if was a hate crime, Heritage Center manager Barbara Chandler said they “don’t know what to call this” other than “intentional.” Anyone with information is asked to call the Winter Park Police.
Emery says about the vandalism:
On purpose or just to cause mayhem, vandals targeted a statue that honors one of our nation’s Tuskegee Airmen. These men, in the face of adversity at home and in the theater of war, performed heroically and honorably. They deserve our respect.
After seeing what happened to the tribute to my cousin, I am shaken. It’s as if these heroes haven’t gone through enough to show their love and dedication to our great nation.
But Cousin Richard will not be deterred. Now, as he did then, he is keeping a stiff upper lip. He says he will continue to travel when he can to keep the history of the Tuskegee Airmen alive. He is moved that the community has rallied around efforts to fix his statue and will not let the vandals prevail.
The bad behavior of a few people cannot obscure the pride that so many Americans have for those who have served and sacrificed so that we can live in freedom.
Emery is the founder of Amateur Radio Military Appreciation Day. On May 19, this year’s ARMAD observance in Ft. Wayne, Indiana will focus on the career of Richard Hall, Jr.
I’ll take this “loser” label as a badge of honor.
It seems that SB Nation’s Outsports site – Managing Editor Dawn Ennis, in particular – tried to bully me by calling me a loser after my appearance at last week’s Under Armour shareholder meeting. But I do dispute her definition of loser as someone who does “something to make life unfair for others.”
I appeared at the Under Armour shareholder meeting to ask CEO Kevin Plank why the company is celebrating and promoting transgender privilege in sports when it is often inherently unfair. I brought up a twofold issue of unfair play in my short statement: women-to-men who can no longer compete and men-to-women who can dominate competitions due to their unchanged physiology.
After the meeting, I told an Under Armour employee that I did not seek to keep them from selling shoes, shirts or other gear to any man, woman or intersex individual based on their biological or declared gender. What I did ask for was that the company remain neutral when it came to talking about allowing transgender athletes in environments where there is currently debate about fairness. I also asked them not to contribute to Athlete Ally while that group seeks to demonize the likes of Martina Navratilova – an LGBT athlete – for daring to call transgender privilege “cheating.”
I’m not sure how my stance makes life unfair for others. If you ask me, it restores fairness to the field of play.
Outsports is a subgroup of SB Nation, which is part of the Vox Media empire. Media Bias Fact Check identified Vox as “left” because of “wording and story selection that favors the left.” Vox laid off five percent of its staff in early 2018 and failed to meet its revenue goals later in the year. Once again I wonder: who’s the loser?
I am happy to report that Sharron Davies, an Olympic medalist in swimming and a television presenter in the United Kingdom, posted part of the Free Enterprise Project’s press release on Twitter and tweeted at Under Armour: “If a trans woman (biological male XY ranked 1000th) decides 2play professional tennis they’d win all the prize money & female athletes XX would loose their chance 2success/compete on a level playing field, 2earn a living, 2equal rights!!”
If a trans woman (biological male XY ranked 1000th) decides 2play professional tennis they’d win all the prize money & female athletes XX would loose their chance 2success/compete on a level playing field, 2earn a living, 2equal rights!! @andy_murray @UnderArmour pic.twitter.com/ZhiWmpvdkp
— Sharron Davies MBE (@sharrond62) May 9, 2019
A group called the Gender Critical Action Center is also asking people to tweet at Under Armour against transgender privilege.
NEW ACTION! Tell Under Armour that Supporting “Gender Identity” Ideology is Incompatible with Encouraging Female Athletes to Excel! #MenOutOfWomensSports #GenderCriticalAction #StandUpforScience https://t.co/QJKgVeYuvV
— Gender Critical Action Center (@GenderCritical_) May 12, 2019
Another Twitter thread features people across the pond who are responding to Davies’s tweet, saying that they will no longer buy Under Armour because of its stance on the transgender sports issue (warning: harsh language awaits you at this link). This backlash is exactly what I told the company they could avoid by being neutral.
With June being LGBT Pride Month, Under Armour can choose to remain neutral. By doing so, it can also encourage a world where – as CEO Plank said – a “little girl… can do anything.”
Let’s see who the real loser is in the end.
As the Trump Administration finalized a new regulation designed to lower prescription drug prices through the transparency of making costs known through advertising, two Republican senators also introduced legislation to cap domestic pricing at foreign levels.
It’s a proposal that Axios has called a “sharp left turn” for otherwise conservative senators and something “that could have been written by Bernie Sanders.”
That might sound like the sort of America-first policy we need to reduce health care costs. But it’s not. Though unquestionably well-intentioned, Hawley’s bill would likely backfire and deprive Americans of lifesaving medicines.
The “Transparent Drug Pricing Act of 2019,” sponsored by Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rick Scott of Florida, would – like the Trump Administration’s rule – make the costs of drugs more readily available to patients and interested consumers. But it would also prohibit the pharmaceutical industry from “charg[ing] American consumers more for prescription drugs than they charge consumers in other industrialized nations like Great Britain, Canada or Germany.”
Stacy warns that Americans who now enjoy top-rate, high-quality health care have “too much to lose” in embracing prescription drug price controls.
In her commentary, Stacy explains the reason why drugs can sometimes cost so much in America compared to other countries (a “benefit” that comes at a cost):
But there’s a reason for this price disparity. Many other countries set strict caps on drug prices. For instance, Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has the power to force drug companies to lower prices. The United Kingdom simply refuses to cover drugs that bureaucrats deem too expensive.
Such restrictions make drug companies unable or unwilling to sell their products in many foreign countries. Americans have access to 95% of cancer drugs released worldwide between 2011 and 2018. But Canadian patients have access to just 58% of those medicines. Patients in the United Kingdom have access to just 74%…
Ultimately, Hawley’s bill would just bring foreign price controls stateside. That’s bad news for drug companies, which already face massive barriers to success. Bringing a new drug to patients is expensive, time-consuming and risky. Only 12% of experimental treatments ever make it to market. All told, it costs approximately $2.6 billion and takes up to 15 years to create a single drug, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.
Drug companies spend a lot of money to develop new and innovative medications, and they need to recoup their spending on these and failed drugs through market pricing. This is allowed in the United States, but other countries sometimes demand and impose the lower prices. This may cost those countries in terms of the timeframe for the drugs becoming available or their availability altogether. The inability to make back its investment may well keep the pharmaceutical industry from being able to move forward on the research and development of new and improved drugs.
America has led the world in drug development for decades. Since the turn of the century, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry has invested more than half a trillion dollars developing new drugs. More than half of the world’s new cures come from U.S. labs…
Hawley’s bill would stop these advancements dead in their tracks. Price controls would deter research and development investments. Today’s incurable diseases might remain incurable forever.
To read all of Stacy’s commentary – “Missourians Would Lose Under Josh Hawley’s Well-Intentioned Drug Pricing Bill” – in the Kansas City Star, click here.
At a rally on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, Project 21 member Marie Fischer said she is “not what the average person expects when they see a Jewish person.” This has allowed her a keen insight into the way some people think about those of the Jewish faith. “Because I’m not what people expect,” she told her fellow ralliers, “you wouldn’t believe what I hear.”
Marie joined others on the Capitol grounds on May 7 to, among other things, demand a “repeal and rewrite” of House Resolution 183. That resolution began as a way to condemn remarks made by Representative Ilhan Omar that many deemed to be anti-Semitic. But what was eventually passed in the House did not cite Omar specifically and condemned criticism of both Judaism and Islam. In the end, it could be said that it resembled Omar’s claim that such criticism is “two sides of the same coin of bigotry.” Yet Omar’s comments continued after the resolution was passed.
Marie talked about how easy it seems for some people to engage in hateful comments about Jews. For Marie, who is black and Jewish, she sees anti-Semitism as a more clear and present problem than racism in terms of what has been revealed to her by people who let their guard down.
In her remarks at the rally, Marie said about anti-Semitism:
You wouldn’t believe the statements people say.
I mean, not only here in Congress, but probably many of your neighbors. Things people say because they don’t expect it – they don’t expect they’re talking to another Jew. I don’t fit their idea.
And this isn’t just happening. It’s been happening for 20 years. I hear people make derogatory comments, statements – and they think they can just get away with it. But we can’t let them get away with it anymore.
I tell people I think it’s sad that, in this day and age, I have dealt with more anti-Semitism than I have dealt with racism.
Howard Schultz was “innovative and dynamic” and “brilliant” when he was the CEO of Starbucks. Toward the end of his career with the coffeehouse megachain, Schultz was lauded by liberals for taking on the Trump Administration by speaking out against tax cuts and pledging to hire more refugees.
He threw away all that goodwill when he decided he could replace President Donald Trump.
“Immediately,” notes the National Center’s Justin Danhof, “the same liberals he had supported for decades turned their backs on Howard. Overnight, he was without a home.”
This observation comes from Justin’s latest commentary, published by the Washington Examiner.
Justin, the director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, has faced off against Schultz at several Starbucks shareholder meetings. At Schultz’s last meeting with the company, Justin forced him to defend his opposition to Trump tax reform policies that had helped the company and its workforce. In what might have been one of the first stumbles in Schultz’s downfall, he actually criticized former President Barack Obama for being “compliant in the reckless approach to the amount of debt” being run up by the federal government.
Schultz is a billionaire who began life in subsidized housing. He oversaw the growth of one of the most iconic modern American companies. Thus he is critical of some of the far-left positions embraced by those currently running for president. Justin notes: “Schultz may be a lefty, but he seems aware of the perils of socialism.”
And, because he might actually challenge these people by running for president himself as an independent candidate, he’s got the liberals in a frenzy. Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign manager, told Axios that Schultz would “ruin the world.”
While Messina’s hyperbolic position may be the outward reason for the Left’s hostility toward Schultz, there is another deeper issue: the Left’s embrace of socialism.
Schultz is a billionaire who made his money via capitalism. Like it or not, the behemoth corporate titan that is Starbucks, he built that. To today’s progressive, the B- and C-words are verboten.
So it would seem that Schultz has burned bridges on the left. Does this mean he might want to embrace the right? That’s unlikely considering his history of liberal positions and opposition to President Trump. It’s also highly doubtful that conservatives would put up with him even if he were more open about his animus for socialism. In the commentary, Justin points out:
If a known leftist such as Schultz can’t stomach the policy platform of today’s liberals, it’s safe to say the American Left has embraced socialism a bit too tightly. Yet conservatives, like elephants, have long memories. And the Right won’t soon forget Schultz’s support for far-left politicians and the liberal policies of Starbucks.
Thus, Schultz has become “a man without a home.”
To read all of Justin’s commentary – “Oh, How They All Hate Howard” – at the Washington Examiner website, click here.
While our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, there are many on the left who feel that very devout individuals – particularly Christians – aren’t fit for public office.
“The Left claims that they stand for tolerance,” Jerome writes, “but in actuality, they are as intolerant as they claim the opposition to be.”
As an example of this leftist intolerance toward pious persons standing for election, Jerome cites the recent – and successful – nonpartisan campaign by Judge Brian Hagedorn for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Human Rights Campaign called the views of Judge Hagedorn’s evangelical faith “deeply disturbing.” Hagedorn said: “I have not been running saying anybody needs to agree with my own world view or religious views. What I have said is my job as a judge is to defend everyone’s constitutional rights, including their right to worship as they see fit.”
In his own analysis of the Hagedorn campaign, Jerome writes:
Apparently, while many turned on Hagedorn for his Bible-based Christian ways (including founding a Christian school that believed only in marriage between a man and a woman), the Wisconsin citizens would support him through it all. As French pointed out in his piece, Wisconsin is obviously not in the Bible Belt. So, its citizens had to look at the man themselves and vote for what they believed was right, including his faith and acts that he committed due to his faith.
As Bob Dylan once sang, “the times are a-changin’.” But thank God that we still live in a time when people can see that Christianity is not about hatred and putting gay people or abortion supporters to the gallows.
Jerome writes that there should be “no apprehension” when it comes to considering an overtly religious candidate. If leftist scare stories actually turn out to be true about an incumbent officeholder, he adds, it’s easy enough for citizens to organize and boot that person from office in the next election.
To read all of Jerome’s Newsmax commentary – “Religious Belief is Reconcilable With Public Service” – click here.
In a debate on the Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Horace addressed statements made by Representative Ilhan Omar in which she dwelled on the notion of a “xenophobic” America rather than one that he said “stands head and shoulders” in the world.
At a Movement for Black Lives rally, Representative Omar — who is under fire for her anti-Semitic remarks — tried to use the event to flip the blame on those condemning her. Speaking of President Donald Trump, she called his criticisms of her a “continuation” of alleged attacks “against women, against people of color, against immigrants, against refugees and certainly against Muslims.”
And while speaking generally about the United States, she was just as hostile. In her vision for changing America, she claimed:
This is not going to be the country of the xenophobes. This is not going to be the country of white people… This is the country founded on the history of Native American genocide, on the backs of black slaves, but also by immigrants.
Fox News Channel host Laura Ingraham asked Horace about the left dwelling only on the negative aspects of American history. Horace replied:
This is race hatred. And it apparently is motivated by hatred of who we are as a country.
There is no perfect country. But, when America stands on the world stage, America stands head and shoulders above. Our actual history more than outweighs with the exceptional accomplishments of the things that make America a remarkable place.
Proving the left’s fixation on the negative, attorney Leo Terrell, who also appeared in the Fox News Channel debate with Horace, insisted that America was “built on slavery” and what Representative Omar said was “her being truthful.” Horace interjected:
It’s a distortion… what about those Americans who lost more of their lives than in any war that we’ve ever been in ending… slavery? What about that consequence?
When Terrell accused Horace of “changing the subject,” Horace replied:
No, I’m not changing the subject. What I’m saying is it’s distorting. It is distorting. America is an amazing [nation].
Suggesting the left is ignoring the “sins of today” to dwell on the past, Ingraham brought up something not even Terrell seemed willing to defend. In Alabama, speaking in favor of unfettered abortion, State Representative John Rogers claimed that some children are “unwanted, unloved.” Presented with this problem, he said abortion provides a choice to “kill ‘em now or kill ‘em later.”
Terrell deemed to call Rogers’s comments a “poor choice of words.” Yet he still would not condemn abortion, calling it “always a debatable” option. Horace instead sought to try to find a way for people of varying political views to work together. He countered:
This is jaw-dropping.
Human lives are looked upon as some sort of inconvenience. And apparently the end outcome – their death – is an inevitable. We ought to be doing exactly the opposite.
Where are the Democrats joining with Republicans – conservatives and liberals – standing up for innocent human life?”
In a new video from Prager University, Project 21 member Derryck Green answers the questions “Who’s really obsessed with race?” and “Whose policies really hurt blacks?” when it comes to conservative and liberals.
Derryck’s video, “Who are the Racists?,” was viewed over a quarter-million times in its first 24 hours online. It closely aligns with Project 21’s “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” in showing the stark differences between how conservatives and liberals seek to help black Americans achieve equality and opportunity.
Noting that conservatives are regularly referred to as racists by politicians, activists, cable news commentators and partisan celebrities, Derryck says that “[t]he left calling the right racist isn’t new.” He adds that all modern right-leaning presidents have been called “racist” by these people “[a]nd, of course, from the left’s perspective, ‘racist’ is essentially Donald Trump’s middle name.”
Because tarring someone as a racist is a “very serious charge,” Derryck uses his PragerU video to show how conservative policies and beliefs don’t warrant the slur. In fact, it can be said that the opposite is actually the case:
So let’s examine some conservative policies to see if they are indeed racist. If they are, then the left has a valid complaint. And if they’re not, then the left is lying.
As his first study, Derryck takes on the issue of affirmative action. He says that preference policies may have helped in the past, but should no longer be necessary in present-day America unless the advocate for such policies still harbors poor preconceptions about minorities. Derryck explains:
One can make the case that this policy had some utility when it was first put in place. But that was a long time ago. The conservative position is that blacks have repeatedly proven that they can compete with anyone without the benefits of lower standards…
But the conservative argument goes further. Study after study shows that, in the case of college admissions, affirmative action hurts more blacks than it helps. By lowering admissions standards for blacks and some other minority students, college set many of these students up for failure. They get placed in schools for which they are not prepared. And high black dropout rates confirm this view…
[L]owering standards for blacks is unnecessary as well as insulting. Yet, for this belief, conservatives are called racists.
In its Blueprint, Project 21 likewise notes that colleges “set blacks up to fail” by accepting black applicants with lower SAT and ACT scores, fewer AP credits and lower GPAs than their peers of other races. Schools also fail to provide individualized support so that these disadvantaged black students can overcome this gap. The resulting problem is evident in the small percentage of black students able to graduate within six years. To increase success and to avoid the reality of black students dropping out and amassing debt they cannot easily pay off, Project 21’s Blueprint recommends incentivizing schools to select and nurture the right applicants by tying eligibility for federal aid programs to a minimum six-year graduation rate for both minority students and the entire student population.
Derryck next tackles the issue of voter protections, and says about the left and voter ID laws:
[T]hey argue it’s really a ruse to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting since many of them just aren’t capable of acquiring an ID. Can you get more condescending than that?…
Whites can do it, but blacks can’t. Tell me again who the racists are!
Noting how election fraud has targeted black communities and thus has overturned the gains of the Civil Rights Movement by depriving blacks of a voice in making policy, Project 21’s Blueprint recommends robust ballot protections that include voter ID, proof of citizenship, cleaning up voter rolls of those who have moved or died or have not voted, not mailing ballots to those who don’t request them and prosecuting individuals or groups targeting black communities for voter fraud activities.
Lastly, Derryck notes that school choice is a conservative issue under constant attack from the left:
Tuition vouchers? Charter schools? These are conservative initiatives.
Those on the left fight those reforms at every turn. It’s the left that doesn’t trust minority parents to select an appropriate school for their children.
Why aren’t the people who keep black children in failing schools the racists?
To reverse the trend of black students being stuck in failing government-run schools, Project 21’s Blueprint recommends creating a federal needs-based school voucher program and tax credit scholarships that would receive some funding through a reduction in federal support for schools that fail to meet minimum standards. It also recommends a “Low-Income Educational Opportunity Fund” to replace the “Presidential Campaign Fund” on the IRS 1040 form. The Blueprint further recommends that scholarships be accessible to individuals and organizations for use in nursery schools and day care. It also recommends creating a tax credit for parents or other family members who pay a child’s fees and tuition.
This is the second time Project 21’s Derryck Green has been featured in a PragerU video. He similarly addressed race and politics in a 2014 lecture.