How Studying The Greatest Speeches In American History Can Change You (And Your Children) Forever
We simply started with the words. For the foundation of all learning, all communication, and all thought, is words.We simply started with the words. For the foundation of all learning, all communication, and all thought, is words.Teen suspended for using legal term for migrant invaders comes out on top, will likely receive apology from school board
A 16-year-old student was suspended from Central Davidson High School in Lexington, North Carolina, last year for uttering the term "illegal alien" during a vocabulary lesson in English class. In addition to his temporary removal, Christian McGhee was effectively characterized as a racist for making what the school's vice principal Eric Anderson claimed was a "racially insensitive remark that caused a class disturbance."
The class environment that McGhee returned to was apparently so hostile — rife with bullying and threats — that his parents had to take him out of school. According to the Liberty Justice Center, the firm that sued the Davidson County Board of Education on McGhee's behalf alleging violations of his First and 14th Amendment rights, the minor ended up completing the semester through a homeschooling program.
'School officials have effectively fabricated a racial incident out of thin air.'
Court documents obtained by the Carolina Journal reveal that the school board is now willing to concede that the teen's language in class — language used by Congress, the North Carolina General Assembly, and the U.S. Supreme Court — wasn't racist after all and to pay up.
McGhee's lawsuit claimed that on April 9, 2024, the teen was permitted to use the restroom during English class. Upon his return, he found the class engaged in discussion where the word "aliens" came up. The lawsuit claimed that McGhee asked for clarification on the type of aliens being referenced — whether "space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards."
A Hispanic student subsequently joked that he was going to "kick [McGhee's] ass."
Both teens were later hauled into Anderson's office. The complaint alleged that when the Hispanic teen told Anderson he was not offended, the vice principal intimated that he should be, noting McGhee's words "were a big deal."
McGhee was ultimately suspended and notified that "there shall be no right to an appeal of the principal's decision to impose a short term suspension (10 days or less) to the Superintendent or Board of Education."
Dean McGee, senior counsel for educational freedom at the Liberty Justice Center, stated after filing the lawsuit last year, "School officials have effectively fabricated a racial incident out of thin air and branded our client as a racist without even giving him an opportunity to appeal."
Nearly a year into the legal battle, the school board blinked.
'Through your reckless attempt to slander my name, you have successfully re-traumatized my family.'
A Friday court filing indicates that the DCBE and the McGhee family have reached a settlement which, if approved by the judge, will have the school board publicly apologize to the teen and fork over $20,000 in compensation to resolve the litigation. The Carolina Journal indicated that the compensation is supposed to help the family with the cost of the teen's new private school.
While the DCBE maintains that the suspension was appropriate due to class disruption, it also agreed to "remove any reference to race or racial bias as a motive for the comments from his educational record, which contains no other incidences of discipline related to racial bias," said the court documents.
Additionally, the DCBE acknowledged "the inappropriate response to this matter by a sitting member," apparently referencing former school board member Ashley Carroll's reported smear of the teen's mother online.
Leah McGhee, the plaintiff's mother, alleged last year that despite hearing nothing back from school officials about the possibility of an appeal, "two board members did choose to send messages to county leaders and residents with my personal arrest record from 14 years ago and encourage them to post this on social media."
Leah McGhee noted further that the posts allegedly shared online by board members Carroll and Alan Beck omitted mention of her reintegration into society and her work since helping people with addiction.
"Through your reckless attempt to slander my name, you have successfully re-traumatized my family," said Leah McGhee. "Your weak attempt to assault my character has failed, but your malicious character has been highlighted. It is my opinion that two members on this board are highly corrupt."
Carroll resigned in April after being charged with DWI after getting into a car crash that reportedly injured a teen student in the district. Her departure may account for why the settlement references only a confidential apology from a single board member over Zoom or Microsoft Teams.
"On Friday, we filed a motion asking the court to approve a settlement that would resolve this matter," Dean McGee told the Carolina Journal. "Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final. We'll have more to say after that hearing, but we're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democrats can’t mock masculinity and expect men to vote for them
Democrats are making a full-court press to woo men back to the party, with the New York Times recently reporting that donors are considering a $20 million effort to connect with the more “privileged” sex. The plan apparently includes studying the “syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in [male] spaces.”
It’s good that the party finally realized that alienating half the electorate is an unwise political strategy. Kamala Harris lost the male vote to President Donald Trump in 2024 by 10 points. The president won 60% of the white male vote, along with 54% of the Hispanic male vote and 21% of the black male vote. Those results are unsustainable.
A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.
But I have news for donors that will save them from wasting time and money: A party can’t do meaningful outreach to people they resent.
That may sound like a harsh assessment of the left’s relationship to men, but it’s true. What’s also true is that the problems Democrats have with messaging to men are primarily ideological, not rhetorical. That’s because the modern Democratic Party has a broad coalition of voters who hate any expression of traditional masculinity. This includes both liberal and radical feminists, LGBTQ+ activists who want to change the definitions of “male” and “female” altogether, and self-flagellating male “allies” who feel duty-bound to rid themselves publicly of their “toxic masculinity.”
The party’s inability to reach men is a structural — not syntactical — problem.
Men in previous generations, including the white majority, had a home in the Democratic Party. At that time, Democrats campaigned on bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs and education. They still talk about those issues today, but they occupy a much different space within the left’s business model.
Issues like the economy, health care, and even race could be viewed as “expenses” Democrats are willing to pay in order to sell their preferred “products”: abortion, all things related to LGBTQ+ Pride, and climate change.
In fact, progressives are so invested in “transgender rights” that they are willing to throw women under the bus to do so. That’s why Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would support boys who identify as girls competing against natal females in sports. Any man watching the left dump its commitment to second-wave feminism in favor of first-wave “theminism” would be a fool to think Democrats would be loyal to him.
RELATED: From feminism to ‘theminism’: Nancy Mace faces liberal fury in Congress
The modern left prioritizes “marginalized” identities more than anything, which makes straight white Christian males apex oppressors in the left’s intersectional “Hunger Games.” This warped worldview puts Democrats in a bind. They want to win back men, but at the same time, they don’t want to upset the coalition of “oppressed” groups who look to them for protection from the “orange menace” currently in the White House — especially since some of the men they’re courting voted for Trump in 2024.
No one on the left wants to be blamed for bringing in a new batch of men into the party whose land acknowledgments are some version of, “My ancestors were settlers, and I don’t apologize for the country they’ve built.”
The truth is, the party whose symbol is a donkey is only interested in male “mules” — men willing to leverage their male “privilege” on behalf of the feminists, abortionists, and Pride activists who hold all the sway on the modern left. That means a black Christian man who is solidly pro-life has no space in the modern Democratic Party, while a white male feminist wearing a shirt with the slogan “The future is female” is a useful ally.
Men can sense the resentment, and many won’t be swayed by effete influencers who binge Joe Rogan interviews and practice their “bro” lingo in the mirror. A political movement can’t spend decades telling men that their very nature is problematic and then act surprised when the people they’ve been chastising defect in large numbers.
The irony is that when these efforts fail to produce the results the party desires, progressive pundits will respond 95% of the time with the type of preachy scolding from the same bitter “cat ladies” who drove men away from the left in the first place.
This is why any attempts to win young men back to the left will ultimately fail without a major change in the party’s priorities. A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.
No more similes? That’s like trying to eat soup with a fork!
Spring has sprung at last. My mind turns to the playful poetry of Ogden Nash, who in “Spring Song” penned “Twang the cheerful lute and zither! Spring is absolutely hither!” Yet reading on, my vernal spirits that so recently were soaring suddenly dropped like a pair of soaking-wet corduroys.
The drop came when I turned to “Very Like a Whale,” in which Nash struck a less mirthful tone: “One thing that literature would be greatly the better for / Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.” Fewer similes and metaphors? He might as well have drawn a thick, unyielding line — one as jarring as a needle scratching across a vinyl record.
With all due respect to the great Ogden Nash, I stand with the simile and an author’s right to use one, in springtime and beyond.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for more clarity in writing, but reading my favorite prankish poet’s proscription was as disorienting as how it feels when removing a T-shirt while standing directly under a spinning ceiling fan. Like an Adirondack chair, his censorious view is easier to get into than out of as time passes.
After all, blanket statements rarely stand the test of time, as inarguably as the adage “dress for the job you want” doesn’t help an accountant seeking to become a beekeeper. Like a band conductor who invariably describes his trumpeter as a man who never toots his own horn, Nash’s sullen take raises more questions than it answers.
In deference to the witty wordsmith, I’ll willingly part ways with metaphors, which have all the subtlety of tidal waves, to answer the clarion call for clarity. But how could a master of light verse have objected to the oh-so-breezy simile, a figure of speech capable of such delightful deployment?
Was Nash being ironic? Possibly. But if so, like a hipster’s ode on mighty Greek warrior Achilles rupturing his own Achilles tendon, or his sardonic screenplay about a corporate whistleblower reporting wrongdoing within a company that manufactures only whistles, the irony was simply too much.
Perhaps Nash first ruminated on his verse in the solitude of a walk, and quiet thought was interrupted. As a celebrity, he must have known he’d find no peace ambling about, as surely as someone named Sherwin Williams cannot expect it when entering a paint store on a busy Saturday morning.
Maybe Nash wasn’t serious at all. Maybe he was merely playing with language, the way one might spend an idle afternoon trying to teach a cat irregular verbs.
Then again, the verse might have been an admonition.
A simile in the wrong hands can be as dangerously misleading as a manager who describes a lazy employee — one who just happens to be shopping for four new radials — as a “tireless worker.” In an age of rising relativism, maybe the bard was warning of the perils of verbal sorcery.
Whatever his thinking, the problem for writers is plain: Swearing off similes is unbearable, like not correcting a dinner companion who’s asked a waiter for not a carafe but a giraffe of water. It’s as unsurprising as the ending to the classic novel “Death Comes for the Archbishop.”
With all due respect to the great Ogden Nash, I stand with the simile and an author’s right to use one, in springtime and beyond. I won’t die on this hill — having already parted ways with metaphors — but I’m as sure of my view as night follows day.
America Has Lost The Art Of Cursing
Our lazy overuse of curse words has destroyed a tool with which we can shock listeners at appropriate moments.Making English Our National Language Is One Step Toward A More Unified Country
Expecting everyone to speak English is a recognition of reality and a signpost for new Americans seeking to assimilate and prosper.Anyone Who Calls A Man A Woman Immediately Erases His Own Credibility
We are in a civilizational moment where we must all resolve to reject, without apology or explanation, this deception in every form.Sex Isn’t A Bad Word, But ‘Gender’ Is
Popular confusion around 'sex' and 'gender' has laid the groundwork for far-left activists to promote radical gender ideology.House GOP Omnibus Redefines Criminals As ‘Justice-Involved Individuals’
Repackaging language is a common tool used by Democrats to disguise and advance their radical policy proposals.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com