Categories
9th & Congress

9th & Congress: Why are women leading the protests?

When you watch the news about the latest left-wing protests in America, it’s striking how the protestors seem to be majority female. Is it because women are more passionate about current events… or are we just better at organizing?

I was recently a guest on The Sweet Tea Series, hosted by my TPPF colleague, Ariana Guajardo. In the episode, we explore women’s pivotal role in grassroots political movements across the ideological spectrum.

So much of this can be traced back to the feminization of academia. Nearly 60% of students on college campuses are now women. They are being taught that they are oppressed by the patriarchy, and shunning family formation at historic rates as a result.

Watch this episode to learn more about how these things are trending, and what it could mean for the future of the country.

 P.S. Don’t miss a special live, in-person edition of Winners & Losers with Talk 1370 AM’s Jim Cardle and Lynn Wooley. It’s tomorrow (Thursday) evening at TPPF HQ in downtown Austin. RSVP here.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

You can also listen to the Sherry Sylvester Show on Apple or Spotify.

Categories
9th & Congress

Texas A&M is Right to End Women and Gender Studies

Some professors at Texas A&M have issued a letter expressing outrage over the recent decision to eliminate the women’s and gender studies degree programs. Revving up the dramatics, faculty who run the program warn that the university is dismantling this degree track at a “moment of incendiary dispute across cultural, social, and political difference on the issues of gender.”

A moment of incendiary dispute? Let’s take a closer look.

In 1971, I helped found the first chapter of the National Organization for Women in the Southwest. Back then, rape was close to a free crime — prosecution depended almost entirely on whether a woman could prove she had done nothing to invite the attack. Jobs were openly segregated by sex — into men’s work and women’s work. Women often couldn’t get loans or credit cards without the signature of a father or husband. Discrimination against women in hiring and college admissions was illegal — but still widespread. Men outnumbered women on campus by roughly 56 percent to 42 percent, and most of women in college were training to become public school teachers because the doors to many other professions were limited.

There were 19 women in Congress.

Like most boomer women, I have a million stories about the real barriers women faced in those relatively recent times — but enough about me. I raise my personal story only to make one thing clear: I would never support ignoring a truly incendiary moment for women. I’ve got the battle scars—and a few medals—to prove it.

But that is not where we are.

Today, 57 percent of university students are women, while 42 percent are men—a reversal that some of us actually think deserves serious attention. That imbalance holds in elite professional schools as well: About 55 percent of law and medical students are female, compared to roughly 44 percent male. Among Gen Z, the wage gap between men and women is almost nonexistent. And there are now about 150 women in Congress—still not proportional to the population, but frankly that may say more about the job than about women’s ambition.

Rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence are universally recognized as serious crimes and they are prosecuted.

The fights that got us here were real and they mattered. But pretending we’re still living in the seventies is political theater, not scholarship. Which brings us to women’s and gender studies.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) claims that women’s and gender studies at Texas A&M has “advanced the core values of the institution.”

Seriously? Exactly how does a women and gender studies program, which places ideology over empirical data, identity over merit, and activism over scholarship advance the values of a serious university like Texas A&M?

At their foundation, all women’s and gender studies programs rest on the claim that gender is entirely “socially constructed.” Give girls trucks instead of dolls and—presto—they’ll all want to play football. Or something like that.

Layered on top of that socially constructed mishmash is Marxist-feminist theory, which insists the United States is a functioning patriarchy where it’s the boys who rule — everything, while girls drool. Trying to challenge that theory is dismissed — in the true Marxist manner — as false consciousness.

Then there’s queer theory and contemporary gender ideology, built on the deeply unscientific claim that gender is arbitrary — something you can select, reject, remix, or reinvent at will. In this framework, nothing is objective or innate: not sex, not meaning, not norms, not reality itself. Everything is negotiable.

And then come the intersectionality’s. Entire courses are devoted to ranking oppression based on sex, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, religion, body type — whatever category happens to be in fashion. Students are taught not to see themselves as individuals, but as political identities nested inside grievance hierarchies.

Is it any wonder this entire enterprise is widely known on campuses across the country as “grievance studies”?

One Texas A&M sociology professor who has been teaching women and gender studies for years responded to the program cut with this rallying cry: “We have to keep fighting and standing up for our students’ right to have an education that is critical for the times they live in.”

As someone who actually did my share of fighting for women’s rights, I don’t believe this professor — or anyone teaching women’s studies, gender studies, or queer theory — has much of a clue about the times we live in now.

According to the Texas Tribune, Texas A&M offered both a BA and a BS in women’s and gender studies as well as a minor, and a graduate certificate. A total of 56 students were enrolled in the program — that’s 56 out of 74,707 students on the flagship campus at College Station.

Leaders at Texas A&M are clearly right to shut down this low-enrollment, ideologically driven program and they are also right to continue to examine and eliminate classes that are similarly built on ideology and anti-American, anti-Western activism.

Texas public universities were built by and are paid for by the people of Texas. Hysterical faculty members at Texas A&M might want to pay a bit more attention to those people and their “core values.”

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.o discuss the issue of what the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and others are doing to destabilize Texas and dismantle Western culture next Tuesday. CLICK HERE for more information.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

You can also listen to the Sherry Sylvester Show on Apple or Spotify.

Categories
9th & Congress

9th & Congress: “Islamic Games” are “Identity Sports”

It didn’t take long for Grapevine-Colleyville ISD and Cy-Fair ISD to back off their offer of the use of public school facilities to host the so-called “Islamic Games,” once it was revealed that one of the sponsors was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has linked to foreign terrorists.

What’s harder to figure out is why anyone in those school districts considered hosting an athletic event exclusively for Muslims in the first place. The website for the Islamic Games of Dallas calls its program the “premier athletic platform” for Muslim children in America, but there is no explanation of why we need a separate athletic platform for Muslim kids. Is it because of religion?

We don’t have “Presbyterian Games,” “Baptist Games,” or “Jewish Games” set aside for athletic programs for children of those faiths, although when large Catholic high schools compete around the country—Loyola and St. Ignatius in Chicago, for example and Central Catholic and Jesuit in Portland—it is always unofficially billed as the “Holy War.” But that’s just competition, not segregation.

We also don’t set aside “athletic platforms” for racial or ethnic groups. Hispanics, Asians and African Americans don’t have special athletic competitions. There are no “White People Games.” Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have several athletic conferences that are almost exclusively HBCUs, but many of those schools also participate in other NCAA conferences. And Black athletes are certainly not limited to those venues. The NCAA estimates that based on self-reporting, about 50% of Division 1 NCAA football and basketball players are African American.

The people of Texas, speaking through the Texas Legislature, have made it clear they don’t want our education programs divided by identity—race, gender, ethnicity or religion.

They want every student to be judged on his or her own merit, their initiative and their ability to learn, progress and accomplish their goals. Nowhere is this more important than in sports, where teamwork, thinking under pressure, striving against the odds and listening to others are critical to success.

The NCAA doesn’t know how many Muslims or Jews participate in campus sports because they don’t keep records based on religion. But they estimate it’s about 1% for each group. To contrast the “Islamic Games” model, consider the great story about Jeff Retzlaff, the quarterback for Brigham Young University last season who was one of only three Jewish students on campus. BYU has a great football team and there were a number of stories about Retzlaff learning to become their leader, when many on his team had never met or talked to a Jewish person before. Retzlaff got a NIL deal from the kosher food processors, Manischewitz, raising his profile—and the profile of the Jewish community in college sports.

Retzlaff transferred to Tulane this season, a university that also has only a tiny number of Jewish students, where he played in a College Football Playoff game last month. We can be glad that Retzlaff wasn’t segregated off into some kind of “Jewish Games” athletic platform so he’d only play sports with other Jews. His non-Jewish teammates at both schools call their experience playing with him life-expanding.

The “Islamic Games,” aren’t about building any of that. They aren’t about leadership or athletic skills. Instead, they are one of many efforts by some in the Muslim community to block the assimilation of Muslim kids and the Muslim community into American culture and the larger American community.

As TPPF Board member Cody Campbell has repeatedly and clearly articulated, school sports are a big part of the glue that holds our communities together—where we all share the same values of working hard, achievement and merit. Sports are where our kids learn to think under pressure, where they learn to listen to people they may have nothing in common with other than the game, where they learn push to defy the odds, and where they make friendships that will last a lifetime.

None of that will happen at some weekend sports program at the local high school where the only kids allowed to participate are Muslim. Let’s assume the folks at Colleyville-Grapevine and Cy-Fair were just trying to be nice, and hope they look more closely before they decide to host a program that only includes one religion, or one ethnic group or one race.  Texans don’t support identity politics – or identity sports.  That’s not who we are.

My colleague, Mandy Drogin, and a stunning panel of experts are going to discuss the issue of what the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and others are doing to destabilize Texas and dismantle Western culture next Tuesday. CLICK HERE for more information.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

You can also listen to the Sherry Sylvester Show on Apple or Spotify.

Categories
9th & Congress

9th & Congress: Parents’ Bill of Rights Ends They/Them Fight

An enterprising reporter at the New York Post never believed the FBI when it said that Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old young man who shot President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, didn’t have a social media footprint. She kept digging and found that Crooks was hanging out in some dark corners of the Internet and had a very weird and sometimes awful presence online.

Among other things, Crooks described himself using they/them, as gender-confused people sometimes do. His social media postings feature transgender flags, colors and themes, although it’s not clear how he viewed himself.

He posted photos of himself shooting guns and was included in chats with so-called “furries.” He also downloaded lots of photos of very muscular women.

It is clear Crooks was disconnected and deeply troubled, which raises questions about how he was treated in school. Did his teachers call him they/them and if so, do they think it helped him?

It is an important question because recently, the Texas Tribune reported that some Texas teachers believe that the worst thing you can do to a child is call him “him” or her “her” if he or she says they are a they/them.

These teachers also say it is even worse if teachers call a child by the actual name they were given at birth but which they no longer use because they have declared themselves to be the other gender. They say to refer to a child by their given name is “dead-naming.” That is why some teachers are pushing back against Senate Bill 12, passed earlier this year.

Senate Bill 12—the Parents’ Bill of Rights—prohibits public schools from assisting children who try to present themselves as the opposite sex. The legislation was necessary because too many teachers seem to believe it is their job to help students hide their gender confusion from their parents.

SB 12 is designed to prevent schools from enabling the delusion of students who say they are the opposite sex, including calling a boy Susan if his name is Bill.

According to the teachers who spoke to the Texas Tribune, gender-confused students across Texas will suffer from “dead-naming” if SB 12 is implemented.

Over the past decade, DEI infused curriculums have normalized the idea that kids can transition from one gender to the other, by teaching that the sex that is recorded on birth certificates is arbitrary. According to DEI, every individual chooses what sex they are—male, female or other—and there are lots in that third category.

My guess is that most teachers are happy that SB 12 put an end to this madness, but the ones who talked with the Texas Tribune are deeply concerned that they will no longer be able to teach kids that there are dozens of genders and they just need to pick one. These teachers say they pride themselves on openness—except when it applies to parents. They believe the Parents’ Bill of Rights is interfering with their ability to push this stuff on kids in classrooms across Texas, while keeping it from their parents. Hopefully, no one but the Texas Tribune will take them seriously.

Officials are continuing to study the clues Thomas Crooks left behind, particularly since it has become clear that President Joe Biden’s FBI blew the investigation. The feds stopped asking questions at a point in time in 2020, when Crooks was a strong Trump supporter, before he become such a violent Trump hater that he ultimately tried to shoot him.

We don’t know what went wrong, but investigators should examine what happened to him at school. Was he taught that he could simply declare himself they/them? What do his teachers say?

Finally, if you think this story is vaguely reminiscent of stories you have heard about other shooters over the last few years, that’s because it is.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

You can also listen to the Sherry Sylvester Show on Apple or Spotify.

Categories
9th & Congress

9th & Congress: At Least they Didn’t Fire Mike Gundy for Telling the Truth

Oklahoma State University finally fired football coach Mike Gundy this week after another embarrassing defeat by the University of Tulsa. At least they didn’t fire him for telling the truth.

Earlier this season, I attended an ugly match-up between the top-10 ranked Oregon Ducks who trounced the Cowboys by 66 points – the largest margin of defeat since before Oklahoma was a state. Gundy got the blame, but in fact, he just said the quiet part out loud.

When Gundy pointed out that Oregon had spent over $40 million on NIL, while Oklahoma State had less than $7 million to spend, his comments were widely denounced and drew a wave of national blowback. It didn’t seem sporting to just come out and say that if you lose, it’s because your opponent paid millions to get a lot of good players and you couldn’t afford to buy better ones.

Oregon Coach Dan Lanning fired back, rightly pointing back that the objective is to win football games, not to whine about the process: “If you want to be a top 10 team in college football, you better be invested in winning. We spend to win.”

I was in Eugene for the game and before the kick-off, the Ducks ran the tape of Gundy bad-mouthing Oregon’s big NIL budget on the Jumbotron. It was met by thunderous boos as Ducks fans waved signs reading “We Spend to Win.” So now school pride also apparently means, “we’ve got more money than you.”

Everybody in college football knows what Gundy said is true. What they don’t seem to know is that without billionaire backers virtually every college football program in the country is losing money and because football is the only revenue producing sport, when football goes, every sport ultimately will go.

Cody Campbell, founder of Saving College Sports, recently published an op-ed in USA Today outlining what must be done to transform the regulations governing (and not governing) Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) payments to college players as well as other reforms that will protect all college athletes – including Title IX sports and those athletes who participate in non-revenue producing sports — which is everyone but the football team. President Donald Trump has also made saving college sports a priority. The answer is revenue which is why Campbell is calling for the reform of the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act.

Some see another irony in Gundy’s leaving the stage because Oregon might be on the same path as Oklahoma State, which was once bankrolled by the legendary T. Boone Pickens. Pickens built some of the finest football facilities in the nation in Stillwater, but he died before NIL rules were adopted so it is unlikely any financial provisions were put in place from his gifts to the athletic program that would ensure Oklahoma State would remain competitive.

Oregon’s entire athletic program, including football, was built and is maintained by Nike founder Phil Knight. Knight is a very active and engaged 87-year-old, so it is unlikely that he will leave the field without a plan to keep the Ducks in the Top 10. But what should he plan for? How much money will it take?

Unless the reforms that Trump and Campbell are calling for move forward, there will be more feast or famine situation games like what I witnessed in Eugene. Schools that can wrangle billionaire benefactors will have the resources to compete, while others will be resigned to doing bake sales and selling raffle tickets.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Categories
9th & Congress

Texas Universities Need More Reform

After Texas passed the strongest anti-DEI legislation in the country last year, the faculty and administrators who opposed it predicted apocalypse.

They insisted that professors would leave Texas and no talented prospects would come to replace them. They said students would wander their campuses lost in despair without DEI’s identity-based support centers and programs that separate students on the basis of race, gender and sexuality — the “oppressors” and the “oppressed.”

Two years later, the sky has not fallen; Texas institutions of higher education are among the best in the nation. Still, there are academics who are part of the wider DEI infrastructure—faculty members and administrators—who remain disgruntled.

They insist the work of DEI is to help minority and marginalized students succeed in college, and to ensure that faculty members reflect Texas’ great multi-cultural community.

But neither point is even remotely true. Minority enrollment and faculty diversity did not increase in the decades after DEI programs were put in place on Texas campuses, because closing gaps and real inclusion aren’t the goals of DEI. Their objective is re-writing history and undermining American values.

According to the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the mission of DEI is to “engag[e] in ongoing ways to incorporate alternative narratives in the curriculum and provide robust learning opportunities on the history of racism, colonization, and conquest and on how higher education and other sectors of society have been complicit in maintaining systems of privilege.”

DEI, as expressed both in and out of the classroom, is rooted in the notion that systemic racism and patriarchy are the core foundation of every American institution. That is why using DEI as a minority recruitment tool has not been successful in increasing the number of minority or marginalized students or improving their graduation rates or outcomes. The Texas Legislature was absolutely right to get rid of it.

When Senate Bill 37, the next wave of higher education reform, passed the Texas Senate, some of the same professors and administrators who opposed the anti-DEI bill raised their voices to predict Armageddon again. Leonard Bright, a professor at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, told the Dallas Morning News that the bill represents a “political invasion.” Professor Bright said “Ultimately the goal of the bill [SB 37] is to intimidate faculty, quiet our voices and to punish us for having the courage to speak truth to power.”

Talk of intimidation is pretty rich coming from faculty members who, until SB 17 passed two years ago, had made sure anyone who wanted to be considered for a university job had to present a “diversity statement” pledging their fealty to the ideology of DEI.

Led by Harvard’s resistance to President Donald Trump’s recent decision to pull $2.2 billion from the school because of its failure to address anti-Semitism and revert to merit-based admissions and hiring, university professors across the country are circling the wagons, vowing to protect their “right” to continue to play a leading role in running universities and determining what is to be taught. The professors at Texas universities who oppose SB 37 may be inspired by this “resistance” movement.

But there’s a big difference. Faculty members at public universities in Texas are state government employees. Their salaries are paid by taxpayers and ultimately, they answer to the people’s elected representatives. They have not been anointed with some edict from on high that gives them complete control over what is taught in classrooms or spoken on campus.

SB 37 clarifies this by affirming that Boards of Regents have the responsibility for hiring all university leadership and ensuring the curriculum is fundamental and foundational, so that every course of study will produce graduates with the skills to succeed in the global economy and serve as good citizens. It also makes clear that the role of faculty in both hiring and curriculum is strictly advisory.

Some faculty insist that expanding the role of the Boards of Regents in curriculum review will somehow violate their academic freedom, but most courses, like Numbering Race and Measuring Racial Inequality, can still be taught. They just can’t be used to substitute for core credit in place of Introduction to Mathematics, Differential Calculus or Statistical Literacy. SB 37 won’t limit ideas in the classroom, but it will require that precepts like the DEI premise that every sector of American society is complicit in maintaining white privilege is not presented as fact.

Faced with the reality of change, some faculty argue that SB 37 drastically departs from how Texas universities have “historically operated.” Perhaps they are right, but look at what that history has gotten us. In addition to failing to increase diversity and foster successful outcomes for minority and marginalized students, they have created college campuses where too many students are afraid to speak their minds. According to the latest survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), 40 to 50 percent of students at Texas universities say they are afraid to say what they think both in class and on campus.

FIRE also found that, while the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 1 to 1 at Texas A&M and Texas Tech, at the University of Texas at Austin, Texas State and the University of North Texas, the ratio is 4 to 1—about the same as Harvard.

This insulated ivory tower does not serve Texas students or the taxpayers who provide billions for state universities. The changes in the way Texas universities are governed put forward in Senate Bill 37 are critically needed. It is time.

 

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Categories
9th & Congress

Trump Team Pointing Harvard To Texas Model

On Monday, federal officials announced they would freeze $2.2 billion in federal funds for Harvard University, along with an additional $60 million grant, after the school’s leadership hauntingly refused to meet new requirements that they establish merit-based admission and hiring policies, reform university governance and audit the student body, faculty, staff and leadership to make sure the campus reflects viewpoint diversity.

Trump administration leaders might have been telling Harvard to follow what has become the Texas higher education reform model. Merit-based hiring and admissions became law in the Lone Star State last legislative session when Texas passed the strongest anti-DEI legislation in the country. University governance and viewpoint diversity are central features in the higher education reform legislation that has passed the Texas Senate and is expected to pass the Texas House and become law.

Harvard quickly said no to Trump administration officials, firing back that, among other things, the federal government didn’t define “viewpoint diversity.”

It is sad, but not surprising that the people running the nation’s oldest university don’t know what viewpoint diversity is, but a quick look around Harvard Yard should give them a clear idea of what it isn’t.

The latest report from the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression (FIRE) once again gave Harvard an “abysmal” ranking on free speech issues—the lowest of any of the 250 universities they surveyed.

70% of students at Harvard believe it is at least sometimes acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent him from talking. Almost a quarter of Harvard students say it can even be acceptable to use violence to stop someone from speaking and over half, 53%, say they censor themselves once or twice a month from saying what they think in class or on campus.

As for viewpoint diversity, for every conservative student at Harvard there are four liberal students.

Harvard University president Alan Garber said, “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Garber is probably right. Harvard shouldn’t let the federal government be the boss of them. It is time for Washington to pull all federal taxpayer dollars out of Harvard so they can go it alone, standing on the principles they all agree on. (Granted, more than half may disagree, but are afraid to say so). Harvard’s $53 billion endowment is tax free and larger than the GDP of 100 countries. They can scrape by without taxpayer funds.

Of course, Harvard will scream about the loss of cutting edge research underwritten by federal funds, but the scientists who are conducting that research would undoubtedly be glad to move to a university that is still receiving federal funds—because they hire and recruit based on merit.

The Trump administration says Harvard’s response is indicative of the “troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges.” Unfortunately that “troubling entitlement mindset” is not limited to Harvard. Some faculty and administrators at Texas universities are fighting Texas reforms in much the same way as Harvard, “decrying what they call “outside influence” on campus—and wailing that their academic freedom and rights to free speech are being attacked.

By outside influences, they mean the Boards of Regents, who are appointed by the governor to run the universities. They also mean the Texas Legislature, who are elected to appropriate the state budget and the Texas taxpayers who pay their salaries. Texans invest billions in Texas universities every year in order to ensure their children can get an education that will lead to their success in the global marketplace.

The FIRE survey at the University of Texas at Austin found its free speech rating to be almost as bad as Harvard’s. In terms of viewpoint diversity, UT’s liberal to conservative ratio is also 4 to 1, mirroring Harvard.

At the University of North Texas, 75% of students believe it is sometimes acceptable to shout down a speaker with whom you disagree and 40% of students say they censor themselves regularly. This self-censoring is not just the result of youth or inexperience. A FIRE survey of faculty found that 87% of university faculty nationwide report finding it difficult to have an open and honest conversation on campus about at least one hot button political topic. Instead of centers for open inquiry, our campuses have become the realm of thought police.

At Texas A&M and Texas Tech, the liberal to conservative ratios are about one to one, but viewpoint diversity at Texas State University and the University of North Texas is as slanted as Harvard with  the ratio of liberals to conservative at 4 to 1.

Texas lawmakers have said no to all this—and more. Higher education reformers, led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Senate Education Chairman Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, are pushing back against the Ivory Tower culture. They have introduced reforms that restore universities to their mission of free speech and open debate, mandating merit based admissions and hiring and empowering Boards of Regents, while reining in faculty and administrative cabals that have created campuses where students are afraid to speak, course offerings are littered with meaningless classes and graduates receive degrees that have no value.

The Trump administration should continue to demand that universities receiving taxpayer dollars follow Texas’ lead.

Categories
9th & Congress

DEI is a departure from the Civil Rights Movement

This commentary was originally published by the San Antonio Express-News.

Diversity, equity and inclusion are words that appeal to American values, but DEI programming departs from American tradition.

Both President Donald Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott have pumped up their efforts to end diversity, equity and inclusion, known as DEI, programs everywhere they find them — in public schools and universities, government agencies and the military.

Trump’s Jan. 21 order also targeted publicly traded companies, and in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton has focused on Costco  and its support for DEI.

But I wonder if its executives really know what DEI is.

A lot of people don’t exactly know what DEI is, and that is intentional.  DEI sounds like a good thing.  Diversity and inclusion are strong American values, and as for equity — that’s like equality, right?  Even U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders doesn’t know the difference.

But equity is not the same as equality. Equality means everyone must be given an equal chance to enter the race. The DEI crowd often frames equity as providing the resources that ensure equal opportunity, but it often comes across as everyone who enters the race must win it, regardless of how they perform.

Whatever the framing, Americans don’t like DEI.  In 2023, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where I am a senior fellow, polled Texans before Senate Bill 17, which outlawed DEI programs at public universities, and found that almost 70% of respondents, including a majority of Black and Hispanic Texans, did not want special programs to help minority students succeed.

Texans want every student to be treated the same. That’s equality.

The U.S. Constitution, as well as laws created in the 1960s to prevent discrimination on the basis of race or sex — Title VI and Title IX — remain in full force, and university programs for students, including mentoring, tutoring and counseling programs, continue across every campus.

But that is not what DEI is about, and it never has been.  DEI’s mission is to change America’s sense of who we are by challenging our values and rewriting our history.

Contrary to what pro-DEI advocates are saying today, DEI was not part of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  Martin Luther King Jr. was motivated by a dream that someday his children would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin — a “color-blind”  America.  Today, DEI proponents have argued the term “color-blind” can perpetuate racism.

As a result of DEI, beginning in kindergarten and extending to university classrooms and company boardrooms, alternative narratives proclaim that America is founded on racism and white supremacy. DEI divides all Americans into two groups — oppressors, who are racists and colonizers, and those they oppress, whom they call victims.

DEI teaches that because of America’s original sin of slavery, we are all doomed to live in a country where those who are oppressed cannot succeed, no matter how hard they try, because racists have stacked the deck against them.

Now higher education officers and other DEI officials are suing Trump because he took immediate and comprehensive steps to end DEI.

It is hard to understand why Trump’s and Abbott’s actions to end DEI are even controversial.  Over the last 20 years, DEI has not increased the numbers of minority students on campuses, and a Texas study conducted last year showed  DEI programs also didn’t improve educational outcomes, including graduation rates or better job opportunities, for minority students.

DEI is a multibillion-dollar industry that has infiltrated our schools, businesses and government. But instead of making our communities more diverse and inclusive, it has divided us by race, gender, sexual orientation and ancestry. That’s why Trump’s edict to end DEI is both broad and deep. It needs to be.

Categories
9th & Congress

Gender is Over! Sex is Back!

A Texas History Lesson on Trump’s Biological Truth Proclamation

President Donald J. Trump’s unequivocal statement on Inauguration Day—that there are just two biological sexes in America—ends the heinous practice of using laws designed to protect women from sex discrimination to promote men pretending to be women.

Trump’s Executive Order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is monumental. The battle for “biological truth” has been going on for almost a decade.

Here’s how it went down in Texas:

In 2017, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made Senate Bill 6, the Women’s Privacy Act, a legislative priority. The bill was authored by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, and was Texas’ emergency response to President Barack Obama’s federal edict, issued in 2016, that all public schools must allow boys who think they are girls to use the girls’ restrooms. If they didn’t, they would lose their federal funding.

Kolkhorst, an NCAA champion athlete, could see the writing on the wall. The language of the legislation was straightforward, simply stating that in Texas public schools and in state-owned buildings men and boys would not be allowed in women’s restrooms. The bill was later expanded to prohibit men and boys from participating in women’s and girls’ sports.

Although property tax reform and school choice were also legislative priorities for the lieutenant governor in 2017, the media snidely referred to the Women’s Privacy Act as “the bathroom bill” and made it the defining issue of the session. They used it to push a narrative that the Republicans who’d been elected to lead the state were actually crazed right wingers, too radical for everyday Texans. To demonstrate this point, they created a tasteless video featuring some “everyday Texans” standing up for the right to “Pee with the LGBT.”

Polling consistently showed that the public supported separate restrooms for girls and women, but pollsters and the media went all out to obscure that data, ultimately insisting it was an issue that could not be polled.

Kolkhorst rightly defined the bathroom bill as a women’s rights issue, but news reports rarely included her statements on her legislation. Instead, they distorted her message, portraying her and her fellow senators who supported the bill as bigoted and out-of-touch. Hundreds of screaming left-wing activists mobbed the Capitol to testify against it.

Many major Texas businesses weighed in against SB 6, prodded to act by a new generation of DEI officers who had infiltrated corporate board rooms and propagated the lie that Texas would lose billions in tourism dollars because gay people would boycott travel in the state. AT&T, Dell, Kimberly-Clark, Southwest Airlines and Texas Instruments joined with national firms including IBM, Facebook, Apple and American Airlines in sending a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott, Patrick and then-Speaker of the House Joe Straus insisting that SB 6 would “seriously hurt the state’s ability to attract new businesses, investment, and jobs.” They produced a serious-looking impact study that purported to show that passing SB 6—or even talking about it—would cost the state $8.5 billion and 100,000 jobsEven left-leaning Politifact admitted the study was bogus.

The NCAA threatened to pull the Final Four out of Texas (they didn’t) and the National Football League (NFL) suggested it might not hold another Super Bowl here (it did).

Despite being ruthlessly attacked in both the state and national media, Patrick and Kolkhorst stared down Obama and stood their ground. The Texas Senate passed the Women’s Privacy Bill on a party-line vote. The bill was gutted in the Texas House.

Looking back a decade later, Texas Democrats and the media can still be heard muttering “bathroom bill” under their breath from time to time, but Texas lawmakers have passed strong legislation protecting women’s spaces and women’s sports, prohibiting puberty blockers and sex change operations in children as well as the strongest anti-DEI bill in the nation. DEI officers are being purged from corporate conference rooms and female athletes are pushing back against males participating in their sports and it looks as if the NCAA is on the path to finally institute a ban.

History should not be kind to Obama. With the help of the DEI cartel and the left-wing media, he created a country where men were not only able to go into women’s restrooms, but also women’s prisons, simply by claiming to be women. Thanks to him, we got federal documents that give a half dozen options in addition to male and female to report what sex you are, teachers can be prosecuted for refusing to refer to a boy as “her,” and a Supreme Court Justice of the United States can say that she is not qualified to define a woman because she is “not a biologist.”

Trump’s Executive Order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism” restores biological reality and ends a long ugly decade of this gender insanity. Trump’s Executive Order makes it clear that a woman is defined as an “adult female.” Gender is over. Sex is back!

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Categories
9th & Congress

It’s Not the Economy, Stupid—It’s the Transgender Agenda

It is not a stretch to look at the present state of the campaigns of Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Colin Allred and conclude that they have been stalled by their opponent’s attacks on their support for the transgender agenda.

You could see the exasperation on Harris’ face last week when she was asked about the Trump attack ad against her, which reminds Americans that she boasted about helping a murderer get a sex change operation in prison and pledged to work to ensure that every man in prison who claims to be a woman can get the same operation.

In her reply, Harris tried to wave the issue away as irrelevant. She called it “very remote from the concerns of the American people.”

She is right that the transgender agenda does not rival the economy, the border and crime among voter priorities. Still, since the Trump ads started running with the tagline, “Harris is for ‘they/them,’” she has lost her slight edge in the national polls.

While the transgender issue may not be a top concern for voters, it is having an impact because it provides immediate insight on whether a candidate has common sense, supports women and families, and understands that the basic science which dictates that one’s sex is not a choice. Importantly, unlike fracking and other issues, Harris has not reversed her position on the sex change operations for prisoners or her support for the transgender issue. In the Trump ad she says, “I took the power I had and used it to push the [transgender] agenda.”

The transgender agenda includes support for boys playing in girls’ sports, pushing puberty blockers and sexual transition surgery for children, spending taxpayer dollars for sex change surgery in prisons and the military, and opening public venues for drag shows, even for children.

Harris’ failure to denounce any of this is making a dent in the massive gender gap Harris has long held with white suburban women who are among the last remaining swing voters and now must weigh whether they value unlimited access to abortion more than a candidate who supports the idea that men can get pregnant.

For mothers, the issue is not abstract, but an everyday challenge as their children come home from school with the news that a boy they’ve gone to school with for years is now a girl, or that they got in trouble for forgetting to use the right pronouns. Mothers of volleyball players on the West Coast must now worry that administrators at their daughters’ colleges will force them to play San Jose State, which has a male player who routinely out-spikes every woman on the court.

In the blur of campaign rhetoric at this point, the transgender agenda is one of the few issues where undecided or wavering voters can see a clear difference between Harris and Trump. When the candidates talk about the border, the economy, crime or supporting workers and the middle-class, it is often a waste of time because Democrats use their own phony data and they don’t back down from it, even when it is clearly detached from reality. President Joe Biden insists that, thanks to him, the economy is the best it has ever been. Border czar and Vice President Kamala Harris says 10 million illegals crossing the border is not her fault and even if it was, it’s not really a problem. As for violent crime, Democrats repeatedly tell us that that murder, robbery and assault are all down, even as the FBI quietly reported last week they have been under-reporting crime data for the past two years.

However, Harris and the Democrats have not succeeded in convincing a majority, even among people who like them, that children should be able to declare themselves members of the opposite sex, virtually as soon as they can talk, based entirely on how the child says he or she feels.

When Republicans remind voters that the Biden-Harris administration threatened to pull funding to school districts that did not push the transgender agenda including letting boys who think they are girls go into the girls restrooms and mandating that teachers not inform parents if their child is pretending to be the opposite sex while at school, it makes a difference. That’s why even Democrats admit the transgender ads against them are working.

Most Democrats don’t push back on these attacks. They know their support for men who think they are women and taxpayer funded sex change surgeries are not a winning issue, so they try to change the subject. They also don’t want to annoy their progressive base.

However, here in Texas, Democrat Colin Allred is trying to walk back U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s transgender attack ad against him and you can see his dilemma. Allred got his first campaign ads up months ago and has spent millions trying to convince voters that he is a regular Texas guy, certainly not one of those lefty, pro-trans crazies who hang out in his party. He tried to dismiss the attack ad against him on his support for the transgender agenda with his own ad saying: “I don’t want boys playing girls sports or any of this ridiculous stuff that Ted Cruz is saying.” The “ridiculous stuff” is, of course, Allred’s record.

Allred voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act and he is a co-sponsor of the Transgender Bill of Rights. He also supported the Equality Act which would have mandated that anyone be allowed in all public facilities including bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms, regardless of their gender.

This is not ancient history. Late last month Allred joined a hundred Democrats who signed a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee asking that they remove restrictions Republicans put in the National Defense Reauthorization Act that prohibit the military from performing sex change surgeries. The Democrats also wanted to remove prohibitions against drag shows and flying “pride flags” on military bases.

When asked why he signed the letter, Allred said he didn’t want to second guess military leaders. Instead, the Dallas congressman said he wants to make sure the military has “the tools they need to protect our country.”

It’s not exactly clear how drag shows on military bases “help protect the country,” but normalizing them and giving them government support, as the Democrats who signed this letter propose, is just one more way to attack the science that says sex is binary. It also cuts into the women’s vote because women voters know drag shows are a free space to attack and belittle them.

America doesn’t want this. The Washington Post reports that while most Americans do not believe transgender people should be discriminated against, a majority believe gender is determined at birth and an even larger percentage don’t want boys or men playing in women’s sports. Approval of the transgender agenda is declining as more Americans see and understand what it really means.

The election is fast approaching and it is clear that when the choice is the transgender agenda, he and she is winning big over “they/them.”

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.