OWS Indoctrination Camp for High Schoolers

· Saturday, February 25, 2012

In Maryland, Montgomery Community College has become the latest institution to offer a class on the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. "Occupy MoCo!" will be offered to students in grades nine through twelve during the summer of 2012 as part the community college's summer youth program. Four days ago, Elizabeth Homan, Montgomery's Director of Communications, told Fox News the course "does not take a stance on the Occupy movement." Perhaps not now that the college has been caught red-handed. Since the story first broke, the course description has been changed twice to cover up its clear initial purpose: recruitment and indoctrination in OWS mob mania.

The original description of course, "You392 Occupy MoCo!" read as follows (italics mine): "We are at an exciting time in the history of the world. People all over the planet are taking democracy into their own hands and working together to create solutions for a better world. Take advantage of this interactive opportunity to learn critical thinking skills that will help you in college and gain insight into becoming a global leader of the 21st century. Learn about the Occupy Wall Street movement and explore real-life human rights implications. Review social justice concepts and explore human rights issues related to current events. Young people hold the power to change their community, their schools, their future -- are you ready to join the movement for justice?"

A new description was put on the college's website on Tuesday: "All around the world, people are taking democracy into their own hands. This class provides a unique, creative opportunity to discuss social issues and protests throughout history, including current events such as Occupy Wall Street. Students will learn about the various processes that can be used to voice opinions in their own community. Join in this interactive class to gain valuable insights into leadership and to develop critical thinking skills for college and life."

What's missing from this description? Any mention of human rights and social justice. Why the change? Course descriptions for the summer program are written with "exciting titles and energizing descriptions" to attract students to the program, Ms. Homan contended. "In an attempt to be fun and interesting, the true content of the class may have been lost."

Perhaps. But one suspects that both the complaints of area residents and online allegations that the course was trying to indoctrinate students have taken their toll. Ms. Homan conceded the possibility. "We've heard from our community that there was some clarity that we needed to provide in our course description, and we're going to correct that," Homan said earlier this week before the change was made. Yet even current students at Montgomery College recognized the inherent problem with the original description. "It's like, 'Are you ready to join the movement for justice?' That's recruiting someone," said student Cameron Lancon.

The course is being created by Neha Singhal with "input from the dean" according to Ms. Homan. Curiously, the college's roster of personnel did not include Ms. Singhal in its database. Ms. Homan explained that summer courses "taught through the workforce development and continuing education, specifically the youth programs are [taught] by part-time, short-term employees." Ms. Homan also insisted that Ms. Singhal "is not affiliated in any way with the OWS movement."

When asked if the college had ever taught a course on the Tea Party, Ms. Homan pointed out that the course "isn't going to be about the Occupy movement. It will be an aspect of it, but it's not the sole focus of the class" which is aimed at examining "current events, different ways people choose to have their voices heard, and terminology surrounding protests." As for the Tea Party aspect, Ms. Homan said that "we've definitely heard from everybody about incorporating an aspect of the Tea Party, and that's definitely valid, and that's something that [Ms. Singhal] will incorporate."

Ms. Homan described the reaction to this story as "mixed," noting that the concern was with the original course description. "That's why we've assured everyone that we've amended it to insure that it reflects...what the course was always intended to be," even as the "effort to be exciting" has gotten the college "more attention than we've ever needed." When asked why the title of the course wasn't changed, Ms. Homan made the point that the added publicity makes it easier to find. "The course is ultimately about voice," she insisted, adding that "there is no intent of advocating for the Occupy movement."

Yet there may be more going on here than the school is willing to admit. By late yesterday afternoon the description of the course had been changed yet again. According to Ms. Holman the final description of the course "which will go to print for the summer youth brochure" is this: "Around the world, growing numbers of people are making their voices heard. This class provides a unique, creative opportunity to discuss social issues and protests in the past and present. What are the frustrations behind them? How are they portrayed? How do you evaluate what you hear? We need to be savvy consumers of information, to learn how to question and evaluate, and, how and when to voice our positions. Join this interactive class to gain valuable insights into leadership and to develop critical thinking skills. This is an excellent investment in yourself, your skills, and your future success."

What's missing? Any mention of the Occupy movement at all. Such an "evolving" course description suggests that Montgomery College, despite the insistence by Ms. Holman that the original course description was nothing more than an over-zealous effort to attract students, has been caught red-handed creating a course they would have preferred remain largely under the public radar. Adding to the dubiousness is the fact that the college is not making instructor Neha Singhal's contact information available. An email sent by Ms. Homan describing Ms. Singhal was vague. She is someone who "has previously taught workshops to high school students in Prince George's County and Montgomery County [Maryland]. She taught in Montgomery College's summer youth program last year. Ms. Singhal works at a four-year university, and she is a master's degree student."

To be fair, Montgomery is hardly unique. Several colleges are teaching courses on the OWS movement, including NYU, Columbia, Brown and UCLA. What sets Montgomery apart is the idea of offering an OWS course to high school students, albeit those taking Advanced Placement classes, as young as 14 years of age. And considering the efforts of college officials to defuse this story by changing the description of the course, as well as keeping its teacher under wraps, one can only wonder whether some of the squalid reality surrounding the OWS movement, including the illegal occupation of public property, the riots, the rapes, and the anti-Semitism -- coupled with its anti-capitalist underpinnings, including publicly professed support from the American Nazi and Communist Parties -- will be an integral part of the curriculum.

Until the details of the syllabus are made available, one is more inclined to believe "Occupy MoCo!" was going to be more about indoctrination than education. Considering the amount of public backpedalling already occurring, one can only imagine how this is playing out in the privacy of the dean's office. The adage, "sunlight is the best disinfectant" seems very apropo.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

mac

They actually start the indoctrination in kindergarten now.

Rights are being constantly refered to as being bestowed by government and there is never any mention of the constitution, or, heaven forbid, religion. Present day history courses do not even cover U.S. history past the 1700's, or if there is any mention of our early years it's that we took away the indian's lands wrongly.

The Dept. of Education must be eliminated. Education has gotten worse every single year since it's exsistance.

Posted February 25, 2012 at 7:54:52 AM


Brian

Mac, I agree with your sentiments 100%. Your last sentence should read "... its existence." An apostrophe is used for forming the contraction of the words "it is", and the word "existence" was misspelled. Those (common) mistakes undermine your otherwise excellent last paragraph.

Posted February 25, 2012 at 1:34:59 PM


bruce

the department of misseducation, a jimmy caca creation, is controlled by amrican hating commies and should be closed but won,t be at least not by this crop of rinos.

Posted February 25, 2012 at 2:43:54 PM


Sam K

If I had a dollar for every class description that tried to make the course material sound 'fun and interesting' at my own University, I would be flat broke.

Posted February 25, 2012 at 6:25:52 PM


Doktor Riktor Von Zhades

Indoctrination has replaced education. Tea Party aspect to considered? Doubtful. The mantra of the left is simply this; GIMMIE, GIMMIE, GIMMIE, MO, MO, MO, and when you have nothing left to give we'll take what is yours....

Posted February 26, 2012 at 12:32:37 AM


mac

Brian-

Thanks and sorry for my terrible english. I am well read but no excuses.

Never got my degree but I was a single parent who raised my daughter to get hers.

Posted February 26, 2012 at 7:14:51 AM


Stephen

They should start this course by teaching students the definition of a "Democracy" as printed in The Soldiers Training Manual (TM 2000-25) on "Citizenship" issued by the United States War Department, November 30, 1928.

"TM 2000-25: 118-120"

Democracy

A government of the masses. Authority is derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the people shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation, or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguery , license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy.

Posted February 26, 2012 at 4:21:50 PM


Tina

There is nothing wrong with this article, except that it fails to make any point whatsoever. Mr. Ahlert never states why exactly he takes issue with a community college offering a community summer program that teaches social movements and possibly civil disobedience. This is my biggest point of contention with the entire Tea Party/Libertarian movement: every person has the right to make their own decisions about educating their children until that program questions the status quo.

Parents have the option to enroll their minor children in a non-compulsory summer class which "indoctrinates" students in a certain mindset. Does Mr. Ahlert also take issue with science camp, soccer camp, church camp, theater camp, and other forms of "indoctrination" that parents choose to have their children participate in? Does he take issue with a church that edits their camp description in order to attract a wider audience?

Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:56:32 AM


alex torello

mac:

Please carefully proofread the final sentence in your last post. I'm quite sure it does not read as you intended.

One of the pitfalls many bloggers encounter is a rush to submit without proofreading 2 or 3 times. Errors occur when we don't review our material.

Good luck to all!

Posted February 27, 2012 at 12:42:19 PM


Army Officer (Ret)

Alex,

I'm surprised you missed the error in the original article: the last word should be spelled "apropos," not "apropo."

Tina,

It's one thing to phrase a truthful description in such a way as to attract a wide audience: it is another thing to be deceptive, which it appears this may well be. The other difference is that this is being promoted to public school students for academic credit at taxpayer expense, unlike your other examples. Since the government recognizes the credentials of academic institutions like the public high schools in Montgomery, Maryland, and tax payers are picking up the tab, this deserves more scrutiny than the recruiting brochures for a private band / soccer / church camp.

Posted February 27, 2012 at 5:37:26 PM


Tina

Army Officer (Ret):

YOU (not the author)make a good argument for criticizing/scrutinizing the content of the course based on your understanding of the funding and credits. I do not know if your assertions that

1. taxpayers are funding the summer program or

2. students will gain academic credit

are factual or known to Mr. Ahlert as he has addressed neither of these assertions in the article.

It looks to me that neither of your assertions are true. According to the college web site, the summer youth programs are listed as non-credit enrichment programs.(http://cms.montgomerycollege.edu/wdce/youthsummer_coursedescriptions.html) The Occupy MoCo course is offered alongside courses in building and launching model rockets, drawing cartoons, and circus camp. Which makes it VERY comparable to the camps I gave as examples. The entire summer youth program looks like a way to generate revenue (not spend public funds) as there is considerable cost to the parents.

Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:52:07 AM


Army Officer (Ret)

Tina,

Objection 1 - still stands. Since every public school and probably every college in the nation receives taxpayer funds of some sort, I don't think it was necessary for the author to point that out. Money is fungible, and since Montgomery College receives tax dollars, the public IS funding this program, at least indirectly, so my first objection stands, even if there is a fee to attend.

Objection 2 - not sure: The author noted that it was being offered to Advance Placement students. That led me to infer that public high school students would get academic credit for attending. (The brochure's stipulation of "non-credit" only applies to college credit at Montgomery College, as Montgomery College has no control over what credit other institutions grant.) I may be wrong about the high school credit, as he did not explicitly write that, but it seemed like the most logical implication. If my inference is incorrect I will withdraw my second objection. Good catch.

Posted February 28, 2012 at 3:05:24 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund