Culture War Archives - Homeschool Freedom Action Center

The Necessity of the Nuclear Family

Posted on April 22, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya

By Elise DeYoung

Many say we are living in an age of progression. However, our modern age could accurately be titled “The Age of Regression.” Morally, socially, economically, globally, educationally—we have allowed the poison of individualism and secularism to sweep across our nation, removing tradition in its wake.

Possibly the most invaluable tradition that the Left has banished from its self-proclaimed “progressive utopia” is the family—specifically, the nuclear family. This has resulted in extreme social consequences because the family is the fundamental building block of society.

How did we get here?

George Murdock

George Murdock reached this exact conclusion in his book, Social Structures, published in 1949. His work studied hundreds of diverse civilizations across time in order to understand the “science of human behavior.” Even today, it is considered one of the most comprehensive works on the subject.

The first chapter deals specifically with the nuclear family, which he defines as “a married man and woman with their offspring.” In it, Murdock observes that “the nuclear family is a universal human social grouping… it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society.” He concluded that after examining over 250 cultures, no other social structure could replace the nuclear family on a fundamental level.

“…four vital functions of the nuclear family: the sexual, economic, reproductive, and educational functions.” —George Murdock

How does Murdock measure the success and strength of this family structure? He evaluates the four vital functions of the nuclear family: the sexual, economic, reproductive, and educational functions.

The Sexual Function

The sexual function, fulfilled through the sexual union (marriage) of spouses, aligns sexual desire with morality and decreases cultural perversion.

Regrettably, we now live in a deleterious society that shames all sexual restraint and celebrates sexual promiscuity. Murdock warned against forsaking the sexual function, saying, “Sex cannot safely be left without restraints.”

Clearly, we are suffering from the consequences of disregarding this warning. Whether it be the entertainment industry, sex education for minors, pornography and prostitution, immodesty, reproductive control, LGBTQ+, or the internet, sex is being promoted without restraint and consequences, completely divorced from marriage.

What were the results?

In 2015, the Supreme Court enshrined the contradiction “gay marriage” into law with Obergefell vs Hodges.[1]
60–71% of children have sex before graduating high school.[2]
15.2% of young adults aged 18 to 24 identify as LGBTQ, a stark contrast to older generations who rank below 5%.[3]
In 2017, OnlyFans had 100,000 users, and in 2021, the number skyrocketed to 187.9 million users.[4]
45% of American adults are married, down from 50% in 2015.[5]

This is an extreme problem, not only for the poor people who have fallen prey to these statistics but also for the overall health and sustainability of our society. We have ostracized sexual restraint through marriage, and instead, invited both sexual perversion and promiscuity to rule our minds, lives, souls, and civilization.

The Economic Function

The economic function establishes the division of labor and ensures that each family member is fiscally cared for. Murdock describes the division of labor as follows: the husband takes care of the wife, the wife takes care of the husband, and together, they take care of their children until they are old enough to take care of the parents. This charitable model creates a “gridlock of caretaking” where each member’s needs are accounted for.

This gridlock does not ensure that the nuclear family will be wealthy. However, the statistics prove that it is more likely for a nuclear family to be better off fiscally compared to single-parent homes. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) found, “Children in single-parent families are more likely to live in poverty.” In 2021, 9.5% of children living with two parents lived below the poverty level, compared to 31.7% of children living with a single parent.

However, if American leaders, laws, and voters are genuinely interested in solving poverty or helping young people reach success, they must return to promoting and protecting the nuclear family.

Let me clarify that these general findings are not meant to discourage single mothers or fathers in America. However, if American leaders, laws, and voters are genuinely interested in solving poverty or helping young people reach success, they must return to promoting and protecting the nuclear family.

Melissa Kearney said it well in Time Magazine, “The economic data is clear: to make our nation’s economy stronger for all men, women and children, marriage and family structure must be acknowledged as a driving force of economic well-being. And we must promote positive, shame-free ways of changing our social and economic views on marriage to make improvements that help the nation now and, in the decades, ahead.”[6]

The Reproductive Function

The reproductive function replenishes society by procreation.

It is no secret that for a society to survive, let alone flourish, the members of that society must make more babies. This is arguably the most important aspect of the nuclear family, because it’s the only family structure that can naturally result in the reproduction of children. But, what happens when we abandon this model?

Having children is not only a matter of their own flourishing or society’s; this is about survival.

The immediate effect is birth rates plummet. The birth rate in America has dramatically decreased from 14.3 births per 1,000 people in 2007 to 11.1 in 2021.[7] This is partially due to the decreasing pregnancy rates which, in 2017, reached an all-time low among women aged 24 and younger. This decline has been consistent since the 1980s.[8] Furthermore, since the 1970’s, millions of babies have been murdered in the womb through abortion. In 2021 alone, 626,000 unborn babies were killed.[9]

These two factors result in a rapidly declining birth rate. These numbers are clearly not sustainable for any civilization. Once again, the solution is clear. We must stop killing babies, and encourage young people to get married and have a lot of children. This is not only a matter of their own flourishing or society’s; this is about survival.

The Educational Function

The educational function, fulfilled when parents teach children values and ideals, will result in their flourishing.

We’ve established that the nuclear family provides children with the best fiscal position in society. Not only this, but children within the traditional family structure statistically perform better educationally.

“A new study finds that that by the age of 24, individuals who live in single-parent families as teens received fewer years of schooling and are less likely to attain a bachelor’s degree than those from two-parent families.”[10]

This fact is undeniable in our current age. However, while graduating high school is invaluable in society, it is not the main purpose of the educational function of the family. This is because graduating with a piece of paper does not equate to a good and true view of the world.

This is clear in our current age with the poison of progressive ideology seeping into our schools and corrupting the minds of our youth. It not only leaves destructive effects on the children, but it also threatens to derail our society at large.

Because of its ties to tradition and reality, the nuclear family is the family model best equipped to teach children ideas that will help them flourish in society. The values of marriage, love, charity, hard work, and child-rearing—among many others—are all fundamental to the four functions of the nuclear family.

The Necessity of the Nuclear Family

“In the nuclear family or its constituent relationships, we thus see assembled four functions fundamental to human social life—the sexual, the economic, the reproductive, and the educational. Without provision for the first and third, society would become extinct; for the second, life itself would cease; for the fourth, culture would come to an end. The immense social utility of the nuclear family and the basic reason for its universality thus begin to emerge in strong relief.”

The nuclear family is the fundamental building block of society.

The nuclear family is the fundamental building block of society. It is not only essential for our society’s survival, but is also the best solution to the problems of sexual promiscuity, economic collapse, declining birth rates, and other harmful ideas permeating our current climate.

Murdock said, “No society, in short, has succeeded in finding an adequate substitute for the nuclear family.” I suggest that we not even try.

Feminism: The Radical First Wave

Posted on April 10, 2024 | by Jennifer Bright

By Elise DeYoung

“What began as a movement with the principled intention of equality for women has turned into an abstract ideology that is seeking to overthrow all traditional structures under the guise of women empowerment.”

I wrote this over a year ago for a thesis project, which I titled “Behind the Veil of Feminism.” My goal for the assignment was to look beyond the boss babe propaganda and the gender pay gap debate to answer the deeper question, “What is the ideology of feminism?”

After researching its ideology and those who have historically promoted it, I firmly concluded, and still believe, that feminism is, in fact, “an abstract ideology that is seeking to overthrow all traditional structures under the guise of women empowerment.”

However, I excused first-wave feminism, arguing that feminism fell short of its original, righteous design during the third and fourth waves. It wasn’t until recently when I revisited the first wave, that I became convinced that feminism has never been “a movement with principled intentions.”

Feminism, from its conception, has always been a dangerous ideology, designed to destroy all traditional structures and ways of life.

The Origin of Feminism

The ideology of feminism was born out of the minds of women like Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. These women were discontented with the status of women in 19^th century America. They worked to revolutionize the relationship between women and the broader society.

The movement was officially conceived in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention with the signing of the Declaration of Sentiments. The first wave ended in 1920 with the ratification of the 19^th Amendment.

This period of feminism is largely looked upon with approval by both conservatives and progressives because it resulted in a woman’s right to vote, which in turn led to educational, vocational, and political equality between the sexes. Surely, with these results, we must conclude that first-wave feminism was principled and beneficial. Before we come to this conclusion, we must challenge ourselves with the question, why didn’t feminism dissolve after these political wins? Why have we continued to see a second, third, and fourth wave (each more radical than the last)?

Because the feminist mission was not complete after the ratification of the 19^th Amendment. The amendment was only a means to an end to the early feminists. So, what then, is their end? Thankfully, we do not have to ponder this question long because the early feminists clearly laid out their radical intentions in the Declaration of Sentiments. After examining exactly what the first feminists wrote, I believe it will become clear that the end of feminism has always been social revolution through the reproach and replacement of men and the rejection of the family.

Social Revolution

Leftist movements always have a shared value of revolution. Whether it is climate change, critical race theory, or the LGBTQIA+ movement, all progressive movements call for the dismantling of the past to prepare for the restructuring of the future. Feminism is no exception to this rule.

In the Declaration of Sentiments, Elizabeth Stanton makes the case that in order for women to have the rights they deserve and the positions in society that they desire, a political and social revolution is required. Stanton writes that such a revolution “Has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.”

Stanton wrote revolution into the fabric of feminism. The ideology itself demands the overthrowing of systems, ideas, and traditions which constrain it. Revolution—the foundation of the philosophy—has manifested itself largely in feminism’s insistence on the reproach and replacement of men in society and the rejection of marriage.

All progressive movements call for the dismantling of the past to prepare for the restructuring of the future.

The Reproach and Replacement of Men

We are never surprised today when we hear feminists complaining about the so-called “patriarchy” and expressing their disdain for men. However, this argument has been made since the founding of the ideology.

Stanton wrote, “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” She continues by saying, “He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.”

The brash claim that all men have “an absolute tyranny” over all women is not new. From the beginning, feminists have implanted a disdain for men into their followers. They have done this largely by convincing women of a long list of grievances that men have committed against them. Stanton included such a list in her declaration and used it to justify the destructive nature of the ideology of feminism against men. In short, she argued that men have conducted the government, conditioned society, and instituted religion in order to oppress women. You may be more familiar with this concept as it is known today—the patriarchy.

The feminist solution to this alleged problem is for women to stand up and overthrow men’s tyranny over them. Or as we hear it today, “women need to be empowered to rise up and overthrow the patriarchy.” The effects of this thinking have been women replacing men in almost all spheres of life. Husbands and fathers have been replaced by single mothers or unconventional family units, the universities have been dominated by women, the military has manipulated its standards to uphold women over men, and the workplace has been radically reworked to value women workers over men. The list goes on.

Whether you support these social trends is irrelevant. The fact that cannot be denied is we are seeing the replacement of men in society, and this is all by the first feminists’ design.

The Rejection of Marriage

The most destructive war that feminism has waged since its founding is the war against the traditional family. Some may be tempted to believe that the feminist attack on the family began in 1963 when Betty Friedan published her book Feminine Mystique. In it, Friedan argued that the station of a wife and homemaker is equivalent to that of a slave—where the home is a prison, children the chains, and the husband the jailer. Sadly, this flawed thinking dates back much farther than the 20^th century.

The most destructive war that feminism has waged since its founding is the war against the traditional family.

The Declaration of Sentiments reads, “In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” From its beginning, feminism has ruthlessly attacked the institution of marriage by degrading and misrepresenting it.

Not only this, but the early feminists have always fought to loosen divorce laws to favor wives over their husbands. “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; …the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.”

A world in which men “lose” and women “win” in a divorce was the world that the early feminists were seeking to create. Thanks to legislation like no-fault divorce, we are living in the first feminists’ imagined utopia where marriage vows are easily broken, and families are routinely torn apart.

The Results of Feminism

Feminism is arguably one of the most powerful leftist movements in history. This is partially because it has had over two centuries to do its damage and also because it has wrongly been accepted as a societal good.

Feminism is arguably one of the most powerful leftist movements in history.

Whether you consider the decline of masculinity, the rise of “boss babe” culture, the acceptance of abortion as a “Constitutional right”, the rejection of marriage, and the rise of divorce—it cannot be denied that we live in a society today that has been gravely affected by the ideology of feminism.

While we cannot attribute all these civil illnesses to feminism alone, we must recognize that this was the future that the first feminists envisioned. Elizabeth Stanton closes her feminist declaration with the words, “We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.”

Congratulations, Elizabeth, you got your wish.

It should not surprise us when we see modern feminism bent on destruction. The first feminists planted these seeds of destruction and revolution from the beginning. They only needed time to grow.

We need to stop excusing first-wave feminism as a “principled movement” because once we accept that premise, we lose the fight. Feminism has always used corruption and destruction as its means to its end—and that end has always been a revolution of society, the reproach and replacement of men, and the rejection of marriage.

Read other articles by Elise here.

Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations^® graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!

a dark silhouette of the back of a person watching a blazing fire

Swamp Fire: A Reflection

Posted on January 24, 2024 | by Jennifer Bright

By Paul Bright

You Know It’s Hot When the Swamp is On Fire

Driving to a vacation spot this summer for our annual sabbatical at the beach, my wife and I were on Interstate 12 near Stennis at the border between Louisiana and Mississippi. Like much of southern Louisiana and Mississippi, this area is filled with wetlands, bayous, creeks, cricks, rivers, and overgrowth that rivals any dystopian, apocalyptic movie. And it was on fire. A burn ban had been in place for quite some time, but the extended heat of the summer and the lack of rain had turned the vegetation into a tinderbox. The flames had jumped from the westbound lanes, through the median, and onto the eastbound lanes. Thick smoke filled the whole area, making visibility impossible and covering everything with soot and charred smell. In my characteristic deadpan humor, I turned to my wife and said, “You know it’s hot when the swamp is on fire.”

A Quick Laugh and Further Reflection

Only my wife can chuckle at such dry humor. However, the conditions for a fire in a swamp were clear and longstanding due to the combination of neglect, rebellion, and environment. The surprise of driving through a swamp fire was humorous and ironic, in that it illustrates the swamp fire of Western Culture. But what are some of the conditions that lead to the blazing chaos that is burning through our culture, and why are there so few Christians who seem unaware or willing to do anything?

The Putrid Soil of Idealism

Idealism, philosophically defined, is the theory of epistemology that teaches that the mind forms reality. Historically, idealism arose from pursuing rationalism during the Enlightenment in thinkers such as Hegel, Leibnitz, and, to a lesser extent, Kant. In the proponents that followed the Enlightenment, pure subjective idealism became not merely Optimism but also a teaching that the mind does not create the idea but the thing itself. Thus, pure subjective idealism results in the creation of the thing directly. Through the power of the mind, man creates the very thing imagined by thought. The subject creates through noumena (from the Greek word, nous, “mind”). “The duality of the matter and mind,” as Bavinck surmised, has been “denied, and the thing and the representation of the thing, being and thinking, are viewed essentially as one.” ¹

The Voracious Weeds in the Swamp

Pure subjective idealism infected Christianity directly through the charlatans of the Word-Faith movement and continues in a more mass-appealing form in the hucksters peddling the prosperity gospel, where the conjoined sins of self-worship and greed increasingly breed ever-blasphemous pronouncements in the name of Christ. The recent history of Western Christianity is dominated by these popular teraphim (from the ancient Hebrew, “false idols”) that are adored and emulated. There is a headlong rush toward any living savior who can speak of money, fame, and celebrity as a blessing. Their numbers are only limited to how quickly followers can heap on teachers. Their influence is only limited by their opportunity to jump from a smaller idolatrous family to a whole tribe (Judges 17-18). They are weeds, all. Truly, truly, they are cursed directly by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:24-26).

The Impenetrable Undergrowth

Growing unchecked out of this idealism is the regurgitated anthropological teaching that the affections are granted a substance and an epistemological and moral priority. Feelings are given a “soul” with an unyielding, undiminishable, and immutable authority. Feelings are an abiding revelation, a self-originating, self-authenticating, self-interpreting impetus, as base and necessary to existence as breathing air. Thus, feelings are presented as a prius (from Latin, “a prior thing”), not a posterius (from Latin, “a following thing”). Feelings internal and subjective are the ousia (from Greek, “substance”) and hyparchis (from Greek, “abiding presence”) and are, similarly, necessarily detached from phenomena (Greek from phenoo, “I observe”). The new category is aesthemena (Greek from aesthima, “feeling”).

Swamp Undergrowth is Not a Garden

This affectional ratio ad vitam (Latin for ‘meaning for life’) corrupted historic Christian theology by a deceptively disastrous mutation in the skewed recharacterization of God’s love as eros (from Greek, “sensual love”), not agape (from Greek, “love by choice”). Popularized by multiple, respected, well-studied, philosophical, historical, and exegetical preachers and teachers, the apex of Christian virtue became “Glorify God by enjoying Him forever.” Feelings as motive, as drive, as the substance was drunk in, as living water. Passion and pleasure were put forward in man and God as the only true achievement, embodiment, and reciprocation of glory. Anything of will and duty is of works and baseless and useless. Rather than growing a well-tended garden, the result was an entangling, unstable, impenetrable overgrowth of affectional mass. Undergrowth is not beautiful, and it was part of the curse (Genesis 3:18). Man was never designed by God to be led by affections.

The Match Was Thrown

Is it any wonder that the current cultural climate is one where the mind exhibits and engages in pure subjective irrationality from the prius of the feelings? This is why debates based on phenomena and logic are rejected immediately, comprehensively, and violently based on feelings. The person who believes that the mind is an organ of feelings that stimulate the creation of reality is irrationally enslaved. These persons will go to great lengths to subjugate their thoughts and the observable world around them to conform to their feelings. These persons must create from the inside out, from the affections as the source, through the mind as means, to the outside, as the transformative object. These have made themselves as Deity in their feelings, to which any, and eventually all, must prostrate in obedience.

The Fire Consumes and Is Healthy?

However, in order to create, these persons must first destroy. They will destroy all norms, whether individual or societal, amoral or moral, religious or civil. Worse still, this destruction and recreation is repackaged as a necessary mental health crisis for these individuals when the world outside of them does not immediately conform to their idealism. This explains why their verbal and material reactions include radical outbursts of violence and, contradictorily, simultaneously and exclusively, claim themselves to be recipients of violence. You have, in their reality, assaulted their most complete and necessary substance and being.

Where there is Fire, there is Smoke

The pursuit of this idolatry will destroy them internally as well as raze relationships, morals, institutions, and societies. The consequences of idealism are already observed and experienced in the institutions of society through education, government, employment, military, health services, the family, and religion. The planned destruction through idealism is combined with the blatant realignment of the historic political foundation of our country. Marxism, at its roots, views man as tolpa (Russian for “herd”). The target of Marxism has always been and will be the most innocent and vulnerable…children. Familial, ecclesiastical, educational, technological, governmental, and societal fumes will billow from the smoldering miasma of this Idealism and Marxism.

Putting out the Fire Through the Promise of Repentance

The only recourse for change is direct confrontation. Exposure of the insane irrationality comes through the proclamation of the objective revelation written in the Scriptures. There is hope that the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) will shatter the illusion of self-deification. The promises of God to work for regeneration seen in true repentance have never been revoked.

Growing Anew

Corporately, Christians should pursue the position of illuminator and preserver (light and salt) through soberness, prayerfulness, engagement, and, as is customary in the course of Christian history, a willingness to suffer. It behooves Christians to live circumspectly, pure, clean, and with holy wisdom that comes down from the Father of Lights. Also, Christians should actively prune the undergrowth of this idealism and live worshipfully with the rich communities established on the Reformed doctrines of grace, which oppose idealism. Finally, Christian parents need to understand that the current culture fire is specifically designed to disintegrate their God-given position and responsibility as moral teachers and examples in the minds, hearts, and souls of their children in all respects. So, parents must make a choice and act. What will you choose to do?

Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Master’s Seminary. He was a Systematic Theology and Ancient Hebrew professor in Samara, Russia. He and his wife, Jennifer, homeschooled their daughter all the way through high school and currently reside in Covington, Louisiana.

Herman Bavink, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1. (MI: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 216. ↩︎

a boy concentrates on his homework, studying the design of airplanes

What are Our Schools “Really” Teaching?

Posted on January 8, 2024 | by Edward Murray

By Jennifer Bright

As contentious school board meetings were publicized in Virginia, I pondered about what was happening in my local area and what the schools were ‘really’ teaching. I started watching my local board meetings online to see the hot topics like library books, new curricula, charter schools, etc. For background, my community is one of the wealthier, conservative parishes with some of the best public schools. With the top schools, my area also has the largest number of homeschoolers in the state.

In addition to this, I wasn’t surprised to see inconspicuous, redefined language regarding social-emotional learning in the curriculum. So, I took a closer look at a few curriculum companies that my local school district uses:

Amplify Science

In early 2023, the local school board adopted a new science curriculum, Amplify Science. I did a quick search online to learn more about the company. From their website:

“Our goal is to make education, and thereby the world, more equitable and accessible… To do this, we hire and develop people with the broadest range of talents, life stories and experiences, and together we build a diverse and inclusive culture”.¹

There are a few words that stick out: equitable, accessible, diverse, and inclusive. This is, on the surface DEI curriculum.

FranklinCovey Company: Leader in Me

Another curriculum company adopted this year by my local public schools is Leader in Me by the FranklinCovey company. Here is what the company says about itself:

“Inclusion is a core value at FranklinCovey. We know that building an inclusive work culture in which everyone is valued and respected contributes to our success. Our content and solutions encourage inclusion and embracing and celebrating different backgrounds, perspectives, and identities.

As a company, we prohibit discrimination as it relates to race, national or ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, education, disability status, socioeconomic status, religion, or any other characteristic… We are committed to serving our customers with respect and helping them improve their individual, team, and organizational performance to achieve extraordinary results and lasting change.” ²… FranklinCovey works with clients every day to steward diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives bolstered by our learning programs… Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are in strong alignment with FranklinCovey’s core mission and values.”³

Do we not see those same words of diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) here as well? And the FranklinCovey company is committed to stewarding DEI in its learning programs, like Leader in Me.⁴

FranklinCovey company is very clear that they are proudly proclaiming DEI, CRT, and the alphabet mess.

Great Minds: Eureka Math

As a final test case, a popular math curriculum used by many schools around the country, as well as in my local public schools, is Eureka Math²; This math program states in its overview, “designed to advance equity in the math classroom.”⁵

In the Friday, Oct. 4, 2019 press release from Great Minds, they share “how its math and English language arts curricula integrate social and emotional learning into their core instruction.”

“Eureka Math® (PK–12) and Wit & Wisdom® (K–8) each foster the development of the five core competencies from the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL): self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. The analyses explain how each curriculum aligns with the competencies and research, showing why the competencies are important to student development and academic learning.”⁶

This company was not as easy to identify if they were using CRT or committed to DEI. It is like a blip on a radar screen that is warning us that something is coming but not sure if it is a friend or foe. So, as a classically educated person, let’s define the terms:

What is Social Emotional Learning?

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) “is a systemic approach that emphasizes the importance of establishing equitable learning environments and coordinating practices across key settings of classrooms, schools, families, and communities to enhance all students’ social, emotional, and academic learning.”⁷

“Inequities based on race, ethnicity, class, language, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other factors are deeply ingrained in the vast majority of these systems and impact student and adult social, emotional, and academic learning. While SEL alone will not solve longstanding and deep-seated inequities in the education system, it can create the conditions needed for individuals and schools to examine and interrupt inequitable policies and practices, create more inclusive learning environments, and reveal and nurture the interests and assets of all individuals.”⁸

Is SEL a Trojan Horse for Critical Race Theory?

From a 2021 article, the Washington Examiner said social-emotional learning is a “Trojan horse” for both critical race theory and transgender advocacy being introduced and propagated in public schools. It is also being referred to as a “new variant of the “CRT-virus,” and “SEL education pipeline.”

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has evolved into a Social and Emotional Learning curriculum (SEL) known as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). This has crept into our public school systems through its school curricula via teacher training programs. Words like “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching” sound harmless and pleasing, but their actual definitions are different than what they commonly mean.⁹

My local school district banned Critical Race theory from being taught in public schools. I am not so sure. So what are your local schools ‘really’ teaching?

Engage and Educate

We can’t just do internet searches on DEI and CRT and expect to find everything anymore. The enemy always appears as an angel of light, shifting its language to accomplish its goals. This is just scratching the surface of the cultural battle raging around us. Parents, we need to be sober and attentive to what curriculum providers are promoting. Do they align with our Christian values and beliefs?

We need to engage the culture, stand firm, and choose to educate in the Truth!

Classical Conversations has created a new math curriculum that is classical in pedagogy, with a Christian worldview, to teach and disciple our children in the Truth. Check it out!

To learn more about the difference between equality and equity, read our recent blog.

Jennifer Bright is the Communication Manager for Research and Quality Assurance for Classical Conversations. Jennifer’s passions are classical Christian education and discipling the next generation to live for Christ. She supports homeschool families by tutoring their students with the classical tools of learning. Jennifer and her husband began their homeschool journey almost 20 years ago in Russia while serving as missionaries, and currently, they reside in Covington, Louisiana.

“DEIA Statement”. Amplify. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Commitment to Diversity”. Franklin Covey. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Commitment to Diversity”. Franklin Covey. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Commitment to Diversity”. Franklin Covey. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Eureka Math Squared”. Great Minds. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
Colby, Chad. “Great Minds Curricula Integrate Social Emotional Learning with Instruction”. Great Minds. October 4, 2019. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Fundamentals of SEL—What is the Casel Framework”. CASEL. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Fundamentals of SEL—What is the Casel Framework”. CASEL. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎
“Letter: The Failing Acronyms of CRT DEI and SEL”. Orange Town News. September 28, 2023. Retrieved 18^th December 2023 ↩︎

paper in a typewriter with the word "equality" printed out

Equality vs Equity

Posted on December 13, 2023 | by Sadie Aldaya

By Elise DeYoung

Today, it is typical for social movements in Western civilization to claim they are fighting for the founding principles of America: liberty, justice, and, most of all, equality for all.

Feminism, that age-old movement, claims that women are inherently oppressed by men. Betty Friedan, in her modern feminist manifesto The Feminine Mystique, makes the case that for women to gain equality with men, they must become empowered, strong, independent girl bosses. Ladies, we’ve all heard this line.

The Pro-Choice movement, through Planned Parenthood, claims to be an agent of equality as they kill unborn children so that women, like their male counterparts, can experience sexual freedom without fear of the consequences. On its website, Planned Parenthood defines itself as “an equal opportunity employer [that] welcomes all qualified applicants, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, or disability.”¹

The Black Lives Matter movement implores us all to “Join the Movement to fight for Freedom, Liberation and Justice.” “Their vision aims at “achieving liberation” for all minority groups, including (but not exclusive to), “Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.”²

Through the rise of the LGBTQ movement, individuals are fighting to protect the rights of so-called “trans-identifying individuals.” These allies of pride celebrate legislation such as the Equality Act, passed by the British Parliament in 2010, as a small step towards ensuring that each individual has the equal right to identify as whatever they want.

It is clear that many movements today are seeking radical social reforms in the name of “equality.” So, if equality is an American value, shouldn’t we, as conservatives, support these causes?

The answer is a resounding “no.”

Why, you may ask? Even though these movements use the word equality in their messaging, equality is not what they are fighting for. Rather, they are striving for the perverted “equality” of Karl Marx, known today as equity. Understanding the distinctions between these words and how they have been weaponized against America is vital as we seek to conserve our founding values and way of life.

This article will explore the drastic differences between these two values, expose the danger that equity poses to Western society, and provide a greater understanding of why Marxist movements, such as those listed above, must be stopped.

Equality vs Equity

We have all heard it said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This statement must not be underappreciated. Thomas Jefferson established the great American experiment by penning these words in 1776 onto the Declaration of Independence. No society in the history of the world had been founded on words as profound as these. No society in the history of the world has been established on the principle of equality for all.

Equality is the belief, as Jefferson wrote, that all men are created equal. It is not a result of sex, race, social status, wealth, or religion, but it is a truth because God has created all men in Imago Dei.

How often do you hear that message today?

Equality for all has been the bedrock of our great nation for centuries. Systems like capitalism and ideas such as the American Dream have been born out of our strong belief in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This beautiful idea is why the American experiment was, and is, successful.

However, in our modern day, this truth seems to be battered and bruised by radical progressive thought that abuses equality and threatens to blot out Jefferson’s words. Where did this threat come from? How can we put an end to it?

Equity

To discover the origin of this anti-equality ideology, we must examine 19th-century Eastern thought.

Karl Marx officially founded communism in 1848 when he and Friedrich Engles wrote The Communist Manifesto. The political pamphlet combined the thoughts of German revolutionaries into a persuasive and passionate call to action. Marx argued in favor of annihilating capitalism and the class system through a complete revolutionary restructuring of society. However, his ideas did not take root until 1917, when Vladimir Lenin led the first successful communist revolution in Russia. Since then, communism has been tried, and communism has killed many in different countries.

Marx’s ideas have evolved, and his ideology has seeped into Western social trends and economics. Present-day communism upholds equity as its central value in the same way that Americanism upholds equality. Its entire system depends on it.

But what is equity? Equity calls for destroying distinctions to ensure that everyone in a society achieves the same outcome.

What does this look like in practice? It means that distinctions between individuals that may lead to “unequitable” or different outcomes must be abolished. Factors like race, religion, property ownership, sex, class, age, wealth, and health must be eradicated from an equitable society. This is the radical and unavoidable consequence of communism through equity. Thankfully, such extreme measures have not yet been accepted by the West. This does not mean, however, that we cannot see traces of the poison of equity throughout the country.

The Infiltration of Equity

Like a virus, equity seeps into a society unnoticed. Like a virus, you might notice some symptoms at first, but you’d never guess the true source of the illness. And just like a virus, equity will eventually make itself known, but by then, it will be too late.

For many years, the ideas of Marx infiltrated the West under the guise of “equality.” We have already seen how many radical leftist movements claim they are fighting for the equality of some minorities. Women, would-be mothers, African Americans, or those who claim to be LGBT or Q are told that they have unequal rights compared to the dreaded straight, white, evangelical man. These movements do not care that there is no American law on the books that discriminates against any minority group or individual. But I digress.

The message to America is that the differences between men and women, “a clump of cells” and babies, white and black people, and those who are straight and gay must be rendered obsolete before “equality” can be ensured. This is not equality, which promises equal opportunity to all; this is equity, which promises equal outcome to all.

Today, the virus of equity is beginning to make itself known in our sick nation. If you are a college student or an employee of a large corporation, you have heard the acronym DEI or, as Jordan B. Peterson refers to it, DIE. DIE stands for diversity, inclusion, and equity. These values have been infused into universities across the United States and the rest of the West. They have been accepted by teachers, bosses, and even our President and are now being promoted as so-called “American values.”

Radical Marxist movements, supported by large masses of college students, have begun to wave these values unashamedly as their banners and shout them as their anthems.

There is no doubt that equity has infiltrated our society and way of life. And just like a virus that cannot help but corrupt its victim, equity, if it is not soon eradicated, will continue to infuse itself into the West until the words of Jefferson are dead and gone.

Equality for All

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.

With this declaration, Jefferson freed a nation. Now, with this same declaration, we must maintain that freedom.

Today, we are urged by the Left to fight against America in the name of America. We must not be fooled! “Equality for all,” as we have seen, is not the aim of these radical leftist movements. What they want is the implementation of Marxism through equity in our free nation.

Is this a sinister and purposeful attack being made by those in power? Or is it merely a misunderstanding born of ignorance? We may never know, but what we can know is that Americans deserve their God-given right to equality. We must recognize this as our battlefront as we seek to conserve our nation’s principles.

Equity and equality are as different as the East is from the West (literally). The two cannot coexist, so one must overcome the other. Which will it be? If we value the words of Jefferson and the American way, we must stand firmly against Marxist movements and stand up for the right to equality, for all.

Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us ↩︎
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/ ↩︎