In the video, an elementary school admin says he tries to influence students’ thinking without parents finding out

By  Joshua Lee Sept 2, 2022, 4:27pm EDT

An assistant principal was placed on administrative leave after an undercover video showed him admitting to hiring practices that discriminate against politically conservative staff, Catholics and others. He also said he looks to hire teachers who know how to subtly introduce progressive ideology to students.

Jeremy Boland, assistant principal of Cos Cob Elementary School in Greenwich, Connecticut, tells an unidentified woman in the heavily edited, 12-minute video that he rejects teacher applicants who hold conservative political leanings, Catholic beliefs, are older or those who give deference to parents’ wishes.

“I can’t get past the parents anymore,” Boland says in the secretly recorded video. “The parents feel as though it’s their responsibility to shape the schools, which then shape the kids, right?” 

“So, because I can’t get past the parents, do I really have as much of an influence … on the kids as I want? I try in my own way. But right now, my job is to hire the right teachers.”

“Do we work for the parent or do we work for the kid?” Boland asks rhetorically in the video. “We work for the kid.”

The video was published by Project Veritas, a controversial conservative nonprofit organization known for undercover videos revealing apparent liberal bias.

Boland says in the video that Catholics are more politically conservative. When asked what he does if a teacher applicant is Catholic, he answers, “You don’t hire them.” 

“You can never change their mindset. So when you ask them to consider something new, like a new opportunity, or, ‘You have to think about this differently,’ they’re stuck — just rigid,” Boland says, reiterating that he thinks Catholics are brainwashed.

An email from Greenwich Superintendent of Schools Toni Jones to family and staff said Boland had been placed on leave, according to The Associated Press. Jones also pledged a full investigation into Boland’s comments.

“Believe it or not, the open-minded, more progressive teachers are actually more savvy about delivering a Democratic message without really ever having to mention politics,” Boland says in the viral video.

Multiple public officials have opened investigations into the matter. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a civil rights investigation into potentially illegal discrimination or actionable misconduct. 

“This video is disturbing,” Tong said. “And if teachers, school staff, or applicants for education jobs have been illegally discriminated against for any reason, I will take action.”

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut, believes the video could have major political implications for Connecticut’s gubernatorial election. Democratic incumbent Gov. Ned Lamont will face Republican nominee Bob Stefanowski this November.

“This is a gift-wrapped present dropped into the lap of (Stefanowski),” Wolfgang wrote Aug. 31 on his Facebook page. “If he does not make the most of this, it will be a huge fail. Ever since around the time of Gov. Youngkin’s victory in Virginia, there were signs that the GOP was starting to get it. That is, that culture matters. Even the Connecticut GOP!”

Stefanowski’s campaign released a statement saying he was deeply troubled by the video. He said he is most concerned the administrator would brag about indoctrinating students and blackballing teachers who “don’t subscribe to radical ‘woke’ ideology.”

Gov. Lamont said he supports the attorney general’s civil rights investigation and that any form of discrimination has no place in the state.

Republican state legislators told the Hartford Courant that they are calling for a wider investigation through the Legislature’s education committee to ensure the problem isn’t systemic. Lamont says he doesn’t oppose the Legislature looking into it but cautions the state about Project Veritas’ intentions.

“I hate these ‘gotcha’ guys and clipping of the video trying to make political fodder out of it.” Lamont said on WTNH, a local news channel. “That said, I thought the words spoke for themselves. We’re going to investigate the words and what’s behind them.”

Staten Island Advance, July 1, 2019
https://www.silive.com/news/2019/07/on-the-4th-talk-to-your-kids-about-what-this-holiday-really-represents-commentary.html

In this season of fireworks, you can impress your friends by dropping this tidbit: Gunpowder, which causes fireworks to explode, was invented in ancient China by Taoist experimenters trying to create an immortality tonic.

Their attempts at man-made eternity failed. But their invention helps us celebrate a principle that has outlived generations, but whose continued strength requires our eternal vigilance. Freedom.

The purpose of July 4 commemorations—fireworks and all—is wrapped up in our founders’ passion for the right to self-determination (i.e. freedom or liberty). This right was won through the profound sacrifice of early Americans and entrusted to us with the charge that we not only guard it but also bequeath it to our children.

Often taken for granted is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence that states, “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.”

As an educator, I often challenge students to memorize these words, as they represent our nation’s mission statement; they summarize the propositions to which Abraham Lincoln said our nation is dedicated; and they signify the revered ideals that our nation’s founders battled and died for right here in the countryside of the Northeast.

Our national heritage of self-determination has propelled some of America’s greatest achievements and compelled us to right some of our most grievous wrongs. Indeed, this principle played a critical role in motivating the abolition movement, empowering the suffrage movement, and inspiring the civil rights movement.

In a time when July 4 is often celebrated without much fanfare for our Declaration’s impact on these historic movements, we should encourage students to understand its significance to American freedom.

Only by doing so can we ensure today’s youth know the nature and origin of their rights and teach citizens to respect the equality and dignity of others.

For us today—the heirs and stewards of freedom—July 4 should inspire a re-commitment to the principles of our Declaration. And particularly for those of us engaged in the educational arena, it should mean championing the right of parents to educate their children with the values and worldview they believe is best for them. If this basic right is denied by a government charged with securing our rights, then liberty perishes, and the promise of July 4 becomes a distant memory.

So, as we enjoy fireworks this week—thanks in part to a failed attempt at immortality—we can use the bursts of color to initiate conversations with our children about the great meaning behind these wonderful displays of light in the night sky.

Christopher P. DeSanctis is Head of School at Gateway Academy in Staten Island, NY and a part-time Adjunct Professor at Sacred Heart University’s Department of Government, Politics and Global Affairs. His email address is cdesanctis@gatewayacademyny.org.

At Sacred Heart University with Clint Bolick, center, now an Associate Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, and Dr. Gary Rose, pictured left, Chairman of the Department of Government, Politics, and Global Affairs. Before joining the AZ Supreme Court in 2016 Bolick was Vice President for Litigation with the Goldwater Institute

Excerpted in today’s edition of the New York Daily News 

Each year during one of America’s favorite holiday seasons, Thanksgiving, we anticipate the chance to gather with family and friends to reflect on the blessings we enjoy in this country. But frankly, another holiday should rank equally as high for its significance to our great land of opportunity and freedom: Constitution Day, on September 17.

On this day, we commemorate the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 in Philadelphia. After months of deliberation and debates, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed this landmark document that remains the oldest written national constitution still in use today.

Yet, ask many Americans what happened on September 17, and they return blank stares. Even fewer will know that since 2004, Constitution Day has been an official national observance.

Yet to us — and to each succeeding generation — belongs the duty to preserve our system of free and limited government. How can we fulfill this charge if we fail to recognize, understand, and appreciate the foundational legal document of this system? Indeed, we cannot.

Therefore, teaching the principles of our democratic republic—both its structure and the reasons behind it—should be an important goal for all levels of American education. But American education has failed in this respect. Too many people who proudly call America home do not understand the reasons for that pride. What are the benefits of the rule of law, enumerated powers, federalism, checks and balances, and due process? What truly is a “right”?

Consider these findings of a 2017 survey of adults by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania:

• More than one in three people (37%) could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment.
• Only one in four (26%) can name all three branches of the government. (In 2011, 38% could name all three branches.)
• One in three (33%) can’t name any branch of government.

Coming to the same conclusion was the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which surveyed adults to determine their understanding of basic American principles: 71 percent of Americans failed the survey, with an overall average score of 49 percent. Lack of understanding reached across the ideological spectrum, with liberals scoring 49 percent and conservatives 48 percent.

In our Constitution’s preamble, our founders declared liberty for future generations when they wrote their intent to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” But a nation will never secure what it does not teach—and therefore, does not understand. It is up to us to fulfill this charge.

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate on the bench, described the crisis in pointed terms: “Knowledge about the ideas embodied in the Constitution and the ways in which it shapes our lives is not passed down from generation to generation through the gene pool….”

Justice O’Connor is right. We must deliberately pass on these ideas — through education, both at home and in school — or else we lose the very things we hold dear: freedom and opportunity.

Currently, fifteen states require high school students to pass a citizenship test to graduate. This means graduating seniors must have the same basic civics knowledge as those applying to become naturalized U.S. citizens. It’s encouraging that more than a dozen states have implemented this threshold. But why not all 50?

Young people must be taught the principles of liberty, the importance of understanding it, the reasons for loving it, and the necessity—and means—of preserving it. Schoolhouses across the country should embrace Constitution Day as an opportunity to deliberate on the original meaning behind the preamble’s words of “union,” “justice,” “tranquility,” “common defense,” “general welfare,” and “liberty”.

President Ronald Reagan summed up the matter accurately when he said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in the United States when men were free.”

Reagan was right. For only by understanding our freedoms—and the constitutional, limited government that protects them—can we defend them. And only by defending them can we preserve them and pass them on to future generations. Let’s not forget September 17.

Bridgeport School Reform Should End Tenure

Appeared in the Hartford Courant on July 23, 2011: http://articles.courant.com/2011-07-23/news/hc-op-desanctis-merit-pay-teachers-0720110723_1_high-performing-teachers-teacher-tenure-bad-teachers

The potential state takeover of Bridgeport’s public schools demonstrates how badly Connecticut needs serious education reform.

Eighteen-year-old Bassick High School senior Kiara Rivera, who is pessimistic about her chances of attending college, blames poorly performing teachers who “routinely place calls or send text messages from their cell phones during class,” according to a report in the Connecticut Post. Part of the system’s failure, to which Kiara indirectly refers, is teacher tenure, which has become a guarantee of a job regardless of achievement.

Children depend on a good education to find success later in life. A good education requires excellent teachers, and this requires giving administrators the ability to let go of poor performers. Sadly, this is almost impossible. Tenure assures even the worst-performing teachers a job for life at the expense of their students’ futures.

The Bridgeport public schools spend around $14,265 per student. Nationally, things look the same: “… education spending in America has increased to $9,000 per student today, vs. $4,300 in 1971 (adjusted for inflation), yet math and reading scores in the country have both flat-lined. America ranks a pitiful 25th in math and 21st in science among 30 developed countries …” according to a 2010 article in The Economist magazine. Increasing spending per student will not solve all the problems in Bridgeport’s public education system or nationally. Retaining and recruiting talented teachers and letting go of poorly performing ones will help tremendously. As The Economist noted, “good teachers can cover 150 percent of a required curriculum, while bad teachers may cover as little as 50 percent.”

Connecticut and schools nationally need to drop teacher tenure in favor of a merit pay system, and here are a few reasons why:

Merit pay will help attract the nation’s brightest thinkers, talented individuals from America’s workforce and soon-to-be college graduates. It will retain high-performing teachers by rewarding them for success. People in this talent pool will choose to teach if they know they’ll be justly compensated for working hard.

Teachers will be motivated to produce even better results. People accomplish more when their successes are rewarded. Basing salary increases only on the number of years worked is not an incentive to achieve.

Pay linked to success will help alleviate the current teacher shortage in states across America. Some such as Maryland have offered signing bonuses and tuition reimbursements. Texas recruits teachers from Mexico and Bridgeport has hired from India to fill its gaps. Merit pay should help attract more teaching candidates.

Certainly, merit pay will not solve all the challenges in public education, such as the lack of family support and structure for many children. However, it is one important and necessary change.

Moving quickly on changes such as merit pay will eventually help improve our economy and reduce unemployment. Approximately 7,000 students in America drop out of high school every school day. Dropouts are more likely to go to prison, need government welfare assistance, and cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars in lost wages. Yet, a significant decrease in dropouts offers tremendous benefits: “If U.S. high schools and colleges raise the graduation rates of Hispanic, African American, and Native American students to the levels of white students by 2020, the potential increase in personal income would add more than $310 billion to the U.S. economy,” according to the Alliance for Education in 2009. We cannot afford to ignore effective public school reform any longer. The status quo is not working.

Reward the hardworking and successful teachers. Even better, pay the top ones six figures. In the years to come, our children and economy will benefit. And in the end, Bridgeport students such as Kiara Rivera might not be so pessimistic about their chances of attending college.

Appeared in American Thinker, 2011:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/can_executing_murderers_save_l.html

Connecticut’s new governor and democratic legislative majority have promised to abolish capital punishment despite public opinion.  They’re not alone.  Most European governments abolished death sentences regardless of public opinion.  “There is barely a country in Europe where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion rather than in spite of it,” stated Joshua Marshall in The New Republic.  “In other words, if these countries’ political cultures are morally superior to America’s, it is because they are less Democratic.” (Death penalty news)

It’s unfortunate that majority opinion in Connecticut will likely be ignored.  True, majorities are not always right, but when an issue has that much support among citizens regionally and nationally – like in Europe and America respectively – Connecticut’s state government should pay more attention.  Gallup’s latest poll has 64% of Americans supporting capital punishment while 29% oppose (for overly atrocious crimes, support rises to 80%).  Even more important to Connecticut, the latest Quinnipiac Poll shows 65% of people statewide favor the death penalty for murder.

In 1999, Russell Peeler ordered the murders of eight-year old Leroy “B.J.” Brown Jr. and his mother, Karen (B.J. witnessed her execution before being shot in the head).  In 2005, Kim and Tim Donnelly of Fairfield were coldly shot to death in their family run jewelry store.  And in 2007, Cheshire residents Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters were sexually abused and murdered in a case still receiving national attention for its viciousness.  Some of the perpetrators of these crimes will spend the rest of their lives on death row, but most likely, none will be executed.  As State Rep. Mike Lawlor pointed out, “The way the current law is written, nobody is ever going to be executed again in Connecticut, unless they force the issue.” (Seven news)

Half of Americans believe capital punishment is not imposed enough while just 18 percent think it is imposed too much (2010 Gallup poll).  Indeed, this mirrors Connecticut, where capital punishment is almost completely unused: nine convicted murderers are still awaiting execution (one death row inmate has been there for 22 years); 19 have long-standing death penalty cases, and only one person has been executed since 1960 (Michael Ross begged to have his execution carried out). Could this lack of swift justice be the cause of future murders?  Can execution save lives?

The academic world has been weighing in on a deterrence effect. As reported in a testimony given by Dr. David Muhlhausen before a U.S. Senate Subcommittee (read testimony here), over the last ten years, several studies have confidently asserted to confirm capital punishment deters murders, saving 3 to 18 lives for every one person executed.  Dr. Naci Mocan, a death penalty opponent and economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, co-authored a 2003 study and a 2006 study re-examining evidence.  The studies evaluate state-level data on the influence of individuals removed from death row, those executed, and those who received commuted sentences between 1977 and 1999. Dr. Mocan concluded the effect of one execution is five fewer murders.

Other studies assert similar results (Heritage Foundation):

•     “Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem

Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders.”

•     “Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also

support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders.”

•     “Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn

University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder. They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates.”

In response to such reports, well-known liberal law professor and death penalty opponent Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago commented, “If it’s the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple.” And, “Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven’t given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty.”

Certainly, more studies are needed and old studies should be re-examined.  However, if it is likely that innocent lives are saved by executing (not just convicting) cold-blooded murderers, then Connecticut leaders need to consider the ramifications of abolishing the death penalty.

I believe Professor John McAdams from Marquette University makes a strong case on this point: “If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of … innocent victims.  I would much rather risk the former.” (American Bar Association)

We owe it to the surviving families of the above-mentioned victims to review the facts and save other families from unnecessary suffering.  Most people weigh the costs and benefits of their actions, and for murder, the cost should be as great as possible.  The academic world is onto something.