I write to refute claims of Patricia Moulton, Rush City MN posted in last week’s April 10 paper. I typically dismiss such nonsense out-of-hand, but I was curious…why was a Rush city …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
I write to refute claims of Patricia Moulton, Rush City MN posted in last week’s April 10 paper. I typically dismiss
such nonsense out-of-hand, but I was curious…why was a Rush city resident writing to the Hastings paper? A
quick Google search on the name/city and key words showed that similar letters have appeared in other MN
community newspapers.
I then did what she asked; I went to the Professional Education Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB) at
https://mn.gov/pelsb. However, I found no licensing standards which include “a mandate to teach Marxist
activism,” nor did the Rules search function find any reference to Marxism or Socialism. I further contacted the
PELSB chair, Michelle Hersch Vaught, and confirmed that Moulton’s claim of a Marxist mandate has no basis. I
stopped there, as the rest of her letter similarly has little merit and only serves to confirm her credentials as an
aspiring conservative cultural warrior.
I take the time to respond to her letter because it exemplifies the ongoing conservative attack on the public
education system at a time when we need it most. Attempts to dumb down our youth by tearing down the learning
system and the education it should provide by sowing distrust or trying to wipe away the full historical context that
created our society is a stunning abandonment of moral responsibility. The public should absolutely be aware of
this effort, in particular when they step into the voting booth.
Persons will continue to share their opinion including spreading misinformation if they choose. The Hastings
Journal can do its part to restrain this by at least adhering to its “under 300 words” guideline. Her letter prattled on
far beyond that limit.
James Hill
Hastings