
There's one simple reason wannabe dictators attack education
It is also logical that weakening the ability to obtain an honest and quality education negatively impacts the nation through brain drain that can deleteriously affect technological, medical and scientific advancements by creating a milieu where misinformation and gullibility replace creative and critical thinking skills, imagination and a knowledge of history essential to recognizing when dangerous societal trends start repeating. For example, the Achilles heel of the Big Lie — a tactic historically employed by both the extreme left and the extreme right — is the ability of educated people to recognize such lies and denounce them. Since many wannabe dictators want to minimize much of the ugliness often required to achieve their goals, they are not going to openly state that their lust for absolute power is the true incentive behind their quest to destroy education. Instead, they invent villains — like critical race theory or diversity, equity and inclusion. They arbitrarily withhold funding from educational institutions that do not do their bidding. And they destroy agencies that support honest and quality education. Perhaps the truth about the real motivation behind the denial of honest and quality education can be discerned in the words of another man who, like Douglass, became aware, through education, of his status in the nation he lived in, and ultimately lost his life fighting to change it. These are the words of the martyred anti-apartheid activist Stephen Biko, who was killed in police custody in South Africa in 1977: 'The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.'
David R. Hoffman is a retired civil rights and constitutional law attorney. He lives in South Bend, Indiana.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California cannabis firm raided by ICE unveils big labor changes to avoid a repeat
One of California's largest legal cannabis companies announced Monday that it would radically revamp its labor practices in the wake of a massive immigration raid at two company facilities last month. The raid led to the death of one worker and the detention of more than 360 people, including, according to government officials, 14 minors. Glass House Brands announced it had 'terminated its relationship' with the two farm labor contractors who had provided workers to the cannabis green house operations in Camarillo and Carpinteria. It also announced that it has 'made significant changes to labor practices that are above and beyond legal requirements.' Those include hiring experts to scrutinize workers' documents as well as hiring the consulting firm Guidepost Services to advise the company on best practices for determining employment eligibility. The firm is led by Julie Myers Wood, a former ICE director under President George W. Bush. The company also said it has signed a new 'labor peace' agreement with the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters. Glass House officials declined to comment publicly beyond what was in a press release, but a source close to the company said that officials wanted to 'make sure we never have a situation that we had on July 10. We can't have this ever happen again.' On that day, federal agents in masks and riot gear stormed across Glass House operations in Ventura and Santa Barbara county in the state's largest ICE workplace raid in recent memory. Agents chased panicked workers through vast green houses and deployed tear gas and less-than-lethal projectiles at protesters and employees. One worker, Jaime Alanis Garcia, died after he fell three stories from the roof of a greenhouse trying to evade capture. Others were bloodied from shards of glass broken or hid for hours on the roofs or beneath the leaves and plastic shrouding. More than 360 people — a mixture of workers, family members of workers, protesters and passerby—were ultimately detained, including at least two American citizens including a U.S. Army veteran. In the wake of the raid, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that Glass House had been targeted because 'we knew, specifically from casework we had built for weeks and weeks and weeks, that there was children there that could be trafficked, being exploited, that there was individuals there involved in criminal activity.' To date, neither Homeland Security nor the U.S. Department of Justice have announced any legal action regardlng the alleged trafficking and exploitation of juveniles. In its press release, Glass House said that just nine of its direct employees were detained; all others picked up were either employees of its labor contractors or were 'unassociated with the company.' With regards to the government's contention that it had found children working in cannabis, the company said: 'while the identities of the alleged minors have not been disclosed, the company has been able to determine that, if those reports are true, none of them were Glass House employees.' California labor law allows children as young as 12 to work in agriculture, but workers must be 21 to work in cannabis. The raid devastated Glass House and its workforce. Numerous workers were detained or disappeared, terrified to return. Those that remained were so distraught the company called in grief counselors. Across the wider world of legal cannabis, people were also shaken. Glass House, which is backed by wealthy investors and presents a sleek corporate image in the wild world of cannabis in California, has long been known as the 'Walmart of Weed.' Many in California's cannabis industry feared the raid on Glass House was a signal that the federal government's ceasefire against cannabis —which is legal in California but still not federally—had come to an end. In the wake of the raid, the United Farm Workers and other organizations warned farm laborers who were not citizens — even those with legal status — to avoid working in cannabis because 'cannabis remains criminalized under federal law.' In its statement, Glass House said the search warrant served on the company the day of the raid was seeking 'evidence of possible immigration violations.' A source close to the company said officials have had no further contact with the federal government since the raid. Some farm labor advocates were unimpressed by the company's announcement of revamped labor practices, saying it was farm workers who would pay the price. Lucas Zucker, co-executive director of Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, or CAUSE, said Glass House was using farm labor contractors to avoid responsibility 'while their workers are torn away from their families in handcuffs.' 'This shows the double standards of our legal system, where corporations can profit from the immigrant workers their businesses depend on, yet wipe their hands clean when it becomes inconvenient,' he said. He added that 'many farmworkers are still struggling to navigate this mess of labor contractors and have not been paid for the work they did at Glass House.' A source close to Glass House said company officials want to make sure everyone who was at work on the day of the raid receives all the wages they are owed. Company officials authorized all workers to be paid through 11:30 pm on the day of the raid, because workers who had finished their shifts couldn't get out because immigration agents were blocking the doors. The source said the farm labor contractors had been paid and should have released wages to all the workers. 'We don't want anyone to be shorted,' the source said.


Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Dems are ‘unhinged' about a beautiful woman: Kristen Gaffney
'Super True' founder Kristen Gaffney discusses why Democrats are continuing to criticize Sydney Sweeney's campaign with American Eagle on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.'


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Don't whine about federal budget cuts, lefties — put your money where your mouths are
Before politics overwhelmed the word, the primary meaning of 'liberal' was 'generous.' President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress have given political liberals a chance to take that meaning back — by opening their wallets to show just how much they value NPR, PBS and other programs defunded by the GOP. There's no shortage of funds on the left. Laurene Powell Jobs, the mega-rich backer of The Atlantic, has a net worth estimated at above $11 billion a year ago and believed to be even higher today. George Soros, at 94, has a fortune in the vicinity of $7 billion, with billions more in his Open Society Foundation. Bill Gates has about $115 billion, his ex-wife Melinda around $30 billion. Any one of these left-leaning billionaires could single-handedly make up the $535 million that NPR, PBS and local stations were getting annually from taxpayers before Congress zeroed out the subsidies. If half a billion a year is too much for one zillionaire, a half-dozen of them — or more — could share the burden without feeling a pinch. But are wealthy liberals willing to put their money where their mouths are? Citing Michal Heiplik, president of the public-media analytics organization Contributor Development Partnership, The New York Times reports PBS and NPR have reaped a windfall from small-dollar donors in recent months, with 120,000 new supporters stepping up to give some $20 million. Overall, donations are running $70 million above last year. And what works for PBS and NPR will work for humanitarian programs formerly funded as part of USAID as well, though the cuts to be made up there are bigger: Congress has eliminated about $8 billion in funding for USAID and other foreign-aid efforts, according to the Cato Institute. That's a lot of money — but not a dime of it has disappeared. After all, where does government get its money in the first place? Washington could only give to foreign aid or nonprofit broadcasting what it took — or borrowed — from the American people in the first place. When government doesn't spend money, society doesn't lose any of its resources: They just stay with the taxpayers, and the middlemen in government don't get their cut. That, for liberals, is a big part of the problem. The Democratic Party depends on shunting everyone's tax (or debt) dollars into the hands of bureaucrats, one of the party's most loyal constituencies. It's not just NPR and PBS that have been publicly financed — it's also liberalism as a movement. Bureaucrats in government, in government-supported nonprofits and other less-than-fully-private parts of the 'private sector' may work for organizations that are officially nonpartisan, but their campaign-giving heavily favors Democrats. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Their employers may be nonpartisan in theory, but the employees have a strong partisan tilt, and personnel is policy: Any organization is only a collection of people. USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were both born in the Kennedy-Johnson years, at mid-century liberalism's zenith. Liberalism had been dominant for so long — starting with the New Deal and Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration — that liberal intellectuals and policymakers came to think of themselves as more than just one side of American politics. They claimed to speak for everyone, as if a single party could define what it meant to be nonpartisan. But even then, the conservative movement was taking off while the Democrats were being dragged to the left by young radicals who wanted 'acid, amnesty and abortion.' Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The agencies and programs the Republican Congress has defunded were never as neutral as they claimed to be. And as liberals, under the influence of the left, adopted a more adversarial attitude toward America's past and present, it only became more obvious that the agencies and public-private partnerships they ran represented only one side of any argument. But this doesn't mean liberals can't continue to fund everything they funded before. Now they just have to do it with their own money. Some centrist liberals rightly see that as an opportunity, not an imposition: When I told a friend at a government-supported think tank I was sorry for the professional upheaval he was going though, he noted that his institution had in fact been coasting by ever since the end of the Cold War. He said it needed a renewed sense of mission, and having to raise private funds would give it the impetus it had been lacking for decades. Republicans aren't worried NPR or PBS will move further left if they court progressive billionaires, considering what little presence conservatives had on those networks already. But if they're smart, the broadcasters will see the loss of government funding as a spur to court a wider spectrum of support — and to put to the test what it means to be nonpartisan. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.