Dave Appell at the Quark Soup blog has uncovered a year-old episode of “Climate Challenge” featuring Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, one of the world’s leading climate alarmist organizations.  350.org created a group called Forecast the Facts in January 2012 to attack TV meteorologists who refuse to toe the alarmist line and scare viewers about catastrophic man-made global warming.

Lately, however, the Forecast the Facts project has focused exclusively on attacking The Heartland Institute — pounding on us with fake indignation and harassing donors exposed by Peter Gleick’s admitted theft of our internal budget and fundraising documents. The irony here, of course, is that McKibben would never dream of revealing his donors because that might open his groups up to the same underhanded tactics. But as this video shows, McKibben says  he has no idea who funds his organization, beyond a start-up gift from the Rockefeller Brothers years ago. Even the simpatico interviewer finds that hard to believe.

As Appell writes:

Would you believe that Bill McKibben doesn’t know who funds his organization, 350.org? No, I wouldn’t either. But here he is on video, about a year ago (jump to the 13:15 mark), saying — not very convincingly — that he doesn’t know, even though he says they have 7 full-time employees.

McKibben is President and Co-Founder of 350.org. He’s in charge. Presidents of nonprofits usually know who funds them. He doesn’t seem to want to say. To her credit, Karyn Strickler, the interviewer, presses him on it and expresses her incredulity, even though she is sympathetic to 350.org’s mission.

What is with these environmental organizations (Center for American Progress is another one) who expect transparency from their foes but won’t provide it themselves?

Good question. Watch the video below. The relevant clip starts at about the 13:13 mark.

Several friends of Heartland have expressed trepidation about continuing their long-time associations with us. This is my reply to one of those scholars, which shines a little more light about what’s going on around here since Peter Gleick confessed to creating the “Fakegate” scandal:

Dear John,

Sorry you feel this way.

For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has tried to stay “above the fray,” producing high-quality research and commentary and staying focused on the issues, even as the political dialogue became more and more polarized and corrosive. Almost alone among think tanks, we focus on communicating with people who do not already agree with us. We rely on research and reason, not rhetoric and emotion, and still do.

In February of this year, when a climate scientist named Peter Gleick stole Heartland documents and circulated a fake memo purporting to reveal our “secret strategy” on climate change, the tone of debate took a terrible turn for the worse, and environmental extremists started to use tactics that had never been used before in the public policy arena. Virtually all of the mainstream media reported the event as a major expose of a “climate denier” organization, deliberately overlooking nuances of our position on climate change, and deliberately lying about our funding sources. The stolen documents didn’t expose us, they exonerated us from charges that we are a “front” for the fossil fuel industry.

Regarding tactics, since the “Fakegate” scandal, Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us, demanding that they be fired for having the temerity to question the official dogma of global warming. Can you imagine a more egregious attack on free speech and open academic debate? Donors to Heartland in the past two years have been the subject of hate mail, letter-writing and telephone campaigns, and online petitions demanding that they stop funding us. All of this happened BEFORE we ran a controversial billboard for a single day a few weeks ago.

Finally, regarding the billboard, after 15 years of being the target of vicious ad hominem attacks, we decided to punch back instead of stand back. Our billboard was factual: The Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed. He still believes in global warming. We simply put his picture on a billboard, pointed out the “inconvenient truth,” and asked, “do you?”

The mainstream media, which has tolerated and even promoted people who call global warming skeptics “Nazis” and “traitors’ and called for the death penalty for skeptics, now pretends to be “outraged” by this billboard. We took it down immediately and admitted that it was in poor taste and a mistake, but they continue to promote madmen on the other side of the issue including Michael Mann and Bill McKibben, and hypocritically pound on us for our “ethical lapse.” This is fake indignation, being staged by ideological extremists as part of the ongoing attack on us and our donors. It is not sincere, it is not accurate, and it is not ethical.

So John, I’m disappointed that you would side with folks who would use such tactics. if you want to stand up for truth seeking and honesty, for taking an unpopular stand against prevailing wisdom, then you should be speaking up for me and The Heartland Institute, not abandoning us in this moment of need. I hope you will reflect on what is really going on, reconsider your position, and let me know if you’ve changed your mind.

Joe

Marc Morano of Climate Depot — a proud cosponsor of our Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago May 21- 23 — shared with us today his observations on the mainstream media’s double standard for tolerating provocative communication strategies when it comes to the climate.

Marc’s views are his own — and, as always with him, an invigorating read. Those who are subject to easily getting the vapors over such things should probably not heed the advice “click to continue” below. For the rest, here is the full-and-raw Marc Morano, who called out — and answered — some egregious examples of global warming alarmists using “provocative communications” about skeptics that the MSM seems to have missed:

“This is so silly. Every day now, skeptics are compared to Holocaust deniers and the media yawns. But Heartland does an edgy billboard accurately reflecting the views of those featured in it and the media acts as though they are offended?

“Here are a very few examples of this week’s Holocaust denier comparisons and other nasty stuff by warmists – just this week!  Please show some balance!”

Warmist Holocaust survivor Prof. Tomkiewicz: ‘I am using the term ‘denier’ to make a point…Hitler was clear about what he wanted to do in Mein Kampf –why did people not pay attention?’

Tomkiewicz: ‘These [Hitler] ‘deniers’ might as well have been called skeptics in their day…I could not and would not ‘cheapen’ a genocide that killed most of my family and deprived me of my childhood’

Climate Depot Response: ’Your skeptic/Holocaust denier comparisons do ‘cheapen’ a genocide that killed most of your family.’ You are not exempt from being offensive due to your horrible suffering’

Warmist Prof. Micha Tomkiewicz, who survived the Holocaust, doubles down on skeptic Holocaust denier link: ‘Why Am I ‘Dragging’ the Holocaust into the Climate Change Debate?’

Tomkiewicz: ‘I make my ‘climate change denier’ claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides…I don’t want my grandchildren to die in a climate change genocide that we could have helped head off’

Yet another warmist compares skeptics to Holocaust Deniers — Warmist Prof. Andrew Glikson also claims AGW is ‘the greatest threat humanity and nature are facing’ 

Prof. Andrew Glikson, Andrew Glikson of Australian National Univ. rips skeptical climate play: ‘ I wonder whether such a show, if concerned with denial of the holocaust of WWII, would have been conceived?…I suggest the show ‘The Heretic’…can only lead to trivialization & further denial of what the scientific world regards as the greatest threat humanity & nature are facing’

A Review of Peter Jacques’ ‘A General Theory of Climate Denial’ — ‘Belief that ‘climate science’ shows that the ‘world political economic structure’ is ‘irreparably unsustainable’

Peter Jacques seeks to argue that ‘denier’ is an appropriate label for those who question the theory of catastrophic global warming, and further, that comparisons with holocaust denial are indeed valid’

Holocaust denial and Climate denial: ‘What makes some of these warmists so fond of the holocaust line? Only recently Clive Hamilton wrote a vitriolic rant about this subject’

Another Academic Says Climate Skeptics Criminals Against Humanity: Prof. Donald Brown puts skeptics ‘into the company of such noted transgressors as Mao, Stalin, Pot’ – ‘Brown thought that showing his publicly available email and head shot—which are not hidden and are trivially easy to find at Penn State—represented ‘intimidation.’…But Morano himself hauls in plenty of scathing missives daily, as do others who run blogs expressing doubt that we should let government ‘solve’ climate change’

New article by Prof. Peter J. Jacques compares ‘climate denial’ to ‘Holocaust denial’ — Published in MIT Press Journal pjacques@mail.ucf.edu

Prof. Jacques: ’The question at hand is, ‘Why is there a social counter-movement that rejects climate change?’ This article begins by first naming this counter-movement ‘climate denial’ and working through the various apparent options by specifically looking at scholarship on Holocaust denial for insight. Through this insight, we can understand the counter-movement as a reactionary force working to sow confusion for ideological reasons that promote a specific privilege’

Penn State ‘Climate Ethics’ Prof. Donald Brown says skeptics are guilty of a ‘new crime against humanity’ for delaying action on global warming — ‘It is really evil stuff. It is nasty’ – Brown attacks Climate Depot for posting his email: [Climate Depot] puts my picture and my personal email and within 48 hours you get hundreds of really nasty [emails], some of them are up here, death threats, hate mail’

Flashback 1972: Green Guru David Suzuki: Humans are just ‘maggots’ that ‘defecate all over the environment’

BBC: Male Climate Change Deniers Are Like Terrorists, Paedophiles, And Slave Owners

BBC’s John Bell: ‘The people who are most vocal in denying human responsibility for the disastrous effects of climate change are mostly male. The people who control factories of wage slaves in the developing world are almost exclusively men, as are the commanders of terrorist regimes. Leaders who threaten or declare war are mostly men as are those involved in paedophile gangs’

“Green Power Failure” is a May 10, 2012 article by Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon for Canada’s Financial Post.

The article is a warning for the United States of pitfalls from adopting renewable electricity sources of solar and wind. Quoting Mr. Solomon, ”Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.”

Mr. Solomon then addresses situations in the U. K., Germany, Denmark and other countries which have adopted sizable amounts of solar and wind electricity generation that has led to electricity rates so high that 15 percent of households or more are in “fuel poverty”–ten percent or more of household income goes to electricity or gas. Many of these countries pay electricity rates triple the U. S. average.

Mr. Solomon further cites the U. S. Energy Information Administration forecasts starting next year U. S. electricity rates “dropping by more than 22 % by the end of the decade.”

Due to the U.S. large electricity generation system, the more than 40,000 megawatts of wind energy and several thousand megawatts of solar energy has not caused appreciable increases in electricity rates. However, there are exceptions.

Mr. Solomon may be unaware that California is going down the road to higher electricity prices by adopting renewable energy standards of 20 percent electricity coming from solar and wind by December 31, 2013 and 33 percent by 2020. As of May 2011, the all sector cost of electricity in California was 13.39 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to a national average of 9.87 cents–36 percent higher than the national average. Hundreds of megawatts of solar power are under construction or scheduled for construction around San Diego, in the Mojave Desert, and Nevada that will add to the misery of California residents when they go on-line.

The EPA is forcing shutdown of coal as a fuel which may cause increased electricity rates due to increasing natural gas demand and no competition from lower priced coal. In addition, EPA’s First Carbon Pollution Standards for Future Power Plants could be modified to further reduce or eliminate fossil fuels for electricity generation. This would require dramatic increases in renewable energy sources for electric power generation.

The U. S. advantage of low electricity rates is not that certain with the political climate existing today. High electricity rates is making manufacturing non-competitive in California and the E. U.

A commentator on CNBC recently made a point on discussing the economic situation in North America and Europe, “The U. S. is like the best house in a bad neighborhood.” Lets keep it at least that good!

This is a brief list of attacks on skeptics of man-made global warming, which despite their vulgarity saw preferential tolerance from the mainstream media.

Know of any others? Email me at tsmith@heartland.org

Brad Johnson (Forecast the Facts)

“Norway Terrorist Is A Global Warming Denier”

Although Breivik’s conspiracy theories are insane, they are in line with mainstream opinion among American conservatives.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/

10:10 (British global warming campaign) video, featuring exploding children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

James Hansen:

Put oil firm chiefs on trial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

Think Progress defends Hansen’s coal train/death train analogy, ironically says “no apology necessary”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/11/26/202133/hansen-stands-by-coal-traindeath-train-analogy/

“This is analogous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill”

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/12/03/james-hansen-compares-global-warming-to-slavery-nazism/

Al Gore:

Threat of climate change as urgent as that from the Nazis

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/al-gore-likens-global-warming-to-nazi-threat.html

Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Compares climate skeptics to Nazi deniers

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33371.html

Chris Huyne (Energy and Climate Minister):

Defying climate deal like appeasing Hitler-UK minister

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E7IL0MF20110721?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

CBS’s Scott Pelley:

Warming skeptics like Holocaust deniers

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/01/21/cbs-airs-conspiratorial-global-warming-special-hosted-reporter-who-likene

Paul Krugman:

“As I watched deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason – treason against the planet”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1

Grit’s David Roberts:

“…we should have war crime trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremburg”

http://grist.org/article/the-denial-industry/

Bill McKibben (350.org founder):

Global warming is responsible for Hurricane Katrina

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/26/bill-mckibben-global-warming-to-blame-for-hurricane-irene/

Thomas Fingar (Chairman of National Intelligence Council):

Global warming will lead to more terrorism

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-25/politics/climate.change.security_1_climate-change-global-warming-international-migration?_s=PM:POLITICS

Ellen Gordon (Boston Globe)

Likened climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

Have any to add to the list? Email me at tsmith@heartland.org

Not that we expect the clowns and criminals who run state government in neighboring Illinois to care, but we do hope, for a moment at least, they cast their collective gaze north of the border to Wisconsin.

Something is happening there that Illinois’ governor and most of its legislators no doubt will hardly be able to grasp. Ditto for legislators in California, New York and other fiscally dysfunctional states.

Wisconsin recently has been holding down spending and taxes, and the state has gone from a budget deficit of more than $3 billion to a projected budget surplus.

Imagine! Setting spending priorities and stopping further raids on the pocketbooks of businesses and individuals has achieved what more spending and higher taxes could not.

The Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute has the story, based on the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s latest budget projections.

Russell Cook notes over at The American Thinker how The Heartland Institute’s one-day Unabomber billboard along a highway near Chicago “was a gift to alarmists on a silver platter.”

Noted. It was a mistake on our part. Sorry about that.

Cook gives us our lumps in his American Thinker post. But he also makes some other key points that put what some call the “Climate Wars” into perspective.

[The billboard] was illustrating absurdity with absurdity that backfired because global warming alarmists weren’t put into a defensive position of explaining why the issue is on the verge of total collapse. As Rush Limbaugh noted recently, “you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win.”

The billboard clearly did not advance the skeptic position, but it at least illustrates how the best defense is to go on the offense.

Cook faults Heartland for allowing climate alarmists to continue playing their “shell games” that “keep the public from fully comprehending the enormous faults in the idea of man-caused global warming.” Again: Guilty as charged.

But the larger story here, writes Cook, is that “alarmists have failed for nearly 20 years to prove the science is settled or that skeptics are unworthy of public trust, but they’ve only accomplished this by avoiding any debate about those assertions.”

And that gets us back to the shell game of distraction and propaganda the climate alarmists have been playing for years — with diminishing results. Writes Cook:

When a shell game tactic is the only thing global warming alarmists have to rely on to keep their issue alive, it speaks volumes about their agenda.

Read Cook’s whole piece here. Learn more about Heartland’s upcoming climate conference — May 21 – 23 in Chicago — at this link. That is the place to hear the “debate about those assertions” the alarmists are avoiding.

It is not too late — but it’s getting there — to register at the conference as media/blogger or in the general audience. We’ll also be live-streaming the event, so bookmark this link.

States and school systems around the country have been reformatting cafeteria menus, partly pushed by Michelle Obama’s 2010 “Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act,” which essentially has taxpayers triple-paying for the food schools serve under wild and conflicting nutrition regulations, and partly pushed by a desire to be politically correct. This has led to some outrageous incidents, including the recent North Carolina incident where a teacher forced a child to swap her homemade lunch for the school’s chicken nuggets, a Michigan state child obesity registry and tracking system, and now a new set of rules in Massachusetts that forbid school vending machines, bake sales, door-to-door candy fundraisers, and snacks at after-school events and parties.

The state’s justification is “an obesity epidemic.” And, to be fair, lots of American kids are fat–not pudgy, fat. But does this justify blanketing schools with often conflicting and nonsensical food requirements? Massachusetts State Sen. Susan Fargo thinks so.

“If we didn’t have so many kids that were obese, we could have let things go,” she said. “But this is a major public health problem and these kids deserve a chance at a good, long, healthy life.”

Ah, yes, government. Giver of good, long, healthy lives!

These regulation-happy state officials don’t seem to understand the law of unintended consequences, and this action has several. The problem for them is that some of the unintended consequences pit government regulation against government regulation, with the not-unlikely possibility the public begins to notice the Kafka-esque absurdity of it all.

In first place, public schools depend on private fundraising to fill in many holes in their budgets (even though Massachusetts spends $15,000 per pupil each year, on average; a figure most private schools can only dream of nabbing) such as for band trips, sports equipment, events like prom, and in some cases even new textbooks and classroom supplies. As Massachusetts mom Maura Dawley says, “The goal is to raise money. You’re not going to get that selling apples and bananas.” How will moms like her feel when their kids can’t raise the money to have extra-school activities parents are willing to pay extra to support?

Second, government food programs may have actually contributed to the obesity epidemic school officials are now trying to target. As Mark Bittman pointed out in the New York Times, hunger and obesity are two sides of a coin. Hungry people are much more likely to become obese because they overeat when they suddenly have a stable food supply.

“Of the two edges of the sword of America’s malnutrition — hunger and obesity — the latter is by far the more prevalent and deadly,” Bittman writes. “In New York City perhaps 2 percent of children have “very low food security,” which might mean vitamin deficiencies, a day without food, a loss of weight, a month of being hungry. Meanwhile, 40 percent of New York’s public school students are overweight or obese…”

Bittman criticizes a New York program that gives kids the option of two breakfasts–one in the cafeteria, one on their desks–in an effort to end the stigma of receiving “government cheese.” It can also be fairly noted that kids can also come from homes that have food (whether provided by a parent or another government program) and also eligible be to eat again, taxpayer-paid, when they get to school. More double-eating.

Third is the complete impossibility of officials being able to decide, from their thousand-mile-away government thrones, exactly what school lunch configurations will work for every one of America’s 55 million K-12 students. Hm, perhaps this is why parents used to make their kids’ school lunches. What a  novel idea!

First, they came for the lemonade stands. Then, they came for the ice cream makers. Then, they came for the bake sales…

Image by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Heartland Senior Fellow for Environment Policy James M. Taylor was interviewed for part of a story on PBS Newshour last night about the teaching of climate change in Americas’s public schools. It was biased heavily toward the views of climate alarmists, which was hardly a surprise. But since The Heartland Institute has been gaining attention for our plans to craft climate curriculum, the PBS producers reached out to us for “balance.”

Below are James’ quick thoughts on the piece, and the video of the story. These folks really need to attend Heartland’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (and so should you!). The idea that sound climate science backs up the alarmist narrative is a stubborn myth.

Skepticism is essential to science itself. It is deeply disturbing that many public school teachers bemoan such skepticism in their students rather than celebrate such intuitive adherence to scientific principles.

The heart of the alleged global warming crisis is predictions of future warming from computer models that have consistently predicted too much warming in the past. Importantly, scientific data have shown that the two most important assumptions of such computer models – that modest warming due to carbon dioxide will be substantially exacerbated by changes in cloud formation and atmospheric humidity – are not occurring in the real world.

When real-world data and evidence contradict a scientific theory, the proper scientific response is to proceed with caution rather than vilify those who present the real-world data and evidence.

All that would have been nice to see in this PBS Newshour story last night about the teaching of climate change in America’s public schools. Alas,

America’s fixation on diversity is logical. We are a nation of immigrants, a great “melting pot” of ethnicities, nationalities and cultures, brought together by a choice to be an American made by us or our ancestors, and by a shared commitment to a unique set of values that constitute what George Will has called the “catechism” of America’s civil religion.

To acknowledge and appreciate our national diversity is to embrace our American heritage and culture. But diversity itself pales in comparison to the values that all Americans share; we come together as Americans not because we respect everyone’s differences, but because we are commonly invested in a core set of beliefs enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These ideals transcend diversity.

But when it comes to acknowledging diversity, an increasing number of universities are taking an aggressive approach in mandating “diversity education” classes and programming. Shoving multicultural programming down students’ throats accomplishes little — an understanding of diversity comes through interactions and real life relationships — and while classes on diversity may be sufficient academic introductions to the subject, there is little need to mandate these courses in collegiate curricula.

Businesses have long been struggling with the question of compulsory diversity training, and have come to the conclusion that such initiatives are a waste of time and money. And as college tuition rates continue to climb higher and higher, mandating such classes is a burden families can’t afford to shoulder.

In Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies, researchers from Harvard, Berkeley and Minnesota conclude that diversity initiatives are popular not because they work, but because they create a legal safety net for employers. Indeed, courts have traditionally accepted the existence of such programs as shows of “good faith” in commitment to minimizing discrimination.

The study goes on the conclude that:

…although inequality in attainment at work may be rooted in managerial bias and the social isolation of women and minorities, the best hope for remedying it may lie in practices that assign organizational responsibility for change.

This is, of course, the same organizational responsibility that businesses avoid through meaningless diversity programs. And it is important to note that both the business and collegiate environment, inequality may be the result of differences in skill, and motivation rather than bias and social isolation.

University of Arizona sociologist Alexandra Kalev questions the impact of the compulsory nature of diversity programs in the workplace:

When attendance is voluntary, diversity training is followed by an increase in managerial diversity. Most employers, however, force their managers and workers to go through training, and this is the least effective option in terms of increasing diversity. . . . Forcing people to go through training creates a backlash against diversity.

Employment economist Marc Bendick has used surveys to gauge the effectiveness of diversity training, and agrees that while some degree of training can be useful, it will have the most impact in an environment invested in becoming more diverse. As for existing corporate diversity training, he is not optimistic:

If you ask what is the impact of diversity training today, you have to say 75 percent is junk and will have little impact or no impact or negative impact.

Granted, college classes on diversity have a slightly different objective; diversity training in business cannot be directly compared to diversity-focused coursework. The University of Southern California describes its own “Diversity Requirement” as an effort to:

…provide undergraduate students with the background knowledge and analytical skills necessary to understand and respect differences between groups of people…Students will increasingly need to grapple with issues arising from different dimensions of human diversity such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class.

The already ambiguous and intangible notion of inequality that businesses address takes on an even broader and vaguer context when applied in the classroom. What is the goal of a university diversity class? USC seems to be content with “respect” and “understanding”, while Providence College yearns for an understanding of “differences within the human community.” Students will undoubtedly have to contend with these and other areas of diversity, but is first approaching them from a mandatory academic perspective wise?

Indeed, part of the beauty and uniqueness of American society comes through the diversity that is woven into our national fabric. It is an intrinsic part of the American experience, something that is not taught or shoved down our throats, but experienced in day to day interactions.

It is important to note that typically these classes are not singularly based on “diversity education.” Rather, they are history, sociology or other liberal arts classes that are specifically geared towards an examination of “diversity.” USC’s list of options for the diversity requirement runs the gambit of choices, from “Men and Masculinity” to “Questions of Intimacy” and “Race, Gender and, Sexuality in Contemporary Art.” Indeed, although these courses may be entirely valid as electives, to justify their placement on a mandatory list is another matter entirely.

USC and Providence are not merely anomalies in regards to their requirements — Cornell, The University of Massachusetts, and many more mandate coursework in “diversity.” In fact, sixty-three percent of colleges and universities report that they either have in place a diversity requirement or they are in the process of developing one, according to the Diversity Digest.

This is not to say that such courses are useless; undoubtedly they provide an important insight into the study of gender and ethnic disparity. But at a time when the U.S. lags behind its competitors in math and science aptitude, students’ already packed schedules could be much better augmented with a STEM area of study, language training, or better yet, a class on Americanism. Heartland Institute Senior Fellow George Clowes points to a study by the nonpartisan, nonprofit group Public Agenda, which found that parents firmly believe that schools should place more emphasis on teaching children more about American tradition, culture and society; essentially, what it means to be an American. Says Clowes in the Heartlander:

That view is overwhelmingly shared by parents from all demographic groups–white, black, or Hispanic; immigrant or native-born. While parents support teaching students about the experiences, traditions, and histories of ethnic and national groups other than their own, they object strongly to lessons or courses that demean the United States or encourage divisiveness and diminish a shared American identity.

The potential for divisiveness, as well as the ambiguity of purpose surrounding such programs also raises questions on what students truly derive from such initiatives. Business efforts to address diversity issues have largely failed even with specific mandates; educational endeavors seeking to “explore” diversity allow little room for measuring success or failure.

There is a difference between acknowledging cultural and ethnic differences and mandating “training” on such differences. As a nation born of immigrants, a conglomeration of cultures and nationalities were fused together to form our unique American identity.  To presume to confine a cultural awareness as broad and deep as ours to the classroom is to arbitrarily place limits upon that understanding.

Rather, students should be encouraged to experience American diversity authentically; through their daily interactions and relationships with other. Through such contact, we transcend stereotypes and preconceptions; we look beyond prejudices and presumptions and learn to truly value people for who they are.

In his “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged America to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence — to honor the sacred obligation, the “promissory note” of “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” True diversity comes through accepting and sharing these beliefs, not mandating classes on multiculturalism.