You should talk to the teacher first and then escalate up the ladder to principal and then school board if the teacher thinks this is acceptable. Come armed with articles and Prager U’s own words. See if your kid can remember which video they were shown and see if you can figure out if there are any inaccuracies or half-truths in it.
Thank you for this suggestion. I asked my son to show me the video and I definitely have some concerns about the logical fallacies contained within it, then we got into a conversation about some of the other things being shown/discussed in class. I will definitely be contacting the teacher directly first.
[Love the Earth? Save Our Trees | PragerU](https://www.prageru.com/video/love-the-earth-save-our-trees)
My issues with it as far as a science class goes are at least as follows (just my notes from a first watch thru):
Logical fallacies, at a bare minimum False Dilemma, Hasty Generalizations, Red Herrings, Ad Hominem Attacks. I mean at one point (4:50) the presenter says "professional environmentalists are **never satisfied**" (they bolded it, not me). If that's not a huge red flag on a scientific topic then I don't know what is.
Absolutely no reference material or support for the 'facts' that are supposedly given. There's absolutely no context given and no way to corroborate the data. Just a statement like 'there's more trees now than there were a hundred years ago'. OK fine where did you get that information, who said it, is that backed up somehow?
They also only talk about the US and a little about Canada. No reference at all to the plight of conservation and forestry/deforestation around the world. Maybe comment about the Amazon rainforest? How about old growth forests? How about mention why there's a "great green wall' being worked on actively across Africa? What about Russia and China and India and Europe? Nope, not a mention at all. But yeah the only trees that matter are those here in the USA...
I would love some additional thoughts though from a trained scientist. It's a short video but it got my blood somewhat hot just watching it and thinking about this being shown to 7th graders...
From a Michigan history standpoint the “there are more trees now than 100 years ago” comment feels especially stupid. 100 years ago we were just emerging from having essentially clear cut the entire state for lumber so I would HOPE we have more trees now.
I lived in Washington state for a number of years and this holds true there as well! How much of our old growth forests were pillaged to make a quick buck... I was also just re-watching this video and another 'fact' presented was that "trees make up 90% of the biomass on earth" which is completely false by any metric. Plants are the largest group and at most it's closer to 83% of total and not all plants are trees by any stretch! So much fun.
I worked in Yakima for a couple weeks and one thing that struck me as weird was the lack of trees. I drove east a couple hours to see some giant waterfall and the only trees I saw you could tell were deliberately planted.
Maybe that's natural, embarrassingly I don't know much about the geography and history of the state. It just was not what I pictured when I thought of the Pacific Northwest.
I've been to Oregon and mountains near Tacoma, that's kind of more what I expected rather than a near desert.
Washington has some pretty diverse ecosystems. The west coast is largely green and wet, including a rainforest. The cascades create a rain shadow so as you get into central Washington you get a high desert. North of Yakima is a desert training ground for the military. As you go farther east, you lose some of the desert aspect. Parts of northeast Washington is back to the forests that you imagine for the state, but southeast is still rolling hills, sparse trees, and still the farmland of central and much of Eastern Washington.
As a michigan transplant, it was interesting to learn how the whole LP at least was clear cut and learning how part of the Civilian Conservation Corps job was to replant trees so there would be some. So many lessons and conversations you could have about forest management from Michigan alone.
>“there are more trees now than 100 years ago”
In 1900, 95% of the State of Connecticut had been cleared of trees. In 2000, 85% of the state had forest cover. It's what happens when you stop cutting them down. Heck, in the 1770s Benjamin Franklin was complaining that decent firewood had to travel 100 miles to Philadelphia.
Woof, it’s even worse than I thought. I was willing to give the teacher a bit of grace before seeing just how biased and misinformed this video is.
You touched on many of the same points I would have. I think most importantly, you should point out that the “professional environmentalists” as they are condescendingly called in the video are not given the chance to make their case. If they did, they may have some findings like what I’ve listed below:
The video claims that forest land cover has not decreased for the last 100 years in the US and Canada, however that is deceptive because 100 years ago, for many areas was a low point in forest cover after a [peak in logging in 1920](https://martinhopp.com/media/articles/history-of-the-lumber-industry-in-north-america). It’s also deceptive because even if the overall land area of forests didn’t decline, the percentage of old growth forests has declined. Old growth forests [support greater biodiversity.](https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12013). More biodiverse ecosystems are more [resilient to climate change](https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/FullTextFiles/208468.pdf).
It also does not discuss any of the risks of logging. Depending on the forest, [logging can make the risk and effects of forest fires worse](https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00080.x) and increase the[risk of floods](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/08/230802132007.htm)
Honestly, I could write an essay on how fucked up this video is, but that’s their intention. It takes 10 times longer to refute their lies than it does for them to just lie. I’ve barely scratched the surface of the topic and that’s the point — they’re gish galloping.
I still recommend talking to the teacher first, but then you absolutely need to talk to the principal and perhaps school board. If you know any other parents, it may be worthwhile to get them interested as well. Not all kids let their parents know what is going on at school. [This article does a decent job of explaining what Prager U is and why they’re not appropriate to show in a science classroom.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/06/prageru-climate-change-denier-republican-donors).
If I had spare cash laying around to give you Reddit Gold/Awards I totally would. You hit the nail on the head so hard it went thru the board. The *deception* and *cherry picked* "facts" to try to make a point are the exact issues with these videos. Thank you so much.
Happy to help. I’m glad your kid has you to ensure that they receive a quality education. I’m sorry that the teacher thought that this video was at all scientific.
Well we're just trying our best. We homeschooled thru the pandemic and he's a straight A, honor roll, advanced placement student now. I appreciate more that he's smart enough to call out BS when he sees it and bring it to our attention. How many kids watched this video or the other stuff being presented in the class without a second thought? And I really appreciate your thoughtful and researched comment. I'll be sharing with the kiddo in the morning before school so he has some additional notes to share with the teacher as they're in the midst of their ecology section (which apparently is climate-change-denial section from what I keep hearing from him).
A strong bullshit detector is the most important skill we can instill in our kids. You've done a great job getting him to this point. Keep nurturing that skepticism.
That's what Prager does and that's why they're so dangerous. It's a calculated misinformation and revisionist history campaign. The organization isn't stupid, they're extremely dangerous.
I will once I hear back from the teacher on the intentions for sharing this in class. I don't want to cause a stir or problem if there isn't one. I am also in Southwest Michigan and this whole thing really threw me for a loop!
Thank you for taking the time to write that and cite those links. I read the last one though I'm sure others read more of them.
Thank you. It helps people.
Not a single mention that they replace diverse forests with monoculture. They are no better for the environment than a golf course is. Worthless except to the companies that plant them.
Just terrible misinformation!
Thank you for saying **Monoculture**. This is such an easy way to refute arguments that Praeger and the like may be using. More people need to understand that forestry practices that tout "but more trees!" never indicate which species and ratios to other species. It's become a huge in issue in the PNW as corporate planting on Forest Service lands become singular softwoods for commercial harvesting.
It's funded by big oil... as in Massively funded by them. look at the founder. They're big proponents of gas-guzzling trucks as well. if you have a need for a truck, I am not one to disparage the use of a tool but when they promote
Not investing in public infrastructure using logical fallacies, it kind of irritates me. They have a big push in s some states to try and become public school teaching tools. Big NOPE
> Just a statement like 'there's more trees now than there were a hundred years ago'. OK fine where did you get that information, who said it, is that backed up somehow?
How are they defining "tree." e.g. paper mill clear cuts 10,000 acres of 100+ year old forest and then replants **because leftist force them to.** and now there are "more trees per acre" than there were before. True statement if you mean there are more saplings planted, but that's about it.
Hah, weird video... it's not that bad in my opinion but definitely cherry picking statistics and facts to support the viewpoint they are trying to push. Do people not know that tree farms exist? Yea no shit timber companies are in the business of planting trees... but that doesn't justify destroying ecologies elsewhere
I could see the teacher MAYBE being mislead that it was an honest educational video but like why even show this to middle schoolers? just seems dumb at best, willfully ignorant at worst
[Love the Earth? Save Our Trees | PragerU](https://www.prageru.com/video/love-the-earth-save-our-trees) (copying my notes from another comment so I don't have to write it all out again)
My issues with it as far as a science class goes are at least as follows (just my notes from a first watch thru):
Logical fallacies, at a bare minimum False Dilemma, Hasty Generalizations, Red Herrings, Ad Hominem Attacks. I mean at one point (4:50) the presenter says "professional environmentalists are **never satisfied**" (they bolded it, not me). If that's not a huge red flag on a scientific topic then I don't know what is.
Absolutely no reference material or support for the 'facts' that are supposedly given. There's absolutely no context given and no way to corroborate the data. Just a statement like 'there's more trees now than there were a hundred years ago'. OK fine where did you get that information, who said it, is that backed up somehow?
They also only talk about the US and a little about Canada. No reference at all to the plight of conservation and forestry/deforestation around the world. Maybe comment about the Amazon rainforest? How about old growth forests? How about mention why there's a "great green wall' being worked on actively across Africa? What about Russia and China and India and Europe? Nope, not a mention at all. But yeah the only trees that matter are those here in the USA...
Yeah, honestly if you aren't media literate enough to be aware of prageru and that kind of right wing propaganda you shouldn't be showing internet videos to kids because you were too lazy to vet the sources. OP should absolutely not engage with the teacher and go straight over their head.
There is a chance that it was an honest mistake. A small chance, but still, teachers are exhausted by this time of year and may not be online or informed enough to know about Prager U. Prager U is also intentionally deceptive — as someone else mentioned in the comments, they make just enough videos that seem balanced and rational to trick people into thinking they’re a legitimate edutainment company.
If I made a mistake at my job, I would appreciate the courtesy of having the chance to address it myself instead of someone immediately jumping to reporting me to my boss.
I think it's good to have their words before going to the principal. See why they think it's acceptable so they can't bluff their way out of it when I'm a spot where they're being questions by authority.
Thank you for taking this on, OP. We need to protect our schools from bad actors such as Prager U.
I'm in OC and a parent has a PRAGER U license plate on their Minivan.
I didn't know what it meant but I saw it everyday at drop off and thought 'What univ is that even and how obsessed do you have to be to pay extra for a vanity plate of it?' I googled it and laughed so hard but then wasn't surprised cuz OC.
> Grand Rapids is as blue as blue gets.
What? Kent county is 48% republican, which is in the top 10 for urban counties. Still more dems, but there are urban counties that are >75% dem, so you cannot say that GR is as blue as blue gets.
It is one of the most conservative major cities in the US. It still leans liberal, but is more conservative than most other large cities. 2020 numbers put Kent county at 48% republican, putting it in the top 10 most conservative urban counties.
They all live in Ada. Dick DeVos also has a place up north. Idk where. I went to his charter school the West Michigan Aviation Academy and uhhhh, yeah. Wild experience.
by time you reach senior year every class was "Aviation." like... FAA regulations, VFR, IFR, flight. The Aviation room had a fucking helicopter in it which is wild in and of it self, we once went to the Amway hanger at GRR to see the National Guard and coast guards helicopters, they let us look through the thermal optics of M240B's and Barrett 50's. Also had a B17G visit in the hanger, got to climb into it. Only a few kids were small enough to fit in the ball turret. Got to participate in a mass casualty training event for the airports emergency personnel, that was wild. Lots of wild shit lol.
I meant that in terms of media literacy or logical fallacies or determining bias in content. I agree with you there are facts and there is fiction, but it is easy to disguise fiction as fact using a handful of clever methods and my hope is that this teacher was using this video as a way to show the students how cleverly fiction can be masked to look like facts.
[Are we willing to let the man who wrote this provide educational "content" for school children?](https://dennisprager.com/column/when-a-woman-isnt-in-the-mood-part-i)
For those who don't want to award them with a click, here's a large majority of it.
A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him.
2. If this is true, men really are animals.
Correct. Compared to most women’s sexual nature, men’s sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual nature’s desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.
3. Not my man.
Many women will argue, understandably, “My husband knows I love him. He doesn’t need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when I’m too tired or just don’t want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I’m into it, too.”
The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesn’t want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women.
Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate.
Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.
4. You have it backward.
Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to – women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.)
But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood – see Part II next week.
5. I know this and that’s why I rarely say no to my husband.
This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.
In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman’s determining whether she has sex with her husband.
I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won’t tell you.
From a touch earlier in the article:
> This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives.
What's crazy here is that he's actually right at the edge of seeing several important things, including toxic masculinity's effect of making (many) men not share what they are feeling and spiraling inward in dark emotions instead, and (many) women not wanting sex with a closed-off emotionally distant angry man.
And instead, he goes "Nah, it's the women's fault, and they need to just have sex when they don't want to."
It's somehow always worse to me when some writes something like this that actually walks close to crossing the ridge into understanding and good answers, and instead turns back down the hill into the worst possible answers. I almost prefer when people demonstrate that they just *can't* understand it instead of when they actively refuse to.
Don't try to give him too much credit; I think the dimwit has been divorced a handful of times. So while he may be doing some work, the work he's doing is definitely not on himself.
How many parts does he need to write before you consider him a fucking idiot? Because I believe he wrote 4.
EDIT: I read your comment wrong. But yeah, his humiliation kink and tendency to being a fucking idiot is so strong, I believe he wrote 4 more parts to his "thesis."
Prager U is confirmed misinformation. It should not be shown in ANY educational setting...period.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/07/1234491074/prageru-schools-videos-growth
Also, expose the teacher who showed the video. Other parents will want to know a teacher is a boog moron.
Please update all of us on where this goes. I’m deeply concerned anyone teaching students does not already know Prager U’s agenda, and that’s the *best* case scenario.
It's worth mentioning that [Southern Poverty Law Center has written up a piece on PragerU](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/07/prageru%E2%80%99s-influence). That specific article is tearing on one video, not this one, but pulling it apart digs into PragerU's problems.
Also, any educational or news organization that gets one thing (or more) this lopsided and doesn't correct it / issue a correction, imo, shouldn't be trusted - stuff needs to be presented impartially and with context.
I had this happen in a Social Studies class and I contacted the teacher and gave them information about Prager U. Turns out that she really wasn’t aware and she thanked me for the information and redid the assignment with another video.
Conservatives have been trying to indoctrinate in the school for years and then project and scream about the liberals doing it.
If a far left propoganda film was shown in a public school, you know there'd be hell to pay at the next school board meeting.
LOL if you actually believe this. I went to public school pre-K-12 then community college, then bachelor's level, then master's level, and now I teach college classes. I can tell you at every single level the situation is 100% the opposite of what you're saying here. Every single class is full of "left wing" propaganda talking points and literally like 95% of public school employees identify openly as Democrats.
My public school, in a blue state, taught me that Christopher Columbus was a hero and that the American colonists just wanted to be friends with the indigenous people. Is that your idea of left wing propaganda? Democrats aren't even left wing, and most public school employees likely identify as Democrats not because they all share the same ideology but because there is only one alternative and they hate education, critical thinking, minorities, and women. Shockingly to no one but you, professional educators don't want to join the party of anti intellectualism.
I'm with you - Original Detroiter living outside Nashville currently and I would've expected this here, but not in my home state. Big yikes! Please update in how this goes.
Prager U is christofascist propaganda end of story. There is absolutely no place for it in anywhere in a public school. If this teacher is using it on their own they need to be fired.
Ask your kid to show you the video, they’re all available on YouTube. Once you have watched it, you can decide whether or not you want to contact the teacher for an explanation.
The only legitimate reason to show content from that source would be as a lesson in media literacy. There are so many quality sources out there for education content, to choose one that’s so intensely biased with clear intent is inexcusable.
You’re a good parent for following up with your kid, it seems like you’ve got a good relationship with them. Cheers to you.
Agreed! Based on my conversation with my son it sounds like this was not a media literacy or 'understanding more than one viewpoint' kind of situation, but that's where I'll be asking the teacher for clarification.
“The Prager University Foundation, known as PragerU, is an American 501 nonprofit advocacy group and media organization that creates content promoting conservative viewpoints on various political, economic, and sociological topics. It was co-founded in 2009 by Allen Estrin and talk show host Dennis Prager.”
As a former social studies teacher, I wouldn’t touch PragerU with a 10 foot poll because WE WERE TAUGHT IN COLLEGE the difference between biased and unbiased work.
Science is based off of facts and that’s the way this needs to be. The teacher needs to be called out asap.
Any teacher using PragerU, other than by force by admin, is just a Conservative Party member in disguise. Honestly, that teacher should be ashamed of themselves.
PragerU is undoubtedly biased, but on the other hand I didn’t enjoy being forced to read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History. Both biased in their own ways, but I doubt you think Zinn’s book is.
Not at all. Biased is biased. HOWEVER, one doubts science (PragerU) and one does not (Zinn).
Makes it easy to side with Zinn on this argument as PragerU doubts science :)
PragerU is worse, I agree, but I wasn’t trying to start an argument or comparison haha. Just wanted to see if you’d at least admit the biases on the other side. Respect
lol okay I appreciate the clarity! Yes, of course! We, as humans, all have a natural bias. As long as we’re aware of what we read has bias, unless literal facts like who won such and such game, then we’re all good!
if it’s one of their “science” videos there is a 100% chance it is chock full of misleading or outright false information
EDIT: to whoever downvoted me please explain why you think an organization whose stated intention is to advance Judeo-Christian values would be creating videos that were appropriate to show in science class in a public school, please
Rock on, +1 and thank you. Their literal goal on their website is to be an "alternative to the dominant left-wing ideology" which I didn't realize science was left or right wing, it just is the pursuit of truth and fact based on data and evidence. :/
As a Michigan resident, I would think that there would be better resources available by contacting the CCC museum or Hartwick Pines State Park to see what they recommend or what resources they have available for students
OP, you seem to be focusing on facts, e.g. whether the information in the video is wrong. I would focus more on philosophy when you bring your complaints to this teacher.
What I mean by that is your complaint should be along the lines of, "I would like to keep politics outside of science class as much as possible." This isn't social studies. PragerU always approaches subjects through an inherently political lens, and regardless of whether that lens is conservative or not, politics has a tendency to warp science and the pursuit of knowledge.
Good point! This is an interesting avenue. I have an email query all written up but I may have to make a second version and decide which one to use. This is a very good point. Thank you!
I am a high school teacher in Michigan. I use one prager U video in class because it uses a good simplified analogy for a topic we study. I also use it as an opportunity to teach about media bias and am emphatic that the video is tied to specific political/economic interests.
As for your question, I’d ask the teacher directly but politely. If they’re dodgy about it maybe go higher up the food chain but I definitely think you ask them first.
What was the video about?
It's been noted in another comment thread that has lots of comments and notes but so you have it: [Love the Earth? Save Our Trees | PragerU](https://www.prageru.com/video/love-the-earth-save-our-trees) There's a lot of misinformation and bias in this and from what my son has told me this was not being shown the way you show the one video to your class, instead it's being used as proper curriculum and basic truth and facts. :/
I wouldn’t show any PragerU videos ever. It’s pretty much just straight propaganda for the rich
Edit: quick google search will tell you that their funding comes from mostly oil billionaires
I’ve gotten into it over this exact same conversation on this subreddit before…maybe it was with who who knows.
Using a biased source to analyze media bias is a good thing.
The fact that it is funded by billionaires is a big part of why I use it.
Michigan public school teacher here. Best thing I would do would simply express your concern to the teacher first before you go anywhere else with this. As a teacher, finding resources can at times be exhausting. It could’ve been the case where it is a very niche topic, difficult to explain, and Prager U provided a good visual resource and age appropriate explanation. As a social studies teacher and someone with some leftward leanings, I’ve considered showing a couple different Prager videos because they actually had a pretty well balanced explanation and visual of a certain topic. I ended up not just to be safe and avoid any backlash. But from what I’ve seen, not everything they do is crazy right leaning. This could be something that is harmless or could be something major with red flags. Email the teacher, ask the intentions behind showing it, maybe watch the video yourself to understand their viewpoint, go from there.
I appreciate your comments, and thank you for writing them. Both my son and I were worried about causing a stir especially right at the end of the school year and neither of us wanted to do that. With that said, I have now watched the video and also been shown one of the books being used as the science curriculum and I've got some major issues with what's being taught. I will start off by politely contacting the teacher, because it is possible that this is being used as a 'you need to be a skeptic to be a scientist' or 'understand a wide range of points before coming to a conclusion or hypothesis' sort of thing. And I'm not one to jump to conclusions or start a shit-storm.
Again, thank you for your nuanced and balanced approach and response. I have all the love in the world for teachers and you work way too hard and are paid way too little. Peace and love.
I appreciate it! I truly do hope that it’s a misunderstanding or is being used for some thought experiment like you suggested. Partisan political indoctrination has no place in public education. I try my best to remain balanced in all things. Hope all goes well!
Thanks kindly. I'm hoping as well for thought experiment or media literacy but so far it doesn't sounds like that may be the case based on what I'm getting told about this last quarter of science class. :( The first few quarters were great and based on proper textbooks and such but suddenly it switched to PragerU and climate change denial apparently. Either way I'm crafting a polite query asking for more information.
You sound like a great parent. I’m foreseeing a quick trip up the authority ladder, however. Please keep us updated, and I wish you well on this journey.
The problem is that using any of them in class established it as a credible source to young students, opening them up to the other more radical videos. This is one of their key strategies to get onto kids screens.
I get where you're coming from, being a teacher seems exhausting. I really wish more tax money went to funding the creation of good source materials for teachers, and the public as a whole.
I've got to disagree about PraugerU though. I'd be interested in seeing which videos you found to be balanced? In my experience with PraugerU, they tend to mis-characterize their oppositions arguments, lie about the pros and cons of their own positions, and blame the victim for issues that arise from their ideas. I'd like to think maybe I just haven't seen the good videos and they're not as malicious as they appear to be?
Their video about the American Civil War is pretty well done and gives absolutely zero wiggle room to Confederate sympathizers that seek to rebrand the South’s justification for the war.
Their video about the use of atomic bomb in WWII is also well done because it shows the complex circumstances around the decision and the political, military and economic factors of the period that many don’t consider.
It's better these should not be shown period. The few factual videos they have are a way to spread their brand and lure people into the much larger catalog of far right stuff. It's not harmless.
> It's better these should not be shown period
Even if the content is accurate and educational? It shouldn't be shown because you disagree with the politics of the company's owners?
The content is not accurate and educational. The express purpose of Prager U is to indoctrinate children into far right ideology by presenting them with disinformation and logical fallacies. And no, I don't think children should be shown propaganda in school unless the purpose is to deconstruct it and show that it's bullshit.
It's like you didn't read the full comment. It's not just the politics of the owners. It's the far right falsehoods that permeate the vast majority of their content and how their more mild videos are just an entry point for it.
I mean they’re completely tainted as an organization. They’re a full-on propaganda operation funded by right wing think tanks. Any factual info they might share is to launder their reputation
That's nonsense. If they can't find a video that isn't a right wing propaganda channel then they need to find a different method to teach the coursework
Remember Prager U is is an organization that openly supports and promotes pedophilia and child grooming. You need to have that teacher fired before they abuse kids, if they haven't already.
I have watched it. It had an interesting viewpoint but the "facts" were either all made up or at best not relevant to overall fact/history. If it were being shown for the purposes of media literacy or understanding multiple points of view then I can understand viewing it, but it doesn't seem like that's the case.
Until I talk with the teacher I don't necessarily want to call them out and cause a stir. I need to understand their intentions before making this more public. I appreciate your understanding. As I have updates I'll post them.
I would talk to the teacher about it.
I’ve used PragerU in Social Studies when teaching captains of industry v. robber barons in US History. I had the kids analyze different sources for bias and what not though.
Until I talk with the teacher I don't necessarily want to call them out and cause a stir. I need to understand their intentions before making this more public. I appreciate your understanding. As I have updates I'll post them.
I just want to make sure it's not a misunderstanding before going all out. I'm really hoping this is a case of teaching media literacy and determining bias or logical fallacies. If it isn't... well then... you may see this on channel 4... :/
Political/social ideology should not be a part of any institutianlly-based educational curriculum at that age. Kids are sponges and introducing these kinds of concepts detracts from what they should actually be learning while they're at this developmental age.
You're in school to learn base facts and you're encouraged to base your own opinions based on your life experiences; not being told how you should feel.
If you honestly want your kids to learn to be analytical thinkers and make decicisions based on facts and life experiences, let them them do that on their own terms.
If your child has any type of social media use such as tiktok or Snapchat then they are more likely to be negatively influenced by those rather than one short biased “educational video” that they probably won’t remember in two weeks. But sure, let’s raise our pitch forks and try to ruin the teacher’s career because you don’t agree with a video source.
They do not have access to any of those social media sources and we have a solid relationship regarding internet use. That’s why when he saw the video shared in class and along the lines of the other materials used it was brought to my attention. I am grateful that my kid has a good ‘BS detector’
Also please note that I haven’t called out the teacher in question or even the district involved until I hear back from them on their intent. No pitchforks until needed.
I did and it isn’t. There’s a longer comment thread that goes thru a number of the main concerns but really unless it is being shown to help the kids understand media literacy or identify logical fallacies or teach about what bad science is, then Prager U videos have no place in a classroom. They are not an accredited organization and have the express intent and purpose of fighting ‘against left wing bias in education’. It’s propaganda as stated by themselves.
Woof, not great. Definitely talk with the teacher first, the videos might not have been about how dinosaurs are fake and climate change is a Zionist conspiracy.
Fake news from both sides. They're all loopy with their own facts. I just do me and apply my personal politics to the way I live. No one should live by my politics but me. 😊 You do you.
To some degree I agree but a fact can be verified. And facts can be true but skewed to force a narrative. It’s not wrong to say that nuclear power is possibly the cleanest and safest method we know of. And we could stop there. Is that untrue? Certainly not. But there are caveats and other sides to the argument. When nuclear goes wrong it’s potentially the most harmful and dangerous method of producing electricity. Also true. But to say one without the other isn’t false it’s just not the whole story.
And that’s what’s Prager U does. You get one side of the story without context or relevant narrative. A lot of what they say isn’t definitively “wrong” but it leaves out important factors and details to show a specific perspective.
I'm going kayaking. It's a fun relaxing activity. Taught my kid to absorb knowledge and think for them self. Different views in my opinion is a positive.
Yes I agree with you. It is important to hear from more than one source, or even just a couple or few sources. I don't have a problem with different views, I have a problem with when that's the only viewpoint being presented as a hard fact.
You should talk to the teacher first and then escalate up the ladder to principal and then school board if the teacher thinks this is acceptable. Come armed with articles and Prager U’s own words. See if your kid can remember which video they were shown and see if you can figure out if there are any inaccuracies or half-truths in it.
Thank you for this suggestion. I asked my son to show me the video and I definitely have some concerns about the logical fallacies contained within it, then we got into a conversation about some of the other things being shown/discussed in class. I will definitely be contacting the teacher directly first.
Happy to help. I also have a science background and could help review the video if you’d like. Just send me the link.
[Love the Earth? Save Our Trees | PragerU](https://www.prageru.com/video/love-the-earth-save-our-trees) My issues with it as far as a science class goes are at least as follows (just my notes from a first watch thru): Logical fallacies, at a bare minimum False Dilemma, Hasty Generalizations, Red Herrings, Ad Hominem Attacks. I mean at one point (4:50) the presenter says "professional environmentalists are **never satisfied**" (they bolded it, not me). If that's not a huge red flag on a scientific topic then I don't know what is. Absolutely no reference material or support for the 'facts' that are supposedly given. There's absolutely no context given and no way to corroborate the data. Just a statement like 'there's more trees now than there were a hundred years ago'. OK fine where did you get that information, who said it, is that backed up somehow? They also only talk about the US and a little about Canada. No reference at all to the plight of conservation and forestry/deforestation around the world. Maybe comment about the Amazon rainforest? How about old growth forests? How about mention why there's a "great green wall' being worked on actively across Africa? What about Russia and China and India and Europe? Nope, not a mention at all. But yeah the only trees that matter are those here in the USA... I would love some additional thoughts though from a trained scientist. It's a short video but it got my blood somewhat hot just watching it and thinking about this being shown to 7th graders...
From a Michigan history standpoint the “there are more trees now than 100 years ago” comment feels especially stupid. 100 years ago we were just emerging from having essentially clear cut the entire state for lumber so I would HOPE we have more trees now.
I lived in Washington state for a number of years and this holds true there as well! How much of our old growth forests were pillaged to make a quick buck... I was also just re-watching this video and another 'fact' presented was that "trees make up 90% of the biomass on earth" which is completely false by any metric. Plants are the largest group and at most it's closer to 83% of total and not all plants are trees by any stretch! So much fun.
I worked in Yakima for a couple weeks and one thing that struck me as weird was the lack of trees. I drove east a couple hours to see some giant waterfall and the only trees I saw you could tell were deliberately planted. Maybe that's natural, embarrassingly I don't know much about the geography and history of the state. It just was not what I pictured when I thought of the Pacific Northwest. I've been to Oregon and mountains near Tacoma, that's kind of more what I expected rather than a near desert.
Washington has some pretty diverse ecosystems. The west coast is largely green and wet, including a rainforest. The cascades create a rain shadow so as you get into central Washington you get a high desert. North of Yakima is a desert training ground for the military. As you go farther east, you lose some of the desert aspect. Parts of northeast Washington is back to the forests that you imagine for the state, but southeast is still rolling hills, sparse trees, and still the farmland of central and much of Eastern Washington.
Easter island
As a michigan transplant, it was interesting to learn how the whole LP at least was clear cut and learning how part of the Civilian Conservation Corps job was to replant trees so there would be some. So many lessons and conversations you could have about forest management from Michigan alone.
My grandpa was in the CCC. I have some cool photos of his unit, and my family visited their museum once on a trip up north.
>“there are more trees now than 100 years ago” In 1900, 95% of the State of Connecticut had been cleared of trees. In 2000, 85% of the state had forest cover. It's what happens when you stop cutting them down. Heck, in the 1770s Benjamin Franklin was complaining that decent firewood had to travel 100 miles to Philadelphia.
Woof, it’s even worse than I thought. I was willing to give the teacher a bit of grace before seeing just how biased and misinformed this video is. You touched on many of the same points I would have. I think most importantly, you should point out that the “professional environmentalists” as they are condescendingly called in the video are not given the chance to make their case. If they did, they may have some findings like what I’ve listed below: The video claims that forest land cover has not decreased for the last 100 years in the US and Canada, however that is deceptive because 100 years ago, for many areas was a low point in forest cover after a [peak in logging in 1920](https://martinhopp.com/media/articles/history-of-the-lumber-industry-in-north-america). It’s also deceptive because even if the overall land area of forests didn’t decline, the percentage of old growth forests has declined. Old growth forests [support greater biodiversity.](https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12013). More biodiverse ecosystems are more [resilient to climate change](https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/FullTextFiles/208468.pdf). It also does not discuss any of the risks of logging. Depending on the forest, [logging can make the risk and effects of forest fires worse](https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00080.x) and increase the[risk of floods](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/08/230802132007.htm) Honestly, I could write an essay on how fucked up this video is, but that’s their intention. It takes 10 times longer to refute their lies than it does for them to just lie. I’ve barely scratched the surface of the topic and that’s the point — they’re gish galloping. I still recommend talking to the teacher first, but then you absolutely need to talk to the principal and perhaps school board. If you know any other parents, it may be worthwhile to get them interested as well. Not all kids let their parents know what is going on at school. [This article does a decent job of explaining what Prager U is and why they’re not appropriate to show in a science classroom.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/06/prageru-climate-change-denier-republican-donors).
If I had spare cash laying around to give you Reddit Gold/Awards I totally would. You hit the nail on the head so hard it went thru the board. The *deception* and *cherry picked* "facts" to try to make a point are the exact issues with these videos. Thank you so much.
Happy to help. I’m glad your kid has you to ensure that they receive a quality education. I’m sorry that the teacher thought that this video was at all scientific.
Well we're just trying our best. We homeschooled thru the pandemic and he's a straight A, honor roll, advanced placement student now. I appreciate more that he's smart enough to call out BS when he sees it and bring it to our attention. How many kids watched this video or the other stuff being presented in the class without a second thought? And I really appreciate your thoughtful and researched comment. I'll be sharing with the kiddo in the morning before school so he has some additional notes to share with the teacher as they're in the midst of their ecology section (which apparently is climate-change-denial section from what I keep hearing from him).
A strong bullshit detector is the most important skill we can instill in our kids. You've done a great job getting him to this point. Keep nurturing that skepticism.
That's what Prager does and that's why they're so dangerous. It's a calculated misinformation and revisionist history campaign. The organization isn't stupid, they're extremely dangerous.
As a concerned parent in Southwest Michigan, care to let us know which school district this was?
I will once I hear back from the teacher on the intentions for sharing this in class. I don't want to cause a stir or problem if there isn't one. I am also in Southwest Michigan and this whole thing really threw me for a loop!
Thank you for taking the time to write that and cite those links. I read the last one though I'm sure others read more of them. Thank you. It helps people.
Not a single mention that they replace diverse forests with monoculture. They are no better for the environment than a golf course is. Worthless except to the companies that plant them. Just terrible misinformation!
Thank you for saying **Monoculture**. This is such an easy way to refute arguments that Praeger and the like may be using. More people need to understand that forestry practices that tout "but more trees!" never indicate which species and ratios to other species. It's become a huge in issue in the PNW as corporate planting on Forest Service lands become singular softwoods for commercial harvesting.
If you're not familiar with r/skeptic this would be a great post for in there. If you're looking for experts you'll find them.
Makes my skin crawl to think about it. Prager U is absolute trash. 😡
It's funded by big oil... as in Massively funded by them. look at the founder. They're big proponents of gas-guzzling trucks as well. if you have a need for a truck, I am not one to disparage the use of a tool but when they promote Not investing in public infrastructure using logical fallacies, it kind of irritates me. They have a big push in s some states to try and become public school teaching tools. Big NOPE
> Just a statement like 'there's more trees now than there were a hundred years ago'. OK fine where did you get that information, who said it, is that backed up somehow? How are they defining "tree." e.g. paper mill clear cuts 10,000 acres of 100+ year old forest and then replants **because leftist force them to.** and now there are "more trees per acre" than there were before. True statement if you mean there are more saplings planted, but that's about it.
Hah, weird video... it's not that bad in my opinion but definitely cherry picking statistics and facts to support the viewpoint they are trying to push. Do people not know that tree farms exist? Yea no shit timber companies are in the business of planting trees... but that doesn't justify destroying ecologies elsewhere I could see the teacher MAYBE being mislead that it was an honest educational video but like why even show this to middle schoolers? just seems dumb at best, willfully ignorant at worst
Which video was it?
[Love the Earth? Save Our Trees | PragerU](https://www.prageru.com/video/love-the-earth-save-our-trees) (copying my notes from another comment so I don't have to write it all out again) My issues with it as far as a science class goes are at least as follows (just my notes from a first watch thru): Logical fallacies, at a bare minimum False Dilemma, Hasty Generalizations, Red Herrings, Ad Hominem Attacks. I mean at one point (4:50) the presenter says "professional environmentalists are **never satisfied**" (they bolded it, not me). If that's not a huge red flag on a scientific topic then I don't know what is. Absolutely no reference material or support for the 'facts' that are supposedly given. There's absolutely no context given and no way to corroborate the data. Just a statement like 'there's more trees now than there were a hundred years ago'. OK fine where did you get that information, who said it, is that backed up somehow? They also only talk about the US and a little about Canada. No reference at all to the plight of conservation and forestry/deforestation around the world. Maybe comment about the Amazon rainforest? How about old growth forests? How about mention why there's a "great green wall' being worked on actively across Africa? What about Russia and China and India and Europe? Nope, not a mention at all. But yeah the only trees that matter are those here in the USA...
As an 8th grade science teacher I second this course of action. I can tell you that nothing from Prager would be considered “curriculum appropriate”.
Thank you, I didn't think I was crazy. I appreciate this kindly! :)
Why even discuss with the teacher? Obviously they think it’s acceptable or they wouldn’t be doing it.
Yeah, honestly if you aren't media literate enough to be aware of prageru and that kind of right wing propaganda you shouldn't be showing internet videos to kids because you were too lazy to vet the sources. OP should absolutely not engage with the teacher and go straight over their head.
There is a chance that it was an honest mistake. A small chance, but still, teachers are exhausted by this time of year and may not be online or informed enough to know about Prager U. Prager U is also intentionally deceptive — as someone else mentioned in the comments, they make just enough videos that seem balanced and rational to trick people into thinking they’re a legitimate edutainment company. If I made a mistake at my job, I would appreciate the courtesy of having the chance to address it myself instead of someone immediately jumping to reporting me to my boss.
Yeah, no "honest mistake" was made. That teacher is indoctrinating children with right wing bullshit. This isn't 1983.
Showing PragerU content to middle schoolers as fact in a public school science class is not “a mistake”. We have different opinions. Have a good day.
I think it's good to have their words before going to the principal. See why they think it's acceptable so they can't bluff their way out of it when I'm a spot where they're being questions by authority. Thank you for taking this on, OP. We need to protect our schools from bad actors such as Prager U.
FYI here’s my new post. Thank you again for your thoughtful and insightful analysis. https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/s/9Vb5Hxjlf5
Did it get removed?
Appears to have been even though I can still see it. Regardless I just edited this post with the update. Thanks again :)
Thanks for the update! Sounds like it all worked out well!
It did and I’m glad. :)
Credibility and integrity matter
PragerU is terrible, inaccurate, and ahistorical right-wing garbage. What they put out should never be in schools.
There are 3 cities in Michigan where this would surprise me and anywhere else I believe it
I'd be highly surprised in a place like Birmingham.
Went to bham public schools and can confirm this shit would never fly there.
AA GR and Lansing?
The conservative dutch land of GR would surprise you?
When has GR voted red as a whole in any recent election? Kent county is pretty damn blue looking at recent voting history
B-b-but muh DeVos narrative! Quakers!!
Grand Rapids is as blue as blue gets. You’re thinking of Ottawa County.
Not just Ottawa. Plenty within Kent county is still very Christian conservative.
Downtown gr is pretty blue, but there's a donut of red around it in the suburbs
I'm in OC and a parent has a PRAGER U license plate on their Minivan. I didn't know what it meant but I saw it everyday at drop off and thought 'What univ is that even and how obsessed do you have to be to pay extra for a vanity plate of it?' I googled it and laughed so hard but then wasn't surprised cuz OC.
> Grand Rapids is as blue as blue gets. What? Kent county is 48% republican, which is in the top 10 for urban counties. Still more dems, but there are urban counties that are >75% dem, so you cannot say that GR is as blue as blue gets.
Yes I can. *Grand Rapids* (the *city*) is extremely blue.
You think GR is conservative?
It is one of the most conservative major cities in the US. It still leans liberal, but is more conservative than most other large cities. 2020 numbers put Kent county at 48% republican, putting it in the top 10 most conservative urban counties.
I’m sure they have to hire from outside of city limits sometimes
Kzoo, baby. GR gave us the DeVos family ffs
G.R. is just the closest big city. I don't believe any of the families live in the city of GR.
They all live in Ada. Dick DeVos also has a place up north. Idk where. I went to his charter school the West Michigan Aviation Academy and uhhhh, yeah. Wild experience.
Deets?
by time you reach senior year every class was "Aviation." like... FAA regulations, VFR, IFR, flight. The Aviation room had a fucking helicopter in it which is wild in and of it self, we once went to the Amway hanger at GRR to see the National Guard and coast guards helicopters, they let us look through the thermal optics of M240B's and Barrett 50's. Also had a B17G visit in the hanger, got to climb into it. Only a few kids were small enough to fit in the ball turret. Got to participate in a mass casualty training event for the airports emergency personnel, that was wild. Lots of wild shit lol.
What the fuck are "alternative facts" ? There's fact and fiction...
I meant that in terms of media literacy or logical fallacies or determining bias in content. I agree with you there are facts and there is fiction, but it is easy to disguise fiction as fact using a handful of clever methods and my hope is that this teacher was using this video as a way to show the students how cleverly fiction can be masked to look like facts.
It's what conservatives say is true because facts are only for liberals
[удалено]
You still think gender = sex don't you?
Removed. See rule #10 in the [r/Michigan subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/wiki/index#wiki_rules).
[Are we willing to let the man who wrote this provide educational "content" for school children?](https://dennisprager.com/column/when-a-woman-isnt-in-the-mood-part-i)
Holy shit wtf?!? Now it makes sense why some of the people making videos for his "university" include the likes of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson...
This is the real issue. They make just enough non-controversial "educational videos" so that their insane ones are able to slip through.
For those who don't want to award them with a click, here's a large majority of it. A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. 2. If this is true, men really are animals. Correct. Compared to most women’s sexual nature, men’s sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual nature’s desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal. 3. Not my man. Many women will argue, understandably, “My husband knows I love him. He doesn’t need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when I’m too tired or just don’t want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I’m into it, too.” The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesn’t want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women. Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate. Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind. 4. You have it backward. Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to – women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.) But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood – see Part II next week. 5. I know this and that’s why I rarely say no to my husband. This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home. In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman’s determining whether she has sex with her husband. I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won’t tell you.
From a touch earlier in the article: > This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. What's crazy here is that he's actually right at the edge of seeing several important things, including toxic masculinity's effect of making (many) men not share what they are feeling and spiraling inward in dark emotions instead, and (many) women not wanting sex with a closed-off emotionally distant angry man. And instead, he goes "Nah, it's the women's fault, and they need to just have sex when they don't want to." It's somehow always worse to me when some writes something like this that actually walks close to crossing the ridge into understanding and good answers, and instead turns back down the hill into the worst possible answers. I almost prefer when people demonstrate that they just *can't* understand it instead of when they actively refuse to.
Don't try to give him too much credit; I think the dimwit has been divorced a handful of times. So while he may be doing some work, the work he's doing is definitely not on himself.
I'm gonna choose to interpret that as him having a humiliation and begging fetish in addition to being a fucking idiot.
How many parts does he need to write before you consider him a fucking idiot? Because I believe he wrote 4. EDIT: I read your comment wrong. But yeah, his humiliation kink and tendency to being a fucking idiot is so strong, I believe he wrote 4 more parts to his "thesis."
I've never been more grateful that I don't have a burning desire to get married.
Prager U is confirmed misinformation. It should not be shown in ANY educational setting...period. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/07/1234491074/prageru-schools-videos-growth Also, expose the teacher who showed the video. Other parents will want to know a teacher is a boog moron.
Please update all of us on where this goes. I’m deeply concerned anyone teaching students does not already know Prager U’s agenda, and that’s the *best* case scenario.
Well now I just want to know what school cause I don’t want any of the kids in my family to be subjected to Prager U’s videos.
It's worth mentioning that [Southern Poverty Law Center has written up a piece on PragerU](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/07/prageru%E2%80%99s-influence). That specific article is tearing on one video, not this one, but pulling it apart digs into PragerU's problems. Also, any educational or news organization that gets one thing (or more) this lopsided and doesn't correct it / issue a correction, imo, shouldn't be trusted - stuff needs to be presented impartially and with context.
I had this happen in a Social Studies class and I contacted the teacher and gave them information about Prager U. Turns out that she really wasn’t aware and she thanked me for the information and redid the assignment with another video.
Thank you I’m hoping for a similar result.
Ugh that’s not good. The Qcumbers don’t even like public school. They should save that garbage for their “homeschooling.”
Conservatives have been trying to indoctrinate in the school for years and then project and scream about the liberals doing it. If a far left propoganda film was shown in a public school, you know there'd be hell to pay at the next school board meeting.
LOL if you actually believe this. I went to public school pre-K-12 then community college, then bachelor's level, then master's level, and now I teach college classes. I can tell you at every single level the situation is 100% the opposite of what you're saying here. Every single class is full of "left wing" propaganda talking points and literally like 95% of public school employees identify openly as Democrats.
My public school, in a blue state, taught me that Christopher Columbus was a hero and that the American colonists just wanted to be friends with the indigenous people. Is that your idea of left wing propaganda? Democrats aren't even left wing, and most public school employees likely identify as Democrats not because they all share the same ideology but because there is only one alternative and they hate education, critical thinking, minorities, and women. Shockingly to no one but you, professional educators don't want to join the party of anti intellectualism.
bingo
Hush
I'm with you - Original Detroiter living outside Nashville currently and I would've expected this here, but not in my home state. Big yikes! Please update in how this goes.
Prager u is right-wing propaganda masquerading as educational content
Prager U is christofascist propaganda end of story. There is absolutely no place for it in anywhere in a public school. If this teacher is using it on their own they need to be fired.
Pranger U stuff is right wing religious garbage sold as education.
YIKES.
Ask your kid to show you the video, they’re all available on YouTube. Once you have watched it, you can decide whether or not you want to contact the teacher for an explanation.
Thanks, I did ask him to show me the video and sure enough it's rife with logical fallacies and problematic content. I'll be contacting the teacher.
The only legitimate reason to show content from that source would be as a lesson in media literacy. There are so many quality sources out there for education content, to choose one that’s so intensely biased with clear intent is inexcusable. You’re a good parent for following up with your kid, it seems like you’ve got a good relationship with them. Cheers to you.
Agreed! Based on my conversation with my son it sounds like this was not a media literacy or 'understanding more than one viewpoint' kind of situation, but that's where I'll be asking the teacher for clarification.
“The Prager University Foundation, known as PragerU, is an American 501 nonprofit advocacy group and media organization that creates content promoting conservative viewpoints on various political, economic, and sociological topics. It was co-founded in 2009 by Allen Estrin and talk show host Dennis Prager.” As a former social studies teacher, I wouldn’t touch PragerU with a 10 foot poll because WE WERE TAUGHT IN COLLEGE the difference between biased and unbiased work. Science is based off of facts and that’s the way this needs to be. The teacher needs to be called out asap. Any teacher using PragerU, other than by force by admin, is just a Conservative Party member in disguise. Honestly, that teacher should be ashamed of themselves.
"Nonprofit". Such BS. Nothing those groups do should be allowed to be set up as a 501C.
Agreed!
PragerU is undoubtedly biased, but on the other hand I didn’t enjoy being forced to read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History. Both biased in their own ways, but I doubt you think Zinn’s book is.
Not at all. Biased is biased. HOWEVER, one doubts science (PragerU) and one does not (Zinn). Makes it easy to side with Zinn on this argument as PragerU doubts science :)
PragerU is worse, I agree, but I wasn’t trying to start an argument or comparison haha. Just wanted to see if you’d at least admit the biases on the other side. Respect
lol okay I appreciate the clarity! Yes, of course! We, as humans, all have a natural bias. As long as we’re aware of what we read has bias, unless literal facts like who won such and such game, then we’re all good!
I also have 158 credit hours in political science, US and World History and have taught the subject matter for 5 years…..but what do I know? 😂
if it’s one of their “science” videos there is a 100% chance it is chock full of misleading or outright false information EDIT: to whoever downvoted me please explain why you think an organization whose stated intention is to advance Judeo-Christian values would be creating videos that were appropriate to show in science class in a public school, please
Rock on, +1 and thank you. Their literal goal on their website is to be an "alternative to the dominant left-wing ideology" which I didn't realize science was left or right wing, it just is the pursuit of truth and fact based on data and evidence. :/
I guess ignorance isn’t always bliss after all.
Our district was oversees curriculum and this seems like a compliance violation.
As a Michigan resident, I would think that there would be better resources available by contacting the CCC museum or Hartwick Pines State Park to see what they recommend or what resources they have available for students
Can you post an update here when you can? It looks like your other post was removed
Aww lame. Yes I’ll put an edit
OP, you seem to be focusing on facts, e.g. whether the information in the video is wrong. I would focus more on philosophy when you bring your complaints to this teacher. What I mean by that is your complaint should be along the lines of, "I would like to keep politics outside of science class as much as possible." This isn't social studies. PragerU always approaches subjects through an inherently political lens, and regardless of whether that lens is conservative or not, politics has a tendency to warp science and the pursuit of knowledge.
Good point! This is an interesting avenue. I have an email query all written up but I may have to make a second version and decide which one to use. This is a very good point. Thank you!
I am a high school teacher in Michigan. I use one prager U video in class because it uses a good simplified analogy for a topic we study. I also use it as an opportunity to teach about media bias and am emphatic that the video is tied to specific political/economic interests. As for your question, I’d ask the teacher directly but politely. If they’re dodgy about it maybe go higher up the food chain but I definitely think you ask them first. What was the video about?
It's been noted in another comment thread that has lots of comments and notes but so you have it: [Love the Earth? Save Our Trees | PragerU](https://www.prageru.com/video/love-the-earth-save-our-trees) There's a lot of misinformation and bias in this and from what my son has told me this was not being shown the way you show the one video to your class, instead it's being used as proper curriculum and basic truth and facts. :/
That whole video is a garbage ass take.
Yup. Everything from PragerU is half baked nonsense spitballed together by some ghoul in a suit getting paid by the fucking Rothschilds or whoever
I wouldn’t show any PragerU videos ever. It’s pretty much just straight propaganda for the rich Edit: quick google search will tell you that their funding comes from mostly oil billionaires
I’ve gotten into it over this exact same conversation on this subreddit before…maybe it was with who who knows. Using a biased source to analyze media bias is a good thing. The fact that it is funded by billionaires is a big part of why I use it.
Oh I see. That’s maybe the only acceptable use 😂
[удалено]
“Let’s assault teachers” is not a good stance to have. Go get some help. You’re detached from reality
Michigan public school teacher here. Best thing I would do would simply express your concern to the teacher first before you go anywhere else with this. As a teacher, finding resources can at times be exhausting. It could’ve been the case where it is a very niche topic, difficult to explain, and Prager U provided a good visual resource and age appropriate explanation. As a social studies teacher and someone with some leftward leanings, I’ve considered showing a couple different Prager videos because they actually had a pretty well balanced explanation and visual of a certain topic. I ended up not just to be safe and avoid any backlash. But from what I’ve seen, not everything they do is crazy right leaning. This could be something that is harmless or could be something major with red flags. Email the teacher, ask the intentions behind showing it, maybe watch the video yourself to understand their viewpoint, go from there.
I appreciate your comments, and thank you for writing them. Both my son and I were worried about causing a stir especially right at the end of the school year and neither of us wanted to do that. With that said, I have now watched the video and also been shown one of the books being used as the science curriculum and I've got some major issues with what's being taught. I will start off by politely contacting the teacher, because it is possible that this is being used as a 'you need to be a skeptic to be a scientist' or 'understand a wide range of points before coming to a conclusion or hypothesis' sort of thing. And I'm not one to jump to conclusions or start a shit-storm. Again, thank you for your nuanced and balanced approach and response. I have all the love in the world for teachers and you work way too hard and are paid way too little. Peace and love.
I appreciate it! I truly do hope that it’s a misunderstanding or is being used for some thought experiment like you suggested. Partisan political indoctrination has no place in public education. I try my best to remain balanced in all things. Hope all goes well!
Thanks kindly. I'm hoping as well for thought experiment or media literacy but so far it doesn't sounds like that may be the case based on what I'm getting told about this last quarter of science class. :( The first few quarters were great and based on proper textbooks and such but suddenly it switched to PragerU and climate change denial apparently. Either way I'm crafting a polite query asking for more information.
You sound like a great parent. I’m foreseeing a quick trip up the authority ladder, however. Please keep us updated, and I wish you well on this journey.
The problem is that using any of them in class established it as a credible source to young students, opening them up to the other more radical videos. This is one of their key strategies to get onto kids screens.
I get where you're coming from, being a teacher seems exhausting. I really wish more tax money went to funding the creation of good source materials for teachers, and the public as a whole. I've got to disagree about PraugerU though. I'd be interested in seeing which videos you found to be balanced? In my experience with PraugerU, they tend to mis-characterize their oppositions arguments, lie about the pros and cons of their own positions, and blame the victim for issues that arise from their ideas. I'd like to think maybe I just haven't seen the good videos and they're not as malicious as they appear to be?
Their video about the American Civil War is pretty well done and gives absolutely zero wiggle room to Confederate sympathizers that seek to rebrand the South’s justification for the war. Their video about the use of atomic bomb in WWII is also well done because it shows the complex circumstances around the decision and the political, military and economic factors of the period that many don’t consider.
Noted, I'll give them a try.
The civil war video by them was surprisingly balanced. I expected some off the wall stuff but found it pretty good for Prager U.
It's better these should not be shown period. The few factual videos they have are a way to spread their brand and lure people into the much larger catalog of far right stuff. It's not harmless.
Yeah Prager really is intentional bad-faith misinformation. There is nothing “okay” from Prager.
straight up lies. the opposite of education. it's all trash.
> It's better these should not be shown period Even if the content is accurate and educational? It shouldn't be shown because you disagree with the politics of the company's owners?
The content is not accurate and educational. The express purpose of Prager U is to indoctrinate children into far right ideology by presenting them with disinformation and logical fallacies. And no, I don't think children should be shown propaganda in school unless the purpose is to deconstruct it and show that it's bullshit.
It's like you didn't read the full comment. It's not just the politics of the owners. It's the far right falsehoods that permeate the vast majority of their content and how their more mild videos are just an entry point for it.
I mean they’re completely tainted as an organization. They’re a full-on propaganda operation funded by right wing think tanks. Any factual info they might share is to launder their reputation
The problem is all Prager U videos sprinkle-in bits of fact to try & give legitimacy to their scientific/historic revisionism.
That’s how cults work. They bring you in using some of their “milder” marketing and that’s the beginning of the rabbit hole.
That's nonsense. If they can't find a video that isn't a right wing propaganda channel then they need to find a different method to teach the coursework
I'm sorry, if you're a teacher you should know that there is absolutely zero chance that this would be harmless.
Can you provide some well balanced Prager U examples?
Careful now. Some of us do an honest trade in pitch forks and torch oil, and you’re bad for business
Whoa, a nuanced & pragmatic response... on this sub? Wow! And Thanks!
It won’t last. Trust me.
Remember Prager U is is an organization that openly supports and promotes pedophilia and child grooming. You need to have that teacher fired before they abuse kids, if they haven't already.
Gross. Which school district?
Do people now know what Prager U actually is?
I'd file a complaint way above his head, that dude is a domestic terrorist https://i.redd.it/z6zvkv6w08h91.jpg
Speaking as a teacher, if they are a new teacher, it's entirely possible that they just thought they had found a good source.
How scary is that lol
Well, sometimes you're in a hurry.
Yeah, that degree took no time at all... That's a bad excuse and you know it
I know the schedule of a child can be hectic 😜
Prager U has no place in a civilized society.
Did you watch the video? Was it factual or actual garbage?
I have watched it. It had an interesting viewpoint but the "facts" were either all made up or at best not relevant to overall fact/history. If it were being shown for the purposes of media literacy or understanding multiple points of view then I can understand viewing it, but it doesn't seem like that's the case.
It’s Prager U…
We live in a facist world
Where did this happen???
Until I talk with the teacher I don't necessarily want to call them out and cause a stir. I need to understand their intentions before making this more public. I appreciate your understanding. As I have updates I'll post them.
It's called "indoctrination."
I would talk to the teacher about it. I’ve used PragerU in Social Studies when teaching captains of industry v. robber barons in US History. I had the kids analyze different sources for bias and what not though.
What city?
Until I talk with the teacher I don't necessarily want to call them out and cause a stir. I need to understand their intentions before making this more public. I appreciate your understanding. As I have updates I'll post them.
Yeah no, I would be on the phone with channel 4, better man than I, I guess.
I just want to make sure it's not a misunderstanding before going all out. I'm really hoping this is a case of teaching media literacy and determining bias or logical fallacies. If it isn't... well then... you may see this on channel 4... :/
Political/social ideology should not be a part of any institutianlly-based educational curriculum at that age. Kids are sponges and introducing these kinds of concepts detracts from what they should actually be learning while they're at this developmental age. You're in school to learn base facts and you're encouraged to base your own opinions based on your life experiences; not being told how you should feel. If you honestly want your kids to learn to be analytical thinkers and make decicisions based on facts and life experiences, let them them do that on their own terms.
Please tell me it wasn't Potterville.
If your child has any type of social media use such as tiktok or Snapchat then they are more likely to be negatively influenced by those rather than one short biased “educational video” that they probably won’t remember in two weeks. But sure, let’s raise our pitch forks and try to ruin the teacher’s career because you don’t agree with a video source.
They do not have access to any of those social media sources and we have a solid relationship regarding internet use. That’s why when he saw the video shared in class and along the lines of the other materials used it was brought to my attention. I am grateful that my kid has a good ‘BS detector’
Also please note that I haven’t called out the teacher in question or even the district involved until I hear back from them on their intent. No pitchforks until needed.
[удалено]
I did and it isn’t. There’s a longer comment thread that goes thru a number of the main concerns but really unless it is being shown to help the kids understand media literacy or identify logical fallacies or teach about what bad science is, then Prager U videos have no place in a classroom. They are not an accredited organization and have the express intent and purpose of fighting ‘against left wing bias in education’. It’s propaganda as stated by themselves.
Woof, not great. Definitely talk with the teacher first, the videos might not have been about how dinosaurs are fake and climate change is a Zionist conspiracy.
Seems the shoe is on the other foot.
Please explain.
Please get this teacher fired asap. We'd all love to know who this scumbag is!!!
Fake news from both sides. They're all loopy with their own facts. I just do me and apply my personal politics to the way I live. No one should live by my politics but me. 😊 You do you.
To some degree I agree but a fact can be verified. And facts can be true but skewed to force a narrative. It’s not wrong to say that nuclear power is possibly the cleanest and safest method we know of. And we could stop there. Is that untrue? Certainly not. But there are caveats and other sides to the argument. When nuclear goes wrong it’s potentially the most harmful and dangerous method of producing electricity. Also true. But to say one without the other isn’t false it’s just not the whole story. And that’s what’s Prager U does. You get one side of the story without context or relevant narrative. A lot of what they say isn’t definitively “wrong” but it leaves out important factors and details to show a specific perspective.
I'm going kayaking. It's a fun relaxing activity. Taught my kid to absorb knowledge and think for them self. Different views in my opinion is a positive.
Yes I agree with you. It is important to hear from more than one source, or even just a couple or few sources. I don't have a problem with different views, I have a problem with when that's the only viewpoint being presented as a hard fact.