political correctness

French: Cory Booker’s Rant Exposed the Left’s Gender Hypocrisy

This summer, I learned a new term. I’d heard of “mansplaining” and “manspreading.” But “manterrupting” was new to me. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that in two different hearings, male senators interrupted California Democrat Kamala Harris. Two. Different. Hearings. Don’t believe me? Click here to see the stunning video evidence. These were the interruptions that spawned think pieces at all the best journals. This was a gender issue, you see. Coming on the heels of Mitch McConnell’s dustup with Elizabeth Warren (“nevertheless, she persisted”), a problem had become a scandal. GOP men, it was said, can’t handle a strong progressive woman. Then, yesterday, Cory Booker detonated on Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. He didn’t just mansplain, he mansplained at maximum volume. He threw a deeply flawed security study in her face as if she didn’t understand the terror threats facing the United States, and unloaded on her for claiming that she couldn’t recall the president’s exact words in the now infamous “sh**hole” meeting: Booker’s face is twisted in fury. He pounds on the table. He insults her character. It’s nothing short of a temper tantrum. If he were a Republican, this exchange would be taken as proof-positive that he doesn’t respect women. It would be video evidence, shared far and wide, of his sexism. It would be compared to Donald Trump’s physical approaches to Hillary Clinton during a presidential debate and used as evidence that Republicans aren’t just misogynistic, they’re menacing. Instead, Booker proudly tweeted out his rant, quoting himself like he’d just had “a moment.” It’s incidents like this that convince so many Americans that identity politics are disingenuous and that lamentations about “norms,” “values,” and “civility” are grotesquely insincere. Talk to any conservative woman and she’ll tell you that all too often the Left’s “respect for women” stops the instant a female pundit, politician, or activist slides just to the right of moderate. The human capacity for rationalization and self-justification is nearly infinite, and it was on display yesterday. It was right for Booker to tear into Nielsen, his apologists said. After all, everyone who doesn’t condemn Trump’s infamous “sh**hole” comment is “complicit” in racism. Nielsen was lying to Congress. That wasn’t misogyny, you see, it was righteous anger. Are you, Mr. Conservative, telling me that Nielsen isn’t tough enough to handle a tongue-lashing? Are you telling me that she needs to be protected, to be coddled by Senator Booker? Oh, and don’t talk to me about “values,” Mr. Conservative. Not when that man is in the White House. We’re now entering the Iran–Iraq War phase of our conflicts over civility. The only norm left is hypocrisy. Many of the same Democrats who simply can’t believe the words that come out of Trump’s mouth once cheered Joe Biden’s claim to a Virginia crowd that Mitt Romney would “put y’all back in chains.” They spread far and wide claims that Romney had callously let people die just to make a buck. And now, even as they lament the decline in discourse under Trump, they claim that conventional conservative policies are going to kill Americans by the thousands. There is only one way to restore a measure of civility and dignity and a sense of proportion to public debate, and that’s to actually treat people with respect. Even when you’re angry. Especially when you’re angry. Years ago, a retired federal judge taught me a lesson I’ve never forgotten — a lesson I’ve tried to apply ever since. “When you’re troubled,” he said, “even when you’re angry, endeavor to speak with regret, not outrage.” His contention was that a culture of outrage was cheapening our anger. Only thoughtful concern could truly cut through the noise and rebuild our body politic. Yesterday, Cory Booker went too far, and in so doing he exposed the disingenuousness of so much liberal outrage. Booker can do better. He has done better. It’s a shame that yesterday he and those progressives who cheered him on chose to disguise their hypocrisy as righteous indignation.

I saw that video clip of Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) going off on Sec. Nielsen.  His phony, self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical grandstanding was beyond over the top.  What a tool!!  And yet, he was proud of the way he went off on Ms. Nielsen, who is not responsible for what the President may or may not have said.  Nor did that topic have anything to do with why she was in front of that committee.  But, these self-righteous Dems couldn’t help themselves.  They had to take the opportunity to just feign indignation and grandstand.  Sen. Booker should apologize to Sec. Nielsen immediately, and should be condemned for his outrageous behavior.  Thanks to attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French for this spot-on analysis.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

Psychologist leaves reporter speechless after her ‘right not to be offended’ remark: ‘Gotcha’

Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s online popularity is likely to grow after his recent performance with British journalist Cathy Newman. The University of Toronto professor whose YouTube fame exploded in 2016 for his opposition to Canada’s “C-16 bill” — critics deemed him “transphobic” — is making social media waves again in 2018. A combative Channel 4 interview uploaded Tuesday features Ms. Newman literally stunned into silence during an exchange on freedom of expression. “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” the reporter asked at the 22-minute mark of a 30-minute interview. “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now,” the psychologist answered, The Daily Wire reported Wednesday. “You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable. […] You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.” Ms. Newman paused, sighed and struggled to find a response until her guest interjected, “Ha. Gotcha.” “You have got me. You have got me. I’m trying to work that through my head. It took awhile. It took awhile. It took awhile,” she said with a repetitive concession.

Excellent!  Kudos to Dr. Peterson for calling out this liberal reporter’s idiocy.  To see the exchange, click on the text above.

Opinion: Borders aren’t racist, and some countries are sh—holes

Some countries truly are sh—holes — and that’s why the citizens who live there want to come to America so badly. Of course, we can’t take everyone who wants to come. Our country would be overrun. We have to manage the flow of immigration. So it’s only sensible to base border policy on which potential incomers provide the most benefit to this nation at-large — who provides the best bang for the buck. That’s not racist; that’s realism. And Democrats know it, too. They’re just too politically desperate and vile to refrain from using a remark reportedly made by President Donald Trump for twisted partisan gain. Still, the left’s angry contortions and faux outrage spins to paint Trump as a racist, post-reported “sh—hole” remark, shouldn’t detract from the larger truth that goes like this: Yes, indeed, some nations are cesspools of misery. And calling them out for their cesspool nature isn’t exactly a shocking reflection. Google images of Haiti, for instance, and what pops are photos of trashy beaches, overcrowded dwellings, debris-strewn neighborhoods — real sh—hole-seeming places, in other words. No doubt, some of these images come courtesy of the fallout from Hurricane Matthew, a Category 5-er that struck near Les Anglais as a Category 4 storm in mid-2016, killing more than 500 and devastating the already impoverished region. But that truth doesn’t detract from the fact that the nation was already a massive mess, economically speaking. The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Economic Freedom opens its assessment of Haiti this way: “Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest and most deforested country, is plagued by corruption, gang violence, drug trafficking, organized crime and a general lack of economic opportunity.” Don’t just take the conservative-leaning think tank’s word on it. In 2004, the United Nations sent troops to one Haiti shantytown to battle it out with gangs; in 2016, Haiti was rated in a Gallup analysis as one of the countries with the highest amount of “suffering,” with high poverty and low opportunity. Sh—hole? That’s certainly one way to describe it. Here are some other countries that might be considered similarly: South Sudan and Ukraine, both rated alongside Haiti as worst places to live in Gallup’s 2016 analysis. Then there’s China and North Korea, for obvious despotic reasons. And scores of Africa nations rated in the United Nations-backed 2017 World Happiness Report as subpar in terms of rating the levels of economic opportunities, individual freedoms, health, poverty or corruption. And, listen up, amnesty supporters: Just because those from downtrodden nations may have a desire to come to America to live, doesn’t mean America should automatically grant them that wish. It’s not pragmatic. It’s not sustainable. It’s not even in line with how other nations, how other governments, conduct their own border business. America’s government has a responsibility to secure the future of its own citizens first — and sorry, so sorry, anti-Trumpers of the world: That’s. Not. Racism. Neither, by the way, is calling a sh—hole country a sh—hole country. It may be bad form; it may be impolite. But racist? That it ain’t. It’s what we all know and say to be true about some sad and unfortunate countries — albeit, using different terminology — and it’s why most Americans feel so blessed to be American in the first place.

Agreed..  And, well said, Cheryl.  Cheryl Chumley is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  And, it compliments today’s “Read of the Day” which is immediately below.    🙂

French: James Damore’s Lawsuit Exposes Google’s Culture of Ignorant Intolerance

Let’s ponder a disturbing question: What if the crisis of free speech on college campuses, with their often extreme intolerance for conservative points of view, represents the high point for free expression in a student’s life? In other words, what if the “real world” is more repressive, more ignorant, and more punitive toward dissenting speech? What if entire corporations adopt the ideologies and norms of the most ruthless campus social-justice warriors, ruining careers and depriving employees of their livelihoods when those employees dissent from the dominant ideology? In other words, what if the rest of corporate America starts acting like Google? Yesterday former Google employee James Damore filed a class-action lawsuit against Google, alleging systematic race, gender, and political bias against white, male, and conservative employees. Damore, you may recall, was summarily terminated after writing a lengthy memorandum noting that disproportionate male representation in tech fields may be more the result of individual choice and innate differences between men and women than of invidious discrimination. He also suggested some non-discriminatory methods for increasing diversity at Google. Scientists argued about his conclusions — some agreed with Damore, others vigorously disagreed — but rather than engage with Damore, Google proved one of his points (that Google is hostile to dissenting views) by summarily terminating his employment. Damore has now answered Google with a legal broadside, and it’s extraordinary. Most people don’t have time to read his entire 181-page complaint, but those who do will find a comprehensive argument that Google’s corporate culture encourages, sanctions, and facilitates an extraordinary amount of abuse against conservative white males. And he has the receipts. Much of the complaint consists of screen shots of internal Google communications and postings on internal Google message boards that would constitute strong evidence of hostile-environment race-and-gender harassment if the the races and genders were reversed. For example, “Googlers” (that’s what employees call themselves, using Google’s silly corporate language) relentlessly enforce a so-called “Googley” culture where employees blacklist conservatives (blocking them from in-house communications), actually boo white-male hires, and openly discuss committing acts of violence against political opponents. The “punch a Nazi” debate is alive and well at Google, and the definition of “Nazi” is extraordinarily broad. In one posting, an employee proposes a “moratorium on hiring white cis heterosexual abled men who aren’t abuse survivors.” In another, an employee advertises a workshop on “healing from toxic whiteness.” Another post mocks “white fragility.” The examples go on and on, for page after page. Damore also alleges (and again, provides screenshots of emails and other communications to support his claims) that managers actively attacked conservative employees, encouraged punitive actions against dissenters, and even awarded “peer bonuses” for speech attacking conservatives. At the same time that Googlers crack down on standard conservative speech, mock white men, and deride whiteness, they exhibit a remarkable level of tolerance for unusual behavior. For example, Damore claims that “an employee who sexually identifies as a ‘yellow-scale wingless dragonkin’ and an ‘expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘living as a plural being’ at an internal company event.” It’s important to remember that Damore’s complaint represents his side of the story, and Google has yet to file a response, but the screenshots and images present a compelling prima facie case of racial and gender bias that would be intolerable and illegal in the vast majority of American jurisdictions, including under federal law. It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males. Google is of course disproportionately male, but even disproportionately male organizations can commit unlawful acts of discrimination depending on the measures taken to diversify the workplace. Claiming a desire to diversify a workplace can’t justify, for example, hostile-environment harassment; nor can it justify explicitly discriminatory hiring and firing decisions in any given department. In addition, California (unlike many states) provides a limited degree of protection against political discrimination. Damore cites California labor codes that prohibit employers from “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees” and prohibiting employers from coercing or attempting to coerce “employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” I’m withholding judgment on the legal merits of Damore’s claim until I see Google’s response (the law should be broadly protective of employers’ rights to freedom of association), but the evidence he provides is damning indeed — and it’s not just damning because it raises legal concerns about Google’s behavior. The cultural implications are profound. For a generation the American public has been conditioned to think of Silicon Valley as a special place where American ingenuity is at its apex. Silicon Valley billionaires have enjoyed special status, and the men and women who work creating the apps and devices that have changed our nation are often seen as a breed apart, America’s best and brightest. They’re the lovable nerds who enrich all our lives. Well, the emperor has no clothes. Googlers may have special coding skills or may fit seamlessly in the company’s Googley culture, but it’s now plain that much of their discourse represents a special kind of pettiness, stupidity, and intolerance. It’s often fact-free, insulting, and narrow-minded. In other words, a Silicon Valley monoculture produces exactly the kind of discourse produced by monocultures everywhere. While there are certainly kind, courteous, and civil progressives at Google, the existence of the monoculture also enables the worst sorts of behavior. Unfortunately, this phenomenon isn’t limited to Google. Talk to Americans in industries ranging from software to insurance and beyond, and you’ll hear tales of internal naming and shaming, and even social-media monitoring that privileges one side of the debate and considers conservative discourse inherently problematic. I have conservative friends in Nashville who agonize over their social-media posts while their progressive colleagues hold forth without fear. Conservatives are held to the highest standards of civility and reason while angry, threatening progressives are merely deemed to be full of “righteous indignation.” This kind of culture doesn’t exist everywhere. There are countless thousands of work sites free of such bias. But to those who claim that campus social-justice warriors will be humbled when they encounter the “real world,” I give you Google. Sometimes social-justice warriors change the real world, and when they make it “Googley,” they often make it more intolerant and ignorant than the campuses they left behind.

Exactly!!  And well said, David.  Author David French is an attorney and Army Reserve officer (Major).  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  There are many companies out there who have similar cultures to Google which brazenly discriminates against white males, and especially conservatives.  Perhaps you work at such a place.  We’ll, of course, keep an eye on how this lawsuit progresses, and what impacts it may have on other companies with similar politically correct, anti-conservative cultures.

Timpf: Schools Attempt to Ban Kids from Having ‘Best Friends’ because It’s Not Inclusive

According to a piece in U.S. News and World Report, some schools in the United States and Europe “are attempting to ban the entire concept of children having best friends,” because it’s not inclusive and kids get hurt. “The notion of choosing best friends is deeply embedded in our culture,” child and family psychologist Dr. Barbara Greenberg writes in a piece titled “Should Schools Ban Kids from Having Best Friends?” “Nonetheless, there is, in my opinion, merit to the movement to ban having best friends,” she continues. According to Greenberg, “there is something dreadfully exclusionary occurring when a middle schooler tells the girl sitting next to her that she is best friends with the girl sitting in front of them.” “Child after child comes to my therapy office distressed when their best friend has now given someone else this coveted title,” she continues. Greenberg says “Bring it on” to the idea of banning “best friends.” She explains: ” I am a huge fan of social inclusion. The phrase best friend is inherently exclusionary. Among children and even teens, best friends shift rapidly. These shifts lead to emotional distress and would be significantly less likely if our kids spoke of close or even good friends rather than best friends. . . . There’s an unspoken ranking system; and where there is a ranking system, there are problems. I see kids who are never labeled best friends, and sadly, they sit alone at lunch tables and often in their homes while others are with their best friends.” Is a best friend an “exclusionary” thing? Sure. Do kids without best friends feel like garbage sometimes? Absolutely. But the truth is, Greenberg is making the same incorrect assumption that so many people make when they advocate for banning language: that changing the language will change a single damn thing about the reality. It won’t. Instructing children, as Greenberg suggests, to talk about “close friends” instead of “best friends” isn’t going to change those friendships any more than suddenly referring to your ex as “my boyfriend” is going to mean that you’re back together. Think about it: Even if a school forbids children from using the phrase “best friend,” some kids will still have one person with whom they really connect, and it will be obvious to everyone that that two are closer to each other than to anyone else. Kids who don’t have best friends will still be aware of it when they, say, have to pick a partner for a project (if that’s even still allowed) and they keep getting the shaft from their “close friend” in favor of one of that “close friend’s” “close friends” —- the best friend. It’s tough to be in grade school without a best friend. I know; I did a few stints in that hellhole myself, and I spent a lot of gym classes having to partner up with a girl who bullied me (and smelled like cigarettes) — because I didn’t have a “best” friend, just “close” friends who were actually “best” friends with someone else. But would my school’s banning “best friends” have made any of that easier for me? No, because even though I was a kid, I was not a complete f***ing idiot. I could still easily tell you who were best friends, and that I did not have a best friend, because of these things called social cues. It would be nice to create a world without pain, and without exclusion, but that’s going to be a tough thing to do. For one thing, humans are by nature exclusionary. We’re all different, and we’ll all connect (or not connect) with one another in different ways. Every single person who has ever existed knows some people whom they like more than they like other people. It’s normal, and it’s not going to change — especially not by something so simple as refusing to call things what they are.

Exactly!  And, well said, Kat!  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that piece.     🙂

French: There Is a Profound Difference Between Justice and Identity Politics

If you live long enough, you learn a simple, sad fact. Individual adversity does not necessarily build individual character. In other words, spend enough time in the real world and you’ll see people experience enormous challenges — like the loss of a spouse, the loss of a job, or severe illness — and quite simply collapse. They’ll disappear into the fog of depression. They’ll succumb to addiction. They’ll nurse a permanent sense of grievance that renders them incapable of maintaining functional human relationships. In other words, the old phrase, “That which doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger” is often a lie. A positive reaction to adversity isn’t inevitable. In fact, when we see people respond to adversity with courage and dignity, we applaud often because it’s extraordinary. We highlight and admire those who’ve come through the fire and emerged wiser and stronger because they offer insight and inspiration that’s often rare in American life. Similarly, group adversity does not necessarily build group virtue. Again, this should be painfully obvious. We’ve seen oppressed populations abroad respond to adversity and pain by doubling down on vengeance and violence. At home, it’s hardly the case that membership in a historically marginalized community builds special strength and virtue in every member of that community. Indeed, in a country as large and diverse as ours, not every member of a historically marginalized community has faced meaningful adversity, and not every member of a historically powerful community has enjoyed privilege. These truths should be self-evident, but they’re not. Consider this tweet from the Democratic party’s official account: ” Let’s elect Black Women, LGBT Women, Muslim Women, Disabled Women, Jewish Women, Latina Women, Millennial women, AAPI women…” Obviously inspired by the #MeToo movement, the #Resistance, and the Women’s March, this sentiment illustrates what’s wrong with identity politics. Is it really the case that membership in any of these groups renders a person more qualified for public office? Can we presume that more women in politics will mean a better government and better nation? Do we presume that the victimization of some women makes all women’s voices more valuable? Our progressive culture certainly doesn’t apply that logic to men — even though men face large-scale adversity as well. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. They’re more likely to be killed at work and at war. They have shorter lifespans. They are less likely to attend or graduate from college. They have much higher rates of suicide and illicit drug use. In other words, in multiple key areas of American life men as a group face greater adversity than women as a group. Yet to the extent our progressive culture ascribes a group identity to men, it’s all too often as toxic oppressors — not as humans facing their own unique challenges. Social movements go awry the instant they move from justice to identity politics. Movements like #MeToo are immensely valuable when they can lead to awareness and — crucially — accountability for the individuals who commit legal and moral wrongs. Reliably imposing individual justice on predators can have just as profound a positive cultural effect as permitting predators to victimize women with impunity can have negative effects. In other words, justice is a culture change — especially when justice has been systematically denied. Identity politics, however, exploits suffering for the sake of power. Ambitious politicians hitch their wagons to other people’s pain. It’s odd that Democrats would argue that a person’s life experience as a Jewish woman, a black woman, an LGBT woman, or a Millennial woman should drive them to the same conclusions about health-care policy, gun rights, abortion rights, foreign policy, economic policy, and tax rates. It’s odd how Democrats would argue that those shared views would render, say, a wealthy LGBT woman who’s never experienced sexual harassment as a more “authentic” standard-bearer for women than a conservative woman who’s an actual rape victim. It’s simple, really. Membership in a particular demographic group does not always produce suffering. Even when there is suffering, it does not always produce wisdom or virtue. Moreover, even when the response to suffering is virtuous, it does not produce ideological uniformity. Thus, it’s vitally important that we evaluate politicians as individuals. We don’t need more of any given demographic in American politics, we need better people in American politics — regardless of their group identity. Identity politics rejects all these realities. It’s built on a series of fundamental untruths — that membership in particular demographic groups equates with victimization, victimization produces wisdom, and this wisdom is progressive and uniform across each and every marginalized victim group. The result is toxic. Because it flies in the face of reality, identity politics can only be maintained through tribalism and bullying. Dissenters are punished. Diversity of thought is suppressed. The virtue of accountability is transformed in short order into the vice of group blame. As with every social movement in our hyper-politicized time, #MeToo is at a crossroads. It can retain its focus on justice and maintain its extraordinary potency. Or it can devolve into just another partisan movement that attempts to carve America into ideologically uniform interest groups. The problem in our culture isn’t “men.” It’s individual males. The political answer isn’t “women” (or, more precisely, “progressive women”). It’s individuals who seek justice. Any other approach risks sacrificing real cultural progress for the sake of short-term political gain.

And author David French is being far too kind.  Identity politics is the worst kind of politics.  Unfortunately, its what is used most by liberals and the Democratic party to pit one group against another.  David French is an attorney and Army Reserve officer (Major) who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

Meritocracy is a ‘tool of whiteness,’ claims college math professor

A math education professor at Brooklyn College contends in a recent academic article that “meritocracy” in math classes is a “tool of whiteness.” Laurie Rubel implicates both meritocracy and “color-blindness” as ideological precepts that hold back racial minorities from succeeding in math classes in an article for the peer-reviewed Journal of Mathematics Education. Rubel, who taught high school math for nine years before becoming a professor, argues that while meritocracy is commonly linked to hard work and talent, it also “functions as a tool of whiteness” because it “ignores systemic barriers and institutional structures that prevent opportunity and success.” Color-blindness, too, can be an issue for math teachers, according to Rubel, who asserts that “Teachers who claim color-blindness—that is, they claim to not notice the race of their students—are, in effect, refusing to acknowledge the impact of enduring racial stratification on students and their families. “By claiming not to notice, the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child’s identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction,” Rubel adds, citing education theorist Gloria Ladson-Billings. Even math teachers who acknowledge race, such as those who indicate that they “can’t relate” in certain ways to students who are of a different race, are called out in Rubel’s paper. If math teachers notice racial differences between themselves and their students, Rubel elaborates, “those differences are typically cast in terms of deficit constructions about students, their places, and their families.” To mediate this, Rubel recommends that math teachers incorporate more social justice issues into math lessons, but warns that even “teaching for social justice” can be a “tool of whiteness” if teachers are not sufficiently attuned to the experiences of minority students. This is because even social justice-minded professors may inadvertently hold the “belief that effort is always rewarded, [which corresponds] to various tools of whiteness, like the myths of meritocracy and colorblindness,” Rubel writes.

Wow..  Well, as least this nauseating professor actually admits that she thinks math teachers…MATH teachers… should teach so-called “social justice.”  That, of course has NO business in the math classroom, nor does math (or any of the hard sciences, for that matter) have ANYTHING to do with race.  That’s ridiculous bs.  2+2=4.  Pi is: 3.14159.   Fractions, square roots, algebra, geometry, chemistry, trig, biology, and so on are what they are.  There is nothing racial or social about any of it. And, if your kid has a teacher that thinks otherwise, and who tries to use their classroom to fill your kids head with that type of politically correct nonsense, then yank them out of that class and get another teacher, or another school immediately! Otherwise, your kid will grow up to be a useless idiot unable to get a job.  Here’s a Newsflash for Ms. Rubel, and others that share her belief system..  Employers (and most colleges) don’t care how you feel about how oppressed you may be.  They care that you can add, subtract, multiply, divide, read a clock that isn’t digital, be on time for work/class, etc.  Teaching them otherwise, just sets them up for failure.