How the SPLC "Trump Effect" report is deceptive ("hate" in schools)

On November 28, the Southern Poverty Law Center released the deceptive report "The Trump Effect: The Impact of The 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation's Schools" [1]. Their summary of the report:

In the first days after the 2016 presidential election, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Teaching Tolerance project administered an online survey to K–12 educators from across the country. Over 10,000 teachers, counselors, administrators and others who work in schools have responded. The survey data indicate that the results of the election are having a profoundly negative impact on schools and students. Ninety percent of educators report that school climate has been negatively affected, and most of them believe it will have a long-lasting impact. A full 80 percent describe heightened anxiety and concern on the part of students worried about the impact of the election on themselves and their families. Also on the upswing: verbal harassment, the use of slurs and derogatory language, and disturbing incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags.

The report deceives in at least two ways:

1. The survey was conducted in a completely unscientific fashion. The SPLC admits the results of their survey "are not scientific", but it's even worse than they admit. Their admission that the survey is unscientific follows dozens of scare anecdotes and over 5600 words; many people might miss the SPLC admitting that their methodology is bogus.

2. Even more importantly, their report highlighted a survey result and dozens of anecdotes designed to make whites look bad, but ignored a survey result that would make non-whites look bad. Virtually every anecdote they print portrays whites in a bad light. Yet, based on the survey result they didn't reveal in their report, they surely received anecdotes that would portray non-whites in a bad light. They only included one or two in their report. It's not difficult to imagine an Alt Right report doing the same thing in reverse: highlighting things that make non-whites look bad while largely ignoring things that make whites look bad. We know what the SPLC would call such an Alt Right report, and there's no difference with what the SPLC did in their report.

Regarding the methodology, the SPLC says:

The discussion in this report summarizes responses to questions posed by Teaching Tolerance via an informal online survey launched on November 14, 2016; the data reported here is based on the responses as of November 23. A link to the survey was sent to educators who subscribe to the Teaching Tolerance newsletter and was also shared on Teaching Tolerance's social media sites. It was open to any educator who wanted to participate. Several other groups, including Facing History and Ourselves, Teaching for Change, Not in Our Schools, the American Federation of Teachers and Rethinking Schools, also shared the survey link with their audiences... The results of this survey are not scientific. The respondents were not selected in a manner to ensure a representative sample; those who responded may have been more likely to perceive problems than those who did not.

The AFT is a left-leaning union [2], and the other groups are squarely in the cultural far-left camp [3]. The survey has all the academic heft of the Drudge poll or a poll Gateway Pundit or Breitbart News would conduct: their readers tend to agree with them. Yes, their polls are open to everyone and those who disagree with them might vote. However, their sample is heavily biased towards conservatives. Likewise, the SPLC's survey was heavily biased towards those who agree with the cultural far-left.

The survey was conducted using Survey Monkey, and it would be very easy for someone to take it multiple times just like people game online polls. The SPLC doesn't mention whether they sought to verify that respondents actually worked at schools; if they had wouldn't they mention that? Anyone with an agenda and a throwaway email address could have responded with dire, unsupported anecdotes. For just one example, one anecdote claims that "One student went around asking, 'Are you legal?' to each student he passed." Did the SPLC verify the respondent is actually a "Middle School Teacher" from Massachusetts? Did the SPLC verify that claim with others at the school? They don't mention that, but if they had verified their anecdotes wouldn't they mention that? Which of these anecdotes are real and which are exaggerated or completely fictional? Who knows, but they will scare some people into donating to the SPLC.

But, wait, it gets even worse.

One of the "Highlights" they list at the start of the report is this:

Four in 10 have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.

From [4]:

But the SPLC didn't present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators - whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: "I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students."

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information "from the researchers." Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that "about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question."

Bokenkamp did not provide an explanation for the absence of such a substantial metric - at least 2,000 bias-related incidents against white students - from the report, which focuses instead on "anti-immigrant sentiment," "anti-Muslim sentiment" and "slurs about students of color" related to the election.

Would a credible organization include the 40% figure, but exclude the 20% figure? Of course not. Obviously, the SPLC isn't a credible organization: they used a completely bogus methodology, and ignored a key result that would undercut their anti-white agenda.

-------
[1] splcenter . org/20161128/
trump-effect-impact-2016-presidential-election-our-nations-schools

[2] The AFT is headed by Randi Weingarten who once briefly engaged me on Twitter but has stayed silent since. According to her, 20% of their members who voted did so for Trump, a percentage she thinks is too high (peekURL.com/zZMBEYm). The AFT has 1.6 million members, while the National Education Association has 3 million; the AFT doesn't represent all teachers but most likely those who agree with their agenda. The AFT endorsed Hillary Clinton (peekURL.com/zcjjd66) and has spent dozens of millions pushing a leftwing agenda (peekURL.com/zp4fTbs peekURL.com/z2fvpa6 ).

[3] It's not likely anyone is going to confuse these groups with pro-Trump groups:

  • Facing History and Ourselves (@facinghistory; "Our mission is to engage students of diverse backgrounds in an examination of racism, prejudice, and antisemitism in order to promote the development of a more humane and informed citizenry")
  • Teaching for Change (@teachingchange; "building social justice, starting in the classroom")
  • Not in Our School (@notinourschool, "Across the country, students and teachers are sharing stories, joining together and taking action to create safe schools, free from stereotypes, intolerance, and hate. They’re part of a movement called Not In Our School (NIOS)")
  • Rethinking Schools ( @RethinkSchools; "Nonprofit magazine & book publisher dedicated to sustaining & strengthening public education through social justice teaching and education activism")

The last group promotes their "A People's Curriculum for the Earth" book (peekURL.com/zMxBzU3) with a quote from Teaching Tolerance's director Maureen Costello: "This is the kind of book that can change the way young people look at everything." The SPLC may have other, more significant links to the AFT and the other groups.

[4] nypost . com/2016/12/05/
report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/