Welcome to the nonprofits. And today I thought about doing something different and have a split up in the two teams and have a little wrestling, but instead, since we couldn't get insurance in the time, Scott, I understand, we do have a wrestling angle on this story. What do you got for us?
We do have a wrestling angle on the story. This is about Linda McMahon, former head of the Small Business Administration for the White House prior to Biden, and ex CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment WWE. She's been nominated to lead the Department of Education, a role for which her qualifications are notably thin. McMahon's experience in education is limited to a single year in Connecticut State Board of Education, where her appointment not election appointment, was met with criticism
for her lack of expertise. Beyond that, her involvement includes serving as a trustee for Sacred Heart University and lending her name to educational campaigns by WWE. Despite this sparse educational background, McMahon will oversee critical issues like Title nine reforms and student debt policy if confers. Her nomination raises questions about whether the administration's ultimate goal is to dismantle the Department of Education, a promise that has been floated
for years, adding to the controversy. As if that wasn't enough. Adding to the controversy our allegations from a lawsuit linking her and WWE to the mishandling of sexual abuse by a company employee, further casting doubt on her suitability for such an important role. This story is from the Hill by Alexi Lonis Cochrane on November nineteenth, twenty twenty four.
Thanks Gott, and I have to say that I definitely looked at the situation when it's easy to say, surely stop call it, we're going to tap out because I can't listen to any more of this. But the reality is is this is a very serious situation. It's going to have a very significant impact on the educational future of all the children in the United States, not just
public but even in private school. One thing I wanted to talk to you about, though, Scott, is what do you think the applications of McMahon's view on charter schools and school vouchers. Where does she stand in those kinds of issues, because I know that's a big one.
Well sure, I mean in her opinion on a lot of these things is really going to shape the next few years of our educational system. I found an article on MSN dot com about her and it said quote. On her twenty ten campaign website, she signaled support for quote, competition and choice through charter schools and secondary school reform, a position that has reflected interviews today. She recently said I believe in local control. I'm an advocate for choice
through charter schools. That was on her campaign website as well. She clearly supports school vouchers, which you know, I've spoken about school vouchers before. They're ultimately damaging to the educational system. And they don't provide what they claim to provide, and they do provide things that they claim that they don't provide. And what's happening here is and I'll give you some information about school vouchers. This is from the NEA dot com, the NEA website. This is just a couple of high
points here. Number one, Since the enactment of universal school voucher programs, states are struggling with the program's cost, lack of transparency and accountability. That's one of the main things there. No transparency, no accountability. Number two overwhelmingly, school vouchers are being used by families with children already in private schools to subsidize their tuition. So it's not granting that big
mobility that it's offering. It's dangling this caret of You know, your student can go to a private school too, your student can get the best education in the state too. That's not what's happening. The money is going to families
that are already in private schools. Three voucher programs, skyrocking and costable divert funding not only from public schools, but also from other public services, critical public services, and so what's happening is that school money gets funneled around and the real losers are going to be the students that rely on the extra features of school. Maybe they have economic issues at home and they need supplements at school.
When I was a teacher at a high school in Minneapolis, we had a clinic right there in the school, and there was a good portion of our student body who used that clinic as their primary health care. Those kind of things are not going to be available anymore. We had students that we've already seen districts all over the place, states, all over the place, curtailing food supplements, food subsidies, and there's just all of these programs are going to be
hurt if this money is diverted. So I'm really concerned about what she has said about her desires for an educational system, because if she implements them, then I think we're in big trouble.
Yeah, it sounds like stripping down the educational system to the generic version to help people who are already going to private schools get subsidized when they're already paying in any way. So what you're doing is you're asking the public education system to essentially teach almost the same amount of students with less money.
And you're literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
That's what's happening here.
Yes, and we see that time again. So Stephen, what do you think this says about the state of American politics when our pit for the educational secretary is a former WWE executive with no direct experience in education.
Bred and circuses, y'all, Bred and circus is what does it matter? It's all about just entertainment. What entertained me, what distracts me from the current situation that I am in. Do I have a food in my stomach. That's all that matters. We don't need to be betterment. We don't need betterment as a society. We don't need to evolve.
We just need to be entertained and distracted. It's like when I heard that Schwarzenegger first was elected to office, I was just like, Okay, well, maybe, like whatever, you can be more than just an actor, you can be more than just a terminator. Cool. And I heard about Ventura getting elected. I was just like, oh, well, maybe lightning strikes twice, but yeah. Now now it's just a really neat trend of the Like the president elect was the wrestling guy, and now he is a point thing
his wrestling guy's wife, Like, what is this bullshit? Why? Why? What? Why? I don't understand. I feel like the person who is in charge of sharing facts should not be so deeply involved in a fake sport. Maybe I'm weird, maybe I'm the minority. Clearly I'm the minority, but it seems like if you're if you're so deeply tied to something that's pretending to be real, maybe you shouldn't be in charge of teaching kids.
Coming on, it's a reality TV star for president, a social media module to manage our government spending, Fox News reportant for the French Secretary, a TV show doctor do to oversee the Department of Centers for Medica Medicaid services, and now the co founder of the WWE you know who's also a former professional worst seller to run the Department of Education. Spoiler on Earth is not the movie Idiocracy.
It's funny you say that because I was just sitting here thinking, am I listening to a review for Radiocracy? Did I around the wrong segment? Because really that is what it feels like, only this time we don't get to hit and go Wow, that was a damn good movie, Mike Judge. Is funny.
They at least had the person in the world you know to help them, right, They at least he had not Sure to help them.
At least President not Sure took care of things. Now, AJ, how do you think Linda McMahon's role in the America First Policy Institute aligns with what was proposed on Project twenty twenty five And how far do you think they're really going to get with this in the educational system.
So Linda McMahon doesn't personally have anything to do with Project twenty twenty five as far as I know, but I think it's very important to point out that she is the chair of the American First Policy Institute, which is pretty much the same as the Heritage Foundation, which is the creator of Project twenty twenty five. And the American First Policy Institute has a policy handbook that is, I would say, exactly like Project twenty twenty five, okay,
with very very few differences. Everything that is proposed as far as legislations and rules is on par with Project twenty twenty five. I've absolutely shocked that this hasn't gotten more attention because the similarities are really really scary. They have policies like eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion offices. They have very similar views recording LGBTQ rights, especially biased against transgender people, women's reproductive care, access to abortion, and of
course education. I wasn't even aware that this manual existed until I started looking into Linda McMahon and found that she was the chair for it. And I guess because people have been so focused on Project twenty twenty five, this means that we all need to become more aware to protect the freedom of all individuals and not just Christian nationalists.
Yeah.
I have to say that one of the things that concerns me Scott, you had mentioned the clinic for the students when you were at the high school and talked about food programs and things like that. I think that we often forget that there's a lot of things far beyond just facts and figures and numbers and things like that to go on educating students that we're going to
see impacted. I mean, food insecurity is a very real issue in this country, and just thinking of that alone, it just really concerns me when I see McMahon in this role, and I was just wondering, how do you think that her past experience of the Small Business Administration and her comments in general, how do you think that track record plays into protecting children as a Secretary of Education.
Yeah, I don't think that it has anything to do with protecting children at all. Again, I think we're talking about promoting an ideology above the welfare of the students
that are involved. It's been suggested that they're going to dismantle the Department of Education, and so Title nine funds are either going to be discontinued or they're going to be passed off tucked away in some other department, and so you know, I think, regardless of what happens with that, it's going to see a loss of support for students. And I think there are many students. We mentioned already healthcare, we mentioned already, food. We didn't mention things like mental
health issues. We didn't mention things like disability issues. We didn't mention things like students that don't speak English as their first language. There's all the kinds of different of these little pocket communities, and well I say pocket, but some of them are rather large communities. But there's all these different types of students that are being supported by the United States government and by state governments and by local governments, by school boards. And so it seems like
it's going to be gutting something from the core. It's going to be tearing out the spinal cord of this animal that's helping run our educational system. And it's hard to imagine that things won't be bad. Idea or the suggestion is that dismantling the Department of Education isn't necessarily
going to harm these programs. But I think what it's going to do is it's going to make those programs vulnerable because right now they're protected under the Department of Education, but if they're if Title nine, for example, is shuffled off to some other department, then that becomes a vulnerable program there and at risk of being at the very
least being diminished, if not discontinued outright. And so it's it's really it's not only going to have an immediate effect of losing of the loss of some programs, but it's going to make many other programs vulnerable, which not only is it going to affect the students directly, but there's also going to be the threat and the fear that these things are going to that students might lose their food, they might lose their health care, they might
lose their support of their disability at school, they might you know, there's I don't know, it's it's it's hard to be optimistic.
I think it's more.
Than likely also going to affect the teachers ability to teach these kids the correct the proper information likes out, you know, the type of curriculums that are being made to teach these kids. And I think the ultimate goal here for them is to have a less educated society, to have less educated students coming out of out of high school, because theyre easier to manipulate, they are easier to inductionate.
It's hard not to imagine that that's the goal. It you know, you don't, you don't you want to think that, well, that might happen, but that's not what they're trying to do. But as we continue on, it's hard to view that as not being the goal, the ultimate goal. And that's not only frustrating, but it's sad and it's depressing.
It feeds into the worst of everything because first we have people actually suffering, and yes, this is going to be beyond just food, and this is going to be bound just food at school because we're talking about basic support structures and other departments that are going to be happening at the same time, and those are going to be at risk too. And I couldn't help but think Scott, when you mentioned the mental health issue, and aj you
mentioned the LGBT community and trans community. I mean, that's almost like a double whammy because you're taking mental health away and you're obstracizing a group of people. It's like you're holding up, let's minimize these human beings.
And then we're going.
To take away any support they could have too. So yes, it is a real concern, and like you, Scott, I do believe this is deliberate. I think that they want a compliant workforce and when we're worried about our next meal, we're less worried about other things. And so just keep everything down to a spasic, don't have people think too hard. Just have them keep doing what they do and feel lucky that they have what they have. And that's really
what they're counting on for me. Now, one thing, Steve and I kind of stepped over this question, but I wanted to bring this up to all of you, McMahon's past support for toratory figures and access within a WWE about we mentioned sexual assault cases, and what do you think this ultimately is going to end up as when it comes down to her being the leader responsible for kids.
Like my like, I feel like I want to echo what we've already been saying here, but like specifically, like my concern, my biggest concern is for the queer kids.
How are they going to be impacted by this type of deregulation that we could see McMahon, you know putting forward especially especially given the fact that she has this tie to allegations of sexual abuse, allegations being mishandled, not that she was directly involved with it, but the fact that her organization that she was in charge of mishandled it. And she is now in charge of the largest organization responsible for the safety of the most miners in the country.
And if she can't handle you know, keeping you know, her little fantasy wrestling games safe for adults, Like what what? What? What? What does that mean for the children that she is
going to be responsible over? We already know and again we already know that queer kids are the target for for more bullying, more harassment, that schools are less safe place for those students already, So and what if they're going to be stripping away federal regulations that are in place to protect those students, then you know, their safety is left up to what like the state level department then and we already know that states that there is
little incentive for especially more conservative states to give two ships about the well being of queer kids, of marginalized kids, definitely, and so they are the ones that I'm most concerned about that I think that there's there's great, there should be all kinds of alarms going off.
You know that we cover in the nonprofits. It seems a good covering a story about child abuse by some type of institution, usually religious, And I know that the WWE is not a religious institution, but it's clear that the McMahons are very religious. And the iron here is that a woman who knowingly allowed the abuse of young boys by one of our employees is being appointed to supposedly protect children and their education is absurd.
Yeah, and Stephen, you mentioned the LGBTQ kids, and yeah, they're definitely going to be vulnerable because one of the things that the Department Education does is it oversees state legislation and even down to the local school board level of those protections, of mandating those protections, and mandating those protections in places where they wouldn't otherwise be there. You mentioned things like Southern states or state or Red states or whatever, you know how we want to call them.
There are some states that want to remove those protections, they want to allow discrimination to certain groups of students, and LGBTQ students are definitely one of those that rely on that type of protection. And so when we take that protection away. Then you know that's you know, all the hell is going to break loose on that. It's not going to be pleasant in any way. It's going to be very, very troubling.
You know.
I have to say that, having a teenager who is gender fluid and pan sexual, I can't help but wonder what the future does bring for them. And it is very concerning because while I know that the people in charge don't see this as individuals, the reality of those of us who live here are the individuals. And with that in mind, I really hope that we can see some protections. But right now, as you said more than once, Scott, I do think that it's going to be a rough road.
I don't think this is going to be an easy way, but we will get through it.