NYC school bosses changed F grade in advanced placement class, then targeted teacher who exposed the scheme: lawsuit
This “F” stands for fix!
Queens school bosses changed an advanced placement student’s F grade to boost scores — then set their sights on the teacher who blew the whistle on the alleged grade fixing, a bombshell federal lawsuit claims.
Information Technology High School English teacher Susan Muzafar, 33, failed an unnamed student but her superiors changed the grade without telling her and then hit her with disciplinary actions as revenge, she said in a lawsuit filed in Brooklyn federal court.
Teacher Susan Muzafar’s lawsuit alleges Queens school bosses changed a student’s failing grade.
The move is just one example of bosses at the Long Island City school and the city Department of Education turning up the heat on educators to pass undeserving students, according to the lawsuit.
“It opens up a huge can of worms. Not every student who passed at the high school earned a passing grade from the teacher,” a source at the high school told The Post.
It worked for me ... but some of my fellow Americans seem to have built up their immunity.
One of the reasons I amalarmedby thesocialist/communist trends in my own country is that I visited such countries in my youth.
My first look at communism was at Checkpoint Charlie in West Berlin in 1984. There, you crossed into East Berlin (the communist side) through a barbed wire, land-mined, machine gun-guarded, no-man’s land.
The bite wound — on her hand — appeared serious enough to require an antiseptic. But where could they find that, late at night, in Havana?
People had died trying to cross it.
Once inside East Berlin, you immediately saw why. The city was lifeless, poor, and depressing. The people were ugly and not safe to interact with. The general misery was suffocating. It was a huge relief to get back to West Berlin.
In the following years, I had other experiences in the “democratic socialist” countries of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, which were also chillingly prison-like and horrific.
After several decades of communism, all the normal people in these countries had escaped or died. Only the creeps, criminals, and mentally enfeebled remained.
I always believed that if Americans could see for themselves what “democratic socialism” looks like, they would be instantly dissuaded from supporting or advocating for it.
But as I’ve learned, that is not always the case.
Americans abroad
My favorite example is when an American friend (35) and her mother (61) visited Cuba in the 2010s. They were an adventurous duo and fairly seasoned travelers.
They were also very liberal. They both donated to NPR. They were both ardent fans of Rachel Maddow. And they would later suffer from severe cases of Trump derangement syndrome.
So what did they think of socialist Cuba? And its poverty, corruption, and lack of economic opportunity?
Now, I have traveled to third-world countries myself, and I have been impressed by the resilience of the people. There is something romantic about such cultures, something satisfying about the simplicity and earthiness of their lives.
Part of the enjoyment of such places is that all standards are lowered. The locals are poor and uneducated. You are practically a philosopher-king among the peasants. You can relax and enjoy your superiority.
Havana moon
When my friend and her mother returned from Cuba, she told me about their trip: the great food, the picturesque street life. The two had gone to nightclubs and danced to incredible live music.
The locals fawned over them. A kindly Cuban woman invited them to her house for dinner. They bought peasant skirts, handmade hats, and local jewelry.
It was all very romantic. Everyone was so nice to them. The locals appreciated their interest in Cuban culture.
Straight from the horse’s mouth
They did have one problem though. The mother, while strolling along the promenade in Havana, was bitten by a horse.
The bite wound — on her hand — appeared serious enough to require an antiseptic. But where could they find that, late at night, in Havana?
No pharmacies were open. So they found a sympathetic bartender who doused the wound with vodka and wrapped it in a bar towel as best he could.
In the morning, it was worse. They had to find a doctor, which was not easy to do.
Finally, they found an English-speaking doctor, who was eager to help them once he found out the mother was married to a doctor in America.
He properly dressed the wound but mostly peppered the mother and daughter with questions about doctors in the USA. How much did they make? What kind of car did they drive? How big was their house?
The doctor hounded them for contact information. He was plotting his own escape. Fortunately, he had not escaped already and was there to help the mother with her horse-bitten hand.
Socialists love their socialism
I don’t mean to be critical of my friend, but this trip demonstrated why left-leaning liberals don’t see any problem with a socialist government.
To them, the slower pace of life is spiritually enriching. Not to mention the delicious food. And the soulful music.
If only Americans could be more like the Cubans. If only we weren’t such money-grubbing workaholics and could just relax and enjoy those sultry nights and the gorgeous Havana moon, which shone so bright in the sky (mostly because there was no electricity for street lights).
No, socialists love their socialism. Or rather their dream of socialism. I noticed that my friend was very happy to be back in the suburbs, to get back to her yoga class and her air-conditioned Suburu.
The state insists consumers aren't losing all choice because multiple tire brands will still be available. But that's not the issue.
California regulators say they're trying to save drivers money.
Their latest proposal would establish energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires, with the state arguing that more efficient tires will reduce fuel consumption, lower emissions, and save consumers money at the pump.
Imagine walking into a grocery store and being told certain products are no longer available because government officials decided another option was more efficient.
On paper, it sounds reasonable.
But it raises a much bigger question: Why should Sacramento decide which tires Americans are allowed to buy in the first place?
And if you think this will stay in California, think again. New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and several other states have a long history of following California's automotive regulations.
Where the rubber meets the road
Supporters argue that many replacement tires are less efficient than the original equipment tires that came on a vehicle, causing drivers to spend more on fuel.
The problem is that regulators are making an assumption that simply isn't true: that the factory tire was somehow the best tire available.
Anyone who has spent time in the automotive industry knows better.
Automakers don't choose tires based solely on fuel economy. Tire selection is a compromise involving cost, supplier relationships, ride quality, handling, noise, durability, availability, production requirements, and corporate agreements.
Sometimes, the factory tire is excellent. Sometimes, it's merely adequate. Sometimes, it simply helped the manufacturer hit a cost target.
That's why the replacement tire market exists.
Different priorities
Drivers have different priorities. Some want a quieter ride. Others want longer tread life, better snow traction, improved handling, or simply a less expensive option than the tire that came from the factory.
California's proposal elevates fuel economy above all of those considerations.
Ask someone in a snowy climate whether they care more about winter traction or a small improvement in fuel economy. Ask a family on a tight budget whether they'd rather spend less on tires today or save a few dollars at the pump years from now. Ask a Mustang, Corvette, or Porsche owner whether maximum fuel efficiency was the reason they bought the car.
Different drivers have different priorities because they live different lives.
That's why this debate isn't really about tires. It's about who gets to make decisions.
The state believes regulators should determine which tradeoffs are acceptable. Consumers traditionally believe they should make those decisions themselves.
Who decides?
Imagine walking into a grocery store and being told certain products are no longer available because government officials decided another option was more efficient. Maybe the alternative is perfectly acceptable. Maybe it isn't. The point is that somebody else made the decision for you.
The state insists consumers aren't losing all choice because multiple tire brands will still be available. But that's not the issue. The issue is that government is narrowing the menu of options based on criteria regulators have prioritized over consumer preference.
Drivers replace tires for all kinds of reasons. They move to different climates, switch to all-season or winter tires, buy used vehicles that need affordable replacements, or prioritize tread life, comfort, or performance over fuel economy.
Those aren't edge cases. They're everyday realities.
California projects that consumers will save money through improved fuel efficiency. But that calculation only works if the additional cost of compliant tires doesn't outweigh the fuel savings.
That's a major assumption.
Tires are already expensive, and specialty and performance tires can cost hundreds of dollars each. If regulations reduce competition and eliminate lower-cost alternatives, consumers could face fewer choices and higher prices.
Let the market work
The replacement tire market works because it allows consumers to compare tradeoffs. Companies such as Tire Rack have built their reputations helping drivers evaluate those tradeoffs, and their testing routinely shows that no single tire is best at everything.
A tire with excellent fuel economy may not offer the best performance. A tire with exceptional tread life may sacrifice handling. A high-performance tire may give up efficiency in exchange for grip.
That's not a flaw. That's the point of a competitive marketplace.
Then there's another question worth asking: Who benefits?
The answer isn't some giant conspiracy theory involving tire manufacturers. But history shows that complicated regulations often favor larger companies with the engineering resources, testing facilities, and compliance departments necessary to navigate new requirements. Smaller competitors frequently face greater challenges.
That may not be the intent. But it is often the outcome.
California officials argue the program will help achieve broader environmental goals and reduce fuel consumption statewide. That's a legitimate policy objective.
The question is whether those benefits justify restricting the choices available to millions of consumers.
Basic questions
Before regulators decide which tires Americans should be allowed to buy, they should answer a basic question: If a driver understands the tradeoffs and is spending their own money, why should Sacramento decide that fuel-efficiency targets matter more than that consumer's personal preferences?
The California Energy Commission is conducting this rulemaking through Docket 26-TIRE-01 using authority granted under Assembly Bill 844, legislation passed in 2003.
Think about that.
A law enacted more than 20 years ago could soon help determine which replacement tires Americans can buy in the future.
Keep these in mind as you contemplate the direction of the American government over the past 50 years and especially since the Obama election.
The Goals of Communism
(as read into the congressional record January 10, 1963, from "The Naked Communist" by Cleon Skousen)
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
Posts
