Ep. 1263 - Lowering The Standards In Every Industry In The Name Of Diversity
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, standards are being lowered in nearly every industry in the name of "diversity." Now this disease has spread to social work, where one major US city is thinking about throwing out the social worker exam entirely in order to make the field less white. Also, a fist fight almost breaks out during a senate hearing. We'll play the video for you. And another Hollywood actor pretends to be happy after his child comes out as "trans." Finally, Nikki Haley announces her plan to forcibly unmask and monitor every anonymous social media account in the country. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1263
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get Your DailyWire+ Black Friday Deals Here: https://bit.ly/3QVgtGy
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
http://www.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, standards are being lowered in nearly every industry in the name of diversity.
And now this disease has spread to social work, where one major U.S.
city is thinking about throwing out the social worker exam entirely in order to make the field less white.
Also, a fistfight almost breaks out during a Senate hearing.
We'll play the video for you today, and it's a hilarious video.
And another Hollywood actor pretends to be happy after his child comes out as quote-unquote trans.
Finally, Nikki Haley announces her plan to forcibly unmask and monitor every anonymous social media account in the country.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
The holidays are coming up fast, and while you're out shopping for your kids, family
and friends, don't forget to shop for your pets too.
I never do.
Give your dog the gift of a healthier and happier life with Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
So let Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are wheat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
That's a free Jumpstart Trial Bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F greens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
One of the many remarkable things about activists who want to remake society and invert every hierarchy that civilization has ever had in the name of equity is how aggressive and totally unflinching they are.
They don't ask permission.
They just do it.
And they do it in such great numbers in so many different ways that it's impossible to even keep track of everything.
Even if you object to their project, as most people do, there's no way to keep yourself fully informed about what's happening simply because of the scale of the whole operation.
So, here's a recap, which is nowhere near exhaustive, but here's some of it.
In just the last couple of months, we've learned that the LAPD is relaxing its standards for new officers in order to recruit fewer white males.
We've heard that the San Francisco School Board will lower entrance requirements and that the Regents Exam in New York will soon be optional for high school graduates.
As the New York Times put it, "The test had once been seen as a hallmark of academic rigor,
but high-stakes graduation tests have fallen out of favor nationally."
We've also been informed that the law school admission test, the LSAT,
will drop its challenging logic game section, supposedly to help blind applicants.
Meanwhile, some medical schools like UC Davis have started ranking applicants not based on merit, but on the supposed hardships they faced.
Pretty much everywhere you look, whether it's air traffic control, or airline piloting, or Silicon Valley, or even the National Association of Zoos and Aquariums, standards are dropping.
In order to increase diversity, meaning to make everything less white, less male, and also less Asian.
So you might think, with all that in mind, that it would be impossible to be shocked anymore by any industry that decides to lower its standards in the name of diversity.
After all, if everybody's doing it, how surprising can any of these initiatives really be individually?
That's what I thought until a couple of days ago when I learned about a new plan to diversify what is, frankly, one of the least rigorous and least demanding professional fields of all.
And this is a field that I genuinely didn't think could possibly lower its standards anymore, given how low that they already are.
And here's NBC News Washington explaining it.
Watch.
Social workers address the needs of our city's most vulnerable neighbors.
And everyone we spoke with agrees it's important to make sure they are qualified to do that.
But critics and now a D.C.
Council members say the test that's long been used to determine that readiness is
holding too many people of color back from the communities that need the help
the most.
On Catholic University's campus...
And I want to hear from each group.
Graduate students like Sarah Ann Nestor are preparing for a career helping others.
You're going to be a social worker.
Sarah is from Southeast D.C.
and wants to fill a gap she discovered when she was the one who needed help.
When I searched for therapists in D.C., finding a black therapist as a woman who would see the same worldviews as me was almost nil to none.
Okay, so they're now lowering the standards for social workers because not enough people with darker skin are passing the tests, apparently.
And it's important to, we'll continue in a moment, but it's important to stop the clip there for a second just to underscore how insane this segment actually is already, just a minute in.
This black woman, Sarah, is saying that she desperately needed to find a black therapist for treatment because she needed a therapist with the same views That she has.
And for that reason, she couldn't tolerate having a white therapist, or a Hispanic therapist, or an Asian therapist.
NBC News never challenges this reasoning, or the implications of it, or asks any questions about it.
They just charge forward.
So let's consider those implications for a second.
The first assumption, of course, is that you can only benefit from having a therapist who sees the world exactly like you do.
Like, the assumption is that you need a therapist who has your same views.
And that's just a given in this segment because, indeed, the vast majority of therapy is really just paying someone to agree with you.
That's all it is.
There's no science behind it.
Patients self-select doctors who tell them, or therapists or counselors, who will tell them what they want to hear.
And everybody knows this.
In fact, they have a word for this now.
They call this affirmative care.
That's why doctors tell children they're quote-unquote transgender, or they tell the parents that the kids have ADHD, like they're just being told exactly what they want to be told.
And their job is not to offer pushback or conduct any kind of independent diagnosis of symptoms.
If they try anything like that, they'll probably get fired for bigotry on the spot.
This is how therapy and counseling works these days, but it's not how it's supposed to work, because in theory, the person counseling you You should be someone who quite specifically does not see the world the way that you do.
Someone who quite specifically does not have the same views as you.
The whole reason you are in counseling, in theory, is that there's a problem with the way you see yourself and the world.
If there's no problem at all, then you shouldn't be there.
So, you want, or you should want, someone from the outside, someone who sees it differently, to offer guidance.
But the more interesting part of that clip is how Sarah asserts that the only way to find a therapist who thinks the way that she does, I mean, even if we assume that that's the right goal, that you need to find a therapist who has the same views as you, well, even if we go along with that, then we run into the problem that what we're being told is that the only way to find someone like that is if they have the same skin color.
Now, the term racism gets thrown around a lot, obviously, so I'm not going to use that term here.
I think a better, or at least mildly more creative term for this, is race essentialism.
And at its most extreme, race essentialism is the belief that your race determines your abilities, your personality.
All of your other characteristics.
This is a perspective that, if it's endorsed by a white person, will result in Merrick Garland sending a SWAT team to that person's door at 6 a.m.
That person will be branded a domestic terrorist, banned from school board meetings.
But if a black person endorses race essentialism live on NBC News, then everything's fine.
In fact, NBC News will endorse what she's saying, which is what they're doing here.
Let's continue with the clip so that we can get to the argument from these activists, these racists, these race essentialists, whatever you want to call them, for why the social worker exam needs to change.
Watch.
The News 4i team sat down with the students, Sarah, Carla Abney, Emily Fortes and Raquel Ruiz, as DC contemplates changing what it takes to become a social worker.
Only one of them, PhD candidate Carla, has taken the exam needed to become what's called a licensed graduate social worker.
It was one of the toughest things I've ever done.
She passed, but the I-team found there's growing concern that too few people who look like her are passing too.
What the exam is doing is de-diversifying the profession.
Catholic University professor Michael Massey says for years he's seen too many students of color succeed in class but fail the multiple-choice licensure exam, which he says fails to capture cultural nuances.
And so we have social work, great social workers of color, who came to social work schools to serve their communities, and they're not being allowed to do it, despite rigorous preparation at school.
Massey's among those who have pushed the Association of Social Work Boards, which for decades has administered the exam to release pass rate data, and the results were stark.
Between 2018 and 2021, 76% of white test takers passed the bachelor's level exam the first time, but only 60% of Asian test takers did, followed by 53% of Hispanic applicants, and only 33% of black test takers passed that first time.
It's easy to say, like, you could possibly blame the test takers, but I think accountability has to be taken of how the exam is structured.
Yes, you don't want to, I mean, if someone fails a test, you could, this is yet again one of those excuses I wish I had thought of when I was in school that I could have told my parents, hey, mom and dad, you know, I see, look at the test results and it's tempting, it's tempting to blame the test taker for failing the test.
But I think we need to have a real dialogue about the way the test is structured.
I think that's what we need.
Of course, we hear from the professor there that the test is de-diversifying the field, and he finds that to be a problem because he thinks that tests are supposed to diversify when, of course, testing exams are supposed to have the exact opposite effect.
Exams don't exist to diversify.
They don't exist to be more inclusive.
They don't exist to be welcoming.
They exist specifically to narrow.
They're supposed to have a narrowing effect.
Because we're trying to find out through the exam who gets it, who understands, who's qualified.
So it should have a narrowing effect.
That's what an exam is supposed to do.
But let's go over those statistics one more time that we just heard there.
So between 2018 and 2021, they say roughly 76% of whites passed the bachelor's level test the first time for social work.
60% of Asians passed, followed by 53% of Hispanics and 33% of blacks.
Now for the most part, Those rankings mirror the normal distribution of SAT scores, with one very notable exception.
This social worker exam is one of the few tests you will find in which Asian test takers perform so poorly relative to the overall pool.
Like, there is no other test where Asians will perform poorly, except maybe the driving test.
I don't know.
Normally, as with SATs, Asians are in the lead.
But in this case, they're in a distant second place.
Now, there could be a number of reasons for that.
Most likely, all the talented Asian test takers are busy with the MCAT or the LSAT or the GRE or some other test, which could get you a better job than being a social worker.
But in any event, the point is that no one on NBC News even pretends to care about the relatively poor Asian performance on this test.
Instead, they're laser focused on the low number of black students who pass.
That's really their only focus.
Now, for my part, I'll admit that I do take some pride in the fact that white people are beating Asians in at least one category.
So we have to take our wins where we can get them.
So we got one here.
It's social work, but still, I think that's something.
Now, we're led to believe that the 33% pass rate among black test takers is de facto evidence that the test is the problem.
Somehow these tests are racist.
But how is that the case?
That's the question.
What is racist about these tests?
So I decided to look into this test by going on YouTube and checking out some study sessions to see if I could identify any racist social worker questions.
And I was looking for, you know, dog whistles and microaggressions and, I don't know, slut shaming.
Everything you could think of, I was looking for.
I didn't find any of that.
Instead, as predicted, I was bored to tears.
I won't subject you to all of it or even a large chunk of it.
A very small sample will suffice.
Here it is.
A social worker is working with a family whose home was recently burglarized and the family was held at gunpoint.
The 12-year-old son has begun wetting the bed and sucking his thumb, behaviors that were not present before the home invasion.
The mother reports that the daughter now always wants to sleep in bed with her.
The son is most likely using the defense mechanism of... Okay, so of course this is another recall question.
About defense mechanisms, so you would definitely have to know the defense mechanisms and what takes place with each one of them.
So right now we are just going to deal with the ones that are listed here.
Okay, by the way, the answer to that particular question is regression.
And the video goes on like that for an hour.
And a lot of these questions, by the way, like you saw that question, you're looking at the multiple choice answers.
If you have never taken any social work class in your life, you probably can guess what the answer is.
And a lot of the questions are that way.
A lot of the questions are so easy that you don't need to have any foundational knowledge of the social work industry, and you could probably pass it, actually.
Now, incidentally, the training session you just saw was run by a black woman.
At no point does she say the test is invalid because it's racist, nor is there any way a reasonable person could find the test racist, nor could you really point to any of the questions where you would say, well, a black person would never be able to get that right.
I mean, that would be the kind of assumption, maybe a very racist thing to say.
If you're not a racist person, you look at all those questions, you say, anyone of any race could get all those questions correct.
The questions are just anodyne, basically, to the point of inducing death by boredom.
But other than that, they're fine.
So, after looking to the questions that social workers are asked, I have to admit, I didn't detect any racism.
But maybe that's just because I have a very untrained eye.
So, NBC News, as you saw, quotes an expert.
They cite a college professor named Michael Massey, who tells us that the test isn't capturing cultural nuances and is making the profession less diverse.
Quote, we have great social workers of color who came to social work schools to serve their communities and they're not being allowed to do it despite rigorous preparation at school, he says.
Now, of course, it's not clear why preparation in schools should matter more than a standardized test, especially in a field like social work, where there's a glut of for-profit diploma mills that specifically advertise to black and Hispanic populations.
At major institutions like Tulane's School of Social Work, the pass rates are much higher for every demographic group.
But, putting that aside for a second, the implication is that the test is somehow flawed.
But nowhere in this NBC report does anyone, including Michael Massey, explain specifically what's wrong with the test, nor are we given any examples of questions that would be racist or would be more difficult for people of certain races to answer.
So let's take stock of where we're at.
On the basis of no evidence whatsoever, activists and elected officials in DC are now trying to pass a law eliminating the testing requirement for social workers entirely.
Watch.
Now Councilman Robert White is behind a bill that would eliminate the exam for entry and master's level licensure applicants, whose work would still have to be supervised by more experienced social workers.
We will not release unqualified people onto the masses, but this exam is not a proven method of qualification.
After Illinois eliminated their test two years ago, that state saw nearly 3,000 social workers licensed the following year.
White says he hopes doing so here will help fill widespread vacancies in schools and social services.
Why not fix the exam?
There is no evidence that this exam, passing this exam, results in better practitioners.
Annan Glo Boone, Executive Director of the Consortium for Child Welfare and Head of the Social Workers Unite DC Coalition, says more research is needed before tossing out this exam.
She notes 85% of DC graduate applicants eventually pass it.
The exam, the social work exam, is not a problem.
Boone says D.C.
could allow social workers to work with a provisional license while they take the test again.
And she says city leaders should focus on retaining current social workers instead of weakening the requirements to become one.
We won't know if these folk who get licensed without having a passing or demonstrating basic competencies, if they will engage in safe, competent, ethical, responsible practice.
I mean, if someone shows that there are risks to a patient, we can get rid of them.
Maybe, but we won't know that until after the fact.
So, it's a pretty interesting clip.
This woman with the Consortium for Child Welfare has to tell the reporter that the whole purpose of licensing requirements, whether it's in medicine or law or any other profession, is to ensure that you have competent people in the profession.
That's how you protect the public and maintain standards.
You don't admit everyone and then when an incompetent person gets someone killed, decide to start calling the herd.
That's not the way it generally works.
But now the script is completely flipped.
We're deliberately hiring morons in every conceivable profession.
And this is a terrible idea regardless of the profession, of course.
But in the field of social work, it's especially ironic because the left is lowering the bar for social workers after they spent the last few years insisting that social workers should replace law enforcement in a wide array of situations.
So they're trying to expand the power and scope of social work while at the same time lowering the standards.
That's what's happening.
The only good news here, if you can call it that, is that for the most part social workers are, you know, very often functionally useless anyway.
So it's not clear what the practical implications of lowering the bar will be, given how low it already is.
But as a symbol for a much larger problem, for the regression we're seeing in virtually every major industry, what's happening in the field of social work is actually notable.
What they're doing makes it very clear that they're trying to remake all of society from the most important and demanding professions to jobs that are neither important nor demanding.
But it's the same thing across the gamut.
Yesterday it was the police, today it's social workers, tomorrow it'll be dog walkers, whatever.
They won't stop until they have eliminated the legitimacy of every conceivable job in the country.
Well, maybe that's not entirely true.
And the left won't implement any kind of diversity initiative for, like, the NBA or the NFL or any other major sports league because their preferred demographics, in that case, are already dominant in those professions.
But in any field where that is not the case, this is what they're planning.
This is an effort to reduce standards across the board to the point that they are non-existent.
If even social workers don't have to endure the indignity of taking a simple, straightforward test, Then that proves they truly can eliminate the standards for everything else.
And we can choose.
We can either have a functioning society, or we can allow them to succeed in this agenda.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, you're not alone.
And also, the good news is it's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson.
In this eight-lecture course, Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats that it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever you want and wherever you want.
You can start your free course of American Citizenship and its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson today.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll.
There's no cost.
Easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu to enroll.
hillsdale.edu.
I want to start with this because I enjoyed it.
A fight almost broke out yesterday during a Senate hearing, and this is Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen.
Mark Wayne is his first name.
Mark Wayne.
One word.
Two first names.
Anyway, he challenged a Teamster leader named Sean O'Brien to a fight based on things that Sean O'Brien had been posting on Twitter.
And then they almost got into a fight right there in the middle of the Senate hearing.
Pretty great stuff.
Let's watch.
Everybody knows, and it's here, and the last time, him and I kind of had a back and forth.
I appreciate your demeanor today.
It's quite different.
But after you left here, you got pretty excited about the keyboard.
In fact, you tweeted at me one, two, three, four, five times.
And let me read what the last one said.
It said, Greedy CEO who pretends like he's self-made.
Sir, I wish you was in the truck with me when I was building my plumbing company myself and my wife was running the office because I sure remember working pretty hard and long hours.
Pretends like he's self-made.
What a clown.
Fraud.
Always has been.
Always will be.
Quit the tough guy act and these Senate hearings.
You know where to find me.
Anyplace, anytime, cowboy.
Sir, this is a time, this is a place.
If you want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults.
We can finish it here.
Okay, that's fine.
Perfect.
You want to do it now?
I'd love to do it right now.
Well, stand your butt up then.
You stand your butt up.
Oh, hold on.
Stop it.
Is that your solution?
No, no.
Sit down.
You're a United States Senator.
Actively.
Sit down, please.
Can I respond?
Hold it.
Hold it.
If we can't... No, I have the mic.
I'm sorry.
Hold it.
You'll have your time.
Can I respond?
No, you can't.
This is a hearing.
It's great, I love it.
I mean, I don't know what my favorite part of that video is.
Maybe my favorite part is the fact that the senator printed out these tweets.
I don't like you cuz you just described yourself.
It's great, I love it.
I mean, I don't know what my favorite part of that video is.
Maybe my favorite part is the fact that the senator printed out these tweets.
He had them all printed out.
So which tells me that this was not, when I saw the kind of the description of the thumbnail
of this video is going viral on Twitter.
I thought it was like a heat of the moment.
They're arguing back and forth in the center, like, you want to take this outside?
Which would already be really funny and great, but no, this was planned.
Like, he printed out the tweets and he was ready.
So, I don't know, he had his aides print out the tweets for him.
I don't know if he told them.
He said, hey, print out these tweets, because I'm going to do a presentation in the hearing.
What's the presentation going to be?
Oh, I'm going to challenge him to a fight right there in the middle of the hearing.
And did his aides go along with that and say, well, that's a good idea, Senator.
Either way, I totally unironically think that we would be a better, healthier country if physical fights broke out in Congress every once in a while.
It would certainly make C-SPAN a lot more interesting to watch.
And look, this used to be pretty common back in the day.
I mean, these guys used to come to blows kind of frequently.
Even all the way back in, like, the 1790s, there was a fight between two representatives.
I don't remember all the details, but one of the guys, like, spit tobacco juice on the other, and then he grabs his cane and goes after him, and then the other guy grabs a Fireplace poker.
Next thing you know, they're having a full-on Jedi lightsaber battle with a cane and a fireplace poker right on the floor of the house.
And stuff like this happened before the Civil War.
There was an infamous case where a guy, a senator, I believe it was, was beat unconscious with a cane.
And that didn't work out particularly well in the end because there was a Civil War.
But still, it's the way disputes were settled back in those days.
And here's why I think it's healthy, because first of all, it shows that they actually care, that they're really passionate, like they're getting angry.
Politicians don't fight like this anymore because they agree too much on everything.
They pretend that they don't agree, but they actually agree, and they don't take the issues that seriously anyway, so they don't really take it personally.
You know, it's all a show.
People always complain, people who are very oblivious complain that there's too much contention in Washington, it's too divisive, it's too partisan.
But I've always said the problem is the opposite.
There's not nearly enough contention.
The problem is not that these people agree, or rather, it's not that they disagree with each other too much, it's that they agree far too much.
And so I think that's one advantage of a fistfight.
It's on top of the sheer entertainment factor.
It shows that they care.
And also, look, historically, it's always been understood that men should have outlets to settle a beef physically.
In a fair and honorable way.
That's why dueling was common and acceptable for hundreds of years, both in this country, well in this country not for hundreds of years, but hundreds of years across the Western world and beyond, and for a brief time in this country as well.
You know, it kept people a bit more honest, I think, people a little bit more polite.
Back when dueling was, you know, if you were insulted, a man, another man would, if you insulted another man, he'd walk up to you and say, I challenge you to a duel.
And now you're really, it's like, You don't want to turn it down, because then you're shamed and embarrassed for the rest of your life.
And it gives an outlet for male aggression.
But then dueling fell out of fashion, and for a while, though, men could still kind of fight it out, go toe-to-toe, without going to jail for assault.
This was even the case You know, that's what boomers always talk about when they were in school, the kids would fight, and you just let them fight it out, and they didn't immediately expel everybody involved.
They didn't have the zero tolerance policy sort of thing.
Now, all that has gone away, but has it made society less violent?
Has it made society more civil?
Of course not.
If anything, the opposite.
Because you still have violence, but instead of fistfights between two people, you get these sudden violent outbursts targeting innocent people.
You get that.
You get fights that are not really fights at all, like 20 people ganging up on one, beating him to a pulp, kicking him while he's down.
You get a lot of that.
Killing him.
You know, there was what happened to the high schooler in Las Vegas who was jumped and beaten to death by 15 people.
Just a few days ago, and this kind of thing is pretty common now, fighting in this really dishonorable, cowardly way, 15 against 1, which, as I said, is not a fight.
I mean, in that case, it was murder.
So, the plan to make the world less violent hasn't really panned out.
That's probably because you can't actually get rid of violence.
It's not possible, you know.
But what you can do is channel it, give it outlets, and if you don't have those, then you get this kind of unchanneled Unrestrained, oftentimes very dishonorable, unmanly form of violence.
That's what we end up with.
So, in conclusion, I wish that Bernie Sanders just kept his mouth shut and let these two men handle it.
I think it would have been a great example for everybody.
All right, this kind of relates to the opening monologue.
I think it's certainly there's a lot of crossover here.
Daily Wire has this report.
Prominent mental health organizations have come out in support of transgender ideology, demanding that counselors affirm feelings of gender dysphoria in patients and advocates for policies that push transgenderism in school.
The American School Counselor Association ASCA, which reports a membership of 43,000 counselors and has certified trainers across the country, is demanding that school counselors promote affirmation for those who identify as transgender.
A statement from the organization reads, quote, "Schools should make every effort to use students' chosen/affirmed
names on student records, even if a legal name change has not been made."
The organization, which hosts professional development events attended by thousands of counselors, goes on to push
for policies that allow boys to have access to girls' bathrooms and locker rooms.
The statement reads, quote, students have the right to use restrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity.
Another document from the organization, titled School Counselors and LGBTQ Plus Youth, tells counselors to support an inclusive curriculum at all grade levels and promote policies that effectively reduce the use of offensive language.
January Littlejohn, a parent advocate for Do No Harm, told the Daily Wire, quote, "School
counselors are being trained to only affirm students' transgender identities regardless
of co-occurring mental health issues and often behind the backs of loving parents.
This is not in the best interest of the child or the parent-child relationship."
So, as I said, this really underscores the point in the opening monologue about what
the real objective of counseling is supposed to be.
You know, if in an ideal world, counselors, whether they're working in the private sector,
whether they have their own practice, or they're working in the school, whatever the case may
be, you go to the counselor.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Not to be affirmed in whatever you're already thinking, because the whole reason why you're there is because you're not thinking clearly about something, or maybe about a lot of things.
And if that is not the point of counseling anymore, if the point of counseling is not to be given some clarity, And some help in like navigating through the things that you're confused about or conflicted about.
If that's not the point of counseling anymore, then there is no point of counseling.
Then what you end up with is, it's not just that it's not counseling, it's kind of this anti-counseling.
It is counseling that deliberately takes confused people, and in this case, since it's in a school, worst of all, confused children, and leads them deeper into that confusion.
And this is the entire industry.
The entire therapy-slash-counseling industry is basically this, with rare exception.
And it's why, as I've You've been warning for a long time.
You just, you shouldn't send your kid to a counselor.
You cannot trust.
You certainly cannot trust a counselor or therapist.
And so if you really feel like, and it should be like last resort.
Again, going back to the ideal scenario, a kid going to counseling or therapy would not necessarily have to be a last resort situation.
But given how potentially dangerous it can be, and given that so many, I mean, the majority of these people that work in this industry are going to be working against your child's interests, that means that to go that route has to be an absolute last resort.
And then when you do it, you have to be so careful.
You need to really do your due diligence about who this person is, what their approach is.
And the good news is that The due diligence part of it is actually kind of easy, because you know what questions to ask.
Like, if I was ever considering sending a child to a therapist or a counselor, I'm going to meet with that person ahead of time, obviously.
And first thing I'm going to ask is, do you practice gender affirmative care in this?
Do you believe in that?
And if the answer is anything but, hell no!
We don't do that here.
Anything but that, you would be crazy to send your kid there.
Now, I'm talking about sending your kid to counseling, but of course the reality is that because in this case we're talking about school counselors, many of these parents, as referenced in the article, this is happening behind the parent's back, so they might not even know that the kid is seeing a counselor in the first place.
And that just makes it all the worse.
Also kind of in the same vein, here's the Daily Wire report.
Comedian Marlon Wayne said his child now identifies as transgender, a change which he plans to incorporate into his comedy routine.
The 51-year-old performer made the comments during an appearance on The Breakfast Club on Friday.
He said a future comedy special on the topic could be called Rainbow Child.
Here's the clip.
I have a daughter that transitioned into a son.
My daughter, Amai, is now Kai.
Truthful.
Yeah.
And so I talk about the transition.
Not her transition, his, their transition, but my transition as a parent going from ignorance and denial to complete unconditional love and acceptance.
And I'm just so proud of them for being them.
So, I have to be honest, every time I see one of these videos of one of these celebrities talking about their trans child, I can't help but feel sorry for the parent.
Like, I watched that video and I can't help but feel kind of sorry for Marlon Wayans.
If we're talking about a young trans child, quote-unquote trans child, talking about like a six-year-old kid or something, then no, I'm not going to feel any sympathy for the parent, because as we know, that means that they, as the adult, are imposing that identity on the child.
They are abusing their child, Munchausen by proxy.
Obviously, in that case, I feel no sympathy for the parent.
But Marlon Wayans' kid is, I believe, in her 20s.
So, this is an adult.
Who has fallen into the gender cult and Marlon Wayans is trying to rationalize it.
He's trying to convince himself that he's okay with it.
And you can tell that he obviously is not okay with it.
It's all, you can, you can, in all of, almost all these cases where you've got one of these parents coming out and talking about, An adult child recently announced that they're the opposite gender, and you can hear it in their voice, you can see it in their eyes, like they are not okay with this, they do not like this.
That's why they always talk about, come to terms with it.
Using the kind of language that you would never use if you really viewed this as a positive development in your child's life, right?
Like, if you have a kid who graduates from medical school, you're not gonna say, well, I really had to come to terms with it.
It took some time.
If it's an obviously positive development, that's not how you talk about it as a parent.
No, he's talking about it the way that you talk about, like, if your child gets some sort of horrible medical diagnosis.
He's talking about it like that.
Coping with a tragedy, because that's what it is.
This is a tragedy for a parent.
And I just can't imagine, as a father, having either of my daughters announce one day that they want to pretend to be my son.
Can't imagine watching them destroy themselves.
Watching basically helplessly, if they're adults and you have no immediate control over their actions, it's a tragedy.
And it is very much like suffering the death of a child.
It's a very similar emotion.
And that's what these parents are being told that they should accept.
Well, so I found out that my daughter is really my son.
Trying desperately to smile as he says it.
You can tell he doesn't buy it.
So what?
So what happened to your daughter?
So your daughter has disappeared.
Your daughter is dead.
By that logic.
And you're supposed to be happy about that?
Of course you aren't.
Of course, Marlon Wayans loses sympathy in the end because he has decided to not only affirm and endorse his daughter's self-destruction, which as a parent you can never do under any circumstance, no matter how determined your child is to destroy themselves, you never affirm it.
And the more determined they are to destroy themselves, the more determined you should be to Stand in the way of that.
But not only is he affirming and endorsing it, but now he's out bragging about it and effectively promoting it in order to try to make himself feel better.
So all the sympathy goes out the window.
Doesn't change the fact that he knows this is wrong, of course.
And also, obviously, as a parent, unconditional acceptance Is obviously not the correct approach.
And it also has nothing to do with unconditional love.
Yes.
As a parent, you always love your child.
So, yes, that's true.
But unconditional love does not mean unconditional acceptance.
In fact, unconditional love can sometimes mean not accepting.
Things that your child is doing.
And then enduring the wrath, you know, of the... Enduring the resentment of your child because you are refusing to accept their self-destructive actions.
Like, that is, as a responsible parent, that's part of it.
As an actually loving, responsible parent, that's part of it.
And every parent, to some degree, will have to deal with that.
Hopefully not to this degree.
Even when your kids are young, like they want to do something, they really want to do something, you stop them because it's not a good thing to do, and they're going to be resentful and angry about it, like not for very long, but they're going to be upset at you.
And they're not going to understand.
They're going to think, from a young age, this is how children act.
You know what's best for them, and so you try to do what's best for them.
But they don't understand that, because all they want is what they want.
And if you don't give them exactly what they want, then they don't immediately understand that you're looking out for them, doing what's best for them.
So to be really loving is to be... This is, in many ways, the true test.
Of love is if you really love someone, are you willing to allow them to be angry at you and even to resent you?
And when it comes to something like this, with an adult child going through something like this, do you love them so much that you are willing To take a stance, to say something, to do something that may, for a time, hopefully not forever, even sever that relationship.
Do you love them so much that you're willing to put the relationship itself in jeopardy?
That is true parental love.
That's the ultimate sacrifice.
He wasn't willing to make it, and many parents aren't.
All right, one other thing before we get to the next segment.
Maybe not as important, but still important.
USA Today, here's the headline.
"Move over LOL. There's a new way to laugh online.
What does IJBOL mean?"
So it says, "Online communication has certainly changed over the last several decades."
There seems to be new phrases popping up every day, and sometimes these terms change meaning over time.
For certain users, the laughing and crying face emoji is used to denote amusement.
For others, it's out of style, and using it signals you may have fallen behind the times.
Some slang has even seen different iterations through the years.
Gone are the days of LOL and ROFL.
Those days are gone, really?
The hot new replacement is IJBOL.
Here's what it stands for and how to use it in your conversations.
IJBOL stands for I Just Burst Out Laughing, according to Dictionary.com.
Similar to LOL, the slang is used to express laughter and delight.
The term was first used around the late 2000s to early 2010s, but didn't gain popularity until recently.
IJBOL was popularized around 2021 by TikTok and Twitter.
Here are some examples of how to use IJBOL.
Did you listen to the new TMG podcast?
Yeah, Ijbol.
Ijbol, she's in her flop era.
TikTok fights are so silly, Ijbol.
Anyway, there it is.
That's the slang.
It might actually be the worst internet slang I've ever heard in my life, and I refuse to allow this to be a thing.
I haven't seen it yet in the wild, so to speak, but I'm not going to allow it.
You're not allowed to use this phrase.
You are not permitted.
It's illegal.
We aren't going to do this, period.
That's it.
The issue's settled.
Ijbal doesn't even roll off the tongue.
It isn't easier or quicker to say.
It looks clunky and weird when you put it in writing.
At least LOL is short, to the point.
Looks kind of clean and simple.
You can even say it and it sounds smooth.
I mean, you shouldn't say it or use it, don't get me wrong.
I'm not endorsing that or allowing it, but Ijbal is... It's just, it's not an improvement.
Ijbal.
It sounds like the name of a... I don't know.
The Arab Pirate or something.
That's what I'm going with.
Arab Pirate.
Ijbol.
Here's an idea.
I have an idea.
Rather than, this is a crazy idea, but rather than Ijbol or LOL or LMAO or anything else, what you could do, it's crazy, but you could just write out Write a phrase that expresses how you feel.
So if you really burst out laughing, if someone really said something online where you are reading it and then you burst out audibly laughing, then communicate that.
You could write that.
It doesn't take long.
I just burst out laughing.
You don't have to be a trained typist to type that out in less than two seconds.
It doesn't take long to do.
You could even say, that's funny.
You know, there's like many ways to communicate.
Did you know this?
There are 170,000 words in the English language.
That's a lot of words.
Now, most people's vocabulary is like, it's not even a tenth of that.
It's not even close to a tenth.
Most people, their vocabulary is not 170,000 words, but 170 words, more like it.
But even so, there are many words to choose from.
If you want to convey a point, if you found something funny, there are so many words and so many word combinations.
Because that's the great thing about language.
Is that you've got individual words and then what you could do, it's a lot of fun.
It's really interesting.
I'm actually, I'm doing it right now.
And what you do is you can take individual words, you can put them together in these things that we call sentences, where you can express an entire idea, an entire thought in a way that allows another person to understand how you're thinking and feeling.
So you can do that.
It's called communication.
It's an actual thing that you are able to do even online.
And so use your words.
You can do that.
That's what I tell my kids this all the time when they're having a temper tantrum.
Use your words.
Use your words.
So you could do that, you know, or you could just blurt out IJBOL.
I guess either one works in the end.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
You know, we do things very differently here at The Daily Wire.
We host several of the top news podcasts in the world.
We launched a chocolate company overnight.
We just took Disney head-on by releasing 100 episodes of kids' content.
It takes very specific people with very specific skills to make The Daily Wire what it is.
And how do we find and hire those people?
Well, we do that with ZipRecruiter.
That's how.
ZipRecruiter makes your whole hiring process faster and easier.
Their powerful technology works for you to identify people whose skills and experience match your job.
ZipRecruiter saves you time by letting you easily invite your top candidates to apply for your job, so they're more likely to apply sooner.
ZipRecruiter is trusted by millions.
In fact, over 3.8 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
Make a positive impact on your hiring future with ZipRecruiter.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh to try ZipRecruiter for free.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Mr. Reality says, many vagrants actually do have it better living on the street than working at McDonald's.
Where I live, they actually work as a group to beg on corners.
They show up to various corners every day like it's a job, beg for money all day, then go, quote-unquote, home and split it.
I've heard they make close to $70,000 per year tax-free.
It's not enough to just make vagrancy illegal.
Panhandling needs to be, too.
Yeah, that is part of the issue.
I don't think that's, certainly not the majority of cases where this is like the vagrant is choosing that because it's more financially profitable.
I do think the majority of cases these are just self-destructive drug addicts and schizophrenics and so on.
But, yeah, it goes back to what I said.
It's like either someone's homeless because they are actually choosing that lifestyle Or they're so lacking in basic mental competency that they can't choose anything for themselves either way.
Vagrancy should be illegal and either you should be required to get off the street or if that is a requirement you can't fulfill then you should be put in an institution.
So I think that only I think you're helping to make that point there.
Nick says, Matt needs to realize, though, that it's hard, even with a job, to be able to afford a place now if you're single.
Like, it used to be one week's pay was your rent.
Now it's three weeks' pay.
Then you have, like, groceries and gas, and if you have entertainment, like cable bill and internet bill, you can't.
Yeah, it's way too expensive to live right now.
That's the case for everybody.
Now, by the way, I will tell you that it's always been difficult, especially if you don't make a lot of money, in particular if you're kind of starting out in adult life.
It's always been difficult.
Get a job, keep a job, you know, find a place to live, maintain, like, that's never been necessarily an easy thing to do.
But yes, it is certainly more expensive now.
As I'm sure is the case for you, Nick, that what you'll find is that although it's difficult, and it's not easy, and things are far too expensive, and it shouldn't cost all this money to go to the grocery store and get like a week's worth of groceries, shouldn't cost hundreds of dollars.
But if you are a basically competent person, if you are just like, if you meet a bare minimum level of competency, then you can still do it.
And there's really, like, no chance.
I mean, I don't know your situation, Nick, but even just based on this comment, it's like there's probably no chance that you're going to end up living under a bridge.
Ronberg says, have you any idea how many vets you walk past on the streets?
And yes, sober vets.
A better question might be, when's the last time you even stooped to walk past, let alone spoke to a homeless person, Mr. Christian?
I've spoken to homeless people many times.
You know, I sometimes give money, even though I know that it probably won't be spent on necessities.
I'm aware of that.
In fact, just last night, I was at the gas station.
A woman comes up, asks for money.
She has some story about what she needs it for.
You know, it's always the same kind of story.
It was probably a lie.
You know, it usually is.
Gave her 20 bucks anyway.
Because, hey, maybe she'll put it to good use.
Probably not, but she might.
I can't control what other people do.
A few winters ago, I got together A bunch of plastic bags full of essential items like, you know, gloves and scarves and toothpaste and that sort of thing.
And I kept them in my car.
And if I passed by a homeless person, I would give them, like, one of the bags that I had pre-made.
And I ended up giving away all the bags pretty quickly.
And on more than one occasion, I can tell you, I saw the person rifle through the bag because they're looking for cash, and I didn't put any cash in it.
And then they just threw the bag in the trash, before I even drove away.
I knew that would probably happen.
Again, can't control what people do.
And you want to give people a chance anyway, I believe that.
But still, this is what we're dealing with.
Like, someone on the street, in the cold, underdressed.
And you give them stuff to help them stay warm, and they throw it in the trash.
This is like a level of instinctual self-destructiveness that is exactly the kind of thing that leads a person to living on the street, and that makes it so that they can't get off the street.
That's how they got there, that's why they stay there.
And it's why, although I do believe in offering help where you can, these are all Band-Aid measures.
Black Friday is coming, and The Daily Wire has the best deals around starting Monday.
Get 50% off a Daily Wire Plus membership and all kinds of amazing deals on Jeremy's Razors products and tons of merch from our Daily Wire shop.
There's something for everyone.
Go to dailywire.com slash black friday and get the full guide to all of our Black Friday deals.
And don't forget to tune in all next week to find out more.
Remember, these deals start on Monday and run through Cyber Monday, but we will sell out fast, so don't wait.
Get the guide and start checking off your holiday shopping list.
One more time, go to dailywire.com/blackfriday for the best deals of the year.
[MUSIC]
I think it's well understood by the audience of this show that I am not exactly a big fan
of Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley.
In fairness, I'm not a fan of any politician, even the few that I support.
Politicians are not professional athletes or pop stars.
They shouldn't have fans.
But either way, my feelings about Nikki Haley are generally quite negative.
Her whole brand is basically George Bush in a pantsuit, which is a brand that I not only find viscerally repulsive, but also one that Couldn't possibly be more out of step and out of touch.
In fact, it's worse than George Bush in a pantsuit, because George Bush was at least kind of likable in a goofy, bumbling, neocon warhawk kind of way.
Haley has the neocon warhawk part down, but not the likable part.
So she's George Bush with less charm and more shrillness.
Basically, it's like the most unappealing sales pitch you could possibly come up with, in my opinion.
But it's not just my opinion.
Many conservatives feel the same way, of course, especially after Haley's most recent controversy.
Appearing on Fox News yesterday, the presidential hopeful called for the government to unmask and monitor all anonymous accounts on every social media platform.
A plan that sounds bad when you hear it summarized, and then somehow gets even worse when she explains it in more detail.
Listen.
When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms.
Let us see why they're pushing what they're pushing.
The second thing is every person on social media should be verified by their name.
That's, first of all, it's a national security threat.
When you do that, All of a sudden, people have to stand by what they say.
And it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots, and the Chinese bots.
And then you're going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say.
Accountability.
And they know their pastor and their family members are going to see it.
It's going to help our kids, and it's going to help our country.
So this is not just something she wants to do, but it's a day one priority.
When she first gets into the White House, which she never will, the first thing she wants to do is to start exposing and cataloging all of those dastardly anonymous accounts.
Biden's DOJ just prosecuted a man for posting a joke about Hillary Clinton with his anonymous account.
And we talked about this on the show, they sentenced him to seven months in federal prison.
Haley has, as far as I know, expressed no concern over that outrageous miscarriage of justice, that blatant assault on the First Amendment.
Instead, she wants to make it easier for the federal government to do that again.
The kind of general complaint about anonymous accounts is one that, years ago, I would have agreed with.
Now, I never would have called it a national security threat or advocated for the government to forcibly unmask them, but I did buy into the idea that conversations online would be more productive if everybody had their real name attached to whatever they're saying.
It's easy, you know, to see why a non-anonymous person can find it annoying when anonymous people take pot shots from behind the cover of their fake name and their anime avatar or whatever.
But, you know, I kind of changed my view on this topic because, of course, not every anonymous person is a dumb troll, and plenty of people who are not anonymous are still dumb trolls.
I'm not sure there's any real evidence that people online are suddenly more thoughtful and civil When they go by their real name.
Ultimately, it's not anonymity that enables so many people on social media to conduct themselves like despicable clowns.
Rather, it's the screen separating them from everyone they're engaging with.
It is the separation.
It's the disconnect that gives rise to most of this stuff.
And that's just the nature of the beast.
That's the internet.
There's nothing you can do about that.
Besides, the problem with online discourse, much like the problem with discourse in Washington DC, it's not that it lacks civility.
The problem, on the internet anyway, is that usually this discussion is loud and stupid and focused on the wrong things.
But there are plenty of loud, stupid, off-topic people ruining the conversation while proudly posting all that stuff with their real names and faces.
Again, there's no reason to think that taking away anonymity will suddenly make people respectful and thoughtful.
The internet is just not a place for that kind of conversation, and never has been, and never will be.
In any case, there are, I've realized, very good reasons for people to be anonymous.
It's easy for someone like me to cast all anonymous accounts as cowardly trolls.
It's easy for Nikki Haley to take that position.
We are both public figures whose employment will not be threatened by us expressing our political views.
Our whole public persona is based around the expression of our views.
Now, that's not to say that I don't suffer very real personal consequences for it, but at least my livelihood is not threatened.
For many people in this country, the situation is quite different.
If they don't have the cover of anonymity, then they will not be able to engage at all.
They will not be able to share their views at all.
They face being fired, ostracized, potentially even worse.
And not for saying horrible, objectionable things, but simply for expressing viewpoints that are not approved by mainstream liberal society.
Strip away anonymity and you will ensure that the left-wing views are like the only ones that dominate on every platform, even more than they already do.
Because those are the only views that a person with a normal job can comfortably express without fear of reprisal or loss of livelihood.
Now, it would be much better if we lived in a country where anonymity was not necessary.
It would be better if everyone could post online under their real name.
But that is not the country we live in.
Now, of course, this is all somewhat academic, because whether there is good reason to use anonymous accounts or not, and I think there is, the biggest issue with Haley's proposal is that she wants the federal government to force the issue.
She is advocating for a massive expansion of the surveillance state.
She wants to further empower the federal government to crack down on speech that it deems a threat, or even worse, uncivil.
She's trying to solve the wrong problems while making the real problems even worse.
To summarize.
And to top it all off, she's attacking people for not using their real names, while she herself does not use her real full name.
She is not only an out-of-touch neocon, but also then a hypocrite.
And that is why Nimrata Nikki Haley is today cancelled.
