Clearly, anyone who thinks school closures are doing great harm to children is just playing politics. That's why publications on the right, such as NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the New Yorker, The Atlantic, and CBS News have all chimed in to support it.

NPR article 1 - in which they have the audacity to suggest that schools are not contributing to spread and that "going to school is really vital for children." What a Trumpian statement. https://t.co/jR3JhSIk02
NPR article 2 - in which they relay a vast right-wing conspiratorial talking point that 3 million children have gone missing amidst the pandemic, with school closures as a culprit. Is this responsible journalism, NPR? https://t.co/6BsJu00jVu
GOP squawkbox Washington Post: "Researchers say that in some cases, closing schools, and leaving children in the care of adults who do not force them to wear masks or socially distance, may put them at higher risk of contracting and spreading the virus." https://t.co/Alu4TcJwEw
The alt-right New York Times, quoting an expert from Hillsdale -- err, Boston University: "The more and more data that I see, the more comfortable I am that children are not, in fact, driving transmission, especially in school settings."
https://t.co/M8oW34J3i7
The New Yorker, whose conservative readership surely lapped it up, told the heartbreaking story of one inner-city Baltimore student and gave a history of the importance of public education to oppressed classes such as women and minorities:
https://t.co/VuY4VbkizN

More from Education

Our top 15 tweets

A #prodmgmt thread 👇

https://t.co/Yv854Sd3P3


https://t.co/sXaMH1bZ9m


https://t.co/5X7bOTsS7m


https://t.co/w1y6LTtPS2

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?